[gw-ington]

Compelling? Why? What would success do to change Electoral vote?

The SCOTUS could rule as "unconstitutional" any election-rules changes made without the approval of the state legislature and/or the people of that state. That could open the door to potentially invalidating any votes that wouldn't have counted but for those unconstitutional election-rules changes. If those votes were then removed from that state's vote total, it could potentially flip the Presidential election outcome in that particular state. A lot of if's, could's, maybe's, potentially's, would's, and possibly's. And that would be for just that one state.

Given that today is "Safe Harbor" Day, and almost no positive outcomes have transpired, and it's only 6 days til the Electoral College meets, I'm again reducing my WAG guess for President Trump's reelection chances from 14% down to 12%. About four days after election day, I initially estimated Trump had a 25% chance of gaining a second term. Two weeks ago, I raised it to 27%. But since, then, I've been gradually reducing his reelection chances as events (mostly negative court outcomes) have transpired. I'll continue updating my WAG estimate as future events ensue .....

[Agamemnon]

I'm again reducing my WAG guess for President Trump's reelection chances from 14% down to 12%.

You have correctly laid out the matter of the unconstitutional last minute rules changes which had to be voted on by legislatures, but were not. This appears to have little significance to you for some reason, as you insist on depressing your prediction of Trump's success.

Then you stomp further on your "WAG" prediction without taking into account the action taken by TX.

"Safe harbor" and "Electoral College" can vote and select all they want, but if the election of 1876 is any indication and the USSC Throckmorton decision (1878) set precedence for USSC, if an election is being actively challenged for fraud, the USSC can take all the time it needs to get to the bottom of it, and allow electors to be awarded on the basis of their findings

Your predictions are either pathologically uninformed, or you are simply nothing more than a professional black pill suppression pollster like all the other "pros."

Get lost.

[Sense]

Taking the case in one thing...

Figuring out where they’re likely to go with it is another ?

One potential... would be the simplest... is to point out that an election is what happens when you follow the law on having an election.

And, when you pretend to follow the law, and pretend that what you’re doing is an election, when in fact you’re not following the law... is theater... and not an election.

If what happened is “not an election”... then, none of its products can be legitimately held out to be what they’re held out as being now.

What the court says “the law requires” is the key... but there’s also lots that matters in HOW they say it ?

And, then, what will the court do in addressing “a proper remedy”... ?

Do they even have to do that... if they decide no election was held ? Can’t others figure that out, from there ?