I flagged and downvoted your comment because it follows a disturbing pattern I have seen in messages from President Trump and his supporters, that the President cannot lose in a legitimate contest. The President has today asserted that he has won the election, "by a lot"; an assertion that can only be true if a significant number of votes against him are illegitimate. Mr. Trump has previously asserted that he won the 2016 election by a historically large margin, that the primaries and even the Emmys were rigged against him.
I'm tired of it.
Your comment is nothing more than an attempt to shut down discourse by denying that any opposed ideas can have any validity. That is a fallacy in an argument. In a democratically elected leader, or his followers, it is a direct attack on the foundations of the country. Please stop.
Barry Richard, an election lawyer who served as a lead attorney for President George W. Bush during the 2000 recount in Florida, criticized the campaign’s efforts. “I wouldn’t call it a strategy,” he said. “There isn’t any legal basis for anything I’ve seen so far.”
Other election law experts have questioned the multipronged attack. Richard Hasen, professor at UC Irvine School of Law and author of “Election Meltdown,” said the lawsuits, even if partially successful, were smaller-scale and didn’t threaten the results. “If they’re not being filed to change the election outcome, what’s the point?” he said.
He sued to stop counting legally cast ballots in states he was winning (PA,MI,WI) while suing other states to recount where he was loosing (AZ,GA, etc.).
It's both a contradictory argument and obviously illegal: you can't stop a state's election board from counting the already cast ballots.
Well they’re going to try to challenge lots of mail-in ballots that were either processed without poll watchers being able to see the signatures, or allegedly backdated by USPS, for a start. The first suit will be filed on Monday according to Giuliani. We’ll see how far it goes, but should be fun.
This is just announced today so I’m not sure how “experts” could have weighed in already, whatever that means.
They're going to get figuratively laughed out of court like have been so far. The handful of cases they have won are so non-controversial, they could have been equally brought by the Biden campaign, eg: observer distance in PA. These aren't serious people. They never have been, they never will be.
Yes, at one time Giuliani did good things. That was over 25 years ago. Giuliani is nothing more than a muckraker for Trump nowadays.
And yes that is a prediction. But it is an informed prediction. It is informed by the fact that so far, every case has been tossed for lack of evidence. I can go around making false assertions and filing false lawsuits all day too, it doesn't mean that anyone should take them seriously, and no one would. The only reason that we give these assertions oxygen is out of deference to the power these people hold.
Follow Up: The NY Post editorial board, one of the few boards that endorsed Trump has offered the following advice:
"Get Rudy Giuliani off TV."
Even the Post doesn't give Giuliani credence. Trump will get recounts, none of them will move the numbers in a meaningful way, just like every other recount in the history of Presidential recounts.
Fleccas is going to need to find *someone" who doesn't sell "bill+Hillary clinton pointing guns" t-shirts to independently check his work before he deserves anyone's attention.
The oldest known American was born in 1905. This list seems hit-or-miss, but I spot checked a few entries with birth years before that (excluding Jan 1900 since that might be used as NULL) and it showed them as having voted via absentee ballot. I don't know if the number is large enough to make any meaningful difference, but it's not a good look.
I've seen this explanation, but it's gaslighting. It says:
> No ballot for the 118-year-old Mr. Bradley was ever requested, received or counted.
Yet, the voter registration site clearly showed that a ballot was requested, sent to, and received from the elder Mr. Bradley. I'm skeptical that they would have detected the error had this particular case not gone viral. If they had the means to detect the error, then why didn't they do it before sending the ballot? Or, even better, remove the defunct registration in the first place?
Depends on how bad you consider the issue:
1) Ballot is sent to dead person -> not great, but I think this is apparently not illegal (and makes sense, since people don't die on schedules, and don't need to notify voter registration when they do)
2) Ballot also sent to alive person at same address with same name -> good
3) Living person fills out their ballot, turns it in -> good
4) Living person throws out dead person's ballot -> good
5) Vote counting accidentally records Living person's vote under Dead person's entry -> bad, but pretty easy to imagine as clerical error
6) Living person's entry never has a vote counted -> good (sort of, as living person's vote only gets counted once, just under wrong name
Result:
A) No change in voting results (living person's vote gets counted once)
But
B) Is this fraud? -> my opinion, no. There was no difference in vote count, likely no intention to make the mistake. If it was intentional fraud that's pretty useless
C) Is this system? -> Not sure, the list of thousands of 'possible dead people' certainly looks like worth investigating, but unless some real reports are gonna go look at every one I'm not sure there's gonna be a real answer for all of them
"If they had the means to detect the error" -> quite possibly because they're busy doing other things, like counting the votes. "skeptical that they would have detected the error" is pretty speculative, but again an error that results in no vote count difference is not the kind they should be correcting. They should focus on correcting errors that affect the vote count, right? (ie, execute the main thread rather than spend cycles garbage collecting. Garbage collect when the main thread is idle.)
