2020 Presidential Election

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Been in line for an hour for first early votingin Buncombe County. Will likely be another hour or so to the front of the line.

[JasonEvans]

Not trying to be snarky, but assuming there are relatively few undecided voters, and presumably a limited amount of available airtime space left, how does this really help at this point? He can only spend this money on advertising, right?

He can spend it on anything. Sure, TV advertising is the most obvious, but there is also... lawyers/lawsuits to fight over ballots; GOTV workers to canvas and encourage folks to vote; staff to stuff envelopes for mailings and make phone calls/texts; internet ads; big data analysis that can help target voters; and so on and so on. Big, nationwide campaigns need lots of people and lots of money to get stuff done.

And if Biden ever finds himself so awash in money that he cannot possibly spend it, he can probably figure out way to move it around to other Democratic candidates or causes.

-Jason "no one running for President ever ended their campaign by saying, 'well, I have no idea what to do with all this extra cash'" Evans

[Rich]

For those (including me a few weeks ago) who have asked what forms the litigation will take

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/1...ballots-429545

President Donald Trump is increasingly finding success in his strategy to restrict voting by mail — using lawsuits to stop late-arriving ballots from being counted in swing states.

After failing to stop any states from automatically mailing ballots to all registered voters, Republican attorneys have starting to make inroads on a different issue — limiting when any ballots can be counted.

In Wisconsin, federal judges halted a plan to count ballots received up to six days after Election Day. In New Hampshire, a lawsuit calling on the state to tally ballots arriving up to five days late was rejected. And in Georgia, an appeals court dropped a three-day deadline extension for ballots.

These legal fights are shaping up to be one of the most important factors in determining whether Trump or Democratic nominee Joe Biden is inaugurated as president in January.

[budwom]

He can spend it on anything. Sure, TV advertising is the most obvious, but there is also... lawyers/lawsuits to fight over ballots; GOTV workers to canvas and encourage folks to vote; staff to stuff envelopes for mailings and make phone calls/texts; internet ads; big data analysis that can help target voters; and so on and so on. Big, nationwide campaigns need lots of people and lots of money to get stuff done.

And if Biden ever finds himself so awash in money that he cannot possibly spend it, he can probably figure out way to move it around to other Democratic candidates or causes.

-Jason "no one running for President ever ended their campaign by saying, 'well, I have no idea what to do with all this extra cash'" Evans

Can't Biden also share is loot with other Demo candidates nationwide?

[rsvman]

Can't Biden also share is loot with other Demo candidates nationwide?

I believe so, and mentioned in Jason post.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

For those (including me a few weeks ago) who have asked what forms the litigation will take

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/1...ballots-429545

It is absolutely ridiculous how much time and effort the courts are spending on these issues - one would think they have something better to do. The only thing that is worse is how much time and effort people are spending trying to keep people from voting and/or keeping their votes from counting. Though given what a circus this has become, I cannot understand why anyone would wait until the last day or two to mail in their ballot - why take the chance?

I say this over and over, but every day I become both a little more frightened and a little more embarrassed by our country.

[JasonEvans]

I am both not even remotely surprised by this and also incredibly angry about it...

From the daily NY Times On Politics newsletter--

We already know, thanks to Bob Woodward’s book, that President Trump was fully aware of how severe the coronavirus was back in February, even as he was publicly downplaying it. As it happens, senior White House economists that month repeatedly warned board members at the conservative Hoover Institution — many of them Republican donors — about the dangers of the virus during closed-door meetings, at a time when some of those same officials were giving rosy predictions to the public.

A hedge fund consultant who attended the meetings wrote a memo that circulated among hedge fund investors, with one clear message: that a devastating virus outbreak in the United States was increasingly likely. Or, as one major investor who was briefed on the memo reacted, “Short everything.”

The information from the administration helped give elite traders a financial advantage by offering them a sobering economic assessment during a chaotic stretch in late February, when the public was struggling to understand the severity of the crisis, according to the hedge fund consultant’s memo and Times interviews with a range of investors.

-Jason "this just in, super rich donors and hedge funds get treated differently than the rest of us... film at 11" Evans

P.S. - I should note that I have every confidence that if the Democrats were in charge, the same thing would happen. This is not a party thing, it is a rich versus the rest of us thing

[PackMan97]

It is absolutely ridiculous how much time and effort the courts are spending on these issues - one would think they have something better to do. The only thing that is worse is how much time and effort people are spending trying to keep people from voting and/or keeping their votes from counting. Though given what a circus this has become, I cannot understand why anyone would wait until the last day or two to mail in their ballot - why take the chance?

I say this over and over, but every day I become both a little more frightened and a little more embarrassed by our country.

An alternative and valid narrative has Trump and his team defending the law as each state has written it and is attempting to stop those states from deviating from election laws they have passed. They only seek to make sure all legally cast votes are counted and all illegally cast votes are not counted.

The last thing we need is these lawsuits after the election. Imagine 20,000 votes come in after a vote counting deadline and the margin is 10,000 for Trump, but an ambiguous law gives both the count and don't count views probable legal cover. Get the court case settled now and have a clear and unambiguous standard for election night and beyond. I would much rather have court challenges in the run up to the election, than court challenges up until the electoral college deadline. That would be a mess and would likely invalidate the election in the eyes of whomever lost. At least now there is a clear and settled deadline and that's that. No chances for chicanery on either side (or at least they'll have to find something else).

[CrazyNotCrazie]

An alternative and valid narrative has Trump and his team defending the law as each state has written it and is attempting to stop those states from deviating from election laws they have passed. They only seek to make sure all legally cast votes are counted and all illegally cast votes are not counted.

The last thing we need is these lawsuits after the election. Imagine 20,000 votes come in after a vote counting deadline and the margin is 10,000 for Trump, but an ambiguous law gives both the count and don't count views probable legal cover. Get the court case settled now and have a clear and unambiguous standard for election night and beyond. I would much rather have court challenges in the run up to the election, than court challenges up until the electoral college deadline. That would be a mess and would likely invalidate the election in the eyes of whomever lost. At least now there is a clear and settled deadline and that's that. No chances for chicanery on either side (or at least they'll have to find something else).

If this was a matter of such great concern perhaps he could have focused on it during the first 3.5 years of his presidency rather than now at the 11th hour and also at a time when one would think he would have bigger things to worry about (like all those pesky COVID cases). I agree that doing it after the election is the worst case scenario, but doing it now while people are actually voting is not much better.

As I said before, given all of this, anyone who waits until the last second to mail in a ballot is just not being very intelligent.

[Furniture]

Is there a situation where Trump might think his only chance would be to wait for all the mail in ballots to be counted?

[ClemmonsDevil]

An alternative and valid narrative has Trump and his team defending the law as each state has written it and is attempting to stop those states from deviating from election laws they have passed. They only seek to make sure all legally cast votes are counted and all illegally cast votes are not counted.

The last thing we need is these lawsuits after the election. Imagine 20,000 votes come in after a vote counting deadline and the margin is 10,000 for Trump, but an ambiguous law gives both the count and don't count views probable legal cover. Get the court case settled now and have a clear and unambiguous standard for election night and beyond. I would much rather have court challenges in the run up to the election, than court challenges up until the electoral college deadline. That would be a mess and would likely invalidate the election in the eyes of whomever lost. At least now there is a clear and settled deadline and that's that. No chances for chicanery on either side (or at least they'll have to find something else).

I think Packman is correct here to point out that legal challenges are rational challenges and need to be separated from extra-legal machinations. One may certainly feel that these challenges limit voting opportunities and are not something that you support. The fact is, these are legal challenges and not a usurpation. These legal challenges are things that have always been done and that why the courts exist. I know his opinion is not going to be popular, it isn't popular with me. But I think he is correct.

[rsvman]

Is there a situation where Trump might think his only chance would be to wait for all the mail in ballots to be counted?

Doubtful. I think his supporters are more likely to actually go to the polls and vote in person. Seems to me that the mailed ballots are likely to lean toward Biden.

[PackMan97]

Is there a situation where Trump might think his only chance would be to wait for all the mail in ballots to be counted?

Not likely. I'm certain that if mail-in ballots were expected to lean heavily toward Trump the same thing would be happening with the parties switching their opinion on what would be best for democracy. I do not pretend that Trump's team has the noble goal of defending the law as their only (or even primary) objective. My only feeling is removing ambiguity out of the system prior to election day is best for this country.

[elvis14]

April 14th of this year just as we were in the middle of all the lockdowns.

Mighty tone deaf for Speaker Pelosi, imo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgfumenJbXE

Pelosi is the boogey man for the right. Nothing wrong with her doing a light hearted segment on that show to display her softer side to combat the constant stream of attacks.

An alternative and valid narrative has Trump and his team defending the law as each state has written it and is attempting to stop those states from deviating from election laws they have passed. They only seek to make sure all legally cast votes are counted and all illegally cast votes are not counted.

The last thing we need is these lawsuits after the election. Imagine 20,000 votes come in after a vote counting deadline and the margin is 10,000 for Trump, but an ambiguous law gives both the count and don't count views probable legal cover. Get the court case settled now and have a clear and unambiguous standard for election night and beyond. I would much rather have court challenges in the run up to the election, than court challenges up until the electoral college deadline. That would be a mess and would likely invalidate the election in the eyes of whomever lost. At least now there is a clear and settled deadline and that's that. No chances for chicanery on either side (or at least they'll have to find something else).

Alternative, yes. Valid, no. I'm sorry but attempting to limit and delegitimize mail in voting in the middle of a pandemic is not valid. You would have had a valid argument in another year but your post ignores the ongoing pandemic. The bottom line is that if you have to stop people from voting in order to win...perhaps you shouldn't win.

[Rich]

Doubtful. I think his supporters are more likely to actually go to the polls and vote in person. Seems to me that the mailed ballots are likely to lean toward Biden.

I think that's what Trump would have you believe, but I'm not so sure it's that cut and dried from the RNC's perspective.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/0...g-trump-398774

Many Republicans are outwardly careful not to address Trump's remarks, but privately they worry his escalating accusations of fraud could scare reliable supporters from voting remotely. New polling has fueled these concerns and Democrats are outpacing Republican requests for absentee ballots in some swing states.

...

More than two dozen states, run by both Democrats and Republicans, have already made voting changes to facilitate mail-in voting ahead of November’s election. In the past, researchers have found universal mail-in voting doesn’t privilege Republicans or Democrats, and election officials say it’s unclear whether either party might benefit in 2020. Yet some Republicans said Democrats have traditionally been more proficient at enrolling their supporters for absentee voting — and they’re trying to change that fact this year.

[camion]

I think Packman is correct here to point out that legal challenges are rational challenges and need to be separated from extra-legal machinations. One may certainly feel that these challenges limit voting opportunities and are not something that you support. The fact is, these are legal challenges and not a usurpation. These legal challenges are things that have always been done and that why the courts exist. I know his opinion is not going to be popular, it isn't popular with me. But I think he is correct.

Legal challenges may be rational, but not all legal challenges are created equal. Some may be lodged with the hope of winning something substantive, some may be lodged in order to delay a decision until the result doesn't matter or to keep a dispute going until the opponent runs out of money.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I am both not even remotely surprised by this and also incredibly angry about it...

From the daily NY Times On Politics newsletter--


-Jason "this just in, super rich donors and hedge funds get treated differently than the rest of us... film at 11" Evans

P.S. - I should note that I have every confidence that if the Democrats were in charge, the same thing would happen. This is not a party thing, it is a rich versus the rest of us thing

I know this is a "new" story, but in the grand scheme of things it's not. Remember when Senator Burr and others were under investigation a few months back for the exact same thing?

[ClemmonsDevil]

Legal challenges may be rational, but not all legal challenges are created equal. Some may be lodged with the hope of winning something substantive, some may be lodged in order to delay a decision until the result doesn't matter or to keep a dispute going until the opponent runs out of money.

Absolutely no argument from me. I am in the camp that thinks ballots should be mailed to every household in the country. I abhor limiting access to voting. I wish we had the voting turnout that Australia does, which is approaching 95%. The point PackMan made was that these are indeed legal challenges. Whether or not one feels this is draping the Republican Party in glory is irrelevant. These are legal means to limit voter access and should be treated as such. This isn't to argue that they are good measures.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I know this is a "new" story, but in the grand scheme of things it's not. Remember when Senator Burr and others were under investigation a few months back for the exact same thing?

I initially read this as you sarcastically saying this has been happening since the time of Senator Aaron Burr, which likely is the case...

[PackMan97]

Alternative, yes. Valid, no. I'm sorry but attempting to limit and delegitimize mail in voting in the middle of a pandemic is not valid. You would have had a valid argument in another year but your post ignores the ongoing pandemic. The bottom line is that if you have to stop people from voting in order to win...perhaps you shouldn't win.

Legislatures have had 8 months to adjust their laws. There are state laws that leave wiggle room such as one that (I'm paraphrasing and I don't remember the state) calls for "votes to be counted in a timely manner". Prior to the pandemic it was also a set amount of time. If during the middle of a pandemic and there needs to be extra time to count ballots. So be it. Get that issue to a court and settle it now, not when the vote counting starts. If there is a law that calls for "votes to be counted in three days", then the deadline is three days. The time to adjust that would be in the previous 8 months.

If I forget to vote on Election Day, should I get to vote the next day? We will just have to agree to disagree on this. All I would like is for procedures and deadlines to be set before the vote counting begins. I'm not advocating for or against any particular position. If a court rules that there should be an extra week or that no extra time be given, it doesn't matter to me. All I want is for everyone to be on the same page when the vote counting begins. I don't want to rules to change mid stream and one candidate be ahead with the deadline set in law passes while the other side is going to the court to get an extension to keep counting votes to hopefully win after all votes are counted. That would not be good four our country.