Trump's Coup d'état.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Firestone said:
Depends on your definition of "narrow".

Georgia and Arizona were narrow, 0.3%.
Wisconsin was 0.6%. Is that still "narrow"? I'd guess not, but it still is dangerously close.

If Trump wins all three, it's 269-269, and Trump easily wins then Contingent election in the House.

The US (and the world) were lucky this November.

This election illustrates the inanity of the EC. Biden won by 4.4% nationally (that's clearly not narrow by any definition), yet won the tipping point state, Wisconsin, by only 0.6%.
Click to expand...

I'd say the 2016 election illustrates it more. At least in this election, the guy who won the popular vote won the election.
 
Stacyhs said:
I'd say the 2016 election illustrates it more. At least in this election, the guy who won the popular vote won the election.
Click to expand...
Sure.

Another way to look at it:
In 2020, flipping some 22,000 votes in WI, AZ, and GA gives Trump a second term.
In 2016, flipping some 39,000 votes in WI, PA, and MI gives Clinton the victory.
And let's not even start about 2000.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Ford pardoning Nixon cost him the next election.
I don't think Biden would amke the smae mistake.
Click to expand...

I’m not entirely convinced that the 78-year-old man really thinks spending the next 8 years as president is much more desirable than spending the next 4 years as president.
 
Firestone said:
Sure.

Another way to look at it:
In 2020, flipping some 22,000 votes in WI, AZ, and GA gives Trump a second term.
In 2016, flipping some 39,000 votes in WI, PA, and MI gives Clinton the victory.
And let's not even start about 2000.
Click to expand...

No matter which way you look at it, the EC as it stands needs to go.
 
Ladewig said:
I’m not entirely convinced that the 78-year-old man really thinks spending the next 8 years as president is much more desirable than spending the next 4 years as president.
Click to expand...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - I wouldn't be surprised if Biden resigns at some point during his first term, allowing Harris to become president.

Biden has said that he didn't want to be president and was only running because he thought getting Trump out was important, and he called himself Harris' running mate and then said that he wasn't joking. And, as you say, he's not exactly a spring chicken.

I don't expect him to do fewer than 2 years, and I'd expect him to make strides towards undoing the damage that Trump has done rather than just going "it's your problem now" to Harris, but if he resigns before his 4 years are up then I won't die of shock.

Perhaps also worth bearing in mind is that incumbents have an advantage in elections. Since Biden is unlikely to want to do a second term (again, he's explicitly said he didn't want to do a first term), it perhaps also makes sense if you want a Democrat in power for Harris to have been president for a couple of years.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
SCOTUS Justice Alito has required PA authorities to submit by Tuesday morning (since Tuesday is "safe harbor" day) their response to the appeal of the PA Supreme Court's refusal to overrule the judgement that the request to invalidate PA's election on the grounds that the law allowing unrestricted mail-in voting violates PA's constitution was submitted too late.
Click to expand...

I'm losing track of the multiple negatives there, to the point where I can't figure out which side of the case is being requested here.

TellyKNeasuss said:
AFAICT, the lawsuit is based on claiming that this provision in the PA constitution prohibits the legislature from granting mail-in voting privileges to people for reasons other than those listed in the constitution.
Click to expand...

Interesting that it says "due to illness," and doesn't specify who is actually ill. Is there an argument that the provisions for absentee voting in this election were, in fact, constitutional on the basis that there was an illness that they were specifically required to counter?

Dave
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
I might be getting things wrong, but I seem to recall that is only applied if for some reason the state cannot hold an election, not for a controversy of an election that has been held.
Click to expand...

The relevant section of the act is

Whenever any State has held an election for the purpose of choosing electors, and has failed to make a choice on the day prescribed by law, the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.
Click to expand...

There has never been a situation where this paragraph has been invoked, so no court has ever ruled on how it should be interpreted.
 
That's a horrible idea.

We can't start going into election having to figure out if we're really electing the Presidential Candidate or the VP Candidate.

An elected President stepping down just because they want the VP to be President would be a massive breach of the public trust.
 
Stacyhs said:
Yes, he was overwhelmingly rejected. The evidence is in your very own sentence: He got more votes than any candidate in history aside from Biden. Biden received over 7 million more votes than Trump. Do you really think those 7 million more votes were people excited about Biden? Hardly. They were people excited about voting out Trump.
Click to expand...

Yes, and in four years, if those people who loathed Trump are no longer as excited at keeping Trump out of office, the result may be reelection.

With time and with the obstruction of Congress making Biden ineffective, this could happen. I wouldn't place any odds on 2024 at this early date.
 
thaiboxerken said:
The fact that millions of people were suppressed/disenfranchised also is overlooked as well. The vast majority of voting age citizens reject Trump and this authoritarian, fascists cult.
Click to expand...

And I doubt that that is going to get any better any time soon. If the Georgia runoffs go the way of Perdue & Loeffler, we are facing at least more years of Obama administration style Republican obstructionism so there would be zero chance of fixing it legislatively (Trump's performance campaigning for them is actually out best hope). Judicially, the courts matter and they have been packed so there will be little progress from that end either.
 
If Trump was going to go skulking off into the shadows for the rest of his life, maybe Biden would pardon him in some kind of stupid effort to be “post-Partisan” or something. But it’s looking more and more like Trump isn’t going away anytime soon. Last rumors I heard, the Trump team was looking at a televised “Going into exile before his 2024 run” pageant to be run contemporaneously with the Biden inauguration.

Why should Biden piss off his base to make life easier for his likely 2024 opponent?
 
cosmicaug said:
Because it would be a terrible thing to be divisive.
Click to expand...

Would pardoning Trump be any less divisive?

cosmicaug said:
Because Ford pardoning Nixon makes is a tradition.
Click to expand...

No doubt that's what the Republican Party will argue. But Ford was a Republican pardoning a Republican, and one might suggest he was doing so in order for the Republican Party to put Watergate behind them, and not necessarily for the USA. So the "tradition" argument boils down to: When one side lets their own guy off for his crimes, the other side should also let the first side's guy off for his crimes. It would be quite reasonable for the Democratic Party to say, in effect, "Screw that, Democrats only need to pardon other Democrats under this newly-established tradition."

Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom