Some states allow that, or to request a replacement absentee ballot. I think they all end the cutoff in early voting (before election date) for this, but it could also vary by state.
2 Likes
What did I miss?
Meanwhile in our corner of the union, mini-trump is suing the Republican Secretary of State.
Here’s the final vote count:
https://results.vote.wa.gov/results/20201103/governor.html
The cult is alive is well.
Well that’s simply not true.
I’m surprised (ok, not really) that you support the push to get people to lock in their votes months early, to ensure that those pesky things you love to harp on like debates and campaign speeches cant be factored in to their decision.
Havent you been one who’s been ruthlessly criticizing Replublicans for doing exactly that? Except that all the unforgivable crimes are just conjecture?
How could scripta do that? The GOP had no platform at all this year. There are no gop policies. Only a stated undying loyalty to whatever Trump might spew.
Many of the individual candidates running also explicitly had no policies except Trump fealty and “fighting Pelosi”.
Therefore, it would have been impossible in most situations to decide to vote GOP based on policy.
Can’t make this stuff up. She, a republican, had an expectation of being elected governor in Washington state? 
More realistic question… with qanon a recognized and designated domestic terror group (don’t try to reconcile that with sitting Potus holding rallies for them… that’s a separate absurdity), seems like Congress has an obligation to refuse to seat the two newly elected “gop” openly qanon members. But I haven’t seen any articles or discussion about that.
I don’t see any chance of congress not seating the New Confederacy members (from the article). The Nj rep seems to just be trying to make a similar extreme claim as those 126 calling for an overthrow of the election and rebellion against (not recognizing) the other states. But with the sedition actually warranting it.
That’s simply not true. They’ve been on the defensive all year, with the priority being to stop the well-established Democrat agenda of lawlessness, fascism, racism, hate, and extreme intolerance towards anyone who dare disagree with how they want things to be seen. You can continue to chastize Republicans for not pushing their own dramatic agenda, but trying to prevent/undo bad changes is just as much of a policy platform as pushing for their own changes.
1 Like
Talk about hypocrisy. You dismiss anyone claiming that the election results are not legit, while wanting to keep out duly elected congresspersons who’s election victory is in no way being disputed.
Last I’ve seen, no one is claiming that Biden should be stopped from being President because of the policies he believes. The entire claim is that the vote count was tampered with. You can believe it or not believe it, it may or may not be true, but that is at minimum a valid reason to question the election results. Some people not liking what the winner thinks is not a valid reason to set aside the election results.
What happened to all the cries about voter supression and the will of the people? Only one of those two situations is focused on ensuring the will of the people is followed. The other is actively ignoring the will of the people.
2 Likes
Election victory is not disputed. But the domestic terror organization support is not disputed.
False. That’s just the PR you see on twitter. Many of the “lawsuits” specifically say they aren’t about fraud when in court, despite the press conferences by the sex shops saying it is. That in itself is evidence that the filings are in bad faith. The cases shouldn’t just be thrown out (as they are), but the criminals involved should be prosecuted.
It’s the facts. Add any spin you want. It was the first time in the party’s history that it had no platform adoption. It decided to just state it was the party of Trump’s whims.
Yes, as I’ve stated I’ve previously participated in the process, precint, district, and state level where the platform has previously been formed (and then the final step is national level). There was an established process.
1 Like
Frame it how ever the hell you want, it’s about the vote count not being the legal vote count. That is clearly a legit issue, even if you don’t think these claims are legit. Regardless of the underlying intent (whatever it is, or whatever you want to think it is), it’s still dressed up as changing the vote count to change the result. Not just ignoring the result.
You’re the only one wanting to blatantly ignore the result of an election, simply because you disagree with the winner. That’s a far more serious threat to democracy than anything you’ve accused anyone else of trying to do.
1 Like
Well, you’re only right after legislating from the bench occurred :). Before 1969, this was not the case. It could be overturned again by the Supreme Court if the issue arose again. Either house of congress could test the issue with the SC if they decided to.
Having terrorists elected to Congress is still evidence of a huge problem.
" Article I, Section 5 of the United States Constitution which states that, “Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.” This had been interpreted that members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate could refuse to recognize the election or appointment of a new representative or senator for any reason, often political heterodoxy or criminal record. Powell v. McCormack (1969) limited the powers of the Congress to refuse to seat an elected member to when the individual does not meet the specific constitutional requirements of age, citizenship or residency. From the decision by Chief Justice Earl Warren: “Therefore, we hold that, since Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., was duly elected by the voters of the 18th Congressional District of New York and was not ineligible to serve under any provision of the Constitution, the House was without power to exclude him from its membership.”"
1 Like
Pairs nicely with Time’s Person of the Year of Biden/Harris. I wonder why Trump hasn’t retweeted it? Quite an accomplishment. People were competing for The Biggest Loser award on reality TV a few years ago…
I figured Time would pick some dead criminal that was used as an excuse for cascade of largely unpunished criminality this year, but I guess they like picking national leaders. Can you imagine they picked Trump and Putin in the last decade? Hard to imagine that now with The Resistance being out in full force for most media. Maybe if Rudy pulls off a legal miracle, he’ll make it back on the cover for next year 
1 Like
Eighty-five percent of counties with a Whole Foods store voted for Joe Biden. That factoid, relayed by The Cook Political Report’s David Wasserman, tells you something important about the election – and about today’s Democratic Party.
“The Democracy,” as it was called in the 19th century, long thought of itself as the party of the people, the defender of the little guy, the side that stood up for the folks not able to stand up for themselves.
There was always something to this. From its formation to reelect Andrew Jackson in 1832, the Democratic Party has always been a coalition of groups not considered typical Americans but that together could form a national majority. Naturally, the precise composition of this coalition has changed over time
Barack Obama’s Democratic Party was a top-and-bottom coalition of those at both ends of the income, education and occupational scales. Obama, who, as an Illinois legislator, gerrymandered a top-and-bottom district for himself, provided substantive and psychological sustenance to both sides.
Joe Biden’s Democratic Party has a different balance. The boy from working-class Scranton, as he is billed, ran best not in factory cities but in university towns.
His highest percentage in Michigan was in the county containing Ann Arbor, not Detroit. He ran stronger in Madison, Wisconsin’s Dane County than in Milwaukee County; stronger in Iowa City than in Des Moines; stronger in Missoula, Montana, with its university than in Butte with its copper mines; just as strong in metro Columbus (Ohio State University) as in metro Cleveland.
Biden’s strongest area in California was the San Francisco Bay (University of California, Berkeley and Stanford University). His strongest county in upstate New York was Tompkins (Cornell University). His strongest counties in North Carolina were Durham and Orange (Duke University and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill).
White college grads – Joel Kotkin’s “gentry liberals,” Arnold Kling’s “highly educated elites” – have become the dominant constituency in the Democratic Party. Even as the descendants of the party’s blue-collar constituents have become Donald Trump Republicans, Democratic percentages among white college graduates have ballooned.
Pew Research Center polling showed white college graduates 50% to 42% Republican in 1994 – the breakthrough year when Republicans captured the House after 40 years of Democratic control – and 57% to 37% Democratic in 2019. That’s happened even as they’ve become a larger percentage of the electorate.
To which an old-time Democratic Party boss – Tammany Hall’s Charles F. Murphy or Chicago’s Richard J. Daley – would have asked, “What do these people want?”
In the 1990s, the answers very fairly obvious. Affluent voters wanted tax rates held down, and they wanted their verdant suburban and trendy central city neighborhoods protected from violent crime and welfare dependency.
Led by Wisconsin’s Tommy Thompson and New York’s Rudy Giuliani, local Republicans and some Democrats cut violent crime and welfare rolls by more than half. In Washington, Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton assisted and encouraged this process and largely froze tax rates.
Today’s college graduates, more numerous than their 1994 predecessors and schooled on increasingly “politically correct” campuses, don’t have such concrete goals. They’re unfazed by marginal Obama-era tax increases and untroubled – so far, anyway – by the vertiginous increases in homicides after the May 25 incident in Minneapolis.
What they want out of politics is not so much anything concrete as it is symbolic: assertions of opposition to what they regard as America’s “systemic racism,” and opposition to assertions of “America first,” whether that means enforcement of immigration laws or “xenophobic” restrictions on travel from China, where COVID-19 originated.
In Democratic primaries, these voters, as I wrote in June, “flitted from one candidate to the next, tilting toward Sen. Kamala Harris after she whacked Joe Biden for opposing busing in the 1970s, then luxuriating in Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s stentorian assurances that, on every issue, ‘I have a plan for that,’ then swooning for the assured articulateness of then-South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg.”
They seem chemically dependent on denunciations of Donald Trump, to the point that subscription- or ratings-hungry news media feel obliged to lard not just news accounts but even food pages and movie reviews with “Orange Man Bad” sneers. Trump is routinely described as a “racist” with no evidence cited.
White Democratic college graduates’ central faith is that they oppose other Americans’ systemic racism. Nearly a majority of them told pollsters they were bothered that Joe Biden is a white male in his 70s. Only about 30% of black and Hispanic Democrats feel the same, according to Pew. One group has more concern for ethnic origin and personal style than for real-life consequences for actual people.
White Democratic college graduates complain that Trump acts childishly; is impervious to criticism and fixated on symbolic trivia; and refuses to confess error or admit defeat. Fair criticism or self-description? Or both?
– Michael Barone
You think it’s acceptible for you to decide that you dont like the person I voted for and therefor arent going to allow them to take office? Again, that is an actual subversion of democracy, unlike anything you’ve been crying about all these months.
These people are as qualified for the job as any other member of Congress, so no, that clause in the Constitution is not the basis for excluding them. There is no qualification requiring a certain level of education, membership is any particular club, or subscription to any particular belief. That is left up to the people to decide, and, in this case, they have.
That at least one person has apparently interpreted it to mean that a qualification for the job is other Representatives liking you, most do not. If this were true, the Republican majority in the Senate is in no way at risk, since they can simply declare that each of the newly elected Democrats are ‘not qualified’ and thus not seat them. All that’s necessary is that they keep a majority of the seats filled, and Senate elections will have been rendered mostly obsolete for the next few decades.
You are going to respond “But but but I like those people so they’re obviously qualified so it’d be wrong!” But your claim that congressmen-elect can be refused for any reason is either true for everyone or it isnt true for anyone. You dont get to pick and chose to whom it applies.
Besides, I thought the go-to reaction is to say that if such a person is unqualified to do the job, it should’ve been pointed out prior to the election? Rather than waiting until you’ve lost, then try to backdoor your way in by making such baseless claims in an attempt to subvert democracy?
1 Like
Yeah, it’s definitely a feat Rudy has performed, falling so far… Of course the period around 9/11 was probably mostly just propping him up as a figurehead because of the circumstances.
Seems someone like Trump would say “I like mayors who don’t allow terrorist attacks in their city”?
1 Like
Hmmm. Now I must know how the Whole Foods demographic voted in the last 30 years. And whether something special happened in this election and there’s something special about “today’s” Democratic Party that’s different from the past 30 years.
Looks like their IPO was in 1992, and a handful of stores before that (from quick Wikipedia skim). So 1990 elections data wouldn’t be very useful.
They also seem to have mainly bought other existing chains.
I wonder if simply “proximity to a large grocery store” (anywhere with a moderate population density, in other words, anywhere people have to work together or have any sense of community) would show the same correlation as picking Whole Foods, and if it’s just a useless correlation.
They were founded in 1980. I didn’t check how fast they grew in the first 10 years, but I imagine they had multiple locations prior to their IPO, so I picked 30 years.
Whole Foods is not like other large grocery stores. The other grocery chains are everywhere, while Whole Foods is usually located in wealthy or soon-to-be-wealthy neighborhoods. Their whole shtick is about responsible and sustainable food production and It has always been ridiculously expensive, I hardly ever shop there.