2020 Election Thoughts

[ptatc]

28 minutes ago, pcq said:

The notion that one state might deprive another of voting rights is specious. Ordinary litigants would be sanctioned for these kinds of filings. I was told no more filings are allowed under safe harbor rules and Congress is compelled to accept all certified state EV totals except Wisconsin. 

No doubt. 

[NWINFan]

In 2016, Trump won about 46.5% of the vote. In 2020, that bumped up a little over a percentage point. Polls during his presidency showed his approval ratings from the low to mid 40s. Political observers wondered how he was going win the popular vote if he did nothing to appeal outside his base. He lost the popular vote two times in a row.

What evidence shows that the election was stolen? There is none. The simple fact is that Trump performed up to expectations. There was no indication that votes were stolen from him or otherwise given to Biden illegally. 

Another simple fact that Trump supporters refuse to acknowledge: No matter how much Kool-Aid they drank, the majority of Americans didn't want Trump. And they won't no matter how many times he runs or if he refuses to concede. He will hang around and shoot off his mouth, but he will never be president again.

[southsider2k5]

4 hours ago, NWINFan said:

In 2016, Trump won about 46.5% of the vote. In 2020, that bumped up a little over a percentage point. Polls during his presidency showed his approval ratings from the low to mid 40s. Political observers wondered how he was going win the popular vote if he did nothing to appeal outside his base. He lost the popular vote two times in a row.

What evidence shows that the election was stolen? There is none. The simple fact is that Trump performed up to expectations. There was no indication that votes were stolen from him or otherwise given to Biden illegally. 

Another simple fact that Trump supporters refuse to acknowledge: No matter how much Kool-Aid they drank, the majority of Americans didn't want Trump. And they won't no matter how many times he runs or if he refuses to concede. He will hang around and shoot off his mouth, but he will never be president again.

They key here is that 2016 saw a couple of third party candidates pull about 4% of the vote away from the main candidates.  So in 2020 where that wasn't really a factor, Trump's vote % went from 46.09% to 46.86%, while the Democratic candidate went from 48.18% to 51.31%, as the third party balloting fell off to just over 1% of votes cast.  So almost all of that third part vote which left third parties went to Biden.  It is easy to see with all of the really small state margins of victory in 2016, how very small voting movements like this pushed the election to Biden.

[StrangeSox]

The State of Pennsylvania is willing to call the GOP efforts to subvert democracy what they are: seditious.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Finally.  

[Quin]

28 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

The State of Pennsylvania is willing to call the GOP efforts to subvert democracy what they are: seditious.

 

 

I mean the closest parallel I can think of in history is the Confederacy, so, yeah.

[NWINFan]

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

They key here is that 2016 saw a couple of third party candidates pull about 4% of the vote away from the main candidates.  So in 2020 where that wasn't really a factor, Trump's vote % went from 46.09% to 46.86%, while the Democratic candidate went from 48.18% to 51.31%, as the third party balloting fell off to just over 1% of votes cast.  So almost all of that third part vote which left third parties went to Biden.  It is easy to see with all of the really small state margins of victory in 2016, how very small voting movements like this pushed the election to Biden.

My  point was that Trump's support really never changed that much during the last four years and that is one indicator that this election was fair and not stolen.  Yes, small changes in close states helped Biden. But he won about 16 million more votes than Hillary Clinton. Trump was such a polarizing figure that he brought out a bigger turnout from both sides and it ended up giving Biden 7 million margin in overall popular vote. One other main point is that it is extremely hard to beat an incumbent president, and it is clear the country wanted the incumbent president gone. 

[NWINFan]

1 hour ago, StrangeSox said:

The State of Pennsylvania is willing to call the GOP efforts to subvert democracy what they are: seditious.

 

 

As far as I am concerned, Texas can secede from the union. That would be one way to get Ted Cruz out of the Senate.

[Texsox]

Can we keep all the military bases and oil? 

[Balta1701]

2 hours ago, Texsox said:

Can we keep all the military bases and oil? 

Technically per a 1869 court decision, no state can legally secede from the union, so those military bases are going to have a few jobs to do. 

[southsider2k5]

 

[southsider2k5]

The Dems in Congress don't have the stones to answer treason with action.

 

[pcq]

'The moment of truth': The Electoral College prepares to hand Trump the loss he refuses to accept

Biden’s electors prepare to seal his victory, as Trump and coronavirus rage

 

 

[StrangeSox]

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

The Dems in Congress don't have the stones to answer treason with action.

 

I think it's pretty bad that 126 members of House,a number of senators, more than a dozen state AG's and many many state level reps are willing and eager to do some sedition for Trump, even if it's a cynical move to rile up their base or distract Democrats or whatever excuse is proffered.

[Danny Dravot]

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

The Dems in Congress don't have the stones to answer treason with action.

 

No one should be undermining the election results, and it's disappointing that 106 or whatever reps are backing that Texas lawsuit (I'm really disappointed by some of the names I saw on the list, too), but disenfranchising the voters who emplaced those representatives isn't the answer. Doesn't exactly scream "all votes matter" in a sincere way either.

I mean, disqualifying anyone who seeks to attack American democracy? The Electoral College is in the Constitution. I disagree with arguments against it and think they're missing the point, but should the many progressives who make those arguments be booted out of Congress? And I know nothing about Powell v. McCormack, but that seems terrifying- the majority can just kick people out?

"Screw you, people of ID-2, the majority thinks your representative is an asshole. Taxation without representation is back...for YOU, baby!"

Yeah. Make your argument that conspiracy theories are dumb, vote against people who make dumb arguments, but let's not go too far...

Edited December 11, 2020 by Danny Dravot

[southsider2k5]

8 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

No one should be undermining the election results, and it's disappointing that 106 or whatever reps are backing that Texas lawsuit (I'm really disappointed by some of the names I saw on the list, too), but disenfranchising the voters who emplaced those representatives isn't the answer. Doesn't exactly scream "all votes matter" in a sincere way either.

I mean, disqualifying anyone who seeks to attack American democracy? The Electoral College is in the Constitution. I disagree with arguments against it and think they're missing the point, but should the many progressives who make those arguments be booted out of Congress? And I know nothing about Powell v. McCormack, but that seems terrifying- the majority can just kick people out?

"Screw you, people of ID-2, the majority thinks your representative is an asshole. Taxation without representation is back...for YOU, baby!"

Yeah. Make your argument that conspiracy theories are dumb, vote against people who make dumb arguments, but let's not go too far...

They are quite literally signing on for a coup.  We are talking treason and sedition if this happens in any other country.

[Danny Dravot]

12 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

They are quite literally signing on for a coup.  We are talking treason and sedition if this happens in any other country.

They're making incredibly stupid arguments to challenge an election. Arguments which, I might add, are not going to work. We shouldn't whip out the treason and sedition talk here, just like we shouldn't whip it out when Beto claims he's coming for people's guns.

Someone wants to plot to kidnap the governor of Michigan? Treason. Federal prison for life. Someone wants to shoot some congressmen at a baseball practice? Death penalty. I'm all for it. But let's not plot our own tyrannies because of free albeit idiotic speech. YMMV.

[southsider2k5]

5 minutes ago, Danny Dravot said:

They're making incredibly stupid arguments to challenge an election. Arguments which, I might add, are not going to work. We shouldn't whip out the treason and sedition talk here, just like we shouldn't whip it out when Beto claims he's coming for people's guns.

Someone wants to plot to kidnap the governor of Michigan? Treason. Federal prison for life. Someone wants to shoot some congressmen at a baseball practice? Death penalty. I'm all for it. But let's not plot our own tyrannies because of free albeit idiotic speech. YMMV.

This isn't a policy debate.  They are trying to replace a democratically elected leader with one who was not.  That is the definition of a coup d tat.

[Danny Dravot]

2 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

This isn't a policy debate.  They are trying to replace a democratically elected leader with one who was not.  That is the definition of a coup d tat.

I imagine a coup d’etat having a lot more tanks and machine guns and a lot fewer bad lawyers and typo-ridden court briefs. Agree to disagree, I guess.

[southsider2k5]

This is a great read then.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/trumps-farcical-inept-and-deadly-serious-coup-attempt/617309/

[ptatc]

16 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

This isn't a policy debate.  They are trying to replace a democratically elected leader with one who was not.  That is the definition of a coup d tat.

I don't think this is accurate. They aren't trying to replace an elected leader. They are challenging the electoral process. There wouldn't be an issue if they recognized him as the elected leader. 

Does the same thing apply in 2000 with Bush vs. Gore and the lawsuits about the "hanging chads"

Edited December 11, 2020 by ptatc

[southsider2k5]

8 minutes ago, ptatc said:

I don't think this is accurate. They aren't trying to replace an elected leader. They are challenging the electoral process. There wouldn't be an issue if they recognized him as the elected leader. 

Does the same thing apply in 2000 with Bush vs. Gore and the lawsuits about the "hanging chads"

The elections by the key state hadn't been certified, and there wasn't a trail of frivolous lawsuits after it had been.

[NWINFan]

12 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

This is a great read then.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/trumps-farcical-inept-and-deadly-serious-coup-attempt/617309/

It was a great read. The writer made two great points: The GOP's complicity with the "coup," and the fact certain things will become the norm. This was a clear win for Biden, yet Trump has neither conceded nor has he assisted in the transition. That, in a sense, is a coup even with the dumb law suits and blatant incompetence.

The Democrats can't just ignore this once Biden takes office. Public confidence in the election process must bolstered, or one day a coup will happen and tanks won't be needed to pull it off. Trump has done an incredible amount of damage. The damage has to be repaired somehow.

[Soxbadger]

23 minutes ago, ptatc said:

I don't think this is accurate. They aren't trying to replace an elected leader. They are challenging the electoral process. There wouldn't be an issue if they recognized him as the elected leader. 

Does the same thing apply in 2000 with Bush vs. Gore and the lawsuits about the "hanging chads"

Its a completely different argument and the lawyers who argued Bush v Gore  agree. Here is an article by the 2 lawyers,  David Boies and Theodore B. Olson, who argued that case about what is going on right now:

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/boies-olson-lawyers-bush-gore-2000-joe-biden-president/2020/11/14/1e113520-25ff-11eb-8672-c281c7a2c96e_story.html

 

There is no plausible legal basis for federal courts to revisit this decision by state legislators — particularly after the election is over and voters have relied on existing state law when choosing how to vote.

 

Political candidates, however, have an obligation not to inflame passions and undermine the public’s faith in democracy with unsupported charges of fraud and malfeasance. And the lawyers who represent those candidates have an obligation to the courts, of which they are officers, not to make frivolous claims or arguments.

 

Past losers of presidential elections, however stinging their defeats, have ultimately decided to make peace with the opposing camp. Former vice president Gore did so, admirably, when Bush v. Gore was resolved. The sooner that Trump and his supporters accept the election result, the better it will be for the nation.

 

This article was written on November 14, almost a month ago. To the best of my knowledge every lawyer involved in Bush v Gore refused to be a part of Trump's lawsuit. The solicitor general of Texas (the person who is appointed to file lawsuits on behalf of the state) refused to file this lawsuit.

Edited December 11, 2020 by Soxbadger

[Soxbadger]

Its over:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf

155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.