The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
SCRawl
Has a bad feeling about this.
Posts: 4191
Joined: 2002-12-24 03:11pm
Location: Burlington, Canada

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by SCRawl » 2016-11-06 05:36pm

Here's how Comey's actions seem to me. From previous actions in his career, I'd always felt that Comey was a stand-up guy; after all, he had threatened to resign as deputy AG over certifying some of the domestic wiretapping during the Bush-43 administration. This is not something you do if you're a devoted partisan. So when he released that news about Hillary Clinton's emails, IMHO, he had to have a good reason. Perhaps he did so in response to various reports about Trump-supporting FBI agents who have been leaking information. If the information about the new source of emails was going to get leaked anyway, perhaps his calculation was that it would be least disruptive to the election if he: (a) released the fact that another avenue of investigation was underway; (b) did his level best to get through as much of that investigation as possible by, well, today; and (c) release whatever preliminary results there were to release a few days before the election.

If the damage was going to be done anyway, he could have calculated that it would be best to limit that damage if he could control the message. Director Comey revealed the continuation of the investigation, and he (assuming the Twitter message is legitimate) revealed that the continued investigation had found nothing. If the former information came out via credible leaks, would Comey's subsequent vindication have carried as much weight?

I had been puzzled about why Comey would announce the new emails, but the above theory fits the facts as I understand them. Have I gone off the rails anywhere?
73% of all statistics are made up, including this one.

I'm waiting as fast as I can.

User avatar
Borgholio
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6286
Joined: 2010-09-03 09:31pm
Location: Southern California

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by Borgholio » 2016-11-06 05:49pm

Have I gone off the rails anywhere?
No this is my interpretation as well. He didn't want to be seen as influencing the election, but he would have (rightly) been accused of doing so had he held back on any new information the FBI has obtained. So he came clean, did the investigation as fast as he could have, then announced that (as most people suspected) there was nothing new in these most recent batch of emails and the investigation is closed once more. His actions sound to me like a cop who knew he would be criticized whichever way he went, so he went the most open and transparent way possible. This way, it limits the damage...as opposed to had this been withheld until after the 8th where it could call into question the legitimacy of the entire election.
You will be assimilated...bunghole!

User avatar
Mr Bean
Lord of Irony
Posts: 22245
Joined: 2002-07-04 08:36am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by Mr Bean » 2016-11-06 05:56pm

Gaidin wrote:Tell that to Sessions dude. Bill fired him for ethical reasons when he wouldn't step down.
I stand corrected, she can fire him, she just can't replace him without the Senate. My brain had confused the Director post with the secondary Directorship spots which are appointed but not removable with the primary Directorship slot which is approved and friable.

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe
Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton

User avatar
Knife
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15714
Joined: 2002-08-30 02:40pm
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by Knife » 2016-11-06 06:29pm

SCRawl wrote:Here's how Comey's actions seem to me. From previous actions in his career, I'd always felt that Comey was a stand-up guy; after all, he had threatened to resign as deputy AG over certifying some of the domestic wiretapping during the Bush-43 administration. This is not something you do if you're a devoted partisan. So when he released that news about Hillary Clinton's emails, IMHO, he had to have a good reason. Perhaps he did so in response to various reports about Trump-supporting FBI agents who have been leaking information. If the information about the new source of emails was going to get leaked anyway, perhaps his calculation was that it would be least disruptive to the election if he: (a) released the fact that another avenue of investigation was underway; (b) did his level best to get through as much of that investigation as possible by, well, today; and (c) release whatever preliminary results there were to release a few days before the election.

If the damage was going to be done anyway, he could have calculated that it would be best to limit that damage if he could control the message. Director Comey revealed the continuation of the investigation, and he (assuming the Twitter message is legitimate) revealed that the continued investigation had found nothing. If the former information came out via credible leaks, would Comey's subsequent vindication have carried as much weight?

I had been puzzled about why Comey would announce the new emails, but the above theory fits the facts as I understand them. Have I gone off the rails anywhere?
Yeah, I knee jerked into thinking he went total batshit insane, but seems like he tried to head something off that was batshit insane. So kuddo's to him, which also means when she asks for his resignation, which she probably will, he'll render it.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong

But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red

User avatar
Gaidin
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2646
Joined: 2004-06-19 12:27am
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by Gaidin » 2016-11-06 06:32pm

Will she even? If, when it all sorts itself out, his actions are the sane ones, why even do that?

User avatar
The Jester
Padawan Learner
Posts: 475
Joined: 2005-05-30 08:34am
Location: Japan

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by The Jester » 2016-11-06 07:08pm

From what I understand, Clinton will be fielding a lot more certified poll watchers and a substantially better ground game come the 8th. Expect the models to be a little on the pessimistic side and her odds to be better than what they look from the polling numbers.

User avatar
Knife
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15714
Joined: 2002-08-30 02:40pm
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by Knife » 2016-11-06 07:28pm

Gaidin wrote:Will she even? If, when it all sorts itself out, his actions are the sane ones, why even do that?
She is not saint, he presided over an investigation on her and this BS recently. I have a hard time seeing her not ask for his resignation. I'll eat my hat and some crow if otherwise.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong

But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red

Q99
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2101
Joined: 2015-05-16 01:33pm

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by Q99 » 2016-11-06 08:17pm

Borgholio wrote: No this is my interpretation as well. He didn't want to be seen as influencing the election, but he would have (rightly) been accused of doing so had he held back on any new information the FBI has obtained. So he came clean, did the investigation as fast as he could have, then announced that (as most people suspected) there was nothing new in these most recent batch of emails and the investigation is closed once more. His actions sound to me like a cop who knew he would be criticized whichever way he went, so he went the most open and transparent way possible. This way, it limits the damage...as opposed to had this been withheld until after the 8th where it could call into question the legitimacy of the entire election.
The thing is, holding back til after the election is literally department policy. He violated the neutrality of the FBI to act as he did, and apparently a *lot* of people in the FBI were advising him as such.

Then you had other FBI people leak stuff, just for kickers.

So considering he's broken the rules to act that way, I find it much harder to give him the benefit of the doubt.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2016-11-06 09:00pm

Somehow, I doubt this will get one 20th. the coverage that "INVESTIGATION REOPENED LOCK UP CROOKED HILLARY!" got.
Gaidin wrote:
The Romulan Republic wrote:I have a question:

Suppose the Republicans control the Senate, and simply refuse to confirm anyone Clinton appointees.

Could she just keep Obama's cabinet in their current posts indefinitely?

Yeah, it may be an unlikely hypothetical, but I'm just curious.
Hot take: Acting director of the ATF has been near powerless in what they're supposed to be able to do precisely because they've never been confirmed for over a decade and not been an actual director. Picture that for the entire cabinet.
That's why I'm wondering if she could legally just not appoint anyone, and leave the current appointees in their places indefinitely.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.

User avatar
Lost Soal
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2524
Joined: 2002-10-22 06:25am
Location: Back in Newcastle.

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by Lost Soal » 2016-11-06 09:16pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
Somehow, I doubt this will get one 20th. the coverage that "INVESTIGATION REOPENED LOCK UP CROOKED HILLARY!" got.
Gaidin wrote:
The Romulan Republic wrote:I have a question:

Suppose the Republicans control the Senate, and simply refuse to confirm anyone Clinton appointees.

Could she just keep Obama's cabinet in their current posts indefinitely?

Yeah, it may be an unlikely hypothetical, but I'm just curious.
Hot take: Acting director of the ATF has been near powerless in what they're supposed to be able to do precisely because they've never been confirmed for over a decade and not been an actual director. Picture that for the entire cabinet.
That's why I'm wondering if she could legally just not appoint anyone, and leave the current appointees in their places indefinitely.
I believe the cabinet usually resigns by tradition, but its only tradition and not a legal requirement. If they fell the Repubs will block all nominations than they could simply not do that.
"May God stand between you and harm in all the empty places where you must walk." - Ancient Egyptian Blessing

Ivanova is always right.
I will listen to Ivanova.
I will not ignore Ivanova's recommendations. Ivanova is God.
AND, if this ever happens again, Ivanova will personally rip your lungs out! - Babylon 5 Mantra

There is no "I" in TEAM. There is a ME however.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2016-11-06 09:18pm

Well, that's reassuring, if obviously not a permanent solution.

But the fact that one can even seriously discuss this possibility is an indication of how badly the Republican Party and its new Alt. Right masters have broken our system of government.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.

User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 15601
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Australia

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by Gandalf » 2016-11-06 09:21pm

Isn't it far more an indictment of that bizarre system as opposed to people's willingness to use these rules?
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"

- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin

User avatar
SCRawl
Has a bad feeling about this.
Posts: 4191
Joined: 2002-12-24 03:11pm
Location: Burlington, Canada

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by SCRawl » 2016-11-06 09:23pm

Q99 wrote:The thing is, holding back til after the election is literally department policy. He violated the neutrality of the FBI to act as he did, and apparently a *lot* of people in the FBI were advising him as such.

Then you had other FBI people leak stuff, just for kickers.

So considering he's broken the rules to act that way, I find it much harder to give him the benefit of the doubt.
He broke the rules, sure; he violated precedent and organizational policy. But doing so might have been the best of some really crappy options.

Let's game it out. Take it as a given that the Weiner email investigation was going to be leaked; we know that it was leaked to Giuliani. Let us further assume that it's his object to keep the amount of harm reduced to a minimum, rules (but not laws -- he is a law enforcement official after all) be damned. My position is that if you accept these points as facts, he acted appropriately.

If he were to make no announcement, once the FBI leakers do their thing and the journalists start asking questions he'd have to do one of three things: confirm, which would end up where we were anyway, or worse; deny, which would look terrible once the truth comes out; or deflect, which many would read to mean the same as confirming.

If my assumptions are wrong, then my conclusions are wrong. And I don't know whether or not my conclusions assumptions are wrong, but as I've said, I think that my theory fits the facts as I understand them.

(Edited to correct; I left the corrected word struck out)
73% of all statistics are made up, including this one.

I'm waiting as fast as I can.

Q99
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2101
Joined: 2015-05-16 01:33pm

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by Q99 » 2016-11-06 09:28pm

Oh, Clinton and the working class?

'Right to Work' advocates are terrified a Hillary supreme court could declare anti-union right to work laws unconstitutional. Boom.
SCRawl wrote: He broke the rules, sure; he violated precedent and organizational policy. But doing so might have been the best of some really crappy options.

Let's game it out. Take it as a given that the Weiner email investigation was going to be leaked; we know that it was leaked to Giuliani. Let us further assume that it's his object to keep the amount of harm reduced to a minimum, rules (but not laws -- he is a law enforcement official after all) be damned. My position is that if you accept these points as facts, he acted appropriately.

If he were to make no announcement, once the FBI leakers do their thing and the journalists start asking questions he'd have to do one of three things: confirm, which would end up where we were anyway, or worse; deny, which would look terrible once the truth comes out; or deflect, which many would read to mean the same as confirming.

If my assumptions are wrong, then my conclusions are wrong. And I don't know whether or not my conclusions assumptions are wrong, but as I've said, I think that my theory fits the facts as I understand them.

(Edited to correct; I left the corrected word struck out)
The leaks seem pretty minor, and the Weiner e-mails turned out to be duplicates.

If he starts doing some serious house-cleaning? *Then* maybe I'll buy it.

User avatar
Gaidin
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2646
Joined: 2004-06-19 12:27am
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by Gaidin » 2016-11-06 09:29pm

SCRawl wrote: He broke the rules, sure; he violated precedent and organizational policy. But doing so might have been the best of some really crappy options.

Let's game it out. Take it as a given that the Weiner email investigation was going to be leaked; we know that it was leaked to Giuliani. Let us further assume that it's his object to keep the amount of harm reduced to a minimum, rules (but not laws -- he is a law enforcement official after all) be damned. My position is that if you accept these points as facts, he acted appropriately.

If he were to make no announcement, once the FBI leakers do their thing and the journalists start asking questions he'd have to do one of three things: confirm, which would end up where we were anyway, or worse; deny, which would look terrible once the truth comes out; or deflect, which many would read to mean the same as confirming.

If my assumptions are wrong, then my conclusions are wrong. And I don't know whether or not my conclusions assumptions are wrong, but as I've said, I think that my theory fits the facts as I understand them.

(Edited to correct; I left the corrected word struck out)
To add, in hindsight:

Looks like Comey was controlling how he could drop the results. If all there was was a leak that there was an investigation and not an actual release from him, then anything coming from him after the fact is dismissed as damage control. Since he did the initial release, this can be said by anybody and everybody not a conspiracy theorist to be legit closure.

Q99
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2101
Joined: 2015-05-16 01:33pm

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by Q99 » 2016-11-06 09:51pm

Here's a bit that makes me more doubtful of him-
Newsweek
From the information obtained that first day by Newsweek, it was already clear that, because of the accounts involved, almost all of the documents were going to be duplicates or personal emails. In other words, from the opening moments of this inquiry, there were people in government who already knew what the outcome of this new FBI effort would be, yet it took the bureau another nine days to confirm those details.
He could've had the information that it was 'likely duplicates' out at once.

Q99
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2101
Joined: 2015-05-16 01:33pm

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by Q99 » 2016-11-06 11:32pm

LA Times has a rather positive looking finale prediction map, 352 v 186

Two sentences that may cheer you up:
Ohio does currently seem like a jump ball, but we lean toward Clinton winning there because of the strength of her get-out-the-vote operation.

In Arizona, we're expecting that the surge in Latino votes that has been visible next door in Nevada will put Clinton over the top. Polls that show Trump winning may be underestimating the size of the Latino turnout.

User avatar
Knife
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15714
Joined: 2002-08-30 02:40pm
Location: Behind the Zion Curtain
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by Knife » 2016-11-06 11:47pm

Looks a little optimistic, but OK.
They say, "the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." I suppose it never occurred to them that they are the tyrants, not the patriots. Those weapons are not being used to fight some kind of tyranny; they are bringing them to an event where people are getting together to talk. -Mike Wong

But as far as board culture in general, I do think that young male overaggression is a contributing factor to the general atmosphere of hostility. It's not SOS and the Mess throwing hand grenades all over the forum- Red

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2016-11-06 11:58pm

Yeah, that's a case of "I'll believe it when I see it", but I certainly hope they're right and fivethirtyeight is wrong.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.

User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by Flagg » 2016-11-07 12:50am

Q99 wrote:Here's a bit that makes me more doubtful of him-
Newsweek
From the information obtained that first day by Newsweek, it was already clear that, because of the accounts involved, almost all of the documents were going to be duplicates or personal emails. In other words, from the opening moments of this inquiry, there were people in government who already knew what the outcome of this new FBI effort would be, yet it took the bureau another nine days to confirm those details.
He could've had the information that it was 'likely duplicates' out at once.
Yeah, he and his office knew what they had and announced what they announced in an attempt to torpedo her campaign because they were a bunch of Trump supporters. Otherwise why not open an investigation as to why Donnie Douchebag hadn't paid taxes for the better part of a decade?
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw

Q99
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2101
Joined: 2015-05-16 01:33pm

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by Q99 » 2016-11-07 01:23am

Knife wrote:Looks a little optimistic, but OK.
It's a bit optimistic, but optimism with ground in two facts- One, Latino vote is stratospherically up in early voting, and two, no get-out-the-vote operation by Trump. The first one, a known hard-to-poll group, gives reason for optimism, and the second one has political science majors salivating for this is the real test at how much GotV campaigns matter. Generally opinion is they may be worth a point or two.

So, we've got some 'ifs' here. Hillary's up 3 in polls, if that's right, if at-day voting doesn't reveal the early voting to simply be displaced voters rather than more voters and/or is heavily counterbalanced by whites, if GotV really matters *and* isn't reflected in poll numbers already (i.e. it may be why she's +3), if there's not polling error in the wrong direction, and also finally, depending on how unified each party is and who has the fewest defections, we could get a LA Times map.

538's map is probably polls-accurate but it does not include outside-poll stuff like early voting.

General Brock
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1739
Joined: 2005-03-16 03:52pm
Location: Land of Resting Gophers, Canada

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by General Brock » 2016-11-07 01:56am

Geez. What to say...

Trump 2016 FTW!

Then leave it to the Dilbert guy to explain...

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1527476012 ... the-closer

U.S. elections really are the greatest show on earth... :shock:

Huh. This forum needs the emote with counter-rotating googly eyes and warped smiley.

User avatar
Bug-Eyed Earl
Jedi Master
Posts: 1469
Joined: 2002-09-22 03:26am
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by Bug-Eyed Earl » 2016-11-07 06:53am

https://youtu.be/0ywbihP3hg4

I'm a little baffled by this video. Cenk says Pennsylvania and Michigan are slipping away from Hillary, and using New Hampshire would be disastrous. But I can't find any polls saying Hillary is in danger of losing Pennsylvania and Michigan, and New Hampshire is only four electoral votes. Not even on 538 can I find these polls. Is it just Cenk still trying to whip up anti-establishment hysteria by still insisting Hillary is a terrible candidate?
BotM Cybertronian

bilateralrope
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4503
Joined: 2005-06-25 06:50pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by bilateralrope » 2016-11-07 07:04am

I've seen a lot of news media putting out all sorts of Trump might win hysteria. For example, claiming that Trump's goal of getting 8,000 Amish to vote for him is a serious risk to Clinton. With the only justification being how close Florida was in 2,000.

I think they might have incentive that's making them make Trump's chances look better than they are. Maybe because it's more profitable that way. Maybe because they don't want Clinton voters to stay home because they are sure she will win. Probably both.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2016-11-07 08:24am

Here's a scary possibility:

http://www.vox.com/2016/11/6/13540504/e ... washington
It could all come down to the Electoral College. Two Washington State electors are now signaling that they’ll refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton, even if the voters hand her the state.

Robert Satiacum, a former Bernie Sanders supporter, told the Seattle Times that he will refuse to support Clinton no matter what. A second elector from Washington State, Bret Chiafalo, is saying that he may or may not follow his state’s results.

“No, no, no on Hillary. Absolutely not. No way,” said Satiacum in a telephone interview with the newspaper, which reached him as he was protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline. “I hope it comes down to a swing vote and it’s me ... Good. She ain’t getting it. Maybe it’ll wake this country up.”

Santiacum and Chiafalo are Democratic elector candidates, meaning they’ll be responsible for casting two Electoral College votes for Washington if Clinton wins the state. While they could face criminal charges for defying the state’s election results, Santiacum and Chiafalo can still, bizarrely, use their Electoral College votes to support whomever they personally choose.

Of course, if Clinton or Donald Trump winds up with a big lead in the Electoral College, what Satiacum and Chiafalo do won’t make any difference. But if the candidates run about evenly and split the Electoral College map by one or two votes — as some projections suggest they might — the rogue electors just could tip the balance in the presidential election.

A lot of crazy things have happened this election. But having two previously unheard-of Sanders supporters from Washington State decide the next US president would undoubtedly be the craziest.

What happens if electors break with their pledges
If either Santiacum or Chiafalo does break with how his state votes, they would face a $1,000 fine and arrest for violating a state law binding electors.

Santiacum told the Associated Press neither bother him. Clinton “will not get my vote, period," he told the news service in a phone interview. "She doesn't care about my land or my air or my fire or my water.”

Washington State could also bring troopers into the state capitol to arrest Santiacum as soon as he violates the law and signs a certificate giving his elector’s vote to someone other than Clinton, according to Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institute.

Washington State is one of 30 states with a mixture of penalties for electors who refuse to follow the election results. (The punishments range from North Carolina’s $500 fee to New Mexico’s felony-level charges, according to the National Archives and Records Administration.) The other 20 states do not have penalties, and the electors are essentially freed to vote their conscience.

Beyond the criminal penalties, the state parties could try bringing down a lot of pressure on anyone who tries defying the vote totals. Between Election Day and when the Electoral College vote is scheduled, the state parties will do all they can to lobby and threaten their electors to adhere to the results, according to Kamarck.

“This guy is going to a shaft of shit, frankly,” Kamarck said of Santiacum. “His friends and colleagues will be fucking outraged.”

How the Electoral College works
On Tuesday, voters across America will march to the polls to support one of the presidential candidates. But neither the popular vote nor state-wide results is technically the mechanism that elects the US president.

Instead, when they go to their polling stations, the public is actually deciding the electors who make up the Electoral College. The Electoral College then officially picks the president in a vote on Dec. 19.

Historically, this process has just been a formality — the electors are pledged to support the candidates chosen by their state’s voters, and have done so throughout American history with a few exceptions of no real-world consequences.

There’s a good reason for that. The electors pledged to Clinton are chosen by state Democratic parties, and the electors pledged to Trump are chosen by state Republican parties. Of course, the state parties are going to try to pick people who also like their party’s presidential nominee. In other words, to have defections among the electors, you’d need is people — like Satiacum — who refuse to vote for their own party’s presidential candidate. And that seems extremely unlikely.

Nobody seems to have an exact headcount on how many other electors might threaten to do the same. (Initially, a Republican elector candidate from Georgia also said he would not be supporting Trump regardless of how his state voted. But he ended up stepping down as an elector.)

But while Kamarck acknowledged Santiacum’s vote could matter in a deadlocked contest, it’s very unlikely many more electors will follow his lead.

“This is almost certainly not going to be an issue this year,” she says. “I could be wrong, but I’d be shocked it if was more than just this guy.”
Now, it probably won't be close enough for this to change the result. But what if it did?

Well, for a start, it would be two people spitting on the will of the people, utterly discrediting American democracy.

For another, Bernie supporters would have given the country to fascism. Not only would the immediate result be disastrous, but it would probably utterly discredit progressivism in America for at least a generation.

Lastly, it would likely result in widespread protest, including violence, in response.

And even if none of that happens, the mere fact that they are prepared to disrespect the will of the voters of the state, to engage in such a childish and undemocratic stunt, is contemptible.

It would also be very, very bad if this became a trend. Then we would be an oligarchy in truth.

Edit: Actually, if we look at the math, I don't think their's a likely scenario that puts Clinton at 271 (where two votes would cost her a majority).

But if she lost Nevada, NC, and Florida, plus one from Maine, she'd be at 272. One more joins these guys, and they could cause it to go to the (Republican) House in that scenario.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.

Post Reply