2020 Election Predictions

[GannonFan]

Eh, Trump's going away, and soon. He's never cared that much about government or the position, his care has always been about his image. He'll retire to Mir-A-Lago, play golf a heckuva lot, tweet more often than we'd like, and will likely leave this Earth in the next decade. That's one advantage of really old politicians, they don't tend to stay around very long.

Jimmy Carter is still living. Trump won't go quietly into the night. We know that for a fact. almost 70M Americans voted for him. He is popular and will use that to stay in the spotlight. He's going to need the money, he's got bills coming due.

I think Carter has lived a healthier life than Trump has. And of course Trump won't go quietly, he'll moan and complain with every tweet. But he can make money on a tv show or the radio just fine. And frankly, most people, including the Republicans who don't like him, have always been fine with his policies - Republicans who don't like Trump don't like his style or his personality. We're not going to hold hands with China anytime soon, the Middle East situation has been completely flipped and would be hard to dial back considering the success it's found, and without Senate control there isn't going to be a reversal of the tax policy or a packing of the Court or a packing of the Senate anytime soon. So the only thing being removed, really, is the crass narcissist in the White House.

[Gil Dobie]

If that isn’t “Ridin’ with Biden’s” wet dream I don’t know what is.

Well, I missed 2 states for sure, FL and NC, how did you do Banker Bob?

[Skjellyfetti]

What if the PA state legislature (controlled by Republicans) just don't appoint the Biden electors? As explained above, there is nothing in law that requires the state legislature to appoint the electors for the winner of the popular vote.

So the PA legislature says our election laws required all mail-in ballots to be received by 5 p.m. on election day. Ballots outside that time frame were counted. So we are not going to appoint any electors because the election was not conducted according to our rules.

See Const., Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 2. And read the McPherson case cited above.

Your problem is that would violate Pennsylvania law and the PA legislature has said that is not going to happen.

PA Senate majority leader and PA House majority leader joint op-ed:

Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election

We have said it many times and we will happily say it again: The Pennsylvania General Assembly does not have and will not have a hand in choosing the state’s presidential electors or in deciding the outcome of the presidential election.

To insinuate otherwise is to inappropriately set fear into the Pennsylvania electorate with an imaginary scenario not provided for anywhere in law — or in fact.

Pennsylvania law plainly says that the state’s electors are chosen only by the popular vote of the commonwealth’s voters.

https://www.centredaily.com/opinion/art ... 27648.html




Good luck.

[GannonFan]

How am I 100% wrong?

To be a 269/269 tie - Trump needs to win PA. Disagree? Do you think that's likely?

I said Trump wins if it goes to the HoR.

What are you exactly disagreeing with?

What do you mean by "winning" PA?

What if the PA state legislature (controlled by Republicans) just don't appoint the Biden electors? As explained above, there is nothing in law that requires the state legislature to appoint the electors for the winner of the popular vote.

So the PA legislature says our election laws required all mail-in ballots to be received by 5 p.m. on election day. Ballots outside that time frame were counted. So we are not going to appoint any electors because the election was not conducted according to our rules.

See Const., Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 2. And read the McPherson case cited above.

I don't disagree, and yes, I think the courts erred by basically rewriting PA election law without the legislature actually writing the law. And yes, I think you could see PA decide not to appoint the Biden electors.

However, I think that's null and void. I don't think Trump is going to win in Nevada or Arizona, and those two states get him to 270. And that's not even including Georgia.

Maybe the PA legislature decides to take a symbolic step to give the finger to the courts (in PA the courts are elected officials, and they've gone blue as of late), but I don't know if they actually do that or not. Either way, I don't see that returning Trump to the White House based on the results in places other than PA.

[JoltinJoe]

What do you mean by "winning" PA?

What if the PA state legislature (controlled by Republicans) just don't appoint the Biden electors? As explained above, there is nothing in law that requires the state legislature to appoint the electors for the winner of the popular vote.

So the PA legislature says our election laws required all mail-in ballots to be received by 5 p.m. on election day. Ballots outside that time frame were counted. So we are not going to appoint any electors because the election was not conducted according to our rules.

See Const., Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 2. And read the McPherson case cited above.

I don't disagree, and yes, I think the courts erred by basically rewriting PA election law without the legislature actually writing the law. And yes, I think you could see PA decide not to appoint the Biden electors.

However, I think that's null and void. I don't think Trump is going to win in Nevada or Arizona, and those two states get him to 270. And that's not even including Georgia.

Maybe the PA legislature decides to take a symbolic step to give the finger to the courts (in PA the courts are elected officials, and they've gone blue as of late), but I don't know if they actually do that or not. Either way, I don't see that returning Trump to the White House based on the results in places other than PA.

You don't think the PA legislature is going to hang out there all alone, do you?

Voting procedures were also altered in Nevada, Arizona, Wisc. Their legislatures are red. In fact, a legislature does not even need a reason to ignore the result of the popular vote.

[GannonFan]

What if the PA state legislature (controlled by Republicans) just don't appoint the Biden electors? As explained above, there is nothing in law that requires the state legislature to appoint the electors for the winner of the popular vote.

So the PA legislature says our election laws required all mail-in ballots to be received by 5 p.m. on election day. Ballots outside that time frame were counted. So we are not going to appoint any electors because the election was not conducted according to our rules.

See Const., Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 2. And read the McPherson case cited above.

Your problem is that would violate Pennsylvania law and the PA legislature has said that is not going to happen.

PA Senate majority leader and PA House majority leader joint op-ed:

Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election

We have said it many times and we will happily say it again: The Pennsylvania General Assembly does not have and will not have a hand in choosing the state’s presidential electors or in deciding the outcome of the presidential election.

To insinuate otherwise is to inappropriately set fear into the Pennsylvania electorate with an imaginary scenario not provided for anywhere in law — or in fact.

Pennsylvania law plainly says that the state’s electors are chosen only by the popular vote of the commonwealth’s voters.

https://www.centredaily.com/opinion/art ... 27648.html




Good luck.

Come on, man, even for you that's a misleading post, and you're the champion of misleading and dubious posts as the Russia thread will always attest to. You just linked an article from October 19th, and what has Corman (the PA Senate Majority leader) been saying since? He's openly calling for the PA Sec of State to resign and he's been going on and on about the fact that non-postmarked ballots can and will be counted. I don't think you can honestly say that Corman is fully on board with how the election was conducted in PA. Even by PA standards, this was a pretty mucked up election.

With that said, it's also unlikely that Corman would push to have the legislature contest the election - in the end, very few lawmakers really care about Trump. The election was very good to the GOP in PA - they already held both state houses and they are expanding their majority in both chambers after this election. With another redistricting coming up after this census, they really like their position. They're not going to roll the dice and risk the ire of the voters to symbolically defend Trump, especially when PA isn't the only state Trump needs to win. Like I said, he's not winning NV, AZ, or GA so PA by itself means little.

[JoltinJoe]

What if the PA state legislature (controlled by Republicans) just don't appoint the Biden electors? As explained above, there is nothing in law that requires the state legislature to appoint the electors for the winner of the popular vote.

So the PA legislature says our election laws required all mail-in ballots to be received by 5 p.m. on election day. Ballots outside that time frame were counted. So we are not going to appoint any electors because the election was not conducted according to our rules.

See Const., Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 2. And read the McPherson case cited above.

Your problem is that would violate Pennsylvania law and the PA legislature has said that is not going to happen.

PA Senate majority leader and PA House majority leader joint op-ed:

Pennsylvania lawmakers have no role to play in deciding the presidential election

We have said it many times and we will happily say it again: The Pennsylvania General Assembly does not have and will not have a hand in choosing the state’s presidential electors or in deciding the outcome of the presidential election.

To insinuate otherwise is to inappropriately set fear into the Pennsylvania electorate with an imaginary scenario not provided for anywhere in law — or in fact.

Pennsylvania law plainly says that the state’s electors are chosen only by the popular vote of the commonwealth’s voters.

https://www.centredaily.com/opinion/art ... 27648.html

Good luck.

Did you read McPherson?? The Supreme Court said in that 1892 decision that IT DOES NO MATTER what provision of law purports to require a popular vote. The authority to appoint electors is a plenary constitutional right of the legislature and any provision of state law or state constitution to the contrary is invalid.

"'The appointment of these electors is thus placed absolutely and wholly with the legislatures of the several states. They may be chosen by the legislature, or the legislature may provide that they shall be elected by the people of the state at large, or in districts, as are members of congress, which was the case formerly in many states; and it is not doubt competent for the legislature to authorize the governor, or the [146 U.S. 1, 35] supreme court of the state, or any other agent of its will, to appoint these electors. This power is conferred upon the legislatures of the states by the constitution of the United States, and cannot be taken from them or modified by their state constitutions any more than can their power to elect senators of the United States. Whatever provisions may be made by statute, or by the state constitution, to choose electors by the people, there is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated."

[GannonFan]

I don't disagree, and yes, I think the courts erred by basically rewriting PA election law without the legislature actually writing the law. And yes, I think you could see PA decide not to appoint the Biden electors.

However, I think that's null and void. I don't think Trump is going to win in Nevada or Arizona, and those two states get him to 270. And that's not even including Georgia.

Maybe the PA legislature decides to take a symbolic step to give the finger to the courts (in PA the courts are elected officials, and they've gone blue as of late), but I don't know if they actually do that or not. Either way, I don't see that returning Trump to the White House based on the results in places other than PA.

You don't think the PA legislature is going to hang out there all alone, do you?

Voting procedures were also altered in Nevada, Arizona, Wisc. Their legislatures are red. In fact, a legislature does not even need a reason to ignore the result of the popular vote.

I don't know the other states well enough to know what was altered. I agree that the procedures in PA were badly bungled and have certainly diminished the credibility of the vote in PA, but I don't recall the same thing happening in the other states to this extent.

[Skjellyfetti]

PA is segregating the votes coming in after election day and hasn't been counting them until it becomes clear that they can. What have they badly bungled?

[Ibanez]

I'm pretty sure Trump wins if it goes to the House of Representatives.

But, that would require him to win PA. Not looking likely at all.

You are 100% wrong.

Under the constitution, the House chooses the President if no candidate achieves 270 electoral votes.

So let's say the state legislatures in Arizona, PA, and Nevada (37 electoral votes) decide that they will not appoint electors at all, because the popular vote in the state was not conducted under the terms fixed by the legislation, and was altered by executive order or court order.

No one gets to 270.

Thus, it goes to the house. Now, while the House has more Democrats than Republicans, every state delegation gets a single vote. And Republicans, although a numerical minority in the House, control a majority of the state delegations.

Winner: Trump.

Skjelly - If it goes to the house, Trump wins.

Joltin Joe - 100% Wrong. If it goes to the house, Trump wins.

[Ibanez]

Jimmy Carter is still living. Trump won't go quietly into the night. We know that for a fact. almost 70M Americans voted for him. He is popular and will use that to stay in the spotlight. He's going to need the money, he's got bills coming due.

I think Carter has lived a healthier life than Trump has. And of course Trump won't go quietly, he'll moan and complain with every tweet. But he can make money on a tv show or the radio just fine. And frankly, most people, including the Republicans who don't like him, have always been fine with his policies - Republicans who don't like Trump don't like his style or his personality. We're not going to hold hands with China anytime soon, the Middle East situation has been completely flipped and would be hard to dial back considering the success it's found, and without Senate control there isn't going to be a reversal of the tax policy or a packing of the Court or a packing of the Senate anytime soon. So the only thing being removed, really, is the crass narcissist in the White House.

I don't believe he has the discipline for a tv show or radio show. That all takes prep work, reading, thinking...those are activities that he doesn't engage in.

I'm taking bets on:

Trump being forcibly removed from the White House.
Trump sabotaging something
Trump not coordinating during Transition
Trump not attending inauguration

[Ibanez]

You don't think the PA legislature is going to hang out there all alone, do you?

Voting procedures were also altered in Nevada, Arizona, Wisc. Their legislatures are red. In fact, a legislature does not even need a reason to ignore the result of the popular vote.

I don't know the other states well enough to know what was altered. I agree that the procedures in PA were badly bungled and have certainly diminished the credibility of the vote in PA, but I don't recall the same thing happening in the other states to this extent.

Republican Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania said President Trump’s speech Thursday night was “very hard to watch” and that his claims of voter fraud are “not substantiated.”

“I saw the President’s speech last night. It was very hard to watch. The President’s allegations of large-scale fraud and theft of the election are just not substantiated. I’m not aware of any significant wrongdoing here,” Toomey said Friday on NBC’s “Today.”
Toomey acknowledged there are “irregularities in every election,” but they “tend to typically be very small and involve just a handful of ballots.”

“But is there any evidence that I’m aware of that there’s significant, large-scale fraud or malfeasance anywhere in Pennsylvania? Absolutely not,” he added.

Asked if he thinks more Republicans should speak out against the President’s claims, Toomey said, “My colleagues will make their own decisions.”

It's good to see one Senator speak up.https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html

[GannonFan]

PA is segregating the votes coming in after election day and hasn't been counting them until it becomes clear that they can. What have they badly bungled?

Again, come on man. There was no reason for Montgomery County (where I actually live, mind you) to open up ballots and contact people to make corrections prior to election day. I get it that it's great to make sure that every voice is heard, and it should, but if you can't fill out the ballot correctly then you live with the consequences. The ballot in PA and in Montgomery County was really easy this year - one page, just one side of the page, and we were only electing something like 5 different offices. My wife did the mail in option and it was really easy and really clear. PA did a good job with that. If you screwed it up, you screwed it up.

And elsewhere, having the courts bypass the legislature and extend the date to receive ballots, and then even make the weird decision that non-postmarked ballots could be counted as long as it wasn't clear that they were mailed too late (in the absence of a post mark how could you even tell that?), was crazy. Ditching the requirement for matching signatures was crazy too - I get that poll workers aren't trained handwriting experts, but the timing to throw this out didn't make sense either. And then, while I love Philly, it's always been a crap shoot of a place come election time. They were keeping observers back and they were counting without observers present.

Even if no fraud was perpetuated, even if the balance of the election was not changed by these decisions and actions, and frankly, I don't think the balance was changed - I firmly believe that Biden won PA (and both votes in my house were for Biden this time around), there were things done that shouldn't have been done, and should've known not to be done, that have unfortunately given wind to the sails to say that the election was bungled. We should be better at this, but apparently, at least in PA, we're not great at elections. Heck, I still tell people that this is the first Presidential election that we even have a paper trail of voting records - even as late as 2016 there was no way to do a recount in PA. I love my state and living here, but we suck at elections.

[GannonFan]

I think Carter has lived a healthier life than Trump has. And of course Trump won't go quietly, he'll moan and complain with every tweet. But he can make money on a tv show or the radio just fine. And frankly, most people, including the Republicans who don't like him, have always been fine with his policies - Republicans who don't like Trump don't like his style or his personality. We're not going to hold hands with China anytime soon, the Middle East situation has been completely flipped and would be hard to dial back considering the success it's found, and without Senate control there isn't going to be a reversal of the tax policy or a packing of the Court or a packing of the Senate anytime soon. So the only thing being removed, really, is the crass narcissist in the White House.

I don't believe he has the discipline for a tv show or radio show. That all takes prep work, reading, thinking...those are activities that he doesn't engage in.

I'm taking bets on:

Trump being forcibly removed from the White House.
Trump sabotaging something
Trump not coordinating during Transition
Trump not attending inauguration

I think TV is where it would work for him for the same reasons you say. Heck, even when he did the Apprentice he basically just showed up at the end, taped a mostly incoherent segment, and rolled back out. I think he could do a drive-by tv show like that. Yes, he's not going to be a radio host, he can't handle that kind of workload.

As for your bets:
Trump being forcibly removed from the White House. - 0%. He'll leave on his own and likely off camera.
Trump sabotaging something - 100% Heck, if the Dems could trash keyboards prior to Bush coming in, then certainly Trump can do something in the same vein. My money is on him carving something on the desk in the Oval Office or supergluing the portrait of Andrew Jackson to the wall.
Trump not coordinating during Transition - 100% - there's no way he helps with the transition at all. Heck, he's still fuming that the Obama administration was lining up the Russia investigation during his transition into the WH - no way does he play nice with Biden with that in mind.
Trump not attending inauguration - 100% - no way does he attend something where he just sits there and listen to people talk badly of him without getting a chance to reply. He did that all those years ago at that WH Press dinner thing and it actually made him run for President. He doesn't have that as an option to really pursue anymore so I'm sure he's out of Washington as soon as he can sign the pardons.

[Skjellyfetti]

you say heck a lot

[GannonFan]

you say heck a lot

I'm a pretty efficient typer these days. And yes, I've never been terribly pithy in what I write.

[Skjellyfetti]

that's true. you're over 1000 words on this one page so far this morning.

[JoltinJoe]

You are 100% wrong.

Under the constitution, the House chooses the President if no candidate achieves 270 electoral votes.

So let's say the state legislatures in Arizona, PA, and Nevada (37 electoral votes) decide that they will not appoint electors at all, because the popular vote in the state was not conducted under the terms fixed by the legislation, and was altered by executive order or court order.

No one gets to 270.

Thus, it goes to the house. Now, while the House has more Democrats than Republicans, every state delegation gets a single vote. And Republicans, although a numerical minority in the House, control a majority of the state delegations.

Winner: Trump.

Skjelly - If it goes to the house, Trump wins.

Joltin Joe - 100% Wrong. If it goes to the house, Trump wins.

Yes, I already acknowledged I misread what he wrote about two hours ago.

Thanks for your timely response.

[UNI88]

you say heck a lot

Ganny is CS's Ned Flanders. Nary a swear word will he utter, okily dokily.

[Ibanez]

Skjelly - If it goes to the house, Trump wins.

Joltin Joe - 100% Wrong. If it goes to the house, Trump wins.

Yes, I already acknowledged I misread what he wrote about two hours ago.

Thanks for your timely response.

I'll try to stalk your posts a bit better. Bless me father, for I have sinned.

[Ibanez]

I don't believe he has the discipline for a tv show or radio show. That all takes prep work, reading, thinking...those are activities that he doesn't engage in.

I'm taking bets on:

Trump being forcibly removed from the White House.
Trump sabotaging something
Trump not coordinating during Transition
Trump not attending inauguration

I think TV is where it would work for him for the same reasons you say. Heck, even when he did the Apprentice he basically just showed up at the end, taped a mostly incoherent segment, and rolled back out. I think he could do a drive-by tv show like that. Yes, he's not going to be a radio host, he can't handle that kind of workload.

As for your bets:
Trump being forcibly removed from the White House. - 0%. He'll leave on his own and likely off camera.
Trump sabotaging something - 100% Heck, if the Dems could trash keyboards prior to Bush coming in, then certainly Trump can do something in the same vein. My money is on him carving something on the desk in the Oval Office or supergluing the portrait of Andrew Jackson to the wall.
Trump not coordinating during Transition - 100% - there's no way he helps with the transition at all. Heck, he's still fuming that the Obama administration was lining up the Russia investigation during his transition into the WH - no way does he play nice with Biden with that in mind.
Trump not attending inauguration - 100% - no way does he attend something where he just sits there and listen to people talk badly of him without getting a chance to reply. He did that all those years ago at that WH Press dinner thing and it actually made him run for President. He doesn't have that as an option to really pursue anymore so I'm sure he's out of Washington as soon as he can sign the pardons.

We agree on so much, Ganny.

[BDKJMU]

I'm giving odds on the House deciding this one for the first time since 1876.

Kicker wager: The Supreme Court does not get involved at all, unless it is to reverse directives of lower courts.

[Before you jump, take a look at the history of my predictions over the years. They are inerrantly accurate. But this one is going way out on a limb, because it will require at least one, maybe two, red state legislatures to pass on appointing electors. They made not have the fire in the belly to do that].

I hope they don't have the fire to overturn the voice of the voter. The donk operatives ballot stuffers are pretty clear - Biden is President. Like it or not, that's where we are at. We'll see with the litigation that Sue 'Em Donny is unleashing but I have to HOPE that the GOP establishment will eventually grow a backbone. Graham won't. He's a lost cause. But maybe if the EV is high enough the GOP convinces him to lose with whatever grace he can muster.

FIFY

[BDKJMU]

I think it'll be 306 Electoral Votes that gives him the Presidency.

The Republicans don't care about Trump? Have you not been paying attention? They care. They're afraid of him. He's bigly popular and once he's outta the White House, he'll still be a "king maker".

Eh, Trump's going away, and soon. He's never cared that much about government or the position, his care has always been about his image. He'll retire to Mir-A-Lago, play golf a heckuva lot, tweet more often than we'd like, and will likely leave this Earth in the next decade. That's one advantage of really old politicians, they don't tend to stay around very long.

From the WH/presidency, yeah. But not from being high profile within the Rep party, and vis a vis attention/coverage from the MSM. The MSM hate Trump, but he is YUGE for their ratings. Made them tons of $$$. And Trump loves the attention. Its a symbiotic love/hate relationship. Covering Biden and McConnell will be about as exciting as watching paint dry. That's why, barring a serious medical issue, Trump won't be "going away soon", but will be high profile till at least 2024..

[Skjellyfetti]

His trial will be a ratings bonanza for sure.

[Ibanez]

I hope they don't have the fire to overturn the voice of the voter. The donk operatives ballot stuffers are pretty clear - Biden is President. Like it or not, that's where we are at. We'll see with the litigation that Sue 'Em Donny is unleashing but I have to HOPE that the GOP establishment will eventually grow a backbone. Graham won't. He's a lost cause. But maybe if the EV is high enough the GOP convinces him to lose with whatever grace he can muster.

FIFY

Provide proof. None of this trope, stereotype that can't be backed up by facts. We know Trump doesn't concern himself with facts and reality but we should try. We're talking about the integrity of our elections. If you have proof, we need to see it and investigate it. This isn't a Tammany Hall operation. There is zero evidence to back up that the Democratic Party has committed widespread voter fraud, across at least 5 states in order to A) narrowly win the White House; B) Lose seats in Congress and; C) Lose elections to flip seats.


The logic doesn't hold up and I'm willing to be the farm that there's little to no evidence to substantiate the claims of voter fraud.