Archive for the ‘Elections’ Category

This article highlights how tenuous Joe Biden’s lead actually is. Forget what the polls say. Most of them oversample Democrats so they aren’t that predictive.

Nevada has gone Democrat for awhile now. It’s important to remember that Bernie crushed Biden here, mostly with an impressive turnout with Hispanics. Bernie’s win in Nevada got Establishment Democrats panicking. It wasn’t that much longer than Jim Clyburn rescued Biden’s campaign. But I digress.

Biden had a 5-point advantage in the state at the beginning of September, according to a University of Nevada-Las Vegas Lee Business School poll, the first state survey of the general election. But this week, the Cook Political Report shifted the state’s rating from “likely Democrat” to “lean Democrat.”

Separately, a New York Times/Siena College survey released on Saturday showed Biden up by 4 points, 46% to 42%, after polling of likely voters taken Sept. 8-11. Democrat Hillary Clinton won Nevada by 2 points in 2016.

Biden’s campaign better hit that next gear soon. If they don’t, President Trump will seize that momentum and ride it through the election.

A surprise win in Nevada, which Trump lost in 2016, could help the president compensate for a loss in another battleground ground state like Michigan or Pennsylvania. Nevada has only six Electoral College votes, compared to Michigan’s 16 and Pennsylvania’s 20, but Trump’s campaign sees a re-election victory path that would entail winning a series of smaller states anchored by Minnesota instead of the Rust Belt states that put him in the White House.

Speaking of Minnesota, that’s getting more interesting each week. According to this video, President Trump has made a bigger-than-major ad buy there:

At the start of the segment, Pete Hegseth said that the Trump campaign has made $14,000,000 worth of ad buys in Minnesota. That’s a monster ad buy for a state the size of Minnesota. Had President Trump spent $5,000,000 on advertising in Minnesota, that would’ve been a major commitment. Trump’s spending 3 times that. That’s before factoring in the army of volunteers and the field staff in Minnesota.

This also explodes the myth that the Trump campaign/RNC is running out of money. You don’t spend $14,000,000 unless there’s promising data showing that there’s a great shot at flipping the state. President Trump obviously thinks he’s got a legitimate shot at winning Minnesota. Let’s remember the ‘experts’ that ridiculed him for stopping in Wisconsin the final Sunday of the campaign. The ‘experts’ said that stopping in Wisconsin was “campaign malpractice.”

Trump will seek to seize on the new advantage with a visit to the Silver State this weekend. The campaign swing includes two rallies, one in Reno on Saturday, followed by another in Las Vegas on Sunday, as well as a roundtable discussion on Latino issues at the Treasure Island casino. He’ll also look to appeal to Latino voters with a roundtable in Phoenix on Monday.

Following the news of Trump being competitive with Hispanic voters in Florida’s Miami-Dade County, appealing to these states makes tons of sense. The Trump campaign understands that they aren’t running a traditional campaign. That doesn’t mean they aren’t making smart decisions. How often have the ‘experts’ ridiculed Trump, only to get served a heaping helping of crow a day or week later?

Let’s remember, too, that President Trump’s chances of flipping New Hampshire and New Mexico aren’t as remote as the ‘experts’ predict. President Trump won 306 electoral votes in 2016. That means he had 36 electoral votes more than he needed. Let’s play a game of ‘What If?’ and say he loses Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. That puts him at 260 EVs. He still reaches 270 by winning Maine, New Hampshire and Nevada. Trump still wins if he loses Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, then loses Arizona if he wins Minnesota and Nevada, New Hampshire or Maine.

This is far from over but President Trump has multiple paths to victory.

According to this website, Minnesota’s early voting “runs from Friday, September 18, 2020 to Monday, November 2, 2020.” Technically, ending early voting the day before Election Day is ending early. Tonight on Almanac, Joe Mansky, the former director of Ramsey County elections, was interviewed by Mary Lahammer. The most noteworthy thing Mansky said was “Minnesota is one of the states that can process and count ballots prior to Election Day. As a matter of fact, the legislature did election officials a big favor by authorizing earlier this year, election officials can count for 2 weeks prior to Election Day, which they’ll need given the number of ballots we’ll receive.”

Then Mansky added “The overwhelming majority of ballots will be counted by the time we get to 8:00 pm Election Night.” That’s great news for Republicans. If President Trump does well in Minnesota, there’s a strong possibility that they’ll be able to call Minnesota during Election Night coverage. Here’s the entire interview:

The definition of early is “in or during the first part of a period of time, a course of action, a series of events, etc.” Ending early voting the night before Election Day hardly fits the dictionary definition of early voting, especially when you factor in mail-in early voting. According to Mansky, ballots post-marked by Election Day still count even though the ballots wouldn’t get counted until (perhaps) a week after the election.

It’s time we defined what early voting means at the federal level. If we don’t do it there, then there’s a strong probability that we’ll finish with a hodge-podge of different definitions. I’m not opposed to different states having different dates. I’m opposed to having some states accept ballots post-marked on Election Day while other states stop accepting mail-in ballots a week before Election Day.

The goal would be to a) have all early voting ballots sent in before Election Day and b) have them counted before Election Day. I want to keep federal elections out of federal courts. The federal government has a responsibility to maintain election integrity. Having a system where mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day triggering a federal lawsuit (or a series of federal lawsuits) doesn’t maintain election integrity.

Finally, federalism doesn’t automatically mean that the states and municipalities do everything. It simply means that each level of government looks after that level’s interests.

It’s obvious that Democrats want to abuse the early voting system this year. That’s why Hillary instructed Joe Biden not to concede on election night under any circumstances. That’s only the start of cleaning up elections, though. What’s also required is the elimination of universal mail-out voting. If states want to vote by mail, they should be required to send out ballots upon request only.

This website shows the different starting dates for early voting and absentee voting. Saying that it’s a mish-mash is understatement. Since the federal government has a legitimate interest in federal election integrity, it should have the right to establish legally binding guidelines.

For instance, people shouldn’t be allowed to vote until after the first presidential debate. Federal law should reflect that principle. Alabama doesn’t have a law that allows early voting but it allows in-person absentee voting. By coincidence, in-person absentee voting starts today. In-person absentee voting ends in Alabama on Thursday, Oct. 29, 2020. That’s virtually 2 months of voting. By contrast, Massachusetts allows early voting, which starts on Saturday Oct. 17, 2020 and ends on Friday, Oct. 30, 2020.

If a state wants to do vote-by-mail, the federal government has the right to keep things orderly. Currently, different states have different end dates. That’s fine within certain parameters. What’s required for election integrity is certainty. For instance, the federal government should have the right to tell vote-by-mail states that those states must require that those ballots be returned 1 week before Election Day and that they must start counting them before Election Day.

The notion that states should have a leisurely system for voting is stupid. It sacrifices election integrity on the altar of election enfranchisement. It’s worth reminding people that the only people voting are adults. The nation has the right to expect adults to be able to follow straightforward rules. Period. Full stop. Giving people time to vote is fine. Giving people essentially 2 months to vote isn’t required. Further, if the voting time is reduced from 2 months to 3 weeks, voters won’t get disenfranchised. Finally on this subject, requiring that vote-by-mail ballots be received a week before Election Day isn’t an unreasonable burden.

An adult who can’t fit voting into a 3 week period isn’t a motivated voter. If the individual isn’t motivated to vote, society shouldn’t care if the individual votes. The job of politicians is to make life fair. Giving a registered adult 3 weeks to vote it totally fair.

Finally, for vote-by-mail only states, their voters should be required to get their ballots in a week before Election Day. Citizens have the right to a peaceful transfer of power. That require an election without drama. The system that the Democrats want is fraught with peril. The goal should be a fair election that gives registered voters the time to vote while still guaranteeing election security.

Having a system that the judiciary is required to make rulings on isn’t a system that we should aspire to. It’s a system that We The People should immediately reject. Anyone that rejects this proposed system isn’t interested in election integrity. They’re interested in chaotic elections.

On the day voting happens in Vermont, we still don’t have the final vote totals from Iowa. That’s because the Sanders campaign and Buttigieg campaign have each asked for partial recanvasses of the results. At this rate, we might have Iowa’s totals verified before the Convention in Milwaukee. I’m not betting the ranch on that but it might happen.

With that crisis still unresolved, Democrats are facing a somewhat similar crisis in Nevada:

Frustrated. Concerned. Nervous. Those are some of the words aides are using to describe the mood within some of the top Democratic presidential campaigns in Nevada with only five days until early voting is set to begin for the state’s first in the West presidential caucus and still no details on how exactly it’s supposed to work.
Campaigns here in the Silver State have been told that the Nevada State Democratic Party won’t be using the same app and vendor that were in part responsible for bungling the results of Iowa’s caucus last week, that the party won’t be using any app at all, and that what the party does plan to use is best described as a “tool” or “calculator.” Beyond that, aides aren’t really sure what’s in store for the state’s Feb. 22 Democratic caucus.

Have Democrats run anything beyond a lemonade stand? Here in Minnesota, examples of DFL competence in running things are rarities. MNLARS will (hopefully) be a distant memory soon after being a nightmare for 2+ years. MNsure was a disaster for a year. The Minnesota Human Services fiascoes happened over a period of years before being discovered. People remember the disaster that Healthcare.gov was.

“It’s a little bit of a damper for our volunteers who are more hesitant to step up and say, ‘Yes, I will confirm I will be precinct leadership on Feb. 22,’ when they don’t feel entirely certain about what’s going to happen,” one aide said. “Never mind the campaign, but with four days until early voting begins, the people who are going to participate feel like they need to have a credible explanation of how the early voting and caucus process are going to work.”

Here we go again? Only a Democrat could turn simple arithmetic into this convoluted mess. This isn’t how this should work. The only top-tier Democrats who’ve run anything are Pete Buttigieg and Mike Bloomberg. Everyone else is a senator. They talk for a living.

Both mayors are far outside the mainstream on the issues, which is why few people outside the Democratic Party take either of them seriously. Meanwhile, the nation keeps humming along under President Trump’s leadership. He’s actually run something and holds mainstream views. The economy is strong. We’re safer than we were under President Obama. Emergencies are handled efficiently.

That’s quite the contrast from the Party that can’t even do basic math, aka the Democrats. Bernie hasn’t run anything. Ditto with Biden, Klobuchar, Warren or what’s his name that still hasn’t dropped out (Michael Bennet).

Things are running well. People are making money. Income inequality is shrinking. People’s 401(k)s are getting healthier. If it isn’t broke, don’t tinker with it. That’s what Democrats did with the Iowa Caucuses. How’d that turn out? This is how that worked:

The KISS method (Keep It Simple Stupid) still works best. I’m a huge fan of trailing edge technology. I love things that work and that have worked for years. There’s nothing wrong with the Iowa Caucuses that a little uncomplicating can’t fix.

On a national scale, the lesson to be learned is that Democrats don’t run things. It isn’t part of their DNA. Bill Clinton is the lone exception. Berniecrats think that he’s too conservative. I guess they didn’t like the prosperity.

In releasing the Democrats’ Impeachment Committee report, Adam Schiff highlighted the Democrats’ national security double standard. These Democrats are attempting to impeach President Trump for delaying aid that President Obama totally refused to send. That doesn’t make sense anywhere.

According to the Democrats’ report, President Trump abused his office by withholding lethal military aid that the Ukrainians asked for but never received from the Obama administration. The hot war in Ukraine and Crimea was in 2014. Since then, there have been periodic flare-ups but nothing like the 2014 hot war. When the hot war was fought, President Obama sent blankets and MREs to Ukraine. After President Trump found out that President Zelenskiy wasn’t corrupt like President Poroshenko, President Trump sent lots and lots of Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine. Later, Ukraine bought more Javelin anti-tank missiles.

The Democrats’ logic is that it isn’t impeachable to ignore allies entirely but it is impeachment-worthy to help an ally, just not at the speed that Democrats prefer. Adam Schiff, not President Trump, is the Democrats’ worst nightmare. Then there’s this:

“President Trump does not appear to believe there is any such limitation on his power to use White House meetings, military aid or other official acts to procure foreign help in his re-election.”

It’s frightening to watch a chairman of a major committee act this stupid. Yesterday, for what seems like the umpteenth time, President Zelenskiy said that President Trump never tied lethal military aid to any investigations:

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky insisted that he never discussed a quid pro quo with President Trump tying U.S. military aid to a request for political favors in a newly published interview. Nevertheless, he hit the Trump administration for the delay in that aid and for critical statements about his country.

Schiff is so determined to impeach President Trump that he’s willing to ignore firsthand testimony that’s exculpatory. Couple that information with the old story that Chairman Schiff once said that he’d seen “evidence that was stronger than circumstantial”:

In that interview, Schiff said “Well, look, I don’t think it was intentional on the Director’s part but all I can tell you is, reviewing the evidence that I have, I don’t think that you can conclude that at all. Far from it.” Chuck Todd then interrupted, saying “All you have is a circumstantial case.” Schiff then responded, saying “Actually, no, Chuck. I can tell you that the case is more than that and, though I can’t go into the particulars, there is more than circumstantial evidence…” It’s noteworthy that Robert Mueller’s hyperpartisan lawyers didn’t find that evidence.

Q: At what point does the American public just tune out Schiff’s partisanship and the Democrats? They’ve all heard President Zelenskiy’s exculpatory statement. There isn’t a single Democrat supposedly that’s seen this “stronger than circumstantial evidence” that then-Candidate Trump conspired with Putin’s Russia. Each of the supposed fact witnesses from Schiff’s impeachment hearings admitted during cross-examination that they didn’t hear President Trump tie lethal military aid to investigating the Bidens.

The simple fact is that we’re significantly more secure today than we were 3+ years ago. During the previous administration, aid to Ukraine consisted of MREs and blankets. During the Trump administration, aid to Ukraine consists of Javelin anti-tank missiles. During the previous administration, the president told Putin to stop hacking into our election systems after-the-fact. During this administration, DHS is proactively working with other departments and agencies to protect our election systems:

Election security is a top priority for the United States Government. Building on our successful, whole-of-government approach to securing the 2018 elections, we have increased the level of support to state and local election officials in their efforts to protect elections. The federal government is prioritizing the sharing of threat intelligence and providing support and services that improve the security of election infrastructure across the nation.

In an unprecedented level of coordination, the U.S. government is working with all 50 states and U.S. territories, local officials, and private sector partners to identify threats, broadly share information, and protect the democratic process. We remain firm in our commitment to quickly share timely and actionable information, provide support and services, and to defend against any threats to our democracy.

Saying that President Trump has risked our national security, as they said in the Democrats’ impeachment report, is foolish. The proof that we’re beefing up our systems is as plentiful as proof of presidential criminal activity is nonexistent.

You’d think that a Fordham-educated politician like Andrew Cuomo would be able to understand simple math. Apparently, that’s above his pay grade. According to this article, Gov. Cuomo either is too dishonest to tell New Yorkers that his policies have led to this looming crisis or he’s too beholden to the environmental activists to do the right thing for the average New Yorker.

New York, California and Minnesota especially need to stop with their outright disdain for fossil fuels and mining. It isn’t healthy but it is counterproductive. Here’s what’s happening in New York:

Gov. Andrew Cuomo doubled down last week on his blame-the-messenger approach to New York’s growing shortage of natural-gas supplies by ordering the Department of Public Service to “broaden its investigation” of National Grid and threatening to “find another franchisee.” Anything, rather than admit that his own policies are at fault.

The utility has stopped taking new gas customers in parts of Long Island, Brooklyn and Queens where it can’t handle the new demand — because Team Cuomo vetoed the proposed Williams pipeline to bring in supplies from New Jersey. (Jersey is also blocking the pipeline, since Gov. Phil Murphy is appeasing the same green extremists.)

National Grid gave months of warning that it would need to impose the moratorium if fresh supplies weren’t ensured. Con Ed did the same in advance of its recent new-biz moratorium in most of Westchester, which was also prompted in good part by the nixing of new pipelines.

Gov. Cuomo’s policies are mainstream Democrat policies. That’s the problem. In a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans by 2,000,000 voters, idiotic ideas can pass because they’re that month’s flavor-of-the-month trend. It doesn’t matter if the policy hurts 200,000-400,000 people. If it’s trending in popularity, that’s what matters in New York. Whether it fixes anything is irrelevant. This is what Gov. Cuomo gets excited about:

That photo says one thing to him — reelection. That’s all he cares about. He won’t care about the crisis until it hits. Even then, he’ll do as little to fix the problem as possible. Most likely, if he acts, it will be a short-term fix.

Democrats aren’t about doing what’s right for the long-term. They’re mostly about maintaining power.

Democrats are constantly complaining about Republicans suppressing the vote. Stacey Abrams isn’t the latest in a long line of Democrat complainers on the subject. AOC is the latest in that line. AOC is calling for the abolition of the Electoral College, insisting that the system is “racist.”

First, the Electoral College won’t be abolished because it would require a bunch of small states to ratify a constitutional amendment that’d render their states politically irrelevant. That’s just one of the reasons the Electoral College won’t be abolished. The other reason it won’t happen is because the odds of the constitutional amendment getting that far are tinier than slim. To send a constitutional amendment to the states for ratification, the amendment must 290 votes in the House, then get 67 votes in the Senate. That’s provided that the wording in both amendments is identical. If there’s any differences, those would have to be ironed out before proceeding to the ratification phase.

Talk about microscopic odds.

Ultimately, though, what Democrats are proposing is the ultimate disenfranchisement of voters. States like Kansas, the Dakotas, Wyoming, Iowa, Idaho, Rhode Island, Maine and New Hampshire, to name a few, would become politically irrelevant. With campaign finances being finite, why waste money courting voters in Montana, Iowa, the Dakotas and Maine? Further, abolishing the Electoral College would mean candidates wouldn’t have to think about multiple demographic groups. Democrats could focus on East and Left Coast elitists and ignore the blue collar voters in the Rust Belt. How does that maintain the United States of America?

It’s worth noting that we have a federal government, not a national government. The federal government didn’t exist until the states created it. Democrats won’t admit that they want all power centered in Washington, DC but that’s the truth of it. The Founding Fathers, whom I consider to be the greatest collection of leaders in one place in the history of humankind, wanted the government’s power decentralized. The Tenth Amendment even went so far as to say that the responsibilities not given to the federal government by the Constitution were reserved to the states and (gasp!) the people.

Frankly, why would I trust AOC’s ramblings over the thoughtfulness of Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, Washington and Madison? Rather than trusting her, Id rather instruct her to read this so she’d understand how to prevent tyranny. I’d also recommend she debate Dana Perino. Perino would slice and dice her into hundreds of tiny pieces if she just did this:

I agree with Tucker when he said that he has “no doubt” that Dana Perino would defeat any debater who accepted Dana’s challenge to debate the merits of the Electoral College. Further, I agree with Tucker’s statement that Democrats like AOC don’t want to debate the substantive issues. Democrats like AOC prefer labeling things racist, thereby eliminating the need for debate.

By eliminating the Electoral College, Democrats are proposing the biggest disenfranchisement of voters in US history. That’s shameful. It needs to stop immediately.

AOC and other Democrats hate the Electoral College because they either don’t understand history or they hate the system that the Founders gave us. I suspect that it’s a little of both. Determining presidential (notice that I didn’t say national) elections based on the popular vote would turn elections on their head. I’m writing this post to expose AOC’s foolish plan to eliminate the electoral college.

Our government in DC is called the federal government, not the national government. The federation that the federal government is built from is the federation of states. That’s why our nation is called the United States of America. Each state is sovereign. Without the states’ consent, there isn’t a federal government.

The purpose of the federal government is to represent the states. It wasn’t created to represent just the people. Had the Founding Fathers wanted that, they wouldn’t have formed the states. For instance, when the colonists won the Revolutionary War, France recognized each colony as a sovereign nation.

Apparently, AOC hasn’t grasped the concept that the United States is built on the foundation of each state being sovereign. That’s why each state’s laws are unique to that state. No 2 states have identical statutes on how they pay for education or economic development or whatever the subject. Each state has different laws on what constitutes manslaughter or sexual assault.

AOC’s desire to get rid of the Electoral College is partially because she wants to win more elections but it’s also partially because she doesn’t understand the foundation that the Constitution was built on. When the Revolutionary War ended, the federal government didn’t exist. The colonies eventually created the federal government out of convenience and necessity. It was convenient in the sense that the President was authorized to negotiate treaties and trade agreements rather than each state being required to negotiate separate trade deals. It was built out of necessity in that the settlers needed someone to provide for the national defense.

The Founding Fathers wanted the states to be the “laboratories of democracy.” They wrote the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to keep as much power as close to the families as possible. Here’s the text of the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Here’s the text of the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

AOC’s push for electing presidents by popular vote is understandable from a partisan standpoint. Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst pointed this out:


In AOC’s mind, the Electoral College is — brace yourself — racist. Actually, it prevents some of the states who created the federal government from being represented by the federal government. That’s beyond foolish.

People pushing the national popular vote initiative aren’t interested in the US’s Heartland, aka Flyover Country. It’s time to push these idiots off the national stage. They aren’t rational human beings. Either that or they’re exceptionally despicable people.

The Electoral College isn’t outdated. It just isn’t wanted by progressive elitists who think of the men and women of America’s Heartland as unsophisticated rubes. That sounds frighteningly similar to Barack Obama when he said this:

When Bernie Sanders told CNN that terrorists serving a life sentence and rapists should have the right to vote, Jesse Watters said that it was essentially the equivalent of Willie Horton 2.0. For those who are too young to know who Willie Horton is and what role he played in presidential politics, check out the 1988 election between George H.W. Bush and Democratic Gov. Michael Dukakis. Hint: it didn’t end well for Democrats.

This pandering (don’t kid yourself; that’s what this was) isn’t helping Sanders win the Democratic nomination. When you’re a Democrat and you’ve lost Cher, you’re in a difficult position. That’s where Sanders finds himself.

According to the article, “Cher took to Twitter Tuesday afternoon to sound off on Sanders’ position in a since-deleted tweet. The Hollywood icon defended her stance, telling one of her critics that any convicted child molesters, rapists, or murderers of any race should not ‘keep [their] right to vote.'” I wholeheartedly agree.

Sanders’ explanation is timid at best:

“This is what I believe. Do you believe in democracy? Do you believe that every single American 18 years of age or older who is an American citizen has the right to vote?” Sanders later said. “This is a democracy. We’ve got to expand that democracy and I believe that every single person does have the right to vote.”

Actually, low voter turnout in a election is often a positive thing. When turnout is high, it’s often because people are mad as hell at the politicians. Occasionally, turnout is high because one side or the other finds a charismatic candidate. That doesn’t happen that often.

In 1994, Republicans turned out in huge numbers because they supported Newt’s Contract With America. In 2010, Republicans turned out in big numbers because Democrat politicians ignored them while shoving the ACA down our throats.

The point is that turnout often drops when people are satisfied. When I led the Vote No movement against the first Tech High School bonding referendum, turnout was high. The school board didn’t notice that their referendum was in trouble until the returns started coming in. By then, it was too late. The referendum was doomed because I helped expose the school board’s agenda.

Watch Bernie make a fool of himself:

Don’t buy into the notion that the problems encountered during Florida’s recount were systemic or mechanical. That’s the conclusion I reached after I read this investigative article.

I’m being charitable if I say that Broward County’s management is ineffective. I’d call them the ‘county that can’t shoot straight’ but that wouldn’t be accurate. Remember that when the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting happened in Broward County, the deputies refused to enter the building, much less confront the shooter.

Think about this: 2 of the biggest stories this year happened in Broward County, FL. The Parkland shooting and the FL recount highlighted Broward County’s mismanagement. With the Parkland shooting, Sheriff Israel’s ineptitude was highlighted. With the recount, Dr. Brenda Snipes’ ineptitude was highlighted.

That said, Palm Beach County’s recount wasn’t a picture of perfection, either:

“It became evident through the vigorous pace of counting that the machines used for the recount were starting to get stressed,” Palm Beach County Elections Supervisor Susan Bucher told reporters last week.

In a further twist, the company behind the Palm Beach machines says official claims that they overheated are false. “The idea that this equipment is at fault is a mischaracterization,” Kay Stimson, vice president of government affairs for Dominion Voting Systems, told RealClearInvestigations. “There were no reports of overheating machines during the recount. We had engineers on the ground there, available 24/7, and they heard nothing from anyone at Palm Beach County.”

This is fantastic news:

Good riddance. As a good friend often says, “Don’t let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya.’ By the time the recount finished, pretty much the only people still supporting Dr. Snipes were relatives. Gov. DeSantis will pick Dr. Snipes’ replacement.