Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were appointed by Trump.

Pre-Trump the court was Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts.

The first 5 were all pro-choice, or at least pro-Roe.

It basically went from 5-4 republican to 6-3. You could argue the Ginsburg to Barrett change is the reason Roe was overturned. But that's stating that Roberts would have abstained when his vote would have been the deciding one (which is debatable). Still, I agree the first Trump election had a lot more riding on the court than this one does. I think it's certainly a factor, but I don't see the "dire consequences" the country faces for social issues if Trump gets four final years over Harris. It's way more important to have state reps that agree with you socially than the president.

Again, if the president was as powerful on this as the media makes it seem, Biden should have thrown the kitchen sink at making Roe a law. Nothing happened on that front under him.

When you read Harris' resume, it really is quite impressive.

He didn't really care.

There were two Roe votes that changed. While Kennedy was a Republican, he was notoriously pro-Roe as one of the three authors of the per curiam opinion that upheld the right to an abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. So you had Kennedy replaced by Kavanaugh and Ginsburg replaced by Barrett. Roe would not have been overturned if Clinton won.

I'm not sure why you keep distorting facts to suit your "things don't matter" narrative. You could make your point without that.

It would have been 4-3. They would not have confirmed a Justice for Clinton.

Ginsburg refusing to step down under Obama really hurt too. Despite all the YAS QUEEN memes thrown around, she ended up really fucking over tye pro-choice movement over her narcissism.

On the contrary, the people have had the power overwhelmingly and consistently compared to any other factor.

I wish to give credit where credit is due. You, and others who am I not quoting for sake of brevity, have most accurately pointed out that there is no law requiring delegates to follow the votes of the people. The party technically can just ignore those votes - but this is the first time they have actually done so. That is the difference. This is not about a brokered convention or candidates dropping out and pledging their delegates to the victor, but it's worth noting that the very concept of doing such a thing involves recognizing that the delegates were bound to follow the votes in their states, or they couldn't be pledged to anyone; if they were completely free to do whatever they felt like, a candidate dropping out would have no control over them. It would also be a lot less common for candidates to drop out in any race that is remotely close, since who knows if the delegates might hand the race to them anyway. When a majority of delegates are delivered by vote of the people, before the convention, you always see rivals dropping out if they haven't already. Why? Because it's over at that point. Because everyone understands that those delegates are, in fact, going to follow the people's vote. They are not free agents.

Of the examples that have been brought up, probably 2008 Obama-Clinton is the most relevant. In that primary there were 4233 delegates, 823 of which were superdelegates. Yes, superdelegates are an undemocratic concept. They were also less than a fifth of the total amount. A significant number of delegates from just a couple of states deciding to vote for Clinton instead of Obama would have shifted the outcome.

Another example of course is 2016, in which the Republican Party decidedly did not want Trump to be the nominee, to a degree where there is no historic comparison. The people voted for him anyway. They said they didn't want Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, Graham, Jeb Bush, or any of the other 'establishment' candidates. I agree with the board that they made a terrible choice, but the point is the party wanted one thing, the people wanted another. The people won. A similar movement supported Bernie Sanders on the democratic side, but wasn't nearly as strong so Biden won out.

This is one of, and probably the most effective way that the people have of expressing to their party that they don't think they are being represented the way they want; saying no to some candidates and yes to others in the primary process. People like Liz Cheney and Justin Amash didn't get rubbed out of their positions by party fiat. It happened because the people in their districts soundly booted them in the primaries. I think America is worse off for this, but that's kind of the price of democracy.

What has happened here is a step way beyond that Obama-Clinton example, which in it's own right would have been historically unprecedented. It's simply the outright nullification of the primary vote. Maybe there are those who I haven't heard of, but as far as I know no delegate or congressman took a moment to pause after Biden's withdrawal and say 'you know, I'm going to wait a couple days to hear from my constituents on who they think I should endorse, since the person they chose isn't running anymore'. Every single one who didn't do that should be ashamed of themselves.


It's not disingenuous at all. As I have said, it's not about who was chosen; it's about the process by which they are chosen, and who is making the decision. It is, by definition, a wholly undemocratic process.

I don't know why you said it would be ridiculous to have a primary if there were more parties. I would think any party that has democracy as an important value would want the people to choose their nominee. Any party could always just say 'we're not going to do it that way', which again tells me they aren't valuing democracy. What I won't just ignore though, is this idea that the goal is to defeat Trump to save democracy, and then to do so in a completely undemocratic way. You can't come crying about election deniers (which Trump absolutely is and which is horrible and poisonous) and then just toss aside the results of your own election because it isn't working out, and choose a replacement without so much as pausing for a second to consider who the people might actually want as the candidate. I think Obama was right when he said that elections have consequences. When that happens, I say it's as clear as 2+2=4 that those saying it are full of crap. As Arles said, it's just 'win at all costs', which ... be honest that's what it is then, that you don't care about democracy and just want to defeat Trumpism. That the main problem with his authoritarianism and all the rest is just that it's aimed at the wrong policy goals.

I really don't understand the outrage over the lack of primary. When I voted in my primary, it was for the Biden-Harris ticket (even though Joe's name was probably the only one on the ballot)...but I knew who the ticket was. And I knew how old Joe was, so the idea that he might very well die before the election even rolled around was a possibility that factored into my thinking.

If anything, I guess I'd be more annoyed if they disregarded my having considered the possibility and decided to make it a free-for-all on a timeline where there's no chance my state could get together a new primary in time for me to vote in it.

That said, I live in Indiana and by the time we primary, the race is already decided most of the time anyway, so I'm either giving a protest emoji or a thumbs-up to the will of the people in all the states who voted before me.

Please don't mistake me for a Kamala Harris fan, though. I'm about as neutral on her as I was on Dan Quayle, and that motherfucker was even from here. I generally don't spend a ton of time thinking about vice presidents (though I'm with Quayle on potato-with-an-e being a completely valid school of magic). I'm learning about her right along with the rest of the nation, and I'd prefer her to Trump based solely on qualifications.

Interestingly, my very conservative brother-in-law's reaction to Biden's speech tonight on social media was "Now, if we could just get the other old white guy to step aside for a qualified replacement, we'd be getting somewhere." So there are still things around which we can all agree. (I like my brother-in-law. He's super conservative, but a great guy...and he cares about as much about politics as he does about sportsball, which is as close to a direct quote as I can remember from him off the top of my head.

They literally did this in 1952 and in 1968.

Correct you are.

It seems necessary to clarify: I'm talking about modern political history. I agree, without qualification, that many things were done differently in previous eras. One might observe the obvious point that women couldn't vote for the majority of US history and that there have been many other such shifts in who could vote, under what circumstances, the civil war, all of that sordid stuff.

If one spoke of the need to save democracy in the first hundred years of the republic, that would likely have been considered a terrible idea.

Did ChatGPT write this?

That's the first time I can recall it being suggested that I am an AI or plagiarizing one. Makes sense though; I've seen most other kinds of insults, it was probably just a matter of time until that one came up.

I disagree with Brian, but I dont think comments like this are appropriate or kind. I appreciate the view points being presented including from him and Arles and it seems just about all of us here ultimately want democracy preserved and Trump to go away.

I would typically agree with this last part but i think Trump and this project 2025 is scary and am not sure many will he fine if Trump wins.

Glad that is cleared up.

AP Declares That 'JD Vance Did Not Have Sex With A Couch' In Fact Check https://t.co/aSTQysHvgU

— HuffPost Politics (@HuffPostPol) July 25, 2024

"I did not have sexual relations with that sofa"

You have to give off serious weirdo vibes for the rumor that you had sex with a sofa to actually get some legs because people can’t reject it 100% out of hand.

Trump really swung and missed with that pick. I think that VP picks really don’t matter to the election, so Vance won’t matter. And whoever Harris picks won’t matter. But it was still a crazy weird pick.

It was more the way it was written. It read like AI wrote it.

Did they also search love seat, barca lounger, or futon?

#NotAllCouches

We have a love sac, the cushions shift too much and the gaps are way too wide for a guy like Vance to get anything out of it.

"What's the definition of "cushion?"

OTOH, women humping pillows? Kinda sexy.

I like Kamala's branding with freedom. It's a nice way to tie everything together without sounding as scolding as some Dem messaging. Generally, the more hopeful optimistic candidate wins.

that's where my PredictIt money is

Regardless of who the VP pick is one thing that can’t happen is if the first choice declines have that leaked.

Apparently Trump claimed in his speech last night he was going to build an iron dome over the US. It never ceases to amaze me how stupid and gullible most of his followers are.

Agreed. Most people were not responding to Biden's "save Democracy" apocalyptic messaging. I think the reality is, too many people still see what's going on as politics as usual, and they won't believe it until they see it. Which, of course, is too late, but not if you don't believe it'll really happen. This is a more generic/hopeful way of making the same point.

I'm on record saying the VP choice doesn't matter and I think that's true, but I am liking Walz more the more I hear him speak. He's really quick and I love the way he's making the far-right into clowns rather than super villains.

100%.

One of the best defenses against Trump-style bullies is just to laugh at them.

And Walz has that gift better than any of the other contenders.

Like, Pete is a great attack dog, but it is always so serious.

Walz is just like "These guys are fuckin weird" and it comes off so natural.

double dola:

Not the worst 1-2-3 punch honestly

Biden: This is about saving democracy
Kamala: This is about moving forward and individual freedom and jobs
Walz: What a bunch of fuckin weirdos on the other side, amirite?

And the other side will replay:

Trump: I hire the best people!
Vance: That Davenport has some really nice curves.

I think you ignore what Trump is aiming to do with a 2nd presidency. He surrounded himself with establishment figures that weren't going to let him go full Trump last time. He had to in order to get acceptance from what was the core.of the party at the time. That core isn't the core anymore so the guardrails don't exist.

Take him at his word. He wants to fire 10k federal workers. He wants to eliminate the EPA and dept of education. He wants eliminate multiple government agencies and bring them under the executive branch. He tried to take over the FBI at the of his last term and the only thing that prevented it was he hadn't fired enough people to get his guys in place yet to support something like that. His VP wrote the foreward for the upcoming book by the guy that wrote playbook to create an authoritarian regime.

When did Clinton, Bush, Obama, or Biden openly discuss an authoritarian takeover of the executive branch? These aren't Fox News fears being pushed on voters. These are the things Trump is saying and doing.

I've said something similar before, probably several times, but I have been pleasantly surprised how little dirt the media can pin onto Harris, and the only clickbait they can come up with in that regard is how racist the GOP are treating her, while Trump's age and confusion have stayed a hot topic that dems no longer have to share in any way.

Likewise, while the prospect of siphoning votes from two octogenarians seemed like a legit fear, I feel like Harris has probably put a damper on anyone seeking change or relative youth, and as such Kennedy has suddenly become a bigger problem for Republicans than Democrats.

I have heard her called the border czar a million times and also the DEI hire, but that one has stopped pretty quickly, I guess it wasn't getting the traction they were hoping for.

Also with the "I don't know anything about Project 2025" that Trump always says, isn't his top advisor the main guy on the project? Doesn't anybody ask him if he's heard of this guy? That's something Biden couldn't do, call him out on the lies, because he wasn't fast enough to keep up with him.

Yes, someone - Harris, the media, anyone - needs to straight-up connect P25 to all of the people who are currently and have in the past been directly involved in his administration or campaigns. He can lie about it because no one calls him on it. It's just on to the next subject/lie.

JD Vance wrote the foreward for the Project 2025 guy's upcoming book. No one is buying the denials. The links to the heritage foundation are throughout his circle and the heritage foundation has been involved in GOP policy since the Reagan administration. Trump has just given them the confidence to be open about what they really want.

On Fox today Trump said he knows nothing about Project 2025 and that some of it are good ideas.

Well I didn't know why you all kept talking about couches and I now wish I hadn't found out.

I toldly believe he has no idea what's in P25, because Trump doesn't read anything. He won't directly being doing any of it anyway, it will be his Heritage Foundation approved Chief of Staff that will be while he plays golf.

No Melania, I've never met the prostitute sitting on top of me.

The biggest knock on her is that she let the banks skate when she was DA but was tough on poorer kids. But I don't think Republicans are going to base a campaign around her not being tough enough on their friends, so she'll probably get a pass on that.

Yeah your campaign isn't going well when denials of your VP having sex with a couch is what's trending online.

1998: I did not have sexual relations with that woman

2024: I did not have sexual relations with that couch

— Jeff Timmer (@jefftimmer) July 25, 2024

I guess they can talk about his "childless women" talk which seems to have drawn the ire of even conservative women. They had to think Biden was staying in and this would be a cakewalk. Vance is such a bad VP choice with so many skeletons in his closet.

Wait till his chats with his teenage interns makes the rounds.

Some of the headlines today are awesome.








As I bloviated above, Trump's been saying this type of shit the whole time, but I think it's only now making headlines because 'old men in a horserace' is off the table...or maybe they're just trying to pump up Kamala's polling until horserace becomes the primary narrative again.

The way Project 2025 is talked about here you'd think it was some top-secret memo about them launching simultaneous nuclear strikes on Korea, Iran, China, and Russia, while broadcasting the torture of democrats for sport. Most of it, including eliminating beauracratic jobs, the Department of Education and the DEA, has openly been a goal of conservatives for several decades. Trump was talking about eliminating the 'Department of Environmental' in previous campaigns along with other agencies.