Without stacking the Supreme Court, which was probably a bad idea and now off the table, is there anything that can be done to the court eg mandatory retirement age? (Not that that might help the Dems now, with pretty young Republican appointments).
It's just so crazy that the dems have been screwed n the court because a very old woman didn't retire at the right moment or die a few months later. The justices themselves should not worry about working when ill or mad because the wrong president is in office.
We haven't talked about the Senate yet, but it looks like Susan Collin will just hang on in Maine (she'll only need about a quarter of second choice preferences), and Thom Tills will likely do the same in North Carolina. (He's polling a couple of points better than Trump.)
In the NC Special, the Dems have lucked out and it'll be Loeffler vs Warnock. The question is whether they are able to get their vote out for the Special.
That's a very impressive (likely ) result for Susan Collins, given she was behind in every poll.
Robert, out of curiosity you suspect NV is 50/50 is that based purely on how close it is now , or do you see anything that suggests Trump can match these postal votes from Clark expected in tomorrow. I cant see Trumps path there if thats true as its being said ALL on the day votes are in. Am i missing something?
From their website Timing of results:Due to an error in a Edison Research data feed of results, the estimate of the counted vote in Arizona is too high. The actual estimate is that 86% of the vote has been counted.
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
When people talked about it here it was 140k votes for Biden out of 150k. So Trump did receive 10k votes in that declaration. People staring at graphs afterwards are being silly.
'Silly staring at graphs' isn't a rebuke I ever expected to see on PB. As long as it gets rid of Trump, we should ignore the data should we?
But the graphs did not say what DAlexander and the tweeters said they said. They both showed increases to both Biden and Trump's vote tally. So the silliness isn't so much at staring at the graphs, but misreading them so patently.
The more reason to stare at them, it would seem to me. On the face of it, to me, these results seem ridiculous. If it was Trump finding just enough miraculous postal votes in key states at the 11th hour to overturn Biden leads, the whole world would be losing their shit.
I think that is exactly how Trump supporters will want to present this data. But it is neither ridiculous nor unexpected - if you simply look at which precincts were reporting when those tallies were dumped.
Let's put it another way. Biden is leading in key states and looking as though he is cruising to victory. Then there is a sudden rush of postal votes, showing 90%+ to Trump, which then changes the dynamic, with almost no votes to Biden. You saying you would not be questioning what happened?
Not if the one losing out discouraged using postal votes among his supporters. Hes provided an explanation.
90%+.........?
If he disparaged voting that way so much, why not? What's the right proportion? He cannot discourage people voting that way then act shocked his own supporters listened.
The Trump campaign just hosted a call with reporters, led by Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien. Stepien said that they are confident that "count all legal ballots, the president wins." They also believe that can still win Arizona if all legal ballots are counted. On Wisconsin, they believe it is a tight race and in "recount territory." In Michigan there are outlying Republican counties, and in Nevada late breaking mail-in voting helped Republicans -- predicting a win by 5,500 votes. They are also confident in a healthy lead in Georgia.
Canada to Force Netflix, Amazon Prime to Pay for Local Content.
Ottawa unveiled Bill C-10 to collect $800 million from foreign streaming platforms by 2023 to tell Canadian stories.
Canada's federal government has unveiled long-awaited legislation to regulate U.S. streamers like Netflix and Disney+ and force them to pay for the production of Canadian film, TV and music product.
The proposed amendments to the federal Broadcasting Act will create a new "online company" category and for the first time regulate global media players active in the Canadian market. The resulting obligations will include foreign players having to subsidize the development, production and distribution of local entertainment and cultural content.
"We're asking these large and wealthy companies to invest in Canadian stories, in Canadian music, in Canadian artists," much as local cable TV providers and broadcasters already do, heritage minister Steven Guilbeault told an Ottawa press conference. He added U.S. digital platforms were already "investing in Canada," as Guilbeault did not distinguish between American and other foreign companies producing their own originals north of the border and hiring local creative and crews to do so, and investing in local content to stream on their global platforms.
Robert, out of curiosity you suspect NV is 50/50 is that based purely on how close it is now , or do you see anything that suggests Trump can match these postal votes from Clark expected in tomorrow. I cant see Trumps path there if thats true as its being said ALL on the day votes are in. Am i missing something?
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
When people talked about it here it was 140k votes for Biden out of 150k. So Trump did receive 10k votes in that declaration. People staring at graphs afterwards are being silly.
'Silly staring at graphs' isn't a rebuke I ever expected to see on PB. As long as it gets rid of Trump, we should ignore the data should we?
But the graphs did not say what DAlexander and the tweeters said they said. They both showed increases to both Biden and Trump's vote tally. So the silliness isn't so much at staring at the graphs, but misreading them so patently.
The more reason to stare at them, it would seem to me. On the face of it, to me, these results seem ridiculous. If it was Trump finding just enough miraculous postal votes in key states at the 11th hour to overturn Biden leads, the whole world would be losing their shit.
I think that is exactly how Trump supporters will want to present this data. But it is neither ridiculous nor unexpected - if you simply look at which precincts were reporting when those tallies were dumped.
Let's put it another way. Biden is leading in key states and looking as though he is cruising to victory. Then there is a sudden rush of postal votes, showing 90%+ to Trump, which then changes the dynamic, with almost no votes to Biden. You saying you would not be questioning what happened?
Not if the one losing out discouraged using postal votes among his supporters. Hes provided an explanation.
90%+.........?
Let's do some Maths
In 2016, Clinton won Wayne County by 67% to 29.5%
The mail-in ballots came in at 93% for Biden in that batch. Let's take Wayne as a proxy for all those mail-in ballots that came in terms of % in 2016.
So, even allowing that this is a heavily Democrat county and VBM heavily favours the Democrats, you are saying it is not strange that VBMs for Trump came in at 1/4 of what was already a low share vote?
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
When people talked about it here it was 140k votes for Biden out of 150k. So Trump did receive 10k votes in that declaration. People staring at graphs afterwards are being silly.
'Silly staring at graphs' isn't a rebuke I ever expected to see on PB. As long as it gets rid of Trump, we should ignore the data should we?
We could look at the data properly - which showed that Trump did receive votes at that time as well - or we could stare at graphs and make shit up.
Your call.
Agreed. I am all for scrutinising the data, it was ignoring it I was objecting to.
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
When people talked about it here it was 140k votes for Biden out of 150k. So Trump did receive 10k votes in that declaration. People staring at graphs afterwards are being silly.
'Silly staring at graphs' isn't a rebuke I ever expected to see on PB. As long as it gets rid of Trump, we should ignore the data should we?
But the graphs did not say what DAlexander and the tweeters said they said. They both showed increases to both Biden and Trump's vote tally. So the silliness isn't so much at staring at the graphs, but misreading them so patently.
The more reason to stare at them, it would seem to me. On the face of it, to me, these results seem ridiculous. If it was Trump finding just enough miraculous postal votes in key states at the 11th hour to overturn Biden leads, the whole world would be losing their shit.
I think that is exactly how Trump supporters will want to present this data. But it is neither ridiculous nor unexpected - if you simply look at which precincts were reporting when those tallies were dumped.
Let's put it another way. Biden is leading in key states and looking as though he is cruising to victory. Then there is a sudden rush of postal votes, showing 90%+ to Trump, which then changes the dynamic, with almost no votes to Biden. You saying you would not be questioning what happened?
Not if the one losing out discouraged using postal votes among his supporters. Hes provided an explanation.
Robert, out of curiosity you suspect NV is 50/50 is that based purely on how close it is now , or do you see anything that suggests Trump can match these postal votes from Clark expected in tomorrow. I cant see Trumps path there if thats true as its being said ALL on the day votes are in. Am i missing something?
I think provisional ballots are same day.
Would need to be a lot of provisionals to offset the Clarke postals but hopefully Ralston will have some figures of whats left tomorrow. One thing he did say is no declaration of final totals there til the 5th so nothing today
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
When people talked about it here it was 140k votes for Biden out of 150k. So Trump did receive 10k votes in that declaration. People staring at graphs afterwards are being silly.
'Silly staring at graphs' isn't a rebuke I ever expected to see on PB. As long as it gets rid of Trump, we should ignore the data should we?
But the graphs did not say what DAlexander and the tweeters said they said. They both showed increases to both Biden and Trump's vote tally. So the silliness isn't so much at staring at the graphs, but misreading them so patently.
The more reason to stare at them, it would seem to me. On the face of it, to me, these results seem ridiculous. If it was Trump finding just enough miraculous postal votes in key states at the 11th hour to overturn Biden leads, the whole world would be losing their shit.
I think that is exactly how Trump supporters will want to present this data. But it is neither ridiculous nor unexpected - if you simply look at which precincts were reporting when those tallies were dumped.
Let's put it another way. Biden is leading in key states and looking as though he is cruising to victory. Then there is a sudden rush of postal votes, showing 90%+ to Trump, which then changes the dynamic, with almost no votes to Biden. You saying you would not be questioning what happened?
Not if the one losing out discouraged using postal votes among his supporters. Hes provided an explanation.
Without stacking the Supreme Court, which was probably a bad idea and now off the table, is there anything that can be done to the court eg mandatory retirement age? (Not that that might help the Dems now, with pretty young Republican appointments).
It's just so crazy that the dems have been screwed n the court because a very old woman didn't retire at the right moment or die a few months later. The justices themselves should not worry about working when ill or mad because the wrong president is in office.
Nope. Appointment for life is in the constitution.
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
When people talked about it here it was 140k votes for Biden out of 150k. So Trump did receive 10k votes in that declaration. People staring at graphs afterwards are being silly.
'Silly staring at graphs' isn't a rebuke I ever expected to see on PB. As long as it gets rid of Trump, we should ignore the data should we?
But the graphs did not say what DAlexander and the tweeters said they said. They both showed increases to both Biden and Trump's vote tally. So the silliness isn't so much at staring at the graphs, but misreading them so patently.
The more reason to stare at them, it would seem to me. On the face of it, to me, these results seem ridiculous. If it was Trump finding just enough miraculous postal votes in key states at the 11th hour to overturn Biden leads, the whole world would be losing their shit.
I think that is exactly how Trump supporters will want to present this data. But it is neither ridiculous nor unexpected - if you simply look at which precincts were reporting when those tallies were dumped.
Let's put it another way. Biden is leading in key states and looking as though he is cruising to victory. Then there is a sudden rush of postal votes, showing 90%+ to Trump, which then changes the dynamic, with almost no votes to Biden. You saying you would not be questioning what happened?
Not if the one losing out discouraged using postal votes among his supporters. Hes provided an explanation.
90%+.........?
I suppose it depends on whether there were many 90%+ batches of Dem votes in early voting in other close states or not.
If these are the only ones and it just so happens that they were found later on when Biden was otherwise going to lose, then that looks suspicious to me.
Canada to Force Netflix, Amazon Prime to Pay for Local Content.
Ottawa unveiled Bill C-10 to collect $800 million from foreign streaming platforms by 2023 to tell Canadian stories.
Canada's federal government has unveiled long-awaited legislation to regulate U.S. streamers like Netflix and Disney+ and force them to pay for the production of Canadian film, TV and music product.
The proposed amendments to the federal Broadcasting Act will create a new "online company" category and for the first time regulate global media players active in the Canadian market. The resulting obligations will include foreign players having to subsidize the development, production and distribution of local entertainment and cultural content.
"We're asking these large and wealthy companies to invest in Canadian stories, in Canadian music, in Canadian artists," much as local cable TV providers and broadcasters already do, heritage minister Steven Guilbeault told an Ottawa press conference. He added U.S. digital platforms were already "investing in Canada," as Guilbeault did not distinguish between American and other foreign companies producing their own originals north of the border and hiring local creative and crews to do so, and investing in local content to stream on their global platforms.
I think one in every five songs played on Canadian radio has to be by a Canadian artist. Which leads to a really quite unnecessary amount of Bryan Adams.
Robert, out of curiosity you suspect NV is 50/50 is that based purely on how close it is now , or do you see anything that suggests Trump can match these postal votes from Clark expected in tomorrow. I cant see Trumps path there if thats true as its being said ALL on the day votes are in. Am i missing something?
I think provisional ballots are same day.
Would need to be a lot of provisionals to offset the Clarke postals but hopefully Ralston will have some figures of whats left tomorrow. One thing he did say is no declaration of final totals there til the 5th so nothing today
I think you are right that there will not be a lot of PV, and presumably each PV needs to be scrutinized to verify that the voter is indeed eligible and has not voted by other means.
Here is the chapeau sentence on PV in the Nevada law:
"Section 302 of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) (42 U.S.C. §15482) creates the right for a potential voter to utilize a provisional ballot in a federal election. Nevada Revised Statute (NRS 293.3081) permits a person at a polling place to cast a provisional ballot if the person complies with the applicable provisions of NRS 293.3082 and:"
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
When people talked about it here it was 140k votes for Biden out of 150k. So Trump did receive 10k votes in that declaration. People staring at graphs afterwards are being silly.
'Silly staring at graphs' isn't a rebuke I ever expected to see on PB. As long as it gets rid of Trump, we should ignore the data should we?
But the graphs did not say what DAlexander and the tweeters said they said. They both showed increases to both Biden and Trump's vote tally. So the silliness isn't so much at staring at the graphs, but misreading them so patently.
The more reason to stare at them, it would seem to me. On the face of it, to me, these results seem ridiculous. If it was Trump finding just enough miraculous postal votes in key states at the 11th hour to overturn Biden leads, the whole world would be losing their shit.
I think that is exactly how Trump supporters will want to present this data. But it is neither ridiculous nor unexpected - if you simply look at which precincts were reporting when those tallies were dumped.
Let's put it another way. Biden is leading in key states and looking as though he is cruising to victory. Then there is a sudden rush of postal votes, showing 90%+ to Trump, which then changes the dynamic, with almost no votes to Biden. You saying you would not be questioning what happened?
Not if the one losing out discouraged using postal votes among his supporters. Hes provided an explanation.
90%+.........?
I suppose it depends on whether there were many 90%+ batches of Dem votes in early voting in other close states or not.
If these are the only ones and it just so happens that they were found later on when Biden was otherwise going to lose, then that looks suspicious to me.
I find it odd that you aren't just as concerned about the number of undelivered mail ballots in Florida and other places.
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
When people talked about it here it was 140k votes for Biden out of 150k. So Trump did receive 10k votes in that declaration. People staring at graphs afterwards are being silly.
'Silly staring at graphs' isn't a rebuke I ever expected to see on PB. As long as it gets rid of Trump, we should ignore the data should we?
But the graphs did not say what DAlexander and the tweeters said they said. They both showed increases to both Biden and Trump's vote tally. So the silliness isn't so much at staring at the graphs, but misreading them so patently.
The more reason to stare at them, it would seem to me. On the face of it, to me, these results seem ridiculous. If it was Trump finding just enough miraculous postal votes in key states at the 11th hour to overturn Biden leads, the whole world would be losing their shit.
I think that is exactly how Trump supporters will want to present this data. But it is neither ridiculous nor unexpected - if you simply look at which precincts were reporting when those tallies were dumped.
Let's put it another way. Biden is leading in key states and looking as though he is cruising to victory. Then there is a sudden rush of postal votes, showing 90%+ to Trump, which then changes the dynamic, with almost no votes to Biden. You saying you would not be questioning what happened?
Not if the one losing out discouraged using postal votes among his supporters. Hes provided an explanation.
90%+.........?
I suppose it depends on whether there were many 90%+ batches of Dem votes in early voting in other close states or not.
If these are the only ones and it just so happens that they were found later on when Biden was otherwise going to lose, then that looks suspicious to me.
Without stacking the Supreme Court, which was probably a bad idea and now off the table, is there anything that can be done to the court eg mandatory retirement age? (Not that that might help the Dems now, with pretty young Republican appointments).
It's just so crazy that the dems have been screwed n the court because a very old woman didn't retire at the right moment or die a few months later. The justices themselves should not worry about working when ill or mad because the wrong president is in office.
The Dems immediate problem is that the oldest justice by same way is Breyer (age 82) on the Liberal wing.
If the Reps control the senate it will be harder for Biden to replace him with another liberal. Of course, Breyer could hang on but then there is the risk of Ginsberg redux.
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
When people talked about it here it was 140k votes for Biden out of 150k. So Trump did receive 10k votes in that declaration. People staring at graphs afterwards are being silly.
'Silly staring at graphs' isn't a rebuke I ever expected to see on PB. As long as it gets rid of Trump, we should ignore the data should we?
But the graphs did not say what DAlexander and the tweeters said they said. They both showed increases to both Biden and Trump's vote tally. So the silliness isn't so much at staring at the graphs, but misreading them so patently.
The more reason to stare at them, it would seem to me. On the face of it, to me, these results seem ridiculous. If it was Trump finding just enough miraculous postal votes in key states at the 11th hour to overturn Biden leads, the whole world would be losing their shit.
I think that is exactly how Trump supporters will want to present this data. But it is neither ridiculous nor unexpected - if you simply look at which precincts were reporting when those tallies were dumped.
Let's put it another way. Biden is leading in key states and looking as though he is cruising to victory. Then there is a sudden rush of postal votes, showing 90%+ to Trump, which then changes the dynamic, with almost no votes to Biden. You saying you would not be questioning what happened?
Not if the one losing out discouraged using postal votes among his supporters. Hes provided an explanation.
Quite the change in sentiment in the last 6-12 hours. I hope it has been profitable.
Disasterous.
We both talked about in play opportunities, and then both ballsed them up!
Only reason I recovered was holding my nerve in not cutting my losses at 4am last night and trading and repositioning this morning..
I manage to pick peaks and nadirs to make my moves. Alas I bought on the peaks and sold on the nadirs.
Very easily done. I cut my losses at Biden just north of evens, and blew nearly £2k of profit on it.
I could have held my nerve entirely and been up £3.1k rather than £1.2k
I bottled it. Cashed out to cut losses, though spreads starting to look a little better now and couldn't cash out. I expect to be £250ish down on the night.
I remember it being obvious that the initial on the day votes would be red, with a blue wave then coming in. Somehow it didn't seem so obvious in the early hours.
Happy with the result if Biden does pull it off. Indeed a narrow win in the Great Lakes looks a lot like revenge served cold to Trump, after 2016.
If you were going to steal this election for the Dems, by finding lots of postal votes stuffed down the sofa, you couldn't do it in this scenario without grossly inflating the turnout could you?
There was much annoying pro-Trump trolling early this morning, but I think you just took the prize.
Thanks. I am just trying to get it straight in my head. IF this happened, it would show as significantly elevated turnout in the 'late Biden surge' states that counted their postal ballots last, and turnout being as predicted, or at least significantly lower, in the 'Trump surge' states where they were counted first.
At the end of the day, this is going to the SC. I’ve been told on good authority that the reason the Rs rushed through Barrett was not because they thought they would lose the Senate but that they were “terrified” (and this is their word, not mine) that the Democrats would continue to find postal ballots until the Ds won in the states. It’s essentially what happened in several of the CA House seats in 2018 (it was never proved but ballot harvesting was suspected).
This argument came from a very well connected, establishment Republican who is anti-Trump
Even if everything was above board, it doesn't look good from a Trump supporter's perspective.
Most states count the postal votes first and on the day votes last, except the Democrat run marginal states where they do it in reverse, so they know exactly how many votes they need to win each state (and also by then which states they need to win).
Surely the law in Pennsylvania preventing mail-in ballots from being counted or processed earlier was passed by the Republican-controlled Pennsylvania state assembly? (for example) I've certainly heard more push from Dems than Rs for work on postal votes to begin early, precisely to avoid Trump trying to claim victory on the night.
Fair enough, although Trump might win PA anyway.
If the Dems wanted early counting, why didn't they do it in states they control?
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
When people talked about it here it was 140k votes for Biden out of 150k. So Trump did receive 10k votes in that declaration. People staring at graphs afterwards are being silly.
'Silly staring at graphs' isn't a rebuke I ever expected to see on PB. As long as it gets rid of Trump, we should ignore the data should we?
But the graphs did not say what DAlexander and the tweeters said they said. They both showed increases to both Biden and Trump's vote tally. So the silliness isn't so much at staring at the graphs, but misreading them so patently.
The more reason to stare at them, it would seem to me. On the face of it, to me, these results seem ridiculous. If it was Trump finding just enough miraculous postal votes in key states at the 11th hour to overturn Biden leads, the whole world would be losing their shit.
I think that is exactly how Trump supporters will want to present this data. But it is neither ridiculous nor unexpected - if you simply look at which precincts were reporting when those tallies were dumped.
Let's put it another way. Biden is leading in key states and looking as though he is cruising to victory. Then there is a sudden rush of postal votes, showing 90%+ to Trump, which then changes the dynamic, with almost no votes to Biden. You saying you would not be questioning what happened?
Not if the one losing out discouraged using postal votes among his supporters. Hes provided an explanation.
90%+.........?
I suppose it depends on whether there were many 90%+ batches of Dem votes in early voting in other close states or not.
If these are the only ones and it just so happens that they were found later on when Biden was otherwise going to lose, then that looks suspicious to me.
I find it odd that you aren't just as concerned about the number of undelivered mail ballots in Florida and other places.
Well, that's worrying as well. Was it they did not deliver mail-ins to people or that people returned mail-ins and these were lost.
Reducing my exposure to Trump at these prices - 5.4 at moment.
Getting a bad feeling my friends.
Basically Trump is calling fraud in every state left thats close and he might lose. So even if they turn blue he's preparing the ground. For the first time in days NV is worrying me. The fact the Trump campaign are quoting figures as specific as 'winning by 5500' doesnt sound like just 'making noise' to me. They must have seen something specific of exactly what's left to be counted.
David Plouffe @davidplouffe Biden’s lead is now currently bigger than Trump’s final 2016 margin in both MI and WI and is projected to grow. Estimates are his PA lead will be bigger as well. If smaller margins were good enough for Trump to collapse the Blue Wall, larger ones certainly OK to rebuild it.
Without stacking the Supreme Court, which was probably a bad idea and now off the table, is there anything that can be done to the court eg mandatory retirement age? (Not that that might help the Dems now, with pretty young Republican appointments).
It's just so crazy that the dems have been screwed n the court because a very old woman didn't retire at the right moment or die a few months later. The justices themselves should not worry about working when ill or mad because the wrong president is in office.
The Dems immediate problem is that the oldest justice by same way is Breyer (age 82) on the Liberal wing.
If the Reps control the senate it will be harder for Biden to replace him with another liberal. Of course, Breyer could hang on but then there is the risk of Ginsberg redux.
It doesn't really matter, the court is lost for a generation anyway.
Failed to deliver to voters, or failed to return completed ballots for counting?
I am very much in agreement that electoral f*ckery is bidirectional.
The US needs to go back to the UK system: 1. a lady in the village hall has a list 2. she crosses you off the list and gives you a ballot paper 3. you put an X and put it in the box 4. someone else counts them 5. the returning officer stands up and tells you whether your candidate beat the guy with the bucket on his head 6. you go to PB and speculate on how it would have turned out under AV.
Mr. kle4, I agree. His book on the Norman invasion is even better, (I was pretty pleased to snag that for just £3). If you've not read it, I strongly recommend checking it out.
Reducing my exposure to Trump at these prices - 5.4 at moment.
Getting a bad feeling my friends.
I’m starting to feel like PA and GA would be very welcome buffers now. I must admit I don’t really understand what’s outstanding in NV and AZ so I can’t really assess what is going on there.
We haven't talked about the Senate yet, but it looks like Susan Collin will just hang on in Maine (she'll only need about a quarter of second choice preferences), and Thom Tills will likely do the same in North Carolina. (He's polling a couple of points better than Trump.)
In the NC Special, the Dems have lucked out and it'll be Loeffler vs Warnock. The question is whether they are able to get their vote out for the Special.
That's a very impressive (likely ) result for Susan Collins, given she was behind in every poll.
An incredible result.
RCP has her up by 394,000 to 329,000 with 92% counted, so she looks safe.
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
When people talked about it here it was 140k votes for Biden out of 150k. So Trump did receive 10k votes in that declaration. People staring at graphs afterwards are being silly.
'Silly staring at graphs' isn't a rebuke I ever expected to see on PB. As long as it gets rid of Trump, we should ignore the data should we?
But the graphs did not say what DAlexander and the tweeters said they said. They both showed increases to both Biden and Trump's vote tally. So the silliness isn't so much at staring at the graphs, but misreading them so patently.
The more reason to stare at them, it would seem to me. On the face of it, to me, these results seem ridiculous. If it was Trump finding just enough miraculous postal votes in key states at the 11th hour to overturn Biden leads, the whole world would be losing their shit.
I think that is exactly how Trump supporters will want to present this data. But it is neither ridiculous nor unexpected - if you simply look at which precincts were reporting when those tallies were dumped.
Let's put it another way. Biden is leading in key states and looking as though he is cruising to victory. Then there is a sudden rush of postal votes, showing 90%+ to Trump, which then changes the dynamic, with almost no votes to Biden. You saying you would not be questioning what happened?
Not if the one losing out discouraged using postal votes among his supporters. Hes provided an explanation.
90%+.........?
Let's do some Maths
In 2016, Clinton won Wayne County by 67% to 29.5%
The mail-in ballots came in at 93% for Biden in that batch. Let's take Wayne as a proxy for all those mail-in ballots that came in terms of % in 2016.
So, even allowing that this is a heavily Democrat county and VBM heavily favours the Democrats, you are saying it is not strange that VBMs for Trump came in at 1/4 of what was already a low share vote?
But you are comparing county-wide voting rates with precinct reporting. Yes, in large cities there will be precincts with very slanted returns, as some of the rural towns supporting Trump show.
GOP now net +5 in the House. This is going to be a difficult 4 years for Biden, maybe even tougher after 2022 if the GOP take back the House, which on this showing seems likely with a Dem POTUS.
Without stacking the Supreme Court, which was probably a bad idea and now off the table, is there anything that can be done to the court eg mandatory retirement age? (Not that that might help the Dems now, with pretty young Republican appointments).
It's just so crazy that the dems have been screwed n the court because a very old woman didn't retire at the right moment or die a few months later. The justices themselves should not worry about working when ill or mad because the wrong president is in office.
Nope. Appointment for life is in the constitution.
Then I suppose the parties will try to put more pressure on 'their' older justices to retire at such a time when they can replace them. Of course, that coordination would make the partisanship all the more obvious.
Failed to deliver to voters, or failed to return completed ballots for counting?
I am very much in agreement that electoral f*ckery is bidirectional.
The US needs to go back to the UK system: 1. a lady in the village hall has a list 2. she crosses you off the list and gives you a ballot paper 3. you put an X and put it in the box 4. someone else counts them 5. the returning officer stands up and tells you whether your candidate beat the guy with the bucket on his head 6. you go to PB and speculate on how it would have turned out under AV.
I don’t even believe an election happened. Where were the live shots of counts in sports halls? Where were the reporters trying to work out which party was quietly confident based measuring heights of voting slip piles?
GOP now net +5 in the House. This is going to be a difficult 4 years for Biden, maybe even tougher after 2022 if the GOP take back the House, which on this showing seems likely with a Dem POTUS.
I have a bet on the GOP taking the house, assumed it was dead !
CNN and David Alexrod implying that Biden will win PA.
The votes are there yes but I'm not sure they will fall high enough in every place they need to to claw back all the lead Trump has. Either way it may well be 2 or 3 days before we even get someone to 270! Let alone what happens after
GOP now net +5 in the House. This is going to be a difficult 4 years for Biden, maybe even tougher after 2022 if the GOP take back the House, which on this showing seems likely with a Dem POTUS.
Agreed. Stock market steadily moving up though - I had the close Biden disputed win without the senate as the worst result for the markets! What would have moved it down?
Oh God, this isn't the sort of thing to lead to a rerun vote there is it? It gets dragged out enough as it is.
Can someone correct me or fault my Maths?
If Trump wins AL + PA + NC + GA + AZ, he is on 272.
I'm going to disagree with @rcs1000 here. I think there is still a very good chance DT could snatch AZ. In that case, it is game on.
In 2018, the Dems were behind at the end of election night, but ended up winning by 2.5%. I would imagine a similar trend will happen this time as postals are recieved.
Oh God, this isn't the sort of thing to lead to a rerun vote there is it? It gets dragged out enough as it is.
Can someone correct me or fault my Maths?
If Trump wins AL + PA + NC + GA + AZ, he is on 272.
I'm going to disagree with @rcs1000 here. I think there is still a very good chance DT could snatch AZ. In that case, it is game on.
In 2018, the Dems were behind at the end of election night, but ended up winning by 2.5%. I would imagine a similar trend will happen this time as postals are recieved.
Possibly but 2018's dynamic looks to be way different from 2020
GOP now net +5 in the House. This is going to be a difficult 4 years for Biden, maybe even tougher after 2022 if the GOP take back the House, which on this showing seems likely with a Dem POTUS.
The Republican should gain 10 - 12 seats in the House, cutting the Democratic majority to 11-15.
Reducing my exposure to Trump at these prices - 5.4 at moment.
Getting a bad feeling my friends.
Basically Trump is calling fraud in every state left thats close and he might lose. So even if they turn blue he's preparing the ground. For the first time in days NV is worrying me. The fact the Trump campaign are quoting figures as specific as 'winning by 5500' doesnt sound like just 'making noise' to me. They must have seen something specific of exactly what's left to be counted.
Yes, feels like something is happening there and they have an idea of the vote.
I'm kicking myself I listened to Ralston. My thesis was that, given the dependence of the state on tourism and events, enough voters - especially Hispanic workers - would flip.
Without stacking the Supreme Court, which was probably a bad idea and now off the table, is there anything that can be done to the court eg mandatory retirement age? (Not that that might help the Dems now, with pretty young Republican appointments).
It's just so crazy that the dems have been screwed n the court because a very old woman didn't retire at the right moment or die a few months later. The justices themselves should not worry about working when ill or mad because the wrong president is in office.
Nope. Appointment for life is in the constitution.
Then I suppose the parties will try to put more pressure on 'their' older justices to retire at such a time when they can replace them. Of course, that coordination would make the partisanship all the more obvious.
Only works when you control the senate as well, otherwise the other lot can just reject or delay appointments until the next election.
I don’t get the anger about votes received after polling day not counting.
Seems obvious to me.
Its clearly fine if thats the rule. Id be in favour of changing rules to that for future elections.
But if the rule is they need to be sent by election day, thats the rule, whether its a good rule or not. One party cant just demand they change the rules post election and be taken seriously as believing in democracy.
Oh God, this isn't the sort of thing to lead to a rerun vote there is it? It gets dragged out enough as it is.
Can someone correct me or fault my Maths?
If Trump wins AL + PA + NC + GA + AZ, he is on 272.
I'm going to disagree with @rcs1000 here. I think there is still a very good chance DT could snatch AZ. In that case, it is game on.
In 2018, the Dems were behind at the end of election night, but ended up winning by 2.5%. I would imagine a similar trend will happen this time as postals are recieved.
Possibly but 2018's dynamic looks to be way different from 2020
The key here is that there are still mail in votes to be recieved and they will be overwhelmingly for Biden.
So while there is some in-person in Arizona to count that benefits Trump, I can't see it being anywhere near enough.
I don’t get the anger about votes received after polling day not counting.
Seems obvious to me.
Well it seems an odd rule to me, but if in various states the rule is they must be posted by or on election day and so of course would arrive late you kind of have to could them. Though ensuring everyone gets it in time to mail on time (so good postal service) or hand in in person is better.
GOP now net +5 in the House. This is going to be a difficult 4 years for Biden, maybe even tougher after 2022 if the GOP take back the House, which on this showing seems likely with a Dem POTUS.
I have a bet on the GOP taking the house, assumed it was dead !
They won't do it this time, can't see them picking up another 10 gains which is what they would need to get a majority, but they're probably favourites for a house majority in 2022. Biden will be lame duck having to deal with a Republican senate and house.
Oh God, this isn't the sort of thing to lead to a rerun vote there is it? It gets dragged out enough as it is.
Can someone correct me or fault my Maths?
If Trump wins AL + PA + NC + GA + AZ, he is on 272.
I'm going to disagree with @rcs1000 here. I think there is still a very good chance DT could snatch AZ. In that case, it is game on.
In 2018, the Dems were behind at the end of election night, but ended up winning by 2.5%. I would imagine a similar trend will happen this time as postals are recieved.
Possibly but 2018's dynamic looks to be way different from 2020
Considering you spent half the night telling us that Virginia was going to go for Trump, I think I'll take your projections with a pinch of salt.
I don’t get the anger about votes received after polling day not counting.
Seems obvious to me.
Is it also fair that if you are told that voting on the day is ok, then for that to be discounted after the election? The rules are there and they are not the same as the UK. Changing them after the vote is corruption.
GOP now net +5 in the House. This is going to be a difficult 4 years for Biden, maybe even tougher after 2022 if the GOP take back the House, which on this showing seems likely with a Dem POTUS.
The Republican should gain 10 - 12 seats in the House, cutting the Democratic majority to 11-15.
Without stacking the Supreme Court, which was probably a bad idea and now off the table, is there anything that can be done to the court eg mandatory retirement age? (Not that that might help the Dems now, with pretty young Republican appointments).
It's just so crazy that the dems have been screwed n the court because a very old woman didn't retire at the right moment or die a few months later. The justices themselves should not worry about working when ill or mad because the wrong president is in office.
Nope. Appointment for life is in the constitution.
Then I suppose the parties will try to put more pressure on 'their' older justices to retire at such a time when they can replace them. Of course, that coordination would make the partisanship all the more obvious.
Only works when you control the senate as well, otherwise the other lot can just reject or delay appointments until the next election.
Absolutely, the timing would have to be very precise if you even got such a guaranteed opportunity.
Or just collectively agree working judges to death and a system encouraging them to pick a partisan moment to retire is not good
Failed to deliver to voters, or failed to return completed ballots for counting?
I am very much in agreement that electoral f*ckery is bidirectional.
The US needs to go back to the UK system: 1. a lady in the village hall has a list 2. she crosses you off the list and gives you a ballot paper 3. you put an X and put it in the box 4. someone else counts them 5. the returning officer stands up and tells you whether your candidate beat the guy with the bucket on his head 6. you go to PB and speculate on how it would have turned out under AV.
Well yes, but most UK elections happen in neighbourhoods the size of say West Ham or a Midlands council district. Maine, that little dot on the map, is the size of Scotland. It is also true that UK parties find it much harder to suppress the other sides' voters by making the system intentionally terrible.
I don’t get the anger about votes received after polling day not counting.
Seems obvious to me.
Is it also fair that if you are told that voting on the day is ok, then for that to be discounted after the election? The rules are there and they are not the same as the UK. Changing them after the vote is corruption.
Also when the USPS has been fiddled with to ensure that ballots can end up being posted then spending days or weeks there without being delivered.
Reducing my exposure to Trump at these prices - 5.4 at moment.
Getting a bad feeling my friends.
Basically Trump is calling fraud in every state left thats close and he might lose. So even if they turn blue he's preparing the ground. For the first time in days NV is worrying me. The fact the Trump campaign are quoting figures as specific as 'winning by 5500' doesnt sound like just 'making noise' to me. They must have seen something specific of exactly what's left to be counted.
Yes, feels like something is happening there and they have an idea of the vote.
I'm kicking myself I listened to Ralston. My thesis was that, given the dependence of the state on tourism and events, enough voters - especially Hispanic workers - would flip.
To be fair it wasnt just Ralston saying this, several networks when discussing whats' left said the same about all is just a few Clark postal votes, but frustratingly no one drilled down into the counties to see exactly what is really left and where.
I think in all the excitement for the rust belts swinging back to Biden, NV got forgotten as 'its only 6 votes' but it does change the path for both if it does flip. Hopefully later Ralston will post whats still to be counted for the whole county and that will tell us much more. But clearly Trumps campaign think they have around +15000 votes to what the dems have still to come in. Who knows,,,,
GOP now net +5 in the House. This is going to be a difficult 4 years for Biden, maybe even tougher after 2022 if the GOP take back the House, which on this showing seems likely with a Dem POTUS.
The Republican should gain 10 - 12 seats in the House, cutting the Democratic majority to 11-15.
Oh God, this isn't the sort of thing to lead to a rerun vote there is it? It gets dragged out enough as it is.
Can someone correct me or fault my Maths?
If Trump wins AL + PA + NC + GA + AZ, he is on 272.
I'm going to disagree with @rcs1000 here. I think there is still a very good chance DT could snatch AZ. In that case, it is game on.
In 2018, the Dems were behind at the end of election night, but ended up winning by 2.5%. I would imagine a similar trend will happen this time as postals are recieved.
Possibly but 2018's dynamic looks to be way different from 2020
Considering you spent half the night telling us that Virginia was going to go for Trump, I think I'll take your projections with a pinch of salt.
Mmmm, actually I didn't. What I asked was did anyone know what was going on as the early vote looked odd. CNN also raised it several times.
There are many things you could accuse me of, that it not one of them. For a law student, you seem quite sloppy in your looking at evidence.
GOP now net +5 in the House. This is going to be a difficult 4 years for Biden, maybe even tougher after 2022 if the GOP take back the House, which on this showing seems likely with a Dem POTUS.
I have a bet on the GOP taking the house, assumed it was dead !
They won't do it this time, can't see them picking up another 10 gains which is what they would need to get a majority, but they're probably favourites for a house majority in 2022. Biden will be lame duck having to deal with a Republican senate and house.
That'll be for 2024 candidate Jesus Rustbelt Hispanicwoman to deal with.
Oh God, this isn't the sort of thing to lead to a rerun vote there is it? It gets dragged out enough as it is.
Can someone correct me or fault my Maths?
If Trump wins AL + PA + NC + GA + AZ, he is on 272.
I'm going to disagree with @rcs1000 here. I think there is still a very good chance DT could snatch AZ. In that case, it is game on.
In 2018, the Dems were behind at the end of election night, but ended up winning by 2.5%. I would imagine a similar trend will happen this time as postals are recieved.
Possibly but 2018's dynamic looks to be way different from 2020
Considering you spent half the night telling us that Virginia was going to go for Trump, I think I'll take your projections with a pinch of salt.
Mmmm, actually I didn't. What I asked was did anyone know what was going on as the early vote looked odd. CNN also raised it several times.
There are many things you could accuse me of, that it not one of them. For a law student, you seem quite sloppy in your looking at evidence.
Yes you did. For hours. It was tiresome and embarrassing.
We haven't talked about the Senate yet, but it looks like Susan Collin will just hang on in Maine (she'll only need about a quarter of second choice preferences), and Thom Tills will likely do the same in North Carolina. (He's polling a couple of points better than Trump.)
In the NC Special, the Dems have lucked out and it'll be Loeffler vs Warnock. The question is whether they are able to get their vote out for the Special.
That's a very impressive (likely ) result for Susan Collins, given she was behind in every poll.
There was a big vote for the independent in Maine, that the pollsters don't seem to have picked up on.
That being said, we're only 70% counted in the Senate race there. If it's the postals that are still to be counted, then she could still lose. My guess - FWIW - is that it will end up 48.5 - 46.0, and that Collins will get around half of Savage's transfers.
I think Collins' vote against ACB is what probably saved her.
A typically self serving piece of theatre, but effective.
Comments
It's just so crazy that the dems have been screwed n the court because a very old woman didn't retire at the right moment or die a few months later. The justices themselves should not worry about working when ill or mad because the wrong president is in office.
Getting a bad feeling my friends.
1.9m fake
Rigged.
Illegal: Trump - Biden X
Canada to Force Netflix, Amazon Prime to Pay for Local Content.
Ottawa unveiled Bill C-10 to collect $800 million from foreign streaming platforms by 2023 to tell Canadian stories.
Canada's federal government has unveiled long-awaited legislation to regulate U.S. streamers like Netflix and Disney+ and force them to pay for the production of Canadian film, TV and music product.
The proposed amendments to the federal Broadcasting Act will create a new "online company" category and for the first time regulate global media players active in the Canadian market. The resulting obligations will include foreign players having to subsidize the development, production and distribution of local entertainment and cultural content.
"We're asking these large and wealthy companies to invest in Canadian stories, in Canadian music, in Canadian artists," much as local cable TV providers and broadcasters already do, heritage minister Steven Guilbeault told an Ottawa press conference. He added U.S. digital platforms were already "investing in Canada," as Guilbeault did not distinguish between American and other foreign companies producing their own originals north of the border and hiring local creative and crews to do so, and investing in local content to stream on their global platforms.
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/canada-to-force-netflix-amazon-prime-to-pay-for-local-content
In 2016, Clinton won Wayne County by 67% to 29.5%
The mail-in ballots came in at 93% for Biden in that batch. Let's take Wayne as a proxy for all those mail-in ballots that came in terms of % in 2016.
So, even allowing that this is a heavily Democrat county and VBM heavily favours the Democrats, you are saying it is not strange that VBMs for Trump came in at 1/4 of what was already a low share vote?
https://twitter.com/LiamWBZ/status/1324005540004057090
Although surely thanking the “hundreds of thousands of election workers” is wrong?
If these are the only ones and it just so happens that they were found later on when Biden was otherwise going to lose, then that looks suspicious to me.
Here is the chapeau sentence on PV in the Nevada law:
"Section 302 of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) (42 U.S.C. §15482) creates the right for a potential voter to utilize a provisional ballot in a federal election. Nevada Revised Statute (NRS 293.3081) permits a person at a polling place to cast a provisional ballot if the person complies with the applicable provisions of NRS 293.3082 and:"
If the Reps control the senate it will be harder for Biden to replace him with another liberal. Of course, Breyer could hang on but then there is the risk of Ginsberg redux.
I remember it being obvious that the initial on the day votes would be red, with a blue wave then coming in. Somehow it didn't seem so obvious in the early hours.
Happy with the result if Biden does pull it off. Indeed a narrow win in the Great Lakes looks a lot like revenge served cold to Trump, after 2016.
For the first time in days NV is worrying me. The fact the Trump campaign are quoting figures as specific as 'winning by 5500' doesnt sound like just 'making noise' to me. They must have seen something specific of exactly what's left to be counted.
David Plouffe
@davidplouffe
Biden’s lead is now currently bigger than Trump’s final 2016 margin in both MI and WI and is projected to grow. Estimates are his PA lead will be bigger as well. If smaller margins were good enough for Trump to collapse the Blue Wall, larger ones certainly OK to rebuild it.
The US needs to go back to the UK system:
1. a lady in the village hall has a list
2. she crosses you off the list and gives you a ballot paper
3. you put an X and put it in the box
4. someone else counts them
5. the returning officer stands up and tells you whether your candidate beat the guy with the bucket on his head
6. you go to PB and speculate on how it would have turned out under AV.
If Trump wins AL + PA + NC + GA + AZ, he is on 272.
I'm going to disagree with @rcs1000 here. I think there is still a very good chance DT could snatch AZ. In that case, it is game on.
Seems obvious to me.
I'm kicking myself I listened to Ralston. My thesis was that, given the dependence of the state on tourism and events, enough voters - especially Hispanic workers - would flip.
But if the rule is they need to be sent by election day, thats the rule, whether its a good rule or not. One party cant just demand they change the rules post election and be taken seriously as believing in democracy.
So while there is some in-person in Arizona to count that benefits Trump, I can't see it being anywhere near enough.
Biden +4 would be my estimate.
Or just collectively agree working judges to death and a system encouraging them to pick a partisan moment to retire is not good
I think in all the excitement for the rust belts swinging back to Biden, NV got forgotten as 'its only 6 votes' but it does change the path for both if it does flip. Hopefully later Ralston will post whats still to be counted for the whole county and that will tell us much more. But clearly Trumps campaign think they have around +15000 votes to what the dems have still to come in. Who knows,,,,
There are many things you could accuse me of, that it not one of them. For a law student, you seem quite sloppy in your looking at evidence.
Alaska +3
Georgia +16
North Carolina +15
Nevada +6
Michigan +16
Trump 269