"Will you shut up, man?" US Politics October 2020

More black voters over the age of 65 have already voted in Georgia (201,889) than voted in total in the 2016 presidential election (193,993). There are still 9 days of voting remaining.

— Tom Bonier (@tbonier) October 25, 2020

Welp. https://t.co/nXOH1SNdLP pic.twitter.com/GKVAzZUWlG

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) October 25, 2020

Still giving Biden “only” 38% due to restrictive voting laws but still, wow

If Trump only wins TX by a point or two he’s pretty much screwed right?

I heard that Kamala Harris is so popular in Texas that they are renaming the county that includes Houston in her honor.

Henceforth it will be known as Harris County.

She's THAT influential, y'all.

If Trump only wins TX by a point or two he’s pretty much screwed right?

This is a delicious read, BTW.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/25/business/media/hunter-biden-wall-street-journal-trump.html

This episode of 60 Minutes is hilarious — because Trump wet himself and sloshed out of the interview, and Pence had absolutely nothing to say beyond canned lines he might as well have been reading off cards from his pocket, the Biden-Harris ticket is getting 3/4 of the hour.

Hilarious article, highly recommended xp

https://i.imgur.com/qT1KAUI.jpg

Where was all this serious gatekeeping when the NYT was slobbering over every latest Trump/Russia nugget?

jfc

This was Trump's epic meltdown on 60 Minutes and it was even worse than reported. Trump literally ran away because he didn't like the questions. pic.twitter.com/48Xu2TiI1o

— Sarah Reese Jones (@PoliticusSarah) October 26, 2020

Note how he didn't deny saying that about why he says fake news

The permanent dumb rich kid sneer on his face makes my fists itchy

Trump's like when you were a kid, and your friends couldn't hang out, so you play basketball by yourself, and you start narrating.

"Neanderthal has the ball, he passes to...Neanderthal on the wing. Neanderthal dribbles left, then passes to Neanderthal who cuts through the lane. 10 seconds on the clock, and Neanderthal pump fakes, then kicks it out to Neanderthal behind the 3 point line. He shoots....and"...

...and then of course the ball soars over the hoop because you're fuckin terrible at basketball. so you uhhh....

"Neanderthal was FOULED! that is three free throws coming now, to possibly tie the game".

that's how Trump lives his Presidency, and to him, to question how well he is doing, is like in the scenario above, if you started hearing voices that said

"Bullshit, Neanderthal. You weren't fouled. in fact, the referees are conferring about it right now. in fact, you may even have traveled. you changed pivot feet before you passed".

This is a delicious read, BTW.

The tastiest bit: "Mr. Trump then did more or less the same thing as Mr. Reynolds, posting a video of his side of the interview to his own blog, Facebook."

Linked at the bottom is another even funnier blow from Benny, with this lede:

Did you catch Steve Harvey’s “Funderdome” on ABC? How about “The World’s Best” on CBS, “The Contender” on Epix, or “World’s Toughest Race: Eco-Challenge” on Amazon Prime? Or the Christian-themed dramas “A.D. The Bible Continues” on NBC and “Messiah” on Netflix?

No? Well, you’re hardly alone. And the man behind the string of flops is Mark Burnett, the legendary TV producer who shaped Donald Trump’s image from “The Apprentice” through his 2017 inauguration. Like his greatest creation, Mr. Trump — who sought and then lost an idiotic television ratings war on Thursday night with Joe Biden — Mr. Burnett seems to be struggling to keep his grip on the cultural moment.

Wasserman is reaching his limit.

A few days out, the picture of this race is pretty clear:

1) Biden's lead (52%-43%) larger & more stable than Clinton's in '16
2) Far fewer undecided/third party voters than '16
3) District-level polls (which showed big problems for Clinton in '16) back up national/state polls

— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) October 26, 2020

If you're looking for a horse race narrative right now, you're not going to find it here. There was a time when it was easy to imagine this race going much differently. Eight days out, it's much, much harder. I've seen...almost enough.

— Dave Wasserman (@Redistrict) October 26, 2020

And good ol' Nate S too.

I've said this before, but while it's certainly possible that Trump could win, most theories of why he can win rely on dubious evidence and don't hold up well to scrutiny. 1/2

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) October 26, 2020

It's better to think of it this way: there are several theories for why Trump could win that very probably aren't true. But if you add up a lot of longshot possibilities, it's not that hard to get to a 10-15% chance, which is something worth taking seriously. 2/2

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) October 26, 2020

yeah but his emails

Well you know.

no i don't know because the LAMESTREAM MEDIA WON'T TELL ME

keep in mind one of those possibilities is a dramatic shift in the final week and I just cannot imagine what that would be

Let us fervently hope all this Biden-positive news boosts down ticket races and decisively erases the Republican Senate majority. They certainly deserve it.

Friday someone's going to mail a syringe to Fox News in an envelope that says "BIDEN'S BUTT SHOT"

NYT: Times Square Billboards With Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner Stir Skirmish, just for this quote from a NY state Trump campaign official:

Mr. Borelli said he has no insight into “polite society” but noted that Ms. Trump and Mr. Kushner “are always welcome on Staten Island.”.

How about a compromise and after the election they are just put on "an island."

Permanent exile to Jersey

Permanent exile to Jersey Nebraska.

Permanent exile to Jersey Nebraska.

fresh fish sold here today

My favorite thing in that Lesley Stahl clip is right at the beginning when he starts in about spying on his campaign and she just shakes her head and says "No," kind of softly but full of disappointment.

just like a movie theater owner that insists it's butter he's putting on the popcorn

Please somebody do a version where he’s saying “It’s butter, Lesley.”

“No.”

“It’s real butter, you can ask anyone on staff, they churn it themselves.”

“No.”

WHY COULDN'T 'JOURNALISTS' HAVE BEEN ASKING HIM TOUGH (and these questions aren't even that fucken tough, just too tough for President Pussy) QUESTIONS FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS

Frankly, I'm happy to lump the bulk of the media in with the Lincoln Project yutzes at this point. Thank you for whatever little you're doing to help get us across the finish line at this particular time but once we're there I'm not gonna forget who you are or what you've done to enable this walking nightmare in the first place.

Six years ago, Angus King was calling press conferences to frame his caucusing with Dems as a way to have bipartisanship in Maine.

Now he’s signaling he may back expanding Court as a response to Barrett rush (vs Garland blockade).

The past 5 years summed up in one senator. pic.twitter.com/lrlP7abqBR

— Taniel (@Taniel) October 26, 2020

starting to think court packing is more likely than not

In the "even Fox News" category, this is a cogent take: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-hits-whatever-in-his-long-covid-retreat

Imagine talking to a Trump campaign official back in the spring when things seemed to be at their darkest on the pandemic front. What would he or she have told you if you described the condition of the economy and the spread of the coronavirus in mid-October?

What if you added in that the White House had seen a major infection outbreak after ignoring its own protocols? What if you said that Trump had been infected himself but still pooh-poohed mask wearing? What if you said he was holding rallies in swing states even as cases surged? What if you said Trump trashed his own public health team, with particular venom for Fauci? What if you said there had been no additional stimulus or bailouts?

Back then, they would have told you that Trump’s goose would be cooked if things were that bad and the candidate’s message was so undisciplined. But that, they would say, would never, ever happen because they are taking this all very seriously – vigilantly, even.

Elections Project breaks down the previous week

https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/Early_Vote_Analysis_10_25.html

Is this the new tone I’ve been hearing about

The Fake News Media is riding COVID, COVID, COVID, all the way to the Election. Losers!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 26, 2020

Get those doggies goin'

Marcia, Marcia, Marcia

I've never seen a presidential candidate in a hole dig straight down with such enthusiasm, maybe he'll hit some magma and burn the fuck up already.

Losers!

Assuming their new true SC believer is installed but does not throw a wrench in the election works - which *would* be tantamount to a coup, with no exaggeration - I think expanding the court or some other radical recalibration, is necessary. The past four years have seen so much bending/breaking/ignoring the rules/laws/ethics, from flouting subpoenas to not confirming cabinet members on down/up, that the entire system of government needs to be shored up so that this can't happen again (Laura Ingraham otm?). Mitch boasting that he expects all these laws and shit to be reversed but that the SC will take years to correct is just one of many final straws. We've got too many asterisks in the books.

Question: if more justices are appointed, will that spark a ... legal challenge? And if so, can the current 9 member Supreme Court find the addition of more justices unconstitutional?

Get those doggies goin'

lol

Genius at work

Asked for update on Trump’s prospects in race, @jaredkushner on Fox: “I speak to all my state directors...”

He said “polling with phones“ now “an obsolete method, especially in the era of cancel culture.” Some pollsters “in the business for a long time” are “snake oil salesmen.” pic.twitter.com/TJhnUtG7HQ

— Jennifer Jacobs (@JenniferJJacobs) October 26, 2020

The court has been several different sizes. Nine justices dates from the Judiciary Act of 1869. But there's no reason why a congressional act can't change the number. If a democratic congress writes a clean bill, and it passes, that could become the new number.

Any ability for the court to rule on its own composition would have to come up through lower courts, and the grounds for such a case would have to be constitutional grounds - not just "we don't like that law."

saw this in a tweet earlier

Republicans have confirmed 15 of the last 19 SC justices. They've also won the popular vote once in the last 7 elections

Early vote now almost 60.1 million — less than I was guessing but in line per Election Project with no mail on Sunday and less activity in general. Still on track for big numbers for this week.

And if so, can the current 9 member Supreme Court find the addition of more justices unconstitutional?

When FDR said he was going to add more justices in the 30s, it failed because it was unpopular, not unconstitutional. The US has increased (and lowered!) the number of SC justices before, and they can do it again. As simple as Congress passing a law and the President signing it. The only real thing preventing it from happening in the modern era is a shared recognition between the parties that messing with the Supreme Court like that would destroy its legitimacy and make the country unstable. Well, the Republicans decided they DGAF about that, so now (as usual) the Democrats have to A. fix it and B. get shit on for trying to fix it.

I would find it hilarious if a Dem Senate in 2021 decreased the number of justices to seven and removed Kavanaugh and Barrett, then in 2022 raised it back to nine again and appointed two new liberal justices. It would wipe the smile off McConnell's face.

holy shit

Jared Kushner on Fox News about the black community:

"President Trump's policies are the policies that can help people break out of the problems that they're complaining about, but he can't want them to be successful more than they want to be successful."

— Misyrlena Egkolfopoulou (@misyrlena) October 26, 2020

Jesus

xpost I'm not sure anyone can simultaneously hold that position that the SC needs to be recalibrated because of years of unfairness and dubious shenanigans and cheating and that it *can* be recalibrated because that right is in the constitution and there's precedent for the number of justices being changed. One of the reasons this needs to be addressed is that tradition, precedent etc. have been eroded down to nubs. The SC itself gets to ultimately decide what is or is not constitutional, and they do so for bullshit reasons or based on blurry/inconsistent compromise all the time. There are lots of "popular" things that hang in the balance because the SC is currently full of shit and would/will shape the constitution to suit their desired outcome.

That said, I *love* the idea of Kav and Barrett getting kicked off, and then the court reconstituted with new liberal justices.