Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
caustic

The Election That Could Break America

Recommended Posts

Long Piece by The Atlantic this morning. This is no longer hysterical theorizing by terrified liberals, but something that is actively being worked on by Trump advisers and the GOP. This is really, really dangerous:

“...According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires.

To a modern democratic sensibility, discarding the popular vote for partisan gain looks uncomfortably like a coup, whatever license may be found for it in law. Would Republicans find that position disturbing enough to resist? Would they cede the election before resorting to such a ploy? Trump’s base would exact a high price for that betrayal, and by this point party officials would be invested in a narrative of fraud.

The Trump-campaign legal adviser I spoke with told me the push to appoint electors would be framed in terms of protecting the people’s will. Once committed to the position that the overtime count has been rigged, the adviser said, state lawmakers will want to judge for themselves what the voters intended.

“The state legislatures will say, ‘All right, we’ve been given this constitutional power. We don’t think the results of our own state are accurate, so here’s our slate of electors that we think properly reflect the results of our state,’ ” the adviser said. Democrats, he added, have exposed themselves to this stratagem by creating the conditions for a lengthy overtime.

“If you have this notion,” the adviser said, “that ballots can come in for I don’t know how many days—in some states a week, 10 days—then that onslaught of ballots just gets pushed back and pushed back and pushed back. So pick your poison. Is it worse to have electors named by legislators or to have votes received by Election Day?””

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 2
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of nightmare scenarios in play right now.  The root cause of most of them are that the GOP nominated a candidate in 2016 that did not and will not abide by the norms of governance in place for a century.  He was then elected to President.

Donald Trump is chaos enabler.  He is a corrosive element on the foundations of the democracy of this country. 

We need to close this dark chapter in the history of the United States.  Bring back some normalcy, decency, and good governance.  If that means that fewer scores get settled during the Biden administration, then so be it.

Edited by The Z Machine
  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The physical ugliness of the late Roy Cohn was so profound that he was actually dramatically more repulsive when he smiled than when he frowned. There is a corner of Hell that the Devil himself dare not look upon today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many Americans actively seek an authoritarian leader to tell them what to do.  Looks like they're getting what they asked for.

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a bunch of speculation.  The argument that Trump actors will actively undermine elections at the state level is absurd

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is dangerous but the libs threatening to pack the Supreme Court if they take charge is totally normal business.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, caustic said:

So pick your poison. Is it worse to have electors named by legislators or to have votes received by Election Day?””

How you answer this question is essentially whether you believe in democratic institutions or authoritarian rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

This is dangerous but the libs threatening to pack the Supreme Court if they take charge is totally normal business.

Cause and effect. If the GOP followed their own playbook from 2016, there would be no need to pack the courts.

Republicans in Congress have been playing hardball for decades now. It's about time for the Dems to step to the plate, IMO.

  • Thanks 1
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Skoo said:

Cause and effect. If the GOP followed their own playbook from 2016, there would be no need to pack the courts.

Republicans in Congress have been playing hardball for decades now. It's about time for the Dems to step to the plate, IMO.

As I've been saying for years, the Libs and Trump are two peas in a pod.  The end justifies the means.  Congrats?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CentralPA said:

Yep, definitely sounds like something out of the Trump playbook.

It's not Trump folks that are telling to not concede regardless of the votes. That's Hillary to Biden. 

How long are they going to count mail in votes? Are they using post marks as a deadline?  CNN is going to call  this for Biden, FOX will say hold on a minute. Facebook/Twitter will ban Trump to keep him from getting his message out. BLM and Antifa will ramp up the protests. 

Unless this election is a landside. We could be in huge trouble.  Both sides are already setting up legal teams to fight.  And now being done a Supreme Court Justice.......  

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

As I've been saying for years, the Libs and Trump are two peas in a pod.  The end justifies the means.  Congrats?

Yeah, those liberals are always denying science while cheering on racism and eugenics. Trump might as well be a Democrat!

Nailed it.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Skoo said:

Yeah, those liberals are always denying science while cheering on racism and eugenics. Trump might as well be a Democrat!

Nailed it.

:lmao:  Not sure where this came from but I did LOL at it

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people are going to be really disappointed when Trump packs it in quickly to cash in on his book deal and TV network.

  • Like 3
  • Laughing 2
  • Thinking 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

This is dangerous but the libs threatening to pack the Supreme Court if they take charge is totally normal business.

While I don't support a court packing situation.....I do feel that anything in regards to the rule of Federal governing not laid forth in the Constitution isn't off the table.  To that, we all know the number of judges allowed on the SC isn't clear.

If McConnell and Co. were looking to lay forth an Amendment to the Constitution limited such thing....I'd support that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Murph said:

Some people are going to be really disappointed when Trump packs it in quickly to cash in on his book deal and TV network.

My guess is that he unveils TrumpTV during the concession speech.

OANN gets new branding.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Skoo said:

My guess is that he unveils TrumpTV during the concession speech.

OANN gets new branding.

 

True. Of course he's not actually going to build anything. He'll just license the name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

This is dangerous but the libs threatening to pack the Supreme Court if they take charge is totally normal business.

Biden's against court packing.

Fact is the socialists lost when Bernie lost. AOC was relegated to "nominating" Sanders at the convention. The Obamas got top billing. 

Joe Biden is a centrist, not a "lib" and he can call his own shots. Harris is a centrist as well. 

For that matter Hillary is practically a Republican, but people pay more attention to personality than policy these days anyway. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, CentralPA said:

Yep, definitely sounds like something out of the Trump playbook.

Putin playbook. Trump ain’t smart enough.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this is where I should note for the record that I was 100% in favor of faithless electors installing somebody other than Trump back in 2016.  If you can't rely on electors to say "Yeah, this guy isn't fit to be president -- let's pick somebody else" then there's really no point in having an electoral college in the first place.  (You can still apportion EC votes by state if you want.  It's just that there's no reason for the EC actually to meet or exist independently of the electoral math).

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, E Street Brat said:

It's not Trump folks that are telling to not concede regardless of the votes. That's Hillary to Biden. 

How long are they going to count mail in votes? Are they using post marks as a deadline?  CNN is going to call  this for Biden, FOX will say hold on a minute. Facebook/Twitter will ban Trump to keep him from getting his message out. BLM and Antifa will ramp up the protests. 

Unless this election is a landside. We could be in huge trouble.  Both sides are already setting up legal teams to fight.  And now being done a Supreme Court Justice.......  

 

 

 

 

 

Imagine this coming down to Pennsylvania and we have the situation currently going on there where lots of mail in ballots aren't complying with state law and being discarded.  It's also possible PA could do what the 2018 Arizona Senate race did with Sinema and McSally,  Trump could lead there on election night with the risk of late mail in ballots pulling Biden ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I guess this is where I should note for the record that I was 100% in favor of faithless electors installing somebody other than Trump back in 2016.  If you can't rely on electors to say "Yeah, this guy isn't fit to be president -- let's pick somebody else" then there's really no point in having an electoral college in the first place.  (You can still apportion EC votes by state if you want.  It's just that there's no reason for the EC actually to meet or exist independently of the electoral math).

Yes there is.  It's to give one more hurdle to the idea of one man, one vote.  This way, people that live in less populated states (or ones where their population has been decreasing since the last apportionment of EC votes) can weild more power than those in populous states. 

It helps give outsize power to a minority party.  

Question: Do any other representative democracies give extra powers like this to minority parties?

Edited by The Z Machine
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

Fact is the socialists lost when Bernie lost. AOC was relegated to "nominating" Sanders at the convention. The Obamas got top billing. 

Joe Biden is a centrist, not a "lib" and he can call his own shots. Harris is a centrist as well. 

Completely not true. The Biden/Sanders unity task force resulted in multiple changes to Biden's original platform and concessions to progressives...largest among them concerning climate change. 

Most notably, the joint task force on climate change was co-chaired by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who has become a superstar of the party’s left wing, championing the Green New Deal and in doing so becoming a ripe target for attack from Republicans.

The inclusion of high-profile progressives like Ocasio-Cortez was meant to help assuage concerns from left-leaning Democrats that Biden would keep to his more centrist leanings in the general election campaign against the president.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/08/biden-sanders-unity-task-force-recommendations-353225

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trump-declines-commit-peaceful-transfer-power/story?id=73205708
 

Quote

President Donald Trump declined to commit to a peaceful transfer of power following November's election.

Asked Wednesday if he would commit to a peaceful transfer of power after the election -- win or lose -- Trump responded, "Well, we're going to have to see what happens."

He went on to stoke baseless fears of widespread voter fraud with mail-in ballots.

"Get rid of the ballots," Trump added, "and you'll have a very peaceful -- there won't be a transfer, frankly. There'll be a continuation."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for any Trump folks hanging around:

If the election results say that Trump lost, and he refuses to accept that and works with state officials to override the results of their elections, is that a red line for you? How far are you willing to let our democracy slip, exactly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mcintyre1 said:

Question for any Trump folks hanging around:

If the election results say that Trump lost, and he refuses to accept that and works with state officials to override the results of their elections, is that a red line for you? How far are you willing to let our democracy slip, exactly?

I bet a lot of Trump supporters will simply agree that there was fraud (despite a paucity of evidence) and that the results should be thrown out.  The stage is set for disinformation to rule the day.

  • Like 4
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Skoo said:

Cause and effect. If the GOP followed their own playbook from 2016, there would be no need to pack the courts.

Republicans in Congress have been playing hardball for decades now. It's about time for the Dems to step to the plate, IMO.

Please.  2013.  Harry Reid used his power to change the rules for the democratic party to get lower justices confirmed.  Mitch McConnell and Ted Lieu and a few others said "you will regret this. You don't change these things."  They did. 

There is  rule about these things. When someone is screaming a the top of their lungs "look what they are doing to change things!" ...its usually them, themselves that actually is changing things and wants to deflect. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, mcintyre1 said:

Question for any Trump folks hanging around:

If the election results say that Trump lost, and he refuses to accept that and works with state officials to override the results of their elections, is that a red line for you? How far are you willing to let our democracy slip, exactly?

You know the answer to that 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shutout said:

Please.  2013.  Harry Reid used his power to change the rules for the democratic party to get lower justices confirmed.  Mitch McConnell and Ted Lieu and a few others said "you will regret this. You don't change these things."  They did. 

There is  rule about these things. When someone is screaming a the top of their lungs "look what they are doing to change things!" ...its usually them, themselves that actually is changing things and wants to deflect. 

There is a difference between hard ball between elected officials and a President reducing to accept the results of a National Election. A rather big difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steve Tasker said:

Many Americans actively seek an authoritarian leader to tell them what to do.  Looks like they're getting what they asked for.

U must mean biden.   But I dont think biden is a dictator.    Kamala harris might be tho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

There are a lot of nightmare scenarios in play right now.  The root cause of most of them are that the GOP nominated a candidate in 2016 that did not and will not abide by the norms of governance in place for a century.  He was then elected to President.

Donald Trump is chaos enabler.  He is a corrosive element on the foundations of the democracy of this country. 

We need to close this dark chapter in the history of the United States.  Bring back some normalcy, decency, and good governance.  If that means that fewer scores get settled during the Biden administration, then so be it.

Not abide by norms?

Like when the dems can't abide by the rules of our republic for 200+ years so they change the rules when they are in power to eliminate the filibuster for lower court confirmations in 2013? They were warned. Told it would lead to issues we see now in the Supreme Court.  Simply wouldn't be an issue if not for that move that Mitch McConnell warned against.  So now, here we are and because the current administration is going to nominate (something that has been done 29 times by BOTH parties historically in this situation...nothing new.) And because the current admin is doing their obligated job, there are dems all over the place in high places saying we will pack the courts, we will protest, we might stall this, do that.

The Democrats are the ones that have been destroying the norms. They don't like it when they aren't winning and they disrupt the norms.  

For some reason we have been calling it Election DAY for the history of our nation but now...it needs to be election month...or indefinite election...directly leading to the other big conflict  right now. If you can't have it the way it us supposed to be, you want to change it and turn it into a scenario like the Nevada governor race a few years ago.  We can go to riots but not church.  Can go to funerals for politicians but not for our own family. Can go to the casino but can't show up to vote. 

Its clear who is disrupting norms.   

  • Like 6
  • Laughing 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, quick-hands said:

U must mean biden.   But I dont think biden is a dictator.    Kamala harris might be tho

Trump is a openly authoritarian 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ilov80s said:

Trump is a openly authoritarian 

Why didn't he push to take control during covid.   Outside of a world War.  This was the greatest opportunity  to grab power in a hundred years.   

Which situation has he grabbed more power that previous presidents haven't  used?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Shutout said:

Not abide by norms?

Like when the dems can't abide by the rules of our republic for 200+ years so they change the rules when they are in power to eliminate the filibuster for lower court confirmations in 2013? They were warned. Told it would lead to issues we see now in the Supreme Court.  Simply wouldn't be an issue if not for that move that Mitch McConnell warned against.  So now, here we are and because the current administration is going to nominate (something that has been done 29 times by BOTH parties historically in this situation...nothing new.) And because the current admin is doing their obligated job, there are dems all over the place in high places saying we will pack the courts, we will protest, we might stall this, do that.

The Democrats are the ones that have been destroying the norms. They don't like it when they aren't winning and they disrupt the norms.  

For some reason we have been calling it Election DAY for the history of our nation but now...it needs to be election month...or indefinite election...directly leading to the other big conflict  right now. If you can't have it the way it us supposed to be, you want to change it and turn it into a scenario like the Nevada governor race a few years ago.  We can go to riots but not church.  Can go to funerals for politicians but not for our own family. Can go to the casino but can't show up to vote. 

Its clear who is disrupting norms.   

Keep up the good fight!  

Edited by Boston
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, quick-hands said:

Why didn't he push to take control during covid.   Outside of a world War.  This was the greatest opportunity  to grab power in a hundred years.   

Which situation has he grabbed more power that previous presidents haven't  used?.

This shouldn't even be a question. Trump has openly braced being authoritarian- even dating back to his Apprentice days. COVID and the BLM movement have played right into his hands. He used COVID to politicize science and the CDC. BLM to fire up his base and create the perception of chaos. Every institution that he can discredit is a benefit for him. 

Edited by Ilov80s
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be easy to justify. The Ginsberg thing laid out the simple argument.  "In 2016, I didn't want Obama to get a SC seat because I am not a Democrat. I support Trump getting this nomination because I am a Republican. That's politics, deal with it."  If one side plays by might makes right in politics then they won't bat an eye at throwing out Presidential votes for the opposing party. 

Edited by Ilov80s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Shutout said:

Not abide by norms?

Like when the dems can't abide by the rules of our republic for 200+ years so they change the rules when they are in power to eliminate the filibuster for lower court confirmations in 2013? They were warned. Told it would lead to issues we see now in the Supreme Court.  Simply wouldn't be an issue if not for that move that Mitch McConnell warned against.  So now, here we are and because the current administration is going to nominate (something that has been done 29 times by BOTH parties historically in this situation...nothing new.) And because the current admin is doing their obligated job, there are dems all over the place in high places saying we will pack the courts, we will protest, we might stall this, do that.

The Democrats are the ones that have been destroying the norms. They don't like it when they aren't winning and they disrupt the norms.  

For some reason we have been calling it Election DAY for the history of our nation but now...it needs to be election month...or indefinite election...directly leading to the other big conflict  right now. If you can't have it the way it us supposed to be, you want to change it and turn it into a scenario like the Nevada governor race a few years ago.  We can go to riots but not church.  Can go to funerals for politicians but not for our own family. Can go to the casino but can't show up to vote. 

Its clear who is disrupting norms.   

Face it. Both sides are tired of each other's ####. If the Republicans and Democrats were a married couple they would be getting a divorce. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mile High said:

Face it. Both sides are tired of each other's ####. If the Republicans and Democrats were a married couple they would be getting a divorce. 

I do not disagree.  We are certainly approaching unreconcilable differences. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

This shouldn't even be a question. Trump has openly braced being authoritarian- even dating back to his Apprentice days. COVID and the BLM movement have played right into his hands. He used COVID to politicize science and the CDC. BLM to fire up his base and create the perception of chaos. Every institution that he can discredit is a benefit for him. 

Why not just his answer 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Stoneworker said:

Completely not true. The Biden/Sanders unity task force resulted in multiple changes to Biden's original platform and concessions to progressives...largest among them concerning climate change. 

Most notably, the joint task force on climate change was co-chaired by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who has become a superstar of the party’s left wing, championing the Green New Deal and in doing so becoming a ripe target for attack from Republicans.

The inclusion of high-profile progressives like Ocasio-Cortez was meant to help assuage concerns from left-leaning Democrats that Biden would keep to his more centrist leanings in the general election campaign against the president.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/08/biden-sanders-unity-task-force-recommendations-353225

Every point I made was true and backed up by your link. Joe Biden is a centrist, AOC was relegated to “nominating” Bernie Sanders at the convention in a 1 minute statement, the Obamas were front and center at the convention, and Harris is a centrist as well. Thanks for confirming and providing the link. 

  • Like 3
  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Grace Under Pressure said:

Every point I made was true and backed up by your link. Joe Biden is a centrist, AOC was relegated to “nominating” Bernie Sanders at the convention in a 1 minute statement, the Obamas were front and center at the convention, and Harris is a centrist as well. Thanks for confirming and providing the link. 

https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-more-liberal-bernie-sanders-senate-record-analysis-shows-1524481

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/kamala_harris/412678/report-card/2019

There are a whole bunch of these scorecards so you can find ones where she is not seen "as liberal" as these (and I figured I would include Newsweek since it is to the left)..maybe by current democrat party standards she maybe seen in the middle but if you are a Republican or a moderate she is is not gonna be viewed that way.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Boston said:

https://www.newsweek.com/kamala-harris-more-liberal-bernie-sanders-senate-record-analysis-shows-1524481

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/kamala_harris/412678/report-card/2019

There are a whole bunch of these scorecards so you can find ones where she is not seen "as liberal" as these (and I figured I would include Newsweek since it is to the left)..maybe by current democrat party standards she maybe seen in the middle but if you are a Republican or a moderate she is is not gonna be viewed that way.

From your govtrack link for those too lazy (or in denial) to follow up...

Ranked most liberal compared to All Senators

Our unique ideology analysis assigns a score to Members of Congress according to their legislative behavior by how similar the pattern of bills and resolutions they cosponsor are to other Members of Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ramblin Wreck said:

This is dangerous but the libs threatening to pack the Supreme Court if they take charge is totally normal business.

This is dangerous, and the libs threatening to pack SCOTUS is dangerous, and it'd be great if you focused on the topic at hand rather than whataboutismed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

I guess this is where I should note for the record that I was 100% in favor of faithless electors installing somebody other than Trump back in 2016.  If you can't rely on electors to say "Yeah, this guy isn't fit to be president -- let's pick somebody else" then there's really no point in having an electoral college in the first place.  (You can still apportion EC votes by state if you want.  It's just that there's no reason for the EC actually to meet or exist independently of the electoral math).

In theory, I'm not opposed to having Republican state legislatures bypass the popular vote to assign their own electors. The Constitution certainly allows for it; in fact it was used almost exclusively for the first couple of Presidential elections.

My only caveat is that should be done according to existing law in the respective states, and not some sketchy, on-the-fly "Hey, let's send some electors to Washington just because we know the Supreme Court will let us get away with it" B.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

List of potential swing states where Republicans control both houses and the Governor's office:

Arizona
Florida

Georgia
Iowa
Ohio
Texas

List of potential swing states where Democrats control both houses and the Governor's office:

Nevada
Maine (District 2)

(colors represent latest projections at 538)

Biden wouldn't need Arizona or Florida if he wins Pennsylvania, Michigan, and either Minnesota OR Wisconsin.

Trump wouldn't need Nevada or Maine 2 if he wins Florida and either Pennsylvania OR Michigan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Steve Tasker said:

Many Americans actively seek an authoritarian leader to tell them what to do.  Looks like they're getting what they asked for.

No they don't.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Future Champs said:

This is dangerous, and the libs threatening to pack SCOTUS is dangerous, and it'd be great if you focused on the topic at hand rather than whataboutismed.

Yeah the SCOTUS nominations are part of the election and packing the SCOTUS because you're a sore loser definitely fits under a topic about breaking America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Joe Summer said:

List of potential swing states where Republicans control both houses and the Governor's office:

Arizona
Florida

Georgia
Iowa
Ohio
Texas

List of potential swing states where Democrats control both houses and the Governor's office:

Nevada
Maine (District 2)

(colors represent latest projections at 538)

Biden wouldn't need Arizona or Florida if he wins Pennsylvania, Michigan, and either Minnesota OR Wisconsin.

Trump wouldn't need Nevada or Maine 2 if he wins Florida and either Pennsylvania OR Michigan.

Unfortunately, I don't think this analysis goes deep enough.  States don't necessarily need to be fully controlled by one party to send up faithless electors.  Some states may have such provisions already on the books.  Others may simply decide to ignore the existing provisions, especially in a situation where one side chooses to claim shenanigans by the other side (they invalidated certain mail-in ballots; they refused to invalidate certain mail-in ballots).  In some of the test "wargames", I believe certain states actually sent two different slates, one by the governor and another by the legislature.  I imagine an additional SCOTUS justice could help in this case.  I also imagine such a situation could easily lead to violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.