2020 Presidential Election

[mkirsh]

https://www.usnews.com/news/national...-of-trump-term

I really doubt any politician would be beholden to something they said even 2 years ago. They will come up with some new circumstance that justifies changing. I’d bet a pie on it if it weren’t so depressing.

[OldPhiKap]

Question for Jason and other polling geeks:

It seems to me that the upcoming battle over RBG’s seat is not likely to change many voter’s positions because the issue of the court — if important to the voter — is already accounted for. However, it may change the intensity of the turnout on both sides.

Assuming that hypothesis is correct, how do polls account for it? Simply asking how likely it is for you to vote and tracking that? If so, is there a good site or metric to measure that increase?

Genuine question for the board. This should motivate certain voters on both sides, but I would like to see a measurement of whether one side or the other is more engaged to vote.

(And as a marker, FWIW, Nate currently has Biden a 77/23 favorite although that increase seems mainly due to the fact that the clock is not in Trump’s favor, and there are many external factors unrelated to RBG that factor into future changes in that spread).

[Furniture]

Question for Jason and other polling geeks:

It seems to me that the upcoming battle over RBG’s seat is not likely to change many voter’s positions because the issue of the court — if important to the voter — is already accounted for. However, it may change the intensity of the turnout on both sides.

Assuming that hypothesis is correct, how do polls account for it? Simply asking how likely it is for you to vote and tracking that? If so, is there a good site or metric to measure that increase?

Genuine question for the board. This should motivate certain voters on both sides, but I would like to see a measurement of whether one side or the other is more engaged to vote.

(And as a marker, FWIW, Nate currently has Biden a 77/23 favorite although that increase seems mainly due to the fact that the clock is not in Trump’s favor, and there are many external factors unrelated to RBG that factor into future changes in that spread).

i think Jason has said before that a high turnout helps the D’s. Think about it. That’s why Trump is doing all he can to stop voting by mail and other stuff...

[Wander]

There is no way, no chance, none, that Mitch and the Senate get a nominee on the court before election day, right? We can all agree about that, I think.

Not sure why you feel so strongly about this. I think it's very possible. Mitch will certainly try.

[Tripping William]

Not sure why you feel so strongly about this. I think it's very possible. Mitch will certainly try.

Yep

279B5519-36B4-475D-993E-67D1E3713957.jpg

[ClemmonsDevil]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...supreme-court/

[mph]

Looks like Thom Tillis will not be joining Murkowski and Collins as "no" votes:

“Four years ago, a Supreme Court vacancy arose under divided government and a lame-duck president as Americans were choosing his successor. Today, however, President Trump is again facing voters at the ballot box and North Carolinians will ultimately render their judgment on his presidency and how he chooses to fill the vacancy.

[Wander]

While many Republicans have similar quotes, it's stunning how direct, blatant, and applicable Lindsey Graham's are:

"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say 'Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,' and you can use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right."

"We're setting a precedent here today, at least Republicans are, that in the last year that you're not going to fill a vacancy of the Supreme Court."

"If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process is started, we'll wait to the next election."

[budwom]

Not sure why you feel so strongly about this. I think it's very possible. Mitch will certainly try.

Absolutely agree...I have no doubt they will give it a shot and may well succeed.

[Tripping William]

While many Republicans have similar quotes, it's stunning how direct, blatant, and applicable Lindsey Graham's are:

"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say 'Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,' and you can use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right."

"We're setting a precedent here today, at least Republicans are, that in the last year that you're not going to fill a vacancy of the Supreme Court."

"If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process is started, we'll wait to the next election."

And yet he’ll run from them, IMO.

[bundabergdevil]

While many Republicans have similar quotes, it's stunning how direct, blatant, and applicable Lindsey Graham's are:

"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say 'Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,' and you can use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right."

"We're setting a precedent here today, at least Republicans are, that in the last year that you're not going to fill a vacancy of the Supreme Court."

"If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process is started, we'll wait to the next election."

Lindsey has said a lot of things.

[OldPhiKap]

While many Republicans have similar quotes, it's stunning how direct, blatant, and applicable Lindsey Graham's are:

"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say 'Lindsey Graham said let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,' and you can use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right."

"We're setting a precedent here today, at least Republicans are, that in the last year that you're not going to fill a vacancy of the Supreme Court."

"If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process is started, we'll wait to the next election."

I think he also said that the Kavanaugh hearings “changed everything.”

[Tripping William]

And yet he’ll run from them, IMO.

Already running:

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/...be-a-different

[sagegrouse]

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...supreme-court/

Long 538 article on the political implications of Ginsberg's passing. TL;DR

[mph]

i think Jason has said before that a high turnout helps the D’s. Think about it. That’s why Trump is doing all he can to stop voting by mail and other stuff...

It's generally true that high turnout favors the Democrats but it's not clear that Biden benefits from higher turnout compared to a snapshot of what turnout would be if the election was held today. The 538 article I posted above explains why.

To be sure, that negative enthusiasm gap will almost certainly narrow as Trump ratchets up his attacks on Biden. But it’s unlikely Biden will engender the same level of hatred that Clinton did. Even though she’s spent four years out of the political limelight, Republicans are still more hostile to Clinton than Biden. A Fox News poll from last month found that 76 percent had a “strongly unfavorable” opinion of Clinton, compared to 64 percent of Republicans who held the same opinion of Biden...

As The Atlantic’s Adam Serwer astutely put it, “The notion of a Biden presidency simply does not provoke the visceral rage that Clinton and Obama did — not in Trump, and not in his supporters.” So long as Biden’s campaign does not evoke such negativity, Trump will likely be the one on the short end of the 2020 enthusiasm gap.

It seems likely to me that a confirmation battle will only drive Biden's negativity numbers up among Republican and Republican leaning voters, not down.

[mph]

OK, maybe not just announced. If the Republicans push through a nomination and get a new justice seated, then covid takes center stage and there isn't any Court buffer. As you said, evangelical support for Trump is slipping. If they don't need to vote for him to get the Court anymore, why would they change their minds back?

This Michelle Goldberg editorial brought to mind a reason this benefits Trump regardless of the timing of the confirmation vote.

Outraged people should take to the streets en masse. Democrats in the Senate may not be able to stop Republicans from shoving a nominee through before the election or during a lame-duck session, but if it happens they should do all in their power to grind Senate business to a halt.

And if Republicans do give Ginsburg’s seat to some Federalist Society fanatic, Democrats must, if they win back the presidency and the Senate, abolish the filibuster and expand the court, adding two seats to account for both Garland and Ginsburg.

How much would Trump like to use the fear of court-packing to solidify his base? It's not hard to see how Biden would look like a less reasonable alternative to many Republicans and Republican-leaners.

[ClemmonsDevil]

How much would Trump like to use the fear of court-packing to solidify his base? It's not hard to see how Biden would look like a less reasonable alternative to many Republicans and Republican-leaners.

I will give this a good old fashioned "I have no idea". We won't know anything for 7-10 days until polling about this comes in.

[mkirsh]

This Michelle Goldberg editorial brought to mind a reason this benefits Trump regardless of the timing of the confirmation vote.



How much would Trump like to use the fear of court-packing to solidify his base? It's not hard to see how Biden would look like a less reasonable alternative to many Republicans and Republican-leaners.

Trump should certainly force Biden to answer the question which puts him a tough spot trying to appease moderates who won’t likely want change and the farther left side of his base that would want to stack the court

[JasonEvans]

A couple thoughts...

1) Donald Trump is a very transactional person. If I do something for you, what are you going to do for me? He is not a strong ideological conservative. In fact, many have argued that his embrace of conservative values has largely been a marriage of convenience for a guy who was a Democrat for much of his life. He is not going to place a conservative on the court because he feels that the conservative values that justice would vote for are more important than Donald Trump's future as President. Put another way, he has just been handed one of the most significant (pardon the pun) trump cards in the deck -- a Supreme Court seat -- how does he play it?

Sure, his play could be to pick a replacement in the next week and give the conservatives what they want. But he has another path. He knows that the open seat in 2016 was part of what motivated conservative voters to turn out for him and give him the narrowest of victories. If he picks someone now and that person gets placed on the court before election day, there is a chance some conservatives will feel less motivated to vote for Trump than if a seat is hanging in the balance. We've already seen Trump dangle a carrot in front of voters saying that if he is reelected he will make a payroll tax cut permanent. He clearly loves the notion of "if you elect me, I will give you this thing that you want." Is there any chance he will try this with the seat? Might he even name the person but not formally move things to the senate saying, "If Americans really want this person on the court, they will vote for me." It could be a super powerful motivator to traditional Republican conservatives who have strayed from Trump for various reasons.

2) It is easy to look at the calendar and count the days to election day for McConnell to get a vote to happen, but the senate does have a calendar. Currently, that calendar calls for a recess from October 12 - Nov 6 to allow senators to go to their home states to campaign. That is only 11 work days (Mon-Fri) from right now. The idea that a yet unnamed nominee could be vetted, get through hearings, voted on by the Judiciary committee, and then by the whole senate in 11 work days is highly unlikely. I know McConnell can adjust that calendar as he wishes and I have no doubt that he could look for a couple days in late October to call the senate back into session for a Supreme Court vote, but it won't be easy and could cause some grumbles among members of his caucus who want to focus on keeping their seat as they approach election day. It is worth noting that I believe the Senate has no provision for remote voting due to Covid, meaning Senators would have to physically return to Washington for a vote, which is not as easy as it once was.

3) I think it is noteworthy that McConnell reached out to his GOP colleagues last night to ask them not to comment publicly on this process. He wants to make sure they are all on the same page, not making varying statements that could cause problems for each other. McConnell wants to remain Majority Leader after the 2020 election and knows the GOP needs to come up with a strategy for this seat that gives them the best chance at holding onto the Senate.

-Jason "having nothing to do with the timing I bet Trump picks a woman in an effort to win back some female voters" Evans

[Lord Ash]

This entire thing, the hypocrisy involved, makes me so, so sad right now. Never been so unsure about where my country is heading,