Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

Putting aside polling data and other such momentary indicators due to the sheer level of clusterfuck that trying to get any truly reliable information on exactly where everyone's opinions are, what is it that people here think would be the future in a Biden landslide and a Trump landslide?  And as much as it tempts you, trying not to go for the best and worst case scenario for your preferred/unpreferred candidate and in such future any investigation into fraud would prove the election legitimate.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Frankly, even a modest Trump victory would be a bigger upset than the Dewey Defeats Truman debacle, which is currently the largest upset of the modern era. A legitimate Trump landslide isn't in the cards for anyone who believes in statistics - we're not talking 1 in 100, we're talking more like 1 in 10,000 or greater outlier odds.

Biden landslide will either lead to the Democrats getting some bloodthirst and slaughtering the GOP's future electoral chances, or more likely imo just some holding pattern complacency followed by downward spiral.

Trump "landslide" will lead to America developing a Putinist electoral system and GOP judicial rule.

[Dostoevsky]

Hey Starfish Prime taught us a ton about EMPs.

True, but I can't help but get the impression it was a pretty cavalier way to test it - over three times the yield as the prior-largest at a much higher altitude. We created radiation belts for several years, knocked out several satellites, etc. We/they should be thankful it wasn't another Castle Bravo or something where the bomb ended up being far more powerful than expected.

Only got one planet's atmosphere to screw around with, and all.

(Really though project plowshare is the true highlight. Digging canals with nuclear bombs, surely the safest and most cost effective way to complete a public works project.)

Putting aside polling data and other such momentary indicators due to the sheer level of clusterfuck that trying to get any truly reliable information on exactly where everyone's opinions are, what is it that people here think would be the future in a Biden landslide and a Trump landslide?  And as much as it tempts you, trying not to go for the best and worst case scenario for your preferred/unpreferred candidate and in such future any investigation into fraud would prove the election legitimate.

I worry about both of these too much for my day job these days...

As I believe I've alluded to before, Biden landslide would mean somewhat likely end of the filibuster, in turn tied to democracy reforms, possible court-packing, and other broad legislative reforms. I don't worry quite as much about that as I do what the still-significant Trump contingent and red states would do about it. Would probably end up with some constitutional crises of sorts; on the flip-side it's the only real scenario that could see real reforms.

A Biden landslide where they don't go ham on reforming a la post-Nixon reforms would likely bring about strong backlash from the left-- that, combined with the likely still-loyal Trumpists and whatnot, means that Dems could end up suffering more than Republicans long-term.

A Trump landslide (or really any victory, to be honest) would mean a no-holds-barred Trump, but even more than that it's the extra 4 years to complete a lot of in-progress executive branch efforts to really screw with long-standing fundamentals of governance. Even if he doesn't succeed at being president-for-life (if he truly wishes such a thing), we'll have a severely hollowed out government that will take time to rebuild at a point in history where there are quite a few pressing issues.

Also effects on international efforts, 4 less years for climate change policy, etc.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

Frankly, even a modest Trump victory would be a bigger upset than the Dewey Defeats Truman debacle, which is currently the largest upset of the modern era. A legitimate Trump landslide isn't in the cards for anyone who believes in statistics - we're not talking 1 in 100, we're talking more like 1 in 10,000 or greater outlier odds.

Again, pit aside current poll indicators. Just wanting to do a thought exercise of an average route scenario of those irregardless of what current thought on those probabilities are.

[Dostoevsky]

One of the tricky parts is that if there is a Trump landslide it'd be hard to predict what the congressional makeup is. But given how little the Republican congress did in 2017-2018, that aspect may not change things much from my above post.

Edit: Actually wait, there was one important aspect I was forgetting - whether the Senate is Democratic or Republican could make a very large difference for a Trump second term, in terms of nominations and the like.

Basically, Dems might choose to refuse to confirm any nominee that they consider too Trumpy, be that for the court or leading an agency. Given some of the court setbacks Trump has already faced on that front this term thanks to his, er, unorthodox hiring practices (see e.g. Wolf at DHS, who the GOP later confirmed, or Pendley, who remains too toxic for the GOP to confirm and is having his decisions invalidated now). Dems could use the statute around acting appointments to leave positions vacant-- normally a bad thing, but compared to some (not all, mind, but some) of the Trump nominees a rudderless agency doing nothing could be far better than an e.g. Wheeler or Perdue.

I'm fairly confident that even the upcoming 6-3 court would side with the Senate on this tactic if it came to it.

[misko27]

A trump landslide would in all practical respects look very much like the last four years. Trump himself doesn't have political positions, he makes a profit from people seeking his favor at his businesses and acts based on that; and otherwise acts based on how people around him tell him to. He'd probably act more as he did in his first two years than the last two years, as his actions in the last two years were designed to get him a certain result at the polls. But he didn't really do much big stuff in those years anyway except executive orders.

I mean Trump has said it himself: he really does not actually have any sort of plan for what to do for the next four years. He has been unable to answer the question when asked, even by friendly faces on Fox News. A trump landslide would mean nothing in-and-of-itself except a continuation of his current behavior. How much he might actually change would depend on Congress's distribution. But I basically back MSH's description.

Oh, except expect the Supreme Court to annul Gay Marriage, that much is guaranteed. Republicans will probably gain many victories via the courts that they could not effectively gain through legislation due to their proposed alternatives all being massively unpopular and electoral non-starters.

[McTraveller]

Most people have no savings because they aren't willing to sacrifice the short-term immediate use of the money.  Yes there are stories of people who get wiped out by a medical event or other disaster, but those are not the majority (despite what you see on TV).

Ah right people don't bootstrap hard enough.  Lazy fucking assholes with their avo toast.

Not like productivity gains go right into shareholder pockets instead of the people actually making valuable shit.  People have no savings because being alive cost more and you absolutely refuse to give them income.

When the article is talking about people making $100k/year who live paycheck to paycheck, this is not about "bootstrapping".  Even if you live in StupidRealEstatePriceLand, it's the collective fault of everyone living there to keep paying those high prices.  Yeah maybe you like the city and amenities or whatever, but don't complain that they are expensive and keep paying the prices!

Yes it hurts to sacrifice, even when we feel like we are already sacrificing. But you can't actually effect change unless you sacrifice. And sometimes change cannot be effected unless enough people sacrifice - so places with high real estate are a result of too many people continuing to pay those prices and put up with the situation.  What is it about Americans that we aren't willing to just pack a backpack and walk across the desert for a better life? Why do we expect someone else to bend over for our sake?

It's like the typical US citizen's worldview is to revel in being dissatisfied but just sucking it up and taking it rather than doing something about it.  It's exhausting.

[Loud Whispers]

Not too many people are keen about the idea of abandoning their hometown in order to cope with economic barriers, because ups sticking and leaving because you've been forced to instead of choosing to go sucks cacti stems

[Eric Blank]

Speaking from experience, yeah, being evicted and moving someplace totally new sucks. It doesn't suck any less the 10th time than it did the first either, except you get really good at packing the moving van and finding cheap properties on a shoestring budget, bad credit and in less than two weeks of the eviction notice.
My family has always been living on or below the poverty line, so it's happened a lot for us, but wealthier people that can throw around a few more bucks on that last paycheck, maybe they don't get evicted as often, even though theyre obviously bad at money management. I mean, Id be living like a king with hella savings if I was making 100k a year. At least, I like to think I would be. Last year I made more, so I had to pay taxes for the first time ever instead of receiving that little $100 poor people bonus.

[ChairmanPoo]

I've never been evicted but I've had to move A LOT for work related reasons. Unpleasant

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

May as well mention my Biden/Trump landslide predictions:

Biden:
-I forsee an attempt of at least an expansion the courts to counteract Trump's number of confirmations, potentially up to packing the court levels, and the attempt may be hauled before the supreme court.  In such case, I think the court would go against that, even the more left-leaning judges, in order to try to limit political involvement of the court as that would weaken their position.
-Potentially stepping down about halfway into his Presidency for Kamala to take over.  The guy is getting old and it is a very stressful job, so I see it maybe catching up to him around that point.  This similarly means most of the politically costly decisions will happen early on in order for Harris to have a more clean slate to build up, as much as can be possible.
-Reform of the Electorial College being attempted.  The amount needed to do a full abolishment really isn't there due to the needs of an amendment to get it done fully and smaller states would block that in the senate and in their legislatures.  I foresee an interstate compact or a similar process instead.
-Sudden, rapid dropoff in media profits.  Biden doesn't have the same level of attention grabbing as Trump does and people would tune into something else than the news.
-Republicans would get a shock to the system, but I don't see them dividing up too much thanks to the level of support Trump has, with them likely to pin the failure due to his personality rather than Libretarian/Pro-Military but Anti-Deployment ideals they ascribe to him (before it is commented, no, I don't think any racism would be carried over, as there's been an uptick in minority conservatives and expressly racist politicians have been getting primary'd)
-Democrats will have to contend with a large internal split along Neo-Liberal and Social Democrat lines.  The two have diverged severely under Trump and only seem really united in their opposition to him and once that is gone, I foresee them going after each other.

Trump:
-Continuation of past 4 years, potentially with more bombasticism.
-Likely take out the last vestiges of Obamacare.  They've tried it before and it was largely thanks to in-party fighting with so-called "RINOs" that it didn't manage to get through, and things have consolidated a bit in Trump's favor over that time.
-Supreme Court likely to lean conservative in rulings over the next few years.  I do not forsee gay marriage getting repealed as there isn't enough anti-LGB for one of those cases to come before them though I can see anti-T+ as those are liable to show up in cases.  Roe v. Wade be given the boot considering even Ruth Bader Ginsberg was saying at time of ruling that it really should have been a law rather than court ruling.
-Republicans unite even stronger than they have been under this first term.  Already a very high in-party approval and this will just build it up even further.
-Establishment democrats will have their control on the party broken, as this is the second presidential election where they screwed a popular candidate out of the running with a potential split up into two parties if the cards are played wrong.  If they manage to hold together, I foresee that the next candidate will have a focus of bringing a lot of the precedents we had been operating before Trump with into law, as he has manifestly demonstrated that precedents only matter to those who care for them.

When the article is talking about people making $100k/year who live paycheck to paycheck, this is not about "bootstrapping".  Even if you live in StupidRealEstatePriceLand, it's the collective fault of everyone living there to keep paying those high prices.  Yeah maybe you like the city and amenities or whatever, but don't complain that they are expensive and keep paying the prices!

Have to admit, having to live paycheck to paycheck at those prices sounds completely bugnuts insane to me, since only like 5 years ago I grew up with some people who only had one parent working for 1/2 kids and were able to go on out of state vacations yearly along with having a decent savings net, and they were making about half that.

[Frumple]

May as well mention my Biden/Trump landslide predictions:

Biden:
-I forsee an attempt of at least an expansion the courts to counteract Trump's number of confirmations, potentially up to packing the court levels, and the attempt may be hauled before the supreme court.  In such case, I think the court would go against that, even the more left-leaning judges, in order to try to limit political involvement of the court as that would weaken their position.

I can just about guarantee the court would -- and could -- do precisely sod all about an expansion. It wouldn't be the first time the number of supreme court judges has been changed, and congress being able to decide the makeup of the SCOTUS like that is explicitly constitutional. There's just flat out no grounds for the court to go against it. It's not a question of constitutional or judicial review. At all.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

That doesn't stop them any other time, why should it stop them now? The far-right majority on the Court has every motive to retaliate once the rubicon has been crossed on this. They're not like Roberts. All five of them are fucking psycho, the least psycho of them is Kavanaugh.

[misko27]

From my experience as a census worker many of them probably just already have second residences so it's a minor inconvenience at most. Statistically at least some of them will be in the Upper East Side too, where I was working.

(Yes even if you live in a foreign country they may have residences up here. It was not uncommon, depending on the building.)

May as well mention my Biden/Trump landslide predictions:

Biden:
-I forsee an attempt of at least an expansion the courts to counteract Trump's number of confirmations, potentially up to packing the court levels, and the attempt may be hauled before the supreme court.  In such case, I think the court would go against that, even the more left-leaning judges, in order to try to limit political involvement of the court as that would weaken their position.

I find your estimates odd as your think it would be unlikely for a gay marriage ruling to come up (despite two/three justices actively arguing publicly in favor of doing so recently as they argue a specific recent court decision was wrong), but you think that the courts would rule on this. The number of justices is set by law and precedence, not the constitution. They actually have no say in the matter, and if they were to do so... that would be its own constitutional crisis.

That doesn't stop them any other time, why should it stop them now? The far-right majority on the Court has every motive to retaliate once the rubicon has been crossed on this. They're not like Roberts. All five of them are fucking psycho, the least psycho of them is Kavanaugh.

Fair enough. That said, that'll come down to details about how it actually pans out. Depending on how quickly things are done they may already be joined by new justices by the time they see such a case, in which case they've lost.

Much like the election itself in the case of a narrow victory or a disputed election, it'll come down to details more than anything else prior or otherwise.

[Zanzetkuken The Great]

May as well mention my Biden/Trump landslide predictions:

Biden:
-I forsee an attempt of at least an expansion the courts to counteract Trump's number of confirmations, potentially up to packing the court levels, and the attempt may be hauled before the supreme court.  In such case, I think the court would go against that, even the more left-leaning judges, in order to try to limit political involvement of the court as that would weaken their position.

I can just about guarantee the court would -- and could -- do precisely sod all about an expansion. It wouldn't be the first time the number of supreme court judges has been changed, and congress being able to decide the makeup of the SCOTUS like that is explicitly constitutional. There's just flat out no grounds for the court to go against it. It's not a question of constitutional or judicial review. At all.

There's going to be Republicans going over every single possible thing that the Court could use for it, and if at least something decent from prior cases and interpretations can be built, the Court is going to use it to stop the political shenanigans from going through.  It may not be perfect, but the court's going to do its damnedest to prevent a 'oh, let's just modify the judge count now that we have the Senate and Presidency' by any party.

And note, I did not say they would succeed, and they wouldn't unless they got a very good setup.

That doesn't stop them any other time, why should it stop them now? The far-right majority on the Court has every motive to retaliate once the rubicon has been crossed on this. They're not like Roberts. All five of them are fucking psycho, the least psycho of them is Kavanaugh.

Have to admit, any time that sorta application of 'far right', I do have to wonder if the perception of the political spectrum is tuned accurately.  Using it that broadly covers so many people it is frankly ridiculous.

Seriously, it has the same energy as calling all the remaining judges 'far left'.  I doesn't really mean anything anymore.