2024 US Presidential Elections Megathread

[Barrister]

So in 2020 things focused on Mike Pence, as his constitutional duty was to "count" the electoral votes.  But it was a Democratic-controlled senate.

What if in 2024 it's a GOP controlled senate?  What if they refuse to ratify the election?

What if secretaries of state in key states refuse to ratify the election results?

Yeah, there's a lot of ways things can get ugly in the US with this election

Ultimately it all comes down to the USSC.  It does have a 6-3 conservative majority.  It has so far NOT been Trump's lackey, ruling against him on several issues, but I understand the concern.

And really - the thought the election might have to come down to the USSC is scary.  People still bring up 2000 Bush v Gore, where it was a literal razor's edge election, and by all accounts the USSC got it right.

[Grey Fox]

And I'm worried he won't lose.  He's polling much better then he did in either 2016 or 2020.

I'm worried too but one of the factors of the better Trump polling this time is that Polling firms have adapted their, well, polling to better capture prospective Trump voters. I read an article that mentioned that they now will ask the who you voting for question as the 1st question. Registering that answer even if the person hangs up right after.

[PJL]

My one hope in the polling is that they may even be overestimating Trump's support. Granted this is only based on polling having overestimated Republican support in the 2022 mid-terms, but it could become a factor.

[The Minsky Moment]

Ultimately it all comes down to the USSC.  It does have a 6-3 conservative majority.  It has so far NOT been Trump's lackey, ruling against him on several issues, but I understand the concern.

It has definitely slanted towards Trump. The scheduling of the immunity case and the handling of the questions presented, are hard to explain absent a motive to deliberately delay the criminal case. It's true that as to substance, the Court will not rule whatever Trump says because they are aware of the implications that such a precedent will set for other Presidents. But there are many things they can do and have done to help Trump short of that.

People still bring up 2000 Bush v Gore, where it was a literal razor's edge election, and by all accounts the USSC got it right.

Right in what sense?  The opinion didn't make a lot of sense in terms of reasoning or precedent, and even the majority was sufficiently embarrassed to take the extraordinary step of declaring it to be non-precedential.  The Court got it "right" in that the after of fact recounts didn't support Gore and it's true there wasn't any plausible scenario where Gore would have won the election regardless of how the Court ruled.  But it was far from a shining moment of glory for the Court.

[The Minsky Moment]

One of things that Congress managed to do right was amend the Electoral Count Act. That does not eliminate the possibility of any 2020 style shenanigans but it reduces the risk. It is now unequivocal in statute that the Vice President can't decide to throw away the real count and adopt others. As for Congress, the objections that can made are limited to: (1) the electors of the State were not lawfully certified under a certificate of ascertainment of appointment of electors (2) the vote of one or more electors has not been regularly given. I.e. a general objection of "voter fraud" in the underlying election doesn't count. The objection has to be stated in writing without argument so no filibustering. No objection can be sustained unless the House and Senate both jointly agree.

[Jacob]

So Minsky, how big is the risk of blatant and significant voter fraud in your view? And if the risk is non-trivial, what are the most likely methods by which it'll happen in your assessment?

[Sophie Scholl]

Isn't one of the big issues with modern polling that it is conducted via landlines only which tends to skew toward older and rural folks with those demographics being much redder than the voting population as a whole?

[Jacob]

I'm so ambivalent on the polling.

On one hand Democrats have over performed polling last time around. There are also reasonable argument why this may still be the case.

On the other hand, there's something very head-in-the-sand like about saying "sure the polls say bad things, but it's the polls that are wrong. Don't worry."

[Jacob]

Biden v Trump debates reportedly planned on Jun 27 and Sep 10.

[Barrister]

Ultimately it all comes down to the USSC.  It does have a 6-3 conservative majority.  It has so far NOT been Trump's lackey, ruling against him on several issues, but I understand the concern.

It has definitely slanted towards Trump. The scheduling of the immunity case and the handling of the questions presented, are hard to explain absent a motive to deliberately delay the criminal case. It's true that as to substance, the Court will not rule whatever Trump says because they are aware of the implications that such a precedent will set for other Presidents. But there are many things they can do and have done to help Trump short of that.

Come on Minskey.  I said the court wasn't Trump's lackey - not that it wasn't slanted to Trump.  To Trump's obvious dismay the court won't just do whatever he wants - but it is more friendly to him,

People still bring up 2000 Bush v Gore, where it was a literal razor's edge election, and by all accounts the USSC got it right.

Right in what sense?  The opinion didn't make a lot of sense in terms of reasoning or precedent, and even the majority was sufficiently embarrassed to take the extraordinary step of declaring it to be non-precedential.  The Court got it "right" in that the after of fact recounts didn't support Gore and it's true there wasn't any plausible scenario where Gore would have won the election regardless of how the Court ruled.  But it was far from a shining moment of glory for the Court.

It was "right" first of all in that all subsequent recounts all gave the win to Bush.

But second of all - it's been 23 1/2 years but as I recall all the procedures within Florida had called the state for Bush.  The procedures had been followed, and while the result was incredibly close there was no credible accusations of impropriety.

What I most recall though - was Bush was very aware that he was not the winner of the majority vote, and at first attempted to preside as a minority president and knew he lacked that popular legitimacy.  Of course 9/11 threw a huge wrench into things.

Trump didn't care less he was elected by a minority vote.

[Barrister]

Isn't one of the big issues with modern polling that it is conducted via landlines only which tends to skew toward older and rural folks with those demographics being much redder than the voting population as a whole?

No.

There are faults with polling, but they have not relied on landlines only for years and years.

Proof: I am somehow on a list of people that answers pollsters, so I get calls pretty regularly.  A few years ago we were the Canadian equivalent of Nielson family that tracked our TV viewership.

Anyways - the fact I am regularly called by pollsters, as a middle-aged, middle-class cis-hetero white guy, might reflect a certain bias.

But they only ever call my cell phone.

[The Minsky Moment]

So Minsky, how big is the risk of blatant and significant voter fraud in your view?

Voter fraud is really rare. I don't think there is much risk there. Voter suppression is a much bigger concern, especially in states controlled by GOP legislatures and governors. Cutting down polling places in Democrat leaning areas, eliminating or reducing absentee ballots, disqualifying voters on bogus pretexts. The other unknown is to what extent there will be effort to intimidate election workers in swing states. There were various efforts in 2020 but not well organized. A more concerted effort could cause real problems, especially if aided and abetted by sympathetic local or state law enforcement.

Also, while the electoral count act reduces the options for nonsense in the Congressional count, it still leaves open a a key vulnerability - the certificate of ascertainment which is issued by the governor of each state.  The risk is that a rogue governor simply crosses out the vote in his state and signs a bogus certificate. Looking at the swing states, Democratic governors are in Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona and Pennsylvania. Brian Kemp is a Republican in Georgia but was not sympathetic to Trump's election stealing efforts in 2020. Joe Lomabrdo was elected governor in Nevada; don't know much about him. He was endorsed by Trump in his election, but hasn't had enthusiastic things to say about his presidential run.  I don't see him trying to overturn an election result by transmitting a bogus certificate of ascertainment.  So I am cautiously optimistic on this front, but it is a little scary that we have to count heads this way and that so much depends on the personality of individual state governors.

[Jacob]

Thanks!

Less dire than I feared, it seems, but still not great.

[Josquius]

I'm not in the US and purely looking from far away.... But I get vibes that there's a fair bit of lethargy about the election?

Tinfoil hat on but I do wonder if this is republican tactics. As well as energising the shit bags to get out and vote getting everyone else thinking both candidates are crap and there's no point.

[Jacob]

There definitely seems to be a concerted social media effort to depict it as a battle between "two grandpas" with little difference between the two of them.