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

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.

everlast75

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.

Infini

Honestly regardless of what Trump does now, he's done and he knows it, the chances of him being able to engineer an outcome favorable to himself is remote at worst and impossible at best, he's unlikely to get any serious support to keep him in the white house, republicans as thick as they can be aren't fools expecially McConnell they're in it for the long game and the minute Trump lost the election he became a liability. They'll play nice because he still was able to get supporters out and they won't want to split the party but he'll either be leaving come January or he goes down in acrimony.

One way or another he's a dead man walking politically right now and that's why he's probably acting the way he is, the walls are closing in, he's the emperor with no clothes and there's nothing he can do to stop it now as his powers are essentially gone.

Zak Flaps

Do you think it's possible that the longer Trump continues with his current antics, more Republicans will become p1ssed off with him and more will come out against him in public? Or are they all too scared?

TomOnBoard

uncleoswald wrote: »

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.

Obama's 1st term was a nightmare in terms of being able to do much of anything that would cost money. The fight to put out the horrendous fire that was the post-Bush recession was the greatest domestic priority while the morass that was the Iraq/Afghanistan invasions and subsequent chaos in the Middle East were all-consuming foreign policy infernos. When he lost the Congress, he was largely neutered in terms of any meaningful legislative agenda.

What's particularly relevant here is the similarity between these aspects of Obama's Presidency and the situation Biden will inherit in January. A raging Covid pandemic with 1,500 deaths a day and an economy in the toilet will haunt his Presidency's first 6 months at least, along with a Senate that will be in control of much of his legislative actions.

The longer this current interregnum continues without an orderly transition, the worse it will be. This makes the failure of the Congressional GOP to stand up to Trump and tell him its over even more inexcusable. If Biden is to have any chance of success on behalf of the US and its People in these horrific times, he needs to be given the means to prepare for it. A properly funded, organised and informed transition is needed immediately.

The election is over. i simply cannot understand how the GOP, who claim to be bastions of patriotism cannot see the damage that is being done. Surely, enough of them must see enough of that damage to do the right thing now? Where the **** are they?

uncleoswald wrote: »

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.

My thoughts exactly!

TomOnBoard

Manic Moran wrote: »

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.

I think these are very fair questions. Indeed, as politics become ever more partisan, net-payer States will question paying into the Federal pot more and more. Will Democrats in California continue to be happy net-payers into a pot that Kentucky is very happy be a net-recipient of, given that Kentucky's Congressional members stand against every Federal progressive initiative that might help California's poorest? Why should Democrats in New York pay such high taxes to be so heavily supportive of South Carolina, a State that produces such Republican negativity to socially progressive policy that would impact New Yorkers?

As these questions get asked increasingly, more wealthy States will become more self-reliant and self-sufficient and poorer States will lose out. Federal rules and regulations will become less relevant as States take more local regulatory control. Why should climate- change denying politicians from one State dictate environmental policy on Federal lands in a State with Green environmental goals?

So, where does that all end? Less and less Federal Government control? Possibly. A Republican dream! But it would be accompanied by destruction of many States' economies if the Federal tap dried up. How would the strongly Republican South Carolina fare with no net Federal inflow? Real socialism might just become a lot more palatable there at that point! California and New York would do just fine, thank you very much! Kentucky, not so much!

everlast75

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1327105993910722560?s=19

At every single turn, there is real hypocrisy.

It's an international embarrassment for the U.S. and only serves to highlight the difference between the childishness and ineptitude of 45 and the next administration.

At every press conference for the next year regarding any issue, 46 should point out what Trump's response had been to that issue, who supported it, and then follow it with 46's response. It'll be devastating

everlast75

It's not surprising that Trump keeps losing his cases, when these are the witnesses they are rolling out..


https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1327038586819145732?s=19

Windmill100000

Infini wrote: »

Honestly regardless of what Trump does now, he's done and he knows it, the chances of him being able to engineer an outcome favorable to himself is remote at worst and impossible at best, he's unlikely to get any serious support to keep him in the white house, republicans as thick as they can be aren't fools expecially McConnell they're in it for the long game and the minute Trump lost the election he became a liability. They'll play nice because he still was able to get supporters out and they won't want to split the party but he'll either be leaving come January or he goes down in acrimony.

One way or another he's a dead man walking politically right now and that's why he's probably acting the way he is, the walls are closing in, he's the emperor with no clothes and there's nothing he can do to stop it now as his powers are essentially gone.

Let's watch his 'friends' and allies fall by the wayside. People stuck to Trump because of what he could do for them. As his inevitable demise gains further traction he is going to feel the pinch. It's not that he will miss his sidekicks, but he will miss having everyone agree with him and making him feel the Big Man.

The only saving grace is the longer he stays on and fights the more ridiculous his legacy becomes, which is no bad thing.

Delighted to see Biden pushing on through paying him no heed.

circadian

I see Warren is suggesting cancelling billions in student loans along with all the other day 1 changes for the Biden administration.

While cancelling the debt solves a small part of a larger problem it would allow more financial freedom to those who are currently drowning in debt. It could be the kind of gesture to win across some Republicans, even possibly Trump voters and to ease tensions.

Sure there are always going to be the hardcore base but the Trump supporters who are supporting him because they believe he'll relieve financial and economic stresses might warm to the idea of a party willing to make things more livable for the majority of the middle class.

robinph

everlast75 wrote: »

It's not surprising that Trump keeps losing his cases, when these are the witnesses they are rolling out..


https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1327038586819145732?s=19

I had the phone on mute and providing automated subtitles when I first watched that. Thought that the subtitles were broken with all the confusion over if 6am was 6pm was 6am the next day until 6pm the day before... And then the clincher of a van arrived and they took things out of the back of it, not the side.

spacecoyote

I think I read talk of the Trump campaign looking at courting faithless electors, 20 of them, to try flip them from the states declared winner.

If Biden is at 306, that 20 votes still wouldn't be enough either way presumably, it drops him to 286.

Is it just about not losing by the same amount that he beat Hillary at this point?

Christy42

circadian wrote: »

I see Warren is suggesting cancelling billions in student loans along with all the other day 1 changes for the Biden administration.

While cancelling the debt solves a small part of a larger problem it would allow more financial freedom to those who are currently drowning in debt. It could be the kind of gesture to win across some Republicans, even possibly Trump voters and to ease tensions.

Sure there are always going to be the hardcore base but the Trump supporters who are supporting him because they believe he'll relieve financial and economic stresses might warm to the idea of a party willing to make things more livable for the majority of the middle class.

Many hate the universities a socialist training camps. Maybe it will help win over those who have degrees but I can see the Republic ans being against such a cost. Especially with a democrat in the White House.

I agree with the measure but many will see it as proof that the US is being turned socialist overnight.

Blowfish

DubInMeath wrote: »

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

And there it goes, 2 fired from DHS, including the assistant director for cybersecurity:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/12/politics/dhs-officials-forced-resign-white-house/index.html

It's no surprise really when they have a site up like this, not exactly going to make Trump happy:

https://www.cisa.gov/rumorcontrol

Brussels Sprout

They waited until his margin was equal to the number of votes remaining:


https://twitter.com/cnnbrk/status/1327104512730034176

BluePlanet

Manic Moran wrote: »

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)

That died a death in the aftermath of the Civil War.
The southern states pleaded 'states rights' to keep blacks as property.

prawnsambo

The law firm representing Trump in PA has withdrawn. Co Counsel Ms. Linda Kerns is remaining on board. Look her up, she seems nice.

TomOnBoard

everlast75 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Redistrict/status/1327105993910722560?s=19

At every single turn, there is real hypocrisy.

It's an international embarrassment for the U.S. and only serves to highlight the difference between the childishness and ineptitude of 45 and the next administration.

At every press conference for the next year regarding any issue, 46 should point out what Trump's response had been to that issue, who supported it, and then follow it with 46's response. It'll be devastating

The international embarrassment is coupled with fear. Fear for the People! Its not often comparisons could be made between the US and countries like Belarus. But now they can: Both countries with failed leaders, beholden to Putin and clinging to power on the back of ignoring election results.

Lukashenko and Trump - Comrades in Arms! Sad!

demfad

Just an example about how seriously this Coup attempt is being taken:

Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US military yesterday: "We do not take an oath to a king or a queen, a tyrant or a dictator. We do not take an oath to an individual."

https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1327043123667562497?s=20