Cont: 2020 Presidential Election part 3

[Emily's Cat]

I don't think they are courting disaster.

The fact is that even if all this bluster amounts to nothing, many folks will still believe the election was stolen. The GOP fought the good fight against evil, even if they were thwarted. This defeat will be remembered.

It's not as if the bulk of Republicans think that endless Benghazi hearings were a waste of time or that Hillary was innocent of whatever nefarious scheme that was about.

Many people are still firmly convinced that Trump had direct coordinated activity with Russia in order to steal the 2016 election, and that the pee tapes are real.

People believe whatever they need to believe in order to assuage their emotional distress. And at this point, politics in the US is not at all about logic or reason, it's almost entirely about emotions. It's not identity politics anymore, it's political identity.

 

[Emily's Cat]

OMG!

Do you live in in a cave?

Maybe there are no Trumpers where you are showing up to demonstrate in camo with their rifles slung over their shoulders. Around here while murders have been limited to one or two at a time, that may not hold when their QAnon romper-room leader exits the WH.

And I'm sure that if Trump had won the EC vote, all of the democrats in the country would have just gone quietly without protests of any sort, right?

Different actors, same play.

But that's okay, I'm well aware of your deep partisanship.

 

[pgwenthold]

Many people are still firmly convinced that Trump had direct coordinated activity with Russia in order to steal the 2016 election, and that the pee tapes are real.

Bah, the Mueller report concluded that the campaign wasn't smart enough to actually coordinate with the Russians, no matter how much they wanted to.

I have no problem believing that.

Of course, it doesn't mean the Russians weren't involved on their own.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I think the flaw in that reasoning is the large numbers of Americans that simply don’t believe those numbers are legitimate.

Just today I saw a petition calling for a recount or a new election outright.

And a pickup with “2020 Fraud Election” painted on the rear window.

And numerous Facebook posts calling the election fraudulent.

For those folks, no number, no matter how large, will be seen as legitimate.

Might also be worth noting that the massive counts in NY and CA are irrelevant. Those don't change the EC outcome. It's the closer counts in the last half a dozen states to be called that matter for this claim.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I, for one, appreciate the measured tone you adopt in your posts.

I do my best

 

[Craig4]

I had been enjoying Trump's suffering up until this point. Now he's going to Arlington National Cemetery where I'm sure he'll piss and moan about how butt hurt he is while standing on the graves of our war dead.

Well, that was shocking. It behaved itself.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Even engineers and educators and other professionals apparently able to apply critical thinking skills in other areas can allow their critical thinking skills to be overpowered by their emotional and psychological needs.

Especially when it comes to cases where it's not objective directly observable facts that are in question, but rather the implications and interpretations of what those facts mean, as well as the moral lens applied to it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

We live in a world where there's vast networks of media that exist to not just tell you what you want to believe is true, but to convince you that it is.

And only show you those selective facts that support that view, and to bolster those facts with speculation and allegation and potential implications while pretending that those interpretations are also facts.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

It's a tapatalk post, which means it was done on a phone. Seems extremely likely that it was a pocket post.

We have Rudy Gulliani on ISF?!

 

[Dr. Keith]

And I'm sure that if Trump had won the EC vote, all of the democrats in the country would have just gone quietly without protests of any sort, right?

Different actors, same play.

But that's okay, I'm well aware of your deep partisanship.

If only there was a record of what happened in 2016.

 

[Meadmaker]

Sadly, at this stage I'm not 100% convinced that the election will be certified for Joe Biden. Could GOP Senators refuse to certify the election because there are outstanding lawsuits and ensuring that the electoral process is robust for the future is far more important than certifying a single President, in dubious circumstances, today ?

No. The Senate doesn't have that option. They just count the votes, and it's ceremonial. The votes will be taken, publicly, December 14. The actions of the Senate in all this is about as important as that thing where some official or something shuts the doors of the House of Lords at the beginning of Parliament....or....whatever it is that they do. I've seen it on documentaries, but I can't remember the details.

The point is that it is a symbolic action which, although it is taken very seriously, and should be, it doesn't mean anything.

What could conceivably happen is that one or more states refuse to seat electors, although even that is a stretch. If that happens, it's off to court to work it all out. The closest things to issues that have ever actually occurred in the US happened when different factions in some states sent multiple sets of electoral votes to Washington in 1876, and they had to work it out, or in Florida 2000. In that case, the Florida process was followed, and Bush won, but Gore appealed, and before it was all over it was in the Supreme Court, where Bush won.

Basically, the lawsuits are not likely to result in any action at all. If they do, it will be to prevent a state from certifying electors. If the states certify the electors, the Senate and the President can't do anything about it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I disagree and I'll use the most obvious (to me) example to illustrate my view. Trump has incessantly called the press the "enemy of the people" (without the CAPS ) and labeled numerous reports as "fake news". This is exactly what someone with malicious intents would say in order to minimize the impact of their malicious actions.

Assume Trump does not have malicious intents. But based on his statements we cannot distinguish his non-malicious intents from those of someone who does, in fact, have malicious intents. Thus, I would argue that it is not "mind-reading" or "speculations" to attribute to him malicious intents, especially in light of the overall zeitgeist created by Trump, namely, that so many of his actions have, indeed, harmed the USA.

It's an invocation of the old saw about judging a man not by his words but by his deeds. If we do that, I assert that is not speculation or mind-reading to take as the default assumption that he does not behave with good intentions.

Working from your example, I'll present an alternative interpretation. Assume that the news is actually misleading, selective, and contributing directly to a false narrative that influences the people of the US by providing them with a warped optic. Assume, for the sake of argument, that all news is Fox News.

If that is the case, then would the person calling it fake news and the enemy of the people be harming the US and having malicious effects? Or would they be acting in the interest of the people by trying to make it clear that Fox is full of crap, is presenting highly stilted information that isn't fully representative, and is crafting a narrative in order to sway people to a false conclusion?

If Trump were attacking Fox News in the same way, would you still consider it to be malicious?

 

[Emily's Cat]

I don't buy that. They exist to make money.

Outrage and fear make money. Outrage is best kept at the simmering stage by presenting information selectively in order to support whichever narrative best drives fear and offense in viewers. Even better is to wrap that selective information with speculations and inferences that amplify the outrage with what it means.

 

[Garrison]

Georgia secretary of state announces hand recount of presidential race

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger announced Wednesday his state will conduct a manual hand recount of all ballots cast in the presidential race in the state, as he faces growing pressure from fellow Georgia Republicans over unsubstantiated accusations of voting irregularities and mismanagement of the state's elections.

"This will help build confidence. It will be an audit, a recount and a recanvass all at once," Raffensperger said at a press conference. "It will be a heavy lift."

He said the presidential contest will undergo a risk-limiting audit, which requires a full by-hand recount in each of Georgia's 159 counties.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-election-hand-recount-audit-presidential-race/

And when it turns up nothing can they send Trump the bill?

 

[Dr. Keith]

I guess that's a difference - I don't see there being any cost other than the space you give it in your head. All of Trump's bitching and posturing will, at best, introduce some delay. It's a distraction and a waste of time. But it has no material impact on the welfare of the country, nor does it have any affect on the future of the country. It's mostly annoying and embarrassing.

I was on board with the same logic: Let him have his temper tantrum, Biden can get everything lined up with or without Trump's assistance. That's why we hired the adult this time.

Then I saw a talking head reference the 9/11 Commission and I was a bit unsettled. I can't find the talking head I was watching, but here is a CNN article that makes the same reference:

When the contested 2000 election delayed George W. Bush's transition, it delayed his national security team and was a contributing factor to the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, according to a finding in the official 9/11 Commission Report.

That is the sort of thing that makes me less comfortable with letting the temper tantrum linger.

 

[Andy_Ross]

And when it turns up nothing can they send Trump the bill?

Depends who does the count as to what it turns up!

 

[Paul2]

Working from your example, I'll present an alternative interpretation. Assume that the news is actually misleading, selective, and contributing directly to a false narrative that influences the people of the US by providing them with a warped optic. Assume, for the sake of argument, that all news is Fox News.

If that is the case, then would the person calling it fake news and the enemy of the people be harming the US and having malicious effects? Or would they be acting in the interest of the people by trying to make it clear that Fox is full of crap, is presenting highly stilted information that isn't fully representative, and is crafting a narrative in order to sway people to a false conclusion?

If Trump were attacking Fox News in the same way, would you still consider it to be malicious?

Yes, absolutely. This hinges on the *way* that Trump attacks the media. If some media are actually saying false things, a responsible President counters with facts and evidence (with allowances for rhetoric), not to slam the media as a whole, or even one media outlet generally, as opposed to refuting specific claims.

The way Trump attacked the media undercut the media as a whole, who are protected in the constitution.

 

[slyjoe]

Georgia hand recount is a poor approach. These things should be based on evidence. And assuming a hand recount is better than a machine recount is incorrect.

ETA: I seem to remember someone having a signature to the effect "A man with a single watch knows what time it is, while a man with two watches is never sure."

 

[Dave Rogers]

Georgia hand recount is a poor approach. These things should be based on evidence.

Isn't it just an automatic recount based on the narrow victory margin for Biden?

Dave

 

[slyjoe]

Isn't it just an automatic recount based on the narrow victory margin for Biden?

Dave

From Politico:

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, said that he would designate the presidential contest as the race to undergo a “risk-limiting audit,” an election verification procedure that uses a statistical formula to determine how many electronically tabulated ballots need to be manually checked in order to rule out the possibility of fraud or errors.

“With the margin being so close, it will require a full, by-hand recount in each county,” Raffensperger said. “It will be an audit, a recount and a recanvass all at once.”

In risk-limiting audits, every ballot is not necessarily examined for accuracy. But, because of the closeness of the presidential race, that is what will happen to every ballot in Georgia. Raffensperger said the margin between Biden and Trump is currently just 14,111 votes.

My main point is a full hand recount is less accurate than a machine recount.