Why Did The Dems Do So Bad In The Senate and House?

[larsIU]

And the Democrats had an unlikable message for a significant part of the country. They are now the bourgeois party...at least that is the opinion of many people. A party of people who feel superior to a large group. Superior to minorities (You are not black if you don't vote for me), superior to religious people, superior to non college educated, superior to rural hicks, etc.

Twenty made a great point about the shifting political sands by noting it creates strange bedfellows. I think this has merit. Certainly in the Democratic party there are elites who look down their noses at various groups of people. However, to say the Dems are becoming the party of the elite while advocating positions like college debt forgiveness, an increased minimum wage, MFA, and more progressive tax policies engenders a certain logical fallacy, no? Possibly both could be true, but you'd have to believe the elite Dems are just offering pittances to the unwashed masses in order to garner enough support to stay in power. That's awfully cynical.

I do think the Republican's America First/populist message has power, especially in poorer working class parts of the country that, in years past, would have been more inclined to vote Dem. Even in minority neighborhoods. The Dems should, rightfully, be scared of the power of this message not only b/c it is easy to deliver/sloganeer but also because it has some level of merit. The Dems are in a tough spot. If they truly do become the party of free trade and regulating where necessary they risk losing those voters. If they move to the progressive left and further advocate policies which would have a material benefit to the working poor at the expense of the higher wage earners they risk being called socialists.

 

[mcmurtry66]

You mention waitresses, and you mention ACA. Almost no one in the food industry has employer based health insurance. You do not think waitresses benefitted from being able to buy on the exchanges? You do not think waitresses benefitted from having pre-existing conditions eliminated? You do not think waitresses under 25 benefitted from being able to stay on their parent's plan?

We could have funded the entire restaurant industry for a year for well under $800 billion. We could have guaranteed every restaurant paid every rent, we could have paid every salary. It wasn't liberals that would have said "hell no". I just don't understand how that part of the message doesn't get out.

we ALL benefited from having pre-existing conditions eliminated. as for the rest of ACA i'd be interested to see a non biased or industry paid for study on the costs of health insurance pre vs. post ACA. in my experience health insurance has skyrocketed since ACA, but that's purely anecdotal. as for the cries of aca helping all the poor i've never really understood that claim. it could very well be true but medicaid covers poorer folks. in my experience many eligible for same never bothered to apply

 

[IU_Hickory]

Voters also understand that because Pelosi believed a blue wave was inevitable, she refused to compromise and accept a deal offered by the White House for a 2nd stimulus agreement. She couldn't accept less than her $2.2 trillion deal, which included proposals with many of the traditional Democratic handouts to special interests.

That's bs. Pelosi met halfway between their original amount and Trump's amount but Trump wouldn't budge.

Stop watching fake news and actually understand what went on.

 

[IU_Hickory]

Very dumb.

I don't think you are intelligent enough to give an opinion on someone else

 

[Sope Creek]

I don't think you are intelligent enough to give an opinion on someone else

He's highly intelligent . . . he's just forgotten how to use it, preferring emotion over substance . . . .

 

[Marvin the Martian]

we ALL benefited from having pre-existing conditions eliminated. as for the rest of ACA i'd be interested to see a non biased or industry paid for study on the costs of health insurance pre vs. post ACA. in my experience health insurance has skyrocketed since ACA, but that's purely anecdotal. as for the cries of aca helping all the poor i've never really understood that claim. it could very well be true but medicaid covers poorer folks. in my experience many eligible for same never bothered to apply

Medicaid expansion was part of ACA. In states that expanded Medicaid enrollment went up 32.6%. In states that did not, it went up 3.6%. In states that expanded Medicaid per ACA, more working poor gained access.

Also there are working poor who make more than Medicaid allows. Medicaid in Indiana generally has a $30,336 limit for a family of three (from table at https://www.in.gov/medicaid/members/59.htm). So someone making $33,000 with a family of three is hardly wealthy yet not necessarily Medicaid eligible (they might be depending on other factors).

The US median household income is around $68,000 (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N). For a family of three or four without employer-based insurance, health insurance costs can still be a tremendous burden. Heck, with employer-based health insurance it still can be something.

 

[mcmurtry66]

Medicaid expansion was part of ACA. In states that expanded Medicaid enrollment went up 32.6%. In states that did not, it went up 3.6%. In states that expanded Medicaid per ACA, more working poor gained access.

Also there are working poor who make more than Medicaid allows. Medicaid in Indiana generally has a $30,336 limit for a family of three (from table at https://www.in.gov/medicaid/members/59.htm). So someone making $33,000 with a family of three is hardly wealthy yet not necessarily Medicaid eligible (they might be depending on other factors).

The US median household income is around $68,000 (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N). For a family of three or four without employer-based insurance, health insurance costs can still be a tremendous burden. Heck, with employer-based health insurance it still can be something.

Good info. Thanks.

 

[82hoosier]

I was listening to something the other day regarding speculation as to why the polling data was so off and the comment was made that people that believe in the deep state or that Bill Gates is injecting microchips into people are going to be highly suspicious of responding to pollsters. So polling may not capture the paranoid vote.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Populist movements ebb and flow in America. Jackson was a populist. Joe McCarthy made quite a name for himself under populism. The Democratic Party broke in 68 and 72 with Wallace populism. So far populism hasn't proven to have real staying power, it more has the ability to unite under some personality they find magnetic.

The Democrats have an interesting problem. For a generation, they were beaten over the head by Republicans as protectionist and anti-trade. So the Democratic party shifted somewhat and became free-trade. So the GOP says, "AHA, you can't trust free trade" and beats them over the head with that.

We will see if the populists can stay united this time.

I think it is wrong headed to believe that the trade question is black or white. To me there is an idea that you want a mostly equal footing when it comes to trade. Free AND Fair. We have "free" trade with the Europeans but our companies are forced to follow certain rules when trading with them. The Euros also put their thumb on the scales for certain sectors of their industry. And this is done to protect their labor. I think that is the job of government. To find that middle ground with places like Europe where we can agree on a fair level of trade that does not screw over our respective populations.

Really, for that topic though, China is the problem. Look, our corporations are willing to pay a steep price in order to operate in the Chinese markets. They basically sign off on proprietary information so that eventually some Chinese company will make a cheap knock off of the product they are producing and lose market share. U.S. Corporations are willing to pay those kinds of prices to overcome barriers to entry so that they have access to that growing market while at the same time arguing that it is just too expensive to employ folks here...or pay the kind of taxes required for a functioning society here. They go to places like Europe and abide by much more labor friendly rules in those countries while scoffing at the idea that American workers should get paid leave (if hourly wages are used instead of salaried).

I think there is a window of acceptability between what is good for labor and what is good for business. I think it was too far left when Reagan pushed it to the right and now it is too far to the right. I do not want things like UBI or the dirty "s" word. That becomes the reality when you have the type of inequality we have now between the corporate global elites and the moneyed interests and people in the mid to lower classes. I want them to make their money and I want them to keep a fair share of what they are entitled. However, I think that we are well past time where they should be forced to invest in this country if they want continued access to the American consumer. They are willing to throw away almost anything to get in the Chinese market, is it really too much to ask them to kick in some investments here? And I don't just mean the type of investments where they get a huge tax break to settle their business somewhere and then say they are offsetting that loss of revenue with job creation. Yeah, you created jobs, but there is more to a community than that...particularly if the wage you pay is not high enough for your employees to actually pay taxes (or you pay so low that your employees need government assistance to get by anyway, looking at you Walmart).

We have crumbling roads, poor education system, behind our competitors in technological infrastructure (think high speed internet), an aging power grid, and the list can go on....and all of these things are sitting out there while our champions of industry say that they need to pay less to stick around and that they are forced to leave because the labor costs are too high and they cannot find the type of employees they need and yada, yada, yada.

The window needs to shift a bit.

 

[IU_Hickory]

 

[Sope Creek]

I was listening to something the other day regarding speculation as to why the polling data was so off and the comment was made that people that believe in the deep state or that Bill Gates is injecting microchips into people are going to be highly suspicious of responding to pollsters. So polling may not capture the paranoid vote.

Election polls are more accurate if they ask participants how others will vote

Most people know quite a bit about their friends and family, including how happy and healthy they are and roughly how much money they make. It turns out this knowledge of others extends to politics, too.

www.niemanlab.org

I heard a radio story - NPR I think - about how one pollster was more accurate, and they attribute it to their asking how they think their friends and family were likely to vote. It might have been a story about neimanlab, I don't recall . . . .

 

[IUCrazy2]

You mention waitresses, and you mention ACA. Almost no one in the food industry has employer based health insurance. You do not think waitresses benefitted from being able to buy on the exchanges? You do not think waitresses benefitted from having pre-existing conditions eliminated? You do not think waitresses under 25 benefitted from being able to stay on their parent's plan?

We could have funded the entire restaurant industry for a year for well under $800 billion. We could have guaranteed every restaurant paid every rent, we could have paid every salary. It wasn't liberals that would have said "hell no". I just don't understand how that part of the message doesn't get out.

In your question about the ACA, short answer...not really. Theoretically I can see why you may think that would be the case, but in practice, no I don't think it helped much because the ACA is still cost prohibitive to people who live check to check.

As to funding the entire Restaurant industry, that's a no from me. There were other avenues available between shutting it all down and funding industry for it and "oh my God, you just want to kill people with this virus".

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

I see the neighbor's 8 year old taught you how to 'selfie"..

 

[StelioKontos]

I see the neighbor's 8 year old taught you how to 'selfie"..

Collections Search - United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

collections.ushmm.org

Forget shooting horses. They hang Nazis, don't they?

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

He's highly intelligent . . . he's just forgotten how to use it, preferring emotion over substance . . . .

If emotion were driving my interactions herein, I would have way more than three on ignore.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

If emotion were driving my interactions herein, I would have way more than three on ignore.

3?
What a puss.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

In your question about the ACA, short answer...not really. Theoretically I can see why you may think that would be the case, but in practice, no I don't think it helped much because the ACA is still cost prohibitive to people who live check to check.

As to funding the entire Restaurant industry, that's a no from me. There were other avenues available between shutting it all down and funding industry for it and "oh my God, you just want to kill people with this virus".

But ACA allowed an expansion of Medicaid, and many states took advantage of that. https://indiana.forums.rivals.com/t...d-in-the-senate-and-house.202916/post-3043938. Many of those are going to be waitresses, cooks, Wal*Mart cashiers, etc.

Restaurants haven't been totally shut down in months and they are suffering. Take-out and outdoor dining are just ventilators to get them through. Many workers have lost their jobs, and many owners have lost their business. Restaurants depend on packed seating every Friday and Saturday night, they don't have that nor would they with no limits whatsoever. About half the population isn't going to go to a packed restaurant right now no matter what. I suspect the number is over half. Are we going to pass a law requiring people to go to restaurants?

We screwed up by not reauthorizing unemployment bonuses to people out of work. I hear people say there is so much pent-up demand that once COVID is over the economy will roar back. That only works if enough people have money to do things to drive the economy upward. If enough people are hurting and are scrimping by, there isn't going to be some explosion of economic activity.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

3?
What a puss.

4

 

[TommyCracker]

Was "Defund the police" a Demo slogan or a Pub slogan to describe what Dems wanted knowing it would offend even Dems?

Agree the slogan "Demilitarize the police" would more resemble what both many Dems and Pubs really want.

I preferred 'expand the police'.

All we are talking about is giving the police more resources and options to better serve the community.

While also asking that our police become more community focused....meaning get out and meet the actual members of the society that you protect.

Maybe 'Humanize the police' would work.

Definitely not 'defund' which sounds like 'eliminate'.

 

[UncleMark]

I was listening to something the other day regarding speculation as to why the polling data was so off and the comment was made that people that believe in the deep state or that Bill Gates is injecting microchips into people are going to be highly suspicious of responding to pollsters. So polling may not capture the paranoid vote.

That's what they want you to believe.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

It was a protest/BLM slogan in response to the George Floyd/Breonna Taylor shootings that Pubs picked up to define Democrats for the election cycle . . . .

It didn't help that many of the activists shouting that slogan literally meant to abolish police. This wasn't helpful to the election prospects of Democrats.

 

[twenty02]

In your question about the ACA, short answer...not really. Theoretically I can see why you may think that would be the case, but in practice, no I don't think it helped much because the ACA is still cost prohibitive to people who live check to check.

As to funding the entire Restaurant industry, that's a no from me. There were other avenues available between shutting it all down and funding industry for it and "oh my God, you just want to kill people with this virus".

Health insurance didn't magically get cheaper, the ACA just provided a subsidy for it. There are roughly 8-9m people that use it. It's not some magic bullet, nor is it the socialist takeover of medicine.

The individual market was always a small slice and most of the country gets their insurance elsewhere. But it's a program that is still better than the status quo before.

 

[Cortez88]

Health insurance didn't magically get cheaper, the ACA just provided a subsidy for it. There are roughly 8-9m people that use it. It's not some magic bullet, nor is it the socialist takeover of medicine.

The individual market was always a small slice and most of the country gets their insurance elsewhere. But it's a program that is still better than the status quo before.

Im a broken record here, but ACA gave people an opportunity to purchase insurance. I was out in the individual market before ACA. Insurance companies had no obligation to offer you coverage regardless of what you would be willing to pay. We were a young healthy family and ended up paying $800 a month with a $10k deductible.

 

[Spartans9312]

The Hill: "Rep Golden votes for decorated Iraq war vet Sen. Duckworth for Speaker"
Pelosi was the cause of Dems losing a dozen seats for stalling stimulus...she will still win but will be considerably weaker

 

[Spartans9312]

NBC: "Rep Conor Lamb votes for Rep Hakeem Jeffries - 2nd Dem to defect"

 

[Morrison]

The Hill: "Rep Golden votes for decorated Iraq war vet Sen. Duckworth for Speaker"
Pelosi was the cause of Dems losing a dozen seats for stalling stimulus...she will still win but will be considerably weaker

I think it would be hard for a Senator to be Speaker of the House. 🤫

 

[DANC]

Don't
Don't those down ballot races generally trend away from the incumbent President? Are we supposed to believe that voters selected these house Republicans yet scratched their party leader for a nearly hapless placeholder and his replacement?
Sounds believable to no one.

Especially since Trump has a 95% approval rating with Republicans.

 

[DANC]

The generally apolitically-minded American voters among us are not anti-GOP, but they are anti-asshole. So they voted against the asshole at the top, then split their votes for other choices.

I guess you won't be running for public office then.

 

[Harry Hondo]

Especially since Trump has a 95% approval rating with Republicans.

You’re underestimating the number of independents that vote. It’s common knowledge that Trump lost educated voters in the suburbs. Many may usually vote republican, but not registered as such, and they obviously felt comfortable voting for the conservative congressional and senate candidates, but not Trump. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

One more thing, you guys always say the polls are inaccurate, but now you want to use them to prove your point?

 

[DANC]

You’re underestimating the number of independents that vote. It’s common knowledge that Trump lost educated voters in the suburbs. Many may usually vote republican, but not registered as such, and they obviously felt comfortable voting for the conservative congressional and senate candidates, but not Trump. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

One more thing, you guys always say the polls are inaccurate, but now you want to use them to prove your point?

I'm not saying the polls are accurate all of a sudden. I'm being sarcastic when I quote any poll.

But for those who consider polls Gospel, it's an interesting conundrum.

What I find interesting are the ballots that only voted for President. That, and the record number of registration of voters over 90 years of age.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I'm not saying the polls are accurate all of a sudden. I'm being sarcastic when I quote any poll.

But for those who consider polls Gospel, it's an interesting conundrum.

What I find interesting are the ballots that only voted for President. That, and the record number of registration of voters over 90 years of age.

Only voting for president happens all the time. https://www.king5.com/amp/article/n...dent/507-683eff6b-be69-4902-8302-d85085fe5c0b. I don't get people who go to football games but do not arrive early enough to watch warmups, but it happens for some unknown reason

 

[cosmickid]

I'm not saying the polls are accurate all of a sudden. I'm being sarcastic when I quote any poll.

But for those who consider polls Gospel, it's an interesting conundrum.

What I find interesting are the ballots that only voted for President. That, and the record number of registration of voters over 90 years of age.

"That, and the record number of registration of voters over 90 years of age."

Since you're posting that as a supposed "fact", can you give us a link? TIA...

Did some research on my own and found this...

"He also claimed that the state reported that 3.1 million mail-in ballots were sent out, but the number was 2.7 million “the day before the election.” Pennsylvania, in a filing responding to the lawsuit, noted that Mr. Ryan’s analysis was “fundamentally faulty” and that the 3.1 million figure included 2.7 million mail-in ballots and 400,000 absentee ballots." (Even a math dummy like me can add 2.7 Million and 400,000 and find it equals 3,1 Million...

"Additionally, Mr. Ryan expressed skepticism that more than 1,500 voters reported being over 100 years old. But that figure includes dozens of instances where a birthday is entered as Jan. 1, 1900, as a placeholder. It is also consistent with reports from the census and the Centers for Disease for Control and Prevention on the number of people that age in Pennsylvania and the United States."

The election is over, but Ron Johnson keeps promoting false claims of fraud. (Published 2020)

At a Senate hearing, witnesses made legal arguments and claims that courts have called “meritless” or otherwise dismissed.

www.nytimes.com

 

[DANC]

"That, and the record number of registration of voters over 90 years of age."

Since you're posting that as a supposed "fact", can you give us a link? TIA...

Did some research on my own and found this...

"He also claimed that the state reported that 3.1 million mail-in ballots were sent out, but the number was 2.7 million “the day before the election.” Pennsylvania, in a filing responding to the lawsuit, noted that Mr. Ryan’s analysis was “fundamentally faulty” and that the 3.1 million figure included 2.7 million mail-in ballots and 400,000 absentee ballots." (Even a math dummy like me can add 2.7 Million and 400,000 and find it equals 3,1 Million...

"Additionally, Mr. Ryan expressed skepticism that more than 1,500 voters reported being over 100 years old. But that figure includes dozens of instances where a birthday is entered as Jan. 1, 1900, as a placeholder. It is also consistent with reports from the census and the Centers for Disease for Control and Prevention on the number of people that age in Pennsylvania and the United States."

The election is over, but Ron Johnson keeps promoting false claims of fraud. (Published 2020)

At a Senate hearing, witnesses made legal arguments and claims that courts have called “meritless” or otherwise dismissed.

www.nytimes.com

Can't find it right now - it's late and I just saw your post. However, here's an interesting article that says there were 378 counties in the US, over 5 states, that have more registered voters than people.

Five States Face Federal Lawsuit Over Inaccurate Voter Registrations | RealClearPolitics

In 378 U.S. counties, voter registration rates exceed 100% of the adult population, meaning there are more voter registrations on file than the total voting-age population, according to a new...

www.realclearpolitics.com

!

Others are improbably high:

"The four counties singled out by Judicial Watch in Pennsylvania – Allegheny, Chester, Bucks, and Delaware – have voter registration rates ranging between 96% and 98%. Judicial Watch notes that the number of voter registrations removed from the rolls in each county the previous two-year period is 72, eight, five, and four, respectively. "

Regarding the number of 90 year olds, I heard the claim made and haven't seen the source data myself. But, as I said, I'll keep looking.

 

[DANC]

"That, and the record number of registration of voters over 90 years of age."

Since you're posting that as a supposed "fact", can you give us a link? TIA...

Did some research on my own and found this...

"He also claimed that the state reported that 3.1 million mail-in ballots were sent out, but the number was 2.7 million “the day before the election.” Pennsylvania, in a filing responding to the lawsuit, noted that Mr. Ryan’s analysis was “fundamentally faulty” and that the 3.1 million figure included 2.7 million mail-in ballots and 400,000 absentee ballots." (Even a math dummy like me can add 2.7 Million and 400,000 and find it equals 3,1 Million...

"Additionally, Mr. Ryan expressed skepticism that more than 1,500 voters reported being over 100 years old. But that figure includes dozens of instances where a birthday is entered as Jan. 1, 1900, as a placeholder. It is also consistent with reports from the census and the Centers for Disease for Control and Prevention on the number of people that age in Pennsylvania and the United States."

The election is over, but Ron Johnson keeps promoting false claims of fraud. (Published 2020)

At a Senate hearing, witnesses made legal arguments and claims that courts have called “meritless” or otherwise dismissed.

www.nytimes.com

I guess it's OK to put a 'placeholder' in place of a birthday? Is that a legal term for lying?

This is a comparison of 90 year olds registered in Pennsylvania:

https://i.stack.imgur.com/hcqIE.png

https://i.stack.imgur.com/tJSsW.jpg

Sure looks like record registrations to me.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I guess it's OK to put a 'placeholder' in place of a birthday?

Yes, it is. It's required by laws respecting the privacy of those who are under orders of protection for domestic violence or other imminent threats.

Are you such an asshole to suggest that people in that situation shouldn't be allowed to vote? I hope you are not such an asshole.

 

[DANC]

Yes, it is. It's required by laws respecting the privacy of those who are under orders of protection for domestic violence or other imminent threats.

Are you such an asshole to suggest that people in that situation shouldn't be allowed to vote? I hope you are not such an asshole.

Just asked the question. I'd never heard of such a thing before.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Just asked the question. I'd never heard of such a thing before.

Then why are you bringing the issue up? It's literally in all the (reputable) articles about the issue. No one should be bringing up the birthday issue if they don't already know why those birthdays are listed the way they are.

 

[DANC]

Then why are you bringing the issue up? It's literally in all the (reputable) articles about the issue. No one should be bringing up the birthday issue if they don't already know why those birthdays are listed the way they are.

Like I said, I just asked the question. You seem triggered by that question - why?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Like I said, I just asked the question. You seem triggered by that question - why?

LOL. "Triggered" is always where folks like you go when you have no answer.

Truth is I'm just saddened that you thought this was a serious avenue of inquiry. Americans should be better than that. You're not.

 

[cosmickid]

Can't find it right now - it's late and I just saw your post. However, here's an interesting article that says there were 378 counties in the US, over 5 states, that have more registered voters than people.

Five States Face Federal Lawsuit Over Inaccurate Voter Registrations | RealClearPolitics

In 378 U.S. counties, voter registration rates exceed 100% of the adult population, meaning there are more voter registrations on file than the total voting-age population, according to a new...

www.realclearpolitics.com

!

Others are improbably high:

"The four counties singled out by Judicial Watch in Pennsylvania – Allegheny, Chester, Bucks, and Delaware – have voter registration rates ranging between 96% and 98%. Judicial Watch notes that the number of voter registrations removed from the rolls in each county the previous two-year period is 72, eight, five, and four, respectively. "

Regarding the number of 90 year olds, I heard the claim made and haven't seen the source data myself. But, as I said, I'll keep looking.

You originally said...

What I find interesting are the ballots that only voted for President. That, and the record number of registration of voters over 90 years of age

I saw that as you claiming that a record number of people over 90 had BEEN REGISTERED to vote,in the interim from 2016 and 2020. But what you're talking about is maintaining voter rolls, which is (IMHO) a completely different animal. I don't care about that particular issue at all, in fact, I think it's a joke that failure to vote (a RIGHT) for a certain number of elections can jeopardize your registration status.

I've had it happen to me before and it's a hassle. I can certainly see why for certain POC or minorities who had enough difficulty getting registered initially being removed from the rolls and having to endure the inconvenient process all over again could be daunting. Which is of course the reason it's such a hot button issue for the GOP, as it's a legal means to suppress (or attempt to suppress) the vote...

So I read the Jan 7, 2020 RCP article, but that's basically a year old and has no connection to the recent election. It talks about a failure to remove voters from the rolls, but basically says it's more of a "funding issue" than a partisan issue. Something tells me that "Judicial Watch" singling out primarily Dem counties in PA is not just a coincidence...

From the article...

"Partisan considerations aside, one factor in the sorry state of America’s voter rolls is the cost. Last year after Judicial Watch also threatened a federal lawsuit over Kentucky’s inability to keep accurate voter rolls, the office of Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes blamed a lack of “proper funding” and “budget shortfalls” for why the state had fallen behind.

The upshot is that after decades of neglect, hundreds of counties in this country have millions upon millions of inaccurate voter registrations – and the problem is widespread in Republican “red” and Democratic “blue” counties alike. "

Btw, the article also details problems in Orange Co, CA and I'm pretty sure that's an area controlled by Republicans which elected Republicans in 2020. In addition, the 5 states JW chose to sue comprised 11 counties of the 378 they determined were not in compliance...

This seems like a manufactured issue on your end anyway. As usual, the claims of "voter fraud are always directed towards only battleground states supposedly controlled by Dems, but both GA and AZ have Legislatures controlled by the GOP as well as Republican Governors.

And neither of those GOP Governors is moderate in the vein of a Holcomb or DeWine, as Ducey and Kemp are both pro-Trump and both appointed pro-Trump women to fill Senate seats with McSally and Loeffler... Btw neither of those appointments seemed favorable to the constituents they served. Loeffler is involved in a race she could well lose tomorrow, and McSally was initially rejected by AZ voters in 2018, then lost again in 2020 when she was forced to defend the seat she was appointed to.

And statistically don't most 90 yr olds tend to support Trump anyway? I mean pre-Covid Trump in 2016 and for most of his reign seemingly enjoyed a higher % of support among senior citizens. So are you claiming that after Covid hit and Trump's approval with seniors took a hit that Dems who seemingly would want to minimize Trump supporters 90+ yrs of age decided to reverse course and keep all those 90 yr olds on the rolls in hopes they would turn on Trump? That's basically how stupid most of these conspiracy theories surrounding "voter fraud" seem to me...