Just now, MidMoFo said:

WTF is he campaigning in California? He doesn’t have a snowballs chance in he!! to win California. Maybe he hasn’t heard about his debate performance yet, because he ain’t got time to campaign for anyone else either…

All of his intelligent help from 2016 has left his campaign is the only explanation.

He was out here in LA last night for a fundraiser

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

He was out here in LA last night for a fundraiser

Fair enough…

 

55 minutes ago, toolg said:

As Vikas explains, the damage is already done. He put operatives at the controls ready to throw the election. They don't need Bannon to tell them what to do.

I'm just curious how it helps him if he's not already in the White House. Are we saying those operatives can give the electoral votes to Trump and ignore the election results?

So I guess he thinks Haiti is part of Venezuela now? Probably in the same way he thought kidneys were part of the heart. Common mistake.

 

4 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

I'm just curious how it helps him if he's not already in the White House. Are we saying those operatives can give the electoral votes to Trump and ignore the election results?

The theory is to delay long enough to prevent Harris from getting 270 EVs by the certification deadline, thereby kicking it over to the House where each state gets a delegation, and would be a de facto win for the Republican candidate. 

2 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

The theory is to delay long enough to prevent Harris from getting 270 EVs by the certification deadline, thereby kicking it over to the House where each state gets a delegation, and would be a de facto win for the Republican candidate. 

The senator of those states couldn't step in at that point?

8 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

The senator of those states couldn't step in at that point?

They don't have any other authority over the process if certification is delayed or obstructed. This was the plan laid out in the Eastman memo that ultimately failed once Pence certified the votes on that night (technically early morning of Jan 7th).

This is why any voter who casts a ballot for Trump is no different than the losers who tried to secede during the Civil War, or the losers before them who were loyal to Britain during the Revolution. They like to call themselves "patriots" but the Haitians in Springfield exemplify more American values than any Trump voter ever has.

Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

 

This is why any voter who casts a ballot for Trump is no different than the losers who tried to secede during the Civil War, or the losers before them who were loyal to Britain during the Revolution. They like to call themselves "patriots" but the Haitians in Springfield exemplify more American values than any Trump voter ever has.

I completely agree. They're not very smart people. However, I still think giving Trump the win if he loses the election is still a hail Mary at this point.

1 minute ago, Paul852 said:

I completely agree. They're not very smart people. However, I still think giving Trump the win if he loses the election is still a hail Mary at this point.

It will depend almost entirely on the margins. Biden won MI, NV, and even PA by decent margins but states like GA and AZ were super close. So if it comes down to Harris needing a state like WI to put her over 270 and it's a margin of only 0.2% like GA was, then it's going to be an ugly couple of months as this plays out with the whole world watching. But if she clears the bar with multiple states like Biden did, some of which with healthy margins like Biden had in MI or PA, then it's much less likely they have the grounds for delaying certification.

11 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

I completely agree. They're not very smart people. However, I still think giving Trump the win if he loses the election is still a hail Mary at this point.

One thing I forgot to add, Biden did sign into law a revision to the Electoral Count Act which gives more power to the governor or SoS in each state over approving the slate of electors. So some of the shenagins Trump tried to pull last time will be harder, but I still fully expect to be very frustrated on election night, just like I was 4 years ago, because a race that shouldn't be even remotely close, will in reality be far too close for comfort. All because there are at least 70M people in this country that are incredibly stupid and/or mentally ill. 

1 hour ago, sameaglesfan said:

Thanks - good to know the Dems are incorruptible.

Did I say that? Just pointing out the obvious blinders when it comes to Trump. 

You guys are talking about Congress and the House, which is irrelevant. The plan, if it works, would be as follows in a place like PA.

1. Harris wins the vote

2. Certain counties don't certify the results and send them to the SOS

3. Lawsuits are filed in PA courts and are not adjudicated by 12/11, meaning there is no certified winner in PA by 12/11 

4. In order to avoid missing the deadline to submit its electoral votes, the PA legislature votes to award its electors to Trump and submits those (something FL was ready to do in 2020)

It never gets to the federal level. The playbook is simply to make sure multiple swing states are tied down in litigation so that they all turn it over to their legislatures. If those states send Trump electors, and Trump electors only, the Dems in Congress could try and reject the votes from those states, but they don't have the votes.

I need to research the Electoral Count Act more, but you'd have a conflict between state and Federal law. While there is Federal supremacy, that could also get tied up in court.

Or, you could have multiple states that submit no electors, for example, if they can't certify a winner. 

1 minute ago, vikas83 said:

If those states send Trump electors

That's the sticking point though. States like WI, PA, AZ, and MI all have Dem governors. The GOP legislatures can't force the Dem governor/SoS to approve the false slate of electors.

Just now, vikas83 said:

Or, you could have multiple states that submit no electors, for example, if they can't certify a winner. 

Right, which then gets to the scenario I mentioned above, where it's decided by the House.

So here's a one pager on the ECA of 2022 which is helpful: https://www.collins.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/one_pager_on_electoral_count_reform_act_of_2022.pdf

So there is one state official in each state designated to submit the electors, and it is the Governor unless state law or Constitution appoints someone else. So in PA that would be the SOS I believe. That is Al Schmidt, who is a Republican but not an election denier. 

This is the weird paragraph:

Quote

 

Protection of Each State’s Popular Vote. Strikes a provision of an archaic 1845 law that could be used by state legislatures to override the popular vote in their states by declaring a "failed election” – a term that is not defined in the law.  Instead, this legislation specifies that a state could move its presidential election day, which otherwise would remain the Tuesday immediately following the first Monday in November every four years, only if necessitated by "extraordinary and catastrophic” events. 

 

The question remains -- what if the local levels don't submit the election results to the state? How can the SOS certify the vote?

54 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

I'm just curious how it helps him if he's not already in the White House. Are we saying those operatives can give the electoral votes to Trump and ignore the election results?

Probably not like that. Most states are winner-take-all. So the entire state certifies the election for one candidate or the other according to state law. Only a handful of states will even allow faithless electors to go rogue. I don't think they can direct enough rogue electoral votes in their favor.

I think it has to do with throwing some monkey wrenches into the process. Several local precincts decide they refuse to certify their own results, holding up the count. Throws the entire state result in doubt. Then separate groups of electors meet and certify the result, one for each candidate. Which group of electors does the electoral college accept? Neither? Then the House can pick the winner by Contingent Election. Or what sort of legal challenges does that lead to?  I believe they want challenges based on electoral fraud. Even if they have to resort in creating fraud themselves. Anything to delay or cast doubt on the results. Then they can get the House or state legislatures where they have a majority to rule in their favor.... Unless of course Trump wins. Then they don't have to use any of those charges.

4 minutes ago, toolg said:

I don't think they can direct enough rogue electoral votes in their favor.

There are some scenarios where you need only one faithless elector to change the result, like this one below. Now would NV flip to red with WI staying blue? Unlikely, but it's certainly plausible.

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

There are some scenarios where you need only one faithless elector to change the result, like this one below. Now would NV flip to red with WI staying blue? Unlikely, but it's certainly plausible.

 

Could happen. Maybe they have one or a few faithless electors in their back pocket. Smaller chance though. I don't think they're messing with single electors, but rather mucking with entire states' values of EVs.

I can't even fathom being stupid enough to hear him speak and then somehow come to the conclusion that he should be elected as President.