[pilowsky]

Winstonm, on 2020-November-06, 18:17, said:

Regardless, this will be only the 4th time an incumbent president has been defeated. It will also be a larger win than Trump had in 2016, and Trump was not running against an incumbent. The big disappointment was in the down ballot votes.

One could almost imagine that there was a deliberate strategy amongst Republican party stalwarts (thinking the Lincoln project) to organise to ditch Trump for Biden so that the 'Republican base' could happily return a conservative house.

A similar approach is used in campaigns in Australia when Labor (that's how we spell it) looks like gaining office. The conservatives (called the liberals in Australia) convince everyone that it's a good idea to vote liberal in the senate so that someone can 'keep the bastards honest' (1).

Naturally, as you have seen in the USA, this simply the means that nothing useful gets done at all.

(1) 'Keep the Bastards' honest was a genuine election slogan for the Australian Democrats. A modestly successful party in Australia in the 1970's and the forerunner of the Greens.
Australia has compulsory preferential voting and a federal electoral commission independent of government so the nonsense that we are seeing in the USA is not likely to happen here.

In other words, an actual democracy.

[y66]

Nathaniel Persily and Charles Stewart III said:

Considering all the stress and drama of this year’s presidential race, it may be difficult to view the 2020 election as a success. Close elections in polarized societies place a great strain on democracy. After all, no matter who eventually wins, nearly half the country will be disappointed, perhaps even outraged, by the result. But from the perspective of election administration, the past week has been a surprising success.

The smooth administration of the 2020 election is all the more impressive given the unprecedented challenges posed by the pandemic. Earlier this year, we saw meltdowns in election administration in the presidential primaries. During the Wisconsin primary, Milwaukee closed 97% of its polling places. New York City ended up disqualifying 20% of its primary absentee ballots over problems with postmarks, signatures and mail processing. The possibility that there would be too few polling places, supply-chain disruptions for voting equipment and poll-worker shortages loomed over the general election.

But none of it materialized in the early voting period or on Election Day itself. The election wasn’t perfect; in some places, there were unacceptably long lines, voting machine outages and problems with the electronic “poll books” used to check in voters. Some underserved communities and communities of color struggled with closed or understaffed polling places. Still, as of now, we know of no major failure of election administration that cast the legitimacy of the outcome into question.

One key mark of the election’s success was its record turnout. Millions of ballots remain to be counted, but the number of people who voted—as a percentage of eligible voters—was greater than it has been since 1900. More than 100 million Americans cast ballots early—either through the mail or in person—and 50 million more votes will be counted before the election is over.

On Election Day, we saw fewer problems than in any recent election. Poll workers, many of them serving for the first time, braved the pandemic and showed up in large numbers, and polling places were rarely crowded.

Because a mounting number of court proceedings are now focusing on mail ballots, it will be tempting to say, when the counting ends, that mail ballots were this election’s distinctive problem. Just as 2000 had its hanging chads, some will argue, 2020 had its absentee ballots. Indeed, the distinct challenges of mail ballots—ranging from rejections due to missing signatures to uncorrected ballot mistakes—may yet play a role in the recounts that are likely to be on the way.

Nonetheless, the main story about mail ballots is very positive, once separated from the drama of postelection brawling. Between 80 and 90 million mail and absentee ballots were mailed to voters in the past few months—far more than in 2016. Some experts had worried that the share of rejected ballots would go up this year because first-time voters by mail would be prone to mistakes. Instead, the preliminary evidence suggests that the share of rejected ballots was actually lower than in 2016.

The concern about U.S. Postal Service delays amid the pandemic took a political turn this summer when Democrats charged that service changes initiated by Postmaster General Louis DeJoy—appointed by President Trump, who has denounced widespread voting by mail—were politically motivated. The revelation earlier this week that the USPS couldn’t account for 300,000 mail ballots that had received a bar code when they entered the mail stream stoked speculation that the Postal Service was refusing to expedite the delivery of absentee ballots on Election Day, as promised. The suspicion is understandable, but no evidence of political manipulation has yet emerged. The ballots probably hadn’t been scanned upon delivery precisely because they were being expedited.

Yet the USPS also balked at a federal judge’s order to institute “sweeps” of postal facilities in battleground areas on Election Day, claiming that it would be impossible to comply. Postal Service data now shows that at least 150,000 ballots probably only got to election officials on Wednesday, leaving many Americans’ votes out of some state counts. When such events occur, citizens will naturally wonder whether partisan administrative officers are out to abscond with their ballots.

Something must be done to give the public more confidence that the speed of election mail won’t fall prey to the political whims of a given administration. Both parties have an interest in a Postal Service that gives priority to election mail and removes the risk that ballots will arrive late.

As the postelection period also has made clear, if we expect to use the mail more in future elections, we will need changes to some state and federal laws.

First, every state should allow for the processing and counting of absentee ballots when they are received. The acrimony of the current litigation is almost completely a product of the fact that the legislatures of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin were reluctant to change their absentee-ballot laws to prepare for the vast expansion of mail voting during the pandemic. Florida could release its vote count so quickly in part because it could begin processing its ballots 22 days before the election.

We also need to recalibrate election deadlines to the realities of mail balloting. Many voters who voted by mail for the first time during the pandemic are likely to do so again. States that have implemented all-mail balloting in response to the pandemic, such as California, New Jersey, Nevada and Vermont, will find that many voters like it—and that it greatly reduces or even eliminates lines on Election Day, depending on the number of polling places that the state keeps open.

Still, high rates of mail balloting clearly don’t work well under the current schedule for presidential elections. It is all well and good to preach patience (as we must right now) when it comes to the vote-counting process, but states need to establish more reasonable deadlines to request and return absentee ballots.

Finally, to solidify confidence in the vote-by-mail process, voters must have options besides the Postal Service for delivering their ballots. In states with a great number of centers for early in-person voting, dropping off mail ballots there may suffice. In other states, numerous well-positioned ballot drop boxes will be necessary. Voters need a range of options to ensure that their ballots will be received on time.

Election officials and regular citizens came together to pull off a national election that only months before seemed in jeopardy. Even as we enter a contentious stretch of litigation, in which every aspect of the election infrastructure will be scrutinized, the U.S. should be thankful for the heroic—and successful—efforts of election administrators around the country.

Mr. Persily is the James B. McClatchy Professor of Law at Stanford Law School. Mr. Stewart is the Kenan Sahin Distinguished Professor of Political Science at MIT. They are co-directors of the Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project.

[pilowsky]

y66, on 2020-November-06, 19:11, said:

Mr. Persily is the James B. McClatchy Professor of Law at Stanford Law School. Mr. Stewart is the Kenan Sahin Distinguished Professor of Political Science at MIT. They are co-directors of the Stanford-MIT Healthy Elections Project.

What you seem to be saying with this commentary is that America is country that is a complete and utter disaster, but at least one can drive from one city to another and the restaurants still serve food.
That is not what I call success.

[Winstonm]

If Biden indeed wins, I hope his first day one activity is to fire Bill Barr.

[Zelandakh]

Winstonm, on 2020-November-06, 19:53, said:

If Biden indeed wins, I hope his first day one activity is to fire Bill Barr.

I have a better idea:-

1. call him into the Oval Office and ask him to provide an explanation for misleading the American public.
2. detain him and send him to Guantanamo Bay for crimes against the state.
3. release or transfer every other prisoner currently held there.
4. re-introduce water boarding.

[helene_t]

MrAce shared on Facebook a terrible but probably accurate outlook on the future for US democracy https://www.theatlan...america/617023/

[Trinidad]

Stephen Tu, on 2020-November-06, 10:10, said:

No, it was absolutely close and tense. Critical states being won by < 1% margin. It's only the winner take all nature of electoral votes in nearly all states that makes the electoral total look not so close. A true not close election would be if results had been near the polling, with most of the swing states being won with 5-8% margins IMO.

That is obviously true. I would have preferred Biden to win Pennsylvania with a 5 % difference and get Florida and Texas too.

What I meant to say, and probably I wasn't clear about that, is that the perception would have been entirely different if mail-in ballots would have been counted when they came in:
On Tuesday evening, the map of almost the entire USA would have looked blue. During the night Ohio and Iowa, and later Texas and Florida, would have turned red. Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania would have been blue all the way. On Wednesday morning it would have been clear that Pennsylvania goes to Biden, and the election is decided. At about the same time, they would have finished counting in Georgia, giving it to Biden too. They would have announced a recount in Georgia, on principal grounds, but it would have been moot. At that time, North-Carolina would start to shift red.

Biden would have been ahead of the race all the time. Trump would have played catch-up but would simply run out of time. Apart from the Georgia recount, the result would have been clear on Wednesday. This would have saved me my finger nails, but that is not important.

What is important is that Trumpers would not have been able to say that the election was stolen from them, certainly not by Democrats who "found" votes. They never would have had the perception that they "had" the election, so it couldn't have been stolen either. No one would have called for a war against "a Democratic election fraud apparatus". We would have been in the transition period. Probably, Trump would have forced a few issues while he still could.

The fact that the election actually was closer than it initially seemed would be good for the history books only.

Rik

[jandrew]

A bad winner ?
A worse loser ??

Better start counting the bathroom fittings and lamps

[Cyberyeti]

jandrew, on 2020-November-07, 06:22, said:

A bad winner ?
A worse loser ??

Better start counting the bathroom fittings and lamps

And the nuclear codes ?

[PeterAlan]

Trinidad, on 2020-November-07, 05:20, said:

[T]he perception would have been entirely different if mail-in ballots would have been counted when they came in:
On Tuesday evening, the map of almost the entire USA would have looked blue. During the night Ohio and Iowa, and later Texas and Florida, would have turned red. Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania would have been blue all the way. On Wednesday morning it would have been clear that Pennsylvania goes to Biden, and the election is decided. At about the same time, they would have finished counting in Georgia, giving it to Biden too. They would have announced a recount in Georgia, on principal grounds, but it would have been moot. At that time, North-Carolina would start to shift red.

Biden would have been ahead of the race all the time. Trump would have played catch-up but would simply run out of time. Apart from the Georgia recount, the result would have been clear on Wednesday. This would have saved me my finger nails, but that is not important.

What is important is that Trumpers would not have been able to say that the election was stolen from them, certainly not by Democrats who "found" votes. They never would have had the perception that they "had" the election, so it couldn't have been stolen either. No one would have called for a war against "a Democratic election fraud apparatus". We would have been in the transition period.

Rik

You might think that this has been part of the Trumpian playbook since the Republican legislatures of Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania ensured that the counting of their mail-in ballots could not start before election day. I couldn't possibly comment.

[kenberg]

We are in a tough spot, but not hopeless.
Ballots will be counted, some will be recounted, there will some huffing and puffing, but now it appears that come January we will have Biden taking office. That's not certain, and Biden is correctly counseling patience and restraint, but it seems to be the way to bet it.
Then what?

I mentioned that Becky was walking with a friend who said that the economy had been good but you can't spend money of you are dead so she voted for Biden. Yes. Covid and the economy, address that. Address it realistically.

I also suggest not much mentioning Trump. Many of us are very tired of hearing Trump, Trump and more Trump. We look forward to not hearing from him or of him.. Of course we still will, but the less the better. Biden needs to speak about Biden's plans for the future, we are all more than aware of the recent past.

And then we need to reconcile, to whatever extent we can. That requires something from everyone. I have mentioned before that when I was 14 the minister of my church took me aside to tell me that I had to get my parents to come to church more often so that they would not burn in the fires of hell. Ok, he probably said what he believed to be true, but it can hardly be a surprise that the result was not that my parents started coming to church but rather that I stopped. We really need to be a little cautious about condemnation.

There is a lot to be done and we need to get together on some of it. Not possible? Well, that would really be too bad.

[y66]

What is the thinking in the walking group regarding future fiscal policy? I hope they are demanding more fiscal stimulus to keep the economy going as their fellow walkers Jay Powell at the US Federal Reserve and Christine Lagarde at the European Central Bank are doing.

[PassedOut]

Pennsylvania called for Biden by the media. Good to know, and a big relief of tension.

[shyams]

[cynic mode]
I guess it is time now for the Supreme Court of the USA to step up and declare PA elections null & void.
After all, the election officials disobeyed a Court order on Republican observers, thereby permitting Biden supporting staff in the counting centres to stuff the ballots for Biden.
[/cynic]

Whew! Finally, there is clarity on the results. Hopefully, this remains final and the moron in the White House doesn't succeed in starting a full-scale civil war.

It is unfortunate that the Senate appears to have remained in GOP control though.

[kenberg]

y66, on 2020-November-07, 10:25, said:

What is the thinking in the walking group regarding future fiscal policy? I hope they are demanding more fiscal stimulus to keep the economy going as their fellow walkers Jay Powell at the US Federal Reserve and Christine Lagarde at the European Central Bank are doing.

I just asked Becky "What is the thinking in the walking group regarding future fiscal policy?" When she finished laughing I asked her if she wished to make a further comment and she said no.

[y66]

From Sam Stein at HuffPo (2012):

Quote

WASHINGTON — As policy pursuits go, none has had more consequence for the Obama administration than the stimulus: Not only did the American Recovery Act determine the size and scope of the economic mending, it established the ideological battle lines across which many of the subsequent legislative battles were waged inside the White House.

There has been no shortage of literature to dissect how President Obama handled the stimulus debate. But a new book by Noam Scheiber of The New Republic, “The Escape Artists,” sheds new light on the matter.

As Scheiber writes, members of the president’s economic team felt that if they were to properly fill the hole caused by the recession, they would need a bill that priced at $1.8 trillion — $600 billion more than was previously believed to be the high-water mark for the White House.

The $1.8 trillion figure was included in a December 2008 memo authored by Christina Romer (the incoming head of the Council of Economic Advisers) and obtained by Scheiber in the course of researching his book.

“When Romer showed [Larry] Summers her $1.8 trillion figure late in the week before the memo was due, he dismissed it as impractical. So Romer spent the next few days coming up with a reasonable compromise: roughly $1.2 trillion,” Scheiber writes.

As has now become the stuff of Obama administration lore, when the final document was ultimately laid out for the president, even the $1.2 trillion figure wasn’t included. Summers thought it was still politically impractical. Moreover, if Obama had proposed $1.2 trillion but only obtained $800 billion, it would have been categorized as a failure.

“He had a view that you don’t ever want to be seen as losing,” a Summers colleague told Scheiber.

“The Escape Artists” is a richly reported look at how continuous efforts on the part of Obama and his top aides to avoid being “seen as losing” resulted in precisely such losses. Culled from interviews with more than 250 people (many of whom were interviewed on multiple occasions) the book is, as its subtitle states, an examination of “how Obama’s team fumbled the recovery.” It’s an indictment that Scheiber, at times, extends to the president’s political and communications teams, whom he depicts as continuously operating off of different assumptions and playbooks.

Chief among the examples of the administration’s failures is the stimulus itself. When Summers made the final presentation to the president’s then-chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, Scheiber writes, “It reflected what he deemed the best course that was politically feasible ... Yet because Emanuel and the president assumed Summers was largely giving them [economic advice], they believed they were closer to the ideal than they actually were.”

If that had been the only misstep, things might have gone more smoothly. But the White House also overestimated the support it had on the Hill. Two administration aides told Scheiber that they thought they could pick 8 to 10, or even up to 15, Republican votes in the Senate. They would end up with three, but not before trading away good policy to win that support and the support of moderate Democrats.

The internal disputes that plagued the Obama administration’s economic team during its first years in office were, in the end, more consequential than the ineptitude at vote counting.

Interestingly, Obama's head of OMB, Peter Orzag, who did not agree with Romer, felt strongly that her position should have been communicated in the memo that went to Obama. Also interesting that Summers is now firmly in the camp that is demanding more fiscal stimulus. Too bad he didn't listen to Romer. If not for his timidity, and Obama's, the economy would have bounced back sooner, Clinton would have won handily in 2016 and this thread would not exist.

[y66]

Jesse Wegman at NYT Editorial Board said:

Almost exactly four years ago, a small group of us on the editorial board sat huddled around a laptop in a corner office on the 13th floor of the New York Times building in Manhattan. Like most of the rest of the country, we were in shock. It was around 11:30 p.m., and the early returns that had at first appeared to be an anomaly — Donald Trump doing far better in the rural areas of Florida than the polling had suggested he would — were repeating in North Carolina and Ohio, across Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

His margins of victory were paper-thin, but they were real. A former casino owner and reality-TV star who insulted everyone from military families to people with disabilities, who refused to release his taxes and stood accused of sexual assault by dozens of women, who knew nothing and cared even less about governance or international relations, was about to become the 45th president of the United States.

We opened the next day’s editorial with three words: “President Donald Trump.” It still seemed so implausible — that title for that man — that we had to put the words on paper to remind ourselves it was real.

Four years later, we can at last put another name after that title. President Joe Biden.

The former vice president, along with his running mate, Senator Kamala Harris, made their own kind of history during a year in which the unprecedented seems to happen nearly every day.

Biden will be the oldest person ever to assume the presidency. Harris will be the first Black woman vice president — and the first woman to be a step from the presidency, period.

In the highest-turnout election in more than a century, and in the face of a devastating viral pandemic, Biden and Harris earned the support of an absolute majority of American voters — a remarkable feat, especially against an incumbent whose vote totals, if not his approval ratings, actually grew compared to 2016.

But unlike Trump, who lost the popular vote that year by nearly 3 million ballots, Biden is expected to win it by 6 to 7 million. He will finish with close to 80 million votes. And assuming current leads hold up, he will have won support in all parts of the country — from the northeast to the southeast, from the upper midwest to the Sun Belt to the entire west coast.

That is a decisive, resounding victory, and it’s worth taking time to celebrate it.

We’ve made the case in these pages for why Biden will be a very good president. As he assumes power, we will continue to hold him to his promises, and demand that he do all he can to help the American people emerge from this awful pandemic, and begin to repair the monumental damage his predecessor inflicted on the office, on the federal government, and on American society.

Speaking of that damage, there is a dark undercurrent to Biden’s win. As we write in today’s editorial, “Trump’s message of fear and resentment resonated with tens of millions of Americans. Trumpism will not magically disappear. If anything, its adherents will very likely find renewed energy and purpose in marshaling a new resistance movement committed to undermining and delegitimizing the incoming administration.”

It’s already begun. Trump is doing exactly as he has threatened to for months, spouting lies and conspiracy theories about rampant corruption and voter fraud — only, of course, in the places where he’s losing. Republican lawmakers who should know better, like Senators Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham, and House minority leader Kevin McCarthy, are parroting the president’s lies, showing Americans once again who they really are.

With his colossal ignorance and all-consuming narcissism, Trump has always posed a threat to the country, but perhaps never as much as he does in this moment — defeated, angry and with nothing left to lose.

We will be watching closely. You should be, too. The last four years have been a long, intense and often painful test of America’s professed values and its system of government. The next two months will be an even greater test. Assuming we get through it, that is when, as we write, “the real work begins.”

[y66]

NYT Editorial Board said:

Having peered into the abyss of autocratic nationalism, the American people have chosen to step back from the brink. The ballot counting will continue for a few days yet, but the math is what it is: Joe Biden will have the 270 electoral votes needed to win the White House, and likely many more. President Trump’s four-year assault on our democratic institutions and values will soon end.

The contest generated intense passions. In a year marked by the incalculable loss of life and the economic devastation of a pandemic, Americans turned out to vote in numbers not seen for generations, starting weeks before Election Day. Mr. Trump still knows how to draw a crowd — albeit not always to his advantage. In the end, it was Mr. Biden who captured more votes than any presidential candidate in U.S. history, while Mr. Trump captured the second-most votes in U.S. history.

The tally comes with disappointment on both sides: for Biden supporters, who hoped for a more resounding repudiation of Trumpism and for a Senate ready to enact their agenda, and for Trump supporters, who hoped for another four years and to chasten their critics. Fortunately for America, Mr. Biden promises to be a president for both sides — a welcome shift from a leader who has spent his tenure dividing the electorate into perceived fans and enemies.

While the coming weeks will most likely bring unexpected moves and more dangerous disinformation from Mr. Trump, it is worth taking this moment to raise a glass and breathe a sigh of relief. America gives its citizenry the ultimate responsibility for holding leaders accountable, for deciding what kind of nation this will be. The broad endorsement of Mr. Biden’s message of unity and healing is cause for celebration. Americans have embraced that optimism and Mr. Biden as their next president.

Now the real work begins.

Come January, Mr. Biden will take office facing a jumble of crises. His predecessor is leaving America weaker, meaner, poorer, sicker and more divided than four years ago. Recent events have laid bare, and often exacerbated, many of the nation’s pre-existing conditions: from the inadequacy of our health care system to the cruelty of our immigration policies, from entrenched racial inequities to the vulnerabilities of our electoral system. Mr. Biden has pledged himself to big thinking and bold action in tackling these challenges.

The electoral map suggests recovery will be neither quick nor easy. It is not yet clear what the precise composition of the Senate will be, but Republicans may hold the chamber. The government, like the nation, would remain divided.

Mr. Biden has made clear he wants to work across the aisle. That is his nature and his political brand. But today’s political climate is not the same as it was 50, or even five, years ago. Even as he seeks consensus, the new president must be prepared to fight for his priorities. Now is no time for timidity.

The American public should be prepared to do its part. People of good will and democratic ideals must not lose interest simply because Mr. Trump leaves center stage. They need to remain engaged in the political process and demand better from their leaders if any progress is to be made.

Mr. Trump’s message of fear and resentment resonated with tens of millions of Americans. Trumpism will not magically disappear. If anything, its adherents will very likely find renewed energy and purpose in marshaling a new resistance movement committed to undermining and delegitimizing the incoming administration.

Republicans will have to decide whether they will continue to wallow in political nihilism, or rise to meet the challenges of the moment. How Republicans respond to this loss, whether they seek to stoke or to cool partisan passions, will help determine the nation’s — and their party’s — path forward.

With the perspective of time, the Trump era is likely to be viewed as an extended stress test for the American experiment. The president did his best to undermine the nation’s democratic foundations. They were shaken, but they did not break. Mr. Trump exposed their vulnerabilities but also their strength. It now falls to Mr. Biden to improve and safeguard those foundations, to help restore faith in our democracy and ourselves — to make America greater than ever before.

[Winstonm]

y66, on 2020-November-07, 11:49, said:

From Sam Stein at HuffPo (2012):


Interestingly, Obama's head of OMB, Peter Orzag, who did not agree with Romer, felt strongly that her position should have been communicated in the memo that went to Obama. Also interesting that Summers is now firmly in the camp that is demanding more fiscal stimulus. Too bad he didn't listen to Romer. If not for his timidity, and Obama's, the economy would have bounced back sooner, Clinton would have won handily in 2016 and this thread would not exist.

Or they could have just listened to Paul Krugman - sorry Ken!

[Winstonm]

For those of us old enough to remember: From Dana Milbank, the WaPo:

Quote

Our long national nightmare is over.

Donald Trump has lost the presidency. Americans have sent packing the man who made the lives of so many a hell for the past four years with constant chaos, unbridled vitriol and attacks on the foundations of democracy. There may be difficulty in the days ahead because of (gratuitous) court challenges and (baseless) claims of fraud. The rage he has induced in supporters and opponents alike will take time to dissipate. But for a moment, let us rejoice: Our democracy has survived.