Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

L L wrote:

For the senate

Republicans get Alabama back with the college football coach.

Dems to flip:

Colorado

Maine

Arizona

North Carolina

Iowa

A net gain of 4 to make it 51-49 Dems on Jan 3.

I don't get that 64% Dem favored to win in Georgia. I think that's just the chance of winning a plurality while 2 Republicans split votes which means nothing if he doesn't get 50%.

I think the eventual Republican will win in January.

I said Lindsey would lose earlier.

So add South Carolina.

52-48

If they can win Georgia with 50% next week then it could be 53-47.

Hold on. Bullock can win Montana.

54-46

Kansas, Texas, the other Georgia seat.

57?

Mississippi Mike Espy?

Wyoming and Alaska. Boom! 60 seats. Filibuster proof.

OK. OK. I'll stick with 52-48 Dems, one way or another.

L L wrote:

For the senate

Republicans get Alabama back with the college football coach.

Dems to flip:

Colorado

Maine

Arizona

North Carolina

Iowa

A net gain of 4 to make it 51-49 Dems on Jan 3.

I don't get that 64% Dem favored to win in Georgia. I think that's just the chance of winning a plurality while 2 Republicans split votes which means nothing if he doesn't get 50%.

I think the eventual Republican will win in January.

I agree with all your picks. I think that's the most likely scenario.

Joni Erst blew it in Iowa when she didn't know the price of soybeans.

I'll also point out one wildcard. I think Bullock can pull it out in Montana to give the Dems an extra seat. There has only been one recent poll there and it shows him ahead by one.

CountChocula wrote:

What do you think about amending the constitution ...

I don't know if we will see another amendment to the Constitution in our lifetimes of any kind.

2/3 of anything is hard to get.

The last amendment we had was completed in 1992 but proposed in 1789.

It took over 200 years!

And all that did was bump congressional pay raises to the next term. That affects no one.

The last real amendment was in 1971 - dropping the voting age to 18.

The fact that women could be prevented from voting until 1920 is crazy.

agip wrote:

agip wrote:

is any of us african american?

My hunch is that the black community in GA has come together in some way...and it hasnt' elsewhere.

I have no evidence, but the numbers out of GA stand out compared to its peers. Warnock is Black, obvi.

GA might have the highest per capita number of Blacks, and there is certainly a Black political culture there.

MS might have higher Blacks per capita, but its close. And MS doesnt' have a Black capital like Atlanta.

Warnock (D) is up to 80 MFing% likely on 538.

This is kinda earthshaking.

Looks to me like 64%, not 80%. But like I said, fool's gold.

Update. Feel free to update. Although we may have a more sophisticated version of this in the future.

Electoral College

LL: Biden 413-125

Flagpole: Biden 334

Agip: Biden 289

Runningart2004: Biden 418

Highhoppingworm: Biden 306

Breitleit Biden 279

Rigged: Biden will have less than 200 EVs

Senate Control:

Flagpole: D

Count Chocula: D

Highhoppingworm: D

SC Senator:

LL: D

Agip: R

Flagpole: R

Count Chocula: D

Highhoppingworm: R

KY Senator:

Flagpole: R

AZ Senator

Count Chocula: D

CO Senator

Count Chocula: D

ME Senator:

Count Chocula: D

NC Senator:

Count Chocula: D

GA Senator Regular (Perdue/Ossoff):

Count Chocula: D

IA Senator:

Count Chocula: D

AL Senator:

Count Chocula; R

House

Flagpole: Ds increase seats

CountChocula wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

I actually agree with Flagpole on this. It is just a travesty at how politicized the Supreme Court has become.

What do you think about amending the constitution to make 20/25/30 year terms instead of life? That way you know how many openings will come up during a president's term, barring resignation or unexpected death.

The advantage is that you wouldn't have an RBG situation, where (with all due respect) an ailing, cancer survivor 87 year old tried to survive for another couple months so that the ideological makeup of the court would not drastically change.

I would not be opposed to having a limit on the number of years a justice can serve. What happened with RBG was pretty sad. I believe Obama tried to get her to resign during his presidency to allow him to nominate her replacement and she resisted. These last few years everyone kept wondering with each of her hospitalizations if this was "it." Again, I can accept the partisanship (though not agree with it) in Congress but to have the top court in the land so partisan just makes a mockery of the judicial system. Both sides are to blame. Just a shame.

Can you please put me down that the presidential election will be hotly contested? On a more serious tone - please put me down for Trump 283 EC votes. Will be a barn burner. And Texas stays red as does Fla.

Flagpole wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

I actually agree with Flagpole on this. It is just a travesty at how politicized the Supreme Court has become.

Somehow find a way to bottle your moment of clarity. Think about it. What have you done differently today? Did you get more sleep last night? More sun? Did you eat better today? Maybe you DIDN'T eat something you normally do that makes you crazy on other days? Put some thought into it!

A cynic might suggest it's a bit late to have an epiphany about undemocratic abuse of Senate power just as it appears the other side is about to come up to bat.

Solid summary of Trump's assault on the rule of law. From Mona Charen, conservative.

You cannot proclaim the administration’s commitment to law when the chief executive repeatedly instructed officials to break the law in exchange for pardons, engaged in witness tampering, encouraged vigilantism, stoked domestic terrorism by winking at the attempted kidnappings of governors, paid hush money to a porn actress, unlawfully diverted funds to his illusory border wall, illegally withheld aid to an ally in an attempt to extort a damaging story about his opponent, treated Congressional subpoenas with contempt, and abused his commander-in-chief authority to use military force against peaceful demonstrators across from the White House, among innumerable other violations.

Trump has declared that Article II of the Constitution (a written document and therefore unfamiliar to the president) gives him authority to do whatever he wants. He has encouraged his followers to distrust the courts, the bureaucracy, the press, scientific experts, and, most dangerously, the elections, so please don’t tell us that because he’s appointed conservative judges he has achieved a victory for the rule of law. Weighed against his thorough disdain for law, and the disrespect he has encouraged among the people, the judges, however impressive, do not even the scales.

Monkeys typing wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Somehow find a way to bottle your moment of clarity. Think about it. What have you done differently today? Did you get more sleep last night? More sun? Did you eat better today? Maybe you DIDN'T eat something you normally do that makes you crazy on other days? Put some thought into it!

A cynic might suggest it's a bit late to have an epiphany about undemocratic abuse of Senate power just as it appears the other side is about to come up to bat.

Flagpole - do I only have clarity of thought when I agree with you?

Monkeys typing - It was Harry Reid who used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments. It was Harry who did this. He was told it would come back to bite him in the butt but he is long gone and the minority party in the Senate is aghast what Harry has wrought.

Sally Vix wrote:

Monkeys typing wrote:

A cynic might suggest it's a bit late to have an epiphany about undemocratic abuse of Senate power just as it appears the other side is about to come up to bat.

Flagpole - do I only have clarity of thought when I agree with you?

Monkeys typing - It was Harry Reid who used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments. It was Harry who did this. He was told it would come back to bite him in the butt but he is long gone and the minority party in the Senate is aghast what Harry has wrought.

It is not a requirement to agree with me to have clarity, but it does greatly help. I will leave it at that.

So. Reid eliminated the filibuster for the large backlog of federal judges and McConnell did it for one SC vacancy.

That's not even the big deal.

The big deal was McConnel not granting a vote for a Justice nominated in February because he said it shouldn't be done in an election year and then conforms a justice one week before a presidential election.

Can we agree that McConnell, Reid and Pelosi should have been out of Congress years ago if we had term limits.

Sally Vix wrote:

Monkeys typing - It was Harry Reid who used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments. It was Harry who did this. He was told it would come back to bite him in the butt but he is long gone and the minority party in the Senate is aghast what Harry has wrought.

If you have some constructive thoughts on how to de-escalate the ongoing politicization of the federal courts going forward, I'd like to hear them.

The official prediction from RFH:

Trump 313 EV (Biden 225) the under 200 EV for Biden is not an official prediction.

GOP keeps the Senate & lose 1 seat: 51-49

Dems keep the House but lose 10 seats.

From Biden's speech yesterday.

It would be so easy for Joe to respond to GOP insanity by going equally but opposite crazy.

But he didn't. And Dems chose him because of that.

He'd be a good president for these times.

"Time and again throughout our history we’ve seen charlatans, con men and phony populists who sought to play on our fears and appeal to our worst appetites and pick at our oldest scabs for their own political gain. They appear when the nation has been hit the hardest and when we’re at our most vulnerable…

I’m running as a proud Democrat but I’ll govern as an American president. I’ll work with Democrats and Republicans. I’ll work as hard for those who don’t support me, as for those who do."

agip wrote:

From Biden's speech yesterday.

It would be so easy for Joe to respond to GOP insanity by going equally but opposite crazy.

But he didn't. And Dems chose him because of that.

He'd be a good president for these times.

"Time and again throughout our history we’ve seen charlatans, con men and phony populists who sought to play on our fears and appeal to our worst appetites and pick at our oldest scabs for their own political gain. They appear when the nation has been hit the hardest and when we’re at our most vulnerable…

I’m running as a proud Democrat but I’ll govern as an American president. I’ll work with Democrats and Republicans. I’ll work as hard for those who don’t support me, as for those who do."

Well said.

Trump has both FL & NC on lock. PA is trending in Trump's direction. If Trump locks down FL, NC & AZ and then takes just ONE rust belt state, it will pretty much end Dementia Joe's race, MI is also looking good for Trump.

https://uncoverdc.com/2020/10/28/eye-on-politics-roll-tide-vote-by-mail-analysis/

funny how rigged, sally, and other trumpists aren't screaming about open borders, gun confiscation and whatnot anymore. All they have is Hunter Biden and...and...calling Joe senile.

Dems chose the right guy for 2020.

agip wrote:

funny how rigged, sally, and other trumpists aren't screaming about open borders, gun confiscation and whatnot anymore. All they have is Hunter Biden and...and...calling Joe senile.

Dems chose the right guy for 2020.

Why in the world would they be screaming about gun confiscation? I thought that Obama confiscated everyone's guns. What's left to argue about?

And open boarders? Are you kidding? With that massive wall that the Mexicans built for us, nobody is getting in anymore. Again, what's left to argue about?