I don't find this odd or hard to believe at all. Trump's appeal was to the disenfranchised and frightened. And there are more of those now, thanks in large part to his actions and inactions over the last 4 years, than there were last election cycle.
I think "aggrieved feeling" would be a better descriptor than "disenfranchised". The Republican party works very hard to disenfranchise America's potential voters, and if you're truly disenfranchised you can't vote for anyone.
It would be interesting to, but probably impossible to ever find out, what Trump/GOP’s share of the vote looks like without voter suppression.
Stuffing the ballot boxes is so "last century". Voter suppression is so much more modern, effective - and it's almost always legal under the relevant state law.
I don't find this odd or hard to believe at all. Trump's appeal was to the disenfranchised and frightened. And there are more of those now, thanks in large part to his actions and inactions over the last 4 years, than there were last election cycle.
I think "aggrieved feeling" would be a better descriptor than "disenfranchised". The Republican party works very hard to disenfranchise America's potential voters, and if you're truly disenfranchised you can't vote for anyone.
You're committing the etymological fallacy. The word means more now than just "not allowed to vote". Although I should say that they FEEL disenfranchised, not that they really are.
Although I should say that they FEEL disenfranchised, not that they really are.
Again, I'm not sure this analysis holds. According to New York Times exit polling Donald Trump won 57% of the votes of white Americans and 26% of the votes of non-white Americans. Does this mean that non-white Americans aren't frightened and generally feel like everything about America is going great for them? Or at least a lot better than it's going for white Americans? That doesn't seem to fit reality.
A Twitter thread with an alternate explanation (or maybe just a less euphemistic version of the same explanation) for Donald Trump's support:
Now, IDK if its just that I'm one of fewer academics that come from the real, unpolished, bottom 50% world, and not the romanticized bullshit painted by J.D. Vance of working-class America - the real one where people have 3 kids from 3 different women and get angry when 1 of them is reticent to let them visit their kid when they get out jail. AGAIN. In THAT working class, sexism, racism, xenophobia, and bigotry run rampant: and not only are these "isms" prevalent, there is a belief that they shouldn't have had to be buried (see how that relates back to their culture war champion?) That the old days were far superior bc they could just call someone a f&g or slap their female co-worker in the ass is they were in the mood. There was a hierarchy, a caste as @Isabelwilkerson notes, and they were at the top of it. Everything else might be a shit sandwich, their job, their house, their marriage, their debt, but that hierarchy & their place at the top of it - as Wilkerson notes in her book, that shit was SOLID.
And now its gone.
And do you know who took it?
The Democrats
There are lot of people who feel disenfranchised because, even though they can vote, they don't feel as though voting would make any difference. In some cases that might be because they vote blue in a very red state, or vice versa. It could also be because they look at the options and don't see anyone who will actually change anything for them - and, for a lot of those people someone who presents themselves as very different from the run-of-the-mill candidate, someone who presents themselves as a breath of fresh air, may appear to be someone who will finally do something for them.
The reality is that white people* feel that they are losing their place and are becoming second class citizens. Black and brown people know that they are actually disenfranchised.
Actually, part of the problem is that most of the white people are also correct, but they attribute their decline to the wrong people. The people who stir their fear and who they vote for are the ones driving them down the economic and social ladder and would be doing so even if there were no melanin in America at all.
And yes, the twitter thread is correct. Life being tough is mollified if someone else has it worse. People suck.
The idea of the 1%er ideologues railing against the "elite ruling class" would be hilarious if it did not result in such tragedy.
There are lot of people who feel disenfranchised because, even though they can vote, they don't feel as though voting would make any difference. In some cases that might be because they vote blue in a very red state, or vice versa. It could also be because they look at the options and don't see anyone who will actually change anything for them - and, for a lot of those people someone who presents themselves as very different from the run-of-the-mill candidate, someone who presents themselves as a breath of fresh air, may appear to be someone who will finally do something for them.
The people the solid red (American Conservative) states, feel disenfranchised. They thing the coastal "elites" are disenfranchising them, whilst they are actually disenfranchising a greater percentage of people.
People of color don't fear becoming a plurality in a nation that's majority brown. They probably look forward to it. If I made it sound like Trump made every person feel empowered, it was inadvertent. He capitalized on the feeling of racist whites of being supplanted by "those other people". And there were a lot more whites with a tenuous hold on the White American Dream in 2020 than in 2016, due to the massive job losses caused by Trump's clusterfuck of a response to Covid-19.
Not necessarily. Remember that what we have at the moment are media projections of election outcomes based on uncertified vote counts. No state has certified its election returns yet and no slates of electors have been officially designated. Short-circuiting a process underway doesn't necessarily violate the Constitution's prohibition against ex post facto laws.
It makes no difference where the vote count is today. My argument is that the state laws in place at the time the election occurred assign the selection of electors to the voters. The election, under these laws, has already happened; a change after the fact in how the electors are selected is ex post facto. Changing how the electors are selected in 2024 and beyond is not.
Certainly it would be litigated, but it's a clear argument.
It makes no difference where the vote count is today. My argument is that the state laws in place at the time the election occurred assign the selection of electors to the voters. The election, under these laws, has already happened; a change after the fact in how the electors are selected is ex post facto. Changing how the electors are selected in 2024 and beyond is not.
It makes no difference where the vote count is today. My argument is that the state laws in place at the time the election occurred assign the selection of electors to the voters. The election, under these laws, has already happened; a change after the fact in how the electors are selected is ex post facto. Changing how the electors are selected in 2024 and beyond is not.
It makes no difference where the vote count is today. My argument is that the state laws in place at the time the election occurred assign the selection of electors to the voters. The election, under these laws, has already happened; a change after the fact in how the electors are selected is ex post facto. Changing how the electors are selected in 2024 and beyond is not.
I suppose they may move to limit mail-in ballots generally, but not retrospectively. That would mess up 2024 but not 2020.
Retrospective restraint re Pennsylvania late arriving ballots might get justified by some maladministration argument I suppose. Doubt whether it would affect the Pennsylvania result given the substantial majority by certification time. 60k plus is a conservative prediction. for that majority.
More worrying is what that link demonstrates of the thought processes of these conservative judges.
It makes no difference where the vote count is today. My argument is that the state laws in place at the time the election occurred assign the selection of electors to the voters. The election, under these laws, has already happened; a change after the fact in how the electors are selected is ex post facto. Changing how the electors are selected in 2024 and beyond is not.
I suppose they may move to limit mail-in ballots generally, but not retrospectively. That would mess up 2024 but not 2020.
Except that's pretty much exactly what Gorsuch is arguing, that ballots legally cast under the rules as they existed at the time the ballot was cast can be discarded after the fact.
Legislating from the bench and partisan politics have always been a part of the Supreme court. This is just a bald expression of it.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited November 2020
That would apply to exceptional arrangements made for COVID-19 by late changes to State laws. Unless I'm missing something that might lead to a removal from the count of only the segregated late arriving ballots in Pennsylvania.
I haven't seen total figures for how many that is, not any figures about how they break for Trump or Biden. I have heard arguments that the numbers are insufficient to overturn the Biden majority as expected even if they are excluded.
What strikes me as constitutionally weird is any argument that mail in ballots and some allowance for their arrival are ipso facto a bad thing because they cause delay and controversy. The precedent for that is in the military ballots. They can't be arguing special treatment for the military just because they are military.
That would apply to exceptional arrangements made for COVID-19 by late changes to State laws. Unless I'm missing something that might lead to a removal from the count of only the segregated late arriving ballots in Pennsylvania.
I haven't seen total figures for how many that is, not any figures about how they break for Trump or Biden. I have heard arguments that the numbers are insufficient to overturn the Biden majority as expected even if they are excluded.
What strikes me as constitutionally weird is any argument that mail in ballots and some allowance for their arrival are ipso facto a bad thing because they cause delay and controversy. The precedent for that is in the military ballots. They can't be arguing special treatment for the military just because they are military.
But maybe I'm missing something? Very probably!
It's very simple: if it favours Republicans it's good; if it favours Democrats it's bad.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Sure. But that's not a sound legal argument (or rationalisation).
I think it was Lord Denning (in the UK context) who observed that a judge might reach a conclusion on general principles then work out how to make the law fit. I'm a bit concerned in this case that the 'principle' might be unprincipled!
What strikes me as constitutionally weird is any argument that mail in ballots and some allowance for their arrival are ipso facto a bad thing because they cause delay and controversy.
I don't know about constitutionally weird, but just by common sense weird - if causing delay and controversy is a bad thing then surely that makes extending that delay and adding controversy by having the US Supreme Court get involved in purely State arrangements for conducting the election is even more bad than letting the postal service have a couple more days to deliver the ballots.
What strikes me as constitutionally weird is any argument that mail in ballots and some allowance for their arrival are ipso facto a bad thing because they cause delay and controversy.
I don't know about constitutionally weird, but just by common sense weird - if causing delay and controversy is a bad thing then surely that makes extending that delay and adding controversy by having the US Supreme Court get involved in purely State arrangements for conducting the election is even more bad than letting the postal service have a couple more days to deliver the ballots.
So how do white minority people feel in a place like Jamaica or other countries with a black majority. Are there any similarities in being disenfranchised etc?
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
On the Pennsylvania thing, CNN just said that the current 40k plus lead doesn't include late arrival ballots so any Supreme Court decision may have constitutional significance rather than practical significance this time.
GOP have asserted that some districts might not have followed the instruction to segregate and count separately but I guess they would need proof of that.
Of course I am not gifted with Insane Troll Logic ......
What strikes me as constitutionally weird is any argument that mail in ballots and some allowance for their arrival are ipso facto a bad thing because they cause delay and controversy. The precedent for that is in the military ballots. They can't be arguing special treatment for the military just because they are military.
But maybe I'm missing something? Very probably!
Weird is the very concept that an individual can do everything by the law and yet be punished for the failure of the mechanisms the government put in place to facilitate their participation and that the government causes to fail.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Maybe there's an opportunity now for a Federal Law on Voter Suppression. Penalties (jail) would apply to those who make state rules which prevent voters exercising their right to vote or to have it counted or those petty officials allow it. Make discarding complaints of suppression (where there's credible evidence) an offence too.
Getting such a law passed would put the very obvious right to vote under public scrutiny and make opposing such a law difficult to justify.
ETA: Actually that's a silly comment it must exist already. Just ensure it's enforced.
Maybe there's an opportunity now for a Federal Law on Voter Suppression. Penalties (jail) would apply to those who make state rules which prevent voters exercising their right to vote or to have it counted or those petty officials allow it. Make discarding complaints of suppression (where there's credible evidence) an offence too.
Getting such a law passed would put the very obvious right to vote under public scrutiny and make opposing such a law difficult to justify.
ETA: Actually that's a silly comment it must exist already. Just ensure it's enforced.
VOter suppression is ENSHRINED in the laws of some states. Those laws are not so labled, but it is their intent.
And if you think that McConnell has any qualms about forestalling any law making it easier to vote, you have not been paying attention. McConnell has publicly stated that he is for any means that promote his agendas. His supporters don't care because it supports theirs.
Maybe there's an opportunity now for a Federal Law on Voter Suppression. Penalties (jail) would apply to those who make state rules which prevent voters exercising their right to vote or to have it counted or those petty officials allow it. Make discarding complaints of suppression (where there's credible evidence) an offence too.
Getting such a law passed would put the very obvious right to vote under public scrutiny and make opposing such a law difficult to justify.
ETA: Actually that's a silly comment it must exist already. Just ensure it's enforced.
The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College.
It's shocking to hear that voter suppression is enshrined in some state law (if lilbuddha is correct) rather than merely accepted as an occasional failing and surprising that it's not a guaranteed right to vote for President. Could a Federal Law overrule any of that (even in theory, I can see that resistance would make it difficult) ? Maybe a state's Electors should be disallowed if sufficient voter suppression to affect a fair result is discovered.
As I understand it the explicit voter suppression laws are those that forbid people with a criminal record to vote.
Otherwise, it's a mixture of requiring forms of identification that not everyone will have, or else, being unable to afford to open polling stations in areas that coincidentally have a lot of less well off voters.
As I understand it the explicit voter suppression laws are those that forbid people with a criminal record to vote.
Otherwise, it's a mixture of requiring forms of identification that not everyone will have, or else, being unable to afford to open polling stations in areas that coincidentally have a lot of less well off voters.
It is also gerrymandering. closing down polling places, limiting early and absentee voting, purging voter rolls and probably more that I am not aware of.
Don’t give Boris any ideas. We are encouraged to register as a voter and we all get voter cards. Even then if your name and address matches the one on the paper in front of the official you can vote without the card. If politicians tried some of the shenanigans the US tried there would be up roar.
Could a Federal Law overrule any of that (even in theory, I can see that resistance would make it difficult) ? Maybe a state's Electors should be disallowed if sufficient voter suppression to affect a fair result is discovered.
The Voting Rights Act used to invalidate a lot of old style Jim Crow voter suppression tactics, things that were prima facie race-neutral but had an as-applied effect of suppressing the votes of non-whites. This fell under federal jurisdiction because the Fifteenth Amendment explicitly gave Congress the power to prevent racial discrimination in voting.
Luckily John Roberts noticed that there was no more racism in America and ruled the VRA unnecessary. Normally the Supreme Court rules things "unconstitutional", but Roberts neglected to specify which part of the Constitution the VRA violated. He simply said that 1975* was a long time ago and things are different now. If you think an "originalist" would leave such determinations to Congress, you're obviously not a Republican-nominated Supreme Court Justice.
*The last time the preclearance formulas in the VRA were modified by Congress.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Makes you think, that. Disturbing To see how ground gained can be lost, constitutionally.
On a different tack, keep an eye on Biden’s majority in Arizona as the last 2% of the votes get counted. I’m still backing Croesos view that some majority will be retained but it looks like being a close run thing.
For those who need further proof of Mitch McConnell's perfidy and hatred of democracy, there's this 90 second video. He makes two claims:
Republicans had very good results in the recent Congressional elections in both Houses, clearly showing the will of the American people
He hints that there are enough "illegal ballots" that have been counted that could give Trump a victory, despite the fact that votes for Congress were on the exact same ballots (see point #1)
For those who need further proof of Mitch McConnell's perfidy and hatred of democracy, there's this 90 second video. He makes two claims:
Republicans had very good results in the recent Congressional elections in both Houses, clearly showing the will of the American people
He hints that there are enough "illegal ballots" that have been counted that could give Trump a victory, despite the fact that votes for Congress were on the exact same ballots (see point #1)
Truly shameless.
Just goes to show that the left is both incompetent and evil! It didn't occur to them to steal all the races.
For those who need further proof of Mitch McConnell's perfidy and hatred of democracy, there's this 90 second video. He makes two claims:
Republicans had very good results in the recent Congressional elections in both Houses, clearly showing the will of the American people
He hints that there are enough "illegal ballots" that have been counted that could give Trump a victory, despite the fact that votes for Congress were on the exact same ballots (see point #1)
Truly shameless.
Just goes to show that the left is both incompetent and evil! It didn't occur to them to steal all the races.
Dang it, we just didn't think that one through.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Playing dirty just moved to another level.
I am reluctant to write this, but it looks to me that there is now a sustained concerted attempt under way to subvert the democratic process. The law suits, McConnell, Barr letting loose the feds, the attacks on the Georgia Republican Sec State, the refusal to clear the transitional budget.
It looks orchestrated to me. It’s more than just a few people going through the motions to save Trump’s ego. It looks like playing for real.
Yup. Are we in "soft coup" territory yet? (Or, at least, deep in something else soft and stinky...)
The question (well, one) is how many of those involved really believe "the Dems CHEATED!"; how many are in it for greed and power; how many swore a blood oath to their boss (no, not *that* one--the one in the pale house); and how many are just going through the motions, because they can't figure a way out.
I don’t understand why so many top republicans are enabling his behaviour. They must think it’s in their own self interest as I’m sure it’s not out of love and loyalty for him.
So they must think they are in with a chance or the rats would have left the sinking ship quicker than this.
I wonder whether they're courting the money and primary votes of the hardcore Trump supporters, and making sure they can climb back on the Trump train in 2024. The next few years will be tough and I wouldn't bet that Biden will be able to demonstrate much impact, placing the GOP in a good position. And there is every chance that Trump wins the nomination if he's alive and not in jail.
Are you forgetting his age and health? Even assuming he could pull his ego together sufficiently to try again after such massive humiliation, it seems to me highly likely that he'll be dead or unable to support the physical demands of such an effort. I'm expecting heart attack, stroke or dementia. Four years is a long time, and by appearances he's not doing so hot even now.
Are you forgetting his age and health? Even assuming he could pull his ego together sufficiently to try again after such massive humiliation, it seems to me highly likely that he'll be dead or unable to support the physical demands of such an effort. I'm expecting heart attack, stroke or dementia. Four years is a long time, and by appearances he's not doing so hot even now.
I expected him to keel over in the last four years but he's still going. I did specify "if he's alive". That was partly age and health, partly speculation on whether there are old "friends" of his who might no longer be so friendly.
They may be trying for a soft coup; if so they're doing it with all the competence one would expect from Trump. They've left it until after all the mainstream media networks, including Fox, have announced that Biden has won it. When Fox called Florida for Bush in 2000 that took all momentum out of Gore's efforts to get a fair count from then on. A soft coup needs momentum, needs enough people to think that maybe it is a little bit legitimate, to work.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited November 2020
For other geeks like me, here is the most up to date info I can find re Arizona.
Ballots remaining to be verified and counted estimated at 61,500. Many of these are provisional which may not pass verification.
Based on these numbers, a majority of 3344 (1% of total votes) is required to avoid a recount.
Assuming all outstanding ballots get verified.
In order to get in the lead, Trump needs to win about 38k of the remaining votes or about 62%.
In order for Biden to retain a majority above the recount threshold, Biden needs to win about 25k of the remaining votes, or about 41%.
The odds favour Biden.
Why is this important?
Well, if his 20k majority in Wisconsin holds up in a recount, and he wins Arizona, Biden has 270 votes in the EC regardless of whatever BS happens in Pennsylvania and Georgia.
Comments
It would be interesting to, but probably impossible to ever find out, what Trump/GOP’s share of the vote looks like without voter suppression.
You're committing the etymological fallacy. The word means more now than just "not allowed to vote". Although I should say that they FEEL disenfranchised, not that they really are.
But given it's very specific political meaning, maybe it would be better to use some other term in a thread that's specifically about an election?
Again, I'm not sure this analysis holds. According to New York Times exit polling Donald Trump won 57% of the votes of white Americans and 26% of the votes of non-white Americans. Does this mean that non-white Americans aren't frightened and generally feel like everything about America is going great for them? Or at least a lot better than it's going for white Americans? That doesn't seem to fit reality.
A Twitter thread with an alternate explanation (or maybe just a less euphemistic version of the same explanation) for Donald Trump's support:
Actually, part of the problem is that most of the white people are also correct, but they attribute their decline to the wrong people. The people who stir their fear and who they vote for are the ones driving them down the economic and social ladder and would be doing so even if there were no melanin in America at all.
And yes, the twitter thread is correct. Life being tough is mollified if someone else has it worse. People suck.
The idea of the 1%er ideologues railing against the "elite ruling class" would be hilarious if it did not result in such tragedy.
*Not all, of course. But very many.
It makes no difference where the vote count is today. My argument is that the state laws in place at the time the election occurred assign the selection of electors to the voters. The election, under these laws, has already happened; a change after the fact in how the electors are selected is ex post facto. Changing how the electors are selected in 2024 and beyond is not.
Certainly it would be litigated, but it's a clear argument.
You're obviously not a Republican-appointed Supreme Court Justice.
Jaw dropping stuff in that link.
I suppose they may move to limit mail-in ballots generally, but not retrospectively. That would mess up 2024 but not 2020.
Retrospective restraint re Pennsylvania late arriving ballots might get justified by some maladministration argument I suppose. Doubt whether it would affect the Pennsylvania result given the substantial majority by certification time. 60k plus is a conservative prediction. for that majority.
More worrying is what that link demonstrates of the thought processes of these conservative judges.
Except that's pretty much exactly what Gorsuch is arguing, that ballots legally cast under the rules as they existed at the time the ballot was cast can be discarded after the fact.
I haven't seen total figures for how many that is, not any figures about how they break for Trump or Biden. I have heard arguments that the numbers are insufficient to overturn the Biden majority as expected even if they are excluded.
What strikes me as constitutionally weird is any argument that mail in ballots and some allowance for their arrival are ipso facto a bad thing because they cause delay and controversy. The precedent for that is in the military ballots. They can't be arguing special treatment for the military just because they are military.
But maybe I'm missing something? Very probably!
It's very simple: if it favours Republicans it's good; if it favours Democrats it's bad.
I think it was Lord Denning (in the UK context) who observed that a judge might reach a conclusion on general principles then work out how to make the law fit. I'm a bit concerned in this case that the 'principle' might be unprincipled!
You're not allowing for Insane Troll Logic.
That made my day! Thanks, Karl. Spot on.
GOP have asserted that some districts might not have followed the instruction to segregate and count separately but I guess they would need proof of that.
Of course I am not gifted with Insane Troll Logic ......
Getting such a law passed would put the very obvious right to vote under public scrutiny and make opposing such a law difficult to justify.
ETA: Actually that's a silly comment it must exist already. Just ensure it's enforced.
And if you think that McConnell has any qualms about forestalling any law making it easier to vote, you have not been paying attention. McConnell has publicly stated that he is for any means that promote his agendas. His supporters don't care because it supports theirs.
Otherwise, it's a mixture of requiring forms of identification that not everyone will have, or else, being unable to afford to open polling stations in areas that coincidentally have a lot of less well off voters.
The Voting Rights Act used to invalidate a lot of old style Jim Crow voter suppression tactics, things that were prima facie race-neutral but had an as-applied effect of suppressing the votes of non-whites. This fell under federal jurisdiction because the Fifteenth Amendment explicitly gave Congress the power to prevent racial discrimination in voting.
Luckily John Roberts noticed that there was no more racism in America and ruled the VRA unnecessary. Normally the Supreme Court rules things "unconstitutional", but Roberts neglected to specify which part of the Constitution the VRA violated. He simply said that 1975* was a long time ago and things are different now. If you think an "originalist" would leave such determinations to Congress, you're obviously not a Republican-nominated Supreme Court Justice.
*The last time the preclearance formulas in the VRA were modified by Congress.
On a different tack, keep an eye on Biden’s majority in Arizona as the last 2% of the votes get counted. I’m still backing Croesos view that some majority will be retained but it looks like being a close run thing.
Truly shameless.
Dang it, we just didn't think that one through.
I am reluctant to write this, but it looks to me that there is now a sustained concerted attempt under way to subvert the democratic process. The law suits, McConnell, Barr letting loose the feds, the attacks on the Georgia Republican Sec State, the refusal to clear the transitional budget.
It looks orchestrated to me. It’s more than just a few people going through the motions to save Trump’s ego. It looks like playing for real.
Yup. Are we in "soft coup" territory yet? (Or, at least, deep in something else soft and stinky...)
The question (well, one) is how many of those involved really believe "the Dems CHEATED!"; how many are in it for greed and power; how many swore a blood oath to their boss (no, not *that* one--the one in the pale house); and how many are just going through the motions, because they can't figure a way out.
So they must think they are in with a chance or the rats would have left the sinking ship quicker than this.
Or are they just thick as bricks?
I expected him to keel over in the last four years but he's still going. I did specify "if he's alive". That was partly age and health, partly speculation on whether there are old "friends" of his who might no longer be so friendly.
Biden 1,648,642 Trump 1,633,896, Biden majority 14,746
Ballots remaining to be verified and counted estimated at 61,500. Many of these are provisional which may not pass verification.
Based on these numbers, a majority of 3344 (1% of total votes) is required to avoid a recount.
Assuming all outstanding ballots get verified.
In order to get in the lead, Trump needs to win about 38k of the remaining votes or about 62%.
In order for Biden to retain a majority above the recount threshold, Biden needs to win about 25k of the remaining votes, or about 41%.
The odds favour Biden.
Why is this important?
Well, if his 20k majority in Wisconsin holds up in a recount, and he wins Arizona, Biden has 270 votes in the EC regardless of whatever BS happens in Pennsylvania and Georgia.
It's another level of protection.