Cont: 2020 Presidential Election part 3

[Emily's Cat]

What is the point of replacing the political leadership at the Pentagon? Does Trump actually imagine that if he issued the order to put tanks on the street or seize all the postal ballots and burn them that the military would actually obey such orders? I mean we are talking about the US Army, not the *********g SS.

I am confused by this.

Most of the media outlets are suggesting that Trump fired a bunch of people and is installing other people into those roles.

The DoD statement reads more like people resigned, and other people were appointed by people already at the pentagon to take over those duties.

It looks like Esper was planning to resign already, and Trump decided to pull a "No, you can't resign, I fire you" tantrum?

The timing is downright idiotic though. I'm just tired of the entire Trump administration.

 

[acbytesla]

I believe the politico 2016 numbers were never updated once the final numbers were published, you can see on some states the "reported" is not 100%. That is where you are getting incorrect info from. The final numbers are here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election#Results_by_state

Clinton needed states where the margin was, .23%, .72%, and .77%.

Trump needs states where the margins are currently, .7%, .6%, .3%, and .4%. PA is almost certain to widen for Biden before they are done counting.

To complicate matters from Trump he needs to flip four states. Lets just say there is a 10% chance that a recount will flip a state (HIGHLY unlikely its that high). That means his odds of flipping all four are .10^4 or 1 in 10,000.

ETA: also not sure where you are getting your 2020 numbers from. I show AZ at .4% for example on CNN. While your own link has it at .3%.

Pennsylvania has Biden up by 50K with a .7% lead.
Arizona has Biden up by 13K with a .4% lead
Georgia has Biden up by 14K with a .3% lead
Nevada has Biden up by 37K with 3.3% lead
Wisconsin has Biden up by 20K with .6%lead
Michigan has Biden up by 149K with a 2.7% lead
Cook Political

 

[Dr. Keith]

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.

Again, just like the dems did in 2016?

 

[acbytesla]

Pennsylvania has Biden up by 50K with a .7% lead.
Arizona has Biden up by 13K with a .4% lead
Georgia has Biden up by 14K with a .3% lead
Nevada has Biden up by 37K with 3.3% lead
Wisconsin has Biden up by 20K with .6%lead
Michigan has Biden up by 149K with a 2.7% lead
Cook Political

You could flip AZ and Georgia which are the only two with even an outrageously remote chance of flipping and Trump still ******* loses.

 

[Dr.Sid]

You could flip AZ and Georgia which are the only two with even an outrageously remote chance of flipping and Trump still ******* loses.

That's not his goal exactly. His goal is to cast doubts upon the whole election process, so electoral college can decide regardless of the votes. He will find single mistake, and start screaming 'I told you so', and will call for the whole election to be canceled. He has nothing to lose.

 

[Emily's Cat]

You could flip AZ and Georgia which are the only two with even an outrageously remote chance of flipping and Trump still ******* loses.

Like I said - it's highly unlikely to change the outcome.

 

[Emily's Cat]

That's not his goal exactly. His goal is to cast doubts upon the whole election process, so electoral college can decide regardless of the votes. He will find single mistake, and start screaming 'I told you so', and will call for the whole election to be canceled. He has nothing to lose.

I highly doubt that the Electoral College will listen to him though.

 

[trustbutverify]

If we're using FPTP (the worst of all possible voting systems), I prefer having some semblance of balance between the people and the states. The US is very large geographically, and each state has a fair bit of independence with respect to laws, taxes, and priorities. Irrespective of political parties, the interests and priorities of densely populated urban centers tends to be very different than those of more sparsely populated areas.

Not to mention the fact that the only two winners since 1900 to lose the pop vote were both right wing.

 

[Meadmaker]

In 2016, there were 2 states with a margin of less than 1% difference: Michigan (0.3%) and Wisconsin (1%). Clinton had 227 Electoral votes. Michigan is worth 16, and Wisconsin is worth 10. If Clinton had sought a recount of those two states (one in a close race that would have benefited her if they flipped), she would have gained a total of 26 electoral votes, putting her at 253. That's still below the 270 threshold needed to clinch the presidency. The next closest race was Pennsylvania, which has 20 EC votes, and was at a 1.2% margin, and 68,000 votes.

You're right. I thought Pennsylvania was closer in 2016, at about the same as it is today.

So, in some sense, the margins are less. So, I guess we don't know what Hillary Clinton would have done,


but Donald isn't a quitter the way she was!

Carry on, Don Donalde de la Mar-a-Lago. Victory is in sight!....but....uh....just in case you don't win, you might want to start packing so you're ready if you have to move out in a hurry.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I think you're looking at this differently than I am. I'm looking at states that were close in 2016 versus states that are close at present, and the effect that the electoral votes of those states would have on the overall outcome of the election.

To that end, the margins in Washington, Oregon, and California are irrelevant. They all went to Clinton & Biden by insurmountable margins in both elections. They aren't even in the pool of consideration for this round of game theory

In 2016, there were 2 states with a margin of less than 1% difference: Michigan (0.3%) and Wisconsin (1%). Clinton had 227 Electoral votes. Michigan is worth 16, and Wisconsin is worth 10. If Clinton had sought a recount of those two states (one in a close race that would have benefited her if they flipped), she would have gained a total of 26 electoral votes, putting her at 253. That's still below the 270 threshold needed to clinch the presidency. The next closest race was Pennsylvania, which has 20 EC votes, and was at a 1.2% margin, and 68,000 votes.

In 2020 (to date) there are four states with a current margin of less than 1%: Arizona (0.1%), Wisconsin (0.7%), Georgia (0.3%), and Pennsylvania (0.7%). In total, they are worth 57 Electoral votes, which would be enough to win the presidency. I don't think there's any reasonable chance of that happening, but I'm treating both elections with the same logic.

So, in 2016, the borderline states didn't have enough votes to gain Clinton the win. It wouldn't have been worth her while to challenge, as it had no chance of changing the outcome. In 2020, the borderline states DO have enough votes to gain Trump the win. Thus, it's worth his while to challenge them.

The complication here is that there are still a fair number of absentee ballots not counted, due to COVID and the USPS. Like I said, I don't see the final outcome shifting sufficiently to give Trump a win, but I can see the rationale of challenging those counts.

I've lost track of where he's challenging though. I'm pretty sure he's challenging in states that make no sense to challenge at all.

ETA: Forgot to include the references.
2016 election results
2020 election results (to date)

Again, no. Pennsylvania difference was .72%, some 44,000 votes.

Sheesh.

Take it up with Politico. Sheesh.

Does it make any difference at all to the logic that I was outlining? To the game theory approach that I'm employing? With that margin, I would say that it would have been reasonable for Clinton to challenge the counts, because the net borderline electoral votes were sufficient to change the total outcome of the election.

It makes a huge difference. It undercuts your whole argument that Clinton was in a completely different situation so her decision was different. The degree of the win was very similar, at best.

The only difference is that Trump doesn't have the ability to understand how he lost and he is unwilling to accept that loss for the good of the country. He doesn't understand that challenges and recounts won't change the vote enough, but Hillary did. She knew she had loss and accepted it. The entire party accepted it. They didn't like it, they didn't like Trump, but they didn't deny that it had happened.

It wasn't worth it to Hillary in 2016 and it isn't worth it to us in 2020. But, for Trump it isn't costing him anything so why the **** would he give a **** if it damages your silly country and its silly ideals about democracy? He doesn't. And that is his view of game theory. **** the game. I win.

 

[Trebuchet]

He has nothing to lose.

There's the real crux of the problem. It means he will do absolutely anything.

 

[Athyrio]

If we're using FPTP (the worst of all possible voting systems), I prefer having some semblance of balance between the people and the states. The US is very large geographically, and each state has a fair bit of independence with respect to laws, taxes, and priorities. Irrespective of political parties, the interests and priorities of densely populated urban centers tends to be very different than those of more sparsely populated areas. And beyond that, the needs of Alaska, as a state, are different from those of Florida. It's certainly not perfect, but offsetting the population vote with the state vote helps to prevent that urban/rural (and the suburbs in the middle) divide from become even greater than it already is. The EU uses a similar approach, recognizing that each member country is an entity in and of itself, not just a collection of belly buttons.

EC does have problems though. For one thing, the House-based counts aren't well scaled to the population, so you get quite a bit of skew in there. For another, I'm not fond of the winner-takes-all within each state. I'd much prefer to have all of the EC votes allocated in the way that Maine and Nebraska do them, with the House votes going to the winner of each district, and the Senate votes going to the population winner.
I'd much, much, much more strongly prefer ranked choice though.

Are there any math heads here who could figure out the results for this election had such a system been in place or is there already an app somewhere that does it?

 

[Meadmaker]

Are there any math heads here who could figure out the results for this election had such a system been in place or is there already an app somewhere that does it?

It's hard to find vote breakdowns to get the data. This site has the breakdown for the 2016 election:

https://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/

Short summary: Trump would have won, 290 to 248.

The page also gives a breakdown by all sorts of proposed methods, and some analysis of those methods.

 

[crescent]

Are there any math heads here who could figure out the results for this election had such a system been in place or is there already an app somewhere that does it?

Meh. It just adds gerrymandered house districts into the mix.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't think he's planning a military coup. I think he's planning to pull out of Afghanistan, as he's always wanted to do.

As for the other agencies, he's probably just acting out on grudges and being a dick.

That's an interesting take, much less stomach-cramping than thinking he was making it harder to evict himself from the WH.

 

[Minoosh]

Was he trying to say that they'll do a risk limiting audit, but that because the margins are so close, they will do a full hand count as well? I'm totally basing this on the completely in my head assumption that if the risk limiting audit also comes out very close, they'd have to do it again anyway. Which may not be the case.

I don't know. I'm not sure he knows, either.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Bill Hemmer on Fox

“The anger out there in these red states is so deep and palpable that GOP legislators may have a difficult time seating Biden electors”

Fox News is laying that groundwork for Republicans to invalidate the election results and install Trump in office for another 4 years


I think I can dispense with the "install Trump in office for another 4 years". If it happens, he's President-For-Life or Emperor or whatever they decide to call him and there's no reason to ever have another presidential election again.

 

[Elagabalus]

It makes a huge difference. It undercuts your whole argument that Clinton was in a completely different situation so her decision was different. The degree of the win was very similar, at best.

The only difference is that Trump doesn't have the ability to understand how he lost and he is unwilling to accept that loss for the good of the country. He doesn't understand that challenges and recounts won't change the vote enough, but Hillary did. She knew she had loss and accepted it. The entire party accepted it. They didn't like it, they didn't like Trump, but they didn't deny that it had happened.

It wasn't worth it to Hillary in 2016 and it isn't worth it to us in 2020. But, for Trump it isn't costing him anything so why the **** would he give a **** if it damages your silly country and its silly ideals about democracy? He doesn't. And that is his view of game theory. **** the game. I win.

That's our donny. He wears his heart on his sleeve - that's why we love him!

 

[pgwenthold]

Bill Hemmer on Fox

“The anger out there in these red states is so deep and palpable that GOP legislators may have a difficult time seating Biden electors”

Why would "red states" be trying to seat Biden electors?

Let me say, for the record: red states, those states in which the majority voted for Trump, do not need to seat Biden electors.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Pennsylvania has Biden up by 50K with a .7% lead.
Arizona has Biden up by 13K with a .4% lead
Georgia has Biden up by 14K with a .3% lead
Nevada has Biden up by 37K with 3.3% lead
Wisconsin has Biden up by 20K with .6%lead
Michigan has Biden up by 149K with a 2.7% lead
Cook Political

According to Wikipedia, between 2000 and 2015 recounts only over-turned 3 state-wide election results out of 4687 total elections. The largest change in vote totals between the original count and the recount was less than 600 votes. Most of the vote count changes were attributed to improperly rejected absentee ballots. This means that the odds of a recount in Georgia overturning the result is EXTREMELY small.

Also according to Wikipedia, recounts in Arizona only happen if the vote totals are within 0.1%, meaning that a recount in Arizona is unlikely.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_recount

Apologies if someone has posted this already.