Now that the 2020 Election is over....

[James S. Rustad]

An interesting article about confidence in the fairness of the 2020 presidential election:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/more-republicans-distrust-this-years-election-results-than-democrats-after-2016/

I guess it's easier to believe in fairness if your preferred candidate won.  'Course, if your preferred candidate levels accusations of fraud that has an impact as well.

The Trump campaign has paid $3,000,000.00 to the Wisconsin Election Commission for a partial recount:
https://www.npr.org/sections/live-updates-2020-election-results/2020/11/18/936196364/trump-campaign-to-file-for-partial-recount-in-wisconsin

[Brian Stoffregen]

Just as in 2000, the validity of the voting procedure will have its day in court. The union survived in 2000... The union will survive in 2020!

You're assuming that there will be enough credible evidence of fraud or voting irregularities for a judge to even hear a case. So far, that has not happened.


https://www.npr.org/2020/11/10/933112418/the-trump-campaign-has-had-almost-no-legal-success-this-month-heres-what-they-ve

[James S. Rustad]

Just as in 2000, the validity of the voting procedure will have its day in court. The union survived in 2000... The union will survive in 2020!

You're assuming that there will be enough credible evidence of fraud or voting irregularities for a judge to even hear a case. So far, that has not happened.

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/10/933112418/the-trump-campaign-has-had-almost-no-legal-success-this-month-heres-what-they-ve

Having the judge throw out your case is still "having your day in court."  In general I expect those outcomes will continue as I see no evidence from the Trump campaign or elsewhere of enough fraud to change the outcome of the election.  Uncovering minor instances is good as it shows the election system is capable of detecting fraud.  We should keep looking, just as we should always be looking.

[David Garner]

Just as in 2000, the validity of the voting procedure will have its day in court. The union survived in 2000... The union will survive in 2020!

You're assuming that there will be enough credible evidence of fraud or voting irregularities for a judge to even hear a case. So far, that has not happened.

https://www.npr.org/2020/11/10/933112418/the-trump-campaign-has-had-almost-no-legal-success-this-month-heres-what-they-ve

Having the judge throw out your case is still "having your day in court."  In general I expect those outcomes will continue as I see no evidence from the Trump campaign or elsewhere of enough fraud to change the outcome of the election.  Uncovering minor instances is good as it shows the election system is capable of detecting fraud.  We should keep looking, just as we should always be looking.

Correct.

My general take is there is always fraud, there appears to be no more this year than in years prior, and the election will be worked out in the court system in Biden's favor.

My other take is I don't want to hear whining about "mah norms" from the people who have spent the past 4 years doing exactly what they're complaining about today.  There are those of us on the other side of the aisle who are capable of making the case.  Y'all ought to sit this one out.

Erick Erickson is one example.  Dan McLaughlin is another.  Here is yet another I posted to FB today:

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-insanity-oath/

[Julio]

Yes, There Was Election Fraud. The Question Is How Much

Was the fraud just at the fringes? Or was there fraud on the rampant scale former Illinois governor and convicted corruption connoisseur Rod Blagojevich suggested on Friday?

One has to wonder about Transition Spectacle media event we are witnessing daily on the MSM news-proclamations ... snippets of Biden attempting to be relevant in front a Jumbotron.  Never in US history has a supposed presidential transition been turned into a media event.

Not only has the State of Texas found irregularities in the Dominion votings systems on multiple occasions prior to the 2020 election cycle, but PBS prior to Election Day reported on Dominion system anomalies ... strangely today crickets 🦗 ... they are ignoring their reporting on this flaky voting equipment.

Meanwhile some of the most credible evidence of election irregularities is coming to light evidenced by the MSM working overtime ... not to report the news about these irregularities ... but boldly telling us what we are to think about evidence meant for a unbiased court to render a decision on.

Just as in 2000, the validity of the voting procedure will have its day in court. The union survived in 2000... The union will survive in 2020!

If not anything else perhaps there is enough question about Dominion voting equipment that it will be looked at extremely closely before it is ever used in a fair and balanced United States election again.

[Charles Austin]

So the thinking is: There must be more fraud in the voting because the mainline media are running so many stories saying there is no fraud in the voting? Is that true?
Anybody who thinks that way should immediately head for what the late Don Imus used to call "a check up from the neck up."
And this year's election has had its day in court. Why can't some of you accept  that?

[Charles Austin]

And there is a law- yes, a law - governing transition. It appears that Trump's minion in the GSA is not following it.

[Keith Falk]

And there is a law- yes, a law - governing transition. It appears that Trump's minion in the GSA is not following it.

Yes, but that law is far from clear as to what it means to "ascertain" the winner. The head has said she is following the precedent of the 2000 election. In this case, it isn't some Trumpian Toadie refusing to following the law. It's a career bureaucrat stuck between a rock and a hard place with an unclear law.


Here's a NPR article about it

[James S. Rustad]

And there is a law- yes, a law - governing transition. It appears that Trump's minion in the GSA is not following it.

The "Administrator" is the sole person who ascertains who are the "apparent successful candidates for the office of the President and Vice President".

Since the Administrator has not ascertained that Biden and Harris are the "apparent successful candidates", there's no way to say that the Administrator is not following the law.

This is what happens when you write laws without clear definitions.

(c) The terms "President-elect" and "Vice-President-elect" as used in this Act
shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office
of the President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the
Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of the
President and Vice-President in accordance with title 3, United States code,
sections 1 and 2.

[Charles Austin]

And now we see that our country is still in danger.
It is very clear that the president's actions are not to "verify" or "check on" the accuracy of the voting; they are to nullify the votes. Do not give me any more dreck about "voter fraud" or errors in tallying. That is no longer the issue. This is an attempt by one man (and presumably some minions) to take over the elections.
How else can one explain his actions concerning Michigan? He is asking them - and presumably others - to set aside how their citizens have voted and "certify" that the state voted for him, when it didn't.
These are the actions of the dictator of a fourth-rate nation that has never known democracy. These are the actions of a Putin or Castro.
Some in this modest forum will say "Relax. He lost. He will be gone soon." I'm not sure. And where is the outrage or protest from the Republican party? Where is the outrage from the people who voted for him but are not yet in the Trumpist Cult?
Are we to just ignore these treasonous suggestions from - God help us! - the man in the White House? From a man who still has some power and authority to misuse?
Are you Trump voters OK with this? And with the response of your Party? 

[peter_speckhard]

And now we see that our country is still in danger.
It is very clear that the president's actions are not to "verify" or "check on" the accuracy of the voting; they are to nullify the votes. Do not give me any more dreck about "voter fraud" or errors in tallying. That is no longer the issue. This is an attempt by one man (and presumably some minions) to take over the elections.
How else can one explain his actions concerning Michigan? He is asking them - and presumably others - to set aside how their citizens have voted and "certify" that the state voted for him, when it didn't.
These are the actions of the dictator of a fourth-rate nation that has never known democracy. These are the actions of a Putin or Castro.
Some in this modest forum will say "Relax. He lost. He will be gone soon." I'm not sure. And where is the outrage or protest from the Republican party? Where is the outrage from the people who voted for him but are not yet in the Trumpist Cult?
Are we to just ignore these treasonous suggestions from - God help us! - the man in the White House? From a man who still has some power and authority to misuse?
Are you Trump voters OK with this? And with the response of your Party?

I can't speak for all Trump voters, but I'm okay with him pursuing any legal angle he can. If they succeed, great. If not, bummer. The panic with which you regularly hyperventilate about his refusal to concede makes me think that even you know there is/was an awful lot of shady dealings involved with the vote and you're worried they just might find have something. If that thought wasn't in the back of your mind, you wouldn't bother posting stuff like this.

The thing is, for normal, sane people, the occupant of the White House, whoever it is, cannot have such a profoundly traumatizing effect. But the idea of Trump being president for four more years actually does traumatize you. The thought of Biden being president, whether he won fair and square or under shady circumstances, doesn't traumatize me.

The comparison to Hitler is crazy. There is no comparable Final Solution or Holocaust to address. And Trump has shown less interest in military intervention than his predecessors or Biden. So if you take away the invasions and the death camps, I guess you can compare Trump to Hitler all you want without obvious stupidity. But most people use Hitler as a comparison precisely because of the Holocaust and WWII.   

[James S. Rustad]

And now we see that our country is still in danger.
It is very clear that the president's actions are not to "verify" or "check on" the accuracy of the voting; they are to nullify the votes. Do not give me any more dreck about "voter fraud" or errors in tallying. That is no longer the issue. This is an attempt by one man (and presumably some minions) to take over the elections.
How else can one explain his actions concerning Michigan? He is asking them - and presumably others - to set aside how their citizens have voted and "certify" that the state voted for him, when it didn't.
These are the actions of the dictator of a fourth-rate nation that has never known democracy. These are the actions of a Putin or Castro.
Some in this modest forum will say "Relax. He lost. He will be gone soon." I'm not sure. And where is the outrage or protest from the Republican party? Where is the outrage from the people who voted for him but are not yet in the Trumpist Cult?
Are we to just ignore these treasonous suggestions from - God help us! - the man in the White House? From a man who still has some power and authority to misuse?
Are you Trump voters OK with this? And with the response of your Party?

Charles, you continue to panic over nothing.  The only way Trump remains president is if he can prove he received more votes than Biden in several states.  In the highly unlikely event that he does manage that, he remains president.  In the much more likely case that he does not prove it, Biden becomes president.  Calm down and watch it happen.

[Charles Austin]

Peter writes:
The panic with which you regularly hyperventilate about his refusal to concede makes me think that even you know there is/was an awful lot of shady dealings involved with the vote and you're worried they just might find have something. If that thought wasn't in the back of your mind, you wouldn't bother posting stuff like this.
I comment:
This is great! Really great! You say that because I am so concerned about the situation that is more evidence that there are some shady dealings out there on the part of the Democrats. That's what you say? That's almost as loony as that comment upstream that said the proof that there is some conspiracy to defraud is because the media keeps reporting there was no conspiracy to defraud.
And do you think that plotting to have a state legislature turn its electors against the votes in that state is legal? And a good idea? When there is no proof of any significant fraud in that state? Do you think that's OK?

[peter_speckhard]

Peter writes:
The panic with which you regularly hyperventilate about his refusal to concede makes me think that even you know there is/was an awful lot of shady dealings involved with the vote and you're worried they just might find have something. If that thought wasn't in the back of your mind, you wouldn't bother posting stuff like this.
I comment:
This is great! Really great! You say that because I am so concerned about the situation that is more evidence that there are some shady dealings out there on the part of the Democrats. That's what you say? That's almost as loony as that comment upstream that said the proof that there is some conspiracy to defraud is because the media keeps reporting there was no conspiracy to defraud.
And do you think that plotting to have a state legislature turn its electors against the votes in that state is legal? And a good idea? When there is no proof of any significant fraud in that state? Do you think that's OK?

Charles, you do realize that there were multiple such

[Jim Butler]

Peter writes:
The panic with which you regularly hyperventilate about his refusal to concede makes me think that even you know there is/was an awful lot of shady dealings involved with the vote and you're worried they just might find have something. If that thought wasn't in the back of your mind, you wouldn't bother posting stuff like this.
I comment:
This is great! Really great! You say that because I am so concerned about the situation that is more evidence that there are some shady dealings out there on the part of the Democrats. That's what you say? That's almost as loony as that comment upstream that said the proof that there is some conspiracy to defraud is because the media keeps reporting there was no conspiracy to defraud.
And do you think that plotting to have a state legislature turn its electors against the votes in that state is legal? And a good idea? When there is no proof of any significant fraud in that state? Do you think that's OK?

I don't know what you're getting all excited about. Trump and his lawyers can plot to "have a state legislature turn its electors against the votes in that state" all they want (and yes, it is legal to plot to do that, it's a First Amendment thing). But no state legislature is going to do that. Everyone knows it would precipitate a crisis.

Here's the thing: you don't think there's any "proof of significant fraud" in any of the states. Heck, I agree with you. But Trump thinks he was robbed; his lawyers are willing to make that argument and his followers are absolutely convinced of it. He can make his case in court. (BTW, there's a big difference between the arguments his lawyers are making in press conferences and the ones they are making in court. You can go to https://www.democracydocket.com and find all the filings, all the decisions, etc.) He hasn't won a case yet and I doubt if he does.

But, at the end of the day, January 20 is coming. Biden will be sworn in. Trump will rage and tweet, but he will no longer be president. Nothing is going to happen to change that.

Seriously, Charles, stop worrying about this. Turn off the news. Read a book. Watch a movie. Take a walk. None of your ranting is going to change anything or make the clock move any faster.

I'd bet you a steak dinner this will all lead to nothing and that, on January 20, Biden will be sworn in as President. But we know how that would turn out.