What a night, went to bed at 3:45am with Trump firmly in control. Woke up at 7am and he's almost got it in the bag, then a few hours later Biden looks like he's won. Crazy.
It was nerve wracking enough watching it from afar, so I'm glad I didn't bet anything on it as well.
I should have written 'postal votes' down on a bit of paper before i went to sleep earlier
I mistraded throughout the night, cashed my spread for a loss and hedged on Trump all over the shop. But should still emerge with a profit if Biden does it.
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC.
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Hmmm.
Have you got market exposure by any chance? Just asking.
I don't think Dems will be needing to find extra votes in the states that now matter.
Milwaukee and Detroit did a good job of counting the votes quickly. Much harder for Trump to get them excluded if they are already part of the results.
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
You guys are hilariously shameless. What a load of conspiracy bullsh*t.
Full credit to the Biden campaign if they have pulled this off. They could have succumbed to the siren song in places like TX and OH and let the Mid west slip through their fingers, but they were ruthlessy focussed on the WIMIPA states.
Yes I think that's true. They piled into the midwest.
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
Massive increases in turnout was predicted by all the polls. Figures of up to 20% of voters who didn't vote last time.
Yes, and of that trend is universal there will be no grounds for suspicion. However, if it is markedly up against predictions in areas where Biden has won on postals, and consists of postal ballots, it looks odd.
At the end of the day - and despite the calls for this being a conspiracy theory etc - what Luckyguy says is right. If there is a massive discrepancy, it will raise belief this is 1960 and Cook County all over again. More importantly, it will also poison the political environment
Full credit to the Biden campaign if they have pulled this off. They could have succumbed to the siren song in places like TX and OH and let the Mid west slip through their fingers, but they were ruthlessy focussed on the WIMIPA states.
Yes I think that's true. They piled into the midwest.
The results in Texas show they were absolutely right to ignore Beto’s squealing
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
You guys are hilariously shameless. What a load of conspiracy bullsh*t.
Especially considering in PA the Democrat Governor wanted the postal ballots counted but the Republican Congress ensured they couldn't be. 🤦🏻♂️
You are going to have near half of America thinking that Biden is the Election Thief in Chief. Not good.
I actually think that it would be best for the USA for the Supreme Court to rule on this election. To uphold Biden as President. A Trump-stacked Supreme Court saying, er, actually there was no fraud and Biden is legitimately the President could defuse a significant number. Although this situation has the scope to go BADLY. Very badly. For example, I could see many many millions of Trump voters refusing to pay taxes. "No taxation without representation" would be their battle cry.
I think there is a lot of sense in that.
I agree the Supreme Court would uphold. There's no personal loyalty there - Gorsuch, Kavanagh and Coney-Barrett have their jobs for life and, whilst they are GOP voters and would prefer conservative policies, they just aren't wild-eyed MAGA loons who'd do ANYTHING for him or who have much personal affection for him.
They might put a pinky on the scales in a Florida 2000 type situation where a count drags on endlessly and stopping it benefits the narrow leader, but at the moment we're not looking at that - it's more probable that there are several close-ish states that look (just now) as if they will be narrowly Biden in the coming hours and days. So Trump appeals would be demanding to prevent the certification of results in a state or states. And, ultimately, the Supreme Court almost certainly won't disenfranchise an entire state, as that's far more incendiary than calling a halt to counting and requiring certification as is.
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
I'd say American democracy absolutely is in fine fettle if it means they see the back of the weird sociopath and his strange antics but leaving a GOP controlled senate in place. Just the job.
I wonder if the budget deficit will suddenly become a key issue for GOP senators again in the next 4 years when they havent given a toss about it for the last 4. I wonder.......
Most likely. The fulmination that the US is retreating from the world stage amid the rise of Russia and China might also get a revival.
I cannot understand such behaviour. I know he tries to split hairs around bleach/disinfectant but refusing to accept the evidence of his own eyes, how does that serve him?
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
Surely the law in Pennsylvania preventing mail-in ballots from being counted or processed earlier was passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania state assembly? (for example) I've certainly heard more push from Dems than Rs for work on postal votes to begin early, precisely to avoid Trump trying to claim victory on the night.
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC.
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Hmmm.
Have you got market exposure by any chance? Just asking.
I don't think Dems will be needing to find extra votes in the states that now matter.
None whatsoever. TBH, at the moment, I’d be happy with a narrow Biden win of 270-299
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
You are going to have near half of America thinking that Biden is the Election Thief in Chief. Not good.
I actually think that it would be best for the USA for the Supreme Court to rule on this election. To uphold Biden as President. A Trump-stacked Supreme Court saying, er, actually there was no fraud and Biden is legitimately the President could defuse a significant number. Although this situation has the scope to go BADLY. Very badly. For example, I could see many many millions of Trump voters refusing to pay taxes. "No taxation without representation" would be their battle cry.
I think there is a lot of sense in that.
I agree the Supreme Court would uphold. There's no personal loyalty there - Gorsuch, Kavanagh and Coney-Barrett have their jobs for life and, whilst they are GOP voters and would prefer conservative policies, they just aren't wild-eyed MAGA loons who'd do ANYTHING for him or who have much personal affection for him.
They might put a pinky on the scales in a Florida 2000 type situation where a count drags on endlessly and stopping it benefits the narrow leader, but at the moment we're not looking at that - it's more probable that there are several close-ish states that look (just now) as if they will be narrowly Biden in the coming hours and days. So Trump appeals would be demanding to prevent the certification of results in a state or states. And, ultimately, the Supreme Court almost certainly won't disenfranchise an entire state, as that's far more incendiary than calling a halt to counting and requiring certification as is.
I agree. A huge difference between the hundreds of votes either way that switched in Florida. A few close states, but Biden has a good chance of being tens of thousands of votes up in them, and ahead today in enough places.
Close - but it would be a huge decision to try and overrule what we expect now to happen.
I'm feeling a lot better about my prediction I posted the other day https://www.270towin.com/maps/n0Kld.png Though if Biden ends up with 270. HYUFD will be closer with his 269 tie!
Milwaukee and Detroit did a good job of counting the votes quickly. Much harder for Trump to get them excluded if they are already part of the results.
Yes, Florida was about uncounted and disputed votes. I’d hope it is much much harder to get counted ballots ruled out after the event.
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
Surely the law in Pennsylvania preventing mail-in ballots from being counted or processed earlier was passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania state assembly? (for example) I've certainly heard more push from Dems than Rs for work on postal votes to begin early, precisely to avoid Trump trying to claim victory on the night.
Fair enough, although Trump might win PA anyway.
If the Dems wanted early counting, why didn't they do it in states they control?
I mistraded throughout the night, cashed my spread for a loss and hedged on Trump all over the shop. But should still emerge with a profit if Biden does it.
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
Massive increases in turnout was predicted by all the polls. Figures of up to 20% of voters who didn't vote last time.
Yes, and of that trend is universal there will be no grounds for suspicion. However, if it is markedly up against predictions in areas where Biden has won on postals, and consists of postal ballots, it looks odd.
Were people really unaware that what's happened with on-the-day versus early voting in the Midwest was precisely what was expected? Even after hearing that uncannily accurate interview with Sanders?
How on earth is it "odd" when exactly what people were expecting happens?
Full credit to the Biden campaign if they have pulled this off. They could have succumbed to the siren song in places like TX and OH and let the Mid west slip through their fingers, but they were ruthlessy focussed on the WIMIPA states.
Yes I think that's true. They piled into the midwest.
The results in Texas show they were absolutely right to ignore Beto’s squealing
Biden won fewer counties in Texas than any other strong Dem contender for almost ever
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
Surely the law in Pennsylvania preventing mail-in ballots from being counted or processed earlier was passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania state assembly? (for example) I've certainly heard more push from Dems than Rs for work on postal votes to begin early, precisely to avoid Trump trying to claim victory on the night.
Fair enough, although Trump might win PA anyway.
If the Dems wanted early counting, why didn't they do it in states they control?
Trump campaign staff on FOX making it clear the result (providing Biden wins) is going to court. 'The president will have won legitimately'. So popcorn time , no concession from Trump til 2023 I guess
Full credit to the Biden campaign if they have pulled this off. They could have succumbed to the siren song in places like TX and OH and let the Mid west slip through their fingers, but they were ruthlessy focussed on the WIMIPA states.
Yes I think that's true. They piled into the midwest.
The results in Texas show they were absolutely right to ignore Beto’s squealing
O'Rourke is a potential Democratic candidate for Texas governor in 2022 so probably wanted some help shoring up his base before then too
You are going to have near half of America thinking that Biden is the Election Thief in Chief. Not good.
I actually think that it would be best for the USA for the Supreme Court to rule on this election. To uphold Biden as President. A Trump-stacked Supreme Court saying, er, actually there was no fraud and Biden is legitimately the President could defuse a significant number. Although this situation has the scope to go BADLY. Very badly. For example, I could see many many millions of Trump voters refusing to pay taxes. "No taxation without representation" would be their battle cry.
I think there is a lot of sense in that.
I agree the Supreme Court would uphold. There's no personal loyalty there - Gorsuch, Kavanagh and Coney-Barrett have their jobs for life and, whilst they are GOP voters and would prefer conservative policies, they just aren't wild-eyed MAGA loons who'd do ANYTHING for him or who have much personal affection for him.
They might put a pinky on the scales in a Florida 2000 type situation where a count drags on endlessly and stopping it benefits the narrow leader, but at the moment we're not looking at that - it's more probable that there are several close-ish states that look (just now) as if they will be narrowly Biden in the coming hours and days. So Trump appeals would be demanding to prevent the certification of results in a state or states. And, ultimately, the Supreme Court almost certainly won't disenfranchise an entire state, as that's far more incendiary than calling a halt to counting and requiring certification as is.
It is entirely reasonable for the Court to argue that, for the good of the nation, there must be a time limit for elections, and hence for counting votes that all sides agree have been legitimately cast, and for the concerned state election officials to decide which of the cast votes are indeed valid.
It is entirely unreasonable for the Court to argue that counting of legitimately cast ballots follow rules other than those set down by the concerned State, where those rules are not in conflict with the Constitution.
It is beyond the pale for the Court to decide in a manner that has as its effect to disenfranchise specific voters of one party who have followed prevailing State laws on voting in the expectation that their legitimate vote will count, by changing the rule post facto.
I think Roberts is too protective of the Court to allow either of the last two scenarios to happen.
This Paddy Power bet at 7/1 is starting to look promising: "Republicans to win Florida, Democrats to win Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona and New Hampshire"
Suspect Mitch McConnell is a very happy man tonight. The GOP are going to hold the senate which means they can hobble Biden and prevent any SC appts. Plus he’s rid of Trump (always a marriage of convenienxe) and the upcoming pain from COVID will give the GOP a good shot of winning the House in 2022
Trump campaign staff on FOX making it clear the result (providing Biden wins) is going to court. 'The president will have won legitimately'. So popcorn time , no concession from Trump til 2023 I guess
The question is do the GOP have their own version of the Tories "Men in grey suits" to go and visit Trump with the proverbial revolver and glass of whisky?
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
Surely the law in Pennsylvania preventing mail-in ballots from being counted or processed earlier was passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania state assembly? (for example) I've certainly heard more push from Dems than Rs for work on postal votes to begin early, precisely to avoid Trump trying to claim victory on the night.
Fair enough, although Trump might win PA anyway.
If the Dems wanted early counting, why didn't they do it in states they control?
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
Surely the law in Pennsylvania preventing mail-in ballots from being counted or processed earlier was passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania state assembly? (for example) I've certainly heard more push from Dems than Rs for work on postal votes to begin early, precisely to avoid Trump trying to claim victory on the night.
Fair enough, although Trump might win PA anyway.
If the Dems wanted early counting, why didn't they do it in states they control?
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
Surely the law in Pennsylvania preventing mail-in ballots from being counted or processed earlier was passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania state assembly? (for example) I've certainly heard more push from Dems than Rs for work on postal votes to begin early, precisely to avoid Trump trying to claim victory on the night.
Fair enough, although Trump might win PA anyway.
If the Dems wanted early counting, why didn't they do it in states they control?
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
Surely the law in Pennsylvania preventing mail-in ballots from being counted or processed earlier was passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania state assembly? (for example) I've certainly heard more push from Dems than Rs for work on postal votes to begin early, precisely to avoid Trump trying to claim victory on the night.
Fair enough, although Trump might win PA anyway.
If the Dems wanted early counting, why didn't they do it in states they control?
So my view on polling after this pretty awful night for them,,,,again. When it comes to Donald Trumps voters, take your poll figures, move them 5% closer to Trump and you wont be far out. In other words do what Trafalgar do, but also include some more actual polling Having said that I do feel the pollsters TRIED to adjust from 2016 but clearly there is a large group of people who are too embarrassed, angry, or hard to find who won't tell anyone they are voting Trump (apart from their neighbours ofc )
We're almost far enough to begin post-mortems, so I thought I'd have another look at the expert analysis of early votes by Michael MacDonald of the US Elections Project. He has spent years reviewing early voting patterns, and was on Twitter arguing that while they were imperfect they were a decent sign if you interpreted them properly. So, his eve of poll predictions:
Colorado - Biden shows significant improvement on Hillary, on course for an easy win. Result - Spot on. With 80% of the vote counted Biden has a much bigger lead than Clinton in 2016, though it may shrink if (like Arizona) it is election day votes left to count.
Oregon - Similar story, but not quite as impressive as Colorado. Biden should still outperform Clinton. Result - Again, seems to match pretty well. Precise leads will be known when final votes are counted but Biden looks to outperform Clinton.
Nevada - "Here, the early vote data suggests that Biden will eek out a very narrow win in Nevada." Result - Can't argue with that.
Florida - "I think Florida is close, but there is no way to determine which candidate is favored with the large unknown of the size of the Election Day vote." Result - Not far off, in truth. Missed a Trump overperformance and the specific cuban-american swing, but hardly a misleading prediction.
North Carolina - "The polls have North Carolina very close, closer than Florida. If anything, the early voting data alone is pointing to a Trump win." Result - That's pretty spot on!
Maine - "Biden appears to be well-positioned to win Maine." Result - True, but he didn't try to predict how he'd compare to Clinton's 2016 margin, so only partial credit.
Iowa - Biden looks better than Clinton was in 2016, but it's not enough in itself to make him favourite. However, the Selzer 7% Trump lead is "probably a little too bullish on Trump", he thought Trump probably has "a slight Iowa lead". Result - Not a huge miss, but a miss. Trump's margin looks near identical to his 2016 margin, and Selzer was almost perfect.
Arizona - "The Arizona data is signaling a Biden win, but I'm very cautious about this [...]". In short, the data says Biden should win it but he wasn't willing to make that prediction. Result - He missed the swing here by mis-interpreting the data, if he'd had the courage of his convictions this might have been spot on.
Overall - I expected to find the US Election Project was no better in an election with plenty of surprise swings than semi-random gut feeling, but he actually had a very strong performance. Probably better than the polls. Credit to him.
So my view on polling after this pretty awful night for them,,,,again. When it comes to Donald Trumps voters, take your poll figures, move them 5% closer to Trump and you wont be far out. In other words do what Trafalgar do, but also include some more actual polling Having said that I do feel the pollsters TRIED to adjust from 2016 but clearly there is a large group of people who are too embarrassed, angry, or hard to find who won't tell anyone they are voting Trump (apart from their neighbours ofc )
It’s a weird mix. The polls in GA, MN, TX and MI look like they have been spot on. In FL, OH and WI they were completely wrong. Too early to comment on PA
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
Surely the law in Pennsylvania preventing mail-in ballots from being counted or processed earlier was passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania state assembly? (for example) I've certainly heard more push from Dems than Rs for work on postal votes to begin early, precisely to avoid Trump trying to claim victory on the night.
Fair enough, although Trump might win PA anyway.
If the Dems wanted early counting, why didn't they do it in states they control?
Republicans control the Wisconsin Senate and House. AFAIK they failed to change the law to allow early processing of mail-in votes, despite calls to do so.
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
Surely the law in Pennsylvania preventing mail-in ballots from being counted or processed earlier was passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania state assembly? (for example) I've certainly heard more push from Dems than Rs for work on postal votes to begin early, precisely to avoid Trump trying to claim victory on the night.
Fair enough, although Trump might win PA anyway.
If the Dems wanted early counting, why didn't they do it in states they control?
It also glosses over the fact that if you were inventing votes, you would surely drip feed them in rather than give conspiracy theorists a sudden jump in reporting to obsess over.
So my view on polling after this pretty awful night for them,,,,again. When it comes to Donald Trumps voters, take your poll figures, move them 5% closer to Trump and you wont be far out. In other words do what Trafalgar do, but also include some more actual polling Having said that I do feel the pollsters TRIED to adjust from 2016 but clearly there is a large group of people who are too embarrassed, angry, or hard to find who won't tell anyone they are voting Trump (apart from their neighbours ofc )
It’s a weird mix. The polls in GA, MN, TX and MI look like they have been spot on. In FL, OH and WI they were completely wrong. Too early to comment on PA
Given that estimating turnout is probably the most difficult problem for pollsters, and turnout was so different this time, it's not really surprising that some of the polls were very inaccurate.
Suspect Mitch McConnell is a very happy man tonight. The GOP are going to hold the senate which means they can hobble Biden and prevent any SC appts. Plus he’s rid of Trump (always a marriage of convenienxe) and the upcoming pain from COVID will give the GOP a good shot of winning the House in 2022
Yes , I find him an odious man but he will indeed be smiling
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
Surely the law in Pennsylvania preventing mail-in ballots from being counted or processed earlier was passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania state assembly? (for example) I've certainly heard more push from Dems than Rs for work on postal votes to begin early, precisely to avoid Trump trying to claim victory on the night.
Fair enough, although Trump might win PA anyway.
If the Dems wanted early counting, why didn't they do it in states they control?
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
Surely the law in Pennsylvania preventing mail-in ballots from being counted or processed earlier was passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania state assembly? (for example) I've certainly heard more push from Dems than Rs for work on postal votes to begin early, precisely to avoid Trump trying to claim victory on the night.
Fair enough, although Trump might win PA anyway.
If the Dems wanted early counting, why didn't they do it in states they control?
It also glosses over the fact that if you were inventing votes, you would surely drip feed them in rather than give conspiracy theorists a sudden jump in reporting to obsess over.
It's not surprising Trump supporters will look for any signs, however implausible, that Trump should have won really (IF he does in fact lose). Just like Clinton supporters suspecting Russian hacking of the Wisconsin vote in 2016.
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
Surely the law in Pennsylvania preventing mail-in ballots from being counted or processed earlier was passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania state assembly? (for example) I've certainly heard more push from Dems than Rs for work on postal votes to begin early, precisely to avoid Trump trying to claim victory on the night.
Fair enough, although Trump might win PA anyway.
If the Dems wanted early counting, why didn't they do it in states they control?
I'd say that if those uncounted votes in North Carolina show the same kind of margin for Biden that's been seen in Wisconsin and Michigan, they could put him ahead.
Comments
Can't be my fault. I muted my fizzog.
Have you got market exposure by any chance? Just asking.
I don't think Dems will be needing to find extra votes in the states that now matter.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
@DPJHodges
Relax. He’s got this.
I suddenly feel less confident!!
Always Give Credence to Selzer!!!
First rule of betting on politics.
So he is 28 votes away with ME-2, NV, AZ, WI, MI and PA to come.
I agree the Supreme Court would uphold. There's no personal loyalty there - Gorsuch, Kavanagh and Coney-Barrett have their jobs for life and, whilst they are GOP voters and would prefer conservative policies, they just aren't wild-eyed MAGA loons who'd do ANYTHING for him or who have much personal affection for him.
They might put a pinky on the scales in a Florida 2000 type situation where a count drags on endlessly and stopping it benefits the narrow leader, but at the moment we're not looking at that - it's more probable that there are several close-ish states that look (just now) as if they will be narrowly Biden in the coming hours and days. So Trump appeals would be demanding to prevent the certification of results in a state or states. And, ultimately, the Supreme Court almost certainly won't disenfranchise an entire state, as that's far more incendiary than calling a halt to counting and requiring certification as is.
https://gking.harvard.edu/files/abs/ballots-abs.shtml
Also if the same thing happens in Pennsylvania it looks as though it will be very close. But Wisconsin is different.
What's the emoji for straw clutching?
I've certainly heard more push from Dems than Rs for work on postal votes to begin early, precisely to avoid Trump trying to claim victory on the night.
Suddenly it's not so outrageous to suggest such a thing.
Close - but it would be a huge decision to try and overrule what we expect now to happen.
https://www.270towin.com/maps/n0Kld.png
Though if Biden ends up with 270. HYUFD will be closer with his 269 tie!
If the Dems wanted early counting, why didn't they do it in states they control?
Old speckled hen, and a sirloin steak sandwich with dijon mayonnaise.
How on earth is it "odd" when exactly what people were expecting happens?
First time I heard it last night I thought they were talking about famers in Florida.
It is entirely unreasonable for the Court to argue that counting of legitimately cast ballots follow rules other than those set down by the concerned State, where those rules are not in conflict with the Constitution.
It is beyond the pale for the Court to decide in a manner that has as its effect to disenfranchise specific voters of one party who have followed prevailing State laws on voting in the expectation that their legitimate vote will count, by changing the rule post facto.
I think Roberts is too protective of the Court to allow either of the last two scenarios to happen.
Plus, our local landlord is from Alberta. Canadians know how to cook a steak.
Thanks to whoever spotted it and posted it here.
https://twitter.com/duckdiver19/status/1323973247189221378
"Dem controlled state" right?
Having said that I do feel the pollsters TRIED to adjust from 2016 but clearly there is a large group of people who are too embarrassed, angry, or hard to find who won't tell anyone they are voting Trump (apart from their neighbours ofc
https://twitter.com/EmmaKinery/status/1323978233365303297?s=19
https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/Early_Vote_Analysis_11_01.html
Colorado - Biden shows significant improvement on Hillary, on course for an easy win. Result - Spot on. With 80% of the vote counted Biden has a much bigger lead than Clinton in 2016, though it may shrink if (like Arizona) it is election day votes left to count.
Oregon - Similar story, but not quite as impressive as Colorado. Biden should still outperform Clinton. Result - Again, seems to match pretty well. Precise leads will be known when final votes are counted but Biden looks to outperform Clinton.
Nevada - "Here, the early vote data suggests that Biden will eek out a very narrow win in Nevada." Result - Can't argue with that.
Florida - "I think Florida is close, but there is no way to determine which candidate is favored with the large unknown of the size of the Election Day vote." Result - Not far off, in truth. Missed a Trump overperformance and the specific cuban-american swing, but hardly a misleading prediction.
North Carolina - "The polls have North Carolina very close, closer than Florida. If anything, the early voting data alone is pointing to a Trump win." Result - That's pretty spot on!
Maine - "Biden appears to be well-positioned to win Maine." Result - True, but he didn't try to predict how he'd compare to Clinton's 2016 margin, so only partial credit.
Iowa - Biden looks better than Clinton was in 2016, but it's not enough in itself to make him favourite. However, the Selzer 7% Trump lead is "probably a little too bullish on Trump", he thought Trump probably has "a slight Iowa lead". Result - Not a huge miss, but a miss. Trump's margin looks near identical to his 2016 margin, and Selzer was almost perfect.
Arizona - "The Arizona data is signaling a Biden win, but I'm very cautious about this [...]". In short, the data says Biden should win it but he wasn't willing to make that prediction. Result - He missed the swing here by mis-interpreting the data, if he'd had the courage of his convictions this might have been spot on.
Overall - I expected to find the US Election Project was no better in an election with plenty of surprise swings than semi-random gut feeling, but he actually had a very strong performance. Probably better than the polls. Credit to him.
WI must be imminent (though likely to go to recount)?
https://twitter.com/ParkerMolloy/status/1323970380403531783?s=19
There was one memorable year where Dimbleby refused to call the election for the Democrat because they were simply "assuming" they would win Cali.
https://twitter.com/briantashman/status/1323893903892881408?s=19
Resuming counting (of uncounted mail-in ballots) rather than recounting the vote.
Dare I ask? Has anyone won yet?
Or shall I wait until a weekend, any weekend between now and 2021?