It’s always been that way for them. Everybody has always seen through their phony concern about voter fraud. It’s always been “We’re going to put every roadblock we can for people who are less likely to vote for us just because we can and fuck you if you think you can stop us”.
As I explain in another thread, GOP victory in the November election is almost assured.
I’m tempted to make some profit by betting against Biden at markets like Betfair, but it would be too depressing to bet against the future of America and humanity.
If the Democrats have any brains, they will launch a hearing on our national preparedness for a major disease outbreak this summer. Who can argue that it’s not a serious issue?
Such a hearing would require a public review of how this crisis was handled and what steps were taken and when they were taken. And who was involved in the decision making process and what decisions they made.
I think the hearings should begin around September and and take a couple of months to complete.
I think you overestimate the American people.
That will work well.
The ‘Trump didn’t restock them either’ rebuttal will be a weaksauce response to the 7 years of inaction prior to him taking office.
But the “Obama didn’t restock it because the GOP kept trying to cut funding” rebuttal is pretty strong.
Isn’t Biden polling ahead of Trump in just about every swing state right now
So, by all means, let’s bring this up.
Indeed it is.
Right now. But the election is seven months away and the Republicans are already at work telling lies. The Democrats need to gear up to get the truth out.
The orange terror will win in November because a second COVID wave will explode in September, forcing severe restrictions on campaigning and voting - emergency measures upheld 5-4 by a safely-isolated SCOTUS. That’s if Kim doesn’t nuke Seattle first, prompting martial law. And don’t tell me It Can’t Happen Here. Any excuse will do.
Shame on you! 
— You didn’t click the link!
Do pollsters make the people they call in urban districts wait in queue for hours before stating their preference? No?
Do pollsters selectively challenge the credentials of students and other voters likely to vote D? No?
Do pollsters subject the people they poll to months-long barrages of lies? Do they use the covid-19 crisis as an excuse to make it difficult to poll in certain areas?
Of the four states (FL, PA, MI, WI) likely to be the “tipping state” all four have the GOP in control of both Legislative Houses. If you’d clicked the link, you’d see that Wisconsin’s GOP-aligned Supreme Court is getting in the act also, voting on partisan lines to disallow mail-in ballots despite the pandemic. (And the U.S. Supreme Court also got in the act, voting in an emergency session to override a lower court and exclude some absentee ballots in yesterday’s Wisconsin election.)
I analyzed the swing states up in post #25. They almost went for Trump in 2016 and you can’t claim that the reds weren’t wielding voter suppression like a weapon then.
Will they try to do so again in 2020? Of course. But the world has changed. People are more scared of COVID-19 than anything else. Republican leaders therefore are equally scared of massive bipartisan pressure for voting by mail or online, as my earlier posts have cited. They won’t find it as easy to dismiss the fears coming from their own voters. Right now anything can happen anywhere. I’ve stopped making predictions for the interim.
I can say that the Wisconsin decisions are red herrings. The Republicans got lucky. They had the law on their side. It may have been wrong for them to apply it in an emergency situation, but that’s a separate argument. The take-away is that it is not a precedent for future decisions.
That would just tell Undecided Voters that the D’s are complainers, not solvers. The impeachment “trial” was already a disaster for the D’s.
IANAL, but the Supreme Court overturned a lower court ruling, so the “side of the law” couldn’t be too clear-cut. Did Scotus split on “party” lines? I dunno — the vote by individual Justice is often very hard to Google (until it gets to Wikipedia).
… Anyway, as pointed out in another recent thread r: NYTimes opinion, a D victory would be a very hollow victory anyway. It will take many years to undo Trump’s damage (especially if Moscow Mitch still wields filibuster power).
The Democrats went after Trump on the wrong issue. They went after him for rigging elections and most of Trump’s supporters are okay with that. Sure, it’s technically illegal but it’s all right when the Republicans do it because they’re making sure the right side wins.
I said that the Democrats should have gone after Trump for corruption. They should have made an issue out of all the money Trump is making out of his office. That’s a crime that his base would have had issues with.
But I’m not talking impeachment now. I don’t feel the Democrats can go back to that well a second time. (For that matter, I don’t think being incompetent legally qualifies as an impeachable offense.) The hearings I’m talking about should be a general investigative process to determine what steps the country should take in case of a pandemic. And that would include a review of what steps were taken in the past.
It’s a legitimate issue. It’s not directly aimed at the Trump administration. But I feel that one of the results of such an investigation will be revealing to the public how badly the Trump administration handled this crisis. And that would remind voters of why it’s a bad idea to elect an incompetent President; they fold in a crisis.
The five Republicans stuck to a narrow ruling that an action by Judge William M. Conley of the Federal District Court in Madison, requiring a six-day extension, to April 13, of the deadline to submit absentee ballots was invalid because the plaintiffs themselves did not ask for such an extension. The majority wrote:
The four Democratic justices and the lower courts wanted to provide relief in these extraordinary circumstances. I applaud them. The law should allow that. But it apparently doesn’t.