Oops....
-
We have entered the rabbit hole of "called" is the same as "elected."
"Calling" someone the winner, before all votes are counted has an effect on how people vote, particularly when polls start to say "This guy is going to lose." If I recall, a Canadian study showed that polls showing one candidate winning will have a negative effect on his opponents showing up, because, after all, who wants to vote for a loser.
-
Most of the public polls this last time were pretty bad. Look at the money raised against Graham because of bad polling.
Time to outlaw public polls in elections?
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
Most of the public polls this last time were pretty bad. Look at the money raised against Graham because of bad polling.
Time to outlaw public polls in elections?
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
Most of the public polls this last time were pretty bad. Look at the money raised against Graham because of bad polling.
Time to outlaw public polls in elections?
-
You might as well say that saying anything politically controversial is going to influence how people vote.
I suppose you could make lying illegal, but you can't elect convicted felons into office, so the elections would go on for ever.
-
From the article:
Connecticut GOP House Rep. Craig Fishbein was declared the loser in the race for his seat until a town clerk found an “error” had caused the race to be called for his Democrat opponent.
Imagine if it went the other way, against the republican. Would Brietbart still think of this as an "error" that was fixed? Or would they consider it an error that was "fixed"?
To ask the question is to answer it.
-
The canvassing process always fixes errors. It is rare that they are of the magnitude that changes an apparent winner.
But knowing that the canvassing quite literally always finds errors, we should not presume fraud for those, and only those, that break against our preferred candidate.
-
The canvassing process always fixes errors. It is rare that they are of the magnitude that changes an apparent winner.
But knowing that the canvassing quite literally always finds errors, we should not presume fraud for those, and only those, that break against our preferred candidate.
The canvassing process always fixes errors. It is rare that they are of the magnitude that changes an apparent winner.
But knowing that the canvassing quite literally always finds errors, we should not presume fraud for those, and only those, that break against our preferred candidate.
Fraud should never be allowed, for any candidate.
25 years minimum, at hard labor, sounds about right.
Of course, aren't you the same guy who didn't mind lies in a FISA court? I could be mistaken...
At the end if the day, it all boils down to the same thing. You either trust the system or not. For the system to be trusted, it must be as error-free as humanly possible.
