Someone Has To Do It: US Elections 2020

[scratchmonkey]

Many lawyers familiar with the processes involved have been talking on Twitter about how the Trump Campaign's legal wranglings are, if anything, seemingly designed to not have anything that could possibly make its way to the SCOTUS, meaning that the goal here is most likely to make as much noise as possible for wringing more donations from the base and then setting the table for continued Trump rallies and an eventual run in 2024 with "they stole it from us!"

[ursus arctos]

I think that is basically right, but would add two points.

1) I would not in any way diminish the extent to which the "strategy" (such as it is) is primarily driven by Trump's ego and pathological inability to accept failure or defeat.

2) Whatever the "strategy" was at its inception, they have been seriously hobbled by the simple but deadly fact that they have no real evidence to support any of their claims. Had the margin been closer and had the election had even a number of irregularities of the kind we saw in some primaries, they would have had much more room to manoeuvre, and likely would have been able to convince more competent lawyers to take the cases on.

There is very little chance that the Supreme Court chooses to decide their appeal from the Third Circuit, but I admit to their being a trollish part of me that wants the three progressive justices and Roberts to agree to grant certiorari (one only needs four), only so as to force the likes of Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh and Barrett to either vote against their hero's interest or completely trash whatever reputation they have left. I only entertain that idea because the grounds for appeal are so limited. Even if there were somehow five votes for the Trump position, all the campaign would get is the chance to file another complaint in the District Court, where they still would be faced with the absence of supporting evidence.

[Sam]

Well, this is a shame. I had a reply to ap's original question about 'Latinx', and took some time to write something in good faith which I don't think anyone would be insulted by, and which raised a bunch of points I haven't seen anyone on here make about the word, but after seeing what went on following that post I'm not sure I should post it now. Is it worth posting here or in a new thread, or is no one actually interested any more?

[Sam]

On a separate note, if Trump is convicted of something at state level in the next four years will he still be allowed to run in 2024?

[Sporting]

Well, this is a shame. I had a reply to ap's original question about 'Latinx', and took some time to write something in good faith which I don't think anyone would be insulted by, and which raised a bunch of points I haven't seen anyone on here make about the word, but after seeing what went on following that post I'm not sure I should post it now. Is it worth posting here or in a new thread, or is no one actually interested any more?

I'm interested. And as far as I know you always post in good faith.

[ursus arctos]

On a separate note, if Trump is convicted of something at state level in the next four years will he still be allowed to run in 2024?

There is no formal constitutional bar to him doing so.

That said, I would expect it to be a subject of significant discussion.

[Sam]

That's interesting, ursus, thanks. Interesting that folk with convictions can be barred from voting (can they still, actually, now it's not the case in Florida?) but not from running for the top job.

And Sporting, I've got it saved as a .txt file for now so if there are other willing replies by Saturday night maybe I'll post it. Don't want it to spark another barney if anyone who was actually about earlier in the week sees the quoted post from ap at the top of mine and thinks 'oh God are we doing this again'.

[ursus arctos]

That "paradox" arises from the fact that voting qualifications are a matter of state law (subject to constitutional limits), while qualifications for federal office are set by the Constitution.

He is never going to be prosecuted in Florida and I honestly don't know how Florida currently treats felons convicted under the law of another state. That type of disqualification often operates only with regard to convictions under the state's own laws or of federal crimes committed in-state.

I would also be quite interested in your take on Latinx, though I would suggest a new thread.

[ursus arctos]

On Florida, felons are still disenfranchised if they have not paid all fines, charges, restitution, etc imposed by the state thanks to some very shady business by the Florida Republicans that survived a court challenge.

And because the quantum of those charges isn't known in a very large number of cases, tens of thousands of Florida felons who have served their sentences and been discharged still cannot vote.

[laverte]

I would also be quite interested in your take on Latinx, though I would suggest a new thread.

Seconding both parts of this. Or maybe it would make a valuable addition to the decolonising language discussion?

[Janik]

Many lawyers familiar with the processes involved have been talking on Twitter about how the Trump Campaign's legal wranglings are, if anything, seemingly designed to not have anything that could possibly make its way to the SCOTUS, meaning that the goal here is most likely to make as much noise as possible for wringing more donations from the base and then setting the table for continued Trump rallies and an eventual run in 2024 with "they stole it from us!"

That does beg the question of whether there is anything these lawyers could design that would have the possibility of making it's way to SCOTUS. Lawyers on twitter etc. are very good at saying "this can't work because..." without providing the alternative of 'they should be doing x' instead.
If there is no x, which seems entirely possible (given that this election was conspicuously free and fair!), it may well be more that this is the best that the Big Baby's Army can come up with, rather than any deliberate strategy to do one thing whilst actually doing the opposite.

Which all feeds back in to

I would not in any way diminish the extent to which the "strategy" (such as it is) is primarily driven by Trump's ego and pathological inability to accept failure or defeat.

That should always be your starting point for critiquing any analysis of a supposed Trump and co "strategy" or conspiracy.

[DCI Harry Batt]

Or maybe it would make a valuable addition to the decolonising language discussion?

That seems fitting. I'd be interested.

[Eggchaser]

Solicitors (certainly in the UK) are wary of handing out free advice because there is a possibility, however remote, that someone takes it, it's wrong and they get sued. Being a solicitor means 24 hours a day, seven days a week being bound by all the SRA regulations. What you do in your private life, even on a board like this, can lead to you getting dragged up before a disciplinary tribunal.

[Satchmo Distel]

I think the legal challenges will last up to the Electoral College vote because Trump still believes, despite clear precedent, that those votes can legally switch, so the challenges are to influence those electors.

He's already admitted he has to leave "if" he loses that vote.

[Eggchaser]

That's why I wondered what he is up to, on the basis that he will never concede defeat, so is presumably confident in getting the EC to do his bidding.

Whether that ascribes too much cunning to him at this point, but his entire life has been him failing upwards, much like our beloved Prime Minister, for whom being sacked for misconduct of one stripe or another has led to an even better position.

[Snake Plissken]

He's pretty much in the "figuring out a way to exit without it looking like a defeat" stage now.

[Bruno]

In my lifetime we've descended from behavior like this guaranteeing political exile because it lacked popular support, to needing to humor behavior like this to avoid political exile because it has unprecedented popular support. Pretty amazing.

[Various Artist]

I know it's a tad late, but I've just seen this tweeted in response to Tinydeskgate yesterday and the caption made me laugh until I almost choked, so just thought I'd share:

https://twitter.com/noahsparc/status/1332167163822567424

[caja-dglh]

He's pretty much in the "figuring out a way to exit without it looking like a defeat" stage now.

Paying $3 million for a recount and losing by more may not be helping with that.

[ursus arctos]

Yes, that has been quite funny. It will be interesting to see what happens in Dane County (the other one that they have paid to recount).

Eggchaser, I'm afraid that US state bar associations are much less aggressive when it comes to policing the profession than the SRA. If one avoids a) stealing money from clients' (particularly funds held in trust) and b) doing something particularly outrageous in court before a judge inclined to pursue sanctions, one's license is virtually never at risk for one's activities as a lawyer.

The profession would be a lot healthier were that not the case, but it is.

He's gotten a Pennsylvania state legislator to say that he will introduce a bill to appoint Trumpist electors. That isn't going to work either.

[ursus arctos]

https://twitter.com/rorycooper/status/1332716262670131201

[Nocturnal Submission]

That could be a fun strategy. Encouraging Georgia Republicans to boycott an election that's "obviously" going to be rigged again.

[Satchmo Distel]

The Loeffler strategy seems to be to intimidate the Georgia officials to rig the January 5th runoff in her favour.

[ursus arctos]

That's harder to do than they would have you think, and I very much doubt that Loeffler is high on anyone's list of people worth taking chances for.

The runoff is rigged thing is definitely a thing on social media and McDaniel's audience is evidence of it actually existing IRL

[Janik]

Also seen on twitter Re: Georgia - don't vote for the Republicans on the ballot, put Trumps name instead as a write in.
Obviously I'm all for this as a brilliant wheeze to split the Republican vote. Particularly as I assume, given this is a run-off election, write-in candidates would not be eligible. And even if they were, Trump would have the square root of f*ck all interest in being a mere Senator.