The Trump Presidency

[JayUtah]

Thanks.  It actually means a lot to me to know that there are non-Americans out there who want Americans to succeed on the right terms.

[ineluki]

And let's be frank: that's exactly what the Republican plan is.  They want at least one case to get to the Supreme Court so that the conservative supermajority they railroaded into it can provide a nationally-binding precedent on some key issue.

Let's hope even the conservative judges don't share Trump's disregard for democracy.

It seems they are not going not follow his personal Agenda, so  he will insult them soon...

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/10/politics/supreme-court-obamacare-oral-arguments/index.html

[jfb]

I'm worried that the opposite could happen. The Trump campaign has an extremely weak case, but some corrupt judge that he appointed will allow it to proceed due to a biased interpretation of the law.

Yup, Bush v. Gore.

And let's be frank: that's exactly what the Republican plan is.  They want at least one case to get to the Supreme Court so that the conservative supermajority they railroaded into it can provide a nationally-binding precedent on some key issue.

You mean all the protestations that Bush v. Gore was meant to be a one-and-done, non-precedent-establishing case were hollow and insincere?

Knock me over with a feather.

Every case sets a precedent one way or the other.  Doesn't matter what the Court says, somebody will use that result to argue a case in the future.

It just won't be Team Trump.  They're not going to get a case before SCOTUS.  Bush v. Gore came after what, almost a month of counting hanging chads?  And the margin there was a literal handful of votes (between 500 and 600 IIRC), where the recount could shift the result.  None of the current races are that close; no recount will overturn any result.  And I don't think any recounts are going to drag on for an entire month.  And given the level of competence we've come to expect from Trumpers, even if they do find a case that isn't thrown out by the lower courts in the first 10 minutes, they won't be able to successfully navigate the appeals process. 

Their aim is to thoroughly delegitimize a Biden presidency, as they tried to delegitimize the Obama presidency with all the birther crap.  And they're going to get away with it, because our media refuses to hold any but the most batshit, head-trauma crazy Republicans to account.  They're already rehabilitating the Trumpers who've jumped ship. 

Sigh. I hope you guys get through this. If Trump somehow manages to overrule 76 million voters there will be riots that make the BLM protests look like a church picnic.

I wish our internal politics didn't have such a huge effect on the rest of the world.  I understand why it does (we gots da nukes), but frankly we're currently in a very bad, very scary place, and I fervently hope that we can keep it contained and beat it back.  Like I've said before, Trump isn't the problem, he's a symptom of the problem, and voting him out of office doesn't make the problem go away. 

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

Yeah.
It will take quite a while for us to trust America not to go crazy again.

[LunarOrbit]

I wish our internal politics didn't have such a huge effect on the rest of the world.  I understand why it does (we gots da nukes), but frankly we're currently in a very bad, very scary place, and I fervently hope that we can keep it contained and beat it back.  Like I've said before, Trump isn't the problem, he's a symptom of the problem, and voting him out of office doesn't make the problem go away. 

I live less than 90km (55 miles) from the nearest US border crossing, so it annoys me whenever a Trump supporter says "You're Canadian, why do you care? Mind your own business!". If things get bad down there it will inevitably bleed over into Canada.

It's a sign of things to come. If we don't deal with things like the growing divisiveness in the United States, wealth inequality, and climate change there will be major global problems. I mean, if people don't like when immigrants swarm over their country's borders and "take their jobs" just wait until millions of people are displaced from flooded coastal cities. If we can't all figure out how to work together we are doomed to live in a Mad Max world.

[gillianren]

Yeah.
It will take quite a while for us to trust America not to go crazy again.

And frankly, they shouldn't.  Getting the current administration out doesn't solve the problem.

[Obviousman]

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/us-election-eerie-prediction-a-year-ago-of-donald-trumps-defeat-and-denial-and-what-happens-next/news-story/45427e1939a391edbc132d7699165fb7

[JayUtah]

Doesn't matter what the Court says, somebody will use that result to argue a case in the future.

Of course.  Even if it specifically says it doesn't establish precedent, the reasoning expressed in the opinion is still fair game for reuse.  Nothing in Supreme Court jurisprudence prevents a new Court from nodding to the same reasoning and producing another one-off, non-precedential ruling that just happens to arrive at the same conclusion as before, by total coincidence.

They're already rehabilitating the Trumpers who've jumped ship.

Nothing would make me happier than to have a sane, credible Republican party.  There needs to be credible opposition in any viable democracy.

Trump isn't the problem, he's a symptom of the problem, and voting him out of office doesn't make the problem go away.

Donald Trump is the symptom of a problem that I feel has been decades in the making.  It's probably not going to go away overnight.

[Bryanpoprobson]

A question, how are these law suits being paid for? By the presidents office? From party funds? I think trump should be sent the Bill personally, for both sides, if he loses.

[LunarOrbit]

A question, how are these law suits being paid for? By the presidents office? From party funds? I think trump should be sent the Bill personally, for both sides, if he loses.

Apparently they sent out an email to Trump's supporters asking for donations to fund the legal fights, but the fine print said a percentage of it would be used to pay for other campaign debts. So I kind of think they are drawing out the fight until their debts are paid for.

[JayUtah]

If an election is disputed in court by a candidate, the candidate's campaign pays its legal expenses.  Where the money ultimately comes from depends on how the campaign is funded, but ostensibly from donors.  The candidate's party has standing under Article III to sue on its own, without involving the candidate's expense.  They would naturally have to pay their own expenses from party funds.  Nothing I'm aware of compels the party to subsidize the legal expenses of a candidate who brings suit on his own initiative, but there may obviously be an incentive from time to time to share the expense.  This all proceeds under rules made by the Federal  Election Commission, which is the body charged with enforcing campaign finance laws, which also allows donations to go toward debt relief, so long as the debts were incurred for allowable campaign expenses.

It's very much against the law for an incumbent candidate to use public funds he controls to pay for lawsuits arising out of his run for re-election.  However, as many of these lawsuits will be defended by State attorneys general, the taxpayers will have to fork over money to litigate in defense of any state or local authority sued in his or her official capacity.  The so-called American Rule makes it quite difficult to recover legal expenses incurred while defending yourself against a lawsuit.  You have to meet the high bar of showing that the suit was filed vexatiously or in flagrant disregard of law and fact, which requires the moving party to demonstrate that mens rea on the part of the campaign.

Naturally I would expect any legal bills presented to Donald J. Trump from any party to be ignored.  He simply doesn't pay the people who do work for him.

[Glom]

So that's that. 306-232. BBC said it, so it must be true. Though is it really beyond their wit to represent Nebraska and Maine accurately?

So that's 5 states flipped. And also a Nebraska district?

BTW, has anyone worked out what it would be if every state did what Maine and Nebraska do? That would seem to be a better way to do it. Though, it probably wouldn't be favourable to Biden since Trump gets to the 3 ECV states, which would be unchanged by such a practice.

[inconceivable]

The electorates don't vote until Dec. 14.  That is when the Presidency is decided.  Electorates can vote any way they decide. 76on..

[JayUtah]

The electorates don't vote until Dec. 14.  That is when the Presidency is decided.  Electorates can vote any way they decide. 76on..

The word you're ignorantly groping for is "elector."  And no, they can't.  And no, the Presidency is not decided (in the sense you mean) when the Electoral College votes are cast, but rather when they're counted and certified in a joint session of Congress.

[Peter B]

So that's that. 306-232. BBC said it, so it must be true. Though is it really beyond their wit to represent Nebraska and Maine accurately?

So that's 5 states flipped. And also a Nebraska district?

BTW, has anyone worked out what it would be if every state did what Maine and Nebraska do? That would seem to be a better way to do it. Though, it probably wouldn't be favourable to Biden since Trump gets to the 3 ECV states, which would be unchanged by such a practice.

Apparently so, though I don't know where it is.

The Australian ABC is running a daily blog of US election news, and someone asked this question a couple of days ago. The answer was that someone has done the exercise, and they discovered it rarely changed the election result. One case where it did, though, was the 2012 election, which would have resulted in Romney beating Obama.

Of course, if the states changed their voting systems to match Maine and Nebraska, then the parties would change the way they'd campaign, so I don't think we can draw too much from saying a past election result would have changed.