Who will win the 2020 election?

[gowlerk 2,190]

7 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Implementation of the antiquated first-past-the-post voting, (instead of ranked voting, or run-off elections), combined with Duverger's law:

A lot of countries including Canada have first past the post voting, but several parties represented. And minority governments are fairly common. Israel comes to mind. I don't know if it has ever had a majority government.

[feuergnom 28]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

He was trying for neither, methinks. He's just showing himself. Aside from displaying a natural depravity as a virtue, it's also a scare tactic. It's going on across the US now with self appointed camouflage wearing, gun toting loonies acting as polling place guards. They want us to choose our safety over our right to vote.

trying to get into somekind of discussion seems  to end in feeble attempts with certain posters here. mark is one of these people circling around himself only, no chance to get him even considering different viewpoints

after a long pause I increased my reading the forums over the last months and though I rarely post in here I thought I had to adress me being annoyed to the point of simply being disgusted in the shortest possible way...
 

 

maybe this will have an end if trump looses the election and if the electoral college chooses to follow the public vote.... as nobody can be sure about that, the only hope for the US as a nation is that many people choose to vote this time and hopefully for the right thing - getting rid of the embarasment named trump... and even then it will take quite sometime to make something out of the mess thats be accumulated over the last 4 years. good luck to all of you

[gowlerk 2,190]

13 minutes ago, feuergnom said:

and even then it will take quite sometime to make something out of the mess thats be accumulated over the last 4 years. good luck to all of you

Not to mention the mischief that could be done in the lame duck period. Wounded animals can be nasty.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

13 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Not to mention the mischief that could be done in the lame duck period. Wounded animals can be nasty.

I have very little doubt that Trump will employ a full "scorched earth" policy when it is clear he has lost. Wouldn't be surprised if that includes the mass firing of a lot of high level bureaucrats.

 

[wmw999 2,444]

33 minutes ago, feuergnom said:

maybe this will have an end if trump looses the election and if the electoral college chooses to follow the public vote....

I agree that huge voter turnout is the only way. However, regardless, there will be a lot of effort put into delegitimizing the results regardless of how they turn out. Huge turnout is the only way, but remember all the work that went into the birther consipiracies when it was clear that Obama won the election fair and square.

Wendy P.

[billvon 2,990]

14 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I agree that huge voter turnout is the only way. However, regardless, there will be a lot of effort put into delegitimizing the results regardless of how they turn out. Huge turnout is the only way, but remember all the work that went into the birther consipiracies when it was clear that Obama won the election fair and square.

One of the biggest issues will be that most independents and democrats voted early via mail.  Trump supporters will tend to vote day-of.  (See below.) In states like Pennsylvania, they are not allowed (by law) to start counting any ballots until 7am Nov 3rd.  So at that point they have to tally all those mail-in ballots.  It took ~4 days during the PA primaries; they've learned since then - but it is still likely to take them more than 17 hours.

Meanwhile Kavanaugh released a statement, echoing Trump, that suggested that the Supreme Court would support shutting down vote counting early.

Trump: "Big problems and discrepancies with Mail In Ballots all over the USA!  Must have final total on November 3rd."
Kavanaugh: "States . . .still have strong interests in avoiding suspicions of impropriety and announcing final results on or close to election night.”

Since in-person voting can be tallied faster, it's likely that in states like PA Trump will take an early lead, and if existing polls hold, only be overtaken once all the mail in votes are counted.  But if by midnight they are not completed - AND Trump is in the lead - we will see a full court press by both Trump and the Supreme Court to end counting.

 

[JerryBaumchen 1,362]

31 minutes ago, billvon said:

One of the biggest issues will be that most independents and democrats voted early via mail.  Trump supporters will tend to vote day-of.  (See below.) In states like Pennsylvania, they are not allowed (by law) to start counting any ballots until 7am Nov 3rd.  So at that point they have to tally all those mail-in ballots.  It took ~4 days during the PA primaries; they've learned since then - but it is still likely to take them more than 17 hours.

Meanwhile Kavanaugh released a statement, echoing Trump, that suggested that the Supreme Court would support shutting down vote counting early.

Trump: "Big problems and discrepancies with Mail In Ballots all over the USA!  Must have final total on November 3rd."
Kavanaugh: "States . . .still have strong interests in avoiding suspicions of impropriety and announcing final results on or close to election night.”

Since in-person voting can be tallied faster, it's likely that in states like PA Trump will take an early lead, and if existing polls hold, only be overtaken once all the mail in votes are counted.  But if by midnight they are not completed - AND Trump is in the lead - we will see a full court press by both Trump and the Supreme Court to end counting.

 

Hi Bill,

WTF.  'Kavanaugh released a statement, echoing Trump, that suggested that the Supreme Court would support shutting down vote counting early.'

This exactly why one does not want a Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS.  IMO they have no business saying anything until it is before them.  Something about guilty until proven innocent.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Re:  'a full court press by both Trump and the Supreme Court to end counting.'

I don't see where they have the authority for this.  I'm sure Trump will spout off about it, since he knows so little of the law of the land; but, I question where it might go.

 

 

[wmw999 2,444]

Just imagine if those were the Democrats, shutting down absentee ballots when the veterans' ballots haven't been received and/or counted yet.

Wendy P.

[headoverheels 333]

Twenty-two states do not require that mail-in ballots arrive by election day -- they just have to be postmarked by then.  Washington state is the latest, with ballots arriving 20 days after the election day being included for overseas and military voters (5 days for others).  CA is 17 days for all mail-in ballots.  They will be done counting when they are done.  I don't see any absolute need to finish counting earlier than a couple of days before the electoral college representatives vote in their respective states, on December 14.

[JerryBaumchen 1,362]

2 minutes ago, headoverheels said:

Twenty-two states do not require that mail-in ballots arrive by election day -- they just have to be postmarked by then.  Washington state is the latest, with ballots arriving 20 days after the election day being included for overseas and military voters (5 days for others).  CA is 17 days for all mail-in ballots.  They will be done counting when they are done.  I don't see any absolute need to finish counting earlier than a couple of days before the electoral college representatives vote in their respective states, on December 14.

Hi heels,

I was talking to my son about this very thing.  No rush; never has been a rush.  Unless you are a national news network.

Jerry Baumchen

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

5 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi heels,

I was talking to my son about this very thing.  No rush; never has been a rush.  Unless you are a national news network.

Jerry Baumchen

Or unless you are a wannabe dictator who is trying to steal the election by pretending that everything HAS TO BE counted that day, which would invalidate a lot of the early/absentee ballots.

[billvon 2,990]

3 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

I don't see where they have the authority for this.  I'm sure Trump will spout off about it, since he knows so little of the law of the land; but, I question where it might go.

Trump doesn't, but he can create theater and drama to help him.  

The Supreme Court certainly does.  Recall the 2000 election; they ended the recount.

[billeisele 130]

8 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Bill,

Re:  'I may be dreaming but whatever happens I hope the political infighting will decrease and the government will get focused on writing a comprehensive healthcare bill that works, addressing homelessness, economic stability, jobs, and other things that are important.'

Then why continue to support Trump; he has done nothing about any of those things?

Jerry Baumchen

Jerry - Washington overall has done little on healthcare or homelessness. Bipartisanship in the Senate or House would get the ball rolling. I just don't see Biden as some great force that gets it going.

[billvon 2,990]

5 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Jerry - Washington overall has done little on healthcare or homelessness.

The ACA got 23 million more Americans (7% of the population of the US) health care coverage, primarily the poor.   It was far from perfect - but definitely seemed to move the needle.

[JerryBaumchen 1,362]

11 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Jerry - Washington overall has done little on healthcare or homelessness. Bipartisanship in the Senate or House would get the ball rolling. I just don't see Biden as some great force that gets it going.

Hi Bill,

During the first two yrs of the Trump admin they controlled the White House, the Senate & the House of Reps.

So why did the R's not get it done?

IMO it is because the R's are a bunch of clowns who cannot get anything done.

They had the power; but, they pissed it away.

Jerry Baumchen

[Phil1111 1,149]

18 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Jerry - Washington overall has done little on healthcare or homelessness. Bipartisanship in the Senate or House would get the ball rolling. I just don't see Biden as some great force that gets it going.

trump's homelessness plan:

"Diane Yentel, the president and chief executive of the National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC), noted on Thursday that Trump had proposed drastically shrinking or eliminating federal programs that keep the lowest-income people affordably housed, an important prevention measure that keeps people from becoming homeless.

“In California, over 37,000 of the lowest-income people are at risk of eviction from this Trump proposal alone,” Yentel said.

She also noted that Trump’s Department of Housing and Urban Development had “proposed allowing homeless shelters to discriminate and refuse shelter to transgender and other LGBTQ people, subjecting them to high risk of violence”.

 

@realDonaldTrump

The homeless situation in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and many other Democrat Party run cities throughout the Nation is a state and local problem, not a federal problem....

5:50 PM · Jan 6, 2020

 

The White House budget proposal released Monday calls for $2.8 billion for homelessness assistance grants in fiscal 2021, roughly in line with current levels. The budget would slash the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s overall funding by 15 percent to $47.9 billion."

 

That should completely cover the trump/GOP homelessness agenda. "Not my responsibility" pretty much covers it.

[JoeWeber 2,720]

28 minutes ago, billeisele said:

Jerry - Washington overall has done little on healthcare or homelessness. Bipartisanship in the Senate or House would get the ball rolling. I just don't see Biden as some great force that gets it going.

Bill, that's not fair or honest. We're now at 12 years that the republicans have snubbed their noses at bipartisanship. For republicans in the Senate and House bipartisanship has simply meant getting their way. 

[billeisele 130]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Bill, that's not fair or honest. We're now at 12 years that the republicans have snubbed their noses at bipartisanship. For republicans in the Senate and House bipartisanship has simply meant getting their way. 

Joe you may be correct, and I can see why you would say that, but it sure is difficult to really know what's happening. Based on what I've seen it doesn't seem to be that way, but again, it's difficult to discern the truth from the various news outlets. 

[billeisele 130]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

The ACA got 23 million more Americans (7% of the population of the US) health care coverage, primarily the poor.   It was far from perfect - but definitely seemed to move the needle.

Absolutely agree. It moved the needle and provided more insight into the challenges, costs and other issues. It's possible that the way it was done, the - "you can keep your doctor, and you'll have to pass it then read it later", and the mandate - kinda stuff that ticked off a lot of people. One thing it did was allow companies to stop providing healthcare coverage using the excuse that, "the government has a system that covers you now." I know a few folks that lost company coverage back when this started.
I haven't followed this much but read a fairly long post on the topic here is SC. There were some people being well served but the majority were stating what their premiums are and their deductible. Both were quite high. The deductibles were $1 - $2.5K higher than mine and I'm on a high deductible plan. With those high premiums and deductible numbers it works if you have significant healthcare issues. I'm on a Board with a guy that is in that industry. He flat out said that the ACA has been a huge money maker for them. 

Something doesn't make sense. There certainly has to be a better solution. 

[jakee 1,489]

2 hours ago, billeisele said:

Absolutely agree. It moved the needle and provided more insight into the challenges, costs and other issues. It's possible that the way it was done, the - "you can keep your doctor, and you'll have to pass it then read it later", and the mandate - kinda stuff that ticked off a lot of people.

That was what bipartisanship got you. The dems would have simply gone straight for single payer universal healthcare if they'd done it all their way. Instead, they involved the Republicans in the process, tried to come up with a solution that wouldn't make the right go nuclear and see where it got them.

The Rs on the other hand didn't hold a single consultation with the Dems on healthcare, and came up with a plan so flawed they couldn't even force it through their own party. Frankly at this point the best you can hope for if you want the government to come up with a truly functional universal healthcare plan is for the Dems to ignore the republicans completely and do it all themselves.

[wmw999 2,444]

6 hours ago, billeisele said:

Absolutely agree. It moved the needle and provided more insight into the challenges, costs and other issues. It's possible that the way it was done, the - "you can keep your doctor, and you'll have to pass it then read it later", and the mandate - kinda stuff that ticked off a lot of people. One thing it did was allow companies to stop providing healthcare coverage using the excuse that, "the government has a system that covers you now." I know a few folks that lost company coverage back when this started.
I haven't followed this much but read a fairly long post on the topic here is SC. There were some people being well served but the majority were stating what their premiums are and their deductible. Both were quite high. The deductibles were $1 - $2.5K higher than mine and I'm on a high deductible plan. With those high premiums and deductible numbers it works if you have significant healthcare issues. I'm on a Board with a guy that is in that industry. He flat out said that the ACA has been a huge money maker for them. 

Something doesn't make sense. There certainly has to be a better solution. 

Good post; not that I agree with it all necessarily, but thanks for the "move the ball" approach.

I have a feeling, though, that the highlight on "you can keep your doctor" and "you'll have to pass it then read it" were talking points. For one thing, the whole quote from Pelosi “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” I.e. controversy would keep up until it was passed, regardless of how long there was. The full text was available on the website for over a week before the vote. No one in their right mind actually thinks that all congresscritters themselves read the bills; they have staffies for that.

The doctor quote was more disingenuous -- however, if it had been qualified as it should have been, do you really think that it, too, wouldn't have been taken out of context and weaponized? It's what the media do these days. And yes, I'm going to say that the opinion-mongering media are worse about that. I tend to use the media bias charts to decide how much to believe the contextuality of stuff I read, and, frankly, Fox News Opinion shows (which they don't do a good job of differentiating from straight news) skew pretty doggone hard right.

Wendy P.

 

[Phil1111 1,149]

5 hours ago, jakee said:

That was what bipartisanship got you. The dems would have simply gone straight for single payer universal healthcare if they'd done it all their way. Instead, they involved the Republicans in the process, tried to come up with a solution that wouldn't make the right go nuclear and see where it got them.

The Rs on the other hand didn't hold a single consultation with the Dems on healthcare, and came up with a plan so flawed they couldn't even force it through their own party. Frankly at this point the best you can hope for if you want the government to come up with a truly functional universal healthcare plan is for the Dems to ignore the republicans completely and do it all themselves.

What you fail to address in that equation is the power of the most powerful lobby group in the US. They pay for. influence the ideas with the GOP and its base that "free market competition" is the best for America. That with single payer, i.e. "socialism" costs will skyrocket and people will have to give up their doctors. All of which is b.s. and most of which is influenced by these industries protecting their profits.

The GOP needs the milk from these lobby cows and only a blue president, house and senate. Will ever introduce reforms that are used in the rest of the developed western world. That effectively would save about 3% of GDP(U.S.) and yet would deliver better outcomes.

[gowlerk 2,190]

5 hours ago, jakee said:

Frankly at this point the best you can hope for if you want the government to come up with a truly functional universal healthcare plan is for the Dems to ignore the republicans completely and do it all themselves.

They can't do it either. It was not just Rs that forced the very poor compromise that became the ACA. There were also blue dog Ds that needed to be appeased.

[wolfriverjoe 1,523]

8 hours ago, billeisele said:

Joe you may be correct, and I can see why you would say that, but it sure is difficult to really know what's happening. Based on what I've seen it doesn't seem to be that way, but again, it's difficult to discern the truth from the various news outlets. 

Well, wasn't it McConnell who said something to the effect of 'our primary objective is to stop anything Obama wants, even if it hurts the country'?
That's not something that was 'filtered' by the news outlets, the actual quote from McConnell is readily available.

Wasn't it McConnell who sat on hundreds of bills that the D controlled house passed?
The Ds passed the bills, and then sent them to the Senate (which is how it's supposed to work) and then they just sat there. Like Garland's appointment, McConnell refused to schedule hearings for them. (that's NOT how it's supposed to work).

To pretend that the lack of bipartisanship is a bipartisan issue is a pretty solid example of 'both-siderism'.

[yoink 321]

On 10/29/2020 at 3:08 PM, billvon said:

One of the biggest issues will be that most independents and democrats voted early via mail.  Trump supporters will tend to vote day-of.  (See below.) In states like Pennsylvania, they are not allowed (by law) to start counting any ballots until 7am Nov 3rd.  So at that point they have to tally all those mail-in ballots.  It took ~4 days during the PA primaries; they've learned since then - but it is still likely to take them more than 17 hours.

Meanwhile Kavanaugh released a statement, echoing Trump, that suggested that the Supreme Court would support shutting down vote counting early.

Trump: "Big problems and discrepancies with Mail In Ballots all over the USA!  Must have final total on November 3rd."
Kavanaugh: "States . . .still have strong interests in avoiding suspicions of impropriety and announcing final results on or close to election night.”

Since in-person voting can be tallied faster, it's likely that in states like PA Trump will take an early lead, and if existing polls hold, only be overtaken once all the mail in votes are counted.  But if by midnight they are not completed - AND Trump is in the lead - we will see a full court press by both Trump and the Supreme Court to end counting.

 

It didn’t even occur to me that they could do this. 
 

That’s terrifying.