Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone following the GOP's latest insanity in AZ? The elections board in Cochise County refused to certify its results. They are now being sued, but if the succeed in delaying certification until the state deadline next week then the whole county's votes likely won't be included in the count, and that will be enough to flip a US House seat from R to D. What a bunch of nutcases.

Why don't the voters if that county have any recourse? Another D seat would be great but that seems terribly unfair to the voters

Some voters along with AZ Secretary of State are suing. I presume they will win and force certification, as much as I would love to see the GOP's insanity cost it a seat.

Arguments in this case are Thursday, assuming a same day decision, the board can appeal next week. That appeal won't even be docketed until after results are due.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone following the GOP's latest insanity in AZ? The elections board in Cochise County refused to certify its results. They are now being sued, but if the succeed in delaying certification until the state deadline next week then the whole county's votes likely won't be included in the count, and that will be enough to flip a US House seat from R to D. What a bunch of nutcases.

Why don't the voters if that county have any recourse? Another D seat would be great but that seems terribly unfair to the voters

Some voters along with AZ Secretary of State are suing. I presume they will win and force certification, as much as I would love to see the GOP's insanity cost it a seat.

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone following the GOP's latest insanity in AZ? The elections board in Cochise County refused to certify its results. They are now being sued, but if the succeed in delaying certification until the state deadline next week then the whole county's votes likely won't be included in the count, and that will be enough to flip a US House seat from R to D. What a bunch of nutcases.

It just gets funnier the further you read

"Facing two lawsuits with urgent deadlines, the Cochise County supervisors voted Tuesday to hire an outside attorney, even though no one had received confirmation that the lawyer would take the case.

The vote to hire Bryan Blehm of Valley Law Group came as the board faces a 5 p.m. Wednesday deadline to respond to two lawsuits triggered by the board's decision not to certify results of the Nov. 8 election.

...

The unanimous decision to hire Blehm came even as efforts to contact him and ensure his interest did not bring any response. Supervisor Peggy Judd said she was confident he would agree, noting he has a copy of the lawsuits.

...

It was unclear, if Blehm agreed to represent the supervisors, how he would be paid. Supervisors Judd and Tom Crosby have said they are looking at private funding, or perhaps free legal services. Judd in particular has said she doesn't want to burden taxpayers with legal fees. County administrator Richard Karwaczka said he's received legal advice that the board can't take donations for a specific purpose, such as paying attorneys, and referenced a law, passed last year, that bars the use of private funds for election purposes.

...

Both cases have been assigned to Pima County Superior Court Judge Casey McGinley, who has handled litigation over the board's attempts to require a hand count of ballots. Late Tuesday, McGinley consolidated the two cases, as they both address the same issue.

The cases are scheduled for a 1 p.m. hearing Thursday.

That raised an objection from Crosby, who questioned who set the date. He pointed to a meeting the board would hold at 10 a.m. Friday, suggesting the litigation should come after that.

Crosby was told the court sets the rules when it comes to lawsuits."

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/elections/2022/11/29/cochise-county-supervisors-meet-to-hire-attorney-in-election-lawsuits/69686195007/

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone following the GOP's latest insanity in AZ? The elections board in Cochise County refused to certify its results. They are now being sued, but if the succeed in delaying certification until the state deadline next week then the whole county's votes likely won't be included in the count, and that will be enough to flip a US House seat from R to D. What a bunch of nutcases.

I think it might also flip the Superintendent of Schools from R to D as well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone following the GOP's latest insanity in AZ? The elections board in Cochise County refused to certify its results. They are now being sued, but if the succeed in delaying certification until the state deadline next week then the whole county's votes likely won't be included in the count, and that will be enough to flip a US House seat from R to D. What a bunch of nutcases.

Why don't the voters if that county have any recourse? Another D seat would be great but that seems terribly unfair to the voters

They voted for these idiots

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone following the GOP's latest insanity in AZ? The elections board in Cochise County refused to certify its results. They are now being sued, but if the succeed in delaying certification until the state deadline next week then the whole county's votes likely won't be included in the count, and that will be enough to flip a US House seat from R to D. What a bunch of nutcases.

Why don't the voters if that county have any recourse? Another D seat would be great but that seems terribly unfair to the voters

Is anyone following the GOP's latest insanity in AZ? The elections board in Cochise County refused to certify its results. They are now being sued, but if the succeed in delaying certification until the state deadline next week then the whole county's votes likely won't be included in the count, and that will be enough to flip a US House seat from R to D. What a bunch of nutcases.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can go back about 30 pages where I posted that the aggregate polling data was polluted with crappy GOP polling. The likes of CNN bought it and tried to sell it, but all it did was further energize the left, except in places where voter suppression and gerrymandering were successful (ie FL and WI)

+1 “In reality, an aggregation of nonpartisan polls predicted the correct winner in every Senate battleground and would have predicted the margin substantially more accurately than the partisan GOP pollsters which flooded the averages in almost every major race.

These Republican firms, such as the Trafalgar Group, overstated Republican strength by roughly 3 points more than the non-partisan polls. Trafalgar, for instance, showed the GOP with a closing advantage in New Hampshire, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona. In states that saw Democratic blowouts, such as Washington and Colorado, they (incorrectly) showed tight races within the margin of error. In nearly every case, they look to have missed the mark substantially.”
https://www.thebulwark.com/the-nonpartisan-polls-were-fine-actually/

What is a partisan poll? Wouldn't that have a biased result be definitions? Why would those have any value to anyone? Who pays for that?

Political campaigns and dark money PACs pay for the partisan polls. There’s been a massive proliferation of GOP aligned polling outlets in the last 3 years.

The poll aggregators shouldn’t even bother including partisan pollsters in the future.

Ok..but why? Why are they paying for partisan polls? They are not accurate so what is the value they provide?

The conduct a poll, it goes in their favor (being partisan), and then they announce the results as if it is a valid poll. People hear it and they get swayed by them. Same way that name recognition drives votes (thus, all the campaign signs).

What news organizations report the results of biased polls? If they are doing that, they are probably already partisan with a partisan audience so who cares? It changes nothing? I don't get why someone would pay for a biased poll. It sounds like they try to sway voters that are already swayed.

In the case of Trafalgar and Rasmussen, all of them.

That's disappointing. Garbage in garbage out. It seems these biased polls were pretty worthless.

Agreed, but they’re both broken clocks who were right in 2016 when lots of others were wrong. Hopefully everyone recognizes now that always thinking that Republicans will win doesn’t get you an A rating.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can go back about 30 pages where I posted that the aggregate polling data was polluted with crappy GOP polling. The likes of CNN bought it and tried to sell it, but all it did was further energize the left, except in places where voter suppression and gerrymandering were successful (ie FL and WI)

+1 “In reality, an aggregation of nonpartisan polls predicted the correct winner in every Senate battleground and would have predicted the margin substantially more accurately than the partisan GOP pollsters which flooded the averages in almost every major race.

These Republican firms, such as the Trafalgar Group, overstated Republican strength by roughly 3 points more than the non-partisan polls. Trafalgar, for instance, showed the GOP with a closing advantage in New Hampshire, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona. In states that saw Democratic blowouts, such as Washington and Colorado, they (incorrectly) showed tight races within the margin of error. In nearly every case, they look to have missed the mark substantially.”
https://www.thebulwark.com/the-nonpartisan-polls-were-fine-actually/

What is a partisan poll? Wouldn't that have a biased result be definitions? Why would those have any value to anyone? Who pays for that?

Political campaigns and dark money PACs pay for the partisan polls. There’s been a massive proliferation of GOP aligned polling outlets in the last 3 years.

The poll aggregators shouldn’t even bother including partisan pollsters in the future.

Ok..but why? Why are they paying for partisan polls? They are not accurate so what is the value they provide?

The conduct a poll, it goes in their favor (being partisan), and then they announce the results as if it is a valid poll. People hear it and they get swayed by them. Same way that name recognition drives votes (thus, all the campaign signs).

What news organizations report the results of biased polls? If they are doing that, they are probably already partisan with a partisan audience so who cares? It changes nothing? I don't get why someone would pay for a biased poll. It sounds like they try to sway voters that are already swayed.

In the case of Trafalgar and Rasmussen, all of them.

That's disappointing. Garbage in garbage out. It seems these biased polls were pretty worthless.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can go back about 30 pages where I posted that the aggregate polling data was polluted with crappy GOP polling. The likes of CNN bought it and tried to sell it, but all it did was further energize the left, except in places where voter suppression and gerrymandering were successful (ie FL and WI)

+1 “In reality, an aggregation of nonpartisan polls predicted the correct winner in every Senate battleground and would have predicted the margin substantially more accurately than the partisan GOP pollsters which flooded the averages in almost every major race.

These Republican firms, such as the Trafalgar Group, overstated Republican strength by roughly 3 points more than the non-partisan polls. Trafalgar, for instance, showed the GOP with a closing advantage in New Hampshire, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona. In states that saw Democratic blowouts, such as Washington and Colorado, they (incorrectly) showed tight races within the margin of error. In nearly every case, they look to have missed the mark substantially.”
https://www.thebulwark.com/the-nonpartisan-polls-were-fine-actually/

What is a partisan poll? Wouldn't that have a biased result be definitions? Why would those have any value to anyone? Who pays for that?

Political campaigns and dark money PACs pay for the partisan polls. There’s been a massive proliferation of GOP aligned polling outlets in the last 3 years.

The poll aggregators shouldn’t even bother including partisan pollsters in the future.

Ok..but why? Why are they paying for partisan polls? They are not accurate so what is the value they provide?

The conduct a poll, it goes in their favor (being partisan), and then they announce the results as if it is a valid poll. People hear it and they get swayed by them. Same way that name recognition drives votes (thus, all the campaign signs).

What news organizations report the results of biased polls? If they are doing that, they are probably already partisan with a partisan audience so who cares? It changes nothing? I don't get why someone would pay for a biased poll. It sounds like they try to sway voters that are already swayed.

In the case of Trafalgar and Rasmussen, all of them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can go back about 30 pages where I posted that the aggregate polling data was polluted with crappy GOP polling. The likes of CNN bought it and tried to sell it, but all it did was further energize the left, except in places where voter suppression and gerrymandering were successful (ie FL and WI)

+1 “In reality, an aggregation of nonpartisan polls predicted the correct winner in every Senate battleground and would have predicted the margin substantially more accurately than the partisan GOP pollsters which flooded the averages in almost every major race.

These Republican firms, such as the Trafalgar Group, overstated Republican strength by roughly 3 points more than the non-partisan polls. Trafalgar, for instance, showed the GOP with a closing advantage in New Hampshire, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona. In states that saw Democratic blowouts, such as Washington and Colorado, they (incorrectly) showed tight races within the margin of error. In nearly every case, they look to have missed the mark substantially.”
https://www.thebulwark.com/the-nonpartisan-polls-were-fine-actually/

What is a partisan poll? Wouldn't that have a biased result be definitions? Why would those have any value to anyone? Who pays for that?

Political campaigns and dark money PACs pay for the partisan polls. There’s been a massive proliferation of GOP aligned polling outlets in the last 3 years.

The poll aggregators shouldn’t even bother including partisan pollsters in the future.

Ok..but why? Why are they paying for partisan polls? They are not accurate so what is the value they provide?

The conduct a poll, it goes in their favor (being partisan), and then they announce the results as if it is a valid poll. People hear it and they get swayed by them. Same way that name recognition drives votes (thus, all the campaign signs).

What news organizations report the results of biased polls? If they are doing that, they are probably already partisan with a partisan audience so who cares? It changes nothing? I don't get why someone would pay for a biased poll. It sounds like they try to sway voters that are already swayed.

Didn’t what’s his name in 538 defend his use of crap polling.
How did that work out for him?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can go back about 30 pages where I posted that the aggregate polling data was polluted with crappy GOP polling. The likes of CNN bought it and tried to sell it, but all it did was further energize the left, except in places where voter suppression and gerrymandering were successful (ie FL and WI)

+1 “In reality, an aggregation of nonpartisan polls predicted the correct winner in every Senate battleground and would have predicted the margin substantially more accurately than the partisan GOP pollsters which flooded the averages in almost every major race.

These Republican firms, such as the Trafalgar Group, overstated Republican strength by roughly 3 points more than the non-partisan polls. Trafalgar, for instance, showed the GOP with a closing advantage in New Hampshire, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona. In states that saw Democratic blowouts, such as Washington and Colorado, they (incorrectly) showed tight races within the margin of error. In nearly every case, they look to have missed the mark substantially.”
https://www.thebulwark.com/the-nonpartisan-polls-were-fine-actually/

What is a partisan poll? Wouldn't that have a biased result be definitions? Why would those have any value to anyone? Who pays for that?

Political campaigns and dark money PACs pay for the partisan polls. There’s been a massive proliferation of GOP aligned polling outlets in the last 3 years.

The poll aggregators shouldn’t even bother including partisan pollsters in the future.

Ok..but why? Why are they paying for partisan polls? They are not accurate so what is the value they provide?

The conduct a poll, it goes in their favor (being partisan), and then they announce the results as if it is a valid poll. People hear it and they get swayed by them. Same way that name recognition drives votes (thus, all the campaign signs).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New York Democratic candidates for Congress on Long Island and in Hudson Valley were dumbasses who ran stupid campaigns. They expected the Democratic Party and the Governor’s race to drag them to victory as usual, but this was never a coattails election in NY after the Cuomo machine went down. The candidates needed to get off their asses and work their districts for votes.

NO
Catholic MAGA voted Republican when their parents had. voted for dem for years.

This is a demographic DNC has failed to notice and it is growing at an exponential rate in NY> The stupidity of Statan Island and Long Island North shore is stunning. I am from there Northport NY St Anthony told people how to vote. Morons can not think for themselves and the church should be taxed.

Youngkin won on this demographic while highly educated Catholic women who are afraid for their darling white sons.

Next Orthodox Jews also growing also Maga idiots. Like the Nazi Republicans won't come for them too.

China is most afraid of evangelical Christianity in their country. You are in good company

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can go back about 30 pages where I posted that the aggregate polling data was polluted with crappy GOP polling. The likes of CNN bought it and tried to sell it, but all it did was further energize the left, except in places where voter suppression and gerrymandering were successful (ie FL and WI)

+1 “In reality, an aggregation of nonpartisan polls predicted the correct winner in every Senate battleground and would have predicted the margin substantially more accurately than the partisan GOP pollsters which flooded the averages in almost every major race.

These Republican firms, such as the Trafalgar Group, overstated Republican strength by roughly 3 points more than the non-partisan polls. Trafalgar, for instance, showed the GOP with a closing advantage in New Hampshire, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona. In states that saw Democratic blowouts, such as Washington and Colorado, they (incorrectly) showed tight races within the margin of error. In nearly every case, they look to have missed the mark substantially.”
https://www.thebulwark.com/the-nonpartisan-polls-were-fine-actually/

What is a partisan poll? Wouldn't that have a biased result be definitions? Why would those have any value to anyone? Who pays for that?

Political campaigns and dark money PACs pay for the partisan polls. There’s been a massive proliferation of GOP aligned polling outlets in the last 3 years.

The poll aggregators shouldn’t even bother including partisan pollsters in the future.

Ok..but why? Why are they paying for partisan polls? They are not accurate so what is the value they provide?