2024 Presidential Election | ELECTION DAY 2024
- Thread starter nycfan
- Start date
- Replies: 8K
- Views: 287K
- Politics
All true. It’s that last part about all legitimate votes being counted that worries me most.
lawtig02
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,956
Elon obviously knows about sensible spending.
Elon Musk convinced pals Marc Andreessen, Changpeng Zhao and Prince Al Waleed to invest in Twitter. They’re down 67%, according to a new Fidelity filing
Musk rallied arguably the most prestigious roster of technology superstars ever assembled for a single investment. It hasn't gone well so far.
“We can apply the same math to the 19 equity partners’ original, $7.1 billion investment. By Fidelity’s measure, it’s now worth one-third of that total, or $2.34 billion, meaning that as of now, the group has suffered an almost $5 billion loss. That’s a $670 million drop for Ellison, a $540 million slide for Sequoia investors, and a $260 million bath for the Andreessen Horowitz Capital Fund. By Fidelity’s reckoning, Baron’s down by $67 million.”
heelinhell
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 2,044
I agree 100%
The outcome will depend upon turnout and the success ( or lack thereof ) of the GQP voter suppression/nullification strategies.
- Messages
- 2,297
I feel it's irresponsible when any article centered on Elon's investment and economic opinions/history doesn't include the fact his wealth was built on the back of public dollars.Elon obviously knows about sensible spending.
Elon Musk convinced pals Marc Andreessen, Changpeng Zhao and Prince Al Waleed to invest in Twitter. They’re down 67%, according to a new Fidelity filing
Musk rallied arguably the most prestigious roster of technology superstars ever assembled for a single investment. It hasn't gone well so far.fortune.com
“We can apply the same math to the 19 equity partners’ original, $7.1 billion investment. By Fidelity’s measure, it’s now worth one-third of that total, or $2.34 billion, meaning that as of now, the group has suffered an almost $5 billion loss. That’s a $670 million drop for Ellison, a $540 million slide for Sequoia investors, and a $260 million bath for the Andreessen Horowitz Capital Fund. By Fidelity’s reckoning, Baron’s down by $67 million.”
IllegalMotion9999
Member
- Messages
- 12
Oh let me have some fun ruthlessly speculating.
The election boils down to seven swing states and the Omaha district in Nebraska. Looking at today's NYT/Siena polls, it is quite possible Trump will win AZ, NC, and GA. If Harris wins the three rust belt states, PA, MI, and WI, that would put the count at 269 for Harris and 268 for Trump. All that has to happen is the Omaha district goes for Trump OR the process is changed so that all five NE electoral votes go to one candidate. So while not very likely, I do think it is a bit more likely than many think.
I would also point out that the Robinson impact in NC is likely very significant and could help Harris win NC, which would be huge.
And I still chuckle thinking about the tie scenario...Harris could become President with Vance as her VP so that Harris could issue an Executive Order on Day One directing Vance to shave his beard just to mess with him.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 8,871
The tie scenario doesn't work like that. After 12th Am, pres and vice pres are chosen separately. For Harris and Vance to end up together, it would require the Dems to hold the Senate, which is unlikely in a scenario of Trump ekeing out a tie.
NOTE: Re-reading the 12th Am demonstrates a possible way around the Nebraska situation. The quorum for the House vote is 2/3. If the blue state delegations don't show up, then the House can't choose and VP Harris will become acting president. It's unclear what would happen if the Pub Reps from a blue state tried to show up and cast votes for that state. Presumably the blue states could pass laws stating that their delegations cannot vote in a way differently from how their electors voted.
I wouldn't bet my life on that ploy working. I probably wouldn't bet $100. But once we get into that uncharted territory, lots of things can happen
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 8,871
Apparently the Nebraska gambit is off. The guy the Pubs needed to flip did not flip. He announced today that he's voting no.
FWIW he's a former Dem who is term-limited and has his eyes set on being mayor of Omaha. I suspect he decided that he would be unable to win that race if he voted to screw that district. Also, he probably hates Trump, and also he's doing the right thing.
FWIW he's a former Dem who is term-limited and has his eyes set on being mayor of Omaha. I suspect he decided that he would be unable to win that race if he voted to screw that district. Also, he probably hates Trump, and also he's doing the right thing.
StrangePackage
Iconic Member
- Messages
- 1,603
I kinda wonder about an equitable estoppel argument - selectively asking to be on certain ballots and off others seems incongruous.
lawtig02
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 3,956
That’s one of those “small” stories that could prove to be a major chapter in US History curricula in 50 years.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 8,871
There are other plaintiffs in the NY action. Not that it matters.
The residency requirement for presidential elections is a bit fishy -- but it's also arguably required by the Constitution, since after all, the VP and Pres candidates have to be from different states. And that's indeed one reason, I suspect, that Kennedy is trying to run as a NY resident. Shanahan is a CA resident, which is what Kennedy would be but for that residence.
I think he would have had a better chance if he had sought an injunction against the residency requirement in the spring. He didn't. So now he's facing a situation where he gathered signatures *based on a lie* and now wants the residency requirement deemed unconstitutional. OK, but he still lied on his petitions. At this point, the state would be fully justified -- in my view -- to invalidate his petitions based on that fact. That's certainly how it's done in other states.
SnoopRob
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 2,978
My understanding is that the first actual deadline of any kind is Oct 7th, when the state starts early voting, and that's only under a "don't change the rules once voting starts" ethical guideline. And that there's really nothing stopping them from changing it any time between now and election day.
So I won't be comfortable that Nebraska Pubs won't pull this off until we get to election night and the law is unchanged.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 8,871
Guy sounded pretty definitive that he's not going for it. The legislature isn't in session. The governor said he would call a special session if they had the votes to defeat a filibuster, which they don't have.
Again, this is a guy who was a Dem until he got censured by the Dems in April (WHY???). He wants to be mayor of Omaha. The current mayor, a Pub, does not support changing the EV. He's term limited. If he votes to change the EV, his political career is done.
IllegalMotion9999
Member
- Messages
- 12
Just want to point out that the House elects the President and the Senate elects the VP in the event of an electoral tie. So it does work like that. If there is an unlikely electoral tie, the Senate would elect Vance and there is a part of me that can see enough Repubs holding out on Trump that Harris would somehow win in the House.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 8,871
I just can't imagine a scenario in which Pubs would dump Trump and keep Vance. Vance is even less popular than Trump. Plus, it would prob take more than just a few Pubs holding out on Trump in the House because the voting is by state.
Technically it is possible but I think we're talking powerball lottery odds.
SnoopRob
Inconceivable Member
- Messages
- 2,978
And he's trying out life as a Republican in Nebraska, I would imagine that by not supporting a change to Nebraska's EC apportionment he's putting his career on the line.
It seems he's in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, but given that he's thrown his lot in with the Pubs I would imagine that he'll be under a lot of pressure between now and whatever internal deadline the Nebraska Pubs set for the change.
It's possible he's sincere and that he really will hold out, but I won't feel confident until it's too late for the change to be enacted.
superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 8,871
The current mayor of Omaha has the same position that he does on the EV. So if he's really eyeing that position, this is the right position for him to take.
I hear you on the "won't be confident" part, but they've now pushed twice and they have been unsuccessful twice. At some point, they will stop pushing. They will need his vote on other things as well. He could flip back to Dem.
The guy also proposed that they put the matter for a constitutional amendment next year. That strikes me as a sign of sincerity. Basically, he's saying, let's decide what we want to do and put it in the constitution so the legislature can't fuck around with it in the future whenever it sees possible short-term electoral gain.
I have trouble imagining that this guy was a Dem for most of his life, and doesn't have a visceral hatred for Trump.