• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trump aide doesnt rule out postponing Nov 2020 elections

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
HomerJS said:
I can see Trump conspiring with Republican governors. Have them declare lockdowns just before the election. Put the election in turmoil as a predicate for postponing. If people can't get to the polls it might put the Dems in a box.
Click to expand...

If Trump governors choose to disenfranchise their state then they can try to do so. Of course this guarantees an overwhelming victory in all of Congress and the WH.

Might not be a positive thing in the next gov. races.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
Sure would be epic (and painful) however just the throw this out what happens if the President says this emergency is too big and refuses to leave office. We know this President has zero regard for the Constitution or accepted practices.
We’d be in Banana Republic territory. Which States follow Nancy’s orders and which states continue to follow the former Presidents orders. Plus whom does the Military choose to follow?
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. The Secret Service will physically remove Trump and if he doesn't cooperate then he's arrested. THere is no ex-Presidential immunity. The military follows the President and that would not be Trump. This is dead simple.
 
Commodus said:
You're right on a basic level, but it's worth noting in that it fits a consistent pattern of the Trump administration constantly probing how much it can strain or violate the Constitution or key laws (see also: Trump repeatedly wondering if he could revoke the broadcast licenses of media outlets for telling the truth).

While I don't think Trump would be so stupid as to formally postpone the election or nullify its results, I wouldn't at all be surprised if he entertains talk about it and tries to frame Democrats and the left for being 'evil' by daring to stick to the election date and arguing for safer voting methods like mail. Trump is known for doing reckless things when backed into a corner, and few things terrify him more than losing the election and facing possible prison time.
Click to expand...

He may try, and he would be a fool for trying. Im sure he knows there are specific laws that prevent that from happening. So he can try all he wants, but it aint happening.
 
blackangst1 said:
It said sort of and maybe maybe not.
Click to expand...

Eh, I read it all, and what it actually says is that national turnout doesn't matter in a presidential election because of the way our EC works. So increasing turnout in say, CA, isn't going to help the dems. But it does help the dems in swing states where it matters.
 
Hayabusa Rider said:
Doesn't matter. The Secret Service will physically remove Trump and if he doesn't cooperate then he's arrested. THere is no ex-Presidential immunity. The military follows the President and that would not be Trump. This is dead simple.
Click to expand...

Whom does the Secret Service follow, Nancy or in this hypothetical question the Former President or do they wait for the Courts to sort it out?

KMFJD said:
I thought that's why the USA has the 2nd ammendment, that's what all the gun humpers have been touting for ages...
Click to expand...

Whom do the gun humpers follow? Nancy? I doubt it
 
woolfe9998 said:
Eh, I read it all, and what it actually says is that national turnout doesn't matter in a presidential election because of the way our EC works. So increasing turnout in say, CA, isn't going to help the dems. But it does help the dems in swing states where it matters.
Click to expand...
Did you read both articles? One was somewhat ambivalent and the other said repeatedly and clearly that increased turnout generally helps Democrats. Its argument was it doesn’t help them as MUCH as people think.
 
I think this particular story happens to be less about Trump undermining democracy and more about the epic stupidity of one Jared Kushner.
 
fskimospy said:
Did you read both articles? One was somewhat ambivalent and the other said repeatedly and clearly that increased turnout generally helps Democrats. Its argument was it doesn’t help them as MUCH as people think.
Click to expand...

I had only read the first, which I summarized accurately. It shows that high overall turnout doesn't always correlate to dem victory, but explains that this is because turnout only matters in swing states, and dems have gotten very high turnout in states like CA in elections they have lost. That article is totally unconcerning. It's obvious that turnout only matters in the swing states.

Now I just read the second. That one says that a poll of chronic non-voters shows more of them favoring Trump in a few swing states, while in other swing states it's a tie, and nationally it favors the dems but that is just padding the popular vote for dems while doing nothing to help them win the election. This is concerning. However, I read the PDF of the study which showed that they surveyed 12,000 people nationally, meaning that the national number is probably solid, but they polled only a few hundred people in each of those swing states, suggesting a high sampling error for individual states.
 
woolfe9998 said:
I had only read the first, which I summarized accurately. It shows that high overall turnout doesn't always correlate to dem victory, but explains that this is because turnout only matters in swing states, and dems have gotten very high turnout in states like CA in elections they have lost. That article is totally unconcerning. It's obvious that turnout only matters in the swing states.

Now I just read the second. That one says that a poll of chronic non-voters shows more of them favoring Trump in a few swing states, while in other swing states it's a tie, and nationally it favors the dems but that is just padding the popular vote for dems while doing nothing to help them win the election. This is concerning. However, I read the PDF of the study which showed that they surveyed 12,000 people nationally, meaning that the national number is probably solid, but they polled only a few hundred people in each of those swing states, suggesting a high sampling error for individual states.
Click to expand...

I mean the conclusions basically mirror what I said, which was that higher turnout generally helps Democrats, it just cautions that it's not universal, but I never claimed that.

“Most often, higher turnout favors Democrats,” McDonald told us in an email. “Generally, it is true that low propensity voters tend to prefer Democratic candidates. However, this is just a tendency: there are also people who prefer Republicans among these low propensity voters. Thus, depending on who shows up to vote, it is possible to have higher turnout and for Republican candidates to do better.”
Click to expand...

“in the majority of cases, nonvoters tend to be more Democratic, sometimes substantially so.” But nonvoters’ partisan leanings “fluctuate significantly across states and over time, and there are instances in which nonvoters are actually more Republican than voters.”
Click to expand...

“Our estimates suggest that there is a reasonably high probability that Al Gore and John Kerry would have won under universal turnout, but both elections still would have been extremely close,” they wrote. “This suggests that although universal turnout might well tip very close elections in the Democrats’ favor, the electoral landscape would not be transformed. And, of course, the impact of higher but less than universal turnout would depend on which voters were mobilized in a particular contest.”
Click to expand...

It's hard to see how his article does anything other than confirm my statement. If he wanted to argue the DEGREE to which it helps Democrats that would be one thing but to cite that and then call the statement that higher turnout generally helps Democrats a 'lie' is nonsense.
 
Fanatical Meat said:
Whom does the Secret Service follow, Nancy or in this hypothetical question the Former President or do they wait for the Courts to sort it out?



Whom do the gun humpers follow? Nancy? I doubt it
Click to expand...

You are conflating issues.

Here is the Oath of Office that they and everyone is obligated, with some modification in extremely specific cases, but the following is first.

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

It's well understood and there is no ambiguity here, no Nancy and no Trump nor court. Whoever wins the general election becomes the 46th office holder on January 20 at noon. Period end of story. If Trump wins then he's 46. If he loses then he's leaving under his own power or not, but he's leaving. If he wants to be escorted in a van in the back of the WH in cuffs and thrown in jail he certainly may.

This will be the end of him as an official regardless of what his fringe supporters want. 12:01 he's out.

The military will follow its own oath and the UCMJ as well as the Secret Service.

As a private citizen will be a trouble maker? Of course that's likely and as a private citizen he's subject to being arrested for starting riots, fomenting insurrection. He can be charged with terroristic threats, etc. He's just a rich bitch too famous for favorable treatment. I should not be surprised if he is presented with warrants and extradition that DC will honor.
 
fskimospy said:
While I think there is almost no chance Trump would be able to successfully delay the election there's one very important revision to this that would make such a postponement much more attractive to Republicans.

If there is no person with the requisite number of electoral votes to become president then the new president is selected by the states, with one vote for each state. Since Republicans control more state delegations despite having many fewer representatives, they would re-elect Trump.
Click to expand...

That's also specious. If states don't hold elections then they'll have no reps in the HOR and no voice. The previous body swears in the new weeks before the Presidential inauguration & Pelosi would be having none of it.
 
Jhhnn said:
That's also specious. If states don't hold elections then they'll have no reps in the HOR and no voice. The previous body swears in the new weeks before the Presidential inauguration & Pelosi would be having none of it.
Click to expand...

She would have no choice and the vote happens before the congressional term expires.

Is the idea that the House would attempt to delay tabulation of the votes until the entire federal government disbands? If so then the whole constitution is out the door anyway so that's game over regardless.
 
KMFJD said:
i dunno but when the brown guy was in charge they sure did like to harp on and on about tyranny and watering the tree of liberty among many other misunderstood sayings
Click to expand...
Yeah, but Obama was very flagrantly disrespecting the Presidency. I mean, that mother fucker wore tan suits, and even no suit jackets...IN THE OVAL OFFICE!.

Not to mention there's even a picture of that scum fucker with his shoes off, on the furniture.

BothSidesDoIt™
 
nickqt said:
Yeah, but Obama was very flagrantly disrespecting the Presidency. I mean, that mother fucker wore tan suits, and even no suit jackets...IN THE OVAL OFFICE!.

Not to mention there's even a picture of that scum fucker with his shoes off, on the furniture.

BothSidesDoIt™
Click to expand...
When are you going to give us an example of disrespecting the Presidency? If you think any of that does, you have some very twisted and misguided ideology. The color of a suit, a jacket, feet on the furniture is not the Presidency, nor does any of it represent the Presidency or the office of the President.
 
Why would the election need to be postponed?
Everything will be just peachy.... don't you know?
Heck, everything is just peachy right now, today according to Donald Trump.
So why the discussion on postponing?
When you go to vote, just step over the dead bodies. Just kick them aside, and go vote. 🙄
 
Is anyone forgetting the damage a lame duck Trump and Senate can do between Election Day and Jan 20 2021?

He could commit all manner of crimes and Barr DOJ wouldn't enforce our laws.
 
NWRMidnight said:
When are you going to give us an example of disrespecting the Presidency? If you think any of that does, you have some very twisted and misguided ideology. The color of a suit, a jacket, feet on the furniture is not the Presidency, nor does any of it represent the Presidency or the office of the President.
Click to expand...
Change the battery on your sarcasm meter. It's broken.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top