"Mr Sherman said: “A civil war is raging between Fox News and Donald Trump over Fox’s controversial decision to be the first media outlet to call Arizona for Joe Biden just before 11:30 pm last night.
“According to a source, Trump phoned Fox owner Rupert Murdoch to scream about the call and demand a retraction.”
Whilst we are waiting then, genuine history question.
Back in the days before Dems tacked left and GOP to the right, when the South voted Dem, and their leaders like Wallace stood in doorways, what made someone GOP and what made someone Democrat? Truman and Eisenhower for example, what made them decide to stand for the parties they did?
Little idelogically, from the 1940s until Goldwater won the GOP nomination in 1964 both the GOP and Democrats largely supported the New Deal legacy though the Democrats were more pro union and the GOP more pro big business, both supported the Korean War and NATO and UN membership, there was little difference on social policy and the GOP were if anything slightly more pro civil rights for African Americans.
An upper middle class New England resident with a college degree was though likely a solid Republican and a white working class southerner a Democrat, the reverse of now
Robert, Arizona really is over. The remaining to be counted are solidly Dem. The networks were right to call it. Even Nate Silver has come on board now.
Biden wins Pennsylvania and Arizona. Nevada too probably.
Georgia is a genuine toss up but I maintain my view that Biden will win it c. 5,000-7,5000
North Carolina Trump (probably)
In a few hours the networks will call Biden for the Presidency.
Whilst we are waiting then, genuine history question.
Back in the days before Dems tacked left and GOP to the right, when the South voted Dem, and their leaders like Wallace stood in doorways, what made someone GOP and what made someone Democrat? Truman and Eisenhower for example, what made them decide to stand for the parties they did?
The Dems were a coalition of Southern Conservative Racists and Northern Labour.
So the Dems didn't so much as "tack left" as simply have a part of their coalition break away.
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 ?
That's something many of us have criticised, but is an entirely separate issue as to whether under the laws in each state it is permissable to count votes which arrive after election day, regardless of whther it affects the result. If the rules say you can do that, then suspicions of impropriety about the fact of late arrivals are groundless, unless it is about specific ones which do not mean the specific criteria.
A couple of observations:
1) In the US, it's pretty standard for the postmark to be the determining date for whether something mailed has been mailed on time, e.g. if you mail your mortgage or credit card payment on the due date, that normally means you've complied with your contract terms and can't be penalized. Obviously in practice after a week or so, the bank's going to assume you've missed the payment and apply a late charge, but if your payment does then turn up after being delayed and the postmark is the due date, you can get the charge removed.
I don't know why the US has this general rule (there must be some historical reason) but this isn't something special just for elections.
2) Yes, some of the counting seems to be taking excruciatingly long times, but don't forget it's not just the Presidential race on the ballot, but at a minimum the local House race, and in the vast majority of places one or more state house races, local elections, propositions/referenda and more. Counting, especially resolving anomalies, means having to check the ballot for the specific race you're interested in etc. In practice most places use voting machines or more commonly optical scanners, but you still have to separate out and tabulate the separate races. My ballot had President/VP, House Representative, State Senator, State Representative, a couple of judgeships and District Attorney.
Now the UK gives the voter a separate ballot paper for each election, but that's not really practical for more than two or three simultaneous elections, and if I recall correctly, the UK has previously delayed EP or local elections by a month when they occur with other elections to avoid this issue.
Not sure why you regard 1) as a local quirk which needs explaining. That's how postmarks work and what they are for.
Pretty sure in the UK that postal votes have to be received by the ERO before close of poll on election day.
First, I'm not as convinced as you that AZ is in the bag for Biden. I know you predict 3-4% but he is less than 2% up.
Second, re GA, it will depend on the margin. For it to be uncontestable, I think Biden would have to win by at least 10K and even then I think the Republicans would find ways to disqualify some votes (I'm working on the premise they are going to do everything they can to not declare Biden the winner).
If Biden wins the election comfortably elsewhere - say PA - what stomach do you think the State GOP in GA will have to all that? Serious question, I'd like to know what you think.
My thinking is this and I am sure many will disagree.
I suspect the Trump strategy is to get as close to 270 as they can so that the outcome of the election essentially becomes about one state being flipped on a legal ruling.
They seem to think NC is theirs (many on here disagree but no one in the Biden camp seems to be aggressively pushing NC as a win or that Cunningham has won the Senate). That gets them to 232.
Key will be Arizona. If they win AZ - a big if but it's possible - they get to 243.
If GA awards its electors to Trump, he is at 259. I agree it's a high risk strategy but if it is coming down to a few hundred votes a la Florida in 2000, they might be tempted to try it.
At that point, Trump is 11 away from 270 i.e if he can get a favourable ruling on either PA (where there is a SC case sitting) or MI (where the Supreme Court is Republican), then it
One thing to note - even though Trump has been banging on about vote fraud in his tweets, none of his usual critics in the Republican party such as Ben Nasse or even the likes of Susan Collins have called for him to tone it down and said he is fundamentally wrong. Put bluntly - and I had mentioned in a post pre-election - there is a large part of the Republican party establishment who truly believe that VBM was an attempt by the Democrats to steal the election, and not just your pro-Trump types.
I don't think "many on here disagree" about NC. One or two people have suggested it might possibly be close.
Whilst we are waiting then, genuine history question.
Back in the days before Dems tacked left and GOP to the right, when the South voted Dem, and their leaders like Wallace stood in doorways, what made someone GOP and what made someone Democrat? Truman and Eisenhower for example, what made them decide to stand for the parties they did?
The Dems were a coalition of Southern Conservative Racists and Northern Labour.
So the Dems didn't so much as "tack left" as simply have a part of their coalition break away.
In the South there was also the cement of the Democrats being the *only* party in many places. The Republicans had literally been chased out of town.
Hence the NAACP at al suing to be allowed to join and become part of the party of Jefferson Davis. If you couldn't join the Democrats you were without political power in many places.
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 ?
That's something many of us have criticised, but is an entirely separate issue as to whether under the laws in each state it is permissable to count votes which arrive after election day, regardless of whther it affects the result. If the rules say you can do that, then suspicions of impropriety about the fact of late arrivals are groundless, unless it is about specific ones which do not mean the specific criteria.
A couple of observations:
1) In the US, it's pretty standard for the postmark to be the determining date for whether something mailed has been mailed on time, e.g. if you mail your mortgage or credit card payment on the due date, that normally means you've complied with your contract terms and can't be penalized. Obviously in practice after a week or so, the bank's going to assume you've missed the payment and apply a late charge, but if your payment does then turn up after being delayed and the postmark is the due date, you can get the charge removed.
I don't know why the US has this general rule (there must be some historical reason) but this isn't something special just for elections.
2) Yes, some of the counting seems to be taking excruciatingly long times, but don't forget it's not just the Presidential race on the ballot, but at a minimum the local House race, and in the vast majority of places one or more state house races, local elections, propositions/referenda and more. Counting, especially resolving anomalies, means having to check the ballot for the specific race you're interested in etc. In practice most places use voting machines or more commonly optical scanners, but you still have to separate out and tabulate the separate races. My ballot had President/VP, House Representative, State Senator, State Representative, a couple of judgeships and District Attorney.
Now the UK gives the voter a separate ballot paper for each election, but that's not really practical for more than two or three simultaneous elections, and if I recall correctly, the UK has previously delayed EP or local elections by a month when they occur with other elections to avoid this issue.
Not sure why you regard 1) as a local quirk which needs explaining. That's how postmarks work and what they are for.
Pretty sure in the UK that postal votes have to be received by the ERO before close of poll on election day.
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 ?
That's something many of us have criticised, but is an entirely separate issue as to whether under the laws in each state it is permissable to count votes which arrive after election day, regardless of whther it affects the result. If the rules say you can do that, then suspicions of impropriety about the fact of late arrivals are groundless, unless it is about specific ones which do not mean the specific criteria.
A couple of observations:
1) In the US, it's pretty standard for the postmark to be the determining date for whether something mailed has been mailed on time, e.g. if you mail your mortgage or credit card payment on the due date, that normally means you've complied with your contract terms and can't be penalized. Obviously in practice after a week or so, the bank's going to assume you've missed the payment and apply a late charge, but if your payment does then turn up after being delayed and the postmark is the due date, you can get the charge removed.
I don't know why the US has this general rule (there must be some historical reason) but this isn't something special just for elections.
2) Yes, some of the counting seems to be taking excruciatingly long times, but don't forget it's not just the Presidential race on the ballot, but at a minimum the local House race, and in the vast majority of places one or more state house races, local elections, propositions/referenda and more. Counting, especially resolving anomalies, means having to check the ballot for the specific race you're interested in etc. In practice most places use voting machines or more commonly optical scanners, but you still have to separate out and tabulate the separate races. My ballot had President/VP, House Representative, State Senator, State Representative, a couple of judgeships and District Attorney.
Now the UK gives the voter a separate ballot paper for each election, but that's not really practical for more than two or three simultaneous elections, and if I recall correctly, the UK has previously delayed EP or local elections by a month when they occur with other elections to avoid this issue.
Not sure why you regard 1) as a local quirk which needs explaining. That's how postmarks work and what they are for.
Pretty sure in the UK that postal votes have to be received by the ERO before close of poll on election day.
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 ?
That's something many of us have criticised, but is an entirely separate issue as to whether under the laws in each state it is permissable to count votes which arrive after election day, regardless of whther it affects the result. If the rules say you can do that, then suspicions of impropriety about the fact of late arrivals are groundless, unless it is about specific ones which do not mean the specific criteria.
A couple of observations:
1) In the US, it's pretty standard for the postmark to be the determining date for whether something mailed has been mailed on time, e.g. if you mail your mortgage or credit card payment on the due date, that normally means you've complied with your contract terms and can't be penalized. Obviously in practice after a week or so, the bank's going to assume you've missed the payment and apply a late charge, but if your payment does then turn up after being delayed and the postmark is the due date, you can get the charge removed.
I don't know why the US has this general rule (there must be some historical reason) but this isn't something special just for elections.
2) Yes, some of the counting seems to be taking excruciatingly long times, but don't forget it's not just the Presidential race on the ballot, but at a minimum the local House race, and in the vast majority of places one or more state house races, local elections, propositions/referenda and more. Counting, especially resolving anomalies, means having to check the ballot for the specific race you're interested in etc. In practice most places use voting machines or more commonly optical scanners, but you still have to separate out and tabulate the separate races. My ballot had President/VP, House Representative, State Senator, State Representative, a couple of judgeships and District Attorney.
Now the UK gives the voter a separate ballot paper for each election, but that's not really practical for more than two or three simultaneous elections, and if I recall correctly, the UK has previously delayed EP or local elections by a month when they occur with other elections to avoid this issue.
Not sure why you regard 1) as a local quirk which needs explaining. That's how postmarks work and what they are for.
Pretty sure in the UK that postal votes have to be received by the ERO before close of poll on election day.
Because we have a reliable postal service.
Really the US should fix its postal servicethen rather than bandage over the problem by letting in votes received after the day, but one step at a time and rules is rules.
Whilst we are waiting then, genuine history question.
Back in the days before Dems tacked left and GOP to the right, when the South voted Dem, and their leaders like Wallace stood in doorways, what made someone GOP and what made someone Democrat? Truman and Eisenhower for example, what made them decide to stand for the parties they did?
The Dems were a coalition of Southern Conservative Racists and Northern Labour.
So the Dems didn't so much as "tack left" as simply have a part of their coalition break away.
Yep. Strom Thurmond led the 'Dixiecrat' break in 1948.
One of the reasons the US takes ages to count votes is because they don't have a tradition of power passing immediately on announcement of result. They have statutorily mandated transition periods and time built into the process to allow for certification. The unusual thing about this election is that the networks haven't called the race and their is increased focus on the counts themselves. In all previous elections they have been able to do this because historically there isn't much of a party difference between those who cast mail/absentee and those who vote on they day.
The lack of trust in electoral processes is a real problem. It shouldn't be taken on faith that elections are run properly, but even knowing twitter is not like the real world, and minorities of idiots will always exist, the numbers who very quickly no longer trust any part of it, when they don't win, is scary.
President Biden is going to have a hell of a job on his hands making America whole again.
He's going to do more than that. He's going to MAAA (Make America America Again).
But seriously, given how Trump did surprise on the upside in several areas and groups of voters, not sure how Biden even attempts that. Many on his side won't want to be conciliatory, many on the other side won't respond even if he tries. They actively fear one another now, or at least too many do.
First, I'm not as convinced as you that AZ is in the bag for Biden. I know you predict 3-4% but he is less than 2% up.
Second, re GA, it will depend on the margin. For it to be uncontestable, I think Biden would have to win by at least 10K and even then I think the Republicans would find ways to disqualify some votes (I'm working on the premise they are going to do everything they can to not declare Biden the winner).
If Biden wins the election comfortably elsewhere - say PA - what stomach do you think the State GOP in GA will have to all that? Serious question, I'd like to know what you think.
My thinking is this and I am sure many will disagree.
I suspect the Trump strategy is to get as close to 270 as they can so that the outcome of the election essentially becomes about one state being flipped on a legal ruling.
They seem to think NC is theirs (many on here disagree but no one in the Biden camp seems to be aggressively pushing NC as a win or that Cunningham has won the Senate). That gets them to 232.
Key will be Arizona. If they win AZ - a big if but it's possible - they get to 243.
If GA awards its electors to Trump, he is at 259. I agree it's a high risk strategy but if it is coming down to a few hundred votes a la Florida in 2000, they might be tempted to try it.
At that point, Trump is 11 away from 270 i.e if he can get a favourable ruling on either PA (where there is a SC case sitting) or MI (where the Supreme Court is Republican), then it
One thing to note - even though Trump has been banging on about vote fraud in his tweets, none of his usual critics in the Republican party such as Ben Nasse or even the likes of Susan Collins have called for him to tone it down and said he is fundamentally wrong. Put bluntly - and I had mentioned in a post pre-election - there is a large part of the Republican party establishment who truly believe that VBM was an attempt by the Democrats to steal the election, and not just your pro-Trump types.
I think you are right on their intent but they are not close enough to pull it off.
They would not just be stealing an election but American democracy itself, Trump would be leader for life if this happens.
I know they are ringing round lawyers at the moment to head up the court battles so they are deadly serious.
As I said, I think this is why Arizona becomes so important. I’m out on a limb here but I don’t think it’s not insurmountable for Trump and the NYT had a good piece explaining why there is a chance he takes it. If he does win there, then I think Georgia will “find” the extra votes and / or disqualify some to call it for Trump (and put Purdue in the Senate). You are then in striking range.
One of the reasons the US takes ages to count votes is because they don't have a tradition of power passing immediately on announcement of result. They have statutorily mandated transition periods and time built into the process to allow for certification. The unusual thing about this election is that the networks haven't called the race and their is increased focus on the counts themselves. In all previous elections they have been able to do this because historically there isn't much of a party difference between those who cast mail/absentee and those who vote on they day.
Many countries do not hand over power until a coalition govenment has been agreed which can take months. So your first point is not really an argument.
Murdoch backs winners. As soon as "his" candidate starts losing, he switches. Entirely unsentimental, and always has been.
He almost came out in favour of Scottish independence in 2014 when he thought they were about to win.
Murdoch is a republican who hates the monarchy and has no sentimental attachment to the Union, he is a fiscal conservative and dislikes wokeness but on no definition is he a Tory in the British sense
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 ?
That's something many of us have criticised, but is an entirely separate issue as to whether under the laws in each state it is permissable to count votes which arrive after election day, regardless of whther it affects the result. If the rules say you can do that, then suspicions of impropriety about the fact of late arrivals are groundless, unless it is about specific ones which do not mean the specific criteria.
A couple of observations:
1) In the US, it's pretty standard for the postmark to be the determining date for whether something mailed has been mailed on time, e.g. if you mail your mortgage or credit card payment on the due date, that normally means you've complied with your contract terms and can't be penalized. Obviously in practice after a week or so, the bank's going to assume you've missed the payment and apply a late charge, but if your payment does then turn up after being delayed and the postmark is the due date, you can get the charge removed.
I don't know why the US has this general rule (there must be some historical reason) but this isn't something special just for elections.
2) Yes, some of the counting seems to be taking excruciatingly long times, but don't forget it's not just the Presidential race on the ballot, but at a minimum the local House race, and in the vast majority of places one or more state house races, local elections, propositions/referenda and more. Counting, especially resolving anomalies, means having to check the ballot for the specific race you're interested in etc. In practice most places use voting machines or more commonly optical scanners, but you still have to separate out and tabulate the separate races. My ballot had President/VP, House Representative, State Senator, State Representative, a couple of judgeships and District Attorney.
Now the UK gives the voter a separate ballot paper for each election, but that's not really practical for more than two or three simultaneous elections, and if I recall correctly, the UK has previously delayed EP or local elections by a month when they occur with other elections to avoid this issue.
Not sure why you regard 1) as a local quirk which needs explaining. That's how postmarks work and what they are for.
Pretty sure in the UK that postal votes have to be received by the ERO before close of poll on election day.
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 ?
That's something many of us have criticised, but is an entirely separate issue as to whether under the laws in each state it is permissable to count votes which arrive after election day, regardless of whther it affects the result. If the rules say you can do that, then suspicions of impropriety about the fact of late arrivals are groundless, unless it is about specific ones which do not mean the specific criteria.
A couple of observations:
1) In the US, it's pretty standard for the postmark to be the determining date for whether something mailed has been mailed on time, e.g. if you mail your mortgage or credit card payment on the due date, that normally means you've complied with your contract terms and can't be penalized. Obviously in practice after a week or so, the bank's going to assume you've missed the payment and apply a late charge, but if your payment does then turn up after being delayed and the postmark is the due date, you can get the charge removed.
I don't know why the US has this general rule (there must be some historical reason) but this isn't something special just for elections.
2) Yes, some of the counting seems to be taking excruciatingly long times, but don't forget it's not just the Presidential race on the ballot, but at a minimum the local House race, and in the vast majority of places one or more state house races, local elections, propositions/referenda and more. Counting, especially resolving anomalies, means having to check the ballot for the specific race you're interested in etc. In practice most places use voting machines or more commonly optical scanners, but you still have to separate out and tabulate the separate races. My ballot had President/VP, House Representative, State Senator, State Representative, a couple of judgeships and District Attorney.
Now the UK gives the voter a separate ballot paper for each election, but that's not really practical for more than two or three simultaneous elections, and if I recall correctly, the UK has previously delayed EP or local elections by a month when they occur with other elections to avoid this issue.
Not sure why you regard 1) as a local quirk which needs explaining. That's how postmarks work and what they are for.
Pretty sure in the UK that postal votes have to be received by the ERO before close of poll on election day.
Because we have a reliable postal service.
Really the US should fix its postal servicethen rather than bandage over the problem by letting in votes received after the day, but one step at a time and rules is rules.
But paying for a functioning mail service requires a functioning public sector, which the republicans believe should be cut to the bone.
Gealbann: Back in the days before Dems tacked left and GOP to the right, when the South voted Dem, and their leaders like Wallace stood in doorways, what made someone GOP and what made someone Democrat? Truman and Eisenhower for example, what made them decide to stand for the parties they did?
Alistair: In the South there was also the cement of the Democrats being the *only* party in many places. The Republicans had literally been chased out of town.
Hence the NAACP at al suing to be allowed to join and become part of the party of Jefferson Davis. If you couldn't join the Democrats you were without political power in many places.
Dixiedean:
There is an interesting passage in Dylan's Chronicles about this. He relates about far north Minnesota in the 40s and 50s and how exciting election rallies were in his tiny town. There were 5 Parties. All of them Democrats. He was a Democrat simply because the Republicans did not exist. So it wasn't only in the South.
First, I'm not as convinced as you that AZ is in the bag for Biden. I know you predict 3-4% but he is less than 2% up.
Second, re GA, it will depend on the margin. For it to be uncontestable, I think Biden would have to win by at least 10K and even then I think the Republicans would find ways to disqualify some votes (I'm working on the premise they are going to do everything they can to not declare Biden the winner).
If Biden wins the election comfortably elsewhere - say PA - what stomach do you think the State GOP in GA will have to all that? Serious question, I'd like to know what you think.
My thinking is this and I am sure many will disagree.
I suspect the Trump strategy is to get as close to 270 as they can so that the outcome of the election essentially becomes about one state being flipped on a legal ruling.
They seem to think NC is theirs (many on here disagree but no one in the Biden camp seems to be aggressively pushing NC as a win or that Cunningham has won the Senate). That gets them to 232.
Key will be Arizona. If they win AZ - a big if but it's possible - they get to 243.
If GA awards its electors to Trump, he is at 259. I agree it's a high risk strategy but if it is coming down to a few hundred votes a la Florida in 2000, they might be tempted to try it.
At that point, Trump is 11 away from 270 i.e if he can get a favourable ruling on either PA (where there is a SC case sitting) or MI (where the Supreme Court is Republican), then it
One thing to note - even though Trump has been banging on about vote fraud in his tweets, none of his usual critics in the Republican party such as Ben Nasse or even the likes of Susan Collins have called for him to tone it down and said he is fundamentally wrong. Put bluntly - and I had mentioned in a post pre-election - there is a large part of the Republican party establishment who truly believe that VBM was an attempt by the Democrats to steal the election, and not just your pro-Trump types.
I think you are right on their intent but they are not close enough to pull it off.
They would not just be stealing an election but American democracy itself, Trump would be leader for life if this happens.
I know they are ringing round lawyers at the moment to head up the court battles so they are deadly serious.
As I said, I think this is why Arizona becomes so important. I’m out on a limb here but I don’t think it’s not insurmountable for Trump and the NYT had a good piece explaining why there is a chance he takes it. If he does win there, then I think Georgia will “find” the extra votes and / or disqualify some to call it for Trump (and put Purdue in the Senate). You are then in striking range.
One of the reasons the US takes ages to count votes is because they don't have a tradition of power passing immediately on announcement of result. They have statutorily mandated transition periods and time built into the process to allow for certification. The unusual thing about this election is that the networks haven't called the race and their is increased focus on the counts themselves. In all previous elections they have been able to do this because historically there isn't much of a party difference between those who cast mail/absentee and those who vote on they day.
Many countries do not hand over power until a coalition government has been agreed which can take months. So your first point is not really an argument.
Well that's a bad example because by definition negotiations over coalition governments can't begin until the results are known. The only thing that can't happen in the US is the transition period work can't begin. In all other ways they have a fully functioning government and legislature until Jan 3rd (or whatever the exact day is).
First, I'm not as convinced as you that AZ is in the bag for Biden. I know you predict 3-4% but he is less than 2% up.
Second, re GA, it will depend on the margin. For it to be uncontestable, I think Biden would have to win by at least 10K and even then I think the Republicans would find ways to disqualify some votes (I'm working on the premise they are going to do everything they can to not declare Biden the winner).
If Biden wins the election comfortably elsewhere - say PA - what stomach do you think the State GOP in GA will have to all that? Serious question, I'd like to know what you think.
My thinking is this and I am sure many will disagree.
I suspect the Trump strategy is to get as close to 270 as they can so that the outcome of the election essentially becomes about one state being flipped on a legal ruling.
They seem to think NC is theirs (many on here disagree but no one in the Biden camp seems to be aggressively pushing NC as a win or that Cunningham has won the Senate). That gets them to 232.
Key will be Arizona. If they win AZ - a big if but it's possible - they get to 243.
If GA awards its electors to Trump, he is at 259. I agree it's a high risk strategy but if it is coming down to a few hundred votes a la Florida in 2000, they might be tempted to try it.
At that point, Trump is 11 away from 270 i.e if he can get a favourable ruling on either PA (where there is a SC case sitting) or MI (where the Supreme Court is Republican), then it
One thing to note - even though Trump has been banging on about vote fraud in his tweets, none of his usual critics in the Republican party such as Ben Nasse or even the likes of Susan Collins have called for him to tone it down and said he is fundamentally wrong. Put bluntly - and I had mentioned in a post pre-election - there is a large part of the Republican party establishment who truly believe that VBM was an attempt by the Democrats to steal the election, and not just your pro-Trump types.
I think you are right on their intent but they are not close enough to pull it off.
They would not just be stealing an election but American democracy itself, Trump would be leader for life if this happens.
I know they are ringing round lawyers at the moment to head up the court battles so they are deadly serious.
As I said, I think this is why Arizona becomes so important. I’m out on a limb here but I don’t think it’s not insurmountable for Trump and the NYT had a good piece explaining why there is a chance he takes it. If he does win there, then I think Georgia will “find” the extra votes and / or disqualify some to call it for Trump (and put Purdue in the Senate). You are then in striking range.
Arizona really is key now.
If it happened and they pull the coup detat off successfully do you agree its Trump for life?
Whilst we are waiting then, genuine history question.
Back in the days before Dems tacked left and GOP to the right, when the South voted Dem, and their leaders like Wallace stood in doorways, what made someone GOP and what made someone Democrat? Truman and Eisenhower for example, what made them decide to stand for the parties they did?
There was, for example, the small matter of the New Deal, attitudes to which divided the parties somewhat.
President Biden is going to have a hell of a job on his hands making America whole again.
He's going to do more than that. He's going to MAAA (Make America America Again).
But seriously, given how Trump did surprise on the upside in several areas and groups of voters, not sure how Biden even attempts that. Many on his side won't want to be conciliatory, many on the other side won't respond even if he tries. They actively fear one another now, or at least too many do.
That assumes they are two irreconcilable tribes. But they aren't, they are currently polarised, with a hard core of irreconcilable tribes in each camp. Biden is better placed than almost anyone else to reach out to the sane Romney-style Republicans to try to dial down the lunatic lurch into metaphoric - and perhaps even literal - civil war.
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 ?
That's something many of us have criticised, but is an entirely separate issue as to whether under the laws in each state it is permissable to count votes which arrive after election day, regardless of whther it affects the result. If the rules say you can do that, then suspicions of impropriety about the fact of late arrivals are groundless, unless it is about specific ones which do not mean the specific criteria.
A couple of observations:
1) In the US, it's pretty standard for the postmark to be the determining date for whether something mailed has been mailed on time, e.g. if you mail your mortgage or credit card payment on the due date, that normally means you've complied with your contract terms and can't be penalized. Obviously in practice after a week or so, the bank's going to assume you've missed the payment and apply a late charge, but if your payment does then turn up after being delayed and the postmark is the due date, you can get the charge removed.
I don't know why the US has this general rule (there must be some historical reason) but this isn't something special just for elections.
2) Yes, some of the counting seems to be taking excruciatingly long times, but don't forget it's not just the Presidential race on the ballot, but at a minimum the local House race, and in the vast majority of places one or more state house races, local elections, propositions/referenda and more. Counting, especially resolving anomalies, means having to check the ballot for the specific race you're interested in etc. In practice most places use voting machines or more commonly optical scanners, but you still have to separate out and tabulate the separate races. My ballot had President/VP, House Representative, State Senator, State Representative, a couple of judgeships and District Attorney.
Now the UK gives the voter a separate ballot paper for each election, but that's not really practical for more than two or three simultaneous elections, and if I recall correctly, the UK has previously delayed EP or local elections by a month when they occur with other elections to avoid this issue.
Not sure why you regard 1) as a local quirk which needs explaining. That's how postmarks work and what they are for.
Pretty sure in the UK that postal votes have to be received by the ERO before close of poll on election day.
In the U.K., all of these questions are answered by the wonder that is the Interpretation Act 1978.
Whilst we are waiting then, genuine history question.
Back in the days before Dems tacked left and GOP to the right, when the South voted Dem, and their leaders like Wallace stood in doorways, what made someone GOP and what made someone Democrat? Truman and Eisenhower for example, what made them decide to stand for the parties they did?
What side they (and later their ancestors) fought on in the American Civil War. At least, that is what people used to say.
First, I'm not as convinced as you that AZ is in the bag for Biden. I know you predict 3-4% but he is less than 2% up.
Second, re GA, it will depend on the margin. For it to be uncontestable, I think Biden would have to win by at least 10K and even then I think the Republicans would find ways to disqualify some votes (I'm working on the premise they are going to do everything they can to not declare Biden the winner).
If Biden wins the election comfortably elsewhere - say PA - what stomach do you think the State GOP in GA will have to all that? Serious question, I'd like to know what you think.
My thinking is this and I am sure many will disagree.
I suspect the Trump strategy is to get as close to 270 as they can so that the outcome of the election essentially becomes about one state being flipped on a legal ruling.
They seem to think NC is theirs (many on here disagree but no one in the Biden camp seems to be aggressively pushing NC as a win or that Cunningham has won the Senate). That gets them to 232.
Key will be Arizona. If they win AZ - a big if but it's possible - they get to 243.
If GA awards its electors to Trump, he is at 259. I agree it's a high risk strategy but if it is coming down to a few hundred votes a la Florida in 2000, they might be tempted to try it.
At that point, Trump is 11 away from 270 i.e if he can get a favourable ruling on either PA (where there is a SC case sitting) or MI (where the Supreme Court is Republican), then it
One thing to note - even though Trump has been banging on about vote fraud in his tweets, none of his usual critics in the Republican party such as Ben Nasse or even the likes of Susan Collins have called for him to tone it down and said he is fundamentally wrong. Put bluntly - and I had mentioned in a post pre-election - there is a large part of the Republican party establishment who truly believe that VBM was an attempt by the Democrats to steal the election, and not just your pro-Trump types.
I think you are right on their intent but they are not close enough to pull it off.
They would not just be stealing an election but American democracy itself, Trump would be leader for life if this happens.
I know they are ringing round lawyers at the moment to head up the court battles so they are deadly serious.
As I said, I think this is why Arizona becomes so important. I’m out on a limb here but I don’t think it’s not insurmountable for Trump and the NYT had a good piece explaining why there is a chance he takes it. If he does win there, then I think Georgia will “find” the extra votes and / or disqualify some to call it for Trump (and put Purdue in the Senate). You are then in striking range.
Arizona really is key now.
Are you forecasting a Trump win in Arizona?
So Trump is going to win Arizona, cheat in Georgia, and then win the Presidency by winning court cases accusing the Democrats of cheating in Pennsylvania?
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.
Following statement is intended as descriptive not normative. Not saying either the gvt decisions or the advice they were based on are good/bad, just thinking about who is doing what and why, from the perspective of what's likely to happen next rather than evaluating performance.
It seems to me the gvt have been prepared to reject advice they were warned was needed to avoid a higher Covid death toll both now and previously. (Not saying they're heartless, a gvt can legitimately have other considerations than monomaniacally focusing on Covid deaths at the expense of all else, nor saying that ignoring such advice is always justifiable. Worth pointing out that full cost-benefit analysis was often lacking, but would have been a tough and largely hypothetical job early this year.)
When told healthcare capacity is going to be overwhelmed without radical intervention, that seems to kick them into action. (An interesting comparison is that gvts of various stripes have been willing to take the risk of bad NHS headlines during tough winters rather than build extra capacity in case we have a nasty flu season, because they're they seem willing to accept - even if only privately - that the costs outweigh the benefits. But they won't accept the same happening with Covid. Perhaps that's because politically the optics are worse, perhaps that's an unfair comparison because the tail risks with a pandemic are higher - the 5% worst case scenario could be much uglier.)
I expect December decisions eg on return to Tiers to be driven more by NHS considerations than a full cost-benefit analysis.
First, I'm not as convinced as you that AZ is in the bag for Biden. I know you predict 3-4% but he is less than 2% up.
Second, re GA, it will depend on the margin. For it to be uncontestable, I think Biden would have to win by at least 10K and even then I think the Republicans would find ways to disqualify some votes (I'm working on the premise they are going to do everything they can to not declare Biden the winner).
If Biden wins the election comfortably elsewhere - say PA - what stomach do you think the State GOP in GA will have to all that? Serious question, I'd like to know what you think.
My thinking is this and I am sure many will disagree.
I suspect the Trump strategy is to get as close to 270 as they can so that the outcome of the election essentially becomes about one state being flipped on a legal ruling.
They seem to think NC is theirs (many on here disagree but no one in the Biden camp seems to be aggressively pushing NC as a win or that Cunningham has won the Senate). That gets them to 232.
Key will be Arizona. If they win AZ - a big if but it's possible - they get to 243.
If GA awards its electors to Trump, he is at 259. I agree it's a high risk strategy but if it is coming down to a few hundred votes a la Florida in 2000, they might be tempted to try it.
At that point, Trump is 11 away from 270 i.e if he can get a favourable ruling on either PA (where there is a SC case sitting) or MI (where the Supreme Court is Republican), then it
One thing to note - even though Trump has been banging on about vote fraud in his tweets, none of his usual critics in the Republican party such as Ben Nasse or even the likes of Susan Collins have called for him to tone it down and said he is fundamentally wrong. Put bluntly - and I had mentioned in a post pre-election - there is a large part of the Republican party establishment who truly believe that VBM was an attempt by the Democrats to steal the election, and not just your pro-Trump types.
I think you are right on their intent but they are not close enough to pull it off.
They would not just be stealing an election but American democracy itself, Trump would be leader for life if this happens.
I know they are ringing round lawyers at the moment to head up the court battles so they are deadly serious.
As I said, I think this is why Arizona becomes so important. I’m out on a limb here but I don’t think it’s not insurmountable for Trump and the NYT had a good piece explaining why there is a chance he takes it. If he does win there, then I think Georgia will “find” the extra votes and / or disqualify some to call it for Trump (and put Purdue in the Senate). You are then in striking range.
Arizona really is key now.
Once Pennsylvania has been called, and the networks call the race (which they will), then I can't see the Republican establishment (who've never really liked Trump) sticking with him.
At that point you get Lindsay Graham and Mitch McConnell (who's going to quite like being the most important Republican in America) calling for Trump to go. You've already seen the Republican Governor elect of Utah going down that path. Trump is a large part of the Republican Party, but he's not all of it.
Best thing about this election being over and done & dusted is no longer having to try and extract election results from the creaking hissing mess of a Pennsylvania County's garbage ASP.NET website.
First, I'm not as convinced as you that AZ is in the bag for Biden. I know you predict 3-4% but he is less than 2% up.
Second, re GA, it will depend on the margin. For it to be uncontestable, I think Biden would have to win by at least 10K and even then I think the Republicans would find ways to disqualify some votes (I'm working on the premise they are going to do everything they can to not declare Biden the winner).
If Biden wins the election comfortably elsewhere - say PA - what stomach do you think the State GOP in GA will have to all that? Serious question, I'd like to know what you think.
My thinking is this and I am sure many will disagree.
I suspect the Trump strategy is to get as close to 270 as they can so that the outcome of the election essentially becomes about one state being flipped on a legal ruling.
They seem to think NC is theirs (many on here disagree but no one in the Biden camp seems to be aggressively pushing NC as a win or that Cunningham has won the Senate). That gets them to 232.
Key will be Arizona. If they win AZ - a big if but it's possible - they get to 243.
If GA awards its electors to Trump, he is at 259. I agree it's a high risk strategy but if it is coming down to a few hundred votes a la Florida in 2000, they might be tempted to try it.
At that point, Trump is 11 away from 270 i.e if he can get a favourable ruling on either PA (where there is a SC case sitting) or MI (where the Supreme Court is Republican), then it
One thing to note - even though Trump has been banging on about vote fraud in his tweets, none of his usual critics in the Republican party such as Ben Nasse or even the likes of Susan Collins have called for him to tone it down and said he is fundamentally wrong. Put bluntly - and I had mentioned in a post pre-election - there is a large part of the Republican party establishment who truly believe that VBM was an attempt by the Democrats to steal the election, and not just your pro-Trump types.
I think you are right on their intent but they are not close enough to pull it off.
They would not just be stealing an election but American democracy itself, Trump would be leader for life if this happens.
I know they are ringing round lawyers at the moment to head up the court battles so they are deadly serious.
As I said, I think this is why Arizona becomes so important. I’m out on a limb here but I don’t think it’s not insurmountable for Trump and the NYT had a good piece explaining why there is a chance he takes it. If he does win there, then I think Georgia will “find” the extra votes and / or disqualify some to call it for Trump (and put Purdue in the Senate). You are then in striking range.
Arizona really is key now.
If it happened and they pull the coup detat off successfully do you agree its Trump for life?
Never mind that. If there’s a coup, does my Trump bet pay out?
The remaining votes from California should push Trump above Obama's peak of 69,498,516 and mean both candidates beat the previous highest ever popular vote in a US election.
Yes, you can't talk about Biden's very high vote without talking about Trump's too.
I have the impression, albeit only from great distance, that Boris held off on Lockdown 2 so long partly because there was some optimism the Tiers system was reducing cases in the worst-hit areas. Will be fascinating to see the ONS survey numbers tomorrow and see if they show slowed growth too.
In practice the capacity warning was probably inevitable because the Tiers had generally not been used to try to force R below 1 - action was being taken only when infection/hospitalisation rates were deemed unacceptably high rather than when they were growing at all. You can't have that happen very long before medium-range capacity forecasting models start flashing red, because growth is assumed to continue up quickly and the policy lag for an intervention like lockdown is so slow, so the warning "lockdown now or else" comes surprisingly early. In this case, too early to fully evaluate the Tier system...
First, I'm not as convinced as you that AZ is in the bag for Biden. I know you predict 3-4% but he is less than 2% up.
Second, re GA, it will depend on the margin. For it to be uncontestable, I think Biden would have to win by at least 10K and even then I think the Republicans would find ways to disqualify some votes (I'm working on the premise they are going to do everything they can to not declare Biden the winner).
If Biden wins the election comfortably elsewhere - say PA - what stomach do you think the State GOP in GA will have to all that? Serious question, I'd like to know what you think.
My thinking is this and I am sure many will disagree.
I suspect the Trump strategy is to get as close to 270 as they can so that the outcome of the election essentially becomes about one state being flipped on a legal ruling.
They seem to think NC is theirs (many on here disagree but no one in the Biden camp seems to be aggressively pushing NC as a win or that Cunningham has won the Senate). That gets them to 232.
Key will be Arizona. If they win AZ - a big if but it's possible - they get to 243.
If GA awards its electors to Trump, he is at 259. I agree it's a high risk strategy but if it is coming down to a few hundred votes a la Florida in 2000, they might be tempted to try it.
At that point, Trump is 11 away from 270 i.e if he can get a favourable ruling on either PA (where there is a SC case sitting) or MI (where the Supreme Court is Republican), then it
One thing to note - even though Trump has been banging on about vote fraud in his tweets, none of his usual critics in the Republican party such as Ben Nasse or even the likes of Susan Collins have called for him to tone it down and said he is fundamentally wrong. Put bluntly - and I had mentioned in a post pre-election - there is a large part of the Republican party establishment who truly believe that VBM was an attempt by the Democrats to steal the election, and not just your pro-Trump types.
I think you are right on their intent but they are not close enough to pull it off.
They would not just be stealing an election but American democracy itself, Trump would be leader for life if this happens.
I know they are ringing round lawyers at the moment to head up the court battles so they are deadly serious.
As I said, I think this is why Arizona becomes so important. I’m out on a limb here but I don’t think it’s not insurmountable for Trump and the NYT had a good piece explaining why there is a chance he takes it. If he does win there, then I think Georgia will “find” the extra votes and / or disqualify some to call it for Trump (and put Purdue in the Senate). You are then in striking range.
Arizona really is key now.
Are you forecasting a Trump win in Arizona?
So Trump is going to win Arizona, cheat in Georgia, and then win the Presidency by winning court cases accusing the Democrats of cheating in Pennsylvania?
It's not going to happen because:
(a) There is no cheating and (b) The Supreme Court justices aren't going to precipitate civil war in the US.
President Biden is going to have a hell of a job on his hands making America whole again.
He's going to do more than that. He's going to MAAA (Make America America Again).
But seriously, given how Trump did surprise on the upside in several areas and groups of voters, not sure how Biden even attempts that. Many on his side won't want to be conciliatory, many on the other side won't respond even if he tries. They actively fear one another now, or at least too many do.
That assumes they are two irreconcilable tribes. But they aren't, they are currently polarised, with a hard core of irreconcilable tribes in each camp. Biden is better placed than almost anyone else to reach out to the sane Romney-style Republicans to try to dial down the lunatic lurch into metaphoric - and perhaps even literal - civil war.
I don't assume they are irreconcilable tribes, I think the hard core of irreconcilables may be too big to handle. These problems can grow beyond those who first stoked them.
President Biden is going to have a hell of a job on his hands making America whole again.
He's going to do more than that. He's going to MAAA (Make America America Again).
But seriously, given how Trump did surprise on the upside in several areas and groups of voters, not sure how Biden even attempts that. Many on his side won't want to be conciliatory, many on the other side won't respond even if he tries. They actively fear one another now, or at least too many do.
That assumes they are two irreconcilable tribes. But they aren't, they are currently polarised, with a hard core of irreconcilable tribes in each camp. Biden is better placed than almost anyone else to reach out to the sane Romney-style Republicans to try to dial down the lunatic lurch into metaphoric - and perhaps even literal - civil war.
I agree entirely with this. I think it's a challenge, but it's not impossible. And, as you say, he's the right man for the job.
A lot of theoretically pretty low level US politicians put most of even our best politicians these days to shame. It's reassuring in a way that there is always scope for US politics to regenerate if only somebody somewhere can break the cycle of polarisation and culture wars.
Whilst we are waiting then, genuine history question.
Back in the days before Dems tacked left and GOP to the right, when the South voted Dem, and their leaders like Wallace stood in doorways, what made someone GOP and what made someone Democrat? Truman and Eisenhower for example, what made them decide to stand for the parties they did?
What side they (and later their ancestors) fought on in the American Civil War. At least, that is what people used to say.
First, I'm not as convinced as you that AZ is in the bag for Biden. I know you predict 3-4% but he is less than 2% up.
Second, re GA, it will depend on the margin. For it to be uncontestable, I think Biden would have to win by at least 10K and even then I think the Republicans would find ways to disqualify some votes (I'm working on the premise they are going to do everything they can to not declare Biden the winner).
If Biden wins the election comfortably elsewhere - say PA - what stomach do you think the State GOP in GA will have to all that? Serious question, I'd like to know what you think.
My thinking is this and I am sure many will disagree.
I suspect the Trump strategy is to get as close to 270 as they can so that the outcome of the election essentially becomes about one state being flipped on a legal ruling.
They seem to think NC is theirs (many on here disagree but no one in the Biden camp seems to be aggressively pushing NC as a win or that Cunningham has won the Senate). That gets them to 232.
Key will be Arizona. If they win AZ - a big if but it's possible - they get to 243.
If GA awards its electors to Trump, he is at 259. I agree it's a high risk strategy but if it is coming down to a few hundred votes a la Florida in 2000, they might be tempted to try it.
At that point, Trump is 11 away from 270 i.e if he can get a favourable ruling on either PA (where there is a SC case sitting) or MI (where the Supreme Court is Republican), then it
One thing to note - even though Trump has been banging on about vote fraud in his tweets, none of his usual critics in the Republican party such as Ben Nasse or even the likes of Susan Collins have called for him to tone it down and said he is fundamentally wrong. Put bluntly - and I had mentioned in a post pre-election - there is a large part of the Republican party establishment who truly believe that VBM was an attempt by the Democrats to steal the election, and not just your pro-Trump types.
I think you are right on their intent but they are not close enough to pull it off.
They would not just be stealing an election but American democracy itself, Trump would be leader for life if this happens.
I know they are ringing round lawyers at the moment to head up the court battles so they are deadly serious.
As I said, I think this is why Arizona becomes so important. I’m out on a limb here but I don’t think it’s not insurmountable for Trump and the NYT had a good piece explaining why there is a chance he takes it. If he does win there, then I think Georgia will “find” the extra votes and / or disqualify some to call it for Trump (and put Purdue in the Senate). You are then in striking range.
Arizona really is key now.
Are you forecasting a Trump win in Arizona?
So Trump is going to win Arizona, cheat in Georgia, and then win the Presidency by winning court cases accusing the Democrats of cheating in Pennsylvania?
President Biden is going to have a hell of a job on his hands making America whole again.
He's going to do more than that. He's going to MAAA (Make America America Again).
But seriously, given how Trump did surprise on the upside in several areas and groups of voters, not sure how Biden even attempts that. Many on his side won't want to be conciliatory, many on the other side won't respond even if he tries. They actively fear one another now, or at least too many do.
That assumes they are two irreconcilable tribes. But they aren't, they are currently polarised, with a hard core of irreconcilable tribes in each camp. Biden is better placed than almost anyone else to reach out to the sane Romney-style Republicans to try to dial down the lunatic lurch into metaphoric - and perhaps even literal - civil war.
I don't assume they are irreconcilable tribes, I think the hard core of irreconcibilables may be too big to handle. These problems can grow beyond those who first stoked them.
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 ?
That's something many of us have criticised, but is an entirely separate issue as to whether under the laws in each state it is permissable to count votes which arrive after election day, regardless of whther it affects the result. If the rules say you can do that, then suspicions of impropriety about the fact of late arrivals are groundless, unless it is about specific ones which do not mean the specific criteria.
A couple of observations:
1) In the US, it's pretty standard for the postmark to be the determining date for whether something mailed has been mailed on time, e.g. if you mail your mortgage or credit card payment on the due date, that normally means you've complied with your contract terms and can't be penalized. Obviously in practice after a week or so, the bank's going to assume you've missed the payment and apply a late charge, but if your payment does then turn up after being delayed and the postmark is the due date, you can get the charge removed.
I don't know why the US has this general rule (there must be some historical reason) but this isn't something special just for elections.
2) Yes, some of the counting seems to be taking excruciatingly long times, but don't forget it's not just the Presidential race on the ballot, but at a minimum the local House race, and in the vast majority of places one or more state house races, local elections, propositions/referenda and more. Counting, especially resolving anomalies, means having to check the ballot for the specific race you're interested in etc. In practice most places use voting machines or more commonly optical scanners, but you still have to separate out and tabulate the separate races. My ballot had President/VP, House Representative, State Senator, State Representative, a couple of judgeships and District Attorney.
Now the UK gives the voter a separate ballot paper for each election, but that's not really practical for more than two or three simultaneous elections, and if I recall correctly, the UK has previously delayed EP or local elections by a month when they occur with other elections to avoid this issue.
Not sure why you regard 1) as a local quirk which needs explaining. That's how postmarks work and what they are for.
Pretty sure in the UK that postal votes have to be received by the ERO before close of poll on election day.
In the U.K., all of these questions are answered by the wonder that is the Interpretation Act 1978.
The Act makes provision for the interpretation of Acts of Parliament
I love Acts like that, and things like various Short Titles Acts, as they seem to be the boring result of some frustrated team or individual working through very dry info on something that probably is no politician's priority, but if the legwork can be done it is so very useful.
Whilst we are waiting then, genuine history question.
Back in the days before Dems tacked left and GOP to the right, when the South voted Dem, and their leaders like Wallace stood in doorways, what made someone GOP and what made someone Democrat? Truman and Eisenhower for example, what made them decide to stand for the parties they did?
What side they (and later their ancestors) fought on in the American Civil War. At least, that is what people used to say.
Also covered by Mr Dylan. Who opined he knew nothing about the Civil War till he went to New York. It simply did not, and had never, impinged on the consciousness of North Minnesota.
First, I'm not as convinced as you that AZ is in the bag for Biden. I know you predict 3-4% but he is less than 2% up.
Second, re GA, it will depend on the margin. For it to be uncontestable, I think Biden would have to win by at least 10K and even then I think the Republicans would find ways to disqualify some votes (I'm working on the premise they are going to do everything they can to not declare Biden the winner).
If Biden wins the election comfortably elsewhere - say PA - what stomach do you think the State GOP in GA will have to all that? Serious question, I'd like to know what you think.
My thinking is this and I am sure many will disagree.
I suspect the Trump strategy is to get as close to 270 as they can so that the outcome of the election essentially becomes about one state being flipped on a legal ruling.
They seem to think NC is theirs (many on here disagree but no one in the Biden camp seems to be aggressively pushing NC as a win or that Cunningham has won the Senate). That gets them to 232.
Key will be Arizona. If they win AZ - a big if but it's possible - they get to 243.
If GA awards its electors to Trump, he is at 259. I agree it's a high risk strategy but if it is coming down to a few hundred votes a la Florida in 2000, they might be tempted to try it.
At that point, Trump is 11 away from 270 i.e if he can get a favourable ruling on either PA (where there is a SC case sitting) or MI (where the Supreme Court is Republican), then it
One thing to note - even though Trump has been banging on about vote fraud in his tweets, none of his usual critics in the Republican party such as Ben Nasse or even the likes of Susan Collins have called for him to tone it down and said he is fundamentally wrong. Put bluntly - and I had mentioned in a post pre-election - there is a large part of the Republican party establishment who truly believe that VBM was an attempt by the Democrats to steal the election, and not just your pro-Trump types.
I think you are right on their intent but they are not close enough to pull it off.
They would not just be stealing an election but American democracy itself, Trump would be leader for life if this happens.
I know they are ringing round lawyers at the moment to head up the court battles so they are deadly serious.
As I said, I think this is why Arizona becomes so important. I’m out on a limb here but I don’t think it’s not insurmountable for Trump and the NYT had a good piece explaining why there is a chance he takes it. If he does win there, then I think Georgia will “find” the extra votes and / or disqualify some to call it for Trump (and put Purdue in the Senate). You are then in striking range.
Arizona really is key now.
Once Pennsylvania has been called, and the networks call the race (which they will), then I can't see the Republican establishment (who've never really liked Trump) sticking with him.
At that point you get Lindsay Graham and Mitch McConnell (who's going to quite like being the most important Republican in America) calling for Trump to go. You've already seen the Republican Governor elect of Utah going down that path. Trump is a large part of the Republican Party, but he's not all of it.
He’s not all of it but, as mentioned before, there is a large part of the Republican establishment who believe genuinely the VBM was a ploy to still the election hence the rush to get ACB on the court. PA has been in the SC already once and that was pre-election. It is primed up for another legal challenge.
As I said, a large chunk of the Rep establishment is keeping silent even though this would be the right moment to strike. Part of that is undoubtedly political in not wanting to p1ss the base off but there are other factors are play. None of them really wants to come out of publicly and sign up to the “votes stolen” line because it would be used against them down the line but there are many who think that way. And they are definitely not Trumpsters.
I have the impression, albeit only from great distance, that Boris held off on Lockdown 2 so long partly because there was some optimism the Tiers system was reducing cases in the worst-hit areas. Will be fascinating to see the ONS survey numbers tomorrow and see if they show slowed growth too.
In practice the capacity warning was probably inevitable because the Tiers had generally not been used to try to force R below 1 - action was being taken only when infection/hospitalisation rates were deemed unacceptably high rather than when they were growing at all. You can't have that happen very long before medium-range capacity forecasting models start flashing red, because growth is assumed to continue up quickly and the policy lag for an intervention like lockdown is so slow, so the warning "lockdown now or else" comes surprisingly early. In this case, too early to fully evaluate the Tier system...
Or maybe it just suddenly dawned on them that to save Xmas they’d have to lock us down for a month or so before. The same thought that dawned on Labour a few weeks earlier.
The sad thing about all of this is on Tuesday night I could have gone to bed, slept for 9 hours, taken my daughter to school THEN checked the news I would have made considerably more money than I will do.
A lot of theoretically pretty low level US politicians put most of even our best politicians these days to shame. It's reassuring in a way that there is always scope for US politics to regenerate if only somebody somewhere can break the cycle of polarisation and culture wars.
I thought Buttigieg was the outstanding 'find' of the season and I hope there's a big role for him in Biden's administration should it come to pass.
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 ?
That's something many of us have criticised, but is an entirely separate issue as to whether under the laws in each state it is permissable to count votes which arrive after election day, regardless of whther it affects the result. If the rules say you can do that, then suspicions of impropriety about the fact of late arrivals are groundless, unless it is about specific ones which do not mean the specific criteria.
A couple of observations:
1) In the US, it's pretty standard for the postmark to be the determining date for whether something mailed has been mailed on time, e.g. if you mail your mortgage or credit card payment on the due date, that normally means you've complied with your contract terms and can't be penalized. Obviously in practice after a week or so, the bank's going to assume you've missed the payment and apply a late charge, but if your payment does then turn up after being delayed and the postmark is the due date, you can get the charge removed.
I don't know why the US has this general rule (there must be some historical reason) but this isn't something special just for elections.
2) Yes, some of the counting seems to be taking excruciatingly long times, but don't forget it's not just the Presidential race on the ballot, but at a minimum the local House race, and in the vast majority of places one or more state house races, local elections, propositions/referenda and more. Counting, especially resolving anomalies, means having to check the ballot for the specific race you're interested in etc. In practice most places use voting machines or more commonly optical scanners, but you still have to separate out and tabulate the separate races. My ballot had President/VP, House Representative, State Senator, State Representative, a couple of judgeships and District Attorney.
Now the UK gives the voter a separate ballot paper for each election, but that's not really practical for more than two or three simultaneous elections, and if I recall correctly, the UK has previously delayed EP or local elections by a month when they occur with other elections to avoid this issue.
Not sure why you regard 1) as a local quirk which needs explaining. That's how postmarks work and what they are for.
Pretty sure in the UK that postal votes have to be received by the ERO before close of poll on election day.
In the U.K., all of these questions are answered by the wonder that is the Interpretation Act 1978.
The Act makes provision for the interpretation of Acts of Parliament
I love Acts like that, and things like various Short Titles Acts, as they seem to be the boring result of some frustrated team or individual working through very dry info on something that probably is no politician's priority, but if the legwork can be done it is so very useful.
Yes. You can almost picture the team writing the Interpretation Act working through their list of ambiguity issues that had arisen over the last 100 years.
The sad thing about all of this is on Tuesday night I could have gone to bed, slept for 9 hours, taken my daughter to school THEN checked the news I would have made considerably more money than I will do.
Know the feeling. I baled out about 1am when I could see which way Florida was going. If I'd just gone to bed and forgot about it all I'd have been just fine.
Whilst we are waiting then, genuine history question.
Back in the days before Dems tacked left and GOP to the right, when the South voted Dem, and their leaders like Wallace stood in doorways, what made someone GOP and what made someone Democrat? Truman and Eisenhower for example, what made them decide to stand for the parties they did?
Little idelogically, from the 1940s until Goldwater won the GOP nomination in 1964 both the GOP and Democrats largely supported the New Deal legacy though the Democrats were more pro union and the GOP more pro big business, both supported the Korean War and NATO and UN membership, there was little difference on social policy and the GOP were if anything slightly more pro civil rights for African Americans...
There was massive division postwar over foreign policy. Republicans blamed Truman for ‘losing’ China, and regularly pilloried his administration for concentrating on the reconstruction of Europe (and countering of Soviet Russia) to the neglect of Asia. Absurd, of course, but no less deeply believed.
“Nothing that Russia or Iran or China could say is anywhere near as wild as what the president is saying,” said Clint Watts, a former FBI agent who tracks foreign disinformation. “We cannot say this time that Russia, Iran or China interfered in a significant way. They don’t need to write fake news this time — we’re making plenty of fake news of our own.”
First, I'm not as convinced as you that AZ is in the bag for Biden. I know you predict 3-4% but he is less than 2% up.
Second, re GA, it will depend on the margin. For it to be uncontestable, I think Biden would have to win by at least 10K and even then I think the Republicans would find ways to disqualify some votes (I'm working on the premise they are going to do everything they can to not declare Biden the winner).
If Biden wins the election comfortably elsewhere - say PA - what stomach do you think the State GOP in GA will have to all that? Serious question, I'd like to know what you think.
My thinking is this and I am sure many will disagree.
I suspect the Trump strategy is to get as close to 270 as they can so that the outcome of the election essentially becomes about one state being flipped on a legal ruling.
They seem to think NC is theirs (many on here disagree but no one in the Biden camp seems to be aggressively pushing NC as a win or that Cunningham has won the Senate). That gets them to 232.
Key will be Arizona. If they win AZ - a big if but it's possible - they get to 243.
If GA awards its electors to Trump, he is at 259. I agree it's a high risk strategy but if it is coming down to a few hundred votes a la Florida in 2000, they might be tempted to try it.
At that point, Trump is 11 away from 270 i.e if he can get a favourable ruling on either PA (where there is a SC case sitting) or MI (where the Supreme Court is Republican), then it
One thing to note - even though Trump has been banging on about vote fraud in his tweets, none of his usual critics in the Republican party such as Ben Nasse or even the likes of Susan Collins have called for him to tone it down and said he is fundamentally wrong. Put bluntly - and I had mentioned in a post pre-election - there is a large part of the Republican party establishment who truly believe that VBM was an attempt by the Democrats to steal the election, and not just your pro-Trump types.
I think you are right on their intent but they are not close enough to pull it off.
They would not just be stealing an election but American democracy itself, Trump would be leader for life if this happens.
I know they are ringing round lawyers at the moment to head up the court battles so they are deadly serious.
As I said, I think this is why Arizona becomes so important. I’m out on a limb here but I don’t think it’s not insurmountable for Trump and the NYT had a good piece explaining why there is a chance he takes it. If he does win there, then I think Georgia will “find” the extra votes and / or disqualify some to call it for Trump (and put Purdue in the Senate). You are then in striking range.
Arizona really is key now.
Once Pennsylvania has been called, and the networks call the race (which they will), then I can't see the Republican establishment (who've never really liked Trump) sticking with him.
At that point you get Lindsay Graham and Mitch McConnell (who's going to quite like being the most important Republican in America) calling for Trump to go. You've already seen the Republican Governor elect of Utah going down that path. Trump is a large part of the Republican Party, but he's not all of it.
The Republican establishment have always despised Trump, Barbara Bush apparently had a clock in her room counting down the hours until the end of his term and could not understand how any woman could vote for him, her husband reportedly voted for Hillary in 2016, his first ever vote for a Democrat.
First, I'm not as convinced as you that AZ is in the bag for Biden. I know you predict 3-4% but he is less than 2% up.
Second, re GA, it will depend on the margin. For it to be uncontestable, I think Biden would have to win by at least 10K and even then I think the Republicans would find ways to disqualify some votes (I'm working on the premise they are going to do everything they can to not declare Biden the winner).
If Biden wins the election comfortably elsewhere - say PA - what stomach do you think the State GOP in GA will have to all that? Serious question, I'd like to know what you think.
My thinking is this and I am sure many will disagree.
I suspect the Trump strategy is to get as close to 270 as they can so that the outcome of the election essentially becomes about one state being flipped on a legal ruling.
They seem to think NC is theirs (many on here disagree but no one in the Biden camp seems to be aggressively pushing NC as a win or that Cunningham has won the Senate). That gets them to 232.
Key will be Arizona. If they win AZ - a big if but it's possible - they get to 243.
If GA awards its electors to Trump, he is at 259. I agree it's a high risk strategy but if it is coming down to a few hundred votes a la Florida in 2000, they might be tempted to try it.
At that point, Trump is 11 away from 270 i.e if he can get a favourable ruling on either PA (where there is a SC case sitting) or MI (where the Supreme Court is Republican), then it
One thing to note - even though Trump has been banging on about vote fraud in his tweets, none of his usual critics in the Republican party such as Ben Nasse or even the likes of Susan Collins have called for him to tone it down and said he is fundamentally wrong. Put bluntly - and I had mentioned in a post pre-election - there is a large part of the Republican party establishment who truly believe that VBM was an attempt by the Democrats to steal the election, and not just your pro-Trump types.
I think you are right on their intent but they are not close enough to pull it off.
They would not just be stealing an election but American democracy itself, Trump would be leader for life if this happens.
I know they are ringing round lawyers at the moment to head up the court battles so they are deadly serious.
As I said, I think this is why Arizona becomes so important. I’m out on a limb here but I don’t think it’s not insurmountable for Trump and the NYT had a good piece explaining why there is a chance he takes it. If he does win there, then I think Georgia will “find” the extra votes and / or disqualify some to call it for Trump (and put Purdue in the Senate). You are then in striking range.
Arizona really is key now.
Once Pennsylvania has been called, and the networks call the race (which they will), then I can't see the Republican establishment (who've never really liked Trump) sticking with him.
At that point you get Lindsay Graham and Mitch McConnell (who's going to quite like being the most important Republican in America) calling for Trump to go. You've already seen the Republican Governor elect of Utah going down that path. Trump is a large part of the Republican Party, but he's not all of it.
He’s not all of it but, as mentioned before, there is a large part of the Republican establishment who believe genuinely the VBM was a ploy to still the election hence the rush to get ACB on the court. PA has been in the SC already once and that was pre-election. It is primed up for another legal challenge.
As I said, a large chunk of the Rep establishment is keeping silent even though this would be the right moment to strike. Part of that is undoubtedly political in not wanting to p1ss the base off but there are other factors are play. None of them really wants to come out of publicly and sign up to the “votes stolen” line because it would be used against them down the line but there are many who think that way. And they are definitely not Trumpsters.
If there were different electoral performances in states with lots of VMB and no VBM, then that would be indicative of cheating. But the reality is that in almost every state (except Florida, where there were plenty of mail ballots that weren't delivered in time, but lets not go there) the vote change is the same: Dems +3-4%, Reps +0-1%.
In any case, if you seriously wanted to weed out cheating (and you'd have though that REPUBLICAN Georgia might), then you very simply do a random sample of 1,000 mail votes, and go manually check.
That that is not being proposed tells me that the Republicans don't really believe that there's any cheating.
Obviously a calm and sober speech in which he will tell his supporters to back down, and wish Biden good luck, promising to affect a high quality transition.
First, I'm not as convinced as you that AZ is in the bag for Biden. I know you predict 3-4% but he is less than 2% up.
Second, re GA, it will depend on the margin. For it to be uncontestable, I think Biden would have to win by at least 10K and even then I think the Republicans would find ways to disqualify some votes (I'm working on the premise they are going to do everything they can to not declare Biden the winner).
If Biden wins the election comfortably elsewhere - say PA - what stomach do you think the State GOP in GA will have to all that? Serious question, I'd like to know what you think.
My thinking is this and I am sure many will disagree.
I suspect the Trump strategy is to get as close to 270 as they can so that the outcome of the election essentially becomes about one state being flipped on a legal ruling.
They seem to think NC is theirs (many on here disagree but no one in the Biden camp seems to be aggressively pushing NC as a win or that Cunningham has won the Senate). That gets them to 232.
Key will be Arizona. If they win AZ - a big if but it's possible - they get to 243.
If GA awards its electors to Trump, he is at 259. I agree it's a high risk strategy but if it is coming down to a few hundred votes a la Florida in 2000, they might be tempted to try it.
At that point, Trump is 11 away from 270 i.e if he can get a favourable ruling on either PA (where there is a SC case sitting) or MI (where the Supreme Court is Republican), then it
One thing to note - even though Trump has been banging on about vote fraud in his tweets, none of his usual critics in the Republican party such as Ben Nasse or even the likes of Susan Collins have called for him to tone it down and said he is fundamentally wrong. Put bluntly - and I had mentioned in a post pre-election - there is a large part of the Republican party establishment who truly believe that VBM was an attempt by the Democrats to steal the election, and not just your pro-Trump types.
I think you are right on their intent but they are not close enough to pull it off.
They would not just be stealing an election but American democracy itself, Trump would be leader for life if this happens.
I know they are ringing round lawyers at the moment to head up the court battles so they are deadly serious.
As I said, I think this is why Arizona becomes so important. I’m out on a limb here but I don’t think it’s not insurmountable for Trump and the NYT had a good piece explaining why there is a chance he takes it. If he does win there, then I think Georgia will “find” the extra votes and / or disqualify some to call it for Trump (and put Purdue in the Senate). You are then in striking range.
Arizona really is key now.
If it happened and they pull the coup detat off successfully do you agree its Trump for life?
Never mind that. If there’s a coup, does my Trump bet pay out?
First, I'm not as convinced as you that AZ is in the bag for Biden. I know you predict 3-4% but he is less than 2% up.
Second, re GA, it will depend on the margin. For it to be uncontestable, I think Biden would have to win by at least 10K and even then I think the Republicans would find ways to disqualify some votes (I'm working on the premise they are going to do everything they can to not declare Biden the winner).
If Biden wins the election comfortably elsewhere - say PA - what stomach do you think the State GOP in GA will have to all that? Serious question, I'd like to know what you think.
My thinking is this and I am sure many will disagree.
I suspect the Trump strategy is to get as close to 270 as they can so that the outcome of the election essentially becomes about one state being flipped on a legal ruling.
They seem to think NC is theirs (many on here disagree but no one in the Biden camp seems to be aggressively pushing NC as a win or that Cunningham has won the Senate). That gets them to 232.
Key will be Arizona. If they win AZ - a big if but it's possible - they get to 243.
If GA awards its electors to Trump, he is at 259. I agree it's a high risk strategy but if it is coming down to a few hundred votes a la Florida in 2000, they might be tempted to try it.
At that point, Trump is 11 away from 270 i.e if he can get a favourable ruling on either PA (where there is a SC case sitting) or MI (where the Supreme Court is Republican), then it
One thing to note - even though Trump has been banging on about vote fraud in his tweets, none of his usual critics in the Republican party such as Ben Nasse or even the likes of Susan Collins have called for him to tone it down and said he is fundamentally wrong. Put bluntly - and I had mentioned in a post pre-election - there is a large part of the Republican party establishment who truly believe that VBM was an attempt by the Democrats to steal the election, and not just your pro-Trump types.
I think you are right on their intent but they are not close enough to pull it off.
They would not just be stealing an election but American democracy itself, Trump would be leader for life if this happens.
I know they are ringing round lawyers at the moment to head up the court battles so they are deadly serious.
As I said, I think this is why Arizona becomes so important. I’m out on a limb here but I don’t think it’s not insurmountable for Trump and the NYT had a good piece explaining why there is a chance he takes it. If he does win there, then I think Georgia will “find” the extra votes and / or disqualify some to call it for Trump (and put Purdue in the Senate). You are then in striking range.
Arizona really is key now.
Are you forecasting a Trump win in Arizona?
So Trump is going to win Arizona, cheat in Georgia, and then win the Presidency by winning court cases accusing the Democrats of cheating in Pennsylvania?
Obviously a calm and sober speech in which he will tell his supporters to back down, and wish Biden good luck, promising to affect a high quality transition.
That would be utterly hilarious. Even if he immediately went back to whinging on twitter and launching legal challenges.
The sad thing about all of this is on Tuesday night I could have gone to bed, slept for 9 hours, taken my daughter to school THEN checked the news I would have made considerably more money than I will do.
Arrhhh you seem you have suffered the fate I had when betting on the last Ryder cup....
First, I'm not as convinced as you that AZ is in the bag for Biden. I know you predict 3-4% but he is less than 2% up.
Second, re GA, it will depend on the margin. For it to be uncontestable, I think Biden would have to win by at least 10K and even then I think the Republicans would find ways to disqualify some votes (I'm working on the premise they are going to do everything they can to not declare Biden the winner).
If Biden wins the election comfortably elsewhere - say PA - what stomach do you think the State GOP in GA will have to all that? Serious question, I'd like to know what you think.
My thinking is this and I am sure many will disagree.
I suspect the Trump strategy is to get as close to 270 as they can so that the outcome of the election essentially becomes about one state being flipped on a legal ruling.
They seem to think NC is theirs (many on here disagree but no one in the Biden camp seems to be aggressively pushing NC as a win or that Cunningham has won the Senate). That gets them to 232.
Key will be Arizona. If they win AZ - a big if but it's possible - they get to 243.
If GA awards its electors to Trump, he is at 259. I agree it's a high risk strategy but if it is coming down to a few hundred votes a la Florida in 2000, they might be tempted to try it.
At that point, Trump is 11 away from 270 i.e if he can get a favourable ruling on either PA (where there is a SC case sitting) or MI (where the Supreme Court is Republican), then it
One thing to note - even though Trump has been banging on about vote fraud in his tweets, none of his usual critics in the Republican party such as Ben Nasse or even the likes of Susan Collins have called for him to tone it down and said he is fundamentally wrong. Put bluntly - and I had mentioned in a post pre-election - there is a large part of the Republican party establishment who truly believe that VBM was an attempt by the Democrats to steal the election, and not just your pro-Trump types.
I think you are right on their intent but they are not close enough to pull it off.
They would not just be stealing an election but American democracy itself, Trump would be leader for life if this happens.
I know they are ringing round lawyers at the moment to head up the court battles so they are deadly serious.
As I said, I think this is why Arizona becomes so important. I’m out on a limb here but I don’t think it’s not insurmountable for Trump and the NYT had a good piece explaining why there is a chance he takes it. If he does win there, then I think Georgia will “find” the extra votes and / or disqualify some to call it for Trump (and put Purdue in the Senate). You are then in striking range.
Arizona really is key now.
Once Pennsylvania has been called, and the networks call the race (which they will), then I can't see the Republican establishment (who've never really liked Trump) sticking with him.
At that point you get Lindsay Graham and Mitch McConnell (who's going to quite like being the most important Republican in America) calling for Trump to go. You've already seen the Republican Governor elect of Utah going down that path. Trump is a large part of the Republican Party, but he's not all of it.
The Republican establishment have always despised Trump, Barbara Bush apparently had a clock in her room counting down the hours until the end of his term and could not understand how any woman could vote for him, her husband reportedly voted for Hillary in 2016, his first ever vote for a Democrat.
Comments
Arizona - another batch of votes expected 2am UK time
PA - down to 90k difference, still counting
“According to a source, Trump phoned Fox owner Rupert Murdoch to scream about the call and demand a retraction.”
“Murdoch refused, and the call stood.”"
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1356333/trump-US-Election-Joe-biden-Arizona-Fox-News-Rupert-Murdoch-campaign-vote-ballot-ont
An upper middle class New England resident with a college degree was though likely a solid Republican and a white working class southerner a Democrat, the reverse of now
So the Dems didn't so much as "tack left" as simply have a part of their coalition break away.
Virtually everyone else has it in the Trump camp.
Hence the NAACP at al suing to be allowed to join and become part of the party of Jefferson Davis. If you couldn't join the Democrats you were without political power in many places.
MrEd still loves him.
270 to win.
Turned it on for a change to CNN and then just found that –– bonkers on stilts!
But seriously, given how Trump did surprise on the upside in several areas and groups of voters, not sure how Biden even attempts that. Many on his side won't want to be conciliatory, many on the other side won't respond even if he tries. They actively fear one another now, or at least too many do.
As I said, I think this is why Arizona becomes so important. I’m out on a limb here but I don’t think it’s not insurmountable for Trump and the NYT had a good piece explaining why there is a chance he takes it. If he does win there, then I think Georgia will “find” the extra votes and / or disqualify some to call it for Trump (and put Purdue in the Senate). You are then in striking range.
Arizona really is key now.
Back in the days before Dems tacked left and GOP to the right, when the South voted Dem, and their leaders like Wallace stood in doorways, what made someone GOP and what made someone Democrat? Truman and Eisenhower for example, what made them decide to stand for the parties they did?
Alistair:
In the South there was also the cement of the Democrats being the *only* party in many places. The Republicans had literally been chased out of town.
Hence the NAACP at al suing to be allowed to join and become part of the party of Jefferson Davis. If you couldn't join the Democrats you were without political power in many places.
Dixiedean:
There is an interesting passage in Dylan's Chronicles about this. He relates about far north Minnesota in the 40s and 50s and how exciting election rallies were in his tiny town. There were 5 Parties.
All of them Democrats.
He was a Democrat simply because the Republicans did not exist.
So it wasn't only in the South.
GOP
4.8
The issue is that there's astonishing factionalism. Biden simply may not wish to call on the services of some of the best people.
In Biden's team we must hope that there are the core people to make a government.
It seems to me the gvt have been prepared to reject advice they were warned was needed to avoid a higher Covid death toll both now and previously. (Not saying they're heartless, a gvt can legitimately have other considerations than monomaniacally focusing on Covid deaths at the expense of all else, nor saying that ignoring such advice is always justifiable. Worth pointing out that full cost-benefit analysis was often lacking, but would have been a tough and largely hypothetical job early this year.)
When told healthcare capacity is going to be overwhelmed without radical intervention, that seems to kick them into action. (An interesting comparison is that gvts of various stripes have been willing to take the risk of bad NHS headlines during tough winters rather than build extra capacity in case we have a nasty flu season, because they're they seem willing to accept - even if only privately - that the costs outweigh the benefits. But they won't accept the same happening with Covid. Perhaps that's because politically the optics are worse, perhaps that's an unfair comparison because the tail risks with a pandemic are higher - the 5% worst case scenario could be much uglier.)
I expect December decisions eg on return to Tiers to be driven more by NHS considerations than a full cost-benefit analysis.
At that point you get Lindsay Graham and Mitch McConnell (who's going to quite like being the most important Republican in America) calling for Trump to go. You've already seen the Republican Governor elect of Utah going down that path. Trump is a large part of the Republican Party, but he's not all of it.
This is a very divided country.
In practice the capacity warning was probably inevitable because the Tiers had generally not been used to try to force R below 1 - action was being taken only when infection/hospitalisation rates were deemed unacceptably high rather than when they were growing at all. You can't have that happen very long before medium-range capacity forecasting models start flashing red, because growth is assumed to continue up quickly and the policy lag for an intervention like lockdown is so slow, so the warning "lockdown now or else" comes surprisingly early. In this case, too early to fully evaluate the Tier system...
(a) There is no cheating
and
(b) The Supreme Court justices aren't going to precipitate civil war in the US.
https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
It will be down at 1.02/1.03 within 24 hours and all gone within a week, the max extent of when I expect Betfair to settle.
I love Acts like that, and things like various Short Titles Acts, as they seem to be the boring result of some frustrated team or individual working through very dry info on something that probably is no politician's priority, but if the legwork can be done it is so very useful.
As I said, a large chunk of the Rep establishment is keeping silent even though this would be the right moment to strike. Part of that is undoubtedly political in not wanting to p1ss the base off but there are other factors are play. None of them really wants to come out of publicly and sign up to the “votes stolen” line because it would be used against them down the line but there are many who think that way. And they are definitely not Trumpsters.
But the risk....the risk!
Republicans blamed Truman for ‘losing’ China, and regularly pilloried his administration for concentrating on the reconstruction of Europe (and countering of Soviet Russia) to the neglect of Asia.
Absurd, of course, but no less deeply believed.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/live-blog/2020-11-05-trump-biden-election-results-n1246510?icid=election_nav
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CxH2iHVWUg
Cindy McCain has endorsed Biden, Romney voted to impeach Trump. I think Bob Dole is the only GOP nominee alive who does not loathe the man
In any case, if you seriously wanted to weed out cheating (and you'd have though that REPUBLICAN Georgia might), then you very simply do a random sample of 1,000 mail votes, and go manually check.
That that is not being proposed tells me that the Republicans don't really believe that there's any cheating.
Some real bargains available
I am hopeful my BETTING POST this morning is going to make me 9 of 9 on PB betting posts over the years and be my 4th in 2020 (thats jinxed it!!)
I got on Biden in GA at 1.63 and it went as high as 1.73 now 1.25