We are where we are.

Both Jubilee and NASA must now draw their budget to fund their campaigns for the new poll.
What outlook do we have for each!

There is expected some defections back and forth, by politicians who lost in 8817 elections. Who is likely to be the net gainer!

In mind here I have Khalwale, Musila, Munya, Isaac Rutto, Kidero, Chirau Makwere, Kabogo and the caboodle.

There is also the question of regions reviewing their positions – Ukambani, Kisii, Western etc.
I wonder if the declared results of 8817 elections as a whole (presidential, Gubernatorial, Senatorial MPs etc) might influence voters’ choices including apathy.

Hard to understand Jubilee's "SCORK-attack" strategy. What is the upside? Many downsides.
a) Strongholds' voter turnout? - Can be achieved by their other strategy - that voters wao (even if a misquotation) waliitwa vifaranga. Vifaranga strategy can achieve same effect without alienating supporters in battlegrounds. Has already been tested in Nakuru.
b) Timing - If the SCORK majority were not to show how flawed process obliterated the "lead" in their scheduled comprehensive judgment, I am sure they will now show how. With a conclusion and errors in the process, you can show anything. A better timing for the SCORK-attack strategy would be after the comprehensive ruling. In that case they would only need to dig for errors in NASA areas and then craft the propaganda that SCORK colluded with NASA to rule on process because NASA sabotaged the process.
c) They lose the usual "respect institutions" retort.

of course we are assuming and this being a forum for just discussing stuff, my take is that they know what they are doing, and I don't think the anti maranga rhetoric will stop, they are basically trying to push a narrative that maranga does not regard their vote and hoping people will come back to prove maranga wrong.

Remember they just need the same people who voted for them to come out again, and the maranga story might be used for that.

This is provided for in the in the law.
Look at Rule 23 of the Supreme Court (Presidential Petition) Rules 2017

The court in 2013 also provided the full reasoned judgement later. The summary reasons for both the outcome and dissents were given. Their order I think is simply follow the standards which are set out in the law.

I think the aim is to create a frenzy in the strongholds, raise the tension so high that the only option on the table for the loser is a concession speech for the sake of peace. Picture this Oct 31st and Baba calls pressie and says once again for the 5th time kimeibiwo.

As for SCORK they need to learn from the Us supreme court during Roosevelt era. There were 4 judges who decided to scuttle the new deal and kept declaring all legislation under the new deal unconstitutional. Roosevelt went on a campaign again the supreme court. The 4 judges were labeled "four horsemen of the apocalypse". With a clear majority in senate and congress, Roosevelt came up with the court-packing bill to appoint new judges to replace the 4 old ones. Eventually it's the supreme court that backed down. That's the reason in the US before appointment the judges are thoroughly vetted for ideological leanings.

The worst thing is even parliament is unconstitutional because of 2/3 gender rule. I don't see how judiciary wants to take on the executive and legislature. At least with the politicians we can get rid off them every five years. Our judiciary also needs to back down on the activism angle. They are over-reaching here.