2020 US Presidential Election

[overthewater]

Lets get down to the nitty gritty, Trump won 2016 with around 77'000 votes that's it: Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Biden pretty much has gone down the same route, he won by even less in some respect: 45'000 votes: Gerogia, Arizona and Wisconsin plus picking up Nebraska 1st district.

That is overall the correct stats, a tiny swing either way trump would be staying but still have been behind Biden by 6million votes. Swing to Hillary in 2016 and we could have been looking at someone else right now winning..

We can look at all the stats etc including how the majority of Bellwethers went for trump, How Biden lost a number counties that Hillary won, in this respect Biden did increase the number he won overall by 6? while Trump managed to flip a few aswell. Overall Joe got more votes in loyal strongholds, he lost support elsewhere.

Go back to 2012 and Obama still won by descent margins in the states, I think the closest was New hampshire at 40'000, that nearly the margin of victory biden has over 3 combine states.

California will always give the democratic advantage now, go back to 2004 and the margin between the parties was less than 10% it changed now, especial with people moving away from the state to other parts of the USA like Texas.

That was the main point here, If you don't take California away and doesn't it make it easier to prove the country is down the middle overall, and they not that much difference overall is there.

Biden-voting counties equal 70% of America's economy. What does this mean for the nation's political-economic divide? | Brookings

This economic rift that persists in dividing the nation is a problem because it underscores the near-certainty of both continued clashes between the political parties and continued alienation and misunderstandings.

www.brookings.edu

 

[Senex]

Lets get down to the nitty gritty, Trump won 2016 with around 77'000 votes that's it: Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Biden pretty much has gone down the same route, he won by even less in some respect: 45'000 votes: Gerogia, Arizona and Wisconsin plus picking up Nebraska 1st district.

That is overall the correct stats, a tiny swing either way trump would be staying but still have been behind Biden by 6million votes. Swing to Hillary in 2016 and we could have been looking at someone else right now winning..

We can look at all the stats etc including how the majority of Bellwethers went for trump, How Biden lost a number counties that Hillary won, in this respect Biden did increase the number he won overall by 6? while Trump managed to flip a few aswell. Overall Joe got more votes in loyal strongholds, he lost support elsewhere.

Go back to 2012 and Obama still won by descent margins in the states, I think the closest was New hampshire at 40'000, that nearly the margin of victory biden has over 3 combine states.

California will always give the democratic advantage now, go back to 2004 and the margin between the parties was less than 10% it changed now, especial with people moving away from the state to other parts of the USA like Texas.

That was the main point here, If you don't take California away and doesn't it make it easier to prove the country is down the middle overall, and they not that much difference overall is there.

Biden-voting counties equal 70% of America's economy. What does this mean for the nation's political-economic divide? | Brookings

This economic rift that persists in dividing the nation is a problem because it underscores the near-certainty of both continued clashes between the political parties and continued alienation and misunderstandings.

www.brookings.edu

A really interesting article from Brookings — thanks for drawing attention to it. I think the conclusion is worth quoting in extenso:

To start with, the 2020’s sharpened economic divide forecasts gridlock in Congress and between the White House and Senate on the most important issues of economic policy. The problem—as we have witnessed over the past decade and are likely to continue seeing—is not only that Democrats and Republicans disagree on issues of culture, identity, and power, but that they represent radically different swaths of the economy. Democrats represent voters who overwhelmingly reside in the nation’s diverse economic centers, and thus tend to prioritize housing affordability, an improved social safety net, transportation infrastructure, and racial justice. Jobs in blue America also disproportionately rely on national R&D investment, technology leadership, and services exports.

By contrast, Republicans represent an economic base situated in the nation’s struggling small towns and rural areas. Prosperity there remains out of reach for many, and the party sees no reason to consider the priorities and needs of the nation’s metropolitan centers. That is not a scenario for economic consensus or achievement.

At the same time, the results from last week’s election likely underscore fundamental problems of economic alienation and estrangement. Specifically, Trump’s anti-establishment appeal suggests that a sizable portion of the country continues to feel little connection to the nation’s core economic enterprises, and chose to channel that animosity into a candidate who promised not to build up all parts of the country, but rather to vilify groups who didn’t resemble his base.

If this pattern continues—with one party aiming to confront the challenges at top of mind for a majority of Americans, and the other continuing to stoke the hostility and indignation held by a significant minority—it will be a recipe not only for more gridlock and ineffective governance, but also for economic harm to nearly all people and places. In light of the desperate need for a broad, historic recovery from the economic damage of the COVID-19 pandemic, a continuation of the patterns we’ve seen play out over the past decade would be a particularly unsustainable situation for Americans in communities of all sizes.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Even Henry Kissinger has weighed in. I will post a link when I get a chance.

 

[RichT54]

The Guardian has picked up a report in the New York Times which says that following his election defeat, Trump has been looking into striking Iran's nuclear sites.

Donald Trump asked top aides last week about the possibility of striking Iran’s nuclear facilities in the coming weeks, according to a New York Times report.

During a meeting at the Oval Office on Thursday, the outgoing US president asked several top aides, including the vice-president, Mike Pence, the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, and the chairman of the joint chiefs, Gen Mark Milley, “whether he had options to take action against Iran’s main nuclear site in the coming weeks”, the newspaper says.

The senior officials “dissuaded the president from moving ahead with a military strike”, warning him that an attack could escalate into a broader conflict in the final weeks of his presidency, the Times writes.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...riking-iran-nuclear-sites-after-election-loss

 

[najaB]

The Guardian has picked up a report in the New York Times which says that following his election defeat, Trump has been looking into striking Iran's nuclear sites.

Is it 25th Amendment time?

 

[Gloster]

Normally when a president does this sort of thing, it is a matter of ‘legacy’, with the advantage that a successor is left with the job of clearing up any mess. I don’t think Trump is interested in legacy unless it can be turned into dollars in his pocket. The idea, which probably just shot into his head, is just to leave Biden thinking ‘that’s another fine mess that you’ve gotten me into‘.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Normally when a president does this sort of thing, it is a matter of ‘legacy’, with the advantage that a successor is left with the job of clearing up any mess. I don’t think Trump is interested in legacy unless it can be turned into dollars in his pocket. The idea, which probably just shot into his head, is just to leave Biden thinking ‘that’s another fine mess that you’ve gotten me into‘.

Much as I think Trump is unbelievably awful, this particular story does look to me more like trying to secure a legacy rather than trying to harm Biden. If the report is correct, he consulted his advisors, and then sensibly backed off when they told him it could lead to a wider conflict. Trump has been totally against Iran throughout his presidency, not unreasonably given Iran's involvement in stoking terrorism amongst its neighbours. So this wouldn't be inconsistent with his previous policy direction - just pretty stupid.

 

[edwin_m]

Much as I think Trump is unbelievably awful, this particular story does look to me more like trying to secure a legacy rather than trying to harm Biden. If the report is correct, he consulted his advisors, and then sensibly backed off when they told him it could lead to a wider conflict. Trump has been totally against Iran throughout his presidency, not unreasonably given Iran's involvement in stoking terrorism amongst its neighbours. So this wouldn't be inconsistent with his previous policy direction - just pretty stupid.

It would probably kill any chance of the Iran deal being revived, which is what Trump and the people around him want and a way of perpetuating that policy after Trump is gone. However, while it might set back their nuclear programme, it will make them that more determined to become a nuclear power as soon as they can, so people won't dare try the same thing again (see also North Korea) as well as stoking up the tensions in the region. So like many superficially attractive policies it has a lot of downsides if you look at the longer term (see also invasion of Iraq and lots of others).

 

[Logan Carroll]

@najaB “Is it 25th Amendment time?”

Reagan did worse and got off fine (Grenada)

 

[nlogax]

Reagan did worse and got off fine (Grenada)

Entirely different situation.

 

[Logan Carroll]

Entirely different situation.

If invading a country with a democratically elected socialist government didn’t get him kicked out then whatever’s Trump’s planning will go over without major incident.

 

[najaB]

More ridiculous Regan-esque

That's not, in any way, Regan-esque. While we might not have liked Regan's politics, his military actions were informed by the generals and had at least a semblance of strategy behind them. Attacking Iran's nuclear sites makes neither tactical nor strategic sense.

If invading a country with a democratically elected socialist government didn’t get him kicked out then whatever’s Trump’s planning will go over without major incident.

A democratically elected socialist government that had put its political opposition up against a wall and executed them...

 

[Logan Carroll]

That's not, in any way, Regan-esque. While we might not have liked Regan's politics, his military actions were informed by the generals and had at least a semblance of strategy behind them. Attacking Iran's nuclear sites makes neither tactical nor strategic sense.

Attacking Grenada on a flimsy belief of Soviet air bases is morally wrong even by the completely immoral standards of war

 

[najaB]

Attacking Grenada on a flimsy belief of Soviet air bases is morally wrong even by the completely immoral standards of war

It wasn't a flimsy belief, what is now Point Salines Airport (a) had a runway length that far exceeded the needs of the island - over 10,000ft IIRC but would have been perfect for use as staging point for Soviet nuclear bombers, that little bit further away from the US air bases in Florida; and (b) was being constructed by Cubans with Soviet assistance. But the invasion was predicated by the deteriorating political situation in the island, primarily execution of Maurice Bishop and other moderate members of the New Jewel Movement.

 

[Logan Carroll]

It wasn't a flimsy belief, what is now Point Salines Airport (a) had a runway length that far exceeded the needs of the island - over 10,000ft IIRC but would have been perfect for use as staging point for Soviet nuclear bombers, that little bit further away from the US air bases in Florida; and (b) was being constructed by Cubans with Soviet assistance. But the invasion was predicated by the deteriorating political situation in the island, primarily execution of Maurice Bishop and other moderate members of the New Jewel Movement.

Going an invading countries for big air strips is not valid.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If invading a country with a democratically elected socialist government didn’t get him kicked out then whatever’s Trump’s planning will go over without major incident.

It wasn't a democratically elected Government - it was a Government that had seized power in a coup, and was now undergoing an internal coup which appeared to be moving further towards dictatorship - as @najaB says, executing opponents. Further, to quote wikipedia:

The Reagan administration in the U.S. launched a military intervention following receipt of a formal appeal for help from the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States. In addition, the Governor-General of Grenada Paul Scoon secretly signaled he would also support outside intervention, but he put off signing a letter of invitation until 26 October.[11] Reagan also acted due to "concerns over the 600 U.S. medical students on the island" and fears of a repeat of the Iran hostage crisis.

That certainly suggests some justification for the invasion.

Also worth pointing out that Reagan launched the invasion at a time when he still had just over a year to go until the next Presidential elections, and so would have had to take responsibility for dealing with any failures himself - it was definitely not a situation where he was about to hand over power to any successor: On those grounds alone, it's not comparable to the situation we are talking about with Trump.

 

[najaB]

It wasn't a democratically elected Government - it was a Government that had seized power in a coup, and was now undergoing an internal coup which appeared to be moving further towards dictatorship - as @najaB says, executing opponents.

Well, if we're splitting hairs, as I recall it, they had come to power in a coup in 1979 but then had an election the following year which - surprising nobody - they won.

 

[Logan Carroll]

It wasn't a democratically elected Government - it was a Government that had seized power in a coup, and was now undergoing an internal coup which appeared to be moving further towards dictatorship - as @najaB says, executing opponents. Further, to quote wikipedia:



That certainly suggests some justification for the invasion.

Also worth pointing out that Reagan launched the invasion at a time when he still had just over a year to go until the next Presidential elections, and so would have had to take responsibility for dealing with any failures himself - it was definitely not a situation where he was about to hand over power to any successor: On those grounds alone, it's not comparable to the situation we are talking about with Trump.

A hunch is not enough to start a war on.

My point is that presidents have done far worse before him and any talk of him being replaced is overstated

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Well, if we're splitting hairs, as I recall it, they had come to power in a coup in 1979 but then had an election the following year which - surprising nobody - they won.

Did they? I've just done some Googling around and can't find any record of elections during the Bishop Government. Wikipedia's page about Maurice Bishop actually states:

Despite its achievements, Bishop's government would not hold elections and stifled the free press and the opposition.

A hunch is not enough to start a war on.

'War' is a bit of an exaggeration. It was more like, a counter-coup staged from the USA, which had the effect of quickly restoring democracy in Grenada. The whole thing was over in 3 days (although the subsequent elections in Grenada didn't take place until the following year).

My point is that presidents have done far worse before him and any talk of him being replaced is overstated

Well, yes - if you apply today's standards, then you can easily find US Presidents in the past who did things that, by our standards, are worse than anything Trump has done, for the simple reason that standards in the past were different.

But I'm not sure whether you could find a President who has done worse than Trump in terms of actually acting against the accepted moral behaviour of the time and driving standards of decency and of democracy so far backwards, compared to what was generally considered acceptable when he started his term in office.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I see Biden has already fired an early warning shot at Wall Street

Joe Biden fires an early warning shot at Wall Street

Tighter regulation is a-coming

 

[najaB]

Did they? I've just done some Googling around and can't find any record of elections during the Bishop Government.

Hmm... my memory is a bit hazy, I was only around 8 years old at the time of the intervention. I thought I remembered that there were elections that the opposition (such as they were) didn't take part in.

A hunch is not enough to start a war on.

As @DynamicSpirit says, there wasn't a war in Grenada. The US (with the assistance of the UK) staged a military intervention at the request of the Head of State to remove a government of questionable legitimacy.

If you want examples for seriously dodgy US behaviour in Latin America and the Caribbean, Grenada isn't coup you're looking for. Try the Dominican Republic in the 1950s, Cuba, Ecuador and Puerto Rico in the 1960s, Jamaica/Honduras/Guatemala/Ecuador/Peru/Chile in the 1970s or Panama (and Central America again) in the 1980s. If you want some hard core, Machiavellian political maneuvering then Havana harbour in 1898 is the place you want to look.

 

[Logan Carroll]

with the assistance of the UK

I thought he did it without first informing Thatcher putting into question the “special relationship” .

 

[Typhoon]

I thought he did it without first informing Thatcher putting into question the “special relationship” .

My recollection is that you are largely right. I think she went along with it outwardly but was spitting feathers in private - especially as she thought she had special relationship with Ronny Reagan. (A clear sign to British politicians now and in the future - if Reagan didn't tell Thatcher of the invasion plan, what chance that Trump, Biden, whoever will tell the likes of Boris Johnson (or who comes next).

 

[Darandio]

My recollection is that you are largely right. I think she went along with it outwardly but was spitting feathers in private - especially as she thought she had special relationship with Ronny Reagan. (A clear sign to British politicians now and in the future - if Reagan didn't tell Thatcher of the invasion plan, what chance that Trump, Biden, whoever will tell the likes of Boris Johnson (or who comes next).

Unless they are trying to sell the world a bogus case for invasion and need a gullible nation to go along with it.

 

[najaB]

I thought he did it without first informing Thatcher putting into question the “special relationship” .

Here's where it gets a little complicated - there was coordination between the DoD and the MoD but there was no political coordination between the White House and Downing Street. It would have been very difficult to hide the fact that a few hundred US troops and their helicopters were moved to Barbados just before the invasion.

It would be more accurate to say that Regan did it without Margret Thatcher's permission, rather than without her knowledge.

 

[Bald Rick]

Reagan and Thatcher had received different intelligence assessments of the post Bishop regime; MI6 thought it was more of the same whereas the CIA thought it was a significant escalation in Marxism. Presumably that’s why he didn’t advise her. Unless he forgot.

 

[RichT54]

Are there no depths to which Trump won't stoop to prevent him from losing the election?

Donald Trump was on Friday making a futile but dangerous last stand, without precedent in modern American history, to overturn the result of the presidential election so he can remain in power.

Even as Joe Biden’s victory in the state of Georgia was confirmed, the president met with Republican leaders from Michigan at the White House in an increasingly desperate bid to subvert democracy after a series of courtroom defeats over allegations of voter fraud.

The Trump campaign’s apparent strategy is to persuade Republican-controlled legislatures in Michigan and other battleground states in the electoral college to set aside the will of the people and declare Trump the winner, despite officials declaring it the most secure election in American history.

“The entire election, frankly, in all the swing states should be overturned and the legislatures should make sure that the electors are selected for Trump,” Sidney Powell, one of Trump’s lawyers, told the Fox Business Network on Thursday.

Fortunately it appears he was unsuccessful.

However, following the White House meeting, Shirkey and Chatfield affirmed their commitment to abide by the electoral process, in an apparent blow to Trump’s efforts.

“We have not yet been made aware of any information that would change the outcome of the election in Michigan and as legislative leaders, we will follow the law and follow the normal process regarding Michigan’s electors,” the pair said in a joint statement. “Michigan’s certification process should be a deliberate process free from threats and intimidation.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/20/trump-michigan-republicans-election

 

[hexagon789]

Are there no depths to which Trump won't stoop to prevent him from losing the election?



Fortunately it appears he was unsuccessful.



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/20/trump-michigan-republicans-election

It gets more ridiculous every time really, but at least some people can see sense and will honour the result.

 

[Gloster]

It gets more ridiculous every time really, but at least some people can see sense and will honour the result.

In one court case Trump’s lawyers appear to have confused Michigan and Minnesota. Every time I hear the latest development,
I think, “It can’t get crazier than this.” But it does.

 

[hexagon789]

In one court case Trump’s lawyers appear to have confused Michigan and Minnesota. Every time I hear the latest development,
I think, “It can’t get crazier than this.” But it does.

I think it's the way in which it's being done. The 2000 election suffered much litigation of course, but this is nothing like as close and the actual conduct of the election didn't suffer the same issues if anything other than unfounded allegations of voting fraud it probably went as smoothly as ever really.