Monday, November 9, 2020

What If This Drags On?

I don't like doing this, but for the sake of convenience I'm going to paste in a rolled out Twitter thread--minus the stats and infographics. I've also formatted for readability, but without any actual editing. They're interesting and important and can be accessed here, at the rollout. 

I'm not arguing here for the author's scenario. In fact, I've highlighted one issue in red because I believe it's one issue among several that could lead to a quicker resolution--in Trump's favor. The way that would work, in my mind, is that Dems would want to avoid a fully transparent audit. That's a political argument rather than a legal one, but there are obvious legal implications that the Dems would be seeking to avoid as well. There are other factors, also, in most of the recount states that could lead to a much quicker resolution. Nevertheless, I find this thread to be a useful point of reference, especially for those who are knowledgeable about the other developments.

See what you think.

Take it away Cultural Husbandry:

This is going to drag on quite a while. Let me cover the basics: 
1. Recounts:
>Georgia has a recount
>Pennsylvania has a recount
>Nevada has a recount
>Wisconsin has a recount
>Michigan has a recount
>Arizona has a recount 
All of these iirc fall within .5%, therefore he doesn't have to pay. If he does pay? Its only 3 million or so per state. A small price for extending the timeframe. Furthermore, Pennsylvania has to section the ballots into two categories due to Alito which complicates it further. 
2. Fraud lawsuits - there will be many:
>Limestone County already had 1 arrest.
>Pennsylvania has a UPS worker agreeing to testify in court that the supervisors were backdating.
>Glitch in Michigan.
>Pennsylvania/Georgia not allowing Republican observers in (especially during that period on Election night when Biden skyrocketed).
Each one of these is going to be used to eat up time. The Federal Election Commission chair has already stated that he believes voter fraud took place, specifically citing that the refusal to allow republicans back in to observe and counting anyway is a violation of law. 
3. Dominion
>Amy Klobucher, Elizabeth Warren and Ron Wydden already got involved in the Dem Primaries specifically due to worries that Dominion was potentially a threat for voter fraud/manipulation.
>Dominion also had a court case against them in Georgia wherein the presiding judge was very worried about the potential for damage.
>Glitch in Michigan swapped some 3k votes from Trump to Biden.
>Dominion is used in 47 counties in Michigan.
>It is also used in 30 different states.
>Most importantly it is used in every 2020 election swing state.
>It has some Dem lobbyists working for them including Pelosi's aide.
>It also violated Benford's law with Hilary in 2016.
>And works in conjunction with the Clinton Foundation on Project DELIAN from the Democracy Project.
So for mathematical proofs they will go looking at:
>1st Digit Benford's law
>2nd Digit Benford's Law
>Chi Squared Goodness of Fit test
>Last Digit frequency analysis 
>You can also use integer percentages as an in identifier of potential electoral falsification.
>You can run fourier spectra histograms for leader result/voter turnout. 
>You can even look at if the rate of invalid ballots falls, and you see an increase in the share of ballots for a candidate there is a possibility of tampering, especially if this is paired with a decrease in an opposing candidate's share. 
For example, if 1k votes were declared invalid, and you saw Biden gain 1k, while Jorgensen lost 1k, it would suggest tampering. 
>Even simple combinatorics could provide mathematical validation of fraud based on chance due to the down ballot run issue. 
4. Ballot Run issue

>Essentially most of the found votes turned up with a weird conundrum.
>They voted for Biden but did not vote for any congressman, senator, etc. 
>Essentially they only voted on a single thing per ballot.
>Statistically in the past this has happened at a rate of 3%.
>This year it ran at a rate of 18+%
>6x higher rate of ballots, but only a "26%" increase in voter turn out - statistical anomaly.
Where this is headed:
At this point you are just moving the line back as far as you can towards Dec. 14.
If you can do it without a state of emergency, then better.
If not, you call the emergency powers into play and designate Chinese interference into the election.
>Joe's low opposition to China, Trump's anti-China streak, Trump killing the TPP, and the Hunter Biden laptop scenario all help correlate to this move.
Trump tells the DOJ to investigate and they will due to a recent Barr precedent. 
The repubs in the states in question can refuse to hand over until after the DOJ Investigation.
Sure dems can challenge but it will just go to the Supreme Court.
Legislature supports all these moves of stalling (including emergency powers if it comes to that but probably won't). 
Dec. 14 rolls by and the vote goes to the house.
Each house rep gets 1 vote.
Repubs have 26, Dems at 23. Even if they hold all 2018 wins, and gain Pennsylvania seat, they still end up at 26 vs. 24. 25 with Georgia iirc.

Repubs vote Trump.

2nd term for Trump. 
Meanwhile the Media has primed the populace for "Trump stealing the Presidency".
So you get even more riots. Potentially much more violent ones. 
The question that remains is, does anyone care enough about the presidency, to risk the riots?

The answer is, of course, yes as we've seen factions nationwide riot over far less. 


  1. Even worse, if it goes to the House, right now there is no majority of the states held by either party- Republicans hold the delegations in 25 states- Michigan, Pennsylvania are evenly divided in House representation. Republicans can get to 26 if they win the remaining uncalled Iowa seat, but we won't know the result of that for quite a while, but I would guess it will be won by the Democrat leaving that state evenly divided, too.

    For the House to make a selection, you need 26.

    If it goes to the House, or if it looks like it is going to go to the House, I would expect that you might see Republican electors will go faithless, but not to Biden, but rather to Pence. One of the weird aspects of the 12th amendment is that the House can only consider the top three elector vote getters. Right now, it is assumed that there would be only two, but if the Republicans feel like they can't get a majority of the delegations in the House with Trump at the top, it might make sense for the electors on December 6 to turn to Pence instead. Let's say 20-30 electors choose Pence so that he is third in the vote totals opened on January 3rd- he eligible for consideration in the first round vote. It would be one way for the Republicans in Congress to tamp down the vitriol if they do choose a Republican as the winner- the Left would get to see Trump out of office, at the very least.

    1. However, Republicans may easily get to 26, if Barr/ Durham finally do what was promised (to bring big busts).
      Even if no busts, it's likely be easier for GOP to pry one Dem from *either* the MI or PA delegations, than for Dems to pry at least 3 Repubs, from GOP narrowly-held delegations (e.g. NC, GA).
      I for one could accept Pence, if he vowed to let Barr etc. continue their probes.

  2. If there are riots, I believe we’d have law enforcement strongly on our side. Might rioters be met with more force?

    And yes, the presidency is worth it. All you have to do is run the changes to come with a Biden & Co. administration to make that decision.

  3. The scenario of failure to certify results by December 14th has crossed my mind. I could imagine though that state legislatures could appoint electors in any manor they seek, such that unresolved states do in fact have a slate of electors and it is resolved in the electoral college without going to the House.

    Of course, if the electoral college fails to establish a majority, only the President is selected by the House, the VP is selected by the Senate.

    Now for some electoral cluster-fark imaginings :) To get 2021 off with a real bang, the Dems are sooo ticked about what is about to happen with Trump being selected by the House that they actually pick up the Georgia Senate seats now that it is all on the line again and they feel they have to counter a Trump theft of the election. The Senate is deadlocked and cannot select a VP candidate because the VP themselves would break the tie. But in his last act as a Republican, Mitt Romney flips to support Harris as VP in order to "make things right with the American people after Trump stole the office". With VP Harris to break ties, Trump faces Dem control of the House, Senate, and have the executive branch. The Dems re-run impeachment, 25th amendment, etc over and over to try to get Trump ejected from office and flip control to Harris.

  4. And, let me add something I forgot to mention in the previous comment- if there isn't a majority of EVs for Biden, the same applies to Harris. Then, the VP is selected by the new Senate. If the Republicans can win at least one of the Georgia runoffs, and Tillis' lead holds up in NC, the Republicans will hold 51 seats- enough to select Pence directly- letting the House off the hook if they can't come to a majority for any candidate- Pence becomes President anyway.

    Of course, I think most of this irrelevant. Trump has to make a case for non-certification of electoral slates. This could happen with good enough evidence, but that evidence is lacking right now- several orders of magnitude in lacking to convince courts and legislatures to act to stop Biden reaching 270+.

    1. What for say of Mitt who’s considering being part of Biden’s cabinet?

    2. AG Barr just met with McConnell. Interesting.

    3. Adam Housely keeps insisting that Barr/Durham is coming and that there's a lot happening behind the scenes.

    4. AG Bill Barr directs U.S. Attorneys and others to pursue allegations of voting irregularities

  5. "If not, you call the emergency powers into play and designate Chinese interference into the election."

    The above is a bad idea and just pours speculative diesel fuel on a already raging fire. It's unnecessary.

    As for the risk / cost of this... It's irrelevant. To fear rioting over law would be ludicrous but we've seen a lot of social justice going on.

    I'm sure the supreme court is regretting it's post election push off of Michigan at this point.

    I'm thinking the clock runs MUCH longer than Dec 15. Some of this is so complicated that it's disastrous.

    Example: How do you even start a recount until you have your disqualifying criteria?

    Can you even find that criteria anymore? Michigan seemed to intentionally muddy those waters on purpose against both a court order and state law.

    Georgia did the same with completing incomplete ballots.

    Were still too far away from knowing what we need to look at.

  6. Some Democrats and deep staters might see the risk of a continued Trump presidency as so grave that exposure of vast electoral fraud would be the lesser evil.

    By now, we all doubt that any of the coup participants will ever be punished for their crimes. But if they were, their punishments might be far more severe than what they would get for electoral tampering.

  7. Trying to delay to force it to the house is a recipe for violence and disaster. What I am hoping for is a series of court opinions that come out before December 14 that hold that the results are unreliable and therefore void. Ideally, SCOTUS will lead the way in PA and quickly rule that the results are void (because the three-day delay is unconstitutional and I think it is going to come out that the supposedly segregated ballots were not segregated in several counties such that it is now impossible to cure the defect). In an ideal world, SCOTUS puts the blame squarely on those counties that failed to segregate and then says, "you have a couple of options: (a) hold a new vote before the deadline to certify (not practical, but that's not SCOTUS's fault; (b)the Constitution allows the legislature to decide on the electors and it can still do that; or (c) send nothing to Congress by the deadline."

    The beauty of that approach is that it helps take SCOTUS out of the direct path of picking the president and leaves it in the hands of the state legislature (which is what the constitution provides). Once SCOTUS does this for PA, courts in other states follow that lead. You can see that happening in Nevada due to the major infirmities in the change of address issue and failure to purge the voter rolls. (Again, puts the blame back where it belongs.)

    Andy S.

    No guarantee that this results in a Trump re-election, but it at least provides some constitutional underpinnings to the process that avoids the disaster of playing a delaying game.

    1. Gripping stuff, Unk.
      If SCOTUS puts the blame squarely on those counties that failed to segregate, can the Court hold such counties' brass in (the equivalent of) Contempt, or kick that issue to some other specific court?

    2. It's not clear to me what representations were made to SCOTUS re segregating the votes. If an affirmative representation was made that the ballots would be segregated when the party did not have the authority to compel it, most courts would be pretty PO'ed. My guess is that SCOTUS wouldn't want to go there unless it was really egregious. But I'm not certain that a representation was made to the court that it would be done. As I recall, Alito's dissent from the denial of the stay suggested that it should be done, but that doesn't have the power of an order.

      Andy S.

    3. Alito, J.: "Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected Petitioner’s request for that relief, we have been informed by the Pennsylvania Attorney General that the Secretary of the Commonwealth issued guidance today directing county boards of elections to segregate ballots received between 8:00 p.m. on November 3, 2020, and 5:00 p.m. on November 6, 2020. Nothing in the Court’s order today precludes Petitioner from applying to this Court for relief if, for some reason, it is not satisfied with the Secretary’s guidance.

    4. Thanks Mark. So all the PA AG did was say he was issuing guidance. That's truthful. He conveniently didn't say, "they don't have to follow my guidance." (That came out after the election and caused Alito to issue his stay order. So no contempt, because the only affirmative representation that was made was done (the guidance was issued). That's not to say that Alito is not privately PO'ed about this. But it doesn't rise to the level of contempt.

      Andy S.

    5. I think Alito knows all about Philly politics, based on his life experience.

  8. Mark, are Barr/Durham hamstrung until the election process plays out for days or weeks?

    1. Only if they choose to be. My understanding is that, before the election, Barr deferred to Durham, who is the prosecutor in charge of the Russia Hoax. At least that was the story put out by the Libs.

  9. To the Left, fraud is a justifiable action to achieve the necessary result. Indeed it is a legitimate modus operandi. They have only one commandment: the end justifies the means. They have made kabuki theater of "our democracy!" while affecting to scream in outrage at the other side's alleged defiling of it.


  10. This can't drag on much longer. Between the popular vote and the spread in the swing states, it will be mostly futile to win that battle. The field of battle has shifted whether we like it or not, a wise strategist has to move his forces in ways to pressure the adversary where weaknesses allow an advance.

    Think along those lines, with clarity and speed, and prepare for the next engagement.

    1. Why?

      Including this election, we have had a full 15% contested presidential elections.

      The only one that lead to disaster was 1860 - Lincoln - Civil War.

      Explain who has black shirts through out this year and who does not, not even now.

  11. Intriguing idea of the Democrats doing a Emily Litella “never mind”. Unfortunately I think they hate Trump too much for this and are too hubristic.

    >that could lead to a quicker resolution--in Trump's favor. >The way that would work, in my mind, is that Dems would >want to avoid a fully transparent audit.

    My guess is the Supreme Court would also like to punt, if possible, and put the responsibilities on someone else to fix.