2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[CU77]

NO ONE is dumb enough to believe this.

If only that were true.

But it isn't.

[RedFromMI]

At the state level, expect the (R)'s to resist unsolicited mail in ballots & to push for more rigorous maintenance of accurate voter registration rolls & increased election monitoring. This will play out at both state & national levels before the 2022 election. (imho)

I'll wager a year of my wages to yours that so long as the Republicans lose the White House----or worse, lose the Senate and the House?

Republicans----meaning in Congress, Media, Voters, and you Old Salt.....will forever claim voter fraud.

No matter what. No matter what changes are made. No matter how secure the elections are made. No matter---laughably---if the R's themselves control the elections as you do in Georgia.

This isn't about fraud. It's about losing.

And if you win, as you did in 2016? Oh, well surprise of all surprises? You didn't hear a word from your team about fraud.

It's so stupid. NO ONE is dumb enough to believe this. Explain this to any of your friends from foreign countries. Watch them change the subject because what you are saying is so transparently childish and dumb.

Care to take my wager? Or anyone else here?


This is the new Republican game, and it is going to get WORSE if the R's lose the next election. No matter what is done to (snicker) "fix" the elections.

Nowhere in my post did I use the word fraud, or even imply such. That's your standard diversionary projecting reply tactic.

My post was about turning out the vote.
I labored to make my post as analytical as possible, using neutral language.
The immediate, emotional overwrought responses are telling.

I'm all for making voting as accessable as possible, provided an equivalent level of security to voting in person can be maintained.
It was once acknowledged by both parties that mail in voting is not as secure as voting in person.
The Carter-Baker Commission report was the bipartisan standard.

It is not unreasonable to expect a voter to take an affirmative action to vote.
Requesting an absentee ballot via phone, on line or in person, confirming current residence, is not an undue burden,
when a voter is unable or not inclined to vote in person.
Mailing out thousands of unsolicited ballots to unconfirmed voters or addresses is an invitation for fraud.

For CU-77 : if you examine the common context of "stole a march" you will note that it implies resourceful, tactical surprise, not theft, & is a positive analogy, ...except to PTDS victims.

From much more recently than the commission report of 2005:

Carter Center Statement on Voting by Mail for 2020 U.S. Elections
May 06, 2020

ATLANTA (May 6, 2020) — The United States faces a series of critical challenges because of the COVID-19 pandemic, including serious impediments to holding safe, secure, and inclusive elections in November. Many voters across the U.S. are likely to find themselves in areas where the pandemic has not abated and where the health risks involved in going to polling locations will be unacceptably high.

To address this threat, The Carter Center urges federal and state governments to expand access to vote-by-mail options and to provide adequate funding as quickly as possible to allow for the additional planning, preparation, equipment, and public messaging that will be required.

The nonpartisan 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, noted among its many findings and recommendations that because it takes place outside the regulated environment of local polling locations, voting by mail creates increased logistical challenges and the potential for vote fraud, especially if safeguards are lacking or when candidates or political party activists are allowed to handle mail-in or absentee ballots.

However, the Carter-Baker Commission found that where safeguards for ballot integrity are in place – for example in Oregon, where the entire state has voted by mail since 1998 – there was little evidence of voter fraud. The commission’s main recommendations on vote-by-mail and absentee voting were to increase research on vote-by-mail (and early voting) and to eliminate the practice of allowing candidates or party workers to pick up and deliver absentee ballots. Fortunately, since 2005, many states have gained substantial experience in vote-by-mail and have shown how key concerns can be effectively addressed through appropriate planning, resources, training, and messaging.

“I urge political leaders across the country to take immediate steps to expand vote-by-mail and other measures that can help protect the core of American democracy – the right of our citizens to vote,” said former President Carter.

Among the key areas to address are:

Expanding easy access to absentee ballot request forms online and ensuring that requested ballots are received with enough time to vote and return the ballot for counting.
Providing options for returning a ballot, including prepaid postage, use of a USPS postmark or other official data to verify that the ballots were cast on time, and accessible drop-off boxes.
Establishing adequate security provisions for all ballots, including ballots received by polling officials in advance of Election Day.
Providing additional funding for election administrators for ballot printing, postage, ballot-tracking and processing, staff training, etc.
Disseminating clear public messaging about deadlines for ballot requests, submissions, steps needed to ensure ballots are valid (e.g. signing envelopes),and about the time it takes to count absentee ballots and finalize official results.

In addition to giving all voters the option to vote by mail, establishing COVID-19-sensitive polling locations on Election Day and for advance voting so that voters who need assistance or who prefer to vote in-person can cast a secret ballot, privately and free from outside influence.

[old salt]

*

[old salt]

Nowhere in my post did I use the word fraud, or even imply such. That's your standard diversionary projecting reply tactic.

My post was about turning out the vote.
I labored to make my post as analytical as possible, using neutral language.
The immediate, emotional overwrought responses are telling.

I'm all for making voting as accessable as possible, provided an equivalent level of security to voting in person can be maintained.
It was once acknowledged by both parties that mail in voting is not as secure as voting in person.
The Carter-Baker Commission report was the bipartisan standard.

It is not unreasonable to expect a voter to take an affirmative action to vote.
Requesting an absentee ballot via phone, on line or in person, confirming current residence, is not an undue burden,
when a voter is unable or not inclined to vote in person.
Mailing out thousands of unsolicited ballots to unconfirmed voters or addresses is an invitation for fraud.

For CU-77 : if you examine the common context of "stole a march" you will note that it implies resourceful, tactical surprise, not theft, & is a positive analogy, ...except to PTDS victims.

From much more recently than the commission report of 2005:

Carter Center Statement on Voting by Mail for 2020 U.S. Elections
May 06, 2020

ATLANTA (May 6, 2020) — The United States faces a series of critical challenges because of the COVID-19 pandemic, including serious impediments to holding safe, secure, and inclusive elections in November. Many voters across the U.S. are likely to find themselves in areas where the pandemic has not abated and where the health risks involved in going to polling locations will be unacceptably high.

To address this threat, The Carter Center urges federal and state governments to expand access to vote-by-mail options and to provide adequate funding as quickly as possible to allow for the additional planning, preparation, equipment, and public messaging that will be required.

The nonpartisan 2005 Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James A. Baker III, noted among its many findings and recommendations that because it takes place outside the regulated environment of local polling locations, voting by mail creates increased logistical challenges and the potential for vote fraud, especially if safeguards are lacking or when candidates or political party activists are allowed to handle mail-in or absentee ballots.

Among the key areas to address are:

Expanding easy access to absentee ballot request forms online and ensuring that requested ballots are received with enough time to vote and return the ballot for counting.
Providing options for returning a ballot, including prepaid postage, use of a USPS postmark or other official data to verify that the ballots were cast on time, and accessible drop-off boxes.
Establishing adequate security provisions for all ballots, including ballots received by polling officials in advance of Election Day.
Providing additional funding for election administrators for ballot printing, postage, ballot-tracking and processing, staff training, etc.
Disseminating clear public messaging about deadlines for ballot requests, submissions, steps needed to ensure ballots are valid (e.g. signing envelopes),and about the time it takes to count absentee ballots and finalize official results.

In addition to giving all voters the option to vote by mail, establishing COVID-19-sensitive polling locations on Election Day and for advance voting so that voters who need assistance or who prefer to vote in-person can cast a secret ballot, privately and free from outside influence.

Carter Center spin. James Baker did not sign that.
Were all those key areas adequately addressed, consistently applied, & complied with, under bi-partisan observation ?

[a fan]

]Nowhere in my post did I use the word fraud, or even imply such. That's your standard diversionary projecting reply tactic.

My post was about turning out the vote.
I labored to make my post as analytical as possible, using neutral language.

Yes. I know.

That doesn't change one word of my response.

No matter what happens, or what any State does to "fix" what you perceive as problems. Your team is going to claim fraud or fake every single time they lose. It's a game.

And I told you this after the last stupid election when your team pretended to care about Voter ID. And what did they do to "fix" the problem?

Nothing. Why? Because it's not a real problem. That, and they want something to get guys like you all jazzed up about for the next election, and the next election, and the......

[a fan]

At the state level, expect the (R)'s to resist unsolicited mail in ballots & to push for more rigorous maintenance of accurate voter registration rolls & increased election monitoring. This will play out at both state & national levels before the 2022 election. (imho)

I'll wager a year of my wages to yours that so long as the Republicans lose the White House----or worse, lose the Senate and the House?

Republicans----meaning in Congress, Media, Voters, and you Old Salt.....will forever claim voter fraud.

No matter what. No matter what changes are made. No matter how secure the elections are made. No matter---laughably---if the R's themselves control the elections as you do in Georgia.

This isn't about fraud. It's about losing.

And if you win, as you did in 2016? Oh, well surprise of all surprises? You didn't hear a word from your team about fraud.

It's so stupid. NO ONE is dumb enough to believe this. Explain this to any of your friends from foreign countries. Watch them change the subject because what you are saying is so transparently childish and dumb.

Care to take my wager? Or anyone else here?


This is the new Republican game, and it is going to get WORSE if the R's lose the next election. No matter what is done to (snicker) "fix" the elections.

The Ironic part to all of this, IS, that we, in fact, did hear tRump whine about voter fraud after he won in 2016.

Sure he did. You left out that he made these claims BEFORE the 2016 election. So that way, he's "covered" if he loses. And "whoops" he won. And "whoops", TrumpNation "forgot" to protest and claim that Trump won by rigging the votes.

And he did the same thing this year, obviously.

[FannOLax]

He also whined "fraud" after the 2016 election because official results showed HRC winning the popular vote. So the sore winner put together a special panel to investigate voter fraud in the 2016 election; panel found nothing.

[ggait]

Interesting theory on why the election was closer than what the polls showed. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Trumpers were not "shy" about their support for Trump. But they lied about their lower education levels. Which skewed the sampling.


During an invitation-only virtual event Thursday, Joe Biden’s campaign manager, Jen O’Malley Dillon, said public pollsters may have underestimated support for Donald Trump in part because respondents said they were more educated than they really were. That may have reduced the sample of nondegreed Trump supporters and increased the need for public pollsters to use statistical weighting to estimate the impact of those voters on election results.

Public polls consistently gave Biden a comfortable lead—sometimes in the double digits—over Trump during the 2020 campaign. O’Malley Dillon said repeatedly before the election that Biden’s internal pollsters were seeing a much closer race than public polling indicated.

Trump lost the election, but his campaign was very successful. It turned out 10 million more voters in 2020 than it did in 2016. It did so mainly by pulling more votes from the same demographic groups that supported him in 2016. Chief among those groups is white Republicans without college degrees.

Those same voters may have disguised themselves to pollsters by dressing up their education history. O’Malley Dillon said Biden’s internal pollsters could see that, statistically, the education levels stated by poll respondents weren’t lining up with education levels reported in census data. So they opted to rely on the census data, not the statements of poll respondents, when defining their sample. And they avoided using weighting, she said.

[seacoaster]

This entire faux debate is about how future elections will be conducted in the US.

Thanks to the pandemic, the (D)'s stole a march

Oh, sweet turn of phrase there! "Stole a march" is indeed an old idiom that means "gained an unexpected advantage", but working in the word "stole" here was touch of genius.

on the (R)'s & were able to make this a national election conducted primarily via unsolicited mail in ballots, administered under pandemic rationalized rules which were established shortly before the election, in some cases, without the required participation of state legislatures.

And now an outright lie. This issue was adjudicated before multiple state and federal courts, up to and including SCOTUS, and was found to be false.

It was right out of Stacey Abram's playbook & mirrors the DNC strategy contained in Pelosi's HR1. The GOP failed to effectively counter this strategy before & during the election, resulting in insufficient evidence to pursue post-election legal challenges. Epic fail for the GOP.

You mean not enough people voted for them. The "unsolicited" ballots went to all, not just Ds.

If the GOP is to survive as a national party, we will need to find an effective counter strategy if voting via unsolicited mail in ballots becomes the norm rather than the exception. This election, the (D)'s more effectively captured their low propensity voters than the (R)'s did. Do the (R)'s have sufficient untapped low propensity voters to catch up on the increase in turnout made possible via unsolicited mail in ballots. Was the shortfall due to an insufficient pool of untapped low propensity (R) voters, or because of Trump's effort to cast doubt & discourage mail in voting. I suspect the RNC is polling & analyzing to find out.

The shortfall was due to a majority figuring out that having a not-very-useful idiot (in thrall to a vicious dictator waging ruthless cyberwar against us) and criminal grifter as POTUS was a bad idea after all. Who coulda guessed?

At the state level, expect the (R)'s to resist unsolicited mail in ballots & to push for more rigorous maintenance of accurate voter registration rolls & increased election monitoring. This will play out at both state & national levels before the 2022 election. (imho)

Oh yes, the trumpistas will try to further suppress the vote.

Because as McCain and Romney campaign strategist Steve Schmidt has pointed out, there is now only one party in America that believes in democracy.

+1. Another good post/reply. The Republican strategy is the same: reduce the Census count; gerrymander the districts whenever and wherever possible to lock in the voters to whom their candidate will prostrate him- or herself; making voting harder for people of color and "low propensity voters." If everyone votes, the GOP is f*cked.

making voting harder for people of color and "low propensity voters." If everyone votes, the GOP is f*cked.


Very interesting sentiments there coaster. For them to be true you have to accept the premise that people of color are too stupid to exercise their right to vote. What you are insinuating is that a majority of black Americans are too stupid to know how and when to vote. How ignorant and racist of you to propagate such a disgusting ideal. You don't think in the year 2020 that black Americans don't need a FLP peckerhead to reinforce the importance of the black vote. Then you go and insult them by declaring them to be too stupid to understand that they should be concerned about a bunch of liberals who think them to be too stupid to understand how to vote. GOOD JOB there Coaster, your lack of respect for black Americans is pretty pathetic there my friend.

Well, sorry you feel that way. I don't think anyone is "too dumb to vote;" I don't think intelligence has anything to do with who can vote or for whom they vote. You just get to vote if you are a citizen of one of the states of this country. I do think putting one collection box for ballots in a city or region of 4,000,000, at the direction of a Governor or Secretary of State from one party, makes voting arduous -- and it shouldn't be. I think having people vote on Tuesdays makes voting more logistically difficult -- and it shouldn't be. And so on. It isn't about intestinal fortitude. It is about making the vote easily and equally available to all Americans, irrespective of the vote they might cast, or the vote -- more realistically for this discussion -- that you suspect they might cast.

I am not woefully ignorant, anyway, and I am absolutely not racist, and it saddens me that you think I am. I never said anything about anyone being "too stupid to understand how to vote." I'm actually a little astonished you took my concededly partisan comments that way. I just want people to be free to vote. And I don't think that Republicans, in their hearts or hearts, want the same thing.

[old salt]

]Nowhere in my post did I use the word fraud, or even imply such. That's your standard diversionary projecting reply tactic.

My post was about turning out the vote.
I labored to make my post as analytical as possible, using neutral language.

Yes. I know.

That doesn't change one word of my response.

No matter what happens, or what any State does to "fix" what you perceive as problems. Your team is going to claim fraud or fake every single time they lose. It's a game.

And I told you this after the last stupid election when your team pretended to care about Voter ID. And what did they do to "fix" the problem?

Nothing. Why? Because it's not a real problem. That, and they want something to get guys like you all jazzed up about for the next election, and the next election, and the......

How about responding to what I post, rather than what you project upon me by "my team".

Because of the pandemic, the rules were changed too late to be effectively countered by the (R)'s.
The states will examine the results & the claims in their jurisdictions before the next election.
Only a fool would contend there was no fraud. The courts found no evidence presented of fraud sufficient to alter the outcome.
The citizens of each state, through their elected state legislatures, will decide how to proceed in 2022.

[ABV 8.3%]

He also whined "fraud" after the 2016 election because official results showed HRC winning the popular vote. So the sore winner put together a special panel to investigate voter fraud in the 2016 election; panel found nothing.

to which I was referring, thank you.

AFAN, king of the infer.

guess it happens naturally when you spend your life infusing things..... , aren't they synonyms>

[ABV 8.3%]

]Nowhere in my post did I use the word fraud, or even imply such. That's your standard diversionary projecting reply tactic.

My post was about turning out the vote.
I labored to make my post as analytical as possible, using neutral language.

Yes. I know.

That doesn't change one word of my response.

No matter what happens, or what any State does to "fix" what you perceive as problems. Your team is going to claim fraud or fake every single time they lose. It's a game.

And I told you this after the last stupid election when your team pretended to care about Voter ID. And what did they do to "fix" the problem?

Nothing. Why? Because it's not a real problem. That, and they want something to get guys like you all jazzed up about for the next election, and the next election, and the......

How about responding to what I post, rather than what you project upon me by "my team".

Because of the pandemic, the rules were changed too late to be effectively countered by the (R)'s.
The states will examine the results & the claims in their jurisdictions before the next election.
Only a fool would contend there was no fraud. The courts found no evidence presented of fraud sufficient to alter the outcome.
The citizens of each state, through their elected state legislatures, will decide how to proceed in 2022.

Or, until the CARES act covid election money, all one billion of it, runs out. Oh, and it WILL run out. carry on, to whats important, tRumps ego.

[a fan]

How about responding to what I post, rather than what you project upon me by "my team".

That's fair, and I apologize. I find all of this very, very annoying and dangerous.

I shouldn't take it out on you. I'm sorry.

Because of the pandemic, the rules were changed too late to be effectively countered by the (R)'s.

The rules for which States? There are 50 of them. And I'm assuming that you think that the other States are fraud-free, and don't need any fixes?

My point, among many here, is that these aren't serious concerns, any more than the cries of Voter ID from Republicans in 2016 were "miraculously" forgotten in 2020, even though not a single State made all voters vote with ID in hand.

It's nonsense. And it won't get "fixed". And the complaints won't go away, so long as D's win. In fact, the complaints will increase.

[a fan]

He also whined "fraud" after the 2016 election because official results showed HRC winning the popular vote. So the sore winner put together a special panel to investigate voter fraud in the 2016 election; panel found nothing.

to which I was referring, thank you.

AFAN, king of the infer.

guess it happens naturally when you spend your life infusing things..... , aren't they synonyms>

Ok. That was a good one.

But nothing I said was incorrect---Trump played this "it's fraud" game BEFORE the 2016 election was held.

[ABV 8.3%]

He also whined "fraud" after the 2016 election because official results showed HRC winning the popular vote. So the sore winner put together a special panel to investigate voter fraud in the 2016 election; panel found nothing.

to which I was referring, thank you.

AFAN, king of the infer.

guess it happens naturally when you spend your life infusing things..... , aren't they synonyms>

Ok. That was a good one.

But nothing I said was incorrect---Trump played this "it's fraud" game BEFORE the 2016 election was held.

No kidding sherlock, I was the one that brought the example up. But, you also "infused" my thoughts with saying , or inferring, that I was unhappy with AOC, amazon shut down. I to, bought into it. For about 3 or 4 days. Took about 2 calls and one text to confirm, what should always be, 4 sides to every story. 2 coming from the exact same person. often.

So, NO, tax breaks for the taats crowd? you seriously think I approve of that? F the dump truck drivers that call themselves fiscal conservatives. bunch of hypocrites......hey, that guy thinks tax breaks for big business are A ok? seriously ,this is what you infuse into the conversation.

sorry brother, but that is symptom number one of socialmediaupdownism. you have lost all cognitive thinking skills if you think I support tax breaks for wealthy companies. I mean, seriously, what the heck is going on around here?

[RedFromMI]

How about responding to what I post, rather than what you project upon me by "my team".

That's fair, and I apologize. I find all of this very, very annoying and dangerous.

I shouldn't take it out on you. I'm sorry.

Because of the pandemic, the rules were changed too late to be effectively countered by the (R)'s.

The rules for which States? There are 50 of them. And I'm assuming that you think that the other States are fraud-free, and don't need any fixes?

My point, among many here, is that these aren't serious concerns, any more than the cries of Voter ID from Republicans in 2016 were "miraculously" forgotten in 2020, even though not a single State made all voters vote with ID in hand.

It's nonsense. And it won't get "fixed". And the complaints won't go away, so long as D's win. In fact, the complaints will increase.

Actually the "fixes" will be rolled out in the R states (especially like GA) to make more suppression possible. They are already talking about it in GA. (Lower number of days of early voting. Remove no-excuse absentee ballots. More voter list purges. Limit secure ballot boxes.)

[old salt]

How about responding to what I post, rather than what you project upon me by "my team".

That's fair, and I apologize. I find all of this very, very annoying and dangerous.

I shouldn't take it out on you. I'm sorry.

Because of the pandemic, the rules were changed too late to be effectively countered by the (R)'s.

The rules for which States? There are 50 of them. And I'm assuming that you think that the other States are fraud-free, and don't need any fixes?

My point, among many here, is that these aren't serious concerns, any more than the cries of Voter ID from Republicans in 2016 were "miraculously" forgotten in 2020, even though not a single State made all voters vote with ID in hand.

It's nonsense. And it won't get "fixed". And the complaints won't go away, so long as D's win. In fact, the complaints will increase.

The fact that each state is different only complicated the task of the (R)'s to counter the changes made at the last minute.

The (D)'s had an effective 2 minute offense (see HR1, Stacey Abram's suit/consent decree in GA, & the Carter Center's revision of the Carter-Baker report quoted above).

The (R)'s didn't have an effective 2 minute defense. Trump's attacks on mail in voting & the USPS were disruptive & depressed (R) mail in turnout.

How could the (R)'s demand ID in 2020, when the pandemic necessitated the majority of voting be done by mail ?

[njbill]

old salt, I actually think the voting procedures used this year worked out quite well for Republicans, with one notable exception.

Republicans gained seats in the House, which was unexpected to many.

In the Senate, Republicans lost the two seats most widely expected (Arizona and Colorado), but hung on to at least two other seats many thought they would lose: Maine and North Carolina. They also held onto other seats the Dems had their eyes on, but which were really long shots. E.g., Iowa and South Carolina.

One governorship flipped, and that went from Democrat to Republican.

Of course, the notable exception is the presidency. Given how well Republicans did in other races, I think you have to blame that loss on the candidate for all of the reasons we have been pounding our keyboards about for years now.

[old salt]

old salt, I actually think the voting procedures used this year worked out quite well for Republicans, with one notable exception.

Republicans gained seats in the House, which was unexpected to many.

In the Senate, Republicans lost the two seats most widely expected (Arizona and Colorado), but hung on to at least two other seats many thought they would lose: Maine and North Carolina. They also held onto other seats the Dems had their eyes on, but which were really long shots. E.g., Iowa and South Carolina.

One governorship flipped, and that went from Democrat to Republican.

Of course, the notable exception is the presidency. Given how well Republicans did in other races, I think you have to blame that loss on the candidate for all of the reasons we have been pounding our keyboards about for years now.

I hope you're right bill. That's why I included this in my post :
If the GOP is to survive as a national party, we will need to find an effective counter strategy if voting via unsolicited mail in ballots becomes the norm rather than the exception. This election, the (D)'s more effectively captured their low propensity voters than the (R)'s did. Do the (R)'s have sufficient untapped low propensity voters to catch up on the increase in turnout made possible via unsolicited mail in ballots. Was the shortfall due to an insufficient pool of untapped low propensity (R) voters, or because of Trump's effort to cast doubt & discourage mail in voting. I suspect the RNC is polling & analyzing to find out.

The theory which resonates with me = the attractiveness of Biden vs HRC to male voters.
How many men switched back to Biden because as a non-Hillary, he was less offensive than Trump ?

That's the GOP's dilemma going forward = how to maintain the energy & retain Trump's supporters & Trump's policies, without having to endure the negatives of Trump the man & candidate. ...maybe Mother Nature will intervene. The legal system will just make him a martyr.

[njbill]

My daughter was vehement that sexism played a role in Clinton’s loss. I think it was a factor, but don’t think it was nearly as important as she did.

I always go back to a factor that got very little attention: Clinton was trying to win a third consecutive term for her party. Very difficult to do. Of course, all of the other factors that have been discussed ad nauseam played a role as well.