Actually, I somehow missed shandril mentioning gerrymandering. 
So, I did not notice.
1 Like
Looks like the fix is in for GA.
It is??
But… We aren’t seeing the negative totals of votes for the insider traders like Lin told us we would???
Yes. It’s looking to me like a Democrat sweep at this hour. I surely hope I am WRONG!!
While both Republicans are currently leading, the massive DeKalb County vote is scarcely more than one third counted. When that vote comes in it will tilt things overwhelmingly to the Democrat side.
Me too, me too.
Oh, wait. You mean in only this latest case of defeatism. Nevermind. 
It is pretty crazy how close the results are again. I would have thought more would have changed (but was unsure in the direction).
Maybe they did, in both directions.
But that is the problem. It’s not close when you consider only 37% of the DeKalb County vote is in.
We have seen this movie before. The heavily Democrat Counties hold out their votes until most of the rural vote has been tallied . . . as by now it has. Then suddenly the overwhelmingly Democrat urban counties disgorge enormous numbers of votes just sufficient to overcome their deficit in the rural counties.
I continue at this hour to be very worried . . . . about the future of my country.
That’s ok. As we were told a while back, they can just be deemed not qualified, and not get seated…
1-2% (NYT current predicted margins in the two races) is still close IMO.
On the one hand there is a corrupt clown car, motivating people to vote against them. On the other, there’s (people believing anyways) the threat of a descent into a socialized utopia.
It’s a little different, but still getting awfully close to a double standard…
WSJ now has the R’s winning by 2-3%. I guess we’ll find out who’s better at this, or if they’re both just leaning towards what their readers might want to hear. Needless to say I don’t trust the NYT but I’m not calling anything either.
ETA: WSJ was reporting official vote counts, not estimating likely outcomes based on remaining uncounted regions and their demographics, while NYT was a model predicting the outcome
https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/georgia-senate-runoff-elections-2021?mod=hp_lead_pos1
Betting markets seem to have both D’s winning at 85-90%.
I think there’s one big D county left to count late and the market predicts they’ll find enough votes there.
I suspect the model is probably too conservative (on the probability percent anyways, maybe not on the end margin). The recent election data means there’s less improbabilities than they probably left accounted for. November had a lot more uncertainties.
It’s still early. It thinks flip around at this point and it looks like the two insider traders may win, Im sure we’ll hear Trump tweeting about manufactured R votes?
Fradulently, of course 
1 Like
LOL. Since when? Pretty sure “fraud”, in the legal sense, requires intent. I haven’t looked at every single rule change that you may think was changed illegally. One I looked at and I think we discussed in this thread provided a window (18 months was it?) for a legal challenge which never materialized.
Maybe you can stop claiming that the rules were changed fraudulently? The claim that any such changes were “inherently fraud” is meritless.
"
New Law Requires Federal Agents to Identify Themselves to Protesters
When people took to the streets this year to protest racial injustice and police brutality against Black people, they faced a repressive, violent response from local police and federal agents. Some of these agents arrived with militarized uniforms, riot gear, and weapons, but, notably, no visible name labels, badges, or even insignia marking their government agency. Congress just put a stop to this corrosive and undemocratic secrecy, requiring federal agents to identify themselves.
Tucked inside the National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 6395), which just became law, is a new requirement for federal military and civilian law enforcement personnel involved in the federal government’s response to a “civil disturbance” to wear visible identification of themselves and the name of the government entity employing them. That’s good news, because requiring such identification should be a no-brainer in a democracy. When government employees are interacting with members of the public and exercising government authority, such as the power to arrest people, the public should have the right to know who the employees are and which agency employs them.
"
2 Likes
It’s a Democrat sweep, exactly as I had feared.
Warnock must stand for election once again next year. I hope Purdue can take his seat at that time.
1 Like
1 Like
Wait, so your objection to the claims about fraudulant results is that, even if true, it’s really just “inadvertant mistakes” so no big deal?