US Presidential Election 2020

[Footballwipe]

This is proper batcrazy thinking, and I don't know how difficult it would be. But would any true-blue states threaten to cede from the union?

 

So for example, would California say "right, well Biden won this easily with 340 college votes and Trump refused to concede and kept the presidency via civil unrest and a biased court. We can't be part of a dictatorship and will be leaving the USA as a state."

 

Is that possible? I assume you're all going to laugh at me ha, but surely if the scary times become reality, people outraged at this, and those states who are firmly democratic might want to consider drastic action?

[Innovindil]

14 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

This is proper batcrazy thinking, and I don't know how difficult it would be. But would any true-blue states threaten to cede from the union?

 

So for example, would California say "right, well Biden won this easily with 340 college votes and Trump refused to concede and kept the presidency via civil unrest and a biased court. We can't be part of a dictatorship and will be leaving the USA as a state."

 

Is that possible? I assume you're all going to laugh at me ha, but surely if the scary times become reality, people outraged at this, and those states who are firmly democratic might want to consider drastic action?

Don't think people will laugh, it's a legitimate question. I'm quite curious myself to see if there's any legal avenues states could take to be independent. I remember a few years back there was murmuring from texas but it was only a minority wanting it so it never really got explored. 

 

I'd imagine with a history of infighting any ideas of independence would be quickly stomped down on though. Especially if it's one of the richer states planning on going it alone. 

[Detroit Blues]

14 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

This is proper batcrazy thinking, and I don't know how difficult it would be. But would any true-blue states threaten to cede from the union?

 

So for example, would California say "right, well Biden won this easily with 340 college votes and Trump refused to concede and kept the presidency via civil unrest and a biased court. We can't be part of a dictatorship and will be leaving the USA as a state."

 

Is that possible? I assume you're all going to laugh at me ha, but surely if the scary times become reality, people outraged at this, and those states who are firmly democratic might want to consider drastic action?

 

Very unlikely. The civil war set a precedent that no state has a legal basis to cede from the union, and you would need to go "toe-to-toe" against the full force of the largest military in the world to separate. 

 

When people say that the election result could cause a civil war, they mostly mean that there will be internal conflict and political violence. The lines won't be drawn as easily as Red States vs Blue States.

 

 

[Footballwipe]

16 minutes ago, Detroit Blues said:

 

Very unlikely. The civil war set a precedent that no state has a legal basis to cede from the union, and you would need to go "toe-to-toe" against the full force of the largest military in the world to separate. 

 

When people say that the election result could cause a civil war, they mostly mean that there will be internal conflict and political violence. The lines won't be drawn as easily as Red States vs Blue States.

 

 

Great, thanks! I suspected it wasn't as easy as a simple referendum, but it seems like it's really, really hard, and not even this scenario would be the hill you wanted to die on.

 

I just wonder where the blue outrage will be played out. We know the red outrage is being stoked to keep Trump in power. If that somehow comes to pass, how will the opposition reply? Sit on their bum till 2024?

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Thanks. Good to see these overviews, Mac.

 

I wonder what impact the latest police shooting and riots in Philadelphia might have on the Pennsylvania result?

Could be important, as Pennsylvania might be the closest-run contest if the race tightens from where the polls say it is - due to shifting opinions, comparative turnout, voter suppression or whatever.

 

Am I right in thinking that Trump basically has to win all the states listed (or others where he's further behind)?

Unfortunately, all apart from Pennsylvania still look within a small swing, even if he has to win them all - presumably why the 538 site still gives him 12% chance of winning.

 

C4 News also reported that the Supreme Court had ruled against an attempt to allow postal votes date-stamped but not counted before election day - from Wisconsin, I think, where he trails by a few percentage points?

On Florida, I saw a report suggesting that Trump's campaign had been successful in turning Floridian Latinos (esp. of Cuban parentage) against Biden by depicting him as a communist associated with Castro etc.

 

Strap yourselves in for mayhem of one sort or another, I expect, be that courts, social media accusations, riots or armed militias...... 

I doubt they will have much effect on the landscape to be honest - the lines are drawn so starkly, and if someone questions how this unrest is all happening, the Dems can simply say, "Well, who's watch is it happening on?", as they have with similar unrest earlier this year.

 

Yes, Trump needs to win every single one of those states in order to stand any chance at all of victory - Biden carries just one and he wins. Penn is the bulwark state, really - the one that the Dems might rely upon if all the other battleground states are lost. It is, at the present time, outside the margin of error for most polling. WRT Wisconsin, I think Biden's lead is likely secure enough there that shenanigans won't have too much of an effect on the landscape.

 

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Gave it a skim read - and it was a good read. Can imagine myself returning to that article over the next 2-3 months.

 

I'm assuming there'll be all sorts of shenanigans (legal & political manoeuvres, possible disruption of voting/counts, intimidation, allegations of fraudulent postal voting, abuse of electoral colleges etc.) - and possibly significant violence.

I also assume that Trump won't concede if he loses - would be nice to be proved wrong.

 

I still tend to assume, based on instinct more than knowledge of the US, that it will make a big difference whether the result is very close or not.

If Biden gets a clear win, I presume a lot more of the public would be outraged at any attempted abuse and that it would make it harder for the Supreme Court to help Trump - and more likely that forces of law and order might intervene to protect democracy?

If it's another knife-edge result, I'm guessing all bets are off - and that it would be easier for Trump to get away with contesting the outcome and possibly retaining power.

 

As for Biden, I presume he won't be in a rush to concede either, unless Trump unexpectedly wins big. Especially as it seems that late counts could favour the Democrats.

I suppose a lot will depend, too, on the outcome of the elections for the 2 houses of Congress.

 

We're living in extraordinary - and quite scary times, as you say.

The closeness of the result will be critical. If, for example, places like Georgia, Florida and Arizona are called for Biden on election night, then the jig is probably up and while Trump might wish to engage in duplicity to stay in office (this is being attempted already), he'd be under immense pressure from institutions in many places to concede. If, however, the EC and the vote in battleground states is close, then yes, things could get messy.

 

 

29 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

Great, thanks! I suspected it wasn't as easy as a simple referendum, but it seems like it's really, really hard, and not even this scenario would be the hill you wanted to die on.

 

I just wonder where the blue outrage will be played out. We know the red outrage is being stoked to keep Trump in power. If that somehow comes to pass, how will the opposition reply? Sit on their bum till 2024?

If Trump were to do something totally blatant like use the courts to rule in his favour on mail-in ballots in a few battleground states and those states being the critical difference, there would be people - lots of people - in the streets from minute one. And I think they'd stay there until things were resolved one way or another.

[leicsmac]

As an addendum, early voting has been simply massive this time round - more than 70 million votes already cast, over half the total number in 2016. This could mean that we're on course for a massive turnout.

 

I'd be inclined to say that benefits the Dems, but it's still too early to tell if the total voter count will be that big once Election Day is done.

[Carl the Llama]

18 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

As an addendum, early voting has been simply massive this time round - more than 70 million votes already cast, over half the total number in 2016. This could mean that we're on course for a massive turnout.

 

I'd be inclined to say that benefits the Dems, but it's still too early to tell if the total voter count will be that big once Election Day is done.

Am I right in thinking that Trump doesn't actually have the legislative tools to declare a win after the in-person votes have been counted but before mail-in votes are counted if he's winning at that point as he's implied he might do on a few occasions?

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Am I right in thinking that Trump doesn't actually have the legislative tools to declare a win after the in-person votes have been counted but before mail-in votes are counted if he's winning at that point as he's implied he might do on a few occasions?

From what I can tell, whether he can or not and whether or not it is constitutional comes down to the courts in general and the Supreme Court in particular.

[Detroit Blues]

44 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Am I right in thinking that Trump doesn't actually have the legislative tools to declare a win after the in-person votes have been counted but before mail-in votes are counted if he's winning at that point as he's implied he might do on a few occasions?

Correct, that's not the way the US presidential election works. Each state gets to pick representatives (called "electors") that go to the electoral college to vote. The states have complete autonomy on how they assign their electors. Most states count the votes according to their own laws, and then assign their electors to a presidential candidate. Most states are winner takes all, but not all. 

 

However, we just saw the first potential act by the US Supreme Court, to interfere with our election in order to provide Trump with a win. Pennsylvania state law allowed for extra time for mail in ballots that were postmarked before election day, that arrive within 3 days of the election to be counted, so long as they had not been changed since election day. This was upheld by the Pennsylvania state supreme court, and as I said before, the states get to dictate their terms on how they will run the election and select their electors. 

 

But in a 5-3 decision (Amy Coney Barrett was not yet a Supreme Court Justice), the US Supreme Court struck down the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court ruling. They said essentially, that the mail in ballots have to be received by Election Day, because of the suspicion of voter fraud. So to stop maybe one fraudulent vote, the US Supreme Court is willing to throw out tens of thousands of genuine votes. This could be the game plan that the US Supreme Court will apply to other states in order to decide the election. Democrats utilize mail in ballots more than Republicans, because they take the coronavirus more seriously. Therefore if the Supreme Court can throw away enough mail in ballots, they might be able to change the outcome is a few key battleground states.

 

Now you might say, the US Supreme Court is a non-partisan body, why would they go out of their way to hand Trump the election? Back in 2000, the US Supreme Court wanted Bush to win, and so they devised a ridiculous opinion to justify stopping the recount in Florida. If you don't agree with my assessment, go back and read about their justification. But more interesting is the fact that three sitting members of the US Supreme Court - Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts worked on behalf of the Bush campaign in his case vs the State of Florida. 

 

 

Edited 28 October 2020 by Detroit Blues

[NasPb]

would not be surprised if trump won tbh

[st albans fox]

7 hours ago, Detroit Blues said:

Correct, that's not the way the US presidential election works. Each state gets to pick representatives (called "electors") that go to the electoral college to vote. The states have complete autonomy on how they assign their electors. Most states count the votes according to their own laws, and then assign their electors to a presidential candidate. Most states are winner takes all, but not all. 

 

However, we just saw the first potential act by the US Supreme Court, to interfere with our election in order to provide Trump with a win. Pennsylvania state law allowed for extra time for mail in ballots that were postmarked before election day, that arrive within 3 days of the election to be counted, so long as they had not been changed since election day. This was upheld by the Pennsylvania state supreme court, and as I said before, the states get to dictate their terms on how they will run the election and select their electors. 

 

But in a 5-3 decision (Amy Coney Barrett was not yet a Supreme Court Justice), the US Supreme Court struck down the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court ruling. They said essentially, that the mail in ballots have to be received by Election Day, because of the suspicion of voter fraud. So to stop maybe one fraudulent vote, the US Supreme Court is willing to throw out tens of thousands of genuine votes. This could be the game plan that the US Supreme Court will apply to other states in order to decide the election. Democrats utilize mail in ballots more than Republicans, because they take the coronavirus more seriously. Therefore if the Supreme Court can throw away enough mail in ballots, they might be able to change the outcome is a few key battleground states.

 

Now you might say, the US Supreme Court is a non-partisan body, why would they go out of their way to hand Trump the election? Back in 2000, the US Supreme Court wanted Bush to win, and so they devised a ridiculous opinion to justify stopping the recount in Florida. If you don't agree with my assessment, go back and read about their justification. But more interesting is the fact that three sitting members of the US Supreme Court - Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts worked on behalf of the Bush campaign in his case vs the State of Florida. 

 

Recent publicity in respect of the Supreme Court really calls into question the whole basis of American democracy ...... 

[Jattdogg]

5 hours ago, NasPb said:

would not be surprised if trump won tbh

I concur

 

I just really hope over the next few weeks when the election results have been settled  that @leicsmac gloats that I was wrong. Lol

[NasPb]

8 hours ago, Jattdogg said:

I concur

 

I just really hope over the next few weeks when the election results have been settled  that @leicsmac gloats that I was wrong. Lol

Yeah, i don't want him to win personally but it wouldn't surprise me one bit 

[st albans fox]

29 minutes ago, NasPb said:

Yeah, i don't want him to win personally but it wouldn't surprise me one bit 

I said a long time ago that he would but events (and his decisions) have made that v difficult 
 

if he wins from here then it will be quite incredible 

 

I suspect it could be quite close and will get messy like 2000 did ...... I hope it doesn’t - the world doesn’t need more uncertainty....

[Buce]

 

“I woke up and I felt good,” Donald Trump told supporters at a campaign rally in Arizona, slamming the side of his lectern as he described hospitalisation with the coronavirus. “I said, ‘Get me out of here’. Boom! Superman!”

 

As the US president mimed Clark Kent ripping up open his shirt to reveal the Man of Steel’s “S” logo, the crowd chanted: “Superman! Superman! Superman!”

 

No words.

 

Edited 29 October 2020 by Buce

[Alf Bentley]

Interesting: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/28/pennsylvania-elections-ballot-extension-supreme-court?fbclid=IwAR0GKbw6uljDxBlcIa4l5dqhzcygPRwgBcxCpNHBThDhR0iqvYnXcGKknsg

 

Anyone understand whether the Supreme Court simply doesn't want to meddle with state, as opposed to federal cases - or if it's waiting to see how the voting looks after Tuesday (i.e. whether a little nudge will help Trump over the line or whether it has to get ready to work with Biden & the Democrats in Congress)?

 

"The US supreme court has rejected a last-minute plea from Pennsylvania Republicans to overturn a three-day extension of the absentee ballot deadline, a hugely consequential ruling in one of the most closely watched swing states in the presidential election.

[...] Despite Wednesday’s ruling on Pennsylvania, three of the court’s conservative justices signaled the court might still consider the case after the election".

 

"Wednesday’s decision is the latest in a series on important rulings on absentee ballots in key swing states. Shortly after Pennsylvania, the supreme court also declined to block an agreement giving North Carolina voters more time to return their absentee ballots. The Pennsylvania supreme court’s ruling “likely violates the federal constitution”, Alito wrote for the three [conservative judges] and its decision “could lead to serious post-election problems”.

 

"Earlier this week, the court stepped in and blocked a six day extension of the ballot receipt deadline in Wisconsin. Both the North Carolina and Pennsylvania cases, where the court declined to intervene, involved disputes over state law tied up in state courts. In Wisconsin, where the court did intervene, the case was limited to the federal court".

[StanSP]

This made me laugh more than it should have, especially the bottom right one

 

 

[leicsmac]

Apparently hackers bilked $2.3 million from the Wisconsin Republican Party re-election campaign.

 

Oops.

[leicsmac]

Over 82,000,000 early votes with four days still to go til Election Day. Record-breaking stuff.

 

And the latest:

 

Texas - Trump + 2.1% (0.4% swing to Biden over the last three days)

Ohio - Trump +0.6% (0.6% swing to Biden)

Iowa - Trump + 0.6% (0.7% swing to Trump)

Georgia -  Biden + 0.9% (0.7% swing to Biden)

North Carolina - Biden +1.7% (no change)

Florida - Biden + 1.9% (0.1% swing to Trump)

Arizona - Biden + 2.7% (0.2% swing to Biden)

Pennsylvania - Biden + 5.1% (0.2% swing to Trump)

 

Biden running down the clock - remember, all he needs is one of any of the above.

[CosbehFox]

Well if Trump wins it after his comments this afternoon at a rally in Michigan, it’s truly beggars belief 

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Well if Trump wins it after his comments this afternoon at a rally in Michigan, it’s truly beggars belief 

Which comments?  I've not seen anything in the news about it

[Mark_w]

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Over 82,000,000 early votes with four days still to go til Election Day. Record-breaking stuff.

 

And the latest:

 

Texas - Trump + 2.1% (0.4% swing to Biden over the last three days)

Ohio - Trump +0.6% (0.6% swing to Biden)

Iowa - Trump + 0.6% (0.7% swing to Trump)

Georgia -  Biden + 0.9% (0.7% swing to Biden)

North Carolina - Biden +1.7% (no change)

Florida - Biden + 1.9% (0.1% swing to Trump)

Arizona - Biden + 2.7% (0.2% swing to Biden)

Pennsylvania - Biden + 5.1% (0.2% swing to Trump)

 

Biden running down the clock - remember, all he needs is one of any of the above.

Iowa alone wouldn't be enough. Arizona alone might not be enough. And you are working on the assumption that NV, MN, WI & NH are safe, and they're not necessarily. We did this four years ago, talked ourselves into thinking that Trump couldn't possibly win all the states he needed to, and he did. We should all be going into this one with a bit more pessimism.

[CosbehFox]

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

Which comments?  I've not seen anything in the news about it

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-10-30/trump-claims-at-rally-doctors-lie-about-virus-deaths-for-money
 

He said pretty much doctors profit from the COVID deaths and they lie about the figures because of this

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Mark_w said:

Iowa alone wouldn't be enough. Arizona alone might not be enough. And you are working on the assumption that NV, MN, WI & NH are safe, and they're not necessarily. We did this four years ago, talked ourselves into thinking that Trump couldn't possibly win all the states he needed to, and he did. We should all be going into this one with a bit more pessimism.

Yep, I take that back - any one of them but Iowa would be enough by itself.

 

And yes, I'm working on the assumption that NV, MN, MI, WI and NH are all safe, because Biden leads them all by at least +7.0% - which is much more than Clinton did in 2016 at the same time and is also outside of any really feasible margin of error (for instance, there's as much chance of NC going to Biden as there is for MI going to Trump right now). 2016 put the wind up everyone, myself included, but there's enough evidence to suggest that 2020 isn't going to be similar, as much as people are afraid of it.

Edited 31 October 2020 by leicsmac

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

I take it people realise, win or lose - Trump isn't going away from the political stage. 

 

And I don't mean him not giving up the Presidency. Even if he does leave the White House, he'd still exist as a political figure in the shadow of Biden and in theory, could run again in 4 years time.