Vote!

[shoothoops]

Voting update:

https://twitter.com/DomenicoNPR/status/1321843310038831104?s=19

[Jockey]

Well, I think you've gone past mere lying, though. You're suggesting that she conspired with Trump on some sort of quid pro quo, in which she promised favorable rulings to ensure his re-election in exchange for her nomination.
That's pretty villainous, if you ask me. Not to mention felonious.

Your Sessions analogy doesn't work. Sessions was a part of the administration under investigation and worked for the president under investigation. A Supreme Court justice is neither a member of any administration nor subservient to any president.

As for Kavanaugh ... not sure he's proven to be a toady. After all, he just ruled against the GOP in your state. But he has proven to be not very good at his job.

Trump told people to vote twice. Barrett refused to answer if voting twice was illegal.

They are on the same page. Asking if voting twice is illegal is not a hypothetical or something she may need to rule on in the future. It is illegal. Yet she was afraid to say anything that might contradict trump.

His pick was made only with the election in mind.

[Billy Hoyle]

Trump told people to vote twice. Barrett refused to answer if voting twice was illegal.

They are on the same page. Asking if voting twice is illegal is not a hypothetical or something she may need to rule on in the future. It is illegal. Yet she was afraid to say anything that might contradict trump.

His pick was made only with the election in mind.

Election, ACA and Roe (and likely Obergefell).

[shoothoops]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/29/trump-suppress-vote-win-433460

A look at the quiet part out loud.

[Jockey]

Election, ACA and Roe (and likely Obergefell).

I include Roe in the election column. We all know he could care less about abortion. His pro-life stance is just a con for christians to help get him elected.

[The Sultan]

Trump told people to vote twice. Barrett refused to answer if voting twice was illegal.

They are on the same page. Asking if voting twice is illegal is not a hypothetical or something she may need to rule on in the future. It is illegal. Yet she was afraid to say anything that might contradict trump.

His pick was made only with the election in mind.

LOL, you guys are hilarious.

Yes, I am sure that they have a side agreement, despite her refusing to participate in two discussions regarding cases that eventually went against his interests, that she'll hand the election to him.

Christ and I thought Fox news was full of wacko conspiracy guys.  No shortage of tin foil to go around I guess....

[Pakuni]

LOL, you guys are hilarious.

Yes, I am sure that they have a side agreement, despite her refusing to participate in two discussions regarding cases that eventually went against his interests, that she'll hand the election to him.

Christ and I thought Fox news was full of wacko conspiracy guys.  No shortage of tin foil to go around I guess....

I mean, yeah.
It's enough to say that she's super conservative, has a questionable legal philosophy and I have concerns about how she'll rule on important issues. Why do we have to go with "she made a secret and illegal deal to steal the election!"
As you note, she's already had two chances to make voting more difficult and - in theory, I guess - help Trump and the GOP. She passed on both.

[jesmu84]

Last Marquette law poll has Biden +5 in Wisconsin

[Hards Alumni]

Trump told people to vote twice. Barrett refused to answer if voting twice was illegal.

They are on the same page. Asking if voting twice is illegal is not a hypothetical or something she may need to rule on in the future. It is illegal. Yet she was afraid to say anything that might contradict trump.

His pick was made only with the election in mind.

Confirmation hearings are political theater and should be treated as such.  They exist for members of the Senate to ask questions that they know they will never get the answer to.  Because the questions shouldn't be answered by any judge.  Nothing of merit ever comes to light at the actual hearing.  They're full of loaded questions that the Senator asking wishes the nominee to dodge.  Kagan, Sotomayer, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh all used similar lines to dodge questions.

[Jockey]

LOL, you guys are hilarious.

Yes, I am sure that they have a side agreement, despite her refusing to participate in two discussions regarding cases that eventually went against his interests, that she'll hand the election to him.

Christ and I thought Fox news was full of wacko conspiracy guys.  No shortage of tin foil to go around I guess....

Reading comprehension. I never said they have a "side agreement".

Trump has said he nominated her with the election in mind. You can use the googles tubes to find this out.

I did say she was afraid to contradict trump. I did not do what you pulled out of thin air.

[MU82]

Look, I am not saying there was a "side agreement," in which Trump said, "I will name you justice only if you promise to decide post-election controversies for me."

But I do believe that during the vetting, he asked her questions about the election, and I believe her answers satisfied him to a degree that he felt very good about nominating her.

This president has given a loyalty test to just about everybody he has appointed or nominated for any position. And going into the nominating process, he stated on several occasions, publicly, that he had the election expressly in mind when it came to SCOTUS. That he didn't feel reassured after interviewing her seems unlikely IMHO.

But sure, maybe I am wrong. Wouldn't be the first time, and won't be the last. Maybe not a single word about elections or loyalty or any of that ever came up in their discussions at all.

[The Sultan]

Look, I am not saying there was a "side agreement," in which Trump said, "I will name you justice only if you promise to decide post-election controversies for me."

LOL what?  This is what you said:

"Anybody who doesn't believe that she promised Trump (who famously insists on total loyalty from all of his minions) that she would rule for him in any case deciding the presidency or Senate ... I've got a new Foxconn project for you."

So she promised something to Trump but didn't have a side agreement???   

[lawdog77]

LOL what?  This is what you said:

"Anybody who doesn't believe that she promised Trump (who famously insists on total loyalty from all of his minions) that she would rule for him in any case deciding the presidency or Senate ... I've got a new Foxconn project for you."

So she promised something to Trump but didn't have a side agreement???   

MU82 being MU82.

[Hards Alumni]

Look, I am not saying there was a "side agreement," in which Trump said, "I will name you justice only if you promise to decide post-election controversies for me."

But I do believe that during the vetting, he asked her questions about the election, and I believe her answers satisfied him to a degree that he felt very good about nominating her.

This president has given a loyalty test to just about everybody he has appointed or nominated for any position. And going into the nominating process, he stated on several occasions, publicly, that he had the election expressly in mind when it came to SCOTUS. That he didn't feel reassured after interviewing her seems unlikely IMHO.

But sure, maybe I am wrong. Wouldn't be the first time, and won't be the last. Maybe not a single word about elections or loyalty or any of that ever came up in their discussions at all.

And what could possibly force her to keep her half of this agreement?  Hope?

[Sir Lawrence]

Last Marquette law poll has Biden +5 in Wisconsin

The last Marquette Law School poll before the 2016 presidential election had HC + 6 in Wisconsin (46 to 40) over DT. 

I do think Biden takes Wisconsin in this election, primarily because of the gender gap. 

[MU82]

LOL what?  This is what you said:

"Anybody who doesn't believe that she promised Trump (who famously insists on total loyalty from all of his minions) that she would rule for him in any case deciding the presidency or Senate ... I've got a new Foxconn project for you."

So she promised something to Trump but didn't have a side agreement???   

Fair criticism.

And what could possibly force her to keep her half of this agreement?  Hope?

I suppose.

+++

OK, I give. The new justice to the U.S. Supreme Court is absolutely beyond reproach when it comes to any matters regarding the upcoming election.

All Americans should be confident that any ruling she makes in favor of Trump will have had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he nominated her and rushed to have her seated before Nov. 3.

There. I feel better already.

[4everwarriors]

LOL, you guys are hilarious.

Yes, I am sure that they have a side agreement, despite her refusing to participate in two discussions regarding cases that eventually went against his interests, that she'll hand the election to him.

Christ and I thought Fox news was full of wacko conspiracy guys.  No shortage of tin foil to go around I guess....

Hear, hear. Ders hope four ewe yet, Fluffster, hey?

[Hards Alumni]

The last Marquette Law School poll before the 2016 presidential election had HC + 6 in Wisconsin (46 to 40) over DT. 

I do think Biden takes Wisconsin in this election, primarily because of the gender gap.

There were a lot more undecided voters in 2016 and they broke for Trump.

[Sir Lawrence]

There were a lot more undecided voters in 2016 and they broke for Trump.

Oh, there's that and plenty more reasons why we cannot compare the years, but I still think polling is tricky with Trump because he's so unlikable as a person that people are reluctant to admit that they will vote for him as a candidate.  But women (suburban women in particular), are pissed off at the way he's handled the virus.   

[Warrior Code]

I'm not reading all the quibbling in this thread, just wanted to comment on the original topic and share that it took me nearly 5 hours to vote in Indianapolis yesterday.

[Warrior Code]

*double post

[lawdog77]

Oh, there's that and plenty more reasons why we cannot compare the years, but I still think polling is tricky with Trump because he's so unlikable as a person that people are reluctant to admit that they will vote for him as a candidate.  But women (suburban women in particular), are pissed off at the way he's handled the virus.   

This.
Moderates seem to be reluctant to admit they are voting for Trump, for fear of being labeled a misogynistic racist.

[Pakuni]

Oh, there's that and plenty more reasons why we cannot compare the years, but I still think polling is tricky with Trump because he's so unlikable as a person that people are reluctant to admit that they will vote for him as a candidate.

This theory has been studied and found to be mostly untrue.
Which isn't to say Trump supporters weren't missed in the 2016 polling or that they couldn't be missed again. It's just that, if they are missed, it won't be because they're reluctant to own up to their leanings.
For the most part, as Hards said, Trump won on the basis of a huge, late swing in undecideds ... a group far larger in 2016 than 2020.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/shy-trump-voters-polls_n_5f20b168c5b66a5dd63690f6
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trump-supporters-arent-shy-but-polls-could-still-be-missing-some-of-them/

[dgies9156]

This.
Moderates seem to be reluctant to admit they are voting for Trump, for fear of being labeled a misogynistic racist.

This is a wildcard that we won't know the answer to until the election is settled. In that vein, this election is no different than four years ago, when Candidate Trump's misogyny infuriated millions of women. Opponents of Mr. Trump labeled his voters racists, homophobes, misogynists and just about any other -ism you can see under the sun.

The difference this time is that Mr. Biden learned from Ms. Clinton's mistakes. He's spending more time in Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and a few other swing states.     

The second issue with polling is the gradual reduction in land lines in favor of cell phones. With a land line, you knew who and where you were calling. So the call to an area of so-called swing voters was to a group of folks who, were in fact, swing voters.

With cell phones, it's another story. When you call someone in the 715 area code, you assume you are getting a voter in, perhaps, a swing area of Northwestern Wisconsin. In fact, you may be reaching someone in central Alabama. Your results may quickly be invalidated.

[forgetful]

*double post

Did you double vote too? Vote early and often!