I thought the doubtful votes were only potentially enough to swing the result in certain counties, which in turn could have swung the state and the country the other way. Unlike now where they don't seem to be enough to swing the result anywhere.
If you can't see the difference between seeking to stop a recount of a recount and actively seeking to throw out clear, legally cast ballots because of unsubstantiated claims of fraud then I don't know what else can be said.
Anything is possible, but it's highly unlikely that they could manage a complete new general election. If they were willing to throw enough money at it they could have runoff elections in the contested states but they'd struggle to complete the process in time for the Electoral College vote, so it would either require an act of Congress to allow the college to meet in January or Speaker Pelosi wouid become interim President on Jan 20th.
Agreed. Though that means that neither Biden nor Trump could be sworn in on Jan 20th.
The question was what was theoretically possible, not what is likely.
It's not that long ago that people would have said a US President refusing to concede an election that he lost and casting doubt on the legitimacy of the electoral process with no evidence was so unlikely that there was no reason to discuss it.
I was quite amused by his speech a couple of weeks ago, where he couldn't bring himself to use the word "lose" when talking about himself even as a hypothetical.
I don't do Twitter, but the impression I'd been given was that he'd been less active on there in recent days.
The recount in 2000 was trying to establish which of the ballots with hanging, pregnant, etc chads could legally be counted for a particular candidate.
Yes, that was the basis of the recount. The suit, however, wasn't concerned with the legitimacy of the ballot or the electoral process but rather sought to end the re-recount process and finalise the already-determined result.
That is what one of the many suits has been based on, others have been raised questioning the legitimacy of mail-in voting itself. For example, the Trump campaign has been trying to have all mail-in ballots disqualified in states that sent out ballot forms to all voters, as opposed to states where one had to be requested. (Simply because those votes tend to favour Biden over Trump thanks to Trump telling his base to vote in person).
You must be new here. I suggest avoiding the speculative ideas section
It'll be in Sharpie™.
