Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
(My first comment here after registering, have been reading this site for over three years now.)

Note that various websites have reported there will be late vote counting so various states will report in their complete numbers only after many hours, perhaps even days; since more Dems than Reps are voting via mail, there is an acute danger of Trump lying ahead in the early count, claiming victory, and then as counting progresses and Biden inches ahead, they will blast the full "election fraud via mail" message. We need to watch out for that storm.

by Averett on Mon Oct 19th, 2020 at 05:19:13 PM EST

There's a very real possibility of Trump being able to get his case to the Supreme Court.  If that happens Roberts will most likely disallow final vote counting like on Florida in 2000.

IF that happens life is going to get ... unpredictably "interesting."

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Mon Oct 19th, 2020 at 05:38:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
That would hand Trump a win - but it would be clearly illegitimate.

2000 just about squeezed by, partly because no one expected it. But it's harder to make a case when Trump is somewhere between 5 and 10 down in the national polls.

"Interesting" would be the word. It would likely tear the US apart.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Oct 19th, 2020 at 05:50:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I don't think SCOTUS will care a jot what the opinion polls say.  They have no legal standing. Some pretext will be found if the result is  close enough to create doubt. If I recall, there was statistical evidence last time that the voting machines systematically under-counted Dem votes, but nothing was ever proved beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence favours the establishment.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Oct 19th, 2020 at 06:21:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
SCOTUS won't, but voters will. You can't steal an election without at least some attempt at plausible deniability. Currently that's not available to Trump, or to SCOTUS.

In 2000 the result was ridiculously close, with less than 500 votes in a single state deciding the outcome of the entire election. And Bush had led in the polling in the run-up to the election.

The situation this year is very different. Trump can only win if he can find a legal pretext for manipulating the results in multiple states, most - possibly none - of which are likely to be very close.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Oct 19th, 2020 at 06:53:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Roberts voted against the Rethugs in the latest PA supreme court ruling yesterday. the vote was 4-4, thus not overturning the lower court.

"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Ana´s Nin
by Crazy Horse on Tue Oct 20th, 2020 at 11:08:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The USA has moved so far to the right in recent years, that even conservative judges appointed years ago are now to the left of the spectrum on SCOTUS

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Tue Oct 20th, 2020 at 07:51:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Florida had a Republican Governer ("Jeb?" Remember him). If the state has a Democrat, he could quote Jackson "Roberts has made his decision; now let him enforce it." and continue counting.

The SC doing anything like that without the absolute certainty of prevailing is very risky, as President Biden could then impeach them all.

by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue Oct 20th, 2020 at 07:31:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Good one tacked to THE oldest atty joke; 2nd oldest being, "I don't defend hypotheticals."

Oyez! Oyez! LEGIT "politicization" will now come to order!
Here are our recommendations for Florida Supreme Court, Third District Court of Appeal | Editorial

When Reubin Askew became governor in 1971, the Florida Supreme Court (SCOFLA) was one big #FloridaMan joke.
< wipes tears >
For a time, the new system worked well. Accomplished and widely admired lawyers looking to give something back to their profession and to serve their communities threw their hats in the ring of a competitive, but largely apolitical, process.

Things began to change when Jeb Bush became governor. With the Legislature' s help, Bush seized control of the state's Judicial Nominating Commissions and began to populate them with political allies who view the judiciary not as a co-equal branch of government, but as a hallelujah chorus whose job it is to rubber stamp whatever the Legislature passes and the governor signs.

Nothing will change until voters voice their displeasure at the ballot box.

The Herald Editorial Board recommends NO on the question, "Shall Justice Carlos G. Muñiz be retained in office?"

The five judges in the Third District Court seeking retention have not obviously been involved in politicizing their high court position.

Here are our recommendations:

by Cat on Tue Oct 20th, 2020 at 08:21:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And what corporation owns that newspaper?

The "free press" ain't.

by StillInTheWilderness on Thu Oct 22nd, 2020 at 12:37:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Plumbing the intellectual history, pedigree, and sanctity of Anglo-merican free press, free speech imperative is most entertaining, when public opinion is reported to be SCANDALIZED and constipated by defamation of idols.

atm, I'm into perusing distal commentary on the puritan John Pym's public house PR campaign which hastened the civil war.

by Cat on Thu Oct 22nd, 2020 at 01:05:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Philocothonista, Or THE DRUNKARD, Opened, Dissected, and Anatomized
...The number of imprints in England rose dramatically during the early 1640s.. After Charles I and his government demonstrated their weakness by failing to bring the Calvinist Scots into line with the liturgy and hierarchy of the English established Church, events tumbled over each other, and readers in London and in the counties were starved for news and for certainties. The London printers could barely satisfy the demand. In 1620, 410 imprints were published, in 1639, 464 and in 1640, 577 appeared. According to Frederick Stephens' Catalogue of Personal and Political Satirical Prints of the British Museum, twenty-five imprints-broadsides and pamphlets--were published on March 1, 1641 alone; all refer to the impeachment of Archbishop William Laud on that day.7

While the whole structure of censorship was falling apart along with the demise of the authority of the bishops, the Star Chamber and the High Commission, the number of unlicensed printers was multiplying. In 1642, John Taylor, "the water poet", expressed his dismay at "the many unlicensed licentious pamphleteers that have been scattered about the kingdom within these 23 months." Henry Parker bemoaned the general confusion about printing and the appearance of "strangers such as drapers, carmen and others to set up presses in diverse obscure corners of the city."8 The excitement of events in London and in the kingdom could only incite the printers to find woodcuts old or new to illustrate their newsbooks....

by Cat on Thu Oct 22nd, 2020 at 09:23:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It was a fascinating time.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."
by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Fri Oct 23rd, 2020 at 12:18:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And electricity has made free press all the more fascinating.
by Cat on Fri Oct 23rd, 2020 at 08:05:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
"Cases." It will not just be one state, it will be most of them. Unless there is a clear result in a given state, maybe 10%+ one way or the other, or unless the voting system is really clean, like Colorado (I hope), the results will be appealed.
by asdf on Wed Oct 21st, 2020 at 05:12:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Great comment! Yes the practice of the networks racing to call various states before many votes are counted is a dangerous one, given Dems are likely to do better with with postal votes and the counting timescale can vary so much from state to state. I never quite understood the logic of SCOTUS calling a halt to counting so early in 2000. Given the new President isn't inaugurated until late January, what's the hurry?

In Ireland the counting and recounting process can take days because of our complex seaming multi-seat, single transferable vote system, but the drama of trying to predict where the final seat will go depending on voters 15th and 16th. choices way down their order of preference keeps the pundits in employment for may hours. It is part of the national theatre of democracy quite apart from the fact that it presents even smaller parties with a fair chance of winning seats and discourages polarising candidates and campaigns.

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Oct 19th, 2020 at 05:51:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
early? um, I recall calling it a night between 11 PM- midnight with only FL precincts remaining. Then waking up to wtf -- "hanging chad" punched ballots discarded overnight.
by Cat on Mon Oct 19th, 2020 at 06:50:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Frank: "I never quite understood the logic of SCOTUS calling a halt to counting so early in 2000."

There WAS no logic. It was a pure exercise in power politics. The Republicans did it because they could. That was why they had been all about court packing since Reagan.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

by ARGeezer (ARGeezer a in a circle eurotrib daught com) on Mon Oct 19th, 2020 at 07:44:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Then why did Gore so cravenly accept such a partisan ruling?... I know, because he is an establishment idiot... The GOPers can hardly complain then if Dems DO pack the court, but somehow I don't see Dems doing it. They are too comfortable being able to blame the GOP for not doing anything substantial...

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Oct 19th, 2020 at 08:01:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If I remember correctly the problem in 2000 was that a contested election would have gone to the house, with each state delegation voting as a block, which had a strong republican majority at the time. The result would have been very likely the same.

As for Gore conceding: beyond the difficulty in winning (they first would have to achieve a victory in a recount in two counties, then legally force an overall recount and then hope that would give a more decisive result that the first round) there is the matter of timing. When the supreme court gave its ridiculous decision on December 12 there were only some six weeks left until the inauguration date. Which, legally speaking is quite short. On top of which the US has that idiotic system where a new administration has to name some 3000 odd people into government to keep it running. (Why the US government can't trust in a politically neutral civil service to do the overwhelming majority of those jobs is one off the many mysteries of the country's political setup).

by Anspen on Mon Oct 19th, 2020 at 10:53:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The problem with having a politically neutral civil service do a lot of the work is that they would be guided by science and logical policy imperatives. If you are a conservative and trying to prove that the state can't do most jobs as well as "the markets" then the last thing you want is competent civil servants on the job. They might try to regulate the private sector, for one thing.

The genius of the conservative political project s that they have persuaded many of the hoi polloi that the state is their enemy rather than their friend, and that their true friends are billionaire business owners who have the best interests of everyone at heart. Even superheroes are in reality rich people trying to help the poor saddled with an incompetent police service and state. Sadly, if you recruit, pay, and train them badly enough, the police service really is incompetent.

And of course if the hoi polloi really want to be rich and emulate the billionaires, its easy to persuade them that they too could make it rich if they are smart and hard working enough, even if most wealth is actually inherited. The state, meanwhile, is populated by failed businessmen and ne'er do wells with their fingers in the till doing a jobs worth for the lobbying firms. Who would want to aspire to emulate that?

The progressive project is about the common good - a nebulous concept sometimes hard to define. The conservative project, on the other hand is about unabashed and unashamed self promotion, built on the insight that most people are fundamentally selfish and care more for themselves and their families than the rest of society. The pandemic is deeply subversive of that philosophy, because my health depends on your good behaviour for which I give you nothing. What could be more stupid than that notion, if you are a conservative?

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Mon Oct 19th, 2020 at 11:31:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Top Diaries

Italian government collapse

by IdiotSavant - Jan 15

A Long War?

by Frank Schnittger - Jan 8

Israel and A Presidential Election

by Oui - Jan 14

Coup Attempt in USA?

by Frank Schnittger - Jan 6

Occasional Series