Das Umfrage-Institut "Trafalgar Group" hat die letzten Wahlen in den USA auf verschiedenen Ebenen korrekt vorhergesagt und sagen nun aktuell, Trump wird auch in 2020 mit deutlicher Mehrheit wieder gewählt werden.
Antizipierte Verteilung der US-Wahlmänner (270 zum Sieg benötigt):
242 Biden
294 Trump
Bzw:
275 Trump
216 Biden
47 Unklar
Die Umfragen der vielen anderer Umfrageinstitute würden methodisch fehlerhaft sein, weil diese anderen Firmen 3 Dinge nicht korrekt tun:
Sie umgehen nicht den "social desirability bias". Trafalgar Group adjusts its polls for a "social desirability bias" effect, the hypothesized tendency of some voters to calibrate their responses to polls towards what they believe the survey taker would like to hear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trafalgar_Group#Method
Sie geben dem Befragten nicht das sichere Gefühl vollkommener Anonymität.
Sie machen ihre Befragungen jeweils zeitlich zu lang. Viele Eähler springen dann vor dem Befragungsende ab, weil sie genervt sind.
Die ausgewerteten Befragten sind dann nicht mehr repräsentativ, bestimmte Wählergruppen werden bei ihren Erhebungen nicht hinreichend berücksichtigen. Folge: Jene anderen Umfrage-Institute liefern falsche Ergebnisse.
Jene hätten (auch nachdem sie das US-Wahlergebnis in 2016 nicht korrekt vorhergesagt hatten) ihre methodischen Schwächen / Fehler seitdem nicht korrigiert, hätten also nichts dazugelernt, daher deren Falschprognose bei einer anderen US-Wahl in Florida in 2018. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTi...nvEJuVvXQaN3Mw
Killer-Argument der letzten Tage bei vielen US-Wählergruppen sei "Joe Biden’s push for more stringent COVID-19 lockdowns which will “wipe out” American prosperity for an entire generation." Korrekt ist: Joe Biden promised “I'm going to shut down the virus, not the country.” Viele Wähler vestehen nur "shut down" - und das wollen sie ganz und gar nicht, weshalb sie dann lieber (als kleineres Übel) Trump wählen, auch wenn sie den nicht recht mögen.
President Trump said the public “will not take” any more COVID-19 lockdowns.
“We can’t have the cure be worse than the problem itself,” he said.
“The Biden lockdown will result in countless deaths and wipe out an entire generation of dreams.”
Ganz unten angehängt 2 Vergleiche zwischen dem Umfrage-Institut "Trafalgar Group" und der Erhebung von CNN.
But the framers [=the Founding Fathers, die Verfasser der US-Verfassung] could foresee circumstances – namely, a fragmented race between little-known politicians – where no presidential candidate would secure an Electoral College majority. Reluctantly, they assigned the House of Representatives the responsibility to step in if that happened – presumably because as the institution closest to the people, it could bestow some democratic legitimacy on a contingent election.
Tied or contested election
The founders proved prescient: The elections of 1800 and 1824 did not produce winners in the Electoral College and were decided by the House. Thomas Jefferson was chosen in 1800 and John Quincy Adams in 1824.
Over time, the development of a two-party system with national nominating conventions – which allows parties to broker coalitions and unite behind a single presidential candidate – has basically ensured that the Electoral College produces a winner. Though the Electoral College has changed significantly since the 18th century, it has mostly kept Congress out of presidential selection.
A tie in the Electoral College is one way the 2020 election could end up with Congress. In the extremely unlikely scenario that both Joe Biden and Donald Trump get 269 electors, the election would be thrown into the House.
A more likely scenario is that the Trump campaign’s litigation winds up getting Congress involved in the 2020 election.
Though courts will decide specific questions of legal interpretation in voting disputes, they do not want to be perceived as deciding the 2020 election result, as the Supreme Court did in 2000. Where possible, judges will decline to hear lawsuits that ask big political questions and leave these issues for the political system to resolve.
Enter Congress. If neither candidate gets to 270 electors due to disputed ballots, the House would have to decide the election.
Though the House has a Democratic majority, such an outcome would almost certainly benefit Trump. Here’s why: In a concession to small states concerned their voices would be marginalized if the House was called upon to choose the president, the founders gave only one vote to each state. House delegations from each state meet to decide how to cast their single vote.
That voting procedure gives equal representation to California – population 40 million – and Wyoming, population 600,000.
This arrangement favors Republicans. The GOP has dominated the House delegations of 26 states since 2018 – exactly the number required to reach a majority under the rules of House presidential selection. But it’s not the current House that would decide a contested 2020 election; it is the newly elected House, and many Nov. 3 congressional races remain undecided. So far, though, Republicans have retained control of the 26 congressional delegations they currently hold, and Democrats have lost control of two states, Minnesota and Iowa.
Evenly divided delegations count as abstentions, and Republican gains in Minnesota and Iowa are moving these states from Democratic to abstentions.
The Election That Could Break America
If the vote is close, Donald Trump could easily throw the election into chaos and subvert the result. Who will stop him?
December 8 is known as the “safe harbor” deadline for appointing the 538 men and women who make up the Electoral College. The electors do not meet until six days later, December 14, but each state must appoint them by the safe-harbor date to guarantee that Congress will accept their credentials. The controlling statute says that if “any controversy or contest” remains after that, then Congress will decide which electors, if any, may cast the state’s ballots for president.
We are accustomed to choosing electors by popular vote, but nothing in the Constitution says it has to be that way. Article II provides that each state shall appoint electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” Since the late 19th century, every state has ceded the decision to its voters. Even so, the Supreme Court affirmed in Bush v. Gore that a state “can take back the power to appoint electors.” How and when a state might do so has not been tested for well over a century.
Trump may test this. According to sources in the Republican Party at the state and national levels, the Trump campaign is discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority. With a justification based on claims of rampant fraud, Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly. The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires.
To a modern democratic sensibility, discarding the popular vote for partisan gain looks uncomfortably like a coup, whatever license may be found for it in law. Would Republicans find that position disturbing enough to resist? Would they cede the election before resorting to such a ploy? Trump’s base would exact a high price for that betrayal, and by this point party officials would be invested in a narrative of fraud.
The Trump-campaign legal adviser I spoke with told me the push to appoint electors would be framed in terms of protecting the people’s will. Once committed to the position that the overtime count has been rigged, the adviser said, state lawmakers will want to judge for themselves what the voters intended.
“The state legislatures will say, ‘All right, we’ve been given this constitutional power. We don’t think the results of our own state are accurate, so here’s our slate of electors that we think properly reflect the results of our state,’ ” the adviser said. Democrats, he added, have exposed themselves to this stratagem by creating the conditions for a lengthy overtime.
“If you have this notion,” the adviser said, “that ballots can come in for I don’t know how many days—in some states a week, 10 days—then that onslaught of ballots just gets pushed back and pushed back and pushed back. So pick your poison. Is it worse to have electors named by legislators or to have votes received by Election Day?”
Zitat:
How can it be that Congress slips into unbreakable deadlock? The law is a labyrinth in these parts, too intricate to map in a magazine article, but I can sketch one path.
Suppose Pennsylvania alone sends rival slates of electors, and their 20 votes will decide the presidency.
Zitat:
The political system may no longer be strong enough to preserve its integrity. It’s a mistake to take for granted that election boards and state legislatures and Congress are capable of drawing lines that ensure a legitimate vote and an orderly transfer of power. We may have to find a way to draw those lines ourselves.
