2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
I'd imagine an error of over 1.5% is definitely possible but somewhat unlikely.
But that still creates a huge gap between losing the eleciton and losing the popular vote.
Hillary got 2.9 million more votes and got mostly wafflecrushed.
Biden got 7 million more votes and barely won the important states.
Does this mean you're going to put money on Kamala as an underdog since you hold information that shows that Kamala had already won Pennsylvania?
I believe personally she's gonna win, Ezra Cohen just said there's widespread fraud going on in CO and PA, but for him to know that hopefully means something was done about it. I've only heard of a few confirmed prisoners (one of them a guy stuffing drop off boxes at 12am....seriously if these things still exist, it's over, she wins. Why do we even need them post covid?). They also caught someone walking into a closed drop off center, being let in after closing, driving a vehicle with out of state plates dropping of boxes of ballots and when he was questioned on a video cam he claimed to work for the post office. I truly hope the task force trying to protect our election integrity is big enough. I'm also predicting this will all be in plain sight in one week from tonight (assuming the election takes place and isn't cancelled because of a natural disaster or anything, you never know).
Kamala is down to about a 1.0-1.5% avg lead in National polling over Trump which woun't even be enough to match Hillary's performance and would very likely be enough for Trump to win the electorate.
If the election were today, you'd need a rather large polling error in favor of Kamala for her to pull this off.
the national polls don’t count. It’s the state polls that count. The only demographic shift the needs in order to make this not the factor is for there to be more Republicans in blue states than normal. That would cause whatever increase Trump saw in national support to be completely irrelevant to the electoral college.
I believe personally she's gonna win, Ezra Cohen just said there's widespread fraud going on in CO and PA, but for him to know that hopefully means something was done about it. I've only heard of a few confirmed prisoners (one of them a guy stuffing drop off boxes in 12am....seriously if these things still exist, it's over. Why do we need them post covid?). They also caught someone walking into a closed drop off center, being let in after closing, driving a vehicle with out of state plates dropp
This has already been explained to you as not being de facto or de jure illegal, and depends upon one's interpretation of the electoral rules laid out in the Constitution. It is rather interesting that closure on this legal gray area was attempted in the revision to the ECA in 2022, two years after this supposed high crime and misdemeanor occurred.
it was so obvious they had to change the law afterward to clarify it
It became an election fraud scheme when they created false slates of electors and presented them as equivalent to the legal ones. The part in question in the ECA that they fixed the language of was about whether the VP had anything other than a ceremonial role in certifying the election itself. But attempting to present the false slates as legitimate slates was in itself de jure illegal.
also, Just because it was questionable whether the EA applied or not, does not mean that it statutory construc
If it's not outlined in law that Pence can't do it, it's not de jure illegal. This specific issue rested (at the time) entirely on ones legal opinion of the Article II of the Constitution. Trump's legal team had an (admittedly) ridiculous and fringe interpretation.
His most frequent criticisms of posters who disagree with him are smugness, arrogance, and lack of comprehension - traits which he exhibits in spades pretty much every time he posts. Always projection with these people. Always.
Exactly. What people seem to be actually arguing without realizing it is that they consider the attempt de facto illegal, perhaps because it had never been done before. Yet SCOTUS ruled against the independent state legislature theory just last year (the conservative boogeyman court).
If it's not outlined in law that Pence can't do it, it's not de jure illegal. This specific issue rested (at the time) entirely on ones legal opinion of the Article II of the Constitution. Trump's legal team had an (admittedly) ridiculous and fringe interpretation.
I said the false elector* scheme is what is illegal. This is not responsive to what I wrote.
If it's not outlined in law that Pence can't do it, it's not de jure illegal. This specific issue rested (at the time) entirely on ones legal opinion of the Article II of the Constitution. Trump's legal team had an (admittedly) ridiculous and fringe interpretation.
the skate of elector stuff might have been illegal under state law in some cases and it probably was in a few of them, and the not-very-smart people trump used in some case to try that got caught.
but in many states, legislatures clearly had the legal right to override the vote and present whatever list (slate) of electors they wanted to the senate, irrespective of how voting went. and trying that for the trump team, I. all states where that was legal, was 100% legalm
yes it was an attempt to disregard the vote but a legal one (in many cases, not all of them). which failed.
but construing a narrative under which trying to use all legal venues to win is "fascism" or whatever is simply insane.
yes the system itself is insane if voters can be overidden. fix that ffs, and thank trump for having made it clear to you that's a flaring hole
Exactly. What people seem to be actually arguing without realizing it is that they consider the attempt de facto illegal, perhaps because it had never been done before. Yet SCOTUS ruled against the independent state legislature theory just last year (the conservative boogeyman court).
You think people are explicitly arguing that they consider something prohibited by law in practice ("de facto illegal", as you call it) when it is not prohibited by law in... law ("de jure illegal" [lol], as you call it)?
can you elaborate here? i'm utterly confused why people are still relying on national polling data to judge the closeness of this election when we have '16 & '20 data to go off. feels like a "fool me once..." scenario
The country is more diverse where it counts. Of course, the national polls could be off by 2-3 percent in either direction, that much is true. It’s also true that there are more conservative polls than there have been. It also true the fact that there is more conservative polls than before by some percent does not move the aggregate that much.
Another fact is Donald Trump increased his percentage of overall vote share in 2020 than in 2016, but lost. So, when you look at reasonable polls Kamala is not doing worse among minority voters than Biden in 2020. And those shares are a larger slice of the pie, so for example getting 60% of the hispanic vote in a state would be more valuable in 2024 than getting 60% of the hispanic vote in the same stste in 2016- I know you probably know this , im just clarifying. The trend would be for Trump to do even better nationally percentage wise, possibly even as well as Romney, and still losing.
Exactly. What people seem to be actually arguing without realizing it is that they consider the attempt de facto illegal, perhaps because it had never been done before. Yet SCOTUS ruled against the independent state legislature theory just last year (the conservative boogeyman court).
some parts of the attempt might have been "actually" (de iure) illegal , wrt state laws.
but the attempt to have Pence disregard slates he disapproved of wasn't illegal at all which is why they had to change the law about it
Can one of you legal scholars who keeps throwing around these terms give me an example of something that is "de facto illegal" but not "de jure illegal"?
His most frequent criticisms of posters who disagree with him are smugness, arrogance, and lack of comprehension - traits which he exhibits in spades pretty much every time he posts. Always projection with these people. Always.
It's not that you disagree, it's that half your posts towards others in here are smug condescensions and ad-homs about not being smart or sophisticated enough to understand terms or concepts that you obviously don't understand yourself.
It's not that you disagree, it's that half your posts towards others in here are smug condescensions and ad-homs about not being smart or sophisticated enough to understand terms or concepts that you obviously don't understand yourself.
It's way more than half.
Ok, smart guy, educate me.
Can one of you legal scholars who keeps throwing around these terms give me an example of something that is "de facto illegal" but not "de jure illegal"?
Segregation is a good example. In lots of jurisdictions there were no written laws regarding it, yet it was enforced as if it was the law anyway.
I have PB on ignore, can someone just tell me if he’s betting on kamala +135 to take penn or +170 to take it all now that he knows the fix is in? Seems like free money
Could Trump do as well as Mitt Romney? It seems possible, but extremely dubious. He didn’t in 2016 or in 2020, and in 2020 he was an incumbent.
Can one of you legal scholars who keeps throwing around these terms give me an example of something that is "de facto illegal" but not "de jure illegal"?
in common law that's more common than you think.
in the UK in particular you have an unwritten constitution, so nothing is de iure unconstitutional, because there is no written, actual, factual, objective law or statute being broken, but DE FACTO, ie in actuality, practically, some laws or decisions or whatever will be deemed unconstitutional
Segregation is a good example. In lots of jurisdictions there were no written laws regarding it, yet it was enforced as if it was the law anyway.
Alright, assuming that is true, I'll grant you that carve-out. I still maintain that the phrasing "de facto illegal/de jure illegal" sounds massively stilted, and it seems that a cursory Google search agrees. It's just not something with any legal training would ever say.
The country is more diverse where it counts. Of course, the national polls could be off by 2-3 percent in either direction, that much is true. It’s also true that there are more conservative polls than there have been. It also true the fact that there is more conservative polls than before by some percent does not move the aggregate that much.
Another fact is Donald Trump increased his percentage of overall vote share in 2020 than in 2016, but lost. So, when you look at reasonable polls Ka
hope you're right. in my mind trump has already won and i'm watching a nightmare unfold in slow motion while half the country convinces themselves there's a blue chance. trump leads or ties in all swing state aggregate polls which have been systematically D-biased last two cycles.
my impression based on reporting was trump had improved with minorities vs. 2020
[quote=Reuters (Oct 25)]Former President Trump now trails Vice President Harris by just 2 percentage points among Hispanic men - 44% to 46% - compared with his 19 point deficit with Democrat Joe Biden at the same point in 2020[/quote]
[quote=New York Times (Oct 12)]Black Voters Drift From Democrats, Imperiling Harris's Bid, Polls Show[/quote]
the skate of elector stuff might have been illegal under state law in some cases and it probably was in a few of them, and the not-very-smart people trump used in some case to try that got caught.
but in many states, legislatures clearly had the legal right to override the vote and present whatever list (slate) of electors they wanted to the senate, irrespective of how voting went. and trying that for the trump team, I. all states where that was legal, was 100% legalm
yes it was an attempt to disr
Constitution overrides state law
