Talk:2383: Electoral Precedent 2020

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 14:55, 10 November 2020 by (talk)
Jump to: navigation, search

Can anyone identify the faded background text in the 2016 panel?

Is there some shadow text behind the main text in the 2016 square? I can barely make it out. It looks like "No nominee whose first name contains a "k" has lost", which would be the same from the 1122 comic. ChunyangD (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

It's the alternative text from the 2016 one: "No nominee whose first name contains a "K" has lost." 00:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that Obama did in fact have a campaign website in 2008 when he was a challenger. See Bobjr (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I think "challenger" means that they're going against the incumbent. Obama was up against McCain, who wasn't an incumbent. Barmar (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

How much do we want the explanation for this one to repeat what is in that of 1122?--Troy0 (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

We shouldn't. If the explanation of 1122 is missing something it should be added there. Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Didn't Clinton win after being impeached? Alcatraz ii (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he was impeached during his first term. Barmar (talk) 01:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
No, this is not true, Clinton was impeached during his 2nd term, in 1998, and he was not eligible for a 3rd term. George W. Bush won the following presidential election in 2000. 01:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

You could also say Joe was the first President with a rescue dog Squire80513 (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)Squire80513

Does not Lyndon B Johnson's dog, Yuki, count? 02:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
LBJ's Yuki was a "rescue" (found wandering aimlessly around a gas station) but not a "shelter" dog. Joe's dog is the first first canine from a shelter. It's subtle distinction that many repeating the statistic miss MAP (talk) 03:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Point of order, why is Biden being referred to as president elect? I was under the impression that the term shouldn't be used until the dispute is resolved. With several pending legal cases and the votes uncertified by the states. - 3:45 11/10/20 Template:unsigned IP

All major media sources have called the race for Biden as of Saturday, November 8th. XKCD, and this wiki, will follow the lead of the Associated Press or New York Times, both of whom say the race has concluded and Joe Biden is the president elect. - 4:38 11/10/20 Template:unsigned IP
Except for one of the most trusted- still has Pennsylvania up for grabs due to lawsuits and is about to move Michigan back into play after a poll worker claimed that a delivery of Biden-only votes came into a Detroit counting room at 3:30 am on November 4.Seebert (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Your assertion of trust without reason comes across as fake news; however, I checked the history for, and it has over a decade of history. I also visited the site and at a cursor glance it might have rational articles from both political sides, which seems commendable. If it is actually trustworthy, why didn't you explain that it is and why it is, given the current news environment? 14:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Not only that, but A) while "the votes uncertified by the states" may influence the exact total, they can't make Trump win, B) a Trump victory would require that ALL legal cases are resolved in Trump's favor (depending on uncertified votes) and C) the Republican party asked to Trump to concede victory, meaning that nobody with political experience believes those legal cases have a chance of success. The only unknown point is the result of the EC election, but it is naturally assumed they will vote for the elected candidate. 08:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
"Presumptive president elect" would be more accurate (and I say this as someone that voted for Biden). -- 10:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand how the statement for 1876 could have been true: if J.Q. Adams won in 1824 without a popular majority, then his opponent won the majority and still lost, so Tilden couldn't have been the first in 1876 to win the majority and lose? 08:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Simple: there were more than two candidates. In 1824, there were four candidates who each got over 10% of the vote. That's how Adams could win without the majority, without one of his opponents then having the majority. (In fact, Jackson had the plurality of the votes, but not the majority, but Adams was elected by the House.) -- 11:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Bad with formatting here, but I updated the bit about precedent to include that Trump's raw vote total (approx 71.5 million, also not yet certified) is also breaking the precedent set by Obama in 2008. Love them or hate them, in this high-turnout election, both major party candidates had record numbers for their raw vote totals. Trump doesn't make it to first place above Obama because Biden makes it to first place above Trump. I didn't look into whether the percentage of eligible population numbers are different, but higher turnout combined with higher population makes breaking that barrier a little easier. 13:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Especially since poll workers were caught on camera in Wisconsin putting Trump Votes upside-down into the scanner, but scanning Biden votes correctly.Seebert (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
How was this discovered? How can we hunt down more occurrences? Did the machine reject the ballots and the people fix the error? (and what are the ramifications of a camera recording vote ballots?) There is no reason to not suspect the opposite happens too: that anybody's votes could be put in upside down. 14:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)