US Presidential Election 2020

marno21

letowski wrote: »

Im not sure do I agree with this, Harris is going to Texas also while Biden will then continue on to Iowa too. Already 40% of people have voted in these states, there is slim pickings left. They still lean red or toss up .

Maybe it’s a diversionary tactics to pull Trump away from the rust belt. Ultimately Biden’s best path is through building the mid west blue wall and I think he’d be better spent fortifying it.

Nonetheless the number of undecideds are minimal enough so it probably doesn’t matter much at this stage.

Most voting to date has been for Biden/Dem congressional candidates. It seems as though election day voting will primarily by Republican voters.

Tell me how

marno21 wrote: »

Most voting to date has been for Biden/Dem congressional candidates. It seems as though election day voting will primarily by Republican voters.

Or.................

Mal-Adjusted

Maybe this is a silly question and maybe it's been asked before but i'm not trawling through eight thousane posts...

How will exit poling be carried out? Because if we take it that mail in and early voting will lean heavily Democrat, then it's natural to assume exit polls on the night will lean heavily Republican. I'm just wondering if this will be figured into the exit polls. Are early/mail in voting counted already or do they wait until election night to open the envelopes? The last thing anyone needs is the news media calling it hugely for Trump and a few days later Biden wins. The MAGA crowd would go balistic.

Tell me how

Mal-Adjusted wrote: »

Maybe this is a silly question and maybe it's been asked before but i'm not trawling through eight thousane posts...

How will exit poling be carried out? Because if we take it that mail in and early voting will lean heavily Democrat, then it's natural to assume exit polls on the night will lean heavily Republican. I'm just wondering if this will be figured into the exit polls. Are early/mail in voting counted already or do they wait until election night to open the envelopes? The last thing anyone needs is the news media calling it hugely for Trump and a few days later Biden wins. The MAGA crowd would go balistic.

Article here

Processing absentee ballots generally includes steps short of tabulating them -- such as removing them from the envelope, confirming voter eligibility, matching signatures to what's on record and scanning them.

Some states have changed their processing rules due to the pandemic, allowing for earlier processing starts to accommodate the increased volume of absentee ballots. For instance, the battleground state of Michigan can begin processing the day before Election Day in cities with a population over 25,000 this year, instead of the day of.

A majority of states won't start actually counting ballots until the morning of Election Day or after polls close. Most counting rules have remained unchanged this year, though some states have adjusted their timelines due to the pandemic to ease the burden of increased absentee ballots. For instance, the battleground state of Pennsylvania passed a law this past spring allowing clerks to start counting ballots at 7 a.m. on Election Day, rather than waiting until after the polls close.

What you said could indeed be a problem and Trump is trying to demand a result on 3rd November which would heavily lean towards in person voting tallies.
Let's hope he get's his result (effectively) but that it is a defeat for him with the only thing to be confirmed as postal votes are counted is the margin.

everlast75

I wonder on the effect of the latest SCOTUS confirmation.

From the left's perspective, I see it as a major motivator for turnout. Obama chose Garland as he was palatable to the right and look how he was rewarded. Dems are baying for blood, which can't be good for Reps when it comes to turnout. Despite that, this was tweeted by a GOP account, which can only motivate folks more

https://twitter.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1320878683423428609?s=19

(That's all fine, owning the libs eh? but don't come crying when you perceive a lack of civility from them)



From the Reps perspective, they already have their 3 SCOTUS judges, a rake of Circuit Court nominations - no real motivation to vote. If they had of held off on ACB's nomination, that might have driven a few more out to vote IMHO

Itssoeasy

Well I don’t feel much sympathy for some parts of the democratic voter base. They now know for certain and there can be no doubt that elections have long lasting consequences in the United States so they need to take some blame. The phrase “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good” should be tattooed somewhere for them to all see. Stop with the purity test and wanting every candidate to be pure or else you won’t vote for them. These are political elections not NASA launches.

Water John

I would expect Biden to go to 11 judges. That would largely balance it, considering he said it was skewed. Whilst it would lean slightly con, Roberts would be the casting vote. That's reasonable as a Supreme Court should be hesitant to change a rule, same as populations are usually slow to alter a Constitution.

Zubeneschamali

Tell me how wrote: »

What you said could indeed be a problem and Trump is trying to demand a result on 3rd November which would heavily lean towards in person voting tallies.

The whole rigmarole of news stations and pundits calling the election on the night, and candidates declaring victory or conceding defeat, has no legal effect whatever.

The states will count votes and then certify results, there is and never has been a legal result on election night.

seamus

Water John wrote: »

I would expect Biden to go to 11 judges. That would largely balance it, considering he said it was skewed. Whilst it would lean slightly con, Roberts would be the casting vote. That's reasonable as a Supreme Court should be hesitant to change a rule, same as populations are usually slow to alter a Constitution.

I wouldn't trust the democrats to do this properly.

They'd put through the bill to add new SCOTUSes, but in the interests of "unity" they'd accept some Republican amendment that imposed term limits on new appointees.

Then when the Reps take control again, the Democratic judges will step down as their terms expire and they Reps will abolish term limits and throw two more Republican nominees in.

This game has been going on for decades and it's why a minority party has managed to wield undue power and hoard power away from influence of democracy.

Every olive branch the Democrats hold out for the Republicans, is gladly taken and used as a stick to beat them later on.

ELM327

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The whole rigmarole of news stations and pundits calling the election on the night, and candidates declaring victory or conceding defeat, has no legal effect whatever.

The states will count votes and then certify results, there is and never has been a legal result on election night.

+1


The "result" of the election is actually not confirmed until some time after, when the electors cast their votes in the electoral college. These are the only votes that actually matter in strict terms.

Water John

seamus wrote: »

I wouldn't trust the democrats to do this properly.

They'd put through the bill to add new SCOTUSes, but in the interests of "unity" they'd accept some Republican amendment that imposed term limits on new appointees.

Then when the Reps take control again, the Democratic judges will step down as their terms expire and they Reps will abolish term limits and throw two more Republican nominees in.

This game has been going on for decades and it's why a minority party has managed to wield undue power and hoard power away from influence of democracy.

Every olive branch the Democrats hold out for the Republicans, is gladly taken and used as a stick to beat them later on.

Biden has already said he won't go with limited terms in office. That he has rejected. He has put the option of increasing the number in the court out there and seemed to indicate it would be looked at, considering how the court operates in the next few months. If the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is struck down, I have no doubt the court will increase to 11.
If the Dems have control of the Senate then a new more comprehensive health bill would be pushed through.

everlast75

Here is a story that speaks a lot of sense to me.

Should Biden win, and it is not a foregone conclusion, it's time to take the gloves off...

https://twitter.com/JoshuaMZeitz/status/1321047900198154241?s=19

droidus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The whole rigmarole of news stations and pundits calling the election on the night, and candidates declaring victory or conceding defeat, has no legal effect whatever.

The states will count votes and then certify results, there is and never has been a legal result on election night.

Kavanaugh's opinion on the Wisconsin mail in case confirms what we already knew was going to happen, they're going to try and stop the count early and steal the election.

“Late-arriving ballots open up one of the greatest risks of what might, in our era of hyperpolarized political parties and existential politics, destabilize the election result,” New York University Professor Richard Pildes wrote in a June law review article about the challenges posed by this year’s election. “If the apparent winner the morning after the election ends up losing due to late-arriving ballots, charges of a rigged election could explode. The longer after Election Day any significant changes in vote totals take place, the greater the risk that the losing side will cry that the election has been stolen.”

TomOnBoard

everlast75 wrote: »

Here is a story that speaks a lot of sense to me.

Should Biden win, and it is not a foregone conclusion, it's time to take the gloves off...

https://twitter.com/JoshuaMZeitz/status/1321047900198154241?s=19

That's a very informative article, which makes a lot of sense to me.

Itssoeasy

Water John wrote: »

I would expect Biden to go to 11 judges. That would largely balance it, considering he said it was skewed. Whilst it would lean slightly con, Roberts would be the casting vote. That's reasonable as a Supreme Court should be hesitant to change a rule, same as populations are usually slow to alter a Constitution.

And then the GOP will go to 13 and then they’ll have to build on a new wing(obviously building a new wing is a joke).

The nine justices have been that number for nearly all of the history of the Supreme Court and I don’t think they should change it. It’s a Supreme Court not adding the three point line to a basketball court. The democrats need to just toughen up and not playing so bloody nice and also stop assuming that their policies will just magically be accepted. And I would agree with many of the over arching policies of the democrats but I think how they go about them and at times arrogance(might be too harsh a word) fails badly and as I said believing it will just magically happen clearly doesn’t work.

droidus

Itssoeasy wrote: »

And then the GOP will go to 13 and then they’ll have to build on a new wing(obviously building a new wing is a joke).

The nine justices have been that number for nearly all of the history of the Supreme Court and I don’t think they should change it. It’s a Supreme Court not adding the three point line to a basketball court. The democrats need to just toughen up and not playing so bloody nice and also stop assuming that their policies will just magically be accepted. And I would agree with many of the over arching policies of the democrats but I think how they go about them and at times arrogance(might be too harsh a word) fails badly and as I said believing it will just magically happen clearly doesn’t work.

Nope.

The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since.

5 members of the court have been appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote. The GOP prevented the appointment of another Dem nominated judge.

It's time that the democrats get real before minority rule by right wing extremists becomes completely enshrined in law.

BonnieSituation

seamus wrote: »

I wouldn't trust the democrats to do this properly.

They'd put through the bill to add new SCOTUSes, but in the interests of "unity" they'd accept some Republican amendment that imposed term limits on new appointees.

Then when the Reps take control again, the Democratic judges will step down as their terms expire and they Reps will abolish term limits and throw two more Republican nominees in.

This game has been going on for decades and it's why a minority party has managed to wield undue power and hoard power away from influence of democracy.

Every olive branch the Democrats hold out for the Republicans, is gladly taken and used as a stick to beat them later on.

This is what is really getting to me reading about olive branches and bipartisanship. Those days are over. The main task for the Dems now is to ensure the majority actually get to rule.

If you want the GOP to play nice, then they need to be humbled and to come back to you begging to be let back in to play.

We have seen only to readily what happens when you allow the fringes to have some oxygen.

It's time for the libs to own the racists.

Overheal

everlast75 wrote: »

I wonder on the effect of the latest SCOTUS confirmation.

From the left's perspective, I see it as a major motivator for turnout. Obama chose Garland as he was palatable to the right and look how he was rewarded. Dems are baying for blood, which can't be good for Reps when it comes to turnout. Despite that, this was tweeted by a GOP account, which can only motivate folks more

https://twitter.com/JudiciaryGOP/status/1320878683423428609?s=19

(That's all fine, owning the libs eh? but don't come crying when you perceive a lack of civility from them)



From the Reps perspective, they already have their 3 SCOTUS judges, a rake of Circuit Court nominations - no real motivation to vote. If they had of held off on ACB's nomination, that might have driven a few more out to vote IMHO

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.

VinLieger

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.

Whats going to be very interesting is they are about to lose control of a ton of state legislatures in a census year so with redistricting being decided next year, will we see the republicans take gerrymander cases to the supreme court since they have control and might hope for a favorable verdict?

Overheal

VinLieger wrote: »

Whats going to be very interesting is they are about to lose control of a ton of state legislatures in a census year so with redistricting being decided next year, will we see the republicans take gerrymander cases to the supreme court since they have control and might hope for a favorable verdict?

The census is of course yet another thing Republicans effectively control now with supremacy on the court.

They can do no wrong now. Kavanaugh’s ruling on the Wisconsin ballots signaled they look like they see themselves as political rulers now. The peasants can’t have our votes counted because it might be too upsetting to our fragile minds if we don’t accept the CNN/FOX *projection* of who the next president is when the polls close Nov 3.

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.