US Election 2020

[Joe]

This could be a wrinkle.

Electoral College Members Can Defy Voters’ Wishes, Court Rules

In a ruling that kicks at the foundation of how America chooses presidents, a federal appeals court on Tuesday said members of the Electoral College, who cast the actual votes for president, may choose whomever they please regardless of a state’s popular vote.

The ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver said Colorado was out of bounds in 2016 when it canceled the vote of a so-called faithless elector named Michael Baca. Mr. Baca, a Democrat, wrote in the name of John Kasich, a Republican who was Ohio’s governor at the time, even though Hillary Clinton carried Colorado, earning its nine electoral votes. The secretary of state replaced Mr. Baca with another elector who then voted for Mrs. Clinton.

“The text of the Constitution makes clear that states do not have the constitutional authority to interfere with presidential electors who exercise their constitutional right to vote for the president and vice president candidates of their choice,” the court majority wrote in a split ruling by a three-judge panel.

What could go wrong?

I think this is a good ruling - no, no, hear me out. It highlights that the Constitution is not the last word on democracy while making clear that citizens' individual votes count for nothing in those states that haven't ratified the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or similar legislation. Having presidential electors being able to freely decide where to cast their vote regardless of the populus is like company directors deciding how the union should be run.

It probably is a good ruling in that it adheres to our best understanding of the Framer's original intent regarding Elector independence, but the National Compact is just as vulnerable to Elector defection as the current system if this decision stands. The states can choose the Electors, but won't be able to control how they vote.

[Tero]

It happened in 2016. Colin Powell 3 (WA), John Kasich 1 (TX), Ron Paul 1 (TX), Bernie Sanders 1 (HI), Faith Spotted Eagle 1 (WA)

I'm still more worried about 16, 20 and 10 electors. Entire states. So this is why there is still a lot of talk on running Biden just to be safe. Biden is pretending to be running for two terms, but because of his age, this will make it more likely than normal that his running mate will run in 2020. or that Biden has health issues during 8 years.

[Joe]

I understand, but I'm thinking about more than 2020. The EC was created in part to protect our Presidential elections from foreign interference, but time and technology have removed the protection it offered. Now, if a foreign power wanted to cause havoc with our elections, bribing enough electors in a close election to throw it into the House of Representatives would be a pretty effective play.

People think the EC's bad now. A contingent election would be a shit show.
Of course, that might be the impetus to ditch the archaic mess.

[JimC]

Trump would love to ditch it completely...

"President for Life, Donald Trump"

[Tero]

Back to Biden
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... c-lead?amp
Even if he wins Iowa by a small margin, this does not look good for him.

[Joe]

Trump would love to ditch it completely...

"President for Life, Donald Trump"

Yeah, but if we're ditching archaic messes, Donnie goes first.

[Tero]

Pocahontas vs Trump?

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ho ... er-status/

natesilver: I feel like someone has to play devil’s advocate here.

Maybe I’ll do that? Even though I’m not totally sure I buy it?

sarahf: So, I realize Monmouth is just one poll. And of course, Monmouth wasn’t even the only poll to drop Monday. Morning Consult also released its weekly tracking poll, which found Biden in the lead with 33 percent, Sanders in second with 20 percent and Warren in third at 15 percent. So Nathaniel is right that Biden is still the front-runner — I’m not really disputing that.

What I am curious to know is whether the tides are changing and there is evidence that Warren could usurp the lead.

natesilver: Oh, my devil’s advocate case wouldn’t even reference the Monmouth poll at all. Because I’m a good devil’s advocate, not a facetious one.

sarahf: Ha, so what’s the devil’s advocate argument here?

natesilver: The devil’s advocate case is just that she’s been moving up steadily, she’s the most likely candidate to win Iowa, she has the best favorables in the field, she might have the best campaign organization and Biden — although probably a little UNDER-rated on balance — has a lot of vulnerabilities.

sarahf: Huh, I guess I don’t think of that as a devil’s advocate argument. Sounds like an explanation for why Warren is now in second or third, depending on what polling average you look at, and a reason why she might continue to climb upward in the polls.

nrakich: Here’s how I think the argument goes for why Warren isn’t in first place today but might wind up on top: We don’t hold a national primary day. If we did, Biden would be on much safer ground with his polling lead. But as it stands, Warren has a clear path to winning the first three primary states:

As Nate alluded to, Warren is a good fit for Iowa. She has led some polls there, and she’s not that far behind Biden in others. Relatedly, Biden is relatively weak in Iowa, as Nate wrote recently — he has just the fifth-best favorable rating of any candidate there. (And guess who’s in first?)
Warren is better-liked than Biden in Iowa
Average favorability of Democratic primary candidates in Iowa polls
see table at link

[Tero]

[Tero]

[pErvinalia]

Tero took 24 hours to laugh at his own joke.

[Tero]

Guns, babies, Jesus and....coalminers?

For politicians, passing the Blackjewel test is easy. There’s nothing about the company to defend, and the behavior of the miners has been exemplary. Even Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has taken their side without evident hesitation, and Donald Trump has now slapped a “hot goods” provision on the coal, preventing it from being sold, at least for now. But who among today’s Democrats in the presidential race has spoken up about it? So far, it appears, only two. One was Bernie Sanders, who cheered on the miners and sent them pizzas. The other was Joe Biden, who tweeted that he was “proud to stand with the protesting miners.” By contrast, several leading contenders, including Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Elizabeth Warren, have said nothing that I can find. Warren’s failure to notice or speak out is especially glaring, in light of her positioning as a champion of the worker. Perhaps it’s because she has had coal company clients, or perhaps it’s just because of a busy schedule, but it’s noticeable. This ought to be a major gimme, and it isn’t being taken.

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08 ... jewel-test

[Tero]

[Tero]

"Even in that positioning, the race is perfectly explained. Biden on one side, urging incrementalism and a return to the status quo. Sanders and Warren on the other side, insisting that the only way to rebuild Gotham is to burn it to the ground. And Harris somewhere in between, trying to channel the energy of the blow-it-all-up crowd while preserving the veneer of electability that Biden is selling."

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/09/03/poli ... index.html

[Tero]

https://www.dataforprogress.org/memos/b ... vorability

[Tero]