>

Lol who cares, they get mad about fictional characters being the wrong race. Impotent outrage is their addiction.
”My legal team will be assessing our options to make sure every vote is counted,” wrote Hamadeh, who hasn’t conceded to Mayes.

For fuck’s sake, THEY JUST COUNTED EVERY VOTE. That’s what a recount is, you absolute fucking DONKEY. >

I was friends with him in college, I guarantee this is an image thing so he can fail upwards in the GOP. He might've gone genuinely crazy since then but he was always a bit too shrewd to be an actual denier by my reckoning. >

Denier of what? the truth? Fact is 40% of the votes from this Arizona election from mail in ballots. How can this be regulated into a safe and functioning system that ensure election integrity. >

It was a recount to confirm her win, but yes, this is what leads to victory in narrow races in hotly contened states. We start from the ground up, and this is promising in a state like AZ. >

Did Kari Lake eat some of the votes? >

A few votes changing isn't uncommon in recounts. Even a 99.999% success rate leads to changes. >

The magnitude of the change is pretty huge though... Usually the overall change is smaller. 
This article explains why they changed so much.
TL;DR: Pinal county fucked up and didn't count about 500 votes.  That county happens to lean right, which is why the totals changed more than expected. >

I’m guessing the “they’re tryna steal our election” folks won’t be talking about this one >

Is that sarcasm? >


Republican attorneys are going to look through the numbers again and see if there's any grounds to do anything going forward

Relentless. >

Ehh.
I support everyone's right to exhaust every legal avenue. If the Republican won by one vote, I'd support the Democrats' right to see if it can be legally overturned, too.
The problem is the extrajudicial bullshit the Republicans are trying, not legitimate legal challenges. >

What legal avenues are there after the recount? Just keep recounting until they get a result they like? >

I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know exactly.
But if--and that's a big hypothetical "if", not something I actually believe happened--for example there were an unusually large discrepancy in the recount, that might be worth challenging. If there's evidence that vote-counters were openly partisan, that might be worth challenging. Hell, if there's evidence that illegal voter suppression caused a significant shift from polling, that might be worth challenging.
The point is, if there are legal avenues, it's everyone's right to explore them. The problem is not challenging the results of the election through established legal means, it's challenging the results of the election outside of those established legal avenues. >

Every time they dig into investigating that stuff, they find more wrongdoing on the Republican side, and then try to brush the whole thing under the rug. >

I'm not denying that. The point I'm trying to make is that the system must hold. If we want to be able to challenge Republican bullshit, we need to let the Republicans challenge whatever it's legal for them to challenge too. The moment we tell them no, we have zero defense against them telling us no too. In the meantime, the courts will throw out the bullshit. >

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with you at all. The system must indeed hold. I was just pointing out that when they do fight it, it always ends up worse for them. >

My understanding is that this is also the first state level election where the excess death rate of Covid on Republicans likely led to a Democratic victory. The more you know… >

Considering the margin she won by? Yeah, if the Republicans actually pushed their base to embrace proper health measures then they would have won. >

That could probably be said for a wider national look. Hopefully a study comes out in a couple of years on the Covid effect >

I think that the Repubs could lose a substantial number of their older die-hard voters over just the next couple of years based on the resistance of many of them to masking and vaccinations. Plus in any year, you'll always have the expected mortality from heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer's, accidents, etc. And even some of the younger ones look like health-disasters-waiting-to-happen, i.e. 'Gravy Seals' and 'Meal Team Six.' >

Waiting for either evil or idiots to die doesn't usually go well. I've been hearing that far too long and know too many young conservatives, this is not something that just dies off. They must be fought or taught. >

Arizona has started realizing how much the GOP has screwed them. Unlike Texas, the state has started getting wise and sadly when John McCain died and Trump and company turned on his family and their narrative since he by one vote kept them from repelling the Affordable Health Care Act. When they didn't have a DAMN THING to replace it. Arizona didn't like that and while so many held on with the "Big Lie". Now with Lake and company losing so much and all the former GOP government pretty much trying to scorch Earth as they leave. I can see major change for the state. I know my family down there is very happy. >

Well most people agree that the Affordable care act is a good thing. Even the red Republican. That's if you call it the ACA. But call it Obama Care no it's bad.  What these people are doing is playing on the uneducated not knowing anything. The good thing is things should be going into the right direction. Especially after lake lost her election and election lawsuit. >

I’ve literally seen people say Obamacare is bad but they’re glad they have the ACA to provide them health insurance
The cognitive dissonance in republicans is astounding >

I work at the University monitoring classes. One the them was a history instructor. She said that they did a  survey and highlighting everything that the ACA did. But what they did was changed the name. People viewed ACA more favorably when it was called the ACA over Obamacare. It is astonishing. >

Well that was basically the point of that branding, wasn't it? 
By branding the ACA as "Obamacare," the GQP had a very easy time energizing and enraging their voters. They spent so much time to basically hammer in "Obama bad" so that by getting people to associate something fundamentally good with someone they hate, the GQP could gain power.
There are and were content-oriented critiques of the ACA. But those didn't matter much to the GQP because those critiques would require explaining nuances and their audience having a rudimentary understanding of healthcare law. It is much harder to get a primal reaction with that than it is to get one from saying "this person bad and evil, this come from bad and evil person." >

Terrible headline. The Democrat won BEFORE the recount, and framing the story the way they did implies the recount was responsible for the win. >

Well that's encouraging. Maybe AZ is rounding a corner and coming to it's senses? >

Naw, shits gonna hit the fan now >

How so >

Republicans are going to raise holy hell