US Politics- Roger Stoned to Death

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Ormond said:

When would the new state representatives in Pennsylvania (or the other states) be sworn in? I suppose it could theoretically happen that there could be competing "certifications" from a lameduck legislature and a newly elected one. 

Yes, that would be a distinct possibility in such a scenario.  I don't know when they're sworn in, but judging from when members were sworn in here, it appears it was January 1 in 2013 and January 6 in 2015.  Interestingly, can't really see much for January of 2017 or 19, but a lot of members were sworn in on December 1 2018 which is...very weird if that's when they started the session.

[Kalbear]

My point was less about the specific Pennsylvania being the tipping point - only that there is One Very Large Lot of things that can easily go wrong in ways that we have so far taken largely for granted. Pennsylvania and Arizona are two areas that are potential issues. Florida is another. But my argument is  simply not that this is how Trump will steal things - it's how Trump will make things really, really bad.

[DMC]

11 minutes ago, Kalibear said:

But my argument is  simply not that this is how Trump will steal things - it's how Trump will make things really, really bad.

Well yes I think we're all in agreement if Trump loses he's going to contest the election - and subsequently make things really, really bad - no matter how much he loses by. 

Also, as far as Arizona goes, again, while Ducey is the governor, Katie Hobbs is the one that has to actually certify the election results - Ducey would simply sign (or not) the certificate of ascertainment that lists the electors.  Anyway, I still don't think Ducey would go up against Hobbs if the results aren't legitimately questionable, but that's just my gut.

[Fury Resurrected]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Have you been getting bombarded with anti-Biden mailers and shady looking absentee ballot request guides?

Only the Biden is a socialist mailers, which is amusing because *I* happen to be a socialist who is quite sad this is not true

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Fury Resurrected said:

Only the Biden is a socialist mailers, which is amusing because *I* happen to be a socialist who is quite sad this is not true

In response you should distribute mailers emphasizing Biden is a SINO - socialist in name only.

[Maithanet]

Unless Trump loses Texas and Florida on election night, he's going to declare victory either on election night or the following morning, because he'll be ahead in enough states to be over 270.  The only question is how hard he and Barr push things and how much support he gets from Republican legislatures, governors and the Supreme Court. 

That's why I'm really really hoping that Biden wins either Florida or Texas, both of which we should know who won on election night (unless it's within a percent or less).  If Biden wins both, then Trump is getting crushed and it'll just be a matter of Trump saying threatening things, but ultimately doing nothing.  If Biden wins just FL, then we'll still be in for a scary couple of months and it could end up in the SC, but I think Biden is still very likely to be President in January.

If Trump wins FL and TX, then this all turns into a nightmare, and who knows what the hell happens. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

20 minutes ago, DMC said:

In response you should distribute mailers emphasizing Biden is a SINO - socialist in name only.

You had to bring in the Chinese into this, didn't you.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Maithanet said:

If Biden wins just FL, then we'll still be in for a scary couple of months and it could end up in the SC, but I think Biden is still very likely to be President in January.

If Biden wins Florida, then he almost certainly also will eventually win MN, MI, WI, PA, and AZ (and probably NC).  That'd be 318 electoral votes (without NC).  As the 538 article points out, even the "study group" the article is based on (which we've discussed before) think it unlikely Republican leadership would comply with Trump's efforts if Biden wins in such a convincing fashion.  It would be very difficult in such a scenario for the GOP to retain unanimity in contesting the results among all GOP US Senators, not to mention all GOP members in state legislatures to contest the certified results in states such as AZ, NC, MI, PA, and WI in which Republicans enjoy majorities in both chambers - again, assuming they retain those majorities.

Just now, A Horse Named Stranger said:

You had to bring in the Chinese into this, didn't you.

Heh, didn't even think of that.  Makes it better!

[Maithanet]

Also, Steve Schale (Florida campaign manager for Obama) has his long blog post about the Florida presidential election.  His main takeaway is that Florida is always close, expect it to be close again, although Biden is in a winnable position given his strong polling with senior voters. 

Given the importance of Florida in the Presidential election, I nervously have created my own Florida benchmarks for every county and a rough model to see how Biden is faring vs Trump once we start getting results.  It will rely only on counties that are 100% counted, which is probably prudent given how dissimilar the counting will be this year compared to any other year.  But I think it'll give me a good idea pretty quickly on whether Trump or Biden is likely to win. 

For a bit of history, Schale was fairly optimistic about Clinton in 2016, but knew VERY early on (like before 8:30) that it was falling apart for her. 

[Maithanet]

Just now, DMC said:

If Biden wins Florida, then he almost certainly also will eventually win MN, MI, WI, PA, and AZ (and probably NC).  That'd be 318 electoral votes (without NC).  As the 538 article points out, even the "study group" the article is based on (which we've discussed before) think it unlikely Republican leadership would comply with Trump's efforts if Biden wins in such a convincing fashion.  It would be very difficult in such a scenario for the GOP to retain unanimity in contesting the results among all GOP US Senators, not to mention all GOP members in state legislatures to contest the certified results in states such as AZ, NC, MI, PA, and WI in which Republicans enjoy majorities in both chambers - again, assuming they retain those majorities.

There are a lot of things we don't know about how this plays out.  Let's say Trump on election night, Trump wins TX by 3%, loses Florida by 1%.  NC, MI, WI, PA, AZ, NV and MN all show a Trump lead with lots of ballots left to count (fewer in NC, but still enough to get no call).  Trump declares victory once all election day votes are counted at ~ midnight.  Trump screams about "Fraudulent Votes!!!" and the next morning urges his supporters to take to the streets.  At this point, you think that GOP legislatures and governors are going to admit that Trump's "fraudulent votes" claim is a lie?  Those guys are mostly drinking the Fox News kool-aid as well.  Everything we've seen in the past 4 years indicates they will go along with Trump.  Everyone with any backbone and integrity has been driven out of the Republican party. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

There are reports of mass hysterectomies and forced sterilizations at an ICE detention center.

I cannot even imagine what other horrors are happening right now.  Abolish ICE, folks.

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

At this point, you think that GOP legislatures and governors are going to admit that Trump's "fraudulent votes" claim is a lie?  Those guys are mostly drinking the Fox News kool-aid as well.

If Biden eventually wins all the states I mentioned above and the election results are certified and signed by the SoS/governors of such states, I find it very unlikely Trump will retain unanimity among GOP members of the US Senate and the relevant state legislatures, yes.  In fact, I would not be surprised in such a scenario if McConnell accepts the results as public opinion would rather rapidly shift decidedly against Trump if he remains obstinate in the face of such a convincing loss.

[Maithanet]

10 minutes ago, DMC said:

If Biden eventually wins all the states I mentioned above and the election results are certified and signed by the SoS/governors of such states, I find it very unlikely Trump will retain unanimity among GOP members of the US Senate and the relevant state legislatures, yes.  In fact, I would not be surprised in such a scenario if McConnell accepts the results as public opinion would rather rapidly shift decidedly against Trump if he remains obstinate in the face of such a convincing loss.

I think that Trump will do everything he can to prevent those votes from being counted, and Barr will use the DOJ to muddy the water to make any loss seem illegitimate.  Not to mention violence in the streets, which will quite possibly physically interfere with counting the votes smoothly.  I think that public opinion will mostly split along party lines, like always.  And I have no faith whatsoever in McConnell caving to public opinion. 

[Fez]

I fully anticipate Trump trying to cause chaos, but I'm leaning more towards most states being called by midnight eastern (or it being "too close to call" but not because of a mass back-log of mail-in votes, just because a recount is needed). At this point, among the swing states, I'm not sure any drag into Wednesday besides Pennsylvania and Arizona. Michigan may go into the 1-2am range if Detroit is slow again too. But, judging from the COVID era primaries of the past few months, it seems like most states have this all pretty well figured out now.

There are few other exceptions of course, like New York. But New York's so blue there's a good chance Biden wins the election day vote as well.

[Maithanet]

8 minutes ago, Fez said:

I'm leaning more towards most states being called by midnight eastern (or it being "too close to call" but not because of a mass back-log of mail-in votes, just because a recount is needed). At this point, among the swing states, I'm not sure any drag into Wednesday besides Pennsylvania and Arizona. he election day vote as well.

What are you basing that on?  I have found clear statements on PA and AZ that they won't know right away.  NC from what I gather (could be wrong) so long as an absentee ballot is postmarked by election day, it will count, which means that you won't get a complete count until Thursday at the earliest.  I haven't done a ton of research on MI or WI, but the impression I've gotten is that they are going to be in a similar spot as PA, with a backlog of absentee votes.  I think there were negotiations going on about when absentee votes start getting verified (which FL and NC will be doing weeks in advance to prevent a backlog), but my understanding was that they hadn't solved those problems because Republican legislators don't want them solved. 

[DMC]

10 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I think that Trump will do everything he can to prevent those votes from being counted, and Barr will use the DOJ to muddy the water to make any loss seem illegitimate.  Not to mention violence in the streets, which will quite possibly physically interfere with counting the votes smoothly.  I think that public opinion will mostly split along party lines, like always.  And I have no faith whatsoever in McConnell caving to public opinion. 

How exactly will Barr "muddy the water" using the DOJ?  Is he going to sue SoS/governors for certifying the election results?  I'm confident the first count will be called (if not certified) in virtually every state within a week or two of election day - and I don't see violence in the streets "physically interfering" with the count.  How much violence are you imagining? 

Again, if the results are certified for Biden in the above mentioned states, public opinion will see Trump as blatantly refusing to accept the legitimate results.  And the entire GOP if all their members stand behind him.  Trump will retain his 40% base, sure, but the other 60% would view it as the Republican party nakedly trying to steal a presidential election.  McConnell don't want that.  There are limits to the GOP's compliance with Trump, as we've seen repeatedly when he tries to go too far.  Many GOP MCs clearly signaled they would not agree to firing Mueller without cause even though Trump obviously wanted to, and he didn't.  McConnell got Trump to end the shutdown even though he didn't get anything out of it and lost.  Even recently, there was immediate and forceful pushback to Trump's suggestion to delay the election.  Notice he hasn't brought it up again.

[Fez]

7 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

What are you basing that on?  I have found clear statements on PA and AZ that they won't know right away.  NC from what I gather (could be wrong) so long as an absentee ballot is postmarked by election day, it will count, which means that you won't get a complete count until Thursday at the earliest.  I haven't done a ton of research on MI or WI, but the impression I've gotten is that they are going to be in a similar spot as PA, with a backlog of absentee votes.  I think there were negotiations going on about when absentee votes start getting verified (which FL and NC will be doing weeks in advance to prevent a backlog), but my understanding was that they hadn't solved those problems because Republican legislators don't want them solved. 

I'm basing it on the elections that we've had already. Wisconsin had a supreme court election in April that went fine (and there was a lot of concern going in about chaos). Michigan's non-presidential primary in August was smooth, except for Detroit being slowed until the early AM (which I mentioned). And so forth.

The only shitshow was New York. And I already acknowledged that PA and AZ have said they won't know.

[Maithanet]

3 minutes ago, DMC said:

How exactly will Barr "muddy the water" using the DOJ?  Is he going to sue SoS/governors for certifying the election results?  I'm confident the first count will be called (if not certified) in virtually every state within a week or two of election day - and I don't see violence in the streets "physically interfering" with the count.  How much violence are you imagining?

Honestly, I don't know what the DOJ is going to do.  But I do not have nearly the faith that you do that just having the votes on our side is all that matters.  If Trump tweets about the election being stolen over and over, I could realistically see a gang of armed paramilitaries breaking into a govt building in Philadelphia and stealing or destroying the ballots.  It's even possible those men will genuinely believe they are protecting democracy when they do so.  Will Barr investigate threats such as that and use the FBI/other feds to protect those buildings?  Or will he instead make sure that the FBI is investigating imaginary Democratic voter fraud just like Trump wants them to? 

That's just one scenario.  I'm sure there's more that I can't even think of. 

[DMC]

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I could realistically see a gang of armed paramilitaries breaking into a govt building in Philadelphia and stealing or destroying the ballots.

Yeah I don't see this as realistic, or at being realistic they'd be successful.  For it to be successful, they almost certainly would have to kill LEOs.  That'd look really bad even among many Trump supporters.

[Kalbear]

The amount of power Facebook has - and does not use - is remarkable.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/craigsilverman/facebook-ignore-political-manipulation-whitstleblower-memo