538 is being very conservative in their predictions, according to another site I read somewhere yesterday. But she's still winning. This morning her downturn started to move up again. FL, NC, and NV have slid over into blue again, and she doesn't even need them if she gets NH, VA and PA, then she's won with 271. 272 if she gets one of Maine's district votes, which she will. Also, from what I'm reading, the polls are all underestimating the force of the Black and Latinx vote in FL, TX, and NC. I still don't think she'll turn Texas blue, though.
But I won't relax until it's over.
Yeah, I have a hard time believing Texas is in play.
But I won't relax until it's over.
Four days to go. I won't relax until the networks call it. (Because even if Trump is stupid enough to attempt a legal challenge, it won't go anywhere -- there are, after all, minimum criteria to meet in order to challenge election results, and so far his objection is "I don't like it that I'm losing" -- and this won't turn into a debacle like 2000.)
We always have dinner with a group of friends on the second Tuesday of the month, and I told Tim I'd still go (even though I want to be home watching the returns) as long as everyone understands I will be GLUED to my phone. (Dinner is from 7 to 9 at the very latest, and I know the networks won't call anything before 11:00, but still. I livestreamed the roll-call vote at the DNC; you can damn bet I want to watch the returns on this one.)
Wouldn't a challenge to the election have to be based on specific evidence of voting irregularities in a given state, and require the vote to be close enough that the results would change based on those specific votes being thrown out? I'm pretty sure the roving packs of Mexican illegals fraudulently voting in Trump's imagination wouldn't leave any actual evidence.
Wouldn't a challenge to the election have to be based on specific evidence of voting irregularities in a given state, and require the vote to be close enough that the results would change based on those specific votes being thrown out? I'm pretty sure the roving packs of Mexican illegals fraudulently voting in Trump's imagination wouldn't leave any actual evidence.
Yeah, that's exactly what I mean when I say "even if Trump is stupid enough to attempt a legal challenge, it won't go anywhere."
My dentist told me people were lining up at 5:00 this morning to see the Cubs parade. And the cafe across the street from me was sold out of bagels and croissants. They said a bunch of families were in earlier while on their way to the train station to see the parade.
Freakiest thing 538 has said recently: When the Cubs were down 3-1 in the World Series, 538 said that Trump had a better chance of winning than the Cubs had for winning the World Series.
Yeah, that's exactly what I mean when I say "even if Trump is stupid enough to attempt a legal challenge, it won't go anywhere."
I really hope he doesn't. Even if it's guaranteed to fail, the precedent that would set is horrible to think about.
My dentist told me people were lining up at 5:00 this morning to see the Cubs parade.
In her email, my coordinator told me "I made about 30 new best friends on public transportation this morning!"
My dad is having surgery on his neck on Tuesday. I may be watching results from a hospital room.
This surgery is going to be a bear. He is 72. This is neck surgery #2. They are cutting bones and attaching 2 rods and also having to cut some muscle. He will be in a lot of pain they are telling him. He will be in a collar with limited mobility for 2-3 months and he can't drive that whole time.
So, on the AAM open thread today, there's a comment from someone saying they have be anonymous because their boss reads AAM, but they had an interview on Wednesday, and [here's the question].... My staff person who I know reads AAM was out on Wednesday!! I hope she's not looking to leave, but I guess wouldn't be shocked if she were. (Not the one I don't like, a different one.)
