flyingturtle wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Every election, I wonder the same things:

how can media outlets call races with only like 5% or 6% of ballots counted?
how can media outlets know how many total ballots have been cast to say there are 5% or 6% of ballots counted?

Your second question is easy. Ballots get counted as they are dropped into the box, or as they arrive by mail. So you know the total number of votes.

Just to expand on that a bit; one of the most important questions asked by election officials at the end of the election / before the actual counting begins, is...."How many votes have you got in that there box, Bud?"

It tells them several things.
1) If every other district is showing a turnout of 65%, and your box has substantially more (or less) than that number, they need to ask why. Of course there are certain neighborhoods that regularly differ from the national average, in which case historical data will often back this up.
This year, with Covid and mail-in ballots, the numbers are less predictable.

2) It gives the people at the count a target to work to. Putting it simply; if I say I have 1000 votes in my box, but the counting center comes up with 500 votes for candidate A, and 430 for candidate B, then we already have 70 votes "missing". Either that, or I have messed up the math and should have declared 930 as the box total.(¹)
In fact, in my experience it doesn't even get to the stage of splitting the votes between candidates; stage 1 is simply verify that the count center has received 1000 pieces of paper.
Again, this only applies to votes cast in person. Mail-in votes will be counted as they arrive, most probably...

As to exactly how & when this nugget of information is shared with the media; that's going to vary.

Then again, the last time I contributed my experiences to a thread on voting procedures, my contribution was dismissed because...

That's the beauty of the internet, anyone can claim to be anything.

So there you have it; I could be anybody. Or nobody.

(¹) The box total should correspond to the number of ballot papers issued (excluding any that are "spoilt"). This is arrived at by noting the serial number of the first ballot paper issued (A), and the serial number of the next ballot paper remaining at the end of poll (B). (A) minus (B) is your total issued.
At the close of poll, you pray that the totals match up, and that you didn't hand out a ballot paper to someone who simply stuffed it in their pocket and walked out with it.

rfields5421 wrote:

More likely IMHO is that Biden will issue a pardon for Trump, in return for a peaceful and semi-supportive transition.

Trump resisting the transition will put Biden six to eight weeks behind, so there is an advantage to him and his agenda.

So you're suggesting one of the first moves of the Biden Administration should be to cut a deal with someone who is notoriously unreliable?

Oy, vey.

Revelation wrote:

The obvious candidate would be Trump Jr but I kinda doubt he'll want to spend another big chunk of his life on politics. Time will tell.

I think the odds are much higher Trump will run in 2024 again than his son.

4 years is a very long time when you are at age 74....

Revelation wrote:

rfields5421 wrote:

More likely IMHO is that Biden will issue a pardon for Trump, in return for a peaceful and semi-supportive transition.

Trump resisting the transition will put Biden six to eight weeks behind, so there is an advantage to him and his agenda.

So you're suggesting one of the first moves of the Biden Administration should be to cut a deal with someone who is notoriously unreliable?

Oy, vey.

Why does Biden need Trump out of the way to start building his coalition? Biden can pick his own cabinet members, ambassadors, and the like. They can't begin their service until BIden does, and it would be up to the traitor in the Senate whether or not those people get confirmed. Trump is gone Jan 20 - he can go voluntarily, or the SS or some other federal law enforcement agency can drag him out kicking and screaming. And what does Biden gain by making a deal involving a pardon? Not a damn thing - Biden can sit back, let the SDNY and NY AG do their thing and he can focus on running the country. Pardoning Trump appeases no one - he'll piss off the liberals and the conservatives are never going to like him no matter what he does.

NIKV69 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

The only ones who will pay to worship him are his supporters, however they don't pay huge fees. You can have lots of them to compensate, I guess, but how long will the worshipping continue, I don't know.

Were all the people that went to Bill Clinton's speeches "worshippers"? Big part of why people run for office is the windfall after they leave.

Unless I'm mistaken Bill Clinton does the usual speeches, organized in big hotels or venues, with select attendance, and the fee is paid for by an organization that has invited these people. That's the "speaking circuit", also called lecture circuit : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lecture_circuit (Hillary Clinton is mentioned).

I'm saying I don't see Trump being part of that circuit.

rfields5421 wrote:

More likely IMHO is that Biden will issue a pardon for Trump, in return for a peaceful and semi-supportive transition.

Trump resisting the transition will put Biden six to eight weeks behind, so there is an advantage to him and his agenda.

What on earth for, why a pardon?

No pardons. Are you suggesting Donald Trump broke the law - what did he do wrong that needs a pardon for?

Here's a thought, now that the election is over. If Biden only intends to serve one term like he is rumored to be planning, would it be to his benefit to announce that prior to being inaugurated? He can run his whole term as if he's in his second term, not having to worry too much about being reelected. He can do what he needs to do to stabilize the country and the Dems can start making plans to have the right people run in 2024 (I mean, there needs to be options besides VP Harris).

flyguy89 wrote:

Aesma wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

That is quite an exaggeration really. Looking at the policies supported by most of the Democratic field during the primary (Sanders, Warren, Harris, etc.) they certainly would not be center right even in Europe- universal single-payer healthcare, free university, wealth taxes, doubling the national minimum wage, Green New Deal, high corporate income taxes, federal job guarantees, universal basic income, reparations...many of these are center left even by European standards. Granted a lot of these aren't the formal planks Biden ended up running on, but they're certainly not outside of the mainstream of Democratic Party politics.

In my country they're not left or right propositions, they're a concrete reality no party even talks about changing.

Because France is a center left country by European standards. Must have missed though France passing universal basic income and slavery reparations.

UBI is being talked about, however our safety net is very high so the UBI would have to be huge otherwise people would lose out. It's probably something that can't really happen in the current state of the world.

Slavery reparations is something that comes from the US so it's unlikely France will move before the US, it has been in the public debate for more than 20 years though. Even proponents aren't exactly sure of what form should such reparations should take... Also many of the descendants of slaves are living in specific territories (Guyane and Antilles), slavery wasn't legal in metropolitan France, so the outcome would probably be to send more money to these territories.

My point was also that right-wing politicians aren't talking about going back on things like universal healthcare. They propose reforms yes, but nobody campaigns on destroying this. Somehow in the US it's possible to win elections that way. Look at mini-Trump in the UK, he does the opposite, boasting about being the biggest fan of the NHS (while undermining it in reality).

LittleFokker wrote:

Revelation wrote:

rfields5421 wrote:

More likely IMHO is that Biden will issue a pardon for Trump, in return for a peaceful and semi-supportive transition.

Trump resisting the transition will put Biden six to eight weeks behind, so there is an advantage to him and his agenda.

So you're suggesting one of the first moves of the Biden Administration should be to cut a deal with someone who is notoriously unreliable?

Oy, vey.

Why does Biden need Trump out of the way to start building his coalition? Biden can pick his own cabinet members, ambassadors, and the like. They can't begin their service until BIden does, and it would be up to the traitor in the Senate whether or not those people get confirmed. Trump is gone Jan 20 - he can go voluntarily, or the SS or some other federal law enforcement agency can drag him out kicking and screaming. And what does Biden gain by making a deal involving a pardon? Not a damn thing - Biden can sit back, let the SDNY and NY AG do their thing and he can focus on running the country. Pardoning Trump appeases no one - he'll piss off the liberals and the conservatives are never going to like him no matter what he does.

The transition of administrations takes at least 6 to 8 weeks before the new administration is functional.

The agencies have to get started on the security clearances for the political appointee employees below the senate confirmation level. Biden's key aides want those done before Jan 20. If the Trump administration stalls or refuses to processing them....problems.

Things as simple as keys to desks and offices. Computer passwords, heck working out parking assignments.

There are four basic categories of political appointments:

Presidential appointments with Senate confirmation (PAS): These positions require a congressional hearing and a confirmation vote of the full Senate under the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution.[4] As at 2016, PAS positions included 1,212 senior positions, including the Cabinet secretaries and their subordinates at the Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary, and Assistant Secretary levels; the heads of most independent agencies; and ambassadors. It also includes United States Attorneys and United States Marshals. The Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 reclassified about 170 PAS positions to PA, to no longer needing Senate confirmation.

Presidential appointments without Senate confirmation (PA): These appointments do not require a Senate hearing or vote. As at 2016, there were 353 PA positions, most of which were in the Executive Office of the President.

Non-career Senior Executive Service (NA): The Senior Executive Service (SES) forms the level just below the presidential appointees. While the SES largely consists of career officials, up to 10%, or (as of 2016) 680 positions, can be political appointees.

Schedule C appointments (SC): Schedule C appointees serve in confidential or policy roles immediately subordinate to other appointees. As of 2016, there are 1,403 Schedule C appointees.

Unlike the presidential appointments, the non-career SES and Schedule C appointments tend to be made within each agency and then approved by the Office of Presidential Personnel.

Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_in_the_United_States

That's 2,436 (apology if my math is off) people that the Biden administration needs to at least have an idea who they want in those positions, ready to go on Jan 21 when Federal Offices open. They do not want to be only starting that on Jan 20.

There is an outline of the high level part of the process. There is a lot of detail work that must be at the lower levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_transition_of_Donald_Trump

rfields5421 wrote:

LittleFokker wrote:

Revelation wrote:

So you're suggesting one of the first moves of the Biden Administration should be to cut a deal with someone who is notoriously unreliable?

Oy, vey.

Why does Biden need Trump out of the way to start building his coalition? Biden can pick his own cabinet members, ambassadors, and the like. They can't begin their service until BIden does, and it would be up to the traitor in the Senate whether or not those people get confirmed. Trump is gone Jan 20 - he can go voluntarily, or the SS or some other federal law enforcement agency can drag him out kicking and screaming. And what does Biden gain by making a deal involving a pardon? Not a damn thing - Biden can sit back, let the SDNY and NY AG do their thing and he can focus on running the country. Pardoning Trump appeases no one - he'll piss off the liberals and the conservatives are never going to like him no matter what he does.

The transition of administrations takes at least 6 to 8 weeks before the new administration is functional.

The agencies have to get started on the security clearances for the political appointee employees below the senate confirmation level. Biden's key aides want those done before Jan 20. If the Trump administration stalls or refuses to processing them....problems.

Things as simple as keys to desks and offices. Computer passwords, heck working out parking assignments.

There are four basic categories of political appointments:

Presidential appointments with Senate confirmation (PAS): These positions require a congressional hearing and a confirmation vote of the full Senate under the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution.[4] As at 2016, PAS positions included 1,212 senior positions, including the Cabinet secretaries and their subordinates at the Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary, and Assistant Secretary levels; the heads of most independent agencies; and ambassadors. It also includes United States Attorneys and United States Marshals. The Presidential Appointment Efficiency and Streamlining Act of 2011 reclassified about 170 PAS positions to PA, to no longer needing Senate confirmation.

Presidential appointments without Senate confirmation (PA): These appointments do not require a Senate hearing or vote. As at 2016, there were 353 PA positions, most of which were in the Executive Office of the President.

Non-career Senior Executive Service (NA): The Senior Executive Service (SES) forms the level just below the presidential appointees. While the SES largely consists of career officials, up to 10%, or (as of 2016) 680 positions, can be political appointees.

Schedule C appointments (SC): Schedule C appointees serve in confidential or policy roles immediately subordinate to other appointees. As of 2016, there are 1,403 Schedule C appointees.

Unlike the presidential appointments, the non-career SES and Schedule C appointments tend to be made within each agency and then approved by the Office of Presidential Personnel.

Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_appointments_in_the_United_States

That's 2,436 (apology if my math is off) people that the Biden administration needs to at least have an idea who they want in those positions, ready to go on Jan 21 when Federal Offices open. They do not want to be only starting that on Jan 20.

There is an outline of the high level part of the process. There is a lot of detail work that must be at the lower levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidential_transition_of_Donald_Trump

And what can Trump do to impede on those people being selected? Why does Biden have to occupy a formal government office to get that process going? The general consensus is that Biden is the fair winner of the election - the only people who think differently are Trump and his fellow Jonestownians. There's no reason anyone who would otherwise be inclined to join a Biden administration would be hesitant to join just because Trump is complaining?

cpd wrote:

rfields5421 wrote:

More likely IMHO is that Biden will issue a pardon for Trump, in return for a peaceful and semi-supportive transition.

Trump resisting the transition will put Biden six to eight weeks behind, so there is an advantage to him and his agenda.

What on earth for, why a pardon?

No pardons. Are you suggesting Donald Trump broke the law - what did he do wrong that needs a pardon for?

Remember the impeachment ?

All kinds of corrupt dealings, pay for play, having the DOJ dismiss cases for friends, etc.

LittleFokker wrote:

Here's a thought, now that the election is over. If Biden only intends to serve one term like he is rumored to be planning, would it be to his benefit to announce that prior to being inaugurated? He can run his whole term as if he's in his second term, not having to worry too much about being reelected. He can do what he needs to do to stabilize the country and the Dems can start making plans to have the right people run in 2024 (I mean, there needs to be options besides VP Harris).

He has also indicated he could run for a second term. Either he's really unfit and there is indeed a plan to last one term or even less, or I'd say he probably hasn't decided yet and it's not his priority.

The Dems should have good candidates regardless, but "The Dems" aka the DNC doesn't seem very capable these days. After 2016 and even 2018 you'd have expected them to do much better at this election...

The more time & resources Trump spends on fighting a loosing battle over the election the less time and assets he will have fighting his legal battles.

Pardons at the federal level will be a help, but might well be cancelled if he lies under oath on tax investigations. I doubt that pardons will cover. his taxes due - a trifle $100 Million - plus late fees & interest.

He also needs to be able to direct time and energy to state tax issues and, potentially, state criminal investigations.

And then Trump needs to address Tax and Bank Fraud at the state levels - which attorney Michael Cohen brought to the public's attention.

And then there is the risk of his lenders moving to get their money back.

But then Trump has never hesitated to file Bankruptcies.

Actually, I believe that Trump needs to start looking like a real nice guy as this is the time to influence Americans who may be sitting on one of his jury.

Ken777 wrote:

The more time & resources Trump spends on fighting a loosing battle over the election the less time and assets he will have

It’s possible that he needs the election ruse to pay off some campaign debt.

For Americans hoping for a smooth transition, look up who Emily Murphy is. You will not be happy.

luckyone wrote:

Ken777 wrote:

The more time & resources Trump spends on fighting a loosing battle over the election the less time and assets he will have

It’s possible that he needs the election ruse to pay off some campaign debt.

Possible? The Trump campaigns recount donation pages specifically call out that 50% of the donation will go toward clearing campaign debt until thats been cleared...

rfields5421 wrote:

More likely IMHO is that Biden will issue a pardon for Trump, in return for a peaceful and semi-supportive transition. .

In return for half his voters staying home in 2022, mad for letting Trump off the hook, and no credit whatsoever from Republican voters, that will just elect president Trump again in 2024?
Pardoning Trump is messaging "yup, it was all a witch hunt".

Best regards
Thomas

moo wrote:

luckyone wrote:

Ken777 wrote:

The more time & resources Trump spends on fighting a loosing battle over the election the less time and assets he will have

It’s possible that he needs the election ruse to pay off some campaign debt.

Possible? The Trump campaigns recount donation pages specifically call out that 50% of the donation will go toward clearing campaign debt until thats been cleared...

So how much money did Trump loan his campaign this time?

Best regards
Thomas

M564038 wrote:

This is a very precise, and very good analysis.
But I hope that this election was as if Germany dodged Hitler in 1935ish. Or he had died of a heart attack in -36. None of the others could have kept the power and people moving into the madness as Hitler did. Göering? No.
We must not forget how important the figurehead is for these kind of authoritarian take-overs to work.
Now, hopefully, Trump is finished as one for the american authoritarian right wing. He was never quite good enough, and it takes years and years to build a new one. USA has bought itself some time to strengthen it’s democracy. Lets hope it takes it seriously. It includes healthcare, education and some serious wealth-redistribution.

The poisoning of the american public hadn't just started with Trump; He just snapped into a place that had been prepared by many years of aggressive propaganda, and that propaganda will most likely survive him, too, as long as there are no journalistic standards required of propaganda organisations posing as media.

Lindsey Graham is basically saying the Democrats stole the election and the Republicans wont ever be able to get elected again unless they challenge this election in court and win:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) warned that President Trump should not concede defeat in the 2020 presidential election in part because Republicans will "never" be able to elect another president from their party again.

"If Republicans don't challenge and change the U.S. election system, there will never be another Republican president elected again," Graham said Sunday on Fox News.

https://thehill.com/homenews/525063-lin ... ct-another

Aaron747 wrote:

For Americans hoping for a smooth transition, look up who Emily Murphy is. You will not be happy.

From a legal standpoint though, can her office make a determination based on Media calls? I know there are a few not happy with her, but I would let this play out this week before really jumping to a conclusion. She was unanimously approved so I don't think she is controversial.


It is already appearing that Biden is going to go for a bipartisan cabinet. Mitt Romney reportedly is being floated for HHS secretary, and I think Romney will be good for the job. He is pushing the Governor to name Mia Love as his replacement, and with Harris now VP elect, she would become the only Black Woman in the senate. This is all speculation though.

As I said, pay attention to this transition and the first 100 days for hints as to how Biden will govern. If the Romney name is true, especially given it would be HHS, this tells me he is going to govern in a more inclusive and bipartisan manner. Also, I was reading reports that Biden has a great relationship with Mitch McConnell, which will be key to getting things done. I actually think Biden can do some good in his first 100 days. Outside of the administration other things to watch going forward.

1. The House is going to be an interesting watch. The Dems have lost seats when they were forecast to win seats, and are going to barely hold their majority. In a parliamentary system, Pelosi would already have been forced out. But she has made it clear she isn't going anywhere without a fight. However, now progressives are in a better position to demand more from Pelosi for their support. (Although they didn't do so with Biden after the primary). The dynamic between Pelosi and the progressive wing of the house will be one to watch, and it could make Pelosi's life miserable, especially if Biden and McConnell agree on stuff and Pelosi can't get it passed in the house.

2. On the subject of the House, keep an eye on the census numbers when they are released, and we will have to see how it affects the makeup of the House in 2022. And since the Dems all but struck out at the state level this election cycle, look for more Gerrymandering in GOP controlled states, and this coupled with the fact that a new president historically loses seats in the first midterm, the House could flip Red in 2022. Also, if NY loses seats, keep an eye on how the districts are drawn. I would not be surprised if they attempted to redistrict AOC out of office.

3. On the Senate side, the GA runoffs are monumental. I don't know what kind of turnout you get, but typically Runoffs will favor a GOP candidate, and with Biden now the president elect, the GA voters may want a check on Biden. One question to ponder is, would McConnell put the filibuster back in for Judicial Nominees? I suspect not, since I suspect he will want to maintain good will with Biden. I suspect there will be a frantic pace to confirm the remaining judicial nominees from Trump in the lame duck session.

4. Which direction will the GOP go in post-Trump? I see one of two possibilities. I can see it remain as a corporatist party given the establishment that remains in DC. The other possibility is it goes in a more populist direction, where members are looking to rein in corporate power. At the moment, the only guys I can see thinking like this are Josh Hawley and Marco Rubio. I do think the latter is the better and more winning strategy long term, but I suspect they will go in the former.

moo wrote:

Lindsey Graham is basically saying the Democrats stole the election and the Republicans wont ever be able to get elected again unless they challenge this election in court and win:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) warned that President Trump should not concede defeat in the 2020 presidential election in part because Republicans will "never" be able to elect another president from their party again.

"If Republicans don't challenge and change the U.S. election system, there will never be another Republican president elected again," Graham said Sunday on Fox News.

https://thehill.com/homenews/525063-lin ... ct-another

Yeah yeah yeah. People were saying similar things in the post-2016 aftermath. Lindsey Graham has no choice but to keep up his rhetoric since he checked his manhood at the door after the 2016 primaries and has been licking President Trump’s boots ever since. At this point he is hitched to Trump’s wagon.

apodino wrote:

3. On the Senate side, the GA runoffs are monumental. I don't know what kind of turnout you get, but typically Runoffs will favor a GOP candidate, and with Biden now the president elect, the GA voters may want a check on Biden. One question to ponder is, would McConnell put the filibuster back in for Judicial Nominees? I suspect not, since I suspect he will want to maintain good will with Biden. I suspect there will be a frantic pace to confirm the remaining judicial nominees from Trump in the lame duck session.

McConnell has demonstrated that he has absolutely no compunction blowing with the winds of convenience. He’ll do whatever he believes he should do to keep his hold on power.

Georgia at this point has tossed Conventional wisdom over a cliff. I was on record in the swing state forum that Trump would win Georgia. It presently does not appear that is going to happen. I could envision Democrats getting one of those seats, but it’s going to depend on turnout. I would make an educated speculation that Warnock has the better chance of success, just by looking at the numbers. The number of cumulative Democrat votes in that special election at a rough glance appears larger than cumulative Republican votes.


Meanwhile, Ted Cruz is starting to be more vocal. He was a strong critic of Trump in the primaries and since then has mostly kept his head down on the national scene. Now that it looks like Trump may be leaving the White House, he’s starting to rattle his saber and sound more like the Obama Green Eggs and Ham shutdown Ted. Maybe he’ll shave his beard off again. Barring something unforeseen, he’s setting himself up for 2024.

luckyone wrote:

moo wrote:

Lindsey Graham is basically saying the Democrats stole the election and the Republicans wont ever be able to get elected again unless they challenge this election in court and win:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) warned that President Trump should not concede defeat in the 2020 presidential election in part because Republicans will "never" be able to elect another president from their party again.

"If Republicans don't challenge and change the U.S. election system, there will never be another Republican president elected again," Graham said Sunday on Fox News.

https://thehill.com/homenews/525063-lin ... ct-another

Yeah yeah yeah. People were saying similar things in the post-2016 aftermath. Lindsey Graham has no choice but to keep up his rhetoric since he checked his manhood at the door after the 2016 primaries and has been licking President Trump’s boots ever since. At this point he is hitched to Trump’s wagon.

So... according to Lindsey Graham:

a) Having policies actually appealing to a majority was too hard, but that is what the EC advantage is for
b) If that doesn´t work anymore, we have to make sure people not voting for us can´t/won´t vote.

best regards
Thomas

He is just going to keep suing and suing until he wins. His supporters are all for this because they can be openly and violently racist because the White House is racist and violent. They do not care about anything else. They are called out as racist and violent. They want to keep this going. They love the racist and violence backed by their new orange god.

Donald Trump not conceding the election or providing proof of fraud is very unsettling. As typical for Trump he is brash, divisive, and terribly narcissistic. "I acknowledge the media believes my opponent has won this race but we are examining discrepancies with mail-in ballots and ballot counting software. The integrity of elections is paramount to the GOP, and it should be for all Americans. If we, in conjunction with the courts, determine there were no discrepancies during the election I will happily concede."

There, I did his job for him.

Conservatism is hit or miss, but Trump is a needlessly polarizing figure. I think he gets off on it. If he hasn't figured it out right now he's lost any credibility to make fun of another person's intellectual capacity.

SheikhDjibouti wrote:

flyingturtle wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Every election, I wonder the same things:

how can media outlets call races with only like 5% or 6% of ballots counted?
how can media outlets know how many total ballots have been cast to say there are 5% or 6% of ballots counted?

Your second question is easy. Ballots get counted as they are dropped into the box, or as they arrive by mail. So you know the total number of votes.

Just to expand on that a bit; one of the most important questions asked by election officials at the end of the election / before the actual counting begins, is...."How many votes have you got in that there box, Bud?"

It tells them several things.
1) If every other district is showing a turnout of 65%, and your box has substantially more (or less) than that number, they need to ask why. Of course there are certain neighborhoods that regularly differ from the national average, in which case historical data will often back this up.
This year, with Covid and mail-in ballots, the numbers are less predictable.

2) It gives the people at the count a target to work to. Putting it simply; if I say I have 1000 votes in my box, but the counting center comes up with 500 votes for candidate A, and 430 for candidate B, then we already have 70 votes "missing". Either that, or I have messed up the math and should have declared 930 as the box total.(¹)
In fact, in my experience it doesn't even get to the stage of splitting the votes between candidates; stage 1 is simply verify that the count center has received 1000 pieces of paper.
Again, this only applies to votes cast in person. Mail-in votes will be counted as they arrive, most probably...

As to exactly how & when this nugget of information is shared with the media; that's going to vary.

Then again, the last time I contributed my experiences to a thread on voting procedures, my contribution was dismissed because...

That's the beauty of the internet, anyone can claim to be anything.

So there you have it; I could be anybody. Or nobody.

(¹) The box total should correspond to the number of ballot papers issued (excluding any that are "spoilt"). This is arrived at by noting the serial number of the first ballot paper issued (A), and the serial number of the next ballot paper remaining at the end of poll (B). (A) minus (B) is your total issued.
At the close of poll, you pray that the totals match up, and that you didn't hand out a ballot paper to someone who simply stuffed it in their pocket and walked out with it.

This makes zero sense in places where mail in and absentee ballots are dropped. We have three (that I know of) drop sites in our county. One at the actual courthouse 25 miles from the population center and two the the population centers.

Even when the Postal Service was not partisan against Democrats, I could pop my ballot in a mail box with a stamp and it would be counted. Now? We don't know unless it is a MAGA ballot. If it is a MAGA ballot, it will be counted.

Still, does not explain why a race is called with only 5% of ballots counted and how anyone can know 5% of ballots are in at 8:01 when polls close at 8:00. Do you know when the last ballot was dropped off in Morton County, Kansas or Harney County, Oregon? Was it 1 minute after poll closing?

Let every vote count.

moo wrote:

Lindsey Graham is basically saying the Democrats stole the election and the Republicans wont ever be able to get elected again unless they challenge this election in court and win:

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) warned that President Trump should not concede defeat in the 2020 presidential election in part because Republicans will "never" be able to elect another president from their party again.

"If Republicans don't challenge and change the U.S. election system, there will never be another Republican president elected again," Graham said Sunday on Fox News.

https://thehill.com/homenews/525063-lin ... ct-another

Lol.

"If we don't skew the electoral process to our advantage, how are we supposed to stay in power with a minority of votes?"

Can't make this crap up.

The Congress, I am wondering how many races distanced themselves from MAGA and went back to Reagan? We didn't know Alek Skarlotos was Republican until "he hates minimum wage" and "he hates Social Security" commercials were run. I wonder how toxic MAGA is that Republican candidates have to move to the left without "moving to the left" during this race?

luckyone wrote:

Lindsey Graham has no choice but to keep up his rhetoric since he checked his manhood at the door after the 2016 primaries...

Manhood and Miss Lindsey? Words that should never be in the same sentence, just like scruples and Trump.

Kno wrote:

wingman wrote:

FreequentFlier wrote:

I generally agree. With that said, what people fail to realize, including the vast majority of our "elites", is that win or lose, Donald Trump is going to win the 2nd most votes in US history today. He's going to win even more votes than Barack Obama did en route to his landslide win in 2008 over John McCain.

A curious person might ask why or how the hell that happened. Our self styled elites don't even bother. They're too busy defunding the police or outsourcing jobs in other people's neighborhoods - neighborhoods they will never actually visit or even care to learn about.

This is what I’ll never understand in a million years - Donald Trump is the very definition of the American “elite”. He lives, breathes, personifies and practices the very same despicable qualities that all of his voters profess to be voting against. Every single act, word, tweet, action, draft dodge, tax dodge, pussy grab, whore payoff, lawyer up, dog whistle, golf game, gold tower address...every fiber of his existence literally screams out “I don’t give a shit about anyone in this planet except ME”. But for a few thousand dollars in tax savings 50m Americans said the same damn thing about themselves. Even if Joe Biden wins this election Trump has successfully exposed the truth about this country, we are a nation exactly half full of people that turned a blind eye to the most morally repugnant human being to ever hold public office in this country. Not only that, they cherished it. That is a searing condemnation of the United States. This is the saddest moment of my life as an American that was once proud of his country.

This has always shocked me about Trump supporters. You lean right politically? No problem. I'm honestly shocked the right wasn't more disgusted with this blatant scumbag in office. He's a truly disgusting human being and makes no attempt to hide it. You'd have to have a very dim moral compass to be blind to it. Politics aside, you're either blissfully ignorant or disgusting like Donald if you can't see it.

I really don't get how his crowd is also the proud to be an American crowd....... Yeah so take some pride in being an American and get this prick out of office. No better way to MAGA than to get Donald out of office. We need a leader - Trump is HORRIBLE at leading. Not particularly excited for Biden either but I'm looking forward to having a NORMAL amount of dissatisfaction with politics.

I didn’t vote for Trump in either election. That you consider me a right wing extremist is why this site isn’t a serious barometer for national politics.

Carry on though.

Goodbye Don! You won’t be missed.

cpd wrote:

rfields5421 wrote:

More likely IMHO is that Biden will issue a pardon for Trump, in return for a peaceful and semi-supportive transition.

Trump resisting the transition will put Biden six to eight weeks behind, so there is an advantage to him and his agenda.

What on earth for, why a pardon?

No pardons. Are you suggesting Donald Trump broke the law - what did he do wrong that needs a pardon for?

Oh, boy. Emoluments clause? Campaign financing laws? And others...

Biden could ask the DOJ to compile a list of crimes Trump committed.

Then, Biden offers Trump a pardon if Trump agrees never to deny these crimes. Under the threat of heavy contractual fines.

seb146 wrote:

He is just going to keep suing and suing until he wins.

Meh, he'll run out of money and time first, probably in that order.

seb146 wrote:

Still, does not explain why a race is called with only 5% of ballots counted and how anyone can know 5% of ballots are in at 8:01 when polls close at 8:00. Do you know when the last ballot was dropped off in Morton County, Kansas or Harney County, Oregon? Was it 1 minute after poll closing?

Let every vote count.

That one has an easy answer: some state that allow advance voting, allow also that theses votes to be accounted in advance and be seen after 20:01.

luckyone wrote:

apodino wrote:

3. On the Senate side, the GA runoffs are monumental. I don't know what kind of turnout you get, but typically Runoffs will favor a GOP candidate, and with Biden now the president elect, the GA voters may want a check on Biden. One question to ponder is, would McConnell put the filibuster back in for Judicial Nominees? I suspect not, since I suspect he will want to maintain good will with Biden. I suspect there will be a frantic pace to confirm the remaining judicial nominees from Trump in the lame duck session.

McConnell has demonstrated that he has absolutely no compunction blowing with the winds of convenience. He’ll do whatever he believes he should do to keep his hold on power.

Georgia at this point has tossed Conventional wisdom over a cliff. I was on record in the swing state forum that Trump would win Georgia. It presently does not appear that is going to happen. I could envision Democrats getting one of those seats, but it’s going to depend on turnout. I would make an educated speculation that Warnock has the better chance of success, just by looking at the numbers. The number of cumulative Democrat votes in that special election at a rough glance appears larger than cumulative Republican votes.


Meanwhile, Ted Cruz is starting to be more vocal. He was a strong critic of Trump in the primaries and since then has mostly kept his head down on the national scene. Now that it looks like Trump may be leaving the White House, he’s starting to rattle his saber and sound more like the Obama Green Eggs and Ham shutdown Ted. Maybe he’ll shave his beard off again. Barring something unforeseen, he’s setting himself up for 2024.

I don't know much about Warnock but I have heard that he is a preacher who does not preach a prosperity gospel. How that plays out is anyones guess. As for the other race, the question between Ossoff and Purdue is where do the libertarian votes go? If they all go to Purdue, the race is his.

As for Cruz, he may position himself for 2024. The issue with a guy like him or Rand Paul is both guys are libertarian, and the GOP at the grassroots level is moving away from a libertarian party to a more populist one. I don't see Cruz having the success he did in 2016. Not to mention, his senate seat is also up in 2024, and he has to decide whether to make a run, or stay in the Senate. I think the guys that are more likely to succeed in 2024 are the populist guys, which would be guys like Josh Hawley and Tim Scott. Rubio is a populist as well, but I am not sure that he is liked in the base that much. The guys that will win will be listening to people like Saager Enjeti and Rachel Bovard, not Sean Hannity or Dennis Prager.

Lastly, CNN is reporting that both Melania Trump and Jared Kushner (and probably by extension Ivanka Trump) are trying to convince Trump to concede. Eric and Don Jr, are trying to convince him otherwise. I know its not his style, but I think it would do him a world of good and earn him some respect if he graciously conceded and vowed to work with Biden during the transition. Otherwise, if all these battles come up short, rather than leaving with his head high, he will leave in disgrace.

The delaying tactic on not conceding is in parallel with the request for money to pay off campaign finance. Trump and his team know they have lost, but they will keep spinning it out taking in as much money as they can to pay off the campaign finance. It seems they over spent because they “knew” they would win.

One reflection I have is that the popular vote vs the electoral votes has a gap.

Even Hillary Clinton gained the popular vote but lost the Electoral vote.

Why do not number of electoral votes for a state better mirror its % of population?

N867DA wrote:

Donald Trump not conceding the election or providing proof of fraud is very unsettling. As typical for Trump he is brash, divisive, and terribly narcissistic. "I acknowledge the media believes my opponent has won this race but we are examining discrepancies with mail-in ballots and ballot counting software. The integrity of elections is paramount to the GOP, and it should be for all Americans. If we, in conjunction with the courts, determine there were no discrepancies during the election I will happily concede."

Trump must be held to account for what he is doing. When a President takes his oath of office, he said that he will (to the best of his ability) preserve, protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States. Leaving aside "the best of his ability", what he is doing now is the polar opposite of that. By undermining faith in the democratic process, he is doing the opposite of that. There needs to be consequence of what he is doing. A leader must not behave like this, particular as it may lead to loss of life. A marker must be put down.

Donald Trump is a very dishonest man. I can imagine that he has commited crimes during his tenure. The problem I see with a pardon is that - short of him confessing to his criminal activities - he will come out untainted and would be in a stronger position to contest the presidency in 2024 if he so chose.

art wrote:

I can imagine that he has commited crimes during his tenure.

no need to imagine, ten are laid out in the Mueller report with a pretty good amount of detail.

best regards
Thomas

art wrote:

Donald Trump is a very dishonest man. I can imagine that he has commited crimes during his tenure. The problem I see with a pardon is that - short of him confessing to his criminal activities - he will come out untainted and would be in a stronger position to contest the presidency in 2024 if he so chose.

That's why Biden and his people won't want to offer any pardons - by offering a pardon they then become part of the wrongdoing as well.

Why do so many people want to see Trump persecuted?
I want to see Bush persecuted. Trump is small fish in comparison.

I never liked the hatred Trump was facing. But some Trump critics can't even let go when they win.

I wonder what's the psychology behind witch hunt?

Biden will do exactly what he currently does about Trump... He will keep ignoring him and likely never mention him at all.
He will strive to undo his damage while only referring to it as the work of 'the previous administration'.

Now that he's won, calling him out would stigmatize his base and hamper his goal to unite the nation, but offering him an olive branch would tacitly endorse his despicable behavior and actions (and Trump wouldn't take it anyway).

He'll simply never directly mention him and let the justice system (along with all the other agencies and individuals Trump will have to answer to) deal with him while distancing himself from any proceeding, as he should.

Revelation wrote:

Joe is an aging man devoid of new ideas
...

Well, let's wait and see.
He never ran a state cabinet and as Machiavelli says:
It isn't necessary that a ruler is smart. It is enough if he knows to pick the right people.

Francoflier wrote:

Biden will do exactly what he currently does about Trump... He will keep ignoring him and likely never mention him at all.
He will strive to undo his damage while only referring to it as the work of 'the previous administration'.

Now that he's won, calling him out would stigmatize his base and hamper his goal to unite the nation, but offering him an olive branch would tacitly endorse his despicable behavior and actions (and Trump wouldn't take it anyway).

He'll simply never directly mention him and let the justice system (along with all the other agencies and individuals Trump will have to answer to) deal with him while distancing himself from any proceeding, as he should.

I agree, that's the best route forward. If you Pardon him you then you endorse him. If you blame him you give him something to fight against. If you just ignore him he will come out swinging at nothing and just look stupid.

Fred

Sokes wrote:

Why do so many people want to see Trump persecuted?

Behause he very likely is a multiple time felon, and crime should be punished? Its "If you can´t do the time, don´t do the crime". There is no asterix "unless you had been president and have enough fans".

There are plenty of reason to pull out all the stops when it comes to former heads of state, as they swore an oath to uphold the constitution and law of the land.

best regards
Thomas

tommy1808 wrote:

Behause he very likely is a multiple time felon, and crime should be punished? Its "If you can´t do the time, don´t do the crime". There is no asterix "unless you had been president and have enough fans".

There are plenty of reason to pull out all the stops when it comes to former heads of state, as they swore an oath to uphold the constitution and law of the land.

best regards
Thomas

Get real.
One crow doesn't pick the eye of another crow.

olle wrote:

One reflection I have is that the popular vote vs the electoral votes has a gap.

Even Hillary Clinton gained the popular vote but lost the Electoral vote.

Why do not number of electoral votes for a state better mirror its % of population?

That is a feature and not a bug. The EC was designed that way so that the smaller states would not be run over by the larger states. A bit like how the smaller European countries have more MEPs per capita than the bigger ones.