Axios: Trump's plan to declare premature victory

[Rexedgar]

They are already throwing out votes - was it 100K in Texas?

Texas Supreme Ct ruled against the attempt. I’m sure the justices were thrilled to come in on a Sunday!

 

[Helix]

I'm waiting for the Grand Old Party to try to get votes thrown out in heavily Republican counties.

You'll be waiting a while.

 

[Helix]

The TX Supreme Court ruled that drive up is ok. I'm sure the GOP will appeal to the federal courts.

They do like to suppress the vote.

 

[CaughtInThe]

It's not like Donald Trump lied about things. Like his affairs or his wealth or his taxes or a healthcare plan or COVID.

 

[What if...?]

Can't believe all these paranoid anti-Trumpers. He's not going to need to steal an election he wins in a landslide. But keep telling your Halloween Trump monster stories.

I'm not sure where you're seeing the votes still undecided to amount to a landslide.

Not all republicans voted for trump. I'm sure some independents are over him, and some are actual progressives.

And I'm not sure the American people will accept a soft coup right out in the open.

 

[chuckiechan]

Axios: Trump's plan to declare premature victory

Trump has privately talked through this scenario in some detail in the last few weeks, describing plans to walk up to a podium on election night and declare he has won.
======
He plans to declare victory before the vote tally is made — even while key states haven’t counted a majority of the ballots.

In a normal world this would be shocking.

The old “has told confidants” line... from Axios, no less... run by “Politico staffers Jim VandeHei, Mike Allen, and Roy Schwartz”...

I find the suggestion appealing, not necessary, but harmless. If Biden can make personal deals with China, Trump can surely break protocol.

 

[Tbird19482]

I'm waiting for the Grand Old Party to try to get votes thrown out in heavily Republican counties.

Well Hell hasn't frozen over yet, or not at least that I know of
Have a nice afternoon

 

[Rexedgar]

The Trump campaign cannot be confident in Texas if they are looking to invalidate over 100K ballots.........

 

[calamity]

Axios: Trump's plan to declare premature victory

Trump has privately talked through this scenario in some detail in the last few weeks, describing plans to walk up to a podium on election night and declare he has won.
======
He plans to declare victory before the vote tally is made — even while key states haven’t counted a majority of the ballots.

In a normal world this would be shocking.

Oh man, I didn't see this thread. I just posted a copycat.

 

[Bullseye]

Axios: Trump's plan to declare premature victory

Trump has privately talked through this scenario in some detail in the last few weeks, describing plans to walk up to a podium on election night and declare he has won.
======
He plans to declare victory before the vote tally is made — even while key states haven’t counted a majority of the ballots.

In a normal world this would be shocking.

It's AXIOS.

 

[911Sparky]

I was thinking the same thing, if this gets to the SC it's over...

I may be naïve, but I refuse to believe even a conservative supreme court would overturn a valid presidential election without just cause. They will need a reason to declare the election invalid, and at least two of his appointed justices have ruled against him on other matters, they are after all judges first, conservative second. If they ruled for Trump using some preposterous reasoning the high court would lose all credibility.

 

[SoCal]

I may be naïve, but I refuse to believe even a conservative supreme court would overturn a valid presidential election without just cause. They will need a reason to declare the election invalid, and at least two of his appointed justices have ruled against him on other matters, they are after all judges first, conservative second. If they ruled for Trump using some preposterous reasoning the high court would lose all credibility.

There used to be enough members who acted impartially, before the two-faced Repubs installed Amy Coney Barrett. Between her, Thomas and Kavanaugh I wouldn't count on fair rulings until the Democrats add some Justices. Repub and conservatives on the SC and everywhere else don't give a rats ass about credibility...

"...As a Supreme Court justice, Kavanaugh certainly knows to choose his words carefully. Yet, he writes that "If the apparent winner the morning after the election ends up losing due to late-arriving ballots, charges of a rigged election could explode," provocatively using a phrase recently used by Trump himself to incite fear of election fraud. Given the possibility for civic unrest, Kavanaugh's language here is wildly irresponsible...."

 

[MTAtech]

I may be naïve, but I refuse to believe even a conservative supreme court would overturn a valid presidential election without just cause. They will need a reason to declare the election invalid, and at least two of his appointed justices have ruled against him on other matters, they are after all judges first, conservative second. If they ruled for Trump using some preposterous reasoning the high court would lose all credibility.

They'll make up one, just like they did in 2000 to stop the counting of votes that didn't need stopping.