Vote Counts in AZ & GA?

[GooooMarquette]

Did we forget Hillary and the entire Dem party whipping hysteria, without evidence, that Russia stole the 2016 election for Trump?

"Without evidence"?

You're a little behind in your reading.

[jesmu84]

Did we forget Hillary and the entire Dem party whipping hysteria, without evidence, that Russia stole the 2016 election for Trump?

There was evidence Russia interfered.

There was basically no evidence that there was collusion between Russia and TRump.

Now, let's try to focus on the topic of the thread.

[rocky_warrior]

Since this thread is doomed t be locked, I'll also throw in that Trump claimed rampant (3-5 million vote) fraud in 2017 - which cost him the popular vote then too.  So this isn't new.  He's a poor loser, even when he wins!

https://apnews.com/article/a79bb23654e7486a81f555b3bdc9bbc7

[MU82]

Shameless.

[wadesworld]

Since this thread is doomed t be locked, I'll also throw in that Trump claimed rampant (3-5 million vote) fraud in 2017 - which cost him the popular vote then too.  So this isn't new.  He's a poor loser, even when he wins!

https://apnews.com/article/a79bb23654e7486a81f555b3bdc9bbc7

Even Fox News is over it.

https://youtu.be/48iGFmG-iCk

[shoothoops]

Maricopa County, AZ will have an update within the next hour. And there are still thousands of votes from Pima County out there.

[forgetful]

A partly accurate (and humorous) take on Trump’s Election Day strategy:

https://mobile.twitter.com/nancyleong/status/1324122533927424000

As I understand the state of the race, Trump is seeking various forms of relief in his lawsuits:
- recount WI
- stop counting in NC
- count faster in NV
- count backwards in PA
- count only the ballots he likes in GA
- don't count Detroit

I realize (although accurate) that his is partially in jest. In all honesty, though, Trump's strategy is pretty simple.

Delay, delay, delay. The goal is to push off certification of the vote, and create enough discord/confusion about the validity of the vote that legislatures can pick their own electors. Let the legislatures decide the election instead of the voters.

[shoothoops]

when Stacey Adams had a legit Georgia voting case in 2018, this was the response then:

https://twitter.com/thedailyshow/status/1325951831667699712

[wadesworld]

when Stacey Adams had a legit Georgia voting case in 2018, this was the response then:

https://twitter.com/thedailyshow/status/1325951831667699712

And that response lost Trump GA in 2020. Oops!

[shoothoops]

Georgia Update:

Biden now leads by 12,337 votes.

[Warriors4ever]

Trump just asked a federal court to prevent Pennsylvania from certifying its result.

[Pakuni]

I realize (although accurate) that his is partially in jest. In all honesty, though, Trump's strategy is pretty simple.

Delay, delay, delay. The goal is to push off certification of the vote, and create enough discord/confusion about the validity of the vote that legislatures can pick their own electors. Let the legislatures decide the election instead of the voters.

So, I've been reading about this and while it would seem feasible under the Constitution, it's very likely also illegal under current law. How so? Basically, the Constitution requires each state to identify before Election Day how it will choose its electors. Every state has a law saying they'll do it by popular vote. So, for a legislature to throw out the popular vote and choose its own slate of electors, it would be violating its own law and the Constitution, which, again, states that the decision would have had to have occurred before the election.

That's my reading, anyhow. What I'm slightly less certain about is what would happen in the exceptionally unlikely event the courts throw out the popular vote from multiple states (Pennsylvania wouldn't be enough, it's safe to say). Would it be possible for legislatures to create a new law authorizing themselves to choose the electors then, or are they stuck with the law as it existed Nov. 3. I suspect it's the latter, since it's still the same election, though I can't be sure.

Anyhow, my point is, the Trumpist fever dream about a bunch of GOP-controlled state legislators just ignoring the will of the people and turning their electoral college votes over to Trump ain't happening.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I realize (although accurate) that his is partially in jest. In all honesty, though, Trump's strategy is pretty simple.

Delay, delay, delay. The goal is to push off certification of the vote, and create enough discord/confusion about the validity of the vote that legislatures can pick their own electors. Let the legislatures decide the election instead of the voters.

That’s not going to happen. This is all political theatre.

[Pakuni]

Trump just asked a federal court to prevent Pennsylvania from certifying its result.

The filing is quite, shall we say, lacking. It argues that by allowing both mail and in-person voting - like every other state in the country - Pennsylvania has created an unlawful "two-tier" voting system. Good luck arguing that a voting system that's been present in the U.S. since the Civil War is suddenly unconstitutional.
What's notable is that the suit makes no claims of fraudulent actions that might have changed the outcome.

[GooooMarquette]

That’s not going to happen. This is all political theatre.

Agreed.

That said, I suspect Trump truly believes it will work. That’s the thing that scares me the most about him; he really believes the stuff he says.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

So, I've been reading about this and while it would seem feasible under the Constitutionally, it's very likely also illegal under current law. How so? Basically, the Constitution requires each state to identify before Election Day how it will choose its electors. Every state has a law saying they'll do it by popular vote. So, for a legislature to throw out the popular vote and choose its own slate of electors, it would be violating its own law and the Constitution, which, again, states that the decision would have had to have occurred before the election.

That's my reading, anyhow. What I'm slightly less certain about is what would happen in the exceptionally unlikely event the courts throw out the popular vote from multiple states (Pennsylvania wouldn't be enough, it's safe to say). Would it be possible for legislatures to create a new law authorizing themselves to choose the electors then, or are they stuck with the law as it existed Nov. 3. I suspect it's the latter, since it's still the same election, though I can't be sure.

Anyhow, my point is, the Trumpist fever dream about a bunch of GOP-controlled state legislators just ignoring the will of the people and turning their electoral college votes over to Trumo ain't happening.

Right. The Constitution says Congress decides when they are chosen. This happened already. Federal law requires it prior to the election.

The Supreme Court isn’t going to allow this without a finding of substantial fraud. Which isn’t happening.

[shoothoops]

After adding 3 pro Trump County votes all day, Maricopa has an update.

3196 DT
3056 JB

Biden leads Trump in Arizona by 14,746. This was considered to be Trump’s best remaining batch from Maricopa County. And over 18,000 pro Biden Pima County ballots have yet to be added to the count. Trump is running out of outstanding votes to add.

60k remaining votes. One third of those are in Pima County where Biden has a 20 point margin advantage there.

[Pakuni]

Trump's worst enemy right now - besides reality - is Rudy Giuliani. He literally can't get anything right.

https://www.politico.com/states/new-jersey/story/2020/11/09/man-featured-at-giuliani-press-conference-is-a-sex-offender-1335241

[forgetful]

So, I've been reading about this and while it would seem feasible under the Constitution, it's very likely also illegal under current law. How so? Basically, the Constitution requires each state to identify before Election Day how it will choose its electors. Every state has a law saying they'll do it by popular vote. So, for a legislature to throw out the popular vote and choose its own slate of electors, it would be violating its own law and the Constitution, which, again, states that the decision would have had to have occurred before the election.

That's my reading, anyhow. What I'm slightly less certain about is what would happen in the exceptionally unlikely event the courts throw out the popular vote from multiple states (Pennsylvania wouldn't be enough, it's safe to say). Would it be possible for legislatures to create a new law authorizing themselves to choose the electors then, or are they stuck with the law as it existed Nov. 3. I suspect it's the latter, since it's still the same election, though I can't be sure.

Anyhow, my point is, the Trumpist fever dream about a bunch of GOP-controlled state legislators just ignoring the will of the people and turning their electoral college votes over to Trump ain't happening.

I agree with your reading, and that it is extremely unlikely to happen.

The key thing in Trump's plan, is delaying certification of the vote. If there is no certification then there is no popular vote. Trump's attorney's argument is then that it is the job of the legislature to select electors, and without a certified popular vote they are free to choose who to send.

Such a scenario hasn't ever happened that I am aware of, in which case it will likely depend on the Supreme Court to set precedent. Their thought, is they've packed the court with people that will side with them.

Their problem, is that their cases are getting thrown out as frivolous faster than they can submit them.

[Not A Serious Person]

I'll just leave this here.
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/press/senate-intel-releases-volume-5-bipartisan-russia-report

So it's not an unhinged tin foil hat theory if it fits one's political view ... got it.

And, in two years, when the Senate releases a 5 volume set on 2020 election fraud, you will accept that too without question ... I'm holding my breath.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

Also even if he somehow manages shenanigans in PA, he still has AZ, GA and NV.

The Court will NEVER allow an election where the winner has 309 not to stand. The system isn’t THAT broken.

[Not A Serious Person]

Also even if he somehow manages shenanigans in PA, he still has AZ, GA and NV.

The Court will NEVER allow an election where the winner has 309 not to stand. The system isn’t THAT broken.

It is not "the court"  It is several state courts ruling on different claims.  The (Trump) hope is this aggregates into changing the outcome.

[rocky_warrior]

So it's not an unhinged tin foil hat theory if it fits one's political view ... got it.

And, in two years, when the Senate releases a 5 volume set on 2020 election fraud, you will accept that too without question ... I'm holding my breath.

The Senate never called it fraud, it was tampering.  If massive fraud is found by the Senate (unlikely) and they publish a bipartisan report on it, people should pay attention.  Just like they did for tampering. Why is this hard to understand for you?

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

It is not "the court"  It is several state courts ruling on different claims.  The (Trump) hope is this aggregates into changing the outcome.

Which would all be appealed to the Supreme Court.

[Pakuni]

So it's not an unhinged tin foil hat theory if it fits one's political view ... got it.

And, in two years, when the Senate releases a 5 volume set on 2020 election fraud, you will accept that too without question ... I'm holding my breath.

It's not my political view. It's the view of Marco Rubio, John Cornyn,  Tom Cotton, Roy Blunt, Richard Burr and every other Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee.