• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

2020 US Presidential Election

Status
Not open for further replies.

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
32,939
Location
Fenny Stratford
I saw a clip of an interesting speech given by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ( who looks like he has come straight from central casting!) saying:
Stars and Stripes:
“We are unique among militaries," said Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “We do not take an oath to a king or a queen, a tyrant or a dictator. We do not take an oath to an individual.”..... We take an oath to the Constitution,” Milley said, adding that every service member “will protect and defend that document regardless of personal price.”

and
Stars & Stripes: the military's unequivocal duty to protect and defend the Constitution — what he called the “moral north star” for everyone in uniform.

 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,213
Location
SE London
I'm guessing that, for any post where Trump has the power to sack the person and replace with a Trump-loyalist, Biden will equally have the power on 20 Jan to sack the Trump loyalist and replace with someone more professional (maybe, even the same person Trump sacked, if the individual is still willing to do the job).
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,723
Location
Scotland
I'm guessing that, for any post where Trump has the power to sack the person and replace with a Trump-loyalist, Biden will equally have the power on 20 Jan to sack the Trump loyalist and replace with someone more professional (maybe, even the same person Trump sacked, if the individual is still willing to do the job).
Yes, and no. The Trump administration made some changes to the civil service rules that will make it harder to fire some (though not all) of the recent appointees.
 

overthewater

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2012
Messages
9,136
Arizona now "called" by the networks, including Fox, for Biden.

Biden is currently leading by 11,434 votes, but has only won 43.7% of the votes counted since 5/11/2020, so Trump has been reducing his deficit there from 68,300 over a week ago, however not enough to overturn Biden's majority, and now there are relatively few votes remaining to be counted.

[I estimate around 25,000 votes remaining, so that Biden would need to win fewer than 27% of these in order to lose his majority, which isn't going to happen. I calculate his majority will reduce by 3,200 leaving him ~8,000 votes ahead when the counting is complete.]

EDIT - I know Arizona a little bit, I have family in Tucson and have visited several times. Phoenix is a huge sprawl that goes on for ever - I've always returned to the UK on the direct early evening BA flight from Phoenix and have driven there from Tucson, usually N from Tucson then W, but I've also driving W from Tucson, then N. Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, accounts for >2m of the ~3.3m total votes cast, and has voted 50.3% in Biden's favour this time. In the past it was more Republican. Pima County, which includes Tucson, has always been more Democrat, about 0.5m votes. I know the supermarket where Gabrielle Giffords was shot, her husband is now elected Senator, and a lot of people don't like what Trump said about John McCain, whose wife has now said positive things about Biden's win unsurprisingly.

These states shift over time. Texas was once solidly Democrat (Lyndon Johnson). Migration is changing the way America votes. Arizona is unlikely to be taken for granted as "Republican" for a long time now - Tucson is a nice place and clearly very strongly influenced by its Hispanic ("Latinx" seems to be the politically-correct term now?) population - my relatives who live there are all originally from Mexico or their children for sure.

EDIT - CNN just commented that there will be no recount in Arizona, even though Biden's margin is relatively small (.034% currently) the laws in Arizona only allow it for a much smaller margin (https://ballotpedia.org/Recount_laws_in_Arizona)

Has the switch to more democratic voters, been party down the fact alot of people have been moving from California? or do they really just not like trump?

Can you explain why its taken for ever to count the votes, this just seems like madness, taken over a week.

###

It should be point out in the 2000 Election, Florida was NOT the only contested state, New mexico was actually the closest state in the entire presidential election race with an ever smaller majority 366 votes


So it has happened before when a few states were contested but never by such larger margins.
 
Last edited:

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
6,044
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
Has the switch to more democratic voters, been party down the fact alot of people have been moving from California? or do they really just not like trump?

Yes.

Can you explain why its taken for ever to count the votes, this just seems like madness, taken over a week.

Certain states have a small number of ballot counters and a tedious manual multi-step verification process which can even include voters needing to return to a counting facility to 'cure' their ballots, ie to verify ID or ensure a signature is present. Some counts of remaining votes are also being done -extra carefully- while lawsuits continue to be fired left, right and centre from Count Trumpula.
 

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
10,147
Location
Wilmslow
Arizona Senate Bill 1070, passed in 2010, made it a state misdemeanour crime for an alien to be in Arizona without carrying documents such as a certificate of alien registration, and encouraged state law enforcement to enforce this. Essentially, prior to this legislation, US law enforcement officials were not required to ask about the immigration status of people they encountered.

Arizona had slightly below 0.5m illegal aliens by 2010, and SB 1070 was seen as targeting the Hispanic population. Maybe some parallels with "stop and search" in the UK? Obviously those responsible for the legislation claim that it's about enforcement of the law.

After the bill was signed there was a sharp increase in the number of Hispanics in the state registering as affiliated Democrats.

(Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_SB_1070)

In Arizona a lot of effort went into mobilising this vote, "Mi Familia Vota", and some of the people responsible had previously campaigned against SB 1070.

So SB 1070 was a significant catalyst for the increased Hispanic Democratic vote in Arizona. The population shift is there, and it was about motivating the population to vote. Will this continue in future?

Also stated by some as a catalyst for Hispanic & Democrat action is Joe Arpaio: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio)
Joseph Michael Arpaio[1] (/ɑːrˈpaɪoʊ/; born June 14, 1932) is an American former law enforcement officer and politician. He served as the 36th Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizonafor 24 years, from 1993 to 2017, losing reelection to Democrat Paul Penzone in 2016.

Starting in 2005, Arpaio took an outspoken stance against illegal immigration, styling himself as "America's Toughest Sheriff".[2][3] In 2010, he became a flashpoint for opposition to Arizona's SB1070 anti-illegal immigrant law, which was largely struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States.[4][5][6][7] Arpaio is also known for investigating former U.S. President Barack Obama's birth certificate, and, as of 2018, he continued to claim without evidence that it was forged.[8][9]

Arpaio has been accused of numerous types of police misconduct, including abuse of power, misuse of funds, failure to investigate sex crimes, criminal negligence, abuse of suspects in custody, improper clearance of cases, unlawful enforcement of immigration laws, and election law violations. A Federal court monitor was appointed to oversee his office's operations because of complaints of racial profiling. The U.S. Department of Justice concluded that Arpaio oversaw the worst pattern of racial profiling in U.S. history, and subsequently filed suit against him for unlawful discriminatory police conduct.[10][11][12][13] Arpaio and the MCSO were named as defendants in dozens of civil lawsuits brought by citizens arrested by Arpaio and his deputies alleging wrongful arrest, wrongful death, entrapment and other claims, costing taxpayers in Maricopa County over $140 million in litigation against Arpaio during his tenure as sheriff.[14]

Over the course of his career, Arpaio was the subject of several federal civil rights lawsuits. In one case, he was a defendant in a decade-long suit in which a federal court issued an injunction barring him from conducting further "immigration round-ups".[15] A federal court subsequently found that after the order was issued, Arpaio's office continued to detain "persons for further investigation without reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is being committed."[15] In July 2017, he was convicted of criminal contempt of court, a crime for which he was pardoned by President Donald Trump on August 25, 2017.[16] In a separate racial-profiling case which concluded in 2013, Arpaio and his subordinates were found to have unfairly targeted Hispanics in conducting traffic stops.[17]

Although Arpaio sought another term as Maricopa County Sheriff in 2016, the contempt of court conviction eroded much of his remaining political support, and he was defeated in the election by Paul Penzone, a Democrat who reversed many of Arpaio's policies after taking office. Arpaio was an unsuccessful candidate in Arizona's Republican primary election for U.S. Senate in 2018. On August 25, 2019, Arpaio issued a statement saying that he would run for sheriff of Maricopa County in 2020.[18] He lost the August 2020 primary election.[19]

The BBC's North America reporter also notes that "It was educated suburban voters, as well as traditionally Democratic ethnic minorities, that delivered Georgia and Arizona to Mr Biden." (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54939212). The Democrats have been shifting towards college-educated white voters whereas the Republicans of late have been picking up votes from "less well educated" white voters. I see a parallel with Labour and Conservative in the UK here; these are both broad statements but they contain truth I think. For the future, the Democrats need to look to their base vote (and in some cases, this didn't happen this time - Hispanic vote in Miami for example) and consolidate their hold on college-educated white voters. If they can do this, they might lock in states such as Arizona for the foreseeable future, and then pursue states such as Texas further and better than they have so far.
 
Last edited:

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,957
Location
York
Yes, and no. The Trump administration made some changes to the civil service rules that will make it harder to fire some (though not all) of the recent appointees.
If the Trump administration, say in its last three months, makes administrative changes that are clearly designed to limit what any successor administration can do, is that successor administration necessarily bound to respect them?

And, while I'm at it, another question (from someone who has very little knowledge of the detail of the way the US system works). If Republican senators try to frustrate the outcome of an election seen to have been fair and properly conducted both by the internal supervising authority and by external observers, is there any action that can be taken against them when the new administration does take office? (What constitutes treason in a republic?)
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,723
Location
Scotland
Easy one first:
What constitutes treason in a republic?
The law is is very clear and specific: treason consists solely of waging war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States. So they are not guilty of treason.
If the Trump administration, say in its last three months, makes administrative changes that are clearly designed to limit what any successor administration can do, is that successor administration necessarily bound to respect them?
The issue is that they've changed the rules of the civil service and introduced a new class of employee, and once people have been employed under those rules they would have a valid case for improper dismissal if the Biden administration was to try and remove them.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
34,307
What I find odd about many recent stories is that they seem to suggest that the people in charge of doing the counts are often described as though they’re elected positions, and the incumbents are therefore described as Democrats or Republicans.

So is this actually true, and if so how did the US get into a situation where their equivalent of a “returning officer” seems to have lost his or her neutral status that they’d probably have in this country?
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,723
Location
Scotland
So is this actually true, and if so how did the US get into a situation where their equivalent of a “returning officer” seems to have lost his or her neutral status that they’d probably have in this country?
You can't lose what you've never had. Most positions of authority are elected, right down to judges.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
34,307
You can't lose what you've never had. Most positions of authority are elected, right down to judges.
Possibly “lost” was a poor choice of words on my part. It definitely does seem an odd role to be elected, but I guess that’s what they’ve always had.
 

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
10,147
Location
Wilmslow
There isn't a full article here, but it appears the final projection is complete, with 306 votes for Biden vs 232 for Trump, with the former confirmed in Georgia and the latter North Carolina:

Interesting, thanks, given that hexagon789 and I came up with 306 as the final number a week ago ( #865 and #864 ). Speaking for myself, I don't think I'm that clever, but without the resources of the BBC and a little assistance from a calculator and a spreadsheet this 306 figure was pretty obvious a long time ago .... I've got no reputation to lose by being wrong of course, but it seems that after "calling" Arizona for Biden very early, which was actually a relatively risky call at the time, the networks ran away from calling any more results until they couldn't possibly be wrong any more.

EDIT - It was also previously noted that the BBC didn't "call" Arizona as early as some of the US networks did.

It's also quite likely that the networks lost interest in "calling" states once the 270 number had been reached.
 
Last edited:

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,123
Location
Redcar
You can't lose what you've never had. Most positions of authority are elected, right down to judges.
I've long thought that the US suffers from, if anything, an excess of democracy as far too many positions which should be non-partisan and filled on merit are instead elected. Even coroners can be an elected position in some places in the US for heavens sake!
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,603
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
Interesting, thanks, given that hexagon789 and I came up with 306 as the final number a week ago ( #865 and #864 ). Speaking for myself, I don't think I'm that clever, but without the resources of the BBC and a little assistance from a calculator and a spreadsheet this 306 figure was pretty obvious a long time ago .... I've got no reputation to lose by being wrong of course, but it seems that after "calling" Arizona for Biden very early, which was actually a relatively risky call at the time, the networks ran away from calling any more results until they couldn't possibly be wrong any more.

EDIT - It was also previously noted that the BBC didn't "call" Arizona as early as some of the US networks did.

It's also quite likely that the networks lost interest in "calling" states once the 270 number had been reached.
The 306-232 margin of victory in terms of electoral votes, which is an exact reverse of that in 2016, is in fact extremely narrow in terms of votes. The margin of Biden's victory in AZ/GA/WI combined is <50,000 votes, and if these states had not flipped, and the Republicans had not lost the 2nd district in NE (which they won in 2016) by a very narrow margin, Trump would have won by 270-268. Such a narrow defeat, which was dragged out by many days, would be difficult for anyone to come to terms with, which explains in my view Trump's reluctance to concede.

While Trump is an egotist, he is not an anglophobe, so the result is bad news for the UK.
 

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
10,147
Location
Wilmslow
Another set of random statistics:

Biden received a lower percentage share of the total vote in 2020 than in 2016 in Florida, Mississippi and North Dakota. Otherwise his share of the vote was greater than Clinton's in 2016.

Trump received a lower percentage share of the total vote in 2020 than in 2016 in Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.

Given that Trump lost the election, the longer list of states may not be surprising, but what is of note, I think, is that Trump increased his share of the vote in all the states not in the list of 16 states mentioned above.

These figures for vote share include the votes cast for other candidates, which in 2020 was highest at 4.2% in Utah and lowest at 1.0% in Florida.

EDIT - I did wonder, is this really possible? But, yes, it looks like it is - in 2016 in Idaho (I took this state at "random") there were 6.73% of the votes cast for "Independent" and 4.10% for "Libertarian" and 1.23% for "Green", plus 1.18% for three other candidates (per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Idaho). Then 27.48% for Clinton and 59.25% for Trump.

In 2020, the figures are 63.8% for Trump and 33.1% for Biden, both increases over 2016.

The difference is that in 2020 only about 3% of the vote went for other candidates, in this case 2% for "Libertarian", and about 1% combined for four other candidates (https://www.eastidahonews.com/election-2020/).

So it looks like, in Idaho at least, the non-Republican non-Democrat vote has collapsed in 2020, from >13% down to 3%. So the "main" candidates have scooped up greater vote percentages.

Presumably similar in other states, in most cases.
 
Last edited:

DerekC

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2015
Messages
2,442
Location
Hampshire (nearly a Hog)
The 306-232 margin of victory in terms of electoral votes, which is an exact reverse of that in 2016, is in fact extremely narrow in terms of votes. The margin of Biden's victory in AZ/GA/WI combined is <50,000 votes, and if these states had not flipped, and the Republicans had not lost the 2nd district in NE (which they won in 2016) by a very narrow margin, Trump would have won by 270-268. Such a narrow defeat, which was dragged out by many days, would be difficult for anyone to come to terms with, which explains in my view Trump's reluctance to concede.

While Trump is an egotist, he is not an anglophobe, so the result is bad news for the UK.
It's only bad news for the UK if you accept the Johnson strategy of trying to bluff his way through the Brexit process on the basis that he could do a wonderful deal with the US. In the real world, we are more likely to end up with sensible deals with the EU and the US and stability in Ireland - so what's not to like? Biden will make us face the reality of our new position. We have abandoned being first class Europeans, but at least we are less likely to become some sort of third class American hanger-on.
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2015
Messages
7,679
Location
Solihull
While Trump is an egotist, he is not an anglophobe, so the result is bad news for the UK.

Is Biden an Anglophobe? I doubt it, but if he is then it would be our fault anyway, you reap what you sow.

I don't think Trump is pro or anti-UK, Trump is only pro-Trump.
 

43096

On Moderation
Joined
23 Nov 2015
Messages
18,862
Such a narrow defeat, which was dragged out by many days, would be difficult for anyone to come to terms with, which explains in my view Trump's reluctance to concede.
I'd agree with it being difficult for anyone, but would, say, Obama have reacted in the same way had he lost in 2012? No, of course he wouldn't - he's got far more class and decency than that. Trump is a deeply unpleasant individual, with few (no?) redeeming qualities. Not all his fault, of course, I'd blame his parents in part - they should have said "no" to him sometimes.
While Trump is an egotist, he is not an anglophobe, so the result is bad news for the UK.
Britain is better off with a stable and predictable occupant of the White House. I'm struggling to think how the UK has been better off from a Trump presidency.
 

overthewater

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2012
Messages
9,136
The 306-232 margin of victory in terms of electoral votes, which is an exact reverse of that in 2016, is in fact extremely narrow in terms of votes. The margin of Biden's victory in AZ/GA/WI combined is <50,000 votes, and if these states had not flipped, and the Republicans had not lost the 2nd district in NE (which they won in 2016) by a very narrow margin, Trump would have won by 270-268. Such a narrow defeat, which was dragged out by many days, would be difficult for anyone to come to terms with, which explains in my view Trump's reluctance to concede.

While Trump is an egotist, he is not an anglophobe, so the result is bad news for the UK.

It also doesn't help he hate's joe, Biden can say all he wants about this victory but surely must know If 100K went the other way he would have been locked out. Didn't Hillary clinton tell Joe not to concede?





Another set of random statistics:

Biden received a lower percentage share of the total vote in 2020 than in 2016 in Florida, Mississippi and North Dakota. Otherwise his share of the vote was greater than Clinton's in 2016.

Trump received a lower percentage share of the total vote in 2020 than in 2016 in Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.

Given that Trump lost the election, the longer list of states may not be surprising, but what is of note, I think, is that Trump increased his share of the vote in all the states not in the list of 16 states mentioned above.

These figures for vote share include the votes cast for other candidates, which was highest at 4.2% in Utah and lowest at 1.0% in Florida.

EDIT - I did wonder, is this really possible? But, yes, it looks like it is - in 2016 in Idaho (I took this state at "random") there were 6.73% of the votes cast for "Independent" and 4.10% for "Libertarian" and 1.23% for "Green", plus 1.18% for three other candidates (per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Idaho). Then 27.48% for Clinton and 59.25% for Trump.

In 2020, the figures are 63.8% for Trump and 33.1% for Biden, both increases over 2016.

The difference is that only about 3% of the vote went for other candidates, in this case 2% for "Libertarian", and about 1% combined for four other candidates (https://www.eastidahonews.com/election-2020/).

So it looks like, in Idaho at least, the non-Republican non-Democrat vote has collapsed in 2020, from >13% down to 3%. So the "main" candidates have scooped up greater vote percentages.

Presumably similar in other states, in most cases.

Is it also true the majority of the Bell weather counties all voted for trump? I have to say this election is throwing up all the anomalies, It may will be trump share went down overall, but the question has to be was it because of trump or because of Republican policies. Biden really needs to widen his support, its no good getting millions of extra votes in california ie preaching to the choir, if he can't convince people where it counts. IF he does a poor job will it would take much to get him out of office. With Florida Trump victory was bigger than Obama, you would not expect that.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
33,723
Location
Scotland
Didn't Hillary clinton tell Joe not to concede?
Yes. She advised that, in the case that it was very tight, he not concede until the result was clear. She didn't tell him to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the electoral process itself.
 

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
10,147
Location
Wilmslow
Is it also true the majority of the Bell weather counties all voted for trump? I have to say this election is throwing up all the anomalies, It may will be trump share went down overall, but the question has to be was it because of trump or because of Republican policies. Biden really needs to widen his support, its no good getting millions of extra votes in california ie preaching to the choir, if he can't convince people where it counts. IF he does a poor job will it would take much to get him out of office. With Florida Trump victory was bigger than Obama, you would not expect that.
Trump's vote share went up in 2020, not down.

Trump 2020: 47.27% versus 46.09% in 2016
Biden 2020: 50.88% versus Clinton 48.18% in 2016

I surmise that who people were voting against mattered a lot in both elections.

In 2016 a lot of Democrats didn't like Clinton, but many couldn't vote for Trump but instead voted for other candidates. In 2020 the driving force was an anti-Trump vote, and Democrats returned to their candidate as the best way of accomplishing this. The true swing voters would could vote either Democrat or Republican depending on the circumstances did just that in both cases. Anti-Clinton lost her the election in 2016, as did anti-Trump for him in 2020, but manifested in different ways in terms of vote share.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,123
Location
Redcar
Yes. She advised that, in the case that it was very tight, he not concede until the result was clear. She didn't tell him to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the electoral process itself.

Quite. If Trump just didn't want to concede and was parroting a line of "it's not over until all the states have verified their results officially and the Electoral College has voted" well that sounds like sour grapes but fair enough. Legally it isn't over until that point. But instead we get things like this:

“REPORT: DOMINION DELETED 2.7 MILLION TRUMP VOTES NATIONWIDE. DATA ANALYSIS FINDS 221,000 PENNSYLVANIA VOTES SWITCHED FROM PRESIDENT TRUMP TO BIDEN. 941,000 TRUMP VOTES DELETED. STATES USING DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS SWITCHED 435,000 VOTES FROM TRUMP TO BIDEN.” @ChanelRion @OANN


Or this:

700,000 ballots were not allowed to be viewed in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh which means, based on our great Constitution, we win the State of Pennsylvania!


Quite apart from his TV appearances where he spouts similar rubbish.

There is a significant difference from just refusing to concede to suggesting the entire process is illegitimate and I'm sure Biden, if the roles were reversed would have managed to appreciate that and act accordingly!
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,717
Location
Nottingham
I'd agree with it being difficult for anyone, but would, say, Obama have reacted in the same way had he lost in 2012? No, of course he wouldn't - he's got far more class and decency than that. Trump is a deeply unpleasant individual, with few (no?) redeeming qualities. Not all his fault, of course, I'd blame his parents in part - they should have said "no" to him sometimes.
Faced with a much closer result where it could well have gone the other way had the recount been allowed to proceed, Gore conceded in 2000 despite making clear he disagreed with the decision of the Supreme Court.
Trump's vote share went up in 2020, not down.

Trump 2020: 47.27% versus 46.09% in 2016
Biden 2020: 50.88% versus Clinton 48.18% in 2016

I surmise that who people were voting against mattered a lot in both elections.

In 2016 a lot of Democrats didn't like Clinton, but many couldn't vote for Trump but instead voted for other candidates. In 2020 the driving force was an anti-Trump vote, and Democrats returned to their candidate as the best way of accomplishing this. The true swing voters would could vote either Democrat or Republican depending on the circumstances did just that in both cases. Anti-Clinton lost her the election in 2016, as did anti-Trump for him in 2020, but manifested in different ways in terms of vote share.
Very like the last election in the UK, each side had their enthusiasts but for swing voters it came down to which lot you disliked least rather than making a positive choice.

It's notable also that the Democrats made very few down-ballot gains and actually lost seats in the House and in various other votes. So I think many voters were in favour of Republican policies and against Democrat ones, but not willing to support the personal behavior or attitudes of Trump himself. This is worrying because so many Republicans have enabled Trump to do what he did, and it remains to be seen whether they will return to a more decent path once he is less able to keep them in line via the "bully pulpit" of the presidency.

There's also a big worry here for the Democrats, about trying to bridge their progressive wing with the more centerist swing voters that either supported them or might be persuaded to do so. I believe a slogan like "defund the police" would have been a big deterrent to voters, particularly those less well-informed and trapped in right-wing filter bubbles. The policy it represents seems entirely reasonable (transfer funding from hardline policing to addressing the social problems that cause the crime and tensions the police have to deal with). But many people who are neither racist nor discriminated against would believe it involved shutting down the police force, which they would consider essential for public safety.
 

nlogax

Established Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
6,044
Location
Mostly Glasgow-ish. Mostly.
Saw his 'Operation Warp Speed' speech yesterday, watching him crawl to the inevitable and failed end of his legal battles is interesting. The last week and a half has been a slow motion car crash but his almost-but-not-quite-concession was an indication that he knows his time is up. Also lacking any real energy (he's lacked energy since his 2.30am speech on Nov 4th) and as an aside it looks like he's out of hair dye..full on grey. The game is over and he realises it.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
For now, He may will come back in 2024 especial if Harris take over.
Republicans need to think long and hard about that. There was a Secretary of State for one State that Trump lost who pointed out that in other votes (such as for the House or his own election) the Republican vote held up or increased, only the Presidential vote fell back. Some people just don't like the man, and his petulance in not conceding or offering evidence of voter fraud that stands up will not help his cause. (sorry can't find it just now)

I note that the claims that 'dead voters' of Michigan are very much alive - the dead are just people with the same name but different birth dates. many of whom lived in different states! Full story: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54874120
 

RichT54

Member
Joined
6 Jun 2018
Messages
420
Trump running again in 2024 would be a gift from heaven for the Democrats
Part of the plan appears to be Trump setting up his own TV News channel in order to both smash the 'traitors' at Fox News and to provide a platform for him to continue to spread his lies and falsehoods in order to attract more supporters during the next 4 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top