ChiGoose

If Harris wins, a decent amount of the credit will go to Trump outsourcing GOTV to Musk.

A Woman Died After Being Told It Would Be a “Crime” to Intervene in Her Miscarriage at a Texas Hospital "The fetus was on the verge of coming out, its head pressed against her dilated cervix; she was 17 weeks pregnant and a miscarriage was “in progress,” doctors noted in hospital records. At that point, they should have offered to speed up the delivery or empty her uterus to stave off a deadly infection, more than a dozen medical experts told ProPublica. But when Barnica’s husband rushed to her side from his job on a construction site, she relayed what she said the medical team had told her: “They had to wait until there was no heartbeat,” he told ProPublica in Spanish. “It would be a crime to give her an abortion.” For 40 hours, the anguished 28-year-old mother prayed for doctors to help her get home to her daughter; all the while, her uterus remained exposed to bacteria. Three days after she delivered, Barnica died of an infection." *** "In a state that hadn’t banned abortion, Barnica could have immediately been offered the options that major medical organizations, including international ones, say is the standard of evidence-based care: speeding up labor with medication or a dilation and evacuation procedure to empty the uterus. “We know that the sooner you intervene in these situations, the better outcomes are,” said Dr. Steven Porter, an OB-GYN in Cleveland. But Texas’ new abortion ban had just gone into effect. It required physicians to confirm the absence of a fetal heartbeat before intervening unless there was a “medical emergency,” which the law did not define. It required doctors to make written notes on the patient’s condition and the reason abortion was necessary. The law did not account for the possibility of a future emergency, one that could develop in hours or days without intervention, doctors told ProPublica. Barnica was technically still stable. But lying in the hospital with her cervix open wider than a baseball left her uterus exposed to bacteria and placed her at high risk of developing sepsis, experts told ProPublica. Infections can move fast and be hard to control once they take hold. The scenario felt all too familiar for Dr. Leilah Zahedi-Spung, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist who used to work in Tennessee and reviewed a summary of Barnica’s records at ProPublica’s request. Abortion bans put doctors in an impossible position, she said, forcing them to decide whether to risk malpractice or a felony charge. After her state enacted one of the strictest bans in the country, she also waited to offer interventions in cases like Barnica’s until the fetal heartbeat stopped or patients showed signs of infection, praying every time that nothing would go wrong. It’s why she ultimately moved to Colorado."

Well that is certainly a new approach to voter engagement. https://x.com/jdcmedlock/status/1851655263092101355?s=46

Except that non-citizens voting rarely ever happens despite what politicians claim. It's just a boogeyman to convince people there's fraud when they lose. Even the conservative Heritage Foundation could only find 77 instances of non-citizens voting in a 24 year period. Another study found that out of 23.5 million votes in 40 jurisdictions in 2016 found a total of 30 non-citizens voting. (source) Meanwhile, some of the tools used for voter purges have had false-positive rates north of 90%. The risk of scores of non-citizens registering to vote and successfully voting in the 90 days prior to the election is infinitesimal. It's far more likely that you end up accidentally purging eligible voters from the rolls.

You're imputing motive with no evidence other than concocting a reason that makes your side in the right.

People big mad about the Virginia case do realize that it was orchestrated to cause this controversy, right? There was absolutely nothing preventing Virginia from purging voters before the 90-day deadline. They waited because they wanted the headlines. If they actually cared about this issue, they would have just done it sooner to avoid this mess.

It's exactly the opposite. Because I live in a state that has experienced rampant institutional corruption, I'm acutely aware of it and it's implications for the people. That's why I think poll watchers and election observers are a good thing (so long as they follow the rules). The GOP uses them too. The goal is literally to ensure that rules are being followed. If you have the opportunity, it could be a good thing to try yourself. Years ago, I got to be an observer on a recount. It was pretty cool to see and be a part of.

Lots of people in this thread seem unfamiliar with basic election concepts like poll watchers.

Biden’s not dead, he’s just on his way to Georgia to murder Jimmy Carter to help Harris

If you dislike inflation, you’re really gonna dislike Trump’s tariff plan…

Somebody seems to have gotten some bad news about PA voting

One of the fun parts of the right wing grift is that whenever a public official screws up so badly that it could end their career, they turn right wing because they know that audience will buy literally anything.

We did. It’s all pretty clearly documented and public. In fact, most of it was pretty well known soon after the incident occurred but it wasn’t fun so people had to make up stories about gay lovers.

Biden’s not dead, he’s just been operating their AI tool to add people to Harris’s rallies.

Only way to get there is to get an electoral system that reduces or eliminates the spoiler effect for third parties. One such system, Ranked Choice Voting, is picking up steam and would be a big improvement on the current system.

Yet another reason to have an election system that allows for third parties without the spoiler effect (like Ranked Choice): it would help prevent one-party rule by providing a path forward when one of the current two parties becomes non-competitive. The Colorado GOP may be effectively dead, but you could have a new conservative party rise without cannibalizing the vote

It's a weird thing to have an issue with since it doesn't really change anything or allow for fraud and isn't in the hands of the voter.

I'm sorry, I'm just having difficulty understanding what your concern around the 3 day rule is. According to Nevada election laws: Ballots delivered by hand have to be in by 7pm on Election Day Ballots received within three days of Election Day were almost certainly mailed on or before Election Day, so they are acceptable Ballots received four days after Election Day may have been mailed after Election Day and therefore require to have been postmarked on or before Election Day Ballots received five days after Election Day are not accepted even if postmarked on or before Election Day All ballots are verified before being counted Where is the issue here? Is the concern that hundreds or thousands of people are going to mail in their ballot the day after Election Day and have them somehow arrive within two days?

In this scenario, what is happening? Someone is stacking a bunch of ballots in a truck somewhere and then they get to the clerk's office how? They just pull the truck up and hand deliver them? At which point the clerk is going to... verify the ballots to ensure they are legitimate?

I'm sorry, what is the nefarious scenario that you are worried about if someone mails their ballot in by election day but USPS neglects to postmark it?

How fast is the mail by you? If you drop an envelope in the mail, it arrives the next day? Do you think that maybe there's a reason they will accept with a postmark for four days but without one for only three?

How is counting ballots that were almost certainly mailed on or before election day a problem?

According to the law and court ruling, the clerk may accept ballots that are postmarked up to four days after Election Day and ballots without a postmark up to three days after Election Day. According to the court: "“If a voter properly and timely casts their vote by mailing their ballot before or on the day of the election, and through a post office omission the ballot is not postmarked, it would go against public policy to discount that properly cast vote,” the justices wrote in their order. “Rejecting timely mail ballots because of postal service omissions cuts against the strong public interest in exercising the right to vote,” the justices said. “Notably, the RNC presented no evidence or allegations that counting mail ballots without postmarks under [state law] would be subject to voter fraud, or that the election security measures currently in place are inadequate to address its concerns regarding these ballots.” (source) The logic here is that if a ballot arrives within three days after Election Day, it was almost certainly mailed before Election Day given the speed of the mail. If the Post Office neglected to postmark it, that is not the fault of the voter. Additionally, once a ballot is received by the clerk, it still undergoes verification before being counted.