• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: 2020 Presidential Election part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
While my stomach knots over the election clearly are not over as I thought they would be, which states are these that you think the legislators are interested in installing unfaithful electors?

Because I've only heard from one (can't remember which one) and they insisted they are not about to overturn the vote in their states.

I think that was PA, which is obviously crucial.

Things can change. We need to hear the overweight female vocalizing.

That it has to happen in multiple states greatly reduces its chances.

You never know.
 
For those (like me) who are paranoid about Trump stealing the election, here is some comfort that has some substance behind it, scroll to 2:55 when Jake Tapper mentions that he's been talking with Republicans:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1326295478175211521

IMO America is divided, but far from broken. I don't think most Republicans would support actual shenanigans at this point, because the consequences would be dire. As has been suggested, they're playing a game hoping for an advantage in Georgia, and to protect themselves from Trump's deplorables.

That being said, I'm tempted to take a break from this whole election debacle, but I'm still not sure I can look away.
 
I do think that Emily's Cat seems to be quite careful in parsing claims about Trump but quite footloose when describing the actions of Democrats. It does not result in a fair comparison and weakens her claim that both sides are driven by partisanship to similar degree.

In the current political climate, to see both sides as the same it basically requires people to always interpret Republicans in the best light possible while also interpreting Democrats in the worst light possible.
 
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 ?
Didn't you predict Trump would win the election?

Now what, are you predicting a banana republic coup here?
 
:rolleyes: 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.
We don't need alt history. We need only look back to 2016. With smaller margins, Clinton conceded defeat right away. No law suits. No denial of privileges for transfer of power. No Dem senators refusing to refer to Trump as President Elect.

Yet again, you're operating in counter-factual mode, riding a phony baloney centrist high horse.
 
Last I heard he refused to comment.

ETA: So now he posted a video saying he did not recant. If WAPO has any evidence showing otherwise, I don't know.

ETA: From the WAPO article:



If they have the signed affidavit, that should be easy enough to present.

As a general comment... "according to officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity" and similar vagaries tend to make me less than certain of what I'm reading.
 
Didn't you predict Trump would win the election?

Now what, are you predicting a banana republic coup here?

I think The Don's pessimism is a nice balance to the hopes and dreams most of us have.

He was wrong about the election, and I bet he is happy about that. Well, as happy as he could get before realizing that this wasn't over and there was still some room to be pessimistic.

But, I was also wrong about the election. I thought the win would be more decisive and that the Senate would follow suit. And yes, there is still a chance in GA for the senate to follow, so I will continue to be hopeful.

We are all going to be wrong, one way or another. And in the end I will still appreciate the foggy wind that comes in from Don Manor, even if it mars my false hopes of a sunny day.
 
Didn't you predict Trump would win the election?

Now what, are you predicting a banana republic coup here?

I thought it likely that he would win the election and he closed the margin on the polls even more than I'd feared.

I think it's more likely that having "lost" the election, he remains President. The means used will likely be legal, faithless electors, legal challenges and so on.

It's not a coup, it's using legal levers of power to achieve their objectives, something the GOP have been doing for years since they realised that winning elections fair and square is very hard.
 
I don't think most Republicans would support actual shenanigans at this point, because the consequences would be dire.
Dire consequences have not stopped them in the past, unless you mean dire consequences to their political career, but then it's not clear that any dire consequences would happen to Repubs, especially those in states or districts that went for Trump.

As has been suggested, they're playing a game hoping for an advantage in Georgia, and to protect themselves from Trump's deplorables.
This is not mutually exclusive with supporting shenanigans.
That being said, I'm tempted to take a break from this whole election debacle, but I'm still not sure I can look away.
I know what'cha mean.
 
I think that was PA, which is obviously crucial.

Things can change. We need to hear the overweight female vocalizing.

That it has to happen in multiple states greatly reduces its chances.

You never know.

Here is what is happening in PA. (Link is to Yahoo News story).

Republicans in the Pennsylvania state legislature on Tuesday said they would take “extraordinary measures” to find out whether the election in their state was fair, despite having no evidence of any wrongdoing.


State Rep. Dawn Keefer, a Republican from York County, announced that Republicans in the state legislature would move to conduct an audit of the election, and that the state should not certify the election results, or select electors to the Electoral College, until it is completed.

“The General Assembly needs to take extraordinary measures to answer these extraordinary questions,” Keefer said while speaking in front of a group of a dozen or so House Republicans.

But Keefer admitted that she and the Pennsylvania GOP do not have anything more than questions. There is no evidence of anything resembling coordinated cheating in the election.

“We've just gotten a lot of allegations,” Keefer said, referring to what she said was a flurry of calls and e-mails from voters “who are concerned and outraged by the circumstances surrounding this election.”

They have nothing but allegations and "concerned citizens" who have no other reason for thinking that their state's popular vote is in question except what Trump and the GOP has fed them. But, based on that, they want to take "extraordinary measures" to override the electoral system they themselves (the legislature's GOP majority) set up.

Now, it's not likely that this will actually come to anything- as the article explains, it's the state's governor who "appoints electors, in accordance with the state’s popular vote returns." And that governor is a Democrat. But it's the mindset here that is concerning- the way this body of government seems so willing to just set aside a popular vote (that, as of now, has Biden up by a little under 50,000, with votes yet to count), for no other reason than that they don't like the results. And this is from the party that ostensibly wants the voter to have confidence in the integrity of their electoral process...while they're exploring avenues that will let them just set aside what those voters in that process have said.

I haven't been too concerned about Trump and his GOP enablers actually being able to bully their way to a win- and I'm still not overly concerned. But there's a scenario still in play here that's not an impossible one. If they somehow succeed in their "extraordinary measures" in PA, then, via recount, erase Biden's current 14,000 vote lead in GA, then all they need is AZ (where Biden's lead has shrunk to just under 13,000) and hanky-pank NV somehow to overcome or erase Biden's 36,000 vote lead there. Bam- by my math, with AK called today, that gives Trump 270 EC votes.

All very unlikely; but then, it's not that long ago when I would have thought that one of America's two major political parties even considering this sort of ******* was unlikely.
 
We don't need alt history. We need only look back to 2016. With smaller margins, Clinton conceded defeat right away. No law suits. No denial of privileges for transfer of power. No Dem senators refusing to refer to Trump as President Elect.

Yet again, you're operating in counter-factual mode, riding a phony baloney centrist high horse.

Along those same lines...EC asked (a few pages ago) for a direct quote of Trump saying that he would only accept the election's result if he won.* I have to ask- why do we need him saying he would only accept the result if he won when he's here now refusing to accept the results because he didn't?

*And, as a matter of fact, he did say just just that in 2016 (link is to contemporaneous NPR article).

"Ladies and gentleman I want to make a major announcement today," Trump said, continuing, "I would like to promise and pledge to all of my voters and supporters, and to all of the people of the United States, that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election ..."

But there was more. Trump then finished that sentence with, "if I win," seemingly admitting a strange logic: that a system rigged against him would be totally acceptable if that rigging ultimately worked out in his favor.

I suppose that could have been a stab at humor from a man not notable for any visible sense of humor; but I'll just quote one of our posters here (Mumbles, I think)- "when someone tells you who they are, believe them." Again, I see no reason to think that someone who has said he will only accept a win, and then refuses to accept a loss, is entitled to any presumption that he's not exactly who he says he is by both word and action.
 
There may well have been large protests had Trump won. I don't believe Democratic leadership would claim the election was utterly fraudulent. That's a big difference that you can't pretend not to notice.

I'm not so certain. They may not have claimed it to be fraudulent, but I give it good odds that they would be challenging the votes in pretty much the same way in any state that was close. It's a difference in tactic, not in strategy.
 
There's also the matter of the Leadership PAC that Trump announced he's creating. "Support me or you won't get any of the money I'll be raising."
As if the money would be going anywhere other than into his own pocket.
I think you are right on here.
 
It's already the way, and has been for a while. The (probably needless) investigation would put to rest some of the concerns, and potentially strengthen our election system, because it does have loopholes. Even if the impact of those loopholes is small, they do exist, and thus will always be a source of conflict.

The tactics are different by party, but most of the strategies are the same. For the Republicans right now, it's voter fraud (which they've used before as well). In 2016, it was the Democrats crying that Russians hacked the voter booths. The Obama Birthers got replaced by the Pee Tapers. This isn't new. But Trump sure does make it blatant.

That's quite the false equivalence you've built there.
 
I'm not so certain. They may not have claimed it to be fraudulent, but I give it good odds that they would be challenging the votes in pretty much the same way in any state that was close. It's a difference in tactic, not in strategy.

Your lame bothsidesism continues to be unimpressive and unconvincing.
 
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/
Apparently when this is done, Trump will have the option of ordering another count, if he chooses a stalling tactic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom