The 2016 Election Day Results Thread (Potential Spoilers)

[LordMortis]

I don't think that Trump could get away with canceling the 2020 election altogether. He could definitely get away with tilting it in the GOP's favor, though, via national "voter fraud" restrictions and the like, and via gumming up the works in particular swing states with the help of state level GOP officials.

All he needs to do is start laying the groundwork for the Trump name to continue the Presidential legacy. I mean, Americans have voted for a family name before...

The moment he refers to his governance as "Rule by House Trump"...

[Rip]

The Detroit News last week was first to report that more than half of Detroit would be ineligible for the recount because of the irregularities. The results were based on county reports obtained by The News.

The new report, compiled by Wayne County elections officials, sheds light on the extent of the problems and shows a systematic tendency toward counting more votes than the previous Wayne County report, which didn’t specify if precincts had over-counted or under-counted ballots.

Republican state senators last week called for an investigation in Wayne County, including one precinct where a Detroit ballot box contained only 50 of the 306 ballots listed in a poll book, according to an observer for Trump.

City officials have told state officials that ballots in that precinct were never taken out of a locked bin below the voting machine tabulator on Election Day, said Secretary of State spokesman Fred Woodhams.

“That’s what we’ve been told, and we’ll be wanting to verify it,” Woodhams said. “At any rate, this should not have happened.”

The state is not calling the audit an investigation, “but based on what we find, it could lead to more,” he said.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/p ... /95363314/

[Grifman]

I don't think he could get away with cancelling the election either but it sure feels like he could be in a position to win by "the yugest margin ever" marking his landslide decision by his Supreme Court picks to constitutionally allow him to run for a third term.

Impossible since you'd have to amend the Constitution to allow it. The SC couldn't arbitrarily contradict what is clearly stated in the Constitution. In addition, while conservative, I don't think Trump's list of nominees contains any loonies. And you've forgotten the current conservative court members. I'd be hard pressed to believe that Roberts, Alito, Thomas would allow support this.

This sounds as crazy as anything I've heard Alex Jones spout

[LordMortis]

Impossible since you'd have to amend the Constitution to allow it. The SC couldn't arbitrarily contradict what is clearly stated in the Constitution. In addition, while conservative, I don't think Trump's list of nominees contains any loonies. And you've forgotten the current conservative court members. I'd be hard pressed to believe that Roberts, Alito, Thomas would allow support this.

This sounds as crazy as anything I've heard Alex Jones spout

The point is for the first time ever my brain is being allowed to entertain the idea that pieces could be put in place. Of course this part of my brain is at odds with the part trying to figure out if he is a Russian puppet rather than learning from their example.

[malchior]

Honestly the chances he is a Russian puppet are small. They could have kompromat on him - but the more likely chance is Putin saw in Trump someone who is unstable and unethical. A man that would certainly reduce the power of his chief obstacle globally. Could Putin have seen Comey being completely and recklessly partisan? There is no chance. But Clinton and Trump were both historically unfavorable candidates so he likely saw he had an opportunity. And all they had to do was feed in evidence of 'corrupt' behavior to reinforce her negatives. And better yet it was from her own camp. It wasn't rocket science.

The more important thing is that we were weak to begin with. Our system has been systematically undermined by money politics and bad behavior for years from the Republican and Democrat parties. With the Republicans doing an amazing amount of damage to our democracy this century amplified when Obama was elected. If the Russians meddled - it was only to make the slightest push. They didn't need to do much. We were already broken. If they failed, they still would have had a very weak Clinton in power - someone who barely won against a guy that shouldn't be smelling the leather in the Oval Office in the first place. So they took their shot and got lucky. There was really no downside. That Trump is pooh poohing it is probably beyond their wildest dreams.

[Kraken]

there is no way that Trump is going to surrender power.

I have been hearing that about every president since Reagan. This is first time it rings as not outside of the realm of possibility, something I never imagined possible. Every day it's something to give credence to the intent and he's not even in office yet.

Me, too, but this is the first time I've believed it. I was suspicious of Reagan, but he was not a fascist. Trump is.

The best we can hope for is that Trump's cabinet of misfits busies him with unrelenting palace intrigues while his own party refuses to line up behind him.

I don't think that Trump could get away with canceling the 2020 election altogether. He could definitely get away with tilting it in the GOP's favor, though, via national "voter fraud" restrictions and the like, and via gumming up the works in particular swing states with the help of state level GOP officials.

I agree that canceling the election would happen only if rigging it fails. I doubt that he will resort to a "burning the Reichstag" moment...but I don't put it past him if the outcome is in question.

I don't think he could get away with cancelling the election either but it sure feels like he could be in a position to win by "the yugest margin ever" marking his landslide decision by his Supreme Court picks to constitutionally allow him to run for a third term.

Impossible since you'd have to amend the Constitution to allow it. The SC couldn't arbitrarily contradict what is clearly stated in the Constitution. In addition, while conservative, I don't think Trump's list of nominees contains any loonies. And you've forgotten the current conservative court members. I'd be hard pressed to believe that Roberts, Alito, Thomas would allow support this.

This sounds as crazy as anything I've heard Alex Jones spout

How many divisions does the Constitution have?

We have already seen him pack his cabinet with generals and promise to resume militarizing local police forces. He regularly threatens the press. The guy isn't even in power yet, fer chrissake. Four years from now the courts will be in his pocket, open dissent will be dangerous, undesirable elements of the population will be registered or interred, the military and police will be loyal, and the opposition will be frozen out of power.

Of course, that's only if we follow the historical playbook for fascism. I'm sure that can't happen in America.

[coopasonic]

Of course, that's only if we follow the historical playbook for fascism. I'm sure that can't happen in America.

As long as we get new iDevices every year...

[El Guapo]

The big question is how feisty the GOP Congress (and really, that means the Senate) will be with Trump. If the Senate gets fully on board the Trump train, if the courts (especially the SCOTUS) give him any trouble they could always just pass a law expanding the number of justices, and then load it up with Trump toadies.

[Defiant]

Donald Trump’s campaign is pressuring Republican electors into voting for them under “threats of political reprisal,” according to a member of the Electoral College who spoke to Salon under the condition of anonymity.

“We have gotten reports from multiple people,” the elector said, “that the Donald Trump campaign is putting pressure on Republican electors to vote for him based on . . . future political outcomes based on whether they vote for Donald Trump or not.”

The elector emphasized that these reports had come straight from the Republican electors themselves, with the threats steering clear of violence but instead focusing on “career pressure.”

link

[malchior]

Threatening electors soon to be a treasured time-honored tradition.

[El Guapo]

eh, I mean, I'm strongly opposed to and disgusted by Trump's threats to random people, but (assuming that the threats are limited to "career threats"), that actually doesn't seem unusual or problematic. People picked to be electors are (I understand) people in good standing with their party. Electors who go with the understanding that they'll vote for the party's nominee, but don't, are obviously going to lose standing with that party. Why would the GOP, when looking for candidates for office, pick an elector who turned on their party's nominee over someone who didn't?

I would think that any party would do the same thing.

[gbasden]

The Detroit News last week was first to report that more than half of Detroit would be ineligible for the recount because of the irregularities. The results were based on county reports obtained by The News.

The new report, compiled by Wayne County elections officials, sheds light on the extent of the problems and shows a systematic tendency toward counting more votes than the previous Wayne County report, which didn’t specify if precincts had over-counted or under-counted ballots.

Republican state senators last week called for an investigation in Wayne County, including one precinct where a Detroit ballot box contained only 50 of the 306 ballots listed in a poll book, according to an observer for Trump.

City officials have told state officials that ballots in that precinct were never taken out of a locked bin below the voting machine tabulator on Election Day, said Secretary of State spokesman Fred Woodhams.

“That’s what we’ve been told, and we’ll be wanting to verify it,” Woodhams said. “At any rate, this should not have happened.”

The state is not calling the audit an investigation, “but based on what we find, it could lead to more,” he said.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/p ... /95363314/

They absolutely should investigate it. That's completely fucked!

[Defiant]

Larry Lessig, a Harvard University constitutional law professor who made a brief run for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, claimed Tuesday that 20 Republican members of the Electoral College are considering voting against Donald Trump, a figure that would put anti-Trump activists more than halfway toward stalling Trump’s election.

link

[El Guapo]

If a significant number of Republican electors vote against Trump, even if it falls short of stopping him from becoming President, I hope that would help marshall some conservative support for reforming or abolishing the electoral college.

[Holman]

I'm 95% assuming that the EC will hand us President Trump next week. But we've never had this kind of crisis of qualifications around a candidate, and I do wonder if a meaningful portion of the electors are starting to think of themselves as having a constitutional role beyond the rubber-stamp.

Not all Republican electors are Trump loyalists. They were chosen at the convention, and many of them get the seat because they are well-connected, long-term party officials and allies. I don't think there was a strong sense in July that every elector needed to be vetted and tested for loyalty to Trump in the EC; loyalty to the GOP was enough.

Some of those electors are probably wrestling with their consciences right now. And threats to their political futures might not mean much to people who see a political threat to the country's future.

[Max Peck]

"Threats of political reprisal." Russian-style politics? Filipino, maybe? At the very least, they'll be tweeted at in the hope that the Second Amendment people will sort out the problem.

[El Guapo]

"Threats of political reprisal." Russian-style politics? Filipino, maybe? At the very least, they'll be tweeted at in the hope that the Second Amendment people will sort out the problem.

That's the trick. Trump has so associated himself with thuggery (and drawn comparative support) that just tweeting at an individual will cause them to get threats of violence from his supporters (that he doesn't direct). See, for example, the Union leader that Trump complained about the other week.

So, as I said the political / career threats directed at disloyal Republican electors seem to me totally normal and anodyne. BUT if I were a Republican elector considering not voting for Trump, I would be a fool to not consider the threat of violence from his supporters (especially if Trump himself tweeted at me). It's hard to know the extent to which Trump considers this, but he absolutely has the power to direct the threat of violence at individuals while denying any actual incitement to violence.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Probably something I should know, but are the electoral votes cast in secrecy? I.E. Will it be public who voted for/against Trump?

[Isgrimnur]

National Conference of State Legislatures

Dec. 19, 2016: Meeting of the Electors. The electors meet in each state and cast their ballots for president and vice president. Each elector votes on his or her own ballot and signs it. The ballots are immediately transmitted to various people: one copy goes to the president of the U.S. Senate (who is also the vice president of the United States); this is the copy that will be officially counted later. Other copies go to the state's secretary of state, the National Archives and Records Administration, and the presiding judge in the district where the electors meet (this serves as a backup copy that would replace the official copy sent to the president of the Senate if it is lost or destroyed).

[Defiant]

Huh. I thought that it somewhat anonymous, because IIRC, in 2004 someone (mistakenly?) swapped Kerry and Edwards, but AFAIK, they could only narrow it down to which state it was in, not which elector.

[Defiant]

It may never be known who cast the Edwards ballot. The ballots aren't signed.

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/f ... _electors/

Maybe they changed it since then, or it depends on the state?

[Isgrimnur]

Minnesota, 2004

One of Minnesota's 10 presidential electors broke from the pack and cast a vote Monday for John Edwards, the Democratic vice presidential running mate for John Kerry. The other nine Minnesota members of the Electoral College voted for Kerry, who won the state's popular vote in November.

After the state's Electoral College ceremony concluded, no one stepped foward as the Edwards voter. Most electors chalked the vote up as a mistake rather than a purposeful political statement.
...
Minnesota's voting began shortly after noon. Electors wrote their candidate's name on an 8½-inch-by-11-inch sheet of paper and put the ballots in a pine box. Once all votes were in, Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer and an aide pulled them out, counted them and announced the total. A tally sheet was sent to Congress, which announces nationwide totals in January.

It may never be known who cast the Edwards ballot. The ballots aren't signed.
...
Minnesota is not among the states where parties require their electors to take formal pledges that they'll back the ticket. In some states, electors can be hit with fines and misdemeanors for bucking the popular vote.

[El Guapo]

How is it plausible that the person voted for John Edwards instead of John Kerry did so "accidentally"? It's not like "Edwards" and "Kerry" are one letter off or something.

[Blackhawk]

I thought it had something to do with flipping the names - Edwards/Kerry vs Kerry/Edwards.

[Rip]

She made it all up — and now she’s under arrest.

The Muslim college student who claimed she was harassed on the subway by three men who shouted “Donald Trump,” called her a terrorist and tried to rip her hijab off her head has admitted to detectives that she concocted the entire story, the Daily News has learned.

Yasmin Seweid, 18, has been charged with filing a false report, a police source said.

Seweid had numerous opportunities to admit the incident never happened but again and again stood by her story, the source said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mus ... ailyNewsTw

[Skinypupy]

Good. She did something really stupid and is facing appropriate consequences. Hopefully it deters others from doing the same thing.

However, it doesn't mean every harassment case is a hoax, which is the narrative already being pushed.

[Rip]

Good. She did something really stupid and is facing appropriate consequences. Hopefully it deters others from doing the same thing.

However, it doesn't mean every harassment case is a hoax, which is the narrative already being pushed.

That is ridiculous, of course not everyone is a hoax. Not even half are hoaxes, but it could be a third or nearly that.

[El Guapo]

North Carolina GOP calls surprise special session to strip powers from the governor.

Pretty sure that the state GOP is just trolling YK at this point.

[RunningMn9]

Poor YK.

[El Guapo]

It gets worse:

[Holman]

Next up: declaring the official state gender and skin color.

[El Guapo]

I kind of love the election board shenanigans - we'll make it bipartisan! And we'll share the chair of the boards with the party - we get it when it matters, and you get it when it doesn't! Even steven!

That's some evil genius shit there.

[Defiant]

eh, I mean, I'm strongly opposed to and disgusted by Trump's threats to random people, but (assuming that the threats are limited to "career threats"), that actually doesn't seem unusual or problematic. People picked to be electors are (I understand) people in good standing with their party. Electors who go with the understanding that they'll vote for the party's nominee, but don't, are obviously going to lose standing with that party. Why would the GOP, when looking for candidates for office, pick an elector who turned on their party's nominee over someone who didn't?

I would think that any party would do the same thing.

But threats (and bribes) are frowned upon in elections (at least since the 19th century). I think that should extend to the electoral college election. (Giving anonymity to who they vote for would probably be the best way to resolve it).

[Ralph-Wiggum]

All the state election boards were in Republican control this year and that didn't seem to help them (at least for the governor's race). But yeah, it's some pretty evil shit. I hope it comes back to bite them in the ass. Of course, I've said that a bunch over the last 8 years and it never seems to come back on the GOP...

[Rip]

eh, I mean, I'm strongly opposed to and disgusted by Trump's threats to random people, but (assuming that the threats are limited to "career threats"), that actually doesn't seem unusual or problematic. People picked to be electors are (I understand) people in good standing with their party. Electors who go with the understanding that they'll vote for the party's nominee, but don't, are obviously going to lose standing with that party. Why would the GOP, when looking for candidates for office, pick an elector who turned on their party's nominee over someone who didn't?

I would think that any party would do the same thing.

But threats (and bribes) are frowned upon in elections (at least since the 19th century). I think that should extend to the electoral college election. (Giving anonymity to who they vote for would probably be the best way to resolve it).

Anonymity in total might do it but in most cases it is obvious if someone bucked the vote or not. Since they are getting threatened before even voting I doubt secrecy of the vote itself would mean much.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/30/politics/ ... ats-cnntv/

[Holman]

Anonymity in total might do it but in most cases it is obvious if someone bucked the vote or not. Since they are getting threatened before even voting I doubt secrecy of the vote itself would mean much.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/30/politics/ ... ats-cnntv/

Well he's a college student claiming he's being threatened, so he's probably making it up, right?

[Defiant]

Not sure if this was the thread people were discussing the Electoral College (it was probably talked about in multiple threads, so whatever).

But it seems to be the Electoral College is affirmative action for Republicans. I wonder how they feel about that if you put it in those terms? (Probably just fine so long as it helps them)

[Remus West]

North Carolina GOP calls surprise special session to strip powers from the governor.

Pretty sure that the state GOP is just trolling YK at this point.

Is there some form of filibuster at the state level the Dems could employ until the governorship has passed to the elect?

[El Guapo]

North Carolina GOP calls surprise special session to strip powers from the governor.

Pretty sure that the state GOP is just trolling YK at this point.

Is there some form of filibuster at the state level the Dems could employ until the governorship has passed to the elect?

Until January the state GOP has a legislative supermajority (in part due to gerrymandering), along with the outgoing governorship and state Supreme Court majority. So they can pretty much do whatever the hell they want until January.

Note that they have also floated the idea of adding two new justices to the state supreme court that McCrory could appoint and they could confirm before January, which would preserve their state supreme court majority. Though it's not yet clear if they will actually do that.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

I know that they are not the exact same people, but the hypocrisy within the GOP is unbelievable. On the one hand. Obama can't appoint anyone or do anything because he only has a whole year left in office. On the other hand, our guy is leaving in a month, so let's appoint and change as much as we can before he leaves. Pretty disgusting, not that they care.