Recent Posts

Show posts from buddies only

Maryland D/R share - 70/30
Oregon D/R share - 59/41

Muh enthusiasm gap.

They aren't "real America" though.

Hey guys, I think I found Alito's car.

Okay, but that "Changing genders is impossible, you ing re[ally can't say that word on this forum]" bumper sticker is fire. Like, I want a version of that that says "inevitable" instead of "impossible".

So apparently Sunak is taking a “day off” from the campaign trail tomorrow.

Seems like you are getting your wish:

The Tory GE campaign next year is gonna be some of the most desperate and embarrassing stuff of all time.

https://twitter.com/MartinConcagh/status/1794127357365596235

When he's dead.

This.

Nobody really wants these trials because of the implications of a conviction of Trump.  What's done to Trump can be done to any future President.

What, really, is to stop a future President from charging Joe Biden or Mike Pence with document offenses?  In Joe Biden's case, all the elements of the crime are listed; he possessed documents he had no right to possess for decades, and that's not even taking into account how they were stored or his sharing of them with his autobiographer.  All of the elements of a crime are present.  The only reason Hur is not charging him is because he is the sitting President, and Hur has added statements to the effect of Biden's cognitive abilities that suggest that, at least in the present, he may be considered unable to stand trial if the issue were tested by the Court. 

I do not wish to see Joe Biden on trial any more than I want to see Donald Trump on trial.  The remedy for these issues is impeachment.  I would support a Constitutional Amendment reducing to 60 the number of Senators needed to remove a President, but with a proviso that the Supreme Court rule, prior to any trial, that the allegations for impeachment meet the Constitutional Standard of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".  (A decision in that area would have precedential value for future impeachment.)  Indeed, I would include appointed Cabinet Officials in this amendment.  I would also include in this Amendment that the Senate must go forth with a trial if the SCOTUS impeaches, but that the rulings of the Chief Justice that presides over the trial not be able to be overridden by a vote of the Senate. 

But if it's OK to put Donald Trump on trial (particularly for the Documents case), then it's necessary (in the interest of simple justice) to put Joe Biden on trial once he's out of office.  The elements of the crime are set forth in Hur's report; they constitute probable cause.  I would not welcome such an event, but if former Presidents can be tried for crimes after their term, how can one say of Biden that he's not fit for trial if he was fit for office?

Wasn't SC-01 like Trump +8 in 2020 (and moving leftward?) Safe R seems a bit much.

They have FL-13 at Likely R too. If that’s not considered Safe R neither should SC-01.

Also both have Dems with decent fundraising.

Hey guys, I think I found Alito's car.

Most sane Connecticut resident.

I wonder if the driver is a trump/MAGA supporter?
"Sieg Heil," "Ban Narcan" ... I mean WOW!
I feel sorry for the immediate relatives, neighbors, etc. of this NutJob.
How does anyone even get a job, driving that kind of mental-asylum-billboard-on-wheels around town?

I would say the equivalent to 2019 nostalgia now happened in the mid to late 2000s . In fact I would say Hillary in 2008 really should have had her slogan be : Make America Great Again and everyone would know what that slogan meant and she may have actually won it all lol

[Hamilton]

Hamilton

Continuing along the former state's Southern border, we find the state centered on the Cincinnati and Dayton urban areas. Naming this state after the Federalist titan of early post-independence politics made sense, as it's the name of its most populous county as well as seeming to fit the vibe quite well. Hamilton is the epitome of Midwestern conservatism, boasting an unbroken Republican voting streak since 1968 and a Republican PVI for all the period I have data for (and above R+10 since 1984). As such, there's not very much to say about HM's politics. Even the trends that swept over the rest of the state so dramatically seem to have had very little effect on it: it trended to the right by a mere two points in 2016 and then retraced about a third of that shift in 2020. Cincinnati itself has been trending increasingly Democratic, but Dayton's evolution has been more ambiguous, and the exurban counties around those urban center have if gotten markedly more Republican. Thus, the end result remains a reliable (though not overwhelming) Republican stronghold.

Capital: Dayton seems right.

House Seats (1963): 10
House Seats (2013): 7

VAP Demographics (2010): 82% White, 13% Black

PVI 2008: R+17
PVI 2012: R+15
PVI 2016: R+17
PVI 2020: R+17

Congressional Representation: Sherrod Brown lost HM by 7 points in his 2006 landslide, so it's pretty clear Democrats don't have a shot in a Senate election around here. As for the House, one urban Cincinnati district is inevitable (it might have to be a Black opportunity district as well given VRA constraints). A fair map would probably have another Dem-leaning seat in Hamilton County, and perhaps another one around Dayton, but a GOP gerrymander could probably ensure 6 solidly Republican seats.

Local Government: Again, I don't see much of an opening for a Democrat to win a gubernatorial race here. State legislature wise, Dems seem to be holding about 30% of the seats in the State House seats in the area, so Republicans might have slight veto-proof supermajorities (not that it would matter).


Columbia

This state doesn't have an obvious geographic feature to name it from, so I figured it would be fun to pick the name Columbia, both in reference to its largest city but also as a tribute to the name's cultural significance in early American history. Geographically, this state is a bit of an odd beast, as due to population balance concerns it's left encompassing very disparate areas. To the South, you have the large and growing Columbus metro area, which has trended significantly to the left in recent decades. To the North, you have the old working-class stronghold of Toledo, still overwhelmingly Democratic but undergoing trends comparable to those in nearby Erie. Finally, to the East, we have some of the most ancestrally Republican turf in all the Midwest. Adding it all up, the rural and suburban Republican areas are usually enough to overwhelm Columbus and Toledo, resulting in a state that can usually be relied to vote Republican. Until 2008, the only Democrat who won it was LBJ in 1964. However, trends in the 90s and 00s started to favor Democrats, allowing Clinton to come within a point of Dole there in 1996, and finally allowing Obama to carry the state by 2 points in 2008, and even more impressively to prevail again in the hard-fought 2012 election. Let's look at how that played out:



Like with OH last time, we have a pretty obvious case of a state being a lot closer than land area would suggest - this time allowing Obama to actually prevail on the back of just 5 countries: of course the two key ones were Franklin (Columbus) and Lucas (Toledo), which he won 60% and 65% of the vote in respectively and racked up a 200k vote lead (he won the state by 20K). However, it's also notable that he managed to win a few more counties on the Erie shore as well, and generally kept Romney under 60% in most of the Republican parts of the state (although she still cleared up in Columbus' Northern suburbs as well as in the Eastern part of the state). As this might well have been one of the swing states that decided the election, it would have seen intense campaigning on both sides, and Obama's 1.2-point victory would have sealed the fate of the election.

So, in the mid 2010s, it seemed CL was destined to become a prime swing state. Then, 2016 happened, undoing a decade's worth of trends. Democrats' gains around Columbus were easily swamped by the rest of the state's strong Republican swing, and 2020 only continued on the same trajectory. Until and unless the Columbus area starts voting more like the Chicago one, or trends in the Northern part of the state can be at least partially reversed, Democrats will have a hard time winning statewide.

Capital: Columbus, duh.

House Seats (1963): 11
House Seats (2013): 9

VAP Demographics (2010): 83% White, 10% Black

PVI 2008: R+5
PVI 2012: R+3
PVI 2016: R+10
PVI 2020: R+11

Congressional Representation: CL's Senate elections last took place in 2018 and 2022. Sherrod Brown actually won by 8 points there in 2018, higher than his statewide margin. And given that he won in all three of his runs, it's quite possible to see a Democrat having won the state in a very Dem year like 2006 or 2012, thus granting them the incumbency advantage. I think that's enough grounds to give one of the two Senate seat to the Dems, although they'll have to fight hard to keep it this year. The other is probably safely in GOP hands for now. As for the House, I think Republicans would realistically have to concede 3 seats to Democrats (two in Columbus and one in Toledo) but they'll make sure the remaining 6 are as Safe R as they possibly can.

Local Government: Democrats haven't had much luck with gubernatorial elections here. Cordray lost by 3 points and I doubt a different Democrat would have prevailed even in 2018. So chances are the GOP still holds the Governor's Mansion this year. The state legislature is also gerrymandered to ensure GOP majorities (looks like they have a 19-12 edge in State House seats in the area) so it's a fairly easy trifecta.

This thread has degenerated into fury over an absurd hypothetical.

1. Not one member of the court will rule for absolute immunity

2. Everyone agrees the President has extensive sovereign immunity that is almost total in the civil field.

3. Whether this civil immunity extends beyond official functions is often motivated by partisan hackery but not Republican hackery. Bill Clinton spent years arguing that he was immune from civil lawsuits based upon harassment and sexual assault he engaged in before becoming President due to holding the office, and Larry Tribe, who is the leading voice denouncing the court today, helped run his effort.

#2 is not clearly specified in the Constitution, but is rather an inference from common law, and relates to the fact that a President must be able to exercise the duties of office. Therefore the assumption, which it is likely no member of the court will reject, is that the extent of immunity is the degree necessary for an individual to carry out the duties of the President in office. I also expect every member of the court to agree that a degree requires not just protection while an individual is President, but a degree of continued immunity after they leave office so as to prevent second-guessing.

Bill Clinton should not be civilly, much less criminally liable for Waco.

Yes. I have already posted about this, and my post is still valid.

Will he win the case on the merits?

There are several ways for Trump to win.
He can win on his total immunity claim, though I'm not sure how many votes there are for a total immunity opinion.
He can also win on a narrower interpretation of his case, where the majority could opine that Trump's actions were part of his official duties as President.
A third win would be for the SCOTUS to affirm that Trump was immune for official acts, but refer the case back to the district court for holding hearings to determine which of Trump's individual actions fall under his official duties as President. Each of these individual decisions would be subject to appeal up to the SCOTUS.

Judging by the ballot disqualification case, there was a majority for a sweeping decision, but there was a minority for a narrower decision and Justice Sotomayor was against the sweeping decision initially and started to write a dissent. Then when Kagan, Jackson and Barrett were unable to sway Roberts, they convinced Sotomayor to change her mind and amended her opinion slightly and changed it into a concurring opinion.

A similar dynamic could play out in the immunity case.

Sotomayor will be against immunity, while Thomas and Alito will be for total immunity.
I suspect that Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett will be for a narrow immunity pertaining only to Trump's case.
Kagan and Jackson would probably also be for a narrow immunity, but rejecting it in Trump's case.
Then negotiations would start for the fifth vote. I suspect Thomas and Alito would hold firm, and if a joint decision is reached, it would probably only be limited to Trump's particular case and not mention the sweeping total immunity claim at all.

I would not be surprised if a majority of the SCOTUS issues a decision where the majority concurs in the result that resolves Trump's particular case in Trump's favor without agreeing on a decision that sets precedent, and with Justices concurring in the result writing their own opinions to ensure that the reasoning not have the force of law.

Saskatoon is bigger than Regina.