2020 Presidential Election

[RoseMorninStar]

I don't have a twitter account either but I could open it. Maybe it's because you're in Canada? I find twitter confusing.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes, I was also able to open despite not having (and never having had, and not intending to have) a Twitter account.

[Túrin Turambar]

As I'm sure you're already aware, this has always been my position. Nice to see the NYT agreeing with me

Was Joe Biden the only Democrat who would have beaten President Trump?

This is difficult to say. I think the Democratic field in 2020 was actually weaker than expected, explaining the popularity of plausible but still second-tier candidates like Pete Buttigieg and longshots like Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard. That said, I don't see any reason why someone like, say, Amy Klobuchar wouldn't have also beaten Trump.

I also think that people who watch politics tend to become too fixated on ideology. Two candidates with similar views can get a wildly-different reception from the electorate (if I could trademark a phrase, I would call this the Goldwater-Reagan effect).

I also think they become too tied up with experience. Some of the most experienced presidential candidates have been defeated by Washington outsiders, or if they did win, led unsuccessful presidencies. James Buchanan had spent decades in Congress and been Secretary of State, for example.

Biden was naturally attractive to these people because he was an experienced moderate. I don't think he was a bad candidate, but I don't think he was a great one, either. Long-term politicians build up baggage, and he was no exception. And while I don't think being on the older side is a problem, I think he isn't as sharp as he was ten years ago. Both of these things probably dragged down his potential vote.

But, as Nate Silver likes to remind us, the sample size of presidential elections is small, and we can't re-run them with different candidates to test different ideas. So we'll never know. Joe Biden proved a sufficient for the purpose for which he was nominated.

[Dave_LF]

I find Twitter extremely useful for getting expert opinions straight from the various horses' mouths. But it's just like youtube--don't read the comments.

[N.E. Brigand]

Huh. Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri whose name has been mentioned as a possible 2024 presidential candidate, has introduced a bill that would require states to count mail ballots as they come in.

Which is just what various Republican legislatures, most notably in Pennsylvania, would NOT allow to happen this year. If this had been permissible in those states (as it was in Florida and Texas and Ohio), Biden's victory probably would have been called by last Wednesday (four days before it actually was) or maybe even on Election Night.

[Frelga]

I find Twitter extremely useful for getting expert opinions straight from the various horses' mouths. But it's just like youtube--don't read the comments.

It's a great platform to get information, from breaking news to niche areas of geekery. But it's a terrible platform to interact on.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Huh. Senator Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri whose name has been mentioned as a possible 2024 presidential candidate, has introduced a bill that would require states to count mail ballots as they come in.

Which is just what various Republican legislatures, most notably in Pennsylvania, would NOT allow to happen this year. If this had been permissible in those states (as it was in Florida and Texas and Ohio), Biden's victory probably would have been called by last Wednesday (four days before it actually was) or maybe even on Election Night.

Do you have a link? I haven't been able to find anything on this. I just come up with stories about Sen. Scott's proposed bill back in September that would have required states to count all ballots within 24 hours after polls closed.

[RoseMorninStar]

Pompeo on election results: 'There will be a smooth transition to a second Trump administration'

[Voronwë the Faithful]

As I said in the other thread, and as Heather Cox Richardson just said in her live commentary, it was said tongue and cheek. It was just a very bad joke.

Like she is saying now, I am no fan of Mike Pompeo, but this is a nothing-burger.

[elengil]

As I said in the other thread, and as Heather Cox Richardson just said in her live commentary, it was said tongue and cheek. It was just a very bad joke.

Like she is saying now, I am no fan of Mike Pompeo, but this is a nothing-burger.

I don't think we're bringing it up because *gasp did you hear what he said!?* but rather.... it was in exceptionally poor taste and does nothing to ease tensions or uphold the ideal of the transfer of power in our government. It's not shocking - at this point nothing is - it's just one more example of division and tastelessness.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't care all that much about division and tastelessnes in the Trump administration at this point; that is a given. I am concerned about making sure that there isn't a coup that overturns the results of the election. As long as that doesn't happen (spoiler alert: it won't), I don't care about what ridiculous thing members of the administration say.

[RoseMorninStar]

I agree with elengil. It's taking a page out of the Trump book of saying the unthinkable aloud so as to test the waters and plant seeds and gauge the willingness for (whatever) garbage he is peddling. In this case some type of coup. It's not funny. At all. It's also not healthy given the tensions and behavior/lawsuits of the Trump administration. While it may have been said 'tongue-in-cheek' I wouldn't call it a 'nothingburger' any more than I consider the GOP's refusal to congratulate Biden/concede/work on a smooth transition of power a 'nothingburger'. They are floating ways to undermine the trust the American people have in the election and it's results.

x-posted with V


I wish I were as sure of the outcome as you are Voronwë. I put nothing past Trump/McConnell. Nothing. Had Trump conceded, I might find it funny/harmless. As it is, no.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The reason I am confident is that they would need one of two things to happen in order to successfully overturn the results the election. The would need numerous judges to rule in their favor despite the fact that there is no evidence to support their claims. That is not going to happen. Every judge that has looked at the claims, including those appointed by Trump, have rejected the claims, and they will continue to do so. At worst, the Supreme Court will turn around and rule that the late-arriving ballots in Pennsylvania shouldn't be counted, but that will only be a few thousand ballots, and the margin in Pennsylvania is likely to be over a hundred thousand votes. They are not overturning the results in the courts (and no, they are not going to get state legislatures to ignore the results and appoint their own electors). The other thing that they would need would be to have the military actually take over for them. That is not happening either, as they have all made clear, from Gen. Milley on down.

[RoseMorninStar]

The reason I am confident is that they would need one of two things to happen in order to successfully overturn the results the election. The would need numerous judges to rule in their favor despite the fact that there is no evidence to support their claims. That is not going to happen. Every judge that has looked at the claims, including those appointed by Trump, have rejected the claims, and they will continue to do so. At worst, the Supreme Court will turn around and rule that the late-arriving ballots in Pennsylvania shouldn't be counted, but that will only be a few thousand ballots, and the margin in Pennsylvania is likely to be over a hundred thousand votes. They are not overturning the results in the courts (and no, they are not going to get state legislatures to ignore the results and appoint their own electors). The other thing that they would need would be to have the military actually take over for them. That is not happening either, as they have all made clear, from Gen. Milley on down.

Yes, yes, I get that. It doesn't mean that they cannot create an unbelievable amount of mayhem, chaos, disrupt and stonewall the Biden administration, and erode public confidence in our institutions and incite violence. That is what I meant by 'sowing seeds' of unrest and disruption. It is another sign that, although they may be forced to concede on a legal level, they will continue 'above the law' as Trump has always done and has often gotten away with.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

They can only cause as much mayhem as we let them. As Heather Cox Richardson is saying right now, we have the ability to say "no, we are taking back our country."

[RoseMorninStar]

But V, if you are famous.. they let you.

I want to cry.

I refuse to give up hope but it's hard sometimes.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Don't give up hope.

"For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”

[Dave_LF]

You're not worried about thing #3: Use the doubt they've created to convince state legislatures to appoint faithless electors?

[elengil]

Something may be able to curb Trump's mayhem on his way out the door, but it isn't 'we'. We have had an election, and thus 'our' power ends. Literally nobody cares what we think, almost half of the country supports him anyway, and no amount of protest is going to change this.

The military may be able to curb it, maybe officials who finally see that it's over will stop enabling, maybe Trump will get bored with it and just leave - but 'we' won't have any hand in ensuring horrific mischiefs aren't committed.

It's not really about hope at this point - it's about recognizing the pattern, the history of all that has been allowed to this point. Why should the election make anything better? I'm inclined to believe that he will be his absolute worst on his way out.

I don't know if you listened to the podcast I linked to a few days ago? (or... last week? or something) but apparently multiple official government wargames scenarios had competing sets of electors being sent to the EC. I don't remember if any of them had faithless electors specifically, but they had competing electors from a state, one set for Trump the other set for Biden, which caused all sorts of problems downstream, and apparently alarmed everyone involved in the scenario and they actually stopped that one early.

[River]

You're not worried about thing #3: Use the doubt they've created to convince state legislatures to appoint faithless electors?

In most states, the legislatures do not have the power to subvert election results in this manner. They maintain a roster and the electors are apportioned as dictated by the election result and state law (winner takes all or by district) with faithlessness forbidden among the electors.