the polling profession

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
7,367
8,329
1
I have not seen this discussed, so thought I'd throw it out there........

Is there another profession where someone is paid so much money to be inaccurate?
During this election, just about every poll had the major issues as inflation, crime, the border.....and just about every poll had republicans winning up to 54 senate seats and 40 house seats. And then came the vote.
Now I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but how does kari lake go from +11 points to losing in just one week when all the issues remained the same and there wasn't some scandal that might make a voter change his or her mind?
There is something amiss here
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
25,847
30,649
1
I have not seen this discussed, so thought I'd throw it out there........

Is there another profession where someone is paid so much money to be inaccurate?
During this election, just about every poll had the major issues as inflation, crime, the border.....and just about every poll had republicans winning up to 54 senate seats and 40 house seats. And then came the vote.
Now I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but how does kari lake go from +11 points to losing in just one week when all the issues remained the same and there wasn't some scandal that might make a voter change his or her mind?
There is something amiss here
Polling is over now.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
20,352
26,077
1
2020evidence.org
I have not seen this discussed, so thought I'd throw it out there........

Is there another profession where someone is paid so much money to be inaccurate?
During this election, just about every poll had the major issues as inflation, crime, the border.....and just about every poll had republicans winning up to 54 senate seats and 40 house seats. And then came the vote.
Now I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but how does kari lake go from +11 points to losing in just one week when all the issues remained the same and there wasn't some scandal that might make a voter change his or her mind?
There is something amiss here
It's because there's massive fraud going on. Those are the real issues people care about.

Also re: Lake it's a major red flag that a down ticket GOP no name person running for State Treasurer somehow got about 120K MORE votes than Kari. I don't believe that for a second.
 

NJPSU

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
45,948
16,357
1
I have not seen this discussed, so thought I'd throw it out there........

Is there another profession where someone is paid so much money to be inaccurate?
During this election, just about every poll had the major issues as inflation, crime, the border.....and just about every poll had republicans winning up to 54 senate seats and 40 house seats. And then came the vote.
Now I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but how does kari lake go from +11 points to losing in just one week when all the issues remained the same and there wasn't some scandal that might make a voter change his or her mind?
There is something amiss here
And the polls were off in the other direction in 2016 and 2020.

Polling is extremely difficult in the age of the cell phone. I will never answer a call on my cell if I don’t recognize the number. Do you think the younger generation is taking calls from pollsters. They text everything.
 

NJPSU

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
45,948
16,357
1
It's because there's massive fraud going on. Those are the real issues people care about.

Also re: Lake it's a major red flag that a down ticket GOP no name person running for State Treasurer somehow got about 120K MORE votes than Kari. I don't believe that for a second.
Election deniers did terribly across the entire country. Kari was Queen of the Election Deniers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: franklinman

Aardvark86

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
8,615
9,051
1
1. This is precisely why, prior to the election, I paid a lot more attention to the 538 probabilities than to any individual polls. And in those probabilities, even in the last week, it was a pretty rare thing for the two most probable outcomes to be Republican control of the senate. The simple fact is that there were about 400 races that were run, not 1 race, some with good candidates and some with bad. And many with polling data well within the margins of error.
2. In addition to NJ's comment about polling in the age of cell phones, consider that this was really the first post-covid national election, and that many of the liberalizations of voting processes that arose during covid were being used in a non-covid environment for the first time. That's a lot of room for error in pollster sample assumptions.
3. At the end of the day, I continue to believe that, simply stated, the D's have a better ground game than R's, and particularly in the context of the new voting processes.
4. I think the predictions as stated in your original post are overstated -- realistically, I think a lot expected about 52 and +25. We'll probably end up with 49 and +5 or so. The delta between 52 and 49, imo, is largely explained by candidates (and to be quite honest, while I certainly like my team better, I take a bit of solace in the fact that I got a little confirmation of my belief that there's still a substantial chunk of the american population that just isn't into lunatics). I am surprised by the House differential though-- not just in its size, but its construction. The idea that the R's will control the house, largely on the back of...NEW YORK...is pretty astonishing to me. There will be a lot of sifting through data on the house side, and again, it would not surprise me if the ultimate conclusion comes down simply to "lunatic candidates."
5. I can't help but gloat a little bit regarding the pre-election chorus repeatedly heard that the pollsters really had their thumbs on the scales in favor of the D's and that the late tightening towards R's was really just some reputation-saving exercise, which was clearly nonsense.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

psu skp

Well-Known Member
Gold Member
Nov 7, 2016
7,889
15,985
1
50 yard line after dark
Election deniers did terribly across the entire country. Kari was Queen of the Election Deniers.
Do you think that California refusing to call obvious GOP victories in CA-3, CA-22 and CA-27 for days on end are helping your case that Dems aren't attempting to rig elections?

"Election denier"?!?

You ass clowns are priceless
 

Aardvark86

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
8,615
9,051
1
Do you think that California refusing to call obvious GOP victories in CA-3, CA-22 and CA-27 for days on end are helping your case that Dems aren't attempting to rig elections?

"Election denier"?!?

You ass clowns are priceless
This is an important point. If we want to have liberalized voting procedures, that's fine (within limits of course). But if you can't actually administer them efficiently enough that they provide the electorate with confidence, then you really should just STFU when it comes to criticism and suspicion.
 

WeR0206

Well-Known Member
Apr 9, 2014
20,352
26,077
1
2020evidence.org
Do you think that California refusing to call obvious GOP victories in CA-3, CA-22 and CA-27 for days on end are helping your case that Dems aren't attempting to rig elections?

"Election denier"?!?

You ass clowns are priceless
Anyone pointing out glaring red flags with past elections or who wants to have a shred of election integrity (voter ID, hand counted paper ballots, etc.) is an "election denier" in their minds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: psu skp

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
48,968
21,893
1
This is an important point. If we want to have liberalized voting procedures, that's fine (within limits of course). But if you can't actually administer them efficiently enough that they provide the electorate with confidence, then you really should just STFU when it comes to criticism and suspicion.
I'm not sure I understand your post, Double A. The Demos are not the party voicing the vast bulk of the criticism and suspicion regarding voting procedures. It's Republicans doing that. Given that Trump and his minions have been braying about voting fraud and stolen elections on a daily basis for several years now, it hardly matters that such assertions are unsupported by actual facts. He has an audience of cult followers that are all too willing to swallow whatever he has to say, whether it is true or not. Under those circumstances, inspiring confidence in that slice of the electorate is an impossible task.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NJPSU and JeffClear

Aardvark86

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
8,615
9,051
1
I'm not sure I understand your post, Double A. The Demos are not the party voicing the vast bulk of the criticism and suspicion regarding voting procedures. It's Republicans doing that. Given that Trump and his minions have been braying about voting fraud and stolen elections on a daily basis for several years now, it hardly matters that such assertions are unsupported by actual facts. He has an audience of cult followers that are all too willing to swallow whatever he has to say, whether it is true or not. Under those circumstances, inspiring confidence in that slice of the electorate is an impossible task.
Because it is almost invariably areas where the voting mechanisms have been liberalized and are administered by democratic officials that...just...can't...seem...to...promptly...report...results.

Now to your point, some of the election deniers out there are, shall we say, "a special breed". But, I have some real concern that the "slice" of the cynical is going to grow, rather than shrink, and not unreasonably. As I've said in the past, I'm ok with making voting easy. But it's not the only "interest" that is important when designing voting procedures. The Queen Of England only exists by acclimation of a confident citizenry.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
25,847
30,649
1
1. This is precisely why, prior to the election, I paid a lot more attention to the 538 probabilities than to any individual polls. And in those probabilities, even in the last week, it was a pretty rare thing for the two most probable outcomes to be Republican control of the senate. The simple fact is that there were about 400 races that were run, not 1 race, some with good candidates and some with bad. And many with polling data well within the margins of error.
2. In addition to NJ's comment about polling in the age of cell phones, consider that this was really the first post-covid national election, and that many of the liberalizations of voting processes that arose during covid were being used in a non-covid environment for the first time. That's a lot of room for error in pollster sample assumptions.
3. At the end of the day, I continue to believe that, simply stated, the D's have a better ground game than R's, and particularly in the context of the new voting processes.
4. I think the predictions as stated in your original post are overstated -- realistically, I think a lot expected about 52 and +25. We'll probably end up with 49 and +5 or so. The delta between 52 and 49, imo, is largely explained by candidates (and to be quite honest, while I certainly like my team better, I take a bit of solace in the fact that I got a little confirmation of my belief that there's still a substantial chunk of the american population that just isn't into lunatics). I am surprised by the House differential though-- not just in its size, but its construction. The idea that the R's will control the house, largely on the back of...NEW YORK...is pretty astonishing to me. There will be a lot of sifting through data on the house side, and again, it would not surprise me if the ultimate conclusion comes down simply to "lunatic candidates."
5. I can't help but gloat a little bit regarding the pre-election chorus repeatedly heard that the pollsters really had their thumbs on the scales in favor of the D's and that the late tightening towards R's was really just some reputation-saving exercise, which was clearly nonsense.
There is no accurate polling now with ballot harvesting aka " the ground game".
 
  • Like
Reactions: psuted

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
25,847
30,649
1
Because it is almost invariably areas where the voting mechanisms have been liberalized and are administered by democratic officials that...just...can't...seem...to...promptly...report...results.

Now to your point, some of the election deniers out there are, shall we say, "a special breed". But, I have some real concern that the "slice" of the cynical is going to grow, rather than shrink, and not unreasonably. As I've said in the past, I'm ok with making voting easy. But it's not the only "interest" that is important when designing voting procedures. The Queen Of England only exists by acclimation of a confident citizenry.
I prefer the motivated to show up voter. FFS we can now online order a delivery of booze. I'm a go pick it up guy. To me it shows seriousness lol.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
25,847
30,649
1
This is an important point. If we want to have liberalized voting procedures, that's fine (within limits of course). But if you can't actually administer them efficiently enough that they provide the electorate with confidence, then you really should just STFU when it comes to criticism and suspicion.
You are an attorney and I assume a very good one. I also know you get things about say suspicion , evidence, and actual proof and know the differences. With my experience incompetence is the first go to for naughty behavior. It's easier and usually more accurate to assume stupid however stupid covers a lot of sins.
It's like that good ole boy country lawyer who just don't quite git all these fancy ole law things, but he know if a pig is greased it'll slip out the fence or some weird saying like that.
And his moonshining client can add up 500 three digit numbers in his head and the lawyer was like 4th in his graduating class at Harvard law. Smart people can act pretty dumb because dumb people think they are fairly smart.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Spin Meister

Aardvark86

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
8,615
9,051
1
I prefer the motivated to show up voter. FFS we can now online order a delivery of booze. I'm a go pick it up guy. To me it shows seriousness lol.
That's my personal preference too, if for no other reason than that I'm old-fashioned and believe that the ritual of election day is an important civic thing. But in a democratic society, I'm very open to making it easy to vote in other ways. I sorta like the idea of a 'national holiday' to take the work obligations off the table. But short of that, we have to have balance in our processes - I don't believe in sending everyone a ballot, and I don't believe that 'early voting periods' should last more than a week or two as it just creates opportunities for industrialized mischief. But we'll just have to sort those things out.

BTW, as to your broader point about motivated voters, to be honest, I still think we're very very very much still living in that world. The US population is around 330 million, with 88% 18 or older (ie, about 290MM voting age). In this election, we had about 100M vote, and my guess is that's a big number for a midterm.
 

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
25,847
30,649
1
That's my personal preference too, if for no other reason than that I'm old-fashioned and believe that the ritual of election day is an important civic thing. But in a democratic society, I'm very open to making it easy to vote in other ways. I sorta like the idea of a 'national holiday' to take the work obligations off the table. But short of that, we have to have balance in our processes - I don't believe in sending everyone a ballot, and I don't believe that 'early voting periods' should last more than a week or two as it just creates opportunities for industrialized mischief. But we'll just have to sort those things out.

BTW, as to your broader point about motivated voters, to be honest, I still think we're very very very much still living in that world. The US population is around 330 million, with 88% 18 or older (ie, about 290MM voting age). In this election, we had about 100M vote, and my guess is that's a big number for a midterm.
Totally agree.
 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
48,968
21,893
1
Because it is almost invariably areas where the voting mechanisms have been liberalized and are administered by democratic officials that...just...can't...seem...to...promptly...report...results.
.
What you are in effect saying is that you find mail in voting objectionable. Either that, or you would accept mail in voting only if the mail in ballots had to be received sooner (on or before Election Day?), which is not the rule in any state that has mail in voting.

I would also like to see the tabulation of votes occur more quickly, but I am more interested in the tabulation being done CORRECTLY than TIMELY (particularly if timely is intended to mean on or before Election Day). Verifying signatures on mail in ballots and confirming that the person submitting a mail in ballot has not already voted in person both take time, but they serve the important goal of making sure that the tabulation of votes is being done correctly. The Constitution recognizes that the tabulation of votes is gonna take a little time, with states not being obligated to certify voting results for federal offices until a month or so after Election Day.

Oregon has a voting system that is now 100% mail in voting. I have not heard any complaints about voting in Oregon. I believe there is one (1) House race in Oregon that is still uncalled, largely because it is very close.
 

Aardvark86

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
8,615
9,051
1
What you are in effect saying is that you find mail in voting objectionable. Either that, or you would accept mail in voting only if the mail in ballots had to be received sooner (on or before Election Day?), which is not the rule in any state that has mail in voting.

I would also like to see the tabulation of votes occur more quickly, but I am more interested in the tabulation being done CORRECTLY than TIMELY (particularly if timely is intended to mean on or before Election Day). Verifying signatures on mail in ballots and confirming that the person submitting a mail in ballot has not already voted in person both take time, but they serve the important goal of making sure that the tabulation of votes is being done correctly. The Constitution recognizes that the tabulation of votes is gonna take a little time, with states not being obligated to certify voting results for federal offices until a month or so after Election Day.

Oregon has a voting system that is now 100% mail in voting. I have not heard any complaints about voting in Oregon. I believe there is one (1) House race in Oregon that is still uncalled, largely because it is very close.
Actually, not quite. I don't have a problem with mail in voting per se. Rather, it's the combination of mail in and extended early voting, or the combination of mail in voting with sending ballots to everyone in the general course, that create both opportunities for mischief at the point of voting, and delays in counting (for the reasons you note, which I have a hard time believing can't be addressed through some technical or process solution for validation and nonduplication) that create the perceptions of unreliability.

But again, we have about 435 districts, each of of which typically ends up having to count about 300,000 votes. Those districts that routinely take 7x as long as their counterparts to count votes have some 'splaining to do, or at least, to my earlier part, should stop whining when people call them out on it.
 

Online Persona

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2022
1,936
4,008
1
What you are in effect saying is that you find mail in voting objectionable. Either that, or you would accept mail in voting only if the mail in ballots had to be received sooner (on or before Election Day?), which is not the rule in any state that has mail in voting.

I would also like to see the tabulation of votes occur more quickly, but I am more interested in the tabulation being done CORRECTLY than TIMELY (particularly if timely is intended to mean on or before Election Day). Verifying signatures on mail in ballots and confirming that the person submitting a mail in ballot has not already voted in person both take time, but they serve the important goal of making sure that the tabulation of votes is being done correctly. The Constitution recognizes that the tabulation of votes is gonna take a little time, with states not being obligated to certify voting results for federal offices until a month or so after Election Day.

Oregon has a voting system that is now 100% mail in voting. I have not heard any complaints about voting in Oregon. I believe there is one (1) House race in Oregon that is still uncalled, largely because it is very close.
I've voted absentee twice by mail when deployed to combat zones. Both times registered Republican in PA. 2nd time went in to the registration office in person and verified my voter registration and address and picked up my mail in ballot in person before I deployed. Both times I received a letter months after the election stating that my votes were not counted because they couldn't verify my home of record address because I moved around a few times in my career (active duty military does that).

I am now registered independent and now only vote straight Republican and in person. Mail in is not accurate and easy to commit fraud. I'm 0-2 while serving my country. I think my vote should count.
 

JeffClear

Well-Known Member
Oct 15, 2017
10,381
4,181
1
I really like mail in voting and would have no opposition to going all mail in ballots.
I've voted at the polls most of my life and the act of showing up at the polls doesn't suddenly make you a more informed voter. And seeing your neighbors at the doesn't make you more civic .
I might get a pen with a candidate's name on it or something even more useless.
And I don't think we need to make Election Day a national holiday.
Why shut everything down twice a year to vote when you can fill out a ballot at home and mail it at your convenience and still have all the stores and businesses open?
Making voting as convenient as possible improves democracy by expanding the number of people participating in government.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: psuted

SLUPSU

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2018
4,815
2,794
1
1. This is precisely why, prior to the election, I paid a lot more attention to the 538 probabilities than to any individual polls. And in those probabilities, even in the last week, it was a pretty rare thing for the two most probable outcomes to be Republican control of the senate. The simple fact is that there were about 400 races that were run, not 1 race, some with good candidates and some with bad. And many with polling data well within the margins of error.
2. In addition to NJ's comment about polling in the age of cell phones, consider that this was really the first post-covid national election, and that many of the liberalizations of voting processes that arose during covid were being used in a non-covid environment for the first time. That's a lot of room for error in pollster sample assumptions.
3. At the end of the day, I continue to believe that, simply stated, the D's have a better ground game than R's, and particularly in the context of the new voting processes.
4. I think the predictions as stated in your original post are overstated -- realistically, I think a lot expected about 52 and +25. We'll probably end up with 49 and +5 or so. The delta between 52 and 49, imo, is largely explained by candidates (and to be quite honest, while I certainly like my team better, I take a bit of solace in the fact that I got a little confirmation of my belief that there's still a substantial chunk of the american population that just isn't into lunatics). I am surprised by the House differential though-- not just in its size, but its construction. The idea that the R's will control the house, largely on the back of...NEW YORK...is pretty astonishing to me. There will be a lot of sifting through data on the house side, and again, it would not surprise me if the ultimate conclusion comes down simply to "lunatic candidates."
5. I can't help but gloat a little bit regarding the pre-election chorus repeatedly heard that the pollsters really had their thumbs on the scales in favor of the D's and that the late tightening towards R's was really just some reputation-saving exercise, which was clearly nonsense.
One more point, the GOP wins the gerrymandering game, Cook Political Report says they gained up to 15 seats this cycle as a result.

 

Aardvark86

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2018
8,615
9,051
1
One more point, the GOP wins the gerrymandering game, Cook Political Report says they gained up to 15 seats this cycle as a result.

That sounds a bit high, but accepting the number, I’m guessing that several of those (3-5) are seats that were diluted by d’s in their own gerrymandering efforts.
 

PaoliLion

Well-Known Member
Nov 2, 2003
13,884
6,956
1
I have not seen this discussed, so thought I'd throw it out there........

Is there another profession where someone is paid so much money to be inaccurate?
During this election, just about every poll had the major issues as inflation, crime, the border.....and just about every poll had republicans winning up to 54 senate seats and 40 house seats. And then came the vote.
Now I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but how does kari lake go from +11 points to losing in just one week when all the issues remained the same and there wasn't some scandal that might make a voter change his or her mind?
There is something amiss here

I don’t know what polls you were looking at, but the results played out the way it was expected.

The Senate was expected to lean Democrat, but when fetterman starting losing ground to Oz, it became 50/50. The race between Warnock and Walker was projected to be tight and it was. Kelly was fairly far ahead in the polling, so no surprises there.

The house was always projected to go Republican and that’s exactly how it turned out. I think that they were hoping they would do better, but there were no forecasts of a major Republican victory. I think all of the pollsters and pundits hedged there forecasts and suggested that “there could be a red wave”, but the polling didn’t support it.

Kari Lake was ahead by 2.5 pts in the 538 aggregate and the outcome was within the margin of error.

What the pollsters struggle to predict is how motivated people are to vote, particularly minorities, young folks, etc.

However, the key here is to ignore places like Fox News.
 

SLUPSU

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2018
4,815
2,794
1
That sounds a bit high, but accepting the number, I’m guessing that several of those (3-5) are seats that were diluted by d’s in their own gerrymandering efforts.
I took that as a net 15. Anyway, here's another article on gerrymandering.

 

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
48,968
21,893
1
I've voted absentee twice by mail when deployed to combat zones. Both times registered Republican in PA. 2nd time went in to the registration office in person and verified my voter registration and address and picked up my mail in ballot in person before I deployed. Both times I received a letter months after the election stating that my votes were not counted because they couldn't verify my home of record address because I moved around a few times in my career (active duty military does that).

I am now registered independent and now only vote straight Republican and in person. Mail in is not accurate and easy to commit fraud. I'm 0-2 while serving my country. I think my vote should count.
OP: I fully agree that everyone's vote should count, and was dismayed to read that your vote as a service member was NOT counted - twice. Perhaps Double A's suggestion of a national holiday for Election Day would allow more people who would otherwise vote by mail to vote in person. I personally prefer in person voting because, like Double A, I enjoy the ritual of going to my local polling place and casting my ballot.

As I have mentioned various times previously in prior posts here, I also think that voters could legitimately be asked to provide personal ID, but only if ID was inexpensive to procure, could be procured by people who cannot get to the DMV (such as folks in assisted living homes and other mobility challenged people), and there was no significant delay between applying for an ID and getting one. The interests of making sure that legitimate voters are the only ones voting, and making it easier (or at least not harder) for citizens to vote should be capable of being reconciled.

I have read posts from several conservative posters here complaining of "ballot harvesting" without accompanying factual support for that having actually happened. Of course it is POSSIBLE for someone to get an elderly person's mail in ballot, take it to the assisted living home and get him or her to sign it (or forge it), and then fill in the forger's preferred election choices. But individual instances of that happening, regrettable (and felonious) as they may be, are not enough to move the needle in a nationwide or statewide election. If someone was doing this on an organized basis and "harvesting" thousands of votes, I find it hard to believe that would not come to light. If Bourbon or someone else has a credible report involving thousands of ballots being "harvested" in this manner, I for one would like to see it posted.
 

Online Persona

Well-Known Member
Feb 2, 2022
1,936
4,008
1
OP: I fully agree that everyone's vote should count, and was dismayed to read that your vote as a service member was NOT counted - twice. Perhaps Double A's suggestion of a national holiday for Election Day would allow more people who would otherwise vote by mail to vote in person. I personally prefer in person voting because, like Double A, I enjoy the ritual of going to my local polling place and casting my ballot.

As I have mentioned various times previously in prior posts here, I also think that voters could legitimately be asked to provide personal ID, but only if ID was inexpensive to procure, could be procured by people who cannot get to the DMV (such as folks in assisted living homes and other mobility challenged people), and there was no significant delay between applying for an ID and getting one. The interests of making sure that legitimate voters are the only ones voting, and making it easier (or at least not harder) for citizens to vote should be capable of being reconciled.

I have read posts from several conservative posters here complaining of "ballot harvesting" without accompanying factual support for that having actually happened. Of course it is POSSIBLE for someone to get an elderly person's mail in ballot, take it to the assisted living home and get him or her to sign it (or forge it), and then fill in the forger's preferred election choices. But individual instances of that happening, regrettable (and felonious) as they may be, are not enough to move the needle in a nationwide or statewide election. If someone was doing this on an organized basis and "harvesting" thousands of votes, I find it hard to believe that would not come to light. If Bourbon or someone else has a credible report involving thousands of ballots being "harvested" in this manner, I for one would like to see it posted.
1) A national holiday cannot be taken by everyone. I was half way across the world on election day and there was no days off, no weekends, you are there for the mission. There are mission essential jobs at home even in the civilian world.

2) My grandmother is in assisted living. It would be easy for anyone to go in there and get 50 or more ballots signed in just her building without any problems in an hour or 2. A good bit of them wouldn't have a clue what they were signing. That's 1 of 3 buildings at a singular facility. Multiply this by probably at least a thousand facilities throughout the state.
 

rutgersdave

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2004
759
398
1
It's because there's massive fraud going on. Those are the real issues people care about.

Also re: Lake it's a major red flag that a down ticket GOP no name person running for State Treasurer somehow got about 120K MORE votes than Kari. I don't believe that for a second.
Lake chased away any McCain supporters by insulting them and telling them they don’t need them. Kari Lake was so cocky and is an idiot.
 

rutgersdave

Well-Known Member
Jan 23, 2004
759
398
1
1) A national holiday cannot be taken by everyone. I was half way across the world on election day and there was no days off, no weekends, you are there for the mission. There are mission essential jobs at home even in the civilian world.

2) My grandmother is in assisted living. It would be easy for anyone to go in there and get 50 or more ballots signed in just her building without any problems in an hour or 2. A good bit of them wouldn't have a clue what they were signing. That's 1 of 3 buildings at a singular facility. Multiply this by probably at least a thousand facilities throughout the state.
Lol, Sore Loser. Go ahead and verify the results.
 

Darth_VadEER

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2010
1,450
2,145
1
I have not seen this discussed, so thought I'd throw it out there........

Is there another profession where someone is paid so much money to be inaccurate?
During this election, just about every poll had the major issues as inflation, crime, the border.....and just about every poll had republicans winning up to 54 senate seats and 40 house seats. And then came the vote.
Now I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but how does kari lake go from +11 points to losing in just one week when all the issues remained the same and there wasn't some scandal that might make a voter change his or her mind?
There is something amiss here

Most polls had Lake even, or up 2%
 
  • Like
Reactions: bourbon n blues

bourbon n blues

Well-Known Member
Nov 20, 2019
25,847
30,649
1
Lol, Sore Loser. Go ahead and verify the results.
The guy was deployed twice and had his votes disappear.
I really like mail in voting and would have no opposition to going all mail in ballots.
I've voted at the polls most of my life and the act of showing up at the polls doesn't suddenly make you a more informed voter. And seeing your neighbors at the doesn't make you more civic .
I might get a pen with a candidate's name on it or something even more useless.
And I don't think we need to make Election Day a national holiday.
Why shut everything down twice a year to vote when you can fill out a ballot at home and mail it at your convenience and still have all the stores and businesses open?
Making voting as convenient as possible improves democracy by expanding the number of people participating in government.
Idiot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WeR0206

LafayetteBear

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2009
48,968
21,893
1
1) A national holiday cannot be taken by everyone. I was half way across the world on election day and there was no days off, no weekends, you are there for the mission. There are mission essential jobs at home even in the civilian world.

2) My grandmother is in assisted living. It would be easy for anyone to go in there and get 50 or more ballots signed in just her building without any problems in an hour or 2. A good bit of them wouldn't have a clue what they were signing. That's 1 of 3 buildings at a singular facility. Multiply this by probably at least a thousand facilities throughout the state.
1. A national holiday can be taken by the majority of workers. It is not even debatable that it would promote the exercise of citizens' right to vote - in person, at polling places. You think that is a bad thing?

2. Again with the speculation, as opposed to any actual evidence that it has happened. Again, if this "ballot harvesting" you speak of occurred at a scale large enough to impact statewide or national elections, it would be impossible (not difficult, impossible) to conceal. And you have not provided me with even an anecdotal report (i.e., a single instance that it conclusively happened).
 

junior1

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
7,367
8,329
1
1. A national holiday can be taken by the majority of workers. It is not even debatable that it would promote the exercise of citizens' right to vote - in person, at polling places. You think that is a bad thing?

2. Again with the speculation, as opposed to any actual evidence that it has happened. Again, if this "ballot harvesting" you speak of occurred at a scale large enough to impact statewide or national elections, it would be impossible (not difficult, impossible) to conceal. And you have not provided me with even an anecdotal report (i.e., a single instance that it conclusively happened).
so the day off would be without pay, right?
 

Latest posts