On that tweet I just posted I'm not seeing any video which is weird, so maybe it's made up.
Some people casting aspersions on it on the basis that Penn just has drop boxes not early voting locations.
Don't know the truth either way.
Checked, there is in person early voting in PA.
IIRC it's only for mail-in or absentee drop-off, not ballotless.
Not so, though PA registration deadline for this election was Oct 19, so would-be voter IS out of luck if not already registered,
However -
"If you are a registered Pennsylvania voter, you can use the new early in-person voting option available under the bipartisan Act 77.
As soon as ballots are ready, you can request, receive, mark and cast your mail-in or absentee ballot all in one visit to your county election office or other designated location."
Yes, that's what I said. This is about people who have pre-requested ballots, this is not true IPEV.
You missed this (which I added via edit, it's from same source as rest)
"Step 1: Submit a completed mail-in or absentee ballot application at your county election office or other designated location."
And here is
Step 2: Wait for your application to be processed.
Step 3: Receive your ballot and mark your ballot."
So you can indeed walk into your county election office (or other official voting site), apply for ballot and (provided you are already registered) receive it right then and there.
Note that this August yours truly was having some (non-Trumpsky) postal issues and did NOT get my ballot in the mail. So I went down to local election HQ and requested a replacement ballot. Which, after they checked their system, was printed and handed to me then and there; I voted it and returned it a few minutes later.
Of course I stupidly forgot to SIGN the return envelope, but the county notified me of this omission, and I supplied the missing sig in plenty of time for it to be verified and my ballot counted.
His Foul Lowness looks especially cheesy AND sinister here.
Willing to bet his "duties" will include neither public appearances OR testifying to US authorities re: his reprehensible activities & criminal associates (or visa versa).
He would ‘ serve his country’ by disappearing from public view for a very long time.
Btw, do you think Barrett (assuming she’s seated) will be brazen enough to vote to disallow the PA postal ballots ? Seems unlikely to me, but I wouldn’t be totally astonished.
Of course she will not, would be mind-numbing stupid action for someone who, whatever you may think of her politics & jurisprudence, is clearly NOT a dummy.
It would indeed be stupid, but there are four other fellow justices who voted that way already... As I said upthread, it seems extremely unlikely, but not impossible - if the election looked a lot closer, then less impossible.
Yeah, but (assuming Roberts voted the other way) she would be the deciding vote. NOT a good way to begin your SCOTUS career, as Richard Taney in drag.
And merely to throw a Hail Mary pass which will almost certainly not connect.
On the other hand, she’s the justice who ‘can’t recall’ what she did as a lawyer for the Bush v Gore case, so her mind isn’t quite the steel trap made out.
Well, she was smart enough NOT to answer THAT question!
Meanwhile west of Offa’s duke Drakeford has tweeted a “review of how the weekend has gone” is in the offing.
Well who’d have thunk it? The fact he’s tweeting on a Saturday night and has had his arse flamed relentlessly all day by an incandescent Welsh public might just have penetrated the inner recesses of the Welsh Govts’s hive mind.
White weasel like creatures going backwards rapidly incoming methinks.
I hope you have signed the Senedd petition. It is only at 40,396. Largest ever petition in history of the Senedd.
And that's only after a day.
Presumably mostly English signatures?
We had to put in our post code but of course that could be fake
However, the number does tally with the widespread anger
I'm excited to see when it exceeds 226,570 signatures
IF the PPE in question was emblazoned with campaign slogans THAT would be a reason for taking action to keep it the required legal distance from voting centers (same as polling place).
It is totally the result of this useless Government that we're in this mess. We had it under control in July and we didn't do anything. Instead Johnson said get back to work and the pub.
Presumably he also told the French , Spanish and Italians to do the same thing? At some point we may need to lockdown again but the problem is it’s ruinous to do so. We are now trying to follow a different path, much closer to what was originally laid out in March - I.e. squash the sombrero. Keep the nhs going but keeping cases down, and no longer trying to eradicate the virus.
Or the Germans, or New Zealand, or Japan, we didn't have to be in this position.
You obviously haven't seen the Germany cases chart over the past few days....
How does Germany compare to the UK in terms of deaths, or total cases?
We could significantly reduce the number of positive cases by only carrying out the number of tests Germany is managing.
Germany's positivity rate is lower.
Do you have actual data ?
Everything I've seen suggests Germany is only doing about half the level of testing as the UK.
These are from today:
UK COVID update:
- New cases: 23,012 - Positivity rate: 6.8% (+0.8) - In hospital: 8,360 (+77) - In ICU: 743 (-2) - New deaths: 174
Germany COVID update:
- New cases: 10,420 - Positivity rate: 5.5% est. - In hospital: 5,532 est. (+357) - In ICU: 1,206 (+85) - New deaths: 22
That's not todays data from Germany, they reported nearly 15k cases.
His Foul Lowness looks especially cheesy AND sinister here.
Willing to bet his "duties" will include neither public appearances OR testifying to US authorities re: his reprehensible activities & criminal associates (or visa versa).
He would ‘ serve his country’ by disappearing from public view for a very long time.
Btw, do you think Barrett (assuming she’s seated) will be brazen enough to vote to disallow the PA postal ballots ? Seems unlikely to me, but I wouldn’t be totally astonished.
Of course she will not, would be mind-numbing stupid action for someone who, whatever you may think of her politics & jurisprudence, is clearly NOT a dummy.
It would indeed be stupid, but there are four other fellow justices who voted that way already... As I said upthread, it seems extremely unlikely, but not impossible - if the election looked a lot closer, then less impossible.
Yeah, but (assuming Roberts voted the other way) she would be the deciding vote. NOT a good way to begin your SCOTUS career, as Richard Taney in drag.
IF the PPE in question was emblazoned with campaign slogans THAT would be a reason for taking action to keep it the required legal distance from voting centers (same as polling place).
Also I don't think you can offer any inducements to vote. Public health related or not.
Meanwhile west of Offa’s duke Drakeford has tweeted a “review of how the weekend has gone” is in the offing.
Well who’d have thunk it? The fact he’s tweeting on a Saturday night and has had his arse flamed relentlessly all day by an incandescent Welsh public might just have penetrated the inner recesses of the Welsh Govts’s hive mind.
White weasel like creatures going backwards rapidly incoming methinks.
I hope you have signed the Senedd petition. It is only at 40,396. Largest ever petition in history of the Senedd.
And that's only after a day.
Yup. I have.
So have my wife and I plus our son and daughter and spouses
I haven't!
I despise the likes of Tesco etc. Not a big fan of Amazon, but hey-ho, at least I don't have to enter their god-forsaken premises.
I won't be buying any of Tesco and chums over-priced nasty Chinese non-essential rubbish throughout the fire break.
Speaking of ballots NOT being counted, interesting situation in one close legislative race in WA State.
Seems an incumbent Republican returned his ballot, but it is (currently) rejected because local election workers determined that the required signature on the return envelope was signed by someon "other than voter".
Mean NOT just that the sig on envelope didn't match the one on file with the county, BUT that it matched an entirely different voter.
Note that is such cases, the ballot challenge can NOT be cured.
Most likely scenario is that someone else in his household (or entourage) signed it for him - which is NOT kosher under WA State law.
The senator is claiming that it WAS his signature. Which is a bit interesting, as the auditor of his county is a fellow Republican.
SO in essence, he is claiming that the GOP auditor's office is suppressing his GOP vote.
IF the PPE in question was emblazoned with campaign slogans THAT would be a reason for taking action to keep it the required legal distance from voting centers (same as polling place).
IF the PPE in question was emblazoned with campaign slogans THAT would be a reason for taking action to keep it the required legal distance from voting centers (same as polling place).
Also I don't think you can offer any inducements to vote. Public health related or not.
Probably not. BUT handing out PPE to people already in line is probably OK, so long as no electioneering is going on.
IF the PPE in question was emblazoned with campaign slogans THAT would be a reason for taking action to keep it the required legal distance from voting centers (same as polling place).
Also I don't think you can offer any inducements to vote. Public health related or not.
Probably not. BUT handing out PPE to people already in line is probably OK, so long as no electioneering is going on.
"Here's a mask, vote [insert candidate]". Of course when the cop drops by you just drop the second bit.
In fact, you can see the cop take the leaflets that they've been distributing, presumably with said masks.
IF the PPE in question was emblazoned with campaign slogans THAT would be a reason for taking action to keep it the required legal distance from voting centers (same as polling place).
Also I don't think you can offer any inducements to vote. Public health related or not.
Probably not. BUT handing out PPE to people already in line is probably OK, so long as no electioneering is going on.
"Here's a mask, vote [insert candidate]". Of course when the cop drops by you just drop the second bit.
In fact, you can see the cop take the leaflets that they've been distributing, presumably with said masks.
Like I said, electioneering within specified distance of a voting center or polling place is illegal.
The electioneering is distributing campaign leaflets NOT PPE, unless of course IT is marked with campaign logo.
IF the PPE in question was emblazoned with campaign slogans THAT would be a reason for taking action to keep it the required legal distance from voting centers (same as polling place).
Also I don't think you can offer any inducements to vote. Public health related or not.
Probably not. BUT handing out PPE to people already in line is probably OK, so long as no electioneering is going on.
"Here's a mask, vote [insert candidate]". Of course when the cop drops by you just drop the second bit.
In fact, you can see the cop take the leaflets that they've been distributing, presumably with said masks.
Like I said, electioneering within specified distance of a voting center or polling place is illegal.
The electioneering is distributing campaign leaflets NOT PPE, unless of course IT is marked with campaign logo.
Does electioneering have to involve the distribution of leaflets? You can do that entirely by talking to someone. The only activists you'd see around polling places in the UK are the tellers. And even those aren't allowed to attempt to influence voters.
Meanwhile west of Offa’s duke Drakeford has tweeted a “review of how the weekend has gone” is in the offing.
Well who’d have thunk it? The fact he’s tweeting on a Saturday night and has had his arse flamed relentlessly all day by an incandescent Welsh public might just have penetrated the inner recesses of the Welsh Govts’s hive mind.
White weasel like creatures going backwards rapidly incoming methinks.
I hope you have signed the Senedd petition. It is only at 40,396. Largest ever petition in history of the Senedd.
And that's only after a day.
Yup. I have.
So have my wife and I plus our son and daughter and spouses
I haven't!
I despise the likes of Tesco etc. Not a big fan of Amazon, but hey-ho, at least I don't have to enter their god-forsaken premises.
I won't be buying any of Tesco and chums over-priced nasty Chinese non-essential rubbish throughout the fire break.
Maybe, but Tesco do contribute to Wales via their taxes, whereas Amazon is a grotesque tax-abuser. But, it is always nice to see the Labour party hand in hand with the big tax-avoiding multinationals
It will be interesting to see what happens.
Mark Drakeford may be too stupid to back down, but a lockdown can only work if you take the people with you.
Adam Price is too stupid to do anything, as judged by his silent twitter feed
Paul Davies has swiftly disassociated the Tories from "the madness". It would be a real turn up if the Welsh Tories managed to land a blow. Can they do it?
Neil McEvoy is in the thick of the fight -- "People have seriously ill relatives they cannot see. This is a scary time for many. Morale matters. E.g. not being able to buy playdough for your now upset autistic child, may make some people scoff. But, why is it necessary? It is not FM wales should act".
IF the PPE in question was emblazoned with campaign slogans THAT would be a reason for taking action to keep it the required legal distance from voting centers (same as polling place).
Also I don't think you can offer any inducements to vote. Public health related or not.
Probably not. BUT handing out PPE to people already in line is probably OK, so long as no electioneering is going on.
"Here's a mask, vote [insert candidate]". Of course when the cop drops by you just drop the second bit.
In fact, you can see the cop take the leaflets that they've been distributing, presumably with said masks.
Like I said, electioneering within specified distance of a voting center or polling place is illegal.
The electioneering is distributing campaign leaflets NOT PPE, unless of course IT is marked with campaign logo.
Does electioneering have to involve the distribution of leaflets? You can do that entirely by talking to someone. The only activists you'd see around polling places in the UK are the tellers. And even those aren't allowed to attempt to influence voters.
In US, virtually all (probably IS all) the states ban campaigning within polling locations AND within a stipulated distance of the entrance. In some places it's typical/traditional for campaign workers to hand out flyers & etc right at the boundary.
Is also common in Republic of Ireland, back in 1990s yours truly volunteered for Irish Labour Party during 1992 general election. On the day of the poll, was assigned to hand out bumpf at entrance to one polling place in Dublin Central, there were also folks there handing out lit for Fianna Fail and an Independent TD.
Closer to (my) home, way back in 1980 worked a couple of elections as an official precinct election worker, checking in voters, issuing ballots, then counting them at the end of the night.
One thing we had to do, was tell people who walked in wearing campaign badges to take them off inside the polling place.
IF the PPE in question was emblazoned with campaign slogans THAT would be a reason for taking action to keep it the required legal distance from voting centers (same as polling place).
Also I don't think you can offer any inducements to vote. Public health related or not.
Probably not. BUT handing out PPE to people already in line is probably OK, so long as no electioneering is going on.
"Here's a mask, vote [insert candidate]". Of course when the cop drops by you just drop the second bit.
In fact, you can see the cop take the leaflets that they've been distributing, presumably with said masks.
Like I said, electioneering within specified distance of a voting center or polling place is illegal.
The electioneering is distributing campaign leaflets NOT PPE, unless of course IT is marked with campaign logo.
Does electioneering have to involve the distribution of leaflets? You can do that entirely by talking to someone. The only activists you'd see around polling places in the UK are the tellers. And even those aren't allowed to attempt to influence voters.
In US, virtually all (probably IS all) the states ban campaigning within polling locations AND within a stipulated distance of the entrance. In some places it's typical/traditional for campaign workers to hand out flyers & etc right at the boundary.
Is also common in Republic of Ireland, back in 1990s yours truly volunteered for Irish Labour Party during 1992 general election. On the day of the poll, was assigned to hand out bumpf at entrance to one polling place in Dublin Central, there were also folks there handing out lit for Fianna Fail and an Independent TD.
Closer to (my) home, way back in 1980 worked a couple of elections as an official precinct election worker, checking in voters, issuing ballots, then counting them at the end of the night.
One thing we had to do, was tell people who walked in wearing campaign badges to take them off inside the polling place.
Re electioneering by talking, yes that is against the rules BUT lot harder to enforce.
Keep in mind that IF a campaign pushes the envelope on this, they risk having authorities take action or other blow-back that is HIGHLY likely to boomerang.
So my guess is that, if the folks in question WERE electioneering, then whoever sent then is probably getting chewed out by someone higher in the campaign- that is certainly standard practice.
You need enthusiasm - but also need to know how to keep it properly curbed.
IF the PPE in question was emblazoned with campaign slogans THAT would be a reason for taking action to keep it the required legal distance from voting centers (same as polling place).
Also I don't think you can offer any inducements to vote. Public health related or not.
Probably not. BUT handing out PPE to people already in line is probably OK, so long as no electioneering is going on.
"Here's a mask, vote [insert candidate]". Of course when the cop drops by you just drop the second bit.
In fact, you can see the cop take the leaflets that they've been distributing, presumably with said masks.
Like I said, electioneering within specified distance of a voting center or polling place is illegal.
The electioneering is distributing campaign leaflets NOT PPE, unless of course IT is marked with campaign logo.
Does electioneering have to involve the distribution of leaflets? You can do that entirely by talking to someone. The only activists you'd see around polling places in the UK are the tellers. And even those aren't allowed to attempt to influence voters.
In US, virtually all (probably IS all) the states ban campaigning within polling locations AND within a stipulated distance of the entrance. In some places it's typical/traditional for campaign workers to hand out flyers & etc right at the boundary.
Is also common in Republic of Ireland, back in 1990s yours truly volunteered for Irish Labour Party during 1992 general election. On the day of the poll, was assigned to hand out bumpf at entrance to one polling place in Dublin Central, there were also folks there handing out lit for Fianna Fail and an Independent TD.
Closer to (my) home, way back in 1980 worked a couple of elections as an official precinct election worker, checking in voters, issuing ballots, then counting them at the end of the night.
One thing we had to do, was tell people who walked in wearing campaign badges to take them off inside the polling place.
Re electioneering by talking, yes that is against the rules BUT lot harder to enforce.
Keep in mind that IF a campaign pushes the envelope on this, they risk having authorities take action or other blow-back that is HIGHLY likely to boomerang.
So my guess is that, if the folks in question WERE electioneering, then whoever sent then is probably getting chewed out by someone higher in the campaign- that is certainly standard practice.
You need enthusiasm - but also need to know how to keep it properly curbed.
I agree, and in this case it looks like they've gone too far. Allow one person to to something like this, and it will just encourage more and more, until you can't enter a polling place without being told who to vote for.
IF the PPE in question was emblazoned with campaign slogans THAT would be a reason for taking action to keep it the required legal distance from voting centers (same as polling place).
Also I don't think you can offer any inducements to vote. Public health related or not.
Probably not. BUT handing out PPE to people already in line is probably OK, so long as no electioneering is going on.
"Here's a mask, vote [insert candidate]". Of course when the cop drops by you just drop the second bit.
In fact, you can see the cop take the leaflets that they've been distributing, presumably with said masks.
Like I said, electioneering within specified distance of a voting center or polling place is illegal.
The electioneering is distributing campaign leaflets NOT PPE, unless of course IT is marked with campaign logo.
Does electioneering have to involve the distribution of leaflets? You can do that entirely by talking to someone. The only activists you'd see around polling places in the UK are the tellers. And even those aren't allowed to attempt to influence voters.
In US, virtually all (probably IS all) the states ban campaigning within polling locations AND within a stipulated distance of the entrance. In some places it's typical/traditional for campaign workers to hand out flyers & etc right at the boundary.
Is also common in Republic of Ireland, back in 1990s yours truly volunteered for Irish Labour Party during 1992 general election. On the day of the poll, was assigned to hand out bumpf at entrance to one polling place in Dublin Central, there were also folks there handing out lit for Fianna Fail and an Independent TD.
Closer to (my) home, way back in 1980 worked a couple of elections as an official precinct election worker, checking in voters, issuing ballots, then counting them at the end of the night.
One thing we had to do, was tell people who walked in wearing campaign badges to take them off inside the polling place.
Re electioneering by talking, yes that is against the rules BUT lot harder to enforce.
Keep in mind that IF a campaign pushes the envelope on this, they risk having authorities take action or other blow-back that is HIGHLY likely to boomerang.
So my guess is that, if the folks in question WERE electioneering, then whoever sent then is probably getting chewed out by someone higher in the campaign- that is certainly standard practice.
You need enthusiasm - but also need to know how to keep it properly curbed.
I agree, and in this case it looks like they've gone too far. Allow one person to to something like this, and it will just encourage more and more, until you can't enter a polling place without being told who to vote for.
Back in 2008 witnessed an interesting situation re: electioneering outside HQ of King County (WA) Elections. Where in leadup to EDay there were LONG lines snaking around the parking lot. Including folks of every hue & creed, but with disproportionate share of African Americans.
Something never saw before (or since) were vendors of what can only be described as Obama memorabilia who showed up to work the line selling commemorative "Keep Hope Alive" souvenirs.
Which was HIGHLY improper, and election authorities put a stop to it as soon as Republican observers complained.
On of them told me that he understood, these guys did not mean to "electioneer" they were just trying to make a buck, from a semi-captive audience many of whom were willing even eager to buy their wares.
We agreed that was the case - and also did not altered fact that Republicans were right to complain, and KCE was right in taking action to make these creative capitalists cease & desist.
I’ve been catching up with the comments - was surprised my wife who has worked in local giervnment almost all of her career, completely hates Andy Burnham, and doesn’t back the free school meals campaign. This is because she is practical and has been involved in implementing the crap politicians come up with. She thought Burnham was just playing politics and couldn’t understand why he was arguing. On FSM she couldn’t understand how giving a £15 voucher would help. Surely they already buy at least some food. If you can’t manage your money well enough to feed your own flesh and blood, spending the voucher on the food you would already have bought isn’t necessarily going to mean that Kids don’t go without - it is a typical throw money at it solution. I grew up in a house with only one income for first few years. Money was tight and it was difficult for my parents to afford things like school uniforms, and we certainly didn’t have a holiday. We never went without food, because my mum was very poor as a child after he Dad died before she was 10 and so she did go without, but she knew how to make food last, with soups stews etc. I think part of the issue nowadays is that despite it being perfectly easy to make a filling meal for less than £2 people just don’t have the wherewithal
It's officially election day in B.C.'s first provincial vote held during a pandemic.
The polls close at 8 p.m. PT, but it could take some time before voters know whether NDP Leader John Horgan's gamble on a snap election has paid off.
As a result of COVID-19, B.C. has seen a 7,200-per-cent surge in votes cast by mail compared to the last election, along with an increase in advance voting. . . .
Just under 3.49 million people are registered to vote in this election. As of Friday morning, more than a million had already cast their votes.
As things stood when the legislative assembly was dissolved on Sept. 21, the New Democrats had held power for three years with a precarious minority propped up by a confidence-and-supply agreement with the Green Party.
If Horgan manages to keep a grip on that power, he'll be the only two-term premier in his party's history.
Most polls have the NDP with a comfortable lead over Andrew Wilkinson's Liberals and Sonia Furstenau's Greens, but surprise upsets are familiar territory for British Columbians. The polls ahead of the 2013 election so heavily favoured the New Democrats that The Province newspaper ran a front-page photo of then-leader Adrian Dix with the headline "If this man kicked a dog, he'd still win the election."
But come election night, the NDP was trounced by Christy Clark and the Liberals, who came away with the party's fourth straight majority win. . . .
Of the votes cast before election day, 478,900 were vote-by-mail packages received by Elections BC and 681,055 were advance votes. At a total of about 1.16 million votes, that's well over half the total voter turnout in 2017.
For you true night owls, here is link to CBC coverage of BC 2020 general election starting 7pm Pacific time
We have tended to mirror France, with a lag. The Government needs to get a grip on this now - but I fear yet again they will do nothing and in three weeks we'll be in another hole.
How’s old Drakeford going then? He has the power to be a shining example. If whatever you want.
Reality - He’s done bugger all different for months till Friday when he had a total brain fart and is currently just about public enemy no 1 here.
Drakeford has done something decisive, whether you agree with it or not the reality is that the only thing that got cases down in the UK was a full lockdown.
BoJo is doing nothing - and cases are still going on. He needs to implement a lockdown to stop us turning into France.
I assume you live in a tier 1 location? Otherwise I don’t understand how you think the government is doing nothing. You may think we need to do more. That’s your right, but to categorise the restrictions on a huge swath of England as doing nothing is just ridiculous. I was lucky enough to meet with 3 of my extended family today for a nice lunch at my parents house Many in England can’t do that.
What CHB means when he says the Government is doing nothing is that they are not doing what he thinks they should.
And what he means when he says Drakeford is decisive is that he has decided to do something that CHB approves of.
Even if he wants to continue to frame the Government as doing nothing, then he can’t also say that is indecisive. It is clearly a decision to do nothing.
In summary the Government has decisively decided on a three tier approach, which is both something and decisive.
In BC the provincial Liberal Party is essentially Lib-Con alliance.
From early 1950s forward BC provincial politics were dominated by BC Social Credit Party, which was a united "Free Enterprise" front against the labor-socialist New Democratic Party (NDP).
In the 1990s Socred hegemony dissolved due to scandals and voter fatigue, the party fell apart. In its place arose the (renewed) BC Liberals. As for the NDP, they had a spell in office in the 1970, and in 1990s, but were themselves laid low by scandals of their own making. As a result, Liberals dominated BC govt until the 2017 election, when they not only lost their majority, but were forced into opposition when the Greens sided with the NDP so the later could form a minority govenment. Which is now hopeful of turning their minority into a majority.
In BC the provincial Liberal Party is essentially Lib-Con alliance.
From early 1950s forward BC provincial politics were dominated by BC Social Credit Party, which was a united "Free Enterprise" front against the labor-socialist New Democratic Party (NDP).
In the 1990s Socred hegemony dissolved due to scandals and voter fatigue, the party fell apart. In its place arose the (renewed) BC Liberals. As for the NDP, they had a spell in office in the 1970, and in 1990s, but were themselves laid low by scandals of their own making. As a result, Liberals dominated BC govt until the 2017 election, when they not only lost their majority, but were forced into opposition when the Greens sided with the NDP so the later could form a minority govenment. Which is now hopeful of turning their minority into a majority.
Should add that in Canada it is common for alignment between federal versus provincial political parties & allegiances to be way less than straightforward.
I did, it's baloney to feed the progressive tweet machine.
As I said, 3.1 million people voted early in North Carolina in 2016, the idea at this point only 25,150 18-29s voted is truly, truly absurd.
If you look at the current stats from Targetsmart 18-29 is running a whopping 1.3% ahead of 2016, and that's probably just an artefact of Democrats moving their vote earlier.
(Caveat, I wouldn't trust Targetsmart on their modelled party, it's Tom Bonier's firm and he was totally wrong last time, but their basic demographics should be ok)
Bluntly, there is no surge. Same is true for minorities.
I did, it's baloney to feed the progressive tweet machine.
As I said, 3.1 million people voted early in North Carolina in 2016, the idea at this point only 25,150 18-29s voted is truly, truly absurd.
If you look at the current stats from Targetsmart 18-29 is running a whopping 1.3% ahead of 2016, and that's probably just an artefact of Democrats moving their vote earlier.
(Caveat, I wouldn't trust Targetsmart on their modelled party, it's Tom Bonier's firm and he was totally wrong last time, but their basic demographics should be ok)
Bluntly, there is no surge. Same is true for minorities.
I suspect one of two things is true:
(1) These are completely made up numbers (always possible) or (2) It's not apples-to-apples, and the early voting period started much earlier this time
I did, it's baloney to feed the progressive tweet machine.
As I said, 3.1 million people voted early in North Carolina in 2016, the idea at this point only 25,150 18-29s voted is truly, truly absurd.
If you look at the current stats from Targetsmart 18-29 is running a whopping 1.3% ahead of 2016, and that's probably just an artefact of Democrats moving their vote earlier.
(Caveat, I wouldn't trust Targetsmart on their modelled party, it's Tom Bonier's firm and he was totally wrong last time, but their basic demographics should be ok)
Bluntly, there is no surge. Same is true for minorities.
‘Warning flare’: New swing-state data shows massive Democratic early-vote lead In a worrisome sign for Republicans, Democrats are also turning out more low-frequency and newly registered voters than the GOP.
"Democrats have opened up a yawning gap in early voting over Republicans in six of the most crucial battleground states — but that only begins to tell the story of their advantage heading into Election Day.
In a more worrisome sign for Republicans, Democrats are also turning out more low-frequency and newly registered voters than the GOP, according to internal data shared with POLITICO by Hawkfish, a new Democratic research firm, which was reviewed by Republicans and independent experts.
The turnout data does not mean Donald Trump will lose to Joe Biden. Both sides are bracing for a close race and a giant wave of Republicans to vote in person on Nov. 3. Yet the turnout disparity with new and less-reliable voters has forced Republican political operatives to take notice.
“It’s a warning flare,” said veteran Republican strategist Scott Reed.
“Some Republicans are stuck in a model that we always run up the score on Election Day to make up the difference,” Reed said. “I think running an election in a superpolarized electorate, you want to win early voting. Let’s go. Let’s stop talking and making excuses.” . . .
“The concerning thing for Republicans is that once a Democrat vote is cast, or once a vote is cast in general, it can't be taken back,” said Chris Wilson, a top Republican data analyst who independently reviewed the Hawkfish numbers for POLITICO. “That to me is the bigger issue here: Our window to message and convert any of these voters away from voting Democrat is shorter than the number of days left in the campaign.”
Wilson compared the situation to an analysis for a battleground congressional district he has consulted for in which the Republican leads by a point, but Democrats have poured it on so heavily in early voting that his candidate needs to win Election Day by huge proportions.
“Great news. We lead [in the polls]. But if you look at the early vote, we have to win 2-to-1 on Election Day,” Wilson said. “And that's probably just about every contested race in America.”
I did, it's baloney to feed the progressive tweet machine.
As I said, 3.1 million people voted early in North Carolina in 2016, the idea at this point only 25,150 18-29s voted is truly, truly absurd.
If you look at the current stats from Targetsmart 18-29 is running a whopping 1.3% ahead of 2016, and that's probably just an artefact of Democrats moving their vote earlier.
(Caveat, I wouldn't trust Targetsmart on their modelled party, it's Tom Bonier's firm and he was totally wrong last time, but their basic demographics should be ok)
Bluntly, there is no surge. Same is true for minorities.
I suspect one of two things is true:
(1) These are completely made up numbers (always possible) or (2) It's not apples-to-apples, and the early voting period started much earlier this time
Yes, probably somewhere in-between.
All that's happened is that VBM has brought forward votes from in-person EV and election day. It allows you to make ridiculous comparisons to previous years that are really meaningless in their predictive effect.
I mean, I'm still not sure whether there'll be that much of a high turnout. The Dems have burnt through a hell of a lot of their supervoters already.
I did, it's baloney to feed the progressive tweet machine.
As I said, 3.1 million people voted early in North Carolina in 2016, the idea at this point only 25,150 18-29s voted is truly, truly absurd.
If you look at the current stats from Targetsmart 18-29 is running a whopping 1.3% ahead of 2016, and that's probably just an artefact of Democrats moving their vote earlier.
(Caveat, I wouldn't trust Targetsmart on their modelled party, it's Tom Bonier's firm and he was totally wrong last time, but their basic demographics should be ok)
Bluntly, there is no surge. Same is true for minorities.
I suspect one of two things is true:
(1) These are completely made up numbers (always possible) or (2) It's not apples-to-apples, and the early voting period started much earlier this time
The numbers cited appear to be legit. The issue seems to be, is the share of total NC early vote this year contributed by younger voters significantly higher than four years ago. Based on these numbers, answer is clearly no.
BUT is THAT really a sign that younger Dems are failing to mobilize? OR are they (as per usually) just taking a bit longer to make up their minds (prob not about top of ticket, but rather on the MANY down-ballot races) than older voters?
Personally think the real deal is fact that higher NUMBERS of younger voters have voted early. Same as with other age groups BUT since the youth generally have LOWER level of turnout, its a plus (for whomever wins their support) if you get them to vote at all.
AND the earlier, the better. For one thing, less chance of them losing their ballot, getting distracted or otherwise flaking out.
I did, it's baloney to feed the progressive tweet machine.
As I said, 3.1 million people voted early in North Carolina in 2016, the idea at this point only 25,150 18-29s voted is truly, truly absurd.
If you look at the current stats from Targetsmart 18-29 is running a whopping 1.3% ahead of 2016, and that's probably just an artefact of Democrats moving their vote earlier.
(Caveat, I wouldn't trust Targetsmart on their modelled party, it's Tom Bonier's firm and he was totally wrong last time, but their basic demographics should be ok)
Bluntly, there is no surge. Same is true for minorities.
So what do you think about THESE apples?
**snip**
*sigh*
Lets put it this way. It's still quite early and i'm not sure I will know what will happen until the morning of November 3rd because of the unusual patterns this year, but right now I'm not concerned.
I did, it's baloney to feed the progressive tweet machine.
As I said, 3.1 million people voted early in North Carolina in 2016, the idea at this point only 25,150 18-29s voted is truly, truly absurd.
If you look at the current stats from Targetsmart 18-29 is running a whopping 1.3% ahead of 2016, and that's probably just an artefact of Democrats moving their vote earlier.
(Caveat, I wouldn't trust Targetsmart on their modelled party, it's Tom Bonier's firm and he was totally wrong last time, but their basic demographics should be ok)
Bluntly, there is no surge. Same is true for minorities.
I suspect one of two things is true:
(1) These are completely made up numbers (always possible) or (2) It's not apples-to-apples, and the early voting period started much earlier this time
Yes, probably somewhere in-between.
All that's happened is that VBM has brought forward votes from in-person EV and election day. It allows you to make ridiculous comparisons to previous years that are really meaningless in their predictive effect.
I mean, I'm still not sure whether there'll be that much of a high turnout. The Dems have burnt through a hell of a lot of their supervoters already.
That is certainly the case here is WA State, where 3/4 of early ballot returns are from very high turnout voters (for presidential elections anyway) who comprise half of the active registered voters. With a partisan skew towards the Democrats up and down the turnout spectrum, esp. up with the "supervoters" you reference.
Still, there are LOTS of lower-turnout types who have voted early out here. In fact, about 10% of those who (based on 2016 turnout) would be likely NOT to vote this Fall. With clear potential for more of these low-turnout types to participate this year, along with plenty of others, including some not yet registered (we have same day registration in WA).
Perhaps you're best point is fact that share of Republicans among folks who have NOT yet voted is rising. At the same time, however, fact they are lagging viz-a-viz Democrats ten days out from EDay means two other big things:
1. Republicans are showing some level of hesitation to cast their vote quite yet, which would appear to suggest certain degree of ambivalence, conflicting & indecision, for example on how to split their tickets, and if so, GOP/Dem candidates to vote for/against or skip; and
2. Moderate / Conflicted Republicans and like-minded Independents who have NOT voted yet are still open to persuasion by Democrats AND allied Republicans such as Lincoln Project.
I did, it's baloney to feed the progressive tweet machine.
As I said, 3.1 million people voted early in North Carolina in 2016, the idea at this point only 25,150 18-29s voted is truly, truly absurd.
If you look at the current stats from Targetsmart 18-29 is running a whopping 1.3% ahead of 2016, and that's probably just an artefact of Democrats moving their vote earlier.
(Caveat, I wouldn't trust Targetsmart on their modelled party, it's Tom Bonier's firm and he was totally wrong last time, but their basic demographics should be ok)
Bluntly, there is no surge. Same is true for minorities.
I suspect one of two things is true:
(1) These are completely made up numbers (always possible) or (2) It's not apples-to-apples, and the early voting period started much earlier this time
Yes, probably somewhere in-between.
All that's happened is that VBM has brought forward votes from in-person EV and election day. It allows you to make ridiculous comparisons to previous years that are really meaningless in their predictive effect.
I mean, I'm still not sure whether there'll be that much of a high turnout. The Dems have burnt through a hell of a lot of their supervoters already.
If you look solely at Texas, you'd think that turnout would be up markedly this year.
Let's not forget, in Harris County turnout is already over 40%, and you're seeing very consistent numbers of people voting each day. If you extrapolate, you get to about 70% *by* election day.
I did, it's baloney to feed the progressive tweet machine.
As I said, 3.1 million people voted early in North Carolina in 2016, the idea at this point only 25,150 18-29s voted is truly, truly absurd.
If you look at the current stats from Targetsmart 18-29 is running a whopping 1.3% ahead of 2016, and that's probably just an artefact of Democrats moving their vote earlier.
(Caveat, I wouldn't trust Targetsmart on their modelled party, it's Tom Bonier's firm and he was totally wrong last time, but their basic demographics should be ok)
Bluntly, there is no surge. Same is true for minorities.
So what do you think about THESE apples?
**snip**
*sigh*
Lets put it this way. It's still quite early and i'm not sure I will know what will happen until the morning of November 3rd because of the unusual patterns this year, but right now I'm not concerned.
In old Berlin they used to say, "the situation is critical but not hopeless" whereas in old Vienna they said, "the situation is hopeless but not critical."
Do NOT think US 2020 Election situation is hopeless, for either party or any point of view. But it is damn sure enough critical, however you look at it.
Here in good old US of A, both Dems & Reps are freaking freaking out! When things start to look even a wee bit good for your side THAT's when you REALLY start worrying.
I did, it's baloney to feed the progressive tweet machine.
As I said, 3.1 million people voted early in North Carolina in 2016, the idea at this point only 25,150 18-29s voted is truly, truly absurd.
If you look at the current stats from Targetsmart 18-29 is running a whopping 1.3% ahead of 2016, and that's probably just an artefact of Democrats moving their vote earlier.
(Caveat, I wouldn't trust Targetsmart on their modelled party, it's Tom Bonier's firm and he was totally wrong last time, but their basic demographics should be ok)
Bluntly, there is no surge. Same is true for minorities.
I suspect one of two things is true:
(1) These are completely made up numbers (always possible) or (2) It's not apples-to-apples, and the early voting period started much earlier this time
Yes, probably somewhere in-between.
All that's happened is that VBM has brought forward votes from in-person EV and election day. It allows you to make ridiculous comparisons to previous years that are really meaningless in their predictive effect.
I mean, I'm still not sure whether there'll be that much of a high turnout. The Dems have burnt through a hell of a lot of their supervoters already.
If you look solely at Texas, you'd think that turnout would be up markedly this year.
Let's not forget, in Harris County turnout is already over 40%, and you're seeing very consistent numbers of people voting each day. If you extrapolate, you get to about 70% *by* election day.
Well yeah that is the problem, simple extrapolations will give you highly misleading results.
For example if Democrats have burnt through most of their reliable voters (and the fact Republicans are winning in-person early vote, which traditionally Democrats do, tends to suggest they are running out of steam) then their ED vote is probably going to be pathetic. So ED may not add much to the total turnout even if the Republicans turn out in force.
You can't just say there'll be high turnout because a lot of people turn up early, they've all been told to turn up early!
Both side are beating the bushes BIG time, and folks are turning themselves out, in fact they're coming out of the woods, the woodwork and god knows where else.
Both side benefit, but methinks that Democrats benefit more.
I did, it's baloney to feed the progressive tweet machine.
As I said, 3.1 million people voted early in North Carolina in 2016, the idea at this point only 25,150 18-29s voted is truly, truly absurd.
If you look at the current stats from Targetsmart 18-29 is running a whopping 1.3% ahead of 2016, and that's probably just an artefact of Democrats moving their vote earlier.
(Caveat, I wouldn't trust Targetsmart on their modelled party, it's Tom Bonier's firm and he was totally wrong last time, but their basic demographics should be ok)
Bluntly, there is no surge. Same is true for minorities.
I suspect one of two things is true:
(1) These are completely made up numbers (always possible) or (2) It's not apples-to-apples, and the early voting period started much earlier this time
Yes, probably somewhere in-between.
All that's happened is that VBM has brought forward votes from in-person EV and election day. It allows you to make ridiculous comparisons to previous years that are really meaningless in their predictive effect.
I mean, I'm still not sure whether there'll be that much of a high turnout. The Dems have burnt through a hell of a lot of their supervoters already.
...Perhaps you're best point is fact that share of Republicans among folks who have NOT yet voted is rising. At the same time, however, fact they are lagging viz-a-viz Democrats ten days out from EDay means two other big things:
1. Republicans are showing some level of hesitation to cast their vote quite yet, which would appear to suggest certain degree of ambivalence, conflicting & indecision, for example on how to split their tickets, and if so, GOP/Dem candidates to vote for/against or skip; and
2. Moderate / Conflicted Republicans and like-minded Independents who have NOT voted yet are still open to persuasion by Democrats AND allied Republicans such as Lincoln Project.
I think you are being a little...how shall I put it? Optimistic. What all the evidence shows is that Republicans have high distrust of VBM this time round. What's more is they've gone even more in favour of ED voting.
As I've pointed out before (and it's backed up by lots of different polls),
The Republican voters still left are made up of a large fraction of high propensity supervoters. Will they turn out? Who knows? But betting against high propensity voters doing what they always do is unwise.
Here is good link for CBC Vancouver radio & TV coverage which started at 7pm Pacific; polls close at 8pm
Appears that in-person today has been pretty light, but mass of absentees to count, which is predicted to take a few days, though my guess is that broad outcome will be pretty clear much earlier.
Note that polls have been pointing to an NDP majority; currently their is a minority Dipper government in Victoria.
I did, it's baloney to feed the progressive tweet machine.
As I said, 3.1 million people voted early in North Carolina in 2016, the idea at this point only 25,150 18-29s voted is truly, truly absurd.
If you look at the current stats from Targetsmart 18-29 is running a whopping 1.3% ahead of 2016, and that's probably just an artefact of Democrats moving their vote earlier.
(Caveat, I wouldn't trust Targetsmart on their modelled party, it's Tom Bonier's firm and he was totally wrong last time, but their basic demographics should be ok)
Bluntly, there is no surge. Same is true for minorities.
I suspect one of two things is true:
(1) These are completely made up numbers (always possible) or (2) It's not apples-to-apples, and the early voting period started much earlier this time
Yes, probably somewhere in-between.
All that's happened is that VBM has brought forward votes from in-person EV and election day. It allows you to make ridiculous comparisons to previous years that are really meaningless in their predictive effect.
I mean, I'm still not sure whether there'll be that much of a high turnout. The Dems have burnt through a hell of a lot of their supervoters already.
That is certainly the case here is WA State, where 3/4 of early ballot returns are from very high turnout voters (for presidential elections anyway) who comprise half of the active registered voters. With a partisan skew towards the Democrats up and down the turnout spectrum, esp. up with the "supervoters" you reference.
Still, there are LOTS of lower-turnout types who have voted early out here. In fact, about 10% of those who (based on 2016 turnout) would be likely NOT to vote this Fall. With clear potential for more of these low-turnout types to participate this year, along with plenty of others, including some not yet registered (we have same day registration in WA).
Perhaps you're best point is fact that share of Republicans among folks who have NOT yet voted is rising. At the same time, however, fact they are lagging viz-a-viz Democrats ten days out from EDay means two other big things:
1. Republicans are showing some level of hesitation to cast their vote quite yet, which would appear to suggest certain degree of ambivalence, conflicting & indecision, for example on how to split their tickets, and if so, GOP/Dem candidates to vote for/against or skip; and
2. Moderate / Conflicted Republicans and like-minded Independents who have NOT voted yet are still open to persuasion by Democrats AND allied Republicans such as Lincoln Project.
I think you are being a little...how shall I put it? Optimistic. What all the evidence shows is that Republicans have high distrust of VBM this time round. What's more is they've gone even more in favour of ED voting.
As I've pointed out before (and it's backed up by lots of different polls),
The Republican voters still left are made up of a large fraction of high propensity supervoters. Will they turn out? Who knows? But betting against high propensity voters doing what they always do is unwise.
Believe you are overstating the reluctance of Republicans to vote by mail or early vote. Though my perspective is no doubt affected by fact that I live & vote in an all vote-by-mail state.
However, is worth noting that here - and I believe elsewhere - there's been a HUGE increase in % of voter returning their ballots via drop boxes. Especially notable here in King Co, which is a Democratic stronghold but also with lots of GOPers.
Seems to me that BOTH Republicans and Democrats are showing a most un-American distrust of the mail for returning their ballots. Even though in WA State the way almost everyone GETS their ballot in the first place is in their mailbox.
In the past four presidential elections, Republicans have led among the elderly by around 10 points. But about four in five Americans killed by the coronavirus were older than 65 and a majority of Americans say Trump has mishandled the pandemic.
The president trails among elderly voters by more than 20 points, according to recent CNN and Wall Street Journal/NBC News polls. This swing could prove critical in states such as Arizona and Florida, which have a high number of retirees.
“In terms of voting blocs, there are two that are absolutely dooming Donald Trump,” said Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota. “He won the senior vote by seven points in 2016; that was very important in Florida and a few other states. He’s now losing that bloc and the polls differ about how much, but the fact that he no longer has an advantage among seniors is really crippling for him.
“And then he has so alienated suburban women that it’s put a whole number of states in play, including states you wouldn’t expect, like Georgia. This kind of macho presidency has gotten the ringing rejection by women, particularly educated women who are so tired of the 1950s.”
Baroness Harding, the Tory peer who leads the government’s much-criticised test-and-trace programme, should be removed and replaced, a senior Conservative MP has said. Sir Bernard Jenkin, MP for Harwich and chair of the powerful parliamentary liaison committee, called for her to be given a “well-earned rest” and moved on to focus on “lessons learned”.
He warned of a “vacuum of leadership in test and trace, which is destroying public confidence and compliance”, it was reported on Saturday evening. He went on to criticise the handling of calls and data in a “spaghetti of command and control” at the top of the organisation.
BBC reporting that the Sunday Times claims that Bozo is going to wait and let US voters decide our Brexit fate; Trump re-election means no deal, Biden means compromise.
We have tended to mirror France, with a lag. The Government needs to get a grip on this now - but I fear yet again they will do nothing and in three weeks we'll be in another hole.
How’s old Drakeford going then? He has the power to be a shining example. If whatever you want.
Reality - He’s done bugger all different for months till Friday when he had a total brain fart and is currently just about public enemy no 1 here.
Drakeford has done something decisive, whether you agree with it or not the reality is that the only thing that got cases down in the UK was a full lockdown.
BoJo is doing nothing - and cases are still going on. He needs to implement a lockdown to stop us turning into France.
I assume you live in a tier 1 location? Otherwise I don’t understand how you think the government is doing nothing. You may think we need to do more. That’s your right, but to categorise the restrictions on a huge swath of England as doing nothing is just ridiculous. I was lucky enough to meet with 3 of my extended family today for a nice lunch at my parents house Many in England can’t do that.
What CHB means when he says the Government is doing nothing is that they are not doing what he thinks they should.
And what he means when he says Drakeford is decisive is that he has decided to do something that CHB approves of.
Even if he wants to continue to frame the Government as doing nothing, then he can’t also say that is indecisive. It is clearly a decision to do nothing.
In summary the Government has decisively decided on a three tier approach, which is both something and decisive.
This week the R number has started to move down for the country as a whole, which was before any impact of Starmer's politicking, Burnham's self-promotion, or Drakeford's behaving like a Corbynista Traffic Warden.
Can't comment on chippy Nicky - I've been ignoring her.
16 October - 1.3-1.5 range. 23 October - 1.2-1.4 range,
Comments
"Step 1:
Submit a completed mail-in or absentee ballot application at your county election office or other designated location."
And here is
Step 2:
Wait for your application to be processed.
Step 3:
Receive your ballot and mark your ballot."
So you can indeed walk into your county election office (or other official voting site), apply for ballot and (provided you are already registered) receive it right then and there.
Note that this August yours truly was having some (non-Trumpsky) postal issues and did NOT get my ballot in the mail. So I went down to local election HQ and requested a replacement ballot. Which, after they checked their system, was printed and handed to me then and there; I voted it and returned it a few minutes later.
Of course I stupidly forgot to SIGN the return envelope, but the county notified me of this omission, and I supplied the missing sig in plenty of time for it to be verified and my ballot counted.
https://www.rki.de/EN/Content/infections/epidemiology/outbreaks/COVID-19/Situationsberichte_Tab.html
I despise the likes of Tesco etc. Not a big fan of Amazon, but hey-ho, at least I don't have to enter their god-forsaken premises.
I won't be buying any of Tesco and chums over-priced nasty Chinese non-essential rubbish throughout the fire break.
Seems an incumbent Republican returned his ballot, but it is (currently) rejected because local election workers determined that the required signature on the return envelope was signed by someon "other than voter".
Mean NOT just that the sig on envelope didn't match the one on file with the county, BUT that it matched an entirely different voter.
Note that is such cases, the ballot challenge can NOT be cured.
Most likely scenario is that someone else in his household (or entourage) signed it for him - which is NOT kosher under WA State law.
The senator is claiming that it WAS his signature. Which is a bit interesting, as the auditor of his county is a fellow Republican.
SO in essence, he is claiming that the GOP auditor's office is suppressing his GOP vote.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2020-54678821
In fact, you can see the cop take the leaflets that they've been distributing, presumably with said masks.
The electioneering is distributing campaign leaflets NOT PPE, unless of course IT is marked with campaign logo.
It will be interesting to see what happens.
Mark Drakeford may be too stupid to back down, but a lockdown can only work if you take the people with you.
Adam Price is too stupid to do anything, as judged by his silent twitter feed
Paul Davies has swiftly disassociated the Tories from "the madness". It would be a real turn up if the Welsh Tories managed to land a blow. Can they do it?
Neil McEvoy is in the thick of the fight -- "People have seriously ill relatives they cannot see. This is a scary time for many. Morale matters. E.g. not being able to buy playdough for your now upset autistic child, may make some people scoff. But, why is it necessary? It is not FM wales should act".
For another, methinks that the more he campaigns in his antic, frantic, manic way, the WORSE it is for him and the Gross Old Party.
Is also common in Republic of Ireland, back in 1990s yours truly volunteered for Irish Labour Party during 1992 general election. On the day of the poll, was assigned to hand out bumpf at entrance to one polling place in Dublin Central, there were also folks there handing out lit for Fianna Fail and an Independent TD.
Closer to (my) home, way back in 1980 worked a couple of elections as an official precinct election worker, checking in voters, issuing ballots, then counting them at the end of the night.
One thing we had to do, was tell people who walked in wearing campaign badges to take them off inside the polling place.
Keep in mind that IF a campaign pushes the envelope on this, they risk having authorities take action or other blow-back that is HIGHLY likely to boomerang.
So my guess is that, if the folks in question WERE electioneering, then whoever sent then is probably getting chewed out by someone higher in the campaign- that is certainly standard practice.
You need enthusiasm - but also need to know how to keep it properly curbed.
Nest discovered and destroyed today (Saturday) in Blaine, Washington on the border with British Columbia
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000007413564/murder-hornets-nest.html
https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1320150701947846656?s=20
Something never saw before (or since) were vendors of what can only be described as Obama memorabilia who showed up to work the line selling commemorative "Keep Hope Alive" souvenirs.
Which was HIGHLY improper, and election authorities put a stop to it as soon as Republican observers complained.
On of them told me that he understood, these guys did not mean to "electioneer" they were just trying to make a buck, from a semi-captive audience many of whom were willing even eager to buy their wares.
We agreed that was the case - and also did not altered fact that Republicans were right to complain, and KCE was right in taking action to make these creative capitalists cease & desist.
I grew up in a house with only one income for first few years. Money was tight and it was difficult for my parents to afford things like school uniforms, and we certainly didn’t have a holiday. We never went without food, because my mum was very poor as a child after he Dad died before she was 10 and so she did go without, but she knew how to make food last, with soups stews etc. I think part of the issue nowadays is that despite it being perfectly easy to make a filling meal for less than £2 people just don’t have the wherewithal
And just wait for the NEXT series of Time Square billboards . . .
Except of course for the Murder Hornets. Professional courtesy?
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-election-day-2020-1.5775455
It's officially election day in B.C.'s first provincial vote held during a pandemic.
The polls close at 8 p.m. PT, but it could take some time before voters know whether NDP Leader John Horgan's gamble on a snap election has paid off.
As a result of COVID-19, B.C. has seen a 7,200-per-cent surge in votes cast by mail compared to the last election, along with an increase in advance voting. . . .
Just under 3.49 million people are registered to vote in this election. As of Friday morning, more than a million had already cast their votes.
As things stood when the legislative assembly was dissolved on Sept. 21, the New Democrats had held power for three years with a precarious minority propped up by a confidence-and-supply agreement with the Green Party.
If Horgan manages to keep a grip on that power, he'll be the only two-term premier in his party's history.
Most polls have the NDP with a comfortable lead over Andrew Wilkinson's Liberals and Sonia Furstenau's Greens, but surprise upsets are familiar territory for British Columbians.
The polls ahead of the 2013 election so heavily favoured the New Democrats that The Province newspaper ran a front-page photo of then-leader Adrian Dix with the headline "If this man kicked a dog, he'd still win the election."
But come election night, the NDP was trounced by Christy Clark and the Liberals, who came away with the party's fourth straight majority win. . . .
Of the votes cast before election day, 478,900 were vote-by-mail packages received by Elections BC and 681,055 were advance votes. At a total of about 1.16 million votes, that's well over half the total voter turnout in 2017.
For you true night owls, here is link to CBC coverage of BC 2020 general election starting 7pm Pacific time
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/community/how-to-tune-in-to-cbc-s-election-night-coverage-1.5735828
And what he means when he says Drakeford is decisive is that he has decided to do something that CHB approves of.
Even if he wants to continue to frame the Government as doing nothing, then he can’t also say that is indecisive. It is clearly a decision to do nothing.
In summary the Government has decisively decided on a three tier approach, which is both something and decisive.
What happened to the Conservatives in BC? They don't even seem to be contesting any seats. Strange, because they win seats at federal elections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_British_Columbia_general_election
From early 1950s forward BC provincial politics were dominated by BC Social Credit Party, which was a united "Free Enterprise" front against the labor-socialist New Democratic Party (NDP).
In the 1990s Socred hegemony dissolved due to scandals and voter fatigue, the party fell apart. In its place arose the (renewed) BC Liberals. As for the NDP, they had a spell in office in the 1970, and in 1990s, but were themselves laid low by scandals of their own making. As a result, Liberals dominated BC govt until the 2017 election, when they not only lost their majority, but were forced into opposition when the Greens sided with the NDP so the later could form a minority govenment. Which is now hopeful of turning their minority into a majority.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElDwGNMXEAAax4k?format=jpg&name=small
As I said, 3.1 million people voted early in North Carolina in 2016, the idea at this point only 25,150 18-29s voted is truly, truly absurd.
If you look at the current stats from Targetsmart 18-29 is running a whopping 1.3% ahead of 2016, and that's probably just an artefact of Democrats moving their vote earlier.
https://targetearly.targetsmart.com/?view_type=State&demo=Age&demo_val=All&state=NC
(Caveat, I wouldn't trust Targetsmart on their modelled party, it's Tom Bonier's firm and he was totally wrong last time, but their basic demographics should be ok)
Bluntly, there is no surge. Same is true for minorities.
(1) These are completely made up numbers (always possible)
or
(2) It's not apples-to-apples, and the early voting period started much earlier this time
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/23/early-voting-numbers-swing-states-431363
‘Warning flare’: New swing-state data shows massive Democratic early-vote lead
In a worrisome sign for Republicans, Democrats are also turning out more low-frequency and newly registered voters than the GOP.
"Democrats have opened up a yawning gap in early voting over Republicans in six of the most crucial battleground states — but that only begins to tell the story of their advantage heading into Election Day.
In a more worrisome sign for Republicans, Democrats are also turning out more low-frequency and newly registered voters than the GOP, according to internal data shared with POLITICO by Hawkfish, a new Democratic research firm, which was reviewed by Republicans and independent experts.
The turnout data does not mean Donald Trump will lose to Joe Biden. Both sides are bracing for a close race and a giant wave of Republicans to vote in person on Nov. 3. Yet the turnout disparity with new and less-reliable voters has forced Republican political operatives to take notice.
“It’s a warning flare,” said veteran Republican strategist Scott Reed.
“Some Republicans are stuck in a model that we always run up the score on Election Day to make up the difference,” Reed said. “I think running an election in a superpolarized electorate, you want to win early voting. Let’s go. Let’s stop talking and making excuses.” . . .
“The concerning thing for Republicans is that once a Democrat vote is cast, or once a vote is cast in general, it can't be taken back,” said Chris Wilson, a top Republican data analyst who independently reviewed the Hawkfish numbers for POLITICO. “That to me is the bigger issue here: Our window to message and convert any of these voters away from voting Democrat is shorter than the number of days left in the campaign.”
Wilson compared the situation to an analysis for a battleground congressional district he has consulted for in which the Republican leads by a point, but Democrats have poured it on so heavily in early voting that his candidate needs to win Election Day by huge proportions.
“Great news. We lead [in the polls]. But if you look at the early vote, we have to win 2-to-1 on Election Day,” Wilson said. “And that's probably just about every contested race in America.”
All that's happened is that VBM has brought forward votes from in-person EV and election day. It allows you to make ridiculous comparisons to previous years that are really meaningless in their predictive effect.
I mean, I'm still not sure whether there'll be that much of a high turnout. The Dems have burnt through a hell of a lot of their supervoters already.
BUT is THAT really a sign that younger Dems are failing to mobilize? OR are they (as per usually) just taking a bit longer to make up their minds (prob not about top of ticket, but rather on the MANY down-ballot races) than older voters?
Personally think the real deal is fact that higher NUMBERS of younger voters have voted early. Same as with other age groups BUT since the youth generally have LOWER level of turnout, its a plus (for whomever wins their support) if you get them to vote at all.
AND the earlier, the better. For one thing, less chance of them losing their ballot, getting distracted or otherwise flaking out.
Lets put it this way. It's still quite early and i'm not sure I will know what will happen until the morning of November 3rd because of the unusual patterns this year, but right now I'm not concerned.
Still, there are LOTS of lower-turnout types who have voted early out here. In fact, about 10% of those who (based on 2016 turnout) would be likely NOT to vote this Fall. With clear potential for more of these low-turnout types to participate this year, along with plenty of others, including some not yet registered (we have same day registration in WA).
Perhaps you're best point is fact that share of Republicans among folks who have NOT yet voted is rising. At the same time, however, fact they are lagging viz-a-viz Democrats ten days out from EDay means two other big things:
1. Republicans are showing some level of hesitation to cast their vote quite yet, which would appear to suggest certain degree of ambivalence, conflicting & indecision, for example on how to split their tickets, and if so, GOP/Dem candidates to vote for/against or skip; and
2. Moderate / Conflicted Republicans and like-minded Independents who have NOT voted yet are still open to persuasion by Democrats AND allied Republicans such as Lincoln Project.
Let's not forget, in Harris County turnout is already over 40%, and you're seeing very consistent numbers of people voting each day. If you extrapolate, you get to about 70% *by* election day.
Do NOT think US 2020 Election situation is hopeless, for either party or any point of view. But it is damn sure enough critical, however you look at it.
Here in good old US of A, both Dems & Reps are freaking freaking out! When things start to look even a wee bit good for your side THAT's when you REALLY start worrying.
Well, everyone but Kanye West that is.
NC 703,433 or 23.8% of those voting so far
Scroll to the bottom of the page for the numbers: https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/NC.html
For example if Democrats have burnt through most of their reliable voters (and the fact Republicans are winning in-person early vote, which traditionally Democrats do, tends to suggest they are running out of steam) then their ED vote is probably going to be pathetic. So ED may not add much to the total turnout even if the Republicans turn out in force.
You can't just say there'll be high turnout because a lot of people turn up early, they've all been told to turn up early!
Both side benefit, but methinks that Democrats benefit more.
As I've pointed out before (and it's backed up by lots of different polls),
https://news.gallup.com/poll/321602/extreme-partisan-gaps-early-voting-emerge-year.aspx
The Republican voters still left are made up of a large fraction of high propensity supervoters. Will they turn out? Who knows? But betting against high propensity voters doing what they always do is unwise.
Here is good link for CBC Vancouver radio & TV coverage which started at 7pm Pacific; polls close at 8pm
Appears that in-person today has been pretty light, but mass of absentees to count, which is predicted to take a few days, though my guess is that broad outcome will be pretty clear much earlier.
Note that polls have been pointing to an NDP majority; currently their is a minority Dipper government in Victoria.
However, is worth noting that here - and I believe elsewhere - there's been a HUGE increase in % of voter returning their ballots via drop boxes. Especially notable here in King Co, which is a Democratic stronghold but also with lots of GOPers.
Seems to me that BOTH Republicans and Democrats are showing a most un-American distrust of the mail for returning their ballots. Even though in WA State the way almost everyone GETS their ballot in the first place is in their mailbox.
I suspect in those cases a larger fraction of Republicans will hand in their ballot around ED rather than use mail.
He was caught fiddling with Staatz.
The president trails among elderly voters by more than 20 points, according to recent CNN and Wall Street Journal/NBC News polls. This swing could prove critical in states such as Arizona and Florida, which have a high number of retirees.
“In terms of voting blocs, there are two that are absolutely dooming Donald Trump,” said Larry Jacobs, director of the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota. “He won the senior vote by seven points in 2016; that was very important in Florida and a few other states. He’s now losing that bloc and the polls differ about how much, but the fact that he no longer has an advantage among seniors is really crippling for him.
“And then he has so alienated suburban women that it’s put a whole number of states in play, including states you wouldn’t expect, like Georgia. This kind of macho presidency has gotten the ringing rejection by women, particularly educated women who are so tired of the 1950s.”
Baroness Harding, the Tory peer who leads the government’s much-criticised test-and-trace programme, should be removed and replaced, a senior Conservative MP has said. Sir Bernard Jenkin, MP for Harwich and chair of the powerful parliamentary liaison committee, called for her to be given a “well-earned rest” and moved on to focus on “lessons learned”.
He warned of a “vacuum of leadership in test and trace, which is destroying public confidence and compliance”, it was reported on Saturday evening. He went on to criticise the handling of calls and data in a “spaghetti of command and control” at the top of the organisation.
Biden 54
Trump 43
Thats pretty encouraging for Biden although Gravis is only C rated on 538 so that needs to be factored in .
This week the R number has started to move down for the country as a whole, which was before any impact of Starmer's politicking, Burnham's self-promotion, or Drakeford's behaving like a Corbynista Traffic Warden.
Can't comment on chippy Nicky - I've been ignoring her.
16 October - 1.3-1.5 range.
23 October - 1.2-1.4 range,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54567867
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-r-number-in-the-uk
Which would seem to indicate that the existing - much maligned by those who gain by such maligning - measures are actually having an impact.
Let's not mistake politics for something that is actually needed.