Jump to content

US Election Results!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 598
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

29 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

The outcome seems to have been decided by the media already, yet votes are still being counted ?
Several states have already committed themselves to recounts though , as per state rules on elections.

Legal challenges aside, this contest is NOT officially over, as most media channels would have you believe.

The media are simply describing what is very likely to be the reality.  In the projected numbers by the various media outlets where states are still counting and the outstanding votes to be counted are greater than the current delta between candidates, or where states will have a recount those have not been attributed to either side yet.

Yes there will be recounts in some states, however traditionally the recount has made little difference to the outcome.

Absolutely true to say that until all counts are tabulated and validated then the contest is not officially over, however from all the information to hand then it as close to a certainty as makes no difference that Biden will win.

The Bush / Gore contest in 200 was different in that the overall result hinged on the single state of Florida and the contest was so close that a margin of a few hundred votes tipped it one way.

The current election is wholly different in that Trump would have to reverse the balance in numerous states and not just one big one.  So far there is no credible evidence to suggest that there is a possibility of that happening.

I am actually pretty ambivalent about a Trump 2nd term or Biden presidency, i think that both individuals are quite odious in truth, but I don't believe there will be such a massive policy swing from one to the other as to make the difference that some people fear.  Policies are largely driven by necessity and nuanced by political ideology.  I am suffering no butthurt one way or the other.

What I simply find remarkable just now is how many people appear so willing to believe or cling to a false narrative without exhibiting any sort of critical thinking or inspection.

If someone can point me towards a credible and corroborated source that can demonstrate how their might be a systemic failure or manipulation across multiple states then I shall very much consider that, but i've not seen anything like that yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, grrclark said:

On the basis of a blog post of an obviously partisan individual?

The thing i’d genuinely like to see from all those who suggest that there is a grand conspiracy of a scale involving millions of voters across all states is one bit of corroborated evidence.

There will be numerous individual cases where things have gone wrong, but in an election involving c.160m people that is going to happen. But where is the evidence of systemic failure or corruption that can account for even 1% of that?

We already know about the 6000 votes mistakingly attributed the wrong way, that issue was called out and owned by the official election body themselves.

Other than from Trump and his acolytes screaming it’s all a stitchup, (A bucket load of butthurt going on), i’ve not seen a single source put forward any issue of sufficient scale that could credibly challenge and reverse the outcome of the election.

And you won't see any evidence, yet. But the Supreme Court will, in due course.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, mick miller said:

And you won't see any evidence, yet. But the Supreme Court will, in due course.

 

If evidence is available to be presented to the supreme court and they judge that there is systemic or wide scale fraud as claimed by some of the Republican party then I will readily accept that is the case.

I just don't expect that to happen based on anything that has yet been made public.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? They did it with Gore & Bush. World leaders love to jump the gun and get a bit of brown nosing in, especially as they all are repelled by the orange one's boorish, overbearing behaviour (in political terms). He's not the 'statesman' that the system is used to dealing with. A major flaw for anyone wanting to be POTUS in the eyes of the worlds media and political establishments.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure I've said it before, I'm no major fan of Trump, but the Republican party, to me, is way more preferable to the Democratic party. Just a shame they couldn't have found a less divisive character. But then if you think Biden and the Democrats are intent on uniting everyone, just look at the last four years and think on...

We will all have to wait till a). the counting is actually concluded, and checked, and verified and b). any legal processes, challenges and accusations to be concluded before drinking from our alternate tear-filled maga or liberal cups.

Patience. The media don't decide the outcome.

 

 

 

 

Edited by mick miller
Link to post
Share on other sites

PAUSE FOR THOUGHT................

do you think that the latest news from Pziter...corvid-19 vaccinine availble soon/breakthrough..........was purposefully held back until the US elections were over..........

with the thin margins in the elections imagine what would have happened if the results were announced 10 days ago !!!!!

someone would have road on the back of them.....the stock market has gone gung-ho...feel good factor has gone overthe top....:hmm:

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, grrclark said:

I am actually pretty ambivalent about a Trump 2nd term or Biden presidency, i think that both individuals are quite odious in truth, but I don't believe there will be such a massive policy swing from one to the other as to make the difference that some people fear.  Policies are largely driven by necessity and nuanced by political ideology.  I am suffering no butthurt one way or the other.

Like you say , what will be will be , but to think there wont be a massive shift in policy..?
Biden has based his whole campaign on just that, and has already promised to 'undo' much of what Trump has done.

 

50 minutes ago, grrclark said:

If someone can point me towards a credible and corroborated source that can demonstrate how their might be a systemic failure or manipulation across multiple states then I shall very much consider that, but i've not seen anything like that yet.

Like I say, the MEDIA has decided the outcome.
Its even decided claims of vote rigging as 'groundless' 
How do they know ? How does Google know ?
Its OK saying no evidence has been seen (yet) but surely they wouldnt leave a trail of obvious breadcrumbs, or make a Wiki page up admitting it ?
IF fraud has been committed, and I say IF, any fraudster worth their salt , is hopefully going to not make it blatently easy to uncover it ?
The democrats were very sore losers last time, and spent YEARS and hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars trying to remove Trump from office , 'By hook or by crook' I seem to remember one saying.
Is it a stretch to believe they wouldnt tamper with an extremely close election, because thats what it is, despite pollster claims of Biden steamrollering over Trump effortlessly?
Trump was winning, then they paused counting... then all of a sudden all Trumps leads evaporated in the swing states.
That in itself is suspicious and requires some scrutiny.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ditchman said:

PAUSE FOR THOUGHT................

do you think that the latest news from Pziter...corvid-19 vaccinine availble soon/breakthrough..........was purposefully held back until the US elections were over..........

with the thin margins in the elections imagine what would have happened if the results were announced 10 days ago !!!!!

someone would have road on the back of them.....the stock market has gone gung-ho...feel good factor has gone overthe top....:hmm:

A considered campaign to frustrate the election for Trump is so large that as well as including state and federal judges throughout the US, almost all of the respected major global press outlets, thousands of state officials, thousands of election scrutineers, hundreds of elected public representatives and now also global pharmaceutical companies.

My god, it must be true...

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Trump was winning, then they paused counting... then all of a sudden all Trumps leads evaporated in the swing states.
That in itself is suspicious and requires some scrutiny.

Er...no not really. Trump urged his supporters to turn out in droves on election day. Biden told democrats to vote by mail-in to avoid mass waiting in lines and big crowds in cramped areas on election day because of the pandemic. Given that most states (particularly the battleground Midwest states) counted on the day stuff first and then counted mail in ballots afterwards, what you describe was an inevitable consequence of two polarised strategies. 

Edited by chrisjpainter
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

Like you say , what will be will be , but to think there wont be a massive shift in policy..?
Biden has based his whole campaign on just that, and has already promised to 'undo' much of what Trump has done.

 

Like I say, the MEDIA has decided the outcome.
Its even decided claims of vote rigging as 'groundless' 
How do they know ? How does Google know ?
Its OK saying no evidence has been seen (yet) but surely they wouldnt leave a trail of obvious breadcrumbs, or make a Wiki page up admitting it ?
IF fraud has been committed, and I say IF, any fraudster worth their salt , is hopefully going to not make it blatently easy to uncover it ?
The democrats were very sore losers last time, and spent YEARS and hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars trying to remove Trump from office , 'By hook or by crook' I seem to remember one saying.
Is it a stretch to believe they wouldnt tamper with an extremely close election, because thats what it is, despite pollster claims of Biden steamrollering over Trump effortlessly?
Trump was winning, then they paused counting... then all of a sudden all Trumps leads evaporated in the swing states.
That in itself is suspicious and requires some scrutiny.

Biden like any other politician will make big bold statements to try and galvanise a whole section of the electorate behind him, a bit like Trump and his wall and getting the Mexicans to pay.  He has delivered something like 20 brand new miles of fence in fairness and re-fenced a few hundred miles more and used an executive order to re-direct a chunk of defence funding to do it.  Point being big promises don't really match the reality.

As for the rest of your argument, it's all rather spurious and speculative.  It's an interesting chat for sure, but no substance to it.  Of course that might well change with some robust, credible and corroborated evidence being presented.  Time will tell.

A question for you and the others who believe there is a conspiracy.  If after due consideration and process of all evidence and legal argument that Trump can put forward the election is found in Biden's favour will you accept that it is a true and honest reflection of the lawful will of the US electorate?

7 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

Er...no not really. Trump urged his supporters to turn out in droves on election day. Biden told democrats to vote by mail-in to avoid mass waiting in lines and big crowds in cramped areas on election day because of the pandemic. Given that most states (particularly the battleground Midwest states) counted on the day stuff first and then counted mail in ballots afterwards, what you describe was an inevitable consequence of two polarised strategies. 

Additionally the law in some states mandated that mail in ballots were counted last.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, grrclark said:

A question for you and the others who believe there is a conspiracy.  If after due consideration and process of all evidence and legal argument that Trump can put forward the election is found in Biden's favour will you accept that it is a true and honest reflection of the lawful will of the US electorate?

Yes , of course.

At the end of the day, I did want Trump to win, not because I have any particular admiration for him, but because I believe he is a better friend to the UK than Biden will be.
I also believe he would retain stability in the US.

Biden as a president is going to cause more disruption , there and here than I think some can imagine.
I truly believe his tenure will be extremely short, and Ms Harris will step in to fill those boots, as was always destined.

There is a saying that a country gets the government it deserves, and if Biden/Harris comes to pass, then that may be exactly what they get.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Yes , of course.

At the end of the day, I did want Trump to win, not because I have any particular admiration for him, but because I believe he is a better friend to the UK than Biden will be.
I also believe he would retain stability in the US.

Biden as a president is going to cause more disruption , there and here than I think some can imagine.
I truly believe his tenure will be extremely short, and Ms Harris will step in to fill those boots, as was always destined.

There is a saying that a country gets the government it deserves, and if Biden/Harris comes to pass, then that may be exactly what they get.

 

I am reassured to hear that, although I rather fear that you will be in a minority in being accepting of that.

I think in the near term that Trump may have been a bit more inclined to be favourable to the UK, but i think that is to a very limited degree.

I'm of a similar mind that Biden's tenure in office will not be a full term either, although I don't see Harris as being as polarising as some make out.  I think she is a remarkably shrewd political operator and is content to allow people to attribute values to her campaign that bring her net benefit, even if she doesn't especially believe in them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, grrclark said:

I think she is a remarkably shrewd political operator and is content to allow people to attribute values to her campaign that bring her net benefit, even if she doesn't especially believe in them.

Sadly that can (and may) work both ways. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, grrclark said:

Can you demonstrate where the content of that article is relevant to the US election at a scale that would precipitate a reversal of the current outcome?

In some states - A high turnout in specific areas
and many others - Delay in announcing results

"A question for you and the others who believe there is a conspiracy.  If after due consideration and process of all evidence and legal argument that Trump can put forward the election is found in Biden's favour will you accept that it is a true and honest reflection of the lawful will of the US electorate? "

Yes, if after a review has concluded that there is no substantial tampering, of course. Many things have a whiff about them in this election, including both candidates.

 

Edited by mick miller
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, mick miller said:

In some states - A high turnout in specific areas
and many others - Delay in announcing results

 

Not really and...not really.

Nowhere had an unusual, unexplained high turnout. All the battleground states were between 62 and 80% (Minnesota the highest at 79.4, Nevada the lowest at 62) with a lot of them breaking the 40 year high (Nevada included) The hard-fought states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida and Pennsylvania were all within 6% of each other.  Average turnout across the country is expected to be 66-67%, that would make sense. The only real oddity is Alaska, set to be low 30's, which matters neither one way nor the other. Trump was always going to win there and has. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/elections/voter-turnout/

You could stay up and watch live vote tallies increase as batches were logged. As soon as counting began, voting information was available. Some types of votes were not counted until later, but that's just under state law. Some chose to count mail-ins last, some before polling day. 

Provisional results were being announced almost immediately by all states.

Edited by chrisjpainter
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, chrisjpainter said:

(Minnesota the highest at 79.4,

You yourself quoted 88 % ?
Thats a record breaking turnout, in a state that likes to hit those high numbers.
This was from 5 days ago, and they STILL havent finished counting.

This year’s turnout topped the 82 percent of registered voters who cast their ballots in 2016 and the 84 percent in 2012. Gelms said this year marked a watershed moment for elections administration, given the sheer volume of people who voted by absentee during the pandemic.

In the presidential election of 2016, 30 percent of voters in the county cast their ballots by absentee, while 70 percent voted in person on Election Day. On Tuesday, that ratio was essentially flipped, said Gelms, who added that the latest figures could signal a lasting preference for absentee voting.

‚ÄúGoing forward, one job that we have is to plan how this will probably permanently change how Minnesotans vote,‚ÄĚ Gelms said.

Elections judges across the state were allowed to begin processing early early ballots two weeks ahead of election night, which helped ensure relatively timely results, she added.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Rewulf said:

You yourself quoted 88 % ?
Thats a record breaking turnout, in a state that likes to hit those high numbers.
This was from 5 days ago, and they STILL havent finished counting.

This year’s turnout topped the 82 percent of registered voters who cast their ballots in 2016 and the 84 percent in 2012. Gelms said this year marked a watershed moment for elections administration, given the sheer volume of people who voted by absentee during the pandemic.

In the presidential election of 2016, 30 percent of voters in the county cast their ballots by absentee, while 70 percent voted in person on Election Day. On Tuesday, that ratio was essentially flipped, said Gelms, who added that the latest figures could signal a lasting preference for absentee voting.

‚ÄúGoing forward, one job that we have is to plan how this will probably permanently change how Minnesotans vote,‚ÄĚ Gelms said.

Elections judges across the state were allowed to begin processing early early ballots two weeks ahead of election night, which helped ensure relatively timely results, she added.

I quoted 88% because that was based on the Wisconsin State data that was updated on 1st November. I also said that they allow on the day registration, so it's fully possible people registered on the day and then voted (3rd Nov), which means the vote count would stay the same, but the number registered would increase, so the % would decrease. 

Minnesota was allowed to start early. Pennsylvania was not.  Where did you get the figures for Minnesota? They're different to those of the Washington Post and a few others I found

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Thanks. They do suggest that high turn out is nothing out of the ordinary in Minnesota, which is a nice change from the norm in the West!'

'Wright County, for example, had 87,361 voters registered at 7 a.m., but another 7,091 registered same day ‚ÄĒ an 8.1 percent increase.' (third link)

That shows just how many people were turning up and registering on the day. If there was a similar story next door in Wisconsin, then that would explain why the turnout percentage is lower than what would be suggested by the Novermber 1st register.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My Trump supporting employee brought in the ¬£5 wager I ‚Äėwon‚Äô against him today. I said I would not spend it until this is settled as you can never be sure of the outcome and I wouldn‚Äôt want to be in his debt. Truth be told I didn‚Äôt know what to spend it on, last time I had a bet it was (placed on my behalf) on the grand national the year before Biden‚Äôs chums started making it interesting with the odd bomb threat. I spent my winnings on AirFix models.¬†

Link to post
Share on other sites

Too early but looks like Pennsylvania might not go to Biden after all. 

https://www.foxsports640.com/real-clear-politics-withdraws-bidens-win-in-pennsylvania/

 

Although the Associated Press is still calling it for Biden, so this could be hogwash; if this does flip back it puts Biden on 259 though. 

Edited by mick miller
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


√ó
√ó
  • Create New...