POTUS 2024 - Harris vs Trump - General Election Discussion

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I can tell you, at least from my daughter stand point, she hasn't had a child because of money and nothing to do with her career. She is in the same boat with lots of her peers. Works hard, makes decent money, but is still not enough to afford to buy a home. $25k in down payment assistance would be huge to them.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

Tell her not to fear, Freedom cities are on the way!

[JPhillips]

IN Sen. Braun comes out against Loving v. Virginia (legalizing interracial marriage)

A reporter then asked Braun if he applied the same reasoning to decisions like Loving v. Virginia, which struck down state laws that made interracial marriages illegal.

Braun responded: “When it comes to issues, you can’t have it both ways. When you want that diversity to shine within our federal system, there are going to be rules and proceedings, they’re going to be out of sync with maybe what other states would do. It’s the beauty of the system, and that’s where the differences among points of view in our 50 states ought to express themselves.”

The reporter asked again, reiterating the question and asking if Braun would be okay with Supreme Court leaving interracial marriage to the states.

Braun doubled down, saying “Yes, I think that is something that if you’re not wanting the Supreme Court to weigh in on issues like that, you’re not going to be able to have your cake and eat it too, it’s hypocritical.”

“We’re better off having states manifest their points of view, rather than homogenizing it across the country as Roe v. Wade did,” he added.

[Lathum]

Ah yes, the beauty of the system should be open racism.

[Lathum]

Trump just going full on Nazi at this point

reuters.com

[Ksyrup]

If some of this stuff actually happens, it definitely feels like we're heading towards a "united states" where red and blue states have pacts between themselves (red-red and blue-blue) on a bunch of issues, but otherwise, we each live under a bunch of separate and incongruous laws, each penalizing/criminalizing activities that are otherwise legal under the laws of the other, and we'll be left with a fragmented system in which we have to show our driver's license to travel from through red and blue states depending on where you're from, and if you want to visit Disney World or go to a sporting event in certain states, they're be an extra tax layered on for non-red or non-blue state residents as a privilege of "traitors" using their amenities. I haven't spent much time since law school reading up on the jurisprudence around the Full Faith and Credit Clause, but I'm sure there's a way to strip it down to the point of meaninglessness.

It's like we're moving toward a (mostly) non-violent civil war in which we're essentially divided into 2 countries because the US is too big to actually take apart and the majority of people are too lazy to do anything about it (me included). The "problem" of blue cities in red states is taken care of by just making it suck so bad to live there with laws targeting and adversely impacting those people that they drive most of them out to live/settle in "their own" states.

Now, money rules all, right, so if Florida outlaws interracial marriage down the line after the SC overrules Loving, are they going to bar those people from living in and spending money in their state? Doubtful. But what other reason would their be to go through with this, if it's just a charade? Abortion seems like it's just the tip of the iceberg.

[bhlloy]

I think that’s probably the sunny and optimistic version of what happens, yes. Probably more likely with a Trump win than a Harris win, at least the non-violent piece.

[JPhillips]

Bob Woodward is reporting that Trump has spoken with Putin on the phone up to seven times since Trump left office.

[larrymcg421]

We are not divided by blue states and red states. We are divided by urban and rural areas.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Bob Woodward is reporting that Trump has spoken with Putin on the phone up to seven times since Trump left office.

How is this not a violation of the Logan act?

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Lathum

How is this not a violation of the Logan act?

Trump has shown that most politicians are supposed to just be on the honor system. The laws we've had in place were there to politely ask them not to do these things. There are no actual consequences.

[JPhillips]

We simply don't enforce those kinds of laws.

Elon's PAC legally can't coordinate with Trump, but they both brag about working together.

[cuervo72]

SCOTUS would just rule that all this is really fine anyway.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I believe 1 and 2 are true but specifically for increasing birth rates, I don't believe reducing costs will solve the problem.

Kamala proposed (1) increasing housing supply to reduce house prices (2) help with a $25k down for first time home buyers (3) tax cuts of $6k for first year of child's life.

What I posit is none of the 3 will increase birth rates to offset the decline. The reason for not having children is not "primarily" due to financial constraints, there are other factors at play.

I suspect #1 and #2 are the key reasons. Affordability is #4.

If these were permanent positions as opposed what I think are thoughts given in a moment in time I might be inclined to agree with you. If women were rushing out to have their uterus removed and guys were rushing out to be sterilized because they just don't want to have children, I might agree with you. Since neither of those things are happening, I am going to assume that the double digits percentage points difference between the two groups imply that people can and do change their minds between those ages on this topic. I will concede that I have to take to heart the 13%/15% who said that infertility and other medical reasons was their reason. That seems pretty permanent. Finally having spoken to enough 18-25 year olds, "Just don't want to" sounds like a catch all for everything from all of the above, some of the above and I don't have to explain myself to you.

That being said, if the things above remove the affordability barrier and allows that 36% to have the children they evidently want to have, isn't that a good thing for birth rates? If these are permanent positions, we are not convincing people who just don't want to and/or want to focus on other interests. It might be beneficial for us to remove the affordability barrier for those that actually want to have children.

One thing I can say for sure, young people who were raised in homes with a solid financial footing throughout their childhood aren't really here for the broke parent beginnings many of us had with our kids. For them, If it means having those broke parent beginnings more permanently because they don't see themselves reaching that sort of financial footing, then yes, they don't want to have children. However that desire is wrapped up in whether they are or are not able to provide at the same rate for their children as what their parents could for them or what they thought their parents should have be able to provide for them. My oldest son and his girlfriend are going through the adoption process right now in Switzerland. She is the reason for my "remove their uterus" comment as she made that decision a few years ago for family medical history reasons. They both refuse to even consider becoming parents until such time as they were on pretty secure financial footing. My oldest likes to politely jab my wife and I that he will not be serving his children fried bologna sandwiches like I did and as he says my wife allowed me to do. Needless to say, I have been forbidden from making fried bologna sandwiches for my youngest.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

We are not divided by blue states and red states. We are divided by urban and rural areas.

Yes, but in terms of governance, the party in power makes a state red or blue. And the ability to enact/enforce laws is what is most important.

[albionmoonlight]

Yeah, but there are more Trump voters in California than in Texas.

There are more Biden voters in Texas than in Illinois.

The country is bright blue dots surrounded by ruby red land, and a state goes red or blue based on what shade of purple the suburbs feel like being that year.

Not sure how you divide that in half.

[Ksyrup]

He who wins the state, decides the rules. In my post above, I didn't suggest dividing the states. I believe the solution would be to make it difficult for "the other side" to want to continue living in your state. You create a truly red or blue state by making it unlivable for the others. Then they move to a red or blue state where they are with people more like themselves.

[albionmoonlight]

Whether it's Biden sending COVID tests to American families or Trump sending COVID tests to Vladimir Putin, both presidents tried to help the people they care about the most.

— New York Times Pitchbot (@DougJBalloon) October 8, 2024

[Thomkal]

So it looks like Eric Trump is now a "Special Deputy Sheriff" in Florida since he's out of his day job with Trump Org.


x.com

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

If these were permanent positions as opposed what I think are thoughts given in a moment in time I might be inclined to agree with you. If women were rushing out to have their uterus removed and guys were rushing out to be sterilized because they just don't want to have children, I might agree with you. Since neither of those things are happening, I am going to assume that the double digits percentage points difference between the two groups imply that people can and do change their minds between those ages on this topic. I will concede that I have to take to heart the 13%/15% who said that infertility and other medical reasons was their reason. That seems pretty permanent. Finally having spoken to enough 18-25 year olds, "Just don't want to" sounds like a catch all for everything from all of the above, some of the above and I don't have to explain myself to you.

That being said, if the things above remove the affordability barrier and allows that 36% to have the children they evidently want to have, isn't that a good thing for birth rates? If these are permanent positions, we are not convincing people who just don't want to and/or want to focus on other interests. It might be beneficial for us to remove the affordability barrier for those that actually want to have children.

I'm not saying it won't help some. What I am saying is I do not believe financial constraints are the root cause (as a whole) of women not wanting more babies and our < 1.6 replacement rate. There are many western (and like) countries that have tried more X, Y, Z and it hasn't work (that I know of).

Below summarizes it well from my POV.

How can countries deal with falling birth rates?

To try to increase birth rates, countries can make it easier for women to have children, by providing more generous childcare provision, such as tax breaks and extended, fully-paid maternity leave. In addition, companies could be compelled to offer new mums and dads more flexible working hours, and provide workplace creches.

However, while such policies might slow the decline, they rarely reverse it.

Put simply, the more women are educated, the more they work and save, the better their lives are.

Many women would instead prefer not to take the hit to their earnings and career prospects that becoming a mother often causes.

So they have fewer children, or none at all.

There are basically two main ways in which a country can deal with a falling birth rate – you can keep your population heathier and employed for longer, or you can have large-scale immigration.

Bottom line. I don't think there is a "fix" using financial incentives. It's a cultural (?) thing and the genie is out of the bottle. IMO the best way is to increase legal immigration, and ideally with specific skillsets to help the US maintain its competitive edge.

They both refuse to even consider becoming parents until such time as they were on pretty secure financial footing. My oldest likes to politely jab my wife and I that he will not be serving his children fried bologna sandwiches like I did and as he says my wife allowed me to do. Needless to say, I have been forbidden from making fried bologna sandwiches for my youngest.

Hah. My kids are out of the house now but when they show up whenever, I still cook them my "world famous" X and Y. And I can honestly say they still enjoy my dishes.

[Lathum]

Just listened to most of the Howard interview with Harris. It’s comical how those on the right are trying to paint her as a bumbling moron filled with word salad. Have to imagine a lot of his fans are Trump guys. Hopefully this goes a long way to changing the narrative.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm not saying it won't help some. What I am saying is I do not believe financial constraints are the root cause (as a whole) of women not wanting more babies and our < 1.6 replacement rate. There are many western (and like) countries that have tried more X, Y, Z and it hasn't work (that I know of).

You are never going to find a magic bullet. I don't think the problem is any one single thing, and in reality it probably won't be resolved. Outside of immigration, we are going to see declining populations.

Beyond that, the proposal that Harris has presented isn't just for the purpose of declining populations. There are many benefits beyond encouraging family growth for increased home ownership. For one, getting adult children out of the house.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

You are never going to find a magic bullet. I don't think the problem is any one single thing, and in reality it probably won't be resolved. Outside of immigration, we are going to see declining populations.

Beyond that, the proposal that Harris has presented isn't just for the purpose of declining populations. There are many benefits beyond encouraging family growth for increased home ownership. For one, getting adult children out of the house.

100%

Yes, in the year 2024 many women want to have careers but many of those would very likely like to have families as well. It's just not financially doable for most people in their 20s right now.

Housing costs are insane and are far out of the reach of younger couples. Cars, groceries, school, child care, and so on add to those financial problems. If that couple has college debt then families are entirely off the table plus you're then looking down the line at potentially paying for your child's education.

First time buyer incentives, student loan forgiveness, tax credits, paid maternity leave, and so on are all part of a systematic issue that makes having and raising a family nearly impossible for most. Vance is trying to get republicans on board the make babies train but his party is against nearly every single thing that would make life easier on families.

Here's some very simple numbers that shows how unrealistic having a family is int his country right now. The average cost of child care is about $1,000 per month. The average mortgage is about $2,500 per month. The average car payment for a used vehicle is about 525 per month. The median household income is about $80k per year or $6,600. You're already at $4k of that with just those 3 items. Add in groceries, bills, potential student loans, and you're not left with much wiggle room, if any at all.

How many people are going to sign up for that struggle in order to raise a child or multiple children for 18+ years? We've had too many older generations rigging the system to benefit themselves and now we're in a situation where we're blaming the younger generation for not taking advantage of a system that we broke.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Here's some very simple numbers that shows how unrealistic having a family is int his country right now. The average cost of child care is about $1,000 per month. The average mortgage is about $2,500 per month. The average car payment for a used vehicle is about 525 per month. The median household income is about $80k per year or $6,600. You're already at $4k of that with just those 3 items. Add in groceries, bills, potential student loans, and you're not left with much wiggle room, if any at all.

Why are you using average costs and median income? It's a little disingenuous IMO.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Why are you using average costs and median income? It's a little disingenuous IMO.

Average household income as of 2022 was 74k. It's difficult to find median numbers for the same year on everything.

[dubb93]

Elon Musk is a good guy. He's offering everyone suffering from Hurricane Helene a free month of Starlink internet.

So for the price of the equipment ($400) they get a free month of satellite internet.

[GrantDawg]

$120 a month isn't terrible. $50 more a month than I pay.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[miami_fan]

Cards on the table, I did not see or listen to the entire interview. I am only reacting the clip. Was this part of a broader discussion on the nation's declining birth rate or was this just a discussion about the cost of raising children in the U.S. If it was the former and if these things were proposed as overarching solutions to the nation's declining birth rate, I agree, it won't work.

I don't think I have heard anyone argue that those things are about increasing the national birth rate or convincing women to have more kids. Those proposals just seem like answers to a political question from a part of the population who say they aren't having children because raising kids on expensive. Will it work for those people? Probably but as we always say the devil is in the details. I do know that the U.S. government has provided people with financial incentives including some associated with housing that led to what we now know as The Baby Boom after a period where the child birthrate dropped to its lowest point prior to the 1980s.

BTW, when did we starting caring about the declining birthrate? Don't think I forgot how we all talked about THOSE women who had a house full of THOSE kids that they could not afford to take care of. What happened to telling women specifically "Don't have kids you can't or won't take care of."

Now they have taken that advice, it's a problem? GTFOH

[Ryche]

Funny thing about the declining birth rate, almost all of the births that have disappeared are among the under 25 population. Even more extreme when you look at under 20. 61.64 per 1K in 1990 vs. 16.82 in 2019 for ages 15.19.

https://www.census.gov/library/stori...der-women.html

[GrantDawg]

I was just talking about how common teen pregnancy was when I was in high school. Our high school (2,400 students) had one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the state, and the state had the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country. There was times when I felt like there was a pregnant girl in every class.
One time, I was in the lunch room and started talking to this girl I thought was cute. We were hitting it off pretty well, but then she just casually slipped something about her son. Ended up, she had two kids already. She was 15.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[JPhillips]

Vance tonight:

“Even if it's true, is there something wrong with speaking to world leaders? No. Is there anything wrong with engaging in diplomacy?”

Yes, JD there is something wrong with conducting a private foreign policy.

[Ksyrup]

The girl named Friendliest in my senior class got pregnant the summer after we graduated.

I'll never stop laughing about that.

[JPhillips]

MI GOP Senate candidate Mike Rogers appears to live in FL and uses a home that is incomplete and unoccupied as his MI address.

Maybe voter fraud is real.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Cards on the table, I did not see or listen to the entire interview. I am only reacting the clip. Was this part of a broader discussion on the nation's declining birth rate or was this just a discussion about the cost of raising children in the U.S. If it was the former and if these things were proposed as overarching solutions to the nation's declining birth rate, I agree, it won't work.

I didn't listen to all of it either, I was going off the blurb from GD's link. The question posed to Kamala is below.

Almost 1 in 4 Gen Z and millennials say they don't want to have kids because it's too damn expensive. How are you going to help young people not feel left behind.

I can see the first sentence applying to your former, and the second applying to the latter.

I don't think I have heard anyone argue that those things are about increasing the national birth rate or convincing women to have more kids.

Declining US birth rate has been in the news some (e.g. social security is in a mess because not enough younger workers etc.). However, there's not enough awareness, will, concern, alarm etc. to address the issue.

Those proposals just seem like answers to a political question from a part of the population who say they aren't having children because raising kids on expensive. Will it work for those people? Probably but as we always say the devil is in the details. I do know that the U.S. government has provided people with financial incentives including some associated with housing that led to what we now know as The Baby Boom after a period where the child birthrate dropped to its lowest point prior to the 1980s.

Not a social scientist but I thought the Millennials bump (born in the 80's) was because of the Baby Boomers having babies. I did not think it was an outcome of financial/tax incentives but could well be wrong.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

One time, I was in the lunch room and started talking to this girl I thought was cute. We were hitting it off pretty well, but then she just casually slipped something about her son. Ended up, she had two kids already. She was 15.

Missed your chance for a ready-made family.

What went through your mind then?

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

You are never going to find a magic bullet. I don't think the problem is any one single thing, and in reality it probably won't be resolved. Outside of immigration, we are going to see declining populations.

IMO the magic bullet is legal immigration. The US has it relatively easier than other countries with replacement rate issues. People want to immigrate to the US and we can pick and choose.

Beyond that, the proposal that Harris has presented isn't just for the purpose of declining populations. There are many benefits beyond encouraging family growth for increased home ownership. For one, getting adult children out of the house.

Don't disagree.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Missed your chance for a ready-made family.

What went through your mind then?

Run. No, what really hit me was I was 16, and that close to like real adult responsibility. I had the self knowledge to know I wasn't ready to date someone who had children, and it was a real slap in the face that I had to make that decision at that age.

[JPhillips]

It's amazing that nothing is going to be done about Elon buying votes.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Declining US birth rate has been in the news some (e.g. social security is in a mess because not enough younger workers etc.). However, there's not enough awareness, will, concern, alarm etc. to address the issue.

If the concern is over things like Social Security, the concerned people should probably be more focused on the fertility rate. We used to laugh about the description of the husband, the wife and the 2.2 kids. Well, we have gone from women having 3 kids or more throughout the 50s and half of the 60s to 2 kids being the absolute highwater mark. We've gone from 42 workers per retiree in 1940 to 3 to 1 today. More people having one child ain't fixing that. Making it more affordable for people to want to have and be able to provide for multiple children might.

Not a social scientist but I thought the Millennials bump (born in the 80's) was because of the Baby Boomers having babies. I did not think it was an outcome of financial/tax incentives but could well be wrong.

Well...

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...h-age-gap.html

The Baby Boomer generation were born anywhere from 1946-1964 as far as I can tell. That would put them in the 16-26 to 34-44 age range during the 80's. So, yes you are correct it was about Baby Boomers having babies. Once again though, just looking at that graphic and being alive during that time, society was not overjoyed for or being very supportive of the women represented by those dark pink columns. I can't speak intelligently on whether or not financial incentives were in place then encouraged but I don't remember encouragement of any kind for the folks in the dark pink.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's amazing that nothing is going to be done about Elon buying votes.

Sell your sole for the low, low price of just $47.

These guys really have this grifting thing down but don’t worry it will trickle back down to these pour souls in the end. Clearly men of integrity like Musk and Trump are going to make sure the little guy gets their fair share back.

[Ksyrup]

Raising kids is hard, paying for them is expensive, and we a society have been on a long trend toward more downtime/relaxation/self-care, not less. I don't see any particular reason why people not otherwise inclined to have children would do so simply for economic reasons (if th govenment invested in making having/raising kids more affordable), or those who have 1 or 2 kids would want to "play zone defense" when their desire to have a family is fulfilled with the 1 or 2 kids they already have.

Add to that the number of women who want to have a career, and raising kids becomes even more complex than it was a couple of generations ago when women hardly worked (speaking strictly outside the home, of course). Even moreso if they are (or want to be) single parents.

I don't know what the answer is, but I don't see much of a reason for many couples to set a goal of > 2 kids, much less 1.

[cuervo72]

I don't see why this is really an issue to be "concerned" or "alarmed" about, unless you are worried specifically about white babies. There is plenty of world population, and plenty of people who want to go to rich countries (or who will need to migrate due to climate change). Our population level should be fine.

Now, could we make it easier to raise children? Yes. Yes we could. Does everybody really want to? Not so sure about that.

[Atocep]

Trump's God Bless the USA Bibles were printed in China. You can't make this shit up.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Trump's God Bless the USA Bibles were printed in China. You can't make this shit up.

MAGA will just talk about how smart a businessman he is.

[miami_fan]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Now, could we make it easier to raise children? Yes. Yes we could. Does everybody really want to? Not so sure about that.

And this is where I think the true opposition lies and I have no issues with anyone who want to make that case.

Access to more affordable housing, $25,000 for a first time home buyer and a $6,000 tax cut for the first year of a child's life seems like something that would have help me when we had our first kid and would help most young parents especially if they are interested in purchasing a home. Would my wife and I have been prepared deal with the costs of owning a home and losing the tax cut? Well, she definitely would have been prepared, me not so much. But those things would have worked if the goal was to make things easier for us as young parents. Was it going to make us shoot (HA!) for three or four more kids? No chance in hell. Would it have made things easier than not having it for the ones we had? Probably

After going back and looking at the clip one more time, the more precise questions IMO are:

1. Are young parents "falling behind"? I assume they mean falling behind their childless counterparts?

Maybe


2. If they are, in what ways?

Resources that have to be put towards child raising can be put to other ventures, investments, self improvement etc.

3. If they are, is that something that society has a role to play in helping them catch back up or is this something they should have to accept as a byproduct of the choice to have children?

I don't know.

[Ksyrup]

Four weeks to go, and I'm feeling pretty pessimistic about Harris's chances. I see the last poll has her increasing her lead to less than 4 points. That's not good enough. The numbers look even worse when compared to 2020. I don't know. I can't completely write off the race yet, but it seems very likely Trump wins if things stay like this, or even if Harris continues to marginally improve.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Four weeks to go, and I'm feeling pretty pessimistic about Harris's chances. I see the last poll has her increasing her lead to less than 4 points. That's not good enough. The numbers look even worse when compared to 2020. I don't know. I can't completely write off the race yet, but it seems very likely Trump wins if things stay like this, or even if Harris continues to marginally improve.

Eh, the electoral college doesn't lean as heavily to the right now and pollsters have adjusted to right from 2020. It's rare to see 2 general elections in a row off toward the same party because those types of adjustments are made.

I dont think we're in the same situation where a 3 point lead or so is needed to win the electoral.

[GrantDawg]

I am less pessimistic than I was when Biden was on the ballot, but I am far from comfortable.
I heard an interesting stat from the 538 crew. The average presidential election has been off the polling average by almost 4 points for last couple of decades. Considering where the polling is, a four point swing either way would put either Harris or Trump winning with about 320 electoral votes.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

Four weeks to go, and I'm feeling pretty pessimistic about Harris's chances. I see the last poll has her increasing her lead to less than 4 points. That's not good enough. The numbers look even worse when compared to 2020. I don't know. I can't completely write off the race yet, but it seems very likely Trump wins if things stay like this, or even if Harris continues to marginally improve.

The biggest shocker today are new Quinnipiac polls that have Trump +2 in Wisconsin and +4 in Michigan. Last month, they had Harris +1 in Wisconsin and Harris +5 in Michigan.

And for the first time since the debate, Trump has regained a slight lead in the betting markets.

https://electionbettingodds.com/

[Swaggs]

538's simulations have Harris winning 545 times and Trump winning 451 times out of 1000 sims. The missing 4 sims resulted in neither getting 270 or more EVs.

The most frequent outcomes were (tied) Harris winning 304 (EVs) to Trump 234 and Trump winning 311 to 227. To me, that suggests that one of them is more than likely going to win 5 or more of the swing states.

I keep hearing that the Dems have a much better ground game and infrastructure and that the GOP are targeting unlikely voters and relying on PACs for the GOTV, so that makes me feel that the Dems have an advantage, but it is very much a coin flip at this point and will likely remain so.

[Kodos]

It really is nerve-wracking. I just want to get past the election and assure that democracy is saved. I feel like we have a good chance, but it is still far too close to feel comfortable at all.

[Ksyrup]

I don't feel good in either scenario, because the biggest immediate test of our system will come if Harris wins in a non-blowout - which has to be the only way she wins. GOP states are setting up to contest results and hold up electors, etc. They've already started filing lawsuits in a numerous contested states as a result of the outcomes from the Trump 2020 lawsuits, some of which noted that the lawsuits were too late to contest alleged issues they already knew about before the election.

All of these things will happen, plus others. And that's not even factoring in the protest/mob issues we'll surely see. Hopefully they are about as successful as Trump in 2020, but they are better prepared this time, no doubt.