To repeat what I said earlier, I don't think the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on anything electoral related without overwhelming evidence. Simply, whatever their political views, they're mostly professionals and they all have their eyes on the history books. (Plus, the last thing they want to do is to encourage the Dems to pack the court when they next get to 50 Senators.)
Alan Dershowitz on Bush-Gore 2000 Supreme Court decision:
"The decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath"
Hope you are right, but can't share your optimism if there are just 1 or 2 states in it. Hopefully its 3,4 or even 5.
But the bar for overturning something - especially in an election - has to be high. And Bush was leading.
Kavanaugh recently said that states invite "chaos and suspicions of impropriety" if "thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election."
Well thats just happened, how will he respond if given the opportunity? I hope I am being overly cynical rather than you being overly naive here.
?
Flowed in after election day?
Yes in some US states votes count if posted before election day but are received after. Trump's team want to kick those out regardless of the rules in place for the election.
Doesn't seem sustainable - even if it is a dumb rule, for sake of argument, you cannot change the rules part way through.
The Supreme Court can - it shouldnt, but it can.
You're right. What I meant was, I cannot think of how they could justify changing the rules part way through, even if the rule was bad. But judges can get very creative when they want.
Not one vote reported from GA for 3 to 4 hours now.
I think, for GA, what is worth focusing on are the following two quotes from the SoS yesterday:
"“I want everyone to know within the sound of my voice that every legal vote in Georgia will count,”
"““It’s important to act quickly, but it’s more important to get it right,”
On the first one, the key is the word legal. If the vote is ultra-tight expect that certain ballots are rejected from Democratic areas'
On the second, they will be scouring the counties for any extra votes they can until they can find them.
This is going to be key. If the Rs manage to eek a way where they give the electoral college voters to Trump and if - a big if - they do win Arizona, then they are effectively one state away from the Presidency. That means overturning either PA, where they already have a route via the SC decision, or MI.
Not saying this is how it will play out but I wouldn't bet against it either.
Labour potentially could come second in Scotland with some work
That also suggests they could pick up some SNP constituency seats in the central belt next year with Tory and LD tactical votes
Yet if Mr Starmer has said he's open to indyref 2, precisely in order to peel off those pro-indy but previously labour voters ...
SLab will pick up near zero Yes voters in Scotland, to win seats from the SNP they have to win Tory and LD Unionist tactical votes in the central belt.
Starmer also said indyref2 was not needed soon he only did not rule out the possibility if the SNP won a majority next year but if SLab won seats from the SNP next year then the SNP would lose their majority at Holyrood and that would not apply anyway
On those figures, SCUP is already getting confined to the Brexiter and Unionist bitter-enders, and the LDs to the shy Tories and the special constituencies. The potentyial Labour votes are pretty much all in the SNP, Greens or LDs - and fewer of those in a FPTP (forget Holyrood for now). Ian Murray is sui generis; nobody else in SLAB pulled off that trick last time, admittedly under Mr Corbyn - but then nobody seriously believed Mr Corbyn would win anyway, so it was safe to vote for Mr Murray and co. Now Mr Starmer is a far greater existential threat to the Tories.
No, the votes Labour would get from the SNP are pretty much at a maximum the 7% who voted No in 2014 and are now voting SNP to take them from 45% to 52%, otherwise the combined Tory and LD vote is on 26% and outside of rural Scotland and the posher parts of Edinburgh and Aberdeen and the very poshest parts of suburban Glasgow every Scottish constituency seat is a straight SNP v SLab fight.
Therefore SLab has to win over tactical votes from the Tories and LDs in those seats, mainly in the central belt, to make gains
Hmm. You're still forgetting the Greens, and the folk who tend to vote socialist but Yes. And the Edinburgh constituencies at least can be very mixed indeed socially. I'd want to see more hard evidencve that tac tical voting wouild work when it has not worked before for anyone other than Ian Murray - who has a very, erm, distinctive attitude in his advising people how to vote, or not vote, for the SNP. But plenty of time yet.
The Greens are irrelevant in constituency seats, they get almost all their votes on the list. The hard left socialists who vote Yes will also vote SNP on the constituency vote but socialist on the list so neither can be won over by SLab at the constituency seat level.
Apart from Edinburgh West which is a LD v SNP battle and Edinburgh Central which is Ruth Davidson's seat I would agree every Edinburgh seat too at Holyrood (and indeed Westminster) is an SNP v SLab battle where SLab also has to win Unionist tactical votes.
Murray has shown the way which is why he has a stonking 22% majority in Edinburgh South and is the only SLab MP, other SLab candidates must follow his lead and start appealing to Tories and LDs
FPT: You're still neglecting the point that there is a lot of tactical voting already thanks to the Greens and Trots (which admittedly could go either way for Labour) - compare Holyrood and Westminster votes (as indeed you imply).
And, erm, not to be unkind, but as an easily identifiable Conservative Party official, should you really be publicly promoting voting for Labour, at a time when having the Labour Party candidates appeal to Tory and LD voters is completely what you do not want UK-wide?
Greens and Trots may vote Labour at Westminster level, for Holyrood constituency seats they will always vote SNP.
In England and Wales I would of course only advocate voting Tory as Labour or the LDs are the Tories main opponents, in Scotland however the SNP are the Tories main opponents and saving the Union the Tories main cause so outside of rural Scotland and a few posh urban seats where I would advocate voting Tory at the constituency level for most Holyrood constutuencies it makes sense as a Unionist to back voting SLab in central belt seats to beat the SNP and Tory on the list
Nevertheless, you are betraying your own party, as you keep telling me that the SCons are one and the same as your mob in Essex.
No, beating the SNP who most Tories despise is the primary goal of all Tories in relation to Scotland which has a distinct politics different from England and Wales
The narrative may have been set by the order of the counts and declarations, though predicted in the red mirage warnings, but the final electoral vote and popular vote could show a convincing defeat of a sitting president? Bigger than 76 post watergate.
Ford only narrowly lost in 1976 and was a two term GOP President anyway.
The only one term party President was dismal Jimmy in 1980.
So Trump wont suffer the ignominy of worst defeat.
These votes from the back of the sofa seem uncomfortable to me.
FFS.
Mail ballot was a totally appropriate and legal way of voting particularly in this nasty pandemic.
Don't be silly.
I'm not being silly, and it does make me uncomfortable. If the votes thus cast looked roughly like the votes cast otherwise then fair enough, but they don't.
Thanks for calling me "silly" though - made me smile.
Why are you comfortable with most of the Election Day vote being mostly Republican, but not the mail votes being mostly Democratic?
I have no view on how people should vote in the US. If part of the process produces a radically different outcome to the main vote then I think its sensible to question it.
produces a radically different outcome
No, both contribute to the same outcome.
Exactly. Pretending it is some add-on which can be set aside is part of the problem here. Eligible votes are eligible votes however they are cast, and the way people voted being one way or another is not evidence it must be dodgy.
I think it's a bit of a comfort blanket for Omnium TBH.
Why would you wish to be unkind? You know that you're misrepresenting my views.
The narrative may have been set by the order of the counts and declarations, though predicted in the red mirage warnings, but the final electoral vote and popular vote could show a convincing defeat of a sitting president? Bigger than 76 post watergate.
Ford only narrowly lost in 1976 and was a two term GOP President anyway.
The only one term party President was dismal Jimmy in 1980.
So Trump wont suffer the ignominy of worst defeat.
George Bush Sr was a one-termer?
But he followed Reagan so was the third term for his party.
Reps claiming early and mail-in votes are invalid if the voter dies before thr election
Cannot be that many, seems pointless except, once again, to be able to refer to having had to kick votes out, so Trump can imply that means massive fraud.
The narrative may have been set by the order of the counts and declarations, though predicted in the red mirage warnings, but the final electoral vote and popular vote could show a convincing defeat of a sitting president? Bigger than 76 post watergate.
Ford only narrowly lost in 1976 and was a two term GOP President anyway.
The only one term party President was dismal Jimmy in 1980.
So Trump wont suffer the ignominy of worst defeat.
NYT saying NV not counting any more votes until noon tomorrow. Are they actually having a laugh?
It's not like we're choosing the leader of the free world or anything here guys.
Nevada announced a short while ago that their result will take days.
The final result took days to emerge back in 2016. I find it odd that some big states - Florida- Texas - Virginia - are able to count at a similar speed to what we are familiar with in the UK and elsewhere ,yet others - Pennsylvania - Georgia - take days to arrive at a clear result.
I was given these figures about an hour ago: As far as I can tell, there are 5 states that have counted less than 80% of their vote. AK 47%, NJ 67%, MD, 70%, CA 74%, MS 77%. None of those are remotely competitive states. Then there are places like NY on 81%.
Fingers crossed the snow drifts are heavily Democratic in Alaska.
I have this picture in my head of ballot boxes being delivered by dog sled.
I get the impression Trump thinks things are not real until it happens on TV. How is a media channel 'calling' a state putting their finger on the scales when the vote has already happened and the count taking place?
Labour potentially could come second in Scotland with some work
That also suggests they could pick up some SNP constituency seats in the central belt next year with Tory and LD tactical votes
Yet if Mr Starmer has said he's open to indyref 2, precisely in order to peel off those pro-indy but previously labour voters ...
SLab will pick up near zero Yes voters in Scotland, to win seats from the SNP they have to win Tory and LD Unionist tactical votes in the central belt.
Starmer also said indyref2 was not needed soon he only did not rule out the possibility if the SNP won a majority next year but if SLab won seats from the SNP next year then the SNP would lose their majority at Holyrood and that would not apply anyway
On those figures, SCUP is already getting confined to the Brexiter and Unionist bitter-enders, and the LDs to the shy Tories and the special constituencies. The potentyial Labour votes are pretty much all in the SNP, Greens or LDs - and fewer of those in a FPTP (forget Holyrood for now). Ian Murray is sui generis; nobody else in SLAB pulled off that trick last time, admittedly under Mr Corbyn - but then nobody seriously believed Mr Corbyn would win anyway, so it was safe to vote for Mr Murray and co. Now Mr Starmer is a far greater existential threat to the Tories.
No, the votes Labour would get from the SNP are pretty much at a maximum the 7% who voted No in 2014 and are now voting SNP to take them from 45% to 52%, otherwise the combined Tory and LD vote is on 26% and outside of rural Scotland and the posher parts of Edinburgh and Aberdeen and the very poshest parts of suburban Glasgow every Scottish constituency seat is a straight SNP v SLab fight.
Therefore SLab has to win over tactical votes from the Tories and LDs in those seats, mainly in the central belt, to make gains
Hmm. You're still forgetting the Greens, and the folk who tend to vote socialist but Yes. And the Edinburgh constituencies at least can be very mixed indeed socially. I'd want to see more hard evidencve that tac tical voting wouild work when it has not worked before for anyone other than Ian Murray - who has a very, erm, distinctive attitude in his advising people how to vote, or not vote, for the SNP. But plenty of time yet.
The Greens are irrelevant in constituency seats, they get almost all their votes on the list. The hard left socialists who vote Yes will also vote SNP on the constituency vote but socialist on the list so neither can be won over by SLab at the constituency seat level.
Apart from Edinburgh West which is a LD v SNP battle and Edinburgh Central which is Ruth Davidson's seat I would agree every Edinburgh seat too at Holyrood (and indeed Westminster) is an SNP v SLab battle where SLab also has to win Unionist tactical votes.
Murray has shown the way which is why he has a stonking 22% majority in Edinburgh South and is the only SLab MP, other SLab candidates must follow his lead and start appealing to Tories and LDs
FPT: You're still neglecting the point that there is a lot of tactical voting already thanks to the Greens and Trots (which admittedly could go either way for Labour) - compare Holyrood and Westminster votes (as indeed you imply).
And, erm, not to be unkind, but as an easily identifiable Conservative Party official, should you really be publicly promoting voting for Labour, at a time when having the Labour Party candidates appeal to Tory and LD voters is completely what you do not want UK-wide?
Greens and Trots may vote Labour at Westminster level, for Holyrood constituency seats they will always vote SNP.
In England and Wales I would of course only advocate voting Tory as Labour or the LDs are the Tories main opponents, in Scotland however the SNP are the Tories main opponents and saving the Union the Tories main cause so outside of rural Scotland and a few posh urban seats where I would advocate voting Tory at the constituency level for most Holyrood constutuencies it makes sense as a Unionist to back voting SLab in central belt seats to beat the SNP and Tory on the list
Nevertheless, you are betraying your own party, as you keep telling me that the SCons are one and the same as your mob in Essex.
No, beating the SNP who most Tories despise is the primary goal of all Tories in relation to Scotland which has a distinct politics different from England and Wales
This conservative does not despise the SNP and you just do not get it that your bombastic comments about the Scots just hastens independence which is the main disagreement I have with the SNP
It was refreshing to hear Drakeford make an unequivocally case for the union this week in his Cardiff press conference and I give him full marks for it
SNP OVERALL MAJORITY: 11 SEATS; PRO-INDY MAJORITY: 31 SEATS.
Nothing a little SLab/SCon/SLD tactical voting can't sort, I'm sure.
Quite easily, there are at least 15 to 20 SNP constituencies where the SNP is under 50% of the vote and SLab is the main challenger who would win with Tory and LD tactical voting, there are also some seats in the Highlands held by the SNP the LDs would win with Tory tactical voting.
Plus that poll is now a bit out of date, with Biden's election there is near zero chance of Boris doing No Deal and an EU FTA will be harder for Sturgeon to argue against and Sunak today is boosting furlough for Scotland as well as England, which will help the Tories hold their Scottish seats as well. I remain of the view Sturgeon could face May's fate with a big poll lead collapsing to a lost majority on polling day, if that occurs Salmond will be ready to take his revenge on Mrs Murrell
The narrative may have been set by the order of the counts and declarations, though predicted in the red mirage warnings, but the final electoral vote and popular vote could show a convincing defeat of a sitting president? Bigger than 76 post watergate.
Ford only narrowly lost in 1976 and was a two term GOP President anyway.
The only one term party President was dismal Jimmy in 1980.
So Trump wont suffer the ignominy of worst defeat.
Ford wasn't a two term President.
Ford was never on a ticket?
He never ran for the vice-presidency, if that's what you mean.
We've got the County Championship in Cricket. What more does he need?
In Rosser's case, he needs a nice quiet lie down somewhere. He's a pretty good example of someone who is incredibly effective at winning elections but hopeless at doing anything meaningful with his enormous majority.
To repeat what I said earlier, I don't think the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on anything electoral related without overwhelming evidence. Simply, whatever their political views, they're mostly professionals and they all have their eyes on the history books. (Plus, the last thing they want to do is to encourage the Dems to pack the court when they next get to 50 Senators.)
Alan Dershowitz on Bush-Gore 2000 Supreme Court decision:
"The decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath"
Hope you are right, but can't share your optimism if there are just 1 or 2 states in it. Hopefully its 3,4 or even 5.
But the bar for overturning something - especially in an election - has to be high. And Bush was leading.
Kavanaugh recently said that states invite "chaos and suspicions of impropriety" if "thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election."
Well thats just happened, how will he respond if given the opportunity? I hope I am being overly cynical rather than you being overly naive here.
Kavanaugh is correct there.
Are there any other western countries which take weeks to fully count elections ?
Kavanaugh is either utterly ignorant, of utterly contemptuous of electoral law, which is quite clear.
The only ex President Trump has ever got on with to any degree is surprisingly Jimmy Carter, like him probably now the only 1 term President in the ex Presidents club.
Biden does have the advantage unlike Bush and Nixon though of starting afresh with a new mandate for his party, IKE was running after 8 years of IKE in 1960 and Bush Snr after 12 years of his party in the White House in 1992, though he won in 1988.
Biden also does not seem as unscrupulous as Nixon, in fact he will likely be closer to Reagan, a genial if old President who has beaten an incumbent President after only 1 term of their party in the White House, in fact if confirmed Biden and Reagan will be the only 2 candidates to have achieved that almost unique feat in the last 100 years
Nixon won in 1968 after eight years of Democrats in the WH though he didn't defeat a sitting President as LBJ refused to stand.
George HW Bush was eight years as Reagan's VP, then four years as POTUS and then lost to Clinton in 1992 so he went through it all.
Truman became President on the death of FDR but won in 1948 beating Dewey.
Before that, Coolidge, like Truman and LBJ, had succeeded on the death of the incumbent (in Coolidge's case Warren Harding) and had then won an election in his own right. Like LBJ, however, Coolidge opted not to stand in 1928.
Biden served eight years as Obama's VP but didn't stand after Obama (unlike Nixon after Eisenhower) and might now win the following election (like Nixon who didn't stand in 1964 when LBJ thrashed Goldwater).
As you say, if he wins, Biden will emulate Reagan in toppling a single-term President and recapturing the WH after just four years.
I suppose we have to go back to Benjamin Harrison who won the White House from Grover Cleveland in 1892 and lost it to him in 1896 (Cleveland being the only person to be President on two on-consecutive occasions).
In 2016 there was a space marked out for Trump TV at what was thought was goi g to be Trump's concession speech. That got scrubbed when they realised they would win.
To repeat what I said earlier, I don't think the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on anything electoral related without overwhelming evidence. Simply, whatever their political views, they're mostly professionals and they all have their eyes on the history books. (Plus, the last thing they want to do is to encourage the Dems to pack the court when they next get to 50 Senators.)
Alan Dershowitz on Bush-Gore 2000 Supreme Court decision:
"The decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath"
Hope you are right, but can't share your optimism if there are just 1 or 2 states in it. Hopefully its 3,4 or even 5.
But the bar for overturning something - especially in an election - has to be high. And Bush was leading.
Kavanaugh recently said that states invite "chaos and suspicions of impropriety" if "thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election."
Well thats just happened, how will he respond if given the opportunity? I hope I am being overly cynical rather than you being overly naive here.
Kavanaugh is correct there.
Are there any other western countries which take weeks to fully count elections ?
Kavanaugh is either utterly ignorant, of utterly contemptuous of electoral law, which is quite clear.
The narrative may have been set by the order of the counts and declarations, though predicted in the red mirage warnings, but the final electoral vote and popular vote could show a convincing defeat of a sitting president? Bigger than 76 post watergate.
Ford only narrowly lost in 1976 and was a two term GOP President anyway.
The only one term party President was dismal Jimmy in 1980.
So Trump wont suffer the ignominy of worst defeat.
George Bush Sr was a one-termer?
But he followed Reagan so was the third term for his party.
The narrative may have been set by the order of the counts and declarations, though predicted in the red mirage warnings, but the final electoral vote and popular vote could show a convincing defeat of a sitting president? Bigger than 76 post watergate.
Ford only narrowly lost in 1976 and was a two term GOP President anyway.
The only one term party President was dismal Jimmy in 1980.
So Trump wont suffer the ignominy of worst defeat.
Ford wasn't a two term President.
But the GOP had won the previous two elections.
Since 1900 there have been only two instances of a party winning the Presidency and then losing four years later:
I like the earlier poster who said, not a good climate for calling it with many votes to count.
And I like the sauce advert who told us, best things come to those who wait.
Also like the protestor chant of, count him out, count him out. Count him out.
In his 1000am I think the Clarke County returning officer (thingy) said they will be counting 7am till 10pm. And in her Skype update to CNN the Pennsylvania Secretary of votes (thingy) was bullish of virtually finishing it today.
Trump winning AZ wont make a difference now but, Fox were still stupid declaring so early based on just a few batches from one county, however good they looked for Biden at that time.
Not one vote reported from GA for 3 to 4 hours now.
I think, for GA, what is worth focusing on are the following two quotes from the SoS yesterday:
"“I want everyone to know within the sound of my voice that every legal vote in Georgia will count,”
"““It’s important to act quickly, but it’s more important to get it right,”
On the first one, the key is the word legal. If the vote is ultra-tight expect that certain ballots are rejected from Democratic areas'
On the second, they will be scouring the counties for any extra votes they can until they can find them.
This is going to be key. If the Rs manage to eek a way where they give the electoral college voters to Trump and if - a big if - they do win Arizona, then they are effectively one state away from the Presidency. That means overturning either PA, where they already have a route via the SC decision, or MI.
Not saying this is how it will play out but I wouldn't bet against it either.
I would.
Firstly, the Dems are likely to win in Georgia, Nevada and Arizona.
Secondly, the margin is likely to be at least 100,000 votes in Pennsylvania.
Thirdly, the Supreme Court is not full of mindless automatons who follow their political beliefs. They - by and large - have fairly strong views on the separation of powers, and none of them want to go down as having precipitated a civil war.
I would offer extremely long odds on the election being handed to Trump by the Supreme Court.
NYT saying NV not counting any more votes until noon tomorrow. Are they actually having a laugh?
It's not like we're choosing the leader of the free world or anything here guys.
Nevada announced a short while ago that their result will take days.
The final result took days to emerge back in 2016. I find it odd that some big states - Florida- Texas - Virginia - are able to count at a similar speed to what we are familiar with in the UK and elsewhere ,yet others - Pennsylvania - Georgia - take days to arrive at a clear result.
I was given these figures about an hour ago: As far as I can tell, there are 5 states that have counted less than 80% of their vote. AK 47%, NJ 67%, MD, 70%, CA 74%, MS 77%. None of those are remotely competitive states. Then there are places like NY on 81%.
Fingers crossed the snow drifts are heavily Democratic in Alaska.
Reminds me of a funny anecdote I came across just this morning.
Filming for the (original) Murder on the Orient Express, just north of the Alps, included snow scenes but, unusually for the time of year, there hadn’t been any. So they arranged for a large quantity of fake snow to be sent in. But, shortly before filming, there was sudden heavy snowfall, and the lorries carrying the fake snow... got stuck in real snow and never made it to the set.
I like the earlier poster who said, not a good climate for calling it with many votes to count.
And I like the sauce advert who told us, best things come to those who wait.
Also like the protestor chant of, count him out, count him out. Count him out.
In his 1000am I think the Clarke County returning officer (thingy) said they will be counting 7am till 10pm. And in her Skype update to CNN the Pennsylvania Secretary of votes (thingy) was bullish of virtually finishing it today.
I'm talking about calling NV not the whole election.
On the plus side, the GOP has made massive inroads in the Hispanic vote. So, one of the big supposed structural threats to their future looks far less threatening. Plus they made a few inroads into the Black vote.
The exit polls also seem to suggest voters were more conservative than 4 years ago, if anything
Add in they have taken House seats, probably kept the Senate and - to their supporters - Biden's Presidency will be forever overshadowed by questions over the votes.
Meanwhile, it's clear the Democrats will be engaging in a fair bit of in-fighting.
These votes from the back of the sofa seem uncomfortable to me.
I'm sure they're fine, and Trump's noise otherwise isn't worth anything, but nonetheless digging out very heavily biased packages of votes after the polls have closed just feels ugly.
I'd like to see voting rather more heavily controlled in the UK in this light. Electoral fraud should have some insanely nasty penalty too.
Absolutely. They are in a good place to build now. they didn’t live up to narrative built up by polls, but can’t read too much into one shouty person on vid call. They do though have space and time freshen up faces and policy platforms. In 22 they have little to defend and much to attack in Senate, and their Board Generation candidate to lead the way going for Gov of Texas.
To repeat what I said earlier, I don't think the Supreme Court is going to weigh in on anything electoral related without overwhelming evidence. Simply, whatever their political views, they're mostly professionals and they all have their eyes on the history books. (Plus, the last thing they want to do is to encourage the Dems to pack the court when they next get to 50 Senators.)
Alan Dershowitz on Bush-Gore 2000 Supreme Court decision:
"The decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath"
Hope you are right, but can't share your optimism if there are just 1 or 2 states in it. Hopefully its 3,4 or even 5.
But the bar for overturning something - especially in an election - has to be high. And Bush was leading.
Kavanaugh recently said that states invite "chaos and suspicions of impropriety" if "thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election."
Well thats just happened, how will he respond if given the opportunity? I hope I am being overly cynical rather than you being overly naive here.
Kavanaugh is correct there.
Are there any other western countries which take weeks to fully count elections ?
Kavanaugh is either utterly ignorant, of utterly contemptuous of electoral law, which is quite clear.
So can you name any other western countries which take weeks to fully count elections ?
Labour potentially could come second in Scotland with some work
That also suggests they could pick up some SNP constituency seats in the central belt next year with Tory and LD tactical votes
Yet if Mr Starmer has said he's open to indyref 2, precisely in order to peel off those pro-indy but previously labour voters ...
SLab will pick up near zero Yes voters in Scotland, to win seats from the SNP they have to win Tory and LD Unionist tactical votes in the central belt.
Starmer also said indyref2 was not needed soon he only did not rule out the possibility if the SNP won a majority next year but if SLab won seats from the SNP next year then the SNP would lose their majority at Holyrood and that would not apply anyway
On those figures, SCUP is already getting confined to the Brexiter and Unionist bitter-enders, and the LDs to the shy Tories and the special constituencies. The potentyial Labour votes are pretty much all in the SNP, Greens or LDs - and fewer of those in a FPTP (forget Holyrood for now). Ian Murray is sui generis; nobody else in SLAB pulled off that trick last time, admittedly under Mr Corbyn - but then nobody seriously believed Mr Corbyn would win anyway, so it was safe to vote for Mr Murray and co. Now Mr Starmer is a far greater existential threat to the Tories.
No, the votes Labour would get from the SNP are pretty much at a maximum the 7% who voted No in 2014 and are now voting SNP to take them from 45% to 52%, otherwise the combined Tory and LD vote is on 26% and outside of rural Scotland and the posher parts of Edinburgh and Aberdeen and the very poshest parts of suburban Glasgow every Scottish constituency seat is a straight SNP v SLab fight.
Therefore SLab has to win over tactical votes from the Tories and LDs in those seats, mainly in the central belt, to make gains
Hmm. You're still forgetting the Greens, and the folk who tend to vote socialist but Yes. And the Edinburgh constituencies at least can be very mixed indeed socially. I'd want to see more hard evidencve that tac tical voting wouild work when it has not worked before for anyone other than Ian Murray - who has a very, erm, distinctive attitude in his advising people how to vote, or not vote, for the SNP. But plenty of time yet.
The Greens are irrelevant in constituency seats, they get almost all their votes on the list. The hard left socialists who vote Yes will also vote SNP on the constituency vote but socialist on the list so neither can be won over by SLab at the constituency seat level.
Apart from Edinburgh West which is a LD v SNP battle and Edinburgh Central which is Ruth Davidson's seat I would agree every Edinburgh seat too at Holyrood (and indeed Westminster) is an SNP v SLab battle where SLab also has to win Unionist tactical votes.
Murray has shown the way which is why he has a stonking 22% majority in Edinburgh South and is the only SLab MP, other SLab candidates must follow his lead and start appealing to Tories and LDs
FPT: You're still neglecting the point that there is a lot of tactical voting already thanks to the Greens and Trots (which admittedly could go either way for Labour) - compare Holyrood and Westminster votes (as indeed you imply).
And, erm, not to be unkind, but as an easily identifiable Conservative Party official, should you really be publicly promoting voting for Labour, at a time when having the Labour Party candidates appeal to Tory and LD voters is completely what you do not want UK-wide?
Greens and Trots may vote Labour at Westminster level, for Holyrood constituency seats they will always vote SNP.
In England and Wales I would of course only advocate voting Tory as Labour or the LDs are the Tories main opponents, in Scotland however the SNP are the Tories main opponents and saving the Union the Tories main cause so outside of rural Scotland and a few posh urban seats where I would advocate voting Tory at the constituency level for most Holyrood constutuencies it makes sense as a Unionist to back voting SLab in central belt seats to beat the SNP and Tory on the list
Nevertheless, you are betraying your own party, as you keep telling me that the SCons are one and the same as your mob in Essex.
No, beating the SNP who most Tories despise is the primary goal of all Tories in relation to Scotland which has a distinct politics different from England and Wales
This conservative does not despise the SNP and you just do not get it that your bombastic comments about the Scots just hastens independence which is the main disagreement I have with the SNP
It was refreshing to hear Drakeford make an unequivocally case for the union this week in his Cardiff press conference and I give him full marks for it
I doubt my dislike for the SNP on a blogging site makes the slightest difference to the Scottish situation, however much as I oppose Starmer Labour and the LDs I do not hate them in the way I despise the SNP for wanting to break my sovereign country up, apart from Sinn Fein the SNP are probably the party I would do my utmost to defeat in UK politics.
Good to see Drakeford at last showing some Unionist sentiment
I'd didn't @Gallowgate - said it would be close, probably he would keep his states, with Minnesota and NH as possibles and VA, CO and one other as really outside bets if doing well.
Not one vote reported from GA for 3 to 4 hours now.
I think, for GA, what is worth focusing on are the following two quotes from the SoS yesterday:
"“I want everyone to know within the sound of my voice that every legal vote in Georgia will count,”
"““It’s important to act quickly, but it’s more important to get it right,”
On the first one, the key is the word legal. If the vote is ultra-tight expect that certain ballots are rejected from Democratic areas'
On the second, they will be scouring the counties for any extra votes they can until they can find them.
This is going to be key. If the Rs manage to eek a way where they give the electoral college voters to Trump and if - a big if - they do win Arizona, then they are effectively one state away from the Presidency. That means overturning either PA, where they already have a route via the SC decision, or MI.
Not saying this is how it will play out but I wouldn't bet against it either.
I'd didn't @Gallowgate - said it would be close, probably he would keep his states, with Minnesota and NH as possibles and VA, CO and one other as really outside bets if doing well.
What was your prediction?
I "predicted" a Biden landslide that I pulled out of my ass, but I don't claim to know what I'm talking about.
SNP OVERALL MAJORITY: 11 SEATS; PRO-INDY MAJORITY: 31 SEATS.
Nothing a little SLab/SCon/SLD tactical voting can't sort, I'm sure.
Quite easily, there are at least 15 to 20 SNP constituencies where the SNP is under 50% of the vote and SLab is the main challenger who would win with Tory and LD tactical voting, there are also some seats in the Highlands held by the SNP the LDs would win with Tory tactical voting.
Plus that poll is now a bit out of date, with Biden's election there is near zero chance of Boris doing No Deal and an EU FTA will be harder for Sturgeon to argue against and Sunak today is boosting furlough for Scotland as well as England, which will help the Tories hold their Scottish seats as well. I remain of the view Sturgeon could face May's fate with a big poll lead collapsing to a lost majority on polling day, if that occurs Salmond will be ready to take his revenge on Mrs Murrell
You're right that the more the deal looks like EEA membership, the harder it is for Sturgeon to argue against. On the other hand, though, it reduces the concern about a hard border between Scotland and rUK if Scotland were to rejoin the EU.
Not one vote reported from GA for 3 to 4 hours now.
I think, for GA, what is worth focusing on are the following two quotes from the SoS yesterday:
"“I want everyone to know within the sound of my voice that every legal vote in Georgia will count,”
"““It’s important to act quickly, but it’s more important to get it right,”
On the first one, the key is the word legal. If the vote is ultra-tight expect that certain ballots are rejected from Democratic areas'
On the second, they will be scouring the counties for any extra votes they can until they can find them.
This is going to be key. If the Rs manage to eek a way where they give the electoral college voters to Trump and if - a big if - they do win Arizona, then they are effectively one state away from the Presidency. That means overturning either PA, where they already have a route via the SC decision, or MI.
Not saying this is how it will play out but I wouldn't bet against it either.
I would.
Firstly, the Dems are likely to win in Georgia, Nevada and Arizona.
Secondly, the margin is likely to be at least 100,000 votes in Pennsylvania.
Thirdly, the Supreme Court is not full of mindless automatons who follow their political beliefs. They - by and large - have fairly strong views on the separation of powers, and none of them want to go down as having precipitated a civil war.
I would offer extremely long odds on the election being handed to Trump by the Supreme Court.
I think it's playing to the gallery of his base. They know it's baseless and will not change the outcome.
Looking at those AZ numbers and the counties with a lot of votes left to be counted, I think Trumps taking it. Couple of them were very red counties and if hes doing well in Maricopa ( a more blue one) suggests he may well overtake Biden
Why is this news? Does he normally do prolonged waffle?
Or is he in a bad mood?
It was very short.
Any surprise? His wife had to help him along with his speech on election night.
A dotty old gent who forgets what he is saying is an improvement on a narcissistic toddler with a potty mouth and and over-active twitter finger.
It does not really matter to me. I have no money in the pot and do not live over there, but I would love to see the Marmalade Monster get kicked out of the Whitehouse.
re: Trump jnr's tweets about "their" voters not forgetting GOP failure to make their voice heard over the last few days. I think this could be a big problem for GOP in future. Whatever one else thinks, there is no doubt that Trump brought a lot of voters to the party who were not traditional Republicans. How many? Who knows? But enough to have a serious impact if in the aftermath of this the message is put out not to vote for GOP politicians in future.
UK Coronavirus deaths today are now shown as having totalled a tragically high figure of 378 and clearly, very sadly, appear likely to head higher. The only slightly comforting news is that the number of new cases today is shown as having been 24,141 and still, therefore, remaining in that 20,000 - 25,000 band where it had been now for some days, representing so far at least a somewhat slower growth rate than in some other European countries. This may of course be due to a time lag factor as regards the second wave of the disease.
These votes from the back of the sofa seem uncomfortable to me.
FFS.
Mail ballot was a totally appropriate and legal way of voting particularly in this nasty pandemic.
Don't be silly.
I'm not being silly, and it does make me uncomfortable. If the votes thus cast looked roughly like the votes cast otherwise then fair enough, but they don't.
Thanks for calling me "silly" though - made me smile.
Why are you comfortable with most of the Election Day vote being mostly Republican, but not the mail votes being mostly Democratic?
I have no view on how people should vote in the US. If part of the process produces a radically different outcome to the main vote then I think its sensible to question it.
UK Coronavirus deaths today are now shown as having totalled a tragically high figure of 378 and clearly, very sadly, appear likely to head higher. The only slightly comforting news is that the number of new cases today is shown as having been 24,141 and still, therefore, remaining in that 20,000 - 25,000 band where it had been now for some days, representing so far at least a somewhat slower growth rate than in some other European countries. This may of course be due to a time lag factor as regards the second wave of the disease.
Or the deaths are reflecting the spread of the virus prior to the Tier system being introduced, and the Tier system was far more effective than was being claimed. Hospitalisations in England fell today. A promising sign. Deaths (rise or fall) lag hospitalisations. Hospitalisations (rise or fall) lag cases. Cases (rise or fall) lag introduction or loosening of restrictions.
Were he to lose now, Trump would join the Ex-Presidents Club which currently has Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George W Bush and Barack Obama as members.
I wonder how he will get on with them and they with him - after all, when the Trump Presidential Library & Casino is opened, they will doubtless attend.
Presumably he will attend the opening of the Barack Obama Presidential Center.
I wonder what the Donald J Trump Presidential Library will contain?
It will be a mixture of shrine, and the tackiest of theme parks, devoted to the greatness of Trump. Not too many documents in it, I suspect; they might be incriminating.
Not one vote reported from GA for 3 to 4 hours now.
I think, for GA, what is worth focusing on are the following two quotes from the SoS yesterday:
"“I want everyone to know within the sound of my voice that every legal vote in Georgia will count,”
"““It’s important to act quickly, but it’s more important to get it right,”
On the first one, the key is the word legal. If the vote is ultra-tight expect that certain ballots are rejected from Democratic areas'
On the second, they will be scouring the counties for any extra votes they can until they can find them.
This is going to be key. If the Rs manage to eek a way where they give the electoral college voters to Trump and if - a big if - they do win Arizona, then they are effectively one state away from the Presidency. That means overturning either PA, where they already have a route via the SC decision, or MI.
Not saying this is how it will play out but I wouldn't bet against it either.
So as I understand it Trumps path as he sees it is to win AZ and NC, then GA (incl by massaging the system) so that he can then focus on PA and have that thrown out? It seems clear to me if he gets it down to one state he will probably be confident of finding some way to use the new 'improved' SC to in his own words, 'steal the election' Sounds like his playbook
Comments
Or is he in a bad mood?
"“I want everyone to know within the sound of my voice that every legal vote in Georgia will count,”
"““It’s important to act quickly, but it’s more important to get it right,”
On the first one, the key is the word legal. If the vote is ultra-tight expect that certain ballots are rejected from Democratic areas'
On the second, they will be scouring the counties for any extra votes they can until they can find them.
This is going to be key. If the Rs manage to eek a way where they give the electoral college voters to Trump and if - a big if - they do win Arizona, then they are effectively one state away from the Presidency. That means overturning either PA, where they already have a route via the SC decision, or MI.
Not saying this is how it will play out but I wouldn't bet against it either.
https://twitter.com/NVElect/status/1324459947493519361?s=19
https://twitter.com/EricTrump/status/1324461436224053251
Quite rightly IMO.
It was refreshing to hear Drakeford make an unequivocally case for the union this week in his Cardiff press conference and I give him full marks for it
A seemingly clear and comprehensive update from the NV Sos
Edit oops wrong link earlier - now corrected
Plus that poll is now a bit out of date, with Biden's election there is near zero chance of Boris doing No Deal and an EU FTA will be harder for Sturgeon to argue against and Sunak today is boosting furlough for Scotland as well as England, which will help the Tories hold their Scottish seats as well. I remain of the view Sturgeon could face May's fate with a big poll lead collapsing to a lost majority on polling day, if that occurs Salmond will be ready to take his revenge on Mrs Murrell
I've been taking a bit of a crash course in Georgia state law around the Presidential vote
George HW Bush was eight years as Reagan's VP, then four years as POTUS and then lost to Clinton in 1992 so he went through it all.
Truman became President on the death of FDR but won in 1948 beating Dewey.
Before that, Coolidge, like Truman and LBJ, had succeeded on the death of the incumbent (in Coolidge's case Warren Harding) and had then won an election in his own right. Like LBJ, however, Coolidge opted not to stand in 1928.
Biden served eight years as Obama's VP but didn't stand after Obama (unlike Nixon after Eisenhower) and might now win the following election (like Nixon who didn't stand in 1964 when LBJ thrashed Goldwater).
As you say, if he wins, Biden will emulate Reagan in toppling a single-term President and recapturing the WH after just four years.
I suppose we have to go back to Benjamin Harrison who won the White House from Grover Cleveland in 1892 and lost it to him in 1896 (Cleveland being the only person to be President on two on-consecutive occasions).
The presenters were rightly laughing at him. I think he was a former chief of staff to Trumpy...
https://twitter.com/ericawerner/status/1324439295847968768
Since 1900 there have been only two instances of a party winning the Presidency and then losing four years later:
1980 Carter
2020 Trump
And I like the sauce advert who told us, best things come to those who wait.
Also like the protestor chant of, count him out, count him out. Count him out.
In his 1000am I think the Clarke County returning officer (thingy) said they will be counting 7am till 10pm. And in her Skype update to CNN the Pennsylvania Secretary of votes (thingy) was bullish of virtually finishing it today.
Firstly, the Dems are likely to win in Georgia, Nevada and Arizona.
Secondly, the margin is likely to be at least 100,000 votes in Pennsylvania.
Thirdly, the Supreme Court is not full of mindless automatons who follow their political beliefs. They - by and large - have fairly strong views on the separation of powers, and none of them want to go down as having precipitated a civil war.
I would offer extremely long odds on the election being handed to Trump by the Supreme Court.
Filming for the (original) Murder on the Orient Express, just north of the Alps, included snow scenes but, unusually for the time of year, there hadn’t been any. So they arranged for a large quantity of fake snow to be sent in. But, shortly before filming, there was sudden heavy snowfall, and the lorries carrying the fake snow... got stuck in real snow and never made it to the set.
On the plus side, the GOP has made massive inroads in the Hispanic vote. So, one of the big supposed structural threats to their future looks far less threatening. Plus they made a few inroads into the Black vote.
The exit polls also seem to suggest voters were more conservative than 4 years ago, if anything
Add in they have taken House seats, probably kept the Senate and - to their supporters - Biden's Presidency will be forever overshadowed by questions over the votes.
Meanwhile, it's clear the Democrats will be engaging in a fair bit of in-fighting.
Actually not a bad outcome for the GOP.
they didn’t live up to narrative built up by polls, but can’t read too much into one shouty person on vid call. They do though have space and time freshen up faces and policy platforms. In 22 they have little to defend and much to attack in Senate, and their Board Generation candidate to lead the way going for Gov of Texas.
Good to see Drakeford at last showing some Unionist sentiment
NEW THREAD
What was your prediction?
That's it. Then it's all over.
I don't know how this balances out with voters.
It does not really matter to me. I have no money in the pot and do not live over there, but I would love to see the Marmalade Monster get kicked out of the Whitehouse.
Not too many documents in it, I suspect; they might be incriminating.
France
05/11 58,046
29/10 47,673
22/10 41,622
15/10 30,621
08/10 18,129
Germany
05/11 21,757
29/10 18,732
22/10 12,519
15/10 7,074
08/10 4,401
Italy
05/11 34,505
29/10 26,826
22/10 16,079
15/10 8,803
08/10 4,458
Poland
05/11 27,143
29/10 20,156
22/10 12,107
15/10 8,099
08/10 4,280
Spain
05/11 21,908
29/10 16,749
22/10 19,486
15/10 15,655
08/10 12,084
UK
05/11 24,141
29/10 23,065
22/10 21,243
15/10 18,965
08/10 17,540