Calling the States
-
@Loki said in Calling the States:
@bachophile said in Calling the States:
How can there be a massive conspiracy in four states involving hundreds of vote counters and not one scrap of evidence?
I am not addressing conspiracy I am addressing the right for timely results. It’s unconscionable for some states to set up a mechanism where the counting isn’t over. It is as simple as that. People have a right to be LIVID
I don’t think this country has ever had results on election night. Often it becomes “callable” based on partial results.
-
@xenon said in Calling the States:
@Loki said in Calling the States:
@bachophile said in Calling the States:
How can there be a massive conspiracy in four states involving hundreds of vote counters and not one scrap of evidence?
I am not addressing conspiracy I am addressing the right for timely results. It’s unconscionable for some states to set up a mechanism where the counting isn’t over. It is as simple as that. People have a right to be LIVID
I don’t think this country has ever had results on election night. Often it becomes “callable” based on partial results.
Isn’t that why the inauguration used to be in March? Because of the time it took to finalize the voting Wayback a long time ago?
-
Yup, each state has its own measures to certify the results of the election. There are no uniform dates for the states to certify results. Some states don't certify their results until December. Thus, the best one can do is project winners based on initial tabulations of the results.
-
Nixon conceded to Kennedy on wed afternoon in 1960. Right now in the states it’s still wed morning. So this year is is still ahead of that.
-
@bachophile said in Calling the States:
But the whole world knew that there would be a rebound after the initial count
I knew it. And I have no political acumen. How can it be that he didn’t know?
He knew it. He just doesn’t want to admit it, it doesn’t help his fraud narrative.
-
@Loki said in Calling the States:
It’s unconscionable for some states to set up a mechanism where the counting isn’t over. It is as simple as that. People have a right to be LIVID
The GOP specifically blocked it in your state.
The governor wanted to start counting mail-in as they arrived. The GOP legislature blocked it.
-
@George-K
"That's because it was a data entry error in Shiawassee County and in the Michigan tabulations. I watched it happen. It temporarily took Trump's lead from 270k down to 70k. They fixed it pretty quickly and it was only on Decision Desk HQ that the error occurred (that's the site your screenshot is from) because it happened when they imported results from the various county websites in Michigan." link -
@jon-nyc said in Calling the States:
@Loki said in Calling the States:
It’s unconscionable for some states to set up a mechanism where the counting isn’t over. It is as simple as that. People have a right to be LIVID
The GOP specifically blocked it in your state.
The governor wanted to start counting mail-in as they arrived. The GOP legislature blocked it.
Which state are we talking about? Is @Loki in Pennsylvania?
-
@jon-nyc said in Calling the States:
@Loki said in Calling the States:
It’s unconscionable for some states to set up a mechanism where the counting isn’t over. It is as simple as that. People have a right to be LIVID
The GOP specifically blocked it in your state.
The governor wanted to start counting mail-in as they arrived. The GOP legislature blocked it.
-
@jon-nyc said in Calling the States:
Scotus? You tell me.
Lol. I’m not clear anymore either. But regardless who’s fault it is we have the right to know right away. If Florida can do it anyone can. Of course if it’s too close to call you have recounts.
-
Who the fuck is Rogan O'Handley?
He seem to know a lot about cheating in elections. Maybe they should lock that twat up.
-
DON’T let them eat cake.
- RFK Jr -
@jon-nyc said in Calling the States:
It’s kind of fun to watch Trump’s twitter feed now, as he oh-so-publicly navigates the stages of grief.
Maybe the Supreme Court will find him guilty. Do you think he's considered that?
Proud supporter of Plan 2525. Everything you think, do and say will be in the pill you took today.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Calling the States:
Maybe the Supreme Court
Can Donald Trump Litigate His Way to Victory via the Supreme Court? Not Likely
https://electionlawblog.org/?p=118159
I’ve been saying consistently that the only way the 2020 presidential election ends up being decided by the courts is if there is a dispute in a state that is central to an electoral college victory and that the dispute in that state is so close (or there is such a massive failure in the election) that the election is within the margin of litigation.
As of this moment (though things can change) it does not appear that either condition will be met. It does not seem that Pennsylvania will be crucial to a Biden electoral college victory and so any litigation over ballots there would not matter.
Even if it came down to Pennsylvania, it would have to be so close that there would be something to litigate over. If it is tens of thousands of votes separating the candidates (as currently in the Michigan totals), it is virtually impossible that a recount or litigation could change an outcome.
Of course, if it does come down to a state like PA and it comes down to ballots arriving between Nov. 3 and 6, the Republicans can go back to the Supreme Court in an attempt to get those thrown out. For reasons I’ve explained, the reliance interest of the voters makes this very unlikely (and the Supreme Court passed up two chances to act on this).
The other lawsuits in PA don’t seem to present much hope for flipping a lot of votes; they involve what appears to be a relatively small number of provisional ballots.
So could the election be litigated to a conclusion? Sure. But it’s not likely unless there is significant tightening in both the electoral college projections and the absolute margin in a key state.
-
'Twas just a joke. I didn't actually think the Supreme Court can put him on trial.
