My prediction

Sounds like the sour grapes of someone ALREADY expecting their candidate to LOSE...

 

All that proves is that the Right sux at it and the left are very very good at it I mean look at what they managed to get in to office last election!

Masters of illusion and deception!

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ion-day-legal-voting-issues-2024/75686873007/

 

Doesn't support your claim

Both major parties expect court battles over voter rolls, mail-in ballots, and overseas ballots as polls show an incredibly tight contest between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump.

 

Are placing another 2016 bet to Welch on?

 

Yep, lack of evidence of fraud is evidence that fraud is taking place.

So, do you still believe in Santa, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny? Same logic.

 

Yup they were my Parents Just like Joetato was the Democrat parties choice

 

Case in point

 

I live in Virginia and that is NOT what they were doing.

They could not prove that the people in question "aliens" (legal or otherwise) they used criteria that could just as well be applied to a legal citizen allowed to vote. They were not purging the polls of "aliens" but of people that seemed more likely to vote Democrat.

Of course they could not just come out and SAY that, so they had to couch in language about preventing "aliens" from voting.

 

Both parties expect court battles initiated by the Trump campaign.

Delay delay delay....

 

The eyes of the world are upon us. All the despots are rooting for trump. Some of which are trying to put their thumbs on the scale.

 

They bolded part is something that you fabricated from whole cloth. Certainly doesn't say that in the article

 

All we have to do is look at the 2020 election.

 

That's not true.

In 2000 we didn't find out the result until the US Supreme Court ruled on December 12.

 

2000 was an anomaly. We KNEW who won in 2020. Trump's refusal to concede and his filing 60 suits didn't change that. It only caused his supporters to question it.

 

David Feldman, the podcaster, explained it that they were doing it because last election they were so wrong, they decided to change their method to minimize the flack they might receive if they are radically wrong again, so they chose to put the results close to a tie, to minimize that potentiality, that they would more likely be 'within the margin of error, either way', and what better way to do that than to make it a close horse race in the center. It makes sense to me, anyway, why they are doing it. He was making this distinction and said to go with the A+ polls (there aren't that many of them) who stick to proven methods, and are willing to be wrong.

According to FiveThirtyEight's pollster ratings, the A+ pollsters include the following, below, noting that the Desmoines poll showing Harris in the lead in Iowa, which is rare, is #1 on this list. So, when doing averages, I'd use only those on this list, and ignore RCP, which includes all the pollsters, including the outliers, who skew the results, such as Rasmussen.

1. Selzer & Co.
   
   
2. ABC News/Washington Post
   
   
3. Siena College/New York Times
   
   
4. IBD/TIPP
   

 

Well, sure, there are anomalies, exceptions to any general principle, but occasional anomalies won't change my premise, as Gore conceded gracefully, and the time it took him to do it doesn't change the fact that before Trump entered the scene deliberately shaking confidence in the elections by fraudulently claiming it was stolen, resulting in districts with election officials buying into the MAGA weirdness and delaying certification, we used to find out who won on election day, give or take the occasionally anomaly, so I'll rewrite the principle to include your point.

 

And you have this thing called "evidence" for the statement about positive correlation.

Also do you agree with the statement "correlation does not mean causation"?

 

Did my duty @Pro_Line_FL
Even though I disagree with the way the amendment was written I did vote for legal pot.

 

Good for you. I don't smoke pot, but I think you did the right thing, because when you weigh positives vs negatives, the positives win.

 

The notion of "my side will only lose if the other side cheats" is completely misguided and a collective insult to intelligence...
Should "my side" not win, I will accept the results (and move on)...
It seems horrifically misguided to preemptively claim "my side will only lose if the other side cheats"...
Once again, such a "preemptive" statement (before the votes have been officially counted) can only be interpreted as the coping mechanism of people expecting to lose...

 

More MAGA "stolen election" nonsense?

 

If Trump wins, Democrats will claim stolen election. If Kamala wins, Republicans will claim stolen election. Pretty simple. Perhaps you should keep your powder dry until the results start coming in a few hours.

 

Is this member one of them?