nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

Quin_Dub

Continuation thread from here

All existing rules still stand.

Everyone will want to be active in this thread over the next few days , but there will be zero tolerance for Forum rule breaches.

Keep it Sensible , Civil and Polite please.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

BonnieSituation

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Will the Democratic leadership pay more heed to Beto than they would to AOC?

https://twitter.com/PatrickSvitek/status/1326965359744864257

They need to listen to both

everlast75

Looks like he's going to push it all the way to the electoral college *eek*

https://twitter.com/Laurie_Garrett/status/1326989666055299074?s=19

Itssoeasy

everlast75 wrote: »

Looks like he's going to push it all the way to the electoral college *eek*

https://twitter.com/Laurie_Garrett/status/1326989666055299074?s=19

Well America won’t be able to lecture other countries(even when what they’re saying is true) now, because those countries can just point on how much of a mess the American election was. That trump guy that’s now in the pentagon seems like a piece of work. Is he there past the inauguration or is he there to cause a mess for 70 days ?

BonnieSituation

everlast75 wrote: »

Looks like he's going to push it all the way to the electoral college *eek*

https://twitter.com/Laurie_Garrett/status/1326989666055299074?s=19

So they're going after faithless electors because they want to overturn the result?

I thought they were winning Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin.

It's hard to keep up.

The increasing desperation sounds like the last days in the bunker.

TomOnBoard

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Will the Democratic leadership pay more heed to Beto than they would to AOC?

https://twitter.com/PatrickSvitek/status/1326965359744864257

That remains to be seen. However, unless there's a sea-change in attitude at the DNC and upper echelons, I believe they'll see constructive/ honest criticism, whether from AOC or Beto as an attack and will ignore it.

TomOnBoard

BonnieSituation wrote: »

So they're going after faithless electors because they want to overturn the result?

I thought they were winning Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin.

It's hard to keep up.

The increasing desperation sounds like the last days in the bunker.

Going after total confusion and FUD leading to Electoral College chaos is all part of the Plan B that Team Trump has been following since Nov 4, prepared months in advance. Its not increasing desperation- its Plan B playing out. Plan B is ALL about forcing the Presidency to be decided in a House vote in January 2021. At that time, the votes will work on the basis of each State having a single vote, decided by the majority representation of parties. While Dems will have a majority of seats in the House, that is irrelevant- Reps are the majority party in the majority of States.

That's the Trump Team objective. Whether it succeeds or not remains to be seen.

BonnieSituation

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

It seems like a monumental ask to try and get less than 270 electors to vote for Biden based on the States above.

It just doesn't seem at all likely.

Foxtrol

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Going after total confusion and FUD leading to Electoral College chaos is all part of the Plan B that Team Trump has been following since Nov 4, prepared months in advance. Its not increasing desperation- its Plan B playing out. Plan B is ALL about forcing the Presidency to be decided in a House vote in January 2021. At that time, the votes will work on the basis of each State having a single vote, decided by the majority representation of parties. While Dems will have a majority of seats in the House, that is irrelevant- Reps are the majority party in the majority of States.

That's the Trump Team objective. Whether it succeeds or not remains to be seen.

It is basically impossible to happen.

1) When certified the electors are assigned by the campaigns. It would mean people from Biden campaign to vote Trump
2) There is faithless elector laws in several states (along with a likely scenario that the courts could enforce it for electors from other states)
3) If all that fails because the dems control the house they can stop the electoral vote until time runs out and it goes to President Nancy by default.

All this talk is stressing people out and there is no need.

BonnieSituation

Foxtrol wrote: »

It is basically impossible to happen.

1) When certified the electors are assigned by the campaigns. It would mean people from Biden campaign to vote Trump
2) There is faithless elector laws in several states (along with a likely scenario that the courts could enforce it for electors from other states)
3) If all that fails because the dems control the house they can stop the electoral vote until time runs out and it goes to President Nancy by default.

All this talk is stressing people out and there is no need.

I think the issue is that people are generally unsure even who or how the electors are selected. You made good points here, especially no. 3. Didn't think of that aspect.

Timberrrrrrrr

Foxtrol wrote: »

It is basically impossible to happen.

1) When certified the electors are assigned by the campaigns. It would mean people from Biden campaign to vote Trump
2) There is faithless elector laws in several states (along with a likely scenario that the courts could enforce it for electors from other states)
3) If all that fails because the dems control the house they can stop the electoral vote until time runs out and it goes to President Nancy by default.

All this talk is stressing people out and there is no need.

I think it's the fact that he is trying every single trick in the book (and a few unwritten ones too) to hold onto power no matter what that has people so shocked. Honestly, you have to ask yourself this...How far is he willing to go?

Itssoeasy

BonnieSituation wrote: »

So they're going after faithless electors because they want to overturn the result?

I thought they were winning Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin.

It's hard to keep up.

The increasing desperation sounds like the last days in the bunker.

Well they seem to have realised they can’t overturn the actual results so they are trying to stop states certifying results.

josip

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I think it's the fact that he is trying every single trick in the book (and a few unwritten ones too) to hold onto power no matter what that has people so shocked. Honestly, you have to ask yourself this...How far is he willing to go?

Reminiscent of the Tories being prepared to prorogue parliament to try to get the type of Brexit they wanted last summer.
In the end, that all worked out rather well for Cummings and his ilk.

TomOnBoard

Foxtrol wrote: »

It is basically impossible to happen.

1) When certified the electors are assigned by the campaigns. It would mean people from Biden campaign to vote Trump
2) There is faithless elector laws in several states (along with a likely scenario that the courts could enforce it for electors from other states)
3) If all that fails because the dems control the house they can stop the electoral vote until time runs out and it goes to President Nancy by default.

All this talk is stressing people out and there is no need.

Using your scenarios:

1. Plan B works when a State does not certify the result based on the People's vote. This could happen where a Secretary of State refuses to certify, or where a State legislature steps in and takes control.
2) In States that have faithless elector laws, some can recall electors while others only punish them by a fine after the event. In States with no such laws, faithless electors may vote faithlessly if they wish.
3) Dems may be able to stymie a Contingent Election for President. However, in such a situation, the Senate has the power to elect a Vice President. That person could then present for inaugeration as POTUS in opposition to House Speaker.

Would any of these scenarios succeed? I dunno! However, none of us here can categorically say that anything is 'impossible' right now. Even the most highly educated and experienced Constitutional lawyers and academics believe that Electoral College and Contingent Election laws are full of holes and traps. We are in uncharted waters, and there are rocks all over the place. Now is not the time for sailing merrily along!

Foxtrol

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I think it's the fact that he is trying every single trick in the book (and a few unwritten ones too) to hold onto power no matter what that has people so shocked. Honestly, you have to ask yourself this...How far is he willing to go?

Maybe there is a trick he can find but so far what many people are running around with their hair on fire about simply isn't possible due to specific rules that must be followed, not just customs that he has proved he can trample over.

Add to that how the tricks from his book have failed time and again during his term that it isn't like he has a concerning success rate.

The only real threat I can find at this point is if they find some court to throw out all mail ballots, like they are trying in PA. It is a borderline frivolous case but if that was successful the whole system could burn down, though I still don't think it makes it past even a packed Supreme Court.

Foxtrol

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Using your scenarios:

1. Plan B works when a State does not certify the result based on the People's vote. This could happen where a Secretary of State refuses to certify, or where a State legislature steps in and takes control.

Even if you have SoS that corrupt (which they haven't appeared at all to be so far), there are avenues to go to court to force certification.

2) In States that have faithless elector laws, some can recall electors while others only punish them by a fine after the event. In States with no such laws, faithless electors may vote faithlessly if they wish.

For this you'd then need state legislators to be corrupt enough to send GOP electors and at that point then this is likely a moot point, as they wouldn't be 'faithless' anymore.

3) Dems may be able to stymie a Contingent Election for President. However, in such a situation, the Senate has the power to elect a Vice President. That person could then present for inaugeration as POTUS in opposition to House Speaker.

Looks like you're getting two mixed up. I'm not talking about a contingent election, I'm talking about the counting of electoral votes, which would have to happen prior to a contingent election. You can't get to a contingent election without a dem house allowing for it.

Even if some dems lost their minds and flipped then you'd need nearly all GOP to go along with the power grab in the senate.

Would any of these scenarios succeed? I dunno! However, none of us here can categorically say that anything is 'impossible' right now. Even the most highly educated and experienced Constitutional lawyers and academics believe that Electoral College and Contingent Election laws are full of holes and traps. We are in uncharted waters, and there are rocks all over the place. Now is not the time for sailing merrily along!

It sounds the exact same as the talk we had in 2016. Yes, there were all these crazy routes that could have been used to stop Trump post election but nothing panned out. There is a tiny chance but no where near the level people appear to be worrying about.

eire4

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Well America won’t be able to lecture other countries(even when what they’re saying is true) now, because those countries can just point on how much of a mess the American election was. That trump guy that’s now in the pentagon seems like a piece of work. Is he there past the inauguration or is he there to cause a mess for 70 days ?

I would say its all part of the burn the house down on the way out the door I expect to see from the president. Never mind I can only imagine the amount of shredding of documents, deleting e-mails etc that is going on.

Itssoeasy

eire4 wrote: »

I would say its all part of the burn the house down on the way out the door I expect to see from the president. Never mind I can only imagine the amount of shredding of documents, deleting e-mails etc that is going on.

Yeah the shredding in the next 70 days will make the Iran contra shredding look normal.

Edit: Obama has a book coming out and it’s fairly frank from passages CNN have quoted. It seems the Obama and Mitch McConnell dislike was a two way street.

Quin_Dub

Foxtrol wrote: »

It is basically impossible to happen.

1) When certified the electors are assigned by the campaigns. It would mean people from Biden campaign to vote Trump
2) There is faithless elector laws in several states (along with a likely scenario that the courts could enforce it for electors from other states)
3) If all that fails because the dems control the house they can stop the electoral vote until time runs out and it goes to President Nancy by default.

All this talk is stressing people out and there is no need.

BonnieSituation wrote: »

I think the issue is that people are generally unsure even who or how the electors are selected. You made good points here, especially no. 3. Didn't think of that aspect.

I've been doing a bit more reading on this and it would seem that whilst the State Level legislatures do indeed have the right to decide how their Electoral college votes are assigned - Winner of the popular vote or split like Nebraska and Maine etc. - They cannot do so after the election , they are stuck with the rules as defined prior to the election.

That doesn't solve the problem of individual "Faithless Electors" , but given that they are chosen by the winning party , the chances of getting someone picked by the Democratic party to decide to choose Donald Trump are fairly slender.

In 2016 a few Dem Electors voted for Bernie Sanders and I think one GOP elector voted for Colin Powell , but they were meaningless points of principal and they were still staying on their side of the party line.

The risk is in a State not certifying the results and so not sending any voters forward , but again the reality is unless one Trumps court cases actually had merit there is no legal basis for them not to certify the results.

Not saying that Team Trump aren't trying to force the issue , but the more I read they less viable this really seems , thankfully.

prawnsambo

This is becoming a joke now. Legal firm has to be sailing very close to the wind on this one. Mad stuff.

eire4

BluePlanet wrote: »

Obama was elected on a progressive platform.
Later it was found out to be all bluster.
The 2 parties essentially pitch to the same voters, but there are vast numbers of non-voters that are not engaged, at least not regularly. That is where right or left can grow their vote.

Agreed. I have said many times before that the Democrats need economically to become again the party of FDR not the corporate controlled one it is if there is to be any hope for America. Otherwise as long as economically they keep playing in the same Friedmanite disaster capitalist stadium so to speak as the Republicans the economic lives of the vast majority of Americans will continue to get worse and the super rich will continue to get wealthier and income and wealth inequality will continue to get worse all of which leaves fertile ground for nasty characters like the current president to get into power.

Blowfish

Quin_Dub wrote: »

That doesn't solve the problem of individual "Faithless Electors" , but given that they are chosen by the winning party , the chances of getting someone picked by the Democratic party to decide to choose Donald Trump are fairly slender.

Indeed, naturally because of how important it is, the party always pick those who are extremely partisan and are never likely to become faithless. In fact Hillary Clinton will be one of the electors in New York.

everlast75

Still no one on here to defend trump, no?

Okay then.

More proof... from 45's own department of this absolute horse**** they are trying to peddle in court...

https://twitter.com/GeoffRBennett/status/1327023530488324100?s=19

uncleoswald

BluePlanet wrote: »

Obama was elected on a progressive platform.
Later it was found out to be all bluster.
The 2 parties essentially pitch to the same voters, but there are vast numbers of non-voters that are not engaged, at least not regularly. That is where right or left can grow their vote.

A bit harsh on Obama as his hands were tied massively when they lost the congress after two years. And even then, the control was something of a mirage and they were dealing with a massive recession in that time.

Back on this election I seem to sway hourly between thinking it's all going to be ok in the end because the system has enough safeguards, and panic that the system just wasn't built to withstand someone as brazen as Trump and as blindingly devoted as his followers.

Manic Moran

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

You'd almost want to actually have them be different parties state by state who just form into a coalition on the federal level.

Or, as an alternative, we can go back to remembering that the Tenth Amendment is a thing, and go back to letting States sort out their own problems to their own satisfaction. It’s how the country was designed to operate in the first place. What progressive policies cannot be enacted at the State level? (To counter that, what conservative ones cannot, but I can think of fewer at the national level)

For example, some states, famously Massachusetts, but not only, had their own broad healthcare plans before ACA came along. Why does Congress need to get involved? As mentioned, California alone has the, what, 9th largest economy in the world? Does it really need Congress and the federal budget to create a healthcare system to satisfy California voters? If there are impediments to such a thing (there are some), Congress can remove them. California or New York can do Single Payer, a more swing state can do something closer to ACA, and Utah or whatever can go pure capitalist.

As mentioned, Florida just put in a new minimum wage. $15/hr may do all right in Florida, it may be insufficient in California, it’s probably overkill in Wyoming. Why does the federal government need to get involved? The States have show that they can do things if they want to.If you are in a Cleveland suburb and you don’t like progressive policies in your State, you can vote against the Democrats in Congress. If you are in Cleveland and you do want progressive policies in Ohio, you can vote for a progressive in Columbus to pass those policies without risk of pushback from someone in neighboring Kentucky.

[Deleted User]

everlast75 wrote: »

Still no one on here to defend trump, no?

Okay then.

More proof... from 45's own department of this absolute horse**** they are trying to peddle in court...

https://twitter.com/GeoffRBennett/status/1327023530488324100?s=19

Who is going to be fired from homeland security for this statement? Krebs or someone else?

Headshot

https://twitter.com/amy_siskind/status/1327042286094602241?s=21

https://www.tmj4.com/news/election-2020/51-of-72-wisconsin-counties-complete-canvasses-resulting-in-minor-vote-shift
Cheered me right up and a good way to call it a night

Frank Bullitt

If anyone knows who Steven Crowder is, his youtube channel is glorious to watch. He isn't taking Biden winning very well at all.

uncleoswald

Gintonious wrote: »

If anyone knows who Steven Crowder is, his youtube channel is glorious to watch. He isn't taking Biden winning very well at all.

I wouldn't give him the hits.

BlitzKrieg

Gintonious wrote: »

If anyone knows who Steven Crowder is, his youtube channel is glorious to watch. He isn't taking Biden winning very well at all.

Its not worth having him in your youtube recommendations even if he is currently coked up on copium trying to handle the results.

BonnieSituation

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Its not worth having him in your youtube recommendations even if he is currently coked up on copium trying to handle the results.

That's what incognito mode was (mostly) invented for.