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

Brussels Sprout · 11-11-2020 01:06PM

OhHiMark wrote: »

But it's a wide margin in the electoral college, and in the popular vote. By any measurement it wasn't close.

The popular vote is entirely irrelevant. As I have stated earlier in this thread I think the Electoral College is fundamentally undemocratic and I am no fan of it. That being said that's the system in place so we can only assess an election based on that.

In Electoral College terms this was decided by 3 states (WI, AZ, GA) + 1 electoral district (NE-3) . In turn those were decided by a cumulative total of just 68k votes. If you don't consider that close then I don't know what else to say.

4 years ago there was a lot of talk about how Clinton only lost the election by 78k votes across Michigan, Wisconsin & Pennsylvania. Well this election was even closer then that despite the fact that the popular vote margin will be much wider.

Quin_Dub · 11-11-2020 01:14PM

Robert2014 wrote: »

I think this will blow over at some point. From what I remember, in the end this is what happened with Florida. Everyone was fed up with it before it went to the Supreme Court and Gore accepted its verdict. As this drags on and there is very little evidence of fraud, more and more Americans are going to get fed up with this and eventually Republicans will have enough. Particularly if it starts to seem that people in Georgia are getting annoyed and they could lose the run-off Senate races.

It's a very different world to twenty years ago and a very different America.

In 2000 , people watched the news and read the papers and that's what formed their opinions.

Today there are a core of people on both extremes that source their "news" from the most bizarre extreme corners of the internet.

The people that believe Breitbart, Project Veritas , Alex Jones et al will not simply "get bored" of this.

They won't be allowed to , they will be kept in a permanent state of rage and fear by these outlets. They need them like that to continue to collect their ad revenue.

robinph · 11-11-2020 01:16PM

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

The popular vote is entirely irrelevant. As I have stated earlier in this thread I think the Electoral College is fundamentally undemocratic and I am no fan of it. That being said that's the system in place so we can only assess an election based on that.

In Electoral College terms this was decided by 3 states (WI, AZ, GA) + 1 electoral district (NE-3) . In turn those were decided by a cumulative total of just 68k votes. If you don't consider that close then I don't know what else to say.

4 years ago there was a lot of talk about how Clinton only lost the election by 78k votes across Michigan, Wisconsin & Pennsylvania. Well this election was even closer then that despite the fact that the popular vote margin will be much wider.

Why wasn't it decided by PA and a bunch of others instead and the 50k vote difference in that one state? AZ and GA were not needed to get Biden over 270 EC votes.

50k, and growing, isn't close in that one state. No chance of a recount being called in PA.

Brussels Sprout · 11-11-2020 01:22PM

robinph wrote: »

Why wasn't it decided by PA and a bunch of others instead and the 50k vote difference in that one state? AZ and GA were not needed to get Biden over 270 EC votes.

50k, and growing, isn't close in that one state. No chance of a recount being called in PA.

because if you flip GA, WI, AZ & NE-3 then you don't need PA.

Again, I'm not talking about Recounts or Trump having any chance of winning. It's more a commentary of how close this was from slipping away from Biden due to the crazy idiosyncrasies of their electoral system.

robinph · 11-11-2020 01:35PM

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

because if you flip GA, WI, AZ & NE-3 then you don't need PA.

Again, I'm not talking about Recounts or Trump having any chance of winning. It's more a commentary of how close this was from slipping away from Biden due to the crazy idiosyncrasies of their electoral system.

But you've just picked that set of states as it makes it appear narrower. Pick WI and PA and its at 70k + and that will get bigger yet.

It's not close nationally, a couple of states were close but they are not needed to get over 270 and once they are added to the total the EC numbers won't be close either.

listermint · 11-11-2020 01:36PM

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

because if you flip GA, WI, AZ & NE-3 then you don't need PA.

Again, I'm not talking about Recounts or Trump having any chance of winning. It's more a commentary of how close this was from slipping away from Biden due to the crazy idiosyncrasies of their electoral system.

Yes it was so close . Trump had to flip 4 states close......

... Tbf that's not as close as you are indicating. It's 4 states!

moon2 · 11-11-2020 01:42PM

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

In Electoral College terms this was decided by 3 states (WI, AZ, GA) + 1 electoral district (NE-3) . In turn those were decided by a cumulative total of just 68k votes. If you don't consider that close then I don't know what else to say.

In US terms this is considered a definitive victory. Biden has a wide majority of EC votes and won by a fairly substantial margin in swing states. I'd have to go back and verify the numbers from prior elections, but iirc his margin is going to be higher than what Trump achieved, and also higher than previous elections which were deemed decisive victories.

As such it would be disingenuous to call this anything other than a decisive victory. The only thing that lent any credibility to the "it's a close election" story is the delays caused by counting mail-in votes.

BluePlanet · 11-11-2020 01:42PM

Can anyone cite an example of a recount in US Presidential elections that actually flipped the result?

everlast75 · 11-11-2020 01:44PM

Quite a definitive headline from the NYT

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1326502436916375554?s=19

Carfacemandog · 11-11-2020 01:46PM

BluePlanet wrote: »

Can anyone cite an example of a recount in US Presidential elections that actually flipped the result?

I can't off hand but wisconsin has had 2 recounts, one in 2016 which brought a change of 132 votes, and another in 2018 that saw a change of about 300 votes.

The current gap in wisconsin is 20k votes, with the closest two being Georgia and Arizona at 14k and 13k respectively. The margin are simply too much for recounts to overturn.

gmisk · 11-11-2020 01:47PM

Quin_Dub wrote: »

It's a very different world to twenty years ago and a very different America.

In 2000 , people watched the news and read the papers and that's what formed their opinions.

Today there are a core of people on both extremes that source their "news" from the most bizarre extreme corners of the internet.

The people that believe Breitbart, Project Veritas , Alex Jones et al will not simply "get bored" of this.

They won't be allowed to , they will be kept in a permanent state of rage and fear by these outlets. They need them like that to continue to collect their ad revenue.

Unfortunately I agree.
Even the "news" available on tv will likely get more and more extreme.
You just have to look at people now seemingly moving from Fox to OAN and Newsmax.
They make Fox look extremely balanced by comparison!

briany · 11-11-2020 01:55PM

Interesting factoid about the election, just to step back from the ongoing outrage, is that Biden is not only the first catholic president since JFK, he's also the first since JFK to lose both Florida and Ohio and still win the election.

spacecoyote · 11-11-2020 01:55PM

Carfacemandog wrote: »

I can't off hand but wisconsin has had 2 recounts, one in 2016 which brought a change of 132 votes, and another in 2018 that saw a change of about 300 votes.

The current gap in wisconsin is 20k votes, with the closest two being Georgia and Arizona at 14k and 13k respectively. The margin are simply too much for recounts to overturn.

I'm assuming that they are ultimately targeting throwing our ballots rather than just go with recounts?

Brussels Sprout · 11-11-2020 01:56PM

robinph wrote: »

But you've just picked that set of states as it makes it appear narrower.

Yes exactly. That's exactly what I did. I sought out the absolute minimum number of votes required to flip the map.

It's the same exercise that was done in 2016 to show that Clinton, in the end, only lost by 78k votes across 3 states.

listermint wrote: »

Yes it was so close . Trump had to flip 4 states close......

... Tbf that's not as close as you are indicating. It's 4 states!

Which themselves were all determined by less than 20k votes. In the case of the 3 full states I mentioned, with millions of voters each that's a wafer thin margin. They're winner takes all so had Trump got those few extra votes then he would have taken all of the electoral college votes for them and Biden would have got none.

moon2 wrote: »

Biden has a wide majority of EC votes and won by a fairly substantial margin in swing states. I'd have to go back and verify the numbers from prior elections, but iirc his margin is going to be higher than what Trump achieved, and also higher than previous elections which were deemed decisive victories.

Well that depends on what swing states you are talking about. My whole point is that there is a collection of swing states where the margin was not large and had he lost those collectively it would have lost him the election.

BluePlanet · 11-11-2020 01:58PM

I think it's safe to say that it is unprecedented that a recount flips the result in a US Presidential election.

For Trump, he doesn't just have to flip 1 state but 4?
It's beyond pathetic that this joke of an administration doesn't man-up here.

Brussels Sprout · 11-11-2020 02:00PM

one armed dwarf wrote: »

Yeah none of the margins here are remotely as tight as Florida 2000.

That's true but that's like saying a 6'6 man is not tall just because he happens to be standing next to a 6'10 man.

moon2 · 11-11-2020 02:10PM

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

That's true but that's like saying a 6'6 man is not tall just because he happens to be standing next to a 6'10 man.

I've been hunting around to see if there's a historical analysis of the minimum number of votes needed to flip the election outcome. Looking solely at popular vote isn't that useful, neither is the EC margin particularly useful by itself. So far I've not been able to find anything.

To take your analogy further, if most men are about 6'6 then they wouldn't be tall no matter who they're standing beside.

I feel american elections are typically tighter than what we see in other countries, but due to the convoluted nature of how they elect its harder to see that.

Quin_Dub · 11-11-2020 02:21PM

BluePlanet wrote: »

Can anyone cite an example of a recount in US Presidential elections that actually flipped the result?

Carfacemandog wrote: »

I can't off hand but wisconsin has had 2 recounts, one in 2016 which brought a change of 132 votes, and another in 2018 that saw a change of about 300 votes.

The current gap in wisconsin is 20k votes, with the closest two being Georgia and Arizona at 14k and 13k respectively. The margin are simply too much for recounts to overturn.

It's never happened in a Presidential Election.

There have been 31 State-wide recounts in the last 20 years.

The "change" that occurs has never been more than a few hundred and has only changed the actual result 3 times.

Governor of Washington State 2004 - Multiple recounts changed the initial win by 261 votes to a loss by 129 Votes - So a 390 Vote Swing
State Auditor of Vermont 2006 - Initial lead of 137 Votes became a loss by 102 vote , a 239 Vote Swing
Minnesota Senator Race 2008 - Initial win of 215 changing to a loss by 225 (Al Franken the winner) a 440 vote Swing

Quin_Dub · 11-11-2020 02:24PM

moon2 wrote: »

I've been hunting around to see if there's a historical analysis of the minimum number of votes needed to flip the election outcome. Looking solely at popular vote isn't that useful, neither is the EC margin particularly useful by itself. So far I've not been able to find anything.

To take your analogy further, if most men are about 6'6 then they wouldn't be tall no matter who they're standing beside.

I feel american elections are typically tighter than what we see in other countries, but due to the convoluted nature of how they elect its harder to see that.

They absolutely are.

The permanent 2 Horse race drives that allied to the fact that there is probably 75% of the population who will never change their vote no matter who the candidate is or what they have/have not done.

At worst they just won't vote , hence the typically low turn-out.

Here for example when we're all pissed off at the Big Parties , we vote Green or Independent etc. as a "protest" vote of sorts.

No such option exists in the US.

robinph · 11-11-2020 02:25PM

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Yes exactly. That's exactly what I did. I sought out the absolute minimum number of votes required to flip the map.

It's the same exercise that was done in 2016 to show that Clinton, in the end, only lost by 78k votes across 3 states.

I don't recall that ever being really presented as any reason for recounts across multiple states or a sign of voter fraud, just a statistical curiosity and sign at how a bit of campaigning in different places could have made a difference.

There was disbelief that people could vote for someone like Trump, and predictions that he'd be a disaster as a president, and that he'd not be statesman like at all. But thankfully he's been a model president throughout and never said or done anything unprecidentidial!

8-10 · 11-11-2020 02:27PM

It's funny that Trump can call for a recount in a State that he won in 2016 with less of a margin than Biden leads by in 2020, and he called winning that State a 'landslide' in 2016

Brussels Sprout · 11-11-2020 02:44PM

robinph wrote: »

I don't recall that ever being really presented as any reason for recounts across multiple states or a sign of voter fraud, just a statistical curiosity and sign at how a bit of campaigning in different places could have made a difference.

Oh yeah I'm not advocating for either of those. Biden won, fairly and squarely and the sooner everyone accepts that the better.

prawnsambo · 11-11-2020 03:03PM

Following on from Quin_Dub's post on possible Trump manoeuvrings, this thread covers that exact situation. Also worth reading the replies as there are a few extra nuggets of information there.

Inquitus · 11-11-2020 03:45PM

The USPS Workers gofundme got deleted, thankfully he won't profit from his lies

fr336 · 11-11-2020 04:16PM

WTF is going in with trump packing the pentagon with his picks? Very worrying.

Irish Praetorian · 11-11-2020 04:19PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Difficult to give a figure. There are a fair few who support Trump and his policies, without necessarily supporting Trump as a person, but as a rule, the folks I run into are fairly overwhelmingly Republican. Statistically, I believe officers are more likely lean Democrat than enlisted, and I do know some enlisted who are definitely on the progressive end of the scale, but they are all in the overall minority.

That said, I have seen absolutely nothing from anyone to indicate that any of us want the military to get involved in taking sides as an organisation. We've over two centuries of, shall we say, militant neutrality on the matter starting with George Washington, that sort of tradition is hard to break.

Of course, what they -want- and what they're -ordered- are two separate things. The Eisenhower vs Arkansas incident in the 50s showed that soldiers will carry out instructions to the best of their ability from one side one day, and then from the other side the next day, pursuant to the lawful chain of command at the time. In that, they place trust in the senior leadership that they are being given lawful orders. I have seen nothing to indicate that the Joint Chiefs or Combatant Commanders (Technically, the Joint Chiefs are not actually in the chain of command) would be willing to partake in an unlawful destruction of the peaceful or smooth transfer of civilian power, the President is quite limited in what he can do with troops inside the US (Another advantage of the US being 50 independent States). A more interesting question is what a State governor could do, but even if the most irrational Red state governor in the country decided to order his soldiers to take action (As Governor Faubus did in 1957), what would they do? Invade Pennsylvania from Kentucky to take over the counting centers? There would be nothing for them to do in their own jurisdiction.

That leaves one, very large wildcard. The DC. National Guard, located, coincidentally enough, right where the transfer of power is located. And unlike any other Guard, it's both able to lawfully conduct operations in the city normally prohibited to the military and has President at the top of the chain of command. Which is a full battalion of military police, and a bunch of other folks like transportation, Air force security, etc. So, if Trump ordered the DC Guard to fortify the White House and turn it into a fortress, I presume they'd do it. Probably half-heartedly (eg I can't imagine they'd dig trenches in the Rose Garden), but they'll do it.
And then, at 12:01 on 20th January, someone would relay a message to them from the new commander in chief across town to stand down, and that would be the end of it.

Your Naval Officer friend is correct. It's been a note of some concern that military service is now considered to be almost a family affair, with a very large proportion of folks in the service with relatives who served. And they, in turn, tend to be from where their folks are/were serving, which tends to be in the rural areas since that's where many of the bases are. And, yes, there's a large cohort from the inner cities, as it's viewed as a way out which gives free job training and other benefits. Those folks tend to gravitate to the support roles. (Not many post-army civilian jobs for infantry, but helicopter mechanics are another matter entirely, for example).

That militant neutrality sounds like the envy of many a society in history, although I would worry should matters develop in a certain manner going forward, if it could become yet another piece in the rather stultified political environment of the US. Assuming that they are by in large inclined to play ball, that is support the terms of the Constitution and follow the duly elected leader (in this case Trump for now and Biden in late January) there seems to be little trouble for us to expect in January. However, I would wonder if they would at all feel conflicted if that status quo moving forward involved the occupant of the White House being elected with increasingly small portions of the popular vote. I mean this election could have gone the other way with perhaps 150k of the votes going the other way in key states - that is out of a popular vote margin of about 5 million in favour of Biden. I wonder is there a margin at which the military, no more than the wider population to be fair, starts to question the disconnect between the candidate with the most votes and the 'winner' of the system. Or even take a somewhat possible scenario with this election - let us say the Republican controlled legislatures of sufficient states won by Biden decided to sent electors to vote for Trump and give him the presidency; what would the military do if anything?

Just on the point in regards the National Guard, am I mistaken or can they be 'Federalized' by Executive Order (or whenever the president so desires?) - I seem to have vague recollections of that happening at some point during the Civil Rights Era, as a means of undercutting one of the states ability to cause a fuss. Adjunct to this, National Guard and active service Army are different kettles of fish I presume; this may be outside your wheelhouse but is there much in the way of distinctions between the two in terms of political affiliation or demographic makeup? Again, I recall hearing the term weekend-warrior somewhere and I'm left with the enduring view of it being something for suburban householders to do in their spare time - but then I'm near certain a few of those units were deployed to Iraq/Afghanistan so I don't want to commit to an ill-informed pisstake without getting the facts straight.

I'd query one or two more points, but at this stage I may be dragging us off topic and into 'hey did you shoot a gun, did you kill anybody, did you fly a fighter-jet' territory.

everlast75 · 11-11-2020 04:47PM

Boris rowing in behind other world leaders in referring to the trump presidency in the past tense

https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1326533282654277632?s=19

Timberrrrrrrr · 11-11-2020 05:02PM

everlast75 wrote: »

Boris rowing in behind other world leaders in referring to the trump presidency in the past tense

https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1326533282654277632?s=19

More world leaders need to start using the term "president elect Biden"

Blowfish · 11-11-2020 05:05PM

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

However, I would wonder if they would at all feel conflicted if that status quo moving forward involved the occupant of the White House being elected with increasingly small portions of the popular vote. I mean this election could have gone the other way with perhaps 150k of the votes going the other way in key states - that is out of a popular vote margin of about 5 million in favour of Biden. I wonder is there a margin at which the military, no more than the wider population to be fair, starts to question the disconnect between the candidate with the most votes and the 'winner' of the system.

It's possible alright that they'd be uncomfortable with it, but from everything I've seen (even as someone who often disagrees majorly with how the US military is used), the US military would be extremely unwilling to involve themselves and would always defer to the courts as the ones responsible for resolving any disputes or issues with elections.

Now, the one caveat is that the military will obey all legal orders from the president and while I'd agree with Manic that they'd quite happily down tools on Jan 20th if instructed to, there are still plenty of 'legal' orders that would cause havok before then. Hypothetically (though I'm no lawyer so could be way off), Trump could state that the 'election fraud' is depriving people of their constitutionally protected rights, hence under the Insurrection Act (third bullet point here) he is mobilising the National Guard and ordering them to 'secure' the counting locations. I don't envy the situation that'd stick the top end of the US military in were that to happen.

everlast75 · 11-11-2020 05:06PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

More world leaders need to start using the term "president elect Biden"

It's embarrassing and the lack of Trump supporters on here to defend his course of action is notable.

The party of gerrymandering, voter suppression and welcoming foreign interference in the election crying foul and hypocrisy is nauseating in the extreme.

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

Comments