The Georgia Runoff--So Big!

[Tiberius]

I'd imagine Democrats are a long shot to win either seat, but who knows. I bet the Supreme Court won't issue it's ruling killing Obamacare until after the election, though 

 

Dem leaders warn liberal rhetoric could blow Georgia races

If “we are going to run on Medicare for All, defund the police, socialized medicine, we're not going to win," says Jim Clyburn.

 

 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaks to reporters Oct. 8 on Capitol Hill. | J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

By HEATHER CAYGLE and SARAH FERRIS

11/05/2020 03:57 PM EST

Updated: 11/05/2020 05:06 PM EST

•  
•  
•  
•  

Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her top lieutenants had a stark warning for Democrats on Thursday: Swing too far left and they’re all but certain to blow their chances in the Georgia runoff that will determine which party controls the Senate.

Congressional Democrats are collectively pinning their hopes on a pair of Senate races in January in one of the most competitive states in the nation — an outcome that could determine whether Democrats hold all levers of power in Washington next year, despite a disappointing night on Tuesday. While Joe Biden is looking likely to win the presidency, Democrats were shut out of key Senate races, dashing their hopes of reclaiming control of the chamber, and lost ground in the House despite being expected to significantly expand their majority.

 

When the next Congress convenes in January, Republicans look favored to carry a narrow majority into the Georgia runoff, with undeclared races in Alaska and North Carolina leaning in their favor. But if Democrats were able to win both Georgia Senate seats — a long shot, to say the least — they would secure control of the chamber with a Biden White House as the tie-breaker.

 

 

If “we are going to run on Medicare for All, defund the police, socialized medicine, we're not going to win," House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) warned on the caucus call, according to three people listening.

The Democrats' warning comes as lawmakers try to assign blame over their election night losses, with progressives' ambitions beginning to emerge as a top target that could hinder left-leaning policies from advancing in the House.

Pelosi also had her own message to House Democrats, telling them to focus on an "agenda of lowering health care, better paychecks, building infrastructure.” While she didn’t explicitly say it, those ideas are more likely to be appealing to moderate Georgia voters who will decide the fate of the Senate in January.

The next two months leading up to the Jan. 5 runoff will be “fraught with meaning” Pelosi added.

“This has been a life or death fight for the very fate of our democracy. We did not win every battle, but we did win the war,” Pelosi said on the call. “We held the House. Joe Biden is on a clear path to be the next president of the United States.”

In the hotly contested Georgia races, GOP Sen. David Perdue is expected to face off against Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff and GOP Sen. Kelly Loeffler will take on Democratic candidate Raphael Warnock.

Democrats and Republicans in Congress will likely spend those two months battling over a massive coronavirus stimulus package — which has already divided both parties for months — as well as the presidential transition and a potentially seismic Supreme Court decision on the fate of Obamacare.

 

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/05/house-democrats-warn-caucus-left-434428

[BullBuchanan]

so run on pro-life and christian-sharia law with mandatory church in schools and then turn around and mother ***** them.

[aristocrat]

Republicans need to keep the seats to keep government in check

[ALF]

David Perdue Republican Party		49.7%	2,457,381
Jon Ossoff Democratic Party		47.9%	2,368,273
Shane Hazel Libertarian Party		2.3%	114,703

 

 

The Libertarian cost Perdue the needed 50% to win

 

The other Senate race had the Democrat candidate with the lead

 

Raphael Warnock (Dem) - runoff

32.9%

1,613,116

 

 

Kelly Loeffler (GOP) ● - runoff

25.9%

1,270,533

[Tiberius]

Quote

 

Obamacare is back before the Supreme Court on Tuesday, with opponents challenging it for a third time. The first attempts to derail the law failed in the high court by votes of 5-to-4 and 6-to-3. But the makeup of the court is very different now, with three justices appointed by President Trump – among them new Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

Before her nomination, Barrett consistently criticized the court's two previous decisions, a critique that Senate Democrats repeatedly bludgeoned her with at her confirmation hearings.

But the ACA has remained in place for a decade, and the legal landscape has changed so much over that time that many of those who originally took issue with the law in the Supreme Court think this challenge is a stretch. In fact, most of the groups that fought the ACA after it was enacted in 2010 are missing in action from Tuesday's case.

 

 

I'm guessing they wait until after the election to kill healthcare. 

 

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/10/932441334/will-supreme-court-invalidate-obamacare-a-decade-after-it-was-enacted

[Artful Dodger]

4 hours ago, ALF said:

The other Senate race had the Democrat candidate with the lead

 

Raphael Warnock (Dem) - runoff

32.9%

1,613,116

 

 

Kelly Loeffler (GOP) ● - runoff

25.9%

1,270,533

 

The top two Republicans had around 45% of the vote.  Below the presidential level, there was a lot of unexpected Republican strength probably to counteract the perceived nuttiness of the left wing of the Democratic Party, so this it will be an uphill battle for the Democrats to win both Senate seats.  Even if they do, it will be 50/50, and conservative Democratic Senators like Joe Manchin in West Virginia might break away from the party on some of their more controversial ideas such as packing the courts or eliminating the filibuster.

[RiotAct]

My entire life hinges on this runoff!!!

[All_Pro_Bills]

Its doubtful the Supreme Court will rule to eliminate the ACA.  It's too broad a ruling and rumblings from the court suggest any challenge would be rejected.  The potential to eliminate the ACA was a scare tactic used in the campaign.  I guess it worked.   

[Niagara Bill]

Anyone who knows anything about quality systems is that counting and sorting of anything by hand is only 80% accurate, so Georgia is going to verify a machine count with a system that is only 80 accurate! 

But then again the trumps are only interested in the answer they want not the right answer.

[daz28]

4 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Its doubtful the Supreme Court will rule to eliminate the ACA.  It's too broad a ruling and rumblings from the court suggest any challenge would be rejected.  The potential to eliminate the ACA was a scare tactic used in the campaign.  I guess it worked.   

It appears Kavanaugh is going to be the sensible one.  Barrett might be wise to follow his lead.  

[Tiberius]

 

Quote

 

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) would repeal the Affordable Care Act and is against abortion. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) both voted to save the ACA and (despite some votes to confirm conservative Supreme Court justices) are for abortion rights. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) is probably to the right of all of them on most issues. Only Romney had the nerve to vote to remove President Trump during the Senate impeachment trial....

 

They are, therefore, in a unique position to steer us through the next couple of years. Even if Republicans win both runoff elections in Georgia, the Senate would be 52-48, meaning that if the majority loses more than one vote on any issue, it would lose its majority and its ability to set the rules and control the floor. Reality-based Republicans are not going to become Democrats, but they could condition their caucusing with the Republicans. They have a lot of leverage.

What might those conditions be? To start: An up-or-down vote on Biden’s Cabinet nominees within a couple of weeks; a promise not to filibuster a bipartisan stimulus bill (whatever it may be); a halt to loony investigations of the Biden family or Hillary Clinton; an agreement to allow an up-or-down vote on reactivating preclearance in the Voting Rights Act with an updated formula (as the Supreme Court provided in Shelby County v. Holder); a promise to put an infrastructure bill on the floor and go to conference if necessary; and up-or-down votes on judges (respecting the so-called blue slip process). If you think the Voting Rights Act is a “Democratic” goodie, remember the law’s last three amendments (1982, 1992 and 2006) passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and were each signed by Republican presidents.

That this would seem controversial — a betrayal even — illustrates the level of bad faith rampant on the GOP side. But it is for that very reason that these senators and others so inclined need to step up. They would not be giving up anything on policy; they would still control the majority. They would simply insist on a modicum of comity, a concern about the sanctity of voting and a willingness to debate (not agree upon) a few major issues on which there is possible agreement.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/11/13/imagine-if-republicans-couldnt-lie/

[Tiberius]

Well this doesn’t look good for Purdue 

 

https://apnews.com/article/senator-david-perdue-georgia-stocks-198e39c67f90e25bb6b2398bd32c1363

 

Profiting off the pandemic 

[Doc Brown]

On 11/11/2020 at 5:18 PM, All_Pro_Bills said:

Its doubtful the Supreme Court will rule to eliminate the ACA.  It's too broad a ruling and rumblings from the court suggest any challenge would be rejected.  The potential to eliminate the ACA was a scare tactic used in the campaign.  I guess it worked.   

The Dems are going to need people to vote who aren't in their base to have any chance to win the Senate seats in Georgia.  They should be vigoriously pushing the public option the next month and a half or so.

[Warcodered]

 

[Tiberius]

1 hour ago, Warcodered said:

 

That was great! 

[Big Blitz]

These 2 idiots don't seem to understand (or they do and they just know their followers absolutely have no clue) that the framework of this country and the role of the SCOTUS is designed to protect against the very justification she gives here as a reason for "packing the court."  

 

We are not a majority democracy.  Popular plus one votes do not dictate anything at any level in the checks and balances system that exists.....at every level of government.

 

The majority of Americans didn't seem to care that the SCOTUS said you can't remove Natives from their lands in the SE U.S.  Democrat Andrew Jackson said "don't care."  Same when another Democrat president "relocated" Japanese Americans during WWII.  But that time SCOTUS sided with FDR. 

 

7 Justices said segregation was just fine.   

 

This idea that these people rule us from behind a bench or that they are the final arbiters of anything is also false.  The American people can ignore whatever they decide and by extension the authorities entrusted to enforce the law.  If they know popular opinon supports their actions.   

 

We don't rely on popular opinion.  The Courts rely on the Constitution.  The American people that don't understand that (which includes these 2 clowns) should relocate themselves straight to China where they can fit right in. 

 

Lol this "broken system" is code for "when Americans don't agree with Statist Democrats.

 

And by "values of the American people" she means the values of the Statists.  And planned parenthood.  

  

 

 

Maybe RBG should have retired in 2015.  I'm sure they tried to convince her to.  I guess they all just assumed the demographics were forever in their favor.  Nope.  2020 showed them otherwise.  This was always why Trump was the biggest threat to them.  They knew he was going to absolutely destroy identity politics as they played it.  Which is "you are a minority, and the GOP hates and oppresses you."   

 

Its why they doubled down on the 24/7 rage against the orange man and decided to heck with just bias we're just going to lie about everything.  And oh yes, protect Ds at all costs.   

Edited November 28, 2020 by Big Blitz

[Warcodered]

32 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

These 2 idiots don't seem to understand (or they do and they just know their followers absolutely have no clue) that the framework of this country and the role of the SCOTUS is designed to protect against the very justification she gives here as a reason for "packing the court."  

 

We are not a majority democracy.  Popular plus one votes do not dictate anything at any level in the checks and balances system that exists.....at every level of government.

 

The majority of Americans didn't seem to care that the SCOTUS said you can't remove Natives from their lands in the SE U.S.  Democrat Andrew Jackson said "don't care."  Same when another Democrat president "relocated" Japanese Americans during WWII.  But that time SCOTUS sided with FDR. 

 

7 Justices said segregation was just fine.   

 

This idea that these people rule us from behind a bench or that they are the final arbiters of anything is also false.  The American people can ignore whatever they decide and by extension the authorities entrusted to enforce the law.  If they know popular opinon supports their actions.   

 

We don't rely on popular opinion.  The Courts rely on the Constitution.  The American people that don't understand that (which includes these 2 clowns) should relocate themselves straight to China where they can fit right in. 

 

Lol this "broken system" is code for "when Americans don't agree with Statist Democrats.

 

And by "values of the American people" she means the values of the Statists.  And planned parenthood.  

  

 

 

Maybe RBG should have retired in 2015.  I'm sure they tried to convince her to.  I guess they all just assumed the demographics were forever in their favor.  Nope.  2020 showed them otherwise.  This was always why Trump was the biggest threat to them.  They knew he was going to absolutely destroy identity politics as they played it.  Which is "you are a minority, and the GOP hates and oppresses you."   

 

Its why they doubled down on the 24/7 rage against the orange man and decided to heck with just bias we're just going to lie about everything.  And oh yes, protect Ds at all costs.   

So I've been looking this trying to figure out what your trying to say my conclusion.

[Big Blitz]

13 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

So I've been looking this trying to figure out what your trying to say my conclusion.

 

 

I didn't expect anything less from several people here.   

 

I couldn't have posted a better illustration of their thought process with all things that don't include spending other people's money.  

 

[Warcodered]

2 minutes ago, Big Blitz said:

 

 

I didn't expect anything less from several people here.   

 

I couldn't have posted a better illustration of their thought process with all things that don't include spending other people's money.  

 

Really because you seem all over the place first your saying they shouldn't pack the court because it's somehow against our constitutions checks and balances which is fairly ironic sense Congress and the Presidents ability to expand the court is literally one of those checks. Then you go on to seemingly imply that the court isn't all that powerful by citing an instance where it was ignored and then two others where the opposite happened which especially considering the whole Plessy v Ferguson one you apparently decided to cite despite the fact that it and the later Brown v Board of Education is an exact example of why you're wrong. Then you decide to pretend like Mitch McConnel would of actually let Obama appoint a judge in 2015.

 

So in general you're all over the place and not making any damn sense.

[Tiberius]

9 hours ago, Big Blitz said:

These 2 idiots don't seem to understand (or they do and they just know their followers absolutely have no clue) that the framework of this country and the role of the SCOTUS is designed to protect against the very justification she gives here as a reason for "packing the court."  

 

We are not a majority democracy.  Popular plus one votes do not dictate anything at any level in the checks and balances system that exists.....at every level of government.

 

The majority of Americans didn't seem to care that the SCOTUS said you can't remove Natives from their lands in the SE U.S.  Democrat Andrew Jackson said "don't care."  Same when another Democrat president "relocated" Japanese Americans during WWII.  But that time SCOTUS sided with FDR. 

 

7 Justices said segregation was just fine.   

 

This idea that these people rule us from behind a bench or that they are the final arbiters of anything is also false.  The American people can ignore whatever they decide and by extension the authorities entrusted to enforce the law.  If they know popular opinon supports their actions.   

 

We don't rely on popular opinion.  The Courts rely on the Constitution.  The American people that don't understand that (which includes these 2 clowns) should relocate themselves straight to China where they can fit right in. 

 

Lol this "broken system" is code for "when Americans don't agree with Statist Democrats.

 

And by "values of the American people" she means the values of the Statists.  And planned parenthood.  

  

 

 

Maybe RBG should have retired in 2015.  I'm sure they tried to convince her to.  I guess they all just assumed the demographics were forever in their favor.  Nope.  2020 showed them otherwise.  This was always why Trump was the biggest threat to them.  They knew he was going to absolutely destroy identity politics as they played it.  Which is "you are a minority, and the GOP hates and oppresses you."   

 

Its why they doubled down on the 24/7 rage against the orange man and decided to heck with just bias we're just going to lie about everything.  And oh yes, protect Ds at all costs.   

How hard will you cry when DC statehood gets passed?