The first 2020 'official' election prediction thread..... (Page 46/76)
rinselberg DEC 09, 07:11 PM
Team Trump "Hail Mary" VS Arizona Cardinals "Hail Murray"

Let's start with Team Trump. This was published within the last hour.

"Donald Trump demands to join Texas’ Hail Mary bid to overturn his election"

quote
President Donald Trump has filed a motion to join lawsuit filed by the attorney general of Texas seeking to overturn the election in four states that he lost – and his new lawyer produced a filing claiming there is something ‘deeply amiss’ in the results.

The lawyer, John Eastman, who penned an op-ed this summer doubting whether Vice President-elect Kamal Harris was eligible for office despite her being born in California.

The new legal brief with Trump’s name on it, a motion for Trump, identified as the president, ‘to intervene in his personal capacity as candidate for re-election,’ includes many of the same arguments Trump has put forward on his Twitter account – including Wednesday, when Trump tweeted no candidate has ever lost the White House while carrying Florida and Ohio.

Want more?
It's from "isabellakhademhosseini" (really) at "Texas News Today." And here's your page link:
https://texasnewstoday.com/...-his-election/76471/

The Arizona Cardinals "Hail Murray" was "filed" during NFL Week 10, back on Sunday, November 15, at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, AZ.

It's easier to see it on YouTube (just 23 seconds) than it would be to read about it. So here:
https://youtu.be/lkQOJmmCS-0

According to "NextGenStats," ... Is that where the comma that creates a pause in cadence belongs? My inclination would be to have the comma after that closing quotation mark. But Todd or '82" has called me out on that. I'm not sure. Maybe I'm misunderstanding him.

Let's try that again. I will go against my inclination.

According to "NextGenStats," there was only a 16.9 percent completion probability when Arizona Cardinals quarterback Kyler Murray connected on that 43-yard pass play with Cardinals wide receiver DeAndre Hopkins. I have it on good authority (Ian Rapoport) that this was the third most improbable completion on a pass play of Kyler Murray's entire NFL career.


quote
"Kyler Murray had a ridiculously low chance of completing incredible Hail Mary to DeAndre Hopkins"
The best play of the 2020 NFL season shouldn’t have happened.

Kyler Murray’s unbelievable Hail Mary completion to DeAndre Hopkins in Week 10 had such a low chance of success that it was statistically one of the most improbable completions of Murray’s young career.

Chris Cwik for Yahoo! Sports; November 16, 2020.
https://sports.yahoo.com/ky...pkins-160709415.html

Kyler Murray has filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for a trademark for the phrase "Hail Murray."
Josh Weinfuss, ESPN Staff Writer; November 20, 2020.
https://www.espn.com/nfl/st...rademark-hail-murray

But let's get back to Team Trump. Does anyone know where to find a "NextGenStats" or anything similar for Team Trump's "Hail Mary" filing to join Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's lawsuit, with the aim of reversing the presidential election results in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan and Georgia from Biden to Trump? Is it higher than the 16.9 percent success probability for the "Hail Murray"..? Lower?

I don't see it, myself. I think the judges--any judges--will be reluctant to intervene in such a dramatic way in an issue where Texas is on one side, and four other states not called "Texas" are on the other side. So my "NextGenStats" analysis is very low. Lower even than the 16.9 percent odds that were all the "Hail Murray" had going for it, before the football was snapped on that remarkable play from scrimmage.

"What's yours?"

So long for now.

[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-09-2020).]

Hudini DEC 09, 08:06 PM
17 states have now joined the Texas lawsuit.
randye DEC 09, 08:41 PM

quote
Originally posted by Hudini:

17 states have now joined the Texas lawsuit.




Well then I suppose if Constitutional law worked according to the "numerical superiority" of either the defendants or the plaintiffs as rinselberg weirdly presumes then the 17 plaintiffs in this matter should prevail over the 4 defendants.

Obviously it doesn't work that way but Leftist "logic'' is frequently entertaining if not downright laughable.



quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:


I think the judges--any judges--will be reluctant to intervene in such a dramatic way in an issue where Texas is on one side, and four other states not called "Texas" are on the other side.


[This message has been edited by randye (edited 12-09-2020).]

randye DEC 09, 08:53 PM

quote
Originally posted by sourmash:


No, this was Mike Kelly challenging the rules changes. They said he waited too long.



Thanks for the clarification.

There is so much litigation flying around right now that even LexisNexus is having trouble staying up to date.
rinselberg DEC 09, 09:31 PM
To reiterate: I don't see it, myself. I think the judges--any judges--will be reluctant to intervene in such a dramatic way in an issue where Texas is on one side, and four other states not called "Texas" are on the other side.

I was unaware at the time that 17 other states have joined the Texas AG's lawsuit.

But it doesn't fundamentally change my thinking about it.

I still think that the Supreme Court, as a body, is not going to be receptive to the idea of wading into this legal territory of State Vs State when it comes to the voting and the election. I am aware that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction when one or more states has a dispute with one or more other states, but I still think the Supreme Court will not want to get involved in this elections-related case. I think that Federalism will be upmost in the minds of the justices, and so they will be respectful of the primacy of every state over the voting that is conducted within its state boundaries.

But hey--I'm just speculating. No one needs to take this with anything more than a small grain of salt. Or maybe with a one-ton block of salt. Depending on how that metaphor or figure of speech has been historically interpreted. I think it would be a "large" grain of salt. If a grain of salt could be "large."

HAGO.
sourmash DEC 09, 09:48 PM
They're going to throw the decision to the House of Representatives. Are you wondering how that's gonna work out?
engine man DEC 09, 10:46 PM
If they send it to the House it is a good thing as it is not done by who has majority in the house but it is 1 vote from each state so it is 27 o 23 republican so that would put Trump back in
quote
Originally posted by sourmash:

They're going to throw the decision to the House of Representatives. Are you wondering how that's gonna work out?



sourmash DEC 09, 10:51 PM
Yep, and the riots commence.
randye DEC 09, 11:01 PM

quote
Originally posted by sourmash:

Yep, and the riots commence.



Commence AGAIN

Did you sleep through the past 10 months?
rinselberg DEC 09, 11:05 PM

quote
Originally posted by engine man:
If they send it to the House it is a good thing as it is not done by who has majority in the house but it is 1 vote from each state so it is 27 o 23 republican so that would put Trump back in.


I was just reading about that the other day. What sticks in my mind is that there is another part of that process that involves the House voting in its regular way, where all 435 members of the House of Representatives vote.

I don't think I can find my way back to that article that I read.