dogbert27 wrote: » I really want to see those two called asap but Nevada is only reporting at 75%. The AP though have Az called already for Biden so I just want it confirmed. He just needs one more State then.
Christy42 wrote: » Sure but I want this in the bag. I have no interest in Biden having a lot of chances and coming up short in each.
StringerBell wrote: » I'd agree, I just felt like venting my concerns I think he holds Nevada, and I am confident in Arizona, I've always been strong on Georgia if you have seen any of my posts about them even on election night when he was so far behind initially but I would also really love PA to put the stamp on it. Uphill battles in some areas but doable.
paul71 wrote: » North Carolina announced yesterday that they are not counting again until 12th November.
dogbert27 wrote: » Alaska is only 50% reported. Are there more mail in votes to count there?
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » Have to be careful here because saying 'all votes get counted' is a bit misleading. The democrats fought for extremely lax restrictions in PA, the postmark one being indefensible (nobody has defended and I have challenged many to do so). So the democrats want crazily lax restrictions imo, and the Republicans want to stop that one, I wouldn't consider that voter suppression. Obviously people will disagree about different instances, this is politics and I accept both sides will fight for the outcome that favours them no matter what. But the idea that it is necessarily voter suppression to is a bit too much.
murpho999 wrote: » That would put him at 306 v 232 for a comprehensive victory that cannot be legally challenged.
prawnsambo wrote: » Can I defend that one? Within reason (and I define that as having been postmarked within the normal postal time to get to the centre by polling day) I can't see why properly postmarked votes that get to the centre after polling day shouldn't be counted.
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » Have to be careful here because saying 'all votes get counted' is a bit misleading. The democrats fought for extremely lax restrictions in PA, the postmark one being indefensible (nobody has defended and I have challenged many to do so). So the democrats want crazily lax restrictions imo, and the Republicans want to stop that one, I wouldn't consider that voter suppression. Obviously people will disagree about different instances, this is politics and I accept both sides will fight for the outcome that favours them no matter what. But the idea that it is necessarily voter suppression to is a bit too much. (I didn't mean to imply you called it voter suppression, but it is the common theme I've heard)
murpho999 wrote: » Nevada said they wouldn't report anything until today. Also Fox have also called AZ as Biden and are adamant and sticking with it despite criticism from Trump's camp. They've based their call on where the votes outstanding to come in from. Yes, but you just have to have patience with these things sometimes. Venting is no problem. I think he'll take PA, AZ ,GE & NE. That would put him at 306 v 232 for a comprehensive victory that cannot be legally challenged.
everlast75 wrote: » https://twitter.com/PaulBlu/status/1324349677660184585?s=19 This needs to be acknowledged. It was Trump's plan to downplay the virus, get his supporters to the polls on the day and as democrats would most likely post their ballots to reduce COVID exposure, declare victory on the night and set the narrative that the postal votes were rigged. This was all by design.
letowski wrote: » Biden will win Pennsylvania north of +100k when all is said and done.
moon2 wrote: » If you post something a week before election day and the postal service *does not* deliver it by election day, that vote should absolutely be counted. I appreciate there needs to be a limit on how long you can wait for votes to arrive, but 'a couple of days' is definitely a very reasonable thing to promote democracy and ensure no-one is disenfrancised by virtue of their local post office being underfunded/underperforming. The best example is that the USPS in Florida may have failed to deliver 300,000 votes. https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/elections/2020/11/03/usps-ordered-to-search-for-mail-ballots-on-election-day/ It's shocking that a failure of the USPS, potentially caused by interference by the current government, is going to disenfranchise so many votes. It's especially troubling when this is more than sufficient to swing the election.
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » "Ballots can be counted if they lack a postmark, a legible postmark or some other proof of mailing unless a “preponderance of the evidence” shows it was mailed after Election Day, the court said." Maybe I misunderstand it but that is different to what you're saying I think.https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-pennsylvania-elections-courts-41b7c3a620dd3ba1b9c741fb80ff8466
everlast75 wrote: » https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1324341206306967552?s=19 Interesting to hear this. Allays my fears somewhat
Big Pussy Bonpensiero wrote: » Why is this an issue for you, and Republicans, only now? Mail in ballots is one of the safest ways to vote, has proven to be over and over again, and has been done for decades by those in the military. You might think you're presenting a valid point, but you're not. That lawsuit was an embarrassment to the Republican party, and it won't be forgotton what they have tried to do here.
Jimbob1977 wrote: » Call me old fashioned, but I think every election should require a voter to turn up at a polling station on election day. No pre-voting weeks before Election Day or postal votes (where postmarks are being debated!!). The only exception should be postal votes for the verifiably infirmed or hospitalised.The American system is ripe for fraud.
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » See my post above yours about the ruling. If the USPS has done anything illegitimate or there is any sign of ****ery on their part then let's see the evidence. I'm not doubting it, but I'm sure the democratic operatives / lawyers will be bringing it to the attention of the people and the courts if that's the case.
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » So we can't talk about any of the legal things democrats are doing? Can't question it? I haven't heard a good reason why ballots lacking any verification that they were posted before the election being counted after the election is a good thing.
Jimbob1977 wrote: » Call me old fashioned, but I think every election should require a voter to turn up at a polling station on election day. No pre-voting weeks before Election Day or postal votes (where postmarks are being debated!!). The only exception should be postal votes for the verifiably infirmed or hospitalised. The American system is ripe for fraud.
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » So we can't talk about any of the legal things democrats are doing? Can't question it? I haven't heard a good reason why ballots lacking any verification it was posted before the election can be counted after the election is a good thing.
Big Pussy Bonpensiero wrote: » Show us proof of fraud. Then you have a point. This has been done for decades. It's tried and trusted. Nothing more really to say on the matter.
Call Me Jimmy wrote: » No the ruling I'm talking about is in the last few weeks and I believe only in PA.
Christy42 wrote: » Why would it not have verification one way or another would be my first question. What is the verification system? I think innocent till proven guilty applies for me (not the actual legal bit, just the principle). If you got some mail now as last years Christmas present then you would be skeptical it was sent before last Christmas. Given the post office's recent failures and stresses you have uncertainty about the ballots. If that person has not voted another way I would hedge on counting it. Having someone vote slightly late is regrettable but preferable to to disenfranchising someone who voted on time and got unlucky
