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

OhHiMark

prawnsambo wrote: »

The former. It's a normal cycle race between Perdue and Ossof, but the other seat is a Special election (basically a by-election). So they are two separate races for two separate seats.

Do you mean the latter?

salmocab

everlast75 wrote: »

Just on the voter fraud, this gentleman is a long suffering fact checker and is incredible to see in action.

This was recent tweet from him setting out results of a check into the MAGA claims

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1326000431546458113?s=20

Trumps team have decided that the future dead shouldn’t be allowed vote for Biden.

28064212

josip wrote: »

Is the Georgian Senate election,

• 1 four-horse race for 2 seats or
• 2 two-horse races for a single seat?

If the former, then do the Dems need to exercise near-perfect vote management so that their candidates get a near equal number of votes?
Surely all the Republicans have to do in that case is to favour one of their 2 candidates and sacrifice the other and they'll still get one of the seats?

prawnsambo wrote: »

The former. It's a normal cycle race between Perdue and Ossof, but the other seat is a Special election (basically a by-election). So they are two separate races for two separate seats.

OhHiMark wrote: »

Do you mean the latter?

It's neither. It's two two-horse races for two seats. There is no "vote management" involved, same-party candidates do not take votes from each other

prawnsambo

OhHiMark wrote: »

Do you mean the latter?

As pointed out above, It was the former with a twist. But to be fair, I spelled it out in my reply. Two seats with two candidates running for each one. They are not interchangeable.

prawnsambo

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Heard Nate Silver say on the 538 podcast that he could foresee a split result with Warnock & Perdue winning the two races. His reasoning was that Kelly Loeffler had run to the extreme right in her race and has been one of Trump's most vocal supporters. She also had a huge insider trading scandal at the beginning of the Covid period. All of those things combined might be enough to keep more moderate conservatives from voting from her whilst voting for Perdue in the other race. That of course would be enough to give the Republicans a 51-49 margin and control of the Senate.

Both Loeffler and Perdue went after the SoS for Georgia (A Republican) for the result of the Presidential election. That may p1ss off a few Republicans as well. It certainly was not a good move imo. Both seats would be in play, but Loeffler is by far the most vulnerable.

josip

Apologies for the loose wording and the resulting confusion in the 2nd option.
Would have been better to ask

2 two-horse races for a single seat in each?

MJohnston

I presume the answer is yes, but — someone can win the runoffs without 50% of the vote, right?

BonnieSituation

MJohnston wrote: »

I presume the answer is yes, but — someone can win the runoffs without 50% of the vote, right?

It's not possible as there's only 2 people in each run-off, ie. someone will get a majority of some description.:D

Having a run-off with more than two candidates kinda defeats the purpose of the run-off.

The run-offs are only happening because neither Loeffler or Perdue achieve a minimum of 50% in the original multi-candidate races. They both fell just short.

Brussels Sprout

MJohnston wrote: »

I presume the answer is yes, but — someone can win the runoffs without 50% of the vote, right?

There are only 2 candidates in each so the winners will have a majority of the valid votes cast.

Inquitus

josip wrote: »

Apologies for the loose wording and the resulting confusion in the 2nd option.
Would have been better to ask

2 two-horse races for a single seat in each?

Georgia is split into 2 Senate "Districts" with a line going down from the N.E. to the S.W. it is simply a winner takes all in both districts, can go 2-0, 0-2 or 1-1. Obv for the Senate to go Dem the Dem's will need both seats.

It's hard to factor in how the whole Trump failure to concede will impact things, the runoff election is on the 5th of Jan and whatever is going to happen with regards to the presidency and how far it will be fought will certainly be apparent by then. If Trump goes down the path of there being conflicting Electors it will be well known at this point and likely to bating many Dem's into action for this runoff, if he goes quietly into the night, it may depress republican turnout. Very hard to say.

StringerBell

Brussels Sprout wrote: »

Heard Nate Silver say on the 538 podcast that he could foresee a split result with Warnock & Perdue winning the two races. His reasoning was that Kelly Loeffler had run to the extreme right in her race and has been one of Trump's most vocal supporters. She also had a huge insider trading scandal at the beginning of the Covid period. All of those things combined might be enough to keep more moderate conservatives from voting from her whilst voting for Perdue in the other race. That of course would be enough to give the Republicans a 51-49 margin and control of the Senate.

While I don't dismiss what he is saying, Nate Silver has taken a bit of damage this past week along with many others in the polling and aggregate of polling landscape.

I think the two seats is a stretch for the Democrats too and think they are probably in with a 50/50 shot to take one.

Edit: This is as things stand - I would love for something to happen or to just be proven wrong of course.

Inquitus

StringerBell wrote: »

While I don't dismiss what he is saying, Nate Silver has taken a bit of damage this past week along with many others in the polling and aggregate of polling landscape.

I think the two seats is a stretch for the Democrats too and think they are probably in with a 50/50 shot to take one.

Edit: This is as things stand - I would love for something to happen or to just be proven wrong of course.

You can't really blame Nate as an aggregator of polls, if the underlying poll data is crap, as it was this year, then he has no chance of making sense of them. Whatever the reason for the massive polling miss, shy trumpers etc. etc. It was real and meant they were all off large amounts in some states, way outside the supposed margin of error.

BluePlanet

Well we finally have evidence of actual voter fraud in one of those contested states:

Trump Supporter Arrested For Requesting Absentee Ballot For Dead Mother
The president accuses Democrats of “voter fraud,” but one of his supporters became the first person in a Pennsylvania county charged with the crime in 30 years.

Robert R. Lynn, a registered Republican and Trump supporter in the battleground state of Pennsylvania, was arrested on Wednesday for allegedly requesting an absentee ballot for his mother, who died in 2015.

Lynn is being charged with voter fraud and forgery for faking his deceased mother’s signature on the absentee ballot request form.

County prosecutors have told local news outlets that it is the first case of alleged voter fraud in the county in three decades. County election authorities flagged the ballot request as suspicious in September, triggering the investigation that led to Lynn’s arrest. Lynn allegedly first denied the allegations to detectives, before admitting to the deed.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/-trump-supporter-arrested-voter-fraud-pennsylvania_n_5f91e43ec5b61c185f4848de?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvLw&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAD6DT0kCEKLI0f0WXskaka1Q3vDqhDB06TjKybJ4QXH7pXWGGAY8gzPzll1IS_RPIgkbWz-yY2ekVVWpa5aAKx2hu_RXazibfsZD9VGoMm2tLlcL6HF-t0yDaHpCSqgWlacLn3orH9dW5d8Z2m66rbTWos6HRQkEdQt1PncaegpU

StringerBell

Inquitus wrote: »

You can't really blame Nate as an aggregator of polls, if the underlying poll data is crap, as it was this year, then he has no chance of making sense of them. Whatever the reason for the massive polling miss, shy trumpers etc. etc. It was real and meant they were all off large amounts in some states, way outside the supposed margin of error.

I agree, I'm just saying he and practically everyone else in polling land has had a rough time of it. They just cannot seem to work out how to factor whatever the hell it is trump has when it comes to polling data.

Windmill100000

L1011 wrote: »

Trump effectively ordered his base not to postal vote, so yes.

Did he give a reason? Looks like it was a great plan as the moment he stopped getting votes he could cry fraud.

Let them count again. I'm happy to see him lose twice.

MadYaker

Windmill100000 wrote: »

Did he give a reason? Looks like it was a great plan as the moment he stopped getting votes he could cry fraud.

Let them count again. I'm happy to see him lose twice.

In his head he wasn’t ordering his base not to postal vote. He was attempting to discredit the whole postal voting method in the hope that people in general wouldn’t use it as he knew that more people voting overall is bad for him and republicans. It didn’t work out as he had hoped.

L1011

Inquitus wrote: »

Georgia is split into 2 Senate "Districts" with a line going down from the N.E. to the S.W. .

No it isn't. That's just a line they drew on the map to indicate there's two seats

All senate seats are state-wide, each states two elections are offset on a 2-4-2-4 year gap.

The reason there's two here is that one is a special election for the remaining 2 years of Isaksons term (he resigned) and the other is for a full six year term.

BonnieSituation

Windmill100000 wrote: »

Did he give a reason? Looks like it was a great plan as the moment he stopped getting votes he could cry fraud.

Let them count again. I'm happy to see him lose twice.

I can't do that week again. No siree.

Robert2014

I'm struggling to understand this plan to undermine the election result and the suggestions of fraud. In every election from now on, Republicans will be asked again and again in advance, will you accept the election result. So every time before an election, voters will be reminded of this fiasco and the Republicans coming across as sore losers, delusional and cowards in telling Trump to face facts. Will this impact potential voters, who knows? But not all the 70 million people that voted Trump are deluded and this will be brought up again and again. In terms of elections, Republicans have been the ones to benefit from any "rigging", you would think they would want to be quiet on this topic. Any large investigating into the election process cannot help them imo

harr

A week later and no definite results.. I know the outcome is known, but is it showing up that the American voting process needs to be updated , I know the postal votes are / were holding things up.
Every election seems to be throwing up issues.

Movementarian

Paleface wrote: »

There are a couple of motives at play here why the GOP are still backing Trump in my view.

1. Trump's popularity is clearly huge amongst the electorate and they have not yet figured out how to transfer the majority of this support to the party itself. They must continue to back him until he concedes
2. They want to stoke up as much angst as possible amongst their supporters to ensure a high turnout for any Senate runoffs
3. Mail in voting is going to kill them in the long run. They knew this all along but because of the pandemic could not stop it. All they can do now is discredit its usage enough to ensure that once the pandemic is over states go back to a policy of the majority of votes being cast in person on the day

Pretty dangerous game for the Republicans though, I mean it could energise the voting base for next time. But equally if they do damage to people's faith in the system you could end up turning off people from even bothering to vote which would play into Democrat hands as they have greater numbers.

I genuinely think if Republicans are sensible they need to start shutting this down and saying the system works, Biden won and lets try get them next time.

everlast75

harr wrote: »

A week later and no definite results.. I know the outcome is known, but is it showing up that the American voting process needs to be updated , I know the postal votes are / were holding things up.
Every election seems to be throwing up issues.

Slight clarification.

If the GOP had agreed to allowing ballots to be counted on the day of the election in PA and certain other states, the result would have been clear *that night*.

When you put matters into context, the scheme is very clear.

Inquitus

L1011 wrote: »

No it isn't. That's just a line they drew on the map to indicate there's two seats

All senate seats are state-wide, each states two elections are offset on a 2-4-2-4 year gap.

The reason there's two here is that one is a special election for the remaining 2 years of Isaksons term (he resigned) and the other is for a full six year term.

Do you get 2 votes i.e. you can vote for both Dem's? or is there a need to manage the vote a bit like we do in Ireland? if you want to get 2 elected?

L1011

Inquitus wrote: »

Do you get 2 votes i.e. you can vote for both Dem's? or is there a need to manage the vote a bit like we do in Ireland? if you want to get 2 elected?

You get two votes. Its two completely separate races.

Inquitus

L1011 wrote: »

You get two votes. Its two completely separate races.

So in that case it seems likely we will end up with either 2 Dems or 2 Republicans, as you'd expect most people to vote a straight ticket?

Water John

The majority of people will but sufficient numbers will cross ballot to make a diff.

Foxtrol

harr wrote: »

A week later and no definite results.. I know the outcome is known, but is it showing up that the American voting process needs to be updated , I know the postal votes are / were holding things up.
Every election seems to be throwing up issues.

This timing is perfectly normal for US elections to not have 'definite results' until way later than the race is 'called'. There are plenty of reasons for that and are very difficult to change (e.g., allowing time for military ballots to arrive or allowing for recounts). It isn't ideal but there are far greater problems with the US electoral system than the time for the official results.

Here are when votes were certified in 2016, most the end of November or early December.

https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results_certification_dates,_2016

Inquitus

Foxtrol wrote: »

This timing is perfectly normal for US elections to not have 'definite results' until way later than the race is 'called'. There are plenty of reasons for that and are very difficult to change (e.g., allowing time for military ballots to arrive or allowing for recounts). It isn't ideal but there are far greater problems with the US electoral system than the time for the official results.

Here are when votes were certified in 2016, most the end of November or early December.

https://ballotpedia.org/Election_results_certification_dates,_2016

This is an excellent article that explains how the law around elections in the US is not very robust, and if Trump really wants to drag things out he can cause a constitutional crisis. Basically the fact that the loser has always voluntarily given a concession has kept the US steered well clear of this path, up until now at least!

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/

StringerBell

harr wrote: »

A week later and no definite results.. I know the outcome is known, but is it showing up that the American voting process needs to be updated , I know the postal votes are / were holding things up.
Every election seems to be throwing up issues.

Does it need updating? Absolutely, but it is working alright seemingly as is right now. Problems with the count have been caused by the GOP in their procedural challenges.

The volume of mail in ballots and each states own particular way of dealing with them is causing a speed issue but ultimately once they get to the correct result in time for it to be certified then we have to take that for what it is.

The sheer volume of votes cast in this election is incredible. You also have different states accepting ballots up until different dates and until all the votes are in or it is obvious who is going to win they can't be declared. They are only media projections anyway up until the point they are certified election results by the SOS.

The main thing is, trump is toast. The manner of the defeat makes it seem closer than it was but that's all. He has lost, and he has lost decisively. He can rant as much as he wants about it, the process moves along now without any further need for his input. The GOP can continue to piss on their own name and reputation as a once honourable party, ultimately the voters have spoken and they have spoken decisively.

OhHiMark

Robert2014 wrote: »

I'm struggling to understand this plan to undermine the election result and the suggestions of fraud. In every election from now on, Republicans will be asked again and again in advance, will you accept the election result. So every time before an election, voters will be reminded of this fiasco and the Republicans coming across as sore losers, delusional and cowards in telling Trump to face facts. Will this impact potential voters, who knows? But not all the 70 million people that voted Trump are deluded and this will be brought up again and again. In terms of elections, Republicans have been the ones to benefit from any "rigging", you would think they would want to be quiet on this topic. Any large investigating into the election process cannot help them imo

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?".