Salem Political Snark

On election eve, thank you, local candidates

I've dusted off a blog post from May 2016. Changed the election day to what it is in 2020, November 3. Made it fit with a general election, rather than a primary election.

Otherwise, left it much the same, because what I said back then on election day eve is what I also want to say today, with the election tomorrow. Thank you, candidates. 

I offer a heartfelt Namas'cray to all of the local people running in races that will be decided in tomorrow's 2020 general election.

Thank you for being crazy enough to put in so much time, effort, and money seeking an office that requires a hell of a lot of work, often offers little pay, and puts you in the firing line for constant criticism. 

Some of you, I heartily disagree with politically. Some of you, we're political bed-fellows. Doesn't matter. I honor your craziness, your fine madness.

Politics really is a crazy sport.

I could have said "cruelest sport," because there's also that side to politics. Putting up with the craziness/cruelty is admirable on any level of elective office-seeking, but it really deserves accolades on a local and state level.

Like I said, often not much pay, long hours, lots of aggravation. 

Of course, just about everybody happily volunteers to do things that are somewhat similar. Such as, competing in various kinds of sports.

In many ways, politics is a sport. But here's why I consider running for political office is a super-crazy sport. 

The "season" is one game. In golf, tennis, basketball, football, or whatever, losing or winning is temporary. Almost always another game is coming up soon. Next time... we'll learn from this loss... coming up with a better game plan. In politics, though, it's two or four years before another chance. And maybe never. 

In Oregon, the "final score" pops up abruptly. I really feel for candidates on election night, November 3. Since we have vote by mail, ballots are tabulated quickly on election day. Often, if not usually, results are available online shortly after 8 pm that stand up. Meaning, the winner is known. It's akin to playing a game hard for months, but not knowing if you're winning or losing. Then, when you're exhausted, the final score pops up. In many other states, returns dribble in, so you have time to adjust to the outcome. In Oregon, it's pretty much Instant Joy or Sorrow.

Rules are loose. Trick plays abound. All sports have rules. So does politics. However, the political game is played pretty fast and loose. Even more so than in football, say, where arguably holding or pass interference could be called on almost every play, if the referees were sticklers. So feelings get hurt. Sort of like when a team goes for a touchdown in the last 30 seconds even though it is ahead 48-0. Hey, you're supposed to take a knee! But the rules allow it.

The stakes are large. So is disappointment. Candidates for political office, especially in local races, run because they care about their community. When they lose, it must feel like more than a personal loss. Wanting to do something positive for their fellow citizens, they've failed. (Well, the way I see it, actually they've won, no matter the outcome, because running for office is such a positive thing to do; but I'm sure it hurts a lot to come up short at the ballot box.)

There's more crazy aspects to the sport of politics, but I'll stop here. With a final thank-you to the candidates, and a hope for the political scene in Salem, Oregon, and the United States.

Let's remember that politics is a game, albeit a serious and important one. Both teams going out together after a game for beers, pizza, and some laughs is a big part of many amateur sports. There's no reason politics can't be somewhat the same. 

Fight. Battle. Scream. Yell. Push. Argue. Leave it all on the field. 

Then, when the match is over, do our best to remember that the Bigger Game is life itself -- way beyond politics. 

Trump is out to steal the election, but he will fail

Next week, I hope and expect, Donald Trump will become a one-term president.

Given how outrageously authoritarian Trump has been since he was inaugurated in January 2017, it's fitting -- though disturbing -- that currently he is trying to steal the election in a way that might work if he was the strongman of, say, Russia, but will fail big-time in our still democratic United States.

Trump's scheme is described in an Axios piece today, "Trump's plan to declare premature victory."

President Trump has told confidants he'll declare victory on Tuesday night if it looks like he's "ahead," according to three sources familiar with his private comments. That's even if the Electoral College outcome still hinges on large numbers of uncounted votes in key states like Pennsylvania.

...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.

...Many prognosticators say that on election night, Trump will likely appear ahead in Pennsylvania — though the state's final outcome could change substantially as mail-in ballots are counted over the following days.

Trump's team is preparing to claim baselessly that if that process changes the outcome in Pennsylvania from the picture on election night, then Democrats would have "stolen" the election.

...Reality check: Mail-in ballots counted after Election Day as set forth in state-by-state rules are as legitimate as in-person votes recorded on Nov. 3.

Well, duh, of course ballots counted after November 3 are as legitimate as ballots counted on election day. Even here in Oregon, where election officials can tally (but not report) ballots prior to the 8 pm election day deadline, changes to the election night count occur for several days afterward.

No other presidential candidate, I'm quite sure, ever has threatened to claim that they've won the election based on election night returns. That's so out of touch with reality, only someone with a shaky grasp of fundamental election facts would say that.

Or, a wanna-be dictator who has the fantasy that he can somehow steal the election by stopping the counting of ballots in one or more states just because he says, "I've won. Stop counting!" 

A Slate piece, "Trump Can't Just 'Declare Victory'" debunks this authoritarian fantasy.

While there has been some dispute about whether state courts such as Pennsylvania’s and Minnesota’s had authority to extend the deadline for receipt of mail ballots that arrive after Election Day (a practice allowed in a fair number of states), there has never been any basis to claim that a ballot arriving on time cannot be counted if officials cannot finish their count on election night.

Indeed, such a claim is preposterous because no state fully counts their ballots on election night. Returns are unofficial and always contain errors. Many states allow military ballots to arrive for days after Election Day. Counting generally continues for days and weeks after Election Day, and results are not certified until weeks after.

When it comes to the president, the presidential electors do not cast their official ballots until Dec. 14, and Congress does not count their votes until Jan. 6. This calendar leaves plenty of time to get the counting done.

That’s what makes the Trump campaign efforts to cast doubts on even the counting of ballots after Election Day, even of military ballots, so unprecedented.

A FiveThirtyEight podcast headline makes the same point in a mere 21 words.

CNN's Jake Tapper weights in on this via Twitter.

But Greg Sargent of the Washington Post delves deeper into what the Republican scheme appears to be. This seems like a decidedly weak legal strategy, but it makes more sense than Trump simply declaring that he has won and ballot counting needs to stop.

However, it's hard to see how a court could justify stopping the counting of legitimate ballots while a claim that illegitimate ballots have been cast is being investigated. Assuming there is any basis for an investigation, which probably there wouldn't be.

So I'd place the odds of Trump being able to steal the election at just 1% or so.

This would require a very close election in which a single state such as Pennsylvania determined whether Biden or Trump gets to 270 electoral votes. Then there would have to be a basis for challenging the results of that close election that would hold up in court. 

It's very unlikely, but not impossible, that both of those things will happen. That's why I'm looking forward to Joe Biden becoming the next President of the United States.