This is getting ridiculous
GOP pickup at +10
CA 21 - Some, but not all outlets are calling California 21 for Republican David Valadao. There have been both national and local decisions desks have made this call. It moved to a GOP pickup on RCP just last night. If we cannot accept a call 17 days after an election, then what the hell sort of banana republican have we become?
As more votes continue to come in (amazing), the Democrat Cox has been winning the late breaking votes by a thinner margin than what we have come to expect in this election. The latest batch on Friday broke only 53-47 for the Democrat. There has been enough ballots over the past week or so to reduce the lead from 3576 down to 1618 votes. But according to the pundits, Cox would need to win 80% of the remaining ballots to overtake Valadao, something that is not expected to happen. Why there are still upwards of 6000-8000 ballots left uncounted is anyone's guess.
NY22 - This one is headed for the Judge. According to unofficial numbers, the Republican Claudia Tenney leads the incumbent Anthony Brindisi by 337 votes. However, two of the counties are refusing to report their final numbers and both campaigns believe that the actual margin is about 100 votes.
A Judge has ordered a hearing for Monday to rule on some disputed ballots and also made an order for all final vote counts to be reported by the time of the hearing. What does it tell us when a Judge has to order counties to reveal how many votes they have counted? What possible "good" reason is there for this information to be withheld.
There seems to be two sets of disputes. 270 absentee mail in ballots and 745 provisional ballots. From what is being reported, the 270 absentee ballots have been counted (as per the election commission ruling) while the 745 provisional ballots have not been counted (as per the election commission ruling). Since the absentee ballots have been generally disputed by the Tenney team (and would take away votes from Brindisi), Brindisi needs the judge to rule to allow a portion of the provisional ballots that the election commission have found not valid.
Apparently the argument from the Brindisi team is more emotional than legal. It appears that the 745 ballots are not specific to anything, but rather the Brindisi team has challenged nearly all provisional ballots that were rejected. The pre-hearing rhetoric from the Brindisi team has been mostly about the injustice of people making mistakes, and not being allowed the chance to fix them. There doesn't appear to be on the surface an actual argument that legal votes were not counted, just that votes that are technically illegal should be.
The Judge (in this case) is an elected Democrat to the State Supreme Court. It's unclear if there is any means to appeal to the full court is one side or the other is unhappy.
CA-25 - Republican Mike Garcia has claimed victory as the last bit of counting pushed his lead up over 400 votes, believing that there are not enough outstanding votes (we are now 17 days past the election) for his opponent to make up the difference. But this race has yet to be called by anyone and is likely headed towards a recount.
IA-2 - The closest race is still in Iowa where the Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks is leading the Democrat Rita Hart by a whopping 47 voters. They are currently in the recount phase and there are already legal issues taking place. The Hart campaign asked the Secretary of State to provide guidelines as to how go through the recount, while the Secretary of State has offered that this is up to each individual county. The Hart campaign wants a closer look at the over and undervotes to make sure that they cannot first identify these ballots and then see if they can ascertain "voter intent" that is missed by the machines. Apparently the laws of recounts in Iowa do not require a "hand" recount of each ballot and the Hart campaign is worried that these under and over counts will not be specifically looked at.
On the flip side, the machines in Iowa do not actually identify which specific ballots would be over or undercounted. They just provide a number. So the argument is that it would be difficult to tell for sure which votes you are suggesting are over or under votes to even look at. Once the obvious overvotes and undervotes are removed from the mix, it could be tedious (if not impossible) to identify and single out the less obvious ones that might result in a vote. You might have to run each and every questionable ballot through the machine by itself to determine whether the machine is picking it up. The Miller-Meeks campaign is also arguing that attempts to do so could end up with ballots already in the machine counts to be falsely identified as a possible over or undervote and then counted again. At the end of the day, it might just be a matter of a lack of time and resources to do this, and one would expect that the Hart campaign is not going to get what they want here.
32 comments:
Mark Shields revealed on PBS Friday might that meet the press called every gop Senator to come on the show and not one was interested. Not even Romney. This is a sad reflection of how far Chuck Todd has diminished a once great show with his partisan drama and lying attacks.
If Trump is no longer president on Jan 20, I predict he'll have Trump TV up and running by summer.
There is no credible evidence of fraud via malfunctioning sorting machines.
The ballots are legal ballots. Unless you have been convinced that millions of fraudulent ballots have been counted by the false information propaganda that has brainwashed the victims of Trumpism.
There is no credible evidence of fraud via malfunctioning sorting machines.
Which of these Congressional races are you commenting on specifically, old man?
Unless the Republicans divorce Trump, they may fade away.
The Miller-Meeks campaign is also arguing that attempts to do so could end up with ballots already in the machine counts to be falsely identified as a possible over or undervote and then counted again.
The Miller-Meeks campaign is also arguing that attempts to do so could end up with ballots already in the machine counts to be falsely identified as a possible over or undervote and then counted again.
And???
They are not doing a hand count, Roger.
That means that they are putting the ballots back through the machines again. The machines are not telling them which ballots are under or over counts... the machine just tells them how many ballots were counted and how many were not in each race.
So you would need to go through each ballot by hand and guess which ones the machine might have over or under counted... only you don't know if the machine actually did over or under count them. If there is an obvious overvote (two candidates marked, then there is nothing you can do about it). If there are no candidates marked, then there is nothing you can do about that).
So what sort of ballots "exactly" are you looking for? How can you identify them? How long do you expect poll workers to spend looking for them? How can you positively identify that the machine did not pick them up the first time?
Nobody is suggesting "fraud" here Roger. They are just arguing over whether or not you can identify and count undervotes or overvotes.
Not everything is a conspiracy Roger...
Some things are just honest to goodness disagreements that sometimes a candidate who is slightly down in a race is going to push the limits of what they can attempt to get away with.
Like the Hart campaign wanting poll workers to go through each and every vote in an attempt to possibly find under or overvotes that shouldn't be (without any real guidance).
Or the Trump campaign trying to convince Pennsylvania legislators not to certify the state election results.
These are a sort of "long shot" or even a "hail Mary" that the campaign who is behind is going to many times attempt. The closer you lost by the more you will try everything you can.
Since we have an incumbent President won't accept a call 17 days after an election, then what the hell sort of banana republican have we become?
The Republican secretaries of state have stated that Vice President Biden is the President elect.
Until January 20th at noon, we will be a banana republic.
Ch is arguing that Trump is acting in a normal manner. Historians will not agree.
Read what you just wrote, with the exception of paragraph two, make no sense.
This is denial of reality.
Or the Trump campaign trying to convince Pennsylvania legislators not to certify the state election results.
The lame duck President is asking them to vote in Trump electoral college voters to violate state law and vote for the lame duck President.
They have said that they will not violate the law.
I hate it when I mistyped
The lame duck President is asking them to vote for Trump in the electoral college vote, to violate state law and vote for the lame duck President.
They have said that they will not violate the law.
Ch is arguing that Trump is acting in a normal manner.
I am arguing that Trump is down to his last "Hail Mary" attempts. This has not exactly been a "normal election" and I believe that the amount of abnormal results and actions from this election has made many people urge the President to fight rather than concede.
If "I" was Trump, I probably would have conceded and I certainly would not have sent Rudy Giuliani out to make a fool of himself. But I believe that he has the "right" to do what he is doing, as long as some of these results are not certified.
Seriously Reverend...
After over three years of Democrats demanding that the 2016 election was stolen by the Russians...
I am not sure why "history" would worry about the fact that Trump has not conceded a race that even 30% of Democrats believe might have been determined more by those "counting the votes" rather than those "casting the votes".
Judy Woodruff:
We have said this before, but this truly has been a week like no other in U.S. politics.
To help us sift through it all, the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Hello to both of you on this Friday evening.
David, it's been almost two weeks since Joe Biden was declared the winner of this election. President Trump still says he won by a landslide. And he seems to be doing everything he possibly can to change the results and get himself reelected.
What is going on?
David Brooks:
Yes, the Trump administration is a bit like the COVID pandemic. You can see the light at the end of the tunnel, but the worst — the last chapter is just the worst.
This has been the most unsuccessful, the most just horrible in every way transition of power in American history, surpassing Rutherford B. Hayes in 1870 by a country mile.
He's throwing everything at it. I don't think there's really much chance he's going to be successful in any ways, for a million reasons I could get into.
But a friend of mine, Jonathan Rauch, says it's like the fire hose of falsehoods strategies that disinformation campaigns use and have used against the United States. And that is where you just fill the air with lies. It's not necessarily that people believe your lies. It's that people don't believe in anything.
And so the long-term effect on American society, American politics, and American culture is a country that's even more cynical, even more disabused, and where you have a majority of Republicans right now who think that Trump won.
And what does that mean for the next four years? It's a — it's just a poisonous spewing that should not be underestimated.
Judy Woodruff:
Mark, how do you make sense of all this? Or do you?
Mark Shields:
First of all, I'd like to associate with the — myself with the previous gentleman's remarks. I think David makes great sense.
Joe Biden, who has been the model of restraint, said that the president's actions were irresponsible.
They are irresponsible, but they're also reprehensible. The president shows absolutely no concern for the president-elect and his group's effort to prepare to govern, to lead the country. It just goes through the myriad of problems facing the country. He has refused to support a COVID relief bill, with benefits running out by just after Christmas.
He has no interest in that, does the president. The president has had no interest in showing the new incoming administration its best way of providing the vaccine to the millions of Americans who so desperately will need it. It's oblivious to national security opportunistic moments that our enemies and those who wish us ill in the world can take advantage. Across the board.
And what David said, I mean, he is sowing doubt and mistrust. Americans historically, Judy, have given the benefit of the doubt to every new president. It's a wonderful quality of ours. Even we swallow partisanship.
What Donald Trump is doing his best, through his 90 million Twitter followers, is to reach the 70 million-plus who voted for him and say, Don't trust. Don't trust your government. Don't trust your nation.
And it's reprehensible. It's beyond irresponsible.
Judy Woodruff:
David, but it's not just that they're saying that there was a problem here or a problem there. They're alleging massive fraud, conspiracy.
Giuliani, Rudy Giuliani, yesterday speaking about Venezuela being behind a giant conspiracy, the Clintons, and on and on, fairy tale-like information.
What — I get — I mean, I wonder, is this something that you believe the American people are wise enough, smart enough to reject?
David Brooks:
I want to say yes, but this is really what I wonder about.
I mean, holding up documents and claiming you have evidence, when you have no evidence, is literally what Joe McCarthy did. And now we're seeing a re-picture of it.
And we have always had in this country a paranoid style. Richard Hofstadter wrote a book about this maybe 50 or 60 years ago, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," the John Birch Society, the conspiracies against — alleging that the mafia or somebody killed John F. Kennedy.
That's always been there. And so that's not new.
The question I have — and I don't know the answer to this — is, to what extent is that spreading? To what extent has QAnon just become like a large religion out there? And has the — all the distrust that's built up over the decades now created a paranoid wing that is just bigger than ever before?
I just don't know the answer to that. I do know that, every time we have an election, more — we ratchet down our quality of politics. People claimed that Barack Obama was an illegitimate president. Hillary Clinton and Jimmy Carter said Donald Trump was an illegitimate president. But that's nothing compared to what's happening right now.
And how it seeds in the country and how it seeds over the next four years, there's some evidence that we're just seeing a bigger, alienated, paranoid wing of our country, and who may believe in this or may just believe in nobody, it's just pure nihilism.
Judy Woodruff:
And what makes it more, in my mind, a question, Mark, is that most elected Republican officials are backing the president in what he's doing.
They're saying he has every right to challenge. Very few of them are saying that he's — what he's doing is wrong.
Mark Shields:
Judy, they have taken a vow of silence, apparently.
The most amazing moment of the week to me politically was to find out that "Meet the Press" last Sunday called every single Republican senator and invited him or her to be on the show that Sunday, and every one of them turned "Meet the Press" down.
Now, I mean, that is unheard of, to be invited to an important forum like that. Senators jump at that opportunity historically.
And what you're back to his Dante's great quote that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a time of moral crisis, remain neutral.
I mean, that's what they have done. They have taken this vow of silence, with conspicuous consumption. They are enabling him.
And they are undoing democracy. And they're doing enormous damage, I mean, saying, well, just humor him. Humor him along a little while.
We're facing the greatest public health crisis we have had in 100 years. We're facing an economic crisis of dramatic and historic proportions and dimensions. People's lives are really at risk.
And what they do is futz around on this and pretend that we're not going to tell the emperor that he has no trousers on or that he has no shirt on? There's no attempt to win here. Nobody believes that Donald Trump won the election.
It's just to sow doubt and mistrust and distrust. And what a terribly dishonorable objective.
Judy Woodruff:
Well, it appears that he believes it, and a number of people who are backing him may believe it. It is not clear.
But, David, is there — as you look at how Joe Biden has responded to this, the comments that he's made — he's been asked about it day after day. Is there anything — I mean, what do you make of that? Is that — is that a response that is likely to win opinion, win hearts and minds?
What do you see? What do you hear?
David Brooks:
Well, first, I want to acknowledge the Republicans who actually have stood up, Mitt Romney foremost — first and foremost, Jeff Flake early.
But even this week, Lamar Alexander and Ben Sasse, senators from Tennessee and Nebraska, have really put out statements. And so I think they get some credit.
As for Joe Biden, I think he's handled it reasonably well, not overreacting, getting down to business, focusing on COVID. That strikes me as very sensible.
His transition put out an e-mail today raising money. So, we have got a country, we're living in a country where the president-elect has to raise money to pay for the transition because they can't — he can't yet get public funds.
It's like we're not a First World country anymore.
Judy Woodruff:
And, David, you mentioned Republicans, but I think it's still the case, Mitch McConnell, the majority of elected Republicans are still not challenging the president.
David Brooks:
Yes, I'd say there are four levels.
There's a very small level of heroes, like Romney. There's the 80 percenters, who are sort of moving away. Then there's 90 percent, who are just completely silenced, including, for example, Cory Gardner, the guy who just got defeated in a Senate race, who has nothing left to lose politically. Even he's still silent. And then there are the hard-core Giulianis.
And, right now, you're right. There's that core group of Republicans who are disgraceful in their silence.
Judy Woodruff:
Mark, what about Joe Biden and how he is dealing with this? What are you — what's your assessment?
Mark Shields:
I think Joe Biden has handled it well.
I mean, you can feel his mounting frustration, a greater sense of urgency as time goes by, and the enormous task confronting him and his administration. They're being robbed of the chance just to consult, Judy, just to consult with the people who have been there, who are there, who are working.
I mean, it's — the Republicans' mantra during impeachment, you will recall, was, let's wait until the election. Let's let the voters decide. Let's let them cast their ballots.
Well, they have done that, and it's time to accept it.
I acknowledge Governor Romney's, Senator Romney's leadership. Lamar Alexander on — after three terms and his retirement, did make a statement today. And Ben Sasse has, in fact, shown some independence.
But that's three. That's three. And I'm — I'm still waiting for the leadership to move on it and stop pretending. I mean, this is a fantasyland we're living in. But it's a dangerous fantasyland. And we're playing with people's lives; 258,000 Americans are dead because of this pandemic.
And the president seems — he just seems consumed with his own ego, his own vanity.
Think about this, Judy. If he were really even shrewd, he would be large-spirited and magnanimous right now, and do everything he could, and take credit, an earned credit for his administration, to produce a vaccine in eight months, nine months. It's an amazing achievement.
Judy Woodruff:
Yes.
Mark Shields:
And it will potentially save millions of lives.
But he hasn't even — that isn't even anywhere near his interest. That — he's not concerned about that at all. I mean, it would be in his interest to go out as a magnanimous and large historic figure, and serve his purposes, whatever they are in the future.
But, instead, he's going on as a small, mean, vindictive and self-absorbed man.
Judy Woodruff:
I guess he did make a statement one day this week about the vaccine, the progress made on a vaccine.
But, David, I do want to come back to something else the president has done. And that is announce pulling U.S. troops out of the Middle East here in the last weeks, months of his presidency, making moves that raise — I think, raise some questions about where this administration wants to leave U.S. power, and what he wants to leave for the next administration.
David Brooks:
Yes, there's no question that America wants to get out of Afghanistan. The question is how.
And when you measure that, there's always a conflict between the political forces and the military. And, sometimes, the military probably wants to stay in a little too long. They're probably a little more confident in their abilities to turn things around than they should be.
But I'm really struck by how the military leaders, especially the former militaries, the retireds, have really reacted with apoplexy to the way we're withdrawing.
And we're going to get out, but they really think there's no military justification, pure politics, and destructive effects in Afghanistan to get out.
And for all the young men and women who served there over these many, many years, if we — if we stay in a couple more months, and leave a lasting legacy they can be proud of, that certainly is worth it.
And so what you see from Trump is what seems to be just pure politics, so he can brag.
Judy Woodruff:
And, Mark, just 30 seconds. Thoughts about the president and the military.
Mark Shields:
Well, Judy, 2,500 people in Iraq and Afghanistan are too few to fight, and too many to die. So, that is a strategic decision.
But the reality is that we have never had in this country any exit strategy in either Iraq or Afghanistan, the two longest wars in American history. We don't know how to measure what victory or success would be.
And that is a failure. It's been a failure of four administrations. And it — the fact that we got into it with no end strategy, with no insight is a terrible indictment. And it's the only war since the Mexican-American War of longer than three months that America has fought without a draft and with tax cuts, instead of tax raises.
And both Republican presidents during this war, their principal domestic policy has been to cut taxes. So, we have now spent $5 trillion, thousands of lives, and disrupted millions of lives. And I ask, for what?
Judy Woodruff:
A week that's just — that's raised a lot of questions.
Mark Shields, David Brooks, we thank you both.
Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.
-Stalin
After over three years of Democrats demanding that the 2016 election was stolen by the Russians... It's impossible to determine whether the 72 000 votes in three swing states were the result of Russian hack. But the fact is that the Comey investigation into the emails probably swung the three states.
You are the person who doubts the veracity of the election, not like you said Democrats believe might have been determined more by those "counting the votes" rather than those "casting the votes".
Until January 20th at noon, we will be a banana republic.
Unless Trump TV starts attempting to make it impossible for the next President.
At Helsinki he took the word of Vladimir Putin over the intelligence agencies.
That's separate from the impeachment about contact with the President of Ukraine.
Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.
-Stalin
In Stalin's and Putin's Russia, yes, but not in our America, because this is not Trump's Amerika.
Stalin would be proud of you.
Good job!
Balls has been identified as a muppet.
He drank George W Bush's bathwater during his administration.
He's already proud of democrats in Philadelphia, Milwaukee and Detroit.
Historians will NOT record this election as having been stolen.
Simple fact. Live with it.
Historians will NOT record this election as having been stolen.
Just as they did "NOT" record the 2016 as being stolen by the Russians. But just as Trump spent 4 years being dissed by Democrats claiming he was illegitimate, the same will be said about Joe Biden by conservatives.
When even 30% of your own Party believes Democratic poll workers and vote counters likely cheated to make sure Biden won... there is going to be a problem.
A problem that could be solved by a little bit of transparency and just a little bit of effort in avoiding suspicious behavior. If there was nothing to hide, then why did so many of these counties work sooooooo hard to prevent legal poll watchers from actually watching?
Moreover Reverend... why are the counties attempting to block or remove poll watchers from watching (as the law provides) always run by Democrats?
If you can give me ONE good reason why someone wants to do this sort of work without any supervision or anyone watching... then please provide it. Because so far, nobody has provided a reasonable explanation what-so-ever.
Ch, would you please give us any evidence you have as to which court has agreed with the accusation that poll watchers were blocked.
While readers are waiting, they might want to look at this:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/12/donald-trump/trumps-wrong-claim-election-observers-were-barred-/
Sorry James...
There was actual video posted online of poll watchers being removed, poll watchers being placed 25' away, poll watchers not being allowed in.
There was a viral video where one precinct removed the last remaining Republican poll watcher for "not properly wearing his mask" and the poll workers broke out in applause.
There were court cases where Judges had to order precincts to allow the poll watchers in.
So with all due respect to "polifact" (which is none) - you're full of shit and once again simply refuse to EVER address anything. You just deny things in plain sight, like every liberal does..
So this is why I rarely bother to engage in these threads anymore. It's just so pathetic.
Well, Ch, it looks like you are forced to admit that some of the claims that poll watchers were not allowed to watch are bogus.
"Pants on Fire" bogus, as a matter of fact.
Seems to me, if true, and widely true, the results of the election could be overthrown.
Why is it that Trump's supporters are having so little success in the courts?
And why are local election officials, both Democratic and Republican, so indignantly angered by accusations that they did not run fair elections when they made every attempt to do so?
You can make all kinds of ridiculous charges (just look at Giuliani and Powell) but proof is needed, evidence that holds up in court.
Yours doesn't.
Post a Comment