Comment empêcher Trump de faire tout ce qu'il veut ?

C'est la question que je me suis posé à l'annonce de la mort de la juge Ginsburg de la cour Suprême .


Joel , vous en pensez quoi ?

MARC;

Si rien n'est fait ce sera UNE COUR SUPREME la plus conservatrice,pour les ages,si TRUMP reussit a nommer un autre JUGE,

On dit que ce serait une JUGE CUBAINE du nom de BARBARA LAGORA ,REACTIONNAIRE comme elle meme tu meurs,comme on dit au CANADA.

Attention,le PARTI DEMOCRATE a des fleches dans ses arcelles au cas d'une victoire de BIDEN et le CONTROLE du SENAT en NOVEMBRE.
Le nombre de juges ,9,n'est pas dans la CONSTITUTION.

BIDEN et un SENAT DEMOCRATE pourrait augmenter le nombre de JUGES,c'est ce que les DEMOCRATES menacent de faire ,si TRUMP reussit a nommer un autre JUGE.

Il y aussi la question de faire de PORTO RICO le 51eme ETAT qui garantirait presque 2 autres SENATEURS DEMOCRATES.
En tout cas ,tout le monde a peur,parce que aux ETATS UNIS le vrai pouvoir reside dans le CONTROLE de LA COUR SUPREME

MAK;
Yon ATIK NEW YORK TIMES ki ap eksplike OPSYON DEMOKRAT yo si REPIBLIKEN yo detemine pou yo nonmen yon lot JIJ anvan ELEKSYON 3 NOVANM yo.

OZETAZINI ou pa bay KOUDETA ak LAME men ou ka chanje LISTWA ak yon KOU SIPREM favorab ak ou:

http://nytimes.com/2020/09/21/opinion/ruth-bader-ginsburg-senate-democrats.html

Democrats Need a Plan. Fast.
Here’s how they can apply maximum pressure, brand the process as the illegitimate farce it is and lay the groundwork for desperately needed reform.

By Adam Jentleson
Mr. Jentleson was a deputy chief of staff for Senator Harry Reid of Nevada.

Sept. 21, 2020


Flags flying at half-staff in Washington to mourn the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Flags flying at half-staff in Washington to mourn the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.Credit...Michael Reynolds/EPA, via Shutterstock
The temperature plummeted Friday night in Washington, along with the mood of many Democrats, as they heard that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had passed away. In the fight to fill her seat, the stakes are enormous and Democrats need a plan — fast. Their options in the weeks ahead are limited, but Republicans face a slim margin for error.

There are steps Democrats can take to apply maximum pressure, brand the process as the illegitimate farce it is and lay the groundwork for desperately needed reform that can reverse the damage early in 2021 if Democrats win in November.

The all-important question is, does the majority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell, have the votes? Nothing matters more to him than the courts, so the safe bet is that he will find them. The gauntlet of hypocrisy Republican senators will have to run will be brutal and will likely hurt those in close re-election races. But let’s assume that a nominee moves forward.

There is no silver bullet available to Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate minority leader, to block the nominee. Distraught Democrats should understand that senators’ options are limited, but Democratic senators should understand the depth of voters’ desire to see their senators do everything possible to stop Mr. Trump from replacing R.B.G. This is an illegitimate process, and that is how Democrats should approach it. A core function of the Senate is to “advise and consent” on federal court nominees. Jamming a Supreme Court nominee through in direct contradiction of Republican senators’ pledges not to do so, with votes already being cast in the election, will be a clear abdication of any reasonable claim to the institution’s constitutional responsibility.

There are a range of tools available to Democrats to apply constant pressure. The Senate operates on what are called “unanimous consent” agreements, or U.C.s — pacts that set the daily schedule and the terms of conduct for all business. As the name suggests, every senator has to agree to a U.C. If a single senator objects, the U.C. is blocked. Democrats can bring the business of the Senate to a halt by systematically denying U.C. agreements. This simply requires stationing one senator on the floor at all times — senators can rotate every few hours, they just need to be physically present on the floor to say, “I object,” anytime Republicans try to pass a U.C.

Denying U.C.s will gum up the works in countless ways, one of which will be to deny committees the ability to meet more than two hours after the Senate convenes. This applies to the Judiciary Committee, where any confirmation hearings would be held. Republicans will still be able to schedule them, but it will make the process arduous and abnormal.

Absent U.C.s, the Senate needs a quorum of 51 senators to be present to conduct business. Senate Democrats should force Republicans to produce quorums on their own. Republicans control 53 seats, but bringing 51 senators to the floor every time they need to conduct business is a major challenge. Notably, Republicans have more incumbent senators up for re-election than Democrats do, and every day they have to spend in Washington is a lost day of campaigning. It takes only one senator to do this: By noting the absence of a quorum, a Democratic senator can put the Senate into a state of suspended animation called a “quorum call” until 51 senators arrive on the floor.

Democrats can also boycott the confirmation hearings. The hearings are unlikely to influence the outcome. If the hearings for Brett Kavanaugh did not change any votes, neither will these hearings. Attending confers legitimacy, and refusing to attend will send a powerful statement that they deem the process and the nominee illegitimate.

Together, these tactics will hang an asterisk around President Trump’s nominee. Democratic senators should keep in mind that if they participate in the process, even aggressively, history will record it as a “contentious” confirmation process, a common occurrence. Boycotting the process and disrupting Senate business, on the other hand, will brand it as fundamentally different from anything that has come before.

This brings us to the most important step: Democrats should commit to the structural reforms necessary to undo the damage Republicans have wrought. Republicans were able to block Judge Merrick Garland and install a conservative majority on the Supreme Court despite representing less than half of the population. The Senate overrepresents white conservatives, while minority voters are more underrepresented than at any time since 1870. A white conservative minority imposing its will on a diverse majority — in part through federal judges serving lifetime appointments — is a fundamentally unhealthy dynamic for our democracy.

If Democrats win the White House and the Senate in November, they can pass reforms to rebalance our democracy through simple majority votes. The only thing standing in the way will be the filibuster — a procedural mutation that was not a part of the original Senate and that has been manipulated in recent decades to transform the Senate from the framers’ vision of a majority-rule institution into one where most business requires 60 votes (or a “supermajority”) to pass. There are many good reasons to get rid of the filibuster, but Republicans jamming through a nominee should motivate any hesitant Democrats to commit to eliminating it if they take back power.

Without the filibuster, reforms can be passed by simple majority votes, as the framers intended. Democrats should commit to reforming the Supreme Court: They can add seats to the court; apply age or term limits; or pass any of a range of credible proposals. Congress has the prerogative to change the court, including its size, which it has done six times since the founding.

Democrats should also reform the Senate so it better represents the nation. They can start by inviting territories bound by federal law but lacking voting representation in Congress to become states. The District of Columbia has roughly a similar or greater population as Wyoming or North Dakota, while Puerto Rico has more people than 20 states. Both deserve to become states if they so choose.

Committing to these changes now will enable Democrats to move quickly if they take back power.

Some commentators have floated the idea of shutting down the government (funding runs out on Sept. 30). But this would backfire politically, and the Senate can confirm a nominee even if the government is shut down. It’s a bad idea.

This is a dark time for Democrats, but it has the potential to be clarifying. The Senate is awash in myths and misconceptions about norms and traditions, most of which were invented to serve narrow political interests. Republicans’ naked hypocrisy will reveal that much of what senators assure us is grand Senate tradition is just hardball politics.

Democrats’ options before the election may indeed be limited. But if they win, the only restraints will be their own ambition and will.

Adam Jentleson, a progressive strategist and former deputy chief of staff to Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, is the author of the forthcoming book “Kill Switch: The Rise of the Modern Senate and the Crippling of American Democracy.”

JOel

J'aime bien l'idée de reformer la cour Suprême . Ces républicains sont vraiment des coquins .

Ces REPUBLICAINS sont comme les FASCISTES en HAITI.

S'ils laissent tous ceua qui ont le droit de voter,voter ils ne gagneront jamais des ELECTIONS a l'echelle nationale.

Ils sont dans la MINORITE.

Maintenant ils tirent un AS dans leur chemise;le controle de LA COUR SUPREME a tout PRIX.

Si les REPUBLICAINS reussissent a nommer un 6eme JUGE CONSERVATEUR a LA COUR SUPREME;presque toutes les AVANCES dan le domaine des DROITS CIVIQUES depuis les annees 60s seront pour rien.

Quelque chose devrait etre fait.


The Special Hell of Trump’s Supreme Court Appointment
With a nonexistent mandate, he does extraordinary damage.

Frank Bruni
By Frank Bruni
Opinion Columnist

Sept. 22, 2020

Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times
It was almost inevitable that President Trump would get one Supreme Court appointment during this four-year term. It was always possible that he’d get two.

But three? Seldom has a president’s impact been so inversely proportional to his warrant. Trump, with his nonexistent mandate, reaches extra far and wreaks extra damage. That’s what makes his reign so perverse. That’s the special hell of it.

Almost instantly after the news of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, I checked how many Supreme Court justices Trump’s immediate predecessors had appointed, because I knew how fast he and Mitch McConnell would move to fill her seat. When it comes to this sort of unabashed power grab, they’re conjoined twins, connected by their contempt for fools who get hung up on hypocrisy and prattle about fairness.

Here, in reverse chronological order, are the five men who occupied the Oval Office over the roughly three decades before Trump took his seat at the Resolute Desk, and their impact on the court:

President Barack Obama appointed two Supreme Court justices: Sonia Sotomayor and then Elena Kagan. That was over two terms, both of which were secured with wide-margin victories in the popular vote as well as the Electoral College.

Obama would have had a third appointment, but Mitch McConnell, of course, blocked that nominee, Merrick Garland, decreeing that a court vacancy nearly nine months before the election should not be filled until afterward, so that the American people could have a fresh chance to weigh in.

Ginsburg died a month and a half before Election Day, and Trump, unlike Obama, took office with the support of a minority of Americans: He got nearly three million fewer votes than Hillary Clinton. No matter! McConnell has had some sort of reformation or revelation and decided that this present is in no way analogous to that past. Just ask Lindsey Graham, who had the same epiphany.
on politics, newsmakers and more with Frank’s exclusive commentary every week.

President George W. Bush also got just two Supreme Court justices, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, but again, over two terms. President Bill Clinton? Same. (He appointed Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.)

President George H.W. Bush got two (David Souter and Clarence Thomas) in one term. President Ronald Reagan got three (SandraDay O’Connor, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy) in two terms.


So if Trump succeeds in replacing Ginsburg before the election, he’ll match Reagan’s tally in half the time, with a mere fraction of the popular support and respect that the Gipper had. This is what I mean by perverse.

Yes, I know, some people — and some presidents — just get lucky. But no one gets luckier than Trump, and no one deserves it less.

And this particular bit of luck, like his presidency, illuminates a serious and possibly unsustainable flaw in the American political system. We’re increasingly a country where the minority is not merely protected from the tyranny of the majority, as the nation’s founders intended. We’re a country where the minority rules, and under Trump, it rules tyrannically.

McConnell is in a position to make Trump’s third court appointment happen because Republicans have a Senate majority, but they have that majority not because they command the support of a larger number of Americans than their Democratic counterparts do. They command the support of fewer.

In 2018, Democrats won 22 of the 35 Senate elections, with candidates who got roughly 17 million more votes than the Republican candidates got. (And I’m not even counting, among those 22, two independents who caucus with Democrats, Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont.)

But the structure of the Senate — in which less-populous states get the same say and sway as much more populous ones — favors Republicans. As Philip Bump of The Washington Post observed this week, “The Senate has since 2014 been controlled by Republicans who cumulatively represent less than half of the country — the longest such stretch in a century.”

Trump is in a position to make that third court appointment because of the Electoral College. As I noted, he lost the popular vote. That does not make him an illegitimate president. But it does advance the argument that we’ve drifted too far from one person, one vote, and the Electoral College should be scrapped.

As things stand now, some handicappers theorize that Joe Biden might have to win the popular vote by more than five million ballots to be even remotely confident of an Electoral College victory. That, too, is perverse.

And here we are, on the cusp of a court that won’t represent what most Americans believe. Sure, the court isn’t supposed to be beholden to public opinion, but Americans’ faith in their institutions and feeling that their voices are heard might be strained even further by what seem to be lurches backward by a court forged in the hottest flares of partisan passion.

While we’ve been reminded several times recently of the folly of guessing how justices will vote, a court with three Trump appointees could well restrict abortion even though most Americans support its legality in all or most cases. Such a court could also revisit gay rights, though an even bigger majority of Americans support marriage equality and an overwhelming majority believe that gay Americans should be protected from employment discrimination. It could look anew at various aspects of voting rights and affirmative action.

Were this to happen, it wouldn’t be because a president with deep-seated convictions was expressing them through the court. Rather, the most brazen of opportunists is continuing the politicization of the court and bending it to his re-election. His deliberations seem to take into account not only which justice or justices might energize evangelical voters the most, but also whether potential nominees are from battleground states. (Judges from Florida, Michigan and North Carolina have been floated.)

On this front as on all others, Trump is propelled not by a genuinely felt vision for the country but by a genuinely insatiable ego. He’s a bully who likes to dominate — in any way available, to the fullest extent possible — and he’s running rampant, just for the adrenaline rush of it.

As Ashley Parker of The Washington Post reported this week, Trump gloated to Bob Woodward about how many judges he and McConnell had put on the federal bench and how much of that bench bore Trump’s imprint. “The only one that has a better percentage is George Washington, because he appointed 100 percent,” Trump told Woodward. “But my percentage is, you know, like, ridiculous.”

“Maybe they’ll put a statue of you outside the Supreme Court,” Woodward responded, joking.

“Oh, what a good idea,” Trump said. “I think I’ll have it erected tomorrow.”

Joel

Prions pour que le sénat et le congrès soient majoritairement démocrates en janvier 2021 .

Biden serait le président  le plus important de l'histoire moderne des USA .
Ses défis seront énormes après ce que Trump vient de faire à ce grand pays sur le plan
Economique , sociale , justice et politique

Comme disent ces présidents : Que Dieu bénisse l'Amerique !

Bien dit MARC;

Toutes les avances sur le plan social et politique ont ete faites a la COUR SUPREME.
Ou presque toutes les avances.Je pourrais remonter jusqu'au 19eme siecle.

Comme je l'ai deja dit,beaucoup de batailles qu'on pensait etre gagne aurait a etre combattu de nouveau ,si la COUR SUPREME a une majorite 6-3 ultra conservatrice.

Si TRUMP est reelu,ce serait ,pauvre de nous et pas seulement la population americaine et pas seulement la population du tiers monde!!!!!

Marc
Vous etes interesse a tracker la course electorale aux ETATS UNIS,

Voici les dernieres nouvelles:

http://nytimes.com/2020/09/24/us/politics/trump-biden-polls-texas-georgia-iowa.html

Trump Faces Challenges Even in Red States, Poll Shows, as Women Favor Biden
Close races in Georgia, Iowa and Texas show President Trump’s vulnerability and suggest that Joseph Biden has assembled a formidable coalition, according to a New York Times/Siena College poll.


Joseph R. Biden Jr.  has resisted pressure to compete for Texas, a huge and complicated state that Democrats believe is unlikely to furnish the decisive 270th Electoral College vote.
Joseph R. Biden Jr. has resisted pressure to compete for Texas, a huge and complicated state that Democrats believe is unlikely to furnish the decisive 270th Electoral College vote.Credit...Tamir Kalifa for The New York Times
Alexander BurnsJonathan Martin
By Alexander Burns and Jonathan Martin
Sept. 24, 2020, 5:00 a.m. ET

President Trump is on the defensive in three red states he carried in 2016, narrowly trailing Joseph R. Biden Jr. in Iowa and battling to stay ahead of him in Georgia and Texas, as Mr. Trump continues to face a wall of opposition from women that has also endangered his party’s control of the Senate, according to a poll conducted by The New York Times and Siena College.

THE NEW YORK TIMES /
SIENA COLLEGE POLL


Joe Biden has made significant gains in states Donald Trump won handily in 2016.

2016 result
NYT/Siena
Sept. 2020
Iowa
(n=501)
+9 Trump
+3 Biden
45-42
Georgia
(523)
+5 Trump
Tied
45-45
Texas
(653)
+9 Trump
+3 Trump
43-46
Based on a New York Times/Siena College poll of likely voters from Sept. 16 to Sept. 22.

Mr. Trump’s vulnerability even in conservative-leaning states underscores just how precarious his political position is, less than six weeks before Election Day. While he and Mr. Biden are competing aggressively for traditional swing states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Florida, the poll suggests that Mr. Biden has assembled a coalition formidable enough to jeopardize Mr. Trump even in historically Republican parts of the South and Midwest.

A yawning gender gap in all three states is working in Mr. Biden’s favor, with the former vice president making inroads into conservative territory with strong support from women. In Iowa, where Mr. Biden is ahead of Mr. Trump, 45 percent to 42 percent, he is up among women by 14 percentage points. Men favor Mr. Trump by eight points.

In Georgia, where the two candidates are tied at 45 percent, Mr. Biden leads among women by 10 points. Mr. Trump is ahead with men by a similar margin of 11 percentage points.

Mr. Trump’s large advantage among men in Texas is enough to give him a small advantage there, 46 percent to 43 percent. Men prefer the president to his Democratic challenger by 16 points, while women favor Mr. Biden by an eight-point margin.

Refer someone to The Times.
They’ll enjoy our special rate of $1 a week.
There was a significant gender gap in the 2016 election, too, but at that time it tilted toward Mr. Trump because men supported him so heavily, according to exit polls. In the Times poll, Mr. Biden sharply narrowed Mr. Trump’s advantage with men while improving on Hillary Clinton’s 2016 lead with women in Texas and Iowa.

In Georgia, Mr. Biden’s lead with women essentially matched Mrs. Clinton’s final advantage in the 2016 race. But where Mr. Trump carried Georgia men by 23 points four years ago, he was ahead by about half that margin with men in the state in the Times poll.

The overwhelming majority of voters — about nine in every 10 in all three states — say they have definitely made up their minds about whom to vote for, leaving relatively little room for late developments to shift the overarching shape of the race.



The poll, conducted by phone among likely voters from Sept. 16 to 22, had a margin of sampling error of four percentage points for Texas and five in Iowa and Georgia.

Mr. Trump’s tenuous hold on some of the largest red states in the country has presented Mr. Biden with unexpected political opportunities and stirred debate among Democrats about how aggressively to contest states far outside the traditional presidential battleground. Mr. Biden has made efforts so far in a few states that voted emphatically for Mr. Trump four years ago, including Georgia and Iowa, but he has resisted pressure to compete for Texas, a huge and complicated state that Democrats believe is unlikely to furnish the decisive 270th Electoral College vote.

But the presence of competitive Senate races in many of those states has been a powerful enticement to Democrats, including Mr. Biden.


ImageSupporters of President Trump during his visit to Midland, Texas, in July.
Supporters of President Trump during his visit to Midland, Texas, in July.Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times
The lopsided gender dynamics of the presidential contest extend to Senate races in Iowa, Georgia and Texas, with Republican incumbents facing strong challenges from Democratic candidates favored heavily by women. The gender gap is pronounced even in Iowa, where both Senate candidates are women. The Democratic challenger, Theresa Greenfield, has a two-point lead over Senator Joni Ernst and an 11-point advantage with women.

THE NEW YORK TIMES /
SIENA COLLEGE POLL

Incumbent Republican senators are leading their Democratic challengers in two of the three states polled.

Dem.
Rep.
Margin
Texas
(n=653)
37%
M.J. Hegar
43%
John Cornyn
+ 6 Rep.
14% undecided
Georgia
(523)
38%
Jon Ossoff
41%
David Perdue
+ 3 Rep.
16% undecided
Georgia Special
(523)
19%
Raphael Warnock
23%
Kelly Loeffler
If no candidate receives more than 50%, the top two will advance to a runoff.

7%
Matt Lieberman
19%
Doug Collins
4%
Ed Tarver
Iowa
(501)
42%
Theresa Greenfield
40%
Joni Ernst
+ 2 Dem.
14% undecided
Based on a New York Times/Siena College poll of likely voters from Sept. 16 to Sept. 22.

The poll partly coincided with Mr. Trump’s announcement that he would make a new Supreme Court nomination to fill the vacancy created by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but it was not clear from the survey whether voters had a particularly strong reaction to that possibility.

Mary McKinney, 48, of St. Charles, Iowa, said she supported Mr. Trump because of his plain-spoken manner but felt the Supreme Court process was moving “a little fast,” adding that she would not support efforts to outlaw abortion.

“I don’t like abortion, but I don’t like a woman being forced to carry a baby due to a traumatic incident, so I guess I’m kind of neutral on that,” said Ms. McKinney, who works at home as a foster parent.

Reflecting the conservative tilt of the states polled, Mr. Trump and his party are in better shape than in most of the others recently polled by The Times, and he may ultimately carry all of them. The president’s approval rating is in positive territory in Texas, and voters are almost evenly split in Iowa and Georgia. That is markedly stronger than Mr. Trump’s standing in core swing states like Wisconsin and Arizona.

Mr. Trump has maintained an enduring advantage over Mr. Biden on economic issues, and that extends to all three states in the Times poll. And where voters elsewhere have heavily favored Mr. Biden over Mr. Trump on the issue of managing the coronavirus pandemic, voters in Texas and Georgia are closely divided on that score. Mr. Biden still holds a sizable advantage on the issue in Iowa.

In Georgia and Texas, the election is also split along racial lines. Mr. Trump is winning about two-thirds of white voters in both Georgia and Texas, while Mr. Biden leads by enormous margins with Black voters in both states. Hispanic voters in Texas favor Mr. Biden by 25 points, 57 percent to 32 percent.

Sign up to receive an email when we publish a new story about the 2020 election.
Sign Up
Still, many of the same voters, in heavily white Iowa and two traditionally conservative Southern states, are not as dismissive of systemic racism as Mr. Trump is. In each state, half or more of those surveyed found racism in the country’s criminal justice system to be a bigger problem than rioting.

Jeff Secora of Mason City, Iowa, is the kind of voter Mr. Biden will have to keep in his camp in order to carry the state. Mr. Secora, 63, an independent, said he had voted for Mr. Trump in 2016 but had grown fed up. He said he had reservations about Mr. Biden but preferred his “honesty and integrity” to the president’s character.

“He is polarizing, and he’s proud of it, and it just makes this country look weaker to our enemies,” Mr. Secora said of Mr. Trump, adding: “He lies all the time. He’s totally unpresidential. He makes Richard Nixon look like a choir boy.”


Image
Theresa Greenfield, the Democratic Senate candidate in Iowa, could help the party win a majority in the chamber.
Theresa Greenfield, the Democratic Senate candidate in Iowa, could help the party win a majority in the chamber.Credit...Caroline Brehman/CQ Roll Call, via Associated Press
The Senate races in the three states also highlight the same forces that are propelling Mr. Biden’s candidacy. Democrats currently appear to have a good shot of achieving a 50-50 split in the Senate, but in order to win an outright majority they would have to push deeper into Republican-leaning states.

The party may have its best chance of such a pickup in Iowa, where Ms. Greenfield, the Democrat, is capturing 42 percent of the vote to 40 percent for Ms. Ernst, a dangerously low number for an incumbent this late in the race.

In addition to leading among women, Ms. Greenfield is ahead by 10 points among voters older than 65, a group that Ms. Ernst won overwhelmingly when she captured her seat six years ago.

In Georgia, where there are two Senate races on the ballot, Republicans appear better positioned but are still facing highly competitive campaigns. David Perdue is currently winning 41 percent, while his Democratic rival, Jon Ossoff, is taking 38 percent. Sixteen percent of Georgia voters said they were undecided, including a significant number of African-Americans, who historically side overwhelmingly with Democrats.

The state’s other Senate race, to fill the unexpired term of former Senator Johnny Isakson, is even more uncertain. Senator Kelly Loeffler, the Republican appointed to replace Mr. Isakson, is in a multicandidate race with a host of other contenders. If nobody gets 50 percent, the top two vote-getters would advance to a January runoff, which could prove pivotal in a narrowly divided Senate.

Ms. Loeffler is winning 23 percent of the vote right now, while her nearest Republican rival, Representative Doug Collins, is garnering 19 percent. The top Democratic vote-getter is the Rev. Raphael Warnock, who’s also taking 19 percent of the vote. The highest vote share in the race, however, is not currently residing with any candidate: 27 percent of Georgians said they were undecided in the race.

Both Ms. Loeffler and Mr. Collins have tied themselves closely to Mr. Trump in the hope of gaining a decisive advantage with conservatives in the first round of voting. But in a runoff, either of them would be confronting a rising population of younger people and Black and Latino voters who reject the president.


Image
Senators Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue both face challenging elections in November. 
Senators Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue both face challenging elections in November. Credit...Evan Vucci/Associated Press
One of those voters is Casey Andre-Lindsay, 41, of Roswell, who said she planned to vote for Mr. Biden. Ms. Andre-Lindsay, who lost her job this year, said she saw Mr. Trump’s agenda as defined by turning back progress. Of Republicans, she said, “It doesn’t seem like they want it to be a democracy where people speak up anymore.”

“It’s going to take a decade to fix the things that he is trying to dismantle,” Ms. Andre-Lindsay said of Mr. Trump.

THE NEW YORK TIMES /
SIENA COLLEGE POLL
Do you think that every eligible voter in Georgia will have a fair chance to participate in this November’s election?

Total
53%Yes
42%Some will not
GENDER
Men
58%
37%
Women
48%
48%
AGE
18-29
37%
60%
30-44
53%
40%
45-64
52%
44%
65+
65%
31%
RACE
White
67%
29%
Black
26%
69%
PARTY
Dem.
22%
72%
Rep.
83%
12%
Ind./Other
54%
43%
Based on a New York Times/Siena College poll of 523 likely voters in Georgia from Sept. 16 to Sept. 22.

The Texas Senate race appears to be the best bet for Republicans among the three states. Senator John Cornyn, who’s seeking a fourth term, is winning 42 percent of the vote, while M.J. Hegar, the Democrat, is taking 37 percent.

Still, that a long-serving official such as Mr. Cornyn is not more firmly in control of the race illustrates the increasingly competitive nature of Texas elections and the G.O.P.’s struggles with suburban voters. Mr. Cornyn’s advantage is powered almost entirely by rural voters: he’s trailing significantly among those who live in cities and has just a two-point advantage with suburbanites, 17 percent of whom said they were still undecided.

A significant danger looming for Texas Republicans is that Mr. Trump’s hard-line immigration policies are increasingly out of step with where the state is today, and where it is heading.

Three-quarters of the state’s voters support a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants currently living in the country, including 98 percent of Texans under 30. Just 20 percent of Texans over all opposed such a process.

Texans were closely split on Mr. Trump’s proposal for a border wall. But opposition to such a wall is overwhelming among younger voters and significant among independents and those living in the state’s cities and suburbs.

Isabella Grullón Paz contributed reporting.

Here are the cross tabs for the poll.

More Coverage of the Electoral Map for 2020
Virus Pulls Down Trump, Poll Shows, and G.O.P. Senators Suffer With HimSept. 18, 2020

Alexander Burns is a national political correspondent, covering elections and political power across the country, including Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign. Before coming to The Times in 2015, he covered the 2012 presidential election for Politico. @alexburnsNYT

Jonathan Martin is a national political correspondent. He has reported on a range of topics, including the 2016 presidential election and several state and congressional races, while also writing for Sports, Food and the Book Review. He is also a CNN political analyst. @jmartnyt


Our 2020 Election Guide
Updated Sept. 23, 2020
The Latest

Le Texas , qui l'aurait cru qu'un candidat démocrate pourrait le remporter .
Si la tendance se maintient dans les sondages , Trump perdrait non seulement les élections mais aussi la face .

Joel

Je crois que les américains commencent à comprendre qu'ils avaient mis un fou à la maison blanche et qu'il faudrait passer à autre chose . Espérons que la comédie Trump aura terminée le 20 janvier 2021 ou avant .

Esperons que vous avez raison MARC.

Je ne peux que continuer de comparer TRUMP a JOVENEL.

Ce qui les attend est tellement "dire" s'ils ne reussissent pas a se perpetrer au pouvoir.

Comme le "disons" haitien "Lan mal ,lan mal net"

Il faut espérer qu'une partie majoritaire de la population  a compris enfin que Trump n'a pas les facultés  pour être président .
Ce matin devant les dépouilles  de la juge  au Capitole ,  les gens ont crié VOTE HIM OUT  lorsque le couple présidentiel s'est présenté devant le cercueil de la la juge .
Espérons que cela continue .
J'ai tellement hâte  de voir ce qui va se passer après le 3 novembre si Trump perd .

Joel a écrit:Esperons que vous avez raison MARC.

Je ne peux que continuer de comparer TRUMP a JOVENEL.

Ce qui les attend est tellement "dire" s'ils ne reussissent pas a se perpetrer au pouvoir.

Comme le "disons" haitien "Lan mal ,lan mal net"  

Effectivement Joel

Jovenel Moise sera fouké . N'en parlons pas de Trump et son ministre de la justice , entre autre !

MAK;

Gen yon paket "actes d'accusation" kont TRUMP lan ETA NOUYOK,pou PARJURE,FROD etc...

Yo pa ka touche misye,paske l PREZIDAN ,e SENA a sel gen pouvwa pou yo jije e destitye yon PREZIDAN e SENA a sou KONTWOL REPIBLIKEN yo.

C'EST DU JAMAIS VU.
TRUMP fet e grandi lan ETA NOUYOK lan ,men pa gen yon ETA ki pi ANTI-TRUMP ke ETA NOUYOK lan,eksepte petet KALIFONI.

PWOKIRE JENERAL vil NOUYOK lan ,osi byen ke PWOKIRE JENERAL Leta NOUYOK lan ap FOUBI ZAM yo pou yo tann le ke TRUMP pa PREZIDAN anko.

Wi MAK.
Majorite POPILASYON AMERIKEN an gen la PEREZ.

Kelke lan swa sa TRUMP ap di;BIDEN ak kreze yon AVANS ant li ak TRUMP ,menm dan de ETA ki dabitid vote REPIBLIKEN tankou NORTH CAROLINA ak GEORGIA.

Kesyon an ap fe yon "vacarme".Eske TRUMP ap kite MEZON BLANCH lan ,si l pedi.

http://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/25/donald-trump-democracy-america-conservatives-power-us

Le complot de Donald Trump contre la démocratie pourrait briser l'Amérique
Jonathan Freedland

Même certains conservateurs craignent qu'une prise de pouvoir ne déclenche la désintégration des États-Unis. C'est arrivé aux super pouvoirs avant

Ven 25 sept. 2020 11 h 40 HAE
Nous savons que la démocratie américaine est en jeu en novembre , mais qu'en est-il des États-Unis eux-mêmes? Est-il possible que non seulement la santé démocratique de l'Amérique soit en jeu, mais aussi l'intégrité même du pays?

Un tel discours semble hyperbolique, mais commencez par le danger pour le système démocratique américain qui devient chaque jour plus clair et présent. Cette semaine, on a demandé à Donald Trump s'il s'engagerait à un transfert pacifique du pouvoir en cas de défaite. Sa réponse : "Eh bien, nous allons devoir voir ce qui se passe."

Plus tard, la Maison Blanche a précisé que, bien entendu, le président accepterait les résultats d'une «élection libre et juste». Mais cette formulation contenait une mise en garde implicite: et s'il décidait que l'élection n'était pas «libre et juste»? Après tout, Trump a répété à plusieurs reprises que si Joe Biden gagne, cela ne peut que signifier que l' élection a été «truquée» .

Comment cela pourrait se dérouler a été exposé cette semaine dans un essai effrayant de Barton Gellman dans l'Atlantique intitulé L'élection qui pourrait briser l'Amérique . Bon nombre des dangers sont désormais familiers. Conscients que les sondages les montrent incapables de gagner un concours direct, les républicains travaillent déjà dur pour déséquilibrer les règles du jeu. Ils ont purgé les listes électorales des électeurs démocrates probables. Ils ont entravé le bureau de poste pour empêcher que les bulletins de vote par correspondance - qui sont susceptibles de favoriser les démocrates - n'arrivent à temps.

Une fois les sondages fermés, l'équipe Trump ne réclamera que les votes en personne, comptabilisés le soir des élections - et susceptibles de pencher en faveur des républicains - devraient être admissibles. Ils essaieront d'empêcher le décompte des votes, que ce soit par poursuite ou par perturbation physique (une tactique déployée avec succès dans le tristement célèbre recomptage de la Floride en 2000). Comme le soutient Gellman, ce n'est pas seulement que Trump refusera de concéder sa défaite: il utilisera tout le pouvoir à sa disposition pour «faire obstacle à l'émergence d'une victoire juridiquement sans équivoque pour Biden», voire pour «empêcher la formation d'un consensus sur la question de savoir si il n'y a aucun résultat ».

Il y a un tour dans les manches républicain si scandaleux que personne ne l'avait même envisagé jusqu'à présent. C'est technique, mais supportez-moi. Le président est choisi par un collège électoral, composé d'électeurs des 50 États. Depuis plus d'un siècle, ces électeurs ont été choisis pour refléter le vainqueur du vote populaire dans cet État. Mais les responsables républicains ont noté qu'il n'y a rien dans la constitution qui dit qu'il doit en être ainsi. Les législatures - les mini-parlements de chaque État - ont le pouvoir de choisir les électeurs eux-mêmes. Et devinez quoi: les républicains controllent les législatures dans les six États du champ de bataille les plus combattus. S'ils déclarent que le décompte officiel des votes montrant à Biden le vainqueur n'est pas fiable - au motif que, comme le dit Trump, tous les votes par correspondance sont suspects - rien ne les empêche de choisir une liste d'électeurs pro-Trump à la place, affirmant que cela reflète le véritable volonté du peuple de son état.

Cela ressemble à une manœuvre de Loukachenko , un coup d'État contre la démocratie - et c'est exactement ce que ce serait. Et pourtant, il y a des responsables du parti républicain qui parlent de la façon dont ils envisagent ce mouvement même.

Ah, mais sûrement la Cour suprême ne permettrait jamais une telle chose. Et pourtant, depuis la semaine dernière, il y a un poste vacant sur ce tribunal. Trump prévoit de remplacer rapidement Ruth Bader Ginsburg , dans le but de faire asseoir son propre juge trié sur le volet à temps pour régler toute affaire liée aux élections en sa faveur. Cela aussi dit- il à voix haute . Encore une fois, la puanteur biélorusse est indéniable.

Le problème est que les démocrates sont presque impuissants à arrêter un président et un parti qui n'ont aucune honte à franchir toutes les rambardes démocratiques, quelle que soit l'hypocrisie: rappelez-vous qu'en mars 2016, les républicains du Sénat ont refusé de donner autant de choix à la Cour suprême de Barack Obama . comme audition, insistant sur le fait qu'il était inacceptable de procéder à une telle nomination au cours d'une année électorale. Pourtant, les voici, faisant leur choix à travers quelques semaines avant le jour du scrutin.

Le résultat est qu'il y aura bientôt une majorité de droite 6-3 au plus haut tribunal des États-Unis, prête à annuler des décisions historiques sur les soins de santé ou les droits reproductifs, et à contrecarrer l'action sur la crise climatique. De plus, un siège à la Cour suprême est à vie, et plusieurs de ces juges de droite sont relativement jeunes. Cette majorité 6-3 pourrait être en place pendant des décennies.

Alors maintenant, une question sombre se pose. Que fera la majorité de plus en plus progressiste des États-Unis si les représentants de l'État républicain réinstallent Trump à la Maison Blanche, au mépris des électeurs? Que feront-ils si ce tribunal 6-3 annule Roe v Wade et interdit l'avortement dans tout le pays?

Réfléchissez un instant à la façon dont cette dernière situation s'est produite: c'est parce que le Sénat choisit les juges et que le Sénat consacre la règle de la minorité. Avec deux sénateurs par État, le minuscule Wyoming (population: 600 000 habitants) a la même représentation que la Californie gargantuesque (40 millions). Selon les tendances actuelles , 70% des Américains n'auront bientôt plus que 30 sénateurs les représentant, tandis que la minorité de 30% en aura 70. S'agissant de leur droit à un traitement médical ou de débarrasser leurs rues des armes d'assaut de qualité militaire, les citadins, la majorité diverse est soumise au veto de la minorité rurale, blanche et conservatrice.

Combien de temps est-ce durable? Combien de temps une femme, disons, en Californie, acceptera-t-elle la présence d'armes à feu et l'absence de droit à l'avortement parce que c'est ce que veut une minorité d'électeurs dans les petits États surreprésentés? Les gens sérieux commencent à se poser cette question. Gary Gerstle, professeur d'histoire américaine à l'Université de Cambridge, dit qu'il s'est retrouvé à lire sur des pays qui avaient autrefois la démocratie mais qui l'ont perdue - et qu'il fait cela «pour comprendre l'avenir de l'Amérique».

Il se demande si les États progressistes et «bleus» pourraient de plus en plus suivre leur propre chemin - en exerçant leur droit de s'écarter du gouvernement fédéral, alors que ses branches s'éloignent de plus en plus de la démocratie. Pendant que nous parlions, le gouverneur de New York, Andrew Cuomo, a annoncé qu'il n'accepterait aucun vaccin Covid approuvé par le gouvernement fédéral pour son état tant que les experts de New York ne l'auront pas testé en premier. Cela, dit Gerstle, pourrait être un signe avant-coureur des choses à venir, y compris peut-être une renaissance du concept d'avant la guerre civile de «l' annulation», Par lequel les États dissidents déclarent nulles et non avenues les décisions prises à Washington. Ce serait un revirement historique pour la gauche américaine: «les droits des États» était le cri de ralliement du sud ségrégationniste, affirmant son droit à être raciste. Maintenant, il pourrait devenir l'arme de l'Amérique libérale.

Dans un nouveau livre, Divided We Fall , l'écrivain conservateur David French soulève la question autrefois taboue de la «menace de sécession de l'Amérique» - imaginant, par exemple, un «Calexit» alors que la Californie mène une échappée d'États occidentaux libéraux après une cour suprême de droite a annulé une loi californienne visant à réduire les armes à feu. Depuis la mort de Ginsburg, cela ressemble moins à une fiction dystopique qu'à une prévision.

Un tel discours peut sembler fantaisiste. Pourtant, il y a probablement eu une réaction similaire à l'essai d'Andrei Amalrik de 1970. L'Union soviétique survivra-t-elle jusqu'en 1984? . À l'époque, cela devait paraître absurde: bien sûr, l'URSS était là pour rester. Mais Amalrik n'était pas loin. Vingt et un ans après avoir posé la question, une superpuissance autrefois puissante était en pièces. Les océans s'élèvent, les empires tombent - et même l'Amérique n'est pas à l'abri.

• Jonathan Freedland est un chroniqueur du Guardian

L'Amérique fait face à un choix épique ...
... dans les mois à venir, et les résultats définiront le pays pour une génération. Ce sont des temps périlleux. Au cours des quatre dernières années, une grande partie de ce qui est cher au Guardian a été menacée: la démocratie, la civilité, la vérité.

Joel ,
J'ai lu cet article et ça fait peur


Que pourriez-vous nous dire? Le coup d'État est possible

Trump could stay in power even if he doesn’t win the election. The Constitution allows it.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-could-stay-in-power-even-if-he-doesnt-win-the-election-the-constitution-allows-it/2020/09/24/d9371bb0-fe97-11ea-9ceb-061d646d9c67_story.html

Oui le coup d'ETAT est bien possible.

Les REPUBLICAINS ne peuvent pas gagner une ELECTION si ceux qui veulent voter ,votent.

Il y a des pratiques qui semblaient ROUTINE,mais ne sont pas dans la CONSTITITION ,et meme la, LA COUR SUPREME est chargee d'interpreter la CONSTITUTION et bientot les ULTRA CONSERVATEURS auront une MAJORITE 6-3 dans la COUR.

Certains comparent la presente sitituation a 1861,l'ELECTION qui avait elue ABRAHAM LINCOLN et avait provoquee LA GUERRE DE SECESSION.
Cette guerre la plus sanglante de l'histoire des ETATS UNIS.
Une majorite de la POPULATION commence a se rendre a l'EVIDENCE que si TRUMP perd,il ne s'en ira pas.

Et puis,un article de ROBERT REICH qui etait ministre du TRAVAIL sous le gouvernement de CLINTON:

http://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/27/donald-trump-american-civil-war-joe-biden-republicans-democrats-robert-reich

Et puis:

http://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/27/only-a-fool-would-write-off-trump-but-theres-a-reason-hes-so-desperate

Joel

Nous sommes en 2020 . L'Amerique (USA)est une grande puissance démocratique dans le monde . Nous ne sommes plus en 1880 .Le contexte a changé . Nous sommes à l'ère des médias sociaux , de la Mondialisation . Tous les yeux du monde sont sur les USA .
Les gens vont voter en grand nombre . Ils vont protéger leurs votes . Ils vont demander justice . Je ne peux pas croire que les élus républicains s’apprêtaient à exécuter un tel coup en 2020 sous les yeux du monde .

C'est compliqué cette affaire ...

Joel

Cette juge sera considérée à vie comme une juge de facto ( illégitime) à mon avis car la majorité de la population pense que c'est le gagnant de l’élection qui devra nommer le prochain juge .

-------- a écrit:Joel

Cette juge sera considérée à vie comme une juge de facto ( illégitime)  à mon avis  car la majorité de la population pense que c'est le gagnant de l’élection  qui devra nommer le prochain juge .

Marc;

Les REPUBLICAINS s'en foutent de ce que pense la POPULATION.
Une fois nommee,un JUGE de la COUR SUPREME ne peut etre destitue qu'avec les 2/3 du vote du SENAT.
Ce qui est extremement difficile.
La population n'a qu'un recours ,c'est ce qu'on appelle "packing"
C'est ce qu'avait menace de faire FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT quand une COUR SUPREME CONSERVATRICE bloquait tous ses changements progressistes.

Si les DEMOCRATES regagnent le controle du SENAT et puis la COUR SUPREME est tetue dans ses vues conservatrices,les DEMOCRATES peuvent augmenter le nombre de JUGES.
Le nombre de JUGES n'est pas dans la CONSTITUTION,c'est juste par TRADITION.

Vous avez  dit 2|3 du sénat . Il me semble que cela a été réduit à la majorité simple pour destituer un juge à vie


Les démocrates réfléchissent sur la réduction du mandat  des juges à la Cour Suprême à 18 ans .


Oui j'ai entendu dire qu'ils pourront ajuster le nombre de juges à la Cour Suprême . Bref, si les démocrates remportent le sénat  et la chambre ,ils auront du pain sur la planche .
La question est la suivante : Seraient-ils assez coriaces  pour imposer tout cela en deux ans ?