Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Joe Biden’s VP pick – the latest betting

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited July 21 in General
imagepoliticalbetting.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).

Read the full story here

Comments

  • First first?
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 3,198
    Talking of latest betting, Layla Moran still drifting: now 2/1.
  • Obviously this is interesting because whoever he picks, assuming he wins, stands a decent chance of becoming President midway through his term.

    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.
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,263

    Talking of latest betting, Layla Moran still drifting: now 2/1.

    Not sure LibDems have the best material to select from.

    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.
  • isamisam Posts: 33,119
    philiph said:

    Talking of latest betting, Layla Moran still drifting: now 2/1.

    Not sure LibDems have the best material to select from.

    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.
    Is there fertile ground between those two? I think it is either side of them
  • philiphphiliph Posts: 4,263
    isam said:

    philiph said:

    Talking of latest betting, Layla Moran still drifting: now 2/1.

    Not sure LibDems have the best material to select from.

    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.
    Is there fertile ground between those two? I think it is either side of them
    No, it is challenging ground between them, and may be baron to the sides.

  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 3,198
    isam said:

    philiph said:

    Talking of latest betting, Layla Moran still drifting: now 2/1.

    Not sure LibDems have the best material to select from.

    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.
    Is there fertile ground between those two? I think it is either side of them
    North of them.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085
    Stay classy.

    The legal action is being funded by Unite. I wonder how many workers feel that's an appropriate use of their dues.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 3,198
    In other betting news: Ladbrokes are in a spot of bother with HMRC.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jul/21/hmrc-investigation-ladbrokes-gvc-shares-turkey
  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,538
    Nigelb said:
    Thought about this. They would need 1 of Romney, Manchin, Collins and Murkowski. Depending on the nominee, it's entirely possible that they would get 0.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085
    EPG said:

    Nigelb said:
    Thought about this. They would need 1 of Romney, Manchin, Collins and Murkowski. Depending on the nominee, it's entirely possible that they would get 0.
    Wouldn't they also need to break a Democrat filibuster?

    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.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 6,454
    edited July 21
    O/T

    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).
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 465
    Presumably if Biden wins and RBG makes it to January Merrick Garland will finally get on the bench?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 23,049

    EPG said:

    Nigelb said:
    Thought about this. They would need 1 of Romney, Manchin, Collins and Murkowski. Depending on the nominee, it's entirely possible that they would get 0.
    Wouldn't they also need to break a Democrat filibuster?

    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.
    No.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 23,049
    EPG said:

    Nigelb said:
    Thought about this. They would need 1 of Romney, Manchin, Collins and Murkowski. Depending on the nominee, it's entirely possible that they would get 0.
    Yes, it’s quite possible that they’d try and fail to appoint Trump’s nominee. That they’re even contemplating it is bad enough.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,538

    EPG said:

    Nigelb said:
    Thought about this. They would need 1 of Romney, Manchin, Collins and Murkowski. Depending on the nominee, it's entirely possible that they would get 0.
    Wouldn't they also need to break a Democrat filibuster?

    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.
    The filibuster was repealed during the appointment of Justice Gorsuch, so I think you just need a majority. A tougher obstacle than the majority vote may be the Judiciary Committee whose members might not allow a nominee to proceed to a vote if it were unseemly. Actually, the best way to circumvent that might be to appoint a serving Senator.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,538
    edited July 21
    dodrade said:

    Presumably if Biden wins and RBG makes it to January Merrick Garland will finally get on the bench?

    Maybe if the Republicans lose no Senate seats on net. Not likely if the Democrats are on 50 or even 49. I don't mean the person in question but an analogous centrist.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 23,049

    isam said:

    philiph said:

    Talking of latest betting, Layla Moran still drifting: now 2/1.

    Not sure LibDems have the best material to select from.

    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.
    Is there fertile ground between those two? I think it is either side of them
    North of them.
    And under them, given the quantity of manure Johnson produces.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085
    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    Nigelb said:
    Thought about this. They would need 1 of Romney, Manchin, Collins and Murkowski. Depending on the nominee, it's entirely possible that they would get 0.
    Wouldn't they also need to break a Democrat filibuster?

    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.
    The filibuster was repealed during the appointment of Justice Gorsuch, so I think you just need a majority. A tougher obstacle than the majority vote may be the Judiciary Committee whose members might not allow a nominee to proceed to a vote if it were unseemly. Actually, the best way to circumvent that might be to appoint a serving Senator.
    Or [though it would require the Democrats winning both Senate and Presidency] if the GOP do that the Democrats can threaten that incoming President Biden would nominate 4 new Justices to the Supreme Court.

    Changing the size of the Court has been done before.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085
    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    Nigelb said:
    Thought about this. They would need 1 of Romney, Manchin, Collins and Murkowski. Depending on the nominee, it's entirely possible that they would get 0.
    Wouldn't they also need to break a Democrat filibuster?

    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.
    The filibuster was repealed during the appointment of Justice Gorsuch, so I think you just need a majority. A tougher obstacle than the majority vote may be the Judiciary Committee whose members might not allow a nominee to proceed to a vote if it were unseemly. Actually, the best way to circumvent that might be to appoint a serving Senator.
    Thanks, I was aware of the 2013 rule change but not the Gorsuch one.

    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!
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 1,114

    Obviously this is interesting because whoever he picks, assuming he wins, stands a decent chance of becoming President midway through his term.

    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.

    Last American President to die in office of natural causes = Franklin D. Roosevelt, just months into his 4th term.

    So what do you mean by "decent chance"? Greater likelihood Biden will serve TWO terms, than he will not make it through one.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,538
    Looking at the lists of Senators:
    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.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,538
    Were I advising a President about Supreme Court nominees, I would filter for 42-year old triathletes with centenarian grandparents.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 1,114
    Under US Senate rules, a filibuster of SCOTUS nominee is NOT banned. Instead, it only takes 51 votes - simple majority of all 100 senators - to institute cloture thus ending debate.

    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.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 1,114
    EPG said:

    Looking at the lists of Senators:
    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.

    IF Mansion was such a push-over, he'd already have been pushed. As for Romney, who knows, but doubt he'd want to go down in history kissing Trumpsky's big fat ass.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,538
    It's intriguing that Justice Gorsuch was such (sorry) a controversial appointment yet issues awkward rulings like a ban against trans employment discrimination, and native title over half of Oklahoma, whereas Justice Alito who was appointed quietly may well be the most orthodox conservative judge of all time, or at least closer to A Scalia than C Thomas in reliability.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 1,114

    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    Nigelb said:
    Thought about this. They would need 1 of Romney, Manchin, Collins and Murkowski. Depending on the nominee, it's entirely possible that they would get 0.
    Wouldn't they also need to break a Democrat filibuster?

    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.
    The filibuster was repealed during the appointment of Justice Gorsuch, so I think you just need a majority. A tougher obstacle than the majority vote may be the Judiciary Committee whose members might not allow a nominee to proceed to a vote if it were unseemly. Actually, the best way to circumvent that might be to appoint a serving Senator.
    Or [though it would require the Democrats winning both Senate and Presidency] if the GOP do that the Democrats can threaten that incoming President Biden would nominate 4 new Justices to the Supreme Court.

    Changing the size of the Court has been done before.
    Last time a president tried to do as you suggest, it did NOT turn out well = FDR's attempted "court packing" in 1937 = major self-inflicted political wound.

    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.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,538

    Under US Senate rules, a filibuster of SCOTUS nominee is NOT banned. Instead, it only takes 51 votes - simple majority of all 100 senators - to institute cloture thus ending debate.

    My guess is that, if Trumpsky loses, there will NOT be 51 votes to end filibuster against confirming his nominee.

    Thanks. For us over here, easier to think that the filibuster is effectively gone. Not having the quite arcane situation in which a majority vote means a supermajority should be interpreted as a simple majority by the Clerk or the President pro tem or Whomever.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 1,114
    EPG said:

    It's intriguing that Justice Gorsuch was such (sorry) a controversial appointment yet issues awkward rulings like a ban against trans employment discrimination, and native title over half of Oklahoma, whereas Justice Alito who was appointed quietly may well be the most orthodox conservative judge of all time, or at least closer to A Scalia than C Thomas in reliability.

    Gosuch was NOT all that controversial. In part because he was (by legal standards) super-qualified. Which was why Trumpsky was advised to pick him.

    Liberals pretty much held their fire, and kept their powder dry for another day.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 1,114
    EPG said:

    Under US Senate rules, a filibuster of SCOTUS nominee is NOT banned. Instead, it only takes 51 votes - simple majority of all 100 senators - to institute cloture thus ending debate.

    My guess is that, if Trumpsky loses, there will NOT be 51 votes to end filibuster against confirming his nominee.

    Thanks. For us over here, easier to think that the filibuster is effectively gone. Not having the quite arcane situation in which a majority vote means a supermajority should be interpreted as a simple majority by the Clerk or the President pro tem or Whomever.
    NOT a matter of interpretation, a matter of rule.

    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.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 1,114
    EPG said:

    Were I advising a President about Supreme Court nominees, I would filter for 42-year old triathletes with centenarian grandparents.

    Longer a SCOTUS justice lives, the greater the likelihood she or he will seriously disappoint the president and party that gave them the life appointment.

    Prime example - Earl Warren, long-serving Republican governor of CA and 1948 GOP candidate for Vice President (with Tom Dewey), appointed by Ike.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085

    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    Nigelb said:
    Thought about this. They would need 1 of Romney, Manchin, Collins and Murkowski. Depending on the nominee, it's entirely possible that they would get 0.
    Wouldn't they also need to break a Democrat filibuster?

    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.
    The filibuster was repealed during the appointment of Justice Gorsuch, so I think you just need a majority. A tougher obstacle than the majority vote may be the Judiciary Committee whose members might not allow a nominee to proceed to a vote if it were unseemly. Actually, the best way to circumvent that might be to appoint a serving Senator.
    Or [though it would require the Democrats winning both Senate and Presidency] if the GOP do that the Democrats can threaten that incoming President Biden would nominate 4 new Justices to the Supreme Court.

    Changing the size of the Court has been done before.
    Last time a president tried to do as you suggest, it did NOT turn out well = FDR's attempted "court packing" in 1937 = major self-inflicted political wound.

    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.
    The Democrats don't need to do it just threaten to do it. If they threaten 4 new Justices if the GOP lame ducks force someone through that would likely scare off the GOP and make them hold fire.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 37,085

    EPG said:

    Under US Senate rules, a filibuster of SCOTUS nominee is NOT banned. Instead, it only takes 51 votes - simple majority of all 100 senators - to institute cloture thus ending debate.

    My guess is that, if Trumpsky loses, there will NOT be 51 votes to end filibuster against confirming his nominee.

    Thanks. For us over here, easier to think that the filibuster is effectively gone. Not having the quite arcane situation in which a majority vote means a supermajority should be interpreted as a simple majority by the Clerk or the President pro tem or Whomever.
    NOT a matter of interpretation, a matter of rule.

    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.
    The nuclear option is the interpretation arcane procedure. A trick to change the rules outside the actual procedure to change them.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 1,114

    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    Nigelb said:
    Thought about this. They would need 1 of Romney, Manchin, Collins and Murkowski. Depending on the nominee, it's entirely possible that they would get 0.
    Wouldn't they also need to break a Democrat filibuster?

    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.
    The filibuster was repealed during the appointment of Justice Gorsuch, so I think you just need a majority. A tougher obstacle than the majority vote may be the Judiciary Committee whose members might not allow a nominee to proceed to a vote if it were unseemly. Actually, the best way to circumvent that might be to appoint a serving Senator.
    Or [though it would require the Democrats winning both Senate and Presidency] if the GOP do that the Democrats can threaten that incoming President Biden would nominate 4 new Justices to the Supreme Court.

    Changing the size of the Court has been done before.
    Last time a president tried to do as you suggest, it did NOT turn out well = FDR's attempted "court packing" in 1937 = major self-inflicted political wound.

    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.
    The Democrats don't need to do it just threaten to do it. If they threaten 4 new Justices if the GOP lame ducks force someone through that would likely scare off the GOP and make them hold fire.
    Maybe. BUT risk of alienating large swath of independent & swing voters - and many Democrats - in the way that FDR did, is too great IMHO.

    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".
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 34,831
    Good tail on the comet tonight.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 3,538

    EPG said:

    It's intriguing that Justice Gorsuch was such (sorry) a controversial appointment yet issues awkward rulings like a ban against trans employment discrimination, and native title over half of Oklahoma, whereas Justice Alito who was appointed quietly may well be the most orthodox conservative judge of all time, or at least closer to A Scalia than C Thomas in reliability.

    Gosuch was NOT all that controversial. In part because he was (by legal standards) super-qualified. Which was why Trumpsky was advised to pick him.

    Liberals pretty much held their fire, and kept their powder dry for another day.
    They held him up and as you say, he was so qualified, that I think it really ruined the Kavanaugh business for them. It was so clearly political.
  • dodradedodrade Posts: 465

    EPG said:

    Were I advising a President about Supreme Court nominees, I would filter for 42-year old triathletes with centenarian grandparents.

    Longer a SCOTUS justice lives, the greater the likelihood she or he will seriously disappoint the president and party that gave them the life appointment.

    Prime example - Earl Warren, long-serving Republican governor of CA and 1948 GOP candidate for Vice President (with Tom Dewey), appointed by Ike.
    I've always found it strange in a republic with regular elections and term limits for many positions that Supreme Court Justices are effectively appointed for life and in practice unaccountable to anyone once in office. Surely a single non-renewable term of say, twelve years would be more appropriate?
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 1,114
    EPG said:

    EPG said:

    It's intriguing that Justice Gorsuch was such (sorry) a controversial appointment yet issues awkward rulings like a ban against trans employment discrimination, and native title over half of Oklahoma, whereas Justice Alito who was appointed quietly may well be the most orthodox conservative judge of all time, or at least closer to A Scalia than C Thomas in reliability.

    Gosuch was NOT all that controversial. In part because he was (by legal standards) super-qualified. Which was why Trumpsky was advised to pick him.

    Liberals pretty much held their fire, and kept their powder dry for another day.
    They held him up and as you say, he was so qualified, that I think it really ruined the Kavanaugh business for them. It was so clearly political.
    Kavanaugh was and remains a political hack. His appoint was totally political. Until he proves different, he's just part of the peanut gallery along with Thomas - represents millions of Americans who are shithead fratboys (or visa versa)
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 1,114
    dodrade said:

    EPG said:

    Were I advising a President about Supreme Court nominees, I would filter for 42-year old triathletes with centenarian grandparents.

    Longer a SCOTUS justice lives, the greater the likelihood she or he will seriously disappoint the president and party that gave them the life appointment.

    Prime example - Earl Warren, long-serving Republican governor of CA and 1948 GOP candidate for Vice President (with Tom Dewey), appointed by Ike.
    I've always found it strange in a republic with regular elections and term limits for many positions that Supreme Court Justices are effectively appointed for life and in practice unaccountable to anyone once in office. Surely a single non-renewable term of say, twelve years would be more appropriate?
    You may have a point. Suggest you take it up with ghosts of Madison, Hamilton & Jay. Cause think a successful seance is MORE likely than changing the this clause in the Constitution.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 6,454
    How can this be explained?


    "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
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 1,114
    US term limit - the only FEDERAL office with term limits is President. None for Vice President, US Senator or US Representative.

    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.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 1,114
    OT - think the REAL betting challenge for PBers is NOT Biden's pick, but instead Trumpsky's choice.

    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.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 1,114
    IF you were La Maxwell, and Trumpsky goes out of his way to "wish her well" would this make you MORE freaked out than you already are?
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,750
    Andy_JS said:

    O/T

    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).

    You need one of these LED light tube maps whose LEDs light up based on tube train movements. It talks to TfL's api over your wifi.
    https://www.traintrackr.co.uk/
This discussion has been closed.