Hey, Kentucky. Why no updates on the vote?

remember, "An election isnt determined by all the people who vote, Its determined by those who count the votes"

The very source of my opening comment.

...and disallow and disavow hanging chads (at least in Florida)

Booker takes it. I truly believed they were going to undercount his votes. Good to be proven wrong for a change.

I spoke too soon. No apologies for anything I posted here.

Amy McGrath Defeats Charles Booker and Will Face McConnell in Kentucky

Until a voting system as reliable as paper ballots is in place and all eligible voters enfranchised, I will continue to be skeptical of any and all election results in my country.

Not even paper would be 100%. Paper ballots are often victims of random breezes transporting them through a window or into a trash bin. Along with their ability to leap into pockets and bags...

In the old days contending factions counted the paper ballots together. Not a hundred percent but better than anything they do today.

Compton Jay 💯 #ShahidVsPelosi 🔥🌹🌻
@JayThePopulist
·
11m
It feels like the joke is on us, the American people..

Political parties are private organizations, and primaries are their private events..

They can do whatever the f*** they want and we can't do anything about it

Why even participate?

Viva AOC
1 hr ·
" Amy McGrath didn’t win her election. It was stolen on her behalf.

I can’t help wondering what the outcome would have been if there was more than one polling place in the entire city of Louisville. I can’t help wondering what would have happened if the media had decided to pay attention to his campaign before the Black Lives Matter protests. I cant help wondering how things would have turned out if Kentucky hadn’t thrown out 6,000 absentee ballots from the city of Lexington alone based on “technicalities”.

This Senate seat in particular in Kentucky was never one that Chuck Schumer or the democratic party overall had any intention whatsoever of winning. The selection of McGrath as their candidate alone is proof of the fact that they’re more interested in using Mitch McConnell as a fundraising prop, and an all too convenient excuse for their borderline criminal (in)actions. Why else would the invest so much time and money in a candidate who began her campaign positioning herself as a pro Trump democrat, arguing that Mitch McConnell was the reason he hadn’t been able to get his agenda done? Why else would the democratic party rally behind a woman who said that if she was in the Senate, she would have voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court? "

So whenever a progressive candidate loses it's not because they didn't get enough votes, it's because the election was stolen?

In many cases that's exactly what I am saying. Law of averages it can't be every single time.

It's not a coin toss. If you lose every single time, maybe your agenda is not as popular as you think it is. The idea that Kentucky was going to swing progressive was a long shot to begin with.

We don't lose every single time. And when we do in many cases it is because of voter suppression and outright chicanery. I shouldn't have to point out to intelligent people that it goes on since they learned since 2016 that they don't even have to try to hide it anymore.

Your argument is that when you win it is honest and when you lose it's because of cheating by Democrats. That's the exact same argument that Trump makes directly and China and Russia imply on social media. The reality doesn't match your statements. Progressives made good headway recently. Jamal Bowman defeated Eliot Engle, a 30yr veteran, Mondaire Jones and Ritchie Torres will likely become the first black, gay representatives, Carolyn Maloney vs Suraj Patel is still up in the air, but lose one and it's because Democrats are cheaters? (Maloney is ahead by a few hundred, so I assume you think there is cheating there as well.) Progressives are winning where they better represent the electorate. Moderates are winning where they better represent the electorate and that is most of the country. The Democrats did not take the House because of a wave of progressive victories, they did it with a wave of moderate wins in Republican districts. You shoot yourself in the foot screaming voter fraud every time you lose a race that no one ever thought was going to be competitive. I would celebrate the great strides Booker made in making it close and the people he exposed to the progressive agenda in Kentucky before I would rail against the injustice of not giving Booker an election he didn't win.

You shoot your own foot when you fail to recognize how the Democratic establishment pulls out all the stops to defeat progressive candidates while using the natural momentum that moves the core of voters to vote against Republicans to install Democrats that actually enable the core programs of Republicans. The only thing that will change if Biden becomes president is the crushing down of every department of the federal government will ease off. Aside from that, there will be scant easing of the oppressive bent of the government to the ordinary citizens.

Do progressives not support a few conservative or more moderate non-conservative viewpoints?
Im always suspiicious of political views that are at the telomeric ends because its ALL OR NOTHING with them. Consequently the country suffers from Rigus politicalis which helped getting this dickhead elected president in 2016

It's a misconception that progressives got Trump elected. Most of the blame for Trump is a lady named Clinton. She managed to get the media to do Trump 24hours a day in millions of dollars of free advertising until he got the nomination. Then, as he built a rabid following she sat smugly back instead of getting out and working, collecting donors' money waiting to be crowned. It was in the bag. Until it wasn't. People who blame Sanders ignore the fact that he campaigned for Clinton harder than she did.