The person going for assisted dying will not infect anyone else with assisted dying. Is Hitchens really unable to understand the issue on infection and spread?
My copy (old) says the same. Odd that they could have missed out the most usual meaning, which was certainly in common currency well before my copy was printed.
(Oxford maths!)
You might be being a touch unfair in this case. I don't think I've actually used my shorter oxford dictionary for about 15 years, but there is something nice about referring to a book, even if it turns out, as in this case, to be shorter than advertised.
It was part of a wider conversation when he was dissing the stats, not realising what it meant in that context.
If any norm asks me about my work and I start to talk about stochastic modeling, I do quickly get the confused look of so you sample randomly and that is better?
Dominic Chappell six years in prison, not long enough but well done to HMRC in ensuring its something. Another example of the worst of capitalism, corporate theft and blatant disregard for shareholders and employees alike.
Am I being fair if I say that Biden's "achievement" so far is achieving miniscule swings in WI and MI, a slightly bigger step forward in Georgia and Texas (the latter being irrelevant in the grand scheme of things) and going backwards in Florida and possibly Nevada?
I know he's facing an incumbent rather than another challenger, but he doesn't seem to be doing materially better than Hillary, all things considered.
He's doing materially better than Hillary in the sense he's campaiged and won voters where it counts, and is therefore going to be President, but it's not really a slam dunk for the Democrats.
And another hugely notable aspect is that Republican senators are outperforming Donald Trump. He's a liability not an asset. Obvious really (except to HYUFD - sorry don't mean that to be caustic).
If I was an American in a swing state I'd be tempted by Biden, but I'd definitely vote Republican for the House and possibly for the Senate too, depending on the candidate.
I can't stand Nancy Pelosi, who's a very left-wing San Francisco Liberal. It'd be like me voting for Glenda Jackson.
TEMPTED?
C'mon.
It'd either be that, or third party. Trouble is.. I can't predict with 100% certainty how my politics would be if I was an American living in America, as to a British Conservative opining from over here.
Her Maj would be furious if you described yourself as a Republican.
Absentee ballots which fall within the provisional ballot definition:
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2014/title-21/chapter-2/article-10/section-21-2-386/ (D) An elector who registered to vote by mail, but did not comply with subsection (c) of Code Section 21-2-220, and who votes for the first time in this state by absentee ballot shall include with his or her application for an absentee ballot or in the outer oath envelope of his or her absentee ballot either one of the forms of identification listed in subsection (a) of Code Section 21-2-417 or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of such elector. If such elector does not provide any of the forms of identification listed in this subparagraph with his or her application for an absentee ballot or with the absentee ballot, such absentee ballot shall be deemed to be a provisional ballot and such ballot shall only be counted if the registrars are able to verify current and valid identification of the elector as provided in this subparagraph within the time period for verifying provisional ballots pursuant to Code Section 21-2-419.
The percentage of these which end up getting validated by tomorrow's deadline is possibly quite small.
These categories (on the day registrations, etc) are likely a far higher percentage of provisional ballots; https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2014/title-21/chapter-2/article-11/part-1/section-21-2-418/ ...(a) If a person presents himself or herself at a polling place, absentee polling place, or registration office for the purpose of casting a ballot in a primary or election believing that he or she has timely registered to vote in such primary or election and the person's name does not appear on the list of registered electors, the person shall be entitled to cast a provisional ballot as provided in this Code section.
(b) Such person voting a provisional ballot shall complete an official voter registration form and a provisional ballot voting certificate which shall include information about the place, manner, and approximate date on which the person registered to vote. The person shall swear or affirm in writing that he or she previously registered to vote in such primary or election, is eligible to vote in such primary or election, has not voted previously in such primary or election, and meets the criteria for registering to vote in such primary or election. The form of the provisional ballot voting certificate shall be prescribed by the Secretary of State. The person shall also present the identification required by Code Section 21-2-417.
(c) When the person has provided the information as required by this Code section, the person shall be issued a provisional ballot and allowed to cast such ballot as any other duly registered elector subject to the provisions of Code Section 21-2-419.
(d) Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter to the contrary, in primaries and elections in which there is a federal candidate on the ballot, in the event that the time for closing the polls at a polling place or places is extended by court order, all electors who vote during such extended time period shall vote by provisional ballot only….
Am I being fair if I say that Biden's "achievement" so far is achieving miniscule swings in WI and MI, a slightly bigger step forward in Georgia and Texas (the latter being irrelevant in the grand scheme of things) and going backwards in Florida and possibly Nevada?
I know he's facing an incumbent rather than another challenger, but he doesn't seem to be doing materially better than Hillary, all things considered.
He's doing materially better than Hillary in the sense he's campaiged and won voters where it counts, and is therefore going to be President, but it's not really a slam dunk for the Democrats.
And another hugely notable aspect is that Republican senators are outperforming Donald Trump. He's a liability not an asset. Obvious really (except to HYUFD - sorry don't mean that to be caustic).
If I was an American in a swing state I'd be tempted by Biden, but I'd definitely vote Republican for the House and possibly for the Senate too, depending on the candidate.
I can't stand Nancy Pelosi, who's a very left-wing San Francisco Liberal. It'd be like me voting for Glenda Jackson.
Yes I'm fairly relaxed about GOP Senate & Democratic President. It's not like Biden is going to be massively dogmatic and he is probably a one-term incumbent anyway.
I studied American Politics and I quite like their system of checks and balances.
In some ways I regret the two run-offs because it's time to try and bring the country together after the malfeasance of Trump.
And, most importantly as far as I'm concerned over this side of the pond, Joe Biden will have a lot of support among Senators from both sides for protecting the Good Friday Agreement at all costs.
Alleghany County (Pittsburgh) paused for today due to legal challenge.
Only in America.
The lawyer teams have agreed not to count 29,000 of their votes until tomorrow; they appear to have been second ballot papers issued to people whose initial paper was incorrect in some way. They’ll be counted tomorrow.
They also have 6,000 ballots that are too creased to go through their counting machine, and they will be counted by hand tomorrow.
Nevertheless PA seems confident they will declare today. This suggests they know that Biden will win by more than this 35,000 across PA as a whole
Yes, on current rates, Philly and environs plus change from the backwoods will pretty roll him home regardless of the hold up in Pittsburgh.
Don't know about you but I really want this thing called. Then I can think about other things. For example, I need to change my socks.
Amazing how hard some soi-disant intellectuals find it to understand that spreading a deadly disease affects other people, not just the person doing the spreading.
What if the only people going out are those who choose to do so, and willing to take the risk of catching Covid?
Except that it is basically impossible to isolate people to the level they are no risk to others. Unless you quarantine them completely....
They would be a risk to others, others that are willing to take the risk
You can't select who would be at risk from an infected person - unless they live in a sealed environment.
I am definetly reading Ralston as saying leans Biden but will look like Trump today.
Yes, exactly. He's not always as clear as he could be, but I'm sure that's what he means.
It’s mostly Rural Counties today, not much Clark so probably more flattering for Trump. Given the trend of the mail ballots I’d expect Biden to pull out further ahead over the next few days.
In Georgia, I think however it appears to end today, we won't know for sure until after provisional and military ballots are confirmed and counted. I can't see it being called before next week.
Pennsylvania, on the other hand, looks likely to go for Joe by 75-100,000 so my money is on it being called today so long as the count is not disrupted.
Amazing how hard some soi-disant intellectuals find it to understand that spreading a deadly disease affects other people, not just the person doing the spreading.
What if the only people going out are those who choose to do so, and willing to take the risk of catching Covid?
Except that it is basically impossible to isolate people to the level they are no risk to others. Unless you quarantine them completely....
They would be a risk to others, others that are willing to take the risk
So, say I'm in a shared house and my house-mate decides to be one of those people. Is my house-mate not a risk to me?
Or, ok, say that person lives alone and really doesn't see anyone else apart from others who are also deciding to take that risk. Is it ok for that person to take the risk? If he/she does get ill, should he/she get medical treatment? What about the additional risk to the other people in hospital, the medics and the other patients and their families?
If medical treatment is received, what about the other people who might have been treated for other things if the hospital load of Covid-cases had not increased?
What about the people who lose their jobs/businesses because restrictions have to continue for longer because there are more cases and deaths? (Some of those may be offset if their businesses are patronised by the people taking a risk, but then those business owners/employees also have increased health risk).
Alleghany County (Pittsburgh) paused for today due to legal challenge.
Only in America.
The lawyer teams have agreed not to count 29,000 of their votes until tomorrow; they appear to have been second ballot papers issued to people whose initial paper was incorrect in some way. They’ll be counted tomorrow.
They also have 6,000 ballots that are too creased to go through their counting machine, and they will be counted by hand tomorrow.
Nevertheless PA seems confident they will declare today. This suggests they know that Biden will win by more than this 35,000 across PA as a whole
Yes, on current rates, Philly and environs plus change from the backwoods will pretty roll him home regardless of the hold up in Pittsburgh.
Don't know about you but I really want this thing called. Then I can think about other things. For example, I need to change my socks.
There is another William Bradley at the same address, aged a rather more modest 61 years https://www.michiganresidentdatabase.com/person/777535/william-bradley He was registered to vote (I guessed birth month until I got a match) but apparently neither was sent nor returned a ballot. Obviously I don't know, but there has to be a chance of administrative cock-up here and the live William Bradley voted, possibly not noticing he'd got the wrong ballot or figuring it didn't really matter.
Amazing how hard some soi-disant intellectuals find it to understand that spreading a deadly disease affects other people, not just the person doing the spreading.
What if the only people going out are those who choose to do so, and willing to take the risk of catching Covid?
Except that it is basically impossible to isolate people to the level they are no risk to others. Unless you quarantine them completely....
They would be a risk to others, others that are willing to take the risk
You can't select who would be at risk from an infected person - unless they live in a sealed environment.
Yes, seal off those who dont want to be at risk
That's impossible though.
It would be nice to get some suggestions that aren't impossible, like "those at risk will just have to accept that life must go on" rather than impossibilities like "seal them off".
The person going for assisted dying will not infect anyone else with assisted dying. Is Hitchens really unable to understand the issue on infection and spread?
My copy (old) says the same. Odd that they could have missed out the most usual meaning, which was certainly in common currency well before my copy was printed.
(Oxford maths!)
You might be being a touch unfair in this case. I don't think I've actually used my shorter oxford dictionary for about 15 years, but there is something nice about referring to a book, even if it turns out, as in this case, to be shorter than advertised.
Maybe, but leaping to it to say "Hah! Caught you!" and publicising that widely, all without any apparent self-awareness that maybe, just maybe, he might not know quite as much as he appeared to assume... rather does look like a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in the wild.
Biden 597,353, 49.5% Trump 585,311, 48.5% Estimated reporting 87% Biden leads by 12,042 votes with still a number of votes to be counted in Clark County (home of Las Vegas and 70% of the vote) Biden leads 53.1% vs. 45.2% for Trump Biden got 64% of the additional vote in this tranche. That can change depending upon the demographics of the vote Clinton won 47.9% to 45.5% in 2016.
There is another William Bradley at the same address, aged a rather more modest 61 years https://www.michiganresidentdatabase.com/person/777535/william-bradley He was registered to vote (I guessed birth month until I got a match) but apparently neither was sent nor returned a ballot. Obviously I don't know, but there has to be a chance of administrative cock-up here and the live William Bradley voted, possibly not noticing he'd got the wrong ballot or figuring it didn't really matter.
Or, of course, fraud.
Careless, Americans normally resolve this by adding a number after their name to differentiate, William Bradley II or III would have prevented this event. Or perhaps they could even have more imagination in coming up with their kids name than simply choosing their own.......
Am I being fair if I say that Biden's "achievement" so far is achieving miniscule swings in WI and MI, a slightly bigger step forward in Georgia and Texas (the latter being irrelevant in the grand scheme of things) and going backwards in Florida and possibly Nevada?
I know he's facing an incumbent rather than another challenger, but he doesn't seem to be doing materially better than Hillary, all things considered.
He's doing materially better than Hillary in the sense he's campaiged and won voters where it counts, and is therefore going to be President, but it's not really a slam dunk for the Democrats.
And another hugely notable aspect is that Republican senators are outperforming Donald Trump. He's a liability not an asset. Obvious really (except to HYUFD - sorry don't mean that to be caustic).
If I was an American in a swing state I'd be tempted by Biden, but I'd definitely vote Republican for the House and possibly for the Senate too, depending on the candidate.
I can't stand Nancy Pelosi, who's a very left-wing San Francisco Liberal. It'd be like me voting for Glenda Jackson.
TEMPTED?
C'mon.
It'd either be that, or third party. Trouble is.. I can't predict with 100% certainty how my politics would be if I was an American living in America, as to a British Conservative opining from over here.
Her Maj would be furious if you described yourself as a Republican.
Alleghany County (Pittsburgh) paused for today due to legal challenge.
Only in America.
The lawyer teams have agreed not to count 29,000 of their votes until tomorrow; they appear to have been second ballot papers issued to people whose initial paper was incorrect in some way. They’ll be counted tomorrow.
They also have 6,000 ballots that are too creased to go through their counting machine, and they will be counted by hand tomorrow.
Nevertheless PA seems confident they will declare today. This suggests they know that Biden will win by more than this 35,000 across PA as a whole
Yes, on current rates, Philly and environs plus change from the backwoods will pretty roll him home regardless of the hold up in Pittsburgh.
Don't know about you but I really want this thing called. Then I can think about other things. For example, I need to change my socks.
Amazing how hard some soi-disant intellectuals find it to understand that spreading a deadly disease affects other people, not just the person doing the spreading.
What if the only people going out are those who choose to do so, and willing to take the risk of catching Covid?
Except that it is basically impossible to isolate people to the level they are no risk to others. Unless you quarantine them completely....
They would be a risk to others, others that are willing to take the risk
You can't select who would be at risk from an infected person - unless they live in a sealed environment.
Yes, seal off those who dont want to be at risk
That's impossible though.
It would be nice to get some suggestions that aren't impossible, like "those at risk will just have to accept that life must go on" rather than impossibilities like "seal them off".
It's not impossible, millions of people did it earlier this year
In Georgia, I think however it appears to end today, we won't know for sure until after provisional and military ballots are confirmed and counted. I can't see it being called before next week.
Pennsylvania, on the other hand, looks likely to go for Joe by 75-100,000 so my money is on it being called today so long as the count is not disrupted.
It will be disrupted. If it's called today, it's all over for Trump which is why he wants to drag it out.
I am definetly reading Ralston as saying leans Biden but will look like Trump today.
Yes, exactly. He's not always as clear as he could be, but I'm sure that's what he means.
It’s mostly Rural Counties today, not much Clark so probably more flattering for Trump. Given the trend of the mail ballots I’d expect Biden to pull out further ahead over the next few days.
The thing with NV is Clark County is 70% of the population, most ruraL counties are very low population compared. A lot of the count today is drop in box votes (not in person) which may well faovur Trump but there is also still a fair bit of mail in votes in Clark which will favour Biden heavily. So should be an interesting day
Amazing how hard some soi-disant intellectuals find it to understand that spreading a deadly disease affects other people, not just the person doing the spreading.
What if the only people going out are those who choose to do so, and willing to take the risk of catching Covid?
Except that it is basically impossible to isolate people to the level they are no risk to others. Unless you quarantine them completely....
They would be a risk to others, others that are willing to take the risk
You can't select who would be at risk from an infected person - unless they live in a sealed environment.
Yes, seal off those who dont want to be at risk
That's impossible though.
It would be nice to get some suggestions that aren't impossible, like "those at risk will just have to accept that life must go on" rather than impossibilities like "seal them off".
It's not impossible, millions of people did it earlier this year
Wasn't really a raging success, though, was it, given that 50,000-odd people still ended up dying. And "place loads of other people under real house arrest so I can get back to normal, why doesn't everyone see that's just fair?" is still not cutting much ice with many people.
Amazing how hard some soi-disant intellectuals find it to understand that spreading a deadly disease affects other people, not just the person doing the spreading.
What if the only people going out are those who choose to do so, and willing to take the risk of catching Covid?
Except that it is basically impossible to isolate people to the level they are no risk to others. Unless you quarantine them completely....
They would be a risk to others, others that are willing to take the risk
You can't select who would be at risk from an infected person - unless they live in a sealed environment.
Yes, seal off those who dont want to be at risk
That's impossible though.
It would be nice to get some suggestions that aren't impossible, like "those at risk will just have to accept that life must go on" rather than impossibilities like "seal them off".
It's not impossible, millions of people did it earlier this year
Amazing how hard some soi-disant intellectuals find it to understand that spreading a deadly disease affects other people, not just the person doing the spreading.
What if the only people going out are those who choose to do so, and willing to take the risk of catching Covid?
Except that it is basically impossible to isolate people to the level they are no risk to others. Unless you quarantine them completely....
They would be a risk to others, others that are willing to take the risk
You can't select who would be at risk from an infected person - unless they live in a sealed environment.
Yes, seal off those who dont want to be at risk
That's impossible though.
It would be nice to get some suggestions that aren't impossible, like "those at risk will just have to accept that life must go on" rather than impossibilities like "seal them off".
It's not impossible, millions of people did it earlier this year
It is impossible, millions didn't.
Just because millions could doesn't mean all could. Millions couldn't that was the frigging point and why we had tens of thousands of deaths.
Amazing how hard some soi-disant intellectuals find it to understand that spreading a deadly disease affects other people, not just the person doing the spreading.
What if the only people going out are those who choose to do so, and willing to take the risk of catching Covid?
Except that it is basically impossible to isolate people to the level they are no risk to others. Unless you quarantine them completely....
They would be a risk to others, others that are willing to take the risk
You can't select who would be at risk from an infected person - unless they live in a sealed environment.
Yes, seal off those who dont want to be at risk
That's impossible though.
It would be nice to get some suggestions that aren't impossible, like "those at risk will just have to accept that life must go on" rather than impossibilities like "seal them off".
It's not impossible, millions of people did it earlier this year
You'd have thought Philly counting should be quicker than it is tbh. Unload the boxes, tally the Biden votes up and submit.
There's an entirely above board delay on some of their votes until tomorrow. It was already slated to happen because of misprinted ballot papers that had to be reprinted.
Am I being fair if I say that Biden's "achievement" so far is achieving miniscule swings in WI and MI, a slightly bigger step forward in Georgia and Texas (the latter being irrelevant in the grand scheme of things) and going backwards in Florida and possibly Nevada?
I know he's facing an incumbent rather than another challenger, but he doesn't seem to be doing materially better than Hillary, all things considered.
He's doing materially better than Hillary in the sense he's campaiged and won voters where it counts, and is therefore going to be President, but it's not really a slam dunk for the Democrats.
And another hugely notable aspect is that Republican senators are outperforming Donald Trump. He's a liability not an asset. Obvious really (except to HYUFD - sorry don't mean that to be caustic).
That is not really true, Trump has got 68 million votes so far, in 2018 Republican Senators only got 34 million votes combined. Trump has also got a higher share of the vote than any Republican nominee since President Bush in 2004.
If they are outperforming Trump it is only mainly because Trump voters who did not bother to vote for Republican congressmen last time did vote for them this time downballot but only as they were mainly turning out to vote for Trump
Amazing how hard some soi-disant intellectuals find it to understand that spreading a deadly disease affects other people, not just the person doing the spreading.
What if the only people going out are those who choose to do so, and willing to take the risk of catching Covid?
Except that it is basically impossible to isolate people to the level they are no risk to others. Unless you quarantine them completely....
They would be a risk to others, others that are willing to take the risk
You can't select who would be at risk from an infected person - unless they live in a sealed environment.
Yes, seal off those who dont want to be at risk
That's impossible though.
It would be nice to get some suggestions that aren't impossible, like "those at risk will just have to accept that life must go on" rather than impossibilities like "seal them off".
It's not impossible, millions of people did it earlier this year
Wasn't really a raging success, though, was it, given that 50,000-odd people still ended up dying. And "place loads of other people under real house arrest so I can get back to normal, why doesn't everyone see that's just fair?" is still not cutting much ice with many people.
They're not under arrest are they, they want to do it - fair enough
You'd have thought Philly counting should be quicker than it is tbh. Unload the boxes, tally the Biden votes up and submit.
Maybe they're only allowed to use the index finger and pinky of their left-hands to count whilst the other arm folded behind their back, and are required to take a 10-min restroom break after every ten ballots?
OT, I see that Hashim Thaci, who the west lionised as a hero during the Kosovo conflict, and who I've mentioned a few times as an example of western foreign policy delusions in the balkans, is finally getting his just deserts :
Am I being fair if I say that Biden's "achievement" so far is achieving miniscule swings in WI and MI, a slightly bigger step forward in Georgia and Texas (the latter being irrelevant in the grand scheme of things) and going backwards in Florida and possibly Nevada?
I know he's facing an incumbent rather than another challenger, but he doesn't seem to be doing materially better than Hillary, all things considered.
He's doing materially better than Hillary in the sense he's campaiged and won voters where it counts, and is therefore going to be President, but it's not really a slam dunk for the Democrats.
And another hugely notable aspect is that Republican senators are outperforming Donald Trump. He's a liability not an asset. Obvious really (except to HYUFD - sorry don't mean that to be caustic).
That is not really true, Trump has got 68 million votes so far, in 2018 Republican Senators only got 34 million votes combined. Trump has also got a higher share of the vote than any Republican nominee since President Bush in 2004.
If they are outperforming Trump it is only mainly because Trump voters who did not bother to vote for Republican congressmen last time did vote for them this time downballot but only as they were mainly turning out to vote for Trump
You're comparing a national election with ones held in a limited number of states.
Am I being fair if I say that Biden's "achievement" so far is achieving miniscule swings in WI and MI, a slightly bigger step forward in Georgia and Texas (the latter being irrelevant in the grand scheme of things) and going backwards in Florida and possibly Nevada?
I know he's facing an incumbent rather than another challenger, but he doesn't seem to be doing materially better than Hillary, all things considered.
He's doing materially better than Hillary in the sense he's campaiged and won voters where it counts, and is therefore going to be President, but it's not really a slam dunk for the Democrats.
And another hugely notable aspect is that Republican senators are outperforming Donald Trump. He's a liability not an asset. Obvious really (except to HYUFD - sorry don't mean that to be caustic).
That is not really true, Trump has got 68 million votes so far, in 2018 Republican Senators only got 34 million votes combined. Trump has also got a higher share of the vote than any Republican nominee since President Bush in 2004.
If they are outperforming Trump it is only mainly because Trump voters who did not bother to vote for Republican congressmen last time did vote for them this time downballot but only as they were mainly turning out to vote for Trump
That's one of your daftest yet. On two thirds of states hold senate elections.
Am I being fair if I say that Biden's "achievement" so far is achieving miniscule swings in WI and MI, a slightly bigger step forward in Georgia and Texas (the latter being irrelevant in the grand scheme of things) and going backwards in Florida and possibly Nevada?
I know he's facing an incumbent rather than another challenger, but he doesn't seem to be doing materially better than Hillary, all things considered.
He's doing materially better than Hillary in the sense he's campaiged and won voters where it counts, and is therefore going to be President, but it's not really a slam dunk for the Democrats.
And another hugely notable aspect is that Republican senators are outperforming Donald Trump. He's a liability not an asset. Obvious really (except to HYUFD - sorry don't mean that to be caustic).
That is not really true, Trump has got 68 million votes so far, in 2018 Republican Senators only got 34 million votes combined. Trump has also got a higher share of the vote than any Republican nominee since President Bush in 2004.
If they are outperforming Trump it is only mainly because Trump voters who did not bother to vote for Republican congressmen last time did vote for them this time downballot but only as they were mainly turning out to vote for Trump
That's one of your daftest yet. On two thirds of states hold senate elections.
Trump's margin of loss, though, is going to be bigger than Romney's 3.9% miss in 2012.
You really wouldn't want to be one of Trump's lawyers, would you?
No shortage of work though.
Client: sue everyone! You: you know you'll almost certainly lose and even if you won it wouldn't be enough to swing enough states in your favour right? Client: just sue dammit. You: okay, the bill's the same. *sues* *loses* You: here's the bill
Am I being fair if I say that Biden's "achievement" so far is achieving miniscule swings in WI and MI, a slightly bigger step forward in Georgia and Texas (the latter being irrelevant in the grand scheme of things) and going backwards in Florida and possibly Nevada?
I know he's facing an incumbent rather than another challenger, but he doesn't seem to be doing materially better than Hillary, all things considered.
He's doing materially better than Hillary in the sense he's campaiged and won voters where it counts, and is therefore going to be President, but it's not really a slam dunk for the Democrats.
And another hugely notable aspect is that Republican senators are outperforming Donald Trump. He's a liability not an asset. Obvious really (except to HYUFD - sorry don't mean that to be caustic).
If I was an American in a swing state I'd be tempted by Biden, but I'd definitely vote Republican for the House and possibly for the Senate too, depending on the candidate.
I can't stand Nancy Pelosi, who's a very left-wing San Francisco Liberal. It'd be like me voting for Glenda Jackson.
TEMPTED?
C'mon.
It'd either be that, or third party. Trouble is.. I can't predict with 100% certainty how my politics would be if I was an American living in America, as to a British Conservative opining from over here.
Yes, I wonder. Would you have been one of those high-minded Lincoln Republican types or would you have (as they say) "held your nose". The vast majority of "normal" Republicans did the latter. One of the biggest reasons Trump managed to be competitive.
Democrats might be in with a shout in Georgia, Trump was a one man GOTV machine. Problem might be that he was a one man GOTV machine for the Democrats too.
The person going for assisted dying will not infect anyone else with assisted dying. Is Hitchens really unable to understand the issue on infection and spread?
My copy (old) says the same. Odd that they could have missed out the most usual meaning, which was certainly in common currency well before my copy was printed.
(Oxford maths!)
You might be being a touch unfair in this case. I don't think I've actually used my shorter oxford dictionary for about 15 years, but there is something nice about referring to a book, even if it turns out, as in this case, to be shorter than advertised.
Maybe, but leaping to it to say "Hah! Caught you!" and publicising that widely, all without any apparent self-awareness that maybe, just maybe, he might not know quite as much as he appeared to assume... rather does look like a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in the wild.
Had to look up 'Dunning-Kruger' - not in the shorter OED.
I doubt any of us know as much as we think we do. I'd settle for knowing as much as I used to know.
One thing is for sure. If a similar election were taking place in the developing world, the US Embassy and State Department would be casting aspersions by now.
Am I being fair if I say that Biden's "achievement" so far is achieving miniscule swings in WI and MI, a slightly bigger step forward in Georgia and Texas (the latter being irrelevant in the grand scheme of things) and going backwards in Florida and possibly Nevada?
I know he's facing an incumbent rather than another challenger, but he doesn't seem to be doing materially better than Hillary, all things considered.
He's doing materially better than Hillary in the sense he's campaiged and won voters where it counts, and is therefore going to be President, but it's not really a slam dunk for the Democrats.
And another hugely notable aspect is that Republican senators are outperforming Donald Trump. He's a liability not an asset. Obvious really (except to HYUFD - sorry don't mean that to be caustic).
If I was an American in a swing state I'd be tempted by Biden, but I'd definitely vote Republican for the House and possibly for the Senate too, depending on the candidate.
I can't stand Nancy Pelosi, who's a very left-wing San Francisco Liberal. It'd be like me voting for Glenda Jackson.
TEMPTED?
C'mon.
It'd either be that, or third party. Trouble is.. I can't predict with 100% certainty how my politics would be if I was an American living in America, as to a British Conservative opining from over here.
Her Maj would be furious if you described yourself as a Republican.
Amazing how hard some soi-disant intellectuals find it to understand that spreading a deadly disease affects other people, not just the person doing the spreading.
What if the only people going out are those who choose to do so, and willing to take the risk of catching Covid?
Except that it is basically impossible to isolate people to the level they are no risk to others. Unless you quarantine them completely....
They would be a risk to others, others that are willing to take the risk
You can't select who would be at risk from an infected person - unless they live in a sealed environment.
Yes, seal off those who dont want to be at risk
That's impossible though.
It would be nice to get some suggestions that aren't impossible, like "those at risk will just have to accept that life must go on" rather than impossibilities like "seal them off".
It's not impossible, millions of people did it earlier this year
Wasn't really a raging success, though, was it, given that 50,000-odd people still ended up dying. And "place loads of other people under real house arrest so I can get back to normal, why doesn't everyone see that's just fair?" is still not cutting much ice with many people.
They're not under arrest are they, they want to do it - fair enough
Seriously? It’s fine to force vulnerable people out of society entirely into the equivalent of house arrest, on pain of risking serious illness or death, because they have the choice of which to take?
That’s like arguing that highwaymen saying “Your money or your life” shouldn’t be prosecuted because the victim freely handed over their possessions.
Am I being fair if I say that Biden's "achievement" so far is achieving miniscule swings in WI and MI, a slightly bigger step forward in Georgia and Texas (the latter being irrelevant in the grand scheme of things) and going backwards in Florida and possibly Nevada?
I know he's facing an incumbent rather than another challenger, but he doesn't seem to be doing materially better than Hillary, all things considered.
He's doing materially better than Hillary in the sense he's campaiged and won voters where it counts, and is therefore going to be President, but it's not really a slam dunk for the Democrats.
And another hugely notable aspect is that Republican senators are outperforming Donald Trump. He's a liability not an asset. Obvious really (except to HYUFD - sorry don't mean that to be caustic).
That is not really true, Trump has got 68 million votes so far, in 2018 Republican Senators only got 34 million votes combined. Trump has also got a higher share of the vote than any Republican nominee since President Bush in 2004.
If they are outperforming Trump it is only mainly because Trump voters who did not bother to vote for Republican congressmen last time did vote for them this time downballot but only as they were mainly turning out to vote for Trump
You're comparing a national election with ones held in a limited number of states.
In the House election in 2018 too the GOP only got 50 million compared to today's 68 million for Trump, so far Trump has also got 8 million votes more than the 60 million Romney got in 2012 and Trump is on 47.9% of the vote, higher than the 47.2% of the vote Romney got in 2012 as well
In Georgia, I think however it appears to end today, we won't know for sure until after provisional and military ballots are confirmed and counted. I can't see it being called before next week.
Pennsylvania, on the other hand, looks likely to go for Joe by 75-100,000 so my money is on it being called today so long as the count is not disrupted.
It will be disrupted. If it's called today, it's all over for Trump which is why he wants to drag it out.
Maybe somebody in the Republian HQ has been running Biden's actuarial tables.
"If we can string it out another week, he's a goner!"
The person going for assisted dying will not infect anyone else with assisted dying. Is Hitchens really unable to understand the issue on infection and spread?
My copy (old) says the same. Odd that they could have missed out the most usual meaning, which was certainly in common currency well before my copy was printed.
(Oxford maths!)
You might be being a touch unfair in this case. I don't think I've actually used my shorter oxford dictionary for about 15 years, but there is something nice about referring to a book, even if it turns out, as in this case, to be shorter than advertised.
It was part of a wider conversation when he was dissing the stats, not realising what it meant in that context.
If any norm asks me about my work and I start to talk about stochastic modeling, I do quickly get the confused look of so you sample randomly and that is better?
The best comment from that period was when someone ran the stochastic model 2 times and got a different result from the model and tried to use it as evidence the model couldn't be trusted.
Amazing how hard some soi-disant intellectuals find it to understand that spreading a deadly disease affects other people, not just the person doing the spreading.
What if the only people going out are those who choose to do so, and willing to take the risk of catching Covid?
Except that it is basically impossible to isolate people to the level they are no risk to others. Unless you quarantine them completely....
They would be a risk to others, others that are willing to take the risk
You can't select who would be at risk from an infected person - unless they live in a sealed environment.
Yes, seal off those who dont want to be at risk
That's impossible though.
It would be nice to get some suggestions that aren't impossible, like "those at risk will just have to accept that life must go on" rather than impossibilities like "seal them off".
It's not impossible, millions of people did it earlier this year
Wasn't really a raging success, though, was it, given that 50,000-odd people still ended up dying. And "place loads of other people under real house arrest so I can get back to normal, why doesn't everyone see that's just fair?" is still not cutting much ice with many people.
As with all these things we are trying to balance a set of very unpalatable options.
It is once more the granny hug dilemma and I will say it again:
Total lockdown: granny doesn't get a hug Selective lockdown of vulnerable people: granny doesn't get a hug.
You say but that's not fair. Which sentiment I understand. But while collective punishment has its place in various scenarios, that is no way to run an economy.
One thing is for sure. If a similar election were taking place in the developing world, the US Embassy and State Department would be casting aspersions by now.
What do you think the developing world thought of us when the HofC were refusing to implement Brexit!
Democrats might be in with a shout in Georgia, Trump was a one man GOTV machine. Problem might be that he was a one man GOTV machine for the Democrats too.
Very true, whatever one's opinion of him, I doubt there will ever be another president who can inspire 150 million people to vote!
Am I being fair if I say that Biden's "achievement" so far is achieving miniscule swings in WI and MI, a slightly bigger step forward in Georgia and Texas (the latter being irrelevant in the grand scheme of things) and going backwards in Florida and possibly Nevada?
I know he's facing an incumbent rather than another challenger, but he doesn't seem to be doing materially better than Hillary, all things considered.
He's doing materially better than Hillary in the sense he's campaiged and won voters where it counts, and is therefore going to be President, but it's not really a slam dunk for the Democrats.
And another hugely notable aspect is that Republican senators are outperforming Donald Trump. He's a liability not an asset. Obvious really (except to HYUFD - sorry don't mean that to be caustic).
That is not really true, Trump has got 68 million votes so far, in 2018 Republican Senators only got 34 million votes combined. Trump has also got a higher share of the vote than any Republican nominee since President Bush in 2004.
If they are outperforming Trump it is only mainly because Trump voters who did not bother to vote for Republican congressmen last time did vote for them this time downballot but only as they were mainly turning out to vote for Trump
You're comparing a national election with ones held in a limited number of states.
In the House election in 2018 too the GOP only got 50 million compared to today's 68 million for Trump, so far Trump has also got 8 million votes more than the 60 million Romney got in 2012 and Trump is on 47.9% of the vote, higher than the 47.2% of the vote Romney got in 2012 as well
Midterms have lower turnout than Presidential elections shocker.
Am I being fair if I say that Biden's "achievement" so far is achieving miniscule swings in WI and MI, a slightly bigger step forward in Georgia and Texas (the latter being irrelevant in the grand scheme of things) and going backwards in Florida and possibly Nevada?
I know he's facing an incumbent rather than another challenger, but he doesn't seem to be doing materially better than Hillary, all things considered.
He's doing materially better than Hillary in the sense he's campaiged and won voters where it counts, and is therefore going to be President, but it's not really a slam dunk for the Democrats.
And another hugely notable aspect is that Republican senators are outperforming Donald Trump. He's a liability not an asset. Obvious really (except to HYUFD - sorry don't mean that to be caustic).
That is not really true, Trump has got 68 million votes so far, in 2018 Republican Senators only got 34 million votes combined. Trump has also got a higher share of the vote than any Republican nominee since President Bush in 2004.
If they are outperforming Trump it is only mainly because Trump voters who did not bother to vote for Republican congressmen last time did vote for them this time downballot but only as they were mainly turning out to vote for Trump
That's one of your daftest yet. On two thirds of states hold senate elections.
Trump's margin of loss, though, is going to be bigger than Romney's 3.9% miss in 2012.
That must be his unique ability to reach voters other Republicans cannot I hear so much about.
FYI, and it also goes back to what @TSE said before re the courts. Ignore if you want.
Legally, it looks there will be different attack routes here for the Republicans. @RCS1000 is right, trying to deal with several challenges at once causes problems so the approaches will be staggered. In PA, the immediate focus will be to stop the counts to create a “breather” in terms of Trump’s vote being eroded. That gives time to the campaign. Afterwards, the focus will be to restart the SC case which was tied 4-4 and hope to win it with Comey Barrett in place (point: I think they will – no reason either side should change their vote and I think Comey Barrett will come down with the Conservative majority).
In Wisconsin, the Republicans, for the moment, seem happy to go through the recount motions as mandated by law. It’s following due process and they will want to focus elsewhere. They could start making claims about electoral fraud in Milwaukee but I expect that to be low key for now although it could ramp up. There probably will be some low key legal challenges about how votes were dealt with.
Georgia, it’s clear it will be about whittling down leads by casting aspersions here and there on how the votes were counted and tallied. In such a close race, it makes a difference.
The main attack for now seems to be Michigan. As well as what @DAlexander posted (which could be clerical issues), there is a video doing the rounds from Project Veritas (yes, I know....) about a Michigan postal worker claiming his supervisor ordered him to re-date ballots received after the cut off date. 7.5m+ views so far apparently.
The strategy looks to be to go in hard on fraud. MI is favourable to Trump legally because its Supreme Court is Republican and has given a bloody nose to Whitmer before. Also, there will be satisfaction for him in accusing Whitmer of rigging the process.
The postal worker point is also important. It's difficult for the Federals to get involved with state elections, although they can under certain circumstances. However, tampering with the mail is a federal offence. Remedy wise, there is probably little they can do but it gives an excuse to launch an investigation to support claims the election is rigged.
One other point re the SC. Many have said on here the SCs are not beholden to Trump. To a degree yes but, from my information, ACB was rushed through the Senate because the WH did not trust Roberts to side with them in any dispute on the election. That suggests they think Kavanaugh / Gorsuch will (very likely for Kavanaugh) and they know ACB will do as well.
Am I being fair if I say that Biden's "achievement" so far is achieving miniscule swings in WI and MI, a slightly bigger step forward in Georgia and Texas (the latter being irrelevant in the grand scheme of things) and going backwards in Florida and possibly Nevada?
I know he's facing an incumbent rather than another challenger, but he doesn't seem to be doing materially better than Hillary, all things considered.
He's doing materially better than Hillary in the sense he's campaiged and won voters where it counts, and is therefore going to be President, but it's not really a slam dunk for the Democrats.
And another hugely notable aspect is that Republican senators are outperforming Donald Trump. He's a liability not an asset. Obvious really (except to HYUFD - sorry don't mean that to be caustic).
That is not really true, Trump has got 68 million votes so far, in 2018 Republican Senators only got 34 million votes combined. Trump has also got a higher share of the vote than any Republican nominee since President Bush in 2004.
If they are outperforming Trump it is only mainly because Trump voters who did not bother to vote for Republican congressmen last time did vote for them this time downballot but only as they were mainly turning out to vote for Trump
What you have done there is take a national Presidential election total and compute it against 1/3rd of Senators elected at a time.
The data from this election shows that Donald Trump's share of the vote and raw vote were below those of Republican Senators standing in the same states.
He's a liability not an asset.
You really are crass sometimes.
p.s. by the way I really also need to put you back in your box on this raw numbers last resort of yours. You do know, right, that the population of the US has been growing these past 250 years? Comparing a raw total today with 1960 is ridiculous when there are 100 million more people in the country. https://www.census-charts.com/Population/pop-us-1790-2000.html
It's very easy to see if Trump is outperforming his Senators.
Look at the vote share in States where there's an incumbent Republican Senator, and compare that to Trump's share.
My guess is that incumbent Trump has underperformed pretty much every incumbent Republican.
EXCEPT the hapless Martha McSally in Arizona, who was never elected in the first place. (And possibly Mitch McConnell in Kentucky.)
In my view if Trump loses as I said earlier this could be the GOP's 1980 and his voteshare and number of votes may be the highest the GOP will achieve at either presidential or congressional level for the next decade
Wonder whether Twitter will terminate Trump's posting privileges once Biden is declared the winner?
I suspect that will only occur as Biden becomes president (probably as Biden becomes president). A dead duck president can still cause harm until he's removed.
Am I being fair if I say that Biden's "achievement" so far is achieving miniscule swings in WI and MI, a slightly bigger step forward in Georgia and Texas (the latter being irrelevant in the grand scheme of things) and going backwards in Florida and possibly Nevada?
I know he's facing an incumbent rather than another challenger, but he doesn't seem to be doing materially better than Hillary, all things considered.
He's doing materially better than Hillary in the sense he's campaiged and won voters where it counts, and is therefore going to be President, but it's not really a slam dunk for the Democrats.
And another hugely notable aspect is that Republican senators are outperforming Donald Trump. He's a liability not an asset. Obvious really (except to HYUFD - sorry don't mean that to be caustic).
If I was an American in a swing state I'd be tempted by Biden, but I'd definitely vote Republican for the House and possibly for the Senate too, depending on the candidate.
I can't stand Nancy Pelosi, who's a very left-wing San Francisco Liberal. It'd be like me voting for Glenda Jackson.
TEMPTED?
C'mon.
It'd either be that, or third party. Trouble is.. I can't predict with 100% certainty how my politics would be if I was an American living in America, as to a British Conservative opining from over here.
Yes, I wonder. Would you have been one of those high-minded Lincoln Republican types or would you have (as they say) "held your nose". The vast majority of "normal" Republicans did the latter. One of the biggest reasons Trump managed to be competitive.
Dunno. At the end of the day we don't pay American taxes and get affected by their domestic policy.
It's easy to be high & mighty when you live aboard, and it's all about noble foreign policy and good behaviour, but when you actually live there..
Amazing how hard some soi-disant intellectuals find it to understand that spreading a deadly disease affects other people, not just the person doing the spreading.
What if the only people going out are those who choose to do so, and willing to take the risk of catching Covid?
Except that it is basically impossible to isolate people to the level they are no risk to others. Unless you quarantine them completely....
They would be a risk to others, others that are willing to take the risk
You can't select who would be at risk from an infected person - unless they live in a sealed environment.
Yes, seal off those who dont want to be at risk
That's impossible though.
It would be nice to get some suggestions that aren't impossible, like "those at risk will just have to accept that life must go on" rather than impossibilities like "seal them off".
It's not impossible, millions of people did it earlier this year
Wasn't really a raging success, though, was it, given that 50,000-odd people still ended up dying. And "place loads of other people under real house arrest so I can get back to normal, why doesn't everyone see that's just fair?" is still not cutting much ice with many people.
They're not under arrest are they, they want to do it - fair enough
Seriously? It’s fine to force vulnerable people out of society entirely into the equivalent of house arrest, on pain of risking serious illness or death, because they have the choice of which to take?
That’s like arguing that highwaymen saying “Your money or your life” shouldn’t be prosecuted because the victim freely handed over their possessions.
Absolutely seriously old chum
Nobody is forcing them to do anything - they are volunteering
Nate Silver: "I’m not a decision desk, but I suppose I think Nevada is on the verge of being callable at this point. Two-thirds of the state’s population is in Clark County and Biden is gaining big in Clark County! Not sure I see the route for a Trump comeback."
Am I being fair if I say that Biden's "achievement" so far is achieving miniscule swings in WI and MI, a slightly bigger step forward in Georgia and Texas (the latter being irrelevant in the grand scheme of things) and going backwards in Florida and possibly Nevada?
I know he's facing an incumbent rather than another challenger, but he doesn't seem to be doing materially better than Hillary, all things considered.
He's doing materially better than Hillary in the sense he's campaiged and won voters where it counts, and is therefore going to be President, but it's not really a slam dunk for the Democrats.
And another hugely notable aspect is that Republican senators are outperforming Donald Trump. He's a liability not an asset. Obvious really (except to HYUFD - sorry don't mean that to be caustic).
That is not really true, Trump has got 68 million votes so far, in 2018 Republican Senators only got 34 million votes combined. Trump has also got a higher share of the vote than any Republican nominee since President Bush in 2004.
If they are outperforming Trump it is only mainly because Trump voters who did not bother to vote for Republican congressmen last time did vote for them this time downballot but only as they were mainly turning out to vote for Trump
That's one of your daftest yet. On two thirds of states hold senate elections.
Trump's margin of loss, though, is going to be bigger than Romney's 3.9% miss in 2012.
That's true. He's just a built a more competitive electoral coalition where it counts.
I mean, who did Romney really excite? He oozed privileged rich man who wants to make things easier for him and his mates.
The idea that this government is as ruthlessly efficient in news manipulation as Blair's is delightfully quaint. If they used the wrong data the overwhelmingly likely explanation is that they haven't got a clue what they're doing, not that they were cunningly trying to deceive us.
Comments
Elefant Tusk Kysten
not so good for JB if that's rest of fulton. maybe another county
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54831374
https://twitter.com/RalstonReports/status/1324397896674914310
https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2014/title-21/chapter-2/article-11/part-1/section-21-2-418/
...(a) If a person presents himself or herself at a polling place, absentee polling place, or registration office for the purpose of casting a ballot in a primary or election believing that he or she has timely registered to vote in such primary or election and the person's name does not appear on the list of registered electors, the person shall be entitled to cast a provisional ballot as provided in this Code section.
(b) Such person voting a provisional ballot shall complete an official voter registration form and a provisional ballot voting certificate which shall include information about the place, manner, and approximate date on which the person registered to vote. The person shall swear or affirm in writing that he or she previously registered to vote in such primary or election, is eligible to vote in such primary or election, has not voted previously in such primary or election, and meets the criteria for registering to vote in such primary or election. The form of the provisional ballot voting certificate shall be prescribed by the Secretary of State. The person shall also present the identification required by Code Section 21-2-417.
(c) When the person has provided the information as required by this Code section, the person shall be issued a provisional ballot and allowed to cast such ballot as any other duly registered elector subject to the provisions of Code Section 21-2-419.
(d) Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter to the contrary, in primaries and elections in which there is a federal candidate on the ballot, in the event that the time for closing the polls at a polling place or places is extended by court order, all electors who vote during such extended time period shall vote by provisional ballot only….
Biden's lead INCREASING
I studied American Politics and I quite like their system of checks and balances.
In some ways I regret the two run-offs because it's time to try and bring the country together after the malfeasance of Trump.
And, most importantly as far as I'm concerned over this side of the pond, Joe Biden will have a lot of support among Senators from both sides for protecting the Good Friday Agreement at all costs.
Pennsylvania, on the other hand, looks likely to go for Joe by 75-100,000 so my money is on it being called today so long as the count is not disrupted.
LOL.
Please will people stop posting tweets unless they are critical, this site is turning to shit again
There is another William Bradley at the same address, aged a rather more modest 61 years
https://www.michiganresidentdatabase.com/person/777535/william-bradley
He was registered to vote (I guessed birth month until I got a match) but apparently neither was sent nor returned a ballot. Obviously I don't know, but there has to be a chance of administrative cock-up here and the live William Bradley voted, possibly not noticing he'd got the wrong ballot or figuring it didn't really matter.
Or, of course, fraud.
It would be nice to get some suggestions that aren't impossible, like "those at risk will just have to accept that life must go on" rather than impossibilities like "seal them off".
This looks like a very relaxed warehouse where they insist on you allowing 28-days for delivery.
https://www.forexlive.com/news/!/biden-increases-leading-nevada-to-12k-votes-20201105
Biden 597,353, 49.5%
Trump 585,311, 48.5%
Estimated reporting 87%
Biden leads by 12,042 votes with still a number of votes to be counted
in Clark County (home of Las Vegas and 70% of the vote) Biden leads 53.1% vs. 45.2% for Trump
Biden got 64% of the additional vote in this tranche. That can change depending upon the demographics of the vote
Clinton won 47.9% to 45.5% in 2016.
reps out to 6.8 on betfair
Anyway i am off out for 2 hrs
Thats why they stopped counting in Philly!!!
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1324398365208125447?s=20
I am a faithful and loyal subject.
(Which, to be fair, is about 99.9999% of Tweets!)
And "place loads of other people under real house arrest so I can get back to normal, why doesn't everyone see that's just fair?" is still not cutting much ice with many people.
Just because millions could doesn't mean all could. Millions couldn't that was the frigging point and why we had tens of thousands of deaths.
If they are outperforming Trump it is only mainly because Trump voters who did not bother to vote for Republican congressmen last time did vote for them this time downballot but only as they were mainly turning out to vote for Trump
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/05/hashim-thaci-kosovos-president-resigns-to-face-war-crimes-charges-in-the-hague
Seriously.
Problem might be that he was a one man GOTV machine for the Democrats too.
I doubt any of us know as much as we think we do. I'd settle for knowing as much as I used to know.
It’s fine to force vulnerable people out of society entirely into the equivalent of house arrest, on pain of risking serious illness or death, because they have the choice of which to take?
That’s like arguing that highwaymen saying “Your money or your life” shouldn’t be prosecuted because the victim freely handed over their possessions.
A sign that the two are drifting apart?
"If we can string it out another week, he's a goner!"
Look at the vote share in States where there's an incumbent Republican Senator, and compare that to Trump's share.
My guess is that incumbent Trump has underperformed pretty much every incumbent Republican.
EXCEPT the hapless Martha McSally in Arizona, who was never elected in the first place. (And possibly Mitch McConnell in Kentucky.)
It is once more the granny hug dilemma and I will say it again:
Total lockdown: granny doesn't get a hug
Selective lockdown of vulnerable people: granny doesn't get a hug.
You say but that's not fair. Which sentiment I understand. But while collective punishment has its place in various scenarios, that is no way to run an economy.
"Copycats" probably
Denmark to cull up to 17 million mink amid coronavirus fears
https://twitter.com/sullydish/status/1324391577570168835?s=19
Legally, it looks there will be different attack routes here for the Republicans. @RCS1000 is right, trying to deal with several challenges at once causes problems so the approaches will be staggered. In PA, the immediate focus will be to stop the counts to create a “breather” in terms of Trump’s vote being eroded. That gives time to the campaign. Afterwards, the focus will be to restart the SC case which was tied 4-4 and hope to win it with Comey Barrett in place (point: I think they will – no reason either side should change their vote and I think Comey Barrett will come down with the Conservative majority).
In Wisconsin, the Republicans, for the moment, seem happy to go through the recount motions as mandated by law. It’s following due process and they will want to focus elsewhere. They could start making claims about electoral fraud in Milwaukee but I expect that to be low key for now although it could ramp up. There probably will be some low key legal challenges about how votes were dealt with.
Georgia, it’s clear it will be about whittling down leads by casting aspersions here and there on how the votes were counted and tallied. In such a close race, it makes a difference.
The main attack for now seems to be Michigan. As well as what @DAlexander posted (which could be clerical issues), there is a video doing the rounds from Project Veritas (yes, I know....) about a Michigan postal worker claiming his supervisor ordered him to re-date ballots received after the cut off date. 7.5m+ views so far apparently.
The strategy looks to be to go in hard on fraud. MI is favourable to Trump legally because its Supreme Court is Republican and has given a bloody nose to Whitmer before. Also, there will be satisfaction for him in accusing Whitmer of rigging the process.
The postal worker point is also important. It's difficult for the Federals to get involved with state elections, although they can under certain circumstances. However, tampering with the mail is a federal offence. Remedy wise, there is probably little they can do but it gives an excuse to launch an investigation to support claims the election is rigged.
One other point re the SC. Many have said on here the SCs are not beholden to Trump. To a degree yes but, from my information, ACB was rushed through the Senate because the WH did not trust Roberts to side with them in any dispute on the election. That suggests they think Kavanaugh / Gorsuch will (very likely for Kavanaugh) and they know ACB will do as well.
The data from this election shows that Donald Trump's share of the vote and raw vote were below those of Republican Senators standing in the same states.
He's a liability not an asset.
You really are crass sometimes.
p.s. by the way I really also need to put you back in your box on this raw numbers last resort of yours. You do know, right, that the population of the US has been growing these past 250 years? Comparing a raw total today with 1960 is ridiculous when there are 100 million more people in the country.
https://www.census-charts.com/Population/pop-us-1790-2000.html
NV
1.09
It's easy to be high & mighty when you live aboard, and it's all about noble foreign policy and good behaviour, but when you actually live there..
Nobody is forcing them to do anything - they are volunteering
"I’m not a decision desk, but I suppose I think Nevada is on the verge of being callable at this point. Two-thirds of the state’s population is in Clark County and Biden is gaining big in Clark County! Not sure I see the route for a Trump comeback."
I mean, who did Romney really excite? He oozed privileged rich man who wants to make things easier for him and his mates.