Again…see Bush v. Gore.
SCOTUS picked a president with that one.
More broadly, what about conservative behavior in the last 20 years leads you to believe they will not ignore norms? Did McConnell abide by norms when refusing to give Obama a hearing on a judge he nominated to the supreme court?
Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito being bribed and refusing to recuse themselves? What “norms” are they adhering to?
This would make Bush v Gore seem like a routine filing.
So? That phrase has no meaning anymore.
It wasn’t. Indeed, the Supreme Court, which is ALL about setting precedent, said their ruling in Bush v. Gore was a one off and should never be used as precedent in a future case (paraphrasing).
That’s how bad it was. But, they did it anyway. They picked a president (one who did not win the popular vote and, it seems, would not have even won the Electoral College).
And yet some here think that this current Supreme Court will be more circumspect and careful in their rulings. If you think that, you are not paying attention.
If that’s true then why isn’t the immunity hearing scheduled for next year? If that were true then the SCOTUS would rule for Trump in the immunity hearing April and that’s the end of it.
We only get to a conviction before the election if the SCOTUS cares enough about convention not to be remembered as the justices got a presidential candidate off of felony charges as he’s the guy who appointed them.
I really do not think they care about their legacies at all. Certainly not Thomas or Alito. The other conservatives as well. The liberal judges I think care but aren’t really doing much (not sure what they can do).
Roberts has said some things that he cares about the court’s legacy under him (so, basically, his own legacy) but, mostly (except one or two important times) he reliably shows he does not care either.
I believe they think the winners write the history books, and the will be remembered as the fathers of the MAGA empire.
Whether a state could continue counting votes after the federally established deadline to certify electors (they could not) and whether missing that deadline would violate the Equal Protection Clause (it would have).
The question the court was asked to answer was not “who gets to be president” and if they had ruled the other way Bush could have still ended up winning the election. The likely scenario if they had done so would have been the House electing Bush, since Florida wouldn’t have been able to finish the recount in time to certify it.
But at least we would’ve gotten Vice President Lieberman out of it! What a joy a Bush/Lieberman admin would’ve been. 
Getting back to the original question, “What reason is there to think Trump would be let out pending appeal?” I’ll say that there are a few reasons that he will remain free during his appeals. I’ll look at them the same way I’ve argued bail hearings in court before.
Is he a flight risk? Not really, in spite of the fact that he’s got an aircraft that could easily take him out of the United States to someplace safe. But then, he’d be stuck there, and he has too many ties to the US: his businesses, Mar-a-Lago, and the presidential campaign. It’s hard to hold rallies in Somewhere, USA, when you’re in the country of Elsewheria, and we know how much Trump loves rallies. Plus, he’s got family in the US: Eric and Don Jr. and Ivanka; and Melania and Barron. Family ties are important in such arguments.
Does he present a danger to the public or to himself? No. Discounting the broad and futuristic “He’ll turn us into a dictatorship” arguments; I’ll suggest that at the present time, Trump presents no such danger. He’s not violent, and he’s unlikely to go on a shooting rampage or start a bar brawl. He’s not dealing drugs (danger to the public). I think he’d pass this hurdle too.
Is there anything else that might put him away pending appeal? Not really. His remarks after court appearances, after primary victories, and at rallies are fiery, but all are within the bounds of the First Amendment, and are thus his right to make. As long as he doesn’t go too far, of course.
It might be nice if Trump could be put away pending appeal, but my opinion based on my analysis, says that he will remain free pending appeal.
This has the ring of truth to non-lawyer me,.
I wonder if there are additional reasons, but am open to contrary informed opinion.
After conviction, and before sentencing, there will be a pre-sentencing report prepared by a social worker or similar court employee. This will be unusually complex because the subject is so elderly, a notorious VIP, and because of need to discuss plans, and get some buy-in, from the Secret Service. The report would note the strain meeting Secret Service requirements puts on the prison system. If the prison has to take that on, they will, but the judge would not want to force them to go through all that unnecessarily. This would be one more factor predisposing release pending appeals, along with factors you mention like low flight risk.
Then there is this Griffin1977 mentioned in the OP:
The only trial where we could AFAIK get all the way to sentencing this year is business records falsification. While probation is possible, if Trump gets time for it, it sounded to me like a year or so is likely. And the trial court cannot assume SCOTUS is a Trump toady about to pull the case onto a rocket docket. So in order to have the appeals process be a meaningful way of potentially lessening punishment, the judge, with a thick sentencing report in hand, will be inclined to let Trump out pending appeals.
But what makes you think those arguments (that you’d make when an accused is still innocent in the eyes of the law, and wants to get out in bail) would stand a chance once they’ve been convicted and sentenced?
Have you ever encountered a case where someone is given a significant felony sentence, longer than an appeal is likely to take, and is allowed out on bail?
That’s a discussion for another thread. The OP is based on the assumption he is convicted before being sworn in as POTUS, and does get a long felony sentence either in the hush money trial (possible but only if he’s convicted all charges*) or the J6 (still likely to happen this year, if not necessarily before the election)
If that’s the case I’ve not seen anything that suggests he won’t go to prison while he waits for appeal
* - long here is months not years AFAIK
The ghost of Eugene V Debs may want a word.
Also: this would imply that running for president is an immediate “get out of jail free (at least for a while)” card. Which is pretty much why Trump is doing it in the first place.
ETA: Funnily enough Debs was in prison for sedition and planned to pardon himself if elected.
What leads you to believe the current SCOTUS gives a shit about precedent?
Oh, they definitely don’t.
Should add that there is a reasonable chance of a conviction happening just before the election. So even if the appeal does end up with a sympathetic judge, he’s still in jail on election day.
The schedule on the J6 case is tight and a lot will depend on how quickly the SCOTUS case goes in April and May. This is what makes me doubt the SCOTUS swooping in and saving his ass after conviction outcome. Trump is only getting convicted this year if the SCOTUS decides not to risk their reputation for him, why would they then change their minda and do something much more damaging to their reputation after he’s convicted?
I’d be willing to bet that would spur more people to vote for him.
And I am willing to bet the SCOTUS would let him out of jail since it is absurd to think a president can govern from prison (I would agree with them on that).
Then, Trump would work to see he is president for life since, the day he leaves office, he is in jail.
Keep in mind that federal sentencing is not anywhere near instantaneous. It would be a couple of months from a guilty verdict to a sentence unless Trump waived various waiting periods, and my understanding is that being released pending sentencing is much more common than being released pending appeal.
I have never heard of this. Is there a cite?
On what grounds? “It’s absurd” never stopped any previous court decisions.