Also, note that Gore privately conceded the election that night, but retracted it after further counting due to the <1000 vote margin.

So in fact major networks (including CNN, ABC, FOX) initially called Bush the winner, but retracted that afterwards due to the possibility of a recount.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia...

* In 2000 it was one tipping-point state. Here, Biden has multiple states putting him over the top.

* The margin in those states is larger than in Florida. The final official Florida count gave the victory to Bush by 537 votes.

* 2000 involved a recount of legitimately questionable ballots. Trump's legal cases (thus far) have been judged by experts to be far less serious.

* Trump (so far) is not challenging enough ballots to give him the lead in the tipping-point state.

Are there others at play?

In person and absentee ballots dropped off can be trivially found to be legitimate (timewise). You have them by 8PM or you don't.

For mail-in ballots, states have different rules. Some states allow ballots received by the 12th or later, as long as the postmark is on or before election day. Some states require ballots to be received by election day. PA is under a microscope because ballots postmarked by the 3rd, but received by the 6th may or may not be counted, pending court decisions.

Those ballots, however, are not included in current vote totals as reported by the state, so Biden won PA without those votes (and beyond the margin required for a recount). They'd just further extend his lead.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/06/us/politics/trump-electio...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-06/supreme-court-probabl...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/06/politics/lawsuits-trump-gop-p...

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/judges-evidence-trump-campai...

I'm tired of it.

Your comment is nothing more than an attempt to shut down discourse by denying that any opposed ideas can have any validity. That is a fallacy in an argument. In a democratically elected leader, or his followers, it is a direct attack on the foundations of the country. Please stop.

Barry Richard, an election lawyer who served as a lead attorney for President George W. Bush during the 2000 recount in Florida, criticized the campaign’s efforts. “I wouldn’t call it a strategy,” he said. “There isn’t any legal basis for anything I’ve seen so far.”

Other election law experts have questioned the multipronged attack. Richard Hasen, professor at UC Irvine School of Law and author of “Election Meltdown,” said the lawsuits, even if partially successful, were smaller-scale and didn’t threaten the results. “If they’re not being filed to change the election outcome, what’s the point?” he said.

It's a conspiracy against Donald Trump because he's a man of the people!

Trump is definitely an outsider.

It's both a contradictory argument and obviously illegal: you can't stop a state's election board from counting the already cast ballots.

This is just announced today so I’m not sure how “experts” could have weighed in already, whatever that means.

> These aren’t serious people. They never have been, they never will be.

Well, Giuliani prosecuted the NY mafia and won, so part of this statement is a little far fetched.

And yes that is a prediction. But it is an informed prediction. It is informed by the fact that so far, every case has been tossed for lack of evidence. I can go around making false assertions and filing false lawsuits all day too, it doesn't mean that anyone should take them seriously, and no one would. The only reason that we give these assertions oxygen is out of deference to the power these people hold.

"Get Rudy Giuliani off TV."

Even the Post doesn't give Giuliani credence. Trump will get recounts, none of them will move the numbers in a meaningful way, just like every other recount in the history of Presidential recounts.

- Joe Rogan (>10 million listeners)

- Rush Limbaugh (15 million per week)

- Crowder (8 million on election night)

- No Agenda (nobody, this is a joke)

The Post has a circulation of ~250k.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK21F1b5ihc&feature=youtu.be...

List of names: https://controlc.com/c17e91ba

Voter website: https://mvic.sos.state.mi.us/Voter/Index

> No ballot for the 118-year-old Mr. Bradley was ever requested, received or counted.

Yet, the voter registration site clearly showed that a ballot was requested, sent to, and received from the elder Mr. Bradley. I'm skeptical that they would have detected the error had this particular case not gone viral. If they had the means to detect the error, then why didn't they do it before sending the ballot? Or, even better, remove the defunct registration in the first place?

2) Ballot also sent to alive person at same address with same name -> good

3) Living person fills out their ballot, turns it in -> good

4) Living person throws out dead person's ballot -> good

5) Vote counting accidentally records Living person's vote under Dead person's entry -> bad, but pretty easy to imagine as clerical error

6) Living person's entry never has a vote counted -> good (sort of, as living person's vote only gets counted once, just under wrong name

Result: A) No change in voting results (living person's vote gets counted once)

But B) Is this fraud? -> my opinion, no. There was no difference in vote count, likely no intention to make the mistake. If it was intentional fraud that's pretty useless

C) Is this system? -> Not sure, the list of thousands of 'possible dead people' certainly looks like worth investigating, but unless some real reports are gonna go look at every one I'm not sure there's gonna be a real answer for all of them

"If they had the means to detect the error" -> quite possibly because they're busy doing other things, like counting the votes. "skeptical that they would have detected the error" is pretty speculative, but again an error that results in no vote count difference is not the kind they should be correcting. They should focus on correcting errors that affect the vote count, right? (ie, execute the main thread rather than spend cycles garbage collecting. Garbage collect when the main thread is idle.)

(1) There's no reason to believe they'll change the outcome much (recounts in 2016 didn't) --- states have learned since 2000 and have moved away from faulty ballot designs.

(2) The recounts will be occurring in multiple states, and Trump needs to sweep them.

(3) The margins in those recounts are much bigger than in 2000 --- tens of thousands of votes, not hundreds.

Since 2000, most states have switched to optical scan ballots as their paper records. These ballots have much lower error rates, closer to 1 error per million votes. I don't think there's been a single race using optical scan ballots where a recount actually caused a winner to switch.

That election and SCOTUS ruling was a mess, and as a consequence did a lot of damage to this countries institutions.

[0]https://www.npr.org/2018/11/12/666812854/the-florida-recount...

Biden is ahead here. Even if you remove PA or AZ, he'd still have enough electoral votes to win.

He's going to be President. The only person who doesn't get that at this point is Trump, and everyone around him is just bowing to his whims.

"AP did not call the closely contested race in 2000 between George W. Bush and Al Gore – we stood behind our assessment that the margin in Florida made it too close to call."

https://www.ap.org/en-us/topics/politics/elections/how-we-ca...

State election systems will decide the election.

And if the people truly and directly got to decide the president, this post would have been made on Wednesday morning.

And the majority of Americans don't want a rural minority dictating the "fate of the country" either.