Mad idea. For unity’s sake, I wonder could Biden appoint a republican or Trump supporter in his white house? It might be one way to bridge the divide. Could he even ask Ivanka to do something?
Ivanka! Are you serious?
Ivanka would surely be an improvement on a wanker.
Biden will need some form of political and economic approach to bridge the schism. Roping in some Trump people is one way to do it.
Trumpism is dead. Someone else needs to pick up the mantle of the nakedly greedy and self serving.
Trumpism is not dead. Sorry.
Present Continuous tense.
It is dead. In the sense that it is going through its death-throes. All you are listening to now is the death rattle.
Trumpism is dead = Simple Present
Trumpism is dying = Present Continuous
It appears to be alive and kicking. The Republican party has the choice of killing it and moving on, but for whatever reason (fear ?), they appear to have rejected it.
Notable is Cruz (along with many, many others), a man with no reason to love Trump, regurgitating his self serving lies. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/06/the-election-that-broke-the-republican-party-434797 ‘I am angry, and I think the American people are angry,” Cruz told Hannity, his voice wrung with outrage. “By throwing the observers out, by clouding the vote-counting in a shroud of darkness, they are setting the stage to potentially steal an election not just from the president, but from the over 60 million people across this country who voted for him.” One might assume that an Ivy League-educated lawyer like Cruz — someone who argued cases before the Supreme Court, someone who, as he reminded Hannity on Thursday night, worked on the Bush v. Gore case in 2000 — would make sure his assertions were bulletproof before sharing them with millions of viewers. But that assumption would be wrong.
This doesn’t end once Biden is in the White House.
Do people like Ted Cruz not understand that by bolstering Trump's dangerous rhetoric they are guilty of inciting serious disorder?
Mad idea. For unity’s sake, I wonder could Biden appoint a republican or Trump supporter in his white house? It might be one way to bridge the divide. Could he even ask Ivanka to do something?
Ivanka! Are you serious?
Ivanka would surely be an improvement on a wanker.
Biden will need some form of political and economic approach to bridge the schism. Roping in some Trump people is one way to do it.
Trumpism is dead. Someone else needs to pick up the mantle of the nakedly greedy and self serving.
Trumpism is not dead. Sorry.
Present Continuous tense.
It is dead. In the sense that it is going through its death-throes. All you are listening to now is the death rattle.
Trumpism is dead = Simple Present
Trumpism is dying = Present Continuous
It appears to be alive and kicking. The Republican party has the choice of killing it and moving on, but for whatever reason (fear ?), they appear to have rejected it.
Notable is Cruz (along with many, many others), a man with no reason to love Trump, regurgitating his self serving lies. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/06/the-election-that-broke-the-republican-party-434797 ‘I am angry, and I think the American people are angry,” Cruz told Hannity, his voice wrung with outrage. “By throwing the observers out, by clouding the vote-counting in a shroud of darkness, they are setting the stage to potentially steal an election not just from the president, but from the over 60 million people across this country who voted for him.” One might assume that an Ivy League-educated lawyer like Cruz — someone who argued cases before the Supreme Court, someone who, as he reminded Hannity on Thursday night, worked on the Bush v. Gore case in 2000 — would make sure his assertions were bulletproof before sharing them with millions of viewers. But that assumption would be wrong.
This doesn’t end once Biden is in the White House.
He's pathetic. Particularly when it is in states run by Republicans they cannot believe it, and they just don't need to come out to bat for Trump now, and he's still doing it.
Just say you support the court cases, then accept the result if they don't succeed - that way you showed you backed Trump but don't make yourself look completely like his b*tch.
Read the article. It’s way beyond Cruz; it’s large swaths of the party.
Of course it’s pathetic, but they clearly believe, for now at least, that this crap continues to be in their interest. Read the Applebaum article I posted above. Same thing.
It may all fizzle out in time, but equally this might be the conservative movement for the next four years.
Mad idea. For unity’s sake, I wonder could Biden appoint a republican or Trump supporter in his white house? It might be one way to bridge the divide. Could he even ask Ivanka to do something?
Ivanka! Are you serious?
Ivanka would surely be an improvement on a wanker.
Biden will need some form of political and economic approach to bridge the schism. Roping in some Trump people is one way to do it.
Trumpism is dead. Someone else needs to pick up the mantle of the nakedly greedy and self serving.
Trumpism is not dead. Sorry.
Present Continuous tense.
It is dead. In the sense that it is going through its death-throes. All you are listening to now is the death rattle.
Trumpism is dead = Simple Present
Trumpism is dying = Present Continuous
It appears to be alive and kicking. The Republican party has the choice of killing it and moving on, but for whatever reason (fear ?), they appear to have rejected it.
Notable is Cruz (along with many, many others), a man with no reason to love Trump, regurgitating his self serving lies. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/06/the-election-that-broke-the-republican-party-434797 ‘I am angry, and I think the American people are angry,” Cruz told Hannity, his voice wrung with outrage. “By throwing the observers out, by clouding the vote-counting in a shroud of darkness, they are setting the stage to potentially steal an election not just from the president, but from the over 60 million people across this country who voted for him.” One might assume that an Ivy League-educated lawyer like Cruz — someone who argued cases before the Supreme Court, someone who, as he reminded Hannity on Thursday night, worked on the Bush v. Gore case in 2000 — would make sure his assertions were bulletproof before sharing them with millions of viewers. But that assumption would be wrong.
This doesn’t end once Biden is in the White House.
Do people like Ted Cruz not understand that by bolstering Trump's dangerous rhetoric they are guilty of inciting serious disorder?
EDIT: Snap! Interesting that we choose the same clip.
A great clip! Very engaging. Intriguing to know what Mr Yoyo said.
AOC has that rare charisma and coolness that cannot be faked. That speech to the house on the misogyny that she faces is articulate and passionate, avoiding woke jargon while expressing the essence in a way the mainstream can understand.
Her self description as a Socialist will be a bit tricky to sell in Arizona!
I'd agree with those that sugget Buttegieg needs to prove himself a bit in a job, and I don't think it need be an elected one so showing competence and drive for Biden or some prominent role gets the job done. AOC I'd think there's a non-zero chance that she trips up as perhaps other ambitious Democrats in Congress dislike her high profile compared to them, and her jumping the queue as it were by trying to become prominent before she has gray in her hair.
A lot of her critics actually screwed up their re-election campaigns and if you read the AOC tweet thread I posted last night see explains clearly and in less than 100 words t total how and why they screwed up.
Mad idea. For unity’s sake, I wonder could Biden appoint a republican or Trump supporter in his white house? It might be one way to bridge the divide. Could he even ask Ivanka to do something?
Ivanka! Are you serious?
Ivanka would surely be an improvement on a wanker.
Biden will need some form of political and economic approach to bridge the schism. Roping in some Trump people is one way to do it.
Trumpism is dead. Someone else needs to pick up the mantle of the nakedly greedy and self serving.
Trumpism is not dead. Sorry.
I agree, Trump himself may be dragged kicking and screaming from the WH eventually, but he brought more votes than any other R could have dreamed of getting, a huge swathe of those votes were because of Trump himself and Trumpism. It's because of Trump the Rs still have the Senate and improved in the House. I see Trumpism as something that is far from dead.
Sure, there will still be purchasers of snake oil, but without the charismatic showman it doesn't work anymore. Trump doesn't campaign for anyone else.
Mad idea. For unity’s sake, I wonder could Biden appoint a republican or Trump supporter in his white house? It might be one way to bridge the divide. Could he even ask Ivanka to do something?
Ivanka! Are you serious?
Ivanka would surely be an improvement on a wanker.
Biden will need some form of political and economic approach to bridge the schism. Roping in some Trump people is one way to do it.
Trumpism is dead. Someone else needs to pick up the mantle of the nakedly greedy and self serving.
Trumpism is not dead. Sorry.
Present Continuous tense.
It is dead. In the sense that it is going through its death-throes. All you are listening to now is the death rattle.
Trumpism is dead = Simple Present
Trumpism is dying = Present Continuous
It appears to be alive and kicking. The Republican party has the choice of killing it and moving on, but for whatever reason (fear ?), they appear to have rejected it.
Notable is Cruz (along with many, many others), a man with no reason to love Trump, regurgitating his self serving lies. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/06/the-election-that-broke-the-republican-party-434797 ‘I am angry, and I think the American people are angry,” Cruz told Hannity, his voice wrung with outrage. “By throwing the observers out, by clouding the vote-counting in a shroud of darkness, they are setting the stage to potentially steal an election not just from the president, but from the over 60 million people across this country who voted for him.” One might assume that an Ivy League-educated lawyer like Cruz — someone who argued cases before the Supreme Court, someone who, as he reminded Hannity on Thursday night, worked on the Bush v. Gore case in 2000 — would make sure his assertions were bulletproof before sharing them with millions of viewers. But that assumption would be wrong.
This doesn’t end once Biden is in the White House.
He's pathetic. Particularly when it is in states run by Republicans they cannot believe it, and they just don't need to come out to bat for Trump now, and he's still doing it.
Just say you support the court cases, then accept the result if they don't succeed - that way you showed you backed Trump but don't make yourself look completely like his b*tch.
Read the article. It’s way beyond Cruz; it’s large swaths of the party.
Of course it’s pathetic, but they clearly believe, for now at least, that this crap continues to be in their interest. Read the Applebaum article I posted above. Same thing.
It may all fizzle out in time, but equally this might be the conservative movement for the next four years.
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
If AOC runs in 2024 she will have been 35 for less than a month on the day of the election. I'm sure her time will come but it won't be until 2028 or even 2032
Lots of references to "this" going to the Supreme Court floating around today. Can someone enlighten me what "this" (i.e. what specific issue) the SC will be asked to rule upon. In 2000 it was the validity or otherwise of a couple of hundred votes. Here...what? What relief could be given?
I'm surprised that there is so little with even the barest, tenuous link to reality. The most plausible I've heard is about curing of mail-in ballots in PA on election day, but no sense of numbers.
It's notable that the issue they're most vocal about - election observers - is a straight lie.
Mad idea. For unity’s sake, I wonder could Biden appoint a republican or Trump supporter in his white house? It might be one way to bridge the divide. Could he even ask Ivanka to do something?
Ivanka! Are you serious?
Ivanka would surely be an improvement on a wanker.
Biden will need some form of political and economic approach to bridge the schism. Roping in some Trump people is one way to do it.
Trumpism is dead. Someone else needs to pick up the mantle of the nakedly greedy and self serving.
Trumpism is not dead. Sorry.
Present Continuous tense.
It is dead. In the sense that it is going through its death-throes. All you are listening to now is the death rattle.
Trumpism is dead = Simple Present
Trumpism is dying = Present Continuous
It appears to be alive and kicking. The Republican party has the choice of killing it and moving on, but for whatever reason (fear ?), they appear to have rejected it.
Notable is Cruz (along with many, many others), a man with no reason to love Trump, regurgitating his self serving lies. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/06/the-election-that-broke-the-republican-party-434797 ‘I am angry, and I think the American people are angry,” Cruz told Hannity, his voice wrung with outrage. “By throwing the observers out, by clouding the vote-counting in a shroud of darkness, they are setting the stage to potentially steal an election not just from the president, but from the over 60 million people across this country who voted for him.” One might assume that an Ivy League-educated lawyer like Cruz — someone who argued cases before the Supreme Court, someone who, as he reminded Hannity on Thursday night, worked on the Bush v. Gore case in 2000 — would make sure his assertions were bulletproof before sharing them with millions of viewers. But that assumption would be wrong.
This doesn’t end once Biden is in the White House.
He's pathetic. Particularly when it is in states run by Republicans they cannot believe it, and they just don't need to come out to bat for Trump now, and he's still doing it.
Just say you support the court cases, then accept the result if they don't succeed - that way you showed you backed Trump but don't make yourself look completely like his b*tch.
Read the article. It’s way beyond Cruz; it’s large swaths of the party.
Of course it’s pathetic, but they clearly believe, for now at least, that this crap continues to be in their interest. Read the Applebaum article I posted above. Same thing.
It may all fizzle out in time, but equally this might be the conservative movement for the next four years.
The article is spot on, this is a co-ordinated back up plan put in place many months ago, not a short term response to the election loss. The disparaging of mail in ballots, which ironically may cost him the election, combined with ensuring mail in ballots were counted last in swing states was entirely deliberate to create the conspiracy that the election was stolen.
This stage is as much about creating the narrative as overturning the result, but they will have a go at that too if they have success with the narrative, which they are doing.
Even if, as is likely, they fail to overturn the result, it gives them ongoing control of the Republican party as anyone who doesnt follow the narrative will be seen as a traitor.
Edit - this also helps Trump personally if it ever gets to a criminal jury trial - he wont get convicted if 3 out of 12 believe he had the presidency stolen from him even if they think he did the crime.
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
If AOC runs in 2024 she will have been 35 for less than a month on the day of the election. I'm sure her time will come but it won't be until 2028 or even 2032
Damn that makes me feel old.
Want to feel really old?
It recently dawned on me that we are closer to 2050 than we are to 1990.
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
If AOC runs in 2024 she will have been 35 for less than a month on the day of the election. I'm sure her time will come but it won't be until 2028 or even 2032
Damn that makes me feel old.
Millions of first-time voters in this election were born after 9/11.
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
That's what they said about Obama, I think you can turn it into an asset if you're offering a change from something old and dull.
Obama has once in a generation charisma and gravitas ahead of his years. Not something easily repeated. Presenting yourself as Obama will only highlight the gaps. AOC is a polarising figure.
Everyone outside the US loved Obama; at home, not so much.
""The one I found cold was Obama, and this is what a lot of other photographers said.
"Every one of them (except Obama) wanted to know a little bit about you, although they don't care at least they did want to know.
"Like fishing in Scotland, Nixon was interested that my father did a column in a magazine on trout fishing, you know. They also showed that you're not just some button pusher, that you might have done some interesting things because here you are with me the biggest man in the world.
"Every one of them invited me either for lunch or breakfast, Obama never even suggested coffee for me and my assistant."
That tallies with what everyone on the inside has said. The reason he got nothing done wasn't simply that the Senate was against him, it was that he lacked the charisma to win over moderates on the other side. He didn't have the right charm skills.
I thought it was quite telling when he shot that 3-pointer the other day that he shouted loudly twice, 'that's what I do.' A bizarre self-focused response.
p.s. I think people get misty-eyed because he was the first African American President. That doesn't make him any good per se, or even a charismatic person.
I'm not sure you're correctly defining "charisma".
Charisma isn't about being liked by photographers, or being warm in a one-to-one chat. It's about being a compelling figure who draws the attention and owns the room (whether the room you're in or the room where you're on the TV).
Obama (and indeed Trump) have that in abundance. Biden is quite possibly a better empath, but that's a totally different thing - he doesn't own the room.
And it's a really unusual skill to have in combination with the other political skills (being an effective networker/operator, judging the mood, getting big decisions right).
You're also very wrong that Obama got nothing done. Obamacare was a major achievement (controversial but major) and the stimulus was very significant early in his term. He was a lame duck towards the end of his second term, but that's generally true of second term Presidents approaching the end.
A pattern of charismatic leaders is the effect that every person in the room *believes* that they were recognised/noticed by said leader. Bill Clinton had that skill in spades. Biden, from various accounts, has some of it.
Mad idea. For unity’s sake, I wonder could Biden appoint a republican or Trump supporter in his white house? It might be one way to bridge the divide. Could he even ask Ivanka to do something?
Ivanka! Are you serious?
Ivanka would surely be an improvement on a wanker.
Biden will need some form of political and economic approach to bridge the schism. Roping in some Trump people is one way to do it.
Trumpism is dead. Someone else needs to pick up the mantle of the nakedly greedy and self serving.
Trumpism is not dead. Sorry.
Present Continuous tense.
It is dead. In the sense that it is going through its death-throes. All you are listening to now is the death rattle.
Trumpism is dead = Simple Present
Trumpism is dying = Present Continuous
It appears to be alive and kicking. The Republican party has the choice of killing it and moving on, but for whatever reason (fear ?), they appear to have rejected it.
Notable is Cruz (along with many, many others), a man with no reason to love Trump, regurgitating his self serving lies. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/06/the-election-that-broke-the-republican-party-434797 ‘I am angry, and I think the American people are angry,” Cruz told Hannity, his voice wrung with outrage. “By throwing the observers out, by clouding the vote-counting in a shroud of darkness, they are setting the stage to potentially steal an election not just from the president, but from the over 60 million people across this country who voted for him.” One might assume that an Ivy League-educated lawyer like Cruz — someone who argued cases before the Supreme Court, someone who, as he reminded Hannity on Thursday night, worked on the Bush v. Gore case in 2000 — would make sure his assertions were bulletproof before sharing them with millions of viewers. But that assumption would be wrong.
This doesn’t end once Biden is in the White House.
He's pathetic. Particularly when it is in states run by Republicans they cannot believe it, and they just don't need to come out to bat for Trump now, and he's still doing it.
Just say you support the court cases, then accept the result if they don't succeed - that way you showed you backed Trump but don't make yourself look completely like his b*tch.
Read the article. It’s way beyond Cruz; it’s large swaths of the party.
Of course it’s pathetic, but they clearly believe, for now at least, that this crap continues to be in their interest. Read the Applebaum article I posted above. Same thing.
It may all fizzle out in time, but equally this might be the conservative movement for the next four years.
The GOP are absolutely shameless. They will do everything they can to undermine the legitimacy of Biden's victory after insisting the legitimacy of Trump's victory in 2016 meant it was wrong for Democrats to vote against him in Congress.
This is why the Democrats need to rout the GOP all the way down the ballot. They have to convince the voters that such behaviour is invalidating. They have a long way to go.
Newt Gingrich, the former Republican Speaker, said: "I'm the angriest I have been in six decades. You have a group of corrupt people who have contempt for the American people trying to steal the presidency."
Telegraph.
Really? Newt is the angriest he has ever been? Wow! That's an 11.
We have found a new form of renewable energy folks, just plug him in.
Seems a fair summary of the situation to me.
What I don’t get though is why, if he’s that angry, he’s still working for them.
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
If AOC runs in 2024 she will have been 35 for less than a month on the day of the election. I'm sure her time will come but it won't be until 2028 or even 2032
Damn that makes me feel old.
Want to feel really old?
It recently dawned on me that we are closer to 2050 than we are to 1990.
We arepast the point were I am further away from my Birth than my Birth is from the start of WW2
Lots of references to "this" going to the Supreme Court floating around today. Can someone enlighten me what "this" (i.e. what specific issue) the SC will be asked to rule upon. In 2000 it was the validity or otherwise of a couple of hundred votes. Here...what? What relief could be given?
I'm surprised that there is so little with even the barest, tenuous link to reality. The most plausible I've heard is about curing of mail-in ballots in PA on election day, but no sense of numbers.
It's notable that the issue they're most vocal about - election observers - is a straight lie.
Absolutely. The curing of postal vots on election day is absolutely miles from being sufficient to overcome the margin in Pennsylvania, which is 28k and growing. And Pennsylvania isn't going to be necessary for Biden even if, by some miracle, Trump finds a way to exclude many more votes.
He needs to build cases that he is nowhere close to building in multiple states to give even the faintest possibility of bringing something that matters to the Supreme Court. Then he needs to hope that Kavanagh, Gorsuch and Coney-Barrett (and other conservative justices) are so loyal to Trump personally that they will prostitute themselves with an insane ruling that would ruin their historical reputations. That's utterly unrealistic.
So this isn't a narrow path for Trump - it isn't a path at all. It's Downfall - a lunatic in his bunker moving non-existant divisions around on a map while the generals roll their eyes.
Lots of references to "this" going to the Supreme Court floating around today. Can someone enlighten me what "this" (i.e. what specific issue) the SC will be asked to rule upon. In 2000 it was the validity or otherwise of a couple of hundred votes. Here...what? What relief could be given?
I'm surprised that there is so little with even the barest, tenuous link to reality. The most plausible I've heard is about curing of mail-in ballots in PA on election day, but no sense of numbers.
It's notable that the issue they're most vocal about - election observers - is a straight lie.
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
If AOC runs in 2024 she will have been 35 for less than a month on the day of the election. I'm sure her time will come but it won't be until 2028 or even 2032
Damn that makes me feel old.
Want to feel really old?
It recently dawned on me that we are closer to 2050 than we are to 1990.
We are well past the point were I am further away from my Birth than my Birth is from the start of WW2
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Mad idea. For unity’s sake, I wonder could Biden appoint a republican or Trump supporter in his white house? It might be one way to bridge the divide. Could he even ask Ivanka to do something?
Ivanka! Are you serious?
Ivanka would surely be an improvement on a wanker.
Biden will need some form of political and economic approach to bridge the schism. Roping in some Trump people is one way to do it.
Trumpism is dead. Someone else needs to pick up the mantle of the nakedly greedy and self serving.
Trumpism is not dead. Sorry.
Present Continuous tense.
It is dead. In the sense that it is going through its death-throes. All you are listening to now is the death rattle.
Trumpism is dead = Simple Present
Trumpism is dying = Present Continuous
It appears to be alive and kicking. The Republican party has the choice of killing it and moving on, but for whatever reason (fear ?), they appear to have rejected it.
Notable is Cruz (along with many, many others), a man with no reason to love Trump, regurgitating his self serving lies. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/06/the-election-that-broke-the-republican-party-434797 ‘I am angry, and I think the American people are angry,” Cruz told Hannity, his voice wrung with outrage. “By throwing the observers out, by clouding the vote-counting in a shroud of darkness, they are setting the stage to potentially steal an election not just from the president, but from the over 60 million people across this country who voted for him.” One might assume that an Ivy League-educated lawyer like Cruz — someone who argued cases before the Supreme Court, someone who, as he reminded Hannity on Thursday night, worked on the Bush v. Gore case in 2000 — would make sure his assertions were bulletproof before sharing them with millions of viewers. But that assumption would be wrong.
This doesn’t end once Biden is in the White House.
He's pathetic. Particularly when it is in states run by Republicans they cannot believe it, and they just don't need to come out to bat for Trump now, and he's still doing it.
Just say you support the court cases, then accept the result if they don't succeed - that way you showed you backed Trump but don't make yourself look completely like his b*tch.
Read the article. It’s way beyond Cruz; it’s large swaths of the party.
Of course it’s pathetic, but they clearly believe, for now at least, that this crap continues to be in their interest. Read the Applebaum article I posted above. Same thing.
It may all fizzle out in time, but equally this might be the conservative movement for the next four years.
I meant pathetic for him particularly, given how Trump treated him previously.
Mad idea. For unity’s sake, I wonder could Biden appoint a republican or Trump supporter in his white house? It might be one way to bridge the divide. Could he even ask Ivanka to do something?
Ivanka! Are you serious?
Ivanka would surely be an improvement on a wanker.
Biden will need some form of political and economic approach to bridge the schism. Roping in some Trump people is one way to do it.
Trumpism is dead. Someone else needs to pick up the mantle of the nakedly greedy and self serving.
Trumpism is not dead. Sorry.
Present Continuous tense.
It is dead. In the sense that it is going through its death-throes. All you are listening to now is the death rattle.
Trumpism is dead = Simple Present
Trumpism is dying = Present Continuous
It appears to be alive and kicking. The Republican party has the choice of killing it and moving on, but for whatever reason (fear ?), they appear to have rejected it.
Notable is Cruz (along with many, many others), a man with no reason to love Trump, regurgitating his self serving lies. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/06/the-election-that-broke-the-republican-party-434797 ‘I am angry, and I think the American people are angry,” Cruz told Hannity, his voice wrung with outrage. “By throwing the observers out, by clouding the vote-counting in a shroud of darkness, they are setting the stage to potentially steal an election not just from the president, but from the over 60 million people across this country who voted for him.” One might assume that an Ivy League-educated lawyer like Cruz — someone who argued cases before the Supreme Court, someone who, as he reminded Hannity on Thursday night, worked on the Bush v. Gore case in 2000 — would make sure his assertions were bulletproof before sharing them with millions of viewers. But that assumption would be wrong.
This doesn’t end once Biden is in the White House.
He's pathetic. Particularly when it is in states run by Republicans they cannot believe it, and they just don't need to come out to bat for Trump now, and he's still doing it.
Just say you support the court cases, then accept the result if they don't succeed - that way you showed you backed Trump but don't make yourself look completely like his b*tch.
Read the article. It’s way beyond Cruz; it’s large swaths of the party.
Of course it’s pathetic, but they clearly believe, for now at least, that this crap continues to be in their interest. Read the Applebaum article I posted above. Same thing.
It may all fizzle out in time, but equally this might be the conservative movement for the next four years.
The article is spot on, this is a co-ordinated back up plan put in place many months ago, not a short term response to the election loss. The disparaging of mail in ballots, which ironically may cost him the election, combined with ensuring mail in ballots were counted last in swing states was entirely deliberate to create the conspiracy that the election was stolen.
This stage is as much about creating the narrative as overturning the result, but they will have a go at that too if they have success with the narrative, which they are doing.
Even if, as is likely, they fail to overturn the result, it gives them ongoing control of the Republican party as anyone who doesnt follow the narrative will be seen as a traitor.
Edit - this also helps Trump personally if it ever gets to a criminal jury trial - he wont get convicted if 3 out of 12 believe he had the presidency stolen from him even if they think he did the crime.
The continuity Trumpers may well be able to keep control of the GOP, in the same way they Corbynites kept control of Labour in 2017. And my impression is that the grief cycle for parties tends to be 1. Defeat 2. Retreat to self-indulgent extreme comfort zone 3. Bigger defeat 4. Possible beginnings of wisdom
Alternatively, we could just be in the "after you, Claude" phase of everyone waiting for someone else to take the grief for telling Trump that it's over. Much like the TV networks.
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
If AOC runs in 2024 she will have been 35 for less than a month on the day of the election. I'm sure her time will come but it won't be until 2028 or even 2032
Damn that makes me feel old.
Want to feel really old?
It recently dawned on me that we are closer to 2050 than we are to 1990.
We are past the point were I am further away from my Birth than my Birth is from the start of WW2
I'd agree with those that sugget Buttegieg needs to prove himself a bit in a job, and I don't think it need be an elected one so showing competence and drive for Biden or some prominent role gets the job done. AOC I'd think there's a non-zero chance that she trips up as perhaps other ambitious Democrats in Congress dislike her high profile compared to them, and her jumping the queue as it were by trying to become prominent before she has gray in her hair.
A lot of her critics actually screwed up their re-election campaigns and if you read the AOC tweet thread I posted last night see explains clearly and in less than 100 words t total how and why they screwed up.
I wasn't thinking she would not be re-elected or reselected, just that there are ways of shafting people in a legislature even on your own side. That she has been smarter than them may just increase their jealousy!
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
If AOC runs in 2024 she will have been 35 for less than a month on the day of the election. I'm sure her time will come but it won't be until 2028 or even 2032
Damn that makes me feel old.
Want to feel really old?
It recently dawned on me that we are closer to 2050 than we are to 1990.
We are past the point were I am further away from my Birth than my Birth is from the start of WW2
For those of us over the age of 50, that’s WW1.
And let’s not think about the US Civil War...
I am just a couple of years plus a few months away from Victoria's reign!
Mad idea. For unity’s sake, I wonder could Biden appoint a republican or Trump supporter in his white house? It might be one way to bridge the divide. Could he even ask Ivanka to do something?
Ivanka! Are you serious?
Ivanka would surely be an improvement on a wanker.
Biden will need some form of political and economic approach to bridge the schism. Roping in some Trump people is one way to do it.
Trumpism is dead. Someone else needs to pick up the mantle of the nakedly greedy and self serving.
Trumpism is not dead. Sorry.
Present Continuous tense.
It is dead. In the sense that it is going through its death-throes. All you are listening to now is the death rattle.
Trumpism is dead = Simple Present
Trumpism is dying = Present Continuous
It appears to be alive and kicking. The Republican party has the choice of killing it and moving on, but for whatever reason (fear ?), they appear to have rejected it.
Notable is Cruz (along with many, many others), a man with no reason to love Trump, regurgitating his self serving lies. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/06/the-election-that-broke-the-republican-party-434797 ‘I am angry, and I think the American people are angry,” Cruz told Hannity, his voice wrung with outrage. “By throwing the observers out, by clouding the vote-counting in a shroud of darkness, they are setting the stage to potentially steal an election not just from the president, but from the over 60 million people across this country who voted for him.” One might assume that an Ivy League-educated lawyer like Cruz — someone who argued cases before the Supreme Court, someone who, as he reminded Hannity on Thursday night, worked on the Bush v. Gore case in 2000 — would make sure his assertions were bulletproof before sharing them with millions of viewers. But that assumption would be wrong.
This doesn’t end once Biden is in the White House.
He's pathetic. Particularly when it is in states run by Republicans they cannot believe it, and they just don't need to come out to bat for Trump now, and he's still doing it.
Just say you support the court cases, then accept the result if they don't succeed - that way you showed you backed Trump but don't make yourself look completely like his b*tch.
Read the article. It’s way beyond Cruz; it’s large swaths of the party.
Of course it’s pathetic, but they clearly believe, for now at least, that this crap continues to be in their interest. Read the Applebaum article I posted above. Same thing.
It may all fizzle out in time, but equally this might be the conservative movement for the next four years.
I meant pathetic for him particularly, given how Trump treated him previously.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Well that's one way to start civil war, it would at the very least doom the EC system.
Beyond the MAGA crowd I suspect it loses the GOP a fair amount of future votes too.
Mad idea. For unity’s sake, I wonder could Biden appoint a republican or Trump supporter in his white house? It might be one way to bridge the divide. Could he even ask Ivanka to do something?
Ivanka! Are you serious?
Ivanka would surely be an improvement on a wanker.
Biden will need some form of political and economic approach to bridge the schism. Roping in some Trump people is one way to do it.
Trumpism is dead. Someone else needs to pick up the mantle of the nakedly greedy and self serving.
Trumpism is not dead. Sorry.
Trumpism is nothing but Trump and the question now is - can he keep the spell on his base once the trappings of the presidency are stripped away.
I think not but I can't say I'm too sure about it.
Underrated post, spot on. There is no core ideology, there is no inheritance of the mantle, no succession principle. Trumpism is a cult of personality. Stripped of the state apparatus, personality cults fragment.
Mad idea. For unity’s sake, I wonder could Biden appoint a republican or Trump supporter in his white house? It might be one way to bridge the divide. Could he even ask Ivanka to do something?
Ivanka! Are you serious?
Ivanka would surely be an improvement on a wanker.
Biden will need some form of political and economic approach to bridge the schism. Roping in some Trump people is one way to do it.
Trumpism is dead. Someone else needs to pick up the mantle of the nakedly greedy and self serving.
Trumpism is not dead. Sorry.
I agree, Trump himself may be dragged kicking and screaming from the WH eventually, but he brought more votes than any other R could have dreamed of getting, a huge swathe of those votes were because of Trump himself and Trumpism. It's because of Trump the Rs still have the Senate and improved in the House. I see Trumpism as something that is far from dead.
Sure, there will still be purchasers of snake oil, but without the charismatic showman it doesn't work anymore. Trump doesn't campaign for anyone else.
Don Jr? Eric? Ivanka?
None of those - there are a number of articulate, practised, young, fit, backstoried etc...... loonies with worse policies than Trump waiting in the wings.
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
If AOC runs in 2024 she will have been 35 for less than a month on the day of the election. I'm sure her time will come but it won't be until 2028 or even 2032
Damn that makes me feel old.
Want to feel really old?
It recently dawned on me that we are closer to 2050 than we are to 1990.
We are well past the point were I am further away from my Birth than my Birth is from the start of WW2
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
From the Politico article. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
It is now utterly ridiculous how long states are taking to count their votes – it is truly pathetic.
No excuses. Absolutely none whatsoever.
Pathetic.
Yes, it’s beyond a joke now. From a cursory glance has anything actually changed in 12 hours except an uptick for Biden in Georgia?
As I mentioned last night I did have some sympathies but the process now appears to have ground to a halt.
This also includes the networks who are being far too tentative at calling this now. It is obvious to all and sundry that Biden has won NV and PA. The news anchors are pretty much saying it. But their decision desks aren’t. I can understand the reluctance with GA and AZ (ironically the latter has already been called by Fox). The only reason I can think of for holding back is political. They either want to play a silly game where they want Fox to admit reality first, or they want it to be so far beyond doubt so that Trump doesn’t start creating some more grievances. They shouldn’t pander to the madman.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Michigan however has a law saying the delegate must vote as pledged and the vote will be cancelled and replaced if not.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
That isn't a realistic scenario as the legal cases would run the other way, requiring the certification of votes in those states in the absence of evidence of widespread fraud. These cases would certainly succeed.
Secondly, this only conceivably works where the state has unified GOP governance, like Georgia. But, in that case, THEY are the ones running the election so they'd be saying their own process was fraudulant.
Additionally, you'd have to be looking at Republican majorities in state legislatures blocking certification the result in their own state, disenfranchising the majority of their own voters (and a fair number of Republican voters too - even if a majority of Republicans supported it, a sizable minority have not drunk the Kool Aid). That'd be very, very, very "brave".
Again, utterly unrealistic moving of divisions that don't exist around a map in the bunker.
On one level I'm delighted if this nonsense drags on. The GOP are playing into Democrat hands for the Georgia runoffs. Disunity, dishonesty and disenfranchisement are a crap look when asking the electorate to vote for you again.
And the Dems will be able to pull huge moral cards: just LOOK what happens when the Republicans have power.
So the more this goes on the more Ossoff's chances rise. The other runoff will be harder but right now I'd make both Evens.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
The problem with this somewhat hysterical scenario is it assumes the courts would uphold a legislature wilfully disenfranchising people, when all their rulings recently have reiterated that the fundamental principle of electoral law in the US is that people must be enabled to vote and have their votes counted if cast by a process considered legal at the time.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Many things are possible, but that's irrelevant as to whether they are plausible. And that matters a lot when assessing possible outcomes, as a 1% possibility is possible, but can almost certainly be disregarded, and cannot be presented as equal to a more plausible option.
Michigan and Pennsylvannia do not look like they will be particularly close in the end, over 100k in the former and may a bit less in the latter. It therefore seems highly unlikely that even if there were some shenanigans that enough people would dare set aside the result, as it will not have made a difference (that doesn't make any shenanigans, intentional or otherwise, ok, but minor issues which don't affect the outcome don't cause decisions to fall every time). Georgia will be much closer, but given other results won't be determinative anyway.
There is also the issue of proportionality, as touched on above about setting aside something due to minor irregularities, if they have even occurred. You say there have been legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities. Others may well disagree with you there. But let's say there are questions over some elements. Is it a reasonable and proportionate response to therefore junk the entire election? It's like those people who thought one person being fined over Brexit issues meant the whole thing was invalid electorally, when if we junked an election for eveyr tiny issue we'd overrule a lot of elections as we're not perfect.
That leaving to one side the issue of public outcry if democratic will was set aside due to minor irregularities, even among many Republicans and the nuclear option it would present. There's no going back from such a move, it is not worth it just to keep Trump in office, when the party looks to have retained the Senate and has a comfortable position on the Supreme Court. Trump is not worth that.
Mad idea. For unity’s sake, I wonder could Biden appoint a republican or Trump supporter in his white house? It might be one way to bridge the divide. Could he even ask Ivanka to do something?
Ivanka! Are you serious?
Ivanka would surely be an improvement on a wanker.
Biden will need some form of political and economic approach to bridge the schism. Roping in some Trump people is one way to do it.
Trumpism is dead. Someone else needs to pick up the mantle of the nakedly greedy and self serving.
Trumpism is not dead. Sorry.
Trumpism is nothing but Trump and the question now is - can he keep the spell on his base once the trappings of the presidency are stripped away.
I think not but I can't say I'm too sure about it.
Underrated post, spot on. There is no core ideology, there is no inheritance of the mantle, no succession principle. Trumpism is a cult of personality. Stripped of the state apparatus, personality cults fragment.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Which is why the narrative (in Republican politicians and media) is still key to what happens next. Not the counting.
From the Politico article. Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
People are remarkably complacent at this coup attempt, for that is what it is. Yes its very likely to fail, but might not have done if the votes were 50k closer across 3 or 4 states.
If Biden does not run again then yes I think Buttigieg would be an excellent pick for the Democrats and he would also be a better candidate for them than Harris as a moderate Midwesterner as opposed to her being a California left liberal. He is fairly conventional in his personal life as a married Episcopalian so I doubt his homosexuality will be much of an issue. Otherwise if Joe Kennedy III having lost the Massachussetts Senate primary this year runs for Massachussetts governor against Republican incumbent Charlie Baker in 2022 and wins he might also be in the frame, as would Beto O'Rourke if he ran for Texas governor in 2022 and beat Republican incumbent Greg Abbott. AOC is also likely to be the candidate of the far left and pick up where Sanders left off.
On the GOP side if Trump does not decide to run again then Donald Trump Jnr and Pence and maybe Ted Cruz look like the top tier candidates with Haley the choice of Republican moderates who might have a chance if the base decides to shift to the centre after Trump
Anyhoo, sorry to pooh all over Mr Ed's dreams again, but this is the big news from America, and it isn't good news for Trump.
Multiple Rupert Murdoch-owned conservative media outlets in the United States have shifted their messaging in a seeming effort to warn readers and viewers that Donald Trump may well have lost the presidential election.
The new messaging appears to be closely coordinated, and it includes an appeal to Trump to preserve his “legacy” by showing grace in defeat. The message is being carried on Fox News and in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post – all outlets avidly consumed by Trump himself, especially Fox.
One Fox News host, Laura Ingraham, an intimate of the president ever since she spoke at the 2016 Republican national convention, made an astounding statement that seemed directed at Trump personally, advising him to accept defeat “if and when that does happen” with “grace and composure” and appealing to his sense of his own legacy.
Ingraham said in part: “If and when it’s time to accept an unfavourable outcome in this election, and we hope it never comes, but if and when that does happen, president Trump needs to do it with the same grace and composure he demonstrated at that town hall with Savannah Guthrie. So many people remarked about his tone and presence. Exactly what he needs.
“Now losing, especially when you believe the process wasn’t fair, it’s a gut punch. And I’m not conceding anything tonight, by the way. But losing, if that’s what happens – it’s awful. But president Trump’s legacy will only become more significant if he focuses on moving the country forward.”
The Wall Street Journal has published an opinion piece with almost the exact same message. It is titled “The Presidential Endgame” and subtitled “Trump has the right to fight in court, but he needs evidence to prove voter fraud”.
“Mr Trump’s legacy will be diminished greatly if his final act is a bitter refusal to accept a legitimate defeat,” the piece warns.
Here is how the article opened: “Perhaps it was inevitable that Donald Trump’s re-election campaign would end as his presidency began: with the president claiming victory and his frenzied antagonists denouncing him as a would-be fascist. The reality is that the US can and probably will have a normal election outcome regardless of the shouting between now and then.
“Mr Biden is leading in enough states to win the presidency, and if those votes survive recounts and legal challenges, he will be the next president.”
Top editors at the New York Post – which before the election was the launch vehicle for wild and desperate attacks on Joe Biden’s son Hunter – have “told some staff members this week to be tougher in their coverage” of Trump, the New York Times reported, citing two anonymous employees of the paper.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
That would be seen as a coup, pure and simple. Good luck not completely destroying the fabric of the country if the GOP go for that.
They are full of hideous chancers but there are enough figures in the GOP who know that is a complete and utter non starter.
The saner members of the GOP aren’t too worried about losing this election by the way. They get rid of Trump but in all likelihood keep the Senate and have narrowed the house majority. They have a good launching pad for the next 4 years.
Re TSE's excellent comment below, I notice that the Daily Express has ditched Trump this morning. Okay, it's not the Mail but it's still quite the thing.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
You're like the crazy murderer in the horror film. When you think they're dead they come out of the cellar covered in blood with a chainsaw.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
There is that, but as one or two American friends have pointed out to me that it isn't just GOP voters who love the second amendment, and GOP legislatures in those states know that too.
On the GOP side if Trump does not decide to run again
You still banging that drum?
There is not one single scrap of a chance that Donald Trump will be permitted to run again for the GOP. He's a loser. And he's dragging down their party, of which he's not really a member.
He might go all Nigel Farage and campaign as an independent to the Trump Rump. He might do it just to wreck those in the GOP who will soon be dropping him like a stone.
It is now utterly ridiculous how long states are taking to count their votes – it is truly pathetic.
No excuses. Absolutely none whatsoever.
Pathetic.
Yes, it’s beyond a joke now. From a cursory glance has anything actually changed in 12 hours except an uptick for Biden in Georgia?
As I mentioned last night I did have some sympathies but the process now appears to have ground to a halt.
This also includes the networks who are being far too tentative at calling this now. It is obvious to all and sundry that Biden has won NV and PA. The news anchors are pretty much saying it. But their decision desks aren’t. I can understand the reluctance with GA and AZ (ironically the latter has already been called by Fox). The only reason I can think of for holding back is political. They either want to play a silly game where they want Fox to admit reality first, or they want it to be so far beyond doubt so that Trump doesn’t start creating some more grievances. They shouldn’t pander to the madman.
In PA there are about 100k provisional ballots (i.e. those handed in on the day that needed checking for some reason). According to ABC (I think; I was quite tired when I saw it) a small sample had been looked at, from a red county, and they broke 3:1 to Trump. That’s why they aren’t calling PA yet.
On one level I'm delighted if this nonsense drags on. The GOP are playing into Democrat hands for the Georgia runoffs. Disunity, dishonesty and disenfranchisement are a crap look when asking the electorate to vote for you again.
And the Dems will be able to pull huge moral cards: just LOOK what happens when the Republicans have power.
So the more this goes on the more Ossoff's chances rise. The other runoff will be harder but right now I'd make both Evens.
Yes, this is an excellent point. This is fertile soil for serious party-wide splits. Republicans would do well to cut their losses right now. Those who cling on will soon find themselves looking shrill and isolated within their own party. Trump is now a dead weight to be either carried or dropped.
It is now utterly ridiculous how long states are taking to count their votes – it is truly pathetic.
No excuses. Absolutely none whatsoever.
Pathetic.
Yes, it’s beyond a joke now. From a cursory glance has anything actually changed in 12 hours except an uptick for Biden in Georgia?
As I mentioned last night I did have some sympathies but the process now appears to have ground to a halt.
This also includes the networks who are being far too tentative at calling this now. It is obvious to all and sundry that Biden has won NV and PA. The news anchors are pretty much saying it. But their decision desks aren’t. I can understand the reluctance with GA and AZ (ironically the latter has already been called by Fox). The only reason I can think of for holding back is political. They either want to play a silly game where they want Fox to admit reality first, or they want it to be so far beyond doubt so that Trump doesn’t start creating some more grievances. They shouldn’t pander to the madman.
In PA there are about 100k provisional ballots (i.e. those handed in on the day that needed checking for some reason). According to ABC (I think; I was quite tired when I saw it) a small sample had been looked at, from a red county, and they broke 3:1 to Trump. That’s why they aren’t calling PA yet.
They are still being overly cautious as a very large chunk of that 100k is from Philly.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
If AOC runs in 2024 she will have been 35 for less than a month on the day of the election. I'm sure her time will come but it won't be until 2028 or even 2032
Damn that makes me feel old.
Want to feel really old?
It recently dawned on me that we are closer to 2050 than we are to 1990.
We are well past the point were I am further away from my Birth than my Birth is from the start of WW2
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
The problem with this somewhat hysterical scenario is it assumes the courts would uphold a legislature wilfully disenfranchising people, when all their rulings recently have reiterated that the fundamental principle of electoral law in the US is that people must be enabled to vote and have their votes counted if cast by a process considered legal at the time.
They benefit from going through the process even if there chances of success in terms of the presidency are very low. It gives them control of the Republican party, it makes Trump Tv more valuable than Fox news on the day it starts up, it gives protection to Trump in any criminal trial, it fires up their voters for decades to come. And they still have a non zero chance of the coup working.
... The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
What are those legitimate questions ?
Are they any more consequential than those concerning, for instance, the moving of 75 polling stations in Democrat voting areas of Georgia 24 hours before election day ?
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Re TSE's excellent comment below, I notice that the Daily Express has ditched Trump this morning. Okay, it's not the Mail but it's still quite the thing.
I wonder if they ditched their pollster at the same time?
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
If AOC runs in 2024 she will have been 35 for less than a month on the day of the election. I'm sure her time will come but it won't be until 2028 or even 2032
Damn that makes me feel old.
Want to feel really old?
It recently dawned on me that we are closer to 2050 than we are to 1990.
We are past the point were I am further away from my Birth than my Birth is from the start of WW2
For those of us over the age of 50, that’s WW1.
And let’s not think about the US Civil War...
I am just a couple of years plus a few months away from Victoria's reign!
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Lots of references to "this" going to the Supreme Court floating around today. Can someone enlighten me what "this" (i.e. what specific issue) the SC will be asked to rule upon. In 2000 it was the validity or otherwise of a couple of hundred votes. Here...what? What relief could be given?
I'm surprised that there is so little with even the barest, tenuous link to reality. The most plausible I've heard is about curing of mail-in ballots in PA on election day, but no sense of numbers.
It's notable that the issue they're most vocal about - election observers - is a straight lie.
Absolutely. The curing of postal vots on election day is absolutely miles from being sufficient to overcome the margin in Pennsylvania, which is 28k and growing. And Pennsylvania isn't going to be necessary for Biden even if, by some miracle, Trump finds a way to exclude many more votes.
He needs to build cases that he is nowhere close to building in multiple states to give even the faintest possibility of bringing something that matters to the Supreme Court. Then he needs to hope that Kavanagh, Gorsuch and Coney-Barrett (and other conservative justices) are so loyal to Trump personally that they will prostitute themselves with an insane ruling that would ruin their historical reputations. That's utterly unrealistic.
So this isn't a narrow path for Trump - it isn't a path at all. It's Downfall - a lunatic in his bunker moving non-existant divisions around on a map while the generals roll their eyes.
While that's true, and I believe Biden will take up residence in the White House in January, a refusal by the Republicans to concede creates a scenario where they can use the Senate to block Biden's Cabinet appointments, and generally trash his Presidency.
By feeding a sense of rage and injustice in the Republican base it also makes it harder for moderates to make any headway in walking back from the insanity of the Trump era.
We have the situation, an absurd situation, where the media networks are refusing to call the race for Biden, even though it's clearly a done deal in Pennsylvania now, because of this atmosphere of intimidation.
The catastrophising part of my brain - the bit that has been so wrong before but still worries - is also noticing the calls for Republican State legislatures to set aside the election results and appoint Republican electors. This is most likely just another purity test to use to contest control of the GOP, but it provides context for the calls to Democrats to show humility.
I'd agree with those that sugget Buttegieg needs to prove himself a bit in a job, and I don't think it need be an elected one so showing competence and drive for Biden or some prominent role gets the job done. AOC I'd think there's a non-zero chance that she trips up as perhaps other ambitious Democrats in Congress dislike her high profile compared to them, and her jumping the queue as it were by trying to become prominent before she has gray in her hair.
Totally agree regarding Buttigieg, and suspect he will get a major job from Biden. He had a cracking election for his reputation as Biden's man on Fox - absolutely evicerated every single Fox host, in a calm tone and with a cheeky grin. So his stock with Biden and his team will be extremely high.
He's also very young. 38 is nothing and I've noted below that he'd be 50 after a hypothetical one Biden term AND two Harris terms, which is STILL very young in Presidential terms. The passage of time also makes his sexuality less of an issue - a lot of the groups with whom it's an issue are dying out (not all of them, but no Democrat will make big inroads with the younger homophobes whereas the 70+ ones are "from a different era" and it doesn't necessarily correlate well with where they are on the left/right spectrum).
Who would fill the role of First Lady in that scenario? Perhaps the candidate's mother? Have they had an unmarried President that offers a precedent? And will a female President have an equivalent First Gentleman?
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
If AOC runs in 2024 she will have been 35 for less than a month on the day of the election. I'm sure her time will come but it won't be until 2028 or even 2032
Damn that makes me feel old.
Want to feel really old?
It recently dawned on me that we are closer to 2050 than we are to 1990.
We arepast the point were I am further away from my Birth than my Birth is from the start of WW2
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
The problem with this somewhat hysterical scenario is it assumes the courts would uphold a legislature wilfully disenfranchising people, when all their rulings recently have reiterated that the fundamental principle of electoral law in the US is that people must be enabled to vote and have their votes counted if cast by a process considered legal at the time.
They benefit from going through the process even if there chances of success in terms of the presidency are very low. It gives them control of the Republican party, it makes Trump Tv more valuable than Fox news on the day it starts up, it gives protection to Trump in any criminal trial, it fires up their voters for decades to come. And they still have a non zero chance of the coup working.
Well, they’re going through the motions right now, in the sense they’re talking a lot of shit.
But I can’t help but feel it isn’t exactly helpful to their long term prospects. They’ve already won just one popular vote in thirty years, and only Michigan, Ohio and Florida of former swing states seem to be trending Republican even as multiple formerly safely Republican states swing Democrat.
On one level I'm delighted if this nonsense drags on. The GOP are playing into Democrat hands for the Georgia runoffs. Disunity, dishonesty and disenfranchisement are a crap look when asking the electorate to vote for you again.
And the Dems will be able to pull huge moral cards: just LOOK what happens when the Republicans have power.
So the more this goes on the more Ossoff's chances rise. The other runoff will be harder but right now I'd make both Evens.
Given how hard the Democrats had to fight to get people to turn out even against Trump after 4 years, if I were them I'd be worried many people will see it as job done, no matter how hard they are urged to keep fighting for those senate runoffs.
Re TSE's excellent comment below, I notice that the Daily Express has ditched Trump this morning. Okay, it's not the Mail but it's still quite the thing.
I wonder if they ditched their pollster at the same time?
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
It is now utterly ridiculous how long states are taking to count their votes – it is truly pathetic.
No excuses. Absolutely none whatsoever.
Pathetic.
Yes, it’s beyond a joke now. From a cursory glance has anything actually changed in 12 hours except an uptick for Biden in Georgia?
As I mentioned last night I did have some sympathies but the process now appears to have ground to a halt.
This also includes the networks who are being far too tentative at calling this now. It is obvious to all and sundry that Biden has won NV and PA. The news anchors are pretty much saying it. But their decision desks aren’t. I can understand the reluctance with GA and AZ (ironically the latter has already been called by Fox). The only reason I can think of for holding back is political. They either want to play a silly game where they want Fox to admit reality first, or they want it to be so far beyond doubt so that Trump doesn’t start creating some more grievances. They shouldn’t pander to the madman.
In PA there are about 100k provisional ballots (i.e. those handed in on the day that needed checking for some reason). According to ABC (I think; I was quite tired when I saw it) a small sample had been looked at, from a red county, and they broke 3:1 to Trump. That’s why they aren’t calling PA yet.
They are still being overly cautious as a very large chunk of that 100k is from Philly.
Thank you: that’s been worrying me since I saw it.
On one level I'm delighted if this nonsense drags on. The GOP are playing into Democrat hands for the Georgia runoffs. Disunity, dishonesty and disenfranchisement are a crap look when asking the electorate to vote for you again.
And the Dems will be able to pull huge moral cards: just LOOK what happens when the Republicans have power.
So the more this goes on the more Ossoff's chances rise. The other runoff will be harder but right now I'd make both Evens.
Yes, this is an excellent point. This is fertile soil for serious party-wide splits. Republicans would do well to cut their losses right now. Those who cling on will soon find themselves looking shrill and isolated within their own party. Trump is now a dead weight to be either carried or dropped.
That is true - but the dead weight might be the new centre of gravity for the party.
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
If AOC runs in 2024 she will have been 35 for less than a month on the day of the election. I'm sure her time will come but it won't be until 2028 or even 2032
Damn that makes me feel old.
Want to feel really old?
It recently dawned on me that we are closer to 2050 than we are to 1990.
We arepast the point were I am further away from my Birth than my Birth is from the start of WW2
I reached that point in 1947.
We're now further from my birth than my birth was from the moment when we were further from your birth than your birth was from the end of the second world war.
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
If AOC runs in 2024 she will have been 35 for less than a month on the day of the election. I'm sure her time will come but it won't be until 2028 or even 2032
Damn that makes me feel old.
Want to feel really old?
It recently dawned on me that we are closer to 2050 than we are to 1990.
We are past the point were I am further away from my Birth than my Birth is from the start of WW2
For those of us over the age of 50, that’s WW1.
And let’s not think about the US Civil War...
I am just a couple of years plus a few months away from Victoria's reign!
When you have thirty-something grandchildren........... And my eldest son is talking about his retirement plans!
Morning all. Thank you David for the tip. I think 50/1 is good enough for Pete but I wouldn't go much shorter than this. I think there is no way KH would allow herself to be pushed out of the way for the Presidency and, if Joe B steps down before, she is automatically in the driving seat.
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
Sorry to ruin your dream but the GOPers in the Pennsylvania Senate and State legislature have already ruled that out.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
Has a politician ever promised not to do something and then done it anyway?
The problem with this somewhat hysterical scenario is it assumes the courts would uphold a legislature wilfully disenfranchising people, when all their rulings recently have reiterated that the fundamental principle of electoral law in the US is that people must be enabled to vote and have their votes counted if cast by a process considered legal at the time.
They benefit from going through the process even if there chances of success in terms of the presidency are very low. It gives them control of the Republican party, it makes Trump Tv more valuable than Fox news on the day it starts up, it gives protection to Trump in any criminal trial, it fires up their voters for decades to come. And they still have a non zero chance of the coup working.
Well, they’re going through the motions right now, in the sense they’re talking a lot of shit.
But I can’t help but feel it isn’t exactly helpful to their long term prospects. They’ve already won just one popular vote in thirty years, and only Michigan, Ohio and Florida of former swing states seem to be trending Republican even as multiple formerly safely Republican states swing Democrat.
They have delivered significantly more Republican votes than ever before. If they maintain those, and Trump isnt in the white house talking about bleach and covid, can the Democrats get their vote to turnout in the same numbers? I doubt it.
I'd agree with those that sugget Buttegieg needs to prove himself a bit in a job, and I don't think it need be an elected one so showing competence and drive for Biden or some prominent role gets the job done. AOC I'd think there's a non-zero chance that she trips up as perhaps other ambitious Democrats in Congress dislike her high profile compared to them, and her jumping the queue as it were by trying to become prominent before she has gray in her hair.
Totally agree regarding Buttigieg, and suspect he will get a major job from Biden. He had a cracking election for his reputation as Biden's man on Fox - absolutely evicerated every single Fox host, in a calm tone and with a cheeky grin. So his stock with Biden and his team will be extremely high.
He's also very young. 38 is nothing and I've noted below that he'd be 50 after a hypothetical one Biden term AND two Harris terms, which is STILL very young in Presidential terms. The passage of time also makes his sexuality less of an issue - a lot of the groups with whom it's an issue are dying out (not all of them, but no Democrat will make big inroads with the younger homophobes whereas the 70+ ones are "from a different era" and it doesn't necessarily correlate well with where they are on the left/right spectrum).
Who would fill the role of First Lady in that scenario? Perhaps the candidate's mother? Have they had an unmarried President that offers a precedent? And will a female President have an equivalent First Gentleman?
Good morning, everyone.
There were questions asked in 2016 about how one should address the First Gentleman, to which the obvious answer was “Mr President”.
On topic 50/1 isn't bad but I don't understand how he gets past Kamala. To get experience he has to be in the administration, so he can't run *against* the administration, which puts him in the same lane as Kamala. But she's the next in line, and she brings a gender that feels they're owed after Hillary, so where's the opening?
To run against Kamala I think you need to come from a different angle than continuity Biden, and being a woman neutralizes the gender gap, so consider Stacey Abrams who did more for Biden's victory than his own VP. Or AOC who starts with Bernie's 1/3 of the party, and brings youth and charisma and social media skills.
AOC has real charisma, but a bit too fresh out of the box still.
If AOC runs in 2024 she will have been 35 for less than a month on the day of the election. I'm sure her time will come but it won't be until 2028 or even 2032
Damn that makes me feel old.
Want to feel really old?
It recently dawned on me that we are closer to 2050 than we are to 1990.
We arepast the point were I am further away from my Birth than my Birth is from the start of WW2
I reached that point in 1947.
We're now further from my birth than my birth was from the moment when we were further from your birth than your birth was from the end of the second world war.
More worryingly, we are now several years past the year that Back to the Future II was set in...
Comments
https://youtu.be/PLQw9TgDu3o
Of course it’s pathetic, but they clearly believe, for now at least, that this crap continues to be in their interest.
Read the Applebaum article I posted above. Same thing.
It may all fizzle out in time, but equally this might be the conservative movement for the next four years.
Her self description as a Socialist will be a bit tricky to sell in Arizona!
It's notable that the issue they're most vocal about - election observers - is a straight lie.
This stage is as much about creating the narrative as overturning the result, but they will have a go at that too if they have success with the narrative, which they are doing.
Even if, as is likely, they fail to overturn the result, it gives them ongoing control of the Republican party as anyone who doesnt follow the narrative will be seen as a traitor.
Edit - this also helps Trump personally if it ever gets to a criminal jury trial - he wont get convicted if 3 out of 12 believe he had the presidency stolen from him even if they think he did the crime.
It recently dawned on me that we are closer to 2050 than we are to 1990.
No excuses. Absolutely none whatsoever.
Pathetic.
Being in charge of the room is a different thing.
This is why the Democrats need to rout the GOP all the way down the ballot. They have to convince the voters that such behaviour is invalidating. They have a long way to go.
What I don’t get though is why, if he’s that angry, he’s still working for them.
‘We are key workers. We are staying open.’
What’s even funnier is they hadn’t spotted it and asked me why I was laughing...
You’ve got to watch out though, they might be on to something.
He needs to build cases that he is nowhere close to building in multiple states to give even the faintest possibility of bringing something that matters to the Supreme Court. Then he needs to hope that Kavanagh, Gorsuch and Coney-Barrett (and other conservative justices) are so loyal to Trump personally that they will prostitute themselves with an insane ruling that would ruin their historical reputations. That's utterly unrealistic.
So this isn't a narrow path for Trump - it isn't a path at all. It's Downfall - a lunatic in his bunker moving non-existant divisions around on a map while the generals roll their eyes.
Plausibility isn’t the point. Applebaum gets that, as she has long experience of the former communist dictatorships. Lies are about performance, not plausibility.
This is her latest Atlantic piece.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/11/trumps-forever-campaign-is-just-getting-started/617021/
They have an XML file that breaks down the votes by vote type here: https://www.elections.alaska.gov/results/20GENR/data/sovc/ElectionSummaryReportRPT9.xml
Now for the hand grenade. Apologies if this was posted before and some of you may now this already. Anyway re the counts.
One misnomer about US elections is that voters get to choose which electors are sent to the Electoral College. Actually they don't. It the state legislatures in each state. The Supreme Court has been specific on this and it has also been specific that the authority lies with the state legislatures, not the Supreme Courts of each state or the Governor or the Secretary of State.
The US Supreme Court has ruled explicitly post-2016 that electors cannot be faithless and must abide by the rulings of the state legislature.
Normally, this wouldn't matter as it is a case of procedure. This year it could come very much into play. The state legislatures of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia are all Republican led.
There is one scenario where the state legislatures in each state simply refuse to accept the results, claiming that there has been electoral fraud and appoints its own electors under mandate. This is why the fact that the RNC and the Republican Establishment have lined up behind Trump is important. It suggests the Republican machinery is set to fight.
Would this be catastrophic? Yes Undemocratic? Yes (but there are legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities) Is it possible? Also yes.
1. Defeat
2. Retreat to self-indulgent extreme comfort zone
3. Bigger defeat
4. Possible beginnings of wisdom
Alternatively, we could just be in the "after you, Claude" phase of everyone waiting for someone else to take the grief for telling Trump that it's over. Much like the TV networks.
And let’s not think about the US Civil War...
Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election.
https://www.centredaily.com/opinion/article246527648.html
PA +28883
NV +22658
AZ +29861
FFS Call it.
https://streamable.com/n06suu
Beyond the MAGA crowd I suspect it loses the GOP a fair amount of future votes too.
There is no core ideology, there is no inheritance of the mantle, no succession principle. Trumpism is a cult of personality. Stripped of the state apparatus, personality cults fragment.
Mark Levin, a right-wing radio host with a penchant for hysteria, urged Republican-controlled state legislatures to ignore the results of their state elections and send electors who will vote for Trump in the Electoral College. His missive was retweeted by the Republican Party’s top spokesperson.
As I mentioned last night I did have some sympathies but the process now appears to have ground to a halt.
This also includes the networks who are being far too tentative at calling this now. It is obvious to all and sundry that Biden has won NV and PA. The news anchors are pretty much saying it. But their decision desks aren’t. I can understand the reluctance with GA and AZ (ironically the latter has already been called by Fox). The only reason I can think of for holding back is political. They either want to play a silly game where they want Fox to admit reality first, or they want it to be so far beyond doubt so that Trump doesn’t start creating some more grievances. They shouldn’t pander to the madman.
Secondly, this only conceivably works where the state has unified GOP governance, like Georgia. But, in that case, THEY are the ones running the election so they'd be saying their own process was fraudulant.
Additionally, you'd have to be looking at Republican majorities in state legislatures blocking certification the result in their own state, disenfranchising the majority of their own voters (and a fair number of Republican voters too - even if a majority of Republicans supported it, a sizable minority have not drunk the Kool Aid). That'd be very, very, very "brave".
Again, utterly unrealistic moving of divisions that don't exist around a map in the bunker.
And the Dems will be able to pull huge moral cards: just LOOK what happens when the Republicans have power.
So the more this goes on the more Ossoff's chances rise. The other runoff will be harder but right now I'd make both Evens.
Michigan and Pennsylvannia do not look like they will be particularly close in the end, over 100k in the former and may a bit less in the latter. It therefore seems highly unlikely that even if there were some shenanigans that enough people would dare set aside the result, as it will not have made a difference (that doesn't make any shenanigans, intentional or otherwise, ok, but minor issues which don't affect the outcome don't cause decisions to fall every time). Georgia will be much closer, but given other results won't be determinative anyway.
There is also the issue of proportionality, as touched on above about setting aside something due to minor irregularities, if they have even occurred. You say there have been legitimate questions over the way elections have been run in the cities. Others may well disagree with you there. But let's say there are questions over some elements. Is it a reasonable and proportionate response to therefore junk the entire election? It's like those people who thought one person being fined over Brexit issues meant the whole thing was invalid electorally, when if we junked an election for eveyr tiny issue we'd overrule a lot of elections as we're not perfect.
That leaving to one side the issue of public outcry if democratic will was set aside due to minor irregularities, even among many Republicans and the nuclear option it would present. There's no going back from such a move, it is not worth it just to keep Trump in office, when the party looks to have retained the Senate and has a comfortable position on the Supreme Court. Trump is not worth that.
On the GOP side if Trump does not decide to run again then Donald Trump Jnr and Pence and maybe Ted Cruz look like the top tier candidates with Haley the choice of Republican moderates who might have a chance if the base decides to shift to the centre after Trump
Multiple Rupert Murdoch-owned conservative media outlets in the United States have shifted their messaging in a seeming effort to warn readers and viewers that Donald Trump may well have lost the presidential election.
The new messaging appears to be closely coordinated, and it includes an appeal to Trump to preserve his “legacy” by showing grace in defeat. The message is being carried on Fox News and in the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post – all outlets avidly consumed by Trump himself, especially Fox.
One Fox News host, Laura Ingraham, an intimate of the president ever since she spoke at the 2016 Republican national convention, made an astounding statement that seemed directed at Trump personally, advising him to accept defeat “if and when that does happen” with “grace and composure” and appealing to his sense of his own legacy.
Ingraham said in part: “If and when it’s time to accept an unfavourable outcome in this election, and we hope it never comes, but if and when that does happen, president Trump needs to do it with the same grace and composure he demonstrated at that town hall with Savannah Guthrie. So many people remarked about his tone and presence. Exactly what he needs.
“Now losing, especially when you believe the process wasn’t fair, it’s a gut punch. And I’m not conceding anything tonight, by the way. But losing, if that’s what happens – it’s awful. But president Trump’s legacy will only become more significant if he focuses on moving the country forward.”
The Wall Street Journal has published an opinion piece with almost the exact same message. It is titled “The Presidential Endgame” and subtitled “Trump has the right to fight in court, but he needs evidence to prove voter fraud”.
“Mr Trump’s legacy will be diminished greatly if his final act is a bitter refusal to accept a legitimate defeat,” the piece warns.
Here is how the article opened: “Perhaps it was inevitable that Donald Trump’s re-election campaign would end as his presidency began: with the president claiming victory and his frenzied antagonists denouncing him as a would-be fascist. The reality is that the US can and probably will have a normal election outcome regardless of the shouting between now and then.
“Mr Biden is leading in enough states to win the presidency, and if those votes survive recounts and legal challenges, he will be the next president.”
Top editors at the New York Post – which before the election was the launch vehicle for wild and desperate attacks on Joe Biden’s son Hunter – have “told some staff members this week to be tougher in their coverage” of Trump, the New York Times reported, citing two anonymous employees of the paper.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/07/rupert-murdoch-owned-us-outlets-turn-on-trump-urging-him-to-concede-with-grace?CMP=share_btn_tw
They are full of hideous chancers but there are enough figures in the GOP who know that is a complete and utter non starter.
The saner members of the GOP aren’t too worried about losing this election by the way. They get rid of Trump but in all likelihood keep the Senate and have narrowed the house majority. They have a good launching pad for the next 4 years.
Time to let it go. You'll feel better.
Overturning democracy leads to messy outcomes.
There is not one single scrap of a chance that Donald Trump will be permitted to run again for the GOP. He's a loser. And he's dragging down their party, of which he's not really a member.
He might go all Nigel Farage and campaign as an independent to the Trump Rump. He might do it just to wreck those in the GOP who will soon be dropping him like a stone.
https://www.thesouthernreporter.co.uk/business/lockdown-rules-load-cobblers-claims-trader-being-left-out-pocket-2885443#gsc.tab=0
That’s why they aren’t calling PA yet.
Are they any more consequential than those concerning, for instance, the moving of 75 polling stations in Democrat voting areas of Georgia 24 hours before election day ?
Still, there will be time to heel the economy afterwards.
By feeding a sense of rage and injustice in the Republican base it also makes it harder for moderates to make any headway in walking back from the insanity of the Trump era.
We have the situation, an absurd situation, where the media networks are refusing to call the race for Biden, even though it's clearly a done deal in Pennsylvania now, because of this atmosphere of intimidation.
The catastrophising part of my brain - the bit that has been so wrong before but still worries - is also noticing the calls for Republican State legislatures to set aside the election results and appoint Republican electors. This is most likely just another purity test to use to contest control of the GOP, but it provides context for the calls to Democrats to show humility.
Good morning, everyone.
But I can’t help but feel it isn’t exactly helpful to their long term prospects. They’ve already won just one popular vote in thirty years, and only Michigan, Ohio and Florida of former swing states seem to be trending Republican even as multiple formerly safely Republican states swing Democrat.
But I must admit that invoking the spirit of St Francis of Assisi when she first walked into No. 10 was a bit of a stretch
Have a good morning everyone. I'm off for a walk.
And my eldest son is talking about his retirement plans!
I'm certain it'll snow there.