2020 Presidential Election -- Biden v Trump: Sleepy Joe vs Dopey Don [Results begin on page 409]

[Francisco 2.0 32,395]

https://www.axios.com/mcconnell-calls-jan-6-certification-his-most-consequential-vote-323cd74c-7dfa-4420-bd32-32a36398dadc.html

 

Quote

In an extraordinary conference call this morning with fellow Senate Republicans, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said his Jan. 6 vote certifying Joe Biden's victory in the 2020 election will be "the most consequential I have ever cast," according to a source on a call and two other sources briefed on the private remarks.

The big picture: The conference call came in the wake of Sen. Josh Hawley defying McConnell's wishes and publicly declaring that he'll object to certifying the electoral votes in Pennsylvania and perhaps in other states as well.

 

Quote

McConnell had previously urged senators not to force this vote, which he believed would put Republicans up for re-election in 2022 in a horrible position — forcing them to choose between defying the most popular politician in the party, Donald Trump, and undermining democracy.

His remarks to his conference are likely to escalate President Trump's anger with him for daring acknowledge Trump's defeat.

 

Quote

McConnell said on the call that the Jan. 6 vote is "a vote of conscience," these sources said.

A source paraphrased McConnell as saying, "I'm finishing 36 years in the Senate and I've cast a lot of big votes." including over war and impeachment. 

"And in my view, just my view," McConnell said, "this is will be the most consequential I have ever cast."

"The context was McConnell saying we're being asked to overturn the results after a guy didn't get as many electoral votes and lost by 7 million popular votes," the source said.

 

Spoiler

Many Republican senators are furious at Hawley for forcing them to take what Trump is setting up as the ultimate loyalty test on January 6th.

On the call, McConnell asked Hawley to explain what he planned to do on Jan. 6, said a source on the call.

Then, Indiana Sen. Todd Young pressed Hawley on which states he planned to contest, and Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey defended the integrity of his state's elections.

There was just one problem: They were met with silence. Hawley hadn't dialed into the conference call — a fact first reported by Politico's Alex Isenstadt.

What's next: Hawley has no plans to back down from his decision to object to the certification of the electoral votes — a ploy destined to fail on Jan. 6.

Hawley has been fundraising off of his planned objection to the election results, and this afternoon he emailed his Senate colleagues explaining his reasoning and copy-pasting a public press release he issued the day before to announce his decision.

In his email to his colleagues, Hawley made clear he was responding to pressures from his constituents.

"If you've been speaking to folks at home, I'm sure you know how deeply angry and disillusioned many, many people are — and how frustrated that Congress has taken little or no action," he wrote.

 

[RDCanecutter 26,446]

2 minutes ago, immamac said:

Fuck em let's go. I'll take our chances with the us military on the side of the constitution

That's what I'm saying. Ol' Zac Taylor didn't give a fuck, "Secede, and die." Pretty clear and simple message. Results, no war. I suspect the South would have had a better shot at winning it in 1850 too.

Then in 1860 you get the Federal government sort of frozen, like they can't believe it's happening. Let things spin out of control. Buchanan all talky-talky and wishy-washy.

I don't see any Zachary Taylors in DC right now.

[jimmyjazz 45,963]

28 minutes ago, aggie08 said:

I assume he means that they can safely waive their MAGA flag for the Trump base without the risk of their objections actually having real ramifications. "Oh darn, they voted me down. But I tried!"

Basically, highest majority requirement for Congressional action is 2/3 majority.  They would come in just over that. 

We're in uncharted territory, and I'm nowhere near a Constitutional scholar, but if they come in shy of 1/3, the point is moot.

[staboner 4,975]

don't let the holiday break fool you. it was always going to get dumber

[NWBuck 8,570]

Quote

 

Hawley has been fundraising off of his planned objection to the election results, and this afternoon he emailed his Senate colleagues explaining his reasoning and copy-pasting a public press release he issued the day before to announce his decision.

In his email to his colleagues, Hawley made clear he was responding to pressures from his constituents.

"If you've been speaking to folks at home, I'm sure you know how deeply angry and disillusioned many, many people are — and how frustrated that Congress has taken little or no action," he wrote.

 

"If you've been talking to the people I've been exploiting, you can tell that they've totally bought the line of bullshit that we've been feeding them for the past two decades on Fox News, and now OAN/Newsmax have added fuel to that fire. Disillusioned and angry folks are the best donors- it's time for Congress to take action!"

[Red Five 40,859]

36 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

"The context was McConnell saying we're being asked to overturn the results after a guy didn't get as many electoral votes and lost by 7 million popular votes," the source said.

Yeah well there is that. 

[Biff Tannen 45,691]

50 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

https://www.axios.com/mcconnell-calls-jan-6-certification-his-most-consequential-vote-323cd74c-7dfa-4420-bd32-32a36398dadc.html

 

 

 

 

  Hide contents

Many Republican senators are furious at Hawley for forcing them to take what Trump is setting up as the ultimate loyalty test on January 6th.

On the call, McConnell asked Hawley to explain what he planned to do on Jan. 6, said a source on the call.

Then, Indiana Sen. Todd Young pressed Hawley on which states he planned to contest, and Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey defended the integrity of his state's elections.

There was just one problem: They were met with silence. Hawley hadn't dialed into the conference call — a fact first reported by Politico's Alex Isenstadt.

What's next: Hawley has no plans to back down from his decision to object to the certification of the electoral votes — a ploy destined to fail on Jan. 6.

Hawley has been fundraising off of his planned objection to the election results, and this afternoon he emailed his Senate colleagues explaining his reasoning and copy-pasting a public press release he issued the day before to announce his decision.

In his email to his colleagues, Hawley made clear he was responding to pressures from his constituents.

"If you've been speaking to folks at home, I'm sure you know how deeply angry and disillusioned many, many people are — and how frustrated that Congress has taken little or no action," he wrote.

 

Fuck around and find out motherfuckers. 

[Brandywine 1,316]

Donald Trump the PT Barnum of modern politics. It just amazes me, those Congressmen that claim to be intelligent people, how stupid and gullible they are. How they can be conned to believe whatever DT wants them to believe. And then claim to be Christians on top of it. 

Edited January 1, 2021 by Brandywine

[conVINCEd 21,469]

Just now, Brandywine said:

Donald Trump the PT Barnum of modern politics. It just amazes me, those Congressmen that claim to be intelligent people, how stupid and gullible they are. How they can be conned to believe whatever DT wants them to believe. And then claim to be Christians on top of it.

Well, in order to won a R primary you must simultaneously suck the orange cock and claim to be a Christian.  They’re not being stupid or gullible, they’re being practical.  That’s a problem, and I don’t see an easy solution.

[RDCanecutter 26,446]

4 minutes ago, Brandywine said:

Donald Trump the PT Barnum of modern politics. It just amazes me, those Congressmen that claim to be intelligent people, how stupid and gullible they are. How they can be conned to believe whatever DT wants them to believe. And then claim to be Christians on top of it. 

If you're looking to be head of the Juggalo Club, you gotta talk about how magnets are magic.

[4th&Five 41,558]

 

[Js1 85,353]

6 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

I bet he thinks exact turnout stays the same from election to election. 

[jimmyjazz 45,963]

1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

 

I'd love to see the math on that one.

[Brandywine 1,316]

12 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'd love to see the math on that one.

Yep, I saw on Facebook someone claiming there were 133 million registered voters and Trump got 74 million which left 59 million votes left for Biden. Proof of fraud. WHAT?????RIIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTT! Just making it up as you go. 

Edited January 1, 2021 by Brandywine

[wildcat09 29,355]

3 hours ago, Brandywine said:

Donald Trump the PT Barnum of modern politics. It just amazes me, those Congressmen that claim to be intelligent people, how stupid and gullible they are. How they can be conned to believe whatever DT wants them to believe. And then claim to be Christians on top of it. 

What the fuck? You actually think they believe anything he says?

[Brandywine 1,316]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

What the fuck? You actually think they believe anything he says?

No, but they sure want certain people to believe they do which is just as bad. 

[conVINCEd 21,469]

1 minute ago, Brandywine said:

No, but they sure want certain people to believe they do which is just as bad. 

It’s actually worse.

[jimmyjazz 45,963]

42 minutes ago, Brandywine said:

Yep, I saw on Facebook someone claiming there were 133 million registered voters and Trump got 74 million which left 59 million votes left for Biden. Proof of fraud. WHAT?????RIIIIIGGGGHHHHTTTT! Just making it up as you go. 

LMAO.  So, for that theory to hold water, the # of registered voters is 133M (false) AND all of Trump's votes were legit (technically false, but not impactfully so); therefore, Biden could have only received 59M votes.

Oh, they didn't account for the multiple states that allow same-day (and Election Day) voter registration?  Well, that's bad science.  I'm stunned, I tell you.

 

[atomheartbevo 89,686]

4 hours ago, Biff Tannen said:

Fuck around and find out motherfuckers. 

4 hours ago, Brandywine said:

Donald Trump the PT Barnum of modern politics. It just amazes me, those Congressmen that claim to be intelligent people, how stupid and gullible they are. How they can be conned to believe whatever DT wants them to believe. And then claim to be Christians on top of it. 

They are fucking around and finding out. Mitch making it clear that Senators better not fuck around and lose seats in 2022 that they can't afford to lose, although his gamble on the $1,400 and Georgia next week is odd as hell.

I don't think those House Republicans are Cheeto loyalists, I think they are scared as shit at being primaried for 2020 if Trump turns against them and sends a few tweets out.

 

[Party_Taco 3,734]

[Ghost of LL 15,531]

LMAO.  So, for that theory to hold water, the # of registered voters is 133M (false) AND all of Trump's votes were legit (technically false, but not impactfully so); therefore, Biden could have only received 59M votes.
Oh, they didn't account for the multiple states that allow same-day (and Election Day) voter registration?  Well, that's bad science.  I'm stunned, I tell you.
 

There are around 330M people in this country. Do they really think that only 40% of this country’s residents are registered to vote?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

There are around 330M people in this country. Do they really think that only 40% of this country’s residents are registered to vote?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I believe I found the problem.

[jimmyjazz 45,963]

30 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

There are around 330M people in this country. Do they really think that only 40% of this country’s residents are registered to vote?

It's not that simple.  In 2016, which is the latest data I can find, 224M Americans were age 18 or older.  157.6M, or 70.4%, were registered to vote (not 133M).  Of those, 137.5M voted in the Presidential election (87.2% turnout of registered voters).  And, as I said before, many states allow same-day or Election Day registration, which pushes the # of registered voters even higher.

Basically, they Aggied up the raw data and are having a field day with it.

US Census on Voters

[BrickHorn 18,237]

18 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's not that simple.  In 2016, which is the latest data I can find, 224M Americans were age 18 or older.  157.6M, or 70.4%, were registered to vote (not 133M).  Of those, 137.5M voted in the Presidential election (87.2% turnout of registered voters).  And, as I said before, many states allow same-day or Election Day registration, which pushes the # of registered voters even higher.

Basically, they Aggied up the raw data and are having a field day with it.

US Census on Voters

There was a discussion of this before, based on a tweet posted in the TexAgs Q thread. You hit the main point.
 

The guy who started this “not enough votes” crap quoted a Washington Post article that cited another source for a claimed voter turnout percentage. The dude then took that percentage (which the WaPo article’s source calculated based on its own data for number of registered voters and number of votes cast) and multiplied it by a completely made-up number of registered voters that was much lower than the number of registered voters the ultimate source used to calculate the turnout percentage. 

In other words, the guy got a lower number of votes cast by ignoring the actual data for votes cast (which was available from the source) and instead multiplying an accurate turnout percentage by an inaccurate number of registered voters. He did this even though he didn’t need to calculate the total votes at all — that data (and an accurate number of total registered voters) was available at the same source from which he pulled the turnout percentage. 

And more fundamentally, the guy who started this rumor assumed that Trump’s total vote count was accurate and that any discrepancy must have benefited Biden 100%. Which is, of course, an unfounded assumption.

[jimmyjazz 45,963]

It's telling that when A + B /= C, they assume (with no supporting evidence) that "B" is incorrect, but "A" and "C" are accurate.

Uh, there other possibilities there, Ace.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,872]

On 1/1/2021 at 12:40 AM, Party_Taco said:

name?