2020 US Presidential Election

[DerekC]

Interesting that the BBC Fact Checkers have started on the "10,000 dead Michigan voters" claim. See:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54874120

To test the list, we picked 30 names at random. To this we added the oldest person on the list.
Of this list of 31 names, we managed to speak directly to 11 people (or to a family member, neighbour or care home worker) to confirm they were still alive.
For 17 others, there was no public record of their death, and we found clear evidence that they were alive after the alleged date of death on the list of 10,000. A clear pattern emerged - the wrong records had been joined together to create a false match.
Finally, we found that three people on the list were indeed dead. We examine these cases later.

In summary - they have checked 31 and demonstrated that:

• In each case the voter and the deceased person had the same birth month and year but different birth dates (but of course the Trump campaign doesn't say that)
• 28 of the 31 are definitely alive
• One died after sending in her postal vote
• One was a son who had accidentally voted in his deceased father's name (father and son of the same name) - but hadn't voted in his own
• One was another similar to the previous one, but the error was made by the registering clerk

So it's a scam - they will have known that in most cases the death record and voting record had different birth dates - but that won't stop the Trumpists trumpeting it as fact, of course.

 

[birchesgreen]

Four years of ranting in an echo chamber, excellent.

 

[Typhoon]

Part of the plan appears to be Trump setting up his own TV News channel in order to both smash the 'traitors' at Fox News and to provide a platform for him to continue to spread his lies and falsehoods in order to attract more supporters during the next 4 years.

Thus guaranteeing that Fox viewers will not have to listen to his inane ramblings every time he is feeling unloved. And he is invariably successful when he ventures outside of property - Trump University, Trump Steaks, Trump Shuttle, Trump Vodka, Trump Ice (water), Trump Mortgage and Trump Magazine. Still it will keep Eric, Donald J, and Donald J Jr occupied.

 

[nlogax]

Four years of ranting in an echo chamber, excellent.

Yep, it's called 'jail'.

 

[birchesgreen]

Slopper out in chief

 

[Whistler40145]

Trump running again in 2024 would be a gift from heaven for the Democrats

Hopefully Trump will have gone completely round the twist and be incapable of holding office in 2024

 

[Logan Carroll]

U.S politics just seems like such a ridiculous facade to me.

It will be another 4 years of Middle Eastern children being terrified of sunny days and i’m concerned about Biden entering a new Cold War with Russia or China and returning too two giants holding humanity’s existence hostage over ill informed black and white morality.

I also personally think we dodged a bullet with Clinton and her talk of a no-fly zone over Syria.

 

[overthewater]

Yep, it's called 'jail'.

I doubt he will be in jail, they will just sweep him under the carpet. If he ends up going to court Biden will never get rid of him, as he will be the top story.

 

[Logan Carroll]

I doubt he will be in jail, they will just sweep him under the carpet. If he ends up going to court Biden will never get rid of him, as he will be the top story.

“It’s not illegal if the president does it” - Richard Nixon

 

[RichT54]

“It’s not illegal if the president does it” - Richard Nixon

Nixon was an amateur compared to Trump.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The 306-232 margin of victory in terms of electoral votes, which is an exact reverse of that in 2016, is in fact extremely narrow in terms of votes. The margin of Biden's victory in AZ/GA/WI combined is <50,000 votes, and if these states had not flipped, and the Republicans had not lost the 2nd district in NE (which they won in 2016) by a very narrow margin, Trump would have won by 270-268. Such a narrow defeat, which was dragged out by many days, would be difficult for anyone to come to terms with, which explains in my view Trump's reluctance to concede.

Doesn't explain it at all. In 2016, Trump's margin of victory in Wisconsin+Michigan+Pennsylvania added up just 78K - not much more than the 50K you quoted for 3 states in 2020. Those 78K votes would have been enough for Hilary Clinton to win instead, but I don't recall Hilary falsely insisting she'd won and trying to justify that by spreading lies about fraud and trying to destroy confidence in the electoral system. And remember, in 2016, Clinton actually got *more* votes than Trump across the country, which would have made it all massively more frustrating. I would assume that the reason Hilary gracefully accepted what must have been an intensely frustrating result would have been that Hilary Clinton is a mature adult who respects the democratic process.

And I'd say the reason for Trump's refusal to concede is much simpler: It's because - and I really don't say things like this lightly - Trump is basically a big baby who is incapable of gracefully accepting when something doesn't go his own way.

 

[Cowley]

I’ve moved the discussion on NATO etc here now:

Discussion on NATO, Russia, China and Cold War 2.0.

i’m concerned about Biden entering a new Cold War... Look at the news, Putin's already started it. (mods note - split from this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/2020-us-presidential-election.208065/)

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[daodao]

Doesn't explain it at all. In 2016, Trump's margin of victory in Wisconsin+Michigan+Pennsylvania added up just 78K - not much more than the 50K you quoted for 3 states in 2020. Those 78K votes would have been enough for Hilary Clinton to win instead, but I don't recall Hilary falsely insisting she'd won and trying to justify that by spreading lies about fraud and trying to destroy confidence in the electoral system. And remember, in 2016, Clinton actually got *more* votes than Trump across the country, which would have made it all massively more frustrating. I would assume that the reason Hilary gracefully accepted what must have been an intensely frustrating result would have been that Hilary Clinton is a mature adult who respects the democratic process.

And I'd say the reason for Trump's refusal to concede is much simpler: It's because - and I really don't say things like this lightly - Trump is basically a big baby who is incapable of gracefully accepting when something doesn't go his own way.

What is different this time compared to 2016, is that Trump was leading in many of the swing states when most of the votes had been counted about 24 hours after the polls had closed, but that these leads were whittled away and disappeared when outstanding postal votes were counted. Postal votes have more potential for fraud, and a Philadelphia election official was convicted of fraudulently stuffing ballot boxes earlier this year. I accept that Biden has won, albeit very narrowly, and am not stating that the election was stolen, but I can understand those who are suspicious that it might have been. In 2016, it was clear within a few hours that HRC had been trumped in the rust belt.

South Philly judge of elections admits he took bribes to stuff the ballot box for Democratic candidates. (21/5/20)

From May 2020: South Philly judge of elections admits he took bribes to stuff the ballot box for Democratic candidates

Domenick DeMuro, a Democratic ward leader, pleaded guilty to inflating vote counts for help candidates for judge.

www.inquirer.com

​

 

[DynamicSpirit]

What is different this time compared to 2016, is that Trump was leading in many of the swing states when most of the votes had been counted about 24 hours after the polls had closed, but that these leads were whittled away and disappeared when outstanding postal votes were counted.

Correct so far. The lead disappeared when postal votes were counted because Trump spent months trying falsely to discredit postal votes, and has spent most of the year trying to pursuade his supporters not to worry about Covid, with the result that his own supporters became much less likely to vote by post and more likely to vote in person on the day than Democrat supporters.

Postal votes have more potential for fraud,

Potential is not the same as actuality. Repeated studies have shown that, in practice, fraud in postal voting, while theoretically possible, in fact occurs at non-zero but generally negligible levels. From the BBC:

But the rate of voting fraud overall in the US is less than 0.0009%, according to a 2017 study by the Brennan Center for Justice.
And Federal Election Commission head Ellen Weintraub has said: "There's simply no basis for the conspiracy theory that voting by mail causes fraud."

and a Philadelphia election official was convicted of fraudulently stuffing ballot boxes earlier this year.

I assume you're referring to the case of Michael Myers. And it's true that shows that fraud occasionally occurs. However that has nothing to do with postal voting, since - as far as I can tell - he was convicted of stuffing in-person ballot boxes. And the offences - while still serious - occurred in Democratic primaries for local elections, which are obviously going to be much lower profile than Presidential elections. Indefensible behaviour but as evidence for national fraud that's extremely weak.

I accept that Biden has won, albeit very narrowly, and am not stating that the election was stolen, but I can understand those who are suspicious that it might have been.

The only reason for being suspicious that the election might have been stolen is if you take your news from Trump's Twitter account and from various right-wing conspiracy theory social media groups instead of from reputable news sources. May be worth remembering that, although the election is not determined by popular vote, Joe Biden's vote tally is now 78.6 million - more than 5.5 million more than Donald Trump's vote tally.

 

[daodao]

Ballot irregularities occur worldwide, and problems arise where there is a mutual lack of trust in the fairness of the election process and the margin of victory is miniscule, as in this election. However, proving corruption is often very difficult and mounting a challenge can be counter-productive and up the ante.

 

[edwin_m]

Ballot irregularities occur worldwide, and problems arise where there is a mutual lack of trust in the fairness of the election process and the margin of victory is miniscule, as in this election. However, proving corruption is often very difficult and mounting a challenge can be counter-productive and up the ante.

In this case the mutual lack of trust is almost entirely because one side has been making accusations of irregularities. For most of them there is no evidence, and where evidence exists the number of votes affected is nowhere near the margin of victory in the ballot concerned. Despite this the Republican side is mounting a challenge and upping the ante.

 

[ainsworth74]

Ballot irregularities occur worldwide, and problems arise where there is a mutual lack of trust in the fairness of the election process and the margin of victory is miniscule, as in this election. However, proving corruption is often very difficult and mounting a challenge can be counter-productive and up the ante.

The scale of fraud that would be required to arrange for a Biden victory in say Pennsylvania by over 60,000 votes would have been unprecedented in anything approaching a modern democracy. Even the over 14,000 votes by which Biden is winning Georgia would represent fraud on an scale just not seen. All the research I've even seen on this topic tends to point to, certainly for big ticket races like this (and this is surely the biggest in the world), fraud being a miniscule factor. A number of votes you could probably count on one hand.

 

[overthewater]

What is different this time compared to 2016, is that Trump was leading in many of the swing states when most of the votes had been counted about 24 hours after the polls had closed, but that these leads were whittled away and disappeared when outstanding postal votes were counted. Postal votes have more potential for fraud, and a Philadelphia election official was convicted of fraudulently stuffing ballot boxes earlier this year. I accept that Biden has won, albeit very narrowly, and am not stating that the election was stolen, but I can understand those who are suspicious that it might have been. In 2016, it was clear within a few hours that HRC had been trumped in the rust belt.

That where the people in charge have gone wrong, its claim counting was stopped, a big dump of ballots were released at once, was that done deliberately? All they need to do is explain and it would clear most of it up.

The only reason for being suspicious that the election might have been stolen is if you take your news from Trump's Twitter account and from various right-wing conspiracy theory social media groups instead of from reputable news sources. May be worth remembering that, although the election is not determined by popular vote, Joe Biden's vote tally is now 78.6 million - more than 5.5 million more than Donald Trump's vote tally.

That's very true, look at Bill Clinton, he never won the popular vote in 92 or 96 and his wife even with 2.5million more votes still never won that, she was stuck at 48.2%. Its all about the Electoral college, I wonder what would have happened with a run off had to take place like other countries.

I would use the term "reputable news sources" very very lightly, there is no regulations in the USA and this most of them are awful, awful media operations that do not have basic journalistic principles or by-partenision. That's what also cause all this trouble, there is no trust in any off them. They can all push there own view points.

 

[yorkie]

...look at Bill Clinton, he never won the popular vote in 92 or 96 and his wife even with 2.5million more votes still never won that, she was stuck at 48.2%. Its all about the Electoral college, I wonder what would have happened with a run off had to take place like other countries.

I would use the term "reputable news sources" very very lightly, there is no regulations in the USA and this most of them are awful, awful media operations that do not have basic journalistic principles or by-partenision. That's what also cause all this trouble, there is no trust in any off them. They can all push there own view points.

This post is extremely misleading; the candidate who gets the most votes nationwide is said to have won the popular vote.

In all cases you cite, the candidates you mention did win the popular vote.

What you are referring to is the majority of votes (i.e. greater than 50%)

 

[overthewater]

This post is extremely misleading; the candidate who gets the most votes nationwide is said to have won the popular vote.

In all cases you cite, the candidates you mention did win the popular vote.

What you are referring to is the majority of votes (i.e. greater than 50%)

I see, I did mean the majority of votes, Surprisingly a few state do have this rule in place, IE the current Georgia state elections will see a run off in January because no one got 50% +1 last week.

Its still backwards that a country that claims to be fora democracy can allow someone take the white house with only 44% ( Bill Clinton in 92) In any other country they would be a runoff.

 

[ainsworth74]

Its still backwards that a country that claims to be fora democracy can allow someone take the white house with only 44% ( Bill Clinton in 92) In any other country they would be a runoff.

Considering the state of our Westminster Parliamentary elections we should be cautious of throwing to many rocks around this glass house

 

[najaB]

Its still backwards that a country that claims to be fora democracy can allow someone take the white house with only 44% ( Bill Clinton in 92) In any other country they would be a runoff

In the UK, the Prime Minister doesn't (technically) even need to win any votes at all.

 

[overthewater]

Considering the state of our Westminster Parliamentary elections we should be cautious of throwing to many rocks around this glass house

At some point, Westminster will end up with PR, hopefully sooner. Mnd you Canada is just as bad, since the party with the most votes lose last year.

In the UK, the Prime Minister doesn't (technically) even need to win any votes at all.

Of course we vote for parties not people, Thankfully.


To get us back on the rails, I think Biden will end up with 79 million votes, With Trump maybe around 73.5 Millions If you take away California the country is dead even.

​

 

[RichT54]

If you take away California the country is dead even.

It's amazing the mental gymnastics Trump fans have to perform in order to excuse his failure.

 

[overthewater]

It's amazing the mental gymnastics Trump fans have to perform in order to excuse his failure.

It clear as day he has lost the popular vote no matter what way the bottle spins. It seems he has NOW admitted he has lost

US election results: Donald Trump admits Joe Biden 'won' for the first time - but won't concede

The outgoing president keeps up his unfounded attacks on the "rigged" vote, warning: "We have a long way to go."

news.sky.com

Donald Trump has appeared to concede the US election for the first time, saying that president-elect Joe Biden "won".

He made the admission in a tweet along with more unfounded claims the vote was rigged against him.

MR Trump wrote of his soon-to-be successor: "He won because the election was rigged. NO VOTE WATCHERS OR OBSERVERS allowed, vote tabulated by a radical left privately owned company, Dominion, with a bad reputation & bum equipment that couldn't even qualify for Texas (which I won by a lot!), the Fake & Silent Media, & more!"

 

[najaB]

It clear as day he has lost the popular vote no matter what way the bottle spins. It seems he has NOW admitted he has lost

I guess we're past denial, anger, and bargaining and now we're dealing with depression. Just acceptance left.

 

[Typhoon]

Of course we vote for parties not people, Thankfully.

That is not strictly true. We vote for people ('candidates'). The leader of the party represented by the most number of successful candidates is then invited to try to form a government.

There is nothing to stop someone elected for one party switching to another at any time - including just after an election. In a close election this might affect the forming of a government. Equally, a number of MPs representing the party with the most number of successful candidates could decide that they want a different leader, and refuse to support the person who spearheaded their victory. Neither of these have happened so far but they could. Equally the party with the most votes is not necessarily put into office. Maybe this just goes to show we haven't got that good a representative system. just as @ainsworth74 suggests.

 

[najaB]

The leader of the party represented by the most number of successful candidates is then invited to try to form a government.

Even that, while generally true, isn't technically correct. The Prime Minister is the member of Parliament who is able to command the greatest number of MPs. They don't have to be the party leader, nor do they have to come from the party with the largest number of successful candidates. Until relatively recently they didn't even need to be an MP - more than one PM has come from the Lords.

 

[Gloster]

The Prime Minister is the member of Parliament who is able to command the greatest number of MPs...Until relatively recently they didn't even need to be an MP - more than one PM has come from the Lords.

I think it is a convention, rather than a rule, but in practice it would be almost impossible for a member of the Lords to act as PM. To the public at large it would appear ridiculously old-fashioned, almost feudal, and probably make a government even more unpopular and likely to be defeated at the next election.

 

[hexagon789]

more than one PM has come from the Lords.

And as I recall Alec Douglas-Home was even PM for about 11 days while being member of neither house