JFLNYC wrote:This is just the beginning of legal (and otherwise) fights by Trump in each battleground state — both before and after November 3 — to get as many votes as possible disqualified. In particular I’m sure they’re targeting the mail in votes especially on the assumption that most of the early voting is for Biden. The legal challenges this year are going to make the 2000 Florida fight look like a hearing over a parking ticket.

Wolfgang622 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:

1 wrote:The fix is in

Isn't the PA Supreme Court 7-2 Dem?

Try adding four more

<Ahem>

PA Supreme Court justices are directly elected and have to be re-elected every 10 years.

Also my point was that it's a Dem court so I would think unlikely to rule in a way they know would hurt a Dem unless the case was really strong on its merits. This makes me inclined to think the correct decision was made.

Trump may test this. According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires.

To a modern democratic sensibility, discarding the popular vote for partisan gain looks uncomfortably like a coup, whatever license may be found for it in law. Would Republicans find that position disturbing enough to resist? Would they cede the election before resorting to such a ploy? Trump’s base would exact a high price for that betrayal, and by this point party officials would be invested in a narrative of fraud.

The Trump-campaign legal adviser I spoke with told me the push to appoint electors would be framed in terms of protecting the people’s will. Once committed to the position that the overtime count has been rigged, the adviser said, state lawmakers will want to judge for themselves what the voters intended.

...

In Pennsylvania, three Republican leaders told me they had already discussed the direct appointment of electors among themselves, and one said he had discussed it with Trump’s national campaign.

CFP wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:

1 wrote:The fix is in

Isn't the PA Supreme Court 7-2 Dem?

Try adding four more

<Ahem>

PA Supreme Court justices are directly elected and have to be re-elected every 10 years.

Also my point was that it's a Dem court so I would think unlikely to rule in a way they know would hurt a Dem unless the case was really strong on its merits. This makes me inclined to think the correct decision was made.

Nope this is all part of Trump's plan to rig the election with the *checks notes* 5-2 Dem advantage PA Supreme Court doing it for him.

Not really understanding a lot of the posts in here on this topic, but I guess I'll just have to move on. I'll say one last thing on it I guess - if the headline was "PA will accept naked ballots" then you know Trump's team is all over that immediately. To me this decision seems like a way to avoid having that happen, and the Trump team throwing the election into chaos. "Ah well the Dems just threw any old vote in any old envelope! Rigged!" That would be the talking point. At some point there has to be a sort of baseline for election safety and security. This appears to be it. And yes, I fully understand that the lawyers and Trump folks will still cry wolf regardless, but this looks like the airtight way to say the election is not rigged.

momadance wrote:

Trump may test this. According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires.

To a modern democratic sensibility, discarding the popular vote for partisan gain looks uncomfortably like a coup, whatever license may be found for it in law. Would Republicans find that position disturbing enough to resist? Would they cede the election before resorting to such a ploy? Trump’s base would exact a high price for that betrayal, and by this point party officials would be invested in a narrative of fraud.

The Trump-campaign legal adviser I spoke with told me the push to appoint electors would be framed in terms of protecting the people’s will. Once committed to the position that the overtime count has been rigged, the adviser said, state lawmakers will want to judge for themselves what the voters intended.

...

In Pennsylvania, three Republican leaders told me they had already discussed the direct appointment of electors among themselves, and one said he had discussed it with Trump’s national campaign.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... de/616424/

Wolfgang622 wrote:For me it continues to be: with historically few exceptions, those who voted for Trump in 2016 will do so again in 2020.

So therefore there is and never was any reason to expect to win Arizona or Florida.

Need to sweep PA, WI, and MI. Tall order.

CalvinBall wrote:it is pretty wild how good the polls have been in WI, MN, and MI for Biden.

06hawkalum wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:For me it continues to be: with historically few exceptions, those who voted for Trump in 2016 will do so again in 2020.

So therefore there is and never was any reason to expect to win Arizona or Florida.

Need to sweep PA, WI, and MI. Tall order.

You are missing the part where many libs sat out 2016. MI and WI are in the bag. PA will also go blue. AZ and FL are very much in play.

JFLNYC wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:

Wolfgang622 wrote:For me it continues to be: with historically few exceptions, those who voted for Trump in 2016 will do so again in 2020.

So therefore there is and never was any reason to expect to win Arizona or Florida.

Need to sweep PA, WI, and MI. Tall order.

You are missing the part where many libs sat out 2016. MI and WI are in the bag. PA will also go blue. AZ and FL are very much in play.

Moz, You’re also assuming static populations in those states between 2016 and now and ignoring younger voters joining the rolls.

CalvinBall wrote:Not good polls for Biden in Florida and Arizona this AM.

The B1G Piece wrote:

CalvinBall wrote:Not good polls for Biden in Florida and Arizona this AM.

Highly rated poll and very outlierish compared to others. Who knows.