Options
It looks like the Roe v Wade decision is helping the Democrats – politicalbetting.com
It looks like the Roe v Wade decision is helping the Democrats – politicalbetting.com
The above polling table from Fivethirtyeight features the most recent generic voting intentions for the November midterm elections in the US and gives an initial indication of how the Supreme Court’s decision of Rowe v Wade is impacting on voters.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Former England captain Michael Vaughan has said he is stepping back from his work at the BBC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/61975267
https://twitter.com/MichaelVaughan/status/1541875228246155267
Roe v Wade and now this explosive testimony are going to make life very uncomfortable in the more battle ground states .
The Dems will force their GOP opponents to make their position clear on abortion and whether they support Trump .
Should we award Putin a cheap Mercedes and some steak knifes as NATO salesman of the year?
Mid terms seem to be a quasi-metronomic reaction against whoever is in the White House at the time, but people will be seeing the conservatives dominated Supreme Court exercising its power and suddenly the GOP don’t seem so much like the opposition. There is incumbency to vote against on both sides.
Don’t get me wrong, I have no love of Vaughn. Quite happy if he never commentates on TMS again, but I think due process ought to be respected.
After all, it's a heavily-armed rogue-adjacent state.
Much harder to do when it's the US of A.
Given he and I both lived in or near it for decades, that's understandable.
Your obsession with it because your grandmother spent her later years in Highfields is rather less so.
Is it just because you know, in your heart of hearts, you made a bad bargain swapping the delights and beauties of Newent for London?
*That may be an unnecessary qualification!
(In any case, you're wrong. There are almost never council elections in Newent, let alone by-elections, because there is so seldom more than one candidate!)
There seems little point trying not to upset Trump supporters when their man is a fraudulent traitor.
Try him - and his accomplices - for treason, and quickly; he needs taking out of circulation.
I see Ginni Thompson is wrapped up in this somehow too. With some effort, there is probably some crime Clarence can be found guilty of too so he be removed from his duties, and a vacancy opened up on the Supreme Court.
For one thing, still lacking straight before vs after comparison by same pollster with similar samples.
BUT color me guardedly optimistic.
Think real deal will likely be (my guess in descending order of importance):
> impact on voting intentions of suburban swing voters, esp. pro-choice moderate-conservative women?
> impact on voter turnout of younger, pro-choice voters, esp. younger women?
> impact on voter turnout of anti-abortion, mainly religious conservatives who are infrequent voters?
> impact on voting intentions of religious conservatives who have been having doubts (wonder why) about 45 & etc., but who both favor SCOTUS overturning RvW AND want to hold the line against potential pro-choice mid-term backlash
Since failed treason trials versus Aaron Burr (who'd been Thomas Jefferson's 1st VP) simply too much of a hurdle AND too hot to handle.
Other citations from federal statues much different matter.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/28/us/supreme-court-louisiana-voting-map.html
Thomas was the only justice to rule against releasing the communications.
E-Mails from his wife were in the info released.
That he did not recuse himself is appalling but utterly unsurprising.
https://twitter.com/Reuters/status/1541882881177522179?t=ZyeONLaMgaoLO4kzkhiP8Q&s=19
They might not - or probably won't go - for the whole Roe v. Wade scope of it. But the first trimester, Plan B or 10-11 week at home option is a different matter. They're not all that concerned if a tiny collection of cells has a soul or whatever.
We get the following result:
Labour - 283
Con - 275
SNP - 48
Lib Dems - 20
What does Starmer do? What does Sturgeon do?
Last referendum poll was 50:50 (Ipsos Scottish Political Monitor)
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2022-05/ipsos-scottish-political-monitor-may-2022-charts.pdf
Last Westminster poll was:
Ipsos/STV News
23-29 May 2022
1,000
(This is the only Scottish survey by Ipsos since the 2019 GE, so comparison is with that GE)
SNP 44% (-1)
Lab 23% (+4%)
Con 19% (-6%)
LD 10% (nc)
Grn 3% (+2)
oth 2% (+1)
Last Holyrood poll:
YouGov / The Times
Sample Size: 1,115
Fieldwork: 18-23 May 2022
(+/- change from 18-22 November 2021)
Holyrood voting intention - FPTP constituency vote
SNP 47% (-1)
Lab 23% (+4)
Con 18% (-3)
LD 7% (nc)
Grn 2% (nc)
oth 3% (nc)
Holyrood voting intention - List vote
SNP 39% (+1)
Lab 21% (+2)
Con 18% (-1)
Grn 10% (-1)
LD 8% (+1)
Alba 2% (+1)
Ref 1% (-1)
All for Unity 0 (-1)
UKIP 0 (-1)
oth 1% (nc)
Utter hyperbolic hysterical garbage: absolutely premium, top-end PB attention-seeking crap at its very worst.
No reasons given.
Still there.
Might not be for much longer...
Once again, and for the hard of hearing:
NOT. GOING. TO. HAPPEN.
What should ideally have happened is a deal struck behind close doors, with trump agreeing to step away from politics entirely in return for clemency. He’s already an old man, I want American democracy to outlive him but the way this is going that’s no longer a guarantee.
Although, to be fair to Trump, he has realised the danger in last 48 hours.
The US seems to be in a deep political crisis and a very unhappy and divided country with no end in sight sadly
The Turks don’t expect any, either. That bit is performative theatre. Expect diplomatic histrionics from Turkey *after* accession - “But you pwommised all the Kurds!!!”.
Who knows what will happen, but it has shaken the whole thing up imho.
Any yes lead would suggest a surge at the reality of a possible vote and would lead me to suspect yes might be favourite.
Mainstream Republican politicians can't condemn Trump, becuase they rightly fear the mob's reaction. Riding a tiger is great until you want to dismount.
That is an utterly idiotic statement that you should be ashamed of.
IF you have the votes. Which most of the time you will not, for whatever reason.
Ashamed? Give over.
Giving someone a pass because of the trouble they would cause if you don't is what you do with former dictators, not presidents. He wasn't the former, so why go easy on him like one.
The length any legal action would take he isn't facing conviction for anything this side of 2024 anyway.
Frankly I'm still astonished he did nothing illegal in that phone call with the Georgia Secretary of State trying to get him to find more votes.
Especially coming from a country where one constituent component has announced a referendum of secession scheduled for next year.
*My 7 (then) year old daughters joke.
People think political nerds are boring old farts as it is, nevermind if everyone remained utterly calm and rational in their predictions all the time.
Again, the country nearest to “breaking apart” is actually the UK, so far as I can see.
It's a twist on that saying., A centrist is a conservative who's just knocked up his girlfriend.
He is a disgrace to the court.
There is a massive difference between this one claim (and a couple of dodgy tweets) from years ago, and Gary Ballance consistent racist bullying of an individual.
I presume there is some block on prison inmates sitting on the Supreme Court…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_impeachment_investigations_of_United_States_federal_judges
"On January 5, 1804, a resolution was introduced appointing a select committee to investigate U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel Chase.
The resolution was approved on January 7, 1804. The select committee recommended impeachment in a report submitted to the House on March 6, 1804. On March 13, 1804, the report was approved and a select committee was appointed to draft the impeachment articles.
The House adopted the select committee's eight articles on March 26, 1804, one of which involved Chase's handling of the trial of John Fries. Two more focused on his conduct in the political libel trial of James Callender. Four articles focused on procedural errors made during Chase's adjudication of various matters, and an eighth was directed to his "intemperate and inflammatory (…) peculiarly indecent and unbecoming (…) highly unwarrantable (…) highly indecent" remarks while "charging" or authorizing a Baltimore grand jury. The Democratic-Republican-controlled United States Senate began the impeachment trial of Chase in early 1805, with Vice President Aaron Burr presiding.
All the counts involved Chase's work as a trial judge in lower circuit courts. In that era, Supreme Court justices had the added duty of serving as individuals on circuit courts, a practice that was ended in the late 19th century. The heart of the allegations was that political bias had led Chase to treat defendants and their counsel in a blatantly unfair manner. Chase's defense lawyers called the prosecution a political effort by his Democratic-Republican enemies. In answer to the articles of impeachment, Chase argued that all of his actions had been motivated by adherence to precedent, judicial duty to restrain advocates from improper statements of law, and considerations of judicial efficiency.
The Senate voted to acquit Chase of all charges on March 1, 1805. He returned to his duties on the court. He is the only U.S. Supreme Court Justice to have been impeached.
The acquittal of Chase – by lopsided margins on several of the counts – is believed to have helped ensure that an independent federal judiciary would survive partisan challenge. As Chief Justice William Rehnquist noted in his book, Grand Inquests, some people expressed opinions at the time of Chase's trial that the Senate had absolute latitude in convicting a jurist it found unfit, but the acquittal set an unofficial precedent that judges would not be impeached based on their performance on the bench. All judges impeached since Chase have been accused of outright criminality."
Sure, there may be a voice of reason out there who finds a centre ground to remind everyone of their shared values. But who is that person? And do most Americans now feel they actually share values with the other side?
I hope it all calms down. But it's sliding towards the precipice. As I posted the other day, whenever a country collapses into division or totalitarian, voices always Sao "how did we get here" despite all the warning signs.
January 6th was a big step on their slide. Abolishing Roe another huge step. And the people sliding are demanding more steps. Not an arrest of their slide.
Do we have anything like that in this country?
Go ahead.
If Partygate had gone away, he'd survived the confidence vote and the party had moved on then yes he would be fine and I would have been wrong. But what about recent events makes some believe he is rock solid safe? Very very few people in his own team or the cabinet think that - so what do some people here know that they don't?
Sure, I dress some events up in vivid language. So what? Doesn't make my instincts wrong.
What exactly is the testimony re Trump?
CBA to read it all.
Summary?
Been to Kurdistan?
Been to Northern Ireland?
How the fuck do you "send the Northern Irish back to the UK?"
Could be wrong here, but think this may be (partial) explanation.