Red Mosquito

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.

McParadigm wrote:

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.

durdencommatyler wrote:Without guarantees from the Dems and NY State that he and his family are protected/safe from charges, bailing isn't an option.

This

doug rr wrote:

Excuse me. I need some privacy for a few minutes.

wease wrote:

doug rr wrote:

Excuse me. I need some privacy for a few minutes.

Indeed.

Or this I guess?

McParadigm wrote:Or this I guess?

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.

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.

elliseamos wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Or this I guess?

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...

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?

I don’t know dude. It’s all new to me.

elliseamos wrote:

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.

wease wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Or this I guess?

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.

McParadigm wrote:

wease wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Or this I guess?

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.

tragabigzanda wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

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:

elliseamos wrote:

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.

Yes, that means that the 1 representative from Wyoming is equal to the 53 from California.

McParadigm wrote:

wease wrote:

elliseamos wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Or this I guess?

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.

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.