Is Trump going to win his case and get another 4 years in office?

[violas]

Florida. My brother is a Trump supporter. He believes that Trump is going to win back the white house when he takes his case to the US Supreme Court. I don't believe it. What do you think? Is Trump going to have another 4 years in the White House?

 

[Taxing Matters]

Florida. My brother is a Trump supporter. He believes that Trump is going to win back the white house when he takes his case to the US Supreme Court. I don't believe it. What do you think? Is Trump going to have another 4 years in the White House?

So far none of the legal challenges Trump has started really have any significant basis for them and thus he's likely to lose them. I don't see any of them right now even making it to the Supreme Court. Besides, he'd need to succeed in changing the outcome in more than one state to win, which means he'd need to succeed in more than one legal challenge. I don't see that happening. Some Trump supporters are simply not willing to see the reality of how thin his arguments are and accept that their candidate lost the vote.

 

[commentator]

I find that people tend to claim 'the election was rigged" in general because of some apocryphal "my brother went to vote and found out somebody had already voted absentee using his information" When first of all, it probably didn't even happen to that legendary friend of a friend's brother's first cousin. And then, of course, even if you could assemble proofs of several incidents like this, that'd be three or four votes, probably in different states.. All those "this is proof of fraudulent counting!" and "they're burning ballots" have been debunked soundly.

And that's not going to change the outcomes, even if you have packed the Supreme Court with judges who'd have to give up all their on going credibility (and they're there for life, remember) to go in your favor IF it were ever to go as far as the Supreme Court, which it should never do. There's just not that much,. They say, "well, what about Bush and Gore?" But that was in fact, quite a different situation. Trump's people are just, even BEFORE the election, throwing junk out there to see if it sticks. And your poor brother (sorry for your loss, I've had a few of those too) honestly believes that God may intervene and save the country by giving Trump four more years, but it's just not likely at all to happen.

 

[quincy]

Apparently Jared Kushner and Melania have suggested to Trump that he accept the election results as they are. This comes from “unnamed sources” in the White House, however, so there is no telling how accurate it is.

There needs to be some proof of fraud or election irregularities that would significantly change the final tallies - and there has been no such evidence found or presented yet.

 

[FlyingRon]

He says he wants to take it to the SCOTUS immediately, but I'm not seeing that happening. First off, just because he asserts he's important (unconvincing) or the position is important (that I'll buy), that doesn't give him standing to sue over these issues there. The GOP is pursuing their strategies in the state courts, but they're largely specious. If it appeals out to the SCOTUS, things don't look good for them. The points they are making have pretty much been shot down by Roberts and Kavanaugh as well as the liberal justices. Alito and his derranged sock puppet Thomas might side with them, but I can't seen enough people upending elections over technicalities over ballot validity.

Understand is that there is no "fraud" actually alledged by anybody but the orange one. The GOP arguments are largely that relaxation of the non-traditional election day ballots were against the law. The SCOTUS already ruled that "perhaps they are, but we're not going to tell people their vote doesn't count when they were told that they were voting properly at the time."

It's a grandstanding show anyhow. It doesn't look like even if they managed to get all the "late" ballots or "witnessless ballots" discarded is that it will swing enough to change the outcome. It might flip Georgia, but that's not enough.

 

[Just Blue]

Alito and his derranged sock puppet Thomas

This made me laugh me ass off. Good one, Ron!

 

[quincy]

He says he wants to take it to the SCOTUS immediately, but I'm not seeing that happening. First off, just because he asserts he's important (unconvincing) or the position is important (that I'll buy), that doesn't give him standing to sue over these issues there. The GOP is pursuing their strategies in the state courts, but they're largely specious. If it appeals out to the SCOTUS, things don't look good for them. The points they are making have pretty much been shot down by Roberts and Kavanaugh as well as the liberal justices. Alito and his derranged sock puppet Thomas might side with them, but I can't seen enough people upending elections over technicalities over ballot validity.

Understand is that there is no "fraud" actually alledged by anybody but the orange one. The GOP arguments are largely that relaxation of the non-traditional election day ballots were against the law. The SCOTUS already ruled that "perhaps they are, but we're not going to tell people their vote doesn't count when they were told that they were voting properly at the time."

It's a grandstanding show anyhow. It doesn't look like even if they managed to get all the "late" ballots or "witnessless ballots" discarded is that it will swing enough to change the outcome. It might flip Georgia, but that's not enough.

Essentially all Alito “ordered” Pennsylvania to do was to follow the existing Pennsylvania Secretary of State’s directives to election workers. Alito made a point of saying that Coney Barrett was not included in the Court’s decision.

It appears clear to me that the Supreme Court wants nothing to do with any of this election nonsense.

Most of the state court filings have already been dismissed.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Most of the state court filings have already been dismissed.

And that highlights one of Trump's challenges in getting to the SCOTUS: pretty much most of the available challenges are under state law since most election law is state law. And the SCOTUS has no power to review the decisions of state courts on matters of state law. Trump would have to find a violation of federal election law (and while there are lots of federal laws regulating campaigning by officials for federal office, there are not many that specify how the elections themselves are to be done: the Constitution leaves that largely to the states) or allege that there is a Constitutional issue. I'm not seeing anything that would give Trump any nonfrivolous federal claim.

 

[quincy]

Here are links to the only order and Opinion out of the Supreme Court on the election so far (to my knowledge):

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/110620zr_g31i.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-542_i3dj.pdf

 

[FarmerJ]

In a chat elsewhere In a IRC room a user insist there was voter fraud and that dead people voted , I reminded him that yes I imagine some voters both D& R voted via absentee and since then have passed away from various causes inc covid as well. He pays attention to to many other sources of purported news and refuses to consider the concept that some people that created those stories may have lied which is unfortunate since there are so many more important things going on right now.

 

[quincy]

In a chat elsewhere In a IRC room a user insist there was voter fraud and that dead people voted , I reminded him that yes I imagine some voters both D& R voted via absentee and since then have passed away from various causes inc covid as well. He pays attention to to many other sources of purported news and refuses to consider the concept that some people that created those stories may have lied which is unfortunate since there are so many more important things going on right now.

There is a lot of nonsense published online. It is important to pick your sources carefully.

 

[FlyingRon]

In fact, many of these reports of improprieties have been investigated and found to be either lies, simple mistakes, or non-sequitors.

For instance, there were several statements that were proven just to be concocted (including one where the guy claims he was paid by GOP operatives to make it originally).

Several were just mistakes. A dead voter that came up, turned out really be an absentee ballot from the man's same-name son.

The assertion that poll watchers were turned away was that random self-appointed watchers showed up and were denied entry whereas the already registered monitors from both parties were in attendance.

The GOP knows this is all horseshit but they feel there's political hay to be made subverting the process. It's the same nonsense that birtherism and the claim that Obama "bought" the election in 2008.

 

[LdiJ]

He says he wants to take it to the SCOTUS immediately, but I'm not seeing that happening. First off, just because he asserts he's important (unconvincing) or the position is important (that I'll buy), that doesn't give him standing to sue over these issues there. The GOP is pursuing their strategies in the state courts, but they're largely specious. If it appeals out to the SCOTUS, things don't look good for them. The points they are making have pretty much been shot down by Roberts and Kavanaugh as well as the liberal justices. Alito and his derranged sock puppet Thomas might side with them, but I can't seen enough people upending elections over technicalities over ballot validity.

Understand is that there is no "fraud" actually alledged by anybody but the orange one. The GOP arguments are largely that relaxation of the non-traditional election day ballots were against the law. The SCOTUS already ruled that "perhaps they are, but we're not going to tell people their vote doesn't count when they were told that they were voting properly at the time."

It's a grandstanding show anyhow. It doesn't look like even if they managed to get all the "late" ballots or "witnessless ballots" discarded is that it will swing enough to change the outcome. It might flip Georgia, but that's not enough.

Biden doesn't even need Georgia to win. He has 279 electoral votes without GA. Therefore I don't understand why a GA recount even needs to happen.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Biden doesn't even need Georgia to win. He has 279 electoral votes without GA. Therefore I don't understand why a GA recount even needs to happen.

Because under GA law when the results are very close (I don't know off hand the exact cut off) a recount is mandatory. So they'd do the recount regardless of whether either campaign asked for it.

 

[FlyingRon]

Biden doesn't even need Georgia to win. He has 279 electoral votes without GA. Therefore I don't understand why a GA recount even needs to happen.

Because, just flipping Pennsylvania doesn't make Trump win. He needs all of Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia to be on his side.