At what margin of electoral defeat will Trump be forced to admit defeat?

[Jimmy Higgins]

It'd be extraordinarily hard. The Dems crushed the GOP in 2018, but gerrymandering quelled the significance of that. I can't see the election going to the House, but enough State's swapping to Democrat.

 

[lpetrich]

Why Four Pivotal Swing States Likely Won’t Be Called On Election Night | FiveThirtyEight - PA, MI, WI, and NC - "Most swing states will be counting ballots after Election Day"

What a big fat mess.

Some states will accept ballots that arrive after Election Day, and some states only allow counting of mail-in ballots after Election Day, states like PI, MI, and WI.

After seeing how long it took to count the votes in New York City, I don't have much confidence in the timeliness of the counting. So they ought to start counting when the ballots start arriving.


Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "

I am voting early and in person.

What’s your voting plan?

" / Twitter
She voted early during the NY primary elections earlier this year.

An alternative to using the USPS is drop boxes at polling places.

Gov. Greg Abbott shutters drop-off locations for Texans voting by mail | The Texas Tribune - "The Republican governor's order Thursday was a rebuke to large, Democratic counties that have set up numerous locations where voters may drop off their completed absentee ballots in person. Civil rights groups say it will suppress voting."

Texas governor limits election drop boxes to one per county in sprawling state - CNNPolitics

The move significantly affects the Democratic stronghold of Harris County, which is the state's largest county by population -- one of the most populous in the country -- and covers a massive area. It must now reduce its 12 drop-off locations down to one starting on Friday, according to Elizabeth Lewis, spokeswoman for the Harris County Clerk's Office. Travis County, which includes the reliably Democratic city of Austin, must limit its four drop-off locations to one.

Other large counties -- like Tarrant, Dallas and El Paso County -- only had one drop-off location already in place.

The Republican governor said in a statement the order was made to enhance ballot security. It also allows poll watchers to observe the in-person delivery of mail-in ballots by voters, but critics say it could severely limit access for many voters.

• Harris County: Houston and some nearby suburbs
• Dallas County: Dallas and some nearby suburbs
• Tarrant County: Fort Worth and some nearby suburbs

 

[Old Woman in Purple]

At what margin of electoral defeat will Trump be forced to admit defeat?


He's dying to win......





I see myself out.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[J842P]

This is good news.

I assume the military skews young, like, 25 and younger. I wonder how much that would explain it?

The military isn't a democracy though.

If lots of soldiers decide not to vote for Trump, or to vote for Biden, that's going to have a small effect on the results. It might be significant in swing states, but probably won't be amongst the most significant things in those states on election night.

The real importance of 'military support' for Trump is in deciding the actions (or inactions) they take when ordered to support him as CIC against what he will spin as an attempted coup d'état, if Biden's team attempt to have their man inaugurated (or even recognised as victor), while Trump's chaos merchants are still busy obscuring the result.

And that comes down to Trump's support (or otherwise) amongst the higher ranks (and therefore older demographic). There's a reason why third-world shitholes are often run by General Whoever, or Colonel Whatshisname, and rarely by Sergeant Whoisit or Corporal Thingumy.

A successful coup requires that at least some military units (or more accurately, their commanders) actively support the coup, while those who do not actively support, at least stay in their barracks.

If one side has support amongst senior officers who are prepared take an active part, and the bulk of those senior officers who lean towards the other side are persuaded that active combat on the streets of their own country is a cure that's worse than the disease, then the coup will succeed.

If the senior officers are fairly equally divided in both opinions and commitment to action, you get a civil war instead.

As both sides would likely frame a significant confusion that obscures the democratic process as a coup attempt against their side, the issue becomes not one of popularity (even amongst senior officers), but more one of readiness to lead their troops onto the streets. And that suggests that any coup might be resolved in favour of the more authoritarian and violent side.

I missed this when you posted it originally, but I totally agree, and that was what I was talking about.

 

[lpetrich]

Trump campaign discussing plans to appoint its own state electors, no matter the results: report | Salon.com - "A real nightmare scenario: The eight closest battleground states might send competing sets of electors to Congress"

Every state has allowed its voters to make the call in every election since the late 1800s. But in 2000, the Supreme Court held in Bush v. Gore that the states "can take back the power to appoint electors."

According to a Sept. 23 article in The Atlantic, campaign advisers to Trump, in conjunction with Republican state leaders, are preparing to test this theory. Sources in the Republican Party, at both state and national levels, say that the campaign is considering a plan to "bypass" the popular vote results and install its own electors in key battleground states where the legislatures are controlled by Republicans.

Republicans control both legislative bodies in the six closest battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Of those six, both Arizona and Florida have Republican governors.

Trump and his campaigners plan to howl "FRAUD!!!" and demand that legislators take over the elector selection.

"The Atlantic reported that a Trump campaign legal adviser said this effort would be framed as protecting the will of the people."

How convenient.

"Three Pennsylvania Republican leaders told The Atlantic that they had already talked about appointing electors directly, and one of them — the chair of the state's Republican Party — said he had discussed the possibility with the Trump campaign."

That could lead to some states having rival slates of electors, one chosen by their legislators, and one by their governors. Then it will be up to Congress to decide which ones are the "real" ones.

The last time this happened was in 1876.

 

[SLD]

Trump campaign discussing plans to appoint its own state electors, no matter the results: report | Salon.com - "A real nightmare scenario: The eight closest battleground states might send competing sets of electors to Congress"

Every state has allowed its voters to make the call in every election since the late 1800s. But in 2000, the Supreme Court held in Bush v. Gore that the states "can take back the power to appoint electors."

According to a Sept. 23 article in The Atlantic, campaign advisers to Trump, in conjunction with Republican state leaders, are preparing to test this theory. Sources in the Republican Party, at both state and national levels, say that the campaign is considering a plan to "bypass" the popular vote results and install its own electors in key battleground states where the legislatures are controlled by Republicans.

Republicans control both legislative bodies in the six closest battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Of those six, both Arizona and Florida have Republican governors.

Trump and his campaigners plan to howl "FRAUD!!!" and demand that legislators take over the elector selection.

"The Atlantic reported that a Trump campaign legal adviser said this effort would be framed as protecting the will of the people."

How convenient.

"Three Pennsylvania Republican leaders told The Atlantic that they had already talked about appointing electors directly, and one of them — the chair of the state's Republican Party — said he had discussed the possibility with the Trump campaign."

That could lead to some states having rival slates of electors, one chosen by their legislators, and one by their governors. Then it will be up to Congress to decide which ones are the "real" ones.

The last time this happened was in 1876.

But it won’t work. Pennsylvania law doesn’t allow for legislators to select electors over the will of the voters. They’d have to change the law to do that and that would require the governor’s approval, and he’s a Democrat. Not to mention it’s just too late and even Repugs aren’t likely to support such a radical move. It’s a pipe dream of Trump. The only way they’re going to change anything is by challenging the votes in court and that’s extremely difficult. The burden of proof would be on them. If Biden wins by say 40,000 votes (~.5%), there’s no way you could prove that many ballots are fraudulent. Or that they’re all for Biden.

The real fear is if it’s a lot closer, like 400 votes. Then there’s a Florida like scenario with various legal challenges.

My real fear is he pulls some stunt like confiscating ballot boxes by Barr. He’ll get some sympathetic judge he’s appointed to agree there’s massive evidence of fraud in various precincts and will just outright try to steal the election.

That’s still difficult to pull off. It’s not a given that a judge or even government bureaucrats in DoJ will go along with his plans. There could be massive upheavals if he tried such a stunt and other Republicans may not even support such a blatant power grab.

We will see though.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump campaign discussing plans to appoint its own state electors, no matter the results: report | Salon.com - "A real nightmare scenario: The eight closest battleground states might send competing sets of electors to Congress"

Every state has allowed its voters to make the call in every election since the late 1800s. But in 2000, the Supreme Court held in Bush v. Gore that the states "can take back the power to appoint electors."

According to a Sept. 23 article in The Atlantic, campaign advisers to Trump, in conjunction with Republican state leaders, are preparing to test this theory. Sources in the Republican Party, at both state and national levels, say that the campaign is considering a plan to "bypass" the popular vote results and install its own electors in key battleground states where the legislatures are controlled by Republicans.

Republicans control both legislative bodies in the six closest battleground states: Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Of those six, both Arizona and Florida have Republican governors.

Trump and his campaigners plan to howl "FRAUD!!!" and demand that legislators take over the elector selection.

"The Atlantic reported that a Trump campaign legal adviser said this effort would be framed as protecting the will of the people."

How convenient.

"Three Pennsylvania Republican leaders told The Atlantic that they had already talked about appointing electors directly, and one of them — the chair of the state's Republican Party — said he had discussed the possibility with the Trump campaign."

That could lead to some states having rival slates of electors, one chosen by their legislators, and one by their governors. Then it will be up to Congress to decide which ones are the "real" ones.

The last time this happened was in 1876.

But it won’t work. Pennsylvania law doesn’t allow for legislators to select electors over the will of the voters.

So what? What is the mechanism to undo it? They commit the crime, Trump gets the White House, then they get punished. SCOTUS sweeps under the rug.

I'd say, for the most part, blue states are safe from said maneuver. Florida wouldn't be. Ohio probably safe-ish. North Carolina Legislature would just make up new laws as they moved along.

The real fear is if it’s a lot closer, like 400 votes. Then there’s a Florida like scenario with various legal challenges.

That is simply unlikely. Votes that close very very rarely happen. The concern will be Trump's lead being chipped away in PA as the mail-in votes get counted and he claims fraud as 100,000 ballots are found in a van down by the river. His red hat army of idiots will march in the street, protesting the stealing of the election. This is why we need Florida and/or Ohio just to go Biden on election night to avoid everything wrong Trump can do to what remains of our democratic institutions.

 

[lpetrich]

New Yorker Festival on Twitter: "Tonight at the virtual #NewYorkerFest, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez discussed the urgency of mass, non-violent civil demonstration if Donald Trump refuses a peaceful transfer of power. (links)" / Twitter

"There need to be immediate political, popular, and social consequences for leadership that refuses to adhere to the rule of law." -- AOC

noting
Agenda | The New Yorker Festival 2020

Featured in
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Elizabeth Warren on Wielding Political Power | The New Yorker

Warren’s key message was a familiar one: a call for progressives to vote. “We can’t afford to beat Donald Trump by a little bit; we’ve gotta beat Donald Trump by a huge amount. And that’s how we reassert the strength of our democracy,” she said.

It also makes it difficult to challenge the results. Trump can bellow "FRAUD!!!" but with enough rejection of him, he will seem more like a mental-hospital escapee than someone worthy of the most powerful office in the nation.

Ocasio-Cortez added that, in addition to voting, Americans need to be prepared to demonstrate if Trump’s actions make it necessary. “It’s extremely important that people be ready for mass civil demonstrations. Non-violent, of course,” she said. “There need to be immediate political, popular, and social consequences for leadership that refuses to adhere to the rule of law.”

They noted how public pressure can make politicians back down.

Warren emphasized that it is a combination of different types of pressure that makes political figures change course. She is often asked what her plan is if the President loses the vote and refuses to leave office—and she believes her Republican colleagues should be getting that question as well. “Mitch McConnell should be asked this question every single day,” she said. “ ‘What is your plan, Mr. Leader of the Senate, if Donald Trump loses the vote and refuses to acknowledge it?’ ”

Good idea. Let's see what's their breaking point in what they are willing to enable.

 

[Gospel]

Trump can't be forced to admit defeat. But if he losses by any margin he will be forced to leave the Whitehouse. It's that simple folks.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Is it that simple? Trump and Barr have both made nonstop noise about the mail-in/fraud intersection, which exists only as a Trumpist myth. They have multiple lawsuits going now to impede mail-ins. Trump actually schemed to hobble the post office to stop the mail-in surge he thinks will finish him. Considering the legal theories his team advanced in court in years past (such as, a President is immune to indictments, a President can pick and choose which Congressional subpoenas to honor), and considering the character of President and AG...do you doubt they will challenge a defeat in court and seek to have bushels of votes thrown out? People without moral character have no boundaries on their actions. It will hinge on the judiciary. We can only hope that Trump's infinite hubris will finally be the banana peel (or turd) that he slips on.

 

[Gospel]

Is it that simple? Trump and Barr have both made nonstop noise about the mail-in/fraud intersection, which exists only as a Trumpist myth. They have multiple lawsuits going now to impede mail-ins. Trump actually schemed to hobble the post office to stop the mail-in surge he thinks will finish him. Considering the legal theories his team advanced in court in years past (such as, a President is immune to indictments, a President can pick and choose which Congressional subpoenas to honor), and considering the character of President and AG...do you doubt they will challenge a defeat in court and seek to have bushels of votes thrown out? People without moral character have no boundaries on their actions. It will hinge on the judiciary. We can only hope that Trump's infinite hubris will finally be the banana peel (or turd) that he slips on.

Yeah, it really is that simple. Lawsuits to impede mail-ins doesn't automagically = impeded mail-ins. Legal theories doesn't automagically = legal facts (hell even legal facts aren't legal facts at times). Having a morally bankrupt congress and AG in his pocket doesn't automagically = a second Trump term either. What is automagical is voting him out plain and simple. In my opinion if the "cheaters" succeed in undermining the Constitution , the fault rests with every single American. Democrat, Republican, Green, People party whatever you call yourself - you've all failed to do your job preserving it. Allowing your follow American to become so ignorant and society so fragmented is your own god damn fault. What Imma say next should not be seen as insinuating African American's aren't included in aforementioned blame however they've been telling America for over 400 years now that y'all crazy and need to chill the fuck out so what's with the shock and awe?

 

[bilby]

Trump can't be forced to admit defeat. But if he losses by any margin he will be forced to leave the Whitehouse. It's that simple folks.

So that's why Bush was frogmarched out of the Whitehouse on Inauguration Day 2001.

Oh, wait, no he wasn't.

There's a recent precedent for the loser taking office, courtesy of the courts. It's a lot of things, but 'simple' it surely is not.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump can't be forced to admit defeat. But if he losses by any margin he will be forced to leave the Whitehouse. It's that simple folks.

So that's why Bush was frogmarched out of the Whitehouse on Inauguration Day 2001.

Oh, wait, no he wasn't.

There's a recent precedent for the loser taking office, courtesy of the courts. It's a lot of things, but 'simple' it surely is not.

There was never a count where W lost Florida. His 1500 or so vote lead dwindled to 500ish, and then in subsequent other counts prior to SCOTUS's ruling, it got down to 150ish (out of 5,800,000), but then SCOTUS stopped the recount and then said the game was over, and it finished around 500ish, or about 0.5% of Ralph Nadar's vote total (or a larger fraction of spoiled butterfly ballot votes).

W lost the popular vote in the US, but did cling to a tiny several hundred vote lead, which never dwindled to 0. Florida was FUBAR'd by even FUBAR standards, with a fake astroturf "protest" at Palm Beach County Canvassing Board to the endless trials to slow down the counts turn recounts.

But yes, the crucial term in Bush v Gore II would be 'equal protection'. That would be adjacent connection to a Trump lawsuit asking for enough ballots to be thrown out to put the election into doubt in whatever number states. That and the deadline. Trump can delay counting in states long enough, then they can't be involved.

 

[Gospel]

Trump can't be forced to admit defeat. But if he losses by any margin he will be forced to leave the Whitehouse. It's that simple folks.

So that's why Bush was frogmarched out of the Whitehouse on Inauguration Day 2001.

Oh, wait, no he wasn't.

There's a recent precedent for the loser taking office, courtesy of the courts. It's a lot of things, but 'simple' it surely is not.

It is my opinion that simple is when the proper channels are used and results are reached whether or not you agree with the results. I didn't care for the Bush presidency (either time or either one) however I'm of the opinion that a not simple election looks more like a complete societal collapse (like the civil war) before reaching a conclusion rather than what happened with Bush. So yeah, it's as simple as voting and the results are the results like it or not. Like the results? Great get out there and vote across the ticket again next time. Don't like the results? Great get out there and vote across the ticket. Speak with not only your representatives but your follow American's. Stop letting the god damn opinion pieces rule the narrative. All the hee-haw'in ain't gonna take that load of every voters back.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump can't be forced to admit defeat. But if he losses by any margin he will be forced to leave the Whitehouse. It's that simple folks.

So that's why Bush was frogmarched out of the Whitehouse on Inauguration Day 2001.

Oh, wait, no he wasn't.

There's a recent precedent for the loser taking office, courtesy of the courts. It's a lot of things, but 'simple' it surely is not.

It is my opinion that simple is when the proper channels are used and results are reached whether or not you agree with the results. I didn't care for the Bush presidency (either time or either one) however I'm of the opinion that a not simple election looks more like a complete societal collapse (like the civil war) before reaching a conclusion rather than what happened with Bush. So yeah, it's as simple as voting and the results are the results like it or not. Like the results? Great get out there and vote across the ticket again next time. Don't like the results? Great get out there and vote across the ticket. Speak with not only your representatives but your follow American's. Stop letting the god damn opinion pieces rule the narrative. All the hee-haw'in ain't gonna take that load of every voters back.

We still don't know if we are going to get "the results" of the 2020 vote. If we get results, Huzzah! But what happens if lawyers ask courts to intervene Tuesday night?

 

[Gospel]

It is my opinion that simple is when the proper channels are used and results are reached whether or not you agree with the results. I didn't care for the Bush presidency (either time or either one) however I'm of the opinion that a not simple election looks more like a complete societal collapse (like the civil war) before reaching a conclusion rather than what happened with Bush. So yeah, it's as simple as voting and the results are the results like it or not. Like the results? Great get out there and vote across the ticket again next time. Don't like the results? Great get out there and vote across the ticket. Speak with not only your representatives but your follow American's. Stop letting the god damn opinion pieces rule the narrative. All the hee-haw'in ain't gonna take that load of every voters back.

We still don't know if we are going to get "the results" of the 2020 vote. If we get results, Huzzah! But what happens if lawyers ask courts to intervene Tuesday night?

The courts will either intervene (if they can) or not. Duh. Don't trust your judges? Do better at ALL the ballet boxes next time. No idea why you seem shocked this can happen when the majority of Americans don't turn out for the bottom ticket. It's like They Netflix and chill through the pre-season, only watch highlights during the regular season & then all of a sudden wanna turn out for the Super Bowl. Only to find that their franchise went broke and didn't make it. Besides doesn't Congress regulate what songs the Supremes can sing? Again, bottom ticket. But, I'm Jamaican (not really an excuse as I've been in America for over 40 years but I'm using it anyway because I CANT VOTE), so I most likely don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[Rhea]

The entirety of the derail wherein one poster claims to have posted on the OP question but no one else can find thhe answer has been moved to ~Elsewhere.

Back to the topic of what margin of victory would cause trump to admit defeat.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Trump can't be forced to admit defeat. But if he losses by any margin he will be forced to leave the Whitehouse. It's that simple folks.

So that's why Bush was frogmarched out of the Whitehouse on Inauguration Day 2001.

Oh, wait, no he wasn't.

There's a recent precedent for the loser taking office, courtesy of the courts. It's a lot of things, but 'simple' it surely is not.

There was never a count where W lost Florida. His 1500 or so vote lead dwindled to 500ish, and then in subsequent other counts prior to SCOTUS's ruling, it got down to 150ish (out of 5,800,000), but then SCOTUS stopped the recount and then said the game was over, and it finished around 500ish, or about 0.5% of Ralph Nadar's vote total (or a larger fraction of spoiled butterfly ballot votes).

W lost the popular vote in the US, but did cling to a tiny several hundred vote lead, which never dwindled to 0. Florida was FUBAR'd by even FUBAR standards, with a fake astroturf "protest" at Palm Beach County Canvassing Board to the endless trials to slow down the counts turn recounts.

But yes, the crucial term in Bush v Gore II would be 'equal protection'. That would be adjacent connection to a Trump lawsuit asking for enough ballots to be thrown out to put the election into doubt in whatever number states. That and the deadline. Trump can delay counting in states long enough, then they can't be involved.

Yea, this post is correct. Secondly, Gore conceded Florida and the race. So, while Bush lost the popular vote, he won the EC. I do think that if Bush had lost Florida by one vote, that he would have conceded to Gore. Obviously Gore did. Both men care far more for the country that Trump does. As an aside, very sad that Gore lost. We'll probably never have a more pro-environment president than Gore.

 

[LoAmmo]

I don't think Trump will truly "concede" (assuming he loses) no matter WHAT the count--whether it's 270 to 268 or 538 to zip--because the severity of his Narcissistic Personality Disorder wouldn't even allow him losing to be part of his reality. If he lost by two electoral votes, his takeaway would be that the traitorous cheating Democrats did just enough to steal the election, and any higher proportion would simply reflect (in his mind) nothing but increasingly effective cheating. He'd never graciously concede to Biden an election he saw as illegitimate--and any election he loses would, by definition, be illegitimate.

He'll die convinced he really won in 2020, no matter the margin by which reality records that he lost.