2020 Presidential Election

[elengil]

You're not worried about thing #3: Use the doubt they've created to convince state legislatures to appoint faithless electors?

In most, if not all states, the legislatures do not have that power.

Can you explain that because I understood that is exactly who has the power?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

You're not worried about thing #3: Use the doubt they've created to convince state legislatures to appoint faithless electors?

No. Not at all.

Sent from my VS988 using Tapatalk

[River]

You're not worried about thing #3: Use the doubt they've created to convince state legislatures to appoint faithless electors?

In most, if not all states, the legislatures do not have that power.

Can you explain that because I understood that is exactly who has the power?

How states apportion electors is codified into their laws. The legislative body can't just hold a vote and appoint a new slate to their liking because their majority party didn't win the Presidential.

I edited the post you quoted somewhere between me posting it and you quoting me.

[elengil]

How states apportion electors is codified into their laws. The legislative body can't just hold a vote and appoint a new slate to their liking because their majority party didn't win the Presidential.

I'm especially confused, then, how a government war games scenario could do that and considered it a legitimate threat to the current election outcome.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I didn't watch your podcast, but there were no government war games. There were private organizations doing "war games" addressing potential scenarios in the months leading up to the election, not addressing the actual situation that exists.

As River notes, in order for GOP dominated legislatures in states that Biden won to appoint their own electors they would need to pass legislation changing how the electors were selected. And in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, the Democratic governors would just veto the legislation. Plus, they know full well that even Republican voters would be against such an action.

[RoseMorninStar]

Don't give up hope.

"For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”

I (we) sure could use the light of Elendil.


Having dealt with narcissists, I would caution to never, ever underestimate what a desperate narcissist may do. Trump is malignant and consumed with petty vengeance. He has an enormous chip on his shoulder. Republicans have given him unchecked power and he will not relinquish it of his own will, especially as it's possible he'll be subject to deep legal trouble. A narcissist is not bound by conventions, norms, facts, integrity, honor, or sense of any greater good beyond himself. He sees himself as an embodiment of the country. Because of this mind-set, they can dream up stuff that would never in a million years occur to the average person. Trying to stay a step ahead is virtually impossible. As he sees it, what is good for Donald is good for the country (but not vise-versa).

[Dave_LF]

Too many Trump threads; confused. I hope you're right, V. Any other time I'd be saying the same sort of stuff, but too many impossible things have happened lately; I won't sleep easy until he's gone.

fuller.png (15.67 KiB) Viewed 6171 times

:nervous laughter:

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I hear ya, Dave. After all, reportedly that's largely what happened that led to Trump becoming president. He ran never to bolster his brand, never in a million years thinking that he would win.

(As for the too many Trump thread, I hear ya there, too. But I think the horse has already left the barn, and trying to close the barn door would be counter-productive at this point.)

[RoseMorninStar]

Maybe we can all request to be put in a therapeutic coma and be revived when it's all over.

[Túrin Turambar]

(As for the too many Trump thread, I hear ya there, too. But I think the horse has already left the barn, and trying to close the barn door would be counter-productive at this point.)

The idea behind the results thread is that it would supersede this one, and would make it easy for people who wanted to revisit the final predictions and reactions to the results as they came in to do so, but I appreciate that this hasn't worked out - in retrospect I wouldn't have created the thread.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I considered saying something at the time, but I was hopeful that it would work out the way you described it. I think for the most part it has, but there has been some confusion, particularly with posts also going in the Trump's America thread (and perhaps also in the WTF thread, and even in the Covid thread in Bag End).

In a way it is good, because after all these are confusing times!

[N.E. Brigand]

Huh. Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri whose name has been mentioned as a possible 2024 presidential candidate, has introduced a bill that would require states to count mail ballots as they come in.

Which is just what various Republican legislatures, most notably in Pennsylvania, would NOT allow to happen this year. If this had been permissible in those states (as it was in Florida and Texas and Ohio), Biden's victory probably would have been called by last Wednesday (four days before it actually was) or maybe even on Election Night.

Do you have a link? I haven't been able to find anything on this. I just come up with stories about Sen. Scott's proposed bill back in September that would have required states to count all ballots within 24 hours after polls closed.

My source was this comment by Washington Post reporter Amber Phillips. Checking Google News, I find this story in the Washington Examiner, which says that the primary purpose of the proposed law would be to prevent "ballot harvesting" but adds that: "The measure would also require all mail-in and absentee ballots to be counted when received".

[N.E. Brigand]

They can only cause as much mayhem as we let them. As Heather Cox Richardson is saying right now, we have the ability to say "no, we are taking back our country."

"They" were plotting to kidnap Michigan's governor.

Not the same "they," you say?

I think there's a symbiotic relationship between the two of they.

However, I did see some good news. A new poll finds the percentage of Republicans who believe Biden won last week's election is much higher than the poll number I cited earlier today. Per the new Reuters poll, 60% of Republicans think Biden won -- and many of the others think that the winner hasn't been determined yet rather than that Trump won.

[elengil]

(As for the too many Trump thread, I hear ya there, too. But I think the horse has already left the barn, and trying to close the barn door would be counter-productive at this point.)

The idea behind the results thread is that it would supersede this one, and would make it easy for people who wanted to revisit the final predictions and reactions to the results as they came in to do so, but I appreciate that this hasn't worked out - in retrospect I wouldn't have created the thread.

I will say I misunderstood the intent - I thought it was basically to talk about the actual day of and the issues around the results, but that other things surrounding the election such as, oooh say, the hilarious landscape venue, would remain in the overall election thread.

[River]

My source was this comment by Washington Post reporter Amber Phillips. Checking Google News, I find this story in the Washington Examiner, which says that the primary purpose of the proposed law would be to prevent "ballot harvesting" but adds that: "The measure would also require all mail-in and absentee ballots to be counted when received".

Emphasis mine. I see no reason why this requirement should not be met. Or, if not counted, at least processed to the point that the ballots are ready to be scanned on Election Day. It's not hard, guys. Our state started burning down after voting and ballot processing commenced and we still had enough ballots counted for the press to make a call on Election Day.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

They can only cause as much mayhem as we let them. As Heather Cox Richardson is saying right now, we have the ability to say "no, we are taking back our country."

"They" were plotting to kidnap Michigan's governor.

Not the same "they," you say?

I think there's a symbiotic relationship between the two of they.

I don't disagree with that at all, and I don't mean to downplay the harm that Trump's two-year-old-temper-tantrum is causing. But in the end, I think the greatest harm is going to be to the Republican Party, because at some point it is going to be clear that they are enabling a two-year-old-temper-tantrum. The poll numbers that you cite, N.E.B., suggest that that time is coming.

As for requiring that absentee ballots be counted when received, it is worth repeating that it is the Republicans that have prevented that from happening, not the Democrats.

[River]

I agree about the time coming, Voronwë. Not because of poll numbers, but other little barometers I look at. I suspect that, within the next week or so, the feelings will finish processing. I am starting to understand the need for a concession speech. There are always raw feelings and whining about this, that, and the other thing following an election loss. However, when the losing candidate concedes in a timely manner, those with the feelings are left to simply pull themselves together and accept reality. They have no validation for carrying on with a narrative about being cheated or something. Also, usually the winning candidate makes an effort of outreach following a concession. Trump did a poor job of that in 2016 and thus entered office with a lower approval rating than the incumbent. That was a rarity and reflective of the poor job he did of trying to win new fans following his victory. G.W. Bush, who also lost the popular vote but won the EC, entered office with a >50% approval if I recall. I'm not sure what they did to smooth things over a bit, but they succeeded.

I do not dispute that the PA State Legislature took a bass-ackwards approach to the absentee/mail-in ballot situation. Whether it was malice or stupidity is a question for another day. I'm going to be parsimonious and lean towards stupidity. Politicians these days seem a little short-sighted.

[Frelga]

Malice or stupidity? Why not both?

[N.E. Brigand]

Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, yesterday:

"Donald Trump brought millions of people to vote Republican that had never considered it before. And if he runs in 2024 he'll certainly be the front-runner and will probably be the nominee."

If you're talking about Trump running in 2024, you're admitting that he lost in 2020 (which Rubio has yet to explicitly do), because as a two-term president, Trump would be ineligible to run again.

- - - - - - - - -

And Ronna Romney McDaniel, the chair of Republican National Committee, has put out a message saying that Georgians need to vote for the two Republican candidates in the January Senate run-off elections because otherwise the Senate's "deciding vote" will be "Kamala Harris."

Another implicit admission that Biden and Harris won.

[elengil]

Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, yesterday:

"Donald Trump brought millions of people to vote Republican that had never considered it before. And if he runs in 2024 he'll certainly be the front-runner and will probably be the nominee."

But, in 2024 he'll be too old, like Biden