So is this going to be Bush v Gore on steroids?

[Big_mike]

I was thinking about the similarities last night in that we had a queer vice president from the previous admin running in the mid term against an incumbent embroiled in media hyped controversy.

All of the media signalling so far seems to be in preparation to contest the results and across most of the same spectrum.

I think the left has much more momentum than they during that fiasco.

I expect we'll see a similar but more exaggerated and malicious challenge of the tally this go around.

[tector]

Similar, but across several states, probably including Florida. It is going to be ugly.

[tcpip95]

I honestly don't think so.

I think the whole show is going to be called in Trump's favor before midnight. Too many people fed up with the BLM and ANTIFA rioting bullshit. When it gets down to nut cuttin' time, people are going to vote AGAINST Biden (not necessarily FOR Trump).

[REDinFL]

Notice how they are "hiding" AOC and Beto? I think the "big boys in the back room" have realized the public isn't accepting of their nonsense, either.

[tector]

I think the whole show is going to be called in Trump's favor before midnight.

I think even Trump has disdained this scenario--too many mail in ballots. Some states cannot even begin to count those until after the polls close. Other states allow ballots postmarked up tp election day.

[MiamiOffshore]

It's going to be VERY interesting how it all plays out.

Watch out for the end run of Speaker Pelosi becoming President should no clear winner be evident by certain Constitutionally mandated dates...

[tcpip95]

Watch out for the end run of Speaker Pelosi becoming President should no clear winner be evident by certain Constitutionally mandated dates...

I've seen this posted a number of times on various forums, but I can't find a source reference to where it states that is the law. Not confrontational at all here, but can you point me to where that is stated in the law?

12th Amendment won't apply in this case as it's simply going to be between Biden and Trump. 3rd party won't win a single delegate. In the end, it's going to end up either/or, and it'll end up in SCOTUS and resolved before the 20th.
20th Amendment and 25th Amendment require president to either die or be removed from office. Neither of these will be applicable, as the VP will become the president.

If it got down to that shit show scenario, technically Pelosi's term would be up on Jan 3rd - which is before Trump's term would be up.

Trump is going to win this walking away.

[MiamiOffshore]

The Electoral Count Act says States must choose electors no more than 41 days after the election. If enough States have contested elections and can't certify enough Electoral votes in either direction, the 12 Amendment directs the House to vote on a President. Yes Pelosi's term ends Jan. 3. But if the Dems hold the House (very likely) they then as could re-elect her as Speaker or even vote her on to White house.
It's very muddy waters for it to get to that point. But it IS how Thomas Jefferson became President IIRC.

[tcpip95]

But it IS how Thomas Jefferson became President IIRC.

Wow! I didn't know that. You are indeed correct.

In the 1800 presidential election, Jefferson contended once more against Federalist John Adams. Adams's campaign was weakened by unpopular taxes and vicious Federalist infighting over his actions in the Quasi-War.[137] Republicans pointed to the Alien and Sedition Acts and accused the Federalists of being secret monarchists, while Federalists charged that Jefferson was a godless libertine in thrall to the French.[138] Historian Joyce Appleby said the election was "one of the most acrimonious in the annals of American history".[139]

Republicans ultimately won more electoral college votes, but Jefferson and his vice-presidential candidate Aaron Burr unexpectedly received an equal total. Due to the tie, the election was decided by the Federalist-dominated House of Representatives.[140][j] Hamilton lobbied Federalist representatives on Jefferson's behalf, believing him a lesser political evil than Burr. On February 17, 1801, after thirty-six ballots, the House elected Jefferson president and Burr vice president.[141]

[Big_mike]

Teeing things up for voter fraud?

So I'm guessing that mail in votes will be the hanging chads this go around.

https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election ... -postmark/

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled Thursday that ballots received three days after Election Day will still be counted — even if there is no evidence they were postmarked on time.

Democrats scored two judicial victories in Pennsylvania on Thursday, when the court kicked the Green Party presidential candidate off the ballot, and ruled that mailed-in ballots could still be counted util 5:00 p.m. ET on the third day after Election Day, as long as they were postmarked by 8:00 p.m ET that day.

The court added: that “ballots received within this period” — i.e. between November 3 and 6 –“that lack a postmark or other proof of mailing, or for which the postmark or other proof of mailing is illegible, will be presumed to have been mailed by Election Day unless a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it was mailed after Election Day.”

In a footnote, the court explains its reasoning, saying that disqualifying a ballot without a postmark would “disenfranchise a voter based upon the absence or illegibility of a USPS postmark that is beyond the control of the voter once she places her ballot in the USPS delivery system.”

Democrats lost on other issues in the case, known as PA Dem Party. v. Boockvar.

The three-day extension is less, for example, than the seven-day extension Democrats had originally sought. Though the court argued, controversially, that it had the authority, under “extraordinary jurisdiction” due to the coronavirus pandemic, which had the character of a “natural disaster,” to extend the deadline past the statutory date, it did not grant a full week.

The court also rejected a demand that county election boards be required to contact voters to inform them of an “incomplete or incorrectly completed ballot,” since there was “no constitutional or statutory basis” for the demand.

And the the court rejected a demand that mailed-in ballots that arrived “naked” — without an envelope to guarantee secrecy — be counted: “Upon careful examination of the statutory text, we conclude that the Legislature intended for the secrecy envelope provision to be mandatory.”

However, Democrats persuaded the court to allow county election boards to designate alternative locations for mail-in ballots to be hand-delivered including “drop-boxes.” And they persuaded the court to uphold a legal requirement that poll-watchers be residents of the country where they were observing the vote.

In a similar case decided Thursday, Crossey v. Boockvar, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected a demand that county election boards allow third parties to deliver ballots for other people — the controversial practice known as “ballot harvesting.” The practice is illegal almost everywhere except California, and the court noted that it is still illegal in Pennsylvania, too.

Other developments were more advantageous to Democrats. Pennsylvania Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar (D) agreed to a demand by several litigants — including the League of Women Voters (LWV) and the Urban League of Greater Pittsburgh — that county officials not inspect the signatures on mail-in ballots to match them with the signatures on file.

That policy change, which ended the court cases involved, has been denounced by Republicans as creating opportunities for fraud.