Author Topic: Transition of Power - All Things Presidential Thread  (Read 72335 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Election Day Thread
« Reply #30 on: November 02, 2020, 04:27:13 PM »

Offline Sophomore

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3500
  • Tommy Points: 490
I'm not voting for Trump tomorrow...cause I already voted for him last week.  :P

Good job doing your civic duty. No matter who wins or loses, let us remind ourselves that we will still be coexisting together. This is our opportunity as a society to decide how we want to move forward and some will have to swallow a big pill, but no matter what, as much as the partisan politics may make look otherwise, we are all in this together.

I'm hopeful that no matter what, the vast majority of people have this attitude. This election is a great opportunity for the country. The more people who take this approach, the better off we'll all be.

And that people are on board with counting *all* the votes. Election Day is the last day to cast a ballot, it hasn’t (ever) been the day the count is finalized.

Re: Election Day Thread
« Reply #31 on: November 02, 2020, 04:42:39 PM »

Offline hpantazo

  • Robert Parish
  • *********************
  • Posts: 21104
  • Tommy Points: 892
I'm not voting for Trump tomorrow...cause I already voted for him last week.  :P

Good job doing your civic duty. No matter who wins or loses, let us remind ourselves that we will still be coexisting together. This is our opportunity as a society to decide how we want to move forward and some will have to swallow a big pill, but no matter what, as much as the partisan politics may make look otherwise, we are all in this together.

I'm hopeful that no matter what, the vast majority of people have this attitude. This election is a great opportunity for the country. The more people who take this approach, the better off we'll all be.

And that people are on board with counting *all* the votes. Election Day is the last day to cast a ballot, it hasn’t (ever) been the day the count is finalized.

Well said. Vote, count all the votes, and whoever wins, shake hands and work together for the good of the whole country, because we have more than enough enemies outside of our country these days who love to see us fight amongst ourselves.

Re: Election Day Thread
« Reply #32 on: November 02, 2020, 04:45:56 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5295
  • Tommy Points: 862
Quote
NPR Politics
@nprpolitics
#BREAKING: A federal judge in Texas has ruled that about 127,000 ballots cast in Harris County via curbside voting are valid and cannot be thrown out, despite a last-minute lawsuit on behalf of a group of Republican candidates and activists.

Too lazy to look:  what was the basis for asking to reject them?

From what I understand, that Harris County overstepped its bounds by allowing drive thru voting.

It was perhaps an overzealous extrapolation of existing rules which allowed curbside voting services for the disabled.  Not entirely black & white, but likely in the wrong.

At any rate, their was never any legal basis for throwing out the votes that were cast.  That was just a pure intimidation play by Steven Hotze.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Election Day Thread
« Reply #33 on: November 02, 2020, 05:29:32 PM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3991
  • Tommy Points: 412
Quote
NPR Politics
@nprpolitics
#BREAKING: A federal judge in Texas has ruled that about 127,000 ballots cast in Harris County via curbside voting are valid and cannot be thrown out, despite a last-minute lawsuit on behalf of a group of Republican candidates and activists.

Too lazy to look:  what was the basis for asking to reject them?

EDIT:  Curiousity overcame laziness.  If I’m understanding correctly, the Texas voting statute does not allow for “drive-through “voting. However, one county clerk initiated the process, and over 100,000 people voted that way. 

It’s a very tough call for a judge, particularly a Republican judge. Volts where illegally cast, but through no fault of the voters. On the eve of the election, there is no way to ensure that those voters can vote again.

I think the right thing to do is to allow the votes, and fire / prosecute the clerk.

Given that it was implemented with the consent and under coordination with the Texas Secretary of State, approved by the countie's executive board, and was upheld by the Texas Supreme court, and well received by the actual populace the last bit seems unlikely.

Re: Election Day Thread
« Reply #34 on: November 02, 2020, 06:06:23 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 43831
  • Tommy Points: -27021
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
NPR Politics
@nprpolitics
#BREAKING: A federal judge in Texas has ruled that about 127,000 ballots cast in Harris County via curbside voting are valid and cannot be thrown out, despite a last-minute lawsuit on behalf of a group of Republican candidates and activists.

Too lazy to look:  what was the basis for asking to reject them?

EDIT:  Curiousity overcame laziness.  If I’m understanding correctly, the Texas voting statute does not allow for “drive-through “voting. However, one county clerk initiated the process, and over 100,000 people voted that way. 

It’s a very tough call for a judge, particularly a Republican judge. Volts where illegally cast, but through no fault of the voters. On the eve of the election, there is no way to ensure that those voters can vote again.

I think the right thing to do is to allow the votes, and fire / prosecute the clerk.

Given that it was implemented with the consent and under coordination with the Texas Secretary of State, approved by the countie's executive board, and was upheld by the Texas Supreme court, and well received by the actual populace the last bit seems unlikely.

All of that is a problem then.  Laws matter, and should be followed.  Individual clerks should not have the right to overrule the legislature, no matter who agrees with it.  That’s the case no matter whether the clerk is refusing to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples, where is instead breaking the law to allow votes to be cast contrary to law.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: Election Day Thread
« Reply #35 on: November 02, 2020, 06:40:03 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Kevin Garnett
  • *****************
  • Posts: 17257
  • Tommy Points: 1909
Quote
NPR Politics
@nprpolitics
#BREAKING: A federal judge in Texas has ruled that about 127,000 ballots cast in Harris County via curbside voting are valid and cannot be thrown out, despite a last-minute lawsuit on behalf of a group of Republican candidates and activists.

Too lazy to look:  what was the basis for asking to reject them?

EDIT:  Curiousity overcame laziness.  If I’m understanding correctly, the Texas voting statute does not allow for “drive-through “voting. However, one county clerk initiated the process, and over 100,000 people voted that way. 

It’s a very tough call for a judge, particularly a Republican judge. Volts where illegally cast, but through no fault of the voters. On the eve of the election, there is no way to ensure that those voters can vote again.

I think the right thing to do is to allow the votes, and fire / prosecute the clerk.

Given that it was implemented with the consent and under coordination with the Texas Secretary of State, approved by the countie's executive board, and was upheld by the Texas Supreme court, and well received by the actual populace the last bit seems unlikely.

All of that is a problem then.  Laws matter, and should be followed.  Individual clerks should not have the right to overrule the legislature, no matter who agrees with it.  That’s the case no matter whether the clerk is refusing to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples, where is instead breaking the law to allow votes to be cast contrary to law.

I hear that. Where in the course of a decision would the judge consider that voters followed the information they were provided, and had the intent of casting a vote, and based on timing would now be unable to cast a vote? Are these factors relevant to this decision?

If I make a decision based on information provided to me by an official is it my sole responsibility to know that the official gave me incorrect information or would a judge take into account what reasonable person would do under the circumstances?

Re: Election Day Thread
« Reply #36 on: November 02, 2020, 06:54:35 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 43831
  • Tommy Points: -27021
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
NPR Politics
@nprpolitics
#BREAKING: A federal judge in Texas has ruled that about 127,000 ballots cast in Harris County via curbside voting are valid and cannot be thrown out, despite a last-minute lawsuit on behalf of a group of Republican candidates and activists.

Too lazy to look:  what was the basis for asking to reject them?

EDIT:  Curiousity overcame laziness.  If I’m understanding correctly, the Texas voting statute does not allow for “drive-through “voting. However, one county clerk initiated the process, and over 100,000 people voted that way. 

It’s a very tough call for a judge, particularly a Republican judge. Volts where illegally cast, but through no fault of the voters. On the eve of the election, there is no way to ensure that those voters can vote again.

I think the right thing to do is to allow the votes, and fire / prosecute the clerk.

Given that it was implemented with the consent and under coordination with the Texas Secretary of State, approved by the countie's executive board, and was upheld by the Texas Supreme court, and well received by the actual populace the last bit seems unlikely.

All of that is a problem then.  Laws matter, and should be followed.  Individual clerks should not have the right to overrule the legislature, no matter who agrees with it.  That’s the case no matter whether the clerk is refusing to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples, where is instead breaking the law to allow votes to be cast contrary to law.

I hear that. Where in the course of a decision would the judge consider that voters followed the information they were provided, and had the intent of casting a vote, and based on timing would now be unable to cast a vote? Are these factors relevant to this decision?

If I make a decision based on information provided to me by an official is it my sole responsibility to know that the official gave me incorrect information or would a judge take into account what reasonable person would do under the circumstances?

I haven’t read the decision, but from the media reports, I think this was a key factor in the judge’s decision.  We hear “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, but sometimes it is.

Very generally, courts can make decisions based upon law and/or principles of what’s known as equity.  From media coverage, it seems like:

1.  The clerk violated the law, which was fairly unambiguous about the requirement to vote inside a building.

One of the judge’s possible remedies would have been to invalidate all of the votes, because none was cast in a legal manner.  And honestly, had he done so, there should be no quarrel with him.  It’s a valid interpretation.

However, he looked at two other things:

1.  100,000 voters had cast ballots in good faith.  They followed the direction of a government official.  If the law was broken, it wasn’t their fault.  If the ballots were destroyed, they would be harmed. Many would be unaware of their right to revote if their ballot was invalidated, and unfairly disenfranchised; and

2). Republicans could have challenged the law earlier (and thus avoided some of the disenfranchisement consequences)

He decided that the fairest thing to do was to allow the votes.  The voters 
« Last Edit: November 02, 2020, 07:25:09 PM by Roy H. »
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: Election Day Thread
« Reply #37 on: November 02, 2020, 07:17:14 PM »

Offline BASS_THUMPER

  • Scal's #1 Fan
  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10701
  • Tommy Points: 5084
  • Thumper of the BASS!

Re: Election Day Thread
« Reply #38 on: November 02, 2020, 07:24:23 PM »

Offline Erik

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1281
  • Tommy Points: 200
  • The voice of reason
I don’t put a ton of stock in polls because it’s easier to respond to a pollster than to vote. I think that charisma and enthusiasm for your candidate shouldn’t be discounted. To Republicans, Trump is a savior due to his insistence to govern as a Republican unlike RINOs — he just doesn’t care,. Like if he could legit not be a jerk, on paper he’s the prototypical moderate Republican. Most Republicans are going to stand in line all day to vote for this guy.

To Democrats, Joe is just “not Trump.” I know most of you in your blue states, reading blue news stories with blue comment sections would walk 1,000 miles to vote against trump and think the entire world thinks he’s a Edited for profanity.  Please do not do it again.head, but in swing states, he isn’t as hated as you are used to. Just because someone prefers Biden there doesn’t mean they would go through the effort to vote.

Re: Election Day Thread
« Reply #39 on: November 02, 2020, 07:46:41 PM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3991
  • Tommy Points: 412
Quote
NPR Politics
@nprpolitics
#BREAKING: A federal judge in Texas has ruled that about 127,000 ballots cast in Harris County via curbside voting are valid and cannot be thrown out, despite a last-minute lawsuit on behalf of a group of Republican candidates and activists.

Too lazy to look:  what was the basis for asking to reject them?

EDIT:  Curiousity overcame laziness.  If I’m understanding correctly, the Texas voting statute does not allow for “drive-through “voting. However, one county clerk initiated the process, and over 100,000 people voted that way. 

It’s a very tough call for a judge, particularly a Republican judge. Volts where illegally cast, but through no fault of the voters. On the eve of the election, there is no way to ensure that those voters can vote again.

I think the right thing to do is to allow the votes, and fire / prosecute the clerk.

Given that it was implemented with the consent and under coordination with the Texas Secretary of State, approved by the countie's executive board, and was upheld by the Texas Supreme court, and well received by the actual populace the last bit seems unlikely.

All of that is a problem then.  Laws matter, and should be followed.  Individual clerks should not have the right to overrule the legislature, no matter who agrees with it.  That’s the case no matter whether the clerk is refusing to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples, where is instead breaking the law to allow votes to be cast contrary to law.

I hear that. Where in the course of a decision would the judge consider that voters followed the information they were provided, and had the intent of casting a vote, and based on timing would now be unable to cast a vote? Are these factors relevant to this decision?

If I make a decision based on information provided to me by an official is it my sole responsibility to know that the official gave me incorrect information or would a judge take into account what reasonable person would do under the circumstances?

I haven’t read the decision, but from the media reports, I think this was a key factor in the judge’s decision.  We hear “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, but sometimes it is.

Very generally, courts can make decisions based upon law and/or principles of what’s known as equity.  From media coverage, it seems like:

1.  The clerk violated the law, which was fairly unambiguous about the requirement to vote inside a building.

One of the judge’s possible remedies would have been to invalidate all of the votes, because none was cast in a legal manner.  And honestly, had he done so, there should be no quarrel with him.  It’s a valid interpretation.

However, he looked at two other things:

1.  100,000 voters had cast ballots in good faith.  They followed the direction of a government official.  If the law was broken, it wasn’t their fault.  If the ballots were destroyed, they would be harmed. Many would be unaware of their right to revote if their ballot was invalidated, and unfairly disenfranchised; and

2). Republicans could have challenged the law earlier (and thus avoided some of the disenfranchisement consequences)

He decided that the fairest thing to do was to allow the votes.  The voters

Republicans did challenge the vote earlier, at least on a state level. The republican controlled supreme court refused to intervene in the case on two separate occasions.

I also have to disagree about this whole thing being unambiguous, the Texas supreme court (all republicans) have refuse to stop the practice, the secretary of state was on board, and the whole thing seems to rest on whether you consider a tent a "building." Harris county seemed convince that their set up satisfied the law.

Its not clear to me, at all, that this entire thing wasn't completely legal and Republican's arent just trying to get an 11th hour partisan decision meant to disenfranchise a predominantly democratic county, but admittedly that's partly influenced by the last minute timing of this. It just seems suspiciously partisan motivated. If it really is illegal why not do something about it any of the last 4 weeks?

One thing is for sure, the strange collection of election laws country wide is confusing as hell to follow. Why do some states only start counting mail in ballots ON election day, while others start days ahead of time? Why do some states allow ballots to be counted as long as postmarked by election day, while others do not? Why do some allow same ay registration, others close their weeks ahead of time? Some mail ballots to everyone, some dont allow mail in at all. Some have more stringent ID laws. Some have witness requirements. Some have signature checks. 
« Last Edit: November 02, 2020, 08:00:17 PM by keevsnick »

Re: Election Day Thread
« Reply #40 on: November 02, 2020, 07:59:35 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 43831
  • Tommy Points: -27021
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Quote
NPR Politics
@nprpolitics
#BREAKING: A federal judge in Texas has ruled that about 127,000 ballots cast in Harris County via curbside voting are valid and cannot be thrown out, despite a last-minute lawsuit on behalf of a group of Republican candidates and activists.

Too lazy to look:  what was the basis for asking to reject them?

EDIT:  Curiousity overcame laziness.  If I’m understanding correctly, the Texas voting statute does not allow for “drive-through “voting. However, one county clerk initiated the process, and over 100,000 people voted that way. 

It’s a very tough call for a judge, particularly a Republican judge. Volts where illegally cast, but through no fault of the voters. On the eve of the election, there is no way to ensure that those voters can vote again.

I think the right thing to do is to allow the votes, and fire / prosecute the clerk.

Given that it was implemented with the consent and under coordination with the Texas Secretary of State, approved by the countie's executive board, and was upheld by the Texas Supreme court, and well received by the actual populace the last bit seems unlikely.

All of that is a problem then.  Laws matter, and should be followed.  Individual clerks should not have the right to overrule the legislature, no matter who agrees with it.  That’s the case no matter whether the clerk is refusing to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples, where is instead breaking the law to allow votes to be cast contrary to law.

I hear that. Where in the course of a decision would the judge consider that voters followed the information they were provided, and had the intent of casting a vote, and based on timing would now be unable to cast a vote? Are these factors relevant to this decision?

If I make a decision based on information provided to me by an official is it my sole responsibility to know that the official gave me incorrect information or would a judge take into account what reasonable person would do under the circumstances?

I haven’t read the decision, but from the media reports, I think this was a key factor in the judge’s decision.  We hear “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, but sometimes it is.

Very generally, courts can make decisions based upon law and/or principles of what’s known as equity.  From media coverage, it seems like:

1.  The clerk violated the law, which was fairly unambiguous about the requirement to vote inside a building.

One of the judge’s possible remedies would have been to invalidate all of the votes, because none was cast in a legal manner.  And honestly, had he done so, there should be no quarrel with him.  It’s a valid interpretation.

However, he looked at two other things:

1.  100,000 voters had cast ballots in good faith.  They followed the direction of a government official.  If the law was broken, it wasn’t their fault.  If the ballots were destroyed, they would be harmed. Many would be unaware of their right to revote if their ballot was invalidated, and unfairly disenfranchised; and

2). Republicans could have challenged the law earlier (and thus avoided some of the disenfranchisement consequences)

He decided that the fairest thing to do was to allow the votes.  The voters

Republicans did challenge the vote earlier, at least on a state level. The republican controlled supreme court refused to intervene in the case on two separate occasions.

I also have to disagree about this whole thing being unambiguous, the Texas supreme court (all republicans) have refuse to stop the practice, the secretary of state was on board, and the whole thing seems to rest on whether you consider a tent a "building." Harris county seemed convince that their set up satisfied the law.

Its not clear to me, at all, that this entire thing wasn't completely legal and Republican's arent just trying to get an 11th hour partisan decision meant to disenfranchise a predominantly democratic county, but admittedly that's partly influenced by the last minute timing of this. If it really is illegal why not do something about it any of the last 4 weeks?

What grounds did the state Supreme Court reject the challenge on.

Timeliness was a big part of the federal decision:

Quote
Harris County, Texas' most populous county and majority-Democratic, erected 10 drive-through sites, mostly tents, to expedite the early voting process as a way of allowing people to cast ballots safely during the coronavirus pandemic. They were also in place this summer before the state's primary. Noting that point, Hanen, a George W. Bush appointee, asked plaintiffs, "Why am I just getting this case?" He later said that the suit was not timely and that "this has been going on all summer."

The judge also indicated that the statute did not allow for drive-thru voting.

Technically the case was decided on standing grounds, but the judge made several findings about what he would have found had he made a decision on the merits.  He indicated, for instants, that he would have been comfortable enjoining drive-through voting tomorrow and going forward.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2020, 08:08:22 PM by Roy H. »
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: Election Day Thread
« Reply #41 on: November 02, 2020, 08:05:31 PM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3991
  • Tommy Points: 412
Quote
NPR Politics
@nprpolitics
#BREAKING: A federal judge in Texas has ruled that about 127,000 ballots cast in Harris County via curbside voting are valid and cannot be thrown out, despite a last-minute lawsuit on behalf of a group of Republican candidates and activists.

Too lazy to look:  what was the basis for asking to reject them?

EDIT:  Curiousity overcame laziness.  If I’m understanding correctly, the Texas voting statute does not allow for “drive-through “voting. However, one county clerk initiated the process, and over 100,000 people voted that way. 

It’s a very tough call for a judge, particularly a Republican judge. Volts where illegally cast, but through no fault of the voters. On the eve of the election, there is no way to ensure that those voters can vote again.

I think the right thing to do is to allow the votes, and fire / prosecute the clerk.

Given that it was implemented with the consent and under coordination with the Texas Secretary of State, approved by the countie's executive board, and was upheld by the Texas Supreme court, and well received by the actual populace the last bit seems unlikely.

All of that is a problem then.  Laws matter, and should be followed.  Individual clerks should not have the right to overrule the legislature, no matter who agrees with it.  That’s the case no matter whether the clerk is refusing to issue marriage certificates to same-sex couples, where is instead breaking the law to allow votes to be cast contrary to law.

I hear that. Where in the course of a decision would the judge consider that voters followed the information they were provided, and had the intent of casting a vote, and based on timing would now be unable to cast a vote? Are these factors relevant to this decision?

If I make a decision based on information provided to me by an official is it my sole responsibility to know that the official gave me incorrect information or would a judge take into account what reasonable person would do under the circumstances?

I haven’t read the decision, but from the media reports, I think this was a key factor in the judge’s decision.  We hear “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, but sometimes it is.

Very generally, courts can make decisions based upon law and/or principles of what’s known as equity.  From media coverage, it seems like:

1.  The clerk violated the law, which was fairly unambiguous about the requirement to vote inside a building.

One of the judge’s possible remedies would have been to invalidate all of the votes, because none was cast in a legal manner.  And honestly, had he done so, there should be no quarrel with him.  It’s a valid interpretation.

However, he looked at two other things:

1.  100,000 voters had cast ballots in good faith.  They followed the direction of a government official.  If the law was broken, it wasn’t their fault.  If the ballots were destroyed, they would be harmed. Many would be unaware of their right to revote if their ballot was invalidated, and unfairly disenfranchised; and

2). Republicans could have challenged the law earlier (and thus avoided some of the disenfranchisement consequences)

He decided that the fairest thing to do was to allow the votes.  The voters

Republicans did challenge the vote earlier, at least on a state level. The republican controlled supreme court refused to intervene in the case on two separate occasions.

I also have to disagree about this whole thing being unambiguous, the Texas supreme court (all republicans) have refuse to stop the practice, the secretary of state was on board, and the whole thing seems to rest on whether you consider a tent a "building." Harris county seemed convince that their set up satisfied the law.

Its not clear to me, at all, that this entire thing wasn't completely legal and Republican's arent just trying to get an 11th hour partisan decision meant to disenfranchise a predominantly democratic county, but admittedly that's partly influenced by the last minute timing of this. If it really is illegal why not do something about it any of the last 4 weeks?

What grounds did the state Supreme Court reject the challenge on.

Timeliness was a big part of the federal decision:

Quote
Harris County, Texas' most populous county and majority-Democratic, erected 10 drive-through sites, mostly tents, to expedite the early voting process as a way of allowing people to cast ballots safely during the coronavirus pandemic. They were also in place this summer before the state's primary. Noting that point, Hanen, a George W. Bush appointee, asked plaintiffs, "Why am I just getting this case?" He later said that the suit was not timely and that "this has been going on all summer."

As I understand it they made separate decisions both on the 22nd and 31st not to halt drive through voting in the first case and not to throw out the ballots in the second. Although neither appears to have come with an actual written opinion or finding on legality. Judge Hanen himself didn't make a firm ruling on the legality either, although he sound dubious. he ruled the plaintiffs didn't have standing in the case. 

 
 
« Last Edit: November 02, 2020, 08:12:27 PM by keevsnick »

Re: Election Day Thread
« Reply #42 on: November 02, 2020, 09:04:46 PM »

Online Ogaju

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14301
  • Tommy Points: 1457
So what are the odds that the election is actually called on Tuesday night? 50%? 30%?

Close to zero if Trump is ahead.  If Biden has a lead in Michigan and Pennsylvania tonight, though, I expect that things will be called.

I believe Biden takes Arizona and Georgia, and it is a rap late Tuesday night.

Re: Election Day Thread
« Reply #43 on: November 02, 2020, 09:24:23 PM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6335
  • Tommy Points: 474
So what are the odds that the election is actually called on Tuesday night? 50%? 30%?

Close to zero if Trump is ahead.  If Biden has a lead in Michigan and Pennsylvania tonight, though, I expect that things will be called.

I believe Biden takes Arizona and Georgia, and it is a rap late Tuesday night.
Color me skeptical.  A few weeks before the 2016 vote, the talk was Hillary had a chance in both states.  She lost Arizona by 3.5% and Georgia by 5%. 

Re: Election Day Thread
« Reply #44 on: November 02, 2020, 09:24:53 PM »

Offline SCeltic34

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10244
  • Tommy Points: 1304
I'm one of those people who always believed that Biden was the Democrats best chance of beating Trump.  Sanders might have been able to do it in 2016, but probable not in 2020.  IMO Harris, Warren, and everyone else didn't stand a legitimate chance - none of them could win back the important Midwest states and rebuild the "blue wall".  I voted for Biden in the primary out in here in California based on this hypothesis and I'm anxious to see if I was right.

So what are the odds that the election is actually called on Tuesday night? 50%? 30%?

Close to zero if Trump is ahead.  If Biden has a lead in Michigan and Pennsylvania tonight, though, I expect that things will be called.

I expect Trump to have the early lead in Pennsylvania.  My understanding is that in some counties the in-person votes will be counted first and then mail-in ballots thereafter.  If the ballots aren't counted timely enough then Trump will declare an early victory there while the mail ballots are still being counted.

I'm keeping my eyes on North Carolina which will likely have its results on election night.  I doubt Biden will win NC, but if he does then it very likely marks the beginning of the end for Trump.