2020 US Presidential Election

[nlogax]

I thought the Russian Collusion simply wasn't proven, as opposed to being proven as a hoax. That was certainly the impression I got of reporting of the Mueller report, but I might have gotten the wrong end of the stick

No, you didn't get the wrong end of the stick.

 

[kermit]

You dont leave office and have loads of investigations pending which have since been proved as hoaxes -the whole Russian collusion narrative etc.

My understanding is that there has merely been insufficient evidence to, for example, impeach Trump, certainly not that they were "proved as hoaxes".

 

[edwin_m]

My understanding is that Mueller was essentially saying Trump was breaking the law in receiving help from Russia though deliberate collusion was never proven. But he didn't actually say that because he believed impeachment rather than prosecution was the appropriate punishment for a sitting president. As we later found out through a different cause, the loyalty of all but one of the Republican majority in the Senate prevented any punishment being enacted.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

In the USA it's not even tyranny of the majority. The Republican candidate secured the presidency in 2000 and 2016 while receiving fewer votes than the Democrat, and in 2000 probably only did so because of lobbying and legal pressure on a Supreme Court where a majority were appointed by Republicans (and I'll remind you again the winner's brother was the governor of the state in question). The Senate has two members per state so is inherently biased to smaller and more rural and therefore more Republican states, and many districts in the House and in state assemblies are "gerrymandered" because the party in power gets to set the boundaries. Apparently also if the electoral college is tied the House gets to choose the President, but rather than having a straight vote the votes are one per state (cast for the party with more representatives from that state) so the same bias applies as in the Senate.

So in multiple ways the system appears to be rigged in favour of the Republicans. I've gathered this from mainly progressive news sites but they appear to be reporting fact so I don't believe the filter bubble effect applies - if anyone disagrees with me then please politely point it out...

Maybe not deliberately rigged in favour of the Republicans, but certainly biased in a way that happens to benefit the Republicans at the moment (though future electoral shifts could change that). You are correct that the disproportionate representation given to smaller states in the Senate is unfair, and it happens at the moment that those states tend to be Republican. It's also worth noting that neither Puerto Rico nor Washington DC gets federal representatives - and both are strongly Democrat. On the other hand, gerrymandering the constituencies is I think done as much by Democrats as Republicans - indeed, it was a Republican - Arnold Schwarzenegger - who as Governor of California tried to put a stop to gerrymandering at least in that state, but was defeated in a referendum on it.

Trump's victory in 2016 despite Clinton getting more votes was arguably as much down to his securing very narrow victories in some large Midwest states and in Florida - and with the winner-takes-all system, that meant him getting all the electoral college votes for those states despite having barely 50% of the vote. Meanwhile, in states like California, the Democrats were uselessly piling up absolutely massive majorities in the popular vote when a majority of 1 in those states would secure them just as many electoral college delegates. First-Past-the-Post really benefits parties who can distribute their votes so as to secure very narrow pluralities in their areas.

On the other hand - a possible hope for the future: Texas - once solid Republican, and with a massive number of electoral college votes - is moving inexorably in the Democrat direction thanks in part to demographic changes. If that trend continues - and there's currently no reason to doubt that it will - then at some point, probably in the next 10 years or so, Texas will start narrowly voting Democrat. And when that happens, the Republicans could suddenly find that the electoral college makes it harder, not easier, for them to elect presidents.

One thing where you could argue that the system is slightly and deliberately rigged in favour of the Republicans is where Republicans have repeatedly and often successfully sought to make it harder for poorer people or ethnic minorities to vote, effectively disenfranchising some people who are more likely to vote Democrat.

 

[Starmill]

From an outsiders perspective it seems that the most likely outcomes are a convincing Democratic hold of the House, some form of knife-edge result in the Senate, and a moderate electoral college Biden-Harris victory, though the latter may not come into clear focus for several days. A convincing victory in the popular vote but a deeply uncertain outcome in specific states would be risky. Equally, a moderate victory across the board and control of the Senate only by means of the Vice Presidential tie-breaker could still effect big changes.

 

[najaB]

From an outsiders perspective it seems that the most likely outcomes are a convincing Democratic hold of the House, some form of knife-edge result in the Senate, and a Moderate Biden-Harris victory, though the latter may not come into clear focus for several days.

That's pretty much what I expect as well. It's not beyond reason to think that the Democrats may take the Senate. Even if they don't, there are more Republican-held Senate seats up for election in 2022 than there are Democrat (29:12 if I remember correctly) so odds favour them taking the Senate in two years.

 

[nlogax]

As of this morning over 7 million early votes have been cast, either via mail or in-person. Contrast this to the 430,000 votes cast this far into the 2016 process.

https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/index.html

2020 General Election Early Vote Statistics
Last updated: 10/09/2020 08:26 AM Eastern Time

Michael McDonald • Professor, University of Florida

This time around voters really understand the importance of getting out and voting. Important note on the comparison,

The difference-in-difference method works well when there is a baseline comparable election. The 2020 election is obviously different than the 2016 election. With an unprecedented number of voters casting mail ballots, particularly Democrats, there is no comparable election to draw solid conclusions from in most states.

I strongly caution that Democrats’ unprecedented high levels of early voting should not be taken as an indicator of the final election results.

That said, there are three states with comparable past elections where a difference-in-difference analysis may work well. Colorado, Oregon, and Washington sent every registered voter a mail ballot in 2016 and are doing the so again in 2020.

Furthermore, California, the District of Columbia, Hawai’i, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, Utah, and Vermont will also send every registered voter a mail ballot. We may learn something about overall turnout if these states exceed their 2016 turnout in their early vote alone. Arizona also has a high volume of early voting and could see their 2020 early vote eclipse their 2016 total turnout if turnout levels are high.

 

[nlogax]

Ten days since I posted that, and now early votes are above 28 million. That's over 20% of the 2016 turnout..quite amazing to consider.

Meanwhile Thursday night sees the second and final live Trump v Biden debate. I'm not holding my breath on this being an improvement over the first one. Trump has already claimed that NBC's Kristen Welker will be 'extraordinarily unfair' as a moderator. Getting his excuses in early, I see..

 

[ainsworth74]

Trump has already claimed that NBC's Kristen Welker will be 'extraordinarily unfair' as a moderator. Getting his excuses in early, I see..

Double whammy. A woman asking him questions he won't like and from a new organisation he doesn't approve of.

 

[jfollows]

My partner voted this weekend, absentee voter, he gets to vote in the place he last resided, which is North Carolina, which is a key swing state, so that's good. I told him that although his heart wanted him to vote in California, his head should tell him that his vote is more useful in North Carolina!

I was surprised to see five (plus a Write-in option) choices on the ballot for President. And interested to note that one vote is cast for the President/Vice-President pair (I redacted the blob to the left of each pair because one of them is filled in, but there's one blob for each pair of names).

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Double whammy. A woman asking him questions he won't like and from a new organisation he doesn't approve of.

Do you blame him?

As the link shows, registered democrat, parents big democrat donors, hostile questioner at WH press briefings - the epitome of fairness and balance - the link is actually a reasonable read. God I wish it were someone from the BBC or Andrew Neil.

Fox News Host Calls Out Presidential Debate Moderator Kristen Welker for Having Been a 'Registered Democrat'

 

[Starmill]

Do you blame him?

For claiming that the election is insecure or unfair when it isn't? Yes, obviously. Given how dangerous that is.

 

[Typhoon]

Do you blame him?

As the link shows, registered democrat, parents big democrat donors, hostile questioner at WH press briefings - the epitome of fairness and balance - the link is actually a reasonable read. God I wish it were someone from the BBC or Andrew Neil.

It does seem an odd choice, although it may work in Trump's favour if she goes out of her way to appear balanced. My main concern would be whether she is going to be firm enough.

I actually think Andrew Neil is a good call (as are other non-Americans - Aussies for instance), someone who doesn't have to worry about repercussions. BBC - I'm not so sure, Fiona Bruce is alright and John Humphrys would have been fine in days gone by.

I'm just surprised how biased presenters are in the US.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Do you blame him?

As the link shows, registered democrat, parents big democrat donors, hostile questioner at WH press briefings - the epitome of fairness and balance - the link is actually a reasonable read. God I wish it were someone from the BBC or Andrew Neil.

Fox News Host Calls Out Presidential Debate Moderator Kristen Welker for Having Been a 'Registered Democrat'

Are you sure the article is a reasonable read? On a quick glance through it looks like it contains fairly partisan complaints designed to boost Trump, rather than a particularly reasoned analysis'. It heavily complains that the host for the next debate used to be a registered democrat (note: Was, not is), but completely omits to mention that the host of the first debate has worked for a long time at Fox News - which tends to put people heavily in the Republican camp. Personally I don't fully understand the registered democrat/republican thing in the US, but I'm pretty sure it's not nearly as strong as political party membership in the UK, since people registered for one party often vote for the other party. Besides, all journalists inevitably will have their own opinions - what matters is how able they are to put those opinions aside when reporting. On Googling, I can't any indication that Kristen Welker is lacking in that regard. It really looks to me like complaining without providing any substance to back up the complaints. If they could show that Kristen Welker consistently reports in a biased way, then it would be different, but the article doesn't.

The article then goes on to complain that Kristen's parents have donated to the Democrats. Well, so what? Are people supposed to be responsible for the opinions of their parents, or obliged to hold the same opinions?

The article quotes several opinions from the Trump side, but presents no opinions from the other side. That's pretty suspicious because there are almost invariably two sides to any debate. And finally it complains about topics like climate change and national security and leadership being chosen for debate. Seriously??? Surely, only in the warped World of Republicans and dedicated Trump supporters could you think that climate change is not a worthy subject for debate!

Putting that altogether, I'd think I'd take that article with a huge pinch of salt - particularly remembering that Fox News doesn't exactly have a good reputation for accurate, factual, reporting!

 

[A Challenge]

Do you blame him?

As the link shows, registered democrat, parents big democrat donors, hostile questioner at WH press briefings - the epitome of fairness and balance - the link is actually a reasonable read. God I wish it were someone from the BBC or Andrew Neil.

Fox News Host Calls Out Presidential Debate Moderator Kristen Welker for Having Been a 'Registered Democrat'

To be fair, she is not a registered Democrat any more, though it does imply she leans towards supporting the Democrats, even if many former Democrats are probably now sworn Republicans.

I'm sure that, living in America as you do, you know that being a registered party supporter is much more common than in the UK, in fact when the number of people registered to vote as Republican (only) was exceeded by the number of Independent-registered voters in February it made the Washington Post and the Independent, in an article which pointed out that only 29.1% of registered voters are registered independent of party support. In the UK, however, there are about 1.08 million registered party voters (Wikipedia), which is much lower, including in percentage terms, being about 2% of eligible voters.
The Washington Post article is here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ewer-registered-republicans-than-independents

 

[jfollows]

I actually think Andrew Neil is a good call (as are other non-Americans - Aussies for instance), someone who doesn't have to worry about repercussions. BBC - I'm not so sure, Fiona Bruce is alright and John Humphrys would have been fine in days gone by.

I think Andrew Neil is a bit of a self-opinionated twerp, he's too full of himself sometimes, but it was funny to see him being accused of being "left wing" by some US person he interviewed a few months ago, and he sometimes hits the spot by asking the interviewee the question I want him to ask at the time.

For me, too many of the UK journalists interrupt their interviewees too often - in the interest of time perhaps - whereas the US journalists I remember used to be too deferential. Just sometimes either of them hits the spot with the right question at the right time - according to me!

Interrupting is OK, but not when I'm actually listening to the answer!

 

[Busaholic]

What are the chances of a woman President of the USA within a few weeks/months? Quite high, I'd suggest, because there are two possibilities. The obvious one is that Biden gets elected and promptly dies, or becomes officially comatose rather than just apparently so, but there is a very real possibility of Nancy Pelosi being sworn in as President in January. Here's the rationale - in the circumstances that Trump refused to recognise that he'd been voted out, and rolled out the legal shenanigans in the hope that he'd be vindicated, on 20th January, under the Constitution, someone has to be inaugurated as President and, as things stand, if neither Trump nor Biden is confirmed next in line is Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker of the House. That much appears to be black and white, but who knows? Trump may yet be escorted from the building by the Secret Service: if necessary, they could call upon the Marine Corps, but there'd be even more reluctance to involve them, at least the Secret Service are in civvies! Interesting times could become more interesting than ever before.

 

[birchesgreen]

Joe Biden is 77 he isn't 107, i doubt he is THAT infirm. I think this kind of stuff is rather overblown, as is the stuff about Trump trying to hang on if he loses. Unless we are into a hanging chad situation again i doubt it'll happen.

 

[Typhoon]

I'm sure that, living in America as you do, you know that being a registered party supporter is much more common than in the UK, in fact when the number of people registered to vote as Republican (only) was exceeded by the number of Independent-registered voters in February it made the Washington Post and the Independent, in an article which pointed out that only 29.1% of registered voters are registered independent of party support. In the UK, however, there are about 1.08 million registered party voters (Wikipedia), which is much lower, including in percentage terms, being about 2% of eligible voters.

In checking with the moderators of the debates, I noticed that in 2006 Chris Wallace was outed as a long term registered Democrat, giving his reasoning as

that being a Democrat is the only feasible means of participating in the political process in heavily Democratic Washington, DC

He also stated that he has voted for both parties. He is probably far from alone. Here, cast-iron Conservatives signed up when Labour had its £3 membership scheme!

Quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Wallace

I think Andrew Neil is a bit of a self-opinionated twerp, he's too full of himself sometimes,

I have no problem with "self-opinionated twerps" if they get candidates to answer questions and not interrupt one another.

 

[jfollows]

I have no problem with "self-opinionated twerps" if they get candidates to answer questions and not interrupt one another.

Me neither, I agree with you.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

For claiming that the election is insecure or unfair when it isn't? Yes, obviously. Given how dangerous that is.

What evidence do you have for this statement?

 

[edwin_m]

What evidence do you have for this statement?

There's only been a handful of cases of voter fraud proven amongst the several hundred million voters in the US. And if the system is unfair it's more biased towards Republicans, with the electoral college system giving more voting rights to smaller and more rural states, and the Senate even more unbalanced in the same direction. The fact Trump and Bush won when a clear majority voted for Clinton and Gore is evidence of the unfairness of the system.

 

[Domh245]

In a well established democracy like the US, it should be taken as given that the election is free, fair, and secure. Election observers aren't sent to watch US counts the same way they are in less developed countries, and similarly the furore last election around it being meddled with is proof of the normally rigorous standards

 

[Starmill]

What evidence do you have for this statement?

If you're in agreement with the President's claims about voter fraud you need to start a new thread to set them out and why they're true. They're not true, but that's not for discussion here.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

If you're in agreement with the President's claims about voter fraud you need to start a new thread to set them out and why they're true. They're not true, but that's not for discussion here.

I am not. I am asking you what evidence do you have. Two completely different things with all due respect sir.

 

[Starmill]

I am not. I am asking you what evidence do you have. Two completely different things with all due respect sir.

I would have to refer you to the answer I gave a moment ago that it would be for those who suggest that the election is unfair or insecure to provide some evidence, not me.

 

[nlogax]

What evidence do you have for this statement?

It should be assumed in one of the world's largest open democracies that its election process is secure and and free of fraud. Only someone potentially looking at a big loss would claim otherwise. What's the evidence that it voting isn't secure?

Being the upstanding and practical man Trump is, if he wins in a couple of weeks I'm sure he'll still be complaining about fraudulent votes and how unfair it was for Biden. Right?

And if the system is unfair it's more biased towards Republicans, with the electoral college system giving more voting rights to smaller and more rural states, and the Senate even more unbalanced in the same direction. The fact Trump and Bush won when a clear majority voted for Clinton and Gore is evidence of the unfairness of the system.

Verging on unfair now - but only because of changing demographics and times. The college has done pretty well in its role as a check and balance to enable the voters of smaller states to be heard over the years, but it's evidently beginning to fail in that role now. It's time to either reassess the number of votes per state, implement the congressional district split vote for all states or do away with the college altogether.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I would have to refer you to the answer I gave a moment ago that it would be for those who suggest that the election is unfair or insecure to provide some evidence, not me.

I will make this my last comment on the subject. I never said it was unfair. You specifically said it isnt.

It should be assumed in one of the world's largest open democracies that its election process is secure and and free of fraud. Only someone potentially looking at a big loss would claim otherwise. What's the evidence that it voting isn't secure?

Why was there a 3 year enquiry into Russian interference and that Trump was a Russian asset and worse if everything was fair and free of fraud?. We can not have it all ways people. The Democrats never accepted the results of the 2016 election surely it should work both ways. I have stopped trusting many things and one thing I definitely do not assume anymore is that things are fair. The Trump campaign appear to be doing the same with Biden - saying he is a Chinese or Ukrainian asset. I am glad I am not a politician as I would make a lousy one!

Verging on unfair now - but only because of changing demographics and times. The college has done pretty well in its role as a check and balance to enable the voters of smaller states to be heard over the years, but it's evidently beginning to fail in that role now. It's time to either reassess the number of votes per state, implement the congressional district split vote for all states or do away with the college altogether.

I totally agree. Demographics alone say there really needs to be some changes made to the electoral college to make it much fairer.

 

[nlogax]

Why was there a 3 year enquiry into Russian interference and that Trump was a Russian asset and worse if everything was fair and free of fraud?. We can not have it all ways people. The Democrats never accepted the results of the 2016 election surely it should work both ways.

I was specifically talking of voter fraud. Yes, there's something very suspicious going on with external influence on voters but that's evidently a much wider matter, and one that many Republicans are still wary of going into this election as well as Dems.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Back to the electoral college. Britain periodically has constituency boundary changes. Something of a similar ilk needs to happen in the USA regardless of the outcome of 2020. Wyoming should get less electoral college votes and California with its population and Florida as examples deserve more.

America has been through a lot and life will go on. After 2016 the world did not come to an end and all the Liberal Hollywood stars did not follow through on their threat to leave the country - likewise it will be fine on November 4th 2020.