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

josip wrote: »

Does anyone think if the Pfizer and Moderna announcements had been made 2 weeks ago that it would have influenced the result in the swing states?
Some on here were saying that Covid19 wasn't a decisive issue for the US electorate, but the Dems did campaign a lot based on how badly Trump had handled it.
If Trump had two > 90% vaccines announced in the run up to polling, it could only have improved his percentage, but by how much?

If he hadn't been himself and handled the entire situation in his usual incompetent manner I think he probably would have walked to reelection funnily enough.

Joe Biden brought out (so far) about 12 million more votes that Clinton got and is further ahead in terms of popular vote margin but the fact that trump increased his vote at all given how much of a steaming pile his administration has been (in my opinion) and extremely instructive to dig into once he's gone as to how and why that happened beyond the group of people who would vote for him no matter what. I still can't believe there would be 70 million who fall into that category.

Pfizer wasn't part of his warp speed thing so can't really credit him for that one but to be sure he'd have spun it that way. The polling that came out on election day said that most people had their minds made up more than two weeks before voting and given the amount of early vote it is hard to say if the timing of the vaccines showing promising (though very early) signs would have made enough difference.

The Moderna one looks to have a bit more about it than the Pfizer one right now because of the storage capability but more data is needed on both tbf. Every decision trump made let him to that "landslide" defeat. It would be hard to pinpoint just one that could have turned it all around for him but I'd say his handling of Covid was the final nail alright. It was ludicrous how he behaved pre election and indeed post election on the subject.

Christy42 wrote: »

So what. When was the last time that facts actually mattered? It would have been hailed as a great Trump victory. CNN would have wondered if it would help Trump though they obviously would say that he did not help the development. Fox would say he had essentially been in the lab. OANN would say he was the only scientist involved. Then they would have immediately gone back to bashing science without a hint of the contradictions.

Mentioning facts on boards would not have helped.

Would it have swung it for him and should it have swung it for him are two very different questions.

The facts don't matter to the people that were already Trump voters, for everyone else I just don't see the swing being there. Polls showed that people didn't trust Trump on the virus and it had already been flagged for months by the media and Dems that Trump was likely to try a hail mary with some COVID cure.

A potential vaccine being available doesn't automatically mean everyone is cured and immune. For people that ended up voting for Biden due to trusting him more on COVID would have still trusted him more to roll-out the vaccine than Mr 'Have we tried injecting people with bleach'.

Safehands wrote: »

I agree. Actually I heard CNN giving him accolades yesterday, they said that he should get some credit for helping to finance it. Would they have said that before the election though? I doubt it very much.
Would it have swung it for him? I think so.
Should it have swung it for him? Absolutely not!

CNN have given him credit when its due though - from what I have seen on CNN anyway. The issue really is that it is often criticism rather than credit his actions deserve. That's not the media's fault despite what some would have you believe.

Rudey Rises in PA... I just bought a ton of popcorn. I hope the Tesco delivery gets here on time...

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1328714409171165185?s=1

VinLieger wrote: »

Please let there be a video recording of this farce when it happens

Its audio and/or video may be available later. Folks in the US (up to 4000) of them can log in to the stream via a telephone number. However prohibitions on recording and re-broadcast (dunno the details) do exist.

correct horse battery staple wrote: »

Let me get this straight Trump politicising scientific trials would have swung it for him?

The same Trump who is anti science, anti facts and pro injecting bleach?

The same Trump under whose watch 4-5x Vietnam or 20-30x 9/11 death happened in 9 months? With at least half of these arguably (when compared to Ireland) being needless if he didn't spend so much time decrying and containing his own experts.

Riiiiight...

Your presuming that his "fans" or supporters have joined up thought process and cognitively associate statement A with Statement B and so on to inform an educated opinion on their leader. To date they have been unable to do this, they just pick and choose what to believe in 10 second gaps, bit like a facebook feed really. So a complete contradiction in other areas is not going to stop them giving their candidate credit where it suits the narrative irrespective of the contradictions from his own mouth and actions.

Roanmore wrote: »

Is the objective here not to win the cases but keep appealing so that they eventually go to the Supreme Court who will (Trump hoping) turn over the results to give Trump victory?

I've heard a lot of Trump supporters trot out the line (paraphrasing) "we're taking this to the Supreme Court and they can rule on it"
Surely it's not that easy to get to the Supreme Court?

You cannot just appeal a case because you didn't like the verdict.

A popular misconception is that cases are always appealed. Not often does a losing party have an automatic right of appeal. There usually must be a legal basis for the appeal—an alleged material error in the trial—not just the fact that the losing party didn’t like the verdict.

....

An appeal is not a retrial or a new trial of the case. The appeals courts do not usually consider new witnesses or new evidence. Appeals in either civil or criminal cases are usually based on arguments that there were errors in the trial’s procedure or errors in the judge's interpretation of the law.

link

This is especially true in cases that lack any legal merit such as what the Trump lawyers appear to be filing.

There is also a hierarchy of courts so it's quite tricky to get a case to the supreme court as it would need to pass upwards through the various levels, each of which acts as a filter.

Jesus, I thought we had jumped the shark, but the loons have now got a whole new conspiracy theory, courtesy of OANN and that great bastion of truth, Congressman Louis Gomert.

Now, put down any hot drinks, babies ye might be holding etc. before ye read this:

The US Army has raided a premises in Frankfurt, Germany and have take custody of a server (why is it always a ****ing server?) that is owned by a Spanish company based in Barcelona, that 'proves categorically' that, on Election night, Trump had won not 270, no; not 306, no; but 410 Electoral votes!

Ah, FFS!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?ab_channel=DanielMalice&v=FKdDeWQaBjI

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Jesus, I thought we had jumped the shark, but the loons have now got a whole new conspiracy theory, courtesy of OANN and that great bastion of truth, Congressman Louis Gomert.

Now, put down any hot drinks, babies ye might be holding etc. before ye read this:

The US Army has raided a premises in Frankfurt, Germany and have take custody of a server (why is it always a ****ing server?) that is owned by a Spanish company based in Barcelona, that 'proves categorically' that, on Election night, Trump had won not 270, no; not 306, no; but 410 Electoral votes!

Ah, FFS!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?ab_channel=DanielMalice&v=FKdDeWQaBjI

*sigh* I mean if your gonna fake that much nonsense, they may as well have given him all the electoral votes. Hell, say he won like 630 of them....they had to go and make more electoral votes, he won that bigly!

He's not leaving the WH for Thanksgiving.

And it seems that GOP chaired board of electors in Wayne county has said she is willing to certify results in all parts of the county bar Detroit. At some point subtlety has vanished if it existed at all.

I listened to a podcast about the 2000 election called fiasco and in one of the episodes the host sums it up well, when he said “the gop don’t care if they look like hypocrites, they just don’t like losing” which even though it was in relation to an event 20 years ago could easily be attached to the same party today.

Itssoeasy wrote: »

And it seems that GOP chaired board of electors in Wayne county has said she is willing to certify results in all parts of the county bar Detroit. At some point subtlety has vanished if it existed at all.

I listened to a podcast about the 2000 election called fiasco and in one of the episodes the host sums it up well, when he said “the gop don’t care if they look like hypocrites, they just don’t like losing” which even though it was in relation to an event 20 years ago could easily be attached to the same party today.

It was announced they reversed the decision and voted 4-0 in favour of certifying the results.