Break Glass - 2020 USA Elections

13334353638

Comments

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    To the point of the nine instances where a non elected person assumed the office of the president--in eight of those cases, the vice president was elected through the electoral college to take over the office if the president was unable to continue through death or resignation.

    Or to put it another way, they succeeded to the presidency following the established succession laws of the time. Either the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 is valid law or it isn't. If it is then the Speaker of the House becomes president if the presidency and vice presidency are both vacant at the same time. If it's not, I'd like to hear that explicit argument made.
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    A big issue now is whether we as a nation should go to a mail-in voting system.

    Yes. This shouldn't even be a question. People shouldn't be asked to choose between their lives and the voting franchise. Speaking of which, Wisconsin seems to be ready to go ahead with an in-person primary election in two days (Tuesday, April 7) mostly because of Republican intransigence on absentee balloting.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Regards T not being above declaring martian law...

    One of the best typos ever! :lol:
    (But I always thought that Martians were green, not orange.)

    And my spell check did not catch it. :embarrassed:
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Despite common sense today is election day in Wisconsin. In addition to the presidential primary there's an important judicial election on the ballot. Despite Governor Evers' best efforts to either delay the election or switch to an absentee/mail-in election system (or do the former in the service of the latter), Wisconsin's Republican-controlled legislature and conservative-leaning Supreme Court insist that everything's okay, with an assist from the U.S. Supreme Court.
    [ Wisconsin Governor Tony ] Evers issued an executive order Monday afternoon — 18 hours before polls were set to open — to bar in-person voting as a massive shortage of poll workers prompted some election officials to reduce polling locations, including in Milwaukee which will have just five instead of 180.

    But the state's highest court reinstated the election within hours, capping off nearly six hours of confusion as election officials told clerks to continue preparing for an election because they did not know whether the polls would open Tuesday.

    A little over an hour later, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a second blow to the Democratic governor by tightening limits on which absentee ballots can be counted. Under that 5-4 order, voters will have to mail back their absentee ballots by Tuesday, go to the polls that day or give up their opportunity to vote.

    It should be noted that Evers' executive order was not his first attempt to delay the election. He called a special session of the Wisconsin legislature to deal with the issue, which the Republican majority adjourned within seconds of convening.

    As you can guess requests for absentee ballots are at an all-time high and many of the government workers who fulfill those requests are not coming in to work. According to John Roberts' band of merry vandals this does not constitute a barrier to voting which would require something radical like extending the deadline for absentee ballots a week.

    One of the things I've not seen mentioned in any news accounts is whether Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Kelly recused himself from the court's ruling in this case. It seems like an obvious conflict of interest to rule on an election in which one is a candidate.

    This is my big fear for the November election. Not that it will be cancelled, but that there will be enough confusion and selectively closed polling stations (only five open polling stations for Milwaukee, Wisconsin's largest city?) that Republicans basically steal the vote.
  • W HyattW Hyatt Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    One of the things I've not seen mentioned in any news accounts is whether Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Kelly recused himself from the court's ruling in this case. It seems like an obvious conflict of interest to rule on an election in which one is a candidate.

    The article I read about it mentioned that one justice did not vote because he was up for reelection, but I couldn't easily find it again when I looked.
  • ryandaviesryandavies Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    A big issue now is whether we as a nation should go to a mail-in voting system. The Democrats are strongly in favor of it, but the Republicans are not because they know they would be soundly defeated.

    How would that play out in practice? I'd have thought the dems would have been against because of the risk of bringing in Voter ID laws through the back door?

    Is it the case of, at the moment, you need a voting slip sent to an address, or you go to a voting station in the area you are registred and they tick your name off a list?

    If people had problems with Russian/any other voting fraud before then what happens if voter fraud happens on a wide scale with mail in votes?

    Do you make people pay postage or have a freepost address?
  • ryandaviesryandavies Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Regards T not being above declaring martian law, true; but the military should not recognize him as a legitimate commander in chief once his term of office terminates on the 20th of January. When I was in Officer Squadron School we gamed this out and the conclusion was we follow the constitution, not someone claiming to be the commander in chief.

    I can also tell you that there are many senior officers who do not like the current c-in-c and would gladly move on without him.

    Genuine question, and I realise the difficulty, but if you're able to put aside feelings for Trump (and there surely must be something on the books about issues like this):

    * Who can postpone the election and extend the terms of the President and other positions? Is it a unlateral Presidential order? Can Congress suspend it if they want to if the President doesn't? Can the Supreme Court etc etc?

    * If the President does call for martial law I'm guessing the supreme court can sit in judgement? Is it a case of 2 out of 3 of the three arms of government decide eg Congress and Supreme Court can overrule President?
    If the House and Senate are split and the SCOTUS and POTUS disagree, what's the legal ramifications. Is their a tie break or does it rest with Presidents emergancy powers?

    * Does any of the above change if a President had already had 2 terms? Or would (s)he continue until an election could be held?
  • ryandavies wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    A big issue now is whether we as a nation should go to a mail-in voting system. The Democrats are strongly in favor of it, but the Republicans are not because they know they would be soundly defeated.

    How would that play out in practice? I'd have thought the dems would have been against because of the risk of bringing in Voter ID laws through the back door?

    Many Republicans (from the President down) have been quoted as saying things like "Can you imagine the voter turnout if we did that? You'd never elect another Republican."

    Republicans know that if they make it easier for people to vote, the extra voters will be largely Democrat voters. That's why Republicans are so fond of various voter suppression measures - they want to minimize the number of people that vote, because that always works out well for them. If they can manage to preferentially reduce the vote from black and brown people, or working-class people, then so much the better.

    The Dems have historically been against voter ID laws because they act to suppress the vote (and in a way that's targeted against poor people, who might have difficulty getting the necessary paperwork together. Poor people also move home more often, or are insecurely housed, so are more likely to have an address mismatch between their id and other paperwork.)


  • ryandaviesryandavies Shipmate
    And a random other question, seeing as I mentioned exceeding term limits.

    Can a two term former president run for VP? Eg could Hilary have chosen Bill as her VP candiate or could Michelle Obama have run with George W Bush as her VP candidate (and she should have this time if she could coz it would have been the best chance of uniting a vote)?

    If not, does that mean that a 2 term ex-president can't hold any other position in the line of succession including a Secretary of State designated survivor position (despite being ideally suited)?
  • ryandaviesryandavies Shipmate
    ryandavies wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    A big issue now is whether we as a nation should go to a mail-in voting system. The Democrats are strongly in favor of it, but the Republicans are not because they know they would be soundly defeated.

    How would that play out in practice? I'd have thought the dems would have been against because of the risk of bringing in Voter ID laws through the back door?

    Many Republicans (from the President down) have been quoted as saying things like "Can you imagine the voter turnout if we did that? You'd never elect another Republican."

    Republicans know that if they make it easier for people to vote, the extra voters will be largely Democrat voters. That's why Republicans are so fond of various voter suppression measures - they want to minimize the number of people that vote, because that always works out well for them. If they can manage to preferentially reduce the vote from black and brown people, or working-class people, then so much the better.

    The Dems have historically been against voter ID laws because they act to suppress the vote (and in a way that's targeted against poor people, who might have difficulty getting the necessary paperwork together. Poor people also move home more often, or are insecurely housed, so are more likely to have an address mismatch between their id and other paperwork.)

    ryandavies wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    A big issue now is whether we as a nation should go to a mail-in voting system. The Democrats are strongly in favor of it, but the Republicans are not because they know they would be soundly defeated.

    How would that play out in practice? I'd have thought the dems would have been against because of the risk of bringing in Voter ID laws through the back door?

    Many Republicans (from the President down) have been quoted as saying things like "Can you imagine the voter turnout if we did that? You'd never elect another Republican."

    Republicans know that if they make it easier for people to vote, the extra voters will be largely Democrat voters. That's why Republicans are so fond of various voter suppression measures - they want to minimize the number of people that vote, because that always works out well for them. If they can manage to preferentially reduce the vote from black and brown people, or working-class people, then so much the better.

    The Dems have historically been against voter ID laws because they act to suppress the vote (and in a way that's targeted against poor people, who might have difficulty getting the necessary paperwork together. Poor people also move home more often, or are insecurely housed, so are more likely to have an address mismatch between their id and other paperwork.)


    Yeah, thats why I'm asking. I know that in some other countries the requirements for postal votes are MUCH tougher than for regular voting eg either having an inspector come to a house and see that someone can't come to a voting booth, or having to have an address registered with a local government body, then send them bank slips or other things with an address on, then send a form that has to be signed that matches a signature on record.

    I'd have thought that would make it harder for the poorer/disadvantage (and more likely Dem voters)?

    I guess you could send a slip to everyone's house, but you've still got to register, stop them being intercepted either to the recipients or after they sent them.

    ISTM that the potential for voter fraud and the demands for voter ID would increase? I could well be wrong, just wondering how it would play out.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    @ryandavies, you need to remember that under the US’s federal system, elections are run by the states, territories and the District of Columbia, not by the federal government. So rules and requirements can vary from state to state.

    Where I live (North Carolina), voting absentee by mail is fairly easy, and no reason is required. A voter delivers or mails an absentee ballot request to the county board of elections of the county where they are registered to vote. (Spouses, parents, children and certain others can also make the request on the voter’s behalf.) The request is one side of one sheet of paper. It includes certain identifying information, the permanent address where the voter is registered, and the address to which the voter would like the ballot sent. The absentee ballot is typically mailed within a few days. The voter fills it out and puts it in a special envelope that also needs to be filled out with certain information, including the signatures of two witnesses. (The witnesses don’t see how the voter voted; they simply witness that the voter and not someone else is who completed the ballot and put it in the envelope.) Then that is mailed back to the county board of elections, or it can be hand delivered by certain family members or the like. To be counted, it must be postmarked by 5:00 pm on Election Day (always a Tuesday) and must be received by the county board elections by close of business on the Friday after Election Day.

    But that’s just one state out of 50.

  • ryandaviesryandavies Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    @ryandavies, you need to remember that under the US’s federal system, elections are run by the states, territories and the District of Columbia, not by the federal government. So rules and requirements can vary from state to state.

    Where I live (North Carolina), voting absentee by mail is fairly easy, and no reason is required. A voter delivers or mails an absentee ballot request to the county board of elections of the county where they are registered to vote. (Spouses, parents, children and certain others can also make the request on the voter’s behalf.) The request is one side of one sheet of paper. It includes certain identifying information, the permanent address where the voter is registered, and the address to which the voter would like the ballot sent. The absentee ballot is typically mailed within a few days. The voter fills it out and puts it in a special envelope that also needs to be filled out with certain information, including the signatures of two witnesses. (The witnesses don’t see how the voter voted; they simply witness that the voter and not someone else is who completed the ballot and put it in the envelope.) Then that is mailed back to the county board of elections, or it can be hand delivered by certain family members or the like. To be counted, it must be postmarked by 5:00 pm on Election Day (always a Tuesday) and must be received by the county board elections by close of business on the Friday after Election Day.

    But that’s just one state out of 50.

    Thanks, that's really interesting.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    * Who can postpone the election and extend the terms of the President and other positions? Is it a unlateral Presidential order? Can Congress suspend it if they want to if the President doesn't? Can the Supreme Court etc etc?

    It is not a matter of postponing the election. That is established by law, which can be changed by Congress with the President's signature. It might even be temporarily delayed by court order, but it is a matter of when the presidential term ends and that is mandated by the Constitution: at 12 noon on January 20, 2021, the office becomes vacant. In order to change that 2/3 of both the House and Senate have to pass a joint resolution and it would need to be affirmed by 3/4 the states. And that would be impossible.
    * If the President does call for martial law I'm guessing the supreme court can sit in judgement? Is it a case of 2 out of 3 of the three arms of government decide eg Congress and Supreme Court can overrule President?
    If the House and Senate are split and the SCOTUS and POTUS disagree, what's the legal ramifications. Is their a tie break or does it rest with Presidents emergancy powers?

    Constitutionally, the president's emergency powers can only go up to the time the current holder of the office has to give it up; and, again, that is at noon on 20 January 2021. The Supreme Court takes the same oath as the military--to defend and protect the constitution, not the officeholder. If they refuse to do it (and they just might); then the military will have to defer to the Speaker of the House under the current Law of Succession.
    * Does any of the above change if a President had already had 2 terms? Or would (s)he continue until an election could be held?

    See my first reply. It has nothing to do with the election, but when the office becomes vacant.

    ___________

    Regards, the Wisconson primary election, this was posted by my son, who lives in Wisconsin:

    Madison has 66 open polling locations and has a population of 258,054.

    Wauwatosa, a suburb of Milwaukee, has 10 open polling locations and has a population of 48,000.

    Milwaukee has 5 open polling locations and has a population of 592,025.

    In Milwaukee, some people are waiting up to two hours.

    Wisconsin is 85% white. Milwaukee is majority minority.

    ___________

    Can a two-term President run again as a VP? Under the original terms of the Constitution, yes; but that all changed with the 22 Amendment. The VP must be eligible to serve in the office of the President from day one. Since a previous two-term president cannot do that, he or she would be ineligible.

    But a one-term president could technically run again as a VP for only one term as VP--okay, he or she might be able to serve six years in extraordinary circumstances.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited April 7
    ryandavies wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    A big issue now is whether we as a nation should go to a mail-in voting system. The Democrats are strongly in favor of it, but the Republicans are not because they know they would be soundly defeated.

    How would that play out in practice? I'd have thought the dems would have been against because of the risk of bringing in Voter ID laws through the back door?

    Is it the case of, at the moment, you need a voting slip sent to an address, or you go to a voting station in the area you are registred and they tick your name off a list?

    Five states (Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington) already have elections conducted entirely by mail and a sixth (California) is in the process of making the transition. Since the state already has addresses for every registered voter it simply mails every voter a pre-printed ballot with a postage-free return envelope. This can either go in the mail or be dropped off at a ballot collection station. Democrats like this because it makes voting easy and most states that have such a system have seen dramatic increases in voter "turnout". Republicans hate it for the same reason, plus it deprives them of some of their favorite ratfucking tools, like closing voting locations, voter intimidation, and misinforming voters about when and where to vote.
    ryandavies wrote: »
    Genuine question, and I realise the difficulty, but if you're able to put aside feelings for Trump (and there surely must be something on the books about issues like this):

    * Who can postpone the election and extend the terms of the President and other positions? Is it a unilateral Presidential order? Can Congress suspend it if they want to if the President doesn't? Can the Supreme Court etc etc?

    The power to postpone an election, if it exists, is in the hands of Congress, not the president*. Click through if you want the technical explanation. It's a post I wrote about three decades weeks ago.
    ryandavies wrote: »
    * If the President does call for martial law I'm guessing the supreme court can sit in judgement?

    It already has. In ex parte Milligan the Supreme Court ruled that civilians cannot be subjected to military law in parts of the country where civilian courts are still functioning.
    ryandavies wrote: »
    * Does any of the above change if a President had already had 2 terms? Or would (s)he continue until an election could be held?

    There is no Constitutional provision for extending a presidency beyond four years absent re-election. There is, however, a legal provision for what happens when the presidency is vacant.
    ryandavies wrote: »
    And a random other question, seeing as I mentioned exceeding term limits.

    Can a two term former president run for VP?

    Complicated question. There's no explicit provision of the Constitution forbidding it, but since the vice president is the president's Constitutionally-designated successor I'm guessing that would fall under the "unable to exercise the powers of office" disqualification.
    ryandavies wrote: »
    If not, does that mean that a 2 term ex-president can't hold any other position in the line of succession including a Secretary of State designated survivor position (despite being ideally suited)?

    Not necessarily. People who are Constitutionally barred from being president can hold positions in the line of presidential succession. For example, the Secretary of Transportation is 14th in the succession order but the position is currently filled by Elaine Chao, who is not a natural born citizen. If Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Grassley, Mike Pompeo, Steve Mnuchin, and Mike Esper are all in a plane crash that falls on top of a bus carrying Bill Barr, Dave Bernhardt, Sonny Purdy, Wilbur Ross, Eugene Scalia, Alex Azar, and Ben Carson the succession would skip Chao and the next American president would be Energy Secretary Dan Brouillette.

    The main difference between the vice president and these other posts is that the vice president's place in the order of succession is mandated by the Constitution while the others are established by statute.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Regards the chances of voter fraud through mail-in ballot. It has not happened, yet. When a voter submits a ballot, he or she has to sign an affidavit on the mailed-in envelope. That signature is checked against the signature of the person that is on record. This goes through a scanner that can identify the signature. If the scanner cannot identify the signature on the envelope, it is cross-checked by trained auditors. If there is still a question about the signature the ballot is set aside as provisional until a follow-up phone call can be made.

    The exception would be if the person is unable to sign the ballot, then two witnesses have to verify the person who voted did indeed vote. This is very rare, though.
  • WulfiaWulfia Shipmate Posts: 6
    Despite being the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak at that time, Washington led the nation in primary election turnout at 49.6%

    It is so easy to vote here. The ballot comes right to your mail, you just fill it out and sign. No witnesses needed. There is also a portal on the elections website where you can enter your name & date of birth, and see if they have received/tabulated your ballot yet.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Meanwhile, the Speaker of the Wisconson Assembly tells the people of his state it is perfectly safe while he is decked out in PPE story here
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    I don't think witnesses are required here in California. IIRC, the envelope says that if you've filled out the ballot on someone else's behalf (e.g. disabled, elderly), you have to put your own signature and contact info.

    I do have some concern about mail-in ballots not making it to the Registrar's Office. Sometimes, absentee (mail-in) ballots aren't counted here in SF; and tubs of regular ballots don't always make it from the voting place to the Registrar's Office. Which is why I used to vote *in* the Registrar's Office in City Hall: I was doing the best I could to make sure my ballot didn't wander off, and watched it being put into its proper place. From there...it was in the hands of SF politics.
  • ryandaviesryandavies Shipmate
    Interesting, thanks.

    It seems like because of:
    "Five states (Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington) already have elections conducted entirely by mail and a sixth (California) is in the process of making the transition"
    The US would be in a better position than most to hold an election entirely by mail.

    I'd still be shocked if for whatever reason the election had to be delayed - and you can legitimately imagine it in a worst case senerio, even it taking longer to count votes, decontaminate them etc- that the military would remove a one term President who was one of two potential winners.

    The plus for the US again is the delay between the election result and the handover.
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    Arizona encourages voting by mail. I'm on the 'Permanent Early Voting List' so my ballots always arrive by mail in plenty of time for me to contemplate and fill in. Then they can be dropped in the mail (postage-free) or dropped off at a number of locations, e.g., the Library. No witnesses necessary. I can also check on-line to verify that my ballot has been received.

    I can't remember the last time I voted at a polling place. I'm much happier sitting in the comfort of my own home -- and there's never a long line!
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    I just got a "Breaking News" alert -- Bernie Sanders has dropped out.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    I just got a "Breaking News" alert -- Bernie Sanders has dropped out.

    Link.
    During an all staff conference call on Wednesday, Sanders said he was suspending his campaign. He will address supporters in a livestream later on Wednesday. “The campaign ends, the struggle continues,” his team wrote in an announcement.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    I just got a "Breaking News" alert -- Bernie Sanders has dropped out.
    I heard on the NPR politics podcast yesterday that his campaign and the Biden campaign have been in negotiations leading to this.

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Note: when I mentioned that two witnesses have to sign an affidavit it is ONLY in the case where the voter cannot sign his or her ballot envelope themselves. There are people who still cannot write, for instance.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    A good move by Bernie for a lot of reasons.

    If (and it's a big if) there is no second spike in the Autumn, the November elections should be able to take place without too many logistical concerns.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited April 8
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    A good move by Bernie for a lot of reasons.

    If (and it's a big if) there is no second spike in the Autumn, the November elections should be able to take place without too many logistical concerns.

    Hopefully, by the time Autumn rolls around there will be advanced therapeutics to counter the virus.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Barnabas62 wrote: »
    A good move by Bernie for a lot of reasons.

    If (and it's a big if) there is no second spike in the Autumn, the November elections should be able to take place without too many logistical concerns.

    Hopefully, by the time Autumn rolls around there will be advanced therapeutics to counter the virus.

    Hope is not a plan.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Hope for the best, plan for the worst, as they say.
  • ryandavies wrote: »
    Interesting, thanks.

    It seems like because of:
    "Five states (Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, and Washington) already have elections conducted entirely by mail and a sixth (California) is in the process of making the transition"
    The US would be in a better position than most to hold an election entirely by mail.

    I'd still be shocked if for whatever reason the election had to be delayed - and you can legitimately imagine it in a worst case senerio, even it taking longer to count votes, decontaminate them etc- that the military would remove a one term President who was one of two potential winners.

    The plus for the US again is the delay between the election result and the handover.

    I would be most astonished if the military got involved in any way in the ... eviction... of a person squatting in the White House. Maybe maintaining public order, if there was a threat to it. But they would almost certainly not go further than that, as it would begin to resemble a coup, and God forbid. Our military has been pretty relentlessly non-partisan for a long, long time.

    But it would be intensely satisfactory if the usual authorities (cops? sheriff? varies by jurisdiction) came and did their usual thing in front of global television.

    And to be sure, this would not impede the ability of the winning candidate to carry out his duties as President in the slightest. The White House is a ceremonial place, but not the only place from which such duties can be carried out. We could swear the new President in at a McDonald's and plop him in front of a computer there if necessary (though I'd do something about the wifi).
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    I understand that folks in the US Army tend to be Republican--at least, in public.
  • "Don't be partisan" is engrained in them, whatever their personal politics may be. It's one reason why the current administration is having difficulty with the armed forces--Trump's usual demands for personal loyalty, etc. don't go over well in a military long trained and accustomed to saluting the uniform and remaining professional. Which is not to say that you won't find the odd counter-example, especially with civilians inserted into the military structure--like a certain not-dearly departed Acting Secretary of the Navy.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    I'm with LC. There is a very strong non-partisan ethos in the US Military, and in intelligence services for that matter. James Comey was a Republican, Robert Mueller was a Republican. James Mattis was a Republican. It didn't stop any of them doing their duty when push came to shove.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I do find it worth noting that while the current officeholder is against mail-in ballots because they are fraught with potential fraud, he will be sending a mail-in ballot this year.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    "Don't be partisan" is engrained in them, whatever their personal politics may be. It's one reason why the current administration is having difficulty with the armed forces--Trump's usual demands for personal loyalty, etc. don't go over well in a military long trained and accustomed to saluting the uniform and remaining professional. Which is not to say that you won't find the odd counter-example, especially with civilians inserted into the military structure--like a certain not-dearly departed Acting Secretary of the Navy.

    The Military Times in December 2019 reported that half the military have an unfavorable view of the president. To be precise:

    45.1% very unfavorable
    4.8% unfavorable
    8.5% neutral
    17.3% favorable
    24.3% very favorable
    https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/12/17/half-of-active-duty-service-members-are-unhappy-with-trump-new-military-times-poll-shows/

    The Military Times does this survey on a quarterly basis. the current one has yet to be released.

    But it would be my guess, given the way the former NAVSEC acted, and the continued botched Coronavirus Relief Effort plus the sudden withdrawal from Syria, the shelling of personnel by Iranian backed forces. etc. It is my guess it will be even worse when it comes out.

    I know he has lost the Navy because of the USS Teddy Roosevelt.

    He will definitely not get their vote.
  • He's like a cartoon villain in his ability to unerringly hit on the one wrong-est thing to do. It's his superpower.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited April 9
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I do find it worth noting that while the current officeholder is against mail-in ballots because they are fraught with potential fraud, he will be sending a mail-in ballot this year.

    From Twitter:
    President Trump: "I think mail-in voting is horrible, it's corrupt."

    Reporter: "You voted by mail in Florida's election last month, didn't you?"

    Trump: "Sure. I can vote by mail"

    Reporter: "How do you reconcile with that?"

    Trump: "Because I'm allowed to."

    The only "principle" held by conservatives is that there is an in group which is protected by the law but not bound by it, and out groups which are bound by the law but not protected by it. Everything else is pseudophilosophy.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    I wonder who he'll vote for.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    He's like a cartoon villain in his ability to unerringly hit on the one wrong-est thing to do. It's his superpower.
    :lol:

  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    The only "principle" held by conservatives is that there is an in group which is protected by the law but not bound by it, and out groups which are bound by the law but not protected by it. Everything else is pseudophilosophy.

    Exquisitely well stated.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I think the shift now is who will Biden select as Vice President. We know the person will likely be a woman because Biden said he would be naming a woman. Some of the names mentioned are

    Michelle Lujan Grisham, the governor of New Mexico
    Stacy Abrams, the governor of Georgia
    Val Demings, Congresswoman from Florida, former Orlando Police Captian
    Tammy Baldwin, state senator from Wisconsin
    Tammy Duckworth, Senator from Illinois, also military veteran. She lost both her legs in Iraq when her helicopter was hit by a RPG.
    Elizabeth Warren
    Catherine Cortez Masto, Senator from Nevada, close friend to Harry Reid who happens to be a long time friend of Biden
    Amy Klobuchar, Senator from Minnesota. (Her husband happens to be stricken with coronavirus at this time--keep him in thoughts and prayers)
    Gretchen Witmer, Michigan governer--the one Trump calls "that woman"
    Kamala Harris, Senator from California

    Can you name any others? Which one would you prefer?

    At this stage, I am thinking I would like Masto in that she is well connected in the Senate and could get things done on Biden's behalf there, much like Biden helped Obama with the Senate.


  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Stacy Abrams, the governor of Georgia
    Unfortunately, Stacy Abrams is not the governor of Georgia. She ran for governor of Georgia, and she should be governor of Georgia, but she’s not.

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Stacy Abrams, the governor of Georgia
    Unfortunately, Stacy Abrams is not the governor of Georgia. She ran for governor of Georgia, and she should be governor of Georgia, but she’s not.

    My mistake but still a prominent Democratic leader from Georgia.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Whenever I've seen a news blurb (headline, pic, and link) online about this, they've had a pic of Kamala Harris. I don't know if she has enough experience--but then I didn't think Obama did, either. But I voted for him.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    I think the pick depends on the strategy. How is Biden going to win this election? Where is Biden going to win this election? What are his perceived weaknesses and can some of them be alleviated by his VP? Biden is the past - surely he won't be a two term President. Who is the future?

  • ryandaviesryandavies Shipmate
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    I think the shift now is who will Biden select as Vice President. We know the person will likely be a woman because Biden said he would be naming a woman. Some of the names mentioned are

    Michelle Lujan Grisham, the governor of New Mexico
    Stacy Abrams, the governor of Georgia
    Val Demings, Congresswoman from Florida, former Orlando Police Captian
    Tammy Baldwin, state senator from Wisconsin
    Tammy Duckworth, Senator from Illinois, also military veteran. She lost both her legs in Iraq when her helicopter was hit by a RPG.
    Elizabeth Warren
    Catherine Cortez Masto, Senator from Nevada, close friend to Harry Reid who happens to be a long time friend of Biden
    Amy Klobuchar, Senator from Minnesota. (Her husband happens to be stricken with coronavirus at this time--keep him in thoughts and prayers)
    Gretchen Witmer, Michigan governer--the one Trump calls "that woman"
    Kamala Harris, Senator from California

    Can you name any others? Which one would you prefer?

    At this stage, I am thinking I would like Masto in that she is well connected in the Senate and could get things done on Biden's behalf there, much like Biden helped Obama with the Senate.


    Depends what you want the VP candidate to do/appeal to?

    Center right swing voters/moderate Republicans might find Tulsi Gabbard a little more their liking? One of the top rated podcasters, Joe Rogan, liked her. Younger Trump leaning men like Rogan, so maybe he could swing their votes?

    If you going with a to-hell-with-Republican-voters and get the base out then you could always go with the nuclear options of Danica Roem (Virginia House of Delegates) or Brianna Westbrook (Vice-Chair of the Arizona Democratic Party)?

    If it was me I'd pick Tammy Duckworth.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    Kamala Harris may be emerging as the favourite, Amy Klobuchar as second favourite. I'd be surprised if Joe Biden doesn't choose one of those two.

    Amy Klobuchar looks like a better bet to help Joe in the 'rust states', but I think he's more likely to go for Kamala Harris.
  • ryandaviesryandavies Shipmate
    I saw recently that a major bookmaker in the UK put Megan (DoS) at 100-1 to become the next President after her, Harry & Archie went to California.

    I'm guessing the route would be VP candidate for Biden and then Biden dies before being able to be sworn in?

    Just checked their website and it's the same odds as for Kamala Harris. Michelle Obama is 150-1 and Elizabeth Warren is 250-1.

    I hope Biden isn't dumb enough to pick Hilary as his running mate. Nothing would surprise me at this point though.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    ryandavies wrote: »
    Depends what you want the VP candidate to do/appeal to?

    Center right swing voters/moderate Republicans might find Tulsi Gabbard a little more their liking? One of the top rated podcasters, Joe Rogan, liked her. Younger Trump leaning men like Rogan, so maybe he could swing their votes?

    Part of the problem is that trying to appeal to sexist, alt-right curious, 91/11 truther men is that it alienates more core Democratic support than it attracts the dudebro vote. One of the big failings of the 2020 Sanders campaign was that it spent more effort courting the endorsement of Joe Rogan than of Elizabeth Warren.

    As for Gabbard specifically, I'm not sure pro-Hindu nationalist, anti-gay, pro-Assad conspiracy theorist is what most appeals to Democrats (or independents who lean Democratic) in a running mate.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Gabbard would be a mad pick, and I mean insane. Apart from the policy settings, she is a law unto herself. She would be worse than Palin.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I think one reason why Obama (who is left of center) picked Biden (who is right of center) was to appease the right side of the party.

    Likewise, I think Biden will have to pick someone from the left of center to help appease the progressive side of the party.

    I do know there is a lot of anger from the Democratic Socialist wing with Bernie dropping out, but it is my hope in time that anger will subside. It would help if Biden can pick someone that would appease them.


  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Re Obama picking Biden:

    They also seemed to have a relationship that was partly father-son, and partly buddies. That in itself, besides anything political or strategic, seemed to be something O really needed.
Sign In or Register to comment.