2020 Election: Predictions, Results and Reactions

[yovargas]

Hah, that ruling is hilarious. Don't feel like reading the full thing today, I'm guessing from that quote that they didn't bother addressing the question of whether the law's constitutional?

[Inanna]

Thanks to V, I know what "dismissed with prejudice" means, but it still sounds so thrilling!

(OT but Pratchett basically wrote Snuff for the extended Pride and Extreme Prejudice joke)

I don’t know this! Tell me more - in Pratchett thread, maybe?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Hah, that ruling is hilarious. Don't feel like reading the full thing today, I'm guessing from that quote that they didn't bother addressing the question of whether the law's constitutional?

Nope.

[Dave_LF]

Totally worth 3 million. Hope Wisconsin got payment up front.

[RoseMorninStar]

hee-hee-he

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Totally worth 3 million. Hope Wisconsin got payment up front.

Yes, payment upfront was required. That is why they only did the partial recount. They didn't want to pay the full $8 million up front.

[River]

Hah, that ruling is hilarious. Don't feel like reading the full thing today, I'm guessing from that quote that they didn't bother addressing the question of whether the law's constitutional?

Nope.

But they hinted that if a good faith suit had been brought in a timely manner, they would have been willing to address such questions.

ETA: My favorite headline by far about the Wisconsin recount: "Trump Gains in Wisconsin Not Enough to Win". That's, like, the understatement of the entire election.

[N.E. Brigand]

Totally worth 3 million. Hope Wisconsin got payment up front.

Yes, payment upfront was required. That is why they only did the partial recount. They didn't want to pay the full $8 million up front.

It baffles me that the Trump campaign would spend $3 million on an effort that was doomed to fail.

(Back in 2016, when Jill Stein's campaign announced that they would be requesting recounts in the three key swing states, the Hillary Clinton campaign joined the effort, but with a reluctant public statement that explained that they were doing so only in order to have representatives in the room to make sure there was no skullduggery, not because they believed it would make any difference, since, they noted, no recount had ever overturned a margin even one-tenth as close as Trump's margin over Clinton in the closest of the three states.)

Has the Trump campaign been drinking their own Flavor-aid? Or did they feel they needed to take this costly step to keep their base engaged?

[RoseMorninStar]

From what I've been reading in the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel

Trump's campaign paid $3 million to cover the cost of the recounts in Wisconsin’s two most Democratic counties so he could pursue a long-shot lawsuit to claim the state’s 10 electoral votes.

Trump on Saturday tweeted that he would file a lawsuit in Wisconsin by Tuesday.

"The Wisconsin recount is not about finding mistakes in the count, it is about finding people who have voted illegally, and that case will be brought after the recount is over, on Monday or Tuesday," Trump wrote.

It seems they are trying to find a way of throwing out all absentee ballots, although the state has allowed it for about a decade. I don't see how the outcome would be different than the ruling in Michigan.

Another article about messing with Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes.

[River]

Is it just me or is Trump saltiest about the states he won in 2016 but lost in this round? I mean, if he's so pissed about mail-in votes, why isn't he going after states that are all mail-in all the time, like Colorado?

Has the Trump campaign been drinking their own Flavor-aid? Or did they feel they needed to take this costly step to keep their base engaged?

Yes.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

(This is directed at Rose)
Your Supreme Court has made some questionable decisions, but I can't see it going there.

[River]

How would they even find "illegal" ballots in the recount? Ballots are disconnected from the voter. That's how secrecy is maintained.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Logic. Is. Not. Being. Applied.

[RoseMorninStar]

River, you've made a fatal error. You are looking for logic. You shall find none here. (x-posted with V.. he beat me to it. )

Voronwë, yes, I'm aware of the problems with our state's Supreme court. *sigh* Gerrymandering is a problem and the far right is over-represented in the state (Ron Johnson, Glenn Grothman, Robin Vos, to name a few. At least we recently got another liberal judge on the court.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yup. Still a 4-3 conservative majority, though.

[RoseMorninStar]

*sigh* yeah. I don't keep up with it in depth (mostly because most law is over my head) but a very good friend of mine went to school for law and she keeps me informed. I was so happy when the Trump/Walker pick didn't make it. I don't know what they put in the water here, but we've got our share of doozy's. The Koch brothers spent a lot of $$ meddling here to make it so.

[River]

You might be exporting all the sane people to the Denver metro. Seems like all the sane Midwesterners are pouring into the Denver metro.

[RoseMorninStar]

The desire to flee is real. We sometimes wonder where we'd go if we decided to leave the red lands.

I consider myself to be of average intelligence. I am good with certain things and woefully inadequate in other areas, but I have met Glenn Grothman and the man is a dolt. He cannot look a person in the eye. Ron Johnson.. is just *ugh* unhinged imo. And then we have Robin Vos, the Mitch McConnell of Wisconsin. Here's an interesting article (satire, kinda, but with more than a bit of truth) about him and this election. Robin Vos target of own probe.

[N.E. Brigand]

Yup. Still a 4-3 conservative majority, though.

From earlier reporting, I gather that the conservative members of Wisconsin's supreme court live in Dane County and all voted by a method that the Trump campaign has said should be invalidated.

[RoseMorninStar]

Yup. Still a 4-3 conservative majority, though.

From earlier reporting, I gather that the conservative members of Wisconsin's supreme court live in Dane County and all voted by a method that the Trump campaign has said should be invalidated.

But it's OK for them, just like it's OK for Trump although there is (evidently) a legal issue as to whether he can call Mar-a-lago his legal residence since it is not a private home. But it's not OK for anyone voting against Trump.