No announcement yet.

The US 2020 Presidential Election

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • statquo
    Jeff Dufour

    Historical nugget: The last president to lose the White House, House, and Senate in a single term was Herbert Hoover during the Great Depression. Assuming Jon Ossoff holds on to win David Perdue’s seat in Georgia, President Trump will repeat the ignominious feat 88 years later.

    Leave a comment:

  • Officer of Engineers
    Originally posted by DOR View Post
    Georgia is well on its way to electing TWO Democratic senators in a decisive endorsement of actual democracy; and …
    Sorry, every country practice democrazy. People vote either by ballot or by bullet. No matter what you say, both parties are still using the ballot.

    Originally posted by DOR View Post
    I got carded for the first time in about 30 years!
    They're checking your memory if you can remember who you are.

    Leave a comment:

  • DOR
    What a great day ...

    It's a sunny 71 degrees here in Central Florida;
    My neice and her husband have a new daughter;
    My wife got her COVID-19 vaccine (so far no reaction!);
    we received our $1,200 stimulus check;
    Georgia is well on its way to electing TWO Democratic senators in a decisive endorsement of actual democracy; and …
    I got carded for the first time in about 30 years!

    Truly a wonderful day!

    PS For my non-American friends, “carded” means asked for proof of being over 21.

    Leave a comment:

  • Bigfella
    I am enjoying today almost as much as Election night. Losing one Georgia Senate seat might be seen as misfortune. Losing two looks like carelessness. :-D

    With about 90,000 votes to count, most from heavily blue areas, Warnock is basically home & Ossoff needs 51%, though he will likely go to a recount.

    Trump & his army of nutters really have screwed the pooch here. They drove down turnout in GOP counties & drove it up in Dem ones. Now that is some 4D chess right there folks. Couldn't happen to a more vile collection of people. Sow the wind.....

    So, not only does the cancer tha tis Moscow Mitch get to fuck right off, but a couple of decent Senators get to make their mark. Warnock quite literally stands in the shoes of Martin Luther King at Ebenezer Baptist Church. He is the first African American to represent Georgia in the Senate & the first African American Democrat elected to the Senate. Ossoff used to work for John Lewis, has an Australian mother & at one time held Austraian citizenship - finally one of you bastards who knows what vegemite is! Also the youngest Senator in 40 years.

    Even if Ossoff doesn't win, this at least gives Biden a chance at appointing judges & passing legislation. If he does then it is great news for America. Biden will get the chance to pursue a moderate agenda & fix some of the damage done by Trump. Merrick Garland for AG anyone?

    Looking ahead, 2022 shapes up as an interesting year in Georgia. Warnock will be up for re-election. This might be a bad thing for him, but there is a wild card called Stacey Abrams. She will be running for governor & she is a turnout beast. If she can work her magic and the GOP in Georgia descends into some nasty internicine fighting (or puts up more duds like Loeffler) then it is possible that she & Warnock might both have a good night.

    Still, that is a long, long way away. For the moment we can all just watch Republicans throw a tantrum as 2020 delivers one last plate of shit for them to eat. Wel ldeserved indeed.

    Leave a comment:

  • InExile
    Dave Wasserman calls Georgia for Warnock! Woohoo

    Ossoff is only about 10000 votes behind so he should be the favorite too.

    Update: Needle now predicts greater than 95% for both Democrats
    Last edited by InExile; 06 Jan 21,, 06:02.

    Leave a comment:

  • InExile
    Close race in Georgia, but the Democrats appear to be leaning a bit ahead. Hope the races will be called tonight

    Leave a comment:

  • TopHatter
    How Biden Won: Six Hard Truths
    Digging into the exit poll data on gender, education, age, and more.

    How did Joe Biden win the presidential election? And what lessons does his victory hold for how he should govern?

    Early attempts to interpret the results of the election were hampered by the slowness of the counting—the major news outlets didn’t even call the presidential race until the Saturday after the election—and by other 2020 idiosyncrasies. In particular, the exit polls, which in a normal election year can help explain how different political and demographic subgroups voted, were conducted abnormally because of the pandemic. And the pre-election polls, which normally also aid in interpreting election results, were dramatically off this year.

    My aim in this piece is to offer an overview—based on an analysis of the data available—of the electoral mathematics behind Biden’s win.

    Clarifying the Exit Poll Mess
    The exit polling data does not speak with a singular authoritative voice. This year, there were two major exit surveys, the “traditional” one done by Edison Research (based upon a sample of 15,590 in-person and self-described mail-in voters; see CNN and the New York Times) and the AP VoteCast survey (based upon a sample of 110,485 self-described voters; see NPR and the New York Times). The raw data from each of these surveys is “weighted” to reflect the actual election results.

    These two exit polls point to different results among key voting blocs, suggesting that one or both of these surveys are suffering from some of the same sampling problems that affected this year’s pre-election polls. To be fair, those conducting these exit polls faced a Herculean task, given the sheer size of the electorate that voted early in person or by mail—respectively 30 percent and 41 percent of the total vote, based on the AP VoteCast estimate. In short, 71 percent of this year’s electorate could not be captured by the exit pollsters upon leaving the polls, which is the easiest and most reliable means of ascertaining whether someone actually voted.

    Consequently, the diverging results in these two exit polls will leave us scratching our heads. For example, the Edison data had whites constituting a 67 percent share of the total vote and overwhelmingly favoring Trump, by 58-41, with Biden carrying black voters (13 percent of the total) by 87-12, Hispanics (13 percent of the total) by 65-32, and Asians (4 percent of the total) by 61-34. The AP VoteCast data put the white share of the total vote at 74 percent and going 55-43 for Trump, with Biden winning among black voters (11 percent of the total) by 90-8, Hispanics (9 percent of the total) by 63-35, and Asians (2 percent of the total) by 70-28.

    In short, these two exit polls painted different pictures of the electorate. Which exit survey is correct, and in which ways? For example, if Edison were right on the share of the total vote attributed to each racial bloc but AP VoteCast were correct on how those blocs divided their votes between Biden and Trump, that would be significantly different from an electorate in which AP VoteCast got the shares right but Edison got the spreads right.

    When you match up the actual voting returns in key states, the much larger AP VoteCast sample appears to be more accurate. That does not mean, of course, that the VoteCast data got everything right. Given the differences between the two surveys, we should resist pretending that either is totally correct—at least until the more detailed census-based studies of who voted and how they voted are completed in the coming months.

    While searching for answers to the questions emerging from this election, we must supplement the exit-polling data with findings extrapolated from the actual election returns and relevant demographic data.

    With those caveats set forth, we can now turn to the big question at hand: How did Biden win? After melding the exit-polling data with the actual vote counts, six hard truths emerge that should, for reasons I’ll explain, prove unsettling to both Democrats and Republicans.

    1. Women Won the Election for Biden
    Women outvoted men—by 4 percent in the Edison data and 6 percent in the AP VoteCast survey—and rejected Donald Trump, denying him re-election. According to the AP VoteCast, Biden carried women by 55-44, while Trump carried men by 52-46. Edison had similar numbers: Biden won women by 57-42, while Trump won men by 53-45. The bigger margins and bigger turnout among women were decisive.

    The Edison data showed Trump carrying white men (35 percent of the total vote) by a 61-38 margin, while white women (32 percent of the total vote) broke for Trump by a far smaller margin of 55-44. The Edison data also showed black men (4 percent of the total vote) breaking for Biden by 79-19, while black women (8 percent of the total vote) favored Biden 90-9. Among Hispanics, the Edison data showed men (5 percent of the total vote) favoring Biden by 59-36 and women (8 percent of the total vote) favoring Biden by 69-30. Even if those splits in the Edison data are less accurate than the AP VoteCast spreads along race and ethnicity, it is clear that women voters delivered the White House to the Biden-Harris ticket.

    2. The ‘Education Gap’ and Its Link to Race and Sex
    Second, the emerging education gap worked in Biden’s favor, amplifying the impact of gender and race. According to the AP VoteCast data, voters with high school or less as their education level (27 percent of the total vote), broke for Trump over Biden by 52-46, a figure nearly identical to that group’s Trump vs. Clinton figure from 2016. (The 2016 exit polls are archived here by CNN and here by the New York Times.)

    Voters with some college or an associate’s degree but less than a four-year degree (34 percent of the total vote) tipped dramatically away from Trump: In the 2016 exit poll they preferred him by 8 percent, but in the 2020 AP VoteCast data they preferred him by just 2 percent. The narrowing gap by which Trump carried that category of voters opened the door for Biden to win by sweeping the votes of those with higher levels of education. Biden carried college graduates with no postgraduate studies (25 percent of the total vote) by 56-42 and voters with postgraduate studies (15 percent of the total vote) by 58-40. Biden’s landslide margin among the highly educated was much larger than Trump’s margin among the 61 percent of the electorate with less than a college degree.

    Gender and race were the crucial building blocks underlying this education divide in the electorate. Most notably, white college-educated men (16 percent of the total vote) voted for Trump by 52-46 while white college-educated women (14 percent of the electorate) went for Biden by 59-39. (It should be noted that this divergence echoes the age and gender divides more generally: Because men formerly far outnumbered women in college, and today women far outnumber men in college, the population of women with college degrees is younger than the population of men with college degrees—and older men skew toward Trump while younger women skew toward Biden.)

    White men without college degrees (19 percent of the total vote), gave Trump a landslide margin of 64-34, while white women without college degrees (24 percent of the total vote) gave Trump a large but lesser margin of 60-39. Big though those margins are, they are each smaller than in 2016.

    Among non-white voters, by contrast, Biden won regardless of education status (or sex):
    • among non-white non-college-educated men (7 percent of the vote), he won by 68-30;
    • among non-white non-college-educated women (10 percent of the total vote), he won by 77-21;
    • among non-white college-educated men (4 percent of the total vote), he won by 66-31; and
    • among non-white college-educated women (4 percent of the total vote), he won by a lopsided 80-19.

    So Biden swept highly educated white women and he dominated among non-white women regardless of education level (perhaps buttressed by Kamala Harris’s outreach to black and Asian women). And he shaved down Trump’s edge among women with no or only some college education (perhaps aided slightly by Jill Biden’s long career as a community college professor).

    Thomas Edsall, in a statistically rich and insightful column, points out that in 1980, Ronald Reagan’s Republicans “won 76 of the 100 counties with the largest share of college degrees.” However, in 2020, Biden’s Democrats carried 84 of those 100 counties.

    3. Location, Location, Location
    Third, Biden carried the nation’s suburbs by 10 percent in the AP VoteCast survey. From the Eisenhower through the Reagan eras, Republicans held a lock on highly educated and affluent suburban voters. It began eroding in 2004—and cracked apart in 2020. Edsall notes that in 1980 Republicans carried 91 out of the 100 counties with the highest median income level; in 2020, they carried only 43.

    Assuming the trend holds, the significance for Democrats is enormous. The suburbs cast 45-47 percent of the total vote in high-turnout elections and 48-50 percent of the electorate in low-turnout elections. If Democrats can forge a coalition that unites the suburbs (45 percent of the total 2020 vote) while continuing to sweep the urban vote (20 percent of the total vote), that is a winning coalition—so long as they can also manage to do just a little better among blue-collar white voters in America’s small towns (17 percent of the total vote) and rural communities (18 percent of the total vote). The small-town and rural vote that Trump’s Republicans have solidified is simply not large enough to hold a majority in either the Electoral College or the popular vote.

    Keep in mind that the margins among suburban voters tend to be narrow (Obama carried the suburbs by only 2 percent in 2008 and lost them by 2 percent in 2012), thus Biden carrying the suburbs by 10 percent was a huge factor in his election.

    4. The Young and the Faithful
    Fourth, the youth vote helped Biden win, even as it did not expand its share of the total vote from 2016. Voters aged 18 to 29, according to the AP VoteCast data, cast the same 13 percent share of the total vote that an in-depth, post-election Pew study showed from 2016. (The 2016 exit polls put the figure higher, at 19 percent of the total vote.) Biden carried these under-30 voters by 61-36.

    Nevertheless, even adding in the 23 percent of the vote cast by those aged 30 to 44, only 36 percent of the total vote was from those 44 and younger. Voters 45 and older cast the other 64 percent of the ballots. Consequently, had Biden not cut Trump’s lead among those 45 and older from about 7 percent in 2016 to only 3 percent (51-48), things might have gotten very tight in the Electoral College.

    Most of the pre-election public polls showed Biden carrying seniors by close to double digits. That proved inaccurate. Edison put the senior (65 and older) vote at a 22 percent of the overall electorate and showed Trump carrying it by 52-47, whereas the AP VoteCast data had seniors at 28 percent of the electorate, with Trump carrying them 51-48.

    That is not to say that the youth vote was unimportant. The 25 percent edge Biden had in the AP VoteCast data among under-30 voters gave him a huge boost, especially since he carried voters aged 30 to 44 by only 54-43. But that large margin from the under-30 voters for Biden mattered only because Biden also succeeded in significantly shaving Trump’s 2016 margin among older voters.

    There was a hidden nugget in the exit polls from Georgia, where 20 percent of the total vote was cast by those under 30 in age, higher than the national average, which was obviously a factor in Biden’s surprising albeit narrow victory in Georgia, enabling him to cross 300 votes in the Electoral College.

    It is worth charting the key voting blocs enabling Biden’s ability to shave Trump’s edge among older voters. Religion played a key role. Back in 2016, Trump led Clinton among Catholics by 4 percentage points, a margin powered by white Catholic voters. Biden, only the second Catholic to be elected president, cut Trump’s lead among Catholics to 1 percent—a dead heat. Jewish voters (3 percent of the total), voted for Biden over Trump by 68-31. This is down slightly—by 3 or 4 percent— from recent presidential elections, where Obama and Clinton got in the low 70s among Jewish voters. The slight drop may reflect the growing share of more conservative Hasidic and highly Orthodox Jewish voters within the full range of Jewish voters, but it does not represent a wholesale change in partisan loyalties among Jewish voters who still sharply gravitate towards the Democrats. We are probably at mid-passage where the Jewish vote is on the way from a 75-25 split favoring Democrats a couple of decades ago toward a 65-35 split favoring Democrats by the end of this decade. The combined share of the (mostly white) Catholic and Jewish vote has always played an outsized role in the large, swing Electoral College states—not just New York, Florida, and California, but Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, as well as Arizona and Georgia.

    5. The Real Enthusiasm Gap
    Fifth, after all the talk during the campaign about how Trump’s supporters were more enthusiastic than Biden’s, we can now see in the data that there was an enthusiasm gap at the core of this election—but that it helped Biden, not Trump. In the AP VoteCast survey, 46 percent of voters rated President Trump favorably, while 53 percent rated him unfavorably. Therefore, it should not really surprise anyone that the popular vote now stands at 51.3 percent for Biden and 46.8 percent for Trump. Biden’s achievement was to sponge up the votes of nearly the entire range of those who opposed Trump. Among the 46 percent of voters who reported in the AP VoteCast survey that they “disapprove strongly” of President Trump, Biden won 97-1. On the flip side, meanwhile, the voters who said they “approve strongly” of Trump, who voted for him by 98-2, amounted to a much smaller 31 percent of the electorate.

    In other words, the notion that Trump’s base was more passionate about supporting him than was Biden’s is not reflected in the data. Instead the real enthusiasm gap was that 15 percent more of the electorate strongly disapproved of Trump than was passionately in his corner: The 46 percent of the voters who really and truly disliked Trump put Biden on a glide path to victory that MAGA nation, constituting only 31 percent of the electorate, could not overcome. In fact, Biden was able to extend his electoral reach to encompass the nearly the full range of the anti-Trump majority, all the way from the “woke” left to the middle to the Never Trump Republicans. That coalition did not produce a landslide. But it did form a solid majority of the electorate.

    This enthusiasm gap was enough to overcome the late move to Trump among the 5 percent of the total vote who told AP VoteCast that they decided who to vote for in last few days. Those late-deciding voters broke for Trump by a margin of 51-38 percent—not enough to change the outcome, but enough to help take Biden’s popular-vote margin down to 4.5 percent, rather than something closer to the 8 to 10 percent level forecast by most of the public polling data in the days before November 3. (Another big reason the public pollsters once again had to scrape egg off their faces: They badly misread how senior voters would land—thinking Biden was leading by 8 to 10 percent among voters 65 and older, when Trump won them by 3 to 5 percent. “This is a deeper kind” of polling error than those of four years ago, writes Nate Cohn. “It suggests a fundamental mismeasurement of the attitudes of a large demographic group.”)

    In retrospect, this presidential race was a negative referendum on Trump and his presidency. The Democratic party was not able to erase many voters’ perception that the Democrats would swing too far left (influenced by the Trumpist rants that the Democrats would pursue “socialism” and the defunding of police, despite the fact that neither Biden nor more than a half-dozen or so Democratic candidates for Congress were advocating anything close to that as a platform). The enthusiasm gap—the fact that many of the votes for Biden were really just votes against Trump—was also the reason Biden had no coattails in the congressional races (with the Democrats losing seats in the House and Biden not able to boost the Democrats into a clear majority in the Senate).

    That inconvenient political reality for Democrats on coattails can be seen in some interesting data Thomas Edsall obtained from Robert Stein, a political scientist at Rice University. Stein tracked the results of the five House seats in Texas that were at the top of the Democrats’ list of potential pick-up opportunities:
    The five districts—two in Collin County north of Dallas, two in Tarrant County (Fort Worth) and one in Dallas County—Stein noted, were “predominately white suburban or exurban districts with above average education and income for Texas.” What happened in these districts on Nov. 3? Biden carried all of them, by an average of 6.5 points, Stein wrote, but all the Democratic challengers for state legislative offices fell short.

    The difference between the 2018 midterm elections, when the Republican candidates in swing House districts were defeated, almost savaged, and this year, when the Democrats both lost some swing seats they had won last time and whiffed badly on challenge races to extend their majority, is clear. In 2018, the anti-Trump majority, which included conservative Democrats, moderate independents, and traditional non-Tea Party Republicans, had only one outlet to express opposition to Trump: voting against Republican congressional candidates. In 2020, they could direct their anger straight at Trump—and many of those voters chose to stick with Republican candidates down-ballot. Neither party should take comfort in projecting what will motivate these swing voters in the 2022 races and beyond. Those are difficult-to-read voters whose support will prove a hard-earned prize.

    6. Big Turnout But No Big Shift to the Left
    Which brings us to the final piece needed to crack the code for how Biden won this election: the defection of Never Trump Republicans to Biden’s banner. The one thing Trump and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could agree on was that the impact of Never Trump Republican initiatives—like Republican Voters Against Trump and the Lincoln Project—would be minimal.

    That assessment was flat-out wrong.

    The dogma on the left—that if only turnout surged, then younger voters would drive the electorate not only in favor of the Democrats but sharply toward the left ideologically—proved not to be true in 2020. Despite the surge from 137 million total votes in 2016 to 158 million in 2020, a modern record of 66.7 percent of the eligible population, there was partisan parity in the turnout: The AP VoteCast survey found that 47 percent of the voters self-identified as Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents, while 48 percent of the voters said they were Republicans or Republican-leaning independents. Edison found that 37 percent of the voters were Democrats, 36 percent Republicans. The turnout surge did not make the electorate more Democratic.

    (This, by the way, is another reason the pre-election public polling got it wrong: Most polls wrongly projected that Democrats had a lead of 3-5 percent in who voted, when instead there was partisan parity.)

    In terms of ideology, this year’s electorate remained center-right, if the exit-polling data is correct. The Edison survey found that 24 percent of the voters self-described as liberal (favoring Biden by 89-10), 38 percent moderate (going for Biden by 64-34), and 38 percent conservative (favoring Trump 85-14). Despite recent polls suggesting the liberal share of the electorate was rising above 25 percent while the conservative share was drifting down from the 40 percent level (which held steady from 1966-2006) toward 35 percent, in fact the conservative share held at 38 percent. And remember that not all of the self-described “liberals” are pure progressives; many are traditional liberals—so among that 24 percent of liberals, the pure progressives are but a fraction of that in a general election.

    Which means that to win not only the presidency but also to gain congressional majorities, Democrats will need moderate and non-Trumpist Republican votes to succeed, outside the large urban centers.

    The AP VoteCast data reveals the equation that won the presidency for Biden’s Democrats with partisan parity in place and with conservatives enjoying a solid edge over liberals: Democrats broke for Biden by 95-4 while Republicans went for Trump by 91-8. The narrow band of independents (5 percent of the electorate) broke for Biden by 52-37. In the Edison data, which used a broader, more traditional definition of independents, they broke for Biden by a margin of 13 percent (54-41).

    The bottom line is clear: Biden won because the Never Trump Republicans gave him twice as many defections from Trump (8 percent) as Trump was able to pull away from Biden among Democrats (4 percent), enabling Biden’s clear double-digit edge among independents to carry the day.

    The robust efforts of those leading this Never Trump Republican assault on Trump may not have moved huge pools of voters, but in terms of the actual significance of the votes that they turned, they moved mountains. Donald Trump liked to denigrate the full gamut of Never Trump Republicans as losers, but their efforts turned Trump into the real and ultimate loser of the 2020 election.

    Nothing terribly shocking here but still worth looking at.

    Leave a comment:

  • tbm3fan
    He may have quoted Stalin but he is a fascist through and through...

    Leave a comment:

  • TopHatter
    Click image for larger version

Name:	Capture.JPG
Views:	80
Size:	73.7 KB
ID:	1570231

    Anger as conservative pollster Rasmussen appears to back overturning election result

    Legal experts and commentators are crying foul after Rasmussen Reports, a conservative-leaning polling firm, quoted a line attributed to Joseph Stalin and linked to right-wing commentary arguing vice president Mike Pence could still try to overturn the legitimate presidential election results.

    On Sunday, Rasmussen Reports, once described as the president’s “favourite pollster,” tweeted out a thread from conservative blogger, gaming media executive, and self-described “internet supervillainAlexander Macris. It detailed a dubious theory about how the vice president, who will ceremonially certify the election results before a joint session of Congress on 6 January, could overturn the process and give the Trump administration a win.

    It began with a quote, likely apocryphal, from Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, which read, “Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.”

    And it went on to outline an election theory experts said was bogus, but which has been gaining traction in conservative circles since the election.

    “The Vice President is not supposed to control the outcome of the process for counting the electoral votes from the states,” Edward Foley, a law professor at the Ohio State University, told The Hill. "The Vice President chairs the joint session, but does not decide what electoral votes to count.”

    The president, upon learning of Mr Pence’s role, reportedly pushed for him to do something to postpone the inevitable. But the Washington Post reported that Mr Pence has already told House Republicans and others pushing to overturn the results that he plans to honour his constitutional duty and won’t create any unnecessary drama. He is reportedly planning an overseas trip soon after.

    Despite his assurances, commentators online were dismayed that the Rasmussen post invoked the notorious dictator and outlined how to overturn the election.

    “Rasmussen Reports is telling Mike Pence to take some tips from Josef Stalin on how to steal an election,” wrote Matthew Sheffield, a self-described “former conservative” writer. “This is the absolute state of American conservatism.”

    Brendan Keefe, a reporter based in Georgia, the focus of so much of the president’s unfounded election conspiracy theories, said that to honour this sort of thinking would mean, “At that point, democracy would cease to exist.”

    Others, like Mother Jones editor Clara Jefferey, contrasted the Rasmussen tweets with the common right-wing canard that liberals are becoming increasingly totalitarian or intolerant.

    “Crazy how @Rasmussen_Poll quoted Stalin, amirite?” she tweeted, in response to a post from former UN ambassador and Trump ally Nikki Haley warning about the Democratic party’s supposedly socialist turn.

    Rasmussen, which political data journalism site 538 once rated as a middling “C+” pollster, responded to the uproar in another tweet.

    “The usual partisan hacks are feigning upset that our analysis & commentary piece from Alexander Macris yesterday included a top quote from Stalin,” Rasmussen wrote on Monday. “Well it does. The hacks don't want you to READ that commentary. They'd much rather finger us as Staninists. What a sad bunch."

    No such thing as rock bottom.

    Never forgive, never forgot.

    Leave a comment:

  • JRT
    Click image for larger version  Name:	january-6-2021.png Views:	0 Size:	4.6 KB ID:	1570202
    Click image for larger version

Name:	january-20-2021.png
Views:	82
Size:	4.8 KB
ID:	1570203
    Last edited by JRT; 29 Dec 20,, 15:40.

    Leave a comment:

  • TopHatter
    Gohmert suit may force Pence's hand in effort to overturn Trump's defeat
    The vice president is set to oversee certification of Biden's Electoral College win.

    Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) and President Donald Trump's defeated electors from Arizona may force Vice President Mike Pence to publicly pick a side in Trump’s bid to overturn his 2020 election loss.

    Gohmert and a handful of the would-be electors sued Pence in federal court on Monday in a long-shot bid to throw out the rules that govern Congress' counting of electoral votes next week. It’s an effort they hope will permit Pence — who is tasked with leading the Jan. 6 session of the House and Senate — to simply ignore President-elect Joe Biden's electors and count Trump's losing slates instead.

    The lawsuit asserts that the 1887 law known as the Electoral Count Act, the vague statute that has long governed the electoral vote counting process with minimal drama, unconstitutionally binds Pence from exercising total authority to choose which votes to count.

    "Under the Twelfth Amendment, Defendant Pence alone has the exclusive authority and sole discretion to open and permit the counting of the electoral votes for a given state, and where there are competing slates of electors, or where there is objection to any single slate of electors, to determine which electors’ votes, or whether none, shall be counted," the suit contends.

    The lawsuit comes before Judge Jeremy Kernodle, a Trump appointee to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. It's unclear if he'll grant the request for an expedited judgment.

    Though the lawsuit itself is unlikely to gain legal traction, it does put Pence in the position of having to either contest the suit — putting him on the opposite side of Trump and his GOP defenders — or support it and lay bare the intention to subvert the will over the voters in the 2020 election.

    Pence has engaged with GOP lawmakers seeking to reverse the election results but has avoided publicly taking a side in the matter, and he has given no indication how he intends to handle his role presiding over the Jan. 6 session of Congress set to certify Biden's victory.

    Though Biden was the certified winner in states like Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan and others, the Republicans who would have been Trump's electors met anyway and purported to cast their votes for Trump's reelection. They're counting on Pence and congressional Republicans to treat those informal votes as equal to the slates certified in those states where Trump was defeated.

    Pence, the suit contends, may only be guided by constitutional provisions and may exercise "sole discretion in determining which electoral votes to count for a given State, and must ignore and may not rely on any provisions of the Electoral Count Act that would limit his exclusive authority."

    Gohmert indicates in the suit that he will be one of the House Republicans who intend to challenge Biden's electors from key states. Dozens of other House Republicans intend to follow suit, and at least one incoming GOP senator — Tommy Tuberville of Alabama — has signaled he's likely to join them. It's unclear if other GOP senators will as well.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has worked to dissuade his caucus from participating in the challenges, and the second-ranking GOP leader, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), drew a fierce attack from Trump after he told reporters that any challenges to the results were doomed to fail.

    Under the rules Gohmert is challenging, all it takes is a single member of each branch to challenge electors from multiple states to force a vote on the matter. But any challenge is likely to fail under the expected rules. The Democrat-led House will vote to uphold Biden's win, and numerous GOP senators have indicated they do not intend to support Trump's efforts.

    Throwing out those rules, per Gohmert, would allow Pence to decide which electors to consider in the first place, raising the specter that he could simply choose to count Trump's slate.

    Trump allies have repeatedly pointed to Pence's role at the center of the Electoral College certification process as a reason to take hope that the election results could still be reversed. Trump even amplified one such theory last week, retweeting a suggestion that Pence could intervene in the transmission of electoral votes to the National Archives.

    At least earlier this month, Pence was planning to oversee Biden’s victory and then try to escape Trump’s ire by heading abroad for what might be his final diplomatic trip in office. If Pence ultimately opts out of participating in the session, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the Senate president pro tem, would likely preside.

    Leave a comment:

  • TopHatter
    Republicans sue Mike Pence in 'desperate' last-ditch effort to overturn election

    Several Republicans, including Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas), have resorted to suing Vice President Mike Pence as part of a "desperate" last-ditch effort to overturn the results of November's presidential election, The Hill reports. The goal of the lawsuit is to get a federal judge to rule that Pence has the exclusive authority to choose electors when he oversees the Electoral College vote certification on Jan. 6.

    Despite President-elect Joe Biden's victory in battleground states like Arizona and Georgia, Republican electors held their own votes earlier this month in a move to disrupt the official process as Trump and his allies continue to make unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud. The lawsuit urges Pence to recognize the Republican electoral votes rather than the actual Democratic votes.

    The chances of this lawsuit being successful appear to be negligible. University of California, Irvine, law professor Rick Hasen said flatly "this won't work," while Georgia State University law professor Anthony Michael Kreis called it "insane." And even if the the plaintiffs do win, Pence — who has not recognized Biden's win, but has generally been quiet about election conspiracy theories — would still have to actually go through with picking pro-Trump electors, a task likely easier said than done. Read the full complaint here.

    This insanity has (nearly) hit rock bottom.

    Next we'll see these Trumpist lunatics bum rush Pence during the count and try to confiscate the votes.

    Leave a comment:

  • TopHatter
    Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
    I watched the interview and when people explicitly say they are not arguing for something, I believe them. When they are asked "What COULD we do," you present options that are not necessarily "what SHOULD we do."
    I never thought that you were the type to swallow that kind of blindly obvious double-talk nonsense that so many Trump followers seem to adore. WTF man?

    Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
    This is apparently standard, as Trump was presented with options that he COULD do WRT Iran that involved assassinating one of their generals, when he was apparently not "supposed" to do that.
    You're comparing two entirely different situations. A world leader being presented with contingency plans to deal with a hostile foreign power is the not, repeat not, the same as someone like Flynn throwing around ideas for martial law to overturn a free and fair election in the United States.

    Leave a comment:

  • tbm3fan
    Sorry, but retweeting it does count. I'm surprised you are not familiar with "having your cake, and eating it too" and "it wasn't my idea, it was his"

    Oh, and maybe your Google skills need a little fine tuning in a search

    Leave a comment:

  • GVChamp
    Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post

    Here, I'l do it for you since it seems very complicated for some.

    The Lt. Gen. retweeted a petition calling for Trump to invoke martial law, suspend the Constitution, and hold a new election.

    The petition was published by the Ohio-based non-profit group We the People Convention said "there was no peaceful way left to preserve our Union" following President-elect Joe Biden's Electoral College victory and urge Trump to use his extraordinary authority to avert a second civil war.

    So he retweeted a petition from a group that one could possibly call traitors to the Constitution. I would say that means he agrees with the petition therefore aligning himself with that group.

    See, that wasn't hard now was it?
    I just googled "flynn retweet martial law" and got a bunch of no-name sources that would pop up from any random google search. There's maybe something from Daily Mail, but that website is Computer Cancer and the top reference is to Replacement Player Scott O'Grady.

    I had to jump through Flynn's entire Twitter feed, where he says multiple times to let the actual process Constitutional process play out, before finding a retweet saying that we should use the military to re-run elections if the Constitution is ignored. This is EXTREMELY concerning, make no doubt, but this is very clearly not what's being bandied about in this recent dust-up. Also I think we should nuke Russia (conditional on them nuking us) which is not the same as "I think we should nuke Russia."

    So, no, doesn't count, and if the news thinks that is important, it should be one of the first results on my google search, not something I have to dig through Flynn's Twitter feed personally because some guy I don't know mentioned it on a web forum.

    Meanwhile I spent the last 1.5 hour looking at dryers and actually found pretty decent results because the incentive in that industry is actually aligned in my interest (at least if I reference Wirecutter and Consumer Reports). Journalism is a dumpster fire the size of Kansas, and even the good outlets like NY Times have slacked and shot their credibility in their foot.

    Why not just look at that Newsmax interview where he said two different things in the Trumpian fashion, as Astralis so adroitly defined it? No additional research needed.

    I mean, you were pretty adamant that there was a blatant mischaracterization of Flynn's view and typical journalistic malpractice. Do you still feel that way?
    I watched the interview and when people explicitly say they are not arguing for something, I believe them. When they are asked "What COULD we do," you present options that are not necessarily "what SHOULD we do."

    This is apparently standard, as Trump was presented with options that he COULD do WRT Iran that involved assassinating one of their generals, when he was apparently not "supposed" to do that.
    Last edited by GVChamp; 23 Dec 20,, 04:29.

    Leave a comment: