US Presidential Election 2020 Thread II - Judgement Day(s)

Foxtrol · 10-11-2020 05:19PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The problem is, the longer this goes on it increases the chances of Trump and his allies pulling effectively a coup.

Here's what needs to happen for Biden to be confirmed President.
Counts need to finish

State level results get certified by the respective Governors/Secretaries of State

State send forward Electors

Electoral College Votes

Biden gets 270+ votes

He's President

There are 2 key dates.

States need to certify their results before December 8th (Safe Harbour)
Electors meet on December 14th to actually cast their votes

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Trump plan here is to flood key States with a torrent of spurious court cases to delay/prevent the results being certified by the required date.

He then hopes to get the various States to do one of the following

Do not send any Electors forward as they cannot certify the results - He'd be looking at places like Arizona and Georgia for that , with GOP Governors and SoS

Send forward competing Slates of Electors - He'd be looking at Pennsylvania for that - Dem Governor , but GOP State Legislature. The likelihood is that with two sets of electors competing , both would excluded.

The End game is that no ones gets to 270 thereby forcing a "Contingent Election"

In the event of a Contingent Election , the Senate elects the VP and the House Elects the President , but in the House it's a State by State vote not a simply majority.

As it stands right now , the GOP lead the State by State count in the house 26-24 , so they'd elect Trump and the Senate would elect Pence.

This is their plan.

Now - The Sh!t-storm this would kick off would be of catastrophic proportions and they might not get away with it.

The GOP leader of the PA House has already come out and said that they would not get involved in the Electoral College process , but let's see if they withstand the pressure they are going to come under.

It is not a coincidence that Trump just fired Esper as Sec. Of Defence either.

Esper refused to allow Trump to use the Military on the streets during the BLM protests etc.

He has now been replaced by a door-mat who will do whatever he's told including sending the Military out to suppress protests if they actually try to do this.

The potential for truly terrifying times in the US is very real right now.

Really sounds like all the pipedreams that were happening at this time in 2016 post Hillary's defeat. There talk of Jill Stein doing recounts, calls for electors to vote for Hillary etc.

Is it potentially a slightly great chance this time... potentially but still a tiny likelihood of occurring.

josip · 10-11-2020 05:28PM

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I was racking my brains last night trying to come up with a theory about why he did this now and in the end I settled on spite, pettiness and trying to project strength and power. Your theory is far more frightening though.

I could definitely see Trump trying it on. I think that the Republicans, who he would need to play ball, would have to say "No". He'd likely have a few cultists in each state legislature and the odd Governor's mansion who would be down with subverting the process in order to keep him in charge but I think it's simply a step too far for most elected members of the GOP.

This would definitely fit with McConnell and the GOP's 'Constitutional Hardball' approach of recent decades.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3126344
In the context of everything that McConnell and Trump have done in recent years, it's not as outrageous a scenario as it would initially appear.

10-11-2020 05:33PM

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

I was racking my brains last night trying to come up with a theory about why he did this now and in the end I settled on spite, pettiness and trying to project strength and power. Your theory is far more frightening though.

I could definitely see Trump trying it on. I think that the Republicans, who he would need to play ball, would have to say "No". He'd likely have a few cultists in each state legislature and the odd Governor's mansion who would be down with subverting the process in order to keep him in charge but I think it's simply a step too far for most elected members of the GOP.

Could well be a step they are more than happy to take.

The GOP have a record for voter suppression etc well before this election, fake ballot boxes in this one
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/12/us/politics/california-gop-drop-boxes.html
"Government officials say the receptacles are illegal and could lead to election fraud, but the party says it will continue the practice"

Duzzie · 10-11-2020 05:35PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

But - If they force the Contingent Election , he will be their Commander in Chief and they will have "followed the constitution" etc.

The Contingent Election route is clearly the Trump plan , they really don't have another pathway.

The courts , even the SCOTUS will knock them back , but if they can engineer it such that the Electoral college vote cannot give a candidate 270 they win and they know it.

The only hope in that scenario would be that a small few GOP office holders value the country over power - Romney and Murkowski in the Senate perhaps .

Liz Chaney would be key in the house as she is effectively the casting vote as she is the sole representative from Montana.

Has the Contingent Election route ever been used before, I dont recall hearing about it before. Is there a precedent?

Rjd2 · 10-11-2020 05:42PM

Inquitus wrote: »

Loeffler is a QAnon headcase aye?

Not at all.

She is probably one of the wealthiest people in congress.

The issue with her is she has tried to ride the Trump train because she didn't really have any grassroot support when she got the senate position.

It feels very fake and at times cringeworthy, I'd call her many things but a "headcase " isn't one of them.

Inquitus · 10-11-2020 05:45PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

The problem is, the longer this goes on it increases the chances of Trump and his allies pulling effectively a coup.

Here's what needs to happen for Biden to be confirmed President.
Counts need to finish

State level results get certified by the respective Governors/Secretaries of State

State send forward Electors

Electoral College Votes

Biden gets 270+ votes

He's President

There are 2 key dates.

States need to certify their results before December 8th (Safe Harbour)
Electors meet on December 14th to actually cast their votes

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Trump plan here is to flood key States with a torrent of spurious court cases to delay/prevent the results being certified by the required date.

He then hopes to get the various States to do one of the following

Do not send any Electors forward as they cannot certify the results - He'd be looking at places like Arizona and Georgia for that , with GOP Governors and SoS

Send forward competing Slates of Electors - He'd be looking at Pennsylvania for that - Dem Governor , but GOP State Legislature. The likelihood is that with two sets of electors competing , both would excluded.

The End game is that no ones gets to 270 thereby forcing a "Contingent Election"

In the event of a Contingent Election , the Senate elects the VP and the House Elects the President , but in the House it's a State by State vote not a simply majority.

As it stands right now , the GOP lead the State by State count in the house 26-24 , so they'd elect Trump and the Senate would elect Pence.

This is their plan.

Now - The Sh!t-storm this would kick off would be of catastrophic proportions and they might not get away with it.

The GOP leader of the PA House has already come out and said that they would not get involved in the Electoral College process , but let's see if they withstand the pressure they are going to come under.

It is not a coincidence that Trump just fired Esper as Sec. Of Defence either.

Esper refused to allow Trump to use the Military on the streets during the BLM protests etc.

He has now been replaced by a door-mat who will do whatever he's told including sending the Military out to suppress protests if they actually try to do this.

The potential for truly terrifying times in the US is very real right now.

I think there are a few Senate republicans who would not countenance this - Romney, Collins, Murmowski. Enough to swing it Joe's way. To allow the theft of an election, by following the route outlined above, and also in more detail in this article, would destroy American Democracy, I am not sure all Republicans can be relied upon to sign up for this madness!

Kermit.de.frog · 10-11-2020 05:46PM

I wonder why this tweet was deleted

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1326186765879832576

Logan act maybe?

Inquitus · 10-11-2020 05:47PM

Rjd2 wrote: »

Not at all.

She is probably one of the wealthiest people in congress.

The issue with her is she has tried to ride the Trump train because she didn't really have any grassroot support when she got the senate position.

It feels very fake and at times cringeworthy, I'd call her many things but a "headcase " isn't one of them.

She happily took the endorsement of her new house colleague, Marjorie Taylor Greene, who is knee deep in Q Anon conspiracies, so she clearly has no morals and at least a sympathy in that direction.

StringerBell · 10-11-2020 05:47PM

demfad wrote: »

The Generals are obliged to take legal commands from POTUS or the Sec of Defense. All commands are legal until after Trump's last day as President.

If Trump succeeds in making the validity of the election a partisan issue, with support from the Senate and Attorney General and claims the election as illegitimate then it will be for the military to intervene or ask the opinion of the US Supreme Court...Doing nothing will see Trump remaining in power.

This is what would be dictators do. They control as much as the military as possible and then force the military to act or acquiesce.

That's why this move by Trump is so unnerving. Why else would he do it?

He has wanted to fire some people since before the election but has been convinced that doing so would hurt his chances, thats over now so the firings will begin.

I don't doubt he would be very happy to try to force this contingent election and that he will fight tooth and nail to hold on to power but I do very much doubt it would actually have any chance of happening.

They have been playing around the edges of having an authoritarian/strongman and damaging their democracy by bending rules as they see them to their advantage but that is then taking a massive leap to full on country torn apart and changed forever.

There is no way back from that like, thats it. The country is over, I don't think they are quite ready to make that leap. trump? He doesn't care, only about his own survival but I genuinely don't think he would have the support to completely end the country.

You are no longer playing with voter suppression and the other dark arts of politics you are now in full on military coup territory and I just don't see that as being a reasonable outcome here. I don't think he gets the support of the congress to do it, I don't think he will have the military support that would be required either.

10-11-2020 05:48PM

This is sore loser level 500 stuff !

Quin_Dub · 10-11-2020 05:51PM

Duzzie wrote: »

Has the Contingent Election route ever been used before, I dont recall hearing about it before. Is there a precedent?

It has been used , but not in 150+ years.

Martin Van Buren I think was elected that way.

Don't get me wrong - This is something that would be very hard to do and I suspect lots of people on both sides would push back hard on this if they try it.

But that does not alter the fact that this is clearly something that the Trump team have thought about and have as a viable pathway in their "Battle plan" should(when) the various court cases fail.

Their willingness to try it will be predicated on how compliant/complicit the various entities required are.

The Raging Bile Duct · 10-11-2020 05:51PM

There's not a hope that the army are going to aid Trump in trying to stage a coup.

StringerBell · 10-11-2020 05:55PM

Rjd2 wrote: »

Not at all.

She is probably one of the wealthiest people in congress.

The issue with her is she has tried to ride the Trump train because she didn't really have any grassroot support when she got the senate position.

It feels very fake and at times cringeworthy, I'd call her many things but a "headcase " isn't one of them.

She has gone down the Qanon rabbit hole the last while has she not?

If for nothing else alone she should have been voted out for playing dumb when asked about trumps bus pussy grabbing tape thing a little while ago too.

droidus · 10-11-2020 06:00PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

It has been used , but not in 150+ years.

Martin Van Buren I think was elected that way.

Don't get me wrong - This is something that would be very hard to do and I suspect lots of people on both sides would push back hard on this if they try it.

But that does not alter the fact that this is clearly something that the Trump team have thought about and have as a viable pathway in their "Battle plan" should(when) the various court cases fail.

Their willingness to try it will be predicated on how compliant/complicit the various entities required are.

Yup, this was the plan if/when Biden ended up winning with a small margin in one or two states, and they seem to be going ahead with it, for now.

I get the feeling that McConnell and the rest are playing along though. I have no illusions regarding the ruthlessness of the GOP, but this is a big risk to take for a potentially small gain, plus the US's institutions have proven surprisingly resilient when faced with direct challenges - so far at least.

10-11-2020 06:05PM

Duzzie wrote: »

Has the Contingent Election route ever been used before, I dont recall hearing about it before. Is there a precedent?

3 times, but the last one was 1837 (and that was for the vice-president). Technically-speaking, the routes to a contingent election are fairly straight-forward, they're just all unlikely in practice:

A straight 269-tie in the electoral college between the two main nominees. The mathematics of this just make it improbable
A third party gaining enough electoral college votes so that no candidate reaches 270. Extremely unlikely. Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote in 1992, but didn't pick up a single electoral college vote
Faithless electors i.e. nominees to the electoral college that cast their vote for someone that the state didn't vote for. Again, extremely unlikely. Some states have laws that just let them replace the elector until they find someone to cast a faithful vote. Some have prison terms and fines. And while some have no penalty at all, the chances of someone making such a move that would have an actual outcome on the race is incredibly remote (2016 had quite a few protest votes - Bernie Sanders picked up an electoral college vote, and Colin Powell(!) received three, but these were all made safe in the knowledge that they made no functional difference to the outcome)

Thargor · 10-11-2020 06:13PM

None of thats going to happen, they know they've lost, they're just dragging it out as long as possible to try and pay off the campaign debt, even Fox reporting this story now:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-campaign-legal-defense-donations-debt/

Tell me how · 10-11-2020 06:17PM

28064212 wrote: »

3 times, but the last one was 1837 (and that was for the vice-president). Technically-speaking, the routes to a contingent election are fairly straight-forward, they're just all unlikely in practice:
A straight 269-tie in the electoral college between the two main nominees. The mathematics of this just make it improbable

A third party gaining enough electoral college votes so that no candidate reaches 270. Extremely unlikely. Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote in 1992, but didn't pick up a single electoral college vote

Faithless electors i.e. nominees to the electoral college that cast their vote for someone that the state didn't vote for. Again, extremely unlikely. Some states have laws that just let them replace the elector until they find someone to cast a faithful vote. Some have prison terms and fines. And while some have no penalty at all, the chances of someone making such a move that would have an actual outcome on the race is incredibly remote (2016 had quite a few protest votes - Bernie Sanders picked up an electoral college vote, and Colin Powell(!) received three, but these were all made safe in the knowledge that they made no functional difference to the outcome)

We might as well start talking about the active use of the second amendment to inhibit a tyrannical government (leaving aside that Pro-2nd amendment people want this President to be tyrannical). Trump lost, and he can wail and cry and throw his toys about but ultimately, the states will certify their counts and their electors will nominate the President as is supposed to happen.

I am actually glad to see Trump behaving like this because every day he does so makes it less likely him or his offspring will ever be countenanced for political office again.

pixelburp · 10-11-2020 06:20PM

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/09/republicans-free-fair-elections-435488

70% of surveyed republicans thought the election wasn't fair. Just in case folk thought this was simply Trump digging in his heels, the GOP voting public may yet determine the narrative here, evidence be damned. Feelings over facts is a popular mindset of the conservative block. This could make 2000 look positively refined - and at this point will absolutely get worse before it gets better.

Brian? · 10-11-2020 06:23PM

everlast75 wrote: »

IMHO I doubt this will happen.

These lost cases are not being appealed and so are being quickly dismissed if I've read up correctly.

This is placating the toddler-in-chief.

If any of these linger, I would expect Biden to petition SCOTUS who would take it up at a moment's notice.

I may be giving them too much credit. But i honestly believe the GOP governors will certify the election way before the deadline and move on.

Capt'n Midnight · 10-11-2020 06:29PM

OhHiMark wrote: »

You're forgetting that Trump isn't a Republican. Trump doesn't care about the party, or what happens in the future. His entire mindset at all times is "How can I improve my own situation here?".

The only asset he has is the "Trump" brand. So expect him to do what he thinks will keep him in the news.

Let's hope he doesn't know about the Ryanair school of publicity.

Foxtrol · 10-11-2020 06:34PM

pixelburp wrote: »

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/09/republicans-free-fair-elections-435488

70% of surveyed republicans thought the election wasn't fair. Just in case folk thought this was simply Trump digging in his heels, the GOP voting public may yet determine the narrative here, evidence be damned. Feelings over facts is a popular mindset of the conservative block. This could make 2000 look positively refined - and at this point will absolutely get worse before it gets better.

Any numbers on what that was like for dems in 2016?

I know the overall figures exploded in 2016 but can't find anything by party.

Again, all of this seems to be close to a repeat of what happened post 2016, aside from a president throwing a tantrum.

Manic Moran · 10-11-2020 06:57PM

demfad wrote: »

The Generals are obliged to take legal commands from POTUS or the Sec of Defense. All commands are legal until after Trump's last day as President.

If Trump succeeds in making the validity of the election a partisan issue, with support from the Senate and Attorney General and claims the election as illegitimate then it will be for the military to intervene or ask the opinion of the US Supreme Court...Doing nothing will see Trump remaining in power.

This is what would be dictators do. They control as much as the military as possible and then force the military to act or acquiesce.

That's why this move by Trump is so unnerving. Why else would he do it?

Not a bit of it. There are legal limitations on what the President can ask the military to do, and the military leadership has made it very clear it has no intention or authority of coming anywhere near the process for the election or the transfer of power. There are plenty enough other agencies in the Federal government with both authority and capability to see the new administration take over.

Frank Bullitt · 10-11-2020 07:25PM

https://twitter.com/John_Hudson/status/1326225961738772491

Really doubling down on this.

Harry Palmr · 10-11-2020 07:45PM

Through the keyhole they are.

pixelburp · 10-11-2020 07:50PM

They really are aiming for a putsch at this stage, right? So frustrating that this forum was intermittently filled with 4 years of Bad Faith types, or Smartest Guys in the Room fake-centrists arguing how Trump was just another president. Trump Derangement Syndrome of course the snappy put down for those sidestepping actual rigorous looks at the Trump admin. Yet here we are, in the white heat-death and the admin is actively trying to steal the election result. It's sedition by the courts, they're traitors to democracy.

Harry Palmr · 10-11-2020 07:51PM

Can Trump be taken to court for refusing to stop being president?!

Brussels Sprout · 10-11-2020 07:56PM

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Can Trump be taken to court for refusing to stop being president?!

Nah sure he's President anyway until later January. After that then he's out the door regardless of whether he accepts it or not.

looksee · 10-11-2020 08:10PM

Were the 70% of Republicans asked what, specifically, was not fair about the elections? They had the incumbent, which gave them a head start, and a President prepared to defy covid and anything else that stood in his way, so what was 'not fair'?

demfad · 10-11-2020 08:15PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not a bit of it. There are legal limitations on what the President can ask the military to do, and the military leadership has made it very clear it has no intention or authority of coming anywhere near the process for the election or the transfer of power. There are plenty enough other agencies in the Federal government with both authority and capability to see the new administration take over.

I'd be interested in hearing who controls these agencies, whether they are loyal to trump and whether Trump cannot fire and install loyalists in the time available as he has just demonstrated with the Secretary of Defense.
Laws etc, are worth little without the will to enforce them.

Lumen · 10-11-2020 08:19PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Not a bit of it. There are legal limitations on what the President can ask the military to do, and the military leadership has made it very clear it has no intention or authority of coming anywhere near the process for the election or the transfer of power. There are plenty enough other agencies in the Federal government with both authority and capability to see the new administration take over.

Regarding the election yes, but there is no legal or military limitation preventing him from launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike on another country at any time in the next 70 days, 9 hours, and 41 minutes.

US Presidential Election 2020 Thread II - Judgement Day(s)

Comments