• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Nominees

Ph's lack of belief in the ability for morals/ethics to restrict one's action is telling. Echos of the inane religious teachings that the God's words are the only thing standing between us and anarchy.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
Ph's lack of belief in the ability for morals/ethics to restrict one's action is telling. Echos of the inane religious teachings that the God's words are the only thing standing between us and anarchy.
Click to expand...

It’s not a big stretch to believe that the GOP would be willing to fuck with the integrity of the court. After the way they handled the garland nomination, I am really surprised that anyone would assume these new justices and the the senate leadership would have ethics and principles.
 
birdman said:
It’s not a big stretch to believe that the GOP would be willing to fuck with the integrity of the court. After the way they handled the garland nomination, I am really surprised that anyone would assume these new justices and the the senate leadership would have ethics and principles.
Click to expand...

This, 100%.
 
ChrisL68 said:
Because I believe he cares about the credibility and legitimacy of the SC. If what you are claiming ever became public it will absolutely shred it.

For someone who is surprised at any criticism of academia, you have no problem casting aspersions at other professions.
Click to expand...

Surprised at any criticism of academia? No I’m not. I have plenty of criticisms myself. They’re just more informed than yours because I know what I’m talking about.

I’m not “casting aspersions” at other professions. I just recognize human nature and make reasonable projections based on past behavior.

But if you want to assume Republican politicians and judges are honorable and just because it’s the right thing to do, go ahead. You should still take the time to explain how you think the law can hold up when leaders have not interest in enforcing the law.
 
PhDeac said:
Surprised at any criticism of academia? No I’m not. I have plenty of criticisms myself. They’re just more informed than yours because I know what I’m talking about.
.
Click to expand...

Somehow this never applies when it comes to tax law or policy. And I don't think I've ever had any criticisms of the area where you are a subject matter expert. Just general criticisms of members of Academia for having an ivory-tower attitude
 
Last edited:
Shooshmoo said:
I don't think Roberts does it, but the next extremist appointed does.
Click to expand...

I'm with you, Numbers and Chris. Roberts loves the Court way more than he wants to overturn such an established precedent 5-4. That said, if Trump is re-elected, in all likelihood, he'll get to replace at least 1 more liberal justice, and then you'll have a solid 5 who would be willing to overrule Roe with or without him. At which point he'd probably join in so that he could assign the opinion, and it'd look better to overturn a 7-2 precedent 6-3 than 5-4. (It was 7-2 originally because Burger joined in so he could assign it to Blackmun rather than let Brennan write it. Burger would have voted the other way and was pissed at Blackmun.) We desperately need RBG to hang on another year and a half.
 
Issues like this along with McConnell's immoral act is why the Supreme Court needs to be expanded in 2021.
 
RJKarl said:
Issues like this along with McConnell's immoral act is why the Supreme Court needs to be expanded in 2021.
Click to expand...

That didn't go so well for Roosevelt, and I don't think it'd go well for a Dem president now - it certainly wouldn't help for the midterms. And you can't do something like that with an EO - you'd need legislation, and it'd never get through the senate. All you'd do is create a lot of bad noise in the press. If a Dem wins in 2020, they'll get to replace RBG and probably another justice or 2. It's been speculated that Thomas will soon be retiring.
 
cville deac said:
That didn't go so well for Roosevelt, and I don't think it'd go well for a Dem president now - it certainly wouldn't help for the midterms. And you can't do something like that with an EO - you'd need legislation, and it'd never get through the senate. All you'd do is create a lot of bad noise in the press. If a Dem wins in 2020, they'll get to replace RBG and probably another justice or 2. It's been speculated that Thomas will soon be retiring.
Click to expand...

The instant the Dems take the Senate they can.
 
DistrictDeacon said:
Ph's lack of belief in the ability for morals/ethics to restrict one's action is telling. Echos of the inane religious teachings that the God's words are the only thing standing between us and anarchy.
Click to expand...

Nah. We are all witnessing first hand that nearly all elected Republicans are devoid of morals/ethics. I just am cautiously optimistic that Roberts isn't that way.
 
RJKarl said:
The instant the Dems take the Senate they can.
Click to expand...

First, there is the filibuster, and second, as we've been over this before, it's unlikely the Dems get the senate in 2020 or 2022. Please make a credible case as to how we're getting the senate in either 2020 or 2022. Right now, Cooke and Sabato charitably have AL as a toss-up, though almost as charitably they have CO as a toss-up. They rightly have AZ as a toss-up, but all the other states are at least leans 1 way or the other. While taking the senate is not impossible, it's certainly not likely at this point.
 
A good Democrat nominee vs a damaged GOP who stuck with Trump too long should usher in a Senate majority.
 
2020:

Lose AL
Win AZ
Win CO
Win ME

In Play:

GA
NC
IA

If there is a landslide against Trump, others could be in play...even KY as McConnell could be made to be Trump-lite.
 
cville deac said:
First, there is the filibuster, and second, as we've been over this before, it's unlikely the Dems get the senate in 2020 or 2022. Please make a credible case as to how we're getting the senate in either 2020 or 2022. Right now, Cooke and Sabato charitably have AL as a toss-up, though almost as charitably they have CO as a toss-up. They rightly have AZ as a toss-up, but all the other states are at least leans 1 way or the other. While taking the senate is not impossible, it's certainly not likely at this point.
Click to expand...

CO is probably more a tossup than most believe. Denver and Boulder, and to a lesser extent Fort Collins, are pretty solid blue cities, but outside of that, there’s a lot of red in the state. It is almost Michigan-esque in putting a shit ton of rural counties and pseudo-cities against a big metro area, and we saw what can happen in those situations in 2016.
 
RJKarl said:
2020:

Lose AL
Win AZ
Win CO
Win ME

In Play:

GA
NC
IA

If there is a landslide against Trump, others could be in play...even KY as McConnell could be made to be Trump-lite.
Click to expand...

GA and NC are not currently "in play."
 
There is no reason that NC shouldn't be in play. Pubs when they win are plus 1% to plus 2%.

With demographic changes and Trump losing some support around the edges, Dems should be kicking themselves if they don't challenge any statewide office in this state.

NC is moving towards Va.
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
CO is probably more a tossup than most believe. Denver and Boulder, and to a lesser extent Fort Collins, are pretty solid blue cities, but outside of that, there’s a lot of red in the state. It is almost Michigan-esque in putting a shit ton of rural counties and pseudo-cities against a big metro area, and we saw what can happen in those situations in 2016.
Click to expand...

I hear you as to CO, but Gardner is a Trump guy, and I don't see much ticket splitting there. Because CO is a blue lean for the presidency, I still think it's a blue lean for senate. But I agree with you that the Dems will be doing fine if they end up with a net pick up of 1 in 2020. Ph and RJ are engaging in some wishful thinking. Even though Susan Collins hasn't bucked Trump enough and will probably be in for her biggest challenge yet, she has romped in every prior election and is a clear favorite at this point. I agree with Biff that GA isn't realistically in play. But NC could be interesting if the Dems come up with a good candidate. There has been some speculation in the news recently that Tillis will be primaried from the hard right, so whoever the Pub candidate is could be in for a tough fight in the general. Assuming AL is a lost cause, in order to get to 50/50, you have to knock off 4 current Pub seats, so you'd have to win 4 of 5 in CO, AZ, ME, NC and IA. That's a big ask.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top