politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Joe Biden’s VP pick – the latest betting
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Joe Biden’s VP pick – the latest betting
politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
In terms of betting, I’m going nowhere near it. Trying to read American politics is a bit like trying to read tea leaves. Although I did make a fiver on Trump.
Even my american contacts, who are centre ground, don’t have any opinions or gut feelings on this. They see them, as the late Wedgie Benn would have said, as weather vanes rather than signposts. No real distinguishing features between them.
I’m leaving well alone.
Davey has all the attraction of a second hand retread. Competent, good as a minister but he can't mention the highlight of his political ascendancy. A comprimised choice.
Moran inspires as much confidence as the average pansexual jelly fish. Just not cut out to chime with 92% of the voting public.
They need a better choice to thrive on the challenging ground between Stamer and Johnson.
The legal action is being funded by Unite. I wonder how many workers feel that's an appropriate use of their dues.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jul/21/hmrc-investigation-ladbrokes-gvc-shares-turkey
https://twitter.com/StefSimanowitz/status/1284191676991406080
It seems hard to believe that (especially if this was after Trump had lost the election) that the Democrats wouldn't filibuster this to death.
Looks like Southwark tube station has reopened. Not sure exactly when it first starting operating again. (Don't live in London, I'm a fan of the Tube network).
Changing the size of the Court has been done before.
The Democrats can't complain about the Gorsuch one to be fair when they implemented the nuclear option themselves first. That's why it was called the nuclear option, you weren't supposed to use it!
So what do you mean by "decent chance"? Greater likelihood Biden will serve TWO terms, than he will not make it through one.
The Judiciary Committe would probably arrange a name to go to the whole Senate.
Romney or Manchin would probably support a compatible nominee, e.g. one who also owns a coal mine if it comes to that.
If this plan is intended to finish after the first week of November, in a world where Biden wins, there are likely to be a few defeated Republican senators, who could join with Murkowski and Collins (who TBH would probably be on the way out herself in this scenario), to cause problems for a nominee conservative enough to make the plan worthwhile.
Before the first week of November, it is a huge gamble that Trump has not chosen another very controversial appointee who gets kicked upward at unseemly speed without political scrutiny and before the stories get off the front page. You are trusting Trump to appoint someone less controversial than the last guy. Good luck!
But a lot of this is east-of-Atlantic wishful thinking: the reality is that any July vacancy will probably be filled, and even as late as September, because any Republican who holds it up gets massacred by the party even if Biden loses.
My guess is that, if Trumpsky loses, there will NOT be 51 votes to end filibuster against confirming his nominee.
Plus methinks that RBG is a TOUGH old bird - sheer will power will keep her going long enough to frustrate Trumpsky/GOP knavish tricks.
Though arguably it DID help SCOTUS moderate its rulings. BUT that process would likely have happened anyway, as court absorbed the message of FDR's 1936 re-election landslide AND as vacancies gave the President plenty of new justices appointed by him without court enlargement.
Liberals pretty much held their fire, and kept their powder dry for another day.
Traditionally US Senate had unlimited debate. Filibusters were possible, but none actually happened until 1837. Cloture via 2/3 vote of members voting, not instituted by Senate rules until 1917, when it was created to curb anti-war senators.
In 1949 rule was changed to require 2/3 of the entire body to invoke cloture; was changed back to 2/3 of members voting in 1959. (Both these changes were in response to civil rights legislation).
After that, gets complicated. BUT I repeat, it is NOT a matter of interpretation, it is a matter of # of recorded votes yea or nay on motion of cloture.
Prime example - Earl Warren, long-serving Republican governor of CA and 1948 GOP candidate for Vice President (with Tom Dewey), appointed by Ike.
Far better for Dems to keep pointing out that another Trumpsky term would mean end of Roe v Wade. Which is VERY good argument pro-choice college-educated Republicans. And without the pitfalls of "court packing".
"Young people see covid-19 as a bigger threat than their elders do
Millennials are more pessimistic about surviving the pandemic, though they are least at risk" (£)
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2020/07/21/young-people-see-covid-19-as-a-bigger-threat-than-their-elders-do
STATES are free to impose term limits for state office, as provided - or not - in their state constitutions. Wide variety of approaches from state to state, and from one era to another.
In the 1990s, term limits for state executive office, esp. governor, were far more common than state legislative term limits. However, during 20th century the trend was for states to drop their limits on gubernatorial terms, until just one state - Virginia - limits its governor to just one. And in 1990s Republicans pushed legislative term limits as a political base builder & electoral tool in many states.
Here in WA State, term limits for Congress, Governor & other state office were proposed and enacted by initiative. However, the term limit law was challenged in cases decided by state supreme court.
> Term limits for Congress overturned on grounds state law cannot overturn US Constitutional provisions.
> Term limits for state offices overturned on grounds that limits could NOT be imposed by legislation (by the legislature or initiative) but ONLY by amending the state constitution. The court's ruling also pointed out that, in the debate over the drafting of the WA constitution in 1889, delegates had considered term limits BUT had rejected them when push came to shove - clear proof of original intent.
Note that under WA constitution, amendment to the const. must first pass both houses of legislature with 2/3 supermajority before being submitted for ratification by majority of state voters at next general election. Which in case of legislative term limits is UNLIKELY to say the least.
As for Governor, well, you'd be surprised how many legislators look into their mirrors each morning and see potential governors.
Think it may come down to a very hard choice: Kanye West or Johnny Depp?
Both would surpass Pence in electoral utility this year. AND would each lend much-needed stability to the Republican ticket.
https://www.traintrackr.co.uk/