What the hell does āTruth Over Factsā mean? And why the hell does this announcement of Trumpās new codified effort to #gaslight Joe Biden put quotes around āexpertsā?
Are they actually admitting theyāre just going to be calling in their usual array of pundits and idiots?
Ads designed to rattle thin-skinned Tā¦right where it hurts, money shots.
RealClearPolitics recently published a news story and a column both of which made the astounding assertion that 28 million mail-in ballots went āmissingā over the last four general elections. If true, it could be a major stain on the mail-ballot voting process.
But it is not true. Hereās why. Both pieces used the term āmissingā to describe ballots that were mailed out to voters but not cast by those voters. By this logic, all of the over 250 million votes not cast by in-person Election Day voters from 2012 to 2018 are also āmissing.ā
Conflating voters choosing not to cast their ballot with āmissingā ballots is a fundamental flaw in the argument against a voting system that is tried and true, with over a quarter of a billion votes cast nationally from mailed-out ballots since 2000. In this time when election officials are working to allow voters to participate without putting their health in danger, it is important that this system is evaluated with facts, not misconstrued data.
The simple fact is: An un-cast ballot is not a missing ballot.
Misleading
Between 2012 and 2018, 28.3 million mail-in ballots remain unaccounted for, according to data from the federal Election Assistance Commission. The missing ballots amount to nearly one in five of all absentee ballots and ballots mailed to voters residing in states that do elections exclusively by mail.
States and local authorities simply have no idea what happened to these ballots since they were mailed ā and the figure of 28 million missing ballots is likely even higher because some areas in the country, notably Chicago, did not respond to the federal agencyās survey questions. This figure does not include ballots that were spoiled, undeliverable, or came back for any reason
Wait, is this RealClearPolitics literally fact-checking themselves?
Looks like itā¦
I was curious about the argument given for HOW these potential votes go missing. They donāt, all mail-in ballots do not always get used.
ā¦and now that the term āharvesting ballotsā is being thrown around, does it give any insights on that?
I know RealClearPolitics is a conservative aggregator of news, and I just saw the headline and went there, only to see them rewrite their story.
Ballot harvesting is a term coined by California Republicans, read below.
What is āballot harvestingā?
āBallot harvestingā is political jargon for a practice in which organized workers or volunteers collect absentee ballots from certain voters and drop them off at a polling place or election office. Coined by California Republicans, the term carries a negative connotation to suggest improprieties and even election fraud. The conservative site Townhall.com called it the California Democratsā ālatest election-stealing tool.ā The San Francisco Chronicle Editorial Board took a different view, calling it āa sinister-sounding way of saying their opponents turned out more votes than they didā in one recent editorial.
Is it legal?
Yes.
In 2016, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a change to Section 3017 of the Election Codethat allows any person to collect a mail-in ballot from voters and turn in the mail ballot to a polling place or the registrarās office. Prior law restricted the practice to just relatives of or those living in the same household as the voter.
While critics decry it as the practice of a ābanana republic,ā proponents of the change say it allows more eligible citizens to participate in elections across California. Hereās how the legislation spells out the practice:
(a) All vote by mail ballots cast under this division shall be voted on or before the day of the election. After marking the ballot, the vote by mail voter shall do any of the following: (1) return the ballot by mail or in person to the elections official from whom it came, (2) return the ballot in person to a member of a precinct board at a polling place within the jurisdiction, or (3) return the ballot to the elections official from whom it came at a vote by mail ballot drop-off location, if provided pursuant to Section 3025. However, a vote by mail voter who is unable to return the ballot may designate any person to return the ballot to the elections official from whom it came or to the precinct board at a polling place within the jurisdiction. The ballot must, however, be received by either the elections official from whom it came or the precinct board before the close of the polls on election day.
Itās literally just allowing someone else drop off your mail in ballot. I wonder if my partner is ballot harvesting me when he drops off my ballot with his? 
Thanks! @anon95374541 for spelling out the truth to the matter.
Ballot harvesting has an odd ring to it, when I realized - Oh, yes, it was that political operative , Leslie McCrae Dowless Jr. in N.Carolina who got arrested for ācollectingā ballots to help the R candidate. Sounds like ballot harvesting to meā¦
RALEIGH, N.C. ā
The political operative at the center of an election fraud scandal that has engulfed a North Carolina congressional race was arrested Wednesday on charges of illegal ballot handling and conspiracy. Four people working for him were also charged.
Leslie McCrae Dowless Jr., 63, was accused of directing workers to collect and mail in other peopleās absentee ballots during the 2018 Republican congressional primary and the 2016 general election. It is against the law in North Carolina for anyone other than the voter or a close relative to handle a mail-in ballot, a measure aimed at guarding against manipulation.
and then how it call gets tangled into Tās base believing what he says is true, and what is in fact true. #Diversion #HeadFake et.
It is always a struggle to untangle fact from fictionā¦appreciate your help in clarifying these terms. 
If you havenāt seen this interview it is well worth the watch. Enjoy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VB032Q1ozg
Biden camp testing this theoretic VP running mate. There have been a lot of trial balloons and interviews with the top contenders - Stacey Abrams, Rep Val Demmings, Sen Klobachar, very little of Sen Kamala Harris and now Sen Elizabeth Warren.
Biden has promised a woman, and emphasized it probably will be a woman of color and he may or may not stick with that premise. Do you insure the Democratic base any more or less with any of these contenders?
Abrams - Strong fighter, but not getting general appeal
Rep Demmings - Showed great resilience, smarts at the Impeachment hearing. As a former Police Chief, sheās a law and order person, obviously one who has won the respect of her city, and now country. This wonāt dislodge democratic lead in the House.
Sen Klobachar - Does she add to the ticket? Middle American probably, Overall appeal - not huge.
Sen Harris - Very strong candidate - Intellect, tenacity, respect but in Senate - do not want to give away any seats there.
Sen Warren - Strong candidate - she would appeal to the Bernie folks, the Dems who want more economic equality, health careā¦she has shown herself very capable, but perhaps alienates more of the Republican base who would never vote for her.
If these female senators do not get nominated as VP perhaps they are a shoe-in for a cabinet position, and they hope to get a Democratic Senate replacement for the rest of their term.
Biden also calls himself a one-term president, teeing up this VP candidate as prime for the presidency. Big opportunities for becoming president.
What are your thoughts on who is looking good as VP or Bidenās performance so far?
Biden has shown his weaknesses in his public forays with reporters, and he can potentially dig himself into a huge hole. I hope the appeal of his VP choice will carry the ticket universally.
But a vote for Biden is a vote against Tā¦letās hope the ticket draws the voters as much as the Obama 2008 campaign did.
Confronted with the prospect of taking office next year in the depths of a historic economic and health crisis, Biden is now talking about a bolder presidency, with ambitions stretching beyond the restoration of pre-Donald Trump normalcy.
And there is a growing sense in Democratic circles, particularly among the progressive wing of the party, that there is one sure way to show he means it: Make Elizabeth Warren his running mate.
The Massachusetts senator has mostly been regarded as a vice presidential dark horse more likely destined, if progressive dreams were answered, for a top cabinet position. But that calculation could be shifting as the factors influencing Bidenās decision evolve in the face of a mushrooming catastrophe. Over the past month, the pair have forged a deeper personal connection, following the death of Warrenās brother, and begun to sharpen their focus on common political ground as Biden publicly shifted on an issue that famously divided them nearly two decades ago.
Word
Watch what they doā¦not what they say.
This is frightening.
WASHINGTON ā In October, President Trump declares a state of emergency in major cities in battleground states, like Milwaukee and Detroit, banning polling places from opening.
A week before the election, Attorney General William P. Barr announces a criminal investigation into the Democratic presidential nominee, Joseph R. Biden Jr.
After Mr. Biden wins a narrow Electoral College victory, Mr. Trump refuses to accept the results, wonāt leave the White House and declines to allow the Biden transition team customary access to agencies before the Jan. 20 inauguration.
Far-fetched conspiracy theories? Not to a group of worst-case scenario planners ā mostly Democrats, but some anti-Trump Republicans as well ā who have been gaming out various doomsday options for the 2020 presidential election. Outraged by Mr. Trump and fearful that he might try to disrupt the campaign before, during and after Election Day, they are engaged in a process that began in the realm of science fiction but has nudged closer to reality as Mr. Trump and his administration abandon longstanding political norms.
The anxiety has intensified in recent weeks as the president continues to attack the integrity of mail voting and insinuate that the election system is rigged, while his Republican allies ramp up efforts to control who can vote and how. Just last week, Mr. Trump threatened to withhold funding from states that defy his wishes on expanding mail voting, while also amplifying unfounded claims of voter fraud in battleground states.
āIn the eight to 10 months Iāve been yapping at people about this stuff, the reactions have gone from, āDonāt be silly, that wonāt happen,ā to an increasing sense of, āYou know, that could happen,āā said Rosa Brooks, a Georgetown University law professor. Earlier this year, Ms. Brooks convened an informal group of Democrats and never-Trump Republicans to brainstorm about ways the Trump administration could disrupt the election and to think about ways to prevent it.
But the anxiety is hardly limited to outside groups.
Marc Elias, a Washington lawyer who leads the Democratic National Committeeās legal efforts to fight voter suppression measures, said not a day goes by when he doesnāt field a question from senior Democratic officials about whether Mr. Trump could postpone or cancel the election. Prodded by allies to explain why not, Mr. Elias wrote a column on the subject in late March for his website ā and it drew more traffic than anything heād ever published.
But changing the date of the election is not what worries Mr. Elias. The bigger threat in his mind is the possibility that the Trump administration could act in October to make it harder for people to vote in urban centers in battleground states ā possibilities, he said, that include declaring a state of emergency, deploying the National Guard or forbidding gatherings of more than 10 people.
Such events could serve to depress or discourage turnout in pockets of the country that reliably vote for Democrats.
āThat to me is that frame from which all doomsday scenarios then go,ā he said.
That worst case scenario very well could happen in the fall. This is the scariest time for our democracy. 
Headline is true but thereās a bit of a wink and a nod here. If you want a mail-in ballot in Texas you have to check disability. They wonāt and canāt ask for your health info.
When voters cite disability to request an absentee ballot, theyāre not required to say what the disability is. The voters simply check a box on the application form, and if their application is properly filled out, locals officials are supposed to send them a ballot. The state ultimately conceded that officials canāt reject those voters.
Texans please go request your mail-in ballot, check disability because pandemic and vote safely from the comfort of your own home. 
Love those Lone Stars, anyone else really love Texas?
I may be crying a little here.
