WJ
Non-Aligned
Posts: 3,136
|
Post by WJ on Apr 6, 2024 0:15:48 GMT
If we make an assumption (moderately safe) that there are only 6 states in play in November (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisonsin) there are 9 paths to the presidency for Biden and 12 for Trump, with one tie. If Biden loses PA he can only afford to also lose one of either NV, AZ or WI.
The tie would be a very unlikely combination (Biden gets AZ, GA, NV, WI; Trump gets MI, PA).
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoyle on Apr 6, 2024 13:57:42 GMT
While it's good to see that the movement is towards Biden, these are still RV polls, and so should be taken with a whole lot of salt. I am feeling more confident that when the switch to LV polling happens, Biden will have a decent lead in the electoral college. And of course pundits will say that there's been a surge to the Dems, even though all that has happened is the normal methodology change...
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Apr 8, 2024 19:09:19 GMT
So Trump has declined to back any sort of federal abortion ban and said that it should all be left to the states
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Apr 8, 2024 19:37:12 GMT
So Trump has declined to back any sort of federal abortion ban and said that it should all be left to the states
A thoroughly commendable position.
|
|
|
Post by edgbaston on Apr 8, 2024 19:45:18 GMT
So Trump has declined to back any sort of federal abortion ban and said that it should all be left to the states
A thoroughly commendable position. Until you consider the fact that half of these republican state legislators are batsh*t crazy.
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 13,722
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Apr 8, 2024 20:29:27 GMT
A thoroughly commendable position. Until you consider the fact that half of these republican state legislators are batsh*t crazy. Well, they're put there by the voters.
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Apr 8, 2024 20:34:07 GMT
A thoroughly commendable position. Until you consider the fact that half of these republican state legislators are batsh*t crazy. The sound notion of powers being reserved for the states is not contingent of the voters in various states electing legislators who are both sane and competent.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,823
|
Post by iain on Apr 9, 2024 19:39:47 GMT
The Arizona Supreme Court has just revived a 160 year old (from before Arizona was even a state) abortion ban, including in cases of rape and incest.
I think it’s fair to say that this will not help Republicans in the state.
|
|
|
Post by jamesdoyle on Apr 9, 2024 19:52:13 GMT
So Trump has declined to back any sort of federal abortion ban and said that it should all be left to the states
And if you want to see the actual transcript of his word salad - sorry, statement - here it is: www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Items/Apr09-1.htmlThere really is no comparison with Biden when it comes to mental acuity.
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Apr 9, 2024 20:05:48 GMT
The idea that abortion law should be left at the state level is the best that the USA has come up with since Roe v Wade, which has proved catastrophic and divisive to the USA. Trump is assuredly simultaneously clumsy and unprincipled but this is not him any where near his worst
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,129
|
Post by maxque on Apr 9, 2024 22:06:33 GMT
The idea that abortion law should be left at the state level is the best that the USA has come up with since Roe v Wade, which has proved catastrophic and divisive to the USA. Trump is assuredly simultaneously clumsy and unprincipled but this is not him any where near his worst It is, because it gives credence to "originalism", which is just Conservatives inventing jurisprudence.
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on Apr 10, 2024 12:35:16 GMT
Nebraskans will have the opportunity to vote for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as an Independent Candidate for President, as his campaign announced the collection of the necessary 2,500 signatures for qualification on the state’s 2024 November general election ballot.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Apr 11, 2024 5:38:23 GMT
Inflation back up, which is a challenge for Biden.
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on Apr 11, 2024 8:51:47 GMT
Independent presidential contender Cornel West announced Melina Abdullah as his 2024 running mate Wednesday, rounding out his left-wing ticket for the White House.
|
|
|
Post by riccimarsh on Apr 11, 2024 21:42:56 GMT
The Arizona Supreme Court has just revived a 160 year old (from before Arizona was even a state) abortion ban, including in cases of rape and incest. I think it’s fair to say that this will not help Republicans in the state. Even Kari Lake has come out against this opinion.
|
|
|
Post by riccimarsh on Apr 11, 2024 21:54:57 GMT
The concept of leaving abortion up to the States is not one I agree with, but it could be workable. However, I suspect that as soon as California permit abortion up to, say, 35 weeks, as would be their right, pro-life folk would be less happy with “State’s rights”. When I hear Republicans talk about leaving it up to the States, what I really hear is “let’s have a 15-week ban nationwide, but individual States can be even more restrictive if they want”. That would not be be leaving it up to the States.
Likewise with restricting abortion-inducing drugs such as mifepristone. The two cases currently at SCOTUS (FDA vs. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and Danco Laboratories vs. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine) are about enforcing nationwide restrictions on these drugs. That also isn’t leaving it up to the States. Same with reviving the Comstock Act to effectively ban abortion across the US. “Leaving it up to the States” has to really mean that, otherwise it’s just disingenuous pre-election spin.
If Trump comes out and says “repeal the Comstock Act, make abortion drugs available in any State that wants them, and every State can enact whatever limits (or none) on abortion that their democratic process allows for”, then a State’s rights approach could work.
|
|
|
Post by manchesterman on Apr 11, 2024 22:09:04 GMT
The Arizona Supreme Court has just revived a 160 year old (from before Arizona was even a state) abortion ban, including in cases of rape and incest. I think it’s fair to say that this will not help Republicans in the state. Even Kari Lake has come out against this opinion. She just waits to hear what Trump's opinion is on any topic, then repeats it. so no surprise really
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Apr 11, 2024 22:24:59 GMT
The idea that abortion law should be left at the state level is the best that the USA has come up with since Roe v Wade, which has proved catastrophic and divisive to the USA. Trump is assuredly simultaneously clumsy and unprincipled but this is not him any where near his worst It is, because it gives credence to "originalism", which is just Conservatives inventing jurisprudence. The reasoning given in the Roe vs Wade ruling was somewhat bizarre. It argued that the constitution gave a right to privacy (a right that is mentioned nowhere in the constitution) and that said right to privacy entailed the right of a woman to have an abortion (which is a massive stretch or reasoning). So Roe was essentially a matter of the court making law - something which should by rights be done by the legislature.
That said, it had relatively little to do with Trump. His appointments of supreme court justices was something that was essentially forced by the wider Republican party. And it was far from guaranteed that the three Trump appointees would actually be enough to overturn Roe.
|
|
|
Post by riccimarsh on Apr 11, 2024 22:34:40 GMT
It is, because it gives credence to "originalism", which is just Conservatives inventing jurisprudence. The reasoning given in the Roe vs Wade ruling was somewhat bizarre. It argued that the constitution gave a right to privacy (a right that is mentioned nowhere in the constitution) and that said right to privacy entailed the right of a woman to have an abortion (which is a massive stretch or reasoning). So Roe was essentially a matter of the court making law - something which should by rights be done by the legislature.
That said, it had relatively little to do with Trump. His appointments of supreme court justices was something that was essentially forced by the wider Republican party. And it was far from guaranteed that the three Trump appointees would actually be enough to overturn Roe.
The 9th amendment to the US Constitution literally states that: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”. Meaning that whether or not a right is specifically mentioned (enumerated) in the Constitution is irrelevant. A right to privacy can (and I would argue should) exist without being specified in the Constitution.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Apr 11, 2024 22:44:23 GMT
The reasoning given in the Roe vs Wade ruling was somewhat bizarre. It argued that the constitution gave a right to privacy (a right that is mentioned nowhere in the constitution) and that said right to privacy entailed the right of a woman to have an abortion (which is a massive stretch or reasoning). So Roe was essentially a matter of the court making law - something which should by rights be done by the legislature.
That said, it had relatively little to do with Trump. His appointments of supreme court justices was something that was essentially forced by the wider Republican party. And it was far from guaranteed that the three Trump appointees would actually be enough to overturn Roe.
The 9th amendment to the US Constitution literally states that: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”. Meaning that whether or not a right is specifically mentioned (enumerated) in the Constitution is irrelevant. A right to privacy can (and I would argue should) exist without being specified in the Constitution. By which reasoning, the supreme court at the tie of Roe vs Wade could simply have judged that abortion was a constitutional right in and of itself. If you're going to rule that the constitution guarantees rights that it doesn't mention then you need some method of working out which of the many incompatible sets of possible rights it guarantees and which it does not. The two viable answers to that question would seem to be either some form of originalism, or that they are whatever set of rights a majority on the supreme court happen to like at the time the most recent relevant supreme court case is heard.
|
|