Now that the 2020 Election is over....

[Dan Fienen]

President Trump is attempting to raise money even after he has been defeated at the ballot box.  Dana Milbank of The Washington Post fills us in on the scam.

"Sixty percent of the contribution, up to $5,000, goes to “Save America,” Trump’s newly created leadership PAC. And 40 percent of the contribution up to $35,500, goes to the Republican National Committee’s operating account, its political (not legal) fund.

Only after reaching the first maximum would a single penny go to Trump’s “Recount Account,” and only after reaching the second maximum would a penny go to the RNC’s legal account.

“It’s a straight-up bait and switch,” Paul S. Ryan, the vice president of policy and litigation at Common Cause, tells me. Such email solicitations target small donors, so for the “overwhelming majority of people contributing … none of their money will end up in recount accounts” or be used for otherwise challenging the election.

Rather, it will be used to extend Trump’s influence over the RNC during the Biden presidency and to build up his leadership PAC, which amounts to a “slush fund” for Trump’s personal use. “There is no limit to how much Donald Trump can pay himself or any member of his family under ‘Save America,’” Ryan notes."

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?
Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here! [a croupier hands Renault a pile of money]
Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Renault: Oh, thank you very much.

Casablanca

[David Garner]

President Trump is attempting to raise money even after he has been defeated at the ballot box.  Dana Milbank of The Washington Post fills us in on the scam.

"Sixty percent of the contribution, up to $5,000, goes to “Save America,” Trump’s newly created leadership PAC. And 40 percent of the contribution up to $35,500, goes to the Republican National Committee’s operating account, its political (not legal) fund.

Only after reaching the first maximum would a single penny go to Trump’s “Recount Account,” and only after reaching the second maximum would a penny go to the RNC’s legal account.

“It’s a straight-up bait and switch,” Paul S. Ryan, the vice president of policy and litigation at Common Cause, tells me. Such email solicitations target small donors, so for the “overwhelming majority of people contributing … none of their money will end up in recount accounts” or be used for otherwise challenging the election.

Rather, it will be used to extend Trump’s influence over the RNC during the Biden presidency and to build up his leadership PAC, which amounts to a “slush fund” for Trump’s personal use. “There is no limit to how much Donald Trump can pay himself or any member of his family under ‘Save America,’” Ryan notes."

Wake up and smell the coffee.

Wow, you're so right.  I'm voting for Democrats from now on.  They do none of this nefarious stuff and are pure as the wind driven snow.

Compelling argument.  Thank you for this public service Mr. Teigen.  I'm confident others will follow my lead here and vote the way you want them to vote.

[JEdwards]

https://vashiva.com/dr-shiva-live-mit-phd-analysis-of-michigan-votes-reveals-unfortunate-truth-of-u-s-voting-systems/

This is the sort of conspiracy theory floating around out there. The thing to do is to answer it. And by answer it, I don't mean assure everyone that safeguards are in place to prevent cheating, or claim that this kooky MIT statistician is not to be taken seriously. That is avoiding it, which only lets the idea that the election is stolen fester.

Is his data wrong? Are his systemic assumptions flawed? Is there a perfectly reasonable explanation for what on the surface appears to be obvious chicanery? If so, let's hear it. Take up the argument. But the more the media simply shushes everyone, as they did with the Hunter Biden scandal, the more they simply lose credibility.

In this case, the argument is simple. The data in three Michigan counties (but not all counties) shows an unnaturally uniform correlation between the percentage of people in any given precinct who voted straight Republican and the degree to which Trump underperformed the straight Republican ticket. That is, Trump overperforms the GOP ticket at uniform rates in highly Dem precincts, but underperforms the GOP in Republican precincts. That is to be expected given the dynamics of the race. What is not to be expected and is not explicable (apart from algorithmic bias in the tabulation) is the uniform rate of underperformance in a straight diagonal line in all three counties. Barring the explanation that the votes were counted with a weighted bias factored in, what is the explanation?

I don't think most people will take Dr. Shiva seriously. He is a classic internet guru sleuth type. But if you want people taking for granted that elections were free and fair and not shady or dubious, then I think his recommendations are sound. For example, the way it is done in Michigan, the voting machine takes a picture of the ballot. It is that picture that is counted. But the pictures are not saved. An easy way to disprove algorithmic chicanery, which would be to do a recount manually, is not possible. It should be. There should be one to one correlation between physical, re-countable ballots and registered voters who voted. Where there isn't, why not?

I think it will be good for the country if we can maximize the number of people who believe the election was conducted fairly, even if they don't like the results.  For this reason, I think it is fine to allow legal challenges supported by specific allegations to be evaluated as provided by law.  But a word of caution about the multiplying "statistical proofs" of cheating.  It is one thing to do a statistical analysis to evaluate a clearly-defined hypothesis that has been formulated prior to analyzing the data (the technical term is a pre-specified hypothesis).  It is nearly worthless to point to even extreme anomalies in a large data set as proof of anything without having a pre-specified hypothesis, because it is nearly certain that any large data set will contain hugely improbable coincidences. 

To take an example from poker, suppose you are dealt a five-card hand consisting of the two of spades, the four of hearts, the six of diamonds, the eight of clubs, and the ten of spades.  This is a remarkable hand in that it includes all the suits and all the even numbers.  The odds of being dealt this exact hand are roughly 2.6 million to one against, making it rarer than a royal flush.  But it won't win you any money, because this unusual hand has not been "pre-specified" as a winner according to the rules of poker. 

Peace,
Jon

[Richard Johnson]

It is the reason I would never support the Jeb Bush candidacy. If another country kept electing members of the same family, you smell something fishy.

You've got something against John Quincy Adams? 

[James S. Rustad]

Can everyone in this modest forum now do our country the courtesy of referring to Biden as “President-Elect”?

I will not, simply because he is not yet the "President-Elect".  Let the system work.  The states do not yet have official election results and the electoral college has not yet voted.

And lest you accuse me of being a believer in the vote fraud conspiracy, I fully expect that Biden will be the "President-Elect" and will become President on January 20, 2021.

[Coach-Rev]

Coming from the very liberal Chicago Tribune (which I used to deliver as a kid),   I don't necessarily agree with every point, but this article's conclusions are spot on.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/john-kass/ct-joe-biden-unity-kass-20201111-umkzhjhwnzcspgcuismqebyvua-story.html

[Brian Stoffregen]

Morning briefing, NYT
The political scientist Brendan Nyhan has often responded to events during the Trump presidency by asking a question: What would you say if you saw it in another country?
   Let’s try that exercise now. Imagine that a president of another country lost an election and refused to concede defeat. Instead, he lied about the vote count. He then filed lawsuits to have ballots thrown out, put pressure on other officials to back him up and used the power of government to prevent a transition of power from starting.
   How would you describe this behavior? It’s certainly anti-democratic. It is an attempt to overrule the will of the people, ignore a country’s laws and illegitimately grab political power.
   President Trump’s efforts will probably fail, but they are unlike anything that living Americans have experienced. “What we have seen in the last week from the president more closely resembles the tactics of the kind of authoritarian leaders we follow,” Michael Abramowitz, the president of Freedom House, which tracks democracy, told The Times. “I never would have imagined seeing something like this in America.”

I think it is a good question of any election and of multiple facets of that election. It is the reason I would never support the Jeb Bush candidacy. If another country kept electing members of the same family, you smell something fishy. If Putin’s wife were elected, we’d roll our eyes, which is the correct response to Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama— whom did they think they’re kidding? And it is a good question about this election. Proof may be hard to establish, but there are plenty of anomalies involved that a rational person naturally is insulted when people demand he take them seriously. So people might go along with the result, but until they get an explanation, with backup evidence, for some of the fishy stuff that’s been going on, they’re going to treat it the way people in Illinois treat Mike Madigan— he is speaker of the house because everyone knows but nobody will risk trying to prove that he corrupt.

Biden will likely be president. But it will only be because he “won,” not because he won. If you don’t like that, you need to join with those demanding election transparency and accountability and quit labeling all such efforts as voter suppression.

State officials after state officials, both Republican and Democrat, report no anomalies nor fishy stuff. So, what is the basis for your judgment?

[Brian Stoffregen]

Among the liberal causes Biden is pledged to support and work toward, as I mentioned upstream some posts ago, is the Equality Act. Of course, if the Senate remains in Republican control it stands less of a chance of passing.  But the Senate's control is not settled, as the runoff election in Georgia proves.  If the Senate ends up evenly split, Kamala Harris becomes the majority in contested votes.

Why is there the assumption that all Republicans and all Democrats will always vote with their party? They are elected to represent the people of their state.

[D. Engebretson]

Among the liberal causes Biden is pledged to support and work toward, as I mentioned upstream some posts ago, is the Equality Act. Of course, if the Senate remains in Republican control it stands less of a chance of passing.  But the Senate's control is not settled, as the runoff election in Georgia proves.  If the Senate ends up evenly split, Kamala Harris becomes the majority in contested votes.

Why is there the assumption that all Republicans and all Democrats will always vote with their party? They are elected to represent the people of their state.

The Equality Act already passed the United States House of Representatives on May 17, 2019 in a bipartisan 236–173 vote.The United States Senate received the bill for consideration on May 20, 2019, but it remains there without action.  If the Senate 'flips' or if it is deadlocked with a vote from Harris to break a tie, then that house could take up the already passed bill and pass it there, sending it to Biden who has already signaled he would sign it into law. 

I think that it is a very valid concern for those of us on the more conservative end of the spectrum who see the law as extreme and potentially harmful to conservative Christian organizations.

[Randy Bosch]

Why is there the assumption that all Republicans and all Democrats will always vote with their party? They are elected to represent the people of their state.

In the Senate, Senators are elected to represent their state (at large).  Representatives are elected to represent their Congressional District.  Most states split their party vote percentages at the polls somewhere (roughly) between 60-40 and 51-49.  This is probably true in many Congressional Districts, as well.  All elected by popular vote.
Nationwide, the party popular vote percentages are roughly 53/47 or so this time.

Now, check out Senate and House votes over the past 8 years. On the most visible issues, almost all Democrat and Republican Senators and Representatives vote straight party line, without regard to representing the "losing" minority (of up to 49% in many cases) in their state or district.

So, perhaps the assumption exists because on the big issues, it is verifiable.
As to Senators and their state, then most Senators don't represent the wishes of their people (perhaps only of those who elected them --- or their party) on many major issues.
Or not.

[Norman Teigen]

Here is Maureen Dowd's perspective pn President Trump:   " Donald Trump’s resistance to the idea that he lost the election isn’t a surprise. This is a man, former star of a phony-reality TV show, who almost never admits he’s lost/failed/come in second at anything. Who knows what new adventures we’ll have before Inauguration Day? I’m hoping he’ll refuse to leave his room and security agents will end up carrying him out of the White House in a blanket.

Which blanket would then be shredded into little bitty tufts of cloth and sold to benefit Trump’s Official Election Defense Fund. Or perhaps its successor, the Make Mar-a-Lago Great Again Crusade."

[peter_speckhard]

Here is Maureen Dowd's perspective pn President Trump:   " Donald Trump’s resistance to the idea that he lost the election isn’t a surprise. This is a man, former star of a phony-reality TV show, who almost never admits he’s lost/failed/come in second at anything. Who knows what new adventures we’ll have before Inauguration Day? I’m hoping he’ll refuse to leave his room and security agents will end up carrying him out of the White House in a blanket.

Which blanket would then be shredded into little bitty tufts of cloth and sold to benefit Trump’s Official Election Defense Fund. Or perhaps its successor, the Make Mar-a-Lago Great Again Crusade."

That is about the quality of stuff we’ve come to expect from Maureen Dowd. Why you would post her stuff here is beyond me unless you’re just venting.

[Charles Austin]

Peter, you have to understand that in the minds of many of us the President Trump is an unmitigated disaster, in every way, mentally, socially, in terms of the things he has done, how he has treated people, and concerning the way he has presented himself, his policies and our country. You may disagree with us on that, but this is how we feel and how we feel we must respond in order to make what we understand clear. I do not think it reaches anywhere near the level of vitriolic rhetoric that we have heard from right wing media, including Fox News and the “Medal of Honor” winner rush Limbaugh.
This is far from just “venting”, and I think it’s an insult for you to even suggest that. This is our concern for our country and what he has done to it and is still trying to do to it.
Now, God willing (I suppose in the minds of some by God’s will) he will be gone soon. Republicans need to understand how half the nation has responded to these last four years. I suspect that, once he is gone, and presumably can’t do anything to the cowards in Congress and in the republican party, they may speak up; they may be willing to cooperate with the new president. I certainly hope so.
But nothing at the present moment will erase the horror and disgust which some of us feel about not only the last four years but especially the last two weeks. Your attempts to put a benign face on his behavior and actions don’t work.

[John_Hannah]

Among the liberal causes Biden is pledged to support and work toward, as I mentioned upstream some posts ago, is the Equality Act. Of course, if the Senate remains in Republican control it stands less of a chance of passing.  But the Senate's control is not settled, as the runoff election in Georgia proves.  If the Senate ends up evenly split, Kamala Harris becomes the majority in contested votes.

Why is there the assumption that all Republicans and all Democrats will always vote with their party? They are elected to represent the people of their state.

The Equality Act already passed the United States House of Representatives on May 17, 2019 in a bipartisan 236–173 vote.The United States Senate received the bill for consideration on May 20, 2019, but it remains there without action.  If the Senate 'flips' or if it is deadlocked with a vote from Harris to break a tie, then that house could take up the already passed bill and pass it there, sending it to Biden who has already signaled he would sign it into law. 

I think that it is a very valid concern for those of us on the more conservative end of the spectrum who see the law as extreme and potentially harmful to conservative Christian organizations.

Even if the Senate flips it will take a 60% vote to pass it.

Peace, JOHN

[peter_speckhard]

Peter, you have to understand that in the minds of many of us the President Trump is an unmitigated disaster, in every way, mentally, socially, in terms of the things he has done, how he has treated people, and concerning the way he has presented himself, his policies and our country. You may disagree with us on that, but this is how we feel and how we feel we must respond in order to make what we understand clear. I do not think it reaches anywhere near the level of vitriolic rhetoric that we have heard from right wing media, including Fox News and the “Medal of Honor” winner rush Limbaugh.
This is far from just “venting”, and I think it’s an insult for you to even suggest that. This is our concern for our country and what he has done to it and is still trying to do to it.
Now, God willing (I suppose in the minds of some by God’s will) he will be gone soon. Republicans need to understand how half the nation has responded to these last four years. I suspect that, once he is gone, and presumably can’t do anything to the cowards in Congress and in the republican party, they may speak up; they may be willing to cooperate with the new president. I certainly hope so.
But nothing at the present moment will erase the horror and disgust which some of us feel about not only the last four years but especially the last two weeks. Your attempts to put a benign face on his behavior and actions don’t work.

You’re worried you haven’t made your feelings about Trump sufficiently clear? Hmmmm. Maybe you should have posted an hourly tirade about how awful he is. Oh wait...