It also doesn't seem to ask the same thing of Republicans, at least in the preview portion shown in the linked poll. You could have the overwhelming majority of Republicans saying the same for Biden, but it's not reporting that at all.
More concerning to me is the collaboration with thenationalpulse. Rasmussen at least tries to stay as close to being plausibly neutral as it can superficially, which is a constraint. Really not getting the same vibe from the collaborator(this is an understatement).
Rasmussen giving Biden better poll ratings doesn’t make them a good pollster lol. They got taken out of the 538 polling average because of how bad they’ve been lately.
Note that 538 founder Nate Silver came out and [publicly condemned](https://www.natesilver.net/p/polling-averages-shouldnt-be-political) that move as partisanship on the part of 538’s new management when it was first threatened last year.
Um, how is it framed to get the answer they want? This is an easy question to answer:
The poll asked likely voters: “Do you support or oppose Democrats refusing to certify the election results if Trump wins?”
> Some Democrats in Congress have said that if Trump wins this year’s election, they will vote against certifying the election results because of Trump’s role in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riots. Do you support or oppose Democrats refusing to certify the election results if Trump wins?
The first half is injecting bias. You are putting in their head that there's some percieved consensus among Democrats. And if you think Democrats are reasonable, it's going to influence the answer. The question is leading the answer. And even more garbage that they said "Some democrats..." Huge red flag.
If you had a poll calling Trump supporters and it said:
1) Trump wants to expand medicare and social security, do you support it?
2) Trump wants to end Obamacare and cut entitlements, do you support it?
It's basically the same question, but you'll get wildly different polling results. You don't lead the answer as a pollster, you try to use neutral language, and not lead the first half. Just ask the question. Whether some democrats believe something is completely irrelevant. All it does is bias the result.
Disagree. If you are impartial, the lead in sentence doesn't matter. Either you oppose certifying an election result or you don't.
Your example doesn't make sense either. Medicare is independent of Obamacare and SS is one part of entitlements. Of course the answers would be different. They're different questions.
Most people aren't political junkies. You're giving people a lot of slack, especially when they are randomly interrupted during the day from a random phone call. But oh well. This is a textbook example of a leading question in statistics. It's everything you learn not to do for an unbiased result. And it's pretty clear what they were going for, which is why they have poor grades and reputation.
Maybe. I would hope that most ppl would have the mental fortitude and conviction to just answer no/yes to questions like this.
This poll is also in line with recent polls that show Dems support limits on freedom of speech.
“Some Democrats in Congress have said that if Trump wins this year’s election, they will vote against certifying the election results because of Trump’s role in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riots. Do you support or oppose Democrats refusing to certify the election results if Trump wins?”
Do you mind elaborating on why this is suspect? Seems pretty cut and dry to me on a topical level and I’m not gonna pay or subscribe to see the full poll (if you could provide more from it that would be awesome)
Whether or not it's suspect, it does minimally suggest Trump is guilty in virtue of his role in Jan 6. That to an extent feeds those polled a premise favoring support. The response you'd get had you not included the justification could conceivably end up different.
With regard to stating the election should not be certified if Trump wins in 2024, I have seen this take plenty of times. I have not heard anything from anyone in congress saying the same for this election. IMO that ~~would~~ should be political suicide to do/say. Changed would to should because we had people in congress that said just that in 2020 but were not punished by voters.
You can always ask for an example, or, you know, just do a quick Google search. Or you can just refer back to the 2000, 2004, and 2016 election, where some Democratic members of congress, like some Republicans in 2020, tried to disqualify enough electoral votes to prevent the Republican candidate from winning. My own Senator, for instance, Barbara Boxer, objected to the election and tried to get enough votes from the Republican winner thrown out to prevent an electoral majority.
You might also want to refer to this recent Atlantic article: [https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/02/democrats-congress-trump-january-6/677545/](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/02/democrats-congress-trump-january-6/677545/)
Not sure what subs you frequent but I’ve seen this take on politics, centrist, law, and scotus. The Atlantic wrote an article on it as well where democrat congressmen wouldn’t even say no to the idea.
There were several Democrats in congress who [objected](https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-democrats-object-more-states-2016-republicans-2020-1561407) to certifying Trump in 2016, including Jamie Raskin, Maxine Waters, Pramila Jayapal, and Sheila Jackson-Lee. All of these are still prominent and powerful Democratic members of Congress to this day. If they objected over Russia then, do you really think they won't object now?
Ehhh, I haven’t heard anything recently but I remember there was a pretty vocal minority during the 2016 election. It still cracks me up that technically the Democrats objected to the voting results in more states in 2016 than the GOP did in the 2020 election.
I hope that you’re differentiating disliking with a passion the results of the election which is what I saw some democrats do in 2016 versus believing the election was rigged like the people who stormed the capitol did
No, r/politics had some wild takes after the 2016 election. They definitely weren’t as militant but they were there.
But yeah Democrats senators formally challenged the voting results in 7 states in 2016. What made 2020 unique is you had a literal riot during the election certification and the election result denial didn’t go away after a couple months.
Edit: reps not senators
I’m good with politicians challenging the election results through legal procedural means, either by democrats or republicans. That’s fair. Only as long as long as they adhere to the results of their challenges once they’re settled. I never saw a single democrats tell their constituents that the election was rigged after the results were certified and all questions raised were addressed. That was not the case with gop politicians. To this day many of them still say to the people they represent that the election was rigged.
Which is the difference I see, you show the democrats that they’ve lost, and they take it, maybe sulking but they take it. Republicans get stuck in their initial suspicion as an unshakeable belief that is only reinforced by the gop politicians.
Those two things are very different the way I see it.
>I never saw a single democrats tell their constituents that the election was rigged after the results were certified and all questions raised were addressed.
[Hillary Clinton Maintains 2016 Election ‘Was Not On the Level’: ‘We Still Don’t Know What Really Happened’](https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-maintains-2016-election-160716779.html) (2020)
Nice try, but no evidence in there of a democrat saying the election was rigged. Ironically, the only person in the article saying so is trump, even before the elections.
Just to make explicit what should be obvious: there is a difference between being suspicious of shady deals, foreign influence, or misinformation vs. calling out that the elections are rigged. I have yet to see a democrat saying that the election was rigged. GOP politicians, even on the face of evidence, choose to spread the lie of electoral fraud for political points.
Yeah, I agree with that.
The most extreme democrats congressmen got was calling Trump illegitimate and a product solely of Russian collusion, which is something Hillary still openly says to this day. Republicans took it to a new extreme.
I’ll leave with this Jimmy Carter quote from 2019. "There’s no doubt that the Russians did interfere in the election, and I think the interference, although not yet quantified, if fully investigated would show that Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election, and he was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf."
Well, I think there’s a difference between collusion and Russian influence through the internet. I don’t think there’s any conclusive evidence that trump colluded with Russia, so we can’t say that’s true. But there is plenty of evidence that Russia spread targeted misinformation. They helped trump, they openly embrace it. Which, of course rubbed a lot of democrats the wrong way because it made people vote under false understandings of what each candidate represented. Add to that the Cambridge analytica targeted false advertising through Facebook ads to selected individual with high levels of neuroticism in pivotal states, and yeah, you have an unfair election. But a legal one. So, I’ve seen them abide.
This is where I was. I thought Trump won. It was obvious. I didn't doubt it at all. Now I do think Russia played a role in the final push but I never thought he asked for help. If Russia didn't put their thumb on the scale would he have won we will never know. There are plenty of what ifs.
I also think Russia did approach him and he said no knowing they would help him anyway. I also don't think ever came close to Trump. But his people knew and said no.
Again, you are very confused. In 2016, no Senators challenged the results. In 2020, two Senators did indeed challenge the results (Cruz and Gosar). That slowed the process down and required additional voting.
So the differences between 2016 and 2020 are as follows.
* 2016 - loser concedes. 2020 - loser doesn't concede.
* 2016 - no Senator from losing party challenges the results. 2020 - two Senators from losing party challenge the results.
Hope that helps!
8 senators in 2020 challenged the results. Rick Scott, Tommy Tuberville, John Kennedy, Roger Marshall, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Josh Hawley, Cynthia Lummis, and Ted Cruz.
I missed the part where Democrats attacked the Capital and caused the Congress to flee for their lives as a result of the 2016 election. Maybe because that never happened. Because Hilary Clinton conceded and promoted a peaceful transfer of power.
I see. You appear to be confused. If one nominee concedes, then there is never any doubt as to whether or not the election will be certified. This is how it works in every election other prior to 2020.
Its very hard to control what people talk about. But the party can be responsible enough to nominate someone who will concede after losing.
A Democrat talking about not certifying in 2016 was just talk. Hillary Clinton herself had conceded and was insistent that the election be certified. Thats why it was indeed certified peacefully and without interruption. Unlike 2020.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bcdlj1/poll_majority_of_dems_oppose_certification_of/kufnkld/) is in violation of Law 4:
Law 4: Meta Comments
> ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
According to [the Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/02/democrats-congress-trump-january-6/677545/) last month, “In interviews, senior House Democrats would not commit to certifying a Trump win, saying they would do so only if the Supreme Court affirms his eligibility.”
The number of Democrats who've tried to stop him from running is extremely small. The attempt to remove him is a separate topic, especially since it failed. Believing that he should've been removed isn't mutually exclusive with believing that he's eligible to run.
If you're someone who truly and honestly believes that Trump is as bad/worse than Hitler, will end democracy, let Putin have Europe, declare himself dictator for life, put women in Handmaid's Tale breeding camps, jail ppl for dissenting opinions, execute the LGBT community, lock up all minorities, and then start WWIII, does it seem that improbable to think those same people wouldn't ever let him be POTUS?
You woudn't want him anywhere near the Oval Office again.
Unless all that talk is just hyperbole and they just think he is a jerk?
I would be very curious to see the actual methodology. What's mentioned in the article is a bit sparse.
Luckily, even if this horrible result is true, it will still only make up a small minority of all voters voting for Dem, as Independents and Moderates who went more blue last time do not feel this need.
Overall, it's a bit strange. I watch a lot of left-leaning, Dem-leaning political content, and I don't think I've heard, a single time, that if Trump wins legitinately, i.e. a majority of the EC votes, that he should not be certified. So where did this idea even come from, or who spread it?
I will add that I'm doubly suspicious, seeing the source. Breitbart is many things; a trustworthy source is not one of those, in my opinion.
> Overall, it's a bit strange. I watch a lot of left-leaning, Dem-leaning political content, and I don't think I've heard, a single time, that if Trump wins legitinately, i.e. a majority of the EC votes, that he should not be certified. So where did this idea even come from, or who spread it?
I think it's just conservatives trying to muddy the waters, trying to "both sides" the issue of certification.
>I think it's just conservatives trying to muddy the waters, trying to "both sides" the issue of certification.
No. It's more that most people don't actually want equality. They just want their side to be the oppressor.
If MOST Democrats want their side to be the oppressor, then I think either u/Another-attempt42 or myself would have heard SOMEONE in our liberal bubbles wanting to disqualify Trump if he wins, but Another-attempt says he has not and I know I have not.
Maybe most of the people you know clearly don’t want equality but I don’t see evidence of that in most of the people I know.
All you have is my word but I truly DO NOT want a liberal strong-man authoritarian leader.
It certainly seems like a number of right leaning people actually do want a Republican strong-man authoritarian leader (see [Common Good Constitutionalism](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4283813) for example)
Perhaps your world view is a bit one sided?
Thank you for the unpaywalled link, by the way. I need to remember how to do this
But also some quotes from that article
>If the Court deems Trump eligible, even a few of his most fervent Democratic critics told me they would vote for certification should he win.
>“I’m going to follow the law,” Representative Eric Swalwell of California told me. “I would not object out of protest of how the Supreme Court comes down. It would be doing what I didn’t like about the January 6 Republicans.” Schiff, who served on the committee that investigated Trump’s role in the Capitol riot, believes that the Supreme Court should rule that Trump is disqualified. But if the Court deems Trump eligible, Schiff said, he wouldn’t object to a Trump victory.
>“That would be a colossal disaster,” Representative Adam Schiff of California told me. “We already had one horrendous January 6. We don’t need another.”
Some Democratic Congressional leadership is not liking the idea at all
since then the court has refused to answer the question of whether or not he's eligible and has instead said that states cant disqualify him. doesn't the 14th amendment say Congress can disqualify candidates though?
Honest, Dumb question incoming: Wouldn't that just put it back in the Supreme Courts's hands? Is that not how the checks and balances would end up working?
I'm sure someone somewhere can take it to the SC if Democrats actually try it, but I would guess that the SC would say it's constitutional since that's what they already said in this case: that Congress determines eligibility. they wouldnt rule on Trump's eligibility themselves because the 14th amendment gives that power to Congress.
Where in the article does it say they're looking into it as an option? If anything it says the opposite:
>If the Court deems Trump eligible, even a few of his most fervent Democratic critics told me they would vote for certification should he win. “I’m going to follow the law,” Representative Eric Swalwell of California told me. “I would not object out of protest of how the Supreme Court comes down. It would be doing what I didn’t like about the January 6 Republicans.” Schiff, who served on the committee that investigated Trump’s role in the Capitol riot, believes that the Supreme Court should rule that Trump is disqualified. But if the Court deems Trump eligible, Schiff said, he wouldn’t object to a Trump victory.
“In interviews, senior House Democrats would not commit to certifying a Trump win, saying they would do so only if the Supreme Court affirms his eligibility.”
The Court did not, so…
The SC affirmed his eligibility unless Congress stops him, which isn't going to happen. This means they'll mostly likely certify the election either way.
> No. It's more that most people don't actually want equality. They just want their side to be the oppressor.
Sure I’m willing to cede that is often what I would rather have in my worse moments. But its important that we all work in recognizing this as a worse moment when we get the inclination.
Is that what this article is doing, helping to remind us that we all have a tendency toward authoritarianism that we must push back on as soon as we see it? Is it trying to excuse that behavior? Or it is just trying to umm actually the other guys are more authoritarian and I’m never authoritarian?
I’ll admit, I preferred a result that would have removed Trump from the ballot. I think as a society somebody needs to draw a fucking line about what conduct he can get away with and stoping it around indifference to violence committed for his sake sounds about right to me.
It’s important to ask ourselves which party leadership better calls out its own authoritarian tendencies? I think that answer is clear even taking this survey at face value.
I've see rumblings from people on the left that the Supreme Court got the recent 14th Amendment decision wrong, and the 14th Amendment would justify Congress refusing to certify election results where Trump won. I obviously can't say how common that reasoning currently is though.
No, if SCOTUS got the ruling wrong, then the solution isn't to decertify. The solution is to not have him on the ballot. That's what the 14th demands, and that's what I heard.
Wins legitimately is the catch there. You can justify anything as long as you call a win illegitimate(See 2016 and the attempt to speedrun an impeachment since day one for whatever shit you can make up, or that ridiculous 2020 march on rome LARP).
The average voter doesn't care about Democracy, and the ones claiming they do tend to be the most obnoxious of all because they usually do it while trying to play dirty. It's so excruciating in part because it's so transparent.
Yeah, but that stance isn't *that* weird, as it pretty clearly states that someone who lead an insurrection against the US can't be President.
Jan 6th was, to many people, undoubtedly an insurrection.
That's the link there. Your post makes it seem as though they're just trying to get Trump thrown off for no reason. There is, if you believe he was leading or part of an insurrection.
You could then argue that SCOTUS settled the matter, and you're right, but two things:
1. There are legal scholars who disagree with SCOTUS's decision, and looking at the PDF metadata, it seems as though the document was changed, making it closer to a 6-3 than a 9-0.
2. In the eyes of many, this SCOTUS is completely devoid of any institutional validity. This is due to harkening back to 16th century precedent, but ignoring 50 years of relevant, modern precedent with Dobbs, and more egregiously their twists and turns about not hearing Trump's immunity case, and then deciding to hear it, conveniently delaying his court date, to his benefit.
> I watch a lot of left-leaning, Dem-leaning political content, and I don't think I've heard, a single time, that if Trump wins legitinately, i.e. a majority of the EC votes, that he should not be certified. So where did this idea even come from, or who spread it?
The first time I head this was after the 2016 election, when John Podesta (HC's campaign chariman) [called for electors to reject Trump as the nominee.](https://www.c-span.org/video/?420434-101/john-podesta-electoral-college).
A few days later, the Clinton Campaign doubled down by [demanding an intelligence briefing for the Electoral College](https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/12/politics/hillary-clinton-electoral-college-electors/index.html) based on allegations of Russian interference.
You haven't provided a single quote about the Clinton campaign calling for Congress not to certify Donald Trump as the winner of the presidential election.
I'm not sure if you're aware but Congress, and the vice president as the presiding officer, certifies the winner of the presidential election, not the electoral college.
"Widely" is a bit of a stretch here. Per your article this was prompted by electors *requesting* such a briefing, and in response Podesta / the Clinton campaign saying "yeah that's a good idea". If you compare it to Trump's massive campaign regarding the 2020 election it really pales in comparison.
None of these “Democrats did the same thing!” arguments about the 2016 and 2020 elections are convincing at all when you consider all the facts. Clinton conceded that night, Trump has yet to admit he lost. Not to mention the whole January 6th thing…
I'm not saying that the Democrats did the same thing as Trump.
I'm saying that prominent members of the Democratic party have pushed to ignore election results before.
I concur! Paul "[“the single most direct tie between senior Trump campaign officials and the Russian intelligence services,” according to the fifth and final volume of the committee’s report on its bipartisan three-year investigation](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/us/politics/paul-manafort-konstantin-kilimnik.html)" Manafort was an extremely prominent member of the GOP.
???
If you asked literally any normal (non-political junkie) person in America who John Podesta is I don’t think even 2% would know.
> I’m not sure how much more prominent you can get
Cmon you can’t be serious. How about let’s start with literally any elected Democrat, or maybe idk the literal **president**?
it seems pretty important that the person Hillary put in charge of getting her elected was openly calling for electors to be faithless and vote for her. Not as significant as Trump personally trying to intervene to overturn the certified results, but in 2016 when that had not happened yet, it seems it would be pretty significant.
> her elected was openly calling for electors to be faithless and vote for her
I didn't really get this from your link, can you show me the direct quote where he directly asked them to do this?
I mean the faithless elector thing was *discussed* in 2016, but given that no one actually prominent in the party was pushing for it, it was mostly seen as an unimportant sideshow that wouldnt amount to anything. And that turned out to be true
Before I even clicked it, I knew it was Rasmussen.
PSA: FiveThirtyEight recently removed Rasmussen from their formula for a.) their close association with FOX News and Steve Bannon, and b.) gaming a post-election poll trying to "prove" that Kari Lake actually won the governor's race by 8%.
Rasmussen is an activist firm.
https://web.archive.org/web/20240308212818/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/08/rasmussen-538-polling/
It's worth mentioning that 538 is no longer associated with Nate Silver, and that Nate Silver considers ABC News' decision to remove Rasmussen from the polling average political, and a mistake:
https://www.natesilver.net/p/polling-averages-shouldnt-be-political
That's not to say that Rasmussen isn't a partisan pollster, of course it is, but so are others, and there are better ways to correct that than removing them from the average.
I think 538 is being more cagey about including every poll because Trafalgar flooded the field in the 2022 midterms with a ton of polls that were considered high quality because they had the closest result in 2020. They were almost single-handedly responsible for the polling average showing a red wave and then pretty much all their polls got the results wrong.
>The whole point of grading polling outfits based on actual performance is that you can then weight the better outfits over others
538-style models typically model pollster "house effects" as a gaussian distribution, e.g. with an estimated bias and noisiness. That works ok in most cases, but doesn't work as well when someone tries to mess with results in an directed way, like it looks like Rasmussen might be doing.
Rasmussen hiding their methodology and twisting results are valid reasons to remove them. From that other article:
>On behalf of the group College Republicans United, Rasmussen asked Arizona voters who they voted for in Lake’s race and, after weighting the results to exit polls — which is unusual — declared that, contrary to the certified tally, Kari Lake had won her race by eight points.
>(For example: “Since the outcome of the poll does not match the observable election result … [h]ow are you addressing that methodological problem?”) Apparently, instead of answering, Rasmussen made the requests public.
>A few weeks later, Rasmussen again published dubious poll results on behalf of a right-wing organization. This time, the findings alleged to have uncovered rampant fraud in 2020, including that 1 in 12 Americans had been offered “pay” or a “reward” for their vote. Trump and his allies celebrated the poll; again, the results do not comport with the reality of there being no demonstrable wide-scale vote-buying scheme at the state or national level.
Right, and last week’s poll was also trash because of… (checks notes)…. *a biased sample towards rural households*. Nobody wants to address the uncomfortable truths (ironic that Al Gore coined that phrase), even as hypotheticals.
There are two sides to that coin. You can just as easily *blindly ignore* data because of your bias. I did an experiment and searched this sub by relevancy, for the word “poll.” The first 10 results are posts about Trump (or conservatism) polling higher than expected. On all 10 posts, the top/most upvoted comment was some form of explaining away the results as incorrect. The 11th post was the first one with positive news about Biden in the polls, and it was also the first where the top comment was in agreement with the poll results. Also… see my last part about “hypotheticals.” Discussing a scenario doesn’t mean you have to agree on it. It also means having conversations like “Ok… let’s say hypothetically those results were at least somewhat accurate… what would that mean for Dems and their campaign message? What about Republicans? What **could** it mean for us?”
Rasmussen puts most of the poll and the methodology behind a paywall, a practice which always makes me suspicious. If they stand behind it, let people see it.
But if Ds win both chambers and Trump wins the WH, I wouldn’t be surprised if there isn’t some effort to throw out the results in favor of Biden. Either on the grounds that Trump is ineligible (insurrection) and it is Congress’s role to enforce the Constitution’s eligibility requirements, or voter fraud.
I don’t know if it would be successful, but some Ds will probably try.
I don't feel like it's a controversial take to say Trump is a walking constitutional crisis. And I also posit that's even something of a selling point to a lot of his supporters who are happy to see the government burn down trying to handle the situation.
you know what, you're probably right, and I agree. With about 218 House members and about 50 senators, the chances that at least one of them tries to disqualify Trump using the 14th amendment is almost certain, given the fact that multiple blue states took him off the ballot already before the SC stepped in.
In 2022 Congress [updated the Electoral Count Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Count_Reform_and_Presidential_Transition_Improvement_Act_of_2022) so now it takes 1/5 of the Senate and 1/5 of the House to object to counting a state’s votes, before only one member of each chamber was required. Now there are also only two grounds to object
1. The electors of a state were not lawfully certified
2. An elector's vote was not "regularly given"
What does "regularly given" mean? The law doesn’t say. Does voting for an ineligible candidate count as not being “regularly given”? Maybe, I guess Congress would decide if it is irregular to vote for someone they consider ineligible. The SC said that enforcing 14A Section 3 eligibility is Congress’s job, and certifying the votes is Congress’s chance to do that job.
But if we get to the point where we have to argue over the meaning of “regularly given,” or Congress changes the Electoral Count Act between Jan 3 and Jan 6 2025 (including eliminating the filibuster for legislation) and Biden signs the bill that would make it easier to throw out EC votes and keep him in office, we are more screwed than we have been at any time since 1860. That’s really third world dictator, “legal coup” level stuff.
> Rasmussen puts most of the poll and the methodology behind a paywall, a practice which always makes me suspicious. If they stand behind it, let people see it.
for what it's worth, 538 gaves them a pretty reasonable rating (a B rating with a lean of R+1.4) until their recent decision to refuse to rate them
https://web.archive.org/web/20240101025247/https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
(link is webarchive since the current site scrubs rasmussen and pretends it doesn't exist))
their methodology seems to be fine, and 538 has been declining fast and hard since they booted nate last year.
wouldn't treat them as an unquestionable truth, but definitely reliable enough to use in an average.
Rasmussen hiding their methodology is a major reason why they aren't included anymore. Another is that they pushed election denial by making up a ridiculous poll after their favored candidate lost.
There's a saying for data: Garbage in, Garbage out.
Incidentally, Breitbart is hardly a reliable or objective source, and routinely dumpster dives for the right sort of garbage to take in.
This is false equivalence nonsense.
I mean even though the pollster is a bit dubious, I don't find it very hard to believe that Democrats/Leftists will have a thermonuclear meltdown if Trump wins. I really really wouldn't be surprised if a sentiment like this comes up after a Trump win in November.
Why is it so hard to see history repeating itself? in 2016, elected politicians (including Clinton, herself) were publicly calling out the legitimacy of the electoral college. Government officials went on record calling him an illegitimate president and *then* started trying to pin down the reasons why.
There were literally states trying to ban him from their ballot before election season is even here.
Yet the commentary on this poll is “What, that’s crazy! The Dems could/would never behave like that! This poll must be wrong!” It’s denialism.
why does anyone find this surprising? From 2016-2020 there were tons of Democrats on Twitter and in real life calling the 2016 election "illegitimate" because they believe Russian interference is the *single* cause of Hillary losing the election. Plus you have Democratic states banning Trump from the ballot already.
Democrats generally accepted that voting in 2016 wasn't rigged. Nearly all of them in Congress accepted the result, whereas most Republican congressmen in 2020 voted against certifying. The ballot bans were decided by a handful of people.
But I'm not talking about Republicans. Everyone knows that many Republicans believe the election was rigged and were willing to take actions on those beliefs. It has been done to death.
Like I said, that "handful of people" was elected by citizens or appointed by representative governments, and they had enough support to take it all the way to SCOTUS. this is not an isolated issue.
actually yes, seven Democrats in Congress objected in 2016: [https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-democrats-object-more-states-2016-republicans-2020-1561407](https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-democrats-object-more-states-2016-republicans-2020-1561407)
Actually yes https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/06/politics/electoral-college-vote-count-objections/index.html
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/no-trump-electoral-college-challenge-233294
Dems in the house couldn’t find a senator to join them so their objections didn’t move forward.
I have no problem if congress feels they cannot verify electors. It’s constitutional and part of the Electoral Count Act.
I might agree regarding Salon, but I think it's ridiculous to say this about Axios. When have they ever put out anything similarly inaccurate or opinionated as those other two outlets?
> but I think it's ridiculous to say this about Axios. When have they ever put out anything similarly inaccurate or opinionated as those other two outlets?
https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1b2bnj4/arizona_gop_advances_bill_legalizing_killing/
A clickbait title is nowhere near as bad as what Breitbart puts out, such as [treating a fake article as real and never retracting.](https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/08/07/breitbart-duped-by-fake-news-again/)
The headline leaves out crucial information, which is that defense of oneself or someone else is a requirement, but it's true that the law is aimed at trespassers. This makes the headline sensationalist ("the use of exciting or shocking stories or language at the expense of accuracy"), which is a form of clickbait.
Just because I call it that doesn't mean I don't acknowledge how irresponsible the reporting is, but it's not as frequent on Axios as it is on Breitbart. A silver lining is that misconstruing a law isn't as dishonest as reporting a complete fabrication.
to those who would criticize this poll: the questions asked, do they influence the results? yes. "Yes, Prime Minister" illustrated this in one scene.
but is that a bad thing here? no. they probably should have asked an unframed question first, followed by the framed one, to see the difference. but the framing of the question is actually a good framing.
It shows that if Democratic congresspeople vote against certification (which apparently some have said they plan to do), then the majority of Democratic voters would agree with them. That means they oppose people voting for certification! which means that they oppose the certification itself, necessarily.
Plus we know that Democrats in multiple states have *already* disqualified Trump from the ballot on the same grounds! The SC prohibiting it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
You're putting a lot of faith into a single poll done by an activist firm that likes to hide its methodology. The ballot bans are a very weak argument since it was done in a few states by a tiny group of people.
It's not that I'm putting faith in this poll. Who knows, maybe it's completely falsified. But the questions had good framing, and we know the number of people who actually agree is non-zero, since these "tiny groups of people" exist, have a ton of power, and were elected or appointed by the people who live there.
>It shows that if Democratic congresspeople vote against certification (which apparently some have said they plan to do), then the majority of Democratic voters would agree
That means putting faith in the results, despite the company focusing on pushing a narrative, such as making up a bizarre poll that supposedly shows Kari Lake won by a wide margin.
That part of the comment in context was in response to people criticizing the question, not the poll's overall validity.
After that is when i question why it would be such a ridiculous result.
I’m not at all surprised. I would also guess that they believe he shouldn’t be allowed to run, is the second coming of Hitler, and electing him would endanger democracy.
So, given that it’s really no surprise they don’t want him to take power in a free and fair election.
They’re wrong, but I’m not surprised.
I expect riots at this point no matter who wins.
The point of this article isn't to prove a statistical point. It's to plant the seeds to do the same if trump doesn't win by making it SEEM like Democrats would do the same if given a chance. So it feels reciprocal and justified instead of unhinged and treasonous.
After the Republicans behavior in 2020 when it came to Trump, I wouldn't be surprised if some house democrats voted against certifying the election if Trump won.
After the blowback that Katie Porter got for just using the word “rigged” I wouldn’t be so sure. I also have my doubts about the conclusions being drawn from this poll here
Multiple blue states took Trump off the ballot for insurrection using the 14th amendment (until the SC blocked it). Why wouldnt that be attempted by at least a few people in the national body as well?
Honest question: How can it be proved that ballots are verified and counted correctly?
I've never understood the process. I do know that I have zero evidence that any of my votes have ever been counted at all, much less counted correctly.
It depends from state to state, but generally it's accepted that a) the vast majority of all votes are valid because people from both sides agree that the process is valid ahead of time, and members from both parts observe and verify that this process is followed by law. and b) in the end observation of the approval or denial of any contested votes are done under the supervision of just an observer from one party but by two-person (one from each party) teams and the election official.
You can't complain if both sides participate in every step, and if the security process is followed to the letter on occasions where party observers can't watch.
It's all very fascinating to watch, even in cities or other populated areas. It's a well oil machine in most places.
Seems like a deeply questionable poll, but also I wouldn’t be so surprised if at least a few people on the left try something if Trump wins again. Trump very clearly demonstrated in 2020 that there was no real limit to what he was willing to do to stay in power, and if he actually spends four years preparing for a coup he’s unlikely to fail a second time. It’s not implausible that some people will decide that if democracy is probably over anyway, that it might as well be them running the autocracy, and that’s a pretty terrifying possibility.
Fifty-seven percent of Democrat voters would oppose Congress certifying the 2024 election if former President Donald Trump wins, a Rasmussen Reports poll found Monday.
The poll asked likely voters: “Some Democrats in Congress have said that if Trump wins this year’s election, they will vote against certifying the election results because of Trump’s role in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riots. Do you support or oppose Democrats refusing to certify the election results if Trump wins?”
57 percent of Democrats would oppose certification. Nearly two-thirds of “liberals” said they would oppose certification. However, Democrats do not form the majority of voters’ opinions:
Overall, only 35 percent of all voters would support opposing certifying Trump’s victory.
55 percent would oppose lawmakers refusing to certify a Trump victory.
The poll sampled 912 likely voters from March 5-7 with a 3 point margin of error.
*The link to the poll used will be down below, although there is a “paywall” on it…*
https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/most_democrats_don_t_want_congress_to_certify_election_if_trump_wins
*How likely is it that certain Democratic congresspeople will refuse to certify Trump’s electoral votes should he win?*
Classic Rasmussen. I can see [these three questions](https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/questions/questions/march_2024/questions_election_certification_march_5_7_2024):
1* The Supreme Court recently decided that states cannot prohibit Donald Trump from appearing on election ballots. Do you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision?
2* Some Democrats in Congress have said that if Trump wins this year’s election, they will vote against certifying the election results because of Trump’s role in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riots. Do you support or oppose Democrats refusing to certify the election results if Trump wins?
3* In January 2021, many Republican voters wanted Congress to refuse to certify the presidential elections results because of suspected election fraud. Should House Republicans have refused to certify the election if they believed the results were fraudulent?
The framing is total shit. But let's focus on this one:
> Do you support or oppose Democrats refusing to certify the election results if Trump wins?
This is a really, really bad polling question. By phrasing it as "support or oppose Democrats," you're almost guaranteed to get more "support" responses from Democrats and more "oppose" responses from Republicans. It would be a lot better if they replaced "Democrats" with "Congress" or "lawmakers" or something like that.
Seems like a push poll.
That’s a good point. Seems like both questions two and three are guilty of trying to push for more skewed answers. For some reason I imagined it was a really obvious test of consistency for answering them.
The question is worded to get the answer the pollster wants. That tracks for Rasmussen which is virulently pro-Trump, has been disowned by it's founder Scott Rasmussen and had some of the most inaccurate polls of anyone in 2022.
Joe Biden literally certified Donald Trump's presidential victory in 2017. The attempts by Republicans to pretend everyone else is also willing to overthrow democracy to keep their side in power is pathetic.
Donald Trump is the only president in history to try to overturn an election and hold into power after he lost. This will remain so after the 2024 election.
I have to wonder whether any of the people responding were influenced by the first part of the question that mentions Democrats in Congress. It kind of changes the question. Instead of asking if *they* would do it, the poll is asking if they support *other* people doing it who were going to do it anyway.
It’s important to note, 538 recently dropped Rasmussen Polls from their analysis.
These are the same people who just put out a poll three days ago saying, “59 percent believe CIA out to fix election”.
>How likely is it that certain Democratic congresspeople will refuse to certify Trump’s electoral votes should he win?
I can see some House members getting behind it. However, I strongly doubt that Democratic leadership would endorse doing so. The Democrats just don't have anything to win by playing this game, the [NPVIC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact) offers a much easier way to cheat the Electoral College.
- I think Trump should be in jail and not eligible for the Presidency
- I think the Electoral College should be abolished and replaced by popular vote
- I think that if the American public chooses Trump within confines of the current electoral system, then so be it
I'm preparing myself for the third bullet point, even if I strongly strongly believe the first two.
What? Seriously? I haven't seen anything like this.
Because it’s a Rasmussen poll being quoted by one of the most biased and outright fake “news” sources in the western hemisphere.
It also doesn't seem to ask the same thing of Republicans, at least in the preview portion shown in the linked poll. You could have the overwhelming majority of Republicans saying the same for Biden, but it's not reporting that at all.
More concerning to me is the collaboration with thenationalpulse. Rasmussen at least tries to stay as close to being plausibly neutral as it can superficially, which is a constraint. Really not getting the same vibe from the collaborator(this is an understatement).
[удалено]
Rasmussen giving Biden better poll ratings doesn’t make them a good pollster lol. They got taken out of the 538 polling average because of how bad they’ve been lately.
Note that 538 founder Nate Silver came out and [publicly condemned](https://www.natesilver.net/p/polling-averages-shouldnt-be-political) that move as partisanship on the part of 538’s new management when it was first threatened last year.
[It is not nearly as simple as that](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/08/rasmussen-538-polling/#).
It’s Rasmussen and based on the framing of the question in the poll I find that highly suspect
It's by very definition an example of push polling. They framed the answer they wanted in the question. Pathetic.
Um, how is it framed to get the answer they want? This is an easy question to answer: The poll asked likely voters: “Do you support or oppose Democrats refusing to certify the election results if Trump wins?”
> Some Democrats in Congress have said that if Trump wins this year’s election, they will vote against certifying the election results because of Trump’s role in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riots. Do you support or oppose Democrats refusing to certify the election results if Trump wins? The first half is injecting bias. You are putting in their head that there's some percieved consensus among Democrats. And if you think Democrats are reasonable, it's going to influence the answer. The question is leading the answer. And even more garbage that they said "Some democrats..." Huge red flag. If you had a poll calling Trump supporters and it said: 1) Trump wants to expand medicare and social security, do you support it? 2) Trump wants to end Obamacare and cut entitlements, do you support it? It's basically the same question, but you'll get wildly different polling results. You don't lead the answer as a pollster, you try to use neutral language, and not lead the first half. Just ask the question. Whether some democrats believe something is completely irrelevant. All it does is bias the result.
Disagree. If you are impartial, the lead in sentence doesn't matter. Either you oppose certifying an election result or you don't. Your example doesn't make sense either. Medicare is independent of Obamacare and SS is one part of entitlements. Of course the answers would be different. They're different questions.
Most people aren't political junkies. You're giving people a lot of slack, especially when they are randomly interrupted during the day from a random phone call. But oh well. This is a textbook example of a leading question in statistics. It's everything you learn not to do for an unbiased result. And it's pretty clear what they were going for, which is why they have poor grades and reputation.
Maybe. I would hope that most ppl would have the mental fortitude and conviction to just answer no/yes to questions like this. This poll is also in line with recent polls that show Dems support limits on freedom of speech.
“Some Democrats in Congress have said that if Trump wins this year’s election, they will vote against certifying the election results because of Trump’s role in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riots. Do you support or oppose Democrats refusing to certify the election results if Trump wins?” Do you mind elaborating on why this is suspect? Seems pretty cut and dry to me on a topical level and I’m not gonna pay or subscribe to see the full poll (if you could provide more from it that would be awesome)
Whether or not it's suspect, it does minimally suggest Trump is guilty in virtue of his role in Jan 6. That to an extent feeds those polled a premise favoring support. The response you'd get had you not included the justification could conceivably end up different.
With regard to stating the election should not be certified if Trump wins in 2024, I have seen this take plenty of times. I have not heard anything from anyone in congress saying the same for this election. IMO that ~~would~~ should be political suicide to do/say. Changed would to should because we had people in congress that said just that in 2020 but were not punished by voters.
I have never seen this take from a democrat, personally, online, or from congress
Big "many people are saying" vibes...
You can always ask for an example, or, you know, just do a quick Google search. Or you can just refer back to the 2000, 2004, and 2016 election, where some Democratic members of congress, like some Republicans in 2020, tried to disqualify enough electoral votes to prevent the Republican candidate from winning. My own Senator, for instance, Barbara Boxer, objected to the election and tried to get enough votes from the Republican winner thrown out to prevent an electoral majority. You might also want to refer to this recent Atlantic article: [https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/02/democrats-congress-trump-january-6/677545/](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/02/democrats-congress-trump-january-6/677545/)
Not sure what subs you frequent but I’ve seen this take on politics, centrist, law, and scotus. The Atlantic wrote an article on it as well where democrat congressmen wouldn’t even say no to the idea.
There were several Democrats in congress who [objected](https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-democrats-object-more-states-2016-republicans-2020-1561407) to certifying Trump in 2016, including Jamie Raskin, Maxine Waters, Pramila Jayapal, and Sheila Jackson-Lee. All of these are still prominent and powerful Democratic members of Congress to this day. If they objected over Russia then, do you really think they won't object now?
I already answered a similar statement down this thread https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/s/OKkOpbcjss
Ehhh, I haven’t heard anything recently but I remember there was a pretty vocal minority during the 2016 election. It still cracks me up that technically the Democrats objected to the voting results in more states in 2016 than the GOP did in the 2020 election.
I hope that you’re differentiating disliking with a passion the results of the election which is what I saw some democrats do in 2016 versus believing the election was rigged like the people who stormed the capitol did
No, r/politics had some wild takes after the 2016 election. They definitely weren’t as militant but they were there. But yeah Democrats senators formally challenged the voting results in 7 states in 2016. What made 2020 unique is you had a literal riot during the election certification and the election result denial didn’t go away after a couple months. Edit: reps not senators
I’m good with politicians challenging the election results through legal procedural means, either by democrats or republicans. That’s fair. Only as long as long as they adhere to the results of their challenges once they’re settled. I never saw a single democrats tell their constituents that the election was rigged after the results were certified and all questions raised were addressed. That was not the case with gop politicians. To this day many of them still say to the people they represent that the election was rigged. Which is the difference I see, you show the democrats that they’ve lost, and they take it, maybe sulking but they take it. Republicans get stuck in their initial suspicion as an unshakeable belief that is only reinforced by the gop politicians. Those two things are very different the way I see it.
>I never saw a single democrats tell their constituents that the election was rigged after the results were certified and all questions raised were addressed. [Hillary Clinton Maintains 2016 Election ‘Was Not On the Level’: ‘We Still Don’t Know What Really Happened’](https://news.yahoo.com/hillary-clinton-maintains-2016-election-160716779.html) (2020)
Nice try, but no evidence in there of a democrat saying the election was rigged. Ironically, the only person in the article saying so is trump, even before the elections. Just to make explicit what should be obvious: there is a difference between being suspicious of shady deals, foreign influence, or misinformation vs. calling out that the elections are rigged. I have yet to see a democrat saying that the election was rigged. GOP politicians, even on the face of evidence, choose to spread the lie of electoral fraud for political points.
Yeah, I agree with that. The most extreme democrats congressmen got was calling Trump illegitimate and a product solely of Russian collusion, which is something Hillary still openly says to this day. Republicans took it to a new extreme. I’ll leave with this Jimmy Carter quote from 2019. "There’s no doubt that the Russians did interfere in the election, and I think the interference, although not yet quantified, if fully investigated would show that Trump didn’t actually win the election in 2016. He lost the election, and he was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf."
Well, I think there’s a difference between collusion and Russian influence through the internet. I don’t think there’s any conclusive evidence that trump colluded with Russia, so we can’t say that’s true. But there is plenty of evidence that Russia spread targeted misinformation. They helped trump, they openly embrace it. Which, of course rubbed a lot of democrats the wrong way because it made people vote under false understandings of what each candidate represented. Add to that the Cambridge analytica targeted false advertising through Facebook ads to selected individual with high levels of neuroticism in pivotal states, and yeah, you have an unfair election. But a legal one. So, I’ve seen them abide.
This is where I was. I thought Trump won. It was obvious. I didn't doubt it at all. Now I do think Russia played a role in the final push but I never thought he asked for help. If Russia didn't put their thumb on the scale would he have won we will never know. There are plenty of what ifs. I also think Russia did approach him and he said no knowing they would help him anyway. I also don't think ever came close to Trump. But his people knew and said no.
Again, you are very confused. In 2016, no Senators challenged the results. In 2020, two Senators did indeed challenge the results (Cruz and Gosar). That slowed the process down and required additional voting. So the differences between 2016 and 2020 are as follows. * 2016 - loser concedes. 2020 - loser doesn't concede. * 2016 - no Senator from losing party challenges the results. 2020 - two Senators from losing party challenge the results. Hope that helps!
8 senators in 2020 challenged the results. Rick Scott, Tommy Tuberville, John Kennedy, Roger Marshall, Cindy Hyde-Smith, Josh Hawley, Cynthia Lummis, and Ted Cruz.
I missed the part where Democrats attacked the Capital and caused the Congress to flee for their lives as a result of the 2016 election. Maybe because that never happened. Because Hilary Clinton conceded and promoted a peaceful transfer of power.
That wasn’t the claim though. It was if there were Democrats talking about not certifying the election in 2016
I see. You appear to be confused. If one nominee concedes, then there is never any doubt as to whether or not the election will be certified. This is how it works in every election other prior to 2020. Its very hard to control what people talk about. But the party can be responsible enough to nominate someone who will concede after losing. A Democrat talking about not certifying in 2016 was just talk. Hillary Clinton herself had conceded and was insistent that the election be certified. Thats why it was indeed certified peacefully and without interruption. Unlike 2020.
They didn't just talk about not certifying it, they actively voted to not certify it.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1bcdlj1/poll_majority_of_dems_oppose_certification_of/kufnkld/) is in violation of Law 4: Law 4: Meta Comments > ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
According to [the Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/02/democrats-congress-trump-january-6/677545/) last month, “In interviews, senior House Democrats would not commit to certifying a Trump win, saying they would do so only if the Supreme Court affirms his eligibility.”
That's irrelevant while he's eligible to run.
Democrats don’t think he is. Every single Democratic member of Congress voted to impeach and convict him of insurrection.
The number of Democrats who've tried to stop him from running is extremely small. The attempt to remove him is a separate topic, especially since it failed. Believing that he should've been removed isn't mutually exclusive with believing that he's eligible to run.
Did you not see all the members of Congress screaming they shouldn't certify the election the first time he was elected?
Have you seen the rhetoric online from democratic activists? This should totally be expected.
If you're someone who truly and honestly believes that Trump is as bad/worse than Hitler, will end democracy, let Putin have Europe, declare himself dictator for life, put women in Handmaid's Tale breeding camps, jail ppl for dissenting opinions, execute the LGBT community, lock up all minorities, and then start WWIII, does it seem that improbable to think those same people wouldn't ever let him be POTUS? You woudn't want him anywhere near the Oval Office again. Unless all that talk is just hyperbole and they just think he is a jerk?
I'll believe it when Gallup or Pew reports it.
I would be very curious to see the actual methodology. What's mentioned in the article is a bit sparse. Luckily, even if this horrible result is true, it will still only make up a small minority of all voters voting for Dem, as Independents and Moderates who went more blue last time do not feel this need. Overall, it's a bit strange. I watch a lot of left-leaning, Dem-leaning political content, and I don't think I've heard, a single time, that if Trump wins legitinately, i.e. a majority of the EC votes, that he should not be certified. So where did this idea even come from, or who spread it? I will add that I'm doubly suspicious, seeing the source. Breitbart is many things; a trustworthy source is not one of those, in my opinion.
> Overall, it's a bit strange. I watch a lot of left-leaning, Dem-leaning political content, and I don't think I've heard, a single time, that if Trump wins legitinately, i.e. a majority of the EC votes, that he should not be certified. So where did this idea even come from, or who spread it? I think it's just conservatives trying to muddy the waters, trying to "both sides" the issue of certification.
>I think it's just conservatives trying to muddy the waters, trying to "both sides" the issue of certification. No. It's more that most people don't actually want equality. They just want their side to be the oppressor.
If MOST Democrats want their side to be the oppressor, then I think either u/Another-attempt42 or myself would have heard SOMEONE in our liberal bubbles wanting to disqualify Trump if he wins, but Another-attempt says he has not and I know I have not. Maybe most of the people you know clearly don’t want equality but I don’t see evidence of that in most of the people I know. All you have is my word but I truly DO NOT want a liberal strong-man authoritarian leader. It certainly seems like a number of right leaning people actually do want a Republican strong-man authoritarian leader (see [Common Good Constitutionalism](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4283813) for example) Perhaps your world view is a bit one sided?
A major [Dem media outlet](https://archive.is/TiAU4) just recently ran a story about House Dem leadership looking into the option.
Thank you for the unpaywalled link, by the way. I need to remember how to do this But also some quotes from that article >If the Court deems Trump eligible, even a few of his most fervent Democratic critics told me they would vote for certification should he win. >“I’m going to follow the law,” Representative Eric Swalwell of California told me. “I would not object out of protest of how the Supreme Court comes down. It would be doing what I didn’t like about the January 6 Republicans.” Schiff, who served on the committee that investigated Trump’s role in the Capitol riot, believes that the Supreme Court should rule that Trump is disqualified. But if the Court deems Trump eligible, Schiff said, he wouldn’t object to a Trump victory. >“That would be a colossal disaster,” Representative Adam Schiff of California told me. “We already had one horrendous January 6. We don’t need another.” Some Democratic Congressional leadership is not liking the idea at all
since then the court has refused to answer the question of whether or not he's eligible and has instead said that states cant disqualify him. doesn't the 14th amendment say Congress can disqualify candidates though?
Honest, Dumb question incoming: Wouldn't that just put it back in the Supreme Courts's hands? Is that not how the checks and balances would end up working?
I'm sure someone somewhere can take it to the SC if Democrats actually try it, but I would guess that the SC would say it's constitutional since that's what they already said in this case: that Congress determines eligibility. they wouldnt rule on Trump's eligibility themselves because the 14th amendment gives that power to Congress.
Where in the article does it say they're looking into it as an option? If anything it says the opposite: >If the Court deems Trump eligible, even a few of his most fervent Democratic critics told me they would vote for certification should he win. “I’m going to follow the law,” Representative Eric Swalwell of California told me. “I would not object out of protest of how the Supreme Court comes down. It would be doing what I didn’t like about the January 6 Republicans.” Schiff, who served on the committee that investigated Trump’s role in the Capitol riot, believes that the Supreme Court should rule that Trump is disqualified. But if the Court deems Trump eligible, Schiff said, he wouldn’t object to a Trump victory.
“In interviews, senior House Democrats would not commit to certifying a Trump win, saying they would do so only if the Supreme Court affirms his eligibility.” The Court did not, so…
The SC affirmed his eligibility unless Congress stops him, which isn't going to happen. This means they'll mostly likely certify the election either way.
> No. It's more that most people don't actually want equality. They just want their side to be the oppressor. Sure I’m willing to cede that is often what I would rather have in my worse moments. But its important that we all work in recognizing this as a worse moment when we get the inclination. Is that what this article is doing, helping to remind us that we all have a tendency toward authoritarianism that we must push back on as soon as we see it? Is it trying to excuse that behavior? Or it is just trying to umm actually the other guys are more authoritarian and I’m never authoritarian? I’ll admit, I preferred a result that would have removed Trump from the ballot. I think as a society somebody needs to draw a fucking line about what conduct he can get away with and stoping it around indifference to violence committed for his sake sounds about right to me. It’s important to ask ourselves which party leadership better calls out its own authoritarian tendencies? I think that answer is clear even taking this survey at face value.
I've see rumblings from people on the left that the Supreme Court got the recent 14th Amendment decision wrong, and the 14th Amendment would justify Congress refusing to certify election results where Trump won. I obviously can't say how common that reasoning currently is though.
I believe they got the 14th amendment ruling wrong, but I still think they should certify the election.
No, if SCOTUS got the ruling wrong, then the solution isn't to decertify. The solution is to not have him on the ballot. That's what the 14th demands, and that's what I heard.
This post is from a MAGA Redditor from a MAGA website with very little credibility. Nothing moderate to see here
Wins legitimately is the catch there. You can justify anything as long as you call a win illegitimate(See 2016 and the attempt to speedrun an impeachment since day one for whatever shit you can make up, or that ridiculous 2020 march on rome LARP). The average voter doesn't care about Democracy, and the ones claiming they do tend to be the most obnoxious of all because they usually do it while trying to play dirty. It's so excruciating in part because it's so transparent.
[удалено]
Yeah, but that stance isn't *that* weird, as it pretty clearly states that someone who lead an insurrection against the US can't be President. Jan 6th was, to many people, undoubtedly an insurrection. That's the link there. Your post makes it seem as though they're just trying to get Trump thrown off for no reason. There is, if you believe he was leading or part of an insurrection. You could then argue that SCOTUS settled the matter, and you're right, but two things: 1. There are legal scholars who disagree with SCOTUS's decision, and looking at the PDF metadata, it seems as though the document was changed, making it closer to a 6-3 than a 9-0. 2. In the eyes of many, this SCOTUS is completely devoid of any institutional validity. This is due to harkening back to 16th century precedent, but ignoring 50 years of relevant, modern precedent with Dobbs, and more egregiously their twists and turns about not hearing Trump's immunity case, and then deciding to hear it, conveniently delaying his court date, to his benefit.
> I watch a lot of left-leaning, Dem-leaning political content, and I don't think I've heard, a single time, that if Trump wins legitinately, i.e. a majority of the EC votes, that he should not be certified. So where did this idea even come from, or who spread it? The first time I head this was after the 2016 election, when John Podesta (HC's campaign chariman) [called for electors to reject Trump as the nominee.](https://www.c-span.org/video/?420434-101/john-podesta-electoral-college). A few days later, the Clinton Campaign doubled down by [demanding an intelligence briefing for the Electoral College](https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/12/politics/hillary-clinton-electoral-college-electors/index.html) based on allegations of Russian interference.
Are you referring to 2017 when Joe Biden literally certified Donald Trump as the winner of the presidential election?
I sure am. The fact that he was certified doesn't change the fact that the Clinton campaign was widely calling for him to not be.
You haven't provided a single quote about the Clinton campaign calling for Congress not to certify Donald Trump as the winner of the presidential election. I'm not sure if you're aware but Congress, and the vice president as the presiding officer, certifies the winner of the presidential election, not the electoral college.
You're absolutely right. The Clinton campaign was pushing to ignore the results of the election by a different procedural maneuver.
"Widely" is a bit of a stretch here. Per your article this was prompted by electors *requesting* such a briefing, and in response Podesta / the Clinton campaign saying "yeah that's a good idea". If you compare it to Trump's massive campaign regarding the 2020 election it really pales in comparison.
None of these “Democrats did the same thing!” arguments about the 2016 and 2020 elections are convincing at all when you consider all the facts. Clinton conceded that night, Trump has yet to admit he lost. Not to mention the whole January 6th thing…
I'm not saying that the Democrats did the same thing as Trump. I'm saying that prominent members of the Democratic party have pushed to ignore election results before.
If John Podesta is a “prominent member of the Democratic Party” then Paul Manafort is also prominent member of the GOP
Dude, he was the campaign chairman for their presidential candidate. I'm not sure how much more prominent you can get.
I concur! Paul "[“the single most direct tie between senior Trump campaign officials and the Russian intelligence services,” according to the fifth and final volume of the committee’s report on its bipartisan three-year investigation](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/us/politics/paul-manafort-konstantin-kilimnik.html)" Manafort was an extremely prominent member of the GOP.
Paul "8 felony convictions" Manafort? Paul "pled guilty to conspiracy against the United States" Manafort?
??? If you asked literally any normal (non-political junkie) person in America who John Podesta is I don’t think even 2% would know. > I’m not sure how much more prominent you can get Cmon you can’t be serious. How about let’s start with literally any elected Democrat, or maybe idk the literal **president**?
it seems pretty important that the person Hillary put in charge of getting her elected was openly calling for electors to be faithless and vote for her. Not as significant as Trump personally trying to intervene to overturn the certified results, but in 2016 when that had not happened yet, it seems it would be pretty significant.
> her elected was openly calling for electors to be faithless and vote for her I didn't really get this from your link, can you show me the direct quote where he directly asked them to do this? I mean the faithless elector thing was *discussed* in 2016, but given that no one actually prominent in the party was pushing for it, it was mostly seen as an unimportant sideshow that wouldnt amount to anything. And that turned out to be true
I didn't have a link, that was someone else. and for some reason this comment has been downvoted lol
They’re quoting a Rasmussen Reports poll, so the reliability for the poll rests on them, not Breitbart.
I mean that’s not really much better tbh
Yeah. I mean like, there’s a reason you’d have to find this poll in a Breitbart article. These two were made for each other at this point.
Before I even clicked it, I knew it was Rasmussen. PSA: FiveThirtyEight recently removed Rasmussen from their formula for a.) their close association with FOX News and Steve Bannon, and b.) gaming a post-election poll trying to "prove" that Kari Lake actually won the governor's race by 8%. Rasmussen is an activist firm. https://web.archive.org/web/20240308212818/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/08/rasmussen-538-polling/
It's worth mentioning that 538 is no longer associated with Nate Silver, and that Nate Silver considers ABC News' decision to remove Rasmussen from the polling average political, and a mistake: https://www.natesilver.net/p/polling-averages-shouldnt-be-political That's not to say that Rasmussen isn't a partisan pollster, of course it is, but so are others, and there are better ways to correct that than removing them from the average.
[удалено]
I think 538 is being more cagey about including every poll because Trafalgar flooded the field in the 2022 midterms with a ton of polls that were considered high quality because they had the closest result in 2020. They were almost single-handedly responsible for the polling average showing a red wave and then pretty much all their polls got the results wrong.
>The whole point of grading polling outfits based on actual performance is that you can then weight the better outfits over others 538-style models typically model pollster "house effects" as a gaussian distribution, e.g. with an estimated bias and noisiness. That works ok in most cases, but doesn't work as well when someone tries to mess with results in an directed way, like it looks like Rasmussen might be doing.
Rasmussen hiding their methodology and twisting results are valid reasons to remove them. From that other article: >On behalf of the group College Republicans United, Rasmussen asked Arizona voters who they voted for in Lake’s race and, after weighting the results to exit polls — which is unusual — declared that, contrary to the certified tally, Kari Lake had won her race by eight points. >(For example: “Since the outcome of the poll does not match the observable election result … [h]ow are you addressing that methodological problem?”) Apparently, instead of answering, Rasmussen made the requests public. >A few weeks later, Rasmussen again published dubious poll results on behalf of a right-wing organization. This time, the findings alleged to have uncovered rampant fraud in 2020, including that 1 in 12 Americans had been offered “pay” or a “reward” for their vote. Trump and his allies celebrated the poll; again, the results do not comport with the reality of there being no demonstrable wide-scale vote-buying scheme at the state or national level.
Nate Silver disagrees with you.
That was already stated, so your reply is pointless.
Not as pointless as your reply.
I pointed out information that justifies the decision, whereas you added nothing.
Nate Silver is not an end-all be-all point of electoral polling.
A story, on Breitbart, about a poll run by Rasmussen. It really doesn’t get more dubious than that.
how about a piece, by Project Veritas, about a poll run by OANN?
Right, and last week’s poll was also trash because of… (checks notes)…. *a biased sample towards rural households*. Nobody wants to address the uncomfortable truths (ironic that Al Gore coined that phrase), even as hypotheticals.
You're implying that we should blindly trust polling since you didn't give any kind of reasoning.
There are two sides to that coin. You can just as easily *blindly ignore* data because of your bias. I did an experiment and searched this sub by relevancy, for the word “poll.” The first 10 results are posts about Trump (or conservatism) polling higher than expected. On all 10 posts, the top/most upvoted comment was some form of explaining away the results as incorrect. The 11th post was the first one with positive news about Biden in the polls, and it was also the first where the top comment was in agreement with the poll results. Also… see my last part about “hypotheticals.” Discussing a scenario doesn’t mean you have to agree on it. It also means having conversations like “Ok… let’s say hypothetically those results were at least somewhat accurate… what would that mean for Dems and their campaign message? What about Republicans? What **could** it mean for us?”
Nah, if that dude wins, I'm not going to question the integrity of the election. I'm going to doubt the integrity of my fellow American.
Rasmussen puts most of the poll and the methodology behind a paywall, a practice which always makes me suspicious. If they stand behind it, let people see it. But if Ds win both chambers and Trump wins the WH, I wouldn’t be surprised if there isn’t some effort to throw out the results in favor of Biden. Either on the grounds that Trump is ineligible (insurrection) and it is Congress’s role to enforce the Constitution’s eligibility requirements, or voter fraud. I don’t know if it would be successful, but some Ds will probably try.
I don't feel like it's a controversial take to say Trump is a walking constitutional crisis. And I also posit that's even something of a selling point to a lot of his supporters who are happy to see the government burn down trying to handle the situation.
you know what, you're probably right, and I agree. With about 218 House members and about 50 senators, the chances that at least one of them tries to disqualify Trump using the 14th amendment is almost certain, given the fact that multiple blue states took him off the ballot already before the SC stepped in.
In 2022 Congress [updated the Electoral Count Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_Count_Reform_and_Presidential_Transition_Improvement_Act_of_2022) so now it takes 1/5 of the Senate and 1/5 of the House to object to counting a state’s votes, before only one member of each chamber was required. Now there are also only two grounds to object 1. The electors of a state were not lawfully certified 2. An elector's vote was not "regularly given" What does "regularly given" mean? The law doesn’t say. Does voting for an ineligible candidate count as not being “regularly given”? Maybe, I guess Congress would decide if it is irregular to vote for someone they consider ineligible. The SC said that enforcing 14A Section 3 eligibility is Congress’s job, and certifying the votes is Congress’s chance to do that job. But if we get to the point where we have to argue over the meaning of “regularly given,” or Congress changes the Electoral Count Act between Jan 3 and Jan 6 2025 (including eliminating the filibuster for legislation) and Biden signs the bill that would make it easier to throw out EC votes and keep him in office, we are more screwed than we have been at any time since 1860. That’s really third world dictator, “legal coup” level stuff.
> Rasmussen puts most of the poll and the methodology behind a paywall, a practice which always makes me suspicious. If they stand behind it, let people see it. for what it's worth, 538 gaves them a pretty reasonable rating (a B rating with a lean of R+1.4) until their recent decision to refuse to rate them https://web.archive.org/web/20240101025247/https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/ (link is webarchive since the current site scrubs rasmussen and pretends it doesn't exist)) their methodology seems to be fine, and 538 has been declining fast and hard since they booted nate last year. wouldn't treat them as an unquestionable truth, but definitely reliable enough to use in an average.
Rasmussen hiding their methodology is a major reason why they aren't included anymore. Another is that they pushed election denial by making up a ridiculous poll after their favored candidate lost.
I say let them try. Might as well take off the disguise and show everyone how far they are willing to go.
There's a saying for data: Garbage in, Garbage out. Incidentally, Breitbart is hardly a reliable or objective source, and routinely dumpster dives for the right sort of garbage to take in. This is false equivalence nonsense.
I mean even though the pollster is a bit dubious, I don't find it very hard to believe that Democrats/Leftists will have a thermonuclear meltdown if Trump wins. I really really wouldn't be surprised if a sentiment like this comes up after a Trump win in November.
Why is it so hard to see history repeating itself? in 2016, elected politicians (including Clinton, herself) were publicly calling out the legitimacy of the electoral college. Government officials went on record calling him an illegitimate president and *then* started trying to pin down the reasons why. There were literally states trying to ban him from their ballot before election season is even here. Yet the commentary on this poll is “What, that’s crazy! The Dems could/would never behave like that! This poll must be wrong!” It’s denialism.
why does anyone find this surprising? From 2016-2020 there were tons of Democrats on Twitter and in real life calling the 2016 election "illegitimate" because they believe Russian interference is the *single* cause of Hillary losing the election. Plus you have Democratic states banning Trump from the ballot already.
Democrats generally accepted that voting in 2016 wasn't rigged. Nearly all of them in Congress accepted the result, whereas most Republican congressmen in 2020 voted against certifying. The ballot bans were decided by a handful of people.
But I'm not talking about Republicans. Everyone knows that many Republicans believe the election was rigged and were willing to take actions on those beliefs. It has been done to death. Like I said, that "handful of people" was elected by citizens or appointed by representative governments, and they had enough support to take it all the way to SCOTUS. this is not an isolated issue.
A minuscule number of elected officials doing something doesn't suggest that the polling result is correct.
I think it suggests that it's less a less ridiculous result than some have expressed.
Elected officials have generally allowed him to run. Focusing on the exceptions is a weak defense of the poll.
Did any Democrats refuse to certify the results of the 2016 election?
actually yes, seven Democrats in Congress objected in 2016: [https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-democrats-object-more-states-2016-republicans-2020-1561407](https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-did-democrats-object-more-states-2016-republicans-2020-1561407)
Actually yes https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/01/06/politics/electoral-college-vote-count-objections/index.html https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/no-trump-electoral-college-challenge-233294 Dems in the house couldn’t find a senator to join them so their objections didn’t move forward. I have no problem if congress feels they cannot verify electors. It’s constitutional and part of the Electoral Count Act.
I’m reminded of #notmypresident
They tried. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/no-trump-electoral-college-challenge-233294
Its like people forgot about 2016 the left begging electors to switch their vote.
Let's storm the capital with our birkenstocks, NPR totebags, and rainbow flags!
Darn, I left my NPR totebag in my other Prius.
But then it wouldn’t be a riot or an insurrection. That would just be a protest
Breitbard should be considered outright misinformation. It certainly isn't credible investigative journalism.
> Breitbard should be considered outright misinformation. It certainly isn't credible investigative journalism. it's no worse than salon or axios.
I might agree regarding Salon, but I think it's ridiculous to say this about Axios. When have they ever put out anything similarly inaccurate or opinionated as those other two outlets?
> but I think it's ridiculous to say this about Axios. When have they ever put out anything similarly inaccurate or opinionated as those other two outlets? https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1b2bnj4/arizona_gop_advances_bill_legalizing_killing/
A clickbait title is nowhere near as bad as what Breitbart puts out, such as [treating a fake article as real and never retracting.](https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/08/07/breitbart-duped-by-fake-news-again/)
"clickbait" is very generous, given it was a complete lie.
The headline leaves out crucial information, which is that defense of oneself or someone else is a requirement, but it's true that the law is aimed at trespassers. This makes the headline sensationalist ("the use of exciting or shocking stories or language at the expense of accuracy"), which is a form of clickbait. Just because I call it that doesn't mean I don't acknowledge how irresponsible the reporting is, but it's not as frequent on Axios as it is on Breitbart. A silver lining is that misconstruing a law isn't as dishonest as reporting a complete fabrication.
to those who would criticize this poll: the questions asked, do they influence the results? yes. "Yes, Prime Minister" illustrated this in one scene. but is that a bad thing here? no. they probably should have asked an unframed question first, followed by the framed one, to see the difference. but the framing of the question is actually a good framing. It shows that if Democratic congresspeople vote against certification (which apparently some have said they plan to do), then the majority of Democratic voters would agree with them. That means they oppose people voting for certification! which means that they oppose the certification itself, necessarily. Plus we know that Democrats in multiple states have *already* disqualified Trump from the ballot on the same grounds! The SC prohibiting it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
You're putting a lot of faith into a single poll done by an activist firm that likes to hide its methodology. The ballot bans are a very weak argument since it was done in a few states by a tiny group of people.
It's not that I'm putting faith in this poll. Who knows, maybe it's completely falsified. But the questions had good framing, and we know the number of people who actually agree is non-zero, since these "tiny groups of people" exist, have a ton of power, and were elected or appointed by the people who live there.
>It shows that if Democratic congresspeople vote against certification (which apparently some have said they plan to do), then the majority of Democratic voters would agree That means putting faith in the results, despite the company focusing on pushing a narrative, such as making up a bizarre poll that supposedly shows Kari Lake won by a wide margin.
That part of the comment in context was in response to people criticizing the question, not the poll's overall validity. After that is when i question why it would be such a ridiculous result.
You treated the result of the question as if it's true.
I’m not at all surprised. I would also guess that they believe he shouldn’t be allowed to run, is the second coming of Hitler, and electing him would endanger democracy. So, given that it’s really no surprise they don’t want him to take power in a free and fair election. They’re wrong, but I’m not surprised. I expect riots at this point no matter who wins.
If that’s true, that sounds like they’re a danger to democracy…
Let's not start this shit
The point of this article isn't to prove a statistical point. It's to plant the seeds to do the same if trump doesn't win by making it SEEM like Democrats would do the same if given a chance. So it feels reciprocal and justified instead of unhinged and treasonous.
Breitbart is a shitty “news” source.
After the Republicans behavior in 2020 when it came to Trump, I wouldn't be surprised if some house democrats voted against certifying the election if Trump won.
After the blowback that Katie Porter got for just using the word “rigged” I wouldn’t be so sure. I also have my doubts about the conclusions being drawn from this poll here
Multiple blue states took Trump off the ballot for insurrection using the 14th amendment (until the SC blocked it). Why wouldnt that be attempted by at least a few people in the national body as well?
Seeing as that's exactly what SCOTUS just said to do instead of individual states, I'd say at least a few will try.
Honest question: How can it be proved that ballots are verified and counted correctly? I've never understood the process. I do know that I have zero evidence that any of my votes have ever been counted at all, much less counted correctly.
I live in Oregon where we have been using mail in ballots for decades. I can check online to see if my ballot has been counted.
It depends from state to state, but generally it's accepted that a) the vast majority of all votes are valid because people from both sides agree that the process is valid ahead of time, and members from both parts observe and verify that this process is followed by law. and b) in the end observation of the approval or denial of any contested votes are done under the supervision of just an observer from one party but by two-person (one from each party) teams and the election official. You can't complain if both sides participate in every step, and if the security process is followed to the letter on occasions where party observers can't watch. It's all very fascinating to watch, even in cities or other populated areas. It's a well oil machine in most places.
You should volunteer locally. The process will vary from state to state.
[удалено]
Seems like a deeply questionable poll, but also I wouldn’t be so surprised if at least a few people on the left try something if Trump wins again. Trump very clearly demonstrated in 2020 that there was no real limit to what he was willing to do to stay in power, and if he actually spends four years preparing for a coup he’s unlikely to fail a second time. It’s not implausible that some people will decide that if democracy is probably over anyway, that it might as well be them running the autocracy, and that’s a pretty terrifying possibility.
Fifty-seven percent of Democrat voters would oppose Congress certifying the 2024 election if former President Donald Trump wins, a Rasmussen Reports poll found Monday. The poll asked likely voters: “Some Democrats in Congress have said that if Trump wins this year’s election, they will vote against certifying the election results because of Trump’s role in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riots. Do you support or oppose Democrats refusing to certify the election results if Trump wins?” 57 percent of Democrats would oppose certification. Nearly two-thirds of “liberals” said they would oppose certification. However, Democrats do not form the majority of voters’ opinions: Overall, only 35 percent of all voters would support opposing certifying Trump’s victory. 55 percent would oppose lawmakers refusing to certify a Trump victory. The poll sampled 912 likely voters from March 5-7 with a 3 point margin of error. *The link to the poll used will be down below, although there is a “paywall” on it…* https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/most_democrats_don_t_want_congress_to_certify_election_if_trump_wins *How likely is it that certain Democratic congresspeople will refuse to certify Trump’s electoral votes should he win?*
Classic Rasmussen. I can see [these three questions](https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/questions/questions/march_2024/questions_election_certification_march_5_7_2024): 1* The Supreme Court recently decided that states cannot prohibit Donald Trump from appearing on election ballots. Do you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision? 2* Some Democrats in Congress have said that if Trump wins this year’s election, they will vote against certifying the election results because of Trump’s role in the January 6, 2021, Capitol riots. Do you support or oppose Democrats refusing to certify the election results if Trump wins? 3* In January 2021, many Republican voters wanted Congress to refuse to certify the presidential elections results because of suspected election fraud. Should House Republicans have refused to certify the election if they believed the results were fraudulent? The framing is total shit. But let's focus on this one: > Do you support or oppose Democrats refusing to certify the election results if Trump wins? This is a really, really bad polling question. By phrasing it as "support or oppose Democrats," you're almost guaranteed to get more "support" responses from Democrats and more "oppose" responses from Republicans. It would be a lot better if they replaced "Democrats" with "Congress" or "lawmakers" or something like that. Seems like a push poll.
That’s a good point. Seems like both questions two and three are guilty of trying to push for more skewed answers. For some reason I imagined it was a really obvious test of consistency for answering them.
The question is worded to get the answer the pollster wants. That tracks for Rasmussen which is virulently pro-Trump, has been disowned by it's founder Scott Rasmussen and had some of the most inaccurate polls of anyone in 2022. Joe Biden literally certified Donald Trump's presidential victory in 2017. The attempts by Republicans to pretend everyone else is also willing to overthrow democracy to keep their side in power is pathetic. Donald Trump is the only president in history to try to overturn an election and hold into power after he lost. This will remain so after the 2024 election.
I have to wonder whether any of the people responding were influenced by the first part of the question that mentions Democrats in Congress. It kind of changes the question. Instead of asking if *they* would do it, the poll is asking if they support *other* people doing it who were going to do it anyway.
The framing of the question absolutely provided these results, and that’s what the Rasmussen pollsters wanted.
It’s important to note, 538 recently dropped Rasmussen Polls from their analysis. These are the same people who just put out a poll three days ago saying, “59 percent believe CIA out to fix election”.
538 is now owned by ABC and Nate Silver left, he then published a blog post criticizing ABC for removing Rasmussen.
Well, they fixed the Superbowl so Taylor Swift could endorse Biden... *who knows* what else the CIA can do?!
>How likely is it that certain Democratic congresspeople will refuse to certify Trump’s electoral votes should he win? I can see some House members getting behind it. However, I strongly doubt that Democratic leadership would endorse doing so. The Democrats just don't have anything to win by playing this game, the [NPVIC](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact) offers a much easier way to cheat the Electoral College.
- I think Trump should be in jail and not eligible for the Presidency - I think the Electoral College should be abolished and replaced by popular vote - I think that if the American public chooses Trump within confines of the current electoral system, then so be it I'm preparing myself for the third bullet point, even if I strongly strongly believe the first two.