US Presidential Election 2020

droidus

66 million votes now. 80% in Texas, which is expecting maybe 12-13 mil total, compared to 8 mil in 2018.

If SCOTUS attempts to stop counting when Biden is leading by millions in the popular vote there'll be riots.

TomOnBoard

Overheal wrote: »

There’s also the Wisconsin primary ruling. Brett Kavanaugh, who once argued as a lawyer for successfully having votes tallied for Bush in 2000 as late as Thanksgiving, led the majority’s opinion that it was just too confusing to voters to count mail in ballots that are post marked BEFORE the election that are received after the polls close.

The pretenses are all dropping. They own the court. They own the courts. They don’t need to play by any rules now, watch how much voter suppression we see in the next few days.

This may well get worse before it gets better.

There's a move in some quarters for the Dems to impeach Clarence Thomas in 2021 if they have both House and Senate. The grounds are:

1. Perjury - in respect of original denials of sexual misconduct
2. False financial returns- failure to return $600,000+ earned by Thomas's wife as a conservative lobbyist over a multi-year period.

I can see that Thomas could be 'asked' to retire after the election due to age and the above, and yet another fast-track appointment could be made before the end of the Senate term. While that wouldn't change the 6-3 make-up of the Court, it would copperfasten the conservative / BS "originalist" bent of the Court for years to come.

Watch this space!

So, if ever the Dems need to get the vote out in an Election, it is now! It won't stop such a last- minute move in respect of Thomas-indeed, it may precipitate it if there's a Blue Tsunami. However, 2021 will need to redress the shenannigans..

Overheal

droidus wrote: »

66 million votes now. 80% in Texas, which is expecting maybe 12-13 mil total, compared to 8 mil in 2018.

If SCOTUS attempts to stop counting when Biden is leading by millions in the popular vote there'll be riots.

That’s putting it mildly.

TomOnBoard

droidus wrote: »

66 million votes now. 80% in Texas, which is expecting maybe 12-13 mil total, compared to 8 mil in 2018.

If SCOTUS attempts to stop counting when Biden is leading by millions in the popular vote there'll be riots.

The SCOTUS has already ruled in respect of Wisconsin. Any ballot received after November 3rd WILL BE discarded! There's no Ands/Buts/Ifs about it!

Overheal

TomOnBoard wrote: »

This may well get worse before it gets better.

There's a move in some quarters for the Dems to impeach Clarence Thomas in 2021 if they have both House and Senate. The grounds are:

1. Perjury - in respect of original denials of sexual misconduct
2. False financial returns- failure to return $600,000+ earned by Thomas's wife as a conservative lobbyist over a multi-year period.

I can see that Thomas could be 'asked' to retire after the election due to age and the above, and yet another fast-track appointment could be made before the end of the Senate term. While that wouldn't change the 6-3 make-up of the Court, it would copperfasten the conservative / BS "originalist" bent of the Court for years to come.

Watch this space!

So, if ever the Dems need to get the vote out in an Election, it is now! It won't stop such a last- minute move in respect of Thomas-indeed, it may precipitate it if there's a Blue Tsunami. However, 2021 will need to redress the shenannigans..

That move would make too much sense, so democrats won’t do it. They will as ever play the centrists. No matter how many times Republicans flout the norms standards and rules Dems will “bring us back to normal” and as usual for Americans who brunt injustice, no such reparations will be given.

No I don’t think they will try this. I’d love it if they did but they do not maneuver like that.

VinLieger

TomOnBoard wrote: »

The SCOTUS has already ruled in respect of Wisconsin. Any ballot received after November 3rd WILL BE discarded! There's no Ands/Buts/Ifs about it!

Is there any estimates about the mail in numbers yet? Not the voting breakdown but just how many are likely to have used it?


I also wonder if potentially Trump screwed himself by disparaging it so much that many chose to vote early instead of mail in.

droidus

TomOnBoard wrote: »

The SCOTUS has already ruled in respect of Wisconsin. Any ballot received after November 3rd WILL BE discarded! There's no Ands/Buts/Ifs about it!

Yeah, but thats one scenario in one state. If multiple states are counting ballots in the days following the election (Pennsylvania seems like a likely one) and they are all shut down by new rulings... incendiary is not the word.

Overheal

VinLieger wrote: »

Is there any estimates about the mail in numbers yet? Not the voting breakdown but just how many are likely to have used it?


I also wonder if potentially Trump screwed himself by disparaging it so much that many chose to vote early instead of mail in.

I don’t have the breakdown between mail in and in person handy but 66 million have voted,

Of that 48.5% of the ballots are from registered Democrats, 28.7% from Republicans.

So the court has every incentive to lean towards throwing out tens of millions of votes if it comes right down to it.

An Ciarraioch

VinLieger wrote: »

Is there any estimates about the mail in numbers yet? Not the voting breakdown but just how many are likely to have used it?


I also wonder if potentially Trump screwed himself by disparaging it so much that many chose to vote early instead of mail in.

62% of Wisconsin mail ballots requested have already been returned, so should count:

https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/WI.html

Overheal

droidus wrote: »

Yeah, but thats one scenario in one state. If multiple states are counting ballots in the days following the election (Pennsylvania seems like a likely one) and they are all shut down by new rulings... incendiary is not the word.

The word you are looking for is Uprising.

TomOnBoard

droidus wrote: »

Yeah, but thats one scenario in one state. If multiple states are counting ballots in the days following the election (Pennsylvania seems like a likely one) and they are all shut down by new rulings... incendiary is not the word.

I think the Wisconsin ruling is being mis-understood.

Winconsin (and SOME) other States had election rules in place that said absentee ballots had to be in by end of Election Day. These have been in place for some time.

The majority-Republican State legislature has done no meaningful work since the Covid outbreak. In light of that outbreak, and because of DeJoy's dismantling of the USPS mail system, the Democratic Governor's Administration sought to extend the date by which absentee ballots could be counted by 6 days to cater for the increased level of such ballots (due to Covid) and the likely delay in them being delivered by USPS. Reps fought the change in the courts, and the change was upheld by the Court recently. This decision to allow the change to the existing rules is what was appealed to the SCOTUS.

The SCOTUS decision is basically saying "you can't be bypassing the State Legislature and making new rules this close to an election... Therefore, the existing rules continue to apply".. So, as I see it, the spin that the SCOTUS is somehow interfering in the Wisconsin election process is wrong. In fact, it is saying that it would be wrong to interfere in the process. If they apply the same rule to other States then the Rep attempt to disallow any ballots not received by Election day is doomed, IF the counting of such ballots is in accordance with existing State law.

droidus

So basically, the democrat Governor attempted to provide a remedy to an unprecedented pandemic and a deliberate vote suppressing attempt by the president by extending the timescale that mail in votes would be accepted.

SCOTUS has now ruled against this remedy which makes them complicit in a clear attempt at voter suppression.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that this is a strong indication that the court in its new configuration won't also rule in a similar fashion in other cases, even though the specifics may well be different in each case.

Timberrrrrrrr

droidus wrote: »

So basically, the democrat Governor attempted to provide a remedy to an unprecedented pandemic and a deliberate vote suppressing attempt by the president by extending the timescale that mail in votes would be accepted.

SCOTUS has now ruled against this remedy which makes them complicit in a clear attempt at voter suppression.

It is not unreasonable to suggest that this is a strong indication that the court in its new configuration won't also rule in a similar fashion in other cases, even though the specifics may well be different in each case.

On this one I agree with the SCOTUS, they are not suppressing voters, they are saying that rules that have been in place for a long time cannot be changed especially this close to the election.

Quin_Dub

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

On this one I agree with the SCOTUS, they are not suppressing voters, they are saying that rules that have been in place for a long time cannot be changed especially this close to the election.

It's also interesting to see the difference in the results of the two challenges.

The Wisconsin one was overturned because it was a Federal court that approved the change , the Pennsylvania one was upheld because it was the State supreme court that ruled.

the view from Scotus being that the Federal government/judiciary cannot intervene in State Voting regulation but that the States can in effect decide their own rules as that is defined as their purview under the Constitution.

Whilst on the one hand, the Wisconsin decision looks kinda bad , it actually might help in setting a precedent.

If the State level courts make a ruling , the Wisconsin/Pennsylvania decisions seems to suggest that the SCOTUS won't overrule.

Could get interesting , but really only if Trump is within touching distance.

If Trump needs to stop/overturn counts in multiple states then it's hard to see him winning , but if it comes down to one State like Florida on Pennsylvania - who knows what might happen.

droidus

Overheal wrote: »

I don’t have the breakdown between mail in and in person handy but 66 million have voted,

Of that 48.5% of the ballots are from registered Democrats, 28.7% from Republicans.

So the court has every incentive to lean towards throwing out tens of millions of votes if it comes right down to it.

To date:

Total Early Votes: 66,666,268
Mail Ballots: 44,403,771
In-Person Votes: 22,262,497

droidus

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

On this one I agree with the SCOTUS, they are not suppressing voters, they are saying that rules that have been in place for a long time cannot be changed especially this close to the election.

But that completely ignores the context - that these changes were being brought in to prevent blatant suppression.

If SCOTUS rules against measures to prevent suppression, I fail to see how that makes them anything other than complicit in suppression.

TomOnBoard

Overheal wrote: »

That move would make too much sense, so democrats won’t do it. They will as ever play the centrists. No matter how many times Republicans flout the norms standards and rules Dems will “bring us back to normal” and as usual for Americans who brunt injustice, no such reparations will be given.

No I don’t think they will try this. I’d love it if they did but they do not maneuver like that.

While the Dems might not do this (i.e. Impeach Thomas), it won't even arise if the GOP gets Thomas to retire after Nov 3. That's the most likely scenario at this stage. And that's my point.

Overheal

TomOnBoard wrote: »

While the Dems might not do this (i.e. Impeach Thomas), it won't even arise if the GOP gets Thomas to retire after Nov 3. That's the most likely scenario at this stage. And that's my point.

Democrats would be well advised to plaster that as court packing.

Water John

Any reasonable person would say the Senate and Trump have no mandate if they loose the election. How one enforces that is the problem. It would be truly a Constitutional crisis. Would the SCOTUS rule in favour of the Dems? The people have spoken, and overrules all. Remember the SCOTUS would then have 8 members, as Roberts would have retired.

LuckyLloyd

There’s a practical limit to what’s possible here imo, from the Trump perspective. If he loses the popular vote by 4% but there’s still a weird path via courts and state legislatures stopping vote counts that grant him a “win” in multiple swing states I think the GOP as a whole will not pursue it.

They robbed Florida in 2000 but that was within a couple of thousand votes either way. It’s a stretch to try and do that when you’re getting pummelled all over and the electorate *knows* what it voted for. It’s not worth it.

TomOnBoard

droidus wrote: »

But that completely ignores the context - that these changes were being brought in to prevent blatant suppression.

If SCOTUS rules against measures to prevent suppression, I fail to see how that makes them anything other than complicit in suppression.

On a natural justice level, I get your point. However, the Governor's powers to make changes that are not in accordance with existing laws is what is at stake here. His right has been assessed and has not been upheld. It doesn't matter how meritorious his argument is in favour of the mooted changes- he can't arbitrarily change the law.

At this point, the decision should be rocket fuel to the Democratic Party in Wisconsin to tell EVERYONE that, if they're not willing to get out and vote early, whether in person or by drop-in ballot, their vote will be lost! Simple as! No more moaning about the SCOTUS decison! Just get the **** out and VOTE NOW!

dark crystal

https://twitter.com/mmurraypolitics/status/1321075518490464258

NBC have Biden on 279, Trump 125 and 134 are toss-ups.

This basically means that if Biden wins just one of the toss-up states, he's over the winning line....correct?

Water John

That's almost the same as CNN who have Trump at 139 I think.

Podge_irl

dark crystal wrote: »

https://twitter.com/mmurraypolitics/status/1321075518490464258

NBC have Biden on 279, Trump 125 and 134 are toss-ups.

This basically means that if Biden wins just one of the toss-up states, he's over the winning line....correct?

Nope, doesn't need any of the toss ups there. 270 to win.

An Ciarraioch

No, if he was on 279, he'd be 9 over the line already - as for the toss-ups, he should win Arizona and North Carolina, and is the marginal leader in both Iowa and Georgia.

VinLieger

droidus wrote: »

To date:

Total Early Votes: 66,666,268
Mail Ballots: 44,403,771
In-Person Votes: 22,262,497

Nice thanks for those, just to be clear the 44 million mail in votes have been received correct?

Christy42

dark crystal wrote: »

https://twitter.com/mmurraypolitics/status/1321075518490464258

NBC have Biden on 279, Trump 125 and 134 are toss-ups.

This basically means that if Biden wins just one of the toss-up states, he's over the winning line....correct?

No it means he is over the line if he wins none of the toss up states. 270 is the target so if he just wins what nbc predicts he will win.

dark crystal

Podge_irl wrote: »

Nope, doesn't need any of the toss ups there. 270 to win.

Ok, but say hypothetically Trump then wins all the toss up states, that's a tie - 279 each? What happens in that case?

Overheal

Christy42 wrote: »

No it means he is over the line if he wins none of the toss up states. 279 is the target so if he just wins what nbc predicts he will win.

270* is the target. There are 538 electoral votes.

ericsinjun

dark crystal wrote: »

https://twitter.com/mmurraypolitics/status/1321075518490464258

NBC have Biden on 279, Trump 125 and 134 are toss-ups.

This basically means that if Biden wins just one of the toss-up states, he's over the winning line....correct?

At 279, he's over the line already.