2020 Presidential Race

[RockyTop85]

So “doesn’t smell right” didn’t fly, and we’re on to trying to throw out the election by means other than proving fraud. That about right?

Funny to see the “I am not a Trumpkin” folks openly admitting that anything will do as long as Trump remains president.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

That’s not proof that’s speculation...stop your whining. Bunch of cry babies

That speculation is now a lawsuit with merit. We'll see.

 

[NCFisher]

That is simply bull $hit... per Judge Stephanos Bibas - an appointee of President Donald Trump's. You don't get to create your own set of facts. Sorry.

Then you're equally excited and adamant about PA Judge Patricia A. McCullough's injunction as of yesterday evening, her "set of facts", right? And along my "own set of created facts" logic which sparked your reply. Sheer coincidence or just me being right and you being wrong? Again.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no harm to Respondents by the relief fashioned by this Court. The “Safe Harbor” provision of 3 U.S.C. §5 does not expire until December 8, 2020, and the Electoral College does not vote for president and vice president until December 14, 2020. Additionally, Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because Petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment. Petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene Pa.

Const. Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of that constitutional provision is at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77. Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim.

Without the emergency relief ordered by this Court, there would be the likelihood of irreparable harm to Petitioners. As to Petitioner Kelly, although it appears that he gained the most votes in the election for the office he seeks, that result has yet to be certified. Further, he may suffer irreparable harm prospectively should he seek election to public office in the future. If what may be an unconstitutional mail-in voting process remains extant, such mail-in ballots may make the difference as to whether he is successful or not. As to Petitioners Parnell and Logan, mail-in ballots may have made the difference as to whether they have won or lost their respective elections. Hence, their fates may well turn upon the constitutionality of Act 77. The other voters in this case assert their constitutional voting rights as citizens of Pennsylvania would be irreparably harmed. Conversely, since the relief ordered by the Court is on an emergency basis, Respondents face no irreparable harm. In any event, the matter of irreparable harm would have been assessed at the evidentiary hearing. The relief ordered by this Court is also in the public interest. Any claim that the voters of this Commonwealth are disenfranchised by this Court’s order are spurious. The Order at issue does nothing more than preserve the status quo pending further and immediate review. That being said, this Court is mindful that one of the alternative reliefs noted by Petitioners would cause the disenfranchisement of the nearly seven million Pennsylvanians who voted in the 2020 General Election. Specifically, Respondents claim that a temporary stay would disenfranchise voters as the legislature would appoint the electors to the Election College. However, as noted, the legislature is not authorized to appoint the electors to the Electoral College until December 8, the “Federal Safe Harbor” date for certifying results for presidential electors. The Court agrees it would be untenable for the legislature to appoint the electors where an election has already occurred, if the majority of voters who did not vote by mail entered their votes in accord with a constitutionally recognized method, as such action would result in the disenfranchisement of every voter in the Commonwealth who voted in this election – not only those whose ballots are being challenged due to the constitutionality of Act 77. However, this is not the only equitable remedy available in a matter which hinges upon upholding a most basic constitutional right of the people to a fair and free election. Hence, Respondents have not established that greater harm will result in providing emergency relief, than the harm suffered by the public due to the results of a purportedly unconstitutional election.5

For all of the above reasons, the Court respectfully submits that the emergency preliminary injunction was properly issued and should be upheld pending an expedited emergency evidentiary hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You see, the lower courts have to do their job whether they want to or not, whether from bias, incompetence, or they simply don't want to be holding the hot pan of exploding grease. Judge McCullough is doing hers. And Barrett will likely ensure SCOTUS does theirs.

 

[NCFisher]

So “doesn’t smell right” didn’t fly, and we’re on to trying to throw out the election by means other than proving fraud. That about right?

Funny to see the “I am not a Trumpkin” folks openly admitting that anything will do as long as Trump remains president.

Funny to see Bidensheviks suddenly unconcerned with the legitimacy of an election.

Whether you consider the illegal actions of courts and executive officials contravening state and federal laws as 'fraud', is a semantic point, not a practical one, correct? Both are illegal. I don't care whether it's 'fraud' or whether it's unconstitutionality. Illegal votes due to either should be purged and thus validate either Biden or Trump.

Blame the people who said screw the laws, not those pointing out the illegality.

 

[NCFisher]

That’s not proof that’s speculation...stop your whining. Bunch of cry babies

Tell it to the "speculating, whining, cry baby" PA judge who yesterday granted injunction on that very basis:

Petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene Pa. Const. Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of that constitutional provision is at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77. Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim.

You can expand your reading pleasure by referring to my post #88,003.

 

[NCFisher]

NC, I wanted to commend you for your excellent posts.

Thanks, Bro. You've been doing some exceptional work yourself.

 

[titansvolsfaninga]

Then you're equally excited and adamant about PA Judge Patricia A. McCullough's injunction as of yesterday evening, her "set of facts", right? And along my "own set of created facts" logic which sparked your reply. Sheer coincidence or just me being right and you being wrong? Again.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no harm to Respondents by the relief fashioned by this Court. The “Safe Harbor” provision of 3 U.S.C. §5 does not expire until December 8, 2020, and the Electoral College does not vote for president and vice president until December 14, 2020. Additionally, Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because Petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment. Petitioners appear to have a viable claim that the mail-in ballot procedures set forth in Act 77 contravene Pa.

Const. Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of that constitutional provision is at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77. Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim.

Without the emergency relief ordered by this Court, there would be the likelihood of irreparable harm to Petitioners. As to Petitioner Kelly, although it appears that he gained the most votes in the election for the office he seeks, that result has yet to be certified. Further, he may suffer irreparable harm prospectively should he seek election to public office in the future. If what may be an unconstitutional mail-in voting process remains extant, such mail-in ballots may make the difference as to whether he is successful or not. As to Petitioners Parnell and Logan, mail-in ballots may have made the difference as to whether they have won or lost their respective elections. Hence, their fates may well turn upon the constitutionality of Act 77. The other voters in this case assert their constitutional voting rights as citizens of Pennsylvania would be irreparably harmed. Conversely, since the relief ordered by the Court is on an emergency basis, Respondents face no irreparable harm. In any event, the matter of irreparable harm would have been assessed at the evidentiary hearing. The relief ordered by this Court is also in the public interest. Any claim that the voters of this Commonwealth are disenfranchised by this Court’s order are spurious. The Order at issue does nothing more than preserve the status quo pending further and immediate review. That being said, this Court is mindful that one of the alternative reliefs noted by Petitioners would cause the disenfranchisement of the nearly seven million Pennsylvanians who voted in the 2020 General Election. Specifically, Respondents claim that a temporary stay would disenfranchise voters as the legislature would appoint the electors to the Election College. However, as noted, the legislature is not authorized to appoint the electors to the Electoral College until December 8, the “Federal Safe Harbor” date for certifying results for presidential electors. The Court agrees it would be untenable for the legislature to appoint the electors where an election has already occurred, if the majority of voters who did not vote by mail entered their votes in accord with a constitutionally recognized method, as such action would result in the disenfranchisement of every voter in the Commonwealth who voted in this election – not only those whose ballots are being challenged due to the constitutionality of Act 77. However, this is not the only equitable remedy available in a matter which hinges upon upholding a most basic constitutional right of the people to a fair and free election. Hence, Respondents have not established that greater harm will result in providing emergency relief, than the harm suffered by the public due to the results of a purportedly unconstitutional election.5

For all of the above reasons, the Court respectfully submits that the emergency preliminary injunction was properly issued and should be upheld pending an expedited emergency evidentiary hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You see, the lower courts have to do their job whether they want to or not, whether from bias, incompetence, or they simply don't want to be holding the hot pan of exploding grease. Judge McCullough is doing hers. And Barrett will likely ensure SCOTUS does theirs.

Tantamount to throwing $hit at the wall to see what sticks.
Officials Appeal To PA Supreme Court To Dismiss Trump Case
This is becoming embarrassing.....yet here we are

 

[hUTch2002]

Why play softball when you can play hardball?
The counter offer is full court one on one.

You scared?

PointGuard bringing it to all the "righties."

I get not playing horse but full court one on one sucks. Even in my playing days I didn’t like that. I didn’t even like 3 on 3 full court. 4 on 4 was the minimum and even then if it was a regulation court it wasn’t the same.

 

[NCFisher]

I was talking about you. AirVol.

Btw, I don't need your long winded explanations nor your extremely biased rationalizations

Well, that's rude considering I catered to the lowest denominator by highlighting a handful of sentences. Virtually anyone of any intelligence level can consume it in under a minute. If even a minute which encapsulates the 'Mueller' probe is too much for you, maybe forums aren't your bag.

Objective rationalization is indistinguishable from fact; they are the same thing.

 

[hUTch2002]

I have a beard, Squints and I’m a lot taller. Ok I’ll do full court but limit the time to first to 7 points wins

I need a month to get in some wind sprints. Do you get snow where you live, Squints?

I’m impressed you only need a month. You must be somewhat young. I would need a month just to make sure I didn’t die. I’m a little overweight but not horribly so. It’s just been so long, even more so for full court.

 

[1972 Grad]

I identified 17 counties whose results matched the eventual winner of all presidential elections between 1980 and 2016 (I'm not sure where the 19 number is coming from--I could only find 17, so those are the ones I examined). Those are Clallam County, Washington; Bremer County, Iowa; Essex County, Vermont; Hidalgo County, New Mexico; Marquette County, Wisconsin; Juneau County, Wisconsin; Ottawa County, Ohio; Richland County, Wisconsin; Sawyer County, Wisconsin; Shiawassee County, Michigan; Valencia County, New Mexico; Van Buren County, Michigan; Vigo County, Indiana; Warren County, Illinois; Washington County, Maine; Westmoreland County, Virginia; and Wood County, Ohio. Out of those, only Clallam County, Washington had a majority vote for Joe Biden in 2020.

Out of the 16 counties that matched the winner between 1980 and 2016 but did not vote majority for Joe Biden in 2020, they were on average 91.2% White versus the the national average of 76.3%. They were on average 3.5% Black/African American versus the national average of 13.4%. They were on average 2.4% Native American versus the national average of 1.3%. They were on average 0.9% Asian versus the national average of 5.9%. They were on average 0.1% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander versus the national average of 0.2%. They were on average 1.9% two or more races versus the national average of 2.8%. And they were on average 11.4% Hispanic or Latino versus the national average of 18.5%. Out of the 16 counties, 15 were whiter than the national average and only 1 was blacker than the national average. 2 were more Hispanic than the national average.

Out of the 16 counties, they had slightly higher rates of high school graduates in the population over 25 years of age. The average of the 16 counties was 88.7% versus the national average of 87.7%. They had a significantly lower rate of persons over 25 with a bachelor's degree or higher. The average of the 16 counties was 20.6% versus the national average of 31.5%. Out of the 16 counties, only 1 county had a rate of higher education higher than the national average.

The average household income of the 16 counties between 2014 and 2018 was $50,059 (in 2018 dollars) versus the national average of $60,293. One of the counties had a higher-than-average income level.

On average, the 16 counties had a population density of 78.9 persons per square mile, lower than the overall US population density of 92.9 persons per square mile. The county with the highest population density is Vigo County, Indiana, with an overall density of 265 persons per square mile, with its county seat, Terre Haute, having a maximum population density of 1731 persons per square mile and a total population of 60,622. For reference, Knox County has an overall density of 850 persons per square mile, with Knoxville coming in at 1,900 persons per square mile and a total population of 187,603. Davidson County has an overall density of 1,326 persons per square mile, while Nashville has a population of 670,820. The closest Tennessee equivalent to the size of Terre Haute is Bartlett.

As for the voting trends of the 16 counties, I only compiled data going back to the 2000 presidential election, but since then, they've tended to vote, on average, close to the national popular vote margin. They have historically leaned further toward the winning side than average, with the difference being larger with Republican winners. However, this changed in 2016; in both the 2016 and 2020 elections, these counties voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump, with margins much higher than the national average. Based on this, the deviance in these bellwethers' votes actually started during the last election cycle and continued on the same trend during this election cycle.

To put some numbers on this, the 16 counties voted with a margin 5.05 percentage points higher (more Republican) than the national popular vote total in 2000 (50.34% Bush / 45.80% Gore versus the national total 47.87% Bush / 48.38% Gore); 3.86 percentage points higher (more Republican) than the national popular vote total in 2004 (52.65% Bush / 46.33% Kerry versus the national total 50.73% Bush / 48.27% Kerry); 1.54 percentage points higher (more Democratic) than the national popular vote total in 2008 (53.60% Obama / 44.79% McCain versus the national total 52.93% Obama / 45.65% McCain); and 0.86 percentage points higher (more Democratic) than the national popular vote total in 2012 (51.32% Obama / 46.59% Kerry versus the national total 51.06% Obama / 47.20% Kerry). A huge shift happens in 2016: the 16 counties voted with a margin 16.98 percentage points higher (more Republican) than the national total (53.95% Trump / 39.06% Clinton versus the national total 46.09% Trump / 48.18% Clinton). In 2020, this lead slightly increased to a margin 20.01 percentage points higher (more Republican) than the national total (57.09% Trump / 41.03% Biden versus the national total 47.17% Trump / 51.12% Biden).

So, as you can see, the "bellwether counties" aren't a very good litmus test of the US as a whole nowadays, at least when it comes to demographics. The counties that voted for Trump this cycle tend to have demographics that tend to be favorable for Trump (when it comes to nationwide voting), and that's reflected in the numbers he got in these counties in 2016. These demographics are not representative of the nation as a whole.

Another thing that I wanted to point out that might help to process this quirk in the election--did you know that in the 2016 election, there were also 16 bellwether counties that had correct predictions back to at least 1980, but ended up being incorrect by voting a majority for Hillary Clinton? Of those 16, 14 voted a majority for Joe Biden during this election, meaning that out of the 33 (that I've confirmed) bellwethers going into the 2016 election with correct choices back to at least 1980, 1 still has 100% correct predictions, 30 have only missed on one election, and only 2 have missed on 2 elections.

As a final note, all of this info was pulled from the United States Census Bureau and state and county official voting information. I went through all the data and have it compiled in a spreadsheet if you want to review it yourself; none of this is from the media or any other political site and it can all be found with a little research into unbiased public data sources.

All that crap means nothing to me. They have had the same political leanings as the country as a whole for 40 years. That is all that matters. Who cares about the demographics? Means nothing.

 

[hUTch2002]

"Activist" has become the new keyword that Republicans use to dismiss and discredit someone they don't like. White House Press Secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, has taken to calling journalists who are critical of Trump "activists". In this instance, Jenna Ellis was calling one of Trump's own judicial appointments an activist. That just makes her look like an idiot.

Like racist from the left huh? The right still has a ways to go to catch up to the nastiness of the left but they’re definitely birds of a feather.

 

[hUTch2002]

On the first of September it’s not freak? Law says you must have chains on board beginning October causing me to think September 2 was a freak

I had no chains. But I had a set made by a logging company

How old are you? I’ll consider 21 points depending on your age

I think you were talking by ones and he was not. You all really aren’t that far off.

 

[hUTch2002]

LOL. That is pretty funny.

 

[NCFisher]

Tantamount to throwing $hit at the wall to see what sticks.
Officials Appeal To PA Supreme Court To Dismiss Trump Case
This is becoming embarrassing.....yet here we are

What part of
"Const. Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of that constitutional provision is at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77. Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim."

by Judge McCullough do you not understand? That is her speaking, not the petitioners. That's not "**** on the wall", but a plain statement that Act 77 was not passed in accordance with the state constitution. Now what does that mean? That's right, boys and girls, that Act 77 which grotesquely expanded mail balloting, is unconstitutional and was the difference in the PA election.

Why doesn't unconstitutionality matter to you in a presidential - or any - election?

Naw, man, just kidding; it's rhetorical. We already have your answer.

 

[USAFgolferVol]

Well, that's rude considering I catered to the lowest denominator by highlighting a handful of sentences. Virtually anyone of any intelligence level can consume it in under a minute. If even a minute which encapsulates the 'Mueller' probe is too much for you, maybe forums aren't your bag.

Objective rationalization is indistinguishable from fact; they are the same thing.

I apologize. You're obviously intelligent and informed. I'm certain there are posters who appreciate your posts. I just feel you're a bit misguided in your defense of Trump

 

[titansvolsfaninga]

What part of
"Const. Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of that constitutional provision is at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77. Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim."

by Judge McCullough do you not understand? That is her speaking, not the petitioners. That's not "**** on the wall", but a plain statement that Act 77 was not passed in accordance with the state constitution. Now what does that mean? That's right, boys and girls, that Act 77 which grotesquely expanded mail balloting, is unconstitutional and was the difference in the PA election.

Why doesn't unconstitutionality matter to you in a presidential - or any - election?

Naw, man, just kidding; it's rhetorical. We already have your answer.

She basically saying, ok, you can have your day in court. Nothing was unconstitutional. If it was, it would have been challenged BEFORE the election not after the results. As I said, your getting embarrassing.

 

[BenGrimm]

Whataboutism is a logical loser.

I agree. Ironically it’s the logic of Trump himself.

 

[NCFisher]

So that wasn't fake news? They really did have unaccounted for mail-in ballots?

I think the PA Senator is wrong.
The 1.8 million figure represents the number of mail-in ballots that Pennsylvania reported had been requested by persons registered as Democrats as of the voter registration deadline of Oct. 19. That figure did not include the hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots that were also requested by persons registered as Republicans (or persons registered with third parties affiliations or with no party affiliation) as of that date,
The deadline for requesting mail-in ballots was several days later (Oct. 27), and by then over 3 million mail-in ballots were requested, of which over 2.6 million were ultimately returned by the specified deadline for ballot counting.
Did Pennsylvania Record Many More Mail-In Votes than Ballots Requested?

Yeah, I know it's Snopes but this one appears pretty clear cut.

 

[Orange_Crush]

What part of
"Const. Article VII Section 14 as the plain language of that constitutional provision is at odds with the mail-in provisions of Act 77. Since this presents an issue of law which has already been thoroughly briefed by the parties, this Court can state that Petitioners have a likelihood of success on the merits of its Pennsylvania Constitutional claim."

by Judge McCullough do you not understand? That is her speaking, not the petitioners. That's not "**** on the wall", but a plain statement that Act 77 was not passed in accordance with the state constitution. Now what does that mean? That's right, boys and girls, that Act 77 which grotesquely expanded mail balloting, is unconstitutional and was the difference in the PA election.

Why doesn't unconstitutionality matter to you in a presidential - or any - election?

Naw, man, just kidding; it's rhetorical. We already have your answer.

Interestingly enough, she didn't sound impressed that the SoS certified the election (only presidential, with no down-ballot) while the lower court was asking for information to rule on this. ANd now there seems to be questions whether it was legal to piecemeal the certification. IOW, there seems to be on the table, a legal challenge to the existing certification.

 

[NCFisher]

She basically saying, ok, you can have your day in court. Nothing was unconstitutional. If it was, it would have been challenged BEFORE the election not after the results. As I said, your getting embarrassing.

Your assertion is illogical; the judge clearly states the opposite of what you claim.

That the Repub legislature didn't do their job beforehand, doesn't grant constitutionality to Act 77. Nor does it preclude them (or the courts), now that there are damages by the act, from doing their job now.

Surely even you can see how banal your statement is..?

 

[Serene]

All that crap means nothing to me.

Sorry about that. To be fair, it's probably helpful to have an understanding of statistics in order to try to interpret the data.

They have had the same political leanings as the country as a whole for 40 years.

So did the 14 states that voted majority Hillary Clinton in 2016 and voted majority Joe Biden this year. They have the same record in the last 40 years. In fact, those 14 states voted much closer to the actual vote total of the nation in both 2016 and 2020, so they're actually more reliable of an indicator of the nation's political leanings at large.

That is all that matters.

Well, as the data shows, not really.

Who cares about the demographics?

People who actually care about facts instead of their gut feeling.

Means nothing.

Again, sorry it's over your head.

 

[lostsheep]

Sorry about that. To be fair, it's probably helpful to have an understanding of statistics in order to try to interpret the data.


So did the 14 states that voted majority Hillary Clinton in 2016 and voted majority Joe Biden this year. They have the same record in the last 40 years. In fact, those 14 states voted much closer to the actual vote total of the nation in both 2016 and 2020, so they're actually more reliable of an indicator of the nation's political leanings at large.


Well, as the data shows, not really.


People who actually care about facts instead of their gut feeling.


Again, sorry it's over your head.

Good breakdown of the stats.

You’re wasting your time with some of these knuckleheads. The only data they will pay attention to is some twisted version of statistics that show trump somehow won.

 

[1972 Grad]

Sorry about that. To be fair, it's probably helpful to have an understanding of statistics in order to try to interpret the data.


So did the 14 states that voted majority Hillary Clinton in 2016 and voted majority Joe Biden this year. They have the same record in the last 40 years. In fact, those 14 states voted much closer to the actual vote total of the nation in both 2016 and 2020, so they're actually more reliable of an indicator of the nation's political leanings at large.


Well, as the data shows, not really.


People who actually care about facts instead of their gut feeling.


Again, sorry it's over your head.

I forgot to add....tl;dr.

 

[NCFisher]

I apologize. You're obviously intelligent and informed. I'm certain there are posters who appreciate your posts. I just feel you're a bit misguided in your defense of Trump

No offense taken.
I'm defending the concept of a validated election, regardless of outcome or my decided preference that Trump be elected.