What if he's right?

[sk8knight]

Was it a soft coup when Gore challenged the election results in the courts in his race? Can it even be a coup if Trump is doing it through lawsuits?

You guys love to over-exaggerate things with the scariest terms possible and then you wonder why people get tired of you constantly crying wolf and stop listening.

 

[Boosted87]

I think part of it is looking forward to 2022. If they can convince the base that the election wasn't legit, they might be able to accomplish a red wave in the house.

I'm fascinated by the GA special election coming up. The last election without Trump on the ballot, democrats cleaned up. This time, Trump won't be on the ballot - but he will only be president for another few weeks.

So I think what's happens over the next 60 days or say may decide who controls the senate but I have no idea what favors who. My gut says that "normalcy" favors Republicans in those races. If this were simpler times with an orderly transition that seems logical.

But if the R nominees are forced to choose between Trump's election fraud narrative and a more rational one, what happens? They don't go along and they risk not turning out the Trumpy part of the base, but also risk isolating swingy voters in the middle.

 

[Crazyhole]

I'm fascinated by the GA special election coming up. The last election without Trump on the ballot, democrats cleaned up. This time, Trump won't be on the ballot - but he will only be president for another few weeks.

So I think what's happens over the next 60 days or say may decide who controls the senate but I have no idea what favors who. My gut says that "normalcy" favors Republicans in those races. If this were simpler times with an orderly transition that seems logical.

But if the R nominees are forced to choose between Trump's election fraud narrative and a more rational one, what happens? They don't go along and they risk not turning out the Trumpy part of the base, but also risk isolating swingy voters in the middle.

It's pretty hard to read the terrain. Generally speaking, country moved to the right this time around. That being said, dems in Georgia should be pretty motivated to get out and vote because they can secure the 3rd branch for the left. Will there be apathy on either or both sides?

 

[DaShuckster]

Nope. Once again you are guilty of assuming someone's intent.

Assuming your intent??? Perish the thought!!!

But let's not forget, IF there is RAMPANT voter fraud, WE BOTH are on record stating THE SCOTUS should step in and OVERTURN this election.

 

[sk8knight]

I'm fascinated by the GA special election coming up. The last election without Trump on the ballot, democrats cleaned up. This time, Trump won't be on the ballot - but he will only be president for another few weeks.

So I think what's happens over the next 60 days or say may decide who controls the senate but I have no idea what favors who. My gut says that "normalcy" favors Republicans in those races. If this were simpler times with an orderly transition that seems logical.

But if the R nominees are forced to choose between Trump's election fraud narrative and a more rational one, what happens? They don't go along and they risk not turning out the Trumpy part of the base, but also risk isolating swingy voters in the middle.

Why would they be forced to choose? We've already seen that you can just refuse to answer questions and get a shit-ton of votes.

 

[Boosted87]

Why would they be forced to choose? We've already seen that you can just refuse to answer questions and get a shit-ton of votes.

Trump. Do you think Trump's circle are going to give them the political leeway to do that? Particularly in a state key to his hopes of contesting the election? They need all hands on deck. If the two Senate candidates aren't on board in GA it will look really bad for them.

 

[DaShuckster]

Trump. Do you think Trump's circle are going to give them the political leeway to do that? Particularly in a state key to his hopes of contesting the election? They need all hands on deck. If the two Senate candidates aren't on board in GA it will look really bad for them.

Fortunately for those two GOP hopefuls, it won't come down to that. Yes, Georgia was close but Trump would have to overturn a bunch of states to have a chance and that ain't happening.

But it will be interesting to see what role Trump decides to play as the reigning Republican King-Maker. With 71 million votes in his pocket, he's still The Force within the party whether his fellow Republicans like it or not.

 

[Crazyhole]

Fortunately for those two GOP hopefuls, it won't come down to that. Yes, Georgia was close but Trump would have to overturn a bunch of states to have a chance and that ain't happening.

But it will be interesting to see what role Trump decides to play as the reigning Republican King-Maker. With 71 million votes in his pocket, he's still The Force within the party whether his fellow Republicans like it or not.

You keep saying this, but he doesn't need a bunch of states, he needs 2: PA and Georgia.

 

[DaShuckster]

You keep saying this, but he doesn't need a bunch of states, he needs 2: PA and Georgia.

Good luck with that, Crazy.

 

[Boosted87]

You keep saying this, but he doesn't need a bunch of states, he needs 2: PA and Georgia.

And Arizona.

 

[DaShuckster]

You keep saying this, but he doesn't need a bunch of states, he needs 2: PA and Georgia.

And Arizona.

This kind of mental gymnastics is starting to remind me of the various "what if...?" scenarios UCF fans played out in their heads to talk their way into the 2017 national championship playoffs.

 

[Crazyhole]

And Arizona.

He might not have to flip Arizona. Its within 17,000 votes with a lot more to be recorded.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

This kind of mental gymnastics is starting to remind me of the various "what if...?" scenarios UCF fans played out in their heads to talk their way into the 2017 national championship playoffs.

Over the line.

 

[Boosted87]

He might not have to flip Arizona. Its within 17,000 votes with a lot more to be recorded.

According to Ducey, there's 75-80k left. Trump will need to win those 61/39. He's been closing the gap, but not quite at the rate he needs. And it seems the ballots remaining are less of the type that have been benifitting him, and more getting into Provisionals, non-standard (like braille), and cured signatures.

So yea we need to count the votes, but I don't think this is tossup territory. More than likely, Trump will need to flip AZ as well.

 

[Crazyhole]

According to Ducey, there's 75-80k left. Trump will need to win those 61/39. He's been closing the gap, but not quite at the rate he needs. And it seems the ballots remaining are less of the type that have been benifitting him, and more getting into Provisionals, non-standard (like braille), and cured signatures.

So yea we need to count the votes, but I don't think this is tossup territory. More than likely, Trump will need to flip AZ as well.

If that ends up being the case, its game over. There is no way the court would want anything to do with flipping 3 states. It would be way too controversial. The Trump team needs to limit this to 2 at most and thats a tall order.

 

[Boosted87]

If that ends up being the case, its game over. There is no way the court would want anything to do with flipping 3 states. It would be way too controversial. The Trump team needs to limit this to 2 at most and thats a tall order.

Flipping a single state would be immensely controversial. SCOTUS didn't flip Florida, they just stopped the re-count. If Trump needed SCOTUS to stop recounts when he was ahead, that's one thing. Tossing votes made in good faith is a whole other ball game.

While the SCOTUS ruling in 2000 clearly benefitted Bush, it also elevated the importance of reaching a conclusion in time for the vote to be certified for the EC. That precedent works in Biden's favor this time.

 

[Crazyhole]

Flipping a single state would be immensely controversial. SCOTUS didn't flip Florida, they just stopped the re-count. If Trump needed SCOTUS to stop recounts when he was ahead, that's one thing. Tossing votes made in good faith is a whole other ball game.

While the SCOTUS ruling in 2000 clearly benefitted Bush, it also elevated the importance of reaching a conclusion in time for the vote to be certified for the EC. That precedent works in Biden's favor this time.

That it did, but the ruling was also based on the equal protection clause. It could be interesting to see how the current court interprets that ruling. Philadelphia polling officials may have really thrown their election into chaos.

 

[Cubs79]

If that ends up being the case, its game over. There is no way the court would want anything to do with flipping 3 states. It would be way too controversial. The Trump team needs to limit this to 2 at most and thats a tall order.

Courts flipping a single state would be controversial. Recounts are one thing, but when we start getting into courts deciding elections, we are entering into a whole new territory.

 

[Cubs79]

Was it a soft coup when Gore challenged the election results in the courts in his race? Can it even be a coup if Trump is doing it through lawsuits?

You guys love to over-exaggerate things with the scariest terms possible and then you wonder why people get tired of you constantly crying wolf and stop listening.

This is nothing like 2000. This is honestly isnt much different than 2016 when we had recounts in several states. Recounts are perfectly fine, but beyond that there needs to be compelling evidence to take it to court, and I dont know that we have seen any evidence that indicates that we need lots of court cases.

 

[sk8knight]

Courts flipping a single state would be controversial. Recounts are one thing, but when we start getting into courts deciding elections, we are entering into a whole new territory.

What is the issue? If the courts are needed to uncover fraud or force the election officials to follow their own rules, what are you worried about?

 

[Cubs79]

What is the issue? If the courts are needed to uncover fraud or force the election officials to follow their own rules, what are you worried about?

Hard to argue hypotheticals. We dont know what they would even be ruling on at this point, but unless they find overwhelming evidence of fraud, then it would certainly be controversial if they over turned a state, much less 3 or 4.

 

[sk8knight]

Hard to argue hypotheticals. We dont know what they would even be ruling on at this point, but unless they find overwhelming evidence of fraud, then it would certainly be controversial if they over turned a state, much less 3 or 4.

If a court is what is needed to make sure that every legal vote and no other is counted, then I’m all for it. That’s the civil remedy our society proscribes.

 

[Cubs79]

If a court is what is needed to make sure that every legal vote and no other is counted, then I’m all for it. That’s the civil remedy our society proscribes.

But how is a court supposed to determine this? Courts don't count votes. And if this is the case, then should this happen in every state? Should they go through the votes in Florida and Texas too? Or just in states that Trump has lost? Again, if there is specific evidence of voter fraud that is one thing, but asking courts to essentially take over the counting of votes because one side isnt happy they lost, is a whole other thing. And at this point, it just seems like one side isnt happy so they want the courts to decide instead of the voters.

 

[DaShuckster]

But how is a court supposed to determine this? Courts don't count votes.

Conservatives remember the SCOTUS got involved in Bush being officially announced as the new president back in 2000 and erroneously believe they gave it to him. Actually, the Florida voters gave it to him. A recount was called for and the Supreme Court halted it.

The notion that any court is going to change the outcome of a state election is preposterous. But keep in mind that it was Trump who pushed the preposterous Obama Birther issue so this is just 'par for the course' for him and his diehard followers.

 

[Cubs79]

Conservatives remember the SCOTUS got involved in Bush being officially announced as the new president back in 2000 and erroneously believe they gave it to him. Actually, the Florida voters gave it to him. A recount was called for and the Supreme Court halted it.

The notion that any court is going to change the outcome of a state election is preposterous. But keep in mind that it was Trump who pushed the preposterous Obama Birther issue so this is just 'par for the course' for him and his diehard followers.

The thing that gets me, is that we knew this was going to happen. We all knew he wasnt going to accept a loss. Yet with no credible evidence, we still have people pretending he is a serious and truthful person. Even the LT Gov of GA, who is a Republican, came out today and said there is no evidence of fraud or irregularities in GA. Fox News cut away from a Kayleigh McEnany press conference today because she was spewing all of this garbage with no evidence. The fact we even have to entertain these ideas that several states, some lead by Republicans, all decided to cheat Trump out of the election is just ridiculous.

 

[sk8knight]

But how is a court supposed to determine this? Courts don't count votes. And if this is the case, then should this happen in every state? Should they go through the votes in Florida and Texas too? Or just in states that Trump has lost? Again, if there is specific evidence of voter fraud that is one thing, but asking courts to essentially take over the counting of votes because one side isnt happy they lost, is a whole other thing. And at this point, it just seems like one side isnt happy so they want the courts to decide instead of the voters.

The courts can mandate a recount, can throw out or include ballots based upon the rules in place and the state constitutions, and can mediate the process whereby each side has a lawyer present to determine good votes versus bad ones. The courts can ensure that legal votes are counted and illegal votes aren’t. That’s all that anybody wants.

I know you’re thinking of activist judges that make new laws from the bench, but that’s not what most Republicans want.

 

[Cubs79]

The courts can mandate a recount, can throw out or include ballots based upon the rules in place and the state constitutions, and can mediate the process whereby each side has a lawyer present to determine good votes versus bad ones. The courts can ensure that legal votes are counted and illegal votes aren’t. That’s all that anybody wants.

I know you’re thinking of activist judges that make new laws from the bench, but that’s not what most Republicans want.

States have their own recount policies, and I have no issue with states having a recount. But a recount and wanting thousands upon thousands of votes thrown out are 2 different things. Trump is wanting votes thrown out, that isnt a recount. Keep in mind, many of these states are close % wise, but for Trump to actually flip any of them, a lot of votes are going to have to be tossed. Currently Biden is up over 150K votes in Michigan, 20k in WI, almost 50K in PA, and 12k in Georgia. The only way Trump can win is if they toss out votes counted after election day, despite them being legally cast votes. Now that Barr is getting involved, it is starting to have the feel of what happens in many other countries where they have elections, but we all pretty much know they arent legit elections. I dont think they will succeed and most of this stuff will get laughed out of court, but the fact they are even trying should be disturbing.

 

[sk8knight]

States have their own recount policies, and I have no issue with states having a recount. But a recount and wanting thousands upon thousands of votes thrown out are 2 different things. Trump is wanting votes thrown out, that isnt a recount. Keep in mind, many of these states are close % wise, but for Trump to actually flip any of them, a lot of votes are going to have to be tossed. Currently Biden is up over 150K votes in Michigan, 20k in WI, almost 50K in PA, and 12k in Georgia. The only way Trump can win is if they toss out votes counted after election day, despite them being legally cast votes. Now that Barr is getting involved, it is starting to have the feel of what happens in many other countries where they have elections, but we all pretty much know they arent legit elections. I dont think they will succeed and most of this stuff will get laughed out of court, but the fact they are even trying should be disturbing.

In the state of Pennsylvania, the historic rate of rejection for mail-in votes has been nearly 1%. This goes back for many elections. In the last election, there were something like 226,000 votes by mail and they rejected over 2100. This group of voters consists mostly of people who voted by mail before. Historically, the rate of rejection for first-time voters is close to 3%.

In the 2020 election, you have more than 2.6 million votes by mail; most of which are first-time mail-in voters. You’d expect a range of from 25k to 75k rejected votes based on historical trends. Instead, Pennsylvania reported less than 1,000 rejected votes.

That is something that should be looked at, even if it takes a judge to force the issue.

Trump will win or Trump will lose. In the end, I hope we can fix the election systems that have cause one side or the other to scream fraud and or theft in many of the elections this century.

 

[Cubs79]

In the state of Pennsylvania, the historic rate of rejection for mail-in votes has been nearly 1%. This goes back for many elections. In the last election, there were something like 226,000 votes by mail and they rejected over 2100. This group of voters consists mostly of people who voted by mail before. Historically, the rate of rejection for first-time voters is close to 3%.

In the 2020 election, you have more than 2.6 million votes by mail; most of which are first-time mail-in voters. You’d expect a range of from 25k to 75k rejected votes based on historical trends. Instead, Pennsylvania reported less than 1,000 rejected votes.

That is something that should be looked at, even if it takes a judge to force the issue.

Trump will win or Trump will lose. In the end, I hope we can fix the election systems that have cause one side or the other to scream fraud and or theft in many of the elections this century.

Democrats dont really scream fraud with regards to the actual elections, with the possible exception of 2000, but that was an entirely different scenario. Democrats complain of places making it more difficult to vote, and of the stuff going on with FB an things like that, but not so much the actual elections. Hillary Clinton called Trump the day after the election in 2016 to congratulate him, she wasnt screaming about a rigged election.

Biden is up almost 50K in PA, so even if they do a recount and toss a few more votes, for it to sway to Trump they would have to throw out at least 50 thousand votes, and they would all have to be Biden votes. That does not seem likely at all.

 

[sk8knight]

Democrats dont really scream fraud with regards to the actual elections, with the possible exception of 2000, but that was an entirely different scenario. Democrats complain of places making it more difficult to vote, and of the stuff going on with FB an things like that, but not so much the actual elections. Hillary Clinton called Trump the day after the election in 2016 to congratulate him, she wasnt screaming about a rigged election.

Biden is up almost 50K in PA, so even if they do a recount and toss a few more votes, for it to sway to Trump they would have to throw out at least 50 thousand votes, and they would all have to be Biden votes. That does not seem likely at all.

Hillary has come out on the record many times since saying the election was stolen and she shouldn’t have conceded. She was behind the scheme to invalidate the results as a Russian plot. She advised Biden not to make her mistake and concede. She has not accepted the results of that election.

Viewed through a different prism, Democrats don’t generally scream voter fraud because it’s their network that is doing it. They scream voter suppression at even the most benign efforts to secure elections because they want the concept of legal votes to be ambiguous and they want to have the holes in the system. Why would they ever rail against that which has been so successful for them?

I can’t say how many votes were illegal or fraudulent. 1, 10k, 100k? Let’s let the system work and figure it out. I personally feel like 50k isn’t impossible with a vote-by-mail system that accepts basically any vote crafted over a weeks-long period. But I guess we’ll see what the legal process uncovers. You may very well be right.

 

[Boosted87]

Hillary has come out on the record many times since saying the election was stolen and she shouldn’t have conceded. She was behind the scheme to invalidate the results as a Russian plot. She advised Biden not to make her mistake and concede. She has not accepted the results of that election.

Viewed through a different prism, Democrats don’t generally scream voter fraud because it’s their network that is doing it. They scream voter suppression at even the most benign efforts to secure elections because they want the concept of legal votes to be ambiguous and they want to have the holes in the system. Why would they ever rail against that which has been so successful for them?

I can’t say how many votes were illegal or fraudulent. 1, 10k, 100k? Let’s let the system work and figure it out. I personally feel like 50k isn’t impossible with a vote-by-mail system that accepts basically any vote crafted over a weeks-long period. But I guess we’ll see what the legal process uncovers. You may very well be right.

Trump screamed fraud in Iowa in 2016 when he lost to Cruz. Before the general election, he said it was rigged against him. After he won, he claimed the popular vote difference was purely because of fraud. And now he's been screaming for 6 months that - if he loses - it's because of fraud. Now he lost and predictably, he's screaming fraud. He's conditioned his base over 4+ years that he's unbeatable unless there is fraud.

The two Republican Senate candidates in GA have already called for the Republican Secretary of State to step down!

This IS the plan. There is zero (legitimate) effort to prove fraud at the scale that would impact the results. The effort is purely designed to undermine the integrity of the system, to throw the results in doubt, and apply political pressure on state legislatures to send competing electors.

This plan has about a 1% chance of working - but it has a 99% chance of doing irreparable harm to democracy in this country.

And this is why some of us have been arguing that Trump is a fundamental threat to self government and other keep rationalizing with each step taken.

 

[Cubs79]

Hillary has come out on the record many times since saying the election was stolen and she shouldn’t have conceded. She was behind the scheme to invalidate the results as a Russian plot. She advised Biden not to make her mistake and concede. She has not accepted the results of that election.

Viewed through a different prism, Democrats don’t generally scream voter fraud because it’s their network that is doing it. They scream voter suppression at even the most benign efforts to secure elections because they want the concept of legal votes to be ambiguous and they want to have the holes in the system. Why would they ever rail against that which has been so successful for them?

I can’t say how many votes were illegal or fraudulent. 1, 10k, 100k? Let’s let the system work and figure it out. I personally feel like 50k isn’t impossible with a vote-by-mail system that accepts basically any vote crafted over a weeks-long period. But I guess we’ll see what the legal process uncovers. You may very well be right.

She told Biden not to concede on election night because everyone knew all the votes wouldnt be counted on election night, and we knew Trump would claim victory anyway, which he did.

Voter suppression and voter fraud are not the same thing.

There is no evidence of fraud or irregularities on any sort of scale. This is nothing more than Trump refusing to accept reality. Now we have Republican congressional candidates doing the same thing. One guy in California lost by almost 200k votes, in a district with only about 260k votes, but he wont even accept defeat. The candidate from Baltimore refuses to admit loss, despite getting less than 30% of the vote in a heavily Democratic district. What we are seeing is quite simply attempts to undermine American Democracy. I dont think it is going to work, but no matter which side of the political aisle we are on, this should all be unacceptable. Candidates, including Trump, need to be able to accept they lost or else we become a country where we dont believe in elections. Again, I have no issue with recounts, but everything else at this point is nothing more than conspiracy.

 

[Cubs79]

We know there was a lot of voter fraud this election. I don't think there is anything wrong with reviewing and making sure the fraud wasn't enough to steal an election.

View embedded media

NO we dont know that and even Republican leaders in these states have said there is no evidence of it. You just cant accept reality.

 

[KnighttimeJoe]

Some of you just can’t accept the results of the 2020 election. Grow up and stop being such babies.

 

[Boosted87]

We know there was a lot of voter fraud this election. I don't think there is anything wrong with reviewing and making sure the fraud wasn't enough to steal an election.

I have ZERO problem with Trump filing lawsuits and asking for recounts. That's totally within his rights to do.

My problem is undermining democracy by screaming fraud with no evidence. And there is zero evidence of widespread fraud. Anecdotal cases sure? A republican in PA filled out an absentee ballot request for his dead mom. Guess what? The state caught it and now he's being prosecuted. Is that evidence that Republicans were trying to steal the election? Of course not.

 

[DaShuckster]

I can’t say how many votes were illegal or fraudulent. 1, 10k, 100k? Let’s let the system work and figure it out.

Again, where is the voter fraud? Trump lost the election so there MUST be WIDE-SPREAD voter fraud involved --- just give us a few weeks to figure out where the heck it was. 🙄

 

[DaShuckster]

This plan has about a 1% chance of working - but it has a 99% chance of doing irreparable harm to democracy in this country.

THIS ^^^^^^^^^

 

[Cubs79]

I have ZERO problem with Trump filing lawsuits and asking for recounts. That's totally within his rights to do.

My problem is undermining democracy by screaming fraud with no evidence. And there is zero evidence of widespread fraud. Anecdotal cases sure? A republican in PA filled out an absentee ballot request for his dead mom. Guess what? The state caught it and now he's being prosecuted. Is that evidence that Republicans were trying to steal the election? Of course not.

This is the dangerous part about this. If the losing candidates are just going to start screaming fraud every time they lose, then our whole electoral process isnt going to be trusted. We cant be a functioning Republic if we dont trust our elections. At that point we are basically like one of those countries that technically has elections, but the results are already predetermined.

 

[DaShuckster]

This is the dangerous part about this. If the losing candidates are just going to start screaming fraud every time they lose, then our whole electoral process isnt going to be trusted. We cant be a functioning Republic if we dont trust our elections. At that point we are basically like one of those countries that technically has elections, but the results are already predetermined.

The ironic thing is that Trump's followers would tell you with a straight face what staunch defenders they are of the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Boosted87]

This is the dangerous part about this. If the losing candidates are just going to start screaming fraud every time they lose, then our whole electoral process isnt going to be trusted. We cant be a functioning Republic if we dont trust our elections. At that point we are basically like one of those countries that technically has elections, but the results are already predetermined.

Exactly. And the endless demonization of institutions, the media, and democrats by right-wing media is creating an environmental of radicalization, much of it a very soft form of radicalization. But if you're convinced the other guys cheat, it's a really easy sell to get your base to rationalize drastic steps.

The damage being done right now - and over the next ~70 days could be worse than the sum total of Trump's presidency. It's not about whether this soft coup is possible - it's about the damage being done.