Poll: Who will win the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election?

[sherr]

Which federal laws are you talking about that are "the laws in question" in this case?

I am not sure either about the "before election day" part.  The justices indicated that they might decide post hoc to reconsider the PA ruling allowing ballots to be counted if mailed by election day and received with the 6 day "buffer" afterward.

I edited my post at the top of the page to quote them. Article II of the Constitution, and US Code Title 3 section 1.

Regardless of any other considerations about legal fights about mail-in ballots or whatnot, the electors have already been appointed by the results of the election (we're just waiting on the certified counts to find out for sure who that is). Legislatures cannot just choose to appoint different people after-the-fact because they didn't like the results of the election, they have already been appointed by federal law.

Election day locks in the laws that govern the result of this election. Lawsuits about mail-in ballots received after election day are interpretation of the laws that were in place before election day. But legislatures cannot pass new laws to affect this election after election day, one way or another. Their window of opportunity to switch away from the popular vote and legally steal the election has already closed.

[maizefolk]

I am not sure either about the "before election day" part.  The justices indicated that they might decide post hoc to reconsider the PA ruling allowing ballots to be counted if mailed by election day and received with the 6 day "buffer" afterward.

Isn't Biden already ahead without considering ballots that arrived after election day? It's possible I misunderstood but my understanding was those later arriving ballots haven't even been counted yet (because the supreme court ordered them to be segregated).

If so, a ruling on this issue wouldn't be enough to take PA out of Biden's column, and even PA were somehow taken out of Biden's column, he has enough electoral votes to win just from the other states already called for him (and that doesn't consider GA where he's ahead by a comfortable margin going into the recount).

[sui generis]

I am not sure either about the "before election day" part.  The justices indicated that they might decide post hoc to reconsider the PA ruling allowing ballots to be counted if mailed by election day and received with the 6 day "buffer" afterward.

Isn't Biden already ahead without considering ballots that arrived after election day? It's possible I misunderstood but my understanding was those later arriving ballots haven't even been counted yet (because the supreme court ordered them to be segregated).

If so, a ruling on this issue wouldn't be enough to take PA out of Biden's column, and even PA were somehow taken out of Biden's column, he has enough electoral votes to win just from the other states already called for him (and that doesn't consider GA where he's ahead by a comfortable margin going into the recount).

Correct, that's just an example of the high court's willingness to consider changing rules set before the election, after the election has taken place.

[nereo]

A lot of people are missing how unusual Biden is for a Democrat:

JFK, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter were not yet fifty years old when they were elected. FDR was fifty, Jimmy Carter was fifty-two, and Woodrow Wilson fifty-six.

The older Presidents--Eisenhower, Reagan, and of course Trump--were Republicans.

Maybe?  If we restrict our window to Presidents...

Feinstein, Johnson, Hastings, Napalitano, Pascrall, Leahy, Lowey, Waters, Hoyer, Pelosi, Clyborn and Price have all had their 80th birthday already.  That's 12 legislators born on or before 1940.  Feinstein was at Stanford when Biden was still in elementary school.

Also, no one has ever been as old as Biden to run for president, let alone win.  So yes, he's unusual in how old he is for Dems as a standard bearer, but not in general. 

[caracarn]

I'm sure we'll see more of this bullshit in states with GOP legislatures. A state rep in Wisconsin is already pushing for the state's electors to throw out the popular vote and choose Trump.

Salon: Donald Trump Jr. is pushing an authoritarian idea to steal the election

In response to this dismal situation for the president, far-right radio host Mark R. Levin responded with a tweet suggesting a plan to overturn the results. Mother Jones' Tim Murphy denounced the idea as an authoritarian idea for trying to steal the election if Biden is declared the winner, and Murphy noted that Donald Trump, Jr. has signed off on Levin's idea.

The contents of Levin's tweet, which I'm sure has been spread far and wide on Parler and other right-wing bullshit sites:

REMINDER TO THE REPUBLICAN STATE LEGISLATURES, YOU HAVE THE FINAL SAY OVER THE CHOOSING OF ELECTORS, NOT ANY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, SECRETARY OF STATE, GOVERNOR, OR EVEN COURT. YOU HAVE THE FINAL SAY -- ARTICLE II OF THE FED CONSTITUTION. SO, GET READY TO DO YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY

What exactly is the legal definition of sedition?

Who is the state rep?  It seems Levin is just a radio host.

[OtherJen]

I'm sure we'll see more of this bullshit in states with GOP legislatures. A state rep in Wisconsin is already pushing for the state's electors to throw out the popular vote and choose Trump.

Salon: Donald Trump Jr. is pushing an authoritarian idea to steal the election

In response to this dismal situation for the president, far-right radio host Mark R. Levin responded with a tweet suggesting a plan to overturn the results. Mother Jones' Tim Murphy denounced the idea as an authoritarian idea for trying to steal the election if Biden is declared the winner, and Murphy noted that Donald Trump, Jr. has signed off on Levin's idea.

The contents of Levin's tweet, which I'm sure has been spread far and wide on Parler and other right-wing bullshit sites:

REMINDER TO THE REPUBLICAN STATE LEGISLATURES, YOU HAVE THE FINAL SAY OVER THE CHOOSING OF ELECTORS, NOT ANY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, SECRETARY OF STATE, GOVERNOR, OR EVEN COURT. YOU HAVE THE FINAL SAY -- ARTICLE II OF THE FED CONSTITUTION. SO, GET READY TO DO YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY

What exactly is the legal definition of sedition?

Who is the state rep?  It seems Levin is just a radio host.

State Rep. Joe Sanfelippo, R-New Berlin

[sui generis]

I've loved Elie Mystal for a long time and this article is great for those concerned about turning president elect biden into president biden: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/biden-victory-trump-lawsuit/

(And it addresses what I agreed was 99 percent unlikely, how a republican legislature in a state could dishonestly come up with some way to claim they need to select their states' electors and invalidate the previously chosen manner of selecting them, then having SCOTUS agree with them and how this is not impossible but, in part because it would be revolutionary for the court and in part because it would take multiple states attempting, and succeeding, to change the results of the electoral college, it is not something to lose sleep over).

[sherr]

I've loved Elie Mystal for a long time and this article is great for those concerned about turning president elect biden into president biden: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/biden-victory-trump-lawsuit/

Good article, I agree.

Can Republican state legislatures put forward a slate of electors who will vote for Trump even though Biden won those states?

Let’s be very clear: The states get to choose how they will determine their own electors, but that determination has to be made before the election. A state with a Republican legislature—let’s say, Pennsylvania—could have decided to choose electors based on a simple vote of the legislature. In fact, they contemplated doing such a thing. But they didn’t. Instead they decided, like every other state, to let the popular will in their state determine their slate of electors.

Well, what’s our plan for [them doing it anyway]?

My dude, I don’t have a plan for “nothing matters anymore.” The end of democratic self-government is not a thing one has a legal plan for. That’s like asking what my plan is for closing a demonic hell mouth that opens in my backyard. Die. My plan would be to die. I’m not Keanu Reeves.

[matchewed]

A lot of people are missing how unusual Biden is for a Democrat:

JFK, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter were not yet fifty years old when they were elected. FDR was fifty, Jimmy Carter was fifty-two, and Woodrow Wilson fifty-six.

The older Presidents--Eisenhower, Reagan, and of course Trump--were Republicans.

Maybe?  If we restrict our window to Presidents...

Feinstein, Johnson, Hastings, Napalitano, Pascrall, Leahy, Lowey, Waters, Hoyer, Pelosi, Clyborn and Price have all had their 80th birthday already.  That's 12 legislators born on or before 1940.  Feinstein was at Stanford when Biden was still in elementary school.

Also, no one has ever been as old as Biden to run for president, let alone win.  So yes, he's unusual in how old he is for Dems as a standard bearer, but not in general.

Also consider that quality of life into old age has increased greatly I would expect the average age of our politicians to increase over time.

[Montecarlo]

No surprise Trump’s lackeys in the cabinet are ill-behaved, but I am surprised that senatorial Republicans are indulging this nonsense.  I find myself longing for four years ago when establishment Republicans hated Trump (not that they were role models back then)

I am optimistic the Trump legacy will die soon.

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/11/10/most-republicans-dont-yet-dare-to-cross-donald-trump

[Travis]

No surprise Trump’s lackeys in the cabinet are ill-behaved, but I am surprised that senatorial Republicans are indulging this nonsense.  I find myself longing for four years ago when establishment Republicans hated Trump (not that they were role models back then)

I am optimistic the Trump legacy will die soon.

https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/11/10/most-republicans-dont-yet-dare-to-cross-donald-trump

McConnell and Graham just won reelection by wide enough margins to feel bulletproof for the next 6 years. Without Trump's popularity weighing him down, McConnell holds enormous power (especially since his job isn't even in the Constitution). He can play the popularity game for the next couple months and ride that wave of "I supported Trump until the end" and run the Senate under the Biden administration as if Trump never happened.  He doesn't want to risk Trump denouncing him at the last minute and lose part of his base going into a Democrat presidency where he'll be the Republican standard bearer.  He can play both sides with carefully worded "let's wait and count the votes" without sounding like he's on one side or the other.

[Kyle Schuant]

I propose that it's time to start ignoring the Trumper conspiracy theorists. Nothing they can do will change the result of the election, and life is too short to worry about things that will not happen.

We could have said in 2016: "I propose that it's time to start ignoring the "Russian troll" conspiracy theorists. Nothing they can do will change the result of the election, and life is too short to worry about things that will not happen."

The US seems to have a consistent problem with the supporters of the losing candidate refusing to believe their candidate lost. Perhaps the Republicans can spend the next four years saying "Not My President"?

Question: there are people who enthusiastically believed that there were widespread shenanigans in 2016, but who are now convinced that this election was completely honest. How do you reconcile these two contradictory opinions? Did Russia stop caring who won?

[Davnasty]

I propose that it's time to start ignoring the Trumper conspiracy theorists. Nothing they can do will change the result of the election, and life is too short to worry about things that will not happen.

We could have said in 2016: "I propose that it's time to start ignoring the "Russian troll" conspiracy theorists. Nothing they can do will change the result of the election, and life is too short to worry about things that will not happen."

The US seems to have a consistent problem with the supporters of the losing candidate refusing to believe their candidate lost. Perhaps the Republicans can spend the next four years saying "Not My President"?

Question: there are people who enthusiastically believed that there were widespread shenanigans in 2016, but who are now convinced that this election was completely honest. How do you reconcile these two contradictory opinions? Did Russia stop caring who won?

I propose that it's time to start ignoring Kyle "Trump is definitely going to win in 2020" Schuant.

[Travis]

I propose that it's time to start ignoring the Trumper conspiracy theorists. Nothing they can do will change the result of the election, and life is too short to worry about things that will not happen.

We could have said in 2016: "I propose that it's time to start ignoring the "Russian troll" conspiracy theorists. Nothing they can do will change the result of the election, and life is too short to worry about things that will not happen."

The US seems to have a consistent problem with the supporters of the losing candidate refusing to believe their candidate lost. Perhaps the Republicans can spend the next four years saying "Not My President"?

Question: there are people who enthusiastically believed that there were widespread shenanigans in 2016, but who are now convinced that this election was completely honest. How do you reconcile these two contradictory opinions? Did Russia stop caring who won?

They're not contradictory. Russia was probably up to similar influencing shenanigans this time too. The difference is this time it didn't have the same effect. Nobody accused Russia of faking millions of votes in 2016 like Trump and his supporters are alleging now. They were accused of hacking email accounts and taking out ads on Facebook.

[bacchi]

I propose that it's time to start ignoring the Trumper conspiracy theorists. Nothing they can do will change the result of the election, and life is too short to worry about things that will not happen.

We could have said in 2016: "I propose that it's time to start ignoring the "Russian troll" conspiracy theorists. Nothing they can do will change the result of the election, and life is too short to worry about things that will not happen."

The US seems to have a consistent problem with the supporters of the losing candidate refusing to believe their candidate lost. Perhaps the Republicans can spend the next four years saying "Not My President"?

Question: there are people who enthusiastically believed that there were widespread shenanigans in 2016, but who are now convinced that this election was completely honest. How do you reconcile these two contradictory opinions? Did Russia stop caring who won?

They're not contradictory. Russia was probably up to similar influencing shenanigans this time too. The difference is this time it didn't have the same effect. Nobody accused Russia of faking millions of votes in 2016 like Trump and his supporters are alleging now. They were accused of hacking email accounts and taking out ads on Facebook.

Thank you. That's a talking point the right uses to create false equivalencies.

[JLee]

I propose that it's time to start ignoring the Trumper conspiracy theorists. Nothing they can do will change the result of the election, and life is too short to worry about things that will not happen.

We could have said in 2016: "I propose that it's time to start ignoring the "Russian troll" conspiracy theorists. Nothing they can do will change the result of the election, and life is too short to worry about things that will not happen."

The US seems to have a consistent problem with the supporters of the losing candidate refusing to believe their candidate lost. Perhaps the Republicans can spend the next four years saying "Not My President"?

Question: there are people who enthusiastically believed that there were widespread shenanigans in 2016, but who are now convinced that this election was completely honest. How do you reconcile these two contradictory opinions? Did Russia stop caring who won?

Answer: You are conflating election interference with voter fraud.

Stop it.

[Abe]

I propose that it's time to start ignoring the Trumper conspiracy theorists. Nothing they can do will change the result of the election, and life is too short to worry about things that will not happen.

We could have said in 2016: "I propose that it's time to start ignoring the "Russian troll" conspiracy theorists. Nothing they can do will change the result of the election, and life is too short to worry about things that will not happen."

The US seems to have a consistent problem with the supporters of the losing candidate refusing to believe their candidate lost. Perhaps the Republicans can spend the next four years saying "Not My President"?

Question: there are people who enthusiastically believed that there were widespread shenanigans in 2016, but who are now convinced that this election was completely honest. How do you reconcile these two contradictory opinions? Did Russia stop caring who won?

They're not contradictory. Russia was probably up to similar influencing shenanigans this time too. The difference is this time it didn't have the same effect. Nobody accused Russia of faking millions of votes in 2016 like Trump and his supporters are alleging now. They were accused of hacking email accounts and taking out ads on Facebook.

Thank you. That's a talking point the right uses to create false equivalencies.

+1 - you'd think this goes without saying, but it seems that these days everything has to be explained in excruciating detail. Even then they won't agree because it doesn't fit their world view.

[Montecarlo]

+1 - you'd think this goes without saying, but it seems that these days everything has to be explained in excruciating detail. Even then they won't agree because it doesn't fit their world view.

Another “tolerant” liberal writing people off as hopeless.

[former player]

+1 - you'd think this goes without saying, but it seems that these days everything has to be explained in excruciating detail. Even then they won't agree because it doesn't fit their world view.

Another “tolerant” liberal writing people off as hopeless.

28 pages of arguing on the internet (on this thread alone) isn't enough?

[ctuser1]

I propose that it's time to start ignoring the Trumper conspiracy theorists. Nothing they can do will change the result of the election, and life is too short to worry about things that will not happen.

We could have said in 2016: "I propose that it's time to start ignoring the "Russian troll" conspiracy theorists. Nothing they can do will change the result of the election, and life is too short to worry about things that will not happen."

The US seems to have a consistent problem with the supporters of the losing candidate refusing to believe their candidate lost. Perhaps the Republicans can spend the next four years saying "Not My President"?

Question: there are people who enthusiastically believed that there were widespread shenanigans in 2016, but who are now convinced that this election was completely honest. How do you reconcile these two contradictory opinions? Did Russia stop caring who won?

Thank you for this post. I am quoting it to keep it available for easier search in my profile.

This post is extremely useful as the best possible example of whataboutism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism). It hits all the possible marks:
1. Attempting to allege the opposing position of hypocrisy without directly addressing the topic.
2. Invalid comparison (did anyone allege votes having been manufactured by Russia? But then, validity is never an aim of whataboutism).

#1 alone would have made it a whataboutism. #2 makes it a really useful one as it will now tempt the opponent to refute the assertion, and thereby successfully deflect the discussion from the original topic.

Pure genius!!

 

[skp]

https://fox8.com/news/i-team/i-team-missing-ballot-mystery-solved-what-every-voter-should-know/
This happened last election in my county.  And I can see stuff like this accidentally (accidently is not sarcastic) happening.  But at least in Ohio there has to be bipartisan presence at the polls and I doubt it is widespread. So as a conservative I am of 2 minds.  I agree Trump needs to put up or shut up.  He looks like an idiot throwing around unsubstantiated allegations.  But on the other hand. I don't think you can say stuff like this absolutely doesn't happen. And  I think there is some hypocrisy going on that if the shoe was on the other foot that the Dems wouldn't want the election investigated.   

[Davnasty]

https://fox8.com/news/i-team/i-team-missing-ballot-mystery-solved-what-every-voter-should-know/
This happened last election in my county.  And I can see stuff like this accidentally (accidently is not sarcastic) happening.  But at least in Ohio there has to be bipartisan presence at the polls and I doubt it is widespread. So as a conservative I am of 2 minds.  I agree Trump needs to put up or shut up.  He looks like an idiot throwing around unsubstantiated allegations.  But on the other hand. I don't think you can say stuff like this absolutely doesn't happen. And  I think there is some hypocrisy going on that if the shoe was on the other foot that the Dems wouldn't want the election investigated.

Who said accidents don't happen? of course they do. Even the rare attempt at fraud happens, but it's not so significant that we should be questioning the results of the election, before it occurs, without evidence.

I think Democrats would want mistakes like the one in the article as well as incidents with evidence of fraud investigated because they should be investigated. Everyone should want that. I don't see the hypocrisy.

[OtherJen]

https://fox8.com/news/i-team/i-team-missing-ballot-mystery-solved-what-every-voter-should-know/
This happened last election in my county.  And I can see stuff like this accidentally (accidently is not sarcastic) happening.  But at least in Ohio there has to be bipartisan presence at the polls and I doubt it is widespread. So as a conservative I am of 2 minds.  I agree Trump needs to put up or shut up.  He looks like an idiot throwing around unsubstantiated allegations.  But on the other hand. I don't think you can say stuff like this absolutely doesn't happen. And  I think there is some hypocrisy going on that if the shoe was on the other foot that the Dems wouldn't want the election investigated.

I think that credible allegations should absolutely be investigated. When they are, that’s evidence of the system working as intended. The problem is that there have been very few credible allegations. The lawsuits are wasting money, clogging the court systems, and delaying the transition period.

I’m a poll worker. At least one member of the two major parties is at every precinct. Same with the absentee ballot counting boards, which were supervised by roughly equal numbers of Republican and Democrat poll challengers (to the best of the local clerks’ ability, given the applicant pool). Allegations that the process is partisan or non-transparent are quite frankly insulting to election workers and officials of all parties.

All state election results must be certified. From this website, “ Typical certification regimes include rules on: standards for recounts and contests; procedures and times for canvassing votes; staffing of canvassing boards; delivery, security, and return of supplies, ballots, and forms; rules on publishing and recording of certified results; and rules on tie votes and special elections.” This is the normal and required audit process. It is happening now.

Ask yourself why so many in power are trying to stop the normal process this year. Maybe also ask yourself why they’re only questioning the process in counties and states where they lost and, within those states, in heavily minority counties. Here in Michigan, or example, Biden won Wayne County, which includes the heavily Democrat city of Detroit, as expected and by a similar margin as Clinton in 2016 (although Trump actually gained votes in Detroit relative to 2016). Kent County, which includes Grand Rapids and is generally heavily GOP, actually flipped for Biden, and yet no one appears to be questioning the process there. Detroit is 78% black; Grand Rapids is 67% white. A win for Biden in Kent County seems that it would be more suspicious, yet none of Trump’s cult followers were trying to storm the Grand Rapids ballot counting site with weapons. Why not?

[skp]

[quote . And  I think there is some hypocrisy going on that if the shoe was on the other foot that the Dems wouldn't want the election investigated.

I
Ask yourself why so many in power are trying to stop the normal process this year. Maybe also ask yourself why they’re only questioning the process in counties and states where they lost and, within those states, in heavily minority counties. Here in Michigan, or example, Biden won Wayne County, which includes the heavily Democrat city of Detroit, as expected and by a similar margin as Clinton in 2016 (although Trump actually gained votes in Detroit relative to 2016). Kent County, which includes Grand Rapids and is generally heavily GOP, actually flipped for Biden, and yet no one appears to be questioning the process there. Detroit is 78% black; Grand Rapids is 67% white. A win for Biden in Kent County seems that it would be more suspicious, yet none of Trump’s cult followers were trying to storm the Grand Rapids ballot counting site with weapons. Why not?
[/quote]

I seem to remember a focus on hanging chads in Florida

[OtherJen]

. And  I think there is some hypocrisy going on that if the shoe was on the other foot that the Dems wouldn't want the election investigated.

I
Ask yourself why so many in power are trying to stop the normal process this year. Maybe also ask yourself why they’re only questioning the process in counties and states where they lost and, within those states, in heavily minority counties. Here in Michigan, or example, Biden won Wayne County, which includes the heavily Democrat city of Detroit, as expected and by a similar margin as Clinton in 2016 (although Trump actually gained votes in Detroit relative to 2016). Kent County, which includes Grand Rapids and is generally heavily GOP, actually flipped for Biden, and yet no one appears to be questioning the process there. Detroit is 78% black; Grand Rapids is 67% white. A win for Biden in Kent County seems that it would be more suspicious, yet none of Trump’s cult followers were trying to storm the Grand Rapids ballot counting site with weapons. Why not?

I seem to remember a focus on hanging chads in Florida

In the 2000 election, the margin in Florida was a few hundred votes. Michigan doesn’t use punch ballots.

This year, Biden won in Wayne County, MI by a more than 2:1 margin over Trump (587,074 vs. 264,149, 31.0% Trump), and Trump actually did slightly better percentage-wise in 2020 than he did vs. Clinton in 2016 (519,444 vs. 228,993, 30.6% Trump). In Detroit, Trump took 5.1% of the vote in 2020, compared to 3.2% in 2016. Yet Trump is filing another lawsuit specifically targeted at alleged counting fraud in Detroit and Wayne County. Why? Please explain this to me. The previous suit was debunked, and multiple credible sources (I do not count the Trump fans who tried to storm the counting center with weapons) disavowed the accusations.

[talltexan]

I propose that it's time to start ignoring the Trumper conspiracy theorists. Nothing they can do will change the result of the election, and life is too short to worry about things that will not happen.

The US seems to have a consistent problem with the supporters of the losing candidate refusing to believe their candidate lost. Perhaps the Republicans can spend the next four years saying "Not My President"?

I agree with this. The last President who was truly accepted by the opposition (who controlled Congress) was George HW Bush.

[Montecarlo]

https://fox8.com/news/i-team/i-team-missing-ballot-mystery-solved-what-every-voter-should-know/
This happened last election in my county.  And I can see stuff like this accidentally (accidently is not sarcastic) happening.  But at least in Ohio there has to be bipartisan presence at the polls and I doubt it is widespread. So as a conservative I am of 2 minds.  I agree Trump needs to put up or shut up.  He looks like an idiot throwing around unsubstantiated allegations.  But on the other hand. I don't think you can say stuff like this absolutely doesn't happen. And  I think there is some hypocrisy going on that if the shoe was on the other foot that the Dems wouldn't want the election investigated.

A broken clock is right twice a day, so this link says Trump was right in one county... in May.

In a country as big as ours, I would be surprised if there was no voter fraud.  Someone somewhere did something very bad and hopefully it gets caught.  Perhaps I am naive, but coordinated rigging of the election across multiple states, and no one goofed at all and they they got clean away with it?

C’mon, this is more like a child can’t beat a Nintendo level and is stomping around complaining it’s too hard.  We knew it would happen, but I am sad and surprised how many Republicans are going along with it.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/11/08/gingrich_this_is_a_corrupt_stolen_election_democrats_stole_what_they_had_to_steal.html

I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, that it’s a couple of loud fringe voices and McConnell has whipped the senate to STFU until the GA runoff because he doesn’t want Trump
imploding their chances, but interviews like this, from former Speakers if the House, make it tough for me.

[sherr]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/11/08/gingrich_this_is_a_corrupt_stolen_election_democrats_stole_what_they_had_to_steal.html

I want to give them the benefit of the doubt, that it’s a couple of loud fringe voices and McConnell has whipped the senate to STFU until the GA runoff because he doesn’t want Trump
imploding their chances, but interviews like this, from former Speakers if the House, make it tough for me.

Newt Gingrich has always been an ultra-liar who cares only about propagandizing as hard as humanly possible so that his side can "win", and he openly brags about it. The fact that Republicans made him Speaker demonstrates that this attitude did not originate with Trump. This is the core of modern Republicanism, not a fringe.

[NaN]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/11/08/gingrich_this_is_a_corrupt_stolen_election_democrats_stole_what_they_had_to_steal.html

Funny thing in the article. The British pollster who Newt quotes and Trump tweeted about lied about his PhD from Cambridge in some British Medical Journal. Quality people. They are really stretching.

This narrative discussed above here, "Well, you guys didn't accept Trump for 4 years, why should we accept Biden?" , is actually making headway among my close relatives. I told my relative that Trump did say in a campaign speech in  2016 encouraging Russia to commit crimes to access these 'emails', and that they should not have been surprised the narrative that he colluded with Russia kept with him for 4 years. Their response, "he was only joking". Like WTF?

In regards to fraud, it is pretty common the winning side doesn't bring up allegations. I keep having remind my relatives all the petty crap the Republicans do to make it harder for democrat-leaning areas to vote (polling hours, etc.). That's all I can do to tone done their rhetoric.

[maizefolk]

I think the view that america has a problem accepting the results of elections is mostly a media problem of focusing on extremely vocal fringes of each party. If 24 hour cable news and twitter had existed at the time I'm sure plenty of people could have been found to denounce Roosevelt as "not my president." And if fact if you read through books about the great depression such folks appear.

Most of the people I know who I would guess voted for Trump -- quite different from people who are vocal Trump supporters on social media -- are reacting to Biden winning the election about how this NYtimes article summarizes the mood in Nebraska "A Nation Votes for Joe Biden, and a Red State Shrugs" The advantage of going to a state like Nebraska to do this story is that it is much easier to identify people who voted for Trump but aren't running around with MAGA hats or active about their support on social media. And their reaction is quite different.

The 2020 presidential vote hammered home the political divide in the country, with states supporting Mr. Biden largely located along the coasts, and those supporting Mr. Trump in a swath down the middle. Nebraska is tucked deep among them. More than 90 percent of voters supported Mr. Trump in at least five of its 93 counties.

But the knowledge here that Mr. Biden won the presidency — and that Nebraska even sent an Electoral College vote his way — was met with a what-goes-around-comes-around kind of attitude. Many Republicans said they planned to show liberals, who they said had whined for four years about Mr. Trump, that it was possible to simply move on when you lose.

“In America, you get four years and you can do it again,” Ms. Thiessen said.

This is basically the mirror image of my reaction to Trump winning four years ago. The problem is that stories about people hearing the candidate they voted for lost, shrugging, and going on with their day don't normally make for good news (so I give the NYtimes a lot of credit for writing this article anyway). What Trump is doing right now with trying to stave off recognition of Biden as the president elect is new, and it is bad. But I also have every confidence it will fail because the vast majority of both individual Biden AND Trump voters seem to be accepting the results of the election. This particular problem is coming from the president and the folks he appointed, not from the people of america ourselves.

[GuitarStv]

I propose that it's time to start ignoring the Trumper conspiracy theorists. Nothing they can do will change the result of the election, and life is too short to worry about things that will not happen.

We could have said in 2016: "I propose that it's time to start ignoring the "Russian troll" conspiracy theorists. Nothing they can do will change the result of the election, and life is too short to worry about things that will not happen."

The US seems to have a consistent problem with the supporters of the losing candidate refusing to believe their candidate lost. Perhaps the Republicans can spend the next four years saying "Not My President"?

Question: there are people who enthusiastically believed that there were widespread shenanigans in 2016, but who are now convinced that this election was completely honest. How do you reconcile these two contradictory opinions? Did Russia stop caring who won?

They're not contradictory. Russia was probably up to similar influencing shenanigans this time too. The difference is this time it didn't have the same effect. Nobody accused Russia of faking millions of votes in 2016 like Trump and his supporters are alleging now. They were accused of hacking email accounts and taking out ads on Facebook.

Thank you. That's a talking point the right uses to create false equivalencies.

Also important to note that the Russian argument is not an allegation.  Russian interference in the 2016 election has been conclusively proven.  As Robert Mueller wrote after his investigation, Russian interference "violated U.S. criminal law" and happened in "sweeping and systematic fashion".

[ixtap]

I think the view that america has a problem accepting the results of elections is mostly a media problem of focusing on extremely vocal fringes of each party. If 24 hour cable news and twitter had existed at the time I'm sure plenty of people could have been found to denounce Roosevelt as "not my president." And if fact if you read through books about the great depression such folks appear.

Most of the people I know who I would guess voted for Trump -- quite different from people who are vocal Trump supporters on social media -- are reacting to Biden winning the election about how this NYtimes article summarizes the mood in Nebraska "A Nation Votes for Joe Biden, and a Red State Shrugs" The advantage of going to a state like Nebraska to do this story is that it is much easier to identify people who voted for Trump but aren't running around with MAGA hats or active about their support on social media. And their reaction is quite different.

The 2020 presidential vote hammered home the political divide in the country, with states supporting Mr. Biden largely located along the coasts, and those supporting Mr. Trump in a swath down the middle. Nebraska is tucked deep among them. More than 90 percent of voters supported Mr. Trump in at least five of its 93 counties.

But the knowledge here that Mr. Biden won the presidency — and that Nebraska even sent an Electoral College vote his way — was met with a what-goes-around-comes-around kind of attitude. Many Republicans said they planned to show liberals, who they said had whined for four years about Mr. Trump, that it was possible to simply move on when you lose.

“In America, you get four years and you can do it again,” Ms. Thiessen said.

This is basically the mirror image of my reaction to Trump winning four years ago. The problem is that stories about people hearing the candidate they voted for lost, shrugging, and going on with their day don't normally make for good news (so I give the NYtimes a lot of credit for writing this article anyway). What Trump is doing right now with trying to stave off recognition of Biden as the president elect is new, and it is bad. But I also have every confidence it will fail because the vast majority of both individual Biden AND Trump voters seem to be accepting the results of the election. This particular problem is coming from the president and the folks he appointed, not from the people of america ourselves.

Well, I am exposed to the ones who are running around whining about Democrats stealing the election and spewing out infowars conspiracies, so for me it isn't an issue of me being manipulated by media.

As for the fringes, it isn't often that we refer to the POTUS and his appointees and allies as "fringe."

[Davnasty]

Ask yourself why so many in power are trying to stop the normal process this year. Maybe also ask yourself why they’re only questioning the process in counties and states where they lost and, within those states, in heavily minority counties. Here in Michigan, or example, Biden won Wayne County, which includes the heavily Democrat city of Detroit, as expected and by a similar margin as Clinton in 2016 (although Trump actually gained votes in Detroit relative to 2016). Kent County, which includes Grand Rapids and is generally heavily GOP, actually flipped for Biden, and yet no one appears to be questioning the process there. Detroit is 78% black; Grand Rapids is 67% white. A win for Biden in Kent County seems that it would be more suspicious, yet none of Trump’s cult followers were trying to storm the Grand Rapids ballot counting site with weapons. Why not?

I seem to remember a focus on hanging chads in Florida

Again, conflating legitimate concerns with lies.

Hanging/dimpled chads likely caused votes to not be counted. Problems like this happen and are almost expected, that's why recounts are an option. But unless the race is very close, a few miscounted ballots shouldn't necessitate a recount. Florida was decided by 537 votes and those votes decided the presidential election. I think asking for a recount was quite reasonable in that case.

If the tables were turned and Trump had lost by a few hundred or even a few thousand votes, he should ask for a recount and I expect he would get it.

Not only does the current situation not justify a recount, that's not even what Trump and his minions are asking for. They're asking the courts to invalidate votes and in public they're saying anything they can think of to de-legitimize results. No one, Republican or Democrat, has done anything like this in recent history and we need to see it for what it is if we're going to move on and rebuild faith in our election process. Pretending this is something that's been done before and that both sides are guilty is actively harmful to US democracy. I'd ask that you please reconsider before throwing around accusations like this.

[John Galt incarnate!]

In a country as big as ours, I would be surprised if there was no voter fraud.

 

Database Swells to 1,285 Proven Cases of Voter Fraud in ...

www.heritage.org › election-integrity › commentary › d...
May 10, 2020 — All-mail elections have received heightened attention in the media these past few weeks. Prominent liberals highly endorse the idea, claiming it ...



I do not think it is possible that every person convicted of voter fraud was actually innocent and wrongfully convicted so I conclude that "There  is/was no voter fraud"   is an untrue assertion.

[maizefolk]

Well, I am exposed to the ones who are running around whining about Democrats stealing the election and spewing out infowars conspiracies, so for me it isn't an issue of me being manipulated by media.

Do you mind if I ask how are you exposed to these folks? I don't doubt they exist. But are these friends you have in person? Protests in your home town? If so, how big relative to the size of the place you live? (We had about a dozen pickup trucks with big Trump flags driving around honking before the election and nothing since then.) Crazy Uncle so-and-so on facebook? To me the question is not whether people buying into infowars exist, but how many of them actually are there in a nation of 330M people?

As for the fringes, it isn't often that we refer to the POTUS and his appointees and allies as "fringe."

Perhaps, but I'd say we refer to people who claim to be president when they're not as fringe (if not worse words) all the time. The fact that some real estate developer from queens is saying he's going to be president in February definitely falls into the same category. Most people seem to be taking it about that seriously.

[GuitarStv]

In a country as big as ours, I would be surprised if there was no voter fraud.

 

Database Swells to 1,285 Proven Cases of Voter Fraud in ...

www.heritage.org › election-integrity › commentary › d...
May 10, 2020 — All-mail elections have received heightened attention in the media these past few weeks. Prominent liberals highly endorse the idea, claiming it ...



I do not think it is possible that every person convicted of voter fraud was actually innocent and wrongfully convicted so I conclude that "There  is/was no voter fraud"   is an untrue assertion.

There exists some level of voter fraud in every election.  Typically, people who are saying 'there is no voter fraud' mean that the amount of voter fraud is so insignificant that it is impossible for it to make a difference to the results.

You've posted that there were roughly 1300 cases of voter fraud.  Let's double that just to be sure that we're not undercounting any.  Then let's figure out what percentage of the vote that turns out to be.  Last projection I read was that 161 million Americans voted.

So, let's see

2600/161 000 000

That means that we have a recorded 0.0016% of fraudulent votes.  Seems pretty insignificant and incapable of swinging the election one way or another . . . and that's doubling the amount of known voter fraud just for safety margin.

[jrhampt]

Well, I am exposed to the ones who are running around whining about Democrats stealing the election and spewing out infowars conspiracies, so for me it isn't an issue of me being manipulated by media.

Do you mind if I ask how are you exposed to these folks? I don't doubt they exist. But are these friends you have in person? Protests in your home town? If so, how big relative to the size of the place you live? (We had about a dozen pickup trucks with big Trump flags driving around honking before the election and nothing since then.) Crazy Uncle so-and-so on facebook? To me the question is not whether people buying into infowars exist, but how many of them actually are there in a nation of 330M people?

I know plenty of these people too.  People I know IRL who are posting crazy stuff on Facebook mostly.

[ixtap]

Well, I am exposed to the ones who are running around whining about Democrats stealing the election and spewing out infowars conspiracies, so for me it isn't an issue of me being manipulated by media.

Do you mind if I ask how are you exposed to these folks? I don't doubt they exist. But are these friends you have in person? Protests in your home town? If so, how big relative to the size of the place you live? (We had about a dozen pickup trucks with big Trump flags driving around honking before the election and nothing since then.) Crazy Uncle so-and-so on facebook? To me the question is not whether people buying into infowars exist, but how many of them actually are there in a nation of 330M people?

As for the fringes, it isn't often that we refer to the POTUS and his appointees and allies as "fringe."

Perhaps, but I'd say we refer to people who claim to be president when they're not as fringe (if not worse words) all the time. The fact that some real estate developer from queens is saying he's going to be president in February definitely falls into the same category. Most people seem to be taking it about that seriously.

Family, high school friends, yacht club members, even a couple of the swing dancers and they are generally known as a pretty liberal group... the same people who believe that Trump is a good Christian leader and Biden is a corrupt commie who will ruin America. It amazes me that anyone can live in a bubble where they don't understand how many of these people are out there. Way more than the 1300 instances of voter fraud (or 2600 if we are doing the generous doubling thing).

[turketron]

There exists some level of voter fraud in every election.  Typically, people who are saying 'there is no voter fraud' mean that the amount of voter fraud is so insignificant that it is impossible for it to make a difference to the results.

You've posted that there were roughly 1300 cases of voter fraud.  Let's double that just to be sure that we're not undercounting any.  Then let's figure out what percentage of the vote that turns out to be.  Last projection I read was that 161 million Americans voted.

So, let's see

2600/161 000 000

That means that we have a recorded 0.0016% of fraudulent votes.  Seems pretty insignificant and incapable of swinging the election one way or another . . . and that's doubling the amount of known voter fraud just for safety margin.

It's even more insignificant than that, if I'm reading this database right- this shows ~1300 cases of voter fraud total, starting with cases from 1979. For 2020 total (so not just this election but the spring primaries) there are only 14.

[GuitarStv]

There exists some level of voter fraud in every election.  Typically, people who are saying 'there is no voter fraud' mean that the amount of voter fraud is so insignificant that it is impossible for it to make a difference to the results.

You've posted that there were roughly 1300 cases of voter fraud.  Let's double that just to be sure that we're not undercounting any.  Then let's figure out what percentage of the vote that turns out to be.  Last projection I read was that 161 million Americans voted.

So, let's see

2600/161 000 000

That means that we have a recorded 0.0016% of fraudulent votes.  Seems pretty insignificant and incapable of swinging the election one way or another . . . and that's doubling the amount of known voter fraud just for safety margin.

It's even more insignificant than that, if I'm reading this database right- this shows ~1300 cases of voter fraud total, starting with cases from 1979. For 2020 total (so not just this election but the spring primaries) there are only 14.

Oh.

Then I think we can safely say that there is no real effect of voter fraud at all.  That's not even a rounding error.

[frugalnacho]

In a country as big as ours, I would be surprised if there was no voter fraud.

 

Database Swells to 1,285 Proven Cases of Voter Fraud in ...

www.heritage.org › election-integrity › commentary › d...
May 10, 2020 — All-mail elections have received heightened attention in the media these past few weeks. Prominent liberals highly endorse the idea, claiming it ...



I do not think it is possible that every person convicted of voter fraud was actually innocent and wrongfully convicted so I conclude that "There  is/was no voter fraud"   is an untrue assertion.

There exists some level of voter fraud in every election.  Typically, people who are saying 'there is no voter fraud' mean that the amount of voter fraud is so insignificant that it is impossible for it to make a difference to the results.

You've posted that there were roughly 1300 cases of voter fraud.  Let's double that just to be sure that we're not undercounting any.  Then let's figure out what percentage of the vote that turns out to be.  Last projection I read was that 161 million Americans voted.

So, let's see

2600/161 000 000

That means that we have a recorded 0.0016% of fraudulent votes.  Seems pretty insignificant and incapable of swinging the election one way or another . . . and that's doubling the amount of known voter fraud just for safety margin.

And I find it highly unlikely that 100% of the small amount of fraud that did occur was only on one side. 


Just to be clear absolutely no one is claiming there is absolutely no voter fraud.  There just isn't large scale and widespread voter fraud.  When people say there is no voter fraud, they are implying there is no large scale and widespread voter fraud, because there is no evidence that there is, and plenty of evidence that there is not. 

[Montecarlo]

Even so, I'm not talking onesies or twosies, a dead person ballot here or there.  I mean, chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes.  There are probably over 100,000 polling locations in the US (source: quick Google search).

So even if the Trump investigations and the lawsuits turn up some really bad issue somewhere, imho chances are it's a one-off and it would be dangerous to extrapolate.

Any fraud out there enough to make a difference in any statewide or national race?  Very unlikely.  But I bet you there are a few local politicians who just got elected fraudulently. 

[sherr]

I mean, chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes.

I eagerly await the evidence you are going to produce to back up this claim.

Empty content-less "but what if" eyebrow-waggling conspiracy-theorizing is the laziest possible form of conspiracy-theorizing. Do the work to come up with a proper conspiracy-theory that actually contains the "theory" part.

[frugalnacho]

Even so, I'm not talking onesies or twosies, a dead person ballot here or there.  I mean, chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes.  There are probably over 100,000 polling locations in the US (source: quick Google search).

So even if the Trump investigations and the lawsuits turn up some really bad issue somewhere, imho chances are it's a one-off and it would be dangerous to extrapolate.

Any fraud out there enough to make a difference in any statewide or national race?  Very unlikely.  But I bet you there are a few local politicians who just got elected fraudulently.

What the fuck are you talking about?  They always look for fraud and can't find any.  So your conclusion is that it's obviously happening?

[Montecarlo]

I mean, chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes.

I eagerly await the evidence you are going to produce to back up this claim.

This is a simple math problem.  When you have over 100,000 opportunities for an edge case, edge cases happen!

You have to start with some prior (it's a SWAG, minus the S) that there is a non-zero chance of a polling location doing something fraudulent.  It's not 0.00000000%.  It's not >1%.  is it 0.01%? 0.001%? 

If I choose 0.001% over 100,000 locations, that's 63.2% chance of at least one major case of fraud.  Simple binomial distribution.

Is 0.001% the right number?  idk.  You tell me the number (and I eagerly await the evidence your number is right!)

[Montecarlo]

Even so, I'm not talking onesies or twosies, a dead person ballot here or there.  I mean, chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes.  There are probably over 100,000 polling locations in the US (source: quick Google search).

So even if the Trump investigations and the lawsuits turn up some really bad issue somewhere, imho chances are it's a one-off and it would be dangerous to extrapolate.

Any fraud out there enough to make a difference in any statewide or national race?  Very unlikely.  But I bet you there are a few local politicians who just got elected fraudulently.

What the fuck are you talking about?  They always look for fraud and can't find any.  So your conclusion is that it's obviously happening?

Find the word obvious (or a synonym) in my post please.  tyvm

[Freedom2016]

I mean, chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes.

I eagerly await the evidence you are going to produce to back up this claim.

This is a simple math problem.  When you have over 100,000 opportunities for an edge case, edge cases happen!

You have to start with some prior (it's a SWAG, minus the S) that there is a non-zero chance of a polling location doing something fraudulent.  It's not 0.00000000%.  It's not >1%.  is it 0.01%? 0.001%? 

If I choose 0.001% over 100,000 locations, that's 63.2% chance of at least one major case of fraud.  Simple binomial distribution.

Is 0.001% the right number?  idk.  You tell me the number (and I eagerly await the evidence your number is right!)

This is hilarious! You make up your own numbers for "major fraud" incidence with zero evidence, and then call for anyone else who puts numbers forward to provide evidence.

[sherr]

You have to start with some prior (it's a SWAG, minus the S) that there is a non-zero chance of a polling location doing something fraudulent.  It's not 0.00000000%.  It's not >1%.  is it 0.01%? 0.001%? 

You responded before I edited my comment so I'll copy it here:
Empty content-less "but what if" eyebrow-waggling conspiracy-theorizing is the laziest possible form of conspiracy-theorizing. Do the work to come up with a proper conspiracy-theory that actually contains the "theory" part.

I'm not claiming it's any number, so I'm not going to rise to your dishonest bait of trying to calculate what it is. You are claiming this number is larger than zero. Okay, PROVE IT. That shouldn't be hard given that Republicans have been desperately searching for fraud my entire adult life in order to back up their propaganda. Or at least do the work to come up with a proper conspiracy-theory to explain how these polling stations have managed to get away with it all this time.

[frugalnacho]

Even so, I'm not talking onesies or twosies, a dead person ballot here or there.  I mean, chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes.  There are probably over 100,000 polling locations in the US (source: quick Google search).

So even if the Trump investigations and the lawsuits turn up some really bad issue somewhere, imho chances are it's a one-off and it would be dangerous to extrapolate.

Any fraud out there enough to make a difference in any statewide or national race?  Very unlikely.  But I bet you there are a few local politicians who just got elected fraudulently.

What the fuck are you talking about?  They always look for fraud and can't find any.  So your conclusion is that it's obviously happening?

Find the word obvious (or a synonym) in my post please.  tyvm

You said you'd be willing to bet on it and pulled numbers out of your ass to calculate a 63% chance it happened.   But you didn't actually use the word obvious, so I guess checkmate, you got me. 

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Even so, I'm not talking onesies or twosies, a dead person ballot here or there.  I mean, chances are there is at least one polling location that did something fraudulent that affected thousands of votes.  There are probably over 100,000 polling locations in the US (source: quick Google search).

So even if the Trump investigations and the lawsuits turn up some really bad issue somewhere, imho chances are it's a one-off and it would be dangerous to extrapolate.

Any fraud out there enough to make a difference in any statewide or national race?  Very unlikely.  But I bet you there are a few local politicians who just got elected fraudulently.

What the fuck are you talking about?  They always look for fraud and can't find any.  So your conclusion is that it's obviously happening?

Find the word obvious (or a synonym) in my post please.  tyvm

See bolded above.  Maybe not a synonym for 'obvious', but you are clearly implying that thousands of fraudulent votes were likely cast and election outcomes could be influenced.  This is not in line with all of the evidence, despite expending every effort (our state is offering up to $1M) to find said evidence.