New Numbers Reveal Trump Is Ahead In Florida, Contradicting Media Narrative

Newly released numbers in Florida indicate a head-to-head battle for the state’s 29 electoral votes.

Republicans account for about 654,000, or 41.5 percent of the votes, while Democrats account for 638,000, or 40.5 percent of the votes Tuesday morning, according to Politico Playbook.

Florida Republicans cast 3 percent more ballots than Democrats by absentee mail-in voting in 2o12, according to NBC News. But, by Nov. 1, 2012 (five days before the Nov. 6 election date), fortunes were reversed, with Democrats turning in 3 percent more ballots. With 43 percent of the 4.3 million votes belonging to Democrats, and 40 percent belonging to registered Republicans, the results were unquestionable.

The current 1 percent advantage maintained by Republicans may not hold as in-person voting begins this week. The past two election cycles reveal that while Republicans dominate the absentee-by-mail voting bloc, such advantages are not propelling Republican nominees to a Florida victory.

Republicans cast more votes that Democrats through absentee-by-mail by a margin of 49 to 33 percent, and yet, Arizona Sen. John McCain lost Florida to then-Sen. Barack Obama by almost 3 percent. Obama defeated Romney in Florida during the 2012 election, despite Romney outperforming the president with absentee-by-mail votes.

It is worth noting that in such a turbulent election year, it is hard to determine which percentage of Republicans are supporting the top of the ticket and Republican nominee Donald Trump, and the same can be said about Democrat candidates for public office, including presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who engaged in a bruising primary battle with insurgent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders....

“This CNN Republican Strategist can’t be happy.”

the enemedia is totally lying about this as well. A couple of days ago I saw the Colorado GOP Chairman, Steve House, speak along with GOP Senate candidate Darryl Glenn, who now FINALLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY supports Trump.

Steve House flat out said that the fortunes of the entire GOP down ticket in Colorado rests entirely with the fortunes of Trump in Colorado. Period.

They got the word big time in Colorado when their switchboards and email boxes were jammed with cries of outrage when Glenn repudiated Trump a while back, and the party here didn’t seem to be fully supporting Trump.

I assume it has been pretty much the same in most other states.

But naturally the enemedia refuses to report any of this, still pounding on the GOP-won’t-support-Trump drum, which is patently untrue.

I understand there are legitimate reasons to vote early, such as the case where one must be out of town on business on Election Day.

Also, I understand that early voting is encouraged in some states, and has become commonplace, whereas in other states it is both rare and discouraged.

However, I find some of the discussion on FR about early vs not early voting a bit disturbing. For example, one FReeper actually referred to waiting to vote on Election Day as “procrastination”.

The justifications for voting early seems to fall into three groups;

1) convenience (avoiding long lines, avoiding a schedule conflict by expanding the possible voting days, avoiding a trip the the voting place).

2) psychological advantage (the appearance of momentum, or countering the same on the opposing side).

3). Avoiding an unforeseen event that may occur on voting day that might prevent voting when it’s too late to find a workaround (a natural disaster or machine malfunction).

Hold on just a minute.

Shouldn’t the pros and cons of allowing early voting all be subordinated to the overriding objective of getting a fair and accurate vote?

Whatever advantages an early voting period provides, can’t we all admit that it’s effect on the probability of getting a fair and accurate vote can only be negative?

Maybe we can sacrifice some security for convenience, but let’s at least admit that’s what we are doing.

For example, it has been argued that asking for ID may be a hardship and “suppress voting rights” of certain classes. Ok, I disagree, but if we do accept voting without ID to make it easier, let’s admit that’s the reason and that we’ve just sacrificed some degree of certainty that we have a fair and accurate vote. Because if the goal is “one citizen, one vote”, by not requiring ID, the ability to assure only voting age citizens vote, and only vote once, has just been weakened substantially.

The same can be said for early voting. All manner of voter monitoring and checking is complicated exponentially by increasing the period of time, the various ways, and the number of places in which a person can vote.

I wish there was one Election Day, where everyone must present ID in front of many witnesses and dip their right index finger in a bowl of indelible ink. Before voting, each voter must hold their inkless right index finger in the air for all to see that they have not yet voted. All voting would be done behind a curtain, but all votes would be counted in full view of the public on the day of voting.

Obviously, this isn’t the most convenient system. Adding more days, more ways, more locations, fewer witnesses, more automation, fewer restrictions, would make voting more convenient.

But we should all be honest with ourselves that EVERY change made for convenience is also a weakening of security, and a sacrifice to the accuracy and fairness of the vote. Even if voters were given the convenience of dipping not just the right index finger, but any finger they choose - the task of checking fingers for ink has just increased tenfold.

This is like saying that when I park my car, it is not worth taking my car keys out of the ignition, removing valuables, and locking my car, because then I have all this stuff to carry, I have to fumble for my keys, risk losing my keys, when I return I have to unlock the car, reload my valuables, and put the keys back in the ignition.

There is no question that doing all those things is inconvenient, but whether or not it’s WORTH doing all those things - that is a completely different question.

Shouldn’t the pros and cons of allowing early voting all be subordinated to the overriding objective of getting a fair and accurate vote?

I don't see where these objectives must, of necessity, be mutually exclusive.

Whatever advantages an early voting period provides, can’t we all admit that it’s effect on the probability of getting a fair and accurate vote can only be negative?

You may admit that if you wish, and it may be the case in your particular state. Here in Texas, the safeguards against voting multiple times in person make it nearly impossible for someone to vote in person more than once per election.

When you participate in early voting in an urban county in Texas, your voter registration number is electronically tagged in the county voter registration database the minute they issue the access code for the voting machine. At that moment, you are shown to have voted, and if you subsequently present yourself at another early voting location in that county and request a ballot, the database will show you to have already voted. The election judge will then decline your request, pointing to the fact that you voted at another location half an hour ago. If you wander across the county line to a neighboring county and request a ballot, that election judge will also decline, because you aren't registered to vote in that county.

Now, to be fair, there are rural counties in Texas where these procedures aren't used, and therein lies some potential for voter fraud, but the potential impact is commensurately lower due to the vastly reduced number of voters, most of whom are known by the local precinct personnel. If you were to ask whether Texas has sufficient safeguards against ineligible persons registering to vote, then I would have to say they are far from optimal. But that's really a different question altogether. Expanded early voting helps many more people participate in the process when they would be excluded otherwise if elections were still merely one-day affairs. And, as the Texas example demonstrates, early voting need not be a electoral fraud free-for-all.

I will concede your point that the convenience of early voting need not be mutually exclusive with securing a fair and accurate vote. Texas seems to be an example of that.

I think my point is still valid though, when directed toward the many states where there is a bias toward going to great lengths to overcome hurdles that may prevent people from voting, even though those hurdles were placed there precisely to assure the vote is fair and accurate.

Such hurdles include the fact that you are not a citizen, the fact that you have no ID, the fact that you may already have voted, the fact that you are a felon, the fact that you are deceased.

The democrats have discovered that they can win many votes by labelling these unqualified people as “disenfranchised” and pandering to them by removing the hurdles, and by making voting so easy (and profitable) for them - transporting them, registering them on the spot, paying their “expenses”, practically pulling the lever for them.

It is largely the democrats that benifit from the extended period of early voting, just as not requiring an ID benifits them.

Look, I don’t want to interfere with rules that make voting more convenient for responsible voters. What bothers me is that most of the accommodations are pushed by the democrat party to make it easier, and give them more time to drag people to the polls who otherwise would not bother to vote, and pay them to vote democrat.

That’s largely what’s happening, maybe not in Texas.

What I’d like to see is more hurdles. People should have to pass a civics test (in English) with some easy questions about our history, our founding fathers, founding documents and current events. Totally non partisan of course, but everyone should be able to pick out our flag from a group of flags, say who is currently POTUS and vp, who is running for POTUS, how many states (Obama couldn’t get that one), how many senators, maybe name two sitting Supreme Court justices. And they should want to vote enough to get themselves to a polling place, or at least make their own arrangements.

Why should people vote who have no idea who/what they are voting for, wouldn’t lift a finger to vote if they weren’t being driven there, having all expenses paid, being registered democrat on the spot, and being told who to vote for?

I attended a zoning board hearing in my small town and we began by standing and saying the pledge of allegiance and everyone who gave testimony had to be present, sign in and be sworn in with the oath that ends with “..so help me God”.

Everyone at the meeting had received a mailing but had to have enough initiative to care about the issue, remember the date, and arrange to get themselves there on time. In my case, I had to reschedule another meeting.

My point is that in civic duty there is often a self-selection process that naturally weeds out the lazy, the ignorant and the apathetic so that those involved in the decision tend to be intelligent, caring citizens.

I’m not talking about accommodations such as wheelchair ramps or microphones for the hearing impaired - I’m just saying if a bus showed up to stack the meeting with a bunch of people who obviously had no idea what the meeting was about, and they were each clutching a $20 bill and told how to vote - I’d say the system was rigged.

As it was, there was no bus, no reminders, no paid expensed, no alternate date for attending, and I’m glad.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.