Forums - Politics Discussion - Official 2020 US Presidential Election Thread

Moren said:
There's a lot of legitimate ways in which Trump can pull a win.

1. There's tightening polling in Pennsylvania, 2. Biden weakness with Latinos in Florida and Nevada, 3. Wisconsin questionable voting laws, 4. Democrats are overwhelmingly choosing vote by mail, 5. and Trump's aggressive push to flip Minnesota.

It's not over yet.

1. Biden dropped from 50+ to 50% there. Either way that's not enough for Trump to beat him, and I really doubt Trump will be able to pass him there. Also, Biden being from there certainly helps him in the end.

2. Trump ain't doing too well with Latinx people either, which is understandable considering how he treated them in general over the last 4 years. But I agree they probably will have a lower turnout this year due to this. Still, Biden is at close to 50% in Florida and hasn't lost a poll in Nevada since October last year, so before he even was nominated.

3. Yeah, those are really something else. Still, Biden is polling above 50% here, so he should be safe.And while Biden dropped down in the polls, so did Trump. The gap didn't narrow, in fact, it's growing slightly. If he would loose that one, I'll call foul on it for sure.

4. Why should this be a bad thing? Because of the shenanigans at the USPS?

5. Well, going by the polls, not only is Biden leading by 5% over the polls from last month, the gap is widening in the latest polls, not narrowing. Trump only had one winning poll here - and that one is from a pollster banned by 538 for faking numbers, so take of that poll what you will.

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 14 September 2020

Around the Network



I am extremely happy with this outcome.



Moren said:


I am extremely happy with this outcome.

To give a bit of context...

The Green Party candidate needed 2000 signatures to appear on the ballot. She submitted those, but many of the signatures had the wrong address for the candidate. The candidate said that it was because she moved recently.

Accordingly, her application was rejected on August 20th. She filed a lawsuit on September 3rd. Statutes require ballots to be sent out by September 16th.

The court did not address whether or not the claim of Walker, the candidate argued the election committee fucked up by not counting the signatures, were valid. Instead they ruled that because she did not raise the objection in a timely fashion, waiting about two weeks from notification, in a time sensitive matter they would not accept the case. Because the only way to address the complaint would be to miss the deadline for sending out ballots, or send out duplicate ballots which could lead to confusion.

For the conservatives who take issue with that decision, election deadlines tend to be very strict. Bush v. Gore which essentially decided the presidency was largely decided because a recount could not be feasibly done before the results had to be certified. So, to argue that the process should be delayed to get the green party candidate on the ballot seems inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent (which doesn't necessarily govern the matter, but seems like it should hold water nonetheless).

As a practical matter, this is good for Biden, and I'd argue, generally good for democracy. There is a legitimate problem that a candidate who maybe should have been on the ballot will not be. But, the only possible answer, mainly due to that candidate's delay, would be to delay ballots getting to voters and send out at least some duplicate ballots. Neither option was perfect, but the second I think was more problematic as putting more stress on the mail in ballot system can lead to votes not being counted before the deadline (which would be a huge constitutional kerfuffle) and potential confusion in general. And, let's be real, it's a party that was to receive very little support. It's unlikely the amount of green party voters will sway the election. Although, it did in 2016, so if Biden wins by less than 30,000 or so, that would be interesting...

Last edited by JWeinCom - 6 days ago

JWeinCom said:

To give a bit of context...

The Green Party candidate needed 2000 signatures to appear on the ballot. She submitted those, but many of the signatures had the wrong address for the candidate. The candidate said that it was because she moved recently.

Accordingly, her application was rejected on August 20th. She filed a lawsuit on September 3rd. Statutes require ballots to be sent out by September 16th.

The court did not address whether or not the claim of Walker, the candidate argued the election committee fucked up by not counting the signatures, were valid. Instead they ruled that because she did not raise the objection in a timely fashion, waiting about two weeks from notification, in a time sensitive matter they would not accept the case. Because the only way to address the complaint would be to miss the deadline for sending out ballots, or send out duplicate ballots which could lead to confusion.

For the conservatives who take issue with that decision, election deadlines tend to be very strict. Bush v. Gore which essentially decided the presidency was largely decided because a recount could not be feasibly done before the results had to be certified. So, to argue that the process should be delayed to get the green party candidate on the ballot seems inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent (which doesn't necessarily govern the matter, but seems like it should hold water nonetheless).

As a practical matter, this is good for Biden, and I'd argue, generally good for democracy. There is a legitimate problem that a candidate who maybe should have been on the ballot will not be. But, the only possible answer, mainly due to that candidate's delay, would be to delay ballots getting to voters and send out at least some duplicate ballots. Neither option was perfect, but the second I think was more problematic as putting more stress on the mail in ballot system can lead to votes not being counted before the deadline (which would be a huge constitutional kerfuffle) and potential confusion in general. And, let's be real, it's a party that was to receive very little support. It's unlikely the amount of green party voters will sway the election. Although, it did in 2016, so if Biden wins by less than 30,000 or so, that would be interesting...

This is all Wisconsin law, not federal law.  Other examples of courts deciding to put a person on the ballot after the time has passed can be found, including explicit state laws to the contrary.  Most infamously in 2002 when the New Jersey Supreme Court said that Lautenberg could be put on the after the previous Democrat had simply dropped out (ethics issues in New Jersey, I know you're shocked) and party bosses decided Lautenberg should fill the role about 35 days before the election in direct violation of New Jersey law.

SCOTUS declined to hear the case.

Last edited by NightlyPoe - 6 days ago

Moren said:


I am extremely happy with this outcome.

"Less options in order to help my candidate is good, actually."



September 2020 Articles: 

https://www.vgchartz.com/article/445274/through-the-darkest-of-times-xone/ (Through the Darkest of Times Review - 7/10)

https://www.gamingnexus.com/Article/6161/Windbound/ (Windbound Review - 8.0/10)

https://www.vgchartz.com/article/445393/battletoads-xone/ (Battletoads Review - 7/10)

Around the Network
JWeinCom said:
Moren said:


I am extremely happy with this outcome.

To give a bit of context...

The Green Party candidate needed 2000 signatures to appear on the ballot. She submitted those, but many of the signatures had the wrong address for the candidate. The candidate said that it was because she moved recently.

Accordingly, her application was rejected on August 20th. She filed a lawsuit on September 3rd. Statutes require ballots to be sent out by September 16th.

The court did not address whether or not the claim of Walker, the candidate argued the election committee fucked up by not counting the signatures, were valid. Instead they ruled that because she did not raise the objection in a timely fashion, waiting about two weeks from notification, in a time sensitive matter they would not accept the case. Because the only way to address the complaint would be to miss the deadline for sending out ballots, or send out duplicate ballots which could lead to confusion.

For the conservatives who take issue with that decision, election deadlines tend to be very strict. Bush v. Gore which essentially decided the presidency was largely decided because a recount could not be feasibly done before the results had to be certified. So, to argue that the process should be delayed to get the green party candidate on the ballot seems inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent (which doesn't necessarily govern the matter, but seems like it should hold water nonetheless).

As a practical matter, this is good for Biden, and I'd argue, generally good for democracy. There is a legitimate problem that a candidate who maybe should have been on the ballot will not be. But, the only possible answer, mainly due to that candidate's delay, would be to delay ballots getting to voters and send out at least some duplicate ballots. Neither option was perfect, but the second I think was more problematic as putting more stress on the mail in ballot system can lead to votes not being counted before the deadline (which would be a huge constitutional kerfuffle) and potential confusion in general. And, let's be real, it's a party that was to receive very little support. It's unlikely the amount of green party voters will sway the election. Although, it did in 2016, so if Biden wins by less than 30,000 or so, that would be interesting...

Thanks for the context. Less options to elect from is always bad, and a lot of it sounds like a coalition of both major sides to keep a smaller party from the ballot. You could argue though, if or if not such a complaint should be reason to wait and hold the election later.

An example from germany: in the election for the Bundestag 2005 (german parliament) a candidate from a county died before the election but after the ballot was printed, so the election was moved in order for the party to nominate a new candidate. This had a major effect, not because of that candidate (who had no chance anyway), but because the biggest party CDU only could lose a seat, if they got *too many* votes. That was due to a really fucked up system of turning the votes into seats. In result the supreme court decided to renew the system (which was in place decades before).



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

JWeinCom said:

Not only can he stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot people, he can also lie to people about a coming plague and not lose any voters.

I honestly think this should be considered criminal behavior. You can't scream fire in a crowded theater if there's no fire. By the same token, you shouldn't be able to scream "no fire" when there actually is a fire. 

This is a false statement made with knowledge of its falsity that has undoubtedly caused harm and death. It is not protected by the first amendment. He should be jailed, and there should be a deluge of civil lawsuits. 

Of course, there is a question of presidential immunity...

Actually you can say the same thing about Biden and his voters.

This division made both sides absolutely ignore the flaws of their candidates and focus only on the flaws of their enemy. It's like "I dont care about winning, I only care about the other side losing".



How great would be a presidential debate on Joe Rogan!



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019

Predictions: Switch / Switch vs. XB1 in the US / Three Houses first quarter

Mnementh said:
How great would be a presidential debate on Joe Rogan!

That would be great, but unfortunately it would never happen.

Curious to see the candidates performance on the"normal" debates



coolbeans said:
Moren said:


I am extremely happy with this outcome.

"Less options in order to help my candidate is good, actually."

Can you really count somebody as an "option" in a presidential election when they have no chance whatsoever of winning?

It's kind of like betting on somebody on a boxing undercard to win the title fight. Like, they're associated with it and they'll be there, but they aren't actually even in the title fight.



Bet Shiken that COD would outsell Battlefield in 2018. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8749702