“DOJ sues to block Alaska from certifying Senate race if Republican loses”

[zymurgy]

It has already been infront of the Alaskan Supreme Court, and there is no substantial proof Daniel J. Sullivan Jr’s candidacy is a deliberate attempt to fool anyone, in fact, he is running on an independent line.

Any Alaskan who after all the attention this has gotten over months and still confuses Daniel J. Sullivan Jr running as an Independent with Dan S Sullivan on the Republican line deserves to throw away his vote.

And the whataboutism, Democrats do it, is bullshit, no Democrat has ever employed the DOJ to be ready if one of their candidates loses

Wait. You're accusing ME of whataboutism?

You're the one who introduced hypothetical scenarios about what Trump would do if the candidates were Democrats. I cited actual examples involving Democrats and Republicans to illustrate that my objection isn't partisan.

That's not whataboutism. That's applying a consistent standard.

And now you're doing it again, shifting the discussion to whether Democrats have ever used the DOJ in precisely the same way.

 

[Tbird19482]

It has already been infront of the Alaskan Supreme Court, and there is no substantial proof Daniel J. Sullivan Jr’s candidacy is a deliberate attempt to fool anyone, in fact, he is running on an independent line.

Any Alaskan who after all the attention this has gotten over months and still confuses Daniel J. Sullivan Jr running as an Independent with Dan S Sullivan on the Republican line deserves to throw away his vote.

And the whataboutism, Democrats do it, is bullshit, no Democrat has ever employed the DOJ to be ready if one of their candidates loses

And if the Refuckittupagains lose you can bet they will cry voter fraud.

 

[QP!]

And if the Refuckittupagains lose you can bet they will cry voter fraud.

They have already set that stage.

They are waiting to see if the Republican wins and in which case ...'all good, no need to do anything' but if and only if the Republican loses then they want to keep this open as a do over option.

That is why if this was a real issue the DoJ would sue PRIOR and try and expedite it thru the courts for an emergency ruling, to avoid the 'if we win it is ok but if we lose we will fight it', scenario they have set up. You get the ruling up front to avoid that but the magat DoJ sees this as a free roll where they can bank the win and fight any loss.

 

[Into the Night]

SSST, and predictable

Inversion fallacy. You can't blame your repetition on me or anybody else, anchovies.

It has already been infront of the Alaskan Supreme Court, and there is no substantial proof Daniel J. Sullivan Jr’s candidacy is a deliberate attempt to fool anyone, in fact, he is running on an independent line.

They have no authority over federal elections, anchovies.

Any Alaskan who after all the attention this has gotten over months and still confuses Daniel J. Sullivan Jr running as an Independent with Dan S Sullivan on the Republican line deserves to throw away his vote.

And the whataboutism, Democrats do it, is bullshit, no Democrat has ever employed the DOJ to be ready if one of their candidates loses

Because Democrats just commit election fraud.

 

[Into the Night]

And if the Refuckittupagains lose you can bet they will cry voter fraud.

You can't make any evidence just disappear, Tball. Democrats have been committing election fraud for many decades.

 

[Into the Night]

And if the Refuckittupagains lose you can bet they will cry voter fraud.

Because Democrats commit election fraud,Tball.

 

[Into the Night]

They have already set that stage.

No, Kewpie. DEMOCRATS have already 'set the stage;. It is DEMOCRATS that have been committing election fraud.

They are waiting to see if the Republican wins and in which case

Irrelevance fallacy.

...'all good, no need to do anything' but if and only if the Republican loses then they want to keep this open as a do over option.

Irrelevance fallacy.

That is why if this was a real issue the DoJ would sue PRIOR and try and expedite it thru the courts for an emergency ruling, to avoid the 'if we win it is ok but if we lose we will fight it', scenario they have set up. You get the ruling up front to avoid that but the magat DoJ sees this as a free roll where they can bank the win and fight any loss.

Some of you idiots are already getting arrested for election fraud, Kewpie.

 

[archives]

Wait. You're accusing ME of whataboutism?

You're the one who introduced hypothetical scenarios about what Trump would do if the candidates were Democrats. I cited actual examples involving Democrats and Republicans to illustrate that my objection isn't partisan.

That's not whataboutism. That's applying a consistent standard.

And now you're doing it again, shifting the discussion to whether Democrats have ever used the DOJ in precisely the same way.

Wait. You're accusing ME of whataboutism?

You're the one who introduced hypothetical scenarios about what Trump would do if the candidates were Democrats. I cited actual examples involving Democrats and Republicans to illustrate that my objection isn't partisan.

That's not whataboutism. That's applying a consistent standard.

And now you're doing it again, shifting the discussion to whether Democrats have ever used the DOJ in precisely the same way.

Inquiring if the DOJ would do the same if it were two Democrats is not a whataboutism but rather a applicable question, we all know the answer

It is not a constant standard, supporting third party candidates or even cross voting in open primaries doesn’t come close to this interference, it is unprecedented especially since it is occurring prior to the election

 

[zymurgy]

Inquiring if the DOJ would do the same if it were two Democrats is not a whataboutism but rather a applicable question, we all know the answer

It is not a constant standard, supporting third party candidates or even cross voting in open primaries doesn’t come close to this interference, it is unprecedented especially since it is occurring prior to the election

You're confusing unprecedented with unjustified.

The Alaska Division of Elections investigated this candidate and concluded he was deliberately attempting to mislead voters. The guy even tried to use the incumbent's middle initial. That's a far cry from supporting a third-party candidate or crossing over in a primary.

And you're ignoring the scope of the DOJ's action. The proposed intervention only becomes relevant if the potentially misdirected votes could actually change the election outcome. That's a pretty important distinction.


And asking whether you'd support the same scrutiny if both candidates were Democrats isn't whataboutism. It's a test of whether your objection is based on principle or party affiliation.

If your argument is that the DOJ lacks the legal authority, make that argument. But pretending the underlying conduct isn't a legitimate election-integrity concern is ridiculous.

 

[archives]

You're confusing unprecedented with unjustified.

The Alaska Division of Elections investigated this candidate and concluded he was deliberately attempting to mislead voters. The guy even tried to use the incumbent's middle initial. That's a far cry from supporting a third-party candidate or crossing over in a primary.

And you're ignoring the scope of the DOJ's action. The proposed intervention only becomes relevant if the potentially misdirected votes could actually change the election outcome. That's a pretty important distinction.


And asking whether you'd support the same scrutiny if both candidates were Democrats isn't whataboutism. It's a test of whether your objection is based on principle or party affiliation.

If your argument is that the DOJ lacks the legal authority, make that argument. But pretending the underlying conduct isn't a legitimate election-integrity concern is ridiculous.

Back in June the Alaskan Supreme Court turned back the GOP’s challenge claiming it was a deliberate attempt to mislead voters, as I noted, Daniel J. Sullivan Jr is running on a separate Independent line while Dan S Sullivan is rhe noted Republican incumbent Senator

And that scope is ridiculous, how are you going to determine people voted for Daniel J Sullivan Jr’s votes were cast in error?
You going to throw out those peoples’ vote based upon a claim already rejected?

It is blatant attempt by Trump to reflect doubt and mistrust on the election, the elections, it’s the same schtick daring back to when he lost his primary to Cruz, the elections are rigged

 

[zymurgy]

Back in June the Alaskan Supreme Court turned back the GOP’s challenge claiming it was a deliberate attempt to mislead voters, as I noted, Daniel J. Sullivan Jr is running on a separate Independent line while Dan S Sullivan is rhe noted Republican incumbent Senator

And that scope is ridiculous, how are you going to determine people voted for Daniel J Sullivan Jr’s votes were cast in error?
You going to throw out those peoples’ vote based upon a claim already rejected?

It is blatant attempt by Trump to reflect doubt and mistrust on the election, the elections, it’s the same schtick daring back to when he lost his primary to Cruz, the elections are rigged

You're confusing the right to appear on the ballot with whether the candidate was deliberately attempting to deceive voters.

The Alaska Supreme Court ruled he could remain on the ballot. That doesn't establish that his intentions were innocent.

And your defense of this bullshit is precisely why people get so frustrated with lawyers. You can spend all day arguing legal technicalities while ignoring what's plainly suspicious about the conduct.

The guy even tried to use the incumbent's middle initial. You don't need a law degree to recognize why that raises serious questions.

Something can be legally permissible and still be dishonest.

 

[archives]

You're confusing the right to appear on the ballot with whether the candidate was deliberately attempting to deceive voters.

The Alaska Supreme Court ruled he could remain on the ballot. That doesn't establish that his intentions were innocent.

And your defense of this bullshit is precisely why people get so frustrated with lawyers. You can spend all day arguing legal technicalities while ignoring what's plainly suspicious about the conduct.

The guy even tried to use the incumbent's middle initial. You don't need a law degree to recognize why that raises serious questions.

Something can be legally permissible and still be dishonest.

The Court rejected the GOP’s argument based on their claim that his intentions weren’t innocent, that his candidacy wasn’t sincere, the Court even noted the distinction between the two and their placement on the ballot were enough to aid voters

As noted, the DOJ move is bullshit, even Barr wouldn’t have bent that low to appease Trump

 

[Walt]

There are three possible scenarios Alaska, and having two candidates with similar names does not affect the outcome in any of scenarios. It is ranked voting, so Peltola wins the first round, S. Sullivan wins the first round, or they go to later round. If anyone gets over 50% in the first round, splitting the vote does not matter. If it goes to a later round, one of the Sullivans will be eliminated, and it will come down to a race with only one Sullivan. This is much ado about nothing.

Can come up with a scenario where it matters? @zymurgy @Into the Night

 

[zymurgy]

There are three possible scenarios Alaska, and having two candidates with similar names does not affect the outcome in any of scenarios. It is ranked voting, so Peltola wins the first round, S. Sullivan wins the first round, or they go to later round. If anyone gets over 50% in the first round, splitting the vote does not matter. If it goes to a later round, one of the Sullivans will be eliminated, and it will come down to a race with only one Sullivan. This is much ado about nothing.

Can come up with a scenario where it matters? @zymurgy @Into the Night

Sure. Here's a scenario:

• Peltola gets 48%.
• Incumbent Sullivan gets 47%.
• The other Sullivan gets 5%.

Suppose those 5% intended to vote for the incumbent but selected the wrong Sullivan and didn't rank the incumbent as their second choice.

When the other Sullivan is eliminated, those ballots are exhausted. Peltola wins 48–47.

Without the confusion, Sullivan wins 52–48.

Ranked-choice voting isn't a mind reader. It cannot correct a voter choosing the wrong candidate.

And you're missing the larger point. Alaska's Division of Elections concluded this candidate was deliberately attempting to mislead voters. He even requested the incumbent's middle initial!

Your defense essentially boils down to arguing that attempted election deception doesn't matter unless it succeeds.

 

[Walt]

Sure. Here's a scenario:

• Peltola gets 48%.
• Incumbent Sullivan gets 47%.
• The other Sullivan gets 5%.

OK, in ranked voting, like in Alaska, none of the candidates got over 50%, and it goes to the next round. In the next round, it would be just Peltola(D) and Sullivan(R). Are you saying that Sullivan voters would rather have a Democrat over a Republican?

That has never happened, and is unlikely to happen. Voters almost always exhaust all the candidates in their party.

What is going to happen is Peltola or Sullivan will get a majority in one round or another, and if it is Peltola, then trump will whine and whine and whine.

 

[zymurgy]

OK, in ranked voting, like in Alaska, none of the candidates got over 50%, and it goes to the next round. In the next round, it would be just Peltola(D) and Sullivan(R). Are you saying that Sullivan voters would rather have a Democrat over a Republican?

That has never happened, and is unlikely to happen. Voters almost always exhaust all the candidates in their party.

What is going to happen is Peltola or Sullivan will get a majority in one round or another, and if it is Peltola, then trump will whine and whine and whine.

No. I'm saying you're assuming votes automatically transfer to the other Republican. They don't.

Alaska allows voters to rank just one candidate. If someone intends to vote for the incumbent Sullivan, mistakenly selects the other Sullivan, and doesn't rank anyone else, that ballot is exhausted when the other Sullivan is eliminated.

Peltola wins 48–47. Without the confusion, Sullivan wins 52–48.

And here's the kicker: In Alaska's 2024 general election, roughly 60% of ballots in contests with more than two candidates ranked only one candidate.

You asked for a scenario where the deception could change the outcome. I gave you one. You're dismissing it by inventing second-choice votes those voters never cast.

And we're still ignoring the elephant in the room: Alaska's Division of Elections concluded this guy was deliberately trying to deceive voters.

Ranked-choice voting isn't a magical cure for voter deception.

 

[Walt]

No. I'm saying you're assuming votes automatically transfer to the other Republican. They don't.

I am saying that in every ranked voting in Alaska, a candidate has gotten over 50% of the vote in one of the rounds. People do not just stop voting after the first round.

 

[Into the Night]

The Court rejected the GOP’s argument based on their claim that his intentions weren’t innocent, that his candidacy wasn’t sincere, the Court even noted the distinction between the two and their placement on the ballot were enough to aid voters

As noted, the DOJ move is bullshit, even Barr wouldn’t have bent that low to appease Trump

Irrelevance fallacy. Lie. Synthesis.

 

[Into the Night]

There are three possible scenarios Alaska, and having two candidates with similar names does not affect the outcome in any of scenarios. It is ranked voting, so Peltola wins the first round, S. Sullivan wins the first round, or they go to later round. If anyone gets over 50% in the first round, splitting the vote does not matter. If it goes to a later round, one of the Sullivans will be eliminated, and it will come down to a race with only one Sullivan. This is much ado about nothing.

Can come up with a scenario where it matters? @zymurgy @Into the Night

But which Sullivan wins, Wally?

 

[Into the Night]

I am saying that in every ranked voting in Alaska, a candidate has gotten over 50% of the vote in one of the rounds. People do not just stop voting after the first round.

No one but you is talking about after the first round, Wally. Strawman fallacy.