UKH

With less than a week to election day the polls seem to be narrowing a little, at least the ones reported on 270 to win.

By my reckoning, Biden has 259 electoral college votes more or less secure, or at least the polls are showing a lead of 5 points or more. Then a further 5 states, Florida, Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, which are closer but the polls marginally favour Biden. If Biden wins any one of these, he is home.

However, some of the polls look very flakey, many State polls seem to be based on as small a sample as 400. Nationally and locally, the polls with larger sample sizes appear to favour Biden. In the closer states, the stated margins of error are usually greater than the difference between the two candidates.

In reply to The New NickB: have you looked at fivethirtyeight.com,  then looked af their national and state analysis?

538 is sort of what 270 to win is copying - good statistical analysis

In reply to wbo2:

The analysis of the pollsters is quite interesting.

In reply to The New NickB:

Yeah you need to look at the bias of the polls too, some polls typically lean one way.

Bidens lead is certainly more consistent. Today he had an 88/89% chance of winning in 538s forecast (it's been 87-88 for a week). A week before 2016 clinton had 67%. And this year almost half have already voted so far.

Trump can still win but he needs to win all the toss up states.

My worry is pennsylvania has Trump leading on the day then start counting mail in votes. Trump tries to claim the win and take legal action or counting stations start getting attacked by vigilante groups. We had a drop box set on fire recently.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/

This is the polling averages. states like GA are very much in play.

In reply to The New NickB:

In voter suppression news, my American brother in law who lives in London got his postal vote today. Home of democracy my arse.

In reply to The New NickB:

This might make you think:

https://www.ted.com/talks/van_jones_what_if_a_us_presidential_candidate_ref...

In reply to The New NickB:

My chosen brand of Kool-aid is The Economist and they put Biden at the biggest lead both electorate and popular he's had.

https://projects.economist.com/us-2020-forecast/president

A rarity for The Economist, it doesn't require subscription.

In reply to Removed Userwaitout:

They are playing around with various experimental techniques to figure out polling. So its one of those I would wait until its been compared against reality a few times (something all polls have been struggling with since the easy landline approach to polling has started to fail).

In reply to mondite:

That's very true, it's just the broadest selection of methods I've found that's accessible, and The Economist has a decent record on bias.

In reply to The New NickB:

Seems likely that reported c19 cases will reach 10 million by election day.  If so, then I wonder if this will motivate enough people to vote on the 4th to sink him.  Not that the outcome is likely to matter much given that he's stacked the legal system such that he's going to stay whatever happens...

In reply to Andy Gamisou:

Hopefully. I've seen a lot of evidence of first-time voting.

That's what I'm terrified about. Even if Biden gets in, will they have the balls to fix the Supreme court and make some headway into the voter suppression problems? Or will they merely amble along and become scapegoats for Trump's problems (e.g. the stratospheric deficit, covid-19 epidemic out of control) - and then 2024 we see a repeat of 2016 but up another level (I can't take another level even as a bystander).

In reply to The New NickB:

It's possible Trump will win on the day, but Biden once all the postal votes are counted. He'll likely initially declare victory and then the carnage will follow. 

In reply to SenzuBean:

Precisely what I think will happen. Trump will act like a leader in exile and stir dissent for four years, then either run again or, what I think will happen, Ivanka.

Biden's not a silver bullet, he's only damage control. Even if he were a more substantial politician it will take more then four years to get the US back on track regardless of the Supreme Court and Senate. Don't forget it was in stumbling disrepair before Trump came along, he just leveraged it.

Note that the not-insignificant group of anti-Trump Republicans voting Biden will dry up if Biden's elected. He won't actually have those followers with Trump out of the way. That contingency will give their kidneys to get a 'regular' GOP back in after Biden and a lot of conservative senators etc will be biding their time for that.

In reply to summo:

Yes, but it will go askew whoever wins the day. Biden taking the day will be just as much a shit show, perhaps more so as it's the postal votes that are most contentious and draw it out even longer. Biden can't do much more than rally opinion as the postals get counted, but Trump as still President can do things like call national emergencies and coerce government shutdowns. He's done both before over vanity projects.

In reply to Removed Userwaitout:

Biden needs to win by an indisputable margin to avoid carnage on the day. Anything less and trump will rally his supporters, he's not exactly the type to be gracious in defeat. 

In reply to summo:

Yes, but I personally don't see a margin that big being realistic on the day, it would need to be enormous. In fact it's hard to see any margin being enough for Biden on the day, Trump won't concede. It will need to go through votes on the day, mail ins, most likely recounts, most likely disputes over fraud. Trump will suck every option dry, he loves all this. The man truly is a sack of shit.

In reply to Andy Gamisou:

It'll be a bit late by the 4th. Election Day is the 3rd. 

And there is already motivation aplenty. Early voting has been huge, and there are predictions of the highest turnout for decades. 

In reply to Removed Userwaitout:

There was a chilling report on the radio this morning about the recounts in Miami in 2000 - the election of the hanging chad. It was asserted that the recount was abandoned as a result of Republican protesters generally making a nuisance of themselves, and that this was one of the contributing factors to Bush's eventual victory. We know that Republicans are already mobilising thousands of 'observers' at polling stations, in ways that some view as intimidatory. Worrying times. 

In reply to Removed Userwaitout:

You are approaching deluded if you think Biden can't win without a lengthy dispute. I think it is the most likely outcome right now and a clear Trump win unlikely (subject to no new 'events'). GOP will not back a 'coup' nor will the military. His MAGA fans are very brave when intimidating unarmed protesters but much less so when faced by armed police.

Things are very different from 2016. The polls are worse for Trump and he is losing support in nearly all the key demographics, turnout is high and covid is getting worse.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/25/biden-trump-polls-elderly-s...

Trump has benefits in a near draw situation as the supreme court often rules in support of the state position when decisions are close (eg Florida when Bush beat Gore) but the bigger conservative majority won't help him much more.

The Electoral College system favours Trump but he needs to win in nearly all these swing states. If he loses Florida or Texas (which he might on the polls there) he is toast.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/24/us-election-polls-tracker-t...

In reply to The New NickB:

Just as a minor diversion. I was looking at the historic results. In 76, when Carter beat Ford, Texas was Democrat and the entire West Coast Republican.

In reply to Harry Jarvis:

A way to avoid intimidation and covid disruption is to vote early. This election is unprecedented in early voting levels. One third of registered voters have already voted.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/28/politics/early-voting-registered-voters-elec...

In reply to ebdon:

Whereas I got mine at the end of September

In reply to Offwidth:

Thanks you for telling me that. It's almost as if I hadn't already posted "Early voting has been huge, and there are predictions of the highest turnout for decades." 

In reply to Harry Jarvis:

There is a podcast series about Bush v. Gore called Fiasco - not listened to it yet but supposed to be good. By Leon Neyfakh who did the first two seasons of Slow Burn covering the Watergate and Clinton/Lewinsky scandals

In reply to Harry Jarvis: 

I was pointing out your two posts might be related and adding a link.

In reply to Offwidth:

You're a lot more optimistic than I am.

In reply to Removed Userwaitout:

This has nothing to do with optimism. Explain the mechanism whereby Trump could legally overturn state wins of several percentage points.

In reply to Removed Userwaitout:

I think voter suppression has back fired massively. It's always gone on but it's now affecting everyone. People are willing to stand in line for hours to get these out. Constant court cases trying to block voting. That may have energized people more than anything else. Have your controversial policies but let the people vote on them.  

Georgia is looking 50-50, if it goes blue on election night it's game over.

In reply to Offwidth:

Nobody has won anything yet. All we have are polls, which have been wrong in the past. Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes in 2016, yet lost the electoral college. The nature of the American electoral system is such that county-by-county challenges are likely in swing states. Nothing can be taken for granted until either Trump or Biden concede. 

In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Trump's win looked huge but Clinton lost because more than the required winning margin of 38 more electoral college votes went to Trump in very close state wins. Pennsylvania (20), Michigan (16) and Wisconsin (10) were won by less than a 1% vote margin and together would have been enough for Clinton to win. Florida (29) was won by 1.2%. Clinton did better in Florida last time than the average of multi candidate polls close to election day predicted: to lose by several  percent). Biden currently leads by several percent.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/

Given a third of registered votes are already made on a large turnout (normally good news for democrats) and it may well be nearly half have voted before the election day. Any last minute 'event' that benefits Trump is going to be diluted by half so needs to be twice the size to give him a clear win. Hence, I currently can't see any mechanism for a clear win for him that is likely. I can see a near draw in some key states and long legal state wrangles as having significant likelihood but I think the polling and demographic changes indicate more likely a clear win for Biden.  The only missing factor for Trump could be a much bigger turnout of his demographic (this was massive last time so where are the significant extra voters coming from compared to 2016?).

The pollsters are professionals and knew they missed Trump voters in some states and will have adjusted  to try to better capture that this time. Where state polls were badly wrong last time (like Wisconsin) there has been a lot more focus this time. In any case most state polls were not as bad last time as they have been portrayed.

The state polling is more against Trump this time in swing states than in 2016 and (as above) Trump didn't win by much last time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_United...

The gap in nationwide polls is about double that in 2016 (and national polls were reasonably accurate). I expect Biden to comfortably win the popular vote by more than 6 million where Clinton won that by 3 million. My best guess is by over 10 million this time unless we have that 'event'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_Unite...

In reply to The New NickB:

I'm placing my money on an unexpectedly strong, but probably still insufficient, result for the Republicans. 

Mainly because I suspect in this election year, more so than ever, indicating support from Trump is risky business. Even if a majority would rather see him win than Biden, publicly registering a conservative/Republican opinion at anything other than the ballot box can be dangerous to your livelihood, hence skewed polling.

This in itself should be worrying. But also the claims to violent action being made if the election doesn't go Biden's way and the insinuations that any such result must automatically be the result of electoral tampering. There is every reason, from culture wars to recent unrest, to see a Trump victory as being a realistic and entirely reasonable result. And for those same reasons, for this not to be reflected in polling.

In reply to RentonCooke:

I do find it very interesting that you think that would be the case for Biden's side, considering Trump has pretty much directly stated that if he loses it's because of electoral tampering.

In reply to RentonCooke:

I see no evidence of Trump fans being shy. I think the real problem was key rust belt state polls were faulty as Clinton was expected to win so not enough focus and effort was made. Florida, where there was much more focus, saw polls slightly overestimated support for Trump (within the error margins). In contrast talk of mass violence in support of Trump I see as mainly hyperbole. Demonstrations will occur if Trump loses, sure, but not mass violence.

Trump won because nearly all of GOP backed him, including their well educated white women, things have changed.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/28/white-women-trump-second-thoughts-...

Trump said in his acceptance speech he would bring Americans together and that didn't exactly last long. There was no mass republican voting support for anti-Trump positions last time, now aligned under the Lincoln Project.

https://lincolnproject.us/

On betting... odds are formed by those betting. A Trump win in 2016 looked unlikely according to bets so I thought his 5 to 1 against odds for a win then were excellent value even though I expected Clinton to just win. This time I think the odds on Biden are the better value at 2 to 1 on. Please bet if you are confident as you still stand to win well.

https://www.oddschecker.com/insight/politics/20201026-2020-us-election-odds...

In reply to RentonCooke:

Really! I live in Mass and I think I see lawn signs 5:1 in favor of Trump.. Polling is private. Emails, phone calls etc. That reads like you have no idea of how polling works. It is not a public declaration.

In reply to Offwidth:

Last time it was almost a statistical tie in the final few days, within the margin of error. 538 had it down to a 67% chance of a Clinton victory with a week to go, that's a 2 in 3 chance.  It did bounce back to ~75%. 

They looked at past polls and considered Clinton still ahead, but in 2016 not many voted early. This year almost 80 million have voted while Biden is leading in the polls (outside the margin of error). Maybe they will narrow as conservatives return to Trump. 

If Biden loses the polls were certainly wrong this year. In 2016 they weren't that wrong, they said Trump could win, there was volatility in the polls. This year is more consistent. 

The crucial points this year are:

1. No credible third party options. We've not had them on TV, not in the debates or anything. Millions less will vote for the third parties. In 2016 Stein (green) and Johnson (libertarian) were always in the news. This year I doubt more than 20% of the population know the name of the candidates for the green and libertarian parties.

2. There are millions less undecided voters. Last time millions made their decisions late and opted for Trump largely. 

In reply to Removed Userwaitout:

But they are also publishing voices predicting real trouble in that event https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2020/10/23/lawrence-douglas-on-what...

If Trump takes this route and we've little cause to doubt he would, it'll take exemplary judgement and a very steady hand to avoid creating a situation without a peaceful resolution available. In the Trump clan we don't see much of those traits. I guess we'll have to see what the Senate looks like and where its loyalty ultimately lies when tested.

jk

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Sure. That's why I think Trumps current odds of 2 to 1 against are pretty mean (I see the chances as a lot less than that) and at this time in 2016 that 5 to 1 against position was a great way for liberal betting experts to ease any pain (the odds should have been more like 2 to 1 a week out).

In reply to jkarran:

Even the Republican Senate leader is hinting the Democrats will take the Senate.

This is the latest 538 line  74% chance of Democrats taking the Senate

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-senate-races-where-democrats-have-...

In reply to Offwidth:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-biden-election-map/

yeah, this map shows how it must go for Trump.

Assuming Biden wins Michigan, Minnesota and Wisonsin he just has to win one of North Carolina, Texas, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Florida. But they are all close. If Trump wins them all he eeks out a victory. But he also must hold Ohio, Iowa.

It's very much in play though.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

I will be interested to see how Jorgensen does. I got a feeling that a lot of Republicans voted for Johnson, because whilst they found Trump distasteful, they could not bring themselves to vote for Clinton. For a lot of Republicans, the Libertarian position is probably much nearer to them ideologically than Trump. I guess if you are in a solidly Republican state and looking to try and shape the future of the Republican Party post defeat, support for Jorgensen could have that secondary purpose.

In reply to Alkis:

Depends on your news sources. If you are tuned only to relatively mainstream or left leaning news, you'd no doubt be led to believe the threats are one-sided.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

I think you underestimate the degree to which people are being pursued for stating preferences that just a few years ago were open for discussion. It is entirely reasonable that people will refuse to register their true feelings.

As for the lawn signs, it's not the 5 you need to be thinking about. It's the absent 1, 2 or 3 others not being raised.

In reply to RentonCooke:

I don't see that and I live in a democratic state. Most of my students in my advisory are openly conservative and this is a super liberal school.

Trump supporters have always been the vocal minority. But they were motivated to vote. 

I also think you and a few others are ignoring the blue wave of 2018. The GOP have been consistently outvoted at every election - even the one Trump won, but especially so in 2018.

In reply to RentonCooke:

Such as what? I can't  remember isolating children, white supremacy and sexual assault being open for discussion previously, but maybe I am forgetting. 

In reply to RentonCooke:

Supporting Trump is not a rational position; he is an evil and stupid b*stard with no redeeming features. That's it really.  

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

It's isn't a rational position, indeed. It's an emotional one.

Right-wing populism does not have a rational basis for its support, and you discount that at your peril. There is no point other than entertainment in listing Trump's faults and inconsistencies; he is right, and you are wrong - that's how it works. A voting majority of the USA have said they like a strong leader who insists he is right, wants to promote America internationally, and protects their freedoms. They may do so again.

It's not as if we don't have a similar problem on this side of the pond, however fortunately we just have an idiot who pretends he's Churchill and more or less fails, rather than a top celebrity who is an absolute expert in social messaging and has a truly astonishing degree of self-belief.

In reply to Offwidth:

I never said he could, I said he will contest them aggressively to the nth degree. I agree he can't legally overturn full wins in both voting counts, butbegardless of legality, he will entertain every method he can to because legal process is not something he has a record of respecting. Expect to find out about methods of dispute you've never thought about before, tried and then dumped when seen to fail, a new one tried after.

Biden may well win, I hope he does, rather I just hope Trump loses. But the battle here won't be over who wins, it will be over who concedes.

In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Precisely this.

In reply to jkarran:

To my eye The Economist's agenda is not the same as their polling data, the overlap is in hopefully selling a good model they can use in the future. Another poster described it as 'experimental' which I think fits. It's a good election to try out new data analysis methods, especially the meta-style stuff that social media has driven to the fore recently.

Very much so I agree, he has a cadre around him with years of manipulating government process for private agendas. They are also well versed in generating unrest as a way of consolidating followings.

I don't take off the table the very small possibility that he just walks, he has precedence for abandoning a lot of his big issues too. I won't be surprised if he contests things hotly, eventually via twitter from his golf club HQ whilst the heavy work is done in Washington by his team, and then he just goes quiet. If he's going to concede, it won't be respectfully, I think he will just tune out like he did with the wall.

I think too, when he's gone, the frenzy in the Senate will be the thing to watch. A Stalinesque degree of finger pointing and paper shredding.

In reply to freeflyer:

 "A voting majority of the USA have said they like a strong leader who insists he is right, wants to promote America internationally, and protects their freedoms. They may do so again."

They didn't.. it was a quirk of the electoral college. A historically unpopular candidate lost by a smattering of votes across crucial swing states. Most voters wanted Clinton and in 2018 by far more voters opted for Dem candidates.

In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Yeah, it's scary looking at it. Biden should win but in the crucial states he needs one of he's only up by a few points and within or just outside the margin of error. The math definitely favors Trump, Biden has to win by around 4+ % of the vote to take the EC. Trump has to run the grid and win all these states which are basically in the lap of the gods, but he did that in 2016.. He certainly can do it again.

In reply to Removed Userwaitout:

Also terrifying that I'm not alone in worrying about this possibility. Leader in exile, that may be what we see.... It's much easier to take potshots when you don't have any responsibility as well.

If it will take more than four years to get the US back on track... well then I must admit I don't really see a good outcome. The only good outcome I can see, would require an overturning of old institutions for more democracy unlike anything seen in the last 100 years (e.g. expand the supreme court, huge changes to the electoral college, make election day a public holiday). Without drastic changes to these, then the democracy is probably dead and 2020 was the last twtich.

In reply to SenzuBean:

The Supreme Court is a massive issue. I'm not sure how it can be depoliticized. Somehow it needs massive reform and so does the EC. But it's possible the Dems win all 3 houses. There has been massive voter turnout and energy. But in terms of voter turnout its going to be 65% which is comparable to a good turnout in the UK.

TBH I'm more hopeful of the US than the UK though. The UK is rapidly becoming an international backwater and is far from a great example. This food safety issue is just one example.

I think the US democracy is far from dead. In fact I'm hopeful it shows it's very much alive. People like AOC show how things can change.

We're at a crucial time though, it will be fascinating how the GOP realign should they lose badly, which likes very possible.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Interesting pattern in RentonCooke’s posting history. I am not saying there is anything wrong with this but they registered in June 2020 and aside from non-archived “The Pub” posts, everything has been a contribution to some sort of political discussion in the Off Duty forum 

In reply to Roadrunner6:

But will the Dems do enough? It looks to me that there's been so much voter suppression that in swing states that it's going to have a massive effect (e.g. Texas and the lack of poll booths). Luckily there are lawsuits to handle the voter suppression... oh wait, many of them end up in the same legal system where Trump has appointed more appeals court judges in a term than any president ever has: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/apr/28/donald-trump-judges-create-... (honestly read that article, absolutely terrifying) ... oh and the highest appeals end up in the Supreme court with a supermajority of republican judges....

Having good candidates is only half the solution. Having them able to be elected in a fair process is the other. I'm very concerned about the latter.

In reply to SenzuBean:

I can envision conservative media channels having airing him as a guaranteed asses-on-seats assets, where he gets to snipe at the current administration under freedom of speech and play along with whatever conspiracies emerge. He'll pick through statistics to rant about how he'd have done it better etc. TV will love it all. It may not result in the GOP endorsing any of it openly, but conservatives probably won't discard it either.

I agree, the heavy lifting to be done on US democratic process is probably past the point of being possible, though I don't think this spike in events is to blame any more than decades of complacency as it just dribbled away without mention. Fundamentally the constitution is flawed as it never was to implement Democracy as we now know it, and that will never change.

I have the feeling our lifetimes will just see more of the same. Like guns, this is what it is now and more will fight it than for any change. Evolution of things like the Supreme Court and the College will effect small changes, I don't think it will be as big as we all hope it could be, as in the end the country isn't as interested in it's own democracy as it is in installing it elsewhere.

I think it's big picture politics in the Political Science sense, ie management of populations. A semi-modern state of 300m diverse yet disparate people and industries more powerful than it's governing system is finding the strains of what is sustainable. A big problem the US has is the unwillingness to adapt and adopt other models, however functional they could be. You have enough people more OK with the Russian model of democracy than the Swiss, Japanese or Australian, so it's not like there's much option for future choices.

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Possibly just another refugee from Supertopo. The political discourse here is pretty good compared to many other non-dedicated forums.

In reply to Removed Userwaitout:

Yep I agree, democratic party leadership are complicit in this great dribbling decline.

To chuck my few cents in there - I think the only proper solution lies in the partial breakup of the US. I think the Western States Pact should be the start of a new 'country' (maybe it even is - who knows what they're doing behind closed doors). California by itself would be the 5th largest economy in the world (supposedly). The start would be by withholding federal taxes. The one weakness of the current US system (if it indeed turns as sour as I fear) is that many of the republican voter states are net receivers of federal aid (e.g. the worst is Indiana).

The reason I think this is feasible, is because the federal government is creating so much internal 'friction' within the US that it is destroying vast amounts of wealth and yet-to-be-earned wealth. Not everyone rich and powerful will keep making a fortune in the near future - because of lost business opportunities due to lack of competitiveness (how can you compete longer term with a functional Eastern economy that isn't burning 15% of its energy on fighting itself?) and once that becomes acutely apparent, we'll see big changes.

In reply to SenzuBean:

Yep, there's no way out with heavy lifting. Partition is an interesting option, though for economic reasons is pretty much without precedence (Singapore maybe?).

It reminds me of the Withnail & I quote about holding on to a rising balloon....

In reply to RentonCooke:

My news source is Trump's Twitter account. Is it left-biased liberal propaganda too?

In reply to SenzuBean:

Why is that terrifying? During the Bush years, and for much of Trump, democrats have been describing the president as illegitimate. Likewise the SC nomination. The entire legitimacy of the office has repeatedly been questioned and it almost goes without saying that civil unrest will be the result of a Trump re-election. It is also entirely likely that mail-in ballots will end up a matter for the courts and until such time as their legitimacy is resolved, Trump (who relies less on mail-in ballots) will hold a larger share of the vote than he will after they are counted. Should he step down before they are confirmed?

The situation that horrifies you is just as visible on the Democrat side and the bleak picture you paint of democracy is neither recent nor leaves Republicans unaffected. The Republicans however have a fair argument to claim partisanship has deeper reach in opposition to them, given the overwhelmingly left-leaning media and university and cultural institutions. This can backfire. The Hunter Biden issue as an example, whereby its pretty clear one side won't even touch it, may well galvanize Republican support.

In reply to RentonCooke:

The Hunter Biden issue. You mean the issue based on a fabricated intelligence report, published by a fabricated intelligence company, written by a fabricated investigator and heavily circulated around the right wing web. That Hunter Biden issue,  I was reading a report on it this morning on MSNBC.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Let's hope the system gets it right this time. Populism is a thing though - what to do.

In reply to Offwidth:

see the ted talk link above.

In reply to RentonCooke:

"Why is that terrifying? During the Bush years, and for much of Trump, democrats have been describing the president as illegitimate. Likewise the SC nomination."

Hold on, the SC is because they blocked hundreds of obama's appointees and then said, on record, they would not seat a supreme court justice in the election cycle, then did.

The beauty of it is it may well have cost Lyndsey Graham his senate seat.

This left leaning media bollox. How much is Rush Limbaugh worth? Fox News is the most well watch news program on US TV. It's basically state TV. The conservative media is a multi billion dollar industry for a reason..

And re Hunter.. using his family name to get deals abroad. It's laughable. It is all the Trump family has done this whole presidency. FFS she's listed as a scientist for the pandemic response, she makes bloody handbags... 

Re a Trump election causing civil unrest.. like the Tea Party riots when a black man got in power...

In reply to ablackett:

I did. The presenter makes it clear that can only happen in close results. At 3% difference  in a state the political party quite simply won't be able to support the attempt (as the presenter says). Bush vs Gore went to law because results were incredibly close in Florida.

I agree with Roadrunner6 when he says " Assuming Biden wins Michigan, Minnesota and Wisonsin he just has to win one of North Carolina, Texas, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Florida. But they are all close. If Trump wins them all he eeks out a victory. But he also must hold Ohio, Iowa.It's very much in play though."  ..what I would add is that combination in probability terms for a clear Trump win looks like winning 5 coin tosses.. its possible but not highly likely. I do think the probability enough races are probably won by Biden but too close to concede is significant.

The presenter is a bit dishonest about the cleanness of US elections in that history shows gerrymandering has a long tradition with  both parties being guilty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering_in_the_United_States

In reply to Blue Straggler:

I've been open about the reasons I'm here and if you are going to trawl through my posting history you'll find them.

But if my mildly challenging contrary posts are going to lead anyone down a rabbit hole of questioning my motives, to the point screen captures are necessary, then perhaps the wrong questions about Trump's success are being asked?

I left this forum a long time back largely because of the vitriol heaped on anyone with a pro-Brexit or pro-Tory standpoint. I support neither by the way. Having been a UKC poster dating back to before the Iraq invasion threads, that's saying something for how the quality of discussion and tolerance to what should be entirely acceptable divergent opinion has shrunk.

So if you're going to cast aspersions about my motives, I can say from experience of hindsight and absence that these forums have become an unpleasant echo chamber, devoid of wide-ranging thought, and a shadow of their former self.

It appears nearly all the moderate, right/conservative, or simply devils-advocate voices have buggered off. And who can blame them? What remains probably see the loss of those annoying and challenging voices, representing some 50% of the population, as a win. But, like boiling frogs, those same people have likely missed the evident decline of tolerance and diversity (diversity....who would have thought?) in what used to be a vibrant space for discussion.

It perfectly encapsulates the US, and increasingly UK, political landscape being discussed right here.  Closing oneself off in safe spaces, being unquestioningly spoon-fed vitriol about the other side and nothing but cheer-leading about your own. Unable to accept that the other side may not just have a point, but an entirely valid one. And mindblown that those people you never speak to in daily life, or see represented as caricatures on CNN, exist in such numbers. 

We've been here before. Clinton. Corbyn. Brexit. The UKC readership reaction to these setbacks a broken record. The opposition's victory taken as evidence of just how far a nation has fallen, the spread and depth of the majority's moral failings, paranoid proof of malign influences at work, followed by a doubling down on the contrary voices and their eventual departure. Introspection and that all too important question of 'Maybe we have been getting it wrong, or are the problem?' entirely absent. Hopefuly this time, if we get a Trump victory, the reaction might be different. But I have virtually zero faith in that, despite it being the only thing that will win back a massive and vital tranche of former allies who have decided the lesser of two evils is not necessarily a Democrat.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Is it illegitimate? While we're at it, perhaps you can explain why no supermajority was needed for the appointment and whether Democrats have not done the same?  US political history did not begin with Obama.  ACB is a brilliantly capable Justice, her speech on the separation of powers and what that means for partisan stances by SC appointees well worth a listen, and just because she hold a personal position of a devout Catholic that in no way should bar her from appointment by a standing president and senate than if she were a Muslim. Besides, even if she wanted to overturn Roe V Wade, so what?

Rush Limbaugh, a has-been on his last legs with cancer and one TV network?  CNN, MSNBC and a host of others are virtual mouthpieces for the Democrats.

Or, https://twitter.com/MaajidNawaz/status/1319301143839866881?s=20

Great. The Democrat rank and file are the new Tea Party movement and the Biden family the Trumps all over again. They've become the very thing people hated the Republicans for. Isn't that just progress. 

In reply to RentonCooke:

When people vote for something that has an immediate detrimental effect on my life and my livelihood with questionable benefit to their own, don't blame me if I tell them to go f*** themselves.

In reply to Alkis:

Took the words out of my mouth...

In reply to RentonCooke:

How did they bar her appointment exactly? They didn't.

One TV Network? Fox is the biggest news Network on cable TV.

Rush, Levin, Hannity and many more. Conservative talk radio is massive and you know it. Name me a big time Dem radio star? It's just not a thing. Progressive Talk radio is a shadow of what conservative radio is.

And that's fine because we live in a free country.. People want Talk Radio haha suddenly the free market should be dictated so it's 50-50 controlled by the state. It's incredible how Conservatives are all for free market unless they don't win.. Over 50% of the country vote for the democrat so there is more of a market for that news, if that's what they want to watch. If not go and make a TV network. That's what capitalism is..

In reply to RentonCooke:

You ignore that the republicans were slaughtered in 2018. They aren't getting it wrong. Even bloody Alabama elected a democrat.

Re the majority.. again it was never was a majority who supported Trump.

In reply to RentonCooke:

Who? Which former allies want Trump?

He's an international laughing stock.. 

In reply to The New NickB:

https://www.npr.org/2020/10/30/929077049/final-npr-electoral-map-biden-has-...

A pretty good summary. Biden is favourite but a path still exists for Trump to win.

In reply to RentonCooke:

Let's have a look at the Hunter Biden emails.

An intelligence report detailing links between Hunter Biden and the Chinese Communist Party was published on the Intelligence Quarterly website on 3rd September. The report was written by Swiss Security Anylist Martin Aspen for Typhoon Investigations.

On 22nd October, Christopher Balding, formerly Associate Professor at Peking University HSBC Business School Shenzhen published the report on his blog stating that "an individual I have known for better half of a decade .... had written a research report for a client worried about the political risk that involved background on the Biden's in China".

The New York Post published an article stating that they had come in to the possession of incriminating material taken from Hunter Biden's laptop, via a Delaware Computer Repair Shop owner. The laptop is now in the possession of the FBI.

Gnews.org published an article showing direct links between the Biden family and the Chinese Communist Party.

All seems pretty damning. However, this isn't the full story.

Intelligence Quarterly have now taken the report down from their website. The reports author, Martin Aspen, does not appear to exist. Typhoon Investigations doesn't not appear to exist either.

Christopher Balding has since admitted to writing at least some of the report himself.

Gnews.org is owned by Guo Wengui, a billionaire who fled China before he could be arrested for corruption, rape and kidnapping, but more importantly is a close friend and business associate of Steve Bannon and a member of Trump's Mar-a-Largo resort. The links on Gnews.org are diagrams lifted directly from the Martin Aspen/Typhoon Investigations report.

"Hunter Biden's Laptop" was provided to the FBI by Rudy Giuliani, presumably also the source of the incriminating material provided to the New York Post.

October surprise anyone!

In reply to The New NickB:

It's just not credible.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/security/how-fake-persona-laid-groundwork-hunt...

They admit they made up the persona. Maybe it is true but when you've lied about having Obama's birth certificate, that he's being arrested for spying on Trumps campaign, sharing edited videos of Biden (and still do) and god knows what else nobody believes you outside of your own echo chamber.

Maybe it is all true, I seriously doubt it, but if so it's boy who cried wolf.. "OK I lied the other 26 times but this time it's true, but yeah I made parts of it up"

In reply to Roadrunner6:

It's not true. It's not even a very good fabrication. "Hunter Biden's Laptop" might lead to a lot of legal problems for Rudy Giuliani.

In reply to The New NickB:

What year is it... still 2020? Trump for the win.  There is always the old don’t bet against stupid which is how I called it last time

Cheers

Toby

In reply to RentonCooke:

I didn’t cast any aspersions. I wrote, clearly and unambiguously, that there is nothing wrong with what you are posting. 

In reply to RentonCooke:

I was with you 90% until this bit.

So what? Because R v W is a liberty issue that has become a political fulcrum that's short hand for religious conservatism vs being a modern state that actually does separate religion from state. The very threat that R v W could be repealed is one of the things that makes the US an unpredictable joke on the world stage.

The problem with ACB isn't her Republicanism it's her conservatism, and that's what's got her in there. She is short term politicking for electioneering that will now have long term effects. It's the GOP at it's worst.

All up, I think this election has bought out the best in US politics. The way maverick Republicans have stood against Trump's faction hijacking their party has been awesome. They've chosen to side Democrat, albeit with a very Republican friendly Democrat, over a bigger issue than party. Find me five Democrats who would do the same.

There's no point trying to fix US politics until religion is sufficiently separated, and that's impossible in our lifetimes. Even a half life on it is still decades away. Religion pervades both parties like cancer, either the spineless tolerance of it or the belligerent advocacy of it. It breeds conservatism on both sides, there's no true radicalism in US politics discounting the evil elements that go with nationalism. 

In reply to RentonCooke:

What utter bollocks that fools no-one.

So you'd like a safe space where you don't have to be scrutinized...

More calls for a safe space. We don't, and should never tolerate intolerance (see paradox of tolerance).

It's not a safe space if anyone can say what they like here is it? The only one clambering to ask for their speech to be unattacked is you, because your ideas are weak and don't stand up to scrutiny.

I thought about it, but it didn't take long until I realized that letting almost 1% of the population die from coronavirus, let the rest of the poor people starve, waffle what little public money remains into friend's pockets, and then pretend none of that is happening - means I'm not the problem.

In reply to SenzuBean:

^ 0.1% (almost 1/1000) of the population.

In reply to SenzuBean:

The idea that someone who is both a Remainer and a Lib.Dem/Labour voter found the manner in which their side debated here with Tories and leavers distasteful is preposterous to you?

Therefore I can only be a lier? 

And I'm the problem here?

No. I just find it weird that anything I've posted here results in someone screen-capturing and posting my profile history, layered with some sort of rhetorical question about what my motives must be. 

Not after a safe-space. I thought that would be clear. This goes back a while and has got worse - the venom spat at one side of the spectrum was utterly out of whack with the tone coming in the other direction. Its almost as if one side honestly believes they are morally righteous so anything is justified. Yet people are surprised former lefties have jumped ship?

Attack away.  But, for fear of sounding like your mother, perhaps look at the way you deal with contrary viewpoints and think whether you would like your own to be addressed that way. It's not asking much.

In reply to RentonCooke:

Not all. Im a centre right moderate but we have nothing like a moderately centre right government right now either here or the US. Trump needs to go, and so does Boris. The Tories have damanged this country over COVID and Brexit and not one individual will be held to account and that really angers me. 

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

Likewise.

In reply to RentonCooke:

"Unable to accept that the other side may not just have a point, but an entirely valid one."

No, Trump largely doesn't have valid points.

His latest allegation is that medics like my wife and her colleagues are frauduantly filling out death certificates with Covid as a cause of death to get more money.. these aren't political differences. It's not a 'lets agree to disagree' moment. I dont think we should try to see his point, he's deliberately lying again. And insulting thousands of medics at the same time. His views just should not be seen as credible in many instances. 

In reply to Roadrunner6:

......as he adds to an estimated 700 deaths due to lack of precautions at his election rallies.

https://www.vox.com/2020/10/31/21543277/trump-rallies-covid-19-deaths-super...

In reply to Removed Userwaitout:

There's far more to Roe V Wade though than personal liberty. Liberty allows me complete freedom. But it carries obligations to not physically harm others. You can't ignore the awkward question of the silent second party in the abortion equation. The unborn child.

ACB might be a devout conservative. But she couldn't have been clearer on where she stands on opinion versus legal principle at her confirmation hearing -  youtube.com/watch?v=Qi8yZdOmESE&t=815. Well worth a listen.

The fear that a weighted SC will automatically rule in the direction the judges' political viewpoints doesn't seem well-founded, especially when it comes to repealing rights, and it's worth looking at who appointed the judges and which way they voted when Roe v Wade was approved. The case being pushed by Democrats, that the court should be packed because they don't like the balance, is far more dangerous. What is then to stop a Republican (who could have packed it themselves) then seeing carte blanche to do the same? It will only backfire. 

I say a repeal of R v W is no great drama as people seem to assume that R v W secured abortion rights. It didn't. It simply over-ruled states' rights and a repeal does nothing to prevent keeping abortion on the books, all the way up to nine months if they like. The beauty of the American system is it acknowledges in a country of its size, different regions will have different views on issues, and you can remain an American while choosing to live in states whose laws most appeal to you. Just like the euthanasia debate, there are two sides to the story and its an entirely decent thing, and a very useful safe-guard, that different countries or states have different policies on the issue. Diversity is good, especially when you start playing around with policies of life or death that you might find, despite best intentions, turn out to be deeply flawed.

The counter case is that this will make it more difficult to obtain an abortion in some areas. I'm not sure that's a bad thing. If that is deemed sufficiently problematic then there are no shortages of wealthy liberals who could create charities to fly-in, house, and pay for the abortions of women from anti-abortion states if necessary. I would expect if this does occur then a plethora of charities would emerge with hundreds of millions in donations to ensure this happened. 

The old argument, where a religiously dogmatic anti-abortion stance holding life begins at conception was pitted against a libertarian stance introducing progressive rights for women for the first time, was lost by the religious-right decades ago and rightly so. The argument has moved on and is more sophisticated now. It's now between conservatives arguing a moral-ethical case based on inalienable rights of a living human against an increasingly absolutist argument that places the wishes of a mother as fundamental and total. If you want an abortion the second before your baby is born, that choice is yours as it trumps any inalienable right an unborn child may have. You don't have to have picked a horse in the race to see shortcoming here. Until progressives take a more nuanced stance on this issue, and step back from the 'anything less than "more" is unfair', they are laying the ground for blow-back - of the sort that saw Trump elected and may well see him re-elected.

Abortion simply isn't that straight forward. 1 abortion for every two live births for African American women is a good thing? What about the 37 million 'missing women' in China?  Why in one case, simply on account of the sex of the baby, would so many people be against a women's first-trimester choice, whereas a woman's choice for equally frivolous reasons in a 2nd or 3rd trimester be deemed a matter for nobody but the mother? There's an incongruity.

Don't get me wrong. I've loved the idea that my girlfriend, my wife, or my sister have access to an abortion. I've been pretty damn scared much of my life at the prospect of a partner getting pregnant and not having access to an abortion. But do my fears of inconvenience, financial cost, or loss of all my life plans and dreams carry more weight than a right to life of a person who doesn't have a say? In the first trimester, maybe. In the second or third, 'my body my choice' starts to look like a massive abrogation of responsibility in all but the most urgent and serious of medical cases.

As always, there's a discussion to be had. Democrats seem to think that discussion, and therefore dissent, on this issue is a moral failing.

In reply to Offwidth:

What was Vox's count of the estimated deaths resulting from the BLM/statue-toppling rallies? Or are they different?

In reply to RentonCooke:

Don't know if anybody has done the same estimate but they were different - mostly masked and entirely outdoors.

In reply to RentonCooke:

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/20/us/linking-drop-in-crime-to-rise-in-abor...

https://www.pc.gov.au/research/supporting/strengthening-evidence/28-appendi...

The irony of this is the Republican zero tolerance stance of sleaze bag Guiliani had little to no effect on crime in New York in retrospect but the democratic pro choice Roe v Wade had a significant affect.

In reply to RentonCooke:

"Abortion simply isn't that straight forward. 1 abortion for every two live births for African American women is a good thing?"

Lower abortion, allow healthcare.

It's why abortions were lowest under Obama, a democrat president. But Republicans aren't pro-life, we all know that. ALready 10-20 million have been kicked off their insurance.

My wife is an oncologist and sees many with advanced uncurable cancers who would have lived in a progressive society.

In reply to elsewhere:

Yes, the BLM protests were largely masked and outside, and often spaced. I dont doubt there was some spreading but they weren't the super spreading events we saw at the white house or at rallies.

In reply to RentonCooke:

This is odd. There is no debate the GOP want. They HAVE reduced access to abortions. They don't want a discussion over it. How can you seriously suggest that is their aim? 

They believe life starts at conception and all life is sacred (sorry all white lives).

You should watch Just Mercy if you want to see how sacred life actually is for them...

In reply to RentonCooke:

Less that 1% of abortions in the US take place after 21 weeks, which is well in the 2nd trimester. If you think that women are having abortions for 'frivolous reasons' in the 3rd trimester you've clearly never met or spoken to someone who's had an abortion that late. The overwhelming majority of 3rd trimester abortions are people whose babies have significant medical issues, usually fatal diagnoses. Their choice is to terminate the pregnancy or to go through a live birth of a child who will die, in pain, in their arms or live a life of suffering and incapacity. How is forcing women to go through that experience pro-life or Christian in any way, shape of form?

In reply to Roadrunner6:

They're not pro-life, they're just pro-foetus. Any idea that they might value lives ends at the point of birth, otherwise they might actually feel compelled to fix the broken healthcare system and support people.

In reply to RentonCooke:

Your extensive reply is appreciated and I agree with your basics, just not the outcome.

Yes, R v W is not the definitive word on abortion, which makes it's existence as an ideological ping pong ball all the more repulsive. Repealing, or alluding to repealing, is no more than propaganda used to stir up conservative, often religious, hysteria. That is a moral failing. In a modern state any dissent based on religious position is a moral failing.

As so often happens, conservatives act like pro-liberty rulings make them compulsory, often because they reference them in a fanatical context. Freedom of abortion doesn't make it compulsory any more than gay marriage does, obviously. It doesn't criminalize those of conservative or religious beliefs who want to carry babies through. But the reverse does, or tries to. That is a moral failing pretty much by definition.

The bigger scale problem with things like R v W, gay marriage, drug decriminalization etc, all liberties, is that turning them into ideological fulcrums never lets places like the US really move forward. Decades on, personal liberties are still held hostage based on the threat that someone will try and take them away again. That's how China works.

The matter of the term of the unborn child is one of medicine and science, another argument. Most other first world countries know this now, and the US not filing it away as done isn't because of exceptionalism it's because of backwardism for political gains.

In reply to Toby_W:

Trump for the stay certainly. If this doesn't all end in widespread bloodshed America has got off lightly.

jk

In reply to RentonCooke:

It was Stanford Uni's count, not Vox (they just reported it without a pay wall or requirement to register....if centre right leaning media was less paywalled I'd always use them in preference as it reduces accusations of bias from my centre left position). I'm sure you could estimate deaths in BLM protests but as others have pointed out the individual risks were likely much lower and people knowingly chose to take that risk as it was politically vital to them (rather than in these rallies, under Trump assisted ignorance or denial of risk).

In reply to RentonCooke:

I see who you are now. Explains a lot.

In reply to MG:

Trump supporters just tried to run the biden campaign bus off the road in texas. One car struck the car of a biden staffer. Trump's tweeted support.

It's not created uproar.

It really does encapsulate where we are and how the moral fabric has gone.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Trump supporters tried to run a Biden campaign bus off the road. Neither Biden nor Harris were on board.

Police, when asked by Biden supporters, provided an escort for the bus.

The FBI are investigating.

Same story with a different slant.

In reply to baron:

Same story with a different slant.

Wheres the different slant other than you left out the bit about trump tweet?

In reply to baron:

So in your world, attempting to shunt political opponents off the road is just fine?  And when the leader of the country tweets in support, you see mentioning this as "a slant"?

In reply to jethro kiernan:

My point exactly.

You can make a news story suit your own agenda by a careful use of words like Roadrunner did - ‘the Biden Bus’ sounds like a bus Biden was on when he wasn’t. ‘Didn’t cause an uproar ‘ - when the Internet is awash with people upset by the incident and the FBI are investigating.

Or you can alter the story by lying by omission - like I did when I didn’t mention Trump’s tweet.

In reply to baron:

I said biden campaign bus. Not biden bus. Youve deliberately put a slant on it.

You've also ignored the damage and tweet 

In reply to MG:

I don’t think my post said it was fine or in any way tried to justify the actions of the MAGA supporters or Trump himself.

Such actions are obviously not OK.

I was commenting on Roadrunner’s post and  I was suggesting that it’s possible to put a slant on many stories by using certain words and omitting some facts.

In reply to baron:

When did I say biden bus? You are accusing me of doing what you d just done. Was it the biden campaign bus?

You've even used quote marks when I didn't say that. That's a pretty shit move.

In reply to baron:

And I'm in the US and it wasn't a leading news story on any channel. Which shows how low we view him that such tweets are now just expected.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Sorry, I should have said ‘the Biden campaign bus’ - which on initially reading your post I assumed was the bus that Biden was on.

Believe it or not my misquote of your post was a genuine mistake and is maybe another way that news stories don’t always reflect the actual facts.

In reply to baron:

You were the one who omitted facts - the rather important one of Trump tweeting in support.  What words do you think made roadrunner's description slanted?

In reply to MG:

Well if I ignore my accidental misquote of ‘the Biden campaign bus’ - for which I will apologise again - we could use the assertion that the incident didn’t cause an uproar when a quick trawl of the internet reveals the condemnation of the events from numerous sources.

There was also no mention of the police being involved nor the FBI investigation - both of which I would suggest put a different slant on Roadrunner’s post.

In reply to baron:

You can make a news story suit your own agenda by a careful use of words like Roadrunner did - ‘the Biden Bus’ sounds like a bus Biden was on when he wasn’t. ‘Didn’t cause an uproar ‘ - when the Internet is awash with people upset by the incident and the FBI are investigating.

I can only assume you are trolling us, you put "Bidens bus" in quotes, but you were misquoting, as road runner had said the "Biden campaigns bus"  It appears your the only one implying that Biden was on the bus, talk about seeing what you want to see.

Dummies guide to Fox news reporting by our very own Baron

In reply to baron:

A quick scroll down the Washington Post homepage makes no mention of the incident or Trump's tweet.

In reply to baron:

https://nypost.com/2020/11/01/fbi-investigating-trump-train-swarming-of-bid...

https://thecanadian.news/2020/11/01/bidens-bus-is-holed-up-by-trumpists-fbi...

seems to be plenty of mentions of FBI looking into it. maybe we use different internets? 

In reply to jethro kiernan:

I read Roadrunner’s post and then googled the story.

When I replied to Roadrunner’s post I used the quotation marks to indicate the parts of his post that I was referring to.

I did indeed misquote Roadrunner who said Biden campaign bus and not, as I quoted Biden bus. This was an accident and will teach me to reread a post before replying to it.

The misquote in no way alters my point that it seemed, to me at least, that  from Roadrunner’s post it was a bus that Biden was on.

That’s a reflection of our existing biases - you hate Trump, I don’t.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Maybe you didn’t understand my post.

I was the one pointing out that the internet was awash with outrage and that the FBI was involved- two things missing from Roadrunner’s post.

In reply Baron

I’m more concerned about voter intimidation and the message it sends out when the president gives it a dog whistle thumbs up.

it is possible to have differing points of view politically and still meet in the middle acknowledge that voter intimidation and subverting democracy is wrong.

Not something you done throughout this thread

In reply to jethro kiernan:

This is the Internet, not just the internet but UKC.

Do you want everyone to have the same opinions as you or are you open to some form of discussion?

I was trying to show that while Roadrunner’s point was true it could be interpreted in different ways.

I point I obviously failed to make and not helped by me misquoting him.

Nowhere have I expressed support for the actions of the MAGA supporters and if you want I’ll openly state that I find their actions deplorable and I hope they are arrested and punished.

That Trump tweeted his support shouldn’t and didn’t come as a surprise - I’m only surprised that anyone actually reads his tweets.

In reply to baron:

Do you want everyone to have the same opinions as you or are you open to some form of discussion?
 

see we met in the middle 😀 to a little time to get there.

In reply to baron:

Well which is it? You  objected to a criticism of shunting people off the road. Then claimed there should be different opinions about it. Then agreed it's a bad thing after all and you share everyone else's opinion after all.

It's almost like you automatically, unthinkingly defend any autocratic rightwing behaviour and then don't have the courage of your convictions when challenged.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

indeed.

In reply to MG:

I was, unsuccessfully it seems, trying to demonstrate that it’s possible to present and interpret the same news story depending on one’s agenda.

If you can find me defending what took place against the Biden supporters then carry on but you won’t. It was an outrageous act.

I’m guessing that you are from the ‘if you don’t condemn it straight away then you must support it’ school of thought? If you’ve read my posts you’ll know it was how the MAGA attack was represented but mainly the reaction to it that I was contesting.

You should know from our Brexit debates how much courage I have in my convictions.

In reply to baron:

Trump's actually doubled down and said they were patriots and did nothing wrong. They rammed the car, physically collided, into cars associated with rival politicians. We're like some third world barely holding democracy. It's awful.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Does it surprise you that Trump defended these people?
Would you be surprised if some Trump supporters also defend these people?
But the US is a long way from losing democracy, tomorrow is Election Day where the people get to express their views on their presidents behaviour.

That wouldn’t happen in many countries around the world.

In reply to baron:

Really? The GOP just went to court to throw out 130,000 votes because the people voted from their car. We've just had the window of late votes reduced in another state. We are potentially losing 100,000's of votes. What else would you call that?

The demand that a winner is announced tomorrow by Trump? We have ALWAYS continued to count after the election.

Re Trumps supporters? No. The KKK support him.

Trump? Yes I expected more. TBH I am obviously in a minority but I don't think violence against political opponents is acceptable.

In reply to baron:

With the number of attempts at voter suppression and, at the other levels, gerrymandering of districts and so on, I think they are a tad closer than you think.

In reply to baron:

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump came out in favour of someone attempting to shoot either Biden or Harris - both he and his (MAGA) supporters seem to believe that manners and even the law shouldn't apply to them.

The US may be close to losing democracy, only after the election will we find that out.

The US is in some ways like too many countries around the world, in that the person the majority voted for as President frequently doesn't get in, and the incumbent, when they feel like it, can use the government as a political tool, including to prevent people from voting for an opponent, and, for all we know, rigging the Supreme Court with puppets that will fiddle the system to keep their side in.

I really do worry for the world if Trump manages to hang on, and for the US if he throws a tantrum between losing and Biden taking over.

In reply to fred99:

Even taking into account Trump’s attempts at voter suppression and even assuming those attempts are successful  the election shouldn’t be anything other than a walkover for Biden  given Trump’s appalling record in office.

That there is even the slightest of doubt about Biden winning says something but I’m not sure what.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

I don’t think that you are in a minority in finding violence against political opponents unacceptable. I hope that’s the majority view even if it’s a silent majority.

In reply to baron:

Impressive turn outs at Mr Ts ralleys. Loads of people and so few masks. Lucky hes had that covid thing. I assume most of his supporters are protected the same way?

Actually the vote being so close now it doesn't matter.  Symptoms will take longer than 1day to appear.

In reply to baron:

It revolts me.

It doesn't surprise me to see you blundering into a half arsed defence of this nonsense followed by the usual gradual climbdown though I'll never understand why.

You're not paying attention or you're endearingly naïve. Yes tomorrow is election day but tomorrow night is almost certainly the start of a long, dangerous and concerted effort to disregard those views or at least ensure they aren't heard clearly subverting the intent of that democratic process by abusing its mechanical flaws.

Elections happen the world over. Some are better than others.

jk

In reply to fred99:

Precisely this.

US democratic process ranks somewhere around the better countries in Africa and Central Asia, in a kind of Post Soviet stage that's stalled. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

Of course it's not directly Post Soviet like Georgia etc, but it's in a Post Soviet state of being lost in a world where it's major institutions have lost a degree of context they are engineered for. Without that to bookend things, the US functions like Mandela-era South Africa approaching Post-Farc Columbia.

Even if this is the largest turn out in their history it might only hit 60%. 120m eligible voters still won't have turned out. Not matter how much we want to blame the GOP for minimizing votes cast, the Democrats aren't doing much for it either and collectively Washington - the entity that produces this show - has never made progress on it.

Despite the mythology - and that's exactly what it is - that US democracy stems from Paine, Jefferson etc, the contemporary version doesn't. There's all the 'middle' era stuff simply getting the vote to the majority ie women, non-whites etc, but current their Democracy was brewed up between the wars and just after to produce international leaders at a level of the UK, Russia, Japan, Europe etc. All the hoopla is about maintaining flagship factors like economies and militaries to compete internationally. The internal state of the country takes second place. The race to stay top of some imaginary global competition supersedes everything else.

It's never really been a proper democracy, only ever democratic enough to foist as the counter to communism. The road show and vaudeville that is their endless campaigning is propaganda to broadcast to places like China to show how much more fun democracy is the same way they send us their propaganda of military parades. It's silly. Just as we don't see those parades of synchronized soldiers and missiles on big trucks and think "Wow, I want to live there" the Chinese and Russians don't see the US rallies and think the same.

All my adult life I've been in Political Science/International Relations and nearly everything is against the wallpaper of the fall of communism, either the waves compressing up to it or the shock waves ever since. Pretty much anything big has that as it's major context, US elections especially.

edit; the best description I've heard of US democracy is a cargo cult Big Man lording over a population with Stockholm Syndrome.

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Dismissed in a day by a Republican appointed judge. Hanen is an interesting guy; pushed hard against Obama immigration policies that sound more like Trump policies. A good example of how far from black and white the whole thing can be.

In reply to jkarran:

I have no idea how you think I am defending Trump or the actions of his supporters in using violence or in suppressing voting. I’ve already said that these actions are unacceptable.

As I’m not defending him I don’t see how you think I am also engaged in a climb down.

You are assuming that there will be some objections to the election result and I agree that’s possible but it could come from either side. There may be violence but hopefully not.

There are precedents for long drawn out battles over election results in the US and, while unappealing, if a similar battle develops after tomorrow’s election it won’t be something that Trump has just introduced into the US system.

That’s not me defending Trump just me stating a fact.

I presume that your assuming that Trump will lose tomorrow?

In reply to Wainers44:

That’s President Trump to you!

At least until January - 2021 or 2025.

In reply to The New NickB:

Would like to see the end of Trump, would prefer a candidate without a chequered history of corporate corruption as Biden but would settle for the lesser of two evils in this case. 

This said I have backed Trump at the bookies as he is a ferocious campaigner and I think he is likely to win - surging crowds and high energy rallies in the final stages with mainstream polls forecasting defeat - feels a bit like 2016. 

In reply to GWA:

You’ll have to search long and hard to get a presidential candidate unsullied by the need for corporate money.

The advice given to rookie congress persons, the first thing you do when you sit behind your desk is get in the phone and getting hustling  for your reelection fund.

In reply to Removed Userwaitout:

And yet their FOI is great and at a local level their interest in local issues it is quite breathtaking.Town hall meetings are something to behold.

Sometimes you just have to remember there is alot of county and state politics which overrides anything done at a Federal level.

And when you have travelled through airports in times of crises and see everybody standing and applauding members of their armed forces( because every one knows these are people who are either first generation immigrants or come from deprived areas and they are serving their country) you know there is something special about the place.

Not saying its perfect( I have yet to meet an American who thinks it is). Far from it, but sometimes I think we should be in awe of some of it.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Yes quite right but it does not validate Bidens corrupt behaviour - this aspect of politics needs to change.  Trump is ultimately there because under a supposedly progressive two term Democratic president, wealth polarised and corporate power entrenched massively and Trump harnessed the vote from those who are under economic stress as a result.  

There won't be any progressive change while corporations hold the whip hand. 

In reply to jethro kiernan:

The amounts which get thrown around are insane.

Some of the senate seats had already spent more than the UK GE amount by the beginning of this year.

In reply to Removed Userwaitout:

Given all your experience it's a massive disappointment you would so exaggerate the problems with US democracy. The behaviour of the US as a superpower is more despite its democracy as due to it. That democracy index you linked is mathematical and methodological nonsense as like many league tables it is constructed by combining disimilar statistics and defines ridiculously hard category boundaries with no clear logic ( Portugal at 8.03 is a 'full democracy' and yet at 8.00 Korea is flawed...as are the next two on the list Japan at 7.99 and.the US at 7.96... it looks almost designed to embarrass those three countries)... in any case it  puts the US above many european countries including Belgium.

In reply to neilh:

Yes, I agree very much. The grass roots in the US is remarkable, and reminds me of grass roots China where the the people quite literally at the coal face have been good at getting on with things, as often in spite of the powers in the capital as because of them. And like China, Iran etc it's awful to see good people at the mercy of not-always-good government.

In reply to mondite:

About $14 billion.. that's more than the individual GDPs of a third of the countries in the world.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/28/2020-election-spending-to-hit-nearly-14-bil...

In reply to baron:

Because your first instinct with Roadrunner wasn't to just click like or explain why you think partisan violence has no place in a democratic process, it was repeatedly misleading (you later say mistaken) whataboutary which looks like an attempt to diminish the seriousness and deflect. When challenged you then post by post unwind your position until it's really not clear what you believe, what's trolling, what's instinct, what's core but it fits a pattern.

Hopefully not but as that hinges largely on the good character and judgement of both the president and the loser I wouldn't bet against it.

Not for a century at least. If you're thinking of Gore-Bush, that was over quickly in the grand scheme of things with Gore conceding as soon as the supreme court stood in his way. He didn't need to and I strongly suspect you're about to see how far this really can be escalated, how little the selection process ultimately looks like a democratic election if both are willing to stand their ground and see the legal process through.

It's quite possible despite a significant democrat majority public vote that a few weeks from now (after a lot of agro on the streets and behind closed doors) this ends up in the hands of a Democrat majority senate which will then pick the Republican president because votes are by state not representative, Democrat states are bigger but fewer. 

I think it's unlikely he'll win the popular vote if it gets counted properly. I don't know on a state by state basis. I don't discount the possibility his vote holds up very well despite everything, that's cults for you as we've learned to our terrible cost here too.

jk

In reply to Offwidth:

Shouldn't be a massive disappointment as 'all my experience' has never focused on the US, only ever the US as one of several counterpoints to other systems and some of their attributes. In that context  it isn't seen as an example of democracy to aspire to, rather a master work of salesmanship of a system to avoid. That almost no other nation uses the same system speaks for itself.

I think that table works fairly well. It displays the degree to which a population has an effect on it's government. Going by the EIU which I admit to having some familiarity with the vectors are pretty straightforward and of course not perfect, but a useful indicator, based on correlations between population motivations, corruption, industry manipulation and accountability. I admit though to being surprised that the US is behind Japan - Japan's nothing to write home about so being less effectively democratic than they are is not a good thing.

In reply to jkarran:

My response to Roadrunner’s post about the MAGA supporters attacking the Biden campaign bus was an attempt, not to defend those actions, but to try and point out how the use of certain words could influence a story.

I was spectacularly unsuccessful in that attempt, partly due to my misquoting Roadrunner, but to try and use that as an indication of my support for violence and intimidation is wrong. It’s the internet and it was an attempt to create a discussion not to promote my point of view. As it’s UKC maybe I should have known better.

I would have thought that any right minded individual would think they same way about what took place and therefore didn’t feel the need to state my condemnation.

You have continually analysed my posts on various topics in an attempt to establish something that doesn’t exist.

To make it perfectly clear, I hope - there is no place for violence, voter intimidation or voter suppression in the US (or anywhere else) and Trump is wrong not to denounce those actions.

In reply to baron:

The thing know you won't support this behaviour when challenged. Still, I wasn't in the least bit surprised to see you blundering in with the attempt to present it as something different, lesser, then the challenges then the argument that it was all rhetorical or that you were being ironic or sarcastic (not in this case but a common fallback). Like I said, I really don't get why you do it but it fits a pattern so was wholly unsurprising.

No but you did feel the need to present a misleading and frankly much less damning alternative view of the story which is just weird given the position you've fallen back to.

I listen to what you have to say and am frequently left confused.

Well there clearly is a place for those things, they're widely embraced. There shouldn't be.

Trump is a piece of shit, being wrong comes with the territory.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

I’m more than happy to receive criticism for anything I post on UKC. It’s not exactly the real world, is it?
I thought Roadrunner’s post was misleading and attempted to explain why. 

Sometimes I’ll be playing devil’s advocate so I wouldn’t take all of my posts as a true indicator of my real opinions or of actual facts.

Sometimes I make mistakes and errors but who doesn’t?

I could indicate which of my posts reflect my true feelings and opinions and which aren’t but does it really matter?

It’s a discussion on the internet between people with sometimes differing views. It would be easier to always agree with what someone posts but then UKC wouldn’t be the exciting place that it is.

In reply to Removed Userwaitout:

 

Wow, had not heard that one before! Harsh but true, even though I would add a sprinkle of religious nuttery.

CB

In reply to Removed Userwaitout:

If you think the table works well I give up as you are just plain ignorant on statistics. You can pick holes in any democratic system: even Norway on the top of that dumb table has had major political scandals and a lot of the noir drama from the country focuses on political linked corruption.

You don't seem to acknowledge the US can be a fairly typical but at times imperfect western democracy and its politicians and people can (and often do) exaggerate the quality of that democracy. US Democracy isn't just federal, those town halls you acknowledge are part of it.

In reply to :

Quite apart from the presidential election, I would suggest that the most undemocratic part of US politics is the Senate.

Here we have a situation where 50 states each have 2 Senators, no matter whether they have a population of less than 700k or greater than 63 million. We also have numerous groups completely unrepresented - Washington D.C. is well known, but the U.S. "colonies" are in the same boat.

I looked up the list, and the discrepancies are mindboggling.

And it's the Senate who have control over the likes of the Supreme Court. Isn't it about time the rules were changed so that some of these states had only 1 Senator, and the larger states had more. There must be a dozen or more states with a combined population less than New York.

I know that the situation is enshrined as an Amendment to the Constitution, but amendments can themselves be amended - or else the U.S. would still have prohibition for starters.

In reply to fred99:

The idea is so that those States with low populations like Montana are not effectivetly ruled by the more populated States such as CA. Otherwise CA plus a couple of others would control just about everything.Its a big country and that is their compromise.

In reply to neilh:

I had the political make up of the USA explained to me by an American. It makes far more sense than our set-up. House of Representatives, represents the people, Senate represents the states and the President is a mix so represents both. Albeit the appointment of the president bit is questionable, in terms of fairness.

Compared the UK’s setup the USA has the potential to be significantly more representative.

In reply to neilh:

Trouble is, at present the Senate is so unbelievably partisan as to be a (sick) joke.

A Senator from any of the 10 or so least populous states effectively represents around 400,000 persons each, whereas one from the largest; 32 million. Why should 31.6 million people (times 2) be effectively denied a voice.

And what about Washington D.C. and the "colonies"- no voice at all ?

At present the low populated states have far too much sway, and this can't be good for democracy.

Just imagine if the situation were transferred to the UK; St. Davids - 1 MP, Greater London - 1 MP. Does that not seem ridiculous ?

The Amendment that states 2 Senators per state came about eons ago in political and demographic terms - it should be revisited.

Any input from Roadrunner regarding the opinion of actual yanks ?

In reply to Graeme G:

The potential to be yeah. Sadly its a joke because 2/state is a joke when you have Wyoming and Vermont having as many senators as NY, TX, FL and CA.

It means nothing can change without those rural states by in. 

It makes sense, and I see the logic, but this system was set up 200 years ago when we didn't have millions living in the cities and so we know have massive inequity in political power in terms of the electoral college and senate.

I also think the politicization of the SCOTUS has further screwed the system. We are seeing attempts to win this election through legal fights after the GOP stacked the courts. 

When you say just vote and the people constantly vote and don't get what the majority want people will eventually turn violent. In the last 7 elections the republicans have won the popular vote once, yet won the election 3 times, whilst openly suppressing the vote.

In reply to fred99:

Depends which side of the fence you are on.

The right believe this is what the founders intended, so the country wasn't dominated by the cities. But in 1790 less than 10%. of the US lived in cities, now about 80%. And the founders created a living document so it can be changes.

I've had people can angry when I say the constitution can be changed (the name amendment is a clue..).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States

In reply to Roadrunner6:

No dispute as to how ‘unfit for purpose’ their system has become. But at least there is a pretence you have a voice, unlike two particular aspects of Westminster. 

They also have the potential to force change due to their ability to arm themselves. We’re just slaves to the machine.

Not that I’m in the market for an AR-14. Yet.

In reply to fred99:

This is not that different from the EU where both Germany and Cyprus have a single seat in the council. Two parts of the legislature with one part selection on a geographic area and another proportional to the population is quite a good system.

The problem is the two-party system in combination with winner takes it all.

In reply to baron:

Or more likely, in your urge to excuse the inexcusable, you forgot about the facts.

A common pattern in many of your interventions.

In reply to Alyson30:

You’re late to the party.

In reply to HansStuttgart:

The two party system is a massive part of the issue. I just can't see how that can be undone with the money and self interests involved. As much as I dislike McConnel he did a superb job for the GOP in controlling the senate, obstructing Obama and packing the courts.

It's easy to say well just vote for third parties or just introduce term limits but that isn't going to happen. 

I am amazed friends vote for the green party in swing states knowing the republicans do a huge amount of damage to the environment. I've a good friend who just voted libertarian, yet wants Government to control the pharmaceutical industry and set the price of insulin. He's literally just voted for the party to who want to abolish the FDA and want no regulation of pharma and also risked a trump win in a swing state - as someone on obamacare with diabetes, a pre-existing condition.

In reply to neilh:

I find it odd that USians are so terrified of the 'tyranny of the majority' but are somehow totally cool with the tyranny of the minority...

In reply to Roadrunner6:

It s a chicken and egg problem. One of the reasons it is not going to happen is that hardly anyone votes for third party candidates. FWIW, I'd vote 3rd party in the UK but not in the US, because my politics is in between LAB and CON and to the left of the democrats...

In reply to Roadrunner6:

If you want things to change and you aren't willing to launch an armed rebellion or able to live several lifetimes this is probably your best shot. It'll fail but we don't live long, we might as well try. 

Sorry, your friend doesn't seem to make good choices.

Jk

In reply to baron:

What are you on about ?

In reply to Alyson30:

This thread started in October and you’ve only just turned up.

What took you so long?

In reply to baron:

What is wrong with you, October was a week ago. Your last reply on Sunday. And my reply only ten minutes after the last post.

This is very clearly an active thread.

In reply to The New NickB:

Florida has gone red, it looks like it’s Trumps to lose now.

Bad night for pollsters.

In reply to mattmurphy:

I think I’ve woken up and watching Trump’s speech . I just hope I haven’t actually woken up

In reply to HansStuttgart:

Or even the situation in the Bundesrat in Germany itself where it's partially adjusted by population but heavily weighted towards the smaller lander, Bremen gets one vote per 220,000 people whereas Bavaria one vote per 2,000,000.

In reply to kevin stephens:

This looks like it might take days and possibly even months and looks severely dangerous to democracy. Trump lied during his speech saying he has won including winning states that still look to go to the democrats (as mail in ballots with big democratic advantages are being counted last and are going to take another day at least to count). He also said no more counting should happen which is appalling.

In reply to Offwidth:

The exit polls will be wrong. There will be some skew to the Dems, but not as much as suggested by the exit polls (consistent with in person voting).

Trump will win fair and square in the end - he’s just being an idiot while he waits.

In reply to The New NickB:

My vote for THE best headline this morning goes to the Daily Star:

"Old Fart Wins Election"

In reply to mattmurphy:

We knew that weeks ago; the question was by how much on those state polls. I'd say yet again turnout for Trump has unexpectedly improved over 2016 and he may have 'threaded the needle':  he is at least as likely to win clean now on current votes. However, the rust belt states will be close as most remaining votes still to be counted will strongly favour the Democrats. There could even be a score draw (when Trump will win). You can play with the scenarios here:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2020/oct/30/build-your-o...

It looks like Biden has won Arizona. In Michigan with the county swing on the current votes it looks like Biden has won. In contrast Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Georgia are too close to judge and Trump needs to win all three and could well do that. I'm assuming Biden wins Nevada and Trump North Carolina in that scenario.  If Biden only wins Wisconsin of those three marginals a 269 score draw is possible. 

In reply to The New NickB:

I'm feeling quite sickened - if only we could have someone back as good as Nixon!

In reply to Alyson30:

It is very clearly an active thread but it doesn’t usually take you so long to give us the benefit of your wisdom.

Have you been busy?

In reply to Offwidth:

Biden will surely get Wisconsin -ahead with 96% votes counted

Georgia looks very close - unless you listen to Trump's previous campaign director for Georgia- Seth Weathers (BBC1 ~9:30) -quite a character

In reply to baron:

Yeah! come on, you're not allowed to be busy with other things in your life, get a grip FFS!

In reply to Cobra_Head:

😀

In reply to Offwidth:

It’s looking a bit closer now.

Georgia looks especially tight given Atlanta (strongly Dem) hasn’t all been counted yet.

Wisconsin will go to the Dems (after a recount), but I still think Pennsylvania will go red (I can’t see Biden closing the gap).

It might all depend on Michigan.

In reply to mattmurphy:

"With the future and democratic reputation of the American republic hanging in the balance, this is not an occasion for bombast. Rather it is time to reach humbly in the darkness, seeking only to summon such measured words as convey the intense dignity of this moment. In short, I think we all feel the hand of history on our pussies."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/nov/04/ok-america-so-what-th...

In reply to Clauso:

Well it’s after 9am on the east coast now.

Surely the counters have had a chance to eat some weetabix and can crack on with the counts.

Hopefully we’ll have a result by this evening.

In reply to mattmurphy:

Michigan will very likely go for Biden as the county swings favour Biden consistently and more democrat areas are being counted last. The only route for Trump clean win maybe now has to involve Nevada which I expected to go to Biden but looks very close. Biden clearly favourite again now Wisconsin has gone for him.

In reply to mattmurphy:

Some places have a built in delay eg Nevada has to wait 9 days or so to get all votes in. Normally I think that can be pretty much ignored but for a close vote

In reply to mondite:

Though I guess that will only matter if Trump edges ahead first as mail ballots generally favour the Democrats.

In reply to Offwidth:

Yep. Bidens certainly the favorite but it's so so close. The bookies now give biden a better chance of winning than at any point this week, 78% on betfair. It was 66% at the start of counting..

In reply to Chopper:

The daily star have had some cracking front pages this year. I like the cut out dominic cummings masks they did! Been some much needed light relief after reading the depressing headlines of other papers on the bbc.

In reply to mattmurphy:

Pennsylvania is very interesting. Trump had as much as a 700,000 vote lead, which is around 10% of the total number of votes cast in the state. This appears to be now being eroded at a rate of 40,000 for ever 70,000 or 1% of votes cast. The Pittsburgh and Philadelphia votes and presumably the mail in votes strongly favouring Biden, which is obviously why Trump wants to limit counting.

They have counted 80.2% of the estimated number of votes, if this trend continues, Biden could overtake Trump in Pennsylvania around the time that the get in to the low to mid 90% numbers.

In reply to Clauso:

She's on form today!

In reply to Offwidth:

Yes, "close" is certainly the word. Things are now more positive for Biden, although it looks like a disaster in the Senate. The pollsters didn’t seem to appreciate the effectiveness of the Republican voter suppression operation. Here’s a particularly depressing take:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/04/opinion/election-2020-exit-polls.html

I'm sure many Democrats hoped that Trump was an aberration, but I think they have to face that this is who they are as a country. Trump is just the symptom, not the disease.

We should remember they were founded by conservative, religious nut-jobs and that element is never too far from the surface. They were also founded on slavery and so racism is never too far from the surface, either. I also think they are showing the world the inevitable consequences of the neoliberal agenda and - like here - it’s not pretty. Either way, it looks like a grim next four years.

In reply to Martin Wood:

That's a bit negative isn't it.  Biden is clearly going to win.  The Senate is still no decided, looking at what's going on in Georgia.  There is the possibility of effective civil war between now and January but if that is avoided, I'd say the next four years are looking a lot better than the last four.

In reply to MG:

I was speaking as a would-be Democrat, if I was Amewican. As I'm not, it’s a thriller! 

Many outside the US might be hoping for Biden and what is going on there seems to be unbelievable from here: an event of open stupidity (although we're a nation with no authority given the events of 2016). 

The disaster is that without the Senate Biden is going nowhere and can achieve nothing. This is why it looks like a grim next four years.

In reply to Martin Wood:

2 years if the Democrats do well then.

In reply to Martin Wood:

Only if the Senate Republicans can't be persuaded to support his agenda. An optimist might hope that everyone involved would be more willing to reach compromises than has recently been the case 

In reply to summo:

You called that well.

In reply to The New NickB:

The reason we are still waiting?

In reply to MG:

Has he ? he'll have won when he is inaugurated president. Until then, anything can happen.

In reply to Alyson30:

Well yes of course, we could be hit by an extinction event asteroid, or maybe the Rapture

In reply to kevin stephens:

Or more down to earth, Trump doesn't let go of power one way or another.

In reply to Alyson30:

The secret service will eject him, they've already increased their security for Biden to presidential level

In reply to kevin stephens:

Maybe, maybe not, I suspect it depends who is sworn is as the new president and that may not be clear.
The truth is that nobody really knows for sure what happens without a peaceful transition of power. You can find articles online with lots of different theories by various lawyers. At the end of the day we don't know. 

I guess we may well find out.

In reply to Alyson30:

The inauguration will happen once congress certifies the result of the colleges, usually a few weeks before. After that, short of something like a coup, the deals done and preparations take place for the handover. Even a coup need not stop that process.

Trump can hole up in the Whitehouse all he wants, but the process can go ahead regardless. Coming the 20th the job needs to be filled and Trump holding on doesn't change that. 

I think he will concede with a bunch of twisted bullshit about it all being rigged and hazy threats about his lawyers taking everybody on. He won't say the words 'concede' which will get mopped up by conspiracy obsessed media and followers, and he'll skulk away to foment some kind of illusion of resistance that will go nowhere due to lack of funding. I think the GOP will move on without him pretty easily, perhaps even a new era.

Whatever it is, I expect the most underwhelming, mundane version of can occur.

In reply to kevin stephens:

I was hoping for the generals to stage a coup d'etat, but I'm willing to settle for a service bill instead. 

In reply to Removed Userwaitout:

 

Yes, but again there is no guarantee that you get a smooth electoral college.

I agree that this is the most likely path but certainly not the only one here by any stretch.

It would be very naive to think a peaceful transition of power is a given.

In reply to Alyson30:

Well, anything within the realm of physical possibility. Some things, though, are more likely than others.

In reply to planetmarshall:

Nobody says otherwise. But there is clearly a very plausible scenario that there isn’t a smooth transition of power, in my view.

I’m not alone in thinking that.

In reply to Alyson30:

I don't think it's that plausible at all. In a few days he'll calm down or possibly use this to negotiate immunity to leave with a peaceful transition of power. TBH I've been very surprised how peaceful it has been so far.

In reply to Alyson30:

That's true, but to be honest, expected ranting from Imbecile in Chief, things have been pretty smooth for all the beat up. As much as I loathe the college system, enough believe in it to be making it work, including the judges who are dismissing his demands pretty unapologetically. He will get a few recounts, that's within normalcy and despite his stupidity it's not unfair. 

Yes, but it would be by contrast hysterical to think it will be particularly volatile either. I think we are seeing the failings of the media as much as of the Trump posse; we've been scalped front row tickets to a spartan area, but we are not getting it. Years of cherry picking the craziest of MAGA fools to represent some sort of conservative revolution is turning out to not be that at all. Most are loyal, but not extreme.

I think it will be pretty uneventful, more the sour moping of losers than the honorable conceding to the better man, but I don't see brewing violence.

I do see parties in the street and a lot of giving the finger, of which I intend to take part. 

In reply to Roadrunner6:

A very good point. Scum that he is, he will be looking for the deals to save his own bloated ass.

In reply to The New NickB:

For a man who probably hadn't slept much in 3 days, Biden's speech was quite good. None of the glitches he usually has.

For the first time in 4 years it felt like listening to a president again.

In reply to The New NickB:

The betting odds on Betfair Exchange, for Trump to be next president, have shortened very substantially overnight, from 23 (4%) to 13.5 (7%)

The odds of the Democrats winning Pennsylvania haven't changed, still at 1.04 (96%), so those willing to risk money on it can't think that winning Pennsylvania in the count is the end of the game, they're factoring something else in (legal action or recounts? A coup?)

In reply to Removed Userwaitout:

Bet he has slept very well he is the sort of person who would understand that. 

In reply to skog:

Trump reined in some of Biden's lead in Arizona. That now looks to be the state with the least certain outcome.

In reply to Removed Userwaitout:

Well, fewer at least!

It was a good speech though. I can see him being some sort of unifier, or at least avoiding the inflammation that got Trump in.

In reply to Jonny:

I think that is wishful thinking based on the Tepublicans that I know. Politics is incredibly decisive for most Americans now. 

In reply to Jonny:

I thought it was boring and badly delivered. The message, while bland, I agreed with. Overall, I found it mildly depressing.

In reply to neilh:

Of course it is. The likes of AOC would have been much worse though.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I assumed we were judging by previous Biden standards. From a historical perspective, it was rubbish. Every president I can remember, except for Trump, gave a more profound speech after being elected. Every president I can remember, including Trump, gave a more lively one.

In reply to The New NickB:

So it wasn't just Russian interference after all.

In reply to Jonny:

Fair.

In reply to The New NickB:

Does this US election have any ability to support the assertion by some posters here that disinformation campaigns on social media like the one mounted by the CummingsVoteLeaveInfoGeraet can be totally disregarded as no one at all is stupid enough to believe them?

I have a view on this, given the number of protesters who seem to believe in large scale electoral fraud (and an alleged long history of electoral crime by the Democrats, despite Watergate having been a Republican initiative) and other lies, QUANON etc.  My eyes and ears tell me that some of the crap was believed.

My own evidence in a small rural community of hamlets rather than villages is that two women in my wife's small circle who long expressed not knowing how to vote in brexit were influenced in the last few days, under pressure to "have their say", by "learning" facts by social media about immigrants from the EU either committing horrible crimes or taking homes due to ex serviceman (the boyfriend of one being such).  They both went from ignorance to voting Brexit.

Are we not manifestly being shown how much the traitorous lies about the EU drip fed and whispered to people through their own "trusted" (not trustworthy though) sources in social media foisted a horrible disaster on all of us?

In the case of Drump he has now shown his diminished true self, a lying, evil child disguised as a man who continues to spout fantasy lies about the armies who will save his reich from final destruction by his encircling foes.

How long before we can stand up and do the same to our own man shaped child and the lie machine that placed him in sovereignty over us?

In reply to Jonny:

Yes this. He just stood up to be the reasonable one, shooting fish in a barrel, but there to be done. If anything the venue was booked so someone had to say something, or more so, just give it a face. He could have lambasted the nasty ones or bigged up the Democrats and no doubt that will come, but I think he just said be cool and it suited the moment.

That's politics in a nutshell. Contrived as hell like all of it. It just felt fresh after the f*ckery of the last few years. I'm no Biden fanatic, but appreciate an opportunity well taken.

In reply to wercat:

Division has been sown by targeting both 'sides' (after playing some role in creating the sides in the first place).

Witness how the doubt seeded by Operation INFEKTION was reignited to inflame Black sensibilites, and Russian planning of BLM protests and running of BLM Facebook and Twitter accounts, for example.

It's all a massive problem.

In reply to Jonny:

Today's news about staff shortages in the NHS this winter seems to me to be related to another Brexit chicken coming home for which we have a lot to thank the JohnFaraCum

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-citizens-nhs-crisi...

It has sunk in to me that my life began with a huge British foreign policy disaster, and that after the years of hope and participation in Europe we have come full circle, only worse, to something that probably outdoes Suez first mentioned.

In reply to David Riley:

What wasn't just Russian interference?

In reply to The New NickB:

Trump support.

In reply to David Riley:

I don't think anyone has suggested it was "just" Russian interference, but there is plenty evidence of lots of Russian interference and collusion.

In reply to David Riley:

That's a very odd comment. There was no real suggestions of voter fraud when Trump won (other than by Trump).

He clearly has the support. It's pretty naive to not think there is involvement by foreign adversaries and the US intelligence services said so. But nobody ever said Trump didn't actually get the votes.

In reply to The New NickB:

Interference is not collusion. There was evidence for the former but not the latter, as the Mueller report found.

In reply to The New NickB:

Well of course there are cases of fake votes for Biden.

But there will also be fake votes for Trump, and the claims of stealing the vote is the raving of the crazy. 

The same as it was with the referendum, with claims of Russian interference, and lying.

In reply to Jonny:

The Mueller Report found plenty of evidence of collusion, most obviously via Paul Manafort.

In reply to David Riley:

Sorry David, you are not making a lot of sense. Are you somehow suggesting that because it looks Biden has won the presidential election, any suggestions of nefariousness in relation to Brexit is " the raving of the crazy"? That would be pretty mental.

In reply to The New NickB:

No. I'm saying there is always 'nefariousness'. However the suggestion that it has much impact on the result is the raving of the crazy.  At least in the UK and US.

In reply to David Riley:

You would say that wouldn't you.

In reply to The New NickB:

You're right—I misremebered the wording in the report: collusion but not conspiracy.

Bad enough, in either case.

In reply to The New NickB:

Trump is now a “loser”😂

In reply to Darron:

Thank fU*k for that. 

Lets hope Trump disintegrates in public in the most demeaning way possible

In reply to Darron:

So who gets to walk up to him and say "You're fired"

In reply to mondite:

Halle-f@cking-lujah! 

In reply to mondite:

Well he is supposed to be magnanimous and phone the victor to congratulate. But we all know that will not happen. All together now.......”LOSER, LOSER...”

In reply to mondite:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EmPA9PWXUAIUVeU.jpg

In reply to Darron:

It's very easy to gloat and call him a loser but, be fair, he was President of the USA for four years longer than any of us on here...

In reply to Oceanrower:

Are you nuts?... He was undoubtedly the worst POTUS in history! Good riddance. 

In reply to Oceanrower:

WTF!

In reply to Oceanrower:

Yes, I’m a little embarrassed by it🙂. But........he has called decent men and women (eg John McCain) losers often. It’s his worst insult and he should hear it.

None of us on here have or will be President but I’ll wager that all on here are far more decent people than the orange one.

In reply to Oceanrower:

Truly the weirdest 4 years of my life for so many reasons, this included. Im hoping that this was just a trip from a 90s acid tab recently dislodged and that we can have some calmness for a while. 

Now we need BoJo, Putin, Kim Jon etc out and that f*cktard in Brasil. Then the world might be safer, nicer, and more cooperative.

In reply to The New NickB:

What happens if Biden gets too excited in the next 70 odd days and has a heart attack? Does Harris automatically become President? I'm sure it would send the Orange One into meltdown overdrive.

In reply to The New NickB:

Journalists creating a hotkey on their word processors for the phrase “extraordinary scenes at The White House” in preparation for all their articles in the next two months 

In reply to Clauso:

The parties in the street are incredible. It's like some scene out of a developing country when a dictator finally gets ousted.

Still plenty of Trump fans out on the streets today waving flags

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Brilliant! 

In reply to Roadrunner6:

So glad for you  

In reply to Oceanrower:

Only until we figure out Barack Obama's UKC nickname

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Is the crowd outside the White house bigger than the losers inauguration rally yet?

In reply to The New NickB:

P45 for P45 

In reply to The New NickB:

Time for politicians to escape their ivory towers and listen to the valid concerns of the centrists...

In reply to Roadrunner6:

I think everyone is forgetting the most important factor here....

.... Nigel Farage bet £10,000 on Trump.

In reply to rockwing:

There were reports that a anonymous British businessman had made a $5million bet on Trump.

I know several people who are happy to have lost their, rather smaller, bet.

In reply to mondite:

I saw 50-1 for a Trimp win so Farage stood to win half a million. Unless he was lying of course!

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

That's not possible.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

I saw that but also saw comments saying it was just a headline leader. I know bugger all about gambling but in the small print it was along the lines of you can only bet a small amount and you cant take the winnings but instead have to bet them again.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

The bookies had it 66% for a biden win.

In reply to Oceanrower:

Yeah and worryingly he only lost marginally, which means there’s lots of crazy yanks with guns knocking about.

In reply to the sheep:

You have seen the 'toddler Trump tantrum' video, haven't you...?

I was reminded of Oliver Cromwell's speech to the Rump Parliament. I hadn't realised just how resonant it is...

20 April 1653

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place,

which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice.

Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government.

Ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?

Ye have no more religion than my horse. Gold is your God. Which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defiled this sacred place, and turned the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?

Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance.

Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God's help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do.

I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place.

Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.

In the name of God, go!

In reply to Jonny:

It wasn't that, though - to win the count, Biden only had to win Pennsylvania, and there were other ways he could win the count even without that, but his odds of being the next president were worse than his odds of winning Pennsylvania.

Betfair Exchange still has Trump with 1/27 of being the next US president, something else is being factored in here than the count. (Kamala Harris is 1/440-460 just now, which requires the Democrats to win but Biden be unable to become president.)

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

You discredit your sentiment if you lump Johnson with Putin, Kim Jon and Bolsonaro. You may not like him but he is not a 'strongman' dictator. 

In reply to rockwing:

I wished he'd bet his life on Trump

In reply to ClimberEd:

Yup. Johnson is a weak, lazy, cowardly, venal fool.

In reply to ClimberEd:

This. I would Rather live under trump than Kim or putin. 

And rather Boris than trump. 

In reply to Blue Straggler:

Looking forward to Melania’s post-divorce unabridged memoirs (introduction by Stormy Daniels)

Bookshelves November 2021 

In reply to Oceanrower:

Given enough cash, I'd wager good money that Rom the **** could become President of the United States of America.

In reply to The New NickB:

Bye Don

In reply to captain paranoia:

This describes him quite brilliantly: Rory Stewart on BJ

https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/boris-johnson-tom-bower-book-review-rory...

In reply to wercat:

About as likely to honour it as Johnson lying dead in a ditch

In reply to David Riley:

Trump won last time.

Trump lost this time.

Maybe he differenece was the effect of Russian interence. Who knows.

In reply to David Riley:

No one ever said it was.

In reply to Oceanrower:

Gloating and calling him a loser is being fair. It's exactly what he has done when in the same position and did do over the Obama administration and they had eight years in the job, it's the fairest position to hold.

He is a loser. It's rare for a president to not get a second term and not since the 20's with Hoover a Republican (not counting H Bush on the back of Reagan).

He did a shit job, wasting four years of political time the world doesn't have on stupid vanity projects and vendettas, and flitting through useless people who couldn't or weren't allowed to do their jobs. He did far more damage than any good, and though I don't think Biden will get far forward in the next four years, I don't think he will actually go backwards because he knows how not to. Trump had no idea how to do the job when he came in and is leaving knowing little more. His stupid family of hucksters, trustafarians and morons same.

75m Americans voted this dangerous idiot out, not just for their country but for all of us. The rest who voted otherwise are complicit enablers who can go to hell. Let us not forget the other losers who assisted Trump and call them out too; Lindsay Graham, the coward Bolton, Pompeo, Chad Wolf and a special place in hell for McConnell. It took a team of assholes to float this ship for four years and they need to be called for it.

The man was scum before he was president and will continue to be so after. Any fool could see what was going to happen with him as leader and it did. Dance on his f*cking grave.

In reply to The New NickB:

Look at the wonderful picture of Biden acknowledging his wife on the BBC front page now. There is the difference between the two men right there.

In reply to Bacon Butty:

How nice.

In reply to The New NickB:

It's official!

https://www.ayrshiredailynews.co.uk/post/south-ayrshire-golf-club-owner-los...

In reply to HansStuttgart:

Fortunately, I've never fallen for any of the bullshit tricks he describes.

In reply to Removed Userwaitout:

" don't think Biden will get far forward in the next four years,"

There's going to be no major change, no huge tax change, no huge medicare for all expansion because the republican's almost certainly control the senate. I wonder if they'll get something like a public option that Biden talked about. It's possible a few republican's will back that idea.

Suddenly conservatives will be conservative and the national debt will be all important again... when we've hardly heard about it for 4 years, after them never shutting up about it under Obama.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Van Jones lets go.. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXbFUXmlV7A&feature=share&fbclid=Iw...

In reply to mondite:

Vince McMahon of course  

youtube.com/watch?v=k9M5t_7utSs&

In reply to Roadrunner6:

Yes, all that. Just getting the joker back into the box is going to be a full time job.

My hope is elements of the progressives will have evolved under the pressure of Trump and moved enough past the hand-wringing stage into proper action. In hindsight the BLM events and parallel stuff may help there, giving an equal to the armed moron legions the conservatives so easily mobilize. Under Obama, progressivism lost a lot of steam, got too comfortable or became just lip service, maybe now it can get some edge back.

If the senate is going to just block anything in the name of fading conservatism (which I actually don't think they will), then it's up to the grass roots and individual states to push, something the Trump era could do and the progressives hopefully have learned from. Biden will need a lot of help, but it's doable if he makes the next four years repair and saves the big stuff for the right time. A year of just time out could benefit more than launching straight into big stuff.

In reply to ClimberEd:

And you discredit your smart-arsedness by suggesting I was making direct comparisons of their leadership styles when I made no mention of that. But you know that quite perfectly, don't you, and exactly what I meant by my post?

In reply to The New NickB:

I was working yesterday, but caught snippets on the radio suggesting that Biden is unlikely to achieve anything in his time in office because he controls neither the Senate or the Supreme Court, and is unlikely to. Does anyone have a handle on whether this is the case in practice? I caught one contributor describing him as a lame duck president, but guessed he was a goggle eyed trump supporter.

In reply to rockwing:

Unless..  crazy thought, but..  you don't think he might have lied about that do you?

Nah, course not.  Not honest Nige.  Sorry, don't know what I was thinking.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

Biden is achieving something huge. He's keeping Trump away from the White House and from power 

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

That's an odd view. He has a chance at the senate in January with the two Georgia reruns (if Democrats win both, at 50 50, the veep has the deciding Senate vote.... democratic organisation is impressive in Georgia right now) and Democrats are favourites to take the odd net seat in 2 years. I'd add that Biden is a 'creature of the senate' and will be able to negotiate compromise batter than any other Democrat. 

There is another very important angle on the mid term race. I think this election went better for the Republicans in the House and Senate as Trump clearly motivated part of his base to take part in elections they historically ignored. I really don't see them turning out in such huge numbers in 2 years time. I think the blue wave was there but blunted by a deep red popularist wave.

On the 'sleepy Joe' point he has always struggled with speech as an ex stutterer but his abilities in other areas have been impressive (especially getting to where he has given his weakness in public speaking).  

In reply to profitofdoom:

Exactly... as I said on the other channel:  on pandemic response, on climate change and environmental issues, on US healthcare, in working with other western democracies and essential international organisations (especially WHO), on helping the working american rather than bullshitting about doing so, in reducing dangerous political nepotism,  this election will make a massive difference.

In reply to HansStuttgart:

Well Johnson has done us more harm than Suez, another win for the tories in my lifetime

Not that I don't think our war of aggression in Iraq and its breach of the Nuremburg Articles does not equal these

In reply to all

Make sure you are not eating or drinking when you read this or you make choke!

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/the-other-four-seasons-trum...

In reply to Offwidth:

that is brilliant, i would encorage anyone who wants a good laugh to click on that link

"could write jokes for 800 years and I'd never think of something funnier than Trump booking the Four Seasons for his big presser, and it turning out to be the Four Seasons Total Landscaping parking lot between a dildo store and a crematorium"

In reply to The New NickB:

Given that many of his supporters would much rather languish in synthesised belief, denial and falsehood as opposed to having the courage to face the oft-discomforting nature of fact, the ascendancy of someone like Trump is not really surprising. This is politics-as-religion to which they subscribe, and Trump's messianic posturing will not just suddenly stop because he is no longer nutjob-in-chief. As long as the media offer him the platform to spout anything he likes, the descent of American democracy will plummet a lot faster than the time and hard work it has taken to establish it in the first place.

Unfortunately, attempts to convince these people about the clear and present dangers of what they are doing and what they stand for, will fall on deaf ears as long as faith in the unaccountable is maintained. For them, mitigation of climate change (as an example) will never be accomplished by reasoned debate, but more likely by collective and direct experience of its disastrous consequences. By which time it will be too late for everybody.

President Biden has his work cut out, and 4 years of repair will not be enough, unless the engines of persuasion are fed a more sustainable fuel.

So the common thread going through all this is the conspicuous lack of moral accountability on behalf of the media, in which stupidity and political persuasion are allowed to flourish at the cost of truth and democracy. 'Press freedom' in this current guise will have dire consequences if it fails in its moral duty to be of benefit to the many, rather than to a handful of greedy billionaires. This is where the real repair work begins.

In reply to mountain.martin:

If he doesn't like the hotel he can go fu*k himself. 

In reply to Offwidth:

Cheers for this, I’m not really up to speed with the US modus operandi. 
paul

In reply to Offwidth:

It is quite wonderful isn't it? I read the story on Slate and they had a few more photos, but some of the tweets the Guardian quotes are wonderful. For anyone who has watched Veep, it's just even more precious.

In the Guardian's video, does anyone else think that Guliani has sprayed himself orange in sympathy with his boss? It could be the shadow but it looks like his neck is completely different colour. What with this and the Borat movie events, I'm not sure how anyone can watch him without simply laughing at him nowadays, although it's not like he hasn't been predominantly a joke for the last few years.

In reply to Removed Userwaitout:

I've seen a lot of this as of late. Calls to compile lists of Trump supporters, purges, etc.

Doesn't it strike you as a dodgy road to be going down?

Perhaps even exactly the type of 'liberalism' and 'progressivism' that Trump voters were voting against? 

There are reasons more people than ever voted Trump, including non-whites and other minorities. The progressivism of the Democrats seems remarkably regressive.

In reply to RentonCooke:

I haven't. I have seen lots of pictures and film clips of people out partying in the streets across America.

I'm sure someone somewhere has come up with a list, but don't you think the fact that you have seen these lists might suggest that the media (blogs, twitter feeds, podcasts, whatever) you follow has gone out looking for this sort of thing?

I'm waiting the regressive progressives to get properly organised and sort themselves out a decent armed wing. I mean Trump fans seems to have been able to do that all over the place! How good can your poll watchers possibly be without some beefy bearded white blokes standing around watching over them dressed up like their special forces wänk fantasies. I mean the lefties managed it in the 60s and 70s with the Black Panthers and Weather Underground and so on. But it seems they've left all the contemporary AR15-stroking and attractive multi pocketed "tactical" webbing cos-play to the Proud Boys and co. Come on progressives! Just how regressive can you truly be until your mere presence at political events comes with the menace of the threat of semi-automatic gunfire targeting unarmed protestors?

In reply to RentonCooke:

Extremely dodgy. Any evidence? As with previous request on a different thread, to which you havent replied.......