How Trump Could Lose the Election--And Still Remain President

[superpatriotman]

A terrifying possibility posited by Timothy E. Wirth and Tom Rogers for Newsweek

https://www.newsweek.com/how-trump-could-lose-election-still-remain-president-opinion-1513975

•Biden wins the popular vote, and carries the key swing states of Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania by decent but not overwhelming margins.
•Trump immediately declares that the voting was rigged, that there was mail-in ballot fraud and that the Chinese were behind a plan to provide fraudulent mail-in ballots and other "election hacking" throughout the four key swing states that gave Biden his victory.
•Having railed against the Chinese throughout the campaign, calling Biden "soft on China," Trump delivers his narrative claiming the Chinese have interfered in the U.S. election.
•Trump indicates this is a major national security issue, and he invokes emergency powers, directing the Justice Department to investigate the alleged activity in the swing states. The legal justification for the presidential powers he invokes has already been developed and issued by Barr.
•The investigation is intended to tick down the clock toward December 14, the deadline when each state's Electoral College electors must be appointed. This is the very issue that the Supreme Court harped on in Bush v. Gore in ruling that the election process had to be brought to a close, thus forbidding the further counting of Florida ballots.
•All four swing states have Republican control of both their upper and lower houses of their state legislatures. Those state legislatures refuse to allow any Electoral College slate to be certified until the "national security" investigation is complete.
•The Democrats will have begun a legal action to certify the results in those four states, and the appointment of the Biden slate of electors, arguing that Trump has manufactured a national security emergency in order to create the ensuing chaos.
•The issue goes up to the Supreme Court, which unlike the 2000 election does not decide the election in favor of the Republicans. However, it indicates again that the December 14 Electoral College deadline must be met; that the president's national security powers legally authorize him to investigate potential foreign country intrusion into the national election; and if no Electoral College slate can be certified by any state by December 14, the Electoral College must meet anyway and cast its votes.
•The Electoral College meets, and without the electors from those four states being represented, neither Biden nor Trump has sufficient votes to get an Electoral College majority.
•The election is thrown into the House of Representatives, pursuant to the Constitution. Under the relevant constitutional process, the vote in the House is by state delegation, where each delegation casts one vote, which is determined by the majority of the representatives in that state.
Currently, there are 26 states that have a majority Republican House delegation. 23 states have a majority Democratic delegation. There is one state, Pennsylvania, that has an evenly split delegation. Even if the Democrats were to pick up seats in Pennsylvania and hold all their 2018 House gains, the Republicans would have a 26 to 24 delegation majority.
•This vote would enable Trump to retain the presidency.

[LakeArenal]

1. Fear mongering speculation.

[superpatriotman]

3. Nope

I'll let a former U.S. Senator (Wirth) and the founder of MSNBC and CNBC (Rogers) make the argument:

We cannot let ourselves believe that this is a far-fetched scenario. We have just seen Trump threaten to invoke emergency powers under the Insurrection Act of 1807 to call up the U.S. military against domestic protesters. The remarkable apology by Joint Chiefs Chairman General Mark Milley, stating that it was wrong to create a perception that the military would get directly involved in a domestic political protest and intervene against American civilians, underscores the corrupt use of executive powers Trump is willing to employ. As Fareed Zakaria recently said in summing up the lessons of former national security adviser John Bolton's new book: "Donald Trump will pay any price, make any deal, bend any rule, to assure his own survival and success."

[LakeArenal]

5. I don't care if you get Obama to say it.

It’s speculation and fear mongering.

[Thekaspervote]

10. Agree.. I really wish posters would put their energy towards better use!

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

11. I also agree that it's speculative fear mongering.

Right up there with those who say Trump won't vacate the White House come January 20, 2021.

We've seen this nonsense before. In 2004 there were a surprising number of people here who were convinced Bush would cancel the election.

[HotTeaBag]

12. Thought the same thing about 2004.

Didn't happen - won't happen now.

Trump wants out of this job - he'll bitch and moan 'cause that's who he is, but he will be THE most excited person in the country when he loses.

[NYC Liberal]

39. I recently watched a clip on YouTube from the CBS election night coverage in 1980.

At one point the pundits were ominously discussing the possibility of the EV being very close and a faithless elector tipping the balance and what the ensuing Constitutional crisis would look like.

Reagan won 44 states that night.

This kind of speculation happens every election and it gets kind of old.

[DrToast]

42. Just because something COULD happen, doesn't mean it's worth thinking about

You know another way Donald Trump could win the Presidency? He could appeal to the Supreme Court that the Constitution says that the winner of West Virginia wins the Presidency. And the Supreme Court could say, “Yep, we agree that’s what the Constitution says.”

That could happen. Is it going to? Of course not.

[Me.]

7. Exactly

MSNBC, CNBC and I don't know how many threads here on DU. It serves no purpose to scare everyone out of their minds, telling them that once again they have no recourse or power. The only thing it does is depress the vote.

[LakeArenal]

9. Confidence does not mean, we won't vote

Joe Biden will win.

My speculation. Also, we will win the Senate.

[Fiendish Thingy]

2. If Biden wins FLA, NC and NH he gets 270

So disputing WI,PA, AZ and MI would be moot. Unless Trump will attempt to thwart the will of the people in 7+ states, in which case America will be in flames.

[marie999]

4. Read my post in OMG MSNBC is scaring the shit out of me.

Last edited Fri Jul 3, 2020, 02:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Is there a way that I can take a post and put it another post? It would save time. I am computer illiterate and would need directions.
My first copy and paste. Don't just read The Constitution. Also read "Library of Congress Research Service Memorandum Overview of Electoral College Procedure and the Role of Congress November 17, 2000" and "Taegan Goddard's Electoral Vote Map How Are Electors Chosen". Also, the House can elect the president but the only way it can happen is if no one receives a majority of electoral college votes. But they have to choose from the 3 people who get the most electoral votes, and in this scenario, the electoral votes aren't counted so they can not vote for President and the Senate can not vote for vice-president so The Speaker of the House becomes president at noon on January 20, 2021.

[LakeArenal]

6. No need to instill your fear in others.

[marie999]

16. My post shows that this scenario won't work.

If the Electoral College votes are not counted and certified there isn't any way for Congress to elect the president and vice-president.

[LakeArenal]

18. Lay your finger on the top address of your link.

It should say “copy”. Hit copy.
Paste in your message text.

[marie999]

19. Thank you. n/t

[marie999]

21. It worked!

[LakeArenal]

24. No problem. I was once there.

[mzmolly]

8. He'll need more

than a bunker if he pulls that shit.

[NurseJackie]

13. This serves no good purpose. Negativity generates apathy. Apathy discourages voter turnout.

Negativity generates apathy. Apathy discourages voter turnout. Low voter turnout gives Republicans a chance to steal the elections.

[wryter2000]

14. Don't think Roberts would go along with this

Remember, the Court said that Bush v. Gore would not be precedent for any future case. I'm pretty sure all four "liberal" justices and Roberts would find some way to give the election to the winner, Biden.

[Hoyt]

15. Just vote, with landslide as a goal. All the other concerns are not helpful.

[mcar]

17. If 4 states cannot participate in the Electoral College

doesn't the # of electoral votes required to win go down? I don't get why one couldnt have a majority.

[dansolo]

27. Yes it does

The winner is the candidate with the majority of certified electors. If states are contested and not certified, then the totals go down. The only time the House is involved is in the case of a tie.

[mcar]

28. Which renders this premise incorrect then

Thanks.

[Drunken Irishman]

33. It does but it indirectly validates another...

In this scenario, Trump can theoretically win Florida and Ohio, but lose the presidential election because of these four states.

If those four states, 57 electoral votes, are thrown out because they weren't certified, a majority now becomes something like 241.

In that scenario, with Florida, Trump has 249 electoral votes to Bidens's 232.

He would win a majority of the 481 electors who cast their ballot.

But even that seems implausible because it's worse than just letting the House vote, it's four states purposely holding up their electors to game the system to give it to Trump. That would not go over at all.

[mcar]

35. Interesting

I agree, though, it's implausible. Still, nothing would surprise with these crooks in office.

[LudwigPastorius]

29. There is precedent that the needed majority remains 270 despite fewer than...

538 electoral votes cast.

That happened in 1872.

[Drunken Irishman]

31. 14 electoral votes were invalidated in 1872 - so, only 177 votes were needed to win.

The precedent actually is the opposite. Originally, 184 electoral votes were needed to win but because 14 votes were invalidated, the majority changed to 177.

[LudwigPastorius]

34. Not according to the official transcript of the joint session of Congress:

https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=109/llcg109.db&recNum=636

Note this sentence: "The whole number of electors to vote for President and Vice President of the United States, as reported by the tellers, is 366, of which the majority is 184"

That is all of the state's electors, and that number is stated by the Vice President and entered in the voting log at the bottom of the page despite Congress not counting the votes of the electors from Louisiana and Arkansas.



"There being a non-concurrence of the two Houses on this question, the vote of Arkansas, in accordance with the provisions of the twenty-second joint rule, will not be counted." & "On this question there is a concurrence of the Houses; and the electoral votes of Louisiana will not be counted."

[Drunken Irishman]

36. 14 electors were thrown out. The majority changed. 177 were needed.

https://bethelsd.instructure.com/courses/3942/files/9616

https://www.270towin.com/1872_Election/interactive_map

The constitution is not ambiguous in this.

This what it says:

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.

https://votesmart.org/education/amendments#AmendmentXII

In this scenario, those electors are not appointed. They have been thrown out.

This is why every publication since shows Grant needing 177 to win.

[LudwigPastorius]

37. The Vice President, presiding over the count at the joint session, says,...

"The whole number of electors to vote for President and Vice President of the United States, as reported by the tellers, is 366, of which the majority is 184".

He doesn't say, "...the majority is 177 because we're throwing out Louisiana and Arkansas".

[Drunken Irishman]

41. This is wrong.

Those electors aren't appointed in this scenario because they were thrown out. That is either a recording error or it was something amended in the future because the constitution specifically states it's a majority of electors appointed. But in this example, the example we're talking about with Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, the electors would not be appointed because, in this scenario, the electors were NOT certified.

To quote the constitution:

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.

https://votesmart.org/education/amendments#AmendmentXII

If those states do not certify, they cannot appoint their electors to vote. Therefore, the majority would change.

It's why every modern story on that election references the 177 needed for a majority.

The precedence is clear: you will need a majority of electors voting. 270 is not a majority in this example as 57 electoral votes would not be voting.

That's all I am going to say on this. It's pretty clear what is and isn't the expectation.

[customerserviceguy]

20. Sounds like a plotline

from "House of Cards".

[BannonsLiver]

22. Jeez I've never heard this before!

[BGBD]

23. This stretches

the bounds to believability.

It would require a lot of elected and non elected officials to all conspire to usurp an election with no real evidence of wrongdoing. It would mean that people who likely have political aspirations go against the result of their own states vote and claim it was fraudulent. It would require for them to publicly claim that the election it was their job to protect was stolen and they are at fault. it would require them to be willing to start a civil war.

It's just not something likely to happen. Barr doesn't have the credibility to pull it off. The US intelligence and justice apparatus would revolt. They wouldn't go along with it. Neither would the Pentagon.

The public response would be huge. It would make the BLM protests look like a warmup.We would see an insurgency and states would declare succession and stop paying monies to the federal government. What do yo do then the west coast and New England stop participating in the Union? Rapid economic collapse.

Nobody is going to do that just to give Trump another term.

[roamer65]

40. Yes, separatist groups would form and referenda would be put forward for secession.

Primarily in CA, WA, OR, NY and the New England states first.

[DrToast]

44. Exactly!

[Vinca]

25. And there would be rioting in the streets.

[SiliconValley_Dem]

26. sounds like a conservative Trumper's fever dream

as they face the prospect of a humiliating landslide loss

[myohmy2]

30. when it comes to trump...

...I believe anything is possible...

...I'm still waiting for someone to effectively say 'no' to trump and make it stick...

...we should be prepared for everything imaginable...

[WyattKansas]

32. With Dumbass Donald continuously making everything much worse for the country...

And putting all Republicans in a very difficult position of keeping their lips locked onto the anus of Dumbass Donald.

How many elected Republicans actually cannot wait for Biden to beat Dumbass Donald?
Just look at all the established conservatives who have come out against Dumbass Donald and openly campaign for Biden?
And even though the trumpanzees don't show disloyalty among their Klan, they have to know that their lives are turning to shit rapidly with Dumbass Donald and nothing goes up forever, before it slams back into the ground.

At least with Biden, the establishment conservatives know that they will be treated fairly and can work with Biden for the actual good of the country, as opposed to Dumbass Donald who spews his bat shit loony self anointed Supreme Leader nonsense from the festering anus under his nose.

[roamer65]

38. Dipshit Donny would be the last president of a unified republic.

[struggle4progress]

43. Anybody who furthers such a scheme will spend all their remaining years waiting for a bullet

America is a country full of armed people, many of whom are not particularly calm when offended, and there will be enough folk who think it does the country a real service by taking down would-be fascists