2016 elections - because it's never too early

[derspiess]

If we could figure out a way to hook them up to a turbine, Jefferson and Washington spinning in their graves could solve our energy problems as long as we could keep this up.

Seriously-- a likely woman president?  SMH

[FunkMonk]

Add that to North Carolina and that's 21 that Trump needs to win.

Your math will be all for naught when Trump takes New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Or Wisconsin, for that matter.

Aye. Her turnout will be awful and that's that. The Taint could never be undone.

Oddly enough I think it'll be Trump's turnout that will be below what we would normally expect. The question for me then is, will Hillary's turnout be enough to overcome white pride????

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Well the bigger worry is NeverTrump types that don't like HRC but were prepared to hold their noses to defeat the greater evil; this increases the chance they just stay home.  In the key states even a marginal impact can matter.

Which is why I expect a narrow Trump victory;  far too many NeverTrumps are going to stay home.  The GOP will not have needed voter suppression after all.

in that case those people aren't real 'neverTrump' to begin with. Or they don't understand the implications of 'never' very well.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

It can only be a tie. This can only end in a tie. USSC 4-4 and tie again. Perfect storm.

Yi,

20.00 bucks it's a tie. And to devils advocate it, ill sweeten the pot. USSC will tie 4-4 also.

You in?

it's a 1 in a million chance, and we all know how narrativum works. 

[Valmy]

Why would the USSC be involved in a tie EC? Congress would decide it.

[Hamilcar]

Why would the USSC be involved in a tie EC? Congress would decide it.

Question: is it the old congress that decides, or the newly-elected one?

[Berkut]

A pretty good (short) article from CNN of all places...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/01/opinions/nasty-election-campaign-opinion-mcternan/index.html

I liked this:

The result does not mean it will be over. Not because either side will be sore losers and cry foul -- though Trump does look more of a crybaby than a statesman, and is highly unlikely to be able to give a concession speech as gracious as John McCain's.

No, the reason that this divisive debate won't go away after the election is there is a real underlying division -- one not caused by the campaign but reflected in it.

America is changing, becoming more diverse, more urban, better educated. The consequent social change -- including equal marriage and the long march of women through the institutions -- is irreversible.

This fact has proved so disturbing to some parts of America -- largely in Republican states -- that they will next week go to the polling station and vote for Trump.

I think it misses another important piece to the puzzle however. There is a serious and real concern about the fundamentals of our system, and who it actually represents, and that is sadly being lost by the "basket of deplorables" movement.

[Barrister]

Why would the USSC be involved in a tie EC? Congress would decide it.

Question: is it the old congress that decides, or the newly-elected one?

I believe it's the old one.

And there's lot of potential ways for the courts to get involved.  You can have another Florida 2000, where the result is pretty much a statistical tie.  You can have faithless electors.  The whole process of having the election decided by Congress has never, ever happened, so lots of ways for that to go wonky.

[Razgovory]

The whole process of having the election decided by Congress has never, ever happened, so lots of ways for that to go wonky.

?

[Valmy]

The whole process of having the election decided by Congress has never, ever happened, so lots of ways for that to go wonky.

John Quincy Adams would be surprised to hear that. The last time the outgoing Congress did it.

But granted it has been awhile.

[Hamilcar]

The whole process of having the election decided by Congress has never, ever happened, so lots of ways for that to go wonky.

Errr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1800

[Admiral Yi]

Hey Beeb, I think Congress might have had a hand in the 1800 election. 

[Hamilcar]

I'm tired of this inferior Canadian legal advice. Can a proper American answer my question about whether the old or new congress votes on the president in case of a tie?

[Barrister]

The whole process of having the election decided by Congress has never, ever happened, so lots of ways for that to go wonky.

John Quincy Adams would be surprised to hear that. The last time the outgoing Congress did it.

But granted it has been awhile.

Huh, I (obviously) didn't know that. 

[Valmy]

I think it misses another important piece to the puzzle however. There is a serious and real concern about the fundamentals of our system, and who it actually represents, and that is sadly being lost by the "basket of deplorables" movement.

Well the Supreme Court will have to reverse its decision that corruption is speech first. Or a Constitutional Amendment of course.