No. That means fraud.
Thank god Mitch & McCarthy are all over this voter integrity thing.
Somebody should ask her: “Who told you that, Karina?”
“...The First Lady, told me! Why?”
Anyone else wonder, why it was, back in the days of paper ballots, that election results were known promptly?
Now with computerized systems, vote counting can continue for weeks???
the new normal
and democrats are always supposed to win in order to save democracy
Nah....they’re stalling to cheat. h question is in what way have they orchestrated it.
You know, this cheating thing we always do. This is how it’s supposed to work.
She’s not lying. Right in your face.
Great cheating takes time, bro.
Tell that to Germany, France, Italy, the UK etc who all manage to get their election results same day with no problem at all.
Indeed. They have so corrupted the voting process this is where we are. We must win tomorrow by undeniable margins, margins impervious to mystery ballots and phantom mail-ins.
And if they deny us the ballot box, the only alternative is the ammo box.
NO IT ISN'T YOU IGNORANT B*TCH!
Affirmative action, in your face, flat out failure and lier.
Yeah, only in the third world country from which you were raised, K Jean Token.
The setup has begun.
Why are they all saying this before the election even happened??????
There’s only one answer... Because they all know what is coming!
... and they know why it has to be this way.
The counting goes on as long as it take for the Democrat to pull ahead. And THEN the “election” is over.
When there is a long, drawn out process, it is usually the Dem candidate trying to get the upper hand. It almost always works in their favor.
Look, this is just ramping up the process that began in Florida in the aftermath of the 2000 Presidential election. The objective is to use process changes and technology in voting to create DELIBERATE AMBIGUITY about the results to enable increasingly inventive forms of cheating.
The first time I remember going with my Dad when he voted was 1960, New York had these wonderful mechanical voting machines where you changed the state of a mechanical lever to vote, and opened the curtain with a big red lever which locked your votes and reset the levers. These machines were invented to limit paper ballot cheating, but like paper ballots, they would yield a tally by the early morning hours of the following day, and that was that. Yes, you could recount the ballots or re-tally the machines, but the results existed in physical form in the possession of authorities (i.e., the results were “analog”). In essence, “Election Day” was when everything happened and by Wednesday morning it was over.
What has been happening since 2000 (and maybe before) is the use of media, and technology, to create a condition where nobody knows what the result truly is - nobody knows how many votes were cast, nobody knows which votes count and which ones don’t, and the final tally can change for days and even weeks (or until the Democrat wins). Most of the results, and now a lot of the votes themselves, are no longer analog but digital, and exist only as an ordered set of electrons, subject to change in many ways by many people.
This has created a fundamental change in public perception, and you can see it even here on FR. People go on and on about whether or not a winner has been “declared”, usually by media people who have no access to the real data. As electronic voting, and now even apps meant to run on handhelds, define reality, we may be approaching or already be at the point where most people are accepting of the proposition that “nobody knows who won, we have to rerun the program, we have to call in the experts, it was Russian bots, it was Craig Livingstone, etc., etc.).
This problem is of course compounded by early voting, mail-in voting, drop boxes, absentee voting, overseas voting, etc.
On election night in 1932, everybody knew that FDR had won a big victory - that in a country with no electronic media, no computers, and half paralyzed by depression. On election night in 1952, there were more votes for Eisenhower than Stevenson, and everybody knew THAT.
Eight years ago (a century in digital years), Hugh Hewitt wrote a book called, “If It’s Not Close, They Can’t Cheat”. As long as people believe that only digital wizards can actually determine the result, that may no longer be true.
If we could conduct and tally elections in 1932 and 1952, we should be able to do it now - except that would upset our masters, who have worked so hard to create the status quo. They certainly won’t give it up without a fight.