2020 US Election (Part 3)

[Samson]

You say this as if you know what the test entails. Given your grasp of knowledge, I'm not even sure you can find your way around a can opener.

The thing is you do not need to "test" if (x - y) is related to log(x/y). It is maths.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...-bash-trumps-disgraceful-conduct-since-losing

"Flawed and dishonest assertions like this pollute the public discourse and mislead good people who make the mistake of believing things said by the president of the United States."

The National Review editorial board is drawing attention online for its sharp rebuke of President Trump’s actions challenging the results of this month's election, which he lost to President-elect Joe Biden.

In a Monday editorial titled “Trump’s Disgraceful Endgame,” the conservative publication’s senior editorial staff referred to the president’s continued efforts to undermine the results as “disgraceful” and said “almost nothing that the Trump team has alleged has withstood the slightest scrutiny.”

Trump immediately moved to challenge the results of the election in multiple courts after media outlets called the race in favor of his Democratic opponent on the Saturday after Election Day. Multiple legal efforts launched by his team and other Republicans have been thrown out even as the president has continued to repeat unsubstantiated claims about the race being “rigged.”

ADVERTISEMENT
“In particular, it’s hard to find much that is remotely true in the president’s Twitter feed these days. It is full of already-debunked claims and crackpot conspiracy theories about Dominion voting systems,” the editorial said.

“Over the weekend, he repeated the charge that 1.8 million mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania were mailed out, yet 2.6 million were ultimately tallied. In a rather elementary error, this compares the number of mail-ballots requested in the primary to the number of ballots counted in the general,” the editorial board wrote.

“A straight apples-to-apples comparison finds that 1.8 million mail-in ballots were requested in the primary and 1.5 million returned, while 3.1 million ballots were requested in the general and 2.6 million returned,” they continued.

"Flawed and dishonest assertions like this pollute the public discourse and mislead good people who make the mistake of believing things said by the president of the United States."

 

[Birdjaguar]

Though I’m not resting my laurels because I’m not gonna get blindsided if Trump does pull it off and wins via contingent election if neither candidate gets 270 on the 14th of December. I don’t know, but that’s just the realist-glass-half-empty in me.

Not going to happen.

 

[Patine]

Not going to happen.

Although I agree with the great likelihood of your prognostication in this case, you should not really stop terming your prognostication and predictions with the confidence of a prophet (and, in other areas, quit speaking in absolutes - but them again, absolutist speaking and thinking are toxic and cancerous infestation on the current zeitgeist that is killing all credibility of the modern discourse, and leading to ruinous and destructive ideas becoming cherished and mainstream even insisted upon, and almost always leads to no good, and only hard - such thinking should be banished from the spheres of discussion by rational and sensible people - not have their "validity," defended fervently).

 

[innonimatu]

Not going to happen.

Agreed it's not happening. In any contested result Trump was bound to lose, most of the elites of the country want him gone. But I admit it would be interesting to see what would have happened had the got the about 50000 votes necessary to have Wisconsin, Georgia and Arizona. It would be a tie in the electoral college? How are those officially resolved? And it would be a situation where any one "elector" changing sides could change the outcome, I imagine there would be no end of fighting over whether such a switch was legitimate.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Agreed it's not happening. In any contested result Trump was bound to lose, most of the elites of the country want him gone. But I admit it would be interesting to see what would have happened had the got the about 50000 votes necessary to have Wisconsin, Georgia and Arizona. It would be a tie in the electoral college? How are those officially resolved? And it would be a situation where any one "elector" changing sides could change the outcome, I imagine there would be no end of fighting over whether such a switch was legitimate.

What ifs can be fun, especially if they are not about your country. I have no interest in dwelling on how "interesting" it might be if Trump found a path to winning. We've been living with that turd for too long already. I'd be quite happy to speculate on what would happen if Queen Elizabeth skipped Charles and declared William her heir, though. Charles would probably pout and whine.

 

[Zkribbler]

... It would be a tie in the electoral college? How are those officially resolved? And it would be a situation where any one "elector" changing sides could change the outcome, I imagine there would be no end of fighting over whether such a switch was legitimate.

If the electors are tied, the election goes to to House of Representatives, with each State delegation getting one vote. Although the majority of Representatives are Democrats, their distribution among the House, would result in most delegations being pro-Republican.

However it would get really interesting if, on the eve of a tied vote, one of the electors announce (s)he was going to switch his/her vote to avoid a tie. In the past, "faithless electors" have grudgingly been allowed to do that, but AFAIK there is no specific law on the issue. Expect a cat fight.

 

[GenMarshall]

Not going to happen.

This is where I disagree with you since I see Trump likely to win via tying up the electoral college to trigger a constituency election (there is a provision in the constitution to do that), the specially if Republicans come on the certification phase before the electoral college commences and challenge the results as being tainted with electoral fraud. I’m not saying that it’s going to 100% happen, I’m saying that there is a chance that it may or may not happen.

I’m just more aware of the probabilities that it may happen, even if the chances are slim.

 

[Samson]

IHowever it would get really interesting if, on the eve of a tied vote, one of the electors announce (s)he was going to switch his/her vote to avoid a tie. In the past, "faithless electors" have grudgingly been allowed to do that, but AFAIK there is no specific law on the issue. Expect a cat fight.

So them it would come down to are more Republicans going that prefer Biden or more Democrats that prefer Trump? And these are politicians, so it will affect their career? Interesting, I wonder if there is a gambling market on that.

Charles would probably pout and whine.

And if there was a gambling market on that, I would bet against him whining, but perhaps not pouting.

 

[GenMarshall]

So them it would come down to are more Republicans going that prefer Biden or more Democrats that prefer Trump? And these are politicians, so it will affect their career? Interesting, I wonder if there is a gambling market on that.

I just see Republicans more likely casting their votes for Trump and Democrats (especially, hesitantly, the progressive wing of the party along with The Squad) would vote for Biden.

 

[Birdjaguar]

This is where I disagree with you since I see Trump likely to win via tying up the electoral college to trigger a constituency election (there is a provision in the constitution to do that), the specially if Republicans come on the certification phase before the electoral college commences and challenge the results as being tainted with electoral fraud. I’m not saying that it’s going to 100% happen, I’m saying that there is a chance that it may or may not happen.

There is no way for Trump to get a tie or win in the EC. In a month he hasn't been able to to get a single EC vote changed in any of the swing states. Getting 38 changed is not possible. Giuliani and his friends have tried and failed multiple times and each time they have been unable to produce any evidence of fraud. Which three states are going to flip at this stage in the process? Trump can't get his cases heard in state courts, getting 3 cases to the SCOTUS is not going to happen.

 

[Gorbles]

This is where I disagree with you since I see Trump likely to win via tying up the electoral college to trigger a constituency election (there is a provision in the constitution to do that), the specially if Republicans come on the certification phase before the electoral college commences and challenge the results as being tainted with electoral fraud. I’m not saying that it’s going to 100% happen, I’m saying that there is a chance that it may or may not happen.

I’m just more aware of the probabilities that it may happen, even if the chances are slim.

So you agree one probability (or various probabilities) have a slim chance compared to others, which begs the question of why you're emphatically raising the likelihood of Trump somehow winning all the time? There are only two scenarios here. Biden wins and is the next POTUS. Or Trump wins and is the next POTUS. Claiming you know all of the probabilities doesn't actually help here. Everyone knows it's one or the other.

A more interesting question would be: do people believe Republicans are so desperate to subvert the rule of law that they would flat-out break (more) rules to keep Trump as POTUS. That said, probably a late question at this stage considering how many of them have backed off.

 

[Samson]

I just see Republicans more likely casting their votes for Trump and Democrats (especially, hesitantly, the progressive wing of the party along with The Squad) would vote for Biden.

What I mean is that if they are tied, they get a chance to semi-legally change their vote. Of course most will stay the same, but if one Democrat would rather Trump, but 2 Republicans would prefer Biden then Biden wins.

 

[Lexicus]

Agreed it's not happening. In any contested result Trump was bound to lose, most of the elites of the country want him gone. But I admit it would be interesting to see what would have happened had the got the about 50000 votes necessary to have Wisconsin, Georgia and Arizona. It would be a tie in the electoral college? How are those officially resolved? And it would be a situation where any one "elector" changing sides could change the outcome, I imagine there would be no end of fighting over whether such a switch was legitimate.

If no candidate achieves an electoral college majority, the election is decided by the House of Representatives with each state delegation counting as one vote. Trump would have been declared President by the House because there are more red states than blue states.

 

[Patine]

What ifs can be fun, especially if they are not about your country. I have no interest in dwelling on how "interesting" it might be if Trump found a path to winning. We've been living with that turd for too long already. I'd be quite happy to speculate on what would happen if Queen Elizabeth skipped Charles and declared William her heir, though. Charles would probably pout and whine.

The British line of succession post-Glorious Revolution is not at all comparable, due to lack of real power, de facto, held by the British Crown. But the U.S. Presidency has become too powerful by de facto interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, compared to Congress, the Federal Courts, and the State Governments - certainly moreso than the U.S. Founding Fathers intended - and to a degree, and beyond, some of them actively FEARED - and the lack of true choice in any given election for U.S. Presidential Election - because of the Electoral College and gross abuse of incumbency as a Bipartisan policy to suppress all opposition to the two major parties, de facto, compounds the problem. Both major parties in the U.S. have contributed to the gross and out-of-control "power creep," of the U.S. Presidential Office, and then there's so much shock and outrage at how all three Presidents of the 21st Century thus far (with different goals, viewpoints, and priorities) have thoroughly abused the office in ways that SHOULD not be allowed and SHOULD be able to be called to task...

 

[Birdjaguar]

The British line of succession post-Glorious Revolution is not at all comparable,

I never said they were comparable. I choose Charles as an example of something that Brits might care about, but that doesn't affect me at all. What I find merely interesting and fun speculation might well be important to those living in England.

unnecessary blah blah blah again.

 

[Patine]

"unnecessary blah blah blah again."

You talk down to me so derisively and patronizingly in what I say, as though you're words somehow inherently contain more wisdom, insight, and correctness than mine at all times, and you have a higher ground to arrogantly preach from. Your position in affairs in not so exalted and glorious, so your attitude just comes across as base level schoolyard insults and egotistical denial of any possible erroneous or misguided ideas - just like the guy you're so jubilant about leaving the White House in January. Time to look in the mirror, @Birdjaguar and having a good, long look at your own FAILINGS before EVER daring to insult or talk down to me, or anyone else here again. We're all in this muddy cesspool together, and you are not floating above it in white robes - so stop acting like it! It's insufferable!

 

[Birdjaguar]

"unnecessary blah blah blah again."

You talk down to me so derisively and patronizingly in what I say, as though you're words somehow inherently contain more wisdom, insight, and correctness than mine at all times, and you have a higher ground to arrogantly preach from. Your position in affairs in not so exalted and glorious, so your attitude just comes across as base level schoolyard insults and egotistical denial of any possible erroneous or misguided ideas - just like the guy you're so jubilant about leaving the White House in January. Time to look in the mirror, @Birdjaguar and having a good, long look at your own FAILINGS before EVER daring to insult or talk down to me, or anyone else here again. We're all in this muddy cesspool together, and you are not floating above it in white robes - so stop acting like it! It's insufferable!

My point was that you misunderstood my post. I corrected that with an explanation. The rest of your post was just more of you ongoing "let me tell you about history you ignorant fool" talk: two evil major parties, evil presidents, the US system is junk, etc. I labeled it as unnecessary, which it was.

Thank you, I am well aware of my faults and since you find me to be insufferable, arrogant and preachy, (at least two of which are true), I will do my best to exclude you from my responses. No promises, but I will try. I would expect the same from you. If you look above, my post was not in response to one of yours, but to General Marshall and you decided to step and comment. Pay no attention to me, and I will pay no attention to you.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Not going to happen.

Four precise words.

Although I agree with the great likelihood of your prognostication in this case, you should not really stop terming your prognostication and predictions with the confidence of a prophet (and, in other areas, quit speaking in absolutes - but them again, absolutist speaking and thinking are toxic and cancerous infestation on the current zeitgeist that is killing all credibility of the modern discourse, and leading to ruinous and destructive ideas becoming cherished and mainstream even insisted upon, and almost always leads to no good, and only hard - such thinking should be banished from the spheres of discussion by rational and sensible people - not have their "validity," defended fervently).

Is someone paying you to write such a long sentence?

 

[Gori the Grey]

I've in my day been paid to fix sentences like that.