2020 Presidential Election

[bundabergdevil]

Not hardly. I doubt any but a very, very small contingent of Duke people give this any thought.

So you’re saying I shouldn’t make this comment on non-duke basketball forums? Hmmmm...I’ll consider your input.

[duke79]

Code for Obama’s vote given their history?

Obviously, I have NO inside knowledge or information but I would guess that former President Obama would be leaning towards supporting Deval Patrick. They have been friends for many years and, supposedly, Deval Patrick had several phone calls with Obama before he (Patrick) announced that he would be running for the 2020 Democratic nomination. The speculation is that Obama put pressure on Patrick to enter the race.

[OldPhiKap]

Maybe so. But can't they subpoena Joe?

The rules are set by the majority of the Senate. To do that, the Rs would have to hold marginal folks like Collins, Romney, etc. It may be difficult to get 50 Senators to vote for that. But yes, possible.

Of course, if it ties 50-50 and Pence has to vote as a tie-breaker, expect the roof to blow off the building.

[dudog84]

Maybe so. But can't they subpoena Joe?

Interesting scenario. But why would he feel compelled to honor a subpoena? Nobody else seems to.

[luvdahops]

I would argue that Bill Clinton in his second term was the most fiscally conservative president we have had since Reagan. Of course, having Newt running the Hill helped with that.

Neither Trump, nor W, were fiscal conservatives.

I think Clinton was fiscally conservative from the get go, pushing through a tax increase for deficit reduction purposes in 1993, over the staunch objections of many Republicans (I can still hear Phil Gramm saying "it will creeeple the e-con-uh-mee")

[dudog84]

So you’re saying I shouldn’t make this comment on non-duke basketball forums? Hmmmm...I’ll consider your input.

Sorry, but where do you get that I tried to muzzle you? Didn't mean to offend. I think everyone is entitled to their opinion, I provided mine. I thought there was a good chance your tongue was in your cheek.

Reggie was basically Obama's valet, and he left that position in 2011. I would be gobsmacked if more than 0.001% of the population even remember who he is.

Do you think Earl Crawley listens to Molesley?

[OldPhiKap]

Good question. Roberts would preside over the trial. My *guess* is that the rules decisions are set forth separately, and by the Senate (including the VP/President Pro Tem) in advance.

Emphasis, *guess*

[sagegrouse]

The rules are set by the majority of the Senate. To do that, the Rs would have to hold marginal folks like Collins, Romney, etc. It may be difficult to get 50 Senators to vote for that. But yes, possible.

Of course, if it ties 50-50 and Pence has to vote as a tie-breaker, expect the roof to blow off the building.

As it turns out, I believe the VP is not in the Senate for the impeachment trial. The Chief Justice is in charge.

The chamber can over-rule Chief Justice decisions on most matters, but any such vote could be highly embarrassing. Moreover, with 53 Republicans, they can not afford to lost more than four votes (ummm... Romney, Murkowski, Collins, Cory Gardner, etc.), so controversial actions on procedures seem unlikely.

[Acymetric]

The rules are set by the majority of the Senate. To do that, the Rs would have to hold marginal folks like Collins, Romney, etc. It may be difficult to get 50 Senators to vote for that. But yes, possible.

Of course, if it ties 50-50 and Pence has to vote as a tie-breaker, expect the roof to blow off the building.

Even if they subpoena'd Joe, he wouldn't have to be there for the entire proceedings (like the sitting senators would), just for his own questioning. I would think that couldn't take more than 1-2 days max, right?

[bundabergdevil]

Sorry, but where do you get that I tried to muzzle you? Didn't mean to offend. I think everyone is entitled to their opinion, I provided mine. I thought there was a good chance your tongue was in your cheek.

Reggie was basically Obama's valet, and he left that position in 2011. I would be gobsmacked if more than 0.001% of the population even remember who he is.

Do you think Earl Crawley listens to Molesley?

Eh, this is just a standard word-to-face misunderstanding. That is, you can't see my face when I'm typing out my words. Both my comments about Love were just intended to be dumb jokes. I assumed since this was a Duke basketball fan board - that happens to have a presidential politics thread - that my comment about Love being a secret Obama opinion conduit would be taken for what they were: jokes that could only be made here!

[OldPhiKap]

As it turns out, I believe the VP is not in the Senate for the impeachment trial. The Chief Justice is in charge.

The chamber can over-rule Chief Justice decisions on most matters, but any such vote could be highly embarrassing. Moreover, with 53 Republicans, they can not afford to lost more than four votes (ummm... Romney, Murkowski, Collins, Cory Gardner, etc.), so controversial actions on procedures seem unlikely.

Right, but the rules and the naming of witnesses may precede the trial in the ordinary course of taking up the Articles of Impeachment. I doubt the judge gets involved in arguments about who the parties choose to call as witnesses. But don't know.

If I was advising Joe, I would consider recommending that he go testify (a la Hillary for nine hours in the Bengazi hearings). Sit there, and in his opening statement bait Trump into testifying too (i.e. "I'm man enough to come down here and testify under oath -- while the President cowers in the White House hiding behind his lawyers because he is afraid of putting his hand on the Bible and telling the truth under oath"). If there is nothing for Joe to hide, what better way to dispel the problems than with all eyes riveted? What better way to set up a differential with Trump if that (presumably) is Joe's best campaign strategy?

That is, of course, if I thought Joe was up to it. But that would help put a stop to those questions if he is indeed up for it.

[PackMan97]

If there is nothing for Joe to hide

Isn't that what all this hinges upon? The election could turn on that if.

[OldPhiKap]

Isn't that what all this hinges upon? The election could turn on that if.

Exactly. So if you were a Democrat, wouldn’t you rather know that before Iowa than after the Convention?

[JasonEvans]

I salute the community for reporting not posting. Several of you chimed in when a post appeared that seemed more than a little dismissive and derogatory of Democrats and not a sole responded to it. This is 100% how it should work and I am really proud of you guys!

The post has been deleted and the mod team is debating an infraction for the poster. Again, thanks!

-Jason

[wavedukefan70s]

I salute the community for reporting not posting. Several of you chimed in when a post appeared that seemed more than a little dismissive and derogatory of Democrats and not a sole responded to it. This is 100% how it should work and I am really proud of you guys!

The post has been deleted and the mod team is debating an infraction for the poster. Again, thanks!

-Jason

That must be me i have two pm i cannot open.one from you guys one from a poster.but its all good .i stand behind everything i say.youll have to excuse my post .im a strait forward person with a thick skin.i assumed most do .my mistake.
I will have to get a more computer savy person to help me open them.

[JasonEvans]

Interesting scenario. But why would he feel compelled to honor a subpoena? Nobody else seems to.

The other folks who have failed to obey subpoenas work in the White House and there is a legal argument they are covered by some form of Presidential immunity... at least that is the legal argument being made by the President's lawyers. Joe Biden would have no such cover and avoiding a subpoena would likely land him in far more serious legal jeopardy. Plus, I doubt Joe wants to campaign on, "look, I can disregard long established legal norms too!"

Regardless, as this Politico article states, the Senate seems disinclined to call the witnesses the House GOP is clamoring about.

On Wednesday, a conservative backbencher in the House issued an explosive request to Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham: Subpoena the phone records of House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff.

On Thursday, Graham had a succinct response: “We’re not going to do that.”

Senate Republicans are beginning to deliver a reality check to the president and House Republicans that there are limits to what they can do.

“You got two different bodies here,” Graham, a stalwart Trump ally, told reporters on Thursday. “Are we going to start calling House members over here when we don’t like what they say or do? I don’t think so.”

Senate GOP leaders have signaled they intend to defend Trump wholeheartedly, but they’re also loath to let the upper chamber descend into chaos or divide their caucus ahead of a tough 2020 cycle. And even if Senate Republicans wanted to embrace the hard-line posture of the House, the party’s narrow majority makes that all but impossible under Senate rules.

So as carefully as they can, given the political need to stay aligned with Trump, GOP senators are pouring cold water on the idea that they can or will produce a Christmas tree of TrumpWorld demands during a trial that will determine whether Trump’s presidency survives the winter.

[JasonEvans]

That must be me i have two pm i cannot open.one from you guys one from a poster.but its all good .i stand behind everything i say.youll have to excuse my post .im a strait forward person with a thick skin.i assumed most do .my mistake.
I will have to get a more computer savy person to help me open them.

It was not your post and I would like to discourage some effort to figure out who did what. It was a very recent post, from last night, and the moderators are dealing with it. Let's all move on now.

[OldPhiKap]

The other folks who have failed to obey subpoenas work in the White House and there is a legal argument they are covered by some form of Presidential immunity... at least that is the legal argument being made by the President's lawyers.

For those interested in the two current certiorari petitions Trump has before the Supreme Court to block witness testimony and document production, the court is scheduled to take up the petitions a week from today. What that means: if four or more justices are interested in taking one or both appeals, the cert petition will be granted and the case will be briefed/argued/ruled upon at future dates determined by the court or its rules. If there is not such an interest, the cert petition is denied and the lower court ruling (both of which went against the President) stand. The court could theoretically grant cert in one case but not the other although I would not expect that.

I believe the most recent case in the Second Circuit (tax returns sought by Congress) will be appealed to the Supreme Court soon, but any such cert petition in that case will be taken up separately at a later date.

[Jeffrey]

I know many/most have already made their decision, but the economy continues to be strong 11 months before the election.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/06/cram...s-on-jobs.html

[Jeffrey]

-The portion of the overall electorate that identifies as centrist (43%) is larger than those identifying as either right/conservative (34%) or left/liberal (23%)

None of these points likely come as a surprise to folks on DBR, but in my mind, they reinforce the extent to which our current partisan politics ignore prevailing views

https://www.wsj.com/articles/polariz...le-11575417229

I truly do not completely understand how this transition has happened. It may be an overly simplified perspective, but it seems like the U.S.A. wants, and maybe even needs, a Centrist Party.