Jump to content

Joe Biden 2024 thread - Dark Brandon Strikes Again


StassneyHorn

Recommended Posts

Um, the VP ain't delaying cert. 

But to your point, Trump hasn't expanded his base since 2020, and has alienated independents. I was reading that his path to victory has to involve reducing Biden turnout or dividing the turnout. That's why Republicans have funded RFKjr campaign and Marianne William's crazy ass. I wonder if they're funding Dean Phillips too?

Trump will continue to try and push "border crisis" and Israel/Hamas conflict to try and reduce Biden turnout. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Um, the VP ain't delaying cert. 

But to your point, Trump hasn't expanded his base since 2020, and has alienated independents. I was reading that his path to victory has to involve reducing Biden turnout or dividing the turnout. That's why Republicans have funded RFKjr campaign and Marianne William's crazy ass. I wonder if they're funding Dean Phillips too?

Trump will continue to try and push "border crisis" and Israel/Hamas conflict to try and reduce Biden turnout. 

Trump and his allies' goal is to have enough loyalists in the House that they can block certification.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Trump and his allies' goal is to have enough loyalists in the House that they can block certification.

Harris is VP until Jan 20.

The Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022 ensures / makes it harder to do the 2020 bullshit in Congress

Quote

The bill clarifies that the Vice President's role in the counting of the electoral votes is "solely ministerial," with no power to "determine, accept, reject, or otherwise adjudicate or resolve disputes over the proper list of electors, the validity of electors, or the votes of electors."

Any objection made by senators or representatives during the counting of the electoral votes must be made in writing and signed by at least one-fifth of the Senators and one-fifth of the Members of the House of Representatives. Previously, an objection required the signatures of only one member of each chamber.

The bill also limits the grounds for an objection to one of the following:

  1. The electors of a state were not lawfully certified
  2. An elector's vote was not "regularly given"

 

  • Hook 'Em 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Trump is delusional.  But if he’s not, his best chance at becoming president is for Biden to die or become incapacitated sometime in the next 9 months, and for the Democrats to fail to quickly rally around another candidate capable of beating Trump (not Harris, likely Newsome or Pritzker).  
 

Otherwise his hopes rest on funny business in Arizona and Georgia and Wisconsin, which seems kind of unlikely.  He’s not winning Pennsylvania or Michigan.  So he has to win all 3 of AZ, MI, and GA, regardless of what happens with Nevada.  He lost in 2020 and nothing has changed in his favor since then.  His base has shrunk, his opponent has succeeded, and the rules have gone further against him.  If Biden lives, Trump loses, barring a gigantic geopolitical shift.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

@Neonmoon @Js1 @jimmyjazz For clarity, I was quoting Eastman's 2020 (2021) strategy for Pence to join the conspiracy to delay. I'm not expecting Harris to do so. In Jan 2025 their goal will be to get enough in Congress to not certify. Can the VP certify without the votes?

My assumption is that no, the VP cannot unilaterally certify.  However, the new Electoral Count Act does make it much more difficult for Congress to try and throw away a state's vote.  I don't think "well such and such state took too long to count and things look sketchy" will suffice under the new requirements.  Plus needing 1/5 of each chamber to challenge, which does not automatically throw the votes away. 

It also eliminates some other body (i.e., state legislators) from being able to try and send their own electors, which was a big issue in 2020/2021 and led to many challenges in the swing states by the nutjobs.  Congress may only accept the electors as submitted by the Governor (or whoever is legally allowed to submit them, as per state law, such as the Secretary of State). 

The new law also makes legal challenges heard much faster, i.e., prior to the official count so any legal challenges are resolved. 

Edited by Js1
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For reference for the 20 senators requirement, here are the results from 2020.  Biggest upset, imo, is that somehow Ron Johnson doesn't appear on these lists.  I would have put big money on him being one of the objectors:

 

Congress certified the election of Joseph R. Biden Jr. early Thursday, ending attempts to overturn the results in two states. Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri, Ted Cruz of Texas, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, Roger Marshall of Kansas and John Kennedy of Louisiana voted to overturn the results in Arizona, while 93 senators voted against. Mr. Hawley, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Tuberville, Ms. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Marshall and Senators Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming and Rick Scott of Florida voted to overturn the results in Pennsylvania, while 92 voted against it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/us/politics/republicans-against-certification.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

For reference for the 20 senators requirement, here are the results from 2020.  Biggest upset, imo, is that somehow Ron Johnson doesn't appear on these lists.  I would have put big money on him being one of the objectors:

 

Congress certified the election of Joseph R. Biden Jr. early Thursday, ending attempts to overturn the results in two states. Senators Josh Hawley of Missouri, Ted Cruz of Texas, Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi, Roger Marshall of Kansas and John Kennedy of Louisiana voted to overturn the results in Arizona, while 93 senators voted against. Mr. Hawley, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Tuberville, Ms. Hyde-Smith, Mr. Marshall and Senators Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming and Rick Scott of Florida voted to overturn the results in Pennsylvania, while 92 voted against it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/us/politics/republicans-against-certification.html

 

Right, you need 20 from the Senate. From 2020 alone, you have about 7-8 solid "no" votes (Cruz, Hawley, Tuberville, Hyde-Smith, Marshall + combo of Scott/Lummis/Wicker). +3 from the 2022 cycle (Budd, Vance, Schmitt) and maybe 3-4 new ones from this cycle (Romney replacement, Manchin replacement, whoever wins Indiana, one of Montana/Ohio).  You're still only at about 12-14 GOP votes in the Senate and short of 20. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, Trump ain't got a good shot and Biden will be our President for 4 more years, 99% likely.

So, moving on. 

Biden has vowed to respond to Iran. Is that good? bad? Indifferent?

I feel like the response is going to be a test of Biden's foreign policy mettle (of which he's graded well on for the most part in his presidency), but this will be tough to thread the needle between response and escalation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that Biden has a historically low approval rating (especially amongst youth and hispanics) and no incumbent has managed to win re-election with such numbers.  He's also trailing trump in multiple polls, unlike 2020 where he didn't exactly win in a landslide.  I know polls were bullshit last mid-terms predicting a red wave but still seems like Biden is in bad shape at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Todd Gack said:

My understanding is that Biden has a historically low approval rating (especially amongst youth and hispanics) and no incumbent has managed to win re-election with such numbers.  He's also trailing trump in multiple polls, unlike 2020 where he didn't exactly win in a landslide.  I know polls were bullshit last mid-terms predicting a red wave but still seems like Biden is in bad shape at the moment.

is that what people are saying?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
  • Drool 1
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
  • Prepare your anus 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Todd Gack said:

My understanding is that Biden has a historically low approval rating (especially amongst youth and hispanics) and no incumbent has managed to win re-election with such numbers.  He's also trailing trump in multiple polls, unlike 2020 where he didn't exactly win in a landslide.  I know polls were bullshit last mid-terms predicting a red wave but still seems like Biden is in bad shape at the moment.

The polls are 100% accurate that 68 year-olds who answer their land lines are trending Trump.  Do not dispute.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, 'stache said:

I'm legitimately curious what write-in candidate he thinks meets every one of his beliefs. There will almost never be a candidate that perfectly aligns with one's beliefs. You still vote for the one the better fits, or even if you hate both, the one that isn't under 91 criminal indictments, who has been determined by a jury to have committed rape, and who is less likely to launch an insurrection and attempt to declare himself a dictator.   

Putin.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/27/2024 at 1:50 PM, aggie08 said:

I would love to hear what the non-MAGA demographics wish that he was or wasn't doing.

 

On 1/27/2024 at 3:09 PM, DigglerontheHoof said:

I really don't get the low approval numbers.

Foreign policy maybe playing a part? We're in the midst of a global shitshow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have some news for Grandma Anti-Trumper - Trump is claiming the success of the stock market.

The same one he said would tank if Biden was elected president. 

Edited by Js1
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/29/2024 at 1:38 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

@Anastasis convinced me.
Don’t blame me! I’M voting for Jesco White.

You might consider “decency”? Or try “pax Americana”?  Be sure to use the quotes if you do the latter  

 

Looks like we’re about to be wheels up on attacks against Iran/proxies. 
 

I am sure given that he has pledged to strike at a time and place of our choosing, he’s had enough time to get the appropriate congressional authorizations. 

Edited by Anastasis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To strike back, he doesn’t need it. Our base was attacked.

It (War Powers Resolution) provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization", or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces".

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/29/2024 at 11:59 AM, Todd Gack said:

My understanding is that Biden has a historically low approval rating (especially amongst youth and hispanics) and no incumbent has managed to win re-election with such numbers.  He's also trailing trump in multiple polls, unlike 2020 where he didn't exactly win in a landslide.  I know polls were bullshit last mid-terms predicting a red wave but still seems like Biden is in bad shape at the moment.

What kind of a name is Todd Gack anyway?

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/29/2024 at 9:25 AM, BeardIP said:

Is Biden going to bomb Iran or nah? Why aren't we talking 'bout dat?

59 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:

To strike back, he doesn’t need it. Our base was attacked.

It (War Powers Resolution) provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization", or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces".

Bunch of right-wingers on social media are bitching that Biden shouldn’t rush to try and associate the Iranian-backed militias with….Frank Stallone Iran.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biden settles on a response. US President Joe Biden says he’s decided on a response to the attack by an Iran-backed group that killed three US troops in Jordan on Sunday. He didn’t elaborate, but White House spokesperson John Kirby has suggested the US might favour a "tiered approach", while Biden himself said "I don't think we need a wider war in the Middle East."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68063741

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Goofyboy said:

It (War Powers Resolution) provides that the president can send the U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, "statutory authorization", or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces".

There is no declaration of war. There is no statutory authorization. There is no national emergency here. This latter is self-evident by the WH's own statement And have no doubt — we will hold all those responsible to account at a time and in a manner our choosing. 

Look, I don't like the fact that we have troops stationed in Qatar, Iraq, Syria, on the Iraq/Syria borders in Jordan, UAE, etc. But we do. They threw something at us, we need to throw something back. The response should be targeted, appropriately weighted, and leave a mark. And it should also be authorized as appropriate by congress. This is not a national emergency situation. To argue such is completely divorced from reality, so right on the mark for American ME policy generally.

This appears to be dragging out, so maybe they are trying to navigate how to save face without triggering outright escalation, or maybe they are running things through the appropriate process. Either way, hopefully there is a signal there and we can avoid escalation.     

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • immamac changed the title to Joe Biden 2024 thread - Dark Brandon Strikes Again


×
×
  • Create New...