When the votes will be counted
October 30, 2020 10:15 AM Subscribe
538 has finally done something useful this election season beyond reminding us constantly that any percentage for a Trump win still means he can win. Popular voting ends on Tuesday, and the electoral college votes on December 14, this is a guide to when all the popular votes will be counted in between.
Alicia Parlapiano for The Upshot / The New York Times: “How Long Will Vote Counting Take? Estimates and Deadlines in All 50 States” (Last updated October 29)
posted by Going To Maine at 10:21 AM on October 30, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by Going To Maine at 10:21 AM on October 30, 2020 [4 favorites]
I find the tone of this post a bit off ? I think 538 has done plenty of useful things this election season.
posted by Pendragon at 10:25 AM on October 30, 2020 [59 favorites]
posted by Pendragon at 10:25 AM on October 30, 2020 [59 favorites]
As an inveterate poll follower and model junkie, I found this meme helpful for my sanity, a little.
posted by Superilla at 10:32 AM on October 30, 2020 [31 favorites]
posted by Superilla at 10:32 AM on October 30, 2020 [31 favorites]
I'm not a fan of Nate Silver's constant equivocation about the value of models as a means for giving himself every out. YMMV.
posted by diva_esq at 10:40 AM on October 30, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by diva_esq at 10:40 AM on October 30, 2020 [7 favorites]
God help us if it all comes down to Pennsylvania, which is one of the states that may not have election-night results. In that event, expect protracted legal battles with multiple court rulings prolonging the insanity for a matter of days if not weeks. It would be Bush v. Gore on steroids, and the country would be on the constant verge of civil war.
In other words, 2020.
posted by mikeand1 at 10:43 AM on October 30, 2020 [16 favorites]
In other words, 2020.
posted by mikeand1 at 10:43 AM on October 30, 2020 [16 favorites]
I find Nate Silver's constant reminders about the limitations of predictive statistical analysis refreshing and justified.
posted by PhineasGage at 10:59 AM on October 30, 2020 [103 favorites]
posted by PhineasGage at 10:59 AM on October 30, 2020 [103 favorites]
538 and Nate Silver were famously cautious in 2016, and often called out for giving Trump good chances. The other polls had the effect of giving busy people a reason to not vote.
posted by Brian B. at 11:04 AM on October 30, 2020 [21 favorites]
posted by Brian B. at 11:04 AM on October 30, 2020 [21 favorites]
Received this from my office's landlord (emphasis mine):
"Please be advised that on Tuesday, November 3rd Convene staff will be leaving at 1pm in order to exercise their right to vote. Additionally, out of an abundance of caution, we will not be staffing our property on Wednesday, November 4th."
I guess the main prediction here is that yes, there will be post-election insanity.
posted by swift at 11:05 AM on October 30, 2020 [8 favorites]
"Please be advised that on Tuesday, November 3rd Convene staff will be leaving at 1pm in order to exercise their right to vote. Additionally, out of an abundance of caution, we will not be staffing our property on Wednesday, November 4th."
I guess the main prediction here is that yes, there will be post-election insanity.
posted by swift at 11:05 AM on October 30, 2020 [8 favorites]
yes, there will be post-election insanity
If Trump wins, the insanity will mostly be directed against property. If Biden wins it will mostly be directed against people. Taking appropriate precautions for either case seems wise.
posted by flabdablet at 11:18 AM on October 30, 2020 [41 favorites]
If Trump wins, the insanity will mostly be directed against property. If Biden wins it will mostly be directed against people. Taking appropriate precautions for either case seems wise.
posted by flabdablet at 11:18 AM on October 30, 2020 [41 favorites]
I'm not a fan of Nate Silver's constant equivocation about the value of models as a means for giving himself every out. YMMV
Repeatedly explaining the same things to people who don't (or won't) understand Statistics is not giving himself an "out".
posted by sideshow at 11:26 AM on October 30, 2020 [49 favorites]
Repeatedly explaining the same things to people who don't (or won't) understand Statistics is not giving himself an "out".
posted by sideshow at 11:26 AM on October 30, 2020 [49 favorites]
People here were broadly skeptical of 538's modelling in 2016 and remain very sour about it despite 538 being mostly vindicated by being the only modelers posting significant chances for a Trump win. There were frequent accusations that Nate Silver was juicing the models to show a higher Trump victory chance to drive clicks.
From the election night thread (emphases mine):
From the election night thread (emphases mine):
The writing on 538, though, has been awful. Both Silver and Enten have been churning out piece after piece deliberately designed to inflame sensitive voters and get those sweet, sweet clicks. They have consistently over-emphasized small probability outcomes (even outcomes with a small probability in their model) to drive visits to their site. They have interpreted small shifts in polls as "momentum," the exact kind of horse race coverage Silver used to rail against when he wasn't worth millions of dollars.and
Final assessment: their model is unintentionally mediocre; their journalism is irredeemable.
Although [Sam Wang] is not changing his model at this point, he acknowledges that +/- 1.1% may have been a more reasonable uncertainty for him to use, which would currently be showing a 95% Clinton win probability. He also mentions that the 5% error necessary for the 538 model seems unprecedented in modern polling data.and
This is a gratifying piece of confirmation bias for me, personally, since it confirms my gut instinct that Wang is using an error margin that is too tight, and 538 is using one that is too loose
The only way Wisconsin is sewn up for Trump is if there has been a consistent ~6-10% polling error in Trump's favor in every public poll for the past year. I can imagine that it might be closer than the polls report because of polling errors, but not enough to make it a clear win for Trump.and
Apparently it's too much to ask for the media to stop with the entire "Whoa, this race is too close to call!" meme.posted by 0xFCAF at 11:26 AM on October 30, 2020 [42 favorites]
It's really revolting, considering how many people seem to have developed actual trauma over it. Just look around here. People genuinely made themselves ill over it.
It's never been a remotely close race
I've found 538's battleground picker thingy enormously helpful as I play out the scenarios going on in my head.
In playing out scenarios where Biden gets only the certainly-blue states and Trump gets a lot of lucky breaks -- yeah, Trump is still in this. PA seems to be Trump's must-win, and at the same time, particularly susceptible to post-election shenanigans.
posted by Capt. Renault at 11:40 AM on October 30, 2020 [4 favorites]
In playing out scenarios where Biden gets only the certainly-blue states and Trump gets a lot of lucky breaks -- yeah, Trump is still in this. PA seems to be Trump's must-win, and at the same time, particularly susceptible to post-election shenanigans.
posted by Capt. Renault at 11:40 AM on October 30, 2020 [4 favorites]
People here were broadly skeptical of 538's modelling in 2016 and remain very sour about it despite 538 being mostly vindicated by being the only modelers posting significant chances for a Trump win.
Of course, you can never prove someone was right for the right reasons - see Trafalgar polling.
But yes, for the most part I think Nate’s hedging is fundamentally appropriate, even if his pundit-speak explanations (like the recent “50 percent chance of a 50 percent chance of a 50 percent chance” one) are kind of silly.
posted by atoxyl at 11:48 AM on October 30, 2020
Of course, you can never prove someone was right for the right reasons - see Trafalgar polling.
But yes, for the most part I think Nate’s hedging is fundamentally appropriate, even if his pundit-speak explanations (like the recent “50 percent chance of a 50 percent chance of a 50 percent chance” one) are kind of silly.
posted by atoxyl at 11:48 AM on October 30, 2020
I listen to the 538 podcast regularly, and feel like I have a much better understanding of how statistical models are created, what they can and can't do, and how good polling is done. It's especially interesting to hear the 538 crew discuss all the nerdy ins and outs amongst themselves . . . and they talk about how much crap they get, such as accusations of equivocation, and where that typically comes from.
So, I'd say that this is one more useful thing that they've done this election season.
posted by pt68 at 11:50 AM on October 30, 2020 [5 favorites]
So, I'd say that this is one more useful thing that they've done this election season.
posted by pt68 at 11:50 AM on October 30, 2020 [5 favorites]
Of course, you can never prove someone was right for the right reasons
The thing that gave 538's model a higher chance of a Trump victory than other models -- correlated polling errors -- was the thing that happened.
posted by 0xFCAF at 11:51 AM on October 30, 2020 [22 favorites]
The thing that gave 538's model a higher chance of a Trump victory than other models -- correlated polling errors -- was the thing that happened.
posted by 0xFCAF at 11:51 AM on October 30, 2020 [22 favorites]
I'm not a fan of Nate Silver's constant equivocation about the value of models as a means for giving himself every out.
You seem to be implying that Silver is weaseling out of doing something he ought to be able to do, which is to offer a rock-solid prediction and stand by it. When in fact, he is appropriately reminding his listeners that no such prediction is possible.
posted by argybarg at 11:55 AM on October 30, 2020 [48 favorites]
You seem to be implying that Silver is weaseling out of doing something he ought to be able to do, which is to offer a rock-solid prediction and stand by it. When in fact, he is appropriately reminding his listeners that no such prediction is possible.
posted by argybarg at 11:55 AM on October 30, 2020 [48 favorites]
Think of it this way: How much money would a reasonable person need to play a game of Russian Roulette? 1 million dollars? 10 million? Many people wouldn't do it for any amount. Yet, you take that same group and say "Trump has a 16.66667% chance of winning!" (the identical probability) and all they hear is that Trump winning is so unlikely, they might as well not even think about it. Nate was telling everyone in 2016 the Russian Roullete story, yet everyone thought the latter in their minds.
posted by sideshow at 12:01 PM on October 30, 2020 [24 favorites]
posted by sideshow at 12:01 PM on October 30, 2020 [24 favorites]
Could we stop making every freaking politics post in Metafilter a referendum on Nate Silver? The framing of this post is really not helpful here; it'd be much more interesting to talk about the timing of vote counting than rehash 538 from 2016 one more time.
To that end, I want to call attention again to the New York Times visualization of the timelines. It's a different one than Going to Maine posted. It's very good.
Special shout out to Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Alabama and Louisiana. Who all leave no time for after Nov 3 for late mail-in ballots to arrive. (Pennsylvania allows 3 days). OK fine, you're in a hurry to know the result! But then all these states also don't start processing the ballots until incredibly late. Why not start validating the ballots early? Get a head start on that count? Why are you in such a rush to cut off ballots already in the mail?
Another bit of fuckery to be aware of: sequestering or separating votes. Once a ballot is counted its normally put in a giant pile of other ballots where it can't ever be fished out and invalidated. The vote is truly counted. Votes that are for some reason held in question are separated, put in a special tainted pile. The Republicans are super excited about trying to cast this suspicion on as many ballots as possible. For instance Pennsylvania is going to separate mail-in votes received after Nov 3 in a special pile, just to give the courts one more chance to invalidate those votes. But in the absence of a specific negative ruling, separated votes count just like normal votes.
I reserve special scorn for Trump and his fellow Republicans who've invented this new idea that "we must know the final count on Nov 3", and related, that we can't count any late mail-in ballots. That's 100% an invention. It's never been true. Many states have very clear laws about counting ballots that arrive days, weeks after Nov 3. Yes, you have to wait to know the final answer. Too bad, that's how it works. Always has.
posted by Nelson at 12:07 PM on October 30, 2020 [40 favorites]
To that end, I want to call attention again to the New York Times visualization of the timelines. It's a different one than Going to Maine posted. It's very good.
Special shout out to Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Alabama and Louisiana. Who all leave no time for after Nov 3 for late mail-in ballots to arrive. (Pennsylvania allows 3 days). OK fine, you're in a hurry to know the result! But then all these states also don't start processing the ballots until incredibly late. Why not start validating the ballots early? Get a head start on that count? Why are you in such a rush to cut off ballots already in the mail?
Another bit of fuckery to be aware of: sequestering or separating votes. Once a ballot is counted its normally put in a giant pile of other ballots where it can't ever be fished out and invalidated. The vote is truly counted. Votes that are for some reason held in question are separated, put in a special tainted pile. The Republicans are super excited about trying to cast this suspicion on as many ballots as possible. For instance Pennsylvania is going to separate mail-in votes received after Nov 3 in a special pile, just to give the courts one more chance to invalidate those votes. But in the absence of a specific negative ruling, separated votes count just like normal votes.
I reserve special scorn for Trump and his fellow Republicans who've invented this new idea that "we must know the final count on Nov 3", and related, that we can't count any late mail-in ballots. That's 100% an invention. It's never been true. Many states have very clear laws about counting ballots that arrive days, weeks after Nov 3. Yes, you have to wait to know the final answer. Too bad, that's how it works. Always has.
posted by Nelson at 12:07 PM on October 30, 2020 [40 favorites]
PA validates mail-in/drop-off votes early. They just doesn't count them.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 12:10 PM on October 30, 2020
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 12:10 PM on October 30, 2020
Yeah, I'm not a fan of Nate Silver's hedging, but that's a personal thing. I want him to give me certainty, while fully aware that he can and should do no such thing. He's appropriately and accurately saying that Biden is favored to win, but that Trump still has a chance. Right now, his model has Trump at a 10% chance, and as infuriating and anxiety-inducing as I find some of his tweets, again, he's not wrong to effectively say that a 10% chance of a very bad thing occurring is still worth worrying about, just because of how very bad it is.
Like, if every time you got in your car, you knew you had a 10% of dying in a fiery wreck, you'd be pretty fucking nervous every time you got in a car, right? You'd try to avoid driving as much as possible. But if the 10% chance is just, like, that it will rain on your walk, well, you'd probably feel pretty complacent about whether or not you have an umbrella on you. The enormity of what's at stake here matters in terms of the way Silver frames his projections.
So yeah, I'm groaning every single time Silver says "Trump still has a shot!" but I know he's not wrong.
What I'm finding most helpful is to look at this information about how/when votes will be tallied, and run it against the little battleground calculator. Like, if Georgia or North Carolina are called for Biden on Tuesday night, which they could be, then Trump has a less than 1% chance of winning. Now that's near-certainty territory.
posted by yasaman at 12:12 PM on October 30, 2020 [13 favorites]
Like, if every time you got in your car, you knew you had a 10% of dying in a fiery wreck, you'd be pretty fucking nervous every time you got in a car, right? You'd try to avoid driving as much as possible. But if the 10% chance is just, like, that it will rain on your walk, well, you'd probably feel pretty complacent about whether or not you have an umbrella on you. The enormity of what's at stake here matters in terms of the way Silver frames his projections.
So yeah, I'm groaning every single time Silver says "Trump still has a shot!" but I know he's not wrong.
What I'm finding most helpful is to look at this information about how/when votes will be tallied, and run it against the little battleground calculator. Like, if Georgia or North Carolina are called for Biden on Tuesday night, which they could be, then Trump has a less than 1% chance of winning. Now that's near-certainty territory.
posted by yasaman at 12:12 PM on October 30, 2020 [13 favorites]
Nancy Lebovitz; do you have a reference for the validation of ballots? All 3 sources I know to look all say "processing begins Nov 3". Validation is a form of pre-processing, and the NYT thing I linked explicitly says "Pennsylvania ... [does] not begin pre-processing ballots until Election Day". Is that wrong?
posted by Nelson at 12:14 PM on October 30, 2020
posted by Nelson at 12:14 PM on October 30, 2020
"... any percentage for a Trump win still means he can win ..."
I keep trying to talk my mathematics professor neighbor into teaching a "Statistics For Citizens" course for just this reason.
posted by donpardo at 12:38 PM on October 30, 2020 [8 favorites]
I keep trying to talk my mathematics professor neighbor into teaching a "Statistics For Citizens" course for just this reason.
posted by donpardo at 12:38 PM on October 30, 2020 [8 favorites]
"... any percentage for a Trump win still means he can win ..."
I keep trying to talk my mathematics professor neighbor into teaching a "Statistics For Citizens" course for just this reason.
I mean, this is a complete abdication of why we use stats in the first place, but hey whatever. I mean, it totally makes sense that outcomes are completely unknowable when covering political polls, but DJT saying he cannot commit to a transition of power on election day is him admitting he cannot see the future, ( a meteor could hit or Biden and Harris could be hit by a car on election day that might delay a presidential transition -how can we know?) - he's just being honest about not knowing.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:46 PM on October 30, 2020
I keep trying to talk my mathematics professor neighbor into teaching a "Statistics For Citizens" course for just this reason.
I mean, this is a complete abdication of why we use stats in the first place, but hey whatever. I mean, it totally makes sense that outcomes are completely unknowable when covering political polls, but DJT saying he cannot commit to a transition of power on election day is him admitting he cannot see the future, ( a meteor could hit or Biden and Harris could be hit by a car on election day that might delay a presidential transition -how can we know?) - he's just being honest about not knowing.
posted by The_Vegetables at 12:46 PM on October 30, 2020
Who's up for some math?!?!?!?
I just spent a bit of time with the battleground simulator to see what information theory has to say about the best state to track... What does computing the first node of a decision tree tell us?
For each state S, look at the probability of an overall trump win in the case that trump or biden win that state, giving us two probabilities P_ST and P_SB. (In all computations, I used 0.5% as the chance of a trump win where the battleground estimator said '< 1%'.)
The Gini Impurity tells you what the probability of getting the wrong overall result given only the local result. In other words, we can use it to answer this question: Which single state should I tell you the result of so that you've got the best chance of guessing the overall election correctly. It's computed for each state as P_ST * (1 - P_ST) + P_SB + (1 - P_SB).
The state with the /lowest/ Gini impurity is.......... (drumrolll)..... Texas! At 0.139, followed by Ohio, at 0.153.
Not coincidentally, TX and OH have the lowest chance of a Trump win if Trump wins the state. Basically, Gini's saying that if a 'safe' state flips, enough other states flip that you already know the outcome... And if the safe state doesn't flip, things are already tilted enough towards Biden that it's still a pretty pure node. Notice, though, that the gini impurity doesn't consider the probability of one side or another winning the state, and just looks at the difficulty of guessing the outcome if the state is a 'given'. And Texas doesn't tell us much that we didn't already know!
Information gain measures how much extra information (in the shannon sense) you get from knowing the result of any single state. A straight 50/50 chance corresponds to 1 bit of information. At the top level, with a 90% chance of Biden victory, we have about 1/2 of a bit of information (-0.1*log(0.1) - 0.9*log(0.9) = 0.468). To compute information gain for knowing a particular state, you look at the (weighted) average of the number of bits in each of two possible outcomes (a biden or trump win in that particular state). So it actually takes the probability of the state win P_S into account, and tells us how much /more/ we know given the state outcome. Generally, it tries to find the 'shallowest' decision trees possible, which is a good thing.
The state with the highest information gain is..... Pennsylvania! At 0.266 bits of information gain. Florida (at 0.144 bits) is a distant runner up, followed by Ohio (0.138) and North Carolina (0.132).
So, information gain is maaaaaybe closer to what people actually are following. Taking apart the 'argument' in the information gain doesn't at all match the news narrative though: Penn is important because if Biden wins, he wins it, and he's /quite likely to win Pennsylvania/ according to the model (86% chance). So all of the gained information from Pennsylvainia in case of a Biden win is heavily weighted. In case of a Trump win in Pennsylvania, we /lose/ bits: the overall election is much closer to a coin flip. But the information gain doesn't pay too much attention to this possibility because it's unlikely (ie, weighted at 14%).
posted by kaibutsu at 1:30 PM on October 30, 2020 [29 favorites]
I just spent a bit of time with the battleground simulator to see what information theory has to say about the best state to track... What does computing the first node of a decision tree tell us?
For each state S, look at the probability of an overall trump win in the case that trump or biden win that state, giving us two probabilities P_ST and P_SB. (In all computations, I used 0.5% as the chance of a trump win where the battleground estimator said '< 1%'.)
The Gini Impurity tells you what the probability of getting the wrong overall result given only the local result. In other words, we can use it to answer this question: Which single state should I tell you the result of so that you've got the best chance of guessing the overall election correctly. It's computed for each state as P_ST * (1 - P_ST) + P_SB + (1 - P_SB).
The state with the /lowest/ Gini impurity is.......... (drumrolll)..... Texas! At 0.139, followed by Ohio, at 0.153.
Not coincidentally, TX and OH have the lowest chance of a Trump win if Trump wins the state. Basically, Gini's saying that if a 'safe' state flips, enough other states flip that you already know the outcome... And if the safe state doesn't flip, things are already tilted enough towards Biden that it's still a pretty pure node. Notice, though, that the gini impurity doesn't consider the probability of one side or another winning the state, and just looks at the difficulty of guessing the outcome if the state is a 'given'. And Texas doesn't tell us much that we didn't already know!
Information gain measures how much extra information (in the shannon sense) you get from knowing the result of any single state. A straight 50/50 chance corresponds to 1 bit of information. At the top level, with a 90% chance of Biden victory, we have about 1/2 of a bit of information (-0.1*log(0.1) - 0.9*log(0.9) = 0.468). To compute information gain for knowing a particular state, you look at the (weighted) average of the number of bits in each of two possible outcomes (a biden or trump win in that particular state). So it actually takes the probability of the state win P_S into account, and tells us how much /more/ we know given the state outcome. Generally, it tries to find the 'shallowest' decision trees possible, which is a good thing.
The state with the highest information gain is..... Pennsylvania! At 0.266 bits of information gain. Florida (at 0.144 bits) is a distant runner up, followed by Ohio (0.138) and North Carolina (0.132).
So, information gain is maaaaaybe closer to what people actually are following. Taking apart the 'argument' in the information gain doesn't at all match the news narrative though: Penn is important because if Biden wins, he wins it, and he's /quite likely to win Pennsylvania/ according to the model (86% chance). So all of the gained information from Pennsylvainia in case of a Biden win is heavily weighted. In case of a Trump win in Pennsylvania, we /lose/ bits: the overall election is much closer to a coin flip. But the information gain doesn't pay too much attention to this possibility because it's unlikely (ie, weighted at 14%).
posted by kaibutsu at 1:30 PM on October 30, 2020 [29 favorites]
I think my take-away is:
Information theory tells us to seek out certainty as efficiently as possible. This lets you get at the highest-probability answer fastest.
The horserace reporting tends to focus on places where there's the most uncertainty, and the partial outcomes that would create the most uncertainty. Which is obviously great for doomscrolling, but maybe not great for sanity...
And finally, to re-iterate, the math is only meaningful in the case of a fair election, as everyone has said repeatedly.
posted by kaibutsu at 1:38 PM on October 30, 2020 [6 favorites]
Information theory tells us to seek out certainty as efficiently as possible. This lets you get at the highest-probability answer fastest.
The horserace reporting tends to focus on places where there's the most uncertainty, and the partial outcomes that would create the most uncertainty. Which is obviously great for doomscrolling, but maybe not great for sanity...
And finally, to re-iterate, the math is only meaningful in the case of a fair election, as everyone has said repeatedly.
posted by kaibutsu at 1:38 PM on October 30, 2020 [6 favorites]
[Also, correction for the previous comment: "Penn is important because if Biden wins, he wins it, and he's /quite likely to win Pennsylvania/ according to the model (86% chance)." The 86% chance is actually a >99% chance; just copied in the wrong column, the argument stands.]
posted by kaibutsu at 1:40 PM on October 30, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by kaibutsu at 1:40 PM on October 30, 2020 [2 favorites]
see Trafalgar polling
Ah, yes, Trafalgar, the turd in the punchbowl of this polling cycle. The stopped clock that's right twice a day, lucky enough to have picked the correct lottery numbers in 2016, so now they're hounded by every election beat reporter as the firm that "predicted Trump" last time.
Nine other outfits will have Biden up by 10 in a state, they'll come back with a Trump leading by 1. It's their special sauce in how they ask the questions, apparently. We'll see this time if they're Trump-stradamus again, or if everything they do is an outlier.
posted by gimonca at 1:50 PM on October 30, 2020 [4 favorites]
Ah, yes, Trafalgar, the turd in the punchbowl of this polling cycle. The stopped clock that's right twice a day, lucky enough to have picked the correct lottery numbers in 2016, so now they're hounded by every election beat reporter as the firm that "predicted Trump" last time.
Nine other outfits will have Biden up by 10 in a state, they'll come back with a Trump leading by 1. It's their special sauce in how they ask the questions, apparently. We'll see this time if they're Trump-stradamus again, or if everything they do is an outlier.
posted by gimonca at 1:50 PM on October 30, 2020 [4 favorites]
Hey folks, you don't need to worry for the next few days. Trust me, I'm worrying enough for all of us... pardon... I've gotta go refresh their forecast that I refreshed four minutes prior....
posted by Nanukthedog at 2:38 PM on October 30, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by Nanukthedog at 2:38 PM on October 30, 2020 [7 favorites]
I did a little imagining and guesswork of my own, and put together this conceptual map (270toWin link). This is a thought experiment of what the called states might look like at 3 a.m. Wednesday morning. The beige states are uncalled due to being close, or slow, or both--or possibly even fending off legal challenges.
Biden nevertheless leads in electoral votes at this point by nearly 2 to 1. Three more regular-size states and he's in. (Or Texas alone would put him over the top--but if Biden wins Texas, he's probably in a position to win many more tossup states as well.)
Point being that the media narrative as people wake up on Wednesday could be "Biden leads big in electoral votes", which could forestall a counter-narrative from the Trump campaign.
And yes, I realize bet-hedging is unpopular in this thread.....but I could be wrong!
posted by gimonca at 2:51 PM on October 30, 2020 [7 favorites]
Biden nevertheless leads in electoral votes at this point by nearly 2 to 1. Three more regular-size states and he's in. (Or Texas alone would put him over the top--but if Biden wins Texas, he's probably in a position to win many more tossup states as well.)
Point being that the media narrative as people wake up on Wednesday could be "Biden leads big in electoral votes", which could forestall a counter-narrative from the Trump campaign.
And yes, I realize bet-hedging is unpopular in this thread.....but I could be wrong!
posted by gimonca at 2:51 PM on October 30, 2020 [7 favorites]
> God help us if it all comes down to Pennsylvania, which is one of the states that may not have election-night results.
No problem. No rush. We have until December 8th.
> In that event, expect protracted legal battles with multiple court rulings prolonging the insanity for a matter of days if not weeks. It would be Bush v. Gore on steroids, and the country would be on the constant verge of civil war.
It's not insane, it's making sure everyone's vote is counted. The attempt by RNC in the courts will be to stop the count, not prolong it (if it's a blue shift). Let's hope we can spread the message that this is important, it's a difficult time, so people need to be more understanding and patient. News outlets setting up "war rooms" to count exit polling and try to predict states is even less helpful now than it was when I was a kid & they were calling the whole election before California and Hawaii polls closed, depressing turnout for local elections.
posted by ASCII Costanza head at 3:05 PM on October 30, 2020 [4 favorites]
No problem. No rush. We have until December 8th.
> In that event, expect protracted legal battles with multiple court rulings prolonging the insanity for a matter of days if not weeks. It would be Bush v. Gore on steroids, and the country would be on the constant verge of civil war.
It's not insane, it's making sure everyone's vote is counted. The attempt by RNC in the courts will be to stop the count, not prolong it (if it's a blue shift). Let's hope we can spread the message that this is important, it's a difficult time, so people need to be more understanding and patient. News outlets setting up "war rooms" to count exit polling and try to predict states is even less helpful now than it was when I was a kid & they were calling the whole election before California and Hawaii polls closed, depressing turnout for local elections.
posted by ASCII Costanza head at 3:05 PM on October 30, 2020 [4 favorites]
I reserve special scorn for Trump and his fellow Republicans who've invented this new idea that "we must know the final count on Nov 3", and related, that we can't count any late mail-in ballots. That's 100% an invention. It's never been true. Many states have very clear laws about counting ballots that arrive days, weeks after Nov 3. Yes, you have to wait to know the final answer. Too bad, that's how it works. Always has.
Yes, and a special place in hell for Brett Kavanaugh for actually trying to enshrine this nonsense in SCOTUS case law.
posted by biogeo at 3:11 PM on October 30, 2020 [22 favorites]
Yes, and a special place in hell for Brett Kavanaugh for actually trying to enshrine this nonsense in SCOTUS case law.
posted by biogeo at 3:11 PM on October 30, 2020 [22 favorites]
I am holding an Election Night Party on Zoom, and I fully expect it might still be running through, oh, December... (Is there a maximum time limit on Zoom calls?)
posted by PhineasGage at 3:25 PM on October 30, 2020
posted by PhineasGage at 3:25 PM on October 30, 2020
40 minutes for the free version, 24 hrs if you're mooching off a corporate account. Just don't have discussion about Zoom censorship on the call.
posted by fragmede at 3:46 PM on October 30, 2020 [2 favorites]
posted by fragmede at 3:46 PM on October 30, 2020 [2 favorites]
But yes, for the most part I think Nate’s hedging is fundamentally appropriate, even if his pundit-speak explanations (like the recent “50 percent chance of a 50 percent chance of a 50 percent chance” one) are kind of silly.
Well, I'm not familiar with the exact context of this quote, but this doesn't sound like pundit-speak, this sounds like Bayesian-speak. It's one of the challenges of this kind of predictive modeling: people expect to hear one single number that (they think) they can understand and use to make decisions, but the reality is more complicated, and trying to convey an accurate picture of a complex reality often seems to come across as hedging or being noncommittal or even deliberately obscuring things to people who expect a simple number. Bayesian statistics, for example, allows probability distributions for the parameters that describe other probability distributions.
Like, imagine you've got a bag full of coins. You think some of the coins are fair coins, but some of them might be weighted so that heads comes up more often than tails. You do some experiments with selecting coins out of your bag and counting how many heads versus tails each one gives, that lead you to suggest that 50% of the coins in the bag are fair, but 50% actually come up heads 80% of the time. Then someone comes along and asks to borrow one of the coins from your bag, and also wants to know what fraction of the time they can expect a heads when they throw one.
You answer "Well, there's a 50% chance that it will be heads 50% of the time."
And they reply "What the hell does that mean? Just tell me what the probability is that I'll get a head when I throw this coin."
And so you do some quick math and say "Well, working through the conditional probabilities, you'd get a head 65% of the time when you take a coin from the bag and then throw it."
So your interlocutor borrows a coin and then leaves for a while, before angrily returning, saying "I threw your stupid coin a thousand times and got 490 heads. There's no way you were right about that 65% number! You suck at this!"
And you try to explain that they must have picked one of the fair coins, and the 65% number was only valid if they'd picked a new coin every time. But they just accuse you of trying to rationalize your failure.
(Incidentally, nothing about this fable is necessarily Bayesian, but this type of issue tends to come up more often when using Bayesian techniques.)
posted by biogeo at 4:05 PM on October 30, 2020 [32 favorites]
Well, I'm not familiar with the exact context of this quote, but this doesn't sound like pundit-speak, this sounds like Bayesian-speak. It's one of the challenges of this kind of predictive modeling: people expect to hear one single number that (they think) they can understand and use to make decisions, but the reality is more complicated, and trying to convey an accurate picture of a complex reality often seems to come across as hedging or being noncommittal or even deliberately obscuring things to people who expect a simple number. Bayesian statistics, for example, allows probability distributions for the parameters that describe other probability distributions.
Like, imagine you've got a bag full of coins. You think some of the coins are fair coins, but some of them might be weighted so that heads comes up more often than tails. You do some experiments with selecting coins out of your bag and counting how many heads versus tails each one gives, that lead you to suggest that 50% of the coins in the bag are fair, but 50% actually come up heads 80% of the time. Then someone comes along and asks to borrow one of the coins from your bag, and also wants to know what fraction of the time they can expect a heads when they throw one.
You answer "Well, there's a 50% chance that it will be heads 50% of the time."
And they reply "What the hell does that mean? Just tell me what the probability is that I'll get a head when I throw this coin."
And so you do some quick math and say "Well, working through the conditional probabilities, you'd get a head 65% of the time when you take a coin from the bag and then throw it."
So your interlocutor borrows a coin and then leaves for a while, before angrily returning, saying "I threw your stupid coin a thousand times and got 490 heads. There's no way you were right about that 65% number! You suck at this!"
And you try to explain that they must have picked one of the fair coins, and the 65% number was only valid if they'd picked a new coin every time. But they just accuse you of trying to rationalize your failure.
(Incidentally, nothing about this fable is necessarily Bayesian, but this type of issue tends to come up more often when using Bayesian techniques.)
posted by biogeo at 4:05 PM on October 30, 2020 [32 favorites]
Alls I know is if you want Trump to lose and you’re a fan of the Atlanta Falcons, you’re probably really nervous right now.
SPOILER ALERT: Things are looking up, so hope is not lost.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 4:13 PM on October 30, 2020
SPOILER ALERT: Things are looking up, so hope is not lost.
posted by Big Al 8000 at 4:13 PM on October 30, 2020
Don’t give me Cubs win / Clinton loses flashbacks!
posted by stoneandstar at 4:38 PM on October 30, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by stoneandstar at 4:38 PM on October 30, 2020 [5 favorites]
One other hopeful thing:
Polling models are ALL ABOUT cross-state correlations. Eg, normally, if PA does one thing, it tells you quite a bit about what's happening in Ohio, as well, and that's reflected in the model.
Election shenanigans are closer to being independent occurrences, though. If bullshit goes down in Pennsylvania that flips it from Biden to Trump, you've still got all the pro-Biden correlations on your side working towards a Biden victory. Lots of 'less-likely' Biden victory maps without Pennsylvania suddenly become a lot more likely if there's a thumb on that particular scale. If bullshit flips PA and FL and GA and AZ, but there's no real polling error, it's still the case that North Carolina can be enough to cross the finish line.
posted by kaibutsu at 5:35 PM on October 30, 2020 [6 favorites]
Polling models are ALL ABOUT cross-state correlations. Eg, normally, if PA does one thing, it tells you quite a bit about what's happening in Ohio, as well, and that's reflected in the model.
Election shenanigans are closer to being independent occurrences, though. If bullshit goes down in Pennsylvania that flips it from Biden to Trump, you've still got all the pro-Biden correlations on your side working towards a Biden victory. Lots of 'less-likely' Biden victory maps without Pennsylvania suddenly become a lot more likely if there's a thumb on that particular scale. If bullshit flips PA and FL and GA and AZ, but there's no real polling error, it's still the case that North Carolina can be enough to cross the finish line.
posted by kaibutsu at 5:35 PM on October 30, 2020 [6 favorites]
MST Club is again planning an election day destress video program that I'm calling ELECTRON DAY. I'll probably be posting about it in Talk tomorrow.
posted by JHarris at 6:20 PM on October 30, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by JHarris at 6:20 PM on October 30, 2020 [6 favorites]
I guess I just want to know, how many states can the supreme court decide?
Why can 't the republicans just rely on Bush v Gore to stop counts in every key state? It seems like they've got this national election thing in the bag. Does the 538 site have probabilities on 'Brooks Brothers' riots by state?
posted by eustatic at 9:02 PM on October 30, 2020
Why can 't the republicans just rely on Bush v Gore to stop counts in every key state? It seems like they've got this national election thing in the bag. Does the 538 site have probabilities on 'Brooks Brothers' riots by state?
posted by eustatic at 9:02 PM on October 30, 2020
Nate Silver's book happens to be entirely about the very issue this thread is discussing: predictive models that give an uncertainty threshhold vs. models that don't, and why the latter ones are not trustworthy even though they feel more precise.
You might also have noticed that they describe a 90% chance for Biden to win the election as "favoured" and it's only when it reaches 95% that they update that to "clearly favoured". That's discussed in the book too, where people dramatically underestimate the odds of an unlikely even happening, so they're messaging a 10% chance of winning with the same language they'd use for a 30% chance.
posted by Merus at 9:26 PM on October 30, 2020 [1 favorite]
You might also have noticed that they describe a 90% chance for Biden to win the election as "favoured" and it's only when it reaches 95% that they update that to "clearly favoured". That's discussed in the book too, where people dramatically underestimate the odds of an unlikely even happening, so they're messaging a 10% chance of winning with the same language they'd use for a 30% chance.
posted by Merus at 9:26 PM on October 30, 2020 [1 favorite]
Why can 't the republicans just rely on Bush v Gore to stop counts in every key state?
You can't just to the Supreme Court directly because you don't like the results of an election. There are state laws in place. In the scenario of a state legislature submitting an alternate slate of electors, it's against existing state laws and there are enough states with Republican legislatures with Democratic governors to block that.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:27 PM on October 30, 2020 [1 favorite]
You can't just to the Supreme Court directly because you don't like the results of an election. There are state laws in place. In the scenario of a state legislature submitting an alternate slate of electors, it's against existing state laws and there are enough states with Republican legislatures with Democratic governors to block that.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:27 PM on October 30, 2020 [1 favorite]
this doesn't sound like pundit-speak, this sounds like Bayesian-speak
Not worth finding right now but he had this tweet where he reverse-engineered 538’s probability of a Trump victory as representing a chain of three 50-percent events. Which was obviously a simplifying explanation, but did not feel like an enlightening representation of what’s probably actually going on in the model.
posted by atoxyl at 9:33 PM on October 30, 2020
Not worth finding right now but he had this tweet where he reverse-engineered 538’s probability of a Trump victory as representing a chain of three 50-percent events. Which was obviously a simplifying explanation, but did not feel like an enlightening representation of what’s probably actually going on in the model.
posted by atoxyl at 9:33 PM on October 30, 2020
"I guess I just want to know, how many states can the supreme court decide? Why can 't the republicans just rely on Bush v Gore to stop counts in every key state?"
The vast power of the Supreme Court isn't actually in the Constitution; it rests on Marbury v. Madison (1803), when Chief Justice John Marshall declared that the Supreme Court has the power to review legislation and declare parts of it unconstitutional -- not JUST to decide disputes. (Side note: Jefferson was pissssssssssed and flatly didn't believe in judicial review and all so-called "originalists" on the Supreme Court should therefore stop striking down legislation because the framers clearly didn't intend the Supreme Court to have that power but I digress.)
I was going to write a long analysis of the crisis of legitimacy of the Supreme Court, although this Politico article actually does a pretty good job capturing a lot of what I was going to say (although I was going to be a lot wordier and use a lot more subordinate clauses and parentheses). But, bottom line, the Supreme Court only has any authority as long as people believe it has legitimacy, and that legitimacy rests on a) believing that qualified judges are fairly appointed and not "mere" political pawns; and b) making decisions that are (or at least appear to be) based in a non-partisan, communally-agreed legal reasoning; which c) allows the court to make unpopular decisions but have them accepted, because courts are quite frequently called upon to thwart the "will of the people," and in a system of government that rests on the consent of the governed, that's a really delicate balancing act.
That is really dangerous ground. And it's not just the Supreme Court -- the federal courts generally are now packed with barely-qualified political appointees, some of whom flatly don't have the wit to cloak their partisan opinions in legalistic language that attempts to put a cloak of legitimacy on plainly political decisions. And this is a time when our judicial system (our whole legal system, really) is shot through with rot that's eating it up from the inside -- contracts of adhesion that don't meet the legal requirements for contracts but you're held to them as a consumer every day; mandatory arbitration; political judges; racist law enforcement; lack of access to lawyers for all but the very wealthy; the hollowing-out of the defense bar; shielding enormous categories of corporate crime and negligence from any form of liability -- I could go on and on.
And here's the fundamental dilemma, in the form of John Roberts and the ACA. Had he decided with the conservative wing of the Court to overturn the ACA, it would have rightly been called a partisan decision and undermined the legitimacy of the Court. But by voting to uphold the law to preserve the legitimacy of the Court when basically everyone believes he did so against his own legal "beliefs" solely to preserve the legitimacy of the court, he undermined the court by putting up a blinking neon sign saying "THESE ARE NOT DECISIONS BASED IN CAREFULLY-CONSIDERED LAW, THEY ARE POLITICAL CALCULATIONS." John Roberts (apparently) threw away his legal scholarship and his understanding of the law to come to what he thought was the best decision for the Court's legitimacy, not the best decision based on the law. And McConnell and Trump have both been utterly clear that these are political appointments, not legal ones, and they expect nakedly political decisions out of it.
And there's not a great way out of this. I am 100% in favor of packing the Court (actually, I'm in favor of impeaching Kavanaugh and Thomas, who both lied under oath, AND THEN packing the Court for good measure, AND THEN hiring a bunch of fresh-faced idealistic young lawyers to go over the federal bench with a fine-toothed comb and root out the unqualified, AND THEN making membership in the Federalist Society automatically disqualifying for the federal bench since its only purpose is to undermine democracy and the rule of law). But packing the Court is only going to increase the legitimacy crisis of the Court, because those justices will ALSO have been clearly appointed for political reasons. No matter how qualified and brilliant they are, that stink of partisan action -- that they weren't appointed via a fair process seeking the best legal minds, but for political reasons -- will follow them and their decisions, and make the Court's legitimacy even more unsteady.
Which is a very long way of saying, I think the institutionalists on the Supreme Court are wary enough of the current crisis of legitimacy for the Court to avoid anything quite that ham-handed. Probably. Maybe. Because I'm guessing even the asshats want the Court still to be sitting on January 21 so they can start dismantling Roe and Brown v. Board and Lawrence v. Texas with a slight patina of legitimacy intact. It's hard to imagine outcomes of the Supreme Court stepping in to decide this election that don't end in the country cracked in half.
Which is a very long way around of saying, this time won't be Bush v. Gore; the Court doesn't have the legitimacy to make that kind of decision any longer. And Bush v. Gore was able to hide its partisanship in some pretty hypertechnical election law stuff, cloaked with the legitimacy of the then-Court. This is Trump literally trying to destroy the post office so people can't vote for his opponent; it's too sound-bite-y, too public, and too damn obvious to spin it as anything else, no matter how much legal language you try to hang on it. It will either be decided by the voters, or -- well, I don't know what happens next. Blue states openly refusing to follow federal law? Tax strike? The country splitting up in some farcical reprise of Brexit?
(It's also right-wing nutters who have been working the hardest to undermine the authority of the courts and legislatures -- think your Ammon Bundy types, or your local restaurant owner who's proudly posting to facebook about violating state Covid regulations -- so it's a little hard to predict what would happen if DEMOCRATS flatly objected to the Court's legitimacy and authority, and REPUBLICANS had to try to insist on its legitimacy AND hold on to their nutjob wing at the same time? Which I guess is kind of fundamentally what's breaking the Republican party at heart; its elite just want to shovel money to Wall Street but its true believers are suuuuuuuuuuper high on their own supply and that supply just gets loonier as time goes by. I would just like the GOP to hurry up and fail already without taking the whole country with them.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:39 PM on October 30, 2020 [56 favorites]
The vast power of the Supreme Court isn't actually in the Constitution; it rests on Marbury v. Madison (1803), when Chief Justice John Marshall declared that the Supreme Court has the power to review legislation and declare parts of it unconstitutional -- not JUST to decide disputes. (Side note: Jefferson was pissssssssssed and flatly didn't believe in judicial review and all so-called "originalists" on the Supreme Court should therefore stop striking down legislation because the framers clearly didn't intend the Supreme Court to have that power but I digress.)
I was going to write a long analysis of the crisis of legitimacy of the Supreme Court, although this Politico article actually does a pretty good job capturing a lot of what I was going to say (although I was going to be a lot wordier and use a lot more subordinate clauses and parentheses). But, bottom line, the Supreme Court only has any authority as long as people believe it has legitimacy, and that legitimacy rests on a) believing that qualified judges are fairly appointed and not "mere" political pawns; and b) making decisions that are (or at least appear to be) based in a non-partisan, communally-agreed legal reasoning; which c) allows the court to make unpopular decisions but have them accepted, because courts are quite frequently called upon to thwart the "will of the people," and in a system of government that rests on the consent of the governed, that's a really delicate balancing act.
That is really dangerous ground. And it's not just the Supreme Court -- the federal courts generally are now packed with barely-qualified political appointees, some of whom flatly don't have the wit to cloak their partisan opinions in legalistic language that attempts to put a cloak of legitimacy on plainly political decisions. And this is a time when our judicial system (our whole legal system, really) is shot through with rot that's eating it up from the inside -- contracts of adhesion that don't meet the legal requirements for contracts but you're held to them as a consumer every day; mandatory arbitration; political judges; racist law enforcement; lack of access to lawyers for all but the very wealthy; the hollowing-out of the defense bar; shielding enormous categories of corporate crime and negligence from any form of liability -- I could go on and on.
And here's the fundamental dilemma, in the form of John Roberts and the ACA. Had he decided with the conservative wing of the Court to overturn the ACA, it would have rightly been called a partisan decision and undermined the legitimacy of the Court. But by voting to uphold the law to preserve the legitimacy of the Court when basically everyone believes he did so against his own legal "beliefs" solely to preserve the legitimacy of the court, he undermined the court by putting up a blinking neon sign saying "THESE ARE NOT DECISIONS BASED IN CAREFULLY-CONSIDERED LAW, THEY ARE POLITICAL CALCULATIONS." John Roberts (apparently) threw away his legal scholarship and his understanding of the law to come to what he thought was the best decision for the Court's legitimacy, not the best decision based on the law. And McConnell and Trump have both been utterly clear that these are political appointments, not legal ones, and they expect nakedly political decisions out of it.
And there's not a great way out of this. I am 100% in favor of packing the Court (actually, I'm in favor of impeaching Kavanaugh and Thomas, who both lied under oath, AND THEN packing the Court for good measure, AND THEN hiring a bunch of fresh-faced idealistic young lawyers to go over the federal bench with a fine-toothed comb and root out the unqualified, AND THEN making membership in the Federalist Society automatically disqualifying for the federal bench since its only purpose is to undermine democracy and the rule of law). But packing the Court is only going to increase the legitimacy crisis of the Court, because those justices will ALSO have been clearly appointed for political reasons. No matter how qualified and brilliant they are, that stink of partisan action -- that they weren't appointed via a fair process seeking the best legal minds, but for political reasons -- will follow them and their decisions, and make the Court's legitimacy even more unsteady.
Which is a very long way of saying, I think the institutionalists on the Supreme Court are wary enough of the current crisis of legitimacy for the Court to avoid anything quite that ham-handed. Probably. Maybe. Because I'm guessing even the asshats want the Court still to be sitting on January 21 so they can start dismantling Roe and Brown v. Board and Lawrence v. Texas with a slight patina of legitimacy intact. It's hard to imagine outcomes of the Supreme Court stepping in to decide this election that don't end in the country cracked in half.
Which is a very long way around of saying, this time won't be Bush v. Gore; the Court doesn't have the legitimacy to make that kind of decision any longer. And Bush v. Gore was able to hide its partisanship in some pretty hypertechnical election law stuff, cloaked with the legitimacy of the then-Court. This is Trump literally trying to destroy the post office so people can't vote for his opponent; it's too sound-bite-y, too public, and too damn obvious to spin it as anything else, no matter how much legal language you try to hang on it. It will either be decided by the voters, or -- well, I don't know what happens next. Blue states openly refusing to follow federal law? Tax strike? The country splitting up in some farcical reprise of Brexit?
(It's also right-wing nutters who have been working the hardest to undermine the authority of the courts and legislatures -- think your Ammon Bundy types, or your local restaurant owner who's proudly posting to facebook about violating state Covid regulations -- so it's a little hard to predict what would happen if DEMOCRATS flatly objected to the Court's legitimacy and authority, and REPUBLICANS had to try to insist on its legitimacy AND hold on to their nutjob wing at the same time? Which I guess is kind of fundamentally what's breaking the Republican party at heart; its elite just want to shovel money to Wall Street but its true believers are suuuuuuuuuuper high on their own supply and that supply just gets loonier as time goes by. I would just like the GOP to hurry up and fail already without taking the whole country with them.)
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:39 PM on October 30, 2020 [56 favorites]
DJT saying he cannot commit to a transition of power on election day is him admitting he cannot see the future
Huh? AFAICT Trump never admits anything, and this is a threat not to leave office. As a number of people have been predicting his entire term.
posted by aspersioncast at 10:41 PM on October 30, 2020 [1 favorite]
Huh? AFAICT Trump never admits anything, and this is a threat not to leave office. As a number of people have been predicting his entire term.
posted by aspersioncast at 10:41 PM on October 30, 2020 [1 favorite]
I'm pretty sure DJT thinks that if he's sitting in the Oval Office, the presidency can't change hands.
I've seen plenty of the nightmare scenarios about how the vote could be scrambled, how the electoral college could be tinkered with on states that voted blue, about judicial shenanigans. But none of those have anything to do with 45's say-the-whisper-part-loud implication that he just won't leave, regardless of the vote. He thinks that if he gets armed thugs to keep anyone else from entering the building, he'll remain President.
Crossing my fingers for an early and obvious Florida flip to blue, a D takeover of the Senate, expanding the SCOTUS (to 13 at least - one per each district court; more if we add more district courts), and criminal charges for the whole damn family so we don't see $%@*#(% Ivanka running for president in four years.
A wave of judicial impeachments would be icing; I'd love every accusation of perjury and conflicts of interest to be thoroughly investigated. Add some investigations for Obstruction to the people who stalled out various other investigations. And find some charges related to Endangering The Public Health for everyone who knowingly lied about COVID.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 11:19 PM on October 30, 2020 [12 favorites]
I've seen plenty of the nightmare scenarios about how the vote could be scrambled, how the electoral college could be tinkered with on states that voted blue, about judicial shenanigans. But none of those have anything to do with 45's say-the-whisper-part-loud implication that he just won't leave, regardless of the vote. He thinks that if he gets armed thugs to keep anyone else from entering the building, he'll remain President.
Crossing my fingers for an early and obvious Florida flip to blue, a D takeover of the Senate, expanding the SCOTUS (to 13 at least - one per each district court; more if we add more district courts), and criminal charges for the whole damn family so we don't see $%@*#(% Ivanka running for president in four years.
A wave of judicial impeachments would be icing; I'd love every accusation of perjury and conflicts of interest to be thoroughly investigated. Add some investigations for Obstruction to the people who stalled out various other investigations. And find some charges related to Endangering The Public Health for everyone who knowingly lied about COVID.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 11:19 PM on October 30, 2020 [12 favorites]
Legit -1 to this post title.
posted by andreaazure at 2:49 AM on October 31, 2020
posted by andreaazure at 2:49 AM on October 31, 2020
Well, I understand the post title.
538 isn't the only site to ignore the republican voter suppression strategy completely, even though it's been years since the voting rights act was overturned.
It's something liberal election journalists are in denial about, which is a large hindrance to organizing election defense. It is wearisome.
I think NPR is the worst, but all the attention paid to poll watching is driven by 538 and their baseball-based view of civics.
posted by eustatic at 3:49 AM on October 31, 2020 [3 favorites]
538 isn't the only site to ignore the republican voter suppression strategy completely, even though it's been years since the voting rights act was overturned.
It's something liberal election journalists are in denial about, which is a large hindrance to organizing election defense. It is wearisome.
I think NPR is the worst, but all the attention paid to poll watching is driven by 538 and their baseball-based view of civics.
posted by eustatic at 3:49 AM on October 31, 2020 [3 favorites]
Which is a very long way of saying, I think the institutionalists on the Supreme Court are wary enough of the current crisis of legitimacy for the Court to avoid anything quite that ham-handed. Probably. Maybe.
You have more faith in them than I do. I commented in another thread that the legacy of the Roberts court depends on Neil Gorsuch. I don't think Roberts really wanted to find himself leading a nakedly political court, and the analysis that he jettisoned his own legal theories is in line with that. But I don't think Thomas, Alito, or Kavanaugh are remotely persuadable, and while I don't know enough about Barrett to be sure, I think anyone who failed to decline the nomination in the current circumstances (promoted beyond her experience in a nakedly political, hypocritical, and legitimacy-damaging way) isn't likely to put the best interests of the court or country above her own cultural conservatism. If anyone is likely to dance with them what brung her, it's Barrett. So Gorsuch is the wild card.
But anyway, I think there are still a lot of steps between now and "the Supreme Court decides the election, again," so let's hope, even with Republican voter suppression and attempts to cast doubt on mail ballots, that the count itself is unequivocal and the issues that might get as far as the Supreme Court aren't enough by themselves to swing it.
posted by fedward at 7:31 AM on October 31, 2020 [3 favorites]
You have more faith in them than I do. I commented in another thread that the legacy of the Roberts court depends on Neil Gorsuch. I don't think Roberts really wanted to find himself leading a nakedly political court, and the analysis that he jettisoned his own legal theories is in line with that. But I don't think Thomas, Alito, or Kavanaugh are remotely persuadable, and while I don't know enough about Barrett to be sure, I think anyone who failed to decline the nomination in the current circumstances (promoted beyond her experience in a nakedly political, hypocritical, and legitimacy-damaging way) isn't likely to put the best interests of the court or country above her own cultural conservatism. If anyone is likely to dance with them what brung her, it's Barrett. So Gorsuch is the wild card.
But anyway, I think there are still a lot of steps between now and "the Supreme Court decides the election, again," so let's hope, even with Republican voter suppression and attempts to cast doubt on mail ballots, that the count itself is unequivocal and the issues that might get as far as the Supreme Court aren't enough by themselves to swing it.
posted by fedward at 7:31 AM on October 31, 2020 [3 favorites]
I am optimistic. According to this article, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are the only battleground states that can't start counting ballots mailed in until election day. Florida has no restriction on counting mailed in ballots ahead of time and Texas was very tight on allowing mail in ballots so these two should report relatively quickly.
Florida is leaning Biden. North Carolina is leaning Biden as well. If Biden flips only FL + NC that would be all Biden needs to win.
The selector on 538 seems to show if Florida and NC go for Biden, then PA, WI, Georgia and Arizona should be in the bag as well and that's ~350 EVs. Biden has been polling well in those states. Then if he's solid there Texas, Iowa, and Ohio are next set of reachable states for Biden, and getting those would be a 400+ night.
Technically, Nevada is considered a swing state too although it'll most likely go blue. Some sites are still iffy on states like Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. I think pollsters and pundits are portraying a situation where neither has 270 EVs just to keep things competitive and to keep the media still in need of pollsters and pundits.
posted by Blue Tsunami at 11:06 AM on October 31, 2020 [3 favorites]
Florida is leaning Biden. North Carolina is leaning Biden as well. If Biden flips only FL + NC that would be all Biden needs to win.
The selector on 538 seems to show if Florida and NC go for Biden, then PA, WI, Georgia and Arizona should be in the bag as well and that's ~350 EVs. Biden has been polling well in those states. Then if he's solid there Texas, Iowa, and Ohio are next set of reachable states for Biden, and getting those would be a 400+ night.
Technically, Nevada is considered a swing state too although it'll most likely go blue. Some sites are still iffy on states like Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. I think pollsters and pundits are portraying a situation where neither has 270 EVs just to keep things competitive and to keep the media still in need of pollsters and pundits.
posted by Blue Tsunami at 11:06 AM on October 31, 2020 [3 favorites]
> I am optimistic.
posted by Blue Tsunami at 2:06 PM on October 31 [−] [!] [quote]No other comments.
Username checks out.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:14 AM on October 31, 2020 [9 favorites]
posted by Blue Tsunami at 2:06 PM on October 31 [−] [!] [quote]No other comments.
Username checks out.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:14 AM on October 31, 2020 [9 favorites]
A little too on the nose?
posted by Blue Tsunami at 11:22 AM on October 31, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by Blue Tsunami at 11:22 AM on October 31, 2020 [1 favorite]
I just discovered a fun Saturday afternoon activity. Do you think Biden is going to win Minnesota? I do. I'm not sure about much but I'm sure about that. If you go to the 538 battleground forecasty thing and give MN to Biden, his odds in the election go up to 93%. 93%! That's nice, isn't it? Feels way higher than 90% and even comes with a pleasant little "clearly favored" instead of regular old "favored". Okay now close your computer and don't open it up again until Wednesday.
posted by saturday_morning at 12:02 PM on October 31, 2020 [4 favorites]
posted by saturday_morning at 12:02 PM on October 31, 2020 [4 favorites]
I think one really useful conclusion from the combination of this and 538's outcome explorer is that if Biden wins Florida, his is extremely (99%) likely to have won the election, and Florida is expected to declare very quickly ("...results should be nearly complete within a couple hours of polls closing.").
Given that Biden's chances in Florida are (according to 538) 65%, there's a pretty good chance that Tuesday evening won't be too stressful.
Cross fingers!
posted by Urtylug at 12:28 PM on October 31, 2020 [1 favorite]
Given that Biden's chances in Florida are (according to 538) 65%, there's a pretty good chance that Tuesday evening won't be too stressful.
Cross fingers!
posted by Urtylug at 12:28 PM on October 31, 2020 [1 favorite]
Four years ago we were telling Nate Silver to go shit in his hat for the crime of not telling us what we wanted to hear. (Not picking on that one mefite, I agreed at the time).
posted by octothorpe at 12:37 PM on October 31, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 12:37 PM on October 31, 2020 [5 favorites]
Literally the only reason I wouldn't want Tr*mp to lose is to avoid the tsunami of trite, obvious "You're Fired" headlines (and tweets) that will wash across the globe.
posted by PhineasGage at 1:12 PM on October 31, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by PhineasGage at 1:12 PM on October 31, 2020 [1 favorite]
I think pollsters and pundits are portraying a situation where neither has 270 EVs just to keep things competitive and to keep the media still in need of pollsters and pundits.
This, very much this.
Biden's lead in the polling averages in Wisconsin and Michigan is roughly the same, or bigger, than Trump's current lead in Kansas, South Carolina, Alaska or Utah. I have yet to see a big media story about how Trump is underperforming in Kansas.
It's a longtime media double-standard that pre-dates 2016: a +5 for Democrats is treated as a close race where anything could happen, a +5 for Republicans is treated as a sure Republican win.
posted by gimonca at 1:31 PM on October 31, 2020 [3 favorites]
This, very much this.
Biden's lead in the polling averages in Wisconsin and Michigan is roughly the same, or bigger, than Trump's current lead in Kansas, South Carolina, Alaska or Utah. I have yet to see a big media story about how Trump is underperforming in Kansas.
It's a longtime media double-standard that pre-dates 2016: a +5 for Democrats is treated as a close race where anything could happen, a +5 for Republicans is treated as a sure Republican win.
posted by gimonca at 1:31 PM on October 31, 2020 [3 favorites]
> It's a longtime media double-standard that pre-dates 2016: a +5 for Democrats is treated as a close race where anything could happen, a +5 for Republicans is treated as a sure Republican win.
You're not wrong about this, but given the amount of Trumpist ratfucking by federal judges over the last few weeks, it seems pretty factual to say that a 5% lead for Democrats is less safe than a 5% lead for Republicans, particularly given the party control of government in the states you mentioned.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:43 PM on October 31, 2020 [4 favorites]
You're not wrong about this, but given the amount of Trumpist ratfucking by federal judges over the last few weeks, it seems pretty factual to say that a 5% lead for Democrats is less safe than a 5% lead for Republicans, particularly given the party control of government in the states you mentioned.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:43 PM on October 31, 2020 [4 favorites]
It's a longtime media double-standard that pre-dates 2016: a +5 for Democrats is treated as a close race where anything could happen, a +5 for Republicans is treated as a sure Republican win.
It's a real issue - Republicans are basically spotted ~5 points. If a return is within ~1%, it's likely going to be contested and possibly overturned. In order to win, Democrats need more than a close majority, they need a clear majority. It's less a double-standard and more that the press is unwilling to say the obvious out loud: the system leans Republican.
posted by elwoodwiles at 2:11 PM on October 31, 2020 [2 favorites]
It's a real issue - Republicans are basically spotted ~5 points. If a return is within ~1%, it's likely going to be contested and possibly overturned. In order to win, Democrats need more than a close majority, they need a clear majority. It's less a double-standard and more that the press is unwilling to say the obvious out loud: the system leans Republican.
posted by elwoodwiles at 2:11 PM on October 31, 2020 [2 favorites]
The electoral college in practice gives Trump about +3% in this presidential election. Biden needs to win 51.5% of the vote to have a 50% chance of winning. And it takes Biden being ahead +5% to be reasonably assured of winning. (That's a very blunt analysis; here's a more subtle one.) The details of this change over time as the swing states move around; always favoring rural states, and thus often Republicans.
Gerrymandering gives Republicans 22 seats in the House, or just about 5%. Democrats need 53.5% of national House votes to get 50% of the House. The details of this change every decade with redistricting, but it's been since 1980 that the Democrats "won" the gerrymandering fight. The Republicans were particularly ruthless in 2010.
posted by Nelson at 2:31 PM on October 31, 2020 [7 favorites]
Gerrymandering gives Republicans 22 seats in the House, or just about 5%. Democrats need 53.5% of national House votes to get 50% of the House. The details of this change every decade with redistricting, but it's been since 1980 that the Democrats "won" the gerrymandering fight. The Republicans were particularly ruthless in 2010.
posted by Nelson at 2:31 PM on October 31, 2020 [7 favorites]
I'm well aware of the possibilities of ratfuckery in real life. I'm saying that the maps you see at the larger newspapers and networks have a tilt towards Republicans before vote suppression is even factored in--and have for quite some time.
posted by gimonca at 2:34 PM on October 31, 2020
posted by gimonca at 2:34 PM on October 31, 2020
> I'm well aware of the possibilities of ratfuckery in real life. I'm saying that the maps you see at the larger newspapers and networks have a tilt towards Republicans before vote suppression is even factored in--and have for quite some time.
Yeah, that's why I said "you're not wrong". The point I was making in response is that it would be a pretty unfortunate time to switch from overstating the difficulty for Democrats to understating it. We can't accurately model the ratfucking, but we know it's there, so I'm comfortable with the narrative that has a chance of motivating more people to show up than is technically necessary to win fair.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:02 PM on October 31, 2020
Yeah, that's why I said "you're not wrong". The point I was making in response is that it would be a pretty unfortunate time to switch from overstating the difficulty for Democrats to understating it. We can't accurately model the ratfucking, but we know it's there, so I'm comfortable with the narrative that has a chance of motivating more people to show up than is technically necessary to win fair.
posted by tonycpsu at 3:02 PM on October 31, 2020
fivethirtyeight only has Biden up 8.6%. It has tightened from 10.7% over the last two weeks. It looks like more undecideds are breaking for Trump than Biden.
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:11 PM on October 31, 2020
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:11 PM on October 31, 2020
But that 10.7% was itself an aberration from what had/has been a substantially flat race in the ~8% range. Looking at the trendlines, it looks like Trump sagged in early October while Biden has been holding solid at 52%. Basically Trump lost a few of his shakier supporters during the period of his Covid infection and spectacularly bad debate performance, but they have now come back home.
I guess that could be characterized as undecideds breaking for Trump. But that seems a bit misleading since the number now "breaking for" Trump appears to be about the same as the number who "broke away" from him a few weeks earlier.
posted by Not A Thing at 3:53 PM on October 31, 2020 [6 favorites]
I guess that could be characterized as undecideds breaking for Trump. But that seems a bit misleading since the number now "breaking for" Trump appears to be about the same as the number who "broke away" from him a few weeks earlier.
posted by Not A Thing at 3:53 PM on October 31, 2020 [6 favorites]
Also if you're gonna quote 538 (and really? please don't; we can all go there ourselves) you need to quote his top line analysis, which is "Biden wins 89 in 100". That counts for many, many more things than how he is up in the polls including electoral college bias, etc.
What it doesn't account for is extraordinary vote suppression; I don't believe 538 models what happens if the Republicans manage to, say, shut down all vote counting starting Nov 4. Such a move would be unprecedented and would be a national coup, and while I won't say it's impossible it's not looking likely.
posted by Nelson at 4:19 PM on October 31, 2020
What it doesn't account for is extraordinary vote suppression; I don't believe 538 models what happens if the Republicans manage to, say, shut down all vote counting starting Nov 4. Such a move would be unprecedented and would be a national coup, and while I won't say it's impossible it's not looking likely.
posted by Nelson at 4:19 PM on October 31, 2020
> Such a move would be unprecedented and would be a national coup, and while I won't say it's impossible it's not looking likely.
Unprecedented, you say.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:35 PM on October 31, 2020 [6 favorites]
Unprecedented, you say.
posted by tonycpsu at 4:35 PM on October 31, 2020 [6 favorites]
Just vote, please.
posted by frumiousb at 5:04 PM on October 31, 2020 [5 favorites]
posted by frumiousb at 5:04 PM on October 31, 2020 [5 favorites]
Sorry, I get anxious. I remember last time when I was scolded on MF for thinking trump had a chance.
posted by frumiousb at 5:05 PM on October 31, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by frumiousb at 5:05 PM on October 31, 2020 [3 favorites]
@brianneDMR
Independents are doing some interesting things in this poll.posted by Golden Eternity at 6:02 PM on October 31, 2020 [1 favorite]
In September, Democrat Theresa Greenfield won them 47% to 32% (+15)
Today, they support Ernst 45% to 37% (+8)
538 has finally done something useful this election season beyond reminding us constantly that any percentage for a Trump win still means he can win.
Nate Silver, as certain as he can be: “Trump Can Still Win, But The Polls Would Have To Be Off By Way More Than In 2016”
posted by Going To Maine at 6:17 PM on October 31, 2020 [1 favorite]
Nate Silver, as certain as he can be: “Trump Can Still Win, But The Polls Would Have To Be Off By Way More Than In 2016”
posted by Going To Maine at 6:17 PM on October 31, 2020 [1 favorite]
fivethirtyeight only has Biden up 8.6%
If the national polls are off by 8.6%, they would be off by more than any other presidential election since the beginning of modern polling. That includes 1948 and "Dewey Defeats Truman".
posted by gimonca at 6:30 PM on October 31, 2020
If the national polls are off by 8.6%, they would be off by more than any other presidential election since the beginning of modern polling. That includes 1948 and "Dewey Defeats Truman".
posted by gimonca at 6:30 PM on October 31, 2020
The national polls don't need to be off by 8.6% for a Trump win though. Biden/Harris are going to win the popular vote, that is almost completely certain. But the election is going to be decided in states like Pennsylvania and Florida, where the margins are much smaller, and an upset within the range of the polling uncertainty is more plausible. That's why Trump still has a 1 in 10 chance of winning the election in Five Thirty Eight's models, even though he only has a 3 in 100 chance of winning the popular vote.
posted by biogeo at 7:14 PM on October 31, 2020 [7 favorites]
posted by biogeo at 7:14 PM on October 31, 2020 [7 favorites]
@JesseLehrich:
GOP official in PA slams the Trump campaign after they asked for:posted by Golden Eternity at 7:51 PM on October 31, 2020 [5 favorites]
"names of people who transport ballots & voting machines once polls close, the names of people who have access to the ballots afterward & the precise locations where the ballots are stored"
Washington Post Live Elections Updates
But the election is going to be decided in states like Pennsylvania and Florida, where the margins are much smaller, and an upset within the range of the polling uncertainty is more plausible.
Biden does not need Florida to win. Trump needs to win both these states, all of the tossups, and a state or two where he has never had a lead.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:35 PM on October 31, 2020 [1 favorite]
Biden does not need Florida to win. Trump needs to win both these states, all of the tossups, and a state or two where he has never had a lead.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:35 PM on October 31, 2020 [1 favorite]
National polls don't matter. The electoral college matters. That's the ball game. Stop looking at national polls.
posted by ryoshu at 10:57 PM on October 31, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by ryoshu at 10:57 PM on October 31, 2020 [1 favorite]
Stop looking at any of the predictions. Just vote against these miserable fuckers and encourage everybody else in your orbit to do likewise.
It's a standard medical principle: when the result of a test has no bearing on the appropriate treatment plan, the test is not worth doing.
posted by flabdablet at 12:05 AM on November 1, 2020 [11 favorites]
It's a standard medical principle: when the result of a test has no bearing on the appropriate treatment plan, the test is not worth doing.
posted by flabdablet at 12:05 AM on November 1, 2020 [11 favorites]
God help us if it all comes down to Pennsylvania, which is one of the states that may not have election-night results. In that event, expect protracted legal battles with multiple court rulings prolonging the insanity for a matter of days if not weeks. It would be Bush v. Gore on steroids, and the country would be on the constant verge of civil war.
In other words, 2020.
I am preparing mentally for not only the absolute worst I can imagine to happen, but the absolute worst I can't even imagine yet to happen, because that is literally how 2020 and the darkest timeline is going. I don't expect it to be called for at least weeks, if we're lucky, I'm expecting it to be ridiculously close and most likely rigged, and I've got a ton of alcohol in the house.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:23 AM on November 1, 2020 [5 favorites]
In other words, 2020.
I am preparing mentally for not only the absolute worst I can imagine to happen, but the absolute worst I can't even imagine yet to happen, because that is literally how 2020 and the darkest timeline is going. I don't expect it to be called for at least weeks, if we're lucky, I'm expecting it to be ridiculously close and most likely rigged, and I've got a ton of alcohol in the house.
posted by jenfullmoon at 9:23 AM on November 1, 2020 [5 favorites]
I'm hosting an Election Night house party on Zoom, and even though I'll of course be the only one physically in my place, I still bought the 1.75 liter bottles of vodka and rye.
posted by PhineasGage at 9:36 AM on November 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by PhineasGage at 9:36 AM on November 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
Trump won Pennsylvania by 0.7% in 2016 and networks were willing to call it at 1 AM. If Biden has, say, a 2% lead by midnight, it's all over. That would be a lead of around 120,000 votes which won't be flipped by late ballots. Republicans can squeal all they want but they can't prevent the polling organizations from calling the election with that kind of lead.
A Biden win in Pennsylvania shifts the victory odds to better than 99%. A Pennsylvania win isn't absolutely necessary for a Biden victory but it is sufficient to clinch it.
posted by JackFlash at 9:54 AM on November 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
A Biden win in Pennsylvania shifts the victory odds to better than 99%. A Pennsylvania win isn't absolutely necessary for a Biden victory but it is sufficient to clinch it.
posted by JackFlash at 9:54 AM on November 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
In 2016, PA was almost all in-person voting but this year we're a mix of drop-off, mail-in and in-person so who knows when they'll tally that all up. The Pittsburgh City Paper has a map of how each county in the commonwealth is doing the counting.
posted by octothorpe at 10:01 AM on November 1, 2020 [3 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 10:01 AM on November 1, 2020 [3 favorites]
Which is a very long way of saying, I think the institutionalists on the Supreme Court are wary enough of the current crisis of legitimacy for the Court to avoid anything quite that ham-handed. Probably. Maybe.
Quite aside from all of the other crap that has to be unraveled and made right by President Biden and a Dem-controlled Congress — and there is a LOT — is to pass significant legislation on judicial reform and on voting reform. A democracy simply cannot be sustainable if these two cornerstones of its vitality are left to haphazard reliance on the continuing longevity of octogenarians, miscellaneous state-by-state shenanigans, hyperpartisan excess, and programmed ratfuckery.
It pains me to say it, but we are not going to impeach any SCOTUS Justices. That’s a pipe dream, given the 2/3 majority requirement.
We are also not going to impose term limits on SCOTUS Justices. That would require a Constitutional amendment. And any legislation designed to achieve the same thing (e.g., making them Emeritus Justices, etc.) would not pass review by the current SCOTUS.
Honestly, we probably can’t expand the court, either. There are enough Dem senators in Red states that wouldn’t go along with it. Maybe...we could release a few to vote against it, playing the same game that made the careers of Collins and Murkowski. Worth a shot, but I wouldn’t count in it.
I’m also not a fan of the proposal to have a pool of SCOTUS Justices that are chosen at random to hear cases. Because this opens the possibility of bad luck putting a majority of conservatives on a critical case.
But there are judicial reforms that we can make that are probably in closer reach, politically, and that make good sense, regardless of politics. One set of reforms is related to the District Courts. We can expand the number of District Courts (the 9th is already too large). We can also increase the number of District Judges by another 1-2 hundred. Expanding District Courts and District Judgeships has the benefit of diluting Trump appointments at the District level.
Another set of reforms is related to nerfing the Appellate authority of the SCOTUS. The Constitution gives SCOTUS authority to hear cases of “Original Jurisdiction.” This includes cases between the states, or related to ambassadors, etc. But the Constitution gives Congress the authority to legislate how the Judicial Branch handles appeals of other kinds. Congress has given that appellate role to SCOTUS, but it’s not required. And in fact, those “other kinds” have been the vast majority of the cases that SCOTUS hears. So, Congress could de-fang SCOTUS by withdrawing that authority.
One way that is being discussed would be for Congress to create a separate Constitutional Court that would have authority to handle all appeals that are not part of the SCOTUS’ “Original Jurisdiction”. Then that Constitutional Court could be established with the 18-year term limits for its Justices. All Constitutional, all within the purview of Congressional power.
Another, less sweeping reform, would be to let SCOTUS remain generally as it is, except for one or two very important carve-outs. So, Congress could establish a FISA-like court that has final appellate review over some key type of appeal, such as appeals related to elections and voting, or constitutional review of Congressional legislation. And again, term limits for that court.
As for voting and elections, Congress has Constitutional authority to regulate Congressional and Presidential elections. It should exercise that power to pass a set of election reforms, including standardizing early voting, mail-in voting, minimum number and placement of ballot drop boxes, and ideally, reinstatement of the preclearance requirements of the earlier VRA.
posted by darkstar at 11:02 AM on November 1, 2020 [8 favorites]
Quite aside from all of the other crap that has to be unraveled and made right by President Biden and a Dem-controlled Congress — and there is a LOT — is to pass significant legislation on judicial reform and on voting reform. A democracy simply cannot be sustainable if these two cornerstones of its vitality are left to haphazard reliance on the continuing longevity of octogenarians, miscellaneous state-by-state shenanigans, hyperpartisan excess, and programmed ratfuckery.
It pains me to say it, but we are not going to impeach any SCOTUS Justices. That’s a pipe dream, given the 2/3 majority requirement.
We are also not going to impose term limits on SCOTUS Justices. That would require a Constitutional amendment. And any legislation designed to achieve the same thing (e.g., making them Emeritus Justices, etc.) would not pass review by the current SCOTUS.
Honestly, we probably can’t expand the court, either. There are enough Dem senators in Red states that wouldn’t go along with it. Maybe...we could release a few to vote against it, playing the same game that made the careers of Collins and Murkowski. Worth a shot, but I wouldn’t count in it.
I’m also not a fan of the proposal to have a pool of SCOTUS Justices that are chosen at random to hear cases. Because this opens the possibility of bad luck putting a majority of conservatives on a critical case.
But there are judicial reforms that we can make that are probably in closer reach, politically, and that make good sense, regardless of politics. One set of reforms is related to the District Courts. We can expand the number of District Courts (the 9th is already too large). We can also increase the number of District Judges by another 1-2 hundred. Expanding District Courts and District Judgeships has the benefit of diluting Trump appointments at the District level.
Another set of reforms is related to nerfing the Appellate authority of the SCOTUS. The Constitution gives SCOTUS authority to hear cases of “Original Jurisdiction.” This includes cases between the states, or related to ambassadors, etc. But the Constitution gives Congress the authority to legislate how the Judicial Branch handles appeals of other kinds. Congress has given that appellate role to SCOTUS, but it’s not required. And in fact, those “other kinds” have been the vast majority of the cases that SCOTUS hears. So, Congress could de-fang SCOTUS by withdrawing that authority.
One way that is being discussed would be for Congress to create a separate Constitutional Court that would have authority to handle all appeals that are not part of the SCOTUS’ “Original Jurisdiction”. Then that Constitutional Court could be established with the 18-year term limits for its Justices. All Constitutional, all within the purview of Congressional power.
Another, less sweeping reform, would be to let SCOTUS remain generally as it is, except for one or two very important carve-outs. So, Congress could establish a FISA-like court that has final appellate review over some key type of appeal, such as appeals related to elections and voting, or constitutional review of Congressional legislation. And again, term limits for that court.
As for voting and elections, Congress has Constitutional authority to regulate Congressional and Presidential elections. It should exercise that power to pass a set of election reforms, including standardizing early voting, mail-in voting, minimum number and placement of ballot drop boxes, and ideally, reinstatement of the preclearance requirements of the earlier VRA.
posted by darkstar at 11:02 AM on November 1, 2020 [8 favorites]
The republicans have been pretty clear that they intend to claim Pennsylvania and Florida regardless of what the vote counts say. My hope is that Biden wins without those states (despite the rampant voter suppression by the republicans elsewhere), and that they realize they can't outright steal more than two states and hope to keep even a patina of legitimacy.
If the vote were close, they could probably pull it off, but by all indications it's not going to be close enough. Even if the federal side wants to push forward, I think the state reps are already seeing the writing on the wall and the giant spotlight on them, and don't want to be on the wrong side of a failed coup. Here's hoping that just a few of them are smart enough not to plow ahead anyway. Trump can't do it without them. Things are going to get ugly regardless of the outcome of the election, but overthrowing the president is definitely the ugliest, and I don't believe the populace is going to be apathetic about this.
posted by team lowkey at 11:08 AM on November 1, 2020 [2 favorites]
If the vote were close, they could probably pull it off, but by all indications it's not going to be close enough. Even if the federal side wants to push forward, I think the state reps are already seeing the writing on the wall and the giant spotlight on them, and don't want to be on the wrong side of a failed coup. Here's hoping that just a few of them are smart enough not to plow ahead anyway. Trump can't do it without them. Things are going to get ugly regardless of the outcome of the election, but overthrowing the president is definitely the ugliest, and I don't believe the populace is going to be apathetic about this.
posted by team lowkey at 11:08 AM on November 1, 2020 [2 favorites]
If anyone needs more to get the pulse going, Axios reports on "Trump's plan to declare premature victory."
posted by PhineasGage at 11:51 AM on November 1, 2020
posted by PhineasGage at 11:51 AM on November 1, 2020
Biden Apparently Has to Win Two Elections
So Biden might be on his way to a fairly comfortable win. But you'd think that in addition to Pennsylvania, which might be the key to the election, he'd want to campaign somewhere -- North Carolina? Arizona? -- where he's looking strong but might need an extra push.posted by tonycpsu at 11:53 AM on November 1, 2020
Instead, he's going to Ohio. [...]
It appears that Biden not only needs to win the election, he needs to stave off the appearance of defeat in the additional pseudo-electoral contest Trump and his allies have invented for this year: who's winning as of Election Night. There really might be value for Biden in keeping Ohio too close to call on Election Night so Trump can't claim victory there right away.
As long as we're talking about potential reforms... how about throwing out the Reapportionment Act of 1929? Get rid of the cap on Representatives; change it to the original plan of one per 50,000 people.
Gerrymandering becomes pretty much useless at that level. And the electoral vote would get much closer to the popular vote without the thumb-on-the-scales influence of the Senate at 2 votes out of 12 instead of 2 out of 3 for Wyoming, and similar changes for other low-population states.
A lot of our problems come from not just "provide a balance between rural and urban interests" with the House/Senate split, but "... and then give some bonuses to the rural side by keeping the urban representation low."
I want a blue presidential, House, and Senate lock, and I want them to start churning out legislation that actually helps people ASAP - Green New Deal, Medicare for All, confirm ratification of the ERA, get a "right to privacy" as a constitutional amendment (I know, that's more difficult), a rights-for-noncitizens package, and a thousand small laws, each aimed at reversing a specific odious legal ruling.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 5:17 PM on November 1, 2020 [3 favorites]
Gerrymandering becomes pretty much useless at that level. And the electoral vote would get much closer to the popular vote without the thumb-on-the-scales influence of the Senate at 2 votes out of 12 instead of 2 out of 3 for Wyoming, and similar changes for other low-population states.
A lot of our problems come from not just "provide a balance between rural and urban interests" with the House/Senate split, but "... and then give some bonuses to the rural side by keeping the urban representation low."
I want a blue presidential, House, and Senate lock, and I want them to start churning out legislation that actually helps people ASAP - Green New Deal, Medicare for All, confirm ratification of the ERA, get a "right to privacy" as a constitutional amendment (I know, that's more difficult), a rights-for-noncitizens package, and a thousand small laws, each aimed at reversing a specific odious legal ruling.
posted by ErisLordFreedom at 5:17 PM on November 1, 2020 [3 favorites]
Agreed, about expanding the US House. And DC statehood, along with it.
posted by darkstar at 5:51 PM on November 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by darkstar at 5:51 PM on November 1, 2020 [1 favorite]
Speaking of which, the US House passed HR-1 this year, to implement many election reforms, but it sits languishing in McConnell’s Senate.
Key elements of HR-1 include:
1. Modernize Voter Registration with:
—Automatic Voter Registration
—Same-Day and Online Registration
—Protect Against Flawed Purges
2. Restore the Voting Rights Act
3. Restore Voting Rights to People with Prior Convictions
4. Institute Nationwide Early Voting
5. Protect Against Deceptive Practices
I would expect/hope it to be re-passed and signed into law by Biden lickety-damn-split if we get control of both houses of Congress and the White House.
There’s no doubt at all that some states would contest it, and the current SCOTUS would gut it like they did the VRA. That’s why judicial reform has to be one of the first few bills to pass, along with an HR-1 redux.
posted by darkstar at 6:34 PM on November 1, 2020 [5 favorites]
Key elements of HR-1 include:
1. Modernize Voter Registration with:
—Automatic Voter Registration
—Same-Day and Online Registration
—Protect Against Flawed Purges
2. Restore the Voting Rights Act
3. Restore Voting Rights to People with Prior Convictions
4. Institute Nationwide Early Voting
5. Protect Against Deceptive Practices
I would expect/hope it to be re-passed and signed into law by Biden lickety-damn-split if we get control of both houses of Congress and the White House.
There’s no doubt at all that some states would contest it, and the current SCOTUS would gut it like they did the VRA. That’s why judicial reform has to be one of the first few bills to pass, along with an HR-1 redux.
posted by darkstar at 6:34 PM on November 1, 2020 [5 favorites]
As long as we're talking about potential reforms... how about throwing out the Reapportionment Act of 1929?
In a thread about a year ago, someone mentioned this idea, and out of curiosity I crunched some numbers to see how that would affect things in terms of presidential elections and regional representation. I was surprised to discover that it actually had almost no effect, and in fact Clinton's proportion of electoral college votes won in 2016 would not have changed at all. That was using the 1929 figure of about 120,000 people per representative rather than 50,000 people per representative, but I don't think that makes much difference. Now granted, a larger number of representatives to apportion within each state might indeed make gerrymandering harder, but I'm not actually sure about that; in some ways it could make it easier.
Now I should say, I am actually in favor of overturning the Reapportionment Act of 1929 and expanding the size of Congress for other reasons, but it does seem that doing so doesn't really have much effect on the problems we have with the electoral college. (It's also worth noting that at 1 representative per 50,000 people, we would need about 6595 Congressional representatives, which is a pretty big Congress, but maybe that's a good thing.) Whether that addresses the urban/rural split is a different question, of course, and I didn't analyze that directly. But in general it seems to me like the electoral reforms in HR-1 listed by darkstar are probably more directly applicable to solving the problem of our system's failure to adequately represent the people.
posted by biogeo at 7:22 PM on November 1, 2020 [7 favorites]
In a thread about a year ago, someone mentioned this idea, and out of curiosity I crunched some numbers to see how that would affect things in terms of presidential elections and regional representation. I was surprised to discover that it actually had almost no effect, and in fact Clinton's proportion of electoral college votes won in 2016 would not have changed at all. That was using the 1929 figure of about 120,000 people per representative rather than 50,000 people per representative, but I don't think that makes much difference. Now granted, a larger number of representatives to apportion within each state might indeed make gerrymandering harder, but I'm not actually sure about that; in some ways it could make it easier.
Now I should say, I am actually in favor of overturning the Reapportionment Act of 1929 and expanding the size of Congress for other reasons, but it does seem that doing so doesn't really have much effect on the problems we have with the electoral college. (It's also worth noting that at 1 representative per 50,000 people, we would need about 6595 Congressional representatives, which is a pretty big Congress, but maybe that's a good thing.) Whether that addresses the urban/rural split is a different question, of course, and I didn't analyze that directly. But in general it seems to me like the electoral reforms in HR-1 listed by darkstar are probably more directly applicable to solving the problem of our system's failure to adequately represent the people.
posted by biogeo at 7:22 PM on November 1, 2020 [7 favorites]
There really might be value for Biden in keeping Ohio too close to call on Election Night so Trump can't claim victory there right away.
Quick reminder, too, that Ohio was one of the last-called states in 2004, and the main reason the Bush-Kerry race that year wasn't really called until midday Wednesday.
posted by gimonca at 4:30 AM on November 2, 2020 [5 favorites]
Quick reminder, too, that Ohio was one of the last-called states in 2004, and the main reason the Bush-Kerry race that year wasn't really called until midday Wednesday.
posted by gimonca at 4:30 AM on November 2, 2020 [5 favorites]
As long as we're talking about potential reforms... how about throwing out the Reapportionment Act of 1929? Get rid of the cap on Representatives; change it to the original plan of one per 50,000 people.
What are the odds the House members would decide to dramatically reduce their individual power and influence? Also, are you considering the logistics of having 6,560 house members?
posted by leotrotsky at 11:08 AM on November 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
What are the odds the House members would decide to dramatically reduce their individual power and influence? Also, are you considering the logistics of having 6,560 house members?
posted by leotrotsky at 11:08 AM on November 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
Another set of reforms is related to nerfing the Appellate authority of the SCOTUS. The Constitution gives SCOTUS authority to hear cases of “Original Jurisdiction.” This includes cases between the states, or related to ambassadors, etc. But the Constitution gives Congress the authority to legislate how the Judicial Branch handles appeals of other kinds. Congress has given that appellate role to SCOTUS, but it’s not required. And in fact, those “other kinds” have been the vast majority of the cases that SCOTUS hears. So, Congress could de-fang SCOTUS by withdrawing that authority.
One way that is being discussed would be for Congress to create a separate Constitutional Court that would have authority to handle all appeals that are not part of the SCOTUS’ “Original Jurisdiction”. Then that Constitutional Court could be established with the 18-year term limits for its Justices. All Constitutional, all within the purview of Congressional power.
Another, less sweeping reform, would be to let SCOTUS remain generally as it is, except for one or two very important carve-outs. So, Congress could establish a FISA-like court that has final appellate review over some key type of appeal, such as appeals related to elections and voting, or constitutional review of Congressional legislation. And again, term limits for that court.
And you imagine that the SCOTUS would sit idly by as their authority is restricted and their power is reduced? Marbury v. Madison gives them all the authority they need to blow up any legislation that limits their scope.
Expanding the court is safer. It has been done successfully in the past and it doesn't require the court to act against its own self-interest.
Expanded voting rights will protect purple and red state congresspeople far better than timidity around norms.
posted by leotrotsky at 11:14 AM on November 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
One way that is being discussed would be for Congress to create a separate Constitutional Court that would have authority to handle all appeals that are not part of the SCOTUS’ “Original Jurisdiction”. Then that Constitutional Court could be established with the 18-year term limits for its Justices. All Constitutional, all within the purview of Congressional power.
Another, less sweeping reform, would be to let SCOTUS remain generally as it is, except for one or two very important carve-outs. So, Congress could establish a FISA-like court that has final appellate review over some key type of appeal, such as appeals related to elections and voting, or constitutional review of Congressional legislation. And again, term limits for that court.
And you imagine that the SCOTUS would sit idly by as their authority is restricted and their power is reduced? Marbury v. Madison gives them all the authority they need to blow up any legislation that limits their scope.
Expanding the court is safer. It has been done successfully in the past and it doesn't require the court to act against its own self-interest.
Expanded voting rights will protect purple and red state congresspeople far better than timidity around norms.
posted by leotrotsky at 11:14 AM on November 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
What are the odds the House members would decide to dramatically reduce their individual power and influence? Also, are you considering the logistics of having 6,560 house members?
i mean the net influence of a congressperson/senator whose party is not in control appears to be worth jack/shit whether there's 200 of them or 2000... how effective were any individual democratic senators at derailing kavanaugh or barret? how effective were any individual republican reps at stopping impeachment?
there is generally a 2-3% bias for republicans in the house. the best way for a democratic representative to maximize their own power and influence would be to remove that edge by making the house of representatives actually representative.
posted by logicpunk at 11:27 AM on November 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
i mean the net influence of a congressperson/senator whose party is not in control appears to be worth jack/shit whether there's 200 of them or 2000... how effective were any individual democratic senators at derailing kavanaugh or barret? how effective were any individual republican reps at stopping impeachment?
there is generally a 2-3% bias for republicans in the house. the best way for a democratic representative to maximize their own power and influence would be to remove that edge by making the house of representatives actually representative.
posted by logicpunk at 11:27 AM on November 2, 2020 [3 favorites]
‘Non-scalable’ fence going up around White House as election protests loom, New York Daily News, Dave Goldiner, 10/2/2020:
posted by cenoxo at 12:07 PM on November 2, 2020
The White House wall is back just in time for Election Day. Authorities are planning to reinstall a “non-scalable” fence around the perimeter of the White House, months after it was first erected during the summer mass protests for racial justice. The tough barrier is designed to make it impossible for any election protesters to get inside the White House compound, NBC News reported.May the Emperor lose so badly that the mob storms the palace and throws the Bum out.
The Secret Service, which is in charge of protecting the president, did not comment. The feds have already taken steps to keep protesters further away from Trump, such as virtually closing off Lafayette Park.
The fence is a clear sign that some authorities are concerned that violence could erupt, particularly if the results of the election are up in the air for some time after Election Day....
posted by cenoxo at 12:07 PM on November 2, 2020
Zach Despart, Houston Chronicle: U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, a W. Bush appointee, has ruled Republicans lack standing to challenge 127k drive-thru votes cast in Harris County (Texas).
Re: certain pending 5th Circuit appeal, Hanen says if he did find GOP had standing, he would likely halt drive-thru voting tomorrow. He orders Harris County to keep all drive-thru memory cards separate in case higher court intervenes.
Of GOP argument that drive-thru sites are less secure than in-person polling sites, Hanen says “I ain’t buying that.”
posted by JoeZydeco at 12:36 PM on November 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
Re: certain pending 5th Circuit appeal, Hanen says if he did find GOP had standing, he would likely halt drive-thru voting tomorrow. He orders Harris County to keep all drive-thru memory cards separate in case higher court intervenes.
Of GOP argument that drive-thru sites are less secure than in-person polling sites, Hanen says “I ain’t buying that.”
posted by JoeZydeco at 12:36 PM on November 2, 2020 [4 favorites]
And you imagine that the SCOTUS would sit idly by as their authority is restricted and their power is reduced? Marbury v. Madison gives them all the authority they need to blow up any legislation that limits their scope.
Expanding the court is safer. It has been done successfully in the past and it doesn't require the court to act against its own self-interest.
I actually agree with this, though the way I wrote my earlier comment sounds like I was sour on the idea. Expanding the court would be the quickest, most precedent-supported way to dilute conservative influence on the SCOTUS. I do have doubts about some red state Dems that would go along with the idea. But it is worth a shot...
Expand the number of Districts to 15, and appoint 200 more District Judges across all Districts.
Expand the SCOTUS to 15, to dilute the effect of a single untimely death, or the influence of one, anomalous Presidential term.
Include a provision in the legislation that any judicial appointments that are made by a certain point in the year, if not voted on by the current Senate, are assumed to not be objected to, and the appointment goes through when the next Senate is seated.
Statehood for DC.
Pass HR-1 to preserve and expand election integrity and the voting franchise.
That’s a start.
posted by darkstar at 3:09 PM on November 2, 2020 [6 favorites]
Expanding the court is safer. It has been done successfully in the past and it doesn't require the court to act against its own self-interest.
I actually agree with this, though the way I wrote my earlier comment sounds like I was sour on the idea. Expanding the court would be the quickest, most precedent-supported way to dilute conservative influence on the SCOTUS. I do have doubts about some red state Dems that would go along with the idea. But it is worth a shot...
Expand the number of Districts to 15, and appoint 200 more District Judges across all Districts.
Expand the SCOTUS to 15, to dilute the effect of a single untimely death, or the influence of one, anomalous Presidential term.
Include a provision in the legislation that any judicial appointments that are made by a certain point in the year, if not voted on by the current Senate, are assumed to not be objected to, and the appointment goes through when the next Senate is seated.
Statehood for DC.
Pass HR-1 to preserve and expand election integrity and the voting franchise.
That’s a start.
posted by darkstar at 3:09 PM on November 2, 2020 [6 favorites]
Eh, the provision about judicial appointments might be hard to get past the Senate, who would see it as a curtailing of their power, and might find it hard going at the SCOTUS too, since the Constitution gives the Senate the Advice and Consent prerogative, without mentioning any other entity having the authority to curtail it.
What we really need is a few good Constitutional amendments. But whaddaya gonna do?
posted by darkstar at 3:20 PM on November 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
What we really need is a few good Constitutional amendments. But whaddaya gonna do?
posted by darkstar at 3:20 PM on November 2, 2020 [1 favorite]
How is TV news going to cover the weirdest, most fraught election in history? All of your questions answered. [WaPo]
As they have for nearly two decades, the big three broadcast networks and CNN will join as the National Election Pool to share data collected by a firm called Edison Research...posted by DevilsAdvocate at 5:54 PM on November 2, 2020 [2 favorites]
But Fox News and the AP left the pool after 2016 and have struck out together, hiring a research operation affiliated with the University of Chicago... What this means is that for the first time since 1988, you’ll see not one but two different polls of the electorate as you flip the channels.
The weather today here is cloudy with a 10% chance of the apocalypse.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:34 AM on November 3, 2020 [6 favorites]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:34 AM on November 3, 2020 [6 favorites]
(In contrast, the weather in Honduras right now, is apocalypse: a 145 mph hurricane coming ashore.)
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:54 AM on November 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 6:54 AM on November 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
It is 2 AM in Sydney. I am listening to smooth jazz in the hopes of falling asleep instead of huffing into a brown paper bag while having a mini panic attack. Kenny G is failing me!
posted by jadepearl at 7:11 AM on November 3, 2020
posted by jadepearl at 7:11 AM on November 3, 2020
Excuse me, Honduras is on the northern end. The eye is hitting Nicaragua.
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:39 AM on November 3, 2020
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 7:39 AM on November 3, 2020
New amendments are basically a non-starter in the current age of extreme partisanship. The reality is that post Grover Norquist "drown government in the bathtub" Republican commitments to "small" government the Republican party have largely taken the stance that government as a whole is the problem and over the period since that especially under Gingrich and McConnell there has been a decision made that Republicans will not assist Democrats in making any sort of structural changes to government if at all possible even if those initiatives are popular among conservative voters. Republicans are also extremely skeptical of the courts taking steps to in their opinion legislate from the bench in terms of codifying any sort of expansion of civil rights (and other federal issues such as environmental regulations).
Even if a potential amendment were to somehow achieve the required vote tally in Congress it's unlikely to pass the required number of states unless it's extremely trivial in nature.
Republicans do want to revise the constitution in a variety of ways but their goal has largely been shifted towards the idea of being able to call a Constitutional convention and use their inherent strength in terms of red vs blue states in order to push through any sort of crap they would like to achieve. Thus far despite Democrats only recently really pushing for parity in state legislatures Republicans have been unable to get to the magic number that would really be able to achieve these aims and recent shifts in a number of states would make it seem unlikely that Republicans will get back to that high water mark anytime super soon.
Some of the judicial underpinnings of conservative jurisprudence are also beginning to come back and haunt Republicans because it's hard to espouse limited role of the Federal government while also trying to block large blue states from driving policy for the nation as a whole. One specific issue that comes up regularly is related to fuel efficiency were the massive economic power in California can force car manufacturers to improve efficiency (or safety) regardless of whether the Federal government has a lower threshold.
While the 6-3 split is incredibly frustrating and will almost certainly result in some big short term losses to some Democratic initiatives there are a decent number of ways that Democrats can hamstring the ability of the federal court system to impede progress even short of pulling out the big gun of SCOTUS expansion (which let use be honest is only the tip of the iceberg since the conservatives have been stockpiling extremely conservative judges at all levels of the judiciary for years now). Conservatives have to know they are playing with fire right now especially given the increased level of voter engagement as well as demographic changes. Is it worthwhile to potentially lose the ability to use the Judiciary as a break on Democratic efforts to expand regulations thus making the corporatist faction who have largely benefited from a "centrist" court angry in order to achieve the reactionary agenda of the social conservatives. Republicans still benefit from social conservatives in terms of GOTV activities but do social conservatives really pay the bills?
posted by vuron at 7:46 AM on November 3, 2020
Even if a potential amendment were to somehow achieve the required vote tally in Congress it's unlikely to pass the required number of states unless it's extremely trivial in nature.
Republicans do want to revise the constitution in a variety of ways but their goal has largely been shifted towards the idea of being able to call a Constitutional convention and use their inherent strength in terms of red vs blue states in order to push through any sort of crap they would like to achieve. Thus far despite Democrats only recently really pushing for parity in state legislatures Republicans have been unable to get to the magic number that would really be able to achieve these aims and recent shifts in a number of states would make it seem unlikely that Republicans will get back to that high water mark anytime super soon.
Some of the judicial underpinnings of conservative jurisprudence are also beginning to come back and haunt Republicans because it's hard to espouse limited role of the Federal government while also trying to block large blue states from driving policy for the nation as a whole. One specific issue that comes up regularly is related to fuel efficiency were the massive economic power in California can force car manufacturers to improve efficiency (or safety) regardless of whether the Federal government has a lower threshold.
While the 6-3 split is incredibly frustrating and will almost certainly result in some big short term losses to some Democratic initiatives there are a decent number of ways that Democrats can hamstring the ability of the federal court system to impede progress even short of pulling out the big gun of SCOTUS expansion (which let use be honest is only the tip of the iceberg since the conservatives have been stockpiling extremely conservative judges at all levels of the judiciary for years now). Conservatives have to know they are playing with fire right now especially given the increased level of voter engagement as well as demographic changes. Is it worthwhile to potentially lose the ability to use the Judiciary as a break on Democratic efforts to expand regulations thus making the corporatist faction who have largely benefited from a "centrist" court angry in order to achieve the reactionary agenda of the social conservatives. Republicans still benefit from social conservatives in terms of GOTV activities but do social conservatives really pay the bills?
posted by vuron at 7:46 AM on November 3, 2020
"I just want to tell you both good luck. We're all counting on you."
posted by kirkaracha at 9:06 AM on November 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
posted by kirkaracha at 9:06 AM on November 3, 2020 [1 favorite]
« Older Wallace Shawn, "Developments Since My Birth" | Much more detail about African genomes and the... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by erinfern at 10:19 AM on October 30, 2020 [41 favorites]