Screw headlines. How about US Supreme Court rulings that signal what follows will be misleading and/or stupid? Remember Bush v Gore in 2000?Meadmaker wrote: ↑Tue Feb 27, 2024 8:26 pm Nikki Haley's 40% in South Carolina: A crushing loss for her or a '5-alarm fire' for Donald Trump?
That's what USA today asked.
Uaually, beating your opponent by 20 points is considered a good thing. I've seen so many headlines that explain that winning every primary by wide margins shows that Donald Trump is very weak.
Wishfull thinking. In a big way.
This sort of headline is a variation of the "We're smarter than you" headline. Is the plain fact sitting right in front of you real? Or do you need a journalist to explain it to you.
Anyway, today I am going to do my part and go to the polls in Michigan, as a Republican, to vote against Donald Trump. The first time I voted in a Republicn primary was 2016, in the hopes of doing my one small bit to keep him from getting the nomination. It's even less likely to succeed today, but I have to at least do my part.
SCOTUS found the state of Florida's court-ordered manual recount of vote ballots in the 2000 presidential election was unconstitutional under the "Equal Protection Clause" of the 14th Amendment.
We were doing a gem and mineral show in the Philadelphia area the weekend before Election Day. I was registered to vote in Austin, TX, and had filled out my absentee ballot for Gore/Lieberman and left the envelope Friday morning at the counter of the motel where were staying under the belief the mail would be picked up that day.
Monday morning we were checking out of the motel and sitting on the counter was my absentee ballot envelope. Don't know if it is still the law but back then the absentee ballot had to be there Election Day Tuesday, not just postmarked by then. That meant I had to overnight the goddamned thing.
In the year 2000 a Texas voter paid twenty dollars to overnight his ballot for a Democrat running for president. How dumb is that?