@kerpen @rickhasen And that's assuming every single one of those (allegedly) invalid votes was for Thad Cochran!
.@JohnPittmanHey @kerpen @EricKleefeld Disagree. there was accepted interpretation of law which McDaniel could have challenged preelection
-
-
@rickhasen@kerpen@EricKleefeld the pre-election interpretation was that crossover voting is illegal. -
.
@JohnPittmanHey@kerpen@EricKleefeld Law that one must pledge support for nominee to be allowed to vote: unenforceable. -
.
@JohnPittmanHey@kerpen@EricKleefeld Not talking voters who also voted in Dem primary. Even if those illegal (likely), not enough votes -
@rickhasen@kerpen@EricKleefeld IF he is actually making that claim, it's more a political appeal to the ExecCmte; It'll never fly in court -
.
@JohnPittmanHey@kerpen@EricKleefeld he is definitely making that claim. That's why he relies on polling of Democrats. cc:@samrhall -
@rickhasen@kerpen@EricKleefeld@samrhall All that polling data is completely useless in an election contest. It'll be ignored by the court -
.
@JohnPittmanHey@kerpen@EricKleefeld@samrhall I think we are basically on the same page about Mcdaniel's chances. Very very low.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
When gov't officials say pre-election law means "x," you should not be able to rely on that & if you lose then say that it doesn't mean "x'
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.