2020 Elections

[mahagonny]

There is something so satisfying about watching this election slip through Trump's fingers in slow motion, while his fans and sycophants cry and complain and twist themselves into pretzels arguing, without evidence, that the election is being stolen and/or that we should abandon democratic processes for dear leader. Of course some Republican politicians egg it on, not because they actually believe that there is fraud going on, but because they want to secure the lunatic fringe vote for 2024. But the election is effectively over, as it has been for days, since Biden will have won convincingly and insurmountably, with 306 EC votes and a massive popular vote lead.

I imagine that the networks will call it today, once PA is above the recount threshold (0.5%), but I wouldn't mind if it dragged out a bit longer.

Well, regardless that Trump is not especially credible, the number of mail in ballots being much higher this time should guarantee some amount of controversy.

Controversy among people who don't understand how counting works or choose to purposely misrepresent the validity of the counting process.

EDIT: Let me add that Trump would have claimed fraud no matter how the vote counts came in, and his followers (both Republican politicians and voters) would have believed him.

Again, some people vote negatively, so the fact that they voted for the Trump does not make them a Trump follower necessarily.

Do you think mail-in voting has the same amount of reliability as in person voting?

[Sun_Worshiper]

There is something so satisfying about watching this election slip through Trump's fingers in slow motion, while his fans and sycophants cry and complain and twist themselves into pretzels arguing, without evidence, that the election is being stolen and/or that we should abandon democratic processes for dear leader. Of course some Republican politicians egg it on, not because they actually believe that there is fraud going on, but because they want to secure the lunatic fringe vote for 2024. But the election is effectively over, as it has been for days, since Biden will have won convincingly and insurmountably, with 306 EC votes and a massive popular vote lead.

I imagine that the networks will call it today, once PA is above the recount threshold (0.5%), but I wouldn't mind if it dragged out a bit longer.

Well, regardless that Trump is not especially credible, the number of mail in ballots being much higher this time should guarantee some amount of controversy.

Controversy among people who don't understand how counting works or choose to purposely misrepresent the validity of the counting process.

EDIT: Let me add that Trump would have claimed fraud no matter how the vote counts came in, and his followers (both Republican politicians and voters) would have believed him.

Again, some people vote negatively, so the fact that they voted for the Trump does not make them a Trump follower necessarily.

Do you think mail-in voting has the same amount of reliability as in person voting?

I agree that many (maybe most) Trump voters probably won't attribute his loss to funny business, but his cores supporters and enablers in the media (e.g. Fox opinion hosts, online personalities, and radio hosts) and in the Republican party will.

I think mail-in voting is perfectly reliable and I've seen zero evidence to the contrary.  Where I live there is a rich tradition of mail in voting, among Democrats and Republicans, and nobody every cared about it until Trump started saying it was all fraud.  In any case, it isn't going to be close enough for any of this to make a difference and the idea that there is a vast conspiracy being carried out by election officials and ballot counters spread across several states is laughable.

I think it's weird that media outlets are dragging their heels on the call, and I suspect it serves to lend credibility to Trump's claims. It certainly keeps hope alive for his supporters.

True, but the decision desks don't want to call it prematurely only to have to reverse later, especially a state that is going to decide the presidency.  That said, there is really no hope for Trump in Nevada at this point.  I wonder if AP would have called it already if not for that premature call on AZ.  PA is also out of reach, but there is a 1/1000 chance that he could win big in the provisional ballots, so I guess they want to be absolutely sure, and I don't object to that, although it certainly gives Trump an avenue to keep spreading disinformation.

[saffie]

Looks like AP has called for Biden. (Spontaneous cheers in my neighborhood made me look.)

[Parasaurolophus]

Looks like AP has called for Biden. (Spontaneous cheers in my neighborhood made me look.)

Huzzah!

[evil_physics_witchcraft]

Looks like AP has called for Biden. (Spontaneous cheers in my neighborhood made me look.)

Huzzah!

I'm still in shock (but glad) that it happened. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop (not that I want it to, just used to it).

[mahagonny]

Do you think mail-in voting has the same amount of reliability as in person voting?

I think mail-in voting is perfectly reliable and I've seen zero evidence to the contrary. 

[/quote]

My impression was no kind of voting is 100% reliable in a nation with so many voters.

Where I live there is a rich tradition of mail in voting, among Democrats and Republicans, and nobody every cared about it until Trump started saying it was all fraud.  In any case, it isn't going to be close enough for any of this to make a difference and the idea that there is a vast conspiracy being carried out by election officials and ballot counters spread across several states is laughable.

Yeah but...the fact that nobody made any fuss about it doesn't mean it was 100 accurate.

Just ruminating. I'm not challenging what I'm being told on the boob tube, but the fact that people want to know more about how the voting is being tallied this year is not, to me, laughable, but foreseeable, given all the strange things we're working against. Pandemic, lots of mail-ins, different states doing things differently, slowed delivery.

[Caracal]

Do you think mail-in voting has the same amount of reliability as in person voting?

I think mail-in voting is perfectly reliable and I've seen zero evidence to the contrary. 

My impression was no kind of voting is 100% reliable in a nation with so many voters.

Where I live there is a rich tradition of mail in voting, among Democrats and Republicans, and nobody every cared about it until Trump started saying it was all fraud.  In any case, it isn't going to be close enough for any of this to make a difference and the idea that there is a vast conspiracy being carried out by election officials and ballot counters spread across several states is laughable.

Yeah but...the fact that nobody made any fuss about it doesn't mean it was 100 accurate.

Just ruminating. I'm not challenging what I'm being told on the boob tube, but the fact that people want to know more about how the voting is being tallied this year is not, to me, laughable, but foreseeable, given all the strange things we're working against. Pandemic, lots of mail-ins, different states doing things differently, slowed delivery.
[/quote]

Sure, but it isn't like it is particularly mysterious. You can watch live feeds of people processing mail ballots. There are clear rules and procedures and anybody can go look them up.

[writingprof]

I concede on behalf of Trump.  There, it's over.  Congratulations to the winning candidate, Gridlock, for whom I've voted in every election that I can remember.

[alto_stratus]

There are clear rules and procedures and anybody can go look them up.

To facilitate this process - https://ballotpedia.org/Election_recount_laws_and_procedures_in_the_50_states,_2020

I'm thankful I live in a state with an organized, quick process.

[namazu]

This alternative energy discussion is really interesting.  Start a separate thread for it, please.

[eigen]

This alternative energy discussion is really interesting.  Start a separate thread for it, please.

Good idea. Splitting it into a new topic now.

::edit:: Done. New topic is here, I tried to get most of the posts on energy technology and policy from here. https://thefora.org/index.php?topic=1906.0

[mahagonny]

Already Kamala Harris has said one thing that isn't accurate. Joe Biden wasn't the one who 'broke the barrier' by selecting a female running mate. Walter Mondale was.
Now she's doing the 'systemic racism' riff. It doesn't take long with some people, does it?
i think I agree with Writingprof. Gridlock is better than a lot of things.

[Sun_Worshiper]

Do you think mail-in voting has the same amount of reliability as in person voting?

I think mail-in voting is perfectly reliable and I've seen zero evidence to the contrary. 

My impression was no kind of voting is 100% reliable in a nation with so many voters.

Where I live there is a rich tradition of mail in voting, among Democrats and Republicans, and nobody every cared about it until Trump started saying it was all fraud.  In any case, it isn't going to be close enough for any of this to make a difference and the idea that there is a vast conspiracy being carried out by election officials and ballot counters spread across several states is laughable.

Yeah but...the fact that nobody made any fuss about it doesn't mean it was 100 accurate.

Just ruminating. I'm not challenging what I'm being told on the boob tube, but the fact that people want to know more about how the voting is being tallied this year is not, to me, laughable, but foreseeable, given all the strange things we're working against. Pandemic, lots of mail-ins, different states doing things differently, slowed delivery.

Sure, people have a right to know how it works, not that it is a mystery, there have been a million articles explaining it and also explaining how the red mirage would give way to a late blue surge.  But this is not about some curiosity by the public.  Trump and his goofy lawyers are ginning people up with a lot of conspiracy theories that are in fact laughable.  And again, there is no evidence presented here or anywhere else to suggest any fraud or irregularities of the sort that would overturn thousands of votes, just a lot of "I don't know it seems unreliable."

[Ruralguy]

This defiance and teenage petulance from Trump is ridiculous, but we might as well let the recounts play out (I'd be astonished if results change in a significant manner).  The legal arguments for excluding huge chunks of votes seem tenuous, but, hey expedite to the Supremes. That's more likeLy to change an outcome than recounts, but I doubt it will reverse the election completely.

I just hope this doesn't breed any election revenge terrorism.

[Sun_Worshiper]

This defiance and teenage petulance from Trump is ridiculous, but we might as well let the recounts play out (I'd be astonished if results change in a significant manner).  The legal arguments for excluding huge chunks of votes seem tenuous, but, hey expedite to the Supremes. That's more likeLy to change an outcome than recounts, but I doubt it will reverse the election completely.

I just hope this doesn't breed any election revenge terrorism.

For reference, Wisconsin recount in 2016 changed 131 votes.  Anyway, Washington Post reports that this is all posturing to help Trump save face (or something). 

In any case, it is yet another national embarrassment from Trump and his enablers.