Jump to content
270soft Forum

State of the Race: 42 Days Left


42 Day Poll  

19 members have voted

  1. 1. See the Data in the First Post: Who do you think wins if the election were today?

  2. 2. Trump was +10 in TX at this time last year. Here is now +1 in TX. What does this probably mostly reflect?

    • That polls are way off this year.
    • That TX likes Biden way more than Clinton.
    • That TX dislikes Trump in 2020 more than they did in 2016.
    • This is larger than TX. This reflects a general growth of anti-Trump voters nationally.
  3. 3. Who Should Trump nominate to the Supreme Court? (He says he will pick someone Friday or Saturday and that they'll be a woman). Here's his presumed short-list:

    • Amy Coney Barrett - IN (She's 48, so will serve like 40 years. She's also a vocal religious conservative, somewhere between Ted Cruz and Michelle Bachmann.)
    • Barbara Lagoa - FL (She's 52. Cuban-American who could help Trump win FL. She's also very conservative, but with less of a religious emphasis. Federalist Society Member.)
    • Bridget Shelton Bade - AZ (She's 54. She was made a federal judge by Trump only last year. I'm not sure how conservative she is.)
    • Martha Pacold - IL (She's 41, so she could serve for half a century. She's a former member of the Federalist Society, but she's also probably the most moderate judge on this list. Could help win moderates for Trump.)
    • Allison Jones Rushing - NC (Only 37 years old. She'd serve for half a century. She's a current Federalist Society Member; therefore, likely very conservative).
    • Sarah Pitlyk - MO (She's 43. Could serve half a century. Former Kavanaugh clerk and Federalist Society member. The ABA voted her not qualified when Trump made her a federal judge last year.)
      0
    • Kate Todd - DC (One of Trump's Chief Counsel officers in the White House. Not much about her. Federalist Society Member. She looks like she's in her mid to early 40s.)
      0
  4. 4. Should Democrats Pack the Court if Trump gets a justice confirmed, despite the Merrick Garland precedence of 2016?

    • Yes, despite the fact that the GOP might pack the court in the future.
    • Yes, but also pass a law to prevent future court packing so GOP can't respond in kind.
    • No, but only because I don't like the precedence it will set for future court packing.
    • No, because it defies tradition and is too political.
    • Yes or No for other reason (Mention below)
      0
  5. 5. Is it a problem that Trump's short list is composed of mostly women in their 40s to early 50s (and even one in her 30s!)?

    • No. A president is smart to pick someone who is youthful enough to serve for half a century, regardless of limited experience.
    • No. These are probably the most qualified female judges for the US Supreme Court.
    • Yes, but I'm mostly bothered that he's limiting himself to women.
    • Yes, but I'm mostly bothered that he's not selecting top legal minds, who are likely to have decades of experience and are probably 65+ years old.
    • Yes, there needs to be term limits, or an age range requirement, or a retirement age, so presidents aren't picking SC justices based on their youth.
    • Yes or No for other reason (Mention below)
      0


Recommended Posts

vcczar @Reagan04 @Actinguy @Patine @Conservative Elector 2 @TheMiddlePolitical @WVProgressive @SilentLiberty @pilight @admin_270 @Hestia11 @Herbert Hoover @mlcorcoran @Leuser @upandaway @jvikings1 @Rodja @Edouard @jnewt @Nentomat @Kingthero @Sunnymentoaddict @RFK/JFKfan @Mr.Blood @Zenobiyl @Wiw @MBDemSoc @ThePotatoWalrus @Alxeu @Allyn @Cenzonico @CentristGuy @Ishan @billay @wolves @RI Democrat @lizarraba @lizphairphreak @TheLiberalKitten @MysteryKnight @avatarmushi @servo75 @Mark_W

As usual, Blue trends for Biden and Red trends for Trump. 

Biden's margin is going back up. He's also going up in GA. MI is very close to being Safe Blue. FL is very close to flipping from Lean R to Lean D. 

Trump is improving in AZ, but saw little help in the polls over the weekend and this morning. He can't really have many more bad polling days like this if he wants to be able to compete. 

Montana is very close to being added to this list. Trump is at an average +8.1 lead here. If it falls below 8, then I will add it. It's more of a battleground state than MN is right now, and it's on par to the margin in MI. 

Nate Silver now has ME-2 going for Biden. I'm not ready to make that change despite a two new polls. I'll make the flip if Biden goes 3 for 3 in these polls or if Biden improves greatly in ME overall. 

Another interesting tidbit. This time in 2016, Trump was about +10 in Texas. He's only +1 in TX for 2020. Trump was also tied with Clinton in the polls nationally at this time. Biden is up +6.8. 

NC flips from Lean R to Lean D. 

 

Categories 42 Days Left A Week Ago 100 Days Left
Gen Avg Biden 6.8 (+0.3) Biden -0.2 Biden -1.2
AZ avg Biden 4.5 (-0.3) Biden -0.5 Biden +1.6
FL avg Biden 2.1 (0) Biden -0.1 Biden -5.5
GA avg Trump 1.0 (-0.4) Trump -0.7 Trump -0.3
IA avg Trump 1.7 (-0.2) Trump -0.2 Trump +1.4
MI Avg Biden 7.7 (+0.2) Biden +0.2 Biden +0.3
MN avg Biden 9.1 (+0.3) Biden +1.6 Biden -2.0
MO avg Trump 6.8 (0) Trump +0.1 Trump +1.3
NV avg Biden 5.6 (+0.2) Biden -0.1 Biden -1.1
NH Avg Biden 6.7 (+0.1) Biden 0 Biden -0.8
NC avg Biden 1.3 (+0.2) Biden +0.5 Biden -0.8
OH avg Trump 1.4 (+0.1) Trump +0.2 Trump +3.5
PA Avg Biden 4.7 (-0.1) Biden -0.2 Biden -2.1
SC avg Trump 7.1 (0) Trump +0.1 Trump +0.5
TX avg Trump 1.0 (-0.3) Trump -0.1 Trump +1.0
WI Avg Biden 6.6 (-0.2) Biden +0.2 Biden -0.5
Trump Approval 43.2 (-0.2) 0.1 3
Trump Disapproval 52.7 (+0.1) 0.1 -3
Favorability 16.8 (-0.5) Biden +0.7 Biden +5.1
Direction of the Country -39 (0) -2.8 6.5
Generic Ballot Dem 6.0 (+0.3) Dem +1.0 Dem -2.6
Betting Markets Biden 53.4 (+0.5) Biden +0.9 Biden -7.3
Clinton vs. Trump 2016 GE Clinton 0    
Biden vs Clinton GE Polls Biden +6.8    

p2e8L.png

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You are right about IN. She was born in LA. You are wrong about where I place her ideologically. She's a religious nut! 

Amy Coney Barrett is from Indiana and it is HIGHLY disingenuous to call her somewhere between Cruz and Bachmann when she is a civil libertarian that opposes the death penalty. We have a really in

Enraged Conservatives by not wanting to look into credible allegations that immensely impeded his integrity (in fact, potentially called it into completely into question). If that was something that "

I don’t know anything about the judges in Q3 (apart from that they’re candidates to be selected by Trump which is all I need to know) so I’ve just voted for the oldest on the grounds that they’re probably going to die first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Amy Coney Barrett is from Indiana and it is HIGHLY disingenuous to call her somewhere between Cruz and Bachmann when she is a civil libertarian that opposes the death penalty.

We have a really interesting trend in this country to portray very intelligent right-wing Justices as being a lot more extreme than they actually are.

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Reagan04 said:

Amy Coney Barrett is from Indiana and it is HIGHLY disingenuous to call her somewhere between Cruz and Bachmann when she is a civil libertarian that opposes the death penalty.

We have a really interesting trend in this country to portray very intelligent right-wing Justices as being a lot more extreme than they actually are.

You are right about IN. She was born in LA. You are wrong about where I place her ideologically. She's a religious nut! 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know any of the people under consideration, so I voted strictly on your descriptions.  A moderate may be the best we can hope for in this scenario.

That said, I think Republicans would be insane to nominate and confirm someone before the election.  Not just because of 2016 -- but because the Supreme Court being in play will motivate conservatives who might others be done with Trump.  If he nominates and confirms yet another Supreme Court justice before re-election, conservatives can rest assured that the Supreme Court is firmly in their pocket through Biden's single term in office and therefore re-electing Trump against their conscience is no longer such an urgent need.

Trump would have nothing more to offer them if he already gives them the Supreme Court that they want before re-election.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vcczar said:

You are right about IN. She was born in LA. You are wrong about where I place her ideologically. She's a religious nut! 

Just because Dianne Feinstein attempted to label her as one, one it does not make her. I am a Biden supporter and I cannot stand Donald Trump. But the left-wing hit attempts on conservative judges irks me to no end. From Gorsuch to Kavanaugh and invariably to Barrett, it's amazing to me that folks think that these guys are the second coming of Roy Moore.

This woman is set to be another Gorsuch, which is exactly what we need on the court. A friend of mine on twitter came up with this little satirical prediction:

"Demonrats circa 2020: Ammerd Cornbread Barnshed is going to vote with Beerman The Rapist and Gorsuck the Scalia Ghost to CHLORINE GAS people trying to vote in this country what the FUCK

Demonrats in a majority after stacking two seats on the court: omg there was an 6-5 decision to abolish the death penalty and only some Democrat appointed ones voted for it. It was largely carried by 2 Trump appointees what is this hell world !?!?!"

I look forward to President Biden and Justice Barrett.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I don't know any of the people under consideration, so I voted strictly on your descriptions.  A moderate may be the best we can hope for in this scenario.

That said, I think Republicans would be insane to nominate and confirm someone before the election.  Not just because of 2016 -- but because the Supreme Court being in play will motivate conservatives who might others be done with Trump.  If he nominates and confirms yet another Supreme Court justice before re-election, conservatives can rest assured that the Supreme Court is firmly in their pocket through Biden's single term in office and therefore re-electing Trump against their conscience is no longer such an urgent need.

Trump would have nothing more to offer them if he already gives them the Supreme Court that they want before re-election.

Correct, this is yet another reason why I am confidently supporting Biden. From where I'm sitting this is possibly the biggest win-win I can hope for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

Just because Dianne Feinstein attempted to label her as one, one it does not make her. I am a Biden supporter and I cannot stand Donald Trump. But the left-wing hit attempts on conservative judges irks me to no end. From Gorsuch to Kavanaugh and invariably to Barrett, it's amazing to me that folks think that these guys are the second coming of Roy Moore.

This woman is set to be another Gorsuch, which is exactly what we need on the court. A friend of mine on twitter came up with this little satirical prediction:

"Demonrats circa 2020: Ammerd Cornbread Barnshed is going to vote with Beerman The Rapist and Gorsuck the Scalia Ghost to CHLORINE GAS people trying to vote in this country what the FUCK

Demonrats in a majority after stacking two seats on the court: omg there was an 6-5 decision to abolish the death penalty and only some Democrat appointed ones voted for it. It was largely carried by 2 Trump appointees what is this hell world !?!?!"

I look forward to President Biden and Justice Barrett.

Gorsuch sure. I feel like Schumer used the move too early - he should've saved the filibuster ammunition for Kavanaugh. I think people were still very angry about Garland being held up, and let feelings run too hot on the issue too early in time. Gorsuch is largely in line with Scalia - if not a bit more moderate than him. 

Kavanaugh is a whole different issue, and you know that. Not going to get into it, but it's different.

This - this doesn't matter about who it is. It's about the process. Republicans have, for far too long, gotten away with playing the rules to their favor, then scolding Democrats when they try to do the same. Blowing the deficit only matters if you're a Democrat (not to mention Democrats are far better stewards of the economy - see Clinton, Bill). Using executive action only matters if you're a Democrat. Stealing court seats only matters if you're a Democrat. Round and round we go, and the GOP comes out the winner each time. Enough is enough and fair is fair. They asked for it this time. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

Gorsuch sure. I feel like Schumer used the move too early - he should've saved the filibuster ammunition for Kavanaugh. I think people were still very angry about Garland being held up, and let feelings run too hot on the issue too early in time. Gorsuch is largely in line with Scalia - if not a bit more moderate than him. 

Kavanaugh is a whole different issue, and you know that. Not going to get into it, but it's different.

This - this doesn't matter about who it is. It's about the process. Republicans have, for far too long, gotten away with playing the rules to their favor, then scolding Democrats when they try to do the same. Blowing the deficit only matters if you're a Democrat (not to mention Democrats are far better stewards of the economy - see Clinton, Bill). Using executive action only matters if you're a Democrat. Stealing court seats only matters if you're a Democrat. Round and round we go, and the GOP comes out the winner each time. Enough is enough and fair is fair. They asked for it this time. 

Gorsuch is more of a civil libertarian than Scalia. Kavanaugh is a different issue in that the Democrats really took the wrong route to demonize Kavanaugh. If they wanted to stop Kavanaugh they should have appealed to the civil libetarians in the Senate like Mike Lee and Rand Paul that expressed concern about his lack of interest in protecting the 4th amendment. Instead, they embarked on the wild goose chase which they did and polarized the country so heavily that there no longer any hope of actually stopping Kavanaugh. I suspect they never actually wanted to because they knew how moderate he was. I suspect they did it for the money. Which, good play on their part if that's what they were aiming for.

I agree with most of your second point though. I've been right there with you blasting the President on blowing the deficit and executive action. You'll get nothing but consistency there from me. It's part of the reason I'll be voting for Biden. And I get that Democrats are angry because Republicans seem infinitely better at Machiavellian politics than they are. But in reality the two people that set this cycle in motion were Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell. This was a bipartisan effort. It started with Harry Reid with the Cabinet and his evolved into Mitch McConnell with the Supreme Court.

Bottom line is that both parties' bases seem to think that their party in Washington are "the nice guys that roll over for the other side." Both parties' suffer from a distinct lack of perspective.

As I've said before and will say again, I look forward to the most likely outcome of these coming weeks and months. Justice Barrett and President Biden.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Bottom line is that both parties' bases seem to think that their party in Washington are "the nice guys that roll over for the other side." Both parties' suffer from a distinct lack of perspective.

 

The problem is that I don't think Democrats are rolling over. We're getting hit with a steamroller that we can't stop. Reid didn't do as much as McConnell did as well, and you know that. The Cabinet is largely up to the President's discretion as it is and lasts 4-8 years, whereas the Court is for a lifetime appointment. I wouldn't kid yourself either that McConnell wouldn't have done both of those actions at first possible opportunity. It's apples and oranges. 

Many Republicans say that they "roll over" when usually it's a handful of defections (like Murkowski, Collins, etc.). I don't believe that Schumer and co. roll over. They get hit with procedural warfare that they can't hope to stop. 

I also emphatically disagree with the "wild goose chase" comment but we both know that discussion won't go anywhere so I'll leave it at that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

The problem is that I don't think Democrats are rolling over. We're getting hit with a steamroller that we can't stop. Reid didn't do as much as McConnell did as well, and you know that. The Cabinet is largely up to the President's discretion as it is and lasts 4-8 years, whereas the Court is for a lifetime appointment. I wouldn't kid yourself either that McConnell wouldn't have done both of those actions at first possible opportunity. It's apples and oranges. 

Many Republicans say that they "roll over" when usually it's a handful of defections (like Murkowski, Collins, etc.). I don't believe that Schumer and co. roll over. They get hit with procedural warfare that they can't hope to stop. 

I also emphatically disagree with the "wild goose chase" comment but we both know that discussion won't go anywhere so I'll leave it at that. 

I also think Reid would have done both of those actions at first possible opportunity. There's a lot of bellyaching over Senate and House rules and procedures but the reality is that all of those things are fiat of the majority. When the American people elect a Senate Majority they elect a Senate Majority. As long as that Majority does not overstep its constitutional bounds there's really not much we can do about it.

And that's also not true, I don't know if you remember this but the GOP rolling over was quite literally the genesis of the entire Tea Party back in 2010.

And while we probably do, it's worth me saying that I still would have voted against Kavanaugh. I just get worked up when Senate Democrats try to mislabel really great justices like Gorsuch as being some extremist that they aren't. Then again, I try to have all my discussions with some sense of understanding and common ground. So I get where you're coming from and I understand how scary it could seem to have a 6-3 conservative majority, but the fundamental civil liberties and constitutional rights we all cherish aren't going anywhere. The rights of the LGBTQ community are safe in Gorsuch's hands.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

I also think Reid would have done both of those actions at first possible opportunity. There's a lot of bellyaching over Senate and House rules and procedures but the reality is that all of those things are fiat of the majority. When the American people elect a Senate Majority they elect a Senate Majority. As long as that Majority does not overstep its constitutional bounds there's really not much we can do about it.

And that's also not true, I don't know if you remember this but the GOP rolling over was quite literally the genesis of the entire Tea Party back in 2010.

And while we probably do, it's worth me saying that I still would have voted against Kavanaugh. I just get worked up when Senate Democrats try to mislabel really great justices like Gorsuch as being some extremist that they aren't. Then again, I try to have all my discussions with some sense of understanding and common ground. So I get where you're coming from and I understand how scary it could seem to have a 6-3 conservative majority, but the fundamental civil liberties and constitutional rights we all cherish aren't going anywhere. The rights of the LGBTQ community are safe in Gorsuch's hands.

What I am truly worried about is Stephen Breyer. He is what, 80? We need a Biden presidency to stop this from going to God forbid it, 7-2. Then I will be really concerned. Roe v. Wade, LGBT+ rights could be on the docket then. 

I also do think that now that we've done all this with the filibuster, why not get rid of it entirely? Why have it gone for something like the Supreme Court, but simple things like changing the speed limit on highways require 60 votes? At this point it's a little silly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hestia11 said:

What I am truly worried about is Stephen Breyer. He is what, 80? We need a Biden presidency to stop this from going to God forbid it, 7-2. Then I will be really concerned. Roe v. Wade, LGBT+ rights could be on the docket then. 

I also do think that now that we've done all this with the filibuster, why not get rid of it entirely? Why have it gone for something like the Supreme Court, but simple things like changing the speed limit on highways require 60 votes? At this point it's a little silly. 

82. Breyer is actually the only selling point FOR Trump for me. Obviously it does not at all outweight all the shit he has done and there's really not much at all that could make me leave Biden at this point. But I don't see LGBT+ rights going anywhere. As with Roe, well, we see that differently obviously. I view overturning Roe as a matter of positive Civil Rights for the unborn. Either way, Roe is a rather archaic decision and doesn't recognize the current biology surrounding life. Life at conception is as scientifically indisputable as climate change. It's time we reckon with that truth. Either way our discussion around that issue could do with a lot of updating around the human life of the unborn and the human dignity of the mother.

And yeah I get that argument. Again, I care less about Senate rules than I do constitutional mores.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

82. Breyer is actually the only selling point FOR Trump for me. Obviously it does not at all outweight all the shit he has done and there's really not much at all that could make me leave Biden at this point. But I don't see LGBT+ rights going anywhere. As with Roe, well, we see that differently obviously. I view overturning Roe as a matter of positive Civil Rights for the unborn. Either way, Roe is a rather archaic decision and doesn't recognize the current biology surrounding life. Life at conception is as scientifically indisputable as climate change. It's time we reckon with that truth. Either way our discussion around that issue could do with a lot of updating around the human life of the unborn and the human dignity of the mother.

And yeah I get that argument. Again, I care less about Senate rules than I do constitutional mores.

As a rule I don't get into abortion 😅 no one will ever change their opinions. But I disagree - whether or not it passes, LGBT+ rights will be eroded by a Conservative court. They already have been.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hestia11 said:

As a rule I don't get into abortion 😅 no one will ever change their opinions. But I disagree - whether or not it passes, LGBT+ rights will be eroded by a Conservative court. They already have been.

In what way? Are you not familiar with Bostock v. Clayton County ? It was the biggest leap forward for LGBT rights since Obergefell and it was written by Gorsuch.

I still think having a discussion on abortion is useful, the forum is not a good place for it. But discord is probably better since it allows for quicker response times. That being said, nothing beats in person, voice to voice, face to face human interaction.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Actinguy said:

That said, I think Republicans would be insane to nominate and confirm someone before the election.  Not just because of 2016 -- but because the Supreme Court being in play will motivate conservatives who might others be done with Trump.  If he nominates and confirms yet another Supreme Court justice before re-election, conservatives can rest assured that the Supreme Court is firmly in their pocket through Biden's single term in office and therefore re-electing Trump against their conscience is no longer such an urgent need.

Trump would have nothing more to offer them if he already gives them the Supreme Court that they want before re-election.

Exactly, let's nominate a justice now and let the vote take place after the election ;) 

1 hour ago, Reagan04 said:

Justice Barrett and President Biden.

The problem I see here is, as I said many times, a President Biden won't give you another Justice Barrett or Gorsuch if Breyer retires or the vote isn't taking place before January...

32 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Obviously it does not at all outweight all the shit he has done

... well we differ here completely, I am afraid. But it's not, that this isn't known already hahah

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

The problem I see here is, as I said many times, a President Biden won't give you another Justice Barrett or Gorsuch if Breyer retires or the vote isn't taking place before January...

I'll take 6-3, trust me. One Supreme Court seat is not even close to being worth the rest of Trump's disaster. I've said it before, 90% unmitigated disaster, 9% tolerable, and 1% Neil Gorsuch. I welcome ACB into that 1%.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Actinguy said:

but because the Supreme Court being in play will motivate conservatives who might others be done with Trump

This is a good point - I'm not sure which way this swings the most. A big reason to vote for Biden is to prevent the Reps from getting a 5-4 or 6-3 advantage on the SC. If a Justice is appointed before the election, that reason goes away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

This is a good point - I'm not sure which way this swings the most. A big reason to vote for Biden is to prevent the Reps from getting a 5-4 or 6-3 advantage on the SC. If a Justice is appointed before the election, that reason goes away.

I think it's likely more one-sided, though of course this is just opinion.

The people who are biting their tongue and voting for Biden even though he's not Bernie or whoever are saying "At least he's not Trump."

The people who are biting their tongue and voting for Trump even though he's not a Republican are saying "At least we'll get the Supreme Court." 

But now the Supreme Court won't realistically be in play, they already got that.  It's like if Republicans got rid of both Trump and Pence and somehow found themselves with an incumbent Moderate in the White House, it would hurt Biden's chances.  This hurts Trump, hands down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I think it's likely more one-sided, though of course this is just opinion.

The people who are biting their tongue and voting for Biden even though he's not Bernie or whoever are saying "At least he's not Trump."

The people who are biting their tongue and voting for Trump even though he's not a Republican are saying "At least we'll get the Supreme Court." 

But now the Supreme Court won't realistically be in play, they already got that.  It's like if Republicans got rid of both Trump and Pence and somehow found themselves with an incumbent Moderate in the White House, it would hurt Biden's chances.  This hurts Trump, hands down.

Yes, I'm somewhat persuaded by this - SC appointments are a big reason for continued Trump support from a significant % of conservatives.

In this case, Dems have downsides to a SC pick being appointed (lose a SC majority perhaps for a long time) or not being appointed (gives voters a reason to vote for Trump - although of course he may still not win).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One thought: with Kavanaugh, Dems overplayed their hands and enraged conservatives. Both sides have to be careful not to do so this time around. A Dem smear campaign against a nominee (which either successfully derails or not) that nominee could make conservatives put aside all scruples with Trump and vote. And the nominee might be confirmed anyway (as in Kavanaugh's case).

Another thing I am wondering is what procedural tactics Pelosi and Schumer are considering to delay any vote. FWIW, if they can delay to Nov. 30th, Kelly might replace McSally in the Senate.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...