Rob wrote:Hasn't RM already determined that elections are run by the states themselves and can't be postponed by the federal government?
You don’t need a delay for this to be a disaster. You only need the added chaos and confusion of millions of Americans believing that you didn’t delay because it was part of a ploy to steal the election from them. And having the attorney general tacitly breathing credibility into the idea is extra bad.
McParadigm wrote:
Bi_3 wrote:Has this ever happened? Even during one of the WWs?
Not even during the Civil War. I’m mostly concerned for whether or not Fox and others will advocate for it in response. The president can’t delay an election, but trying to run elections while 20 million people believe you’re rushing through to “steal” it from them will go poorly for all of us.
Rob wrote:Hasn't RM already determined that elections are run by the states themselves and can't be postponed by the federal government?
You don’t need a delay for this to be a disaster. You only need the added chaos and confusion of millions of Americans believing that you didn’t delay because it was part of a ploy to steal the election from them. And having the attorney general tacitly breathing credibility into the idea is extra bad.
tragabigzanda wrote:Why would it go to the House rather than both chambers of Congress?
And if it is just the House, wouldn't that be a pointless endgame for Trump?
Not if the argument could be made that Pelosi et al. were biased and corrupt and poopy-heads.
Didn't the SCOTUS just provide some guidance on this? Or was that only about party nominees, I forget and don't feel like looking it up.
No, it was on electoral votes. They ruled the electors had to follow the will of the people and whoever got the majority got the electors. Pretty much doing away with the idea that electors could cast their vote against the popular vote winner.
I think...
Let me tell you, Homer Simpson is cock of nothing!
- C. Montgomery Burns
tragabigzanda wrote:Why would it go to the House rather than both chambers of Congress?
And if it is just the House, wouldn't that be a pointless endgame for Trump?
tragabigzanda wrote:Why would it go to the House rather than both chambers of Congress?
And if it is just the House, wouldn't that be a pointless endgame for Trump?
Not if the argument could be made that Pelosi et al. were biased and corrupt and poopy-heads.
but why would that matter if the House gets the final say? So a bunch Trump voters will be disenfranchised...Regardless of my personal beliefs about that, that would still just be another loss of the red team.
Didn't the SCOTUS just provide some guidance on this? Or was that only about party nominees, I forget and don't feel like looking it up.
No, it was on electoral votes. They ruled the electors had to follow the will of the people and whoever got the majority got the electors. Pretty much doing away with the idea that electors could cast their vote against the popular vote winner.
Didn't the SCOTUS just provide some guidance on this? Or was that only about party nominees, I forget and don't feel like looking it up.
No, it was on electoral votes. They ruled the electors had to follow the will of the people and whoever got the majority got the electors. Pretty much doing away with the idea that electors could cast their vote against the popular vote winner.
I think...
Yeah. They ruled on faithless electors.
Kind of. They didn't disallow faithless electors, but rather allowed states to remove faithless electors if they decide to. States can choose their electors in any manner they want.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
tragabigzanda wrote:Why would it go to the House rather than both chambers of Congress?
And if it is just the House, wouldn't that be a pointless endgame for Trump?
Not if the argument could be made that Pelosi et al. were biased and corrupt and poopy-heads.
but why would that matter if the House gets the final say? So a bunch Trump voters will be disenfranchised...Regardless of my personal beliefs about that, that would still just be another loss of the red team.
If there’s anything that could make the conspiracy-minded rancor burn brighter and turn more potentially aggressive than skepticism at election results, it’s a Democrat-majority branch of government run by Nancy Pelosi having the final say in a presidential election.
tragabigzanda wrote:Why would it go to the House rather than both chambers of Congress?
And if it is just the House, wouldn't that be a pointless endgame for Trump?
Not if the argument could be made that Pelosi et al. were biased and corrupt and poopy-heads.
but why would that matter if the House gets the final say? So a bunch Trump voters will be disenfranchised...Regardless of my personal beliefs about that, that would still just be another loss of the red team.
Key thing is that it's not a vote of the 435 members of the House. Each state has one vote. So the representatives from each state would essentially vote together and then cast a single for their state. First one to 26 votes wins.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
Didn't the SCOTUS just provide some guidance on this? Or was that only about party nominees, I forget and don't feel like looking it up.
No, it was on electoral votes. They ruled the electors had to follow the will of the people and whoever got the majority got the electors. Pretty much doing away with the idea that electors could cast their vote against the popular vote winner.
I think...
Yeah. They ruled on faithless electors.
Oh, right. Thanks.
Last edited by elliseamos on Thu July 30, 2020 4:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm all for any outcome that guarantees (a) Trump is no longer president in 2021, and (b) the ultimate destruction of today's iteration of the Republican Party.
