2020 US Presidential Election

[edwin_m]

Yes..with Kamala Harris having the casting vote. Even with a recalcitrant senator in their midst the Democrats would be in a pretty strong position.

If they win both Georgia runoffs the Senate is tied. So the Dems need every one of their own senators, plus Kamala Harris as the casting vote, to pass anything that all the Republicans oppose. Hence any single Democrat senator would have the power to stop any measure they didn't like. There are quite a few nominal Democrats who are pretty indistinguishable from non-Trumpist Republicans, and apparently Susan Collins who is a "moderate" Republican is less likely to support anything coming from the other side after they got close to unseating her.

 

[nlogax]

If they win both Georgia runoffs the Senate is tied. So the Dems need every one of their own senators, plus Kamala Harris as the casting vote, to pass anything that all the Republicans oppose. Hence any single Democrat senator would have the power to stop any measure they didn't like.

Point is, rather that than not even having the power of a casting vote.

 

[ainsworth74]

Point is, rather that than not even having the power of a casting vote.

Yes at that point you're horse trading within your own party which has got to be easier to achieve than trying to negotiate with terrorists the Republicans.

Its been like that for 4 years now., GOP has never liked Trump, Paul Ryan the Former Speaker of the House never liked him, nor did many others.

In which case why are so many of them falling over themselves to still, even at this point, defend him? Are they just running in terror of their radicalised base?

 

[najaB]

Are they just running in terror of their radicalised base?

Sadly, yes.

 

[Gloster]

There has to be a certain amount of concern as to what the next four years will bring. Will we see a dying away of the peculiarities of the recent election and a return to some sort of normality, or an entrenchment of the bitterness and irrationality leading to absolute chaos at the next election?

 

[nlogax]

Will we see a dying away of the peculiarities of the recent election and a return to some sort of normality, or an entrenchment of the bitterness and irrationality leading to absolute chaos at the next election?

It's the big question, isn't it? Trump's behaviour as president has opened Pandora's box with regards a certain section of US voters and there's no returning to the relatively decent days of 'America first, party second'. My guess.. there'll be splits on both the Democrat and Republican sides and this is where the two party system could crumble over the next four years. Divisions within divisions, hard left and hard right establishing their own distinct basecamps and identities, less E Pluribus Unum, more E Unibus Plura. It's not looking promising.

This Washington Post video seems to sum up where things are heading.

Post Opinions Senior Producer Kate Woodsome talks to Americans who voted for Trump, or simply don't feel like denouncing him, about why they feel wrongly scorned.

 

[overthewater]

If they ever get PR in USA, it will be a barrel of laughs over there.

 

[edwin_m]

If they ever get PR in USA, it will be a barrel of laughs over there.

It might possibly make things better. The way it is now the kooky fringe has taken over one of the main parties, as it did to some degree to both in the UK in 2019. If there was scope for those who disagreed with the party line to form a new party without guaranteed electoral oblivion then the Republicans could split into two, probably the Democrats too, and we'd know for sure whether the electorate supported the centrists or the radicals in each case. It might also mean the party leadership paying more attention to attracting support across the spectrum not just from the base.

I do accept however that currently the Trumpist tendency might actually be a majority of Republicans (partly because many of the others have dropped that affiliation). But the two-party system in the States is pretty much as entrenched as it can be, without (as far as I know) being written into the constitution, so even less likely to change there than here.

 

[DerekC]

It's the big question, isn't it? Trump's behaviour as president has opened Pandora's box with regards a certain section of US voters and there's no returning to the relatively decent days of 'America first, party second'. My guess.. there'll be splits on both the Democrat and Republican sides and this is where the two party system could crumble over the next four years. Divisions within divisions, hard left and hard right establishing their own distinct basecamps and identities, less E Pluribus Unum, more E Unibus Plura. It's not looking promising.

This Washington Post video seems to sum up where things are heading.

Good video - thanks for posting. Makes you realise just how hard a job Biden is going to have. Trump will do everything he can to disrupt Biden's efforts to bring the country towards some sort of reconciliation, since Trump will see that as undermining his support base.

 

[najaB]

So, having had the Supreme Court refuse to hear the Trump campaign's last appeal, they've decided to go with an even stranger one:

 

[edwin_m]

I think it's because certain disagreements between states can bypass the lower courts.

However, the Supreme Court judges have generally been careful to uphold their judicial integrity, which the likes of Amy Coney Barratt appear to have in spades even to someone who disagrees with her viewpoint on the issues of the day. They may be able to take a conservative view when it's essentially a value judgment but they would lose all credibility if they made a call that was clearly wrong in legal terms. So I suspect they'll decline to hear this one too, which will be both quicker and less damaging than hearing and rejecting it. At which point we can probably sit back and wait for Trump to self-combust as it dawns on him that ACB and the other two he appointed to save his political bacon have done precisely the opposite.

 

[najaB]

I think it's because certain disagreements between states can bypass the lower courts.

However, the Supreme Court judges have generally been careful to uphold their judicial integrity, which the likes of Amy Coney Barratt appear to have in spades even to someone who disagrees with her viewpoint on the issues of the day. They may be able to take a conservative view when it's essentially a value judgment but they would lose all credibility if they made a call that was clearly wrong in legal terms. So I suspect they'll decline to hear this one too, which will be both quicker and less damaging than hearing and rejecting it. At which point we can probably sit back and wait for Trump to self-combust as it dawns on him that ACB and the other two he appointed to save his political bacon have done precisely the opposite.

Indeed. I'm no expert on US Federal law, but my understanding is that the conduct of elections is a matter reserved solely to the states and that, as long as the state concerned conducted their election in a manner that the state courts consider to be fair.... jog on.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

So, having had the Supreme Court refuse to hear the Trump campaign's last appeal, they've decided to go with an even stranger one:

I've come to the conclusion that most of the US Republican Party no longer believes in democracy (unless it is the winner)

 

[dgl]

I've come to the conclusion that most of the US Republican Party no longer believes in democracy (unless it is the winner)

That was obvious on election night, with trump idiots trying to get counts stopped where trump was winning and to "count the votes" in states where he was loosing.
Though maybe part of what it happening in the republican party is the fact they are scared of what will happen if they disagree with trump,
He needs to remember that come the 21st of January the same military who currently protect him will be the same dragging him out in handcuffs!
He also needs to remember what they do to people like him in jail, as that's where he is heading.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

That was obvious on election night, with trump idiots trying to get counts stopped where trump was winning and to "count the votes" in states where he was loosing.
Though maybe part of what it happening in the republican party is the fact they are scared of what will happen if they disagree with trump,
He needs to remember that come the 21st of January the same military who currently protect him will be the same dragging him out in handcuffs!
He also needs to remember what they do to people like him in jail, as that's where he is heading.

You could argue that there have been signs for years - sadly, predating Trump. Bush winning the 2000 election and becoming President by preventing all the votes being counted in Florida - which means that even today we don't know whether Bush would've won if all the votes had been counted properly. The long history since then of various Republican-controlled states implementing measures that make it harder for (mainly, Democrat-supporting) blacks and many poorer people to vote. During Obama's presidency, the Republicans, when they controlled the Senate and the House, deliberately trying to obstruct Obama to make it difficult for him to govern ( a level of obstructionism way beyond what is normal when Congress and the President are controlled by different parties), and then finally the times in several states in recent years when Democrat Governors have been elected and Republican-controlled legislatures have quickly responded by attempting to pass laws removing some of the Governor's powers.

I think you are correct that part of what is going on now is, Republican politicians running scared of Trump and the way Trump has fired up their base supporters. But I'd say there's also a strong element of anti-democratic trends that were already taking hold in the Republican party being amplified

 

[najaB]

Bush winning the 2000 election and becoming President by preventing all the votes being counted in Florida - which means that even today we don't know whether Bush would've won if all the votes had been counted properly.

While the fact that Bush won the 2000 election turned out to have tragic consequences, they didn't stop the votes from being counted properly. The voting machines that they used at the time made a hole through a punch card, the rules said that if there wasn't a hole then there wasn't a vote. After the polling day, the Democrats challenged the rules saying that due to the way that the machines worked it was possible for a voter to believe that they had voted (they pressed the button) but if they didn't press hard enough either no hole would be made (dimpled chad) or the hole would only be partially made (hanging chad).

That was the basis of the legal argument - whether technically invalid votes should be counted or not since there was a fault/flaw with the voting machines. If anything the Republic party were on the high ground since their argument was that the outcome of the election could only be based on the voter's action, where the Democrats were arguing that they needed to figure out the voter's intention. Hence the scenes of poll workers holding punch cards up to the light to try and see if there were any indentations that could indicate that they tried to vote for one candidate over the other.

 

[overthewater]

That was the basis of the legal argument - whether technically invalid votes should be counted or not since there was a fault/flaw with the voting machines. If anything the Republic party were on the high ground since their argument was that the outcome of the election could only be based on the voter's action, where the Democrats were arguing that they needed to figure out the voter's intention. Hence the scenes of poll workers holding punch cards up to the light to try and see if there were any indentations that could indicate that they tried to vote for one candidate over the other.

Of course Dem never had a leg to stand on, because you cant complain about the rules after you agree to them. They agreed to that process.

When it comes to the Legal challenges now, It seems nothing has been thrown out because of evidence provided, but because of Legal proceeding.

America uncovered has done very neutral piece, like nearly all there other videos.

 

[najaB]

When it comes to the Legal challenges now, It seems nothing has been thrown out because of evidence provided, but because of Legal proceeding.

That's not entirely true. At least one of the judgements specifically called out the fact that no evidence had been provided that supported the claims made.

 

[edwin_m]

While the fact that Bush won the 2000 election turned out to have tragic consequences, they didn't stop the votes from being counted properly. The voting machines that they used at the time made a hole through a punch card, the rules said that if there wasn't a hole then there wasn't a vote. After the polling day, the Democrats challenged the rules saying that due to the way that the machines worked it was possible for a voter to believe that they had voted (they pressed the button) but if they didn't press hard enough either no hole would be made (dimpled chad) or the hole would only be partially made (hanging chad).

That was the basis of the legal argument - whether technically invalid votes should be counted or not since there was a fault/flaw with the voting machines. If anything the Republic party were on the high ground since their argument was that the outcome of the election could only be based on the voter's action, where the Democrats were arguing that they needed to figure out the voter's intention. Hence the scenes of poll workers holding punch cards up to the light to try and see if there were any indentations that could indicate that they tried to vote for one candidate over the other.

Some of that seems very open to question. For example a partial hole is still a hole!

 

[najaB]

Some of that seems very open to question. For example a partial hole is still a hole!

But that was the source of the problem: did that indicate that the voter wanted to vote for candidate X and the machine failed, or that they started to press the button and changed their mind?

The rules (as agreed) said that the hole had to be punched clearly (so that it could be machine counted).

 

[Domh245]

Yet another flaw with the american obsession with voting machines. Can't go wrong with a piece of paper and a pencil/pen, plus if you don't like any of the candidates you can tell them so, quite obscenely should you wish

 

[nlogax]

Yet another flaw with the american obsession with voting machines. Can't go wrong with a piece of paper and a pencil/pen, plus if you don't like any of the candidates you can tell them so, quite obscenely should you wish

Technology has been driving voting methods since the 19th century. While the UK prides itself on paper ballots, the first voting machine was a British invention designed for British elections. I'm fairly amused by the Great Hanging Chads Festival of 2000 being directly responsible for the act that introduced electronic voting. From bad to worse!

 

[najaB]

From bad to worse!

Not necessarily. The current US system where the votes are tabulated electronically but with a paper audit that the voter can see is probably the best option.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Of course Dem never had a leg to stand on, because you cant complain about the rules after you agree to them. They agreed to that process.

I wouldn't say it's that clear cut. I don't know the details, but I'd assume that, when the parties agreed to the process in Florida, they did so without anyone knowing that the voting machines could fail to record people's votes. That's a pretty serious issue and would seem to provide ample justification for complaining.

When it comes to the Legal challenges now, It seems nothing has been thrown out because of evidence provided, but because of Legal proceeding.

A big part of the reason for cases being thrown out is precisely that in most cases, no significant evidence was provided. (It's true though that another big part of the reason is that the cases generally had no sound basis in any existing laws. Not sure if that's what you mean by 'legal proceeding'.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Yet another flaw with the american obsession with voting machines. Can't go wrong with a piece of paper and a pencil/pen, plus if you don't like any of the candidates you can tell them so, quite obscenely should you wish

I did hear a story, which may well be apocryphal and if not I don't know which country it was in, about a voter who protested by drawing a "meat-and-two-veg" on their ballot next to the name of a candidate they disliked... However as their "artwork" was contained entirely within that section of the ballot it was counted as a vote for that candidate.

 

[21C101]

Trump was a warning to the democrats and some republicans that the political class had become too remote from the views and culture of the masses.

A warning because he is fairly charmless and generally all talk (and frankly on foreign policy far less interested in neoimperial miliitary adventures than any president since Pearl Harbour).

I see no indication that they have taken heed of that warning, in fact they have doubled down.

Their reward will be another "Trump" before long. Next time they might not be so lucky and find the new trump has the charm and silver tongue of Blair and uses that charisma to deviously impose policies more akin to Mussolini than Trump, covered by a velvet glove.

As to electronic voting it is a solution looking for a problem (that also makesn an effective chain ofncustody far harder) and I'm glad we have no truck with it here.

That said the biggest issue appears to revolve around postal ballots and late rule changes in some states to massively expand it's availability.

 

[overthewater]

Trump was a warning to the democrats and some republicans that the political class had become too remote from the views and culture of the masses.

A warning because he is fairly charmless and generally all talk (and frankly on foreign policy far less interested in neoimperial miliitary adventures than any president since Pearl Harbour).

I see no indication that they have taken heed of that warning, in fact they have doubled down.

Their reward will be another "Trump" before long. Next time they might not be so lucky and find the new trump has the charm and silver tongue of Blair and uses that charisma to deviously impose policies more akin to Mussolini than Trump, covered by a velvet glove.

As to electronic voting it is a solution looking for a problem (that also makesn an effective chain ofncustody far harder) and I'm glad we have no truck with it here.

That said the biggest issue appears to revolve around postal ballots and late rule changes in some states to massively expand it's availability.

Alas most people are failing completely to notice this warning.. It will be there own fault. What is worse is that there is some issues surrounding the election (is it enough to change 4 states who knows probably not) but instead of doing the correct thing and dealing with it, to wash it all out, you know to stop all the theory etc however, they would rather not listen, it will make things worse. It's strange what trump is doing is legal, and has every right to do it yet they saying oh he's a bad man for doing etc etc. No the correct response is to let him get on with and do everything buy the book, and that would start to role back the madness. Its clear most of the courts just don't want to touch this.

A few places are doing this, some of the testaments are shocking, so either those people are being paid to lie or there has indeed been some fraud. Either way something is not right.

 

[najaB]

What is worse is that there is some issues surrounding the election

Issues such as?

 

[birchesgreen]

Issues such as?

You know? All that stuff that has been successfully challenged in court, oh wait.

 

[overthewater]

I get it, Trump a bad man etc etc look from neutral point. This election is not like Daz and isn't whiter than white. Does that mean it was rigged? no does that mean there wasn't some sort of fraud? No. Could it change the election No etc etc Here is the problem the way the officials are going about and acting is helping to fan the flames of this fire. If you want to heal, you need to get everything out in the open let the proper legal process go ahead, not play a game of political ping pong in the courts, because they don't want to touch it. Remember brexit.. swept it away and it will come back harder to bite you.

It has been noted in this thread, there were some issues, miscounting of votes, vote switching, those machines, for the most part there were sorted yet how on earth did that happen in the first place. Why did they stop counting at 10pm send people away and then restart counting? Why didn't they allow people to watch? In Taiwan its different story, anyone can watch and can count along.

When people start acting a bit funny, It will always raise an eye brown. Like I said either something fishy is going on or alot of people are heading to jail for lying, This is why this keeps on going around and around.

You know? All that stuff that has been successfully challenged in court, oh wait.

Which most of which was never kicked out, on they merits but for procedural matter's, which again does not look good.