Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Tom W]

I expect that the Dems learned their lesson with the Hillary loss. They realize that Hillary could have probably won by keeping her yap shut more often, and campaigning from her living room. With COVID still out there, Joe will be completely justified by staying home, and staying as quiet as possible. Meanwhile, Trump will be hammering away on Twitter, and making campaign appearances that will appeal to his base, but not win over swing votes. The swing voters will prefer the quiet and secluded Biden.
.

The nomination of Biden, which was the result of little more than a game of musical chairs in a psychiatric ward, proves that the Dems haven't learned ANYTHING since 2016. But we kind of already knew that by watching their behavior along the way.

[AlabamAlum]

Yeah, if elected, Biden will be older at inauguration than Reagan was leaving office after his second term.

If he serves one full term, he will be in his 80’s when he leaves.

This is hard for me to wrap my head around. Older at inauguration than Reagan was when he LEFT office after completing two terms.

Joe will be 82-years-old and some change when/if he completes his first term. Biden has definitely earned his dementia. Nothing “early onset” about a man that old with mental impairment.

And don’t get me wrong, Trump is old, too. Only 4 years younger than Biden.

Biden-Trump
Hillary-Trump

The last two tickets have been brutal. Just brutal. America can do so much better.

[lineygoblue]

The nomination of Biden, which was the result of little more than a game of musical chairs in a psychiatric ward, proves that the Dems haven't learned ANYTHING since 2016. But we kind of already knew that by watching their behavior along the way.

But, you have to admit, the bait-and-switch has worked well for them. In reality the Dems are as excited about Biden as they were about Mike Dukakis. Since they know that Joe won't serve a full term, the objective has been to get the REAL candidate they wanted on the ticket with him, so that they can take over when Joe leaves. Hence, we have Kamala, who the DNC leadership has wanted all along.

Its a brilliant move on their part, and its going to work. Anyone who thinks that a vote for Joe is "a vote for Joe" is kidding themselves. This is all about Kamala.

[Tom W]

You're giving the dems WAY more credit than they deserve, Lines.. They aren't that smart.

[Jeff Buchanan]

So, nobody's buying the "ally of the light" line? The press likes it. What's wrong with you?

The most important part of the 2016 General Election is the Senate...... and chime in here DSL, you watch this a lot closer than I do. I'm not worried about Biden winning or Kamala Harris being his "bait and switch VP."

If the D's gain control of that chamber and keep the house like they are expected to do, things are going to happen, like them or not. I think I saw if Biden wins and the D's capture the senate it will be only the third time that a president has sat in the WH with both the house and the senate of the same party.

The Economist had a decent article, a bit slanted to the left for my taste, but still a reasonable assessment of what a D controlled executive branch, senate and house would be like legislatively. Bill #1 will be to roll-back tax breaks for the wealthiest 1% and corporations. The wealthiest will take a hit but then we have Bill Gates and Mike Bloomberg saying that's fine. Buffet has weighed in on that too and in favor of it. Economists are in general agreement that such a tax move would benefit pursuit of government programs the D's want. This is where observers think Biden is too moderate to allow Liney's Doomsday scenario unfold.

Next comes some form of a pathway to citizenship for undocumented aliens. Back when John McCain was still around he partnered with others to put together what I thought was a good bill that, of course, got lost to partisan politics. That won't happen in the scenario I'm talking about and frankly, I think that is good for the nation on the whole ..... YMMV and there are plenty of problems with a blanket program. McCain's wasn't like that at all. I forget the details but I suspect something like it will emerge.

Free stuff is gonna happen and so is a minimum wage ..... speaking of which I just read an Economist article that pretty much turned on it's head the notion that a minimum wage is bad for businesses. Data studied from places that have them shows mixed economic impacts but not the slam dunk will precipitate automation, cripple growth and investment argument that always gets tossed out there by conservatives.

I've argued in the past that the upper 20% needs to figure out a way to raise up the bottom 80% to form a middle class that has a decent job, decent income and can buy stuff. The alternative is continued and worsening social strife that admittedly has marxist undertones now but such movements in that direction will be unavoidable if the wealthy delare, "let them eat cake." You know history and if you can come up with another way to do this by hanging on to your loot while keeping the underclass exactly where they are, post it up.

There was more in the Economist article but you probably stopped reading this after the first paragraph ..... go get a subscription.

[lineygoblue]

This is where observers think Biden is too moderate to allow Liney's Doomsday scenario unfold.

And as long as Biden is able to fulfill the duties of President, I agree with your assessment. He's a solid liberal, but he's also pragmatic. I don't think he would deliberately alienate half of the country's population.

But I maintain, if/when Kamala becomes President, and the Dems control both houses and the USSC, .. its game on for them. Nothing will be in their way.

[Whitley]

Obama's 2004 convention speech was the best Democrat speech I've ever heard.

Truth there. I can still recall the emotion of it.

[Whitley]

And as long as Biden is able to fulfill the duties of President, I agree with your assessment. He's a solid liberal, but he's also pragmatic. I don't think he would deliberately alienate half of the country's population.

But I maintain, if/when Kamala becomes President, and the Dems control both houses and the USSC, .. its game on for them. Nothing will be in their way.

It is funny you think Kamala is progressive.

[Dr. Strangelove]

So, nobody's buying the "ally of the light" line? The press likes it. What's wrong with you?

The most important part of the 2016 General Election is the Senate...... and chime in here DSL, you watch this a lot closer than I do. I'm not worried about Biden winning or Kamala Harris being his "bait and switch VP."

In order of likelihood: 1) Dems keep House 2) Biden wins and Dem keep House 3) Dems take all three

The next thing to know is that the balance of power in the Senate is currently 53-47 (Bernie and Angus King are technically Independents but are effectively Dems)

Doug Jones in Alabama is a goner so realistically the Dems need to hold on everywhere else and unseat FOUR Republicans just to get to a 50-50 split. The only other Dems I can think of that are in any danger are possibly Gary Peters there in MI and Tina Smith in Minnesota. Any other Dem losing is kinda unrealistic at this point.

So Who are the Republicans in trouble? Well, there are a lot.

COLORADO: Just about everyone thinks Cory Gardner is toast. He's running against Hickenlooper who briefly ran for President and is a popular Governor. He had a bit of trouble in his primary though, possibly some ethical scandals, so this might be more of a single-digit race than the double-digit one it was looking like. Gardner also doesn't have the loathsome personality of a couple other endangered Republicans so that may work to his benefit a bit.

ARIZONA: No one likes Martha McSally and she's up against ex-astronaut Mark Kelly who draws sympathy vote because he's married to Gabby Giffords (near -assassination victim). From what I gather he's also been going the Sinema route a bit; behaving like a sphinx on the campaign trail when it comes to policy.

MAINE: Susan Collins could definitely still win and I think it'll be close either way, but this race has been polled more than most other Senate races and she's been consistently behind. Prob in the 3 to 5 range. The Left has made her into a punchline ( She's troubled by what Trump said...she's concerned..she's very concerned...she's concernedly troubled) and Independents have to at least picked up on that

NORTH CAROLINA: Thom Tillis is another one who suffers from an unlikable personality plus he revealed a cowardly streak when he initially opposed Trump declaring a national emergency to build The Wall (even writing an op-ed against it in the Washington Post!) and then fell into line after Trump chewed him out on the phone. No one really likes him because a lot of R's think he's wishy-washy. This is another state that gets a lot of polling and he's been behind in probably close to the past 20 polls.

Right now it appears the chances of picking up those 4 seats is pretty plausible. But after them it gets dicey

IOWA: I don't really know why, but Joni Ernst is just not very popular in Iowa. It could be because she has gone too in lockstep with Trump. Grassley shows firey independence from time to time. This race is VERY close but her opponents has been leading by a few points recently. I should also note that Trump is running ahead of both her and McSally in their respective states, suggesting they aren't being dragged down by him. They are just weak candidates on their own.

MONTANA: Probably unlikely but the Dem candidate is the current Governor. Daines (R) has a narrow lead in recent polling though.

TEXAS: Pipe dream but recent polls show this a single-digit race and could be a case of Trump dragging down Cornyn.

SOUTH CAROLINA: Brother Lindsey is loathed by liberals and lots of Trumpworld thinks he's a fake. On average the only three polls taken in August showed him ahead by only about 2 points. But I'll believe it when I see it.

THE GEORGIA MESS: One, the Perdue-Ossoff race is very close. Perdue sent several panicked warnings up to the RNC. Then the other race is definitely heading to a runoff election. Unless one Dem starts to stand out more than the other, it could actually be the two main R's (Loeffler and Collins) running against each other in the final round. One of the Dems is Joe Lieberman's son, incidentally.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Thanks, DSL. Great breakdown.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Updates on Trump's fight with the Manhattan DA, who has subpoenaed the company that does Trump's taxes, Mazars

1) On July 9, the Supreme Court decided Trump v Mazars in a 7-2 decision. Trump's effective argument was that while President he has complete immunity not just from being indicted but even from being investigated by any governmental body at any level. The SC rejected this argument and sent the case back down to the district court to allow Trump to present a new argument if possible.

2) Yesterday the District Judge ruled against Trump yet again and went so far as to comment that Trump's lawyers basically just repeated the same arguments as before and appeared to mainly be stalling for time. The Judge noted that this case deals with potentially time-sensitive charges so baseless delays were unacceptable.

3) Previously Cy Vance (the Manhattan DA) has said he would give Trump one week to appeal the District Court's decision. So on August 28th, Vance will serve Mazars with the subpoena and they will comply with it and hand over all the requested tax info UNLESS Trump can get the subpoena put on hold.

4) By yesterday evening Trump requested an emergency stay with the 2nd Circuit of Appeals, meaning they would order the subpoena not be enforced until after Trump's appeal could be heard

5) Tonight 2nd Circuit DENIED that request for an emergency stay and instead set a date of Sept. 1 to hold a hearing over whether a stay was appropriate.

6) That means that unless Vance simply declines to enforce the subpoena before that hearing or Trump runs to the Supreme Court yet again and gets an emergency stay, Mazars will give the Manhattan DA Trump's taxes late next week.

7) I'm not sure what Trump's odds of success at the Supreme Court are. Only 2 Justices supported his original case (and even Clarence Thomas scoffed at his claims of absolute immunity). I'm not sure Roberts is wild about handling this any further.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Oooof.

[iam416]

It’d be quite a thing to see the Ds ram through their agenda with 50/50 Senate after abolishing filibuster. I think it’ll be 51-49 Ds, but 50/50 is my next bet.

Mid-terms are gonna be fun.

[Whitley]

It’d be quite a thing to see the Ds ram through their agenda with 50/50 Senate after abolishing filibuster. I think it’ll be 51-49 Ds, but 50/50 is my next bet.

Mid-terms are gonna be fun.

And what agenda would that be? Pretty corporate friendly I imagine from a Biden administration.

[Dr. Strangelove]

It’d be quite a thing to see the Ds ram through their agenda with 50/50 Senate after abolishing filibuster. I think it’ll be 51-49 Ds, but 50/50 is my next bet.

Mid-terms are gonna be fun.

Only circumstance I'd support abolishing the filibuster is if the Republicans make some extreme power move in the next few months. Namely I'm thinking if RBG croaks or something and they ram through a nominee. Even worse would be if Clarence Thomas announces his retirement immediately after the election and they try to confirm someone in the lameduck session before Biden and the Dems take control. Gloves ought to come off in those extreme circumstances, although Mitch would've lost his mind to do something like that. Totally believable that Trump would enjoy it though as a final "fuck you".

Only 74 days to go!!!