2020 Election: Predictions, Results and Reactions

[elengil]

[Maria]

[Dave_LF]

Can you order a recount before the first count is done?

My understanding is that this what is called a "risk limiting audit" that is not being done in response to the Trump campaign's request for a recount (even though it is being done in response to the Trump campaign's request for a recount). It is being done before the results are certified. Then, after the results are certified, the losing side can request a recount, but that will not be a hand recount, that will be a machine scan recount.

Follow-up question: if "hand recount" means what I assume it does, will it even be possible to complete such a thing before electors must be appointed in less than a month? The machine-assisted count has already dragged on longer than a week.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

They claim it will be done by November 20. We'll see.

[Túrin Turambar]

Delaware just became the first state to officially certify its results. One down, fifty to go.

This is the fifth U.S. Presidential election I've followed, but it's the first time I've actually had to pay attention to all the steps between the result being called by the networks and the inauguration.

[River]

Dave, I think the first count in GA was slowed by processing ballots. Now that they've got all of that squared away it should go faster.

Túrin, usually no one cares much about what goes down between the results being called and Inauguration Day because usually we don't have a candidate spewing frivolous lawsuits and generally having a tantrum.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Dave, I think the first count in GA was slowed by processing ballots. Now that they've got all of that squared away it should go faster.

But the first count was done with machines scanning the ballots. This "audit" needs to be done by hand. It is an immense and extremely time-consuming and expensive process, which is not being paid for the be the side that is forcing it to happen because it is not the official requested recount but rather the Republican Secretary of State bowing to pressure from his own party.

[N.E. Brigand]

Delaware just became the first state to officially certify its results. One down, fifty to go.

This is the fifth U.S. Presidential election I've followed, but it's the first time I've actually had to pay attention to all the steps between the result being called by the networks and the inauguration.

Following Delaware's certification earlier today, Wyoming, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Vermont have now also done so.

In all six of those states, Trump's share of the vote went down from 2016 (by anywhere from 2% to 9%) and the total number of votes cast went up from 2016 (the range is 7%-16%). That's per Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report.

[N.E. Brigand]

Trump Campaign Lawyer Tells PA Judge He Has 'No Knowledge' of Voter Fraud Related to Ongoing Ballot Count

Seems to be a pattern: the Trump campaign's public statements allege wrongdoing, their court filings merely list things they find suspicious (and the replies by boards of election seems to show that the Trump campaign is just plain ignorant of the laws), and when questioned by judges, they admit that's all they've got.

Curiously, the Trump campaign appears to be focusing its attention on cities like Detroit and Philadelphia, but it actually appears that Biden's vote share in those places went down from what Clinton got in 2016. I wonder why the Trump campaign isn't questioning the results in the suburbs, where Biden's share went up?

[N.E. Brigand]

Can you order a recount before the first count is done?

My understanding is that this what is called a "risk limiting audit" that is not being done in response to the Trump campaign's request for a recount (even though it is being done in response to the Trump campaign's request for a recount). It is being done before the results are certified. Then, after the results are certified, the losing side can request a recount, but that will not be a hand recount, that will be a machine scan recount.

(The story that I linked to earlier has added these details.)

Apparently Georgia had always planned to conduct such an audit for one statewide race this year, so they've just gone ahead and decided it will be for the presidential vote, so it may not put them to any time and cost they weren't already going to expend.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

My understanding is that the audit that they had planned to do was on a random sample of ballots, not the full presidential vote.

https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-la ... BJAW6HERA/

The new count is technically Georgia’s first statewide elections audit, which had been planned for over a year. But instead of the audit using a random sample of ballots to test the accuracy of electronic tallies, Raffensperger expanded the audit to include every ballot cast.

[N.E. Brigand]

My understanding is that the audit that they had planned to do was on a random sample of ballots, not the full presidential vote.

https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-la ... BJAW6HERA/

The new count is technically Georgia’s first statewide elections audit, which had been planned for over a year. But instead of the audit using a random sample of ballots to test the accuracy of electronic tallies, Raffensperger expanded the audit to include every ballot cast.

Ah, I had missed that information. Thanks.

[Cerin]

Do the publications questioning the lack of a concession not understand that there are recounts and court cases pending, and that it would make no sense for Trump to concede before these recounts and court cases reach their conclusions? Did Al Gore concede before his recount in a single state was concluded in the Supreme Court? That was one state and took 35 days to conclude, here there are several states involved. I think anyone in media talking about tantrums and dictatorships and failures to concede is making themselves look ridiculous and would be undermining their credibility if they had any left. This is a contested election. Who has ever conceded a contested election while it was being contested?

[yovargas]

Cerin - Every single election ever would be a "contested" election if the losing candidate behaved the way that Trump is behaving. Don't you realize that there are always places that could be recounted and suspicious activity that could be investigated? But most candidates do not behave this way, filing endless frivolous lawsuits, because most candidates respect democracy more than they care about winning.

Gore did not concede in 2000 because the difference in Florida was within a few hundred votes and a recount had a significant possibility of it changing the result. There is no such possibility today. Nobody sees any mathematical path that would allow Trump to win. Even if many of the recounts and lawsuits go Trump's way, it would still not change Biden's lead. Once things reach such a state of certainty, candidates concede. At least the candidates who care about the democratic process too.

[River]

What yov said. The gap between Biden and Trump in every "contested" state is an order of magnitude or wider than the gap between Bush and Gore in Florida. Despite all the flak the Trump camp and their enablers are spewing, this thing is not and never was close. There's a reason every single lawsuit filed has been dismissed out of hand: when the campaign lawyers have to get up and defend their claims in an environment where there facts matter and lies come with consequences, they can't do it. The fact is Trump has once again lost the popular vote and this time he lost the Electoral College as well. He's fired. He has until Jan. 20, 2021 to pack his things.

ETA: Two sets of international election observers have found the 2020 election to be free and fair. They found the same for 2016.

[Cerin]

If there is one thing everyone should understand at this point, it's that the nation is divided. One half of the country sees things differently than the other half sees them. How you view the election and the lawsuits from your global elitist perspective (or however you would prefer to characterize your perspective -- liberal, leftist, woke, intelligent, enlightened, indubitably correct, etc.) is irrelevant; what is relevant is how the people contesting the election see the election and their claims. They will exhaust every avenue, because they believe the election was stolen. Until every avenue is exhausted, a concession makes no sense. And that's my very limited point. There is no point calling for concession until the people questioning the election are satisfied or have no remaining recourse.

[River]

"Global elitists"...you a Bannonite, Cerin?

[yovargas]

"There is no point calling for concession until the people questioning the election are satisfied or have no remaining recourse."

The only reason "people" are questioning the election is because of the many, many false statements Trump has been saying. If Trump hadn't been spreading so many lies, there would be no questioning because there is nothing significant to question. Nothing.

[Frelga]

"Global elitists"...you a Bannonite, Cerin?

Jews. It means Jews.

Just to clarify.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Cerin]

Jews. It means Jews.

It does not mean Jews. We had a discussion of this a short time ago, somewhere; Túrin succinctly characterized what is understood by the phrase, and anyone who is sincerely interested in understanding what is meant by this can take the time to scroll through some threads.