|
On November 04 2020 23:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 23:00 m4ini wrote:On November 04 2020 22:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2020 22:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2020 22:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:41 farvacola wrote:On November 04 2020 22:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The million dollar question is will the SCOTUS blow it's last respected legacy on hearing a Trump case regarding votes. I mean granted it barely has any societal respect left but one wonders how Roberts want to handle this of all things. He values his legacy overall things apparently. Trump will lose at SCOTUS, and then the shit rulings will fly. Yeah, I don't know what SCOTUS could magically do for Trump in this election. Can someone please enlighten me on how Trump could lose the electoral college but SCOTUS somehow gives Trump the win anyway? Republican legislatures replace electors with Trump loyalists and they act as faithless electors and the supreme court originalists interpret the purpose of the EC basically as Nevuk did earlier Holy crap that would be an insane technicality... to actually lose the states but to get the electors to vote for Trump anyway. Thems the rules (being that they can be changed mid competition) Oh absolutely. Out of curiosity, is there anything stopping Trump from publicly declaring that he would give a million dollars to any elector in a Biden-won state who decides to cast their electoral vote for Trump instead? I could totally see Trump doing this (and I could also see Trump not paying the electors anyway lol). That would be electoral fraud, no? So?
It'll be overturned and Biden handed the presidency. If you think the SC would let something this blatant slip, your country is much more fucked than i've ever imagined.
It's nonsense.
|
On November 04 2020 23:02 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 23:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 23:00 m4ini wrote:On November 04 2020 22:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2020 22:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2020 22:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:41 farvacola wrote:On November 04 2020 22:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The million dollar question is will the SCOTUS blow it's last respected legacy on hearing a Trump case regarding votes. I mean granted it barely has any societal respect left but one wonders how Roberts want to handle this of all things. He values his legacy overall things apparently. Trump will lose at SCOTUS, and then the shit rulings will fly. Yeah, I don't know what SCOTUS could magically do for Trump in this election. Can someone please enlighten me on how Trump could lose the electoral college but SCOTUS somehow gives Trump the win anyway? Republican legislatures replace electors with Trump loyalists and they act as faithless electors and the supreme court originalists interpret the purpose of the EC basically as Nevuk did earlier Holy crap that would be an insane technicality... to actually lose the states but to get the electors to vote for Trump anyway. Thems the rules (being that they can be changed mid competition) Oh absolutely. Out of curiosity, is there anything stopping Trump from publicly declaring that he would give a million dollars to any elector in a Biden-won state who decides to cast their electoral vote for Trump instead? I could totally see Trump doing this (and I could also see Trump not paying the electors anyway lol). That would be electoral fraud, no? So? It'll be overturned and Biden handed the presidency. If you think the SC would let something this blatant slip, your country is much more fucked than i've ever imagined. It's nonsense.
I definitely hope that it won't come to that.
|
your country is much more fucked than i've ever imagined. I think I'm spotting a theme
|
On November 04 2020 23:02 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 23:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 23:00 m4ini wrote:On November 04 2020 22:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2020 22:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2020 22:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:41 farvacola wrote:On November 04 2020 22:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The million dollar question is will the SCOTUS blow it's last respected legacy on hearing a Trump case regarding votes. I mean granted it barely has any societal respect left but one wonders how Roberts want to handle this of all things. He values his legacy overall things apparently. Trump will lose at SCOTUS, and then the shit rulings will fly. Yeah, I don't know what SCOTUS could magically do for Trump in this election. Can someone please enlighten me on how Trump could lose the electoral college but SCOTUS somehow gives Trump the win anyway? Republican legislatures replace electors with Trump loyalists and they act as faithless electors and the supreme court originalists interpret the purpose of the EC basically as Nevuk did earlier Holy crap that would be an insane technicality... to actually lose the states but to get the electors to vote for Trump anyway. Thems the rules (being that they can be changed mid competition) Oh absolutely. Out of curiosity, is there anything stopping Trump from publicly declaring that he would give a million dollars to any elector in a Biden-won state who decides to cast their electoral vote for Trump instead? I could totally see Trump doing this (and I could also see Trump not paying the electors anyway lol). That would be electoral fraud, no? So? It'll be overturned and Biden handed the presidency. If you think the SC would let something this blatant slip, your country is much more fucked than i've ever imagined. It's nonsense. An elector voting differently from the voters in a state is an intended part of the electoral college. That is why they get to vote at all.
Tho I think it was intended as a safeguard against people voting in a bad populist more then.. well... this.
|
What this elections tells me is that the US is lost at this point.
Your only chance was to slamdunk Trump into the dumpster. That was the only way your country had to normalize in some way. But you didn't. Despite horribly failing at his job in every possible way, and generally being about the most disgusting human being you can imagine, the election is still close, and Trump might actually still win. So you will keep getting Trumps, feelings over facts, and all that other bullshit. And your country doesn't care.
But even if he doesn't win, the best case scenario is a Biden president without a senate. So nothing happens for 4 years, then republicans blame Biden for nothing happening despite making sure that nothing happens. They somehow manage to find an even more disgusting asshole than Trump, and he gets elected.
You elected Bush twice. We though you learned your lesson afterwards, but instead you elect Trump. And even after this horror of a 4 year presidency, you still don't manage to beat him consistently, and he in fact somehow GAINED votes.
It is beyond my understanding what is going on in the US. But it really seems to be beyond salvation. It is only going to get worse from here on. Half your country is simply too stupid or insane.
To all the sane Americans, i can only advise you to somehow find a way to get out while you still can. The US is broken, and it doesn't want to be fixed. Half the country thinks that Donald Trump is a good choice for president.
|
On November 04 2020 22:53 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:47 iamthedave wrote:On November 04 2020 22:41 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 22:30 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 04 2020 22:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2020 22:24 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 22:19 Zambrah wrote:
Republicans don’t vote Democrat and vice versa.
This idea that the primary winner is the best candidate for the general presupposes that Democrats will vote Republican for some reason. We’re seeing first hand that party allegiance in the US is infinitely stronger than labels like socialist or fucking fascist. The logic you're trying to put forth necessarily concludes that the only difference in who wins is due to voter turnout. At this point, this is verifiably false. It is objectively clear that many people voted differently than they did in 2016. With this being the case, trying to persuade these flexible voters is obviously not a losing proposition, as Biden looks poised to win off the back of that very strategy. Poised to win in a nailbiter against one of the most unbelievably terrible presidents in American history. This isn’t a win, this is a loss, even if Biden is president that it’s this close is a SHAMEFUL example of what should have been a slam dunk election being made close by relying on “flexible voters” instead of an Obama style campaign of enthusiasm. Does it say something about Biden (and Clinton) or does it say more about the American voter? I'd wager you could run a chipmunk against Trump in many countries and the chipmunk would win in a landslide, especially after 4 years of Trump. I think the issue is much more the American voter then the candidate. Should the democrats be trying to win over european voters instead? Of course its about American voters. Its about American voters and how the democrats failed to win them from Trump. But Trump is running on hardline conservative social positions (and a lot of conservative economic positions too), and he's winning a lot of support on this despite his complete incompetence and ethical shortcomings. To justify the idea that a progressive would do better with the American electorate, you need to answer two things: 1) How would a hypothetical progressive candidate win some of these votes away from Trump? 2) If they didn't, are you only relying on increasing voter turnout to win? If so, how do you explain this election's record turnout still showing so much support for Trump? Do you think there's a realistic way to push turnout even higher than this to win with a progressive candidate? Look to Obama. He had massive attacks levied on him, he’s a Muslim, birther conspiracies, socialist, etc. He won anyways. He promised hope and change and had a real message of forward movement for America. Americans liked it. Hillary was the embodiment of an uncharismatic technocrat that Americans don’t like and Biden has no easily discernible platform to rely on, no Build the Walls, or Medicare for Alls, just Nothing Will Fundamentally Change. They are the two things that Obama was not, we have to go back to messages of hope and progress, win hearts not minds, Americans are all about one and don’t have the other. Didn't Obama win primarily on the back of insane levels of support from the African American community? Obama did run a better campaign, but he had an advantage with a key demographic that nobody else will ever have; the chance to be the first black man in the white house. Democrats have to find ways to drive that enthusiasm, Obama had a ton of it, especially from black voters, yes, but enthusiasm with a digestible forward thinking message is what we can learn from Obama’s win to try and carry onwards. Declaring “LUL Americans are evil guess we should give up trying” is 100% the kind of thing I expect brunch Democrats to do going forward, but we should actually try to like, learn from the catastrophic failures were experiencing right now, not sweep them under the rug as, “eh, voters suck.” Also I don’t admire Obama, it makes my skin feel slimy to think of him at this point, but he was the last real Democrat winner we had and I believe we can learn from the differences between his campaign and Hillary and Biden’s. They shat the bed, Obama didn’t. Trumps unique awfulness is about as good a mirror for Bush as were going to have for modern politics, so I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss Obama’s path as easier than Hillary or Biden’s. It all just smacks of making excuses to not have to think critically about how Democrats can improve their campaigning and their candidate selection.
Aside from the fact that I repeatedly agreed with you that I'd like to see a more progressive/charismatic candidate, your analysis seems to be pretty shallow.
First off, you've shifted the goalposts from "Dems should let progressives take the reigns" to "Dems should put up a charismatic leader with a clear message of change", omitting the "progressive" part.
I can much more clearly agree on that second part (remember, we're talking about electoral chances, not our personal preference), but there are still concerns that you aren't taking into account.
Obama was running against a message similar to Biden's current message. McCain was just an amorphous Republican trying to hold onto power when Republicans had nothing positive to hang their hats on in 2008. Conversely, Trump's message is just lies. Pure, verifiable lies. He is presenting an entire reality that is so divorced from fact that it is mind-blowing. Obama's message of change may have had significant challenges with this.
The electorate and our political culture in general has changed significantly in the last dozen years, and I think your over-reliance on Obama comparisons doesn't take into account the unique challenges of a post-Trump political world. A huge swathe of America has revealed to us that they are willing to buy into and support downright lies. How does a message of hope and change combat that effectively?
The difference is clear.
The public want to feel like their president is going to make positive changes to the country. Trump gives his supporters that feeling, Biden doesn't and doesn't even try.
This statement still implies that Biden doesn't have a bigger lead simply because he's not motivating Democrats.
Turnout numbers show that this doesn't seem to be the case. Hate for Trump seems to have caused a massive turnout. The problem is that people actively support Trump.
This is people trying to use the "low turnout" justification that they used with Clinton, except that turnout is significantly better this year.
|
On November 04 2020 23:03 GreenHorizons wrote: I think I'm spotting a theme
Everyone will forget all about it if Biden wins though.
|
On November 04 2020 23:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 23:02 m4ini wrote:On November 04 2020 23:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 23:00 m4ini wrote:On November 04 2020 22:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2020 22:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2020 22:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:41 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
Trump will lose at SCOTUS, and then the shit rulings will fly. Yeah, I don't know what SCOTUS could magically do for Trump in this election. Can someone please enlighten me on how Trump could lose the electoral college but SCOTUS somehow gives Trump the win anyway? Republican legislatures replace electors with Trump loyalists and they act as faithless electors and the supreme court originalists interpret the purpose of the EC basically as Nevuk did earlier Holy crap that would be an insane technicality... to actually lose the states but to get the electors to vote for Trump anyway. Thems the rules (being that they can be changed mid competition) Oh absolutely. Out of curiosity, is there anything stopping Trump from publicly declaring that he would give a million dollars to any elector in a Biden-won state who decides to cast their electoral vote for Trump instead? I could totally see Trump doing this (and I could also see Trump not paying the electors anyway lol). That would be electoral fraud, no? So? It'll be overturned and Biden handed the presidency. If you think the SC would let something this blatant slip, your country is much more fucked than i've ever imagined. It's nonsense. I definitely hope that it won't come to that.
To be clear, i wouldn't put it behind trump to try - but if "winning" an election was that easy, others would've done so before. I don't have any trust in any federal agency in the US, but i also think that even with trump supporters there's a significant portion who wouldn't take kindly to the fact that someone "bought" (directly) the election.
|
Biden camp expects a WI this morning, MI later today. GA, NV tomorrow. PA possibly tonight.
|
Northern Ireland26799 Posts
On November 04 2020 22:53 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:47 iamthedave wrote:On November 04 2020 22:41 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:35 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 22:30 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 04 2020 22:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2020 22:24 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 22:19 Zambrah wrote:
Republicans don’t vote Democrat and vice versa.
This idea that the primary winner is the best candidate for the general presupposes that Democrats will vote Republican for some reason. We’re seeing first hand that party allegiance in the US is infinitely stronger than labels like socialist or fucking fascist. The logic you're trying to put forth necessarily concludes that the only difference in who wins is due to voter turnout. At this point, this is verifiably false. It is objectively clear that many people voted differently than they did in 2016. With this being the case, trying to persuade these flexible voters is obviously not a losing proposition, as Biden looks poised to win off the back of that very strategy. Poised to win in a nailbiter against one of the most unbelievably terrible presidents in American history. This isn’t a win, this is a loss, even if Biden is president that it’s this close is a SHAMEFUL example of what should have been a slam dunk election being made close by relying on “flexible voters” instead of an Obama style campaign of enthusiasm. Does it say something about Biden (and Clinton) or does it say more about the American voter? I'd wager you could run a chipmunk against Trump in many countries and the chipmunk would win in a landslide, especially after 4 years of Trump. I think the issue is much more the American voter then the candidate. Should the democrats be trying to win over european voters instead? Of course its about American voters. Its about American voters and how the democrats failed to win them from Trump. But Trump is running on hardline conservative social positions (and a lot of conservative economic positions too), and he's winning a lot of support on this despite his complete incompetence and ethical shortcomings. To justify the idea that a progressive would do better with the American electorate, you need to answer two things: 1) How would a hypothetical progressive candidate win some of these votes away from Trump? 2) If they didn't, are you only relying on increasing voter turnout to win? If so, how do you explain this election's record turnout still showing so much support for Trump? Do you think there's a realistic way to push turnout even higher than this to win with a progressive candidate? Look to Obama. He had massive attacks levied on him, he’s a Muslim, birther conspiracies, socialist, etc. He won anyways. He promised hope and change and had a real message of forward movement for America. Americans liked it. Hillary was the embodiment of an uncharismatic technocrat that Americans don’t like and Biden has no easily discernible platform to rely on, no Build the Walls, or Medicare for Alls, just Nothing Will Fundamentally Change. They are the two things that Obama was not, we have to go back to messages of hope and progress, win hearts not minds, Americans are all about one and don’t have the other. Didn't Obama win primarily on the back of insane levels of support from the African American community? Obama did run a better campaign, but he had an advantage with a key demographic that nobody else will ever have; the chance to be the first black man in the white house. Democrats have to find ways to drive that enthusiasm, Obama had a ton of it, especially from black voters, yes, but enthusiasm with a digestible forward thinking message is what we can learn from Obama’s win to try and carry onwards. Declaring “LUL Americans are evil guess we should give up trying” is 100% the kind of thing I expect brunch Democrats to do going forward, but we should actually try to like, learn from the catastrophic failures were experiencing right now, not sweep them under the rug as, “eh, voters suck.” Also I don’t admire Obama, it makes my skin feel slimy to think of him at this point, but he was the last real Democrat winner we had and I believe we can learn from the differences between his campaign and Hillary and Biden’s. They shat the bed, Obama didn’t. Trumps unique awfulness is about as good a mirror for Bush as were going to have for modern politics, so I don’t think it’s fair to dismiss Obama’s path as easier than Hillary or Biden’s. It all just smacks of making excuses to not have to think critically about how Democrats can improve their campaigning and their candidate selection.
Clinton could be acknowledged as an aberration, especially against candidate Trump. For all Biden’s flaws that we’ve all discussed innumerable times in this thread, this should have been a comfortable win.
My mental framing used to be if you parachute 2008 Obama into this cycle he crushes Trump, I’m not particular confident of that framing now, perhaps you need 08 Obama to merely deliver the comfortable enough victory Biden was projected.
Sure, absolute improvements can be made, I’m just rather pessimistic. The other side of the ledger is Trump after all and he’s still in this race despite a train wreck of a Presidency.
|
On November 04 2020 23:04 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 23:02 m4ini wrote:On November 04 2020 23:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 23:00 m4ini wrote:On November 04 2020 22:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2020 22:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2020 22:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:41 farvacola wrote:
[quote]
Trump will lose at SCOTUS, and then the shit rulings will fly. Yeah, I don't know what SCOTUS could magically do for Trump in this election. Can someone please enlighten me on how Trump could lose the electoral college but SCOTUS somehow gives Trump the win anyway? Republican legislatures replace electors with Trump loyalists and they act as faithless electors and the supreme court originalists interpret the purpose of the EC basically as Nevuk did earlier Holy crap that would be an insane technicality... to actually lose the states but to get the electors to vote for Trump anyway. Thems the rules (being that they can be changed mid competition) Oh absolutely. Out of curiosity, is there anything stopping Trump from publicly declaring that he would give a million dollars to any elector in a Biden-won state who decides to cast their electoral vote for Trump instead? I could totally see Trump doing this (and I could also see Trump not paying the electors anyway lol). That would be electoral fraud, no? So? It'll be overturned and Biden handed the presidency. If you think the SC would let something this blatant slip, your country is much more fucked than i've ever imagined. It's nonsense. An elector voting differently from the voters in a state is an intended part of the electoral college. That is why they get to vote at all. Tho I think it was intended as a safeguard against people voting in a bad populist more then.. well... this.
Yes it is.
No, that doesn't include paying the guy for his vote. Like, lets be real.
|
On November 04 2020 22:55 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 22:52 Wegandi wrote:On November 04 2020 22:48 m4ini wrote:On November 04 2020 22:39 Wegandi wrote:On November 04 2020 22:31 KungKras wrote:On November 04 2020 22:28 Gorsameth wrote:On November 04 2020 22:24 Zambrah wrote:On November 04 2020 22:21 Stratos_speAr wrote:On November 04 2020 22:19 Zambrah wrote:
Republicans don’t vote Democrat and vice versa.
This idea that the primary winner is the best candidate for the general presupposes that Democrats will vote Republican for some reason. We’re seeing first hand that party allegiance in the US is infinitely stronger than labels like socialist or fucking fascist. The logic you're trying to put forth necessarily concludes that the only difference in who wins is due to voter turnout. At this point, this is verifiably false. It is objectively clear that many people voted differently than they did in 2016. With this being the case, trying to persuade these flexible voters is obviously not a losing proposition, as Biden looks poised to win off the back of that very strategy. Poised to win in a nailbiter against one of the most unbelievably terrible presidents in American history. This isn’t a win, this is a loss, even if Biden is president that it’s this close is a SHAMEFUL example of what should have been a slam dunk election being made close by relying on “flexible voters” instead of an Obama style campaign of enthusiasm. Does it say something about Biden (and Clinton) or does it say more about the American voter? I'd wager you could run a chipmunk against Trump in many countries and the chipmunk would win in a landslide, especially after 4 years of Trump. I think the issue is much more the American voter then the candidate. It's definitely a side-effect of having the world's best education system by far in the 50:ies and then defunding it to nothingness over the following decades. Democracies rely on populations trained in critical thinking. Where do people get their "facts"? This myth is infuriating and it's not even hard to find the relevant data. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d18/tables/dt18_236.55.asphttps://twitter.com/deangeliscorey/status/1211813953069817857?lang=enReal education spending per pupil increased by 271% since 1960.
1960: $3,978
2016: $14,756
What are we getting for our money?
Yes, the data are inflation-adjusted Yes, the data is also cherry picked and leaves out the big picture, purely to look like it's in your favour which it isn't. And yes, i'm willing to bet money that you know how flawed this "argument" is and simply try to argue in bad faith. How can you say that education has been defunded since the 1930s or whatever when the Government data is crystal clear that it hasn't. What is cherry picked here? It has been. Just not directly. We had the same argument over here in the UK in regards to wages for NHS staff. Yes, the numbers went up if you looked at the "funding" by itself. Then you looked at the real world impact, and the numbers were down. Let me ask you this: do you think the price of education stayed the same? Social services? The very fact that private schools are included in your number - what does that number look like if you adjust for public schools only? Again. Yes, the number for funding went up. No, you're nowhere near spending as much on pure education than in the 60s.
Relevant: 4 Excludes "Other current expenditures," such as community services, private school programs, adult education, and other programs not allocable to expenditures per student at public schools.
Row 4 also happens to be...you guessed it inflation adjusted total expenditure. I don't even know what you mean by "real world impact". How is that even quantified / defined? The fact is we spend more than 250% than we did per pupil on public education in elementary and secondary schooling (High school) in 1960. That's indisputable.
More money does not mean better outcomes. How many times folks have to get this through their heads. (I'm sure you'll bring up healthcare spending per GDP and US having worse outcomes than comparable first-world countries....right?)
|
A tie is still possible right? If Biden takes only Nevada, Wisconsin and Michigan.
|
Biden just pulled ahead in Michigan. Arizona is the one I'm a little bit afraid of, currently... We'll see when they continue counting...
On November 04 2020 23:08 Sent. wrote:
A tie is still possible right? If Biden takes only Nevada, Wisconsin and Michigan.
A tie is possible if Biden wins Georgia, and loses Arizona/Pennsylvania/Nevada (yeah it's a long stretch)
How exactly do you get to 269 with NV, WI and MI ?
|
On November 04 2020 23:02 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 23:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 23:00 m4ini wrote:On November 04 2020 22:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2020 22:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2020 22:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:41 farvacola wrote:On November 04 2020 22:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The million dollar question is will the SCOTUS blow it's last respected legacy on hearing a Trump case regarding votes. I mean granted it barely has any societal respect left but one wonders how Roberts want to handle this of all things. He values his legacy overall things apparently. Trump will lose at SCOTUS, and then the shit rulings will fly. Yeah, I don't know what SCOTUS could magically do for Trump in this election. Can someone please enlighten me on how Trump could lose the electoral college but SCOTUS somehow gives Trump the win anyway? Republican legislatures replace electors with Trump loyalists and they act as faithless electors and the supreme court originalists interpret the purpose of the EC basically as Nevuk did earlier Holy crap that would be an insane technicality... to actually lose the states but to get the electors to vote for Trump anyway. Thems the rules (being that they can be changed mid competition) Oh absolutely. Out of curiosity, is there anything stopping Trump from publicly declaring that he would give a million dollars to any elector in a Biden-won state who decides to cast their electoral vote for Trump instead? I could totally see Trump doing this (and I could also see Trump not paying the electors anyway lol). That would be electoral fraud, no? So? It'll be overturned and Biden handed the presidency. If you think the SC would let something this blatant slip, your country is much more fucked than i've ever imagined. It's nonsense.
Three of the nine would definitely let it stand. ACB is a wildcard. Gorsuch, I suspect, would not. Roberts would definitely not.
Anyways, the results now look very much like Biden is going to win, but may wind up with a smaller popular vote win than Clinton got.
(Biden is currently ahead in WI,MI,NV with >89% of the votes reported in all three and doesn't even need PA/NC/GA right now).
AZ has 84% reported and Biden up 100k,
|
On November 04 2020 23:04 Simberto wrote:
What this elections tells me is that the US is lost at this point.
Your only chance was to slamdunk Trump into the dumpster. That was the only way your country had to normalize in some way. But you didn't. Despite horribly failing at his job in every possible way, and generally being about the most disgusting human being you can imagine, the election is still close, and Trump might actually still win. So you will keep getting Trumps, feelings over facts, and all that other bullshit. And your country doesn't care.
But even if he doesn't win, the best case scenario is a Biden president without a senate. So nothing happens for 4 years, then republicans blame Biden for nothing happening despite making sure that nothing happens. They somehow manage to find an even more disgusting asshole than Trump, and he gets elected.
You elected Bush twice. We though you learned your lesson afterwards, but instead you elect Trump. And even after this horror of a 4 year presidency, you still don't manage to beat him consistently, and he in fact somehow GAINED votes.
It is beyond my understanding what is going on in the US. But it really seems to be beyond salvation. It is only going to get worse from here on. Half your country is simply too stupid or insane.
To all the sane Americans, i can only advise you to somehow find a way to get out while you still can. The US is broken, and it doesn't want to be fixed. Half the country thinks that Donald Trump is a good choice for president.
To be fair to America, the UK doesn't have any legitimate ground to throw stones from and continental Europe has seen a drastic rise in right-wing groups gaining power, sometimes gaining full control of the government.
This isn't a uniquely American phenomenon. What's uniquely American is the structure of the Senate/EC that allows this populist right-wing influence to have an outsized influence.
|
On November 04 2020 23:04 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 23:03 GreenHorizons wrote:your country is much more fucked than i've ever imagined. I think I'm spotting a theme Everyone will forget all about it if Biden wins though.
I'm pretty much with Simberto's hopelessness but it's sorta covid-like in that the foreseeable US (without radical changes outside the traditional political system) doesn't just screw ourselves over. Such a US puts the whole world at risk on several fronts (sooooo boned if we lose control/track of our nuclear stockpile, that we barely maintain as is as just one example)
|
On November 04 2020 23:09 Nouar wrote:
Biden just pulled ahead in Michigan. Arizona is the one I'm a little bit afraid of, currently... We'll see when they continue counting...
Most outlets have already called Arizona and there's no real reason to think that Trump can overtake Biden there (outstanding votes are all early votes and they are mostly in urban areas).
|
On November 04 2020 23:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Biden camp expects a WI this morning, MI later today. GA, NV tomorrow. PA possibly tonight.
As for as MI goes, Biden has taken the lead in MI with 30% of the Wayne County vote outstanding (~270K votes in a very 67-32 Biden county) and 89% of the state reporting (only ~614K votes outstanding total). Trump will almost certainly lose the state today by a super recount proof margin unless the counting patterns were screwed up.
On November 04 2020 23:08 Sent. wrote:
A tie is still possible right? If Biden takes only Nevada, Wisconsin and Michigan.
Not with Biden taking NE-2, which seems to be the consensus.
|
On November 04 2020 23:05 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2020 23:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 23:02 m4ini wrote:On November 04 2020 23:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 23:00 m4ini wrote:On November 04 2020 22:57 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2020 22:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 04 2020 22:51 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 04 2020 22:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, I don't know what SCOTUS could magically do for Trump in this election. Can someone please enlighten me on how Trump could lose the electoral college but SCOTUS somehow gives Trump the win anyway? Republican legislatures replace electors with Trump loyalists and they act as faithless electors and the supreme court originalists interpret the purpose of the EC basically as Nevuk did earlier Holy crap that would be an insane technicality... to actually lose the states but to get the electors to vote for Trump anyway. Thems the rules (being that they can be changed mid competition) Oh absolutely. Out of curiosity, is there anything stopping Trump from publicly declaring that he would give a million dollars to any elector in a Biden-won state who decides to cast their electoral vote for Trump instead? I could totally see Trump doing this (and I could also see Trump not paying the electors anyway lol). That would be electoral fraud, no? So? It'll be overturned and Biden handed the presidency. If you think the SC would let something this blatant slip, your country is much more fucked than i've ever imagined. It's nonsense. I definitely hope that it won't come to that. To be clear, i wouldn't put it behind trump to try - but if "winning" an election was that easy, others would've done so before. I don't have any trust in any federal agency in the US, but i also think that even with trump supporters there's a significant portion who wouldn't take kindly to the fact that someone "bought" (directly) the election. No one before was as open and as brazen as Trump has already been.
I'm well beyond thinking there is a point where Trump becomes unpalatable, not after last night showed how much support he really does still have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
