If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
Surely the law in Pennsylvania preventing mail-in ballots from being counted or processed earlier was passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania state assembly? (for example) I've certainly heard more push from Dems than Rs for work on postal votes to begin early, precisely to avoid Trump trying to claim victory on the night.
Fair enough, although Trump might win PA anyway.
If the Dems wanted early counting, why didn't they do it in states they control?
That was because Milwaukee declared almost all their mail in vote in one go.
And the Dems got 100% of that? You can see the Dems gain 200k and the Reps get no extra votes at all.
Almost yes, because Milwaukee is heavily Democrat and GOP voters were told to vote on the day. If you look at Milwaukee vs 2016 then there's clearly nothing out of the usual going on.
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
Surely the law in Pennsylvania preventing mail-in ballots from being counted or processed earlier was passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania state assembly? (for example) I've certainly heard more push from Dems than Rs for work on postal votes to begin early, precisely to avoid Trump trying to claim victory on the night.
Fair enough, although Trump might win PA anyway.
If the Dems wanted early counting, why didn't they do it in states they control?
It also glosses over the fact that if you were inventing votes, you would surely drip feed them in rather than give conspiracy theorists a sudden jump in reporting to obsess over.
If you actually had the ability to invent votes you would be able to change the outcome with a relatively small number of votes and they would carefully targetted, and you'd also go to the effort to at least pass muster with basic levels of scrutiny that takes place due to sunshine laws.
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
Surely the law in Pennsylvania preventing mail-in ballots from being counted or processed earlier was passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania state assembly? (for example) I've certainly heard more push from Dems than Rs for work on postal votes to begin early, precisely to avoid Trump trying to claim victory on the night.
Fair enough, although Trump might win PA anyway.
If the Dems wanted early counting, why didn't they do it in states they control?
That was because Milwaukee declared almost all their mail in vote in one go.
And the Dems got 100% of that? You can see the Dems gain 200k and the Reps get no extra votes at all.
Almost yes, because Milwaukee is heavily Democrat and GOP voters were told to vote on the day. If you look at Milwaukee vs 2016 then there's clearly nothing out of the usual going on.
Well I can believe 85%-15% I suppose...but 100%-0% all at once?
That just seems impossible and it happened in MI too
Full credit to the Biden campaign if they have pulled this off. They could have succumbed to the siren song in places like TX and OH and let the Mid west slip through their fingers, but they were ruthlessy focussed on the WIMIPA states.
Yes I think that's true. They piled into the midwest.
The results in Texas show they were absolutely right to ignore Beto’s squealing
Or that they should have thought about making a larger ongoing grassroots effort there two years ago. In the immediate context of the election you're right, but there is potentially very fertile ground for much greater political engagement in the future.
Trump campaign staff on FOX making it clear the result (providing Biden wins) is going to court. 'The president will have won legitimately'. So popcorn time , no concession from Trump til 2023 I guess
The question is do the GOP have their own version of the Tories "Men in grey suits" to go and visit Trump with the proverbial revolver and glass of whisky?
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
Surely the law in Pennsylvania preventing mail-in ballots from being counted or processed earlier was passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania state assembly? (for example) I've certainly heard more push from Dems than Rs for work on postal votes to begin early, precisely to avoid Trump trying to claim victory on the night.
Fair enough, although Trump might win PA anyway.
If the Dems wanted early counting, why didn't they do it in states they control?
It also glosses over the fact that if you were inventing votes, you would surely drip feed them in rather than give conspiracy theorists a sudden jump in reporting to obsess over.
So the fact that something looks suspicious is proof that it didn't happen.
It also glosses over the fact that if you were inventing votes, you would surely drip feed them in rather than give conspiracy theorists a sudden jump in reporting to obsess over.
If you actually had the ability to invent votes you would be able to change the outcome with a relatively small number of votes and they would carefully targetted, and you'd also go to the effort to at least pass muster with basic levels of scrutiny that takes place due to sunshine laws.
I don't believe the conspiracies but even if they exist one cannot presume competent conspiracies. Remember people saying Russia couldn't be behind the Skripal poisoning as theyd have succeeded?
I am sure FiveThirtyEight will be given stick for their predictions of Biden having a 90% chance. But in some sense this has been vindicated - Biden looks like he has won despite a polling error similar to Clinton (possibly bigger in FL). His 90% chance captures this significant additional robustness to polling error
Supposedly, years after the Vietnam war, one US officer said to a Vietnamese counterpart, "You do realise we won all the major battles" to which the reply was "You do realise that doesn't matter",
You have to win where it matters, and when it matters. The Republicans have won the Senate and House often enough to get most of what they want.
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
Surely the law in Pennsylvania preventing mail-in ballots from being counted or processed earlier was passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania state assembly? (for example) I've certainly heard more push from Dems than Rs for work on postal votes to begin early, precisely to avoid Trump trying to claim victory on the night.
Fair enough, although Trump might win PA anyway.
If the Dems wanted early counting, why didn't they do it in states they control?
That was because Milwaukee declared almost all their mail in vote in one go.
And the Dems got 100% of that? You can see the Dems gain 200k and the Reps get no extra votes at all.
Almost yes, because Milwaukee is heavily Democrat and GOP voters were told to vote on the day. If you look at Milwaukee vs 2016 then there's clearly nothing out of the usual going on.
Well I can believe 85%-15% I suppose...but 100%-0% all at once?
That just seems impossible and it happened in MI too
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
Surely the law in Pennsylvania preventing mail-in ballots from being counted or processed earlier was passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania state assembly? (for example) I've certainly heard more push from Dems than Rs for work on postal votes to begin early, precisely to avoid Trump trying to claim victory on the night.
Fair enough, although Trump might win PA anyway.
If the Dems wanted early counting, why didn't they do it in states they control?
That was because Milwaukee declared almost all their mail in vote in one go.
And the Dems got 100% of that? You can see the Dems gain 200k and the Reps get no extra votes at all.
Almost yes, because Milwaukee is heavily Democrat and GOP voters were told to vote on the day. If you look at Milwaukee vs 2016 then there's clearly nothing out of the usual going on.
Well I can believe 85%-15% I suppose...but 100%-0% all at once?
That just seems impossible and it happened in MI too
In neither is it a 100/0 split. In MI, you can see the red line increase at the time the blue line does, In WI, the red line is hidden by the blue line, but clearly increases from the point of 'the jump' to the end position on the graph, so mush have increased as the blue vote did.
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
Surely the law in Pennsylvania preventing mail-in ballots from being counted or processed earlier was passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania state assembly? (for example) I've certainly heard more push from Dems than Rs for work on postal votes to begin early, precisely to avoid Trump trying to claim victory on the night.
Fair enough, although Trump might win PA anyway.
If the Dems wanted early counting, why didn't they do it in states they control?
That was because Milwaukee declared almost all their mail in vote in one go.
And the Dems got 100% of that? You can see the Dems gain 200k and the Reps get no extra votes at all.
Almost yes, because Milwaukee is heavily Democrat and GOP voters were told to vote on the day. If you look at Milwaukee vs 2016 then there's clearly nothing out of the usual going on.
Well I can believe 85%-15% I suppose...but 100%-0% all at once?
That just seems impossible and it happened in MI too
Georgia does look interesting, a lot of votes in blue counties still to be counted of the ones left. Two of the bigger combined have 130,000 between them still o/s. Trumps currently 104,000 up so it certainly could be very very close.
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
Surely the law in Pennsylvania preventing mail-in ballots from being counted or processed earlier was passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania state assembly? (for example) I've certainly heard more push from Dems than Rs for work on postal votes to begin early, precisely to avoid Trump trying to claim victory on the night.
Fair enough, although Trump might win PA anyway.
If the Dems wanted early counting, why didn't they do it in states they control?
That was because Milwaukee declared almost all their mail in vote in one go.
And the Dems got 100% of that? You can see the Dems gain 200k and the Reps get no extra votes at all.
Almost yes, because Milwaukee is heavily Democrat and GOP voters were told to vote on the day. If you look at Milwaukee vs 2016 then there's clearly nothing out of the usual going on.
Well I can believe 85%-15% I suppose...but 100%-0% all at once?
That just seems impossible and it happened in MI too
I am sure FiveThirtyEight will be given stick for their predictions of Biden having a 90% chance. But in some sense this has been vindicated - Biden looks like he has won despite a polling error similar to Clinton (possibly bigger in FL). His 90% chance captures this significant additional robustness to polling error
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
Surely the law in Pennsylvania preventing mail-in ballots from being counted or processed earlier was passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania state assembly? (for example) I've certainly heard more push from Dems than Rs for work on postal votes to begin early, precisely to avoid Trump trying to claim victory on the night.
Fair enough, although Trump might win PA anyway.
If the Dems wanted early counting, why didn't they do it in states they control?
It also glosses over the fact that if you were inventing votes, you would surely drip feed them in rather than give conspiracy theorists a sudden jump in reporting to obsess over.
'The fact that you would' makes no sense. Your surmise about the best way to rig an election (assuming you've not done it before, but even then) does not constitute a 'fact'. An opposing 'opinion' is that it's better to do it at the end, because you might win, so it might be unnecessary.
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
Surely the law in Pennsylvania preventing mail-in ballots from being counted or processed earlier was passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania state assembly? (for example) I've certainly heard more push from Dems than Rs for work on postal votes to begin early, precisely to avoid Trump trying to claim victory on the night.
Fair enough, although Trump might win PA anyway.
If the Dems wanted early counting, why didn't they do it in states they control?
That was because Milwaukee declared almost all their mail in vote in one go.
And the Dems got 100% of that? You can see the Dems gain 200k and the Reps get no extra votes at all.
Almost yes, because Milwaukee is heavily Democrat and GOP voters were told to vote on the day. If you look at Milwaukee vs 2016 then there's clearly nothing out of the usual going on.
Well I can believe 85%-15% I suppose...but 100%-0% all at once?
That just seems impossible and it happened in MI too
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
Surely the law in Pennsylvania preventing mail-in ballots from being counted or processed earlier was passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania state assembly? (for example) I've certainly heard more push from Dems than Rs for work on postal votes to begin early, precisely to avoid Trump trying to claim victory on the night.
Fair enough, although Trump might win PA anyway.
If the Dems wanted early counting, why didn't they do it in states they control?
It also glosses over the fact that if you were inventing votes, you would surely drip feed them in rather than give conspiracy theorists a sudden jump in reporting to obsess over.
So the fact that something looks suspicious is proof that it didn't happen.
Ah, true. You'd want to make it obvious because everyone knows that if you were doing it you wouldn't be stupid enough to make it obvious, therefore you didn't do it even though of course you did.
I am sure FiveThirtyEight will be given stick for their predictions of Biden having a 90% chance. But in some sense this has been vindicated - Biden looks like he has won despite a polling error similar to Clinton (possibly bigger in FL)
The real winner of this cycle was Ann Selzer's Iowa poll
Trump campaign staff on FOX making it clear the result (providing Biden wins) is going to court. 'The president will have won legitimately'. So popcorn time , no concession from Trump til 2023 I guess
The question is do the GOP have their own version of the Tories "Men in grey suits" to go and visit Trump with the proverbial revolver and glass of whisky?
Win or lose Trump has won more votes now than any Republican presidential candidate in history and the highest voteshare for any Republican candidate since Bush in 2004, it is his party for the foreseeable future so the party top brass cannot tell him anything, even if he loses and decides not to run again he will effectively be Kingmaker in deciding the party's nominee in 2024 probably either Pence or one of his kids
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
Surely the law in Pennsylvania preventing mail-in ballots from being counted or processed earlier was passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania state assembly? (for example) I've certainly heard more push from Dems than Rs for work on postal votes to begin early, precisely to avoid Trump trying to claim victory on the night.
Fair enough, although Trump might win PA anyway.
If the Dems wanted early counting, why didn't they do it in states they control?
It also glosses over the fact that if you were inventing votes, you would surely drip feed them in rather than give conspiracy theorists a sudden jump in reporting to obsess over.
So the fact that something looks suspicious is proof that it didn't happen.
Ah, true. You'd want to make it obvious because everyone knows that if you were doing it you wouldn't be stupid enough to make it obvious, therefore you didn't do it even though of course you did.
So Biden wins Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona and he has 270?
Doesn't even need PA, Nevada, Georgia?
No, he still needs Nevada which is not resuming counting until tomorrow otherwise he only has 264 EC votes even with Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona and NE02
I am sure FiveThirtyEight will be given stick for their predictions of Biden having a 90% chance. But in some sense this has been vindicated - Biden looks like he has won despite a polling error similar to Clinton (possibly bigger in FL)
The real winner of this cycle was Ann Selzer's Iowa poll
So Biden wins Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona and he has 270?
Doesn't even need PA, Nevada, Georgia?
EDIT: scrap that - needs Nevada.
He would still need Nevada but the signs there are that he’ll probably narrowly do it. And GA and PA still to come as possibilities too. Maybe even NC but I don’t believe that will happen.
So Biden wins Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona and he has 270?
Doesn't even need PA, Nevada, Georgia?
No, he still needs Nevada which is not resuming counting until tomorrow otherwise he only has 264 EC votes even with Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona and NE02
So Biden wins Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona and he has 270?
Doesn't even need PA, Nevada, Georgia?
EDIT: scrap that - needs Nevada.
He would still need Nevada but the signs there are that he’ll probably narrowly do it. And GA and PA still to come as possibilities too. Maybe even NC but I don’t believe that will happen.
I am sure FiveThirtyEight will be given stick for their predictions of Biden having a 90% chance. But in some sense this has been vindicated - Biden looks like he has won despite a polling error similar to Clinton (possibly bigger in FL)
The real winner of this cycle was Ann Selzer's Iowa poll
Would love to know why that massive swing occurred.
Why incumbent presidents are so hard to defeat, the politically disinterested naturally gravitate toward them. Only a huge Democrat turnout effort was able to overcome it this time. To my mind the fact the Selzer poll was able to reach Trump supporters and have them honestly reveal their preferences is interesting too.
So Biden wins Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona and he has 270?
Doesn't even need PA, Nevada, Georgia?
EDIT: scrap that - needs Nevada.
Yes but he is now ahead in the 4 he needs. Anything else is a bonus (and might stop court cases). Given the trend over the last few hours it seems unlikely that states will swing back to Trump but they are on such a knife edge you really cannot rule anything out.
I am sure FiveThirtyEight will be given stick for their predictions of Biden having a 90% chance. But in some sense this has been vindicated - Biden looks like he has won despite a polling error similar to Clinton (possibly bigger in FL)
The real winner of this cycle was Ann Selzer's Iowa poll
Would love to know why that massive swing occurred.
Why incumbent presidents are so hard to defeat, the politically disinterested naturally gravitate toward them. Only a huge Democrat turnout effort was able to overcome it this time. To my mind the fact the Selzer poll was able to reach Trump supporters and have them honestly reveal their preferences is interesting too.
They were going to lie until Anne hit them with her hypnotism.
So Biden wins Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona and he has 270?
Doesn't even need PA, Nevada, Georgia?
EDIT: scrap that - needs Nevada.
He would still need Nevada but the signs there are that he’ll probably narrowly do it. And GA and PA still to come as possibilities too. Maybe even NC but I don’t believe that will happen.
I hope he sweeps them all.
Yes - 270 creates too much risk from shenanigans in the Electoral College. Not ridiculous that something could happen to biden before January and somebody would use that as an excuse not to transfer vote to Harris.
So Biden wins Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona and he has 270?
Doesn't even need PA, Nevada, Georgia?
EDIT: scrap that - needs Nevada.
Yes but he is now ahead in the 4 he needs. Anything else is a bonus (and might stop court cases). Given the trend over the last few hours it seems unlikely that states will swing back to Trump but they are on such a knife edge you really cannot rule anything out.
So Biden wins Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona and he has 270?
Doesn't even need PA, Nevada, Georgia?
EDIT: scrap that - needs Nevada.
Yes but he is now ahead in the 4 he needs. Anything else is a bonus (and might stop court cases). Given the trend over the last few hours it seems unlikely that states will swing back to Trump but they are on such a knife edge you really cannot rule anything out.
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
Surely the law in Pennsylvania preventing mail-in ballots from being counted or processed earlier was passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania state assembly? (for example) I've certainly heard more push from Dems than Rs for work on postal votes to begin early, precisely to avoid Trump trying to claim victory on the night.
Fair enough, although Trump might win PA anyway.
If the Dems wanted early counting, why didn't they do it in states they control?
It also glosses over the fact that if you were inventing votes, you would surely drip feed them in rather than give conspiracy theorists a sudden jump in reporting to obsess over.
'The fact that you would' makes no sense. Your surmise about the best way to rig an election (assuming you've not done it before, but even then) does not constitute a 'fact'. An opposing 'opinion' is that it's better to do it at the end, because you might win, so it might be unnecessary.
Indeed. Not a 'fact', I stand corrected.
Can I just say that in my opinion neither the GOP nor Democrat establishment (including state legislatures) are going to be into blatant vote rigging? Any claims otherwise, on either side are likely to be nonsense - one bent official is possible for sure, but I - touchingly, maybe - still believe the US is a more or less functioning democracy. I do not believe Clinton was robbed in 2016, I believe that she lost.
I'm quite happy to entertain the idea that there is tilting of the scales, through e.g. changing postal vote rules at the last minute and measures to try and discourage turnout in particular areas, but I don't think there is wide-scale blatant cheating going on. Whoever wins.
So Biden wins Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona and he has 270?
Doesn't even need PA, Nevada, Georgia?
EDIT: scrap that - needs Nevada.
Yes but he is now ahead in the 4 he needs. Anything else is a bonus (and might stop court cases). Given the trend over the last few hours it seems unlikely that states will swing back to Trump but they are on such a knife edge you really cannot rule anything out.
Trump campaign staff on FOX making it clear the result (providing Biden wins) is going to court. 'The president will have won legitimately'. So popcorn time , no concession from Trump til 2023 I guess
The question is do the GOP have their own version of the Tories "Men in grey suits" to go and visit Trump with the proverbial revolver and glass of whisky?
Win or lose Trump has won more votes now than any Republican presidential candidate in history and the highest voteshare for any Republican candidate since Bush in 2004, it is his party for the foreseeable future so the party top brass cannot tell him anything, even if he loses and decides not to run again he will effectively be Kingmaker in deciding the party's nominee in 2024 probably either Pence or one of his kids
That sounds a bit like "winning the argument but losing the election", copyright Jeremy Corbyn.
The harsh truth (probably) is that he's a one term president with legal troubles.
Interestingly I think I'm right in saying the GOP Senators have outperformed Trump.
Which rather scotches the rather breathless suggestion of HYUFD that Trump will be the candidate again in 2024. Not a chance.
If they did it was only because they got Trump voters who turned out to vote for them as well as the traditional Republican vote.
In 2018 when Trump was not on the ballot they were trounced, nobody in the GOP is going to beat Trump if he loses and decides to run again in 2024 against Harris, assuming Biden only served one term, the GOP nomination would be his for the taking if he wanted it.
I remember seeing a poll question a few weeks ago in one of the big polls asking voters what their main feeling would be if their candidate won, , Biden supporters said 'relieved'..... Its beginning to look like never a truer word was spoken
Interestingly I think I'm right in saying the GOP Senators have outperformed Trump.
Which rather scotches the rather breathless suggestion of HYUFD that Trump will be the candidate again in 2024. Not a chance.
If they did it was only because they got Trump voters who turned out to vote for them as well as the traditional Republican vote.
In 2018 when Trump was not on the ballot they were trounced, nobody in the GOP is going to beat Trump if he loses and decides to run again in 2024 against Harris, assuming Biden only served one term, the GOP nomination would be his for the taking if he wanted it.
Otherwise he would be Kingmaker
Lol you will never stop, will you?
Maybe just for once pause in your breathless rush to announce all things Right.
So Biden wins Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona and he has 270?
Doesn't even need PA, Nevada, Georgia?
EDIT: scrap that - needs Nevada.
He would still need Nevada but the signs there are that he’ll probably narrowly do it. And GA and PA still to come as possibilities too. Maybe even NC but I don’t believe that will happen.
I hope he sweeps them all.
Yes - 270 creates too much risk from shenanigans in the Electoral College. Not ridiculous that something could happen to biden before January and somebody would use that as an excuse not to transfer vote to Harris.
When does the electoral college meet? It is well before January isn't it?
Trump campaign staff on FOX making it clear the result (providing Biden wins) is going to court. 'The president will have won legitimately'. So popcorn time , no concession from Trump til 2023 I guess
The question is do the GOP have their own version of the Tories "Men in grey suits" to go and visit Trump with the proverbial revolver and glass of whisky?
Win or lose Trump has won more votes now than any Republican presidential candidate in history and the highest voteshare for any Republican candidate since Bush in 2004, it is his party for the foreseeable future so the party top brass cannot tell him anything, even if he loses and decides not to run again he will effectively be Kingmaker in deciding the party's nominee in 2024 probably either Pence or one of his kids
That sounds a bit like "winning the argument but losing the election", copyright Jeremy Corbyn.
The harsh truth (probably) is that he's a one term president with legal troubles.
Corbyn was trounced in 2019 even if not in 2017 and lost 2 million votes from 2017 to 2019, Trump has got even more votes now than he did in 2016 and if he does lose it will be in one of the closest US elections in history
So Biden wins Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona and he has 270?
Doesn't even need PA, Nevada, Georgia?
EDIT: scrap that - needs Nevada.
Yes but he is now ahead in the 4 he needs. Anything else is a bonus (and might stop court cases). Given the trend over the last few hours it seems unlikely that states will swing back to Trump but they are on such a knife edge you really cannot rule anything out.
Interestingly I think I'm right in saying the GOP Senators have outperformed Trump.
Which rather scotches the rather breathless suggestion of HYUFD that Trump will be the candidate again in 2024. Not a chance.
If they did it was only because they got Trump voters who turned out to vote for them as well as the traditional Republican vote.
In 2018 when Trump was not on the ballot they were trounced
I'm going to call a truce in the "Trafalgar" wars thusly. When Trump is on the ballot their record is good (there are now statistics to back that up in more than one election). When he's not its bad (there are statistics to back that up too). They have a feeling for the Trump "effect" - whether that's really reluctance to tell a pollster something I am not sure about, but they have a feel for it that is for sure.
Trump campaign staff on FOX making it clear the result (providing Biden wins) is going to court. 'The president will have won legitimately'. So popcorn time , no concession from Trump til 2023 I guess
The question is do the GOP have their own version of the Tories "Men in grey suits" to go and visit Trump with the proverbial revolver and glass of whisky?
Win or lose Trump has won more votes now than any Republican presidential candidate in history and the highest voteshare for any Republican candidate since Bush in 2004, it is his party for the foreseeable future so the party top brass cannot tell him anything, even if he loses and decides not to run again he will effectively be Kingmaker in deciding the party's nominee in 2024 probably either Pence or one of his kids
Trump remains an important player if he loses as it's clear he's beaten expectations and hasn't been humiliated. His endorsement will matter for Senate and House candidates, and he'll have a say in 2024 - perhaps even exploring standing himself.
I seriously question how important, though. The world does move on remarkably quickly, and 2024 is a long way away. Ultimately, if Trump loses, he's a prolific tweeter with a lot of personal legal and financial problems to take care of. He's no longer making Presidential proclamations, introducing legislation, appointing key people, meeting world leaders and so on. And if he isn't on the ballot in 2024, he's simply less important. Obama was a good person for Biden to have at rallies, and made some news, but in the end people appreciate he was not the candidate and his significance reflects that.
Trump campaign staff on FOX making it clear the result (providing Biden wins) is going to court. 'The president will have won legitimately'. So popcorn time , no concession from Trump til 2023 I guess
The question is do the GOP have their own version of the Tories "Men in grey suits" to go and visit Trump with the proverbial revolver and glass of whisky?
Win or lose Trump has won more votes now than any Republican presidential candidate in history and the highest voteshare for any Republican candidate since Bush in 2004, it is his party for the foreseeable future so the party top brass cannot tell him anything, even if he loses and decides not to run again he will effectively be Kingmaker in deciding the party's nominee in 2024 probably either Pence or one of his kids
That sounds a bit like "winning the argument but losing the election", copyright Jeremy Corbyn. .
I am sure FiveThirtyEight will be given stick for their predictions of Biden having a 90% chance. But in some sense this has been vindicated - Biden looks like he has won despite a polling error similar to Clinton (possibly bigger in FL)
The real winner of this cycle was Ann Selzer's Iowa poll
Would love to know why that massive swing occurred.
Why incumbent presidents are so hard to defeat, the politically disinterested naturally gravitate toward them. Only a huge Democrat turnout effort was able to overcome it this time. To my mind the fact the Selzer poll was able to reach Trump supporters and have them honestly reveal their preferences is interesting too.
Name recognition probably counts for a lot, in a world where most people don't follow politics. Biden might have been a canny choice after all, given how long he's been around and his generally good reputation
So Biden wins Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona and he has 270?
Doesn't even need PA, Nevada, Georgia?
EDIT: scrap that - needs Nevada.
Yes but he is now ahead in the 4 he needs. Anything else is a bonus (and might stop court cases). Given the trend over the last few hours it seems unlikely that states will swing back to Trump but they are on such a knife edge you really cannot rule anything out.
Trump campaign staff on FOX making it clear the result (providing Biden wins) is going to court. 'The president will have won legitimately'. So popcorn time , no concession from Trump til 2023 I guess
The question is do the GOP have their own version of the Tories "Men in grey suits" to go and visit Trump with the proverbial revolver and glass of whisky?
Win or lose Trump has won more votes now than any Republican presidential candidate in history and the highest voteshare for any Republican candidate since Bush in 2004, it is his party for the foreseeable future so the party top brass cannot tell him anything, even if he loses and decides not to run again he will effectively be Kingmaker in deciding the party's nominee in 2024 probably either Pence or one of his kids
Trump remains an important player if he loses as it's clear he's beaten expectations and hasn't been humiliated. His endorsement will matter for Senate and House candidates, and he'll have a say in 2024 - perhaps even exploring standing himself.
I seriously question how important, though. The world does move on remarkably quickly, and 2024 is a long way away. Ultimately, if Trump loses, he's a prolific tweeter with a lot of personal legal and financial problems to take care of. He's no longer making Presidential proclamations, introducing legislation, appointing key people, meeting world leaders and so on. And if he isn't on the ballot in 2024, he's simply less important. Obama was a good person for Biden to have at rallies, and made some news, but in the end people appreciate he was not the candidate and his significance reflects that.
If he's not the candidate, Trump won't do anything to help GOP candidates. It's not what pathological narcissists do.
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
Surely the law in Pennsylvania preventing mail-in ballots from being counted or processed earlier was passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania state assembly? (for example) I've certainly heard more push from Dems than Rs for work on postal votes to begin early, precisely to avoid Trump trying to claim victory on the night.
Fair enough, although Trump might win PA anyway.
If the Dems wanted early counting, why didn't they do it in states they control?
It also glosses over the fact that if you were inventing votes, you would surely drip feed them in rather than give conspiracy theorists a sudden jump in reporting to obsess over.
'The fact that you would' makes no sense. Your surmise about the best way to rig an election (assuming you've not done it before, but even then) does not constitute a 'fact'. An opposing 'opinion' is that it's better to do it at the end, because you might win, so it might be unnecessary.
Indeed. Not a 'fact', I stand corrected.
Can I just say that in my opinion neither the GOP nor Democrat establishment (including state legislatures) are going to be into blatant vote rigging? Any claims otherwise, on either side are likely to be nonsense - one bent official is possible for sure, but I - touchingly, maybe - still believe the US is a more or less functioning democracy. I do not believe Clinton was robbed in 2016, I believe that she lost.
I'm quite happy to entertain the idea that there is tilting of the scales, through e.g. changing postal vote rules at the last minute and measures to try and discourage turnout in particular areas, but I don't think there is wide-scale blatant cheating going on. Whoever wins.
Let's hope not. However, you wouldn't put your house on it, would you? The argument against the commonest conspiracy theories is 'people just wouldn't be so wicked'. But this is different - this would be a way, with zero bloodshed, of ridding the world of a menace. Just changing numbers in a few columns. Heck, Joe would have won the popular vote anyway, so isn't it actually just ensuring fairness for once? How many passionate anti-Trumpers would you think could not justify this to themselves?
Trump campaign staff on FOX making it clear the result (providing Biden wins) is going to court. 'The president will have won legitimately'. So popcorn time , no concession from Trump til 2023 I guess
The question is do the GOP have their own version of the Tories "Men in grey suits" to go and visit Trump with the proverbial revolver and glass of whisky?
Win or lose Trump has won more votes now than any Republican presidential candidate in history and the highest voteshare for any Republican candidate since Bush in 2004, it is his party for the foreseeable future so the party top brass cannot tell him anything, even if he loses and decides not to run again he will effectively be Kingmaker in deciding the party's nominee in 2024 probably either Pence or one of his kids
Trump remains an important player if he loses as it's clear he's beaten expectations and hasn't been humiliated. His endorsement will matter for Senate and House candidates, and he'll have a say in 2024 - perhaps even exploring standing himself.
I seriously question how important, though. The world does move on remarkably quickly, and 2024 is a long way away. Ultimately, if Trump loses, he's a prolific tweeter with a lot of personal legal and financial problems to take care of. He's no longer making Presidential proclamations, introducing legislation, appointing key people, meeting world leaders and so on. And if he isn't on the ballot in 2024, he's simply less important. Obama was a good person for Biden to have at rallies, and made some news, but in the end people appreciate he was not the candidate and his significance reflects that.
If he's not the candidate, Trump won't do anything to help GOP candidates. It's not what pathological narcissists do.
He will be raging about being a one term President, bad for his ego. So, he will move on to the next grift, he’s done politics.
I'm wondering if Trump can challenge the results if the GOP aren't interested. I mean how is he going to do it if the advice all around him tells him it is over. Does he have the support of people and funds to be able to do this. Maybe, maybe not.
Trump campaign staff on FOX making it clear the result (providing Biden wins) is going to court. 'The president will have won legitimately'. So popcorn time , no concession from Trump til 2023 I guess
The question is do the GOP have their own version of the Tories "Men in grey suits" to go and visit Trump with the proverbial revolver and glass of whisky?
Win or lose Trump has won more votes now than any Republican presidential candidate in history and the highest voteshare for any Republican candidate since Bush in 2004, it is his party for the foreseeable future so the party top brass cannot tell him anything, even if he loses and decides not to run again he will effectively be Kingmaker in deciding the party's nominee in 2024 probably either Pence or one of his kids
Trump remains an important player if he loses as it's clear he's beaten expectations and hasn't been humiliated. His endorsement will matter for Senate and House candidates, and he'll have a say in 2024 - perhaps even exploring standing himself.
I seriously question how important, though. The world does move on remarkably quickly, and 2024 is a long way away. Ultimately, if Trump loses, he's a prolific tweeter with a lot of personal legal and financial problems to take care of. He's no longer making Presidential proclamations, introducing legislation, appointing key people, meeting world leaders and so on. And if he isn't on the ballot in 2024, he's simply less important. Obama was a good person for Biden to have at rallies, and made some news, but in the end people appreciate he was not the candidate and his significance reflects that.
If he's not the candidate, Trump won't do anything to help GOP candidates. It's not what pathological narcissists do.
He will be raging about being a one term President, bad for his ego. So, he will move on to the next grift, he’s done politics.
Trump TV....its all the stuff he loves about being POTUS, with none of the "BORRRRRING" stuff. He gets to spout nonsense to the faithful, gets his ego stroked every night by the fans, without having any of all those boring meeting about covid or North Korea and alike.
Comments
I am not a BBC baiter, but their TV coverage today seems to be aimed at their Cbeebies audience.
Trump wins Nevada, Maine 1, Georgia Pennsylvania.
Biden wins Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona,
Anyone else?
That just seems impossible and it happened in MI too
https://twitter.com/duckdiver19/status/1323974967617224704
https://twitter.com/markaustintv/status/1323887482124017666
In the immediate context of the election you're right, but there is potentially very fertile ground for much greater political engagement in the future.
You have to win where it matters, and when it matters. The Republicans have won the Senate and House often enough to get most of what they want.
EDIT: Scrap that.
So it basically means it doesn't matter if Biden loses Nevada and Pennsylvania.
And yes vertical lines is what happens when a city adds all of its votes in one go to the total. 🤦🏻♂️
Though looks like more good numbers for Biden to come than Trump. Its all over bar the shouting.
Sea bream and a hot vinaigrette, and a corn on the cob. Then raspberries and cream.
Eat your hearts out
It wasn’t 90%
This isn't going to be close in the end.
Obligatory Princess Bride reference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMz7JBRbmNo
Late return home of independents to the president's party - https://twitter.com/brianneDMR/status/1322683567755939840
Doesn't even need PA, Nevada, Georgia?
EDIT: scrap that - needs Nevada.
It was insanity.
https://twitter.com/cjcarman/status/1323989847481196544?s=20
To my mind the fact the Selzer poll was able to reach Trump supporters and have them honestly reveal their preferences is interesting too.
Biden 1.29
Trump 4.4
Which rather scotches the rather breathless suggestion of HYUFD that Trump will be the candidate again in 2024. Not a chance.
That is scarily plausible given we are talking 2 of the bluest counties in the state plus mail in ballots.
Can I just say that in my opinion neither the GOP nor Democrat establishment (including state legislatures) are going to be into blatant vote rigging? Any claims otherwise, on either side are likely to be nonsense - one bent official is possible for sure, but I - touchingly, maybe - still believe the US is a more or less functioning democracy. I do not believe Clinton was robbed in 2016, I believe that she lost.
I'm quite happy to entertain the idea that there is tilting of the scales, through e.g. changing postal vote rules at the last minute and measures to try and discourage turnout in particular areas, but I don't think there is wide-scale blatant cheating going on. Whoever wins.
I reckon 3 senate flips for the Democrats in 2022, Rubio will hold on in Florida very comfortably.
The harsh truth (probably) is that he's a one term president with legal troubles.
In 2018 when Trump was not on the ballot they were trounced, nobody in the GOP is going to beat Trump if he loses and decides to run again in 2024 against Harris, assuming Biden only served one term, the GOP nomination would be his for the taking if he wanted it.
Otherwise he would be Kingmaker
Maybe just for once pause in your breathless rush to announce all things Right.
I seriously question how important, though. The world does move on remarkably quickly, and 2024 is a long way away. Ultimately, if Trump loses, he's a prolific tweeter with a lot of personal legal and financial problems to take care of. He's no longer making Presidential proclamations, introducing legislation, appointing key people, meeting world leaders and so on. And if he isn't on the ballot in 2024, he's simply less important. Obama was a good person for Biden to have at rallies, and made some news, but in the end people appreciate he was not the candidate and his significance reflects that.
The last vestiges of a losing side's argument.
Scenes when he meets Keir first
If Biden wins all the close states (including PA and GA) then its 306
If he wins those plus NC then it is 321.
Biden 1.22
Trump 5.4