This might surprise you but, Biden cannot *make* @ GSA Emily release the transition funds outside of a court order, and the law itself seems to give her significant leeway to decide this.
In this instance, "aggressively condemning" would get you... nothing?
Do I think more could be done to try to force the ascertainment via public pressure from House Dems and/or the Biden campaign? Sure. Do I think that would suddenly make money appear for the transition by @ GSA Emily seeingthe light? No. Also... no one is making you give?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Donating to @AlyseGalvin and @WilliamsForMT might be the most important political donations you give this year. And if you can’t donate, phone and text bank. I’ll explain the insanity of contingent elections below.
Before we get started I want to stress that our constitution is deeply stupid and antiquated and some of these ideas never should’ve passed the smell test to begin with. Yet here we are.
If no candidate receives a majority of the vote in the electoral college, the top 3 electoral college vote getters then go to a “contingent election” where the House decides the election. Weird, but simple, right? Lol no
When Obama asked RBG if she would step down -- in 2013 -- Democrats controlled the Senate. When Merrick Garland was nominated -- 2016 -- Republicans controlled the Senate. You can google this, it's free.
Whether or not you think that RBG should have stepped down (she should've and same with Breyer), we don't need to re-write history in order to validate our priors and protect our heroes. People are human. They make mistakes. We move on, there's nothing we can do about it now.
I’m struggling to understand the plan here. Nominate a far-right anti-abortion judge with little cross over appeal and then assume that Democrats will... attack her faith? So that people, who mostly won’t be watching the hearings, forget about the... pandemic they’re living with?
I’m admittedly partisan so I have my biases, but you have to wear a mask everywhere you go. Job loss isn’t something you forget when you turn on the TV and watch the hearings (even “only” 20 mil watched Ford’s testimony for Kavanaugh, there’s no guarantee that’ll happen here)
I also fully cannot believe they’re not nominating Lagoa??????? Like, own the libs I guess but Lagoa would have been an infinitely smarter choice electorally! And less of a chance for a future court expansion.
While the plan seems to be: hope it’s a close election and try to invalidate as many ballots as possible (as of now, a potential, though no means most likely, outcome) the flip side is that there’s a lot of poli sci research that says talking like this only demotivates voters.
This is all coming from a good place but I cannot overstate how unhelpful this rhetoric is towards encouraging people to vote.
This isn’t what Chris and other liberal pundits are doing. They’re presenting a potential scenario as likely and then implying that it will hand Trump the White House again. It’s not preparing people, it makes people feel as if voting is useless.
There aren't a lot of countries that use First Past the Post for their legislative elections. Canada, the US, the UK, and India are quite alone on this, with few other democracies that think this is a good way to elect a representative government.
The US and the UK are comparatively old democracies, but an issue is they haven't really modernized their methods of representative as we've developed better tools for representation. And you can see where the UK has left its impact elsewhere, to the detriment of those nations.
Anyways still waiting for @CrystalMethyd to adopt me as her drag daughter so my drag name can be Dee Haunt Methyd.
I know impeached the president would be considered privileged, but would impeaching, say, the AG force the Senate to take that up before any other business?
Twitter!
pls ignore the typo in the original tweet I haven’t had enough coffee.