(10-27-2020 08:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-27-2020 07:53 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Some news (fear?) outlets have wondered if both Republicans and Democrats might submit electoral votes from certain states (the legislatures and governors validating separate sets of votes). The US Congress then must decide which votes to accept. Reconstruction was ended this way when one party conceded the presidency while the other withdrew the occupying force. Theoretically a state’s electoral votes could be thrown out by Congress and “270” would no longer be the number of votes required. If neither candidate gets a majority (270 or otherwise), the House picks the president with each state getting 1 vote. Mathematically this happens only if there is a tie or if faithless electors give their votes for a third person and no one gets 50+%.

This was the unreported (by the MSM, because they didn't want to broadcast the implications) story of Florida in 2000. After James Baker went to Florida, Jeb Bush called the republican-dominated Florida legislature into session for the purpose of submitting a slate of republican electors. Had they gone through with that plan, the best Al Gore could have hoped to get was a recount in which he led (remember, not one of those ever happened), in which case there would be two slates of Florida electors, and congress would have to choose, both houses agreeing. These would be the newly elected congresses, but with Al Gore still as presiding officer in the senate. The house clearly goes for the republican electors in that case, leaving it up to the senate. The senate ended up 50-50, but would Gore have been disqualified from casting the deciding vote, and if so what would have happened? Or would Lieberman have also been disqualified, making it 50-49 republican, or would Jeffords have shifted earlier giving democrats a clear majority? Let's suppose Gore wins in the senate. You have one house going Bush and one Gore. By law, who breaks that deadlock? The governor of Florida, Jeb Bush.

So once the Florida legislature went into session there was no way for Gore to win the Florida electoral votes. That's why the Supreme Court shut things down so abruptly, because it didn't matter any more, and they didn't want to deal with the potential issues that could arise had it gone on.

What really angers me to this day is that GWB owed his election to the legal maneuvering orchestrated by James Baker, but he threw Baker to the curb to follow Cheney and Rummy to his peril.

Baker was getting old. He was already 70. I don't think he wanted to be in government.

I can see Biden winning the popular vote and Trump the electoral vote and the governors of PA, MI, WI and NV trying to send a Democratic slate even though Trump won their states.

ABC polls out today showing Biden up 17 in WI and 7 in MI.

I'm guessing Trump must have a huge lead in MI for them to come up with that garbage number in WI.

(10-28-2020 09:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 09:56 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(10-27-2020 08:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-27-2020 07:53 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Some news (fear?) outlets have wondered if both Republicans and Democrats might submit electoral votes from certain states (the legislatures and governors validating separate sets of votes). The US Congress then must decide which votes to accept. Reconstruction was ended this way when one party conceded the presidency while the other withdrew the occupying force. Theoretically a state’s electoral votes could be thrown out by Congress and “270” would no longer be the number of votes required. If neither candidate gets a majority (270 or otherwise), the House picks the president with each state getting 1 vote. Mathematically this happens only if there is a tie or if faithless electors give their votes for a third person and no one gets 50+%.

This was the unreported (by the MSM, because they didn't want to broadcast the implications) story of Florida in 2000. After James Baker went to Florida, Jeb Bush called the republican-dominated Florida legislature into session for the purpose of submitting a slate of republican electors. Had they gone through with that plan, the best Al Gore could have hoped to get was a recount in which he led (remember, not one of those ever happened), in which case there would be two slates of Florida electors, and congress would have to choose, both houses agreeing. These would be the newly elected congresses, but with Al Gore still as presiding officer in the senate. The house clearly goes for the republican electors in that case, leaving it up to the senate. The senate ended up 50-50, but would Gore have been disqualified from casting the deciding vote, and if so what would have happened? Or would Lieberman have also been disqualified, making it 50-49 republican, or would Jeffords have shifted earlier giving democrats a clear majority? Let's suppose Gore wins in the senate. You have one house going Bush and one Gore. By law, who breaks that deadlock? The governor of Florida, Jeb Bush.
So once the Florida legislature went into session there was no way for Gore to win the Florida electoral votes. That's why the Supreme Court shut things down so abruptly, because it didn't matter any more, and they didn't want to deal with the potential issues that could arise had it gone on.
What really angers me to this day is that GWB owed his election to the legal maneuvering orchestrated by James Baker, but he threw Baker to the curb to follow Cheney and Rummy to his peril.

James Baker would have served W much better than Cheney and Rumsfeld that is for sure

Mutual friends have told me that Barbara Bush felt exactly that way and was incredibly annoyed about the way GWB treated Baker.

I was at a law continuing education seminar in Dallas several years ago. It was a pretty upscale event, two days and the two luncheon speakers were Mack McLarty and James Baker. I sat at a table with some Canadian attorneys for the Baker speech. After the speech, they were all going on about, "Why didn't Bush listen to him instead of Cheney and Rumsfeld?"

I think Baker would have made a great president.

Caveat: I don't know how to split whatever the hell Nebraska and Maine do...lol

(10-28-2020 10:51 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Caveat: I don't know how to split whatever the hell Nebraska and Maine do...lol

So, in that breakdown, if Trump gets PA or any two of AZ, NC, MN, or WI, he wins.

(10-28-2020 10:30 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 09:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 09:56 AM)No Bull Wrote:  

(10-27-2020 08:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-27-2020 07:53 PM)Crayton Wrote:  Some news (fear?) outlets have wondered if both Republicans and Democrats might submit electoral votes from certain states (the legislatures and governors validating separate sets of votes). The US Congress then must decide which votes to accept. Reconstruction was ended this way when one party conceded the presidency while the other withdrew the occupying force. Theoretically a state’s electoral votes could be thrown out by Congress and “270” would no longer be the number of votes required. If neither candidate gets a majority (270 or otherwise), the House picks the president with each state getting 1 vote. Mathematically this happens only if there is a tie or if faithless electors give their votes for a third person and no one gets 50+%.

This was the unreported (by the MSM, because they didn't want to broadcast the implications) story of Florida in 2000. After James Baker went to Florida, Jeb Bush called the republican-dominated Florida legislature into session for the purpose of submitting a slate of republican electors. Had they gone through with that plan, the best Al Gore could have hoped to get was a recount in which he led (remember, not one of those ever happened), in which case there would be two slates of Florida electors, and congress would have to choose, both houses agreeing. These would be the newly elected congresses, but with Al Gore still as presiding officer in the senate. The house clearly goes for the republican electors in that case, leaving it up to the senate. The senate ended up 50-50, but would Gore have been disqualified from casting the deciding vote, and if so what would have happened? Or would Lieberman have also been disqualified, making it 50-49 republican, or would Jeffords have shifted earlier giving democrats a clear majority? Let's suppose Gore wins in the senate. You have one house going Bush and one Gore. By law, who breaks that deadlock? The governor of Florida, Jeb Bush.
So once the Florida legislature went into session there was no way for Gore to win the Florida electoral votes. That's why the Supreme Court shut things down so abruptly, because it didn't matter any more, and they didn't want to deal with the potential issues that could arise had it gone on.
What really angers me to this day is that GWB owed his election to the legal maneuvering orchestrated by James Baker, but he threw Baker to the curb to follow Cheney and Rummy to his peril.

James Baker would have served W much better than Cheney and Rumsfeld that is for sure

Mutual friends have told me that Barbara Bush felt exactly that way and was incredibly annoyed about the way GWB treated Baker.

I was at a law continuing education seminar in Dallas several years ago. It was a pretty upscale event, two days and the two luncheon speakers were Mack McLarty and James Baker. I sat at a table with some Canadian attorneys for the Baker speech. After the speech, they were all going on about, "Why didn't Bush listen to him instead of Cheney and Rumsfeld?"

I think Baker would have made a great president.

Yes. James Baker would have made a great President.

I think it comes down to Michigan and Florida. If Trump wins Florida, Biden needs Michigan to win and vice-versa. If Trump wins both, it's over imo.

(10-28-2020 12:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 10:51 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

Caveat: I don't know how to split whatever the hell Nebraska and Maine do...lol

So, in that breakdown, if Trump gets PA or any two of AZ, NC, MN, or WI, he wins.

Yeah...PA is huge. It will determine the winner IMO. That's why trump and the GOP are working so hard to restrict any vote counting after 11/3, along with continually try to plant seeds of doubt in the process and count.

Although, if Biden wins Georgia, Michigan or Florida, it's over. I gave Michigan to trump just because there's a lot of complete idiots that live here...LOL. But a new poll of likely voters just put Biden up pretty comfortably...I just don't trust it though.

(10-28-2020 01:19 PM)TrueBlueDrew Wrote:  I think it comes down to Michigan and Florida. If Trump wins Florida, Biden needs Michigan to win and vice-versa. If Trump wins both, it's over imo.

Not in my model...if Biden wins PA those two probably don't matter.

(10-28-2020 02:38 PM)smudge12 Wrote:  

Don't you put that evil on us!

(10-28-2020 02:38 PM)smudge12 Wrote:  

Yea, watch it happen. How very 2020 would that be?

God, I hope not.

oh boy! If you thought the crying over the elec college was bad, wait until a 269-269 split happens and it goes to Congress. The libs will lose their minds when Trump wins that one 26-24.

(10-28-2020 10:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  ABC polls out today showing Biden up 17 in WI and 7 in MI.

I'm guessing Trump must have a huge lead in MI for them to come up with that garbage number in WI.

The ABC/Wa Po just make up numbers they don't even bother to poll. I think there should be a national standard if a polling agency is off by more than 5% in a presidential election they should not be allowed to publish polls until they are monitored for one election cycle to show their polling standards are capable of projecting results within 5%.

(10-28-2020 02:47 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 02:38 PM)smudge12 Wrote:  

Don't you put that evil on us!

I did one that came out that way too...I quickly rebooted my laptop.

(10-28-2020 04:56 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(10-28-2020 10:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  ABC polls out today showing Biden up 17 in WI and 7 in MI.

I'm guessing Trump must have a huge lead in MI for them to come up with that garbage number in WI.

The ABC/Wa Po just make up numbers they don't even bother to poll. I think there should be a national standard if a polling agency is off by more than 5% in a presidential election they should not be allowed to publish polls until they are monitored for one election cycle to show their polling standards are capable of projecting results within 5%.

Ridiculous. Yes, we get it...polls are inaccurate and sample more democrats (because there are more of them)...but no, they don't just say...okay...Biden's up 17. Print it.

(10-28-2020 10:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  ABC polls out today showing Biden up 17 in WI and 7 in MI.

I'm guessing Trump must have a huge lead in MI for them to come up with that garbage number in WI.

You’d think they would be embarrassed to release the results of that silly WI poll. Anyone want to make a bet with me? I’ll take Trump in WI and will only ask for 1/2 of that 17 point spread. Lol

Within a 24 hour period, USA Today/Suffolk released its national poll that says Biden is +7, CNN’s has Biden +12, while Rasmussen’s states Trump is +1. This is why nobody listens to polling noise much anymore.

FU commie tommie goon....



@slaughter

The Hill published an article to say that Trump was going to win and win big. They go through the motions of saying how the polls are garbage, especially the ones that sample less than 1000 voters per state.

Yesterday, democrats were pushing the polls that showed Biden ahead in MI by double digits ( which is a lie since Obama and Biden are going to campaign there) and that its super close in Texas. (Which is a lie because the Biden camp has spent zero money there. )

What we are seeing is the last gasps of a campaign that has seen its support level crater in the past two weeks. They start pointing to phantom states where they say its getting close, in an attempt to hoodwink the other campaign and to try to suppress votes.

Also, democrats changing the registration deadline in AZ to extend it has blown up in their face. 20,000 more republicans registered in the extended period than democrats.

I was scrolling thru channels Monday and stopped on CNN because i wanted to see their wailing and gnashing of teeth over ACB. They were doing an election preview with the guy on their interactive map. I told my wife "watch, they'll say Texas is in play". Sure enough, they referenced a poll that was Trump and Biden nearly tied, definitely within the MOE and the guy said this puts Texas in play and if Trump loses Texas, there is no way he can get to 270. That was after saying Trump knows he is in big trouble in Penn and thats why he was doing 3 stops there that day. Completely ignored that Sloe made a trip that same day into PA and the jug eared Kenyan of all people was in Philly campaigning for him a few days earlier. I just laughed and told my wife that CNN is such a bogus network. Its not even anything close to legit.