• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

2020 Election Results

QAnon Struggles After Trump Election Defeat - The New York Times
These are trying times for believers in QAnon, the baseless conspiracy theory that falsely claims the existence of a satanic pedophile cult run by top Democrats. For years, they had been assured that Mr. Trump would win re-election in a landslide and spend his second term vanquishing the deep state and bringing the cabal’s leaders to justice. Q, the pseudonymous message board user whose cryptic posts have fueled the movement for more than three years, told them to “trust the plan.”

But since Mr. Trump’s defeat, Q has gone dark. No posts from the account bearing Q’s tripcode, or digital user name, have appeared on 8kun, the website where all of Q’s posts appear. And overall QAnon-related activity on the site has slowed to a trickle. (On a recent day, there were fewer new posts on one of 8kun’s QAnon boards than on its board for adult-diaper fetishists.)
QAnon's leaders are now fighting among each other. Crackdowns by social-media companies have also hurt QAnon.
The crackdowns have hurt QAnon’s grifter class — the self-appointed leaders who make a living selling Q merchandise, writing QAnon-themed books and organizing offline Q events. But they also disconnected rank-and-file believers from the communities where they gathered to discuss the news, decode the latest drops and plan for the future.
Drops - message drops - posts by Q.
Honestly, this feels like the calm before the storm, pun not intended. The GOP is being reckless at best right now with our democracy, and possibly attempting to seize it at worst.
 
I continue to marvel at how the Republican Party continues to stand behind this big baby. It seems that losing the election means that it's their chance to dispose of him, but they aren't taking that opportunity.

They got what they wanted. A tax cut for their donors, a stacked court, and no penalties for dragging their feet on legislation. All they had to do was stand back, watch Trump do his thing, and wait for the dust to settle.

I can picture Republican lawmakers getting panicky only if Trump started his own party. A large part of his base would vote for him and only him. leaving Republicans with the remainders.

They didn't get all that they wanted. They want control of our country and essentially an end to democracy here. They want the means to stay in power as long as they like and do as they please without accountability. They don't have that yet, but rest assured, they are still trying.
ACA is still here, and assuming the tea leaves are read correctly, it isn't going anywhere.
 
The established corrupt moderate Dems are going to kill her or die trying.
I don't know. It's going to be interesting (hopefully in a good way, and not in a train wreck way) to see of the more liberal wing can convince the 'moderate' dems to slide to the left and be more consistent in their messaging. It won't be the full on take over like we saw with the teaparty and the gop, because progressives aren't monsters like that, but it would be nice. I think it might actually start to happen this election cycle.

If we start to see polling going that way, look at the moderate dems to see the writing on the wall and change (or retire).
 
The established corrupt moderate Dems are going to kill her or die trying.
I don't know. It's going to be interesting (hopefully in a good way, and not in a train wreck way) to see of the more liberal wing can convince the 'moderate' dems to slide to the left and be more consistent in their messaging. It won't be the full on take over like we saw with the teaparty and the gop, because progressives aren't monsters like that, but it would be nice. I think it might actually start to happen this election cycle.

If we start to see polling going that way, look at the moderate dems to see the writing on the wall and change (or retire).

Yes, agreed.
 
IL-14's margin is up, and is now D +0.67%

Biden's lead is slowly increasing in GA (+0.29%) and slowly decreasing in AZ (+0.39%).

Why a Trump Loss May Be No Match for Rupert Murdoch’s Realpolitik - The New York Times - Fox News will outlast Trump's Presidency

Does Trump’s Defeat Signal the Start of Populism’s Decline Globally? - The New York Times - "Populist leaders may have lost their most prominent champion, but their economic, social and political grievances remain potent."
Not that Trump ever did anything helpful.

False Claims That Biden ‘Lost’ Pennsylvania Surge - The New York Times - social-media companies like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have been smacking them down, labeling them and even sometimes shutting them down

What Went Wrong With Polling? Some Early Theories - The New York Times - "Pollsters thought they had learned from the errors of 2016. It’s possible that they did, and that this election reflects new problems."
For now, there is no easy excuse. After 2016, pollsters arrived at plausible explanations for why surveys had systematically underestimated Mr. Trump in the battleground states. One was that state polls didn’t properly weight respondents without a college degree. Another was that there were factors beyond the scope of polling, like the large number of undecided voters who appeared to break sharply to Mr. Trump in the final stretch.

This year, there seemed to be less cause for concern: In 2020, most state polls weighted by education, and there were far fewer undecided voters.
"The polls were off in 2020 in almost the same ways they were off in 2016."

Then lots of theories of why the polls failed. Theories based on imperfect correction for sampling, the sort of thing that sank  The Literary Digest. In 1936, it ran a massive poll and found that Republican Alf Landon would win the Presidency that year. But FDR won, causing a lot of embarrassment. The poll involved car-registration lists and the like, and this sampling effect was uncorrected for in that poll.
 
Good video about Benford's Law and the Chicago election results by just about the best math popularizer on youtube:



The title is a bit misleading on purpose, because the votes do follow it given the small magnitude difference of precinct vote totals. But in a naive sense it seems to not follow it.

I like how he does not tip his hand to the conclusion he is going towards - that the results follow a more nuanced application of the law and are not suggestive of fraud.

This method will draw the election skeptics for THIS assertion, other assertions need separate analysis, to watch it and be blown out.
 
IL-14's margin is up, and is now D +0.67%

Biden's lead is slowly increasing in GA (+0.29%) and slowly decreasing in AZ (+0.39%).

Why a Trump Loss May Be No Match for Rupert Murdoch’s Realpolitik - The New York Times - Fox News will outlast Trump's Presidency

Does Trump’s Defeat Signal the Start of Populism’s Decline Globally? - The New York Times - "Populist leaders may have lost their most prominent champion, but their economic, social and political grievances remain potent."
Not that Trump ever did anything helpful.

False Claims That Biden ‘Lost’ Pennsylvania Surge - The New York Times - social-media companies like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have been smacking them down, labeling them and even sometimes shutting them down

What Went Wrong With Polling? Some Early Theories - The New York Times - "Pollsters thought they had learned from the errors of 2016. It’s possible that they did, and that this election reflects new problems."
For now, there is no easy excuse. After 2016, pollsters arrived at plausible explanations for why surveys had systematically underestimated Mr. Trump in the battleground states. One was that state polls didn’t properly weight respondents without a college degree. Another was that there were factors beyond the scope of polling, like the large number of undecided voters who appeared to break sharply to Mr. Trump in the final stretch.

This year, there seemed to be less cause for concern: In 2020, most state polls weighted by education, and there were far fewer undecided voters.
"The polls were off in 2020 in almost the same ways they were off in 2016."

Then lots of theories of why the polls failed. Theories based on imperfect correction for sampling, the sort of thing that sank  The Literary Digest. In 1936, it ran a massive poll and found that Republican Alf Landon would win the Presidency that year. But FDR won, causing a lot of embarrassment. The poll involved car-registration lists and the like, and this sampling effect was uncorrected for in that poll.

One possibility is fraud. Perhaps the polls are right, and it's the vote counts that are unreflective of voter intentions.

My only evidence for this is that Trump almost invariably accuses his opponents of doing whatever he is currently guilty of.

It would explain why those states that were expected to be most important (particularly Florida) had such large differences between polling and actual results, while those states that were expected to be solidly red (eg GA and TX) were closer to the opinion pollsters' predictions. Fraud is difficult and risky, so you would want to concentrate your crimes in those places where they would be most effective and least obvious.

Certainly I have no trouble at all in imagining the Florida officials having a sizeable thumb on the scales.
 
When Trump first started claiming that mail in ballots would be fraudulent I had interpreted that as a signal to his supporters to commit voter fraud. That seems to be consistent with his modus operandi.
 
IL-14's margin is up, and is now D +0.67%

Biden's lead is slowly increasing in GA (+0.29%) and slowly decreasing in AZ (+0.39%).

Why a Trump Loss May Be No Match for Rupert Murdoch’s Realpolitik - The New York Times - Fox News will outlast Trump's Presidency

Does Trump’s Defeat Signal the Start of Populism’s Decline Globally? - The New York Times - "Populist leaders may have lost their most prominent champion, but their economic, social and political grievances remain potent."
Not that Trump ever did anything helpful.

False Claims That Biden ‘Lost’ Pennsylvania Surge - The New York Times - social-media companies like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have been smacking them down, labeling them and even sometimes shutting them down

What Went Wrong With Polling? Some Early Theories - The New York Times - "Pollsters thought they had learned from the errors of 2016. It’s possible that they did, and that this election reflects new problems."
For now, there is no easy excuse. After 2016, pollsters arrived at plausible explanations for why surveys had systematically underestimated Mr. Trump in the battleground states. One was that state polls didn’t properly weight respondents without a college degree. Another was that there were factors beyond the scope of polling, like the large number of undecided voters who appeared to break sharply to Mr. Trump in the final stretch.

This year, there seemed to be less cause for concern: In 2020, most state polls weighted by education, and there were far fewer undecided voters.
"The polls were off in 2020 in almost the same ways they were off in 2016."

Then lots of theories of why the polls failed. Theories based on imperfect correction for sampling, the sort of thing that sank  The Literary Digest. In 1936, it ran a massive poll and found that Republican Alf Landon would win the Presidency that year. But FDR won, causing a lot of embarrassment. The poll involved car-registration lists and the like, and this sampling effect was uncorrected for in that poll.

One possibility is fraud. Perhaps the polls are right, and it's the vote counts that are unreflective of voter intentions.

My only evidence for this is that Trump almost invariably accuses his opponents of doing whatever he is currently guilty of.

It would explain why those states that were expected to be most important (particularly Florida) had such large differences between polling and actual results, while those states that were expected to be solidly red (eg GA and TX) were closer to the opinion pollsters' predictions. Fraud is difficult and risky, so you would want to concentrate your crimes in those places where they would be most effective and least obvious.

Certainly I have no trouble at all in imagining the Florida officials having a sizeable thumb on the scales.
Exit polling indicates Trump won Florida. The GOP spent two years scaring the fuck out of the refugees in Florida about socialism.... it worked.

The states where exit polling appears at odds with the results are Iowa (showed a draw), Arizona (strong win for Biden), and Nevada (solid win for Biden). But, the Exit polls indicated a strong win for Trump in Ohio, which seems proxy to Iowa. Exit polling in PA indicated an opposite Florida outcome.
 
Georgia to manually recount the vote.

article said:
Georgia's secretary of state announced Wednesday that the state will conduct an audit of the 2020 presidential race, recounting by hand the millions of ballots cast in the state.

"With the margin being so close, it will require a full by hand recount in each county," Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, a Republican, said at a press conference in Atlanta. "This will help build confidence."

"It will be an audit, a recount and a recanvas all at once," he added.

Raffensperger said the state needs to get the final county certifications reported before it moves to a "risk limiting audit."
As an FYI, a recount is not required by law. Trump does have a problem with Georgia though... he needs its votes. While W was able to play out the clock, Trump actually needs more votes than Biden to win the state, which will require disenfranchising over ten thousand, mainly minority votes.
 
MAJOR BREAKING NEWS!!!

Trump has been declared the winner of Alaska! This changes everything! Trump becomes the first Republican to win the largest state in America since 2016. With the victory of Alaska, Trump has doubled the landmass he has won in the electoral college, providing him a clear mandate to steal this election!
 
  • Like
Reactions: jab
Does Trump’s Defeat Signal the Start of Populism’s Decline Globally? - The New York Times - "Populist leaders may have lost their most prominent champion, but their economic, social and political grievances remain potent."
Not that Trump ever did anything helpful.

Wasn't America supposed to be founded on populism? "We the people" and all that? Seems like it's become a dirty word and only associated with right wingers, which I have a problem with.
Yes, William Jennings Bryan was a populist and was not Trump. Populism definitely has wings to it, and generally people are talking about right-wing populism when mentioning the term these days.

And I would most certainly put into doubt that Trump's defeat in 2020 means much of anything in decline. I'd say Macron's win in France helped push back right-wing populism for a bit, the movement is there and it is not subsiding.
 
Opinion | Trump, in Attacking the Election, Is Attacking Democracy - The New York Times - "Our survival as a nation depends, above all, on the loser accepting the results of an election."
It turns out there was a coordinated attack on the 2020 election after all. It began several years ago and accelerated in the last several months. Now that Election Day has passed, it has launched into overdrive.

Its weapons are baseless insinuation and evidence-free charges, deployed solely to sow chaos and undermine the results of a free and fair election — one that produced a clear winner and an even clearer loser.

But the most dangerous attackers of American democracy aren’t the Russians or the Chinese. They are the leaders of the Republican Party.

In the face of a commanding national triumph by President-elect Joe Biden — not just an Electoral College victory but a popular-vote margin that is approaching five million — President Trump and top Republicans are behaving like spoiled children refusing to let go of their toys.

...
By the way, for a party that professes to care so much about election integrity, Republicans have an odd way of showing it. Democrats have tried to pass multiple measures enhancing election security in recent years, some with bipartisan support. Mitch McConnell keeps blocking them, or being stingy with funding.
 
We know very well why Republicans don’t want to pass law’s strengthening elections against fraud.
 
Evangelicals taking the election result very well.

[TWEET]https://twitter.com/RightWingWatch/status/1325513157926932480?s=20[/TWEET]
 
Trump Forms PAC in Hopes of Keeping Hold on G.O.P. - The New York Times - "The PAC can accept donations from an unlimited number of people and spend to benefit other candidates, allowing the president to retain influence in a party remade largely in his image."

It's a kind of PAC known as a leadership PAC, one controlled by some politician. My favorite name of this kind of PAC is Ilhan Omar's:

Inspiring Leadership Has A Name

Growing Discomfort at Law Firms Representing Trump in Election Lawsuits - The New York Times - "Some lawyers at Jones Day and Porter Wright, which have filed suits about the 2020 vote, said they were worried about undermining the electoral system."

Opinion | What Is Trump Playing At? - The New York Times
I queried a number of American historians and constitutional scholars to see how they explain what should be an inexplicable response to an election conducted in a modern democracy — an election in which Republican victories up and down the ballot are accepted unquestioningly, while votes for president-elect Biden on the same ballots are not.

Many of those I questioned see this discrepancy as stemming from Trump’s individual personality and characterological deficiencies — what they call his narcissism and his sociopathy. Others offer a more starkly political interpretation: that the refusal to accept Biden’s victory stems from the frustration of a Republican Party struggling to remain competitive in the face of an increasingly multicultural electorate. In the end, it appears to be a mixture of both.

Many observers believe that the current situation presents a particularly dangerous mix, one that poses a potentially grave danger to American democracy.
Prof. Jonathan Gienapp noted that there were some close, contested elections in the past. "But none of these earlier examples featured what we see now: a completely manufactured controversy based on no evidence whatsoever, purely to maintain power, and to overturn a legitimate election." and "Trump’s refusal to concede and his congressional allies’ refusal to object to what he is doing is indeed most dangerous. If it continues to be given oxygen, it’s hard not to think that there could be lasting damage to the republic." and that this "is what rot looks like."

Prof. James T. Kloppenberg noted that "Trump’s refusal to acknowledge defeat is unprecedented" and continued with how democracy depends on social norms like deliberation, pluralism, and reciprocity.

Prof. Sean Wilentz said that "It would be not simply a major departure but a deeply dangerous one were Trump to deny the legitimacy of Biden’s election." and he compared it to the Southern states' secession after the election of Abraham Lincoln. It would be some virtual government in exile, someone won from wherever Trump decides to make his home. Mar-a-Lago? Moscow?

Prof. Ned Foley said that one has to go back to the election of 1800 for anything similar. "The Federalist Party considered various scenarios for depriving Thomas Jefferson of the presidency, including the possibility of a Federalist acting president if the House remained deadlocked over the tie." The electors were tied, so the vote went over to the House. But the House also was tied. But TJ was inaugurated, and he tried to be conciliatory, saying "We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists", something like what Obama said at the 2004 Democratic national convention, and what Joe Biden said most recently.

His opponent John Adams was very sore about this, but he accepted that he was defeated.

Prof. Manisha Sinha also noted the rejection of the results of an election - the Southern states' secession.
 
Frank Wilkinson wrote for Bloomberg: Trump’s Party Cannot Survive in a Multiracial Democracy
In other words, Trump’s refusal to concede, and the support he is getting from his fellow Republicans, is part and parcel of the sustained drive by the right, especially since Barack Obama won a majority in 2008, to constrain and limit political participation by minorities by every available means: gerrymandering, voter suppression, restricting the time and place of balloting, setting new rules for voter identification and so forth.

On this theory, allowing the Nov. 3 vote to stand would, in the face of rising minority participation, endanger the ability of the Republican Party to compete in future national elections.
Prof. Richard Johnson pointed out some similarities to the end of Reconstruction in the late 19th cy., a period which "provides many unfortunate examples of election losers refusing to accept defeat, as well as examples of constitutional chicanery and political violence to overturn U.S. election results." He described in a book he wrote "the refusal of Democrats in Louisiana and North Carolina to accept local elections which saw Black Republicans in municipal offices. In these disputes — in Colfax, Louisiana and Wilmington, North Carolina — the election winners and their supporters were murdered and the local party infrastructure (e.g., printing houses of supportive newspapers, local party headquarters) were burnt to the ground."

Since then, the two parties have changed places, with the Dixiecrats leaving the Democratic Party and joining the Republican Party. Sen. Lindsey Graham said recently "If Republicans — if we don’t challenge and change the U.S. election system, there’ll never be another Republican president elected again. President Trump should not concede."

Prof. Greg Grandin expects Trump to eventually give up. But
we see a pattern. First, in terms of ever more extremist right wing presidencies, there is an evolution: Nixon, Reagan, Bush, and now Trump. Each would have been unthinkable were it not for the precedent and policies of their predecessor. Second, I think Trump and Trumpism signal a weakening, or a collapse, of the two-party system’s ability to absorb tensions and conflicts.
He suspects something much worse will eventually happen. “Trump will be seen as significant, but really just a minor blip compared to the crisis that lay ahead.” We have been saved from the worst by Trump's incompetence, like his remarkable lack of maturity. But someone more level-headed could cause a LOT of trouble.

Prof. Samuel Moyn, however, does not think that Trump is very good at playing strongman.

Prof. James T. Campbell noted that no other sitting President has refused to accept the result of a Presidential election, and no Presidential candidate, with the partial exception of Andrew Jackson in 1828.
The thing that most astonished me in the 2016 campaign was Trump saying, repeatedly and quite casually, that he would refuse to agree to accept the results of the election unless he won it and then doubling down by saying that his first act on taking office would be to jail Hillary Clinton.

The authoritarianism expressed in those statements was so naked that I simply couldn’t believe that they weren’t immediately and universally denounced by Democrats and Republicans alike. Turns out he wasn’t kidding.
He then noted that one of his opponents, Ted Cruz, called him a pathological liar, someone who believes his own lies. That was before TC became a full-on Trumpie.

TC himself, from May 2016:
This man is a pathological liar. He doesn’t know the difference between truth and lies. He lies practically every word that comes out of his mouth. And in a pattern that I think is straight out of a psychology textbook, his response is to accuse everybody else of lying.

He accuses everybody on that debate stage of lying. And it’s simply a mindless yell. Whatever he does, he accuses everyone else of doing. The man cannot tell the truth, but he combines it with being a narcissist. A narcissist at a level I don’t think this country has ever seen.

Everything in Donald’s world is about Donald. And he combines being a pathological liar, and I say pathological because I actually think Donald, if you hooked him up to a lie-detector test, he could say one thing in the morning, one thing at noon and one thing in the evening, all contradictory and he’ll pass the lie detector test each time. Whatever lie he’s telling, at that minute he believes it.

...
Bullies don’t come from strength, bullies come from weakness. Bullies come from a deep, yawning cavern of insecurity.
 
Back
Top Bottom