Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Arsenal of Doom

Members
  • Content Count

    11,293
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,153 Excellent

About Arsenal of Doom

  • Rank
    Footballguy
  • Birthday 07/27/1970

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://nebraska.rivals.com/rfFan.asp?User=1038327
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Highlands Ranch, CO

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    Denver Broncos

Recent Profile Visitors

15,740 profile views
  1. yada, yada polling sucks, etc. but: What was your total family income in 2019? Under $50,000 35% of voters Trump 44 Biden 55 $50,000-$99,999 39% Trump 42 Biden 57 $100,000 or more 26% Trump 54 Biden 42 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/exit-polls-president.html
  2. Point of clarity, the DOJ did not launch an investigation. Barr changed the standing DOJ policy to allow for an investigation of fraud if there are "substantial" allegations before the election is certified. The previous rule is that the DOJ would only be involved after certification to avoid the obvious, and now present, conflict of interest of the Executive Branch investigating an active election it is a part of. To the best of my knowledge, no such investigation has actually been announced and the career DOJ official that oversees those investigations resigned.
  3. And I believe if the electors have not voted by the time Trump's term ends, we will have President Pelosi being sworn in. ETA - Cap already covered this
  4. Dave Wassermann’s Twitter feed and anything but election coverage on TV
  5. Sticking with 95-100. This election just isn't as has never been as close as the last one, and the only last minute "surprise" is COVID cases and deaths spiking heading into Election Day while Trump continues to pretend it's not happening. There's no complicated inside baseball to this. Trump is an historically unpopular President, in the midst of flailing through a crisis.
  6. 95 out of 100. There is basically nothing indicating Trump has much of a path to win. He's in a significantly worse polling position than he was 4 years ago at both the state and national level. A low turnout election he barely won, with a more undecided voters, and more third party noise in both polling and election results.
  7. I feel reasonably confident now saying Biden is going to get over 50% of the total popular vote. Even in states Trump is still likely to carry easily it won't be by the margins he did in 2016, and large states like Texas and Georgia will be tighter. That combined with fewer votes going to third parties should easily tip Biden 2-3% points above Clinton's 48.5%.
  8. This was pretty much Rich's point wasn't it? You don't agree with the analogy because you reject the underlying premise. Just like others would reject the premise of buying votes, because there are presumably no conditions about voting tied to the fines be paid.
  9. This is what's happening, but I'm curious if it's the right time investment for Biden. Polling suggests there are very few undecided voters and the debates won't change anyone's mind. Trump could pull down his pants and take a dump on stage and his 42% will swoon over how well he did. Turning out voters and making sure their votes are counted is everything at this point. That said, I do think the debates are more important for Biden than Trump. In part because I think most people assume Biden will do better and come off as more Presidential. He can afford a few small gaffes but anything m
  10. I don't think they need to do it. But in a properly functioning Representative Democracy they'd probably avoid voting on anything significant that is obviously out of line with what the voters want. If there is a bipartisan aid/relief bill being passed, or continuing budget resolution, of course they can and should vote on it. In the case of a Supreme Court appointment, they have the option to vote present or just not vote.
  11. In theory I like the idea of having the court comprised of a mix of political and institutional appointments. Say, 15 judges 10 of which are nominated by the President and 5 nominated by unanimous consent of a panel from within the court, who would presumably be more apolitical by nature of their nomination. In practice though I think it suffers from the same problems I articulated above about just adding judges. It seems perfectly reasonable, but could just be used as an excuse to start adding more political appointments.
  12. In the current example, Gardner represents a state that voted for Obama in '08, '12, Clinton in '16, and in the current polls Gardner and Trump are both trailing by double-digits. If they do in fact both lose here as expected, I don't think it takes much detective work figure out that if he votes to confirm a Trump appointee he's not representing the opinion of the majority of Colorado voters/citizens. Of course most of that was true when he was voting for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, voting to repeal Obamacare, etc. That's part of why he's trailing by 10 points.
  13. Sure. Personally I think they should able able to vote on everything, including court appointments. You'd just hope they do so in a way that is representative of the people in their state.
×
×
  • Create New...