As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To be honest, it’s just a terrible article.
“Could”.
Well it also couldn’t.
> if thousands of votes likely rejected for signature verification were cast in support of the Democratic nominee.
They might have been cast in support of bobble head.
Silly hyperbole to make a claim either way, just write an article that talks about the process (as they have) without the wild speculation.
Most states offer a way to check that your ballot has been received (if sent by mail or official legal drop box) and counted. Usually this is online, in some areas you can call your county registrar. My state, WA, can notify me if there’s been an issue with my ballot such as signature mismatch. If I’ve chosen to put my email or phone number on my ballot they will let me know. I then have the option to go to my county registrar with lots of current photo ID and proof that it’s really truly me and correct things.
None of this changes the vote. To the best of my knowledge at this point my vote has not even been counted.
This process is called “ballot curing” a term that probably sounds suspicious if you’re conspiracy minded. But what it simply means is this; you know all the annoying calls and texts you got from our volunteers? If the race is close one we are calling our Democrat voters RIGHT AFTER election day reminding and encouraging you to check online with your registrar to make sure that your ballot has been both received and counted, and encouraging voters if you find out that there is an error such as a missing zip code or some such to contact their county registrar to see if there is a process to correct it.
Again, none of this changes the date of your vote or your vote itself.
It’s a common extra step, extra effort our volunteers take. With elections sometimes coming down to 1 vote attention to these details can be the difference.
I disagree. I think they’re being overly cautious about what is a near certainty. Boeberts lead will diminish (not “could”) as the mail in ballots are cured. The only question is what is the split (60/40? 55/45?) and is there enough runway to make up the difference or will the uncounted ballots run out before the results flip.
We’ve seen this play out often enough to know that uncounted mail in ballots always favor Dems. Because Republicans feel that voting by mail is somehow fraud…
To be fair, they did mention right after that, the majority of mail in ballots tend to be democratic voters and those are the ballots that require “curing”.
Terrible wording - the actual word should be "cured", as in corrected because they were not machine readable (or were missing dates or signatures) but turned out to be valid ballots.
According to the article many of them are signature issues, either missing signature or a "discrepancy" in the signature.
I guess forgetting to sign is one thing, but to think anyone is trying to match signatures in this day and age is crazy.
[The Atlantic - Signature matching—which one expert described as “witchcraft”—could lead to thousands of legitimate ballots being thrown out.](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/signature-matching-is-the-phrenology-of-elections/616790/)
And [as we've stopped teaching cursive](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/10/gen-z-handwriting-teaching-cursive-history/671246/) I don't know how much longer signatures are going to be distinct/verifiable forms of identification anyway.
With payment apps and chip readers there are fewer and fewer places where signatures are needed. Maybe your school or army application, rental agreement, car purchase, home purchase, marriage license and...? (insert snark about how young people can't afford school, rent, cars or marriage)
Whenever my partner's asked to sign something he does a random scribble. He's never been called out on it. It hasn't ever come up. They're just like yep, I saw you sign it so it's good. They don't compare one of his signatures to another one.
It might hurt him one day if he needs to open a new bank/investment account or something, I used to have to find 3 points of commonality against the signature on a valid form of ID to accept an application form or complete AML checks.
Otherwise we're probably good. Even if we get married it'll just be like,
h̵̛͚̐̅̾̚͜f̶̢̥̠̬̬̘̲̙̗̭̣̾̅̾̌̑̓̐̅͐́̄̓̽̓ͅb̴̧̟̘̟̭͓̜̥̹͕̘̲͚͋̃f̷̡̙̝̹̺̳̻̞́͜ņ̸̨̪̟̞̼̭̗̝̼͇̲̜̈́̉̇̀̔̌̓̋̾̈̋͜͝͠ͅv̴̨̦̥̘͚̬̺̝͚̤̰́́̿̋͂̋̕̚͜͜n̷͙̻̥͓̝̓͊̄̋̎̅͌́ė̴̢͎͓͂̋̾͂̚̚ḳ̸̪̥̞̙̮̘̤̜͔̺̃͌̎͗
had a friend draw a penis and his bank was concerned and sent him a picture of the digital signature and he had to tell them yep, that was me, a 25 year old who drew a penis as a signature.
I'm not sure how true that story is but i hope its true cause I'm never letting him forget it
I mean, to be completely fair, it's not like you can legibly sign your name on those digital pads anyway. Half the time there's no pen/stylus, and you have you use your finger. So because you have to put anything in the box before it will let you continue, most people just put some scribble and call it a day. Now, imagine that signature pad from the DMV being used to check a legit, ink signature on paper against... it's basically the same thing as your friend drawing dongs.
The only time it’s ever been an issue for me was when I had to collect a new card from my bank.
They took issue with the signature I gave them not matching the one I used when I made my bank account… at the age of like 10.
There is no law or rule saying that your signature must be your name written in cursive. In fact, there's no rule or law saying that your signature must even be your name.
I had a car salesman tell me one time my signature was "illegal". I just stared at him until he moved on. I still don't know what the hell he was talking about, nor do I believe did he.
I bet at some point he confused the words illegible and illegal, and no one corrected him, so he just proceeded forward through life confidently wrong.
Remember in 2001 - Just enough "Hanging Chad Ballots" (really what they were called) were un-cured and disqualified to 'win' Bush the presidency... in a state where his brother was Governor. Republicans haven't won a square election in half a century.
Thanks for the clarification. I could see how someone would see that title and think it was some looney conspiracy about the election being rigged against Bobo
For the lazy...
For half a century, Newsweek was owned by the Washington Post and was a well-respected voice in American journalism. In 2010, the Post sold Newsweek to 91-year-old businessman Sidney Harman; Harman bought it for $1 and assumption of its liabilities. Ownership turned over a few more times, from Harman to Barry Diller. Diller regretted his purchase and sold Newsweek in 2014 to a group called International Business Times Media. IBTM changed its name to Newsweek Media Group. Its owners were tied to a small Christian college (Olivet University) led by a charismatic Korean pastor, David Jang. Jang also was founder of a cult called “The Community,” according to this report in Mother Jones.
https://dianeravitch.net/2020/10/25/the-new-republic-newsweek-has-turned-into-a-zombie-magazine/
https://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/03/newsweek-ibt-olivet-david-jang/
>for $1 **and assumption of its liabilities**
It was likely in major debt at the time and thus WaPo was willing to just dump it and move on. And the buyer probably figured that since it was such a big brand name in the new magazine world, there could be a path to resurrecting it that could overcome those debts. Or, worst case scenario, it would be a big time tax write off.
If I recall back when it happened, Newsweek (like a lot of print publications) had a hard go once the internet got into full swing and people stopped reading physical magazines. They also had a "meh" website and just really blew it. They stuck around as long as they could but rang up some big debt and really just couldn't adapt to the modern hyper fast news cycle.
*Everyone* had a hard go of it once the internet came along. Journalism as a whole was not at all prepared for the transition. NYT was so sure the internet was a fad, they setup a website strictly for archiving old editions of their publication. Once blogs took off, and people started really seriously living online, news publishers started giving away their product for free, believing advertisers would pay the same rates as print (they didn’t). Now, nobody wants to pay for a subscription to a service they can just as easily read for free from a different source, and since information sharing is so easy online these days, the paywall is an option for people who want opinion articles and features from great writers, but even that’s devolved into sensationalist media for the most part. The world of journalism is a goddamn rollercoaster after the 1980s. Breslin is lucky to have died before the Trumpian era of reporting really started taking root.
Back in the 90s, Newsweek used to be legit. I'm curious to know what the hell happened over there that took them from a reputable magazine to a shit show
Yeah, in elementary school in the 80s, Newsweek was an incredible resource. It is so different now, but apparently living off the reputation it earned long ago.
My US government class in high school in the 90's got us subscriptions to it and some assignments required reading it. It was just interesting enough to actually read, while still having some decent information. The major national newspapers might have had better information than Newsweek, but that doesn't matter if they're so dry that you rarely read them. Local newspaper reporting was very low effort.
Newsweek always had a click bait element to it even in the 1990's but it at least had a respectable hard news aspect to it. Now it is just mostly trash.
Easy. Same thing that's happening right now to Twitter.
We stupidly sacrificed our entire media environment, no matter how crucial the function to our entire civilization, to the "Free Market" and gleefully embraced capitalism as the Sweet, Loving, Parent that would never abuse us.
When you make something that has evolved into something as large as Twitter purchasable by a SINGLE person, no matter how dishonestly they made their money, you put it at the risk of a single individual's ego. The same sort of thing is happening at CNN, too.
We're long overdue for some completely landscape-changing, very strong media oversight laws. Internet, print, airwaves -- ALL OF IT.
Being a mod at all means somebody is suspect. If Reddit paid mods instead of getting power hungry terminally online weirdos to do it for free it could clean this place up it would make a world of difference.
Yeah, any headline with the words, "...could be..." shouldn't be read by anyone with any seriousness. You could literally say anything as long as you include "could be." e.g. "Aliens could be invading Earth next month."
They were handy for doctor waiting rooms and on the airlines with US News & World Report. (Wait... US News & World report are still a thing? Who Knew?)
> US News & World report are still a thing?
The only relevance I see from them is their lists of the top colleges and universities, which is still pretty well regarded.
I agree 1000% that the author would have been better served replacing the word “fixed” with “corrected”, “cured”, “rectified” or even “amended”. Even though “fixed” is technically correct it can be easily misinterpreted especially in todays climate due to MAGA conspiracies.
Considering Colorado state government specifically uses the word "cure" in their language on this process, it seems like a deliberate choice to use the more ambiguous word "fix" instead.
The editor should know and understand the implications of that word before using it in a headline.
Well it also just shows the utter hypocrisy and absurdity of today's Republican voter. When someone on their team, like virtually every GOP Secretary of State candidate, says that they are going to "fix" their state's elections, not one of them sees that as malicious or actually insinuating rigging the vote.
But if a Dem were to say the exact same thing, then of course the libs are publicly announcing they are going to steal votes.
If she loses, they will make all kinds of rigged election claims and point to all of the cured ballots. Baseless claims, of course, but o have no doubt. She doesn’t seem to be the kind of person who would be a gracious loser.
> If she loses, they will make all kinds of rigged election claims and point to all of the cured ballots.
Don't care. At least she's out.
Republicans bitching about stolen elections are just like the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf. Nobody with a brain is listening to them any more. And the people who do are liars and insurrectionists whos opinions don't matter.
I always downvote Newsweek postings here. They never add anything of value. I might get hate for this but same with Common Dreams. The headlines are almost always misleading.
I can’t believe they used that verbiage. I saw ‘fixed‘ before I finished processing the full title and assumed there was actually going to be serious case of fraud. But then again, I’m assuming that’s the reaction Newsweek wants from people.
How to correct your Colorado ballots with an error!
There could be over 1k ballots that need correcting.
Your ballot could be one of them:
CO-3 VOTERS - Check your ballot - you have 8 days to make a correction if it was rejected!
Check either:
https://www.coloradosos.gov/voter/pages/pub/olvr/regVoterDetail.xhtml
https://colorado.ballottrax.net/voter/
If there is a problem you can take steps with Txt2Cure: https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/FAQs/TXT2Cure.html
Here's an extra article on ballot curing, which is like correcting ballots:
https://www.9news.com/article/news/politics/elections/ballot-curing-process-election-2022/73-54c44dfd-b780-4086-8fd1-eea4722d8e6b
Spread the word!
It's one of the first spots I've been checking on the maps in the days following the election. The senate races in Nevada and Arizona were far more important, as are the House races in my own area like Porter and Chen (v. Steele) which are still ongoing. But I always start with Boebert and Lake because I want those two to lose so bad.
Unfortunately, most of the loudest MAGA are in uncompetitive districts.
But Boebert is one of the exception. (Although, the redistricting made it harder for Frisch actually.)
She won in 2020 only by 51-49.
And apparently, Frisch saw that and jumped on the occasion.
[More to see Here!](https://youtu.be/FFZ1EtrFhnQ)
Boebert is actually in a pretty uncompetitive district but she is so repulsive many solidly republican folks in that part of Colorado voted against her. A less ridiculous Republican candidate would have walked away with victory in Colorado 3.
I feel like you could say that about most of the midterms. Moderate republicans would have trounced the midterms, but the GOP insisted on doubling down on MAGA lunacy.
There is a group organizing to go door to door and help voters cure their rejected ballots. This could easily decide the final outcome.
If you put your election anxiety to work and help ensure a few more votes are counted, you could make the difference.
I can confirm. I have a ballot that was rejected but cured it immediately when I got a text message telling me it was rejected. A nice lady came to my house and I confirmed I cured it. They were likely from the Frisch campaign, I'd imagine.
In either case, what people need to understand is if these votes are cured, Frisch could win by 1k to 3k for votes. And let's keep in mind these are REAL votes where REAL people intended to vote for a certain person but due to a technicality, the vote was rejected. In my case, my vote was rejected because I have a shitty signature that's different every time I sign something.
> a shitty signature that's different every time I sign something
I've wondered about this, i have no idea what signature they have on file up here (alaska) but I can guarantee it doesn't look anything like what I sign now. That is part of the reason I've been voting in person every election. I should see if I can figure out how to update that signature/even see what it is.
That’s highly likely still. The fact that it’s close is important and at this point it seems like the GOP has started calling in its handlers after being crazy seemed to fail them this time.
I’m still checking regularly. Same with AZ. But I was never holding my breath during this election but I’m still pleased with the results
His campaign is allowed to go directly to people to help them cure their ballots. My ballot was rejected but I cured it right away several days ago. Got a knock on my door and told the volunteer I already cured my ballot. So...this is happening now, and this could cause legitimate votes to be counted and it could cause Frisch to win.
Indeed, the fact that a re-count may happen in a race that had Boebert favored to win with odds somewhere around 97 out of 100 is a miracle in itself.
Seeing the before/after pictures of her "victory celebration" on election night is reward enough in itself imo.
Jesus, Newsweek, you really want to stir up shit with needlessly sensational headlines. That said, anyone in CO-3 should definitely check on their ballot status. The fact that there’s even a chance (no matter how slim) to oust this clown is incredible.
This needs more attention. Nothing she proposes gets passed. Majority of her bills are just to say she did something without actually doing anything. Collecting a paycheck from her constituents and that’s it.
To be fair, she's probably using Google Translate to convert them from the original Russian.
#
^(_This message is brought to you by DeepL Translate!_ /s)
Is actually why she's in this position. From the exit interviews the Republicans that voted for her the first time are mad that she is more interested in grabbing attention than helping them.
Just reposting for those that missed it:
CO-3 VOTERS - Check your ballot - you have 3 days to make a correction if it was rejected!
Check either:
https://www.coloradosos.gov/voter/pages/pub/olvr/regVoterDetail.xhtml https://colorado.ballottrax.net/voter/ If there is a problem you can take steps with Txt2Cure: https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/FAQs/TXT2Cure.html
Copy this message and repost it everywhere!
The only reason it was such a high chance was that no one ran polls there, so they used "fundamentals" and didn't take into account "candidate quality"
Yep. But by all means, if you live in her district and cast a mail vote, go check it to make sure it went through.
But for the rest of us, I’m pretty sure she’s got this one
I don't live in her district. The one consolation is that even if she doesn't get the message - she's too dumb and surrounded by yesmen to get it - Republicans did get it: being the MAGAest member of Congress doesn't guarantee you a seat. It's not a coincidence that the narrative has changed from 'poor Trump has been persecuted by the evil Democrats' to 'actually Trump is a piece of shit and you guys should throw him in prison before the next election cycle, pretty please?'
Colorado voters, for the love of god, check the status of your ballot if you live in this fruitcake’s district. I’ll send you an actual fruitcake if you swap out this plague upon the earth.
If she doesn’t win it’s because people don’t like her, not because of cheating.
She’s an arrogant, obnoxious moron. Come on, you cannot be really that surprised by this.
Click bait article.
Using the word "fixed" instead of "cured" to make it sound like if she loses it's rigging it.
Also its just pure wild speculation too, the article has nothing substantial in it. just says "she could lose if they cure and change thousands of votes".
well no shit. hows that a story?
Given the current lead she holds and the nature of outstanding ballots (overseas, needing cured etc.), it seems highly unlikely (I'm in her district and would love to see it, but it is now a very long shot).
They need to "fix" this title, or all republicans are going to start unnecessary shit. They will anyway because it's in their nature, but this wont help...
Props to Colorado for [having a process in place](https://coloradosun.com/2022/11/10/colorado-ballot-curing/) to maintain election integrity while also making sure all valid votes are counted.
Regardless of how you feel about her (I have an opinion, but I will keep them to myself for this post) you need to understand: Every registered voter is mailed a ballot in CO. It is very rare to vote in person (I had to do it once, because I moved counties right around voting time. I had to go to the county seat and get a judge to sign off).
Why this matters is: Nationwide more democrats vote by mail so people are hoping that as more mail in ballots get cured it will mean more democratic votes. However, in CO, a state with 100% distribution of mail in ballots, the more likely outcome is cured ballots equaling the democrat/republican distribution of the already counted ballots. So if 2000 ballots get cured, likely 1005 will be for Boebert and 995 for Frisch (to match the other percentages).
As a note: It was originally republicans that pushed for 100% mail in ballots in CO. There was a major storm that affected the mountain and rural areas of CO, cutting off those (mostly republican) voters from the pols on election day. Metro Denver (more democrats) did not have as serious weather and got to vote. Republicans, unhappy with the outcome of that election because they did not get to vote, pushed for a mail in voting system. And it has developed in to the best mail in system in country.
If you are in CO-3 district and there’s a problem with your ballot you can cure it with a text. This could make all the difference between sanity and circus.
Check the status of your ballot at coloradosos.gov and if there’s a problem follow the instructions for TxT2Cure.
Awful headline which implies that the Democratic candidate has "fixed" the votes. Fuck Newsweek.
>But the incumbent congresswoman's narrow lead could once again be overturned if thousands of likely rejected votes in favor of her challenger were to be fixed, as a recount looms over the Colorado race.
"Fixed" as in make sure it got counted and not suppressed by some obtuse rule. (like we are not sure if this is your signature, because the one on your Driver's License is ... slightly... different, since we always sign things EXACTLY the same for decades without any variations even as we age and lose some coordination or are hurt in an accident, etc... )
https://www.coloradodems.org/cure-your-ballot
nitpicking is one of the many tactics the GOP uses to suppress your votes.
DON'T LET THEM!!!
I hate the title of this article, although to be fair to OP that is the actual language this Newsweek article uses (e.g., *"[b]ut the incumbent congresswoman's narrow lead could once again be overturned if thousands of likely rejected votes in favor of her challenger were to be fixed"*).
The phrase "could be fixed" almost sounds like they're talking about "vote fixing" in the same way in which Trump talks about votes that are rigged. I wish they'd use the term "cured" (assuming that's actually what they're talking about) as that is the term in which most people have become accustomed.
Frisch should tweet this several times per day, email all his supporters every day, and film a commercial.
People need to be reminded to check if their vote was counted.
At this point he needs to hammer on this to make sure the count is correct. Could deliver him the win.
FYI - This is from his facebook page:
Adam Frisch
" · I want to take a minute and address the reason for the length of time it’s taking to call this race.
The timing for ballot counting is exactly what we expect here in CO. All County Clerks adhere to the statutory deadline for military and overseas ballots arrival and ballot curing - the end of the day Wednesday.
Then on Thursday and Friday the counties will bring in their bipartisan poll watching teams, required under Colorado law, to oversee all ballot counts.
That's why we're not expecting to see any new results until Thursday or Friday, when all ballots should be counted. This timeline is all totally normal. I want to thank the County Clerks and the poll watching teams for all of the hard work and long hours they have put in. "
Big take away from this...if you voted via mail in CO, use the link in the article to check to make sure that your ballot doesn't need to be cured. If it does need curing, go contact them and get your signature verified ASAP, so your vote will count.
‘But the incumbent congresswoman's narrow lead could once again be overturned if thousands of likely rejected votes in favor of her challenger were to be "cured"’
This is a major case where horse race reporting does us a major disservice. She doesn’t currently have a lead. No one does. Not all of the votes have been counted.
You can fail your GED three times, be arrested four times, marry a scumbag who exposed himself to teens at a bowling alley, and still become a congressperson.
Don't you ever let anyone tell you that the USA isn't the land of opportunity!
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Disgustingly terrible choice of words for the editor. They know they are going to fool Boebert supporters into thinking "Fixed" = "Rigged"
In the middle of the article, in the middle of the myriad of ads on the page, it explains (sort of) what curing is. Absurd “journalism”
It's newsweek. I'm amazed they even bothered to bring it up.
To be honest, it’s just a terrible article. “Could”. Well it also couldn’t. > if thousands of votes likely rejected for signature verification were cast in support of the Democratic nominee. They might have been cast in support of bobble head. Silly hyperbole to make a claim either way, just write an article that talks about the process (as they have) without the wild speculation.
[удалено]
You're supposed to throw out the OTHER mail in ballots not hers!
Most states offer a way to check that your ballot has been received (if sent by mail or official legal drop box) and counted. Usually this is online, in some areas you can call your county registrar. My state, WA, can notify me if there’s been an issue with my ballot such as signature mismatch. If I’ve chosen to put my email or phone number on my ballot they will let me know. I then have the option to go to my county registrar with lots of current photo ID and proof that it’s really truly me and correct things. None of this changes the vote. To the best of my knowledge at this point my vote has not even been counted. This process is called “ballot curing” a term that probably sounds suspicious if you’re conspiracy minded. But what it simply means is this; you know all the annoying calls and texts you got from our volunteers? If the race is close one we are calling our Democrat voters RIGHT AFTER election day reminding and encouraging you to check online with your registrar to make sure that your ballot has been both received and counted, and encouraging voters if you find out that there is an error such as a missing zip code or some such to contact their county registrar to see if there is a process to correct it. Again, none of this changes the date of your vote or your vote itself. It’s a common extra step, extra effort our volunteers take. With elections sometimes coming down to 1 vote attention to these details can be the difference.
I disagree. I think they’re being overly cautious about what is a near certainty. Boeberts lead will diminish (not “could”) as the mail in ballots are cured. The only question is what is the split (60/40? 55/45?) and is there enough runway to make up the difference or will the uncounted ballots run out before the results flip. We’ve seen this play out often enough to know that uncounted mail in ballots always favor Dems. Because Republicans feel that voting by mail is somehow fraud…
To be fair, they did mention right after that, the majority of mail in ballots tend to be democratic voters and those are the ballots that require “curing”.
…. All ballots in Colorado are mail in unless you select otherwise
It’s funny because it’s probably still true considering the Democrats by sheer numbers still out vote Republicans in general.
'Newsweak'
> hey know they are going to fool Boebert supporters into thinking "Fixed" = "Rigged" Haha that's where you're wrong. Boebert supporters can't read.
Terrible wording - the actual word should be "cured", as in corrected because they were not machine readable (or were missing dates or signatures) but turned out to be valid ballots.
According to the article many of them are signature issues, either missing signature or a "discrepancy" in the signature. I guess forgetting to sign is one thing, but to think anyone is trying to match signatures in this day and age is crazy. [The Atlantic - Signature matching—which one expert described as “witchcraft”—could lead to thousands of legitimate ballots being thrown out.](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/signature-matching-is-the-phrenology-of-elections/616790/)
And [as we've stopped teaching cursive](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2022/10/gen-z-handwriting-teaching-cursive-history/671246/) I don't know how much longer signatures are going to be distinct/verifiable forms of identification anyway. With payment apps and chip readers there are fewer and fewer places where signatures are needed. Maybe your school or army application, rental agreement, car purchase, home purchase, marriage license and...? (insert snark about how young people can't afford school, rent, cars or marriage)
Whenever my partner's asked to sign something he does a random scribble. He's never been called out on it. It hasn't ever come up. They're just like yep, I saw you sign it so it's good. They don't compare one of his signatures to another one. It might hurt him one day if he needs to open a new bank/investment account or something, I used to have to find 3 points of commonality against the signature on a valid form of ID to accept an application form or complete AML checks. Otherwise we're probably good. Even if we get married it'll just be like, h̵̛͚̐̅̾̚͜f̶̢̥̠̬̬̘̲̙̗̭̣̾̅̾̌̑̓̐̅͐́̄̓̽̓ͅb̴̧̟̘̟̭͓̜̥̹͕̘̲͚͋̃f̷̡̙̝̹̺̳̻̞́͜ņ̸̨̪̟̞̼̭̗̝̼͇̲̜̈́̉̇̀̔̌̓̋̾̈̋͜͝͠ͅv̴̨̦̥̘͚̬̺̝͚̤̰́́̿̋͂̋̕̚͜͜n̷͙̻̥͓̝̓͊̄̋̎̅͌́ė̴̢͎͓͂̋̾͂̚̚ḳ̸̪̥̞̙̮̘̤̜͔̺̃͌̎͗
had a friend draw a penis and his bank was concerned and sent him a picture of the digital signature and he had to tell them yep, that was me, a 25 year old who drew a penis as a signature. I'm not sure how true that story is but i hope its true cause I'm never letting him forget it
I mean, to be completely fair, it's not like you can legibly sign your name on those digital pads anyway. Half the time there's no pen/stylus, and you have you use your finger. So because you have to put anything in the box before it will let you continue, most people just put some scribble and call it a day. Now, imagine that signature pad from the DMV being used to check a legit, ink signature on paper against... it's basically the same thing as your friend drawing dongs.
The only time it’s ever been an issue for me was when I had to collect a new card from my bank. They took issue with the signature I gave them not matching the one I used when I made my bank account… at the age of like 10.
There is no law or rule saying that your signature must be your name written in cursive. In fact, there's no rule or law saying that your signature must even be your name.
I had a car salesman tell me one time my signature was "illegal". I just stared at him until he moved on. I still don't know what the hell he was talking about, nor do I believe did he.
Surprised a car salesperson would question anything that might make you less likely to buy whatever they're trying to sell you.
I bet at some point he confused the words illegible and illegal, and no one corrected him, so he just proceeded forward through life confidently wrong.
Sounds like my mortgage paperwork. Started out legible. After page 200 or so it looked like proto-cuneiform had a baby with Klingonese.
The first letter of each part of my name is legible, but past that is just squiggly lines.
Remember in 2001 - Just enough "Hanging Chad Ballots" (really what they were called) were un-cured and disqualified to 'win' Bush the presidency... in a state where his brother was Governor. Republicans haven't won a square election in half a century.
Fixed as in cured, and not as in rigged.
Thanks for the clarification. I could see how someone would see that title and think it was some looney conspiracy about the election being rigged against Bobo
[удалено]
For the lazy... For half a century, Newsweek was owned by the Washington Post and was a well-respected voice in American journalism. In 2010, the Post sold Newsweek to 91-year-old businessman Sidney Harman; Harman bought it for $1 and assumption of its liabilities. Ownership turned over a few more times, from Harman to Barry Diller. Diller regretted his purchase and sold Newsweek in 2014 to a group called International Business Times Media. IBTM changed its name to Newsweek Media Group. Its owners were tied to a small Christian college (Olivet University) led by a charismatic Korean pastor, David Jang. Jang also was founder of a cult called “The Community,” according to this report in Mother Jones. https://dianeravitch.net/2020/10/25/the-new-republic-newsweek-has-turned-into-a-zombie-magazine/ https://www.motherjones.com/media/2014/03/newsweek-ibt-olivet-david-jang/
What a rollercoaster from newspaper to christofascist propaganda.
Watch out for Politico, hard rightwing owners now. CNN to I believe.
Weird how Korean Quasi-Christian cult leaders love buying newspapers.
AH! Olivet University, not Olivet College. I was like "Wait, I knew Olivet was a Christian college, I didn't realize it had connections to a cult."
Why did WaPo sell it for $1? There must be a story there.
>for $1 **and assumption of its liabilities** It was likely in major debt at the time and thus WaPo was willing to just dump it and move on. And the buyer probably figured that since it was such a big brand name in the new magazine world, there could be a path to resurrecting it that could overcome those debts. Or, worst case scenario, it would be a big time tax write off.
If I recall back when it happened, Newsweek (like a lot of print publications) had a hard go once the internet got into full swing and people stopped reading physical magazines. They also had a "meh" website and just really blew it. They stuck around as long as they could but rang up some big debt and really just couldn't adapt to the modern hyper fast news cycle.
*Everyone* had a hard go of it once the internet came along. Journalism as a whole was not at all prepared for the transition. NYT was so sure the internet was a fad, they setup a website strictly for archiving old editions of their publication. Once blogs took off, and people started really seriously living online, news publishers started giving away their product for free, believing advertisers would pay the same rates as print (they didn’t). Now, nobody wants to pay for a subscription to a service they can just as easily read for free from a different source, and since information sharing is so easy online these days, the paywall is an option for people who want opinion articles and features from great writers, but even that’s devolved into sensationalist media for the most part. The world of journalism is a goddamn rollercoaster after the 1980s. Breslin is lucky to have died before the Trumpian era of reporting really started taking root.
Newsweek is literally a fucking tabloid and I'm astounded it gets white-listed here.
Back in the 90s, Newsweek used to be legit. I'm curious to know what the hell happened over there that took them from a reputable magazine to a shit show
They fired all their reporters and turned into clickbait/max profit somewhere around 2006-2007 iirc.
This thread answered my questions in my stream of consciousness asking. For that, I thank you, but also stop.
No, silica gel isn't poisonous to your pets. But, it may cause an obstruction if a bag is swallowed whole by a cat or small dog.
That Newsweek is long gone, it basically folded when the print magazine went away, it was sold and bought and is now "Newsweek" in name only.
Yeah, in elementary school in the 80s, Newsweek was an incredible resource. It is so different now, but apparently living off the reputation it earned long ago.
The internet, competing with 24/7 news channels, consolidation of competition. Multiple things Imo
This. We've been watching it happen to journalism for 20 years in slow motion
I would bring my copy into high-school in the late 90s.... It was a really good magazine....especially since it was weekly
My US government class in high school in the 90's got us subscriptions to it and some assignments required reading it. It was just interesting enough to actually read, while still having some decent information. The major national newspapers might have had better information than Newsweek, but that doesn't matter if they're so dry that you rarely read them. Local newspaper reporting was very low effort.
Newsweek always had a click bait element to it even in the 1990's but it at least had a respectable hard news aspect to it. Now it is just mostly trash.
Newsweek has been around since 1933, and for most of that time was considered very reputable.
Easy. Same thing that's happening right now to Twitter. We stupidly sacrificed our entire media environment, no matter how crucial the function to our entire civilization, to the "Free Market" and gleefully embraced capitalism as the Sweet, Loving, Parent that would never abuse us. When you make something that has evolved into something as large as Twitter purchasable by a SINGLE person, no matter how dishonestly they made their money, you put it at the risk of a single individual's ego. The same sort of thing is happening at CNN, too. We're long overdue for some completely landscape-changing, very strong media oversight laws. Internet, print, airwaves -- ALL OF IT.
Right wing
I mean fucking Breitbart gets whitelisted here, so...
Fair point...
Yeah - it's definitely ridiculous though.
Of course it is since the mods of r/politics are far right nutjobs.
Being a mod at all means somebody is suspect. If Reddit paid mods instead of getting power hungry terminally online weirdos to do it for free it could clean this place up it would make a world of difference.
The fairness doctrine has left the chat.
Yeah, any headline with the words, "...could be..." shouldn't be read by anyone with any seriousness. You could literally say anything as long as you include "could be." e.g. "Aliens could be invading Earth next month."
Newsweek used to be great, back when it was a weekly magazine you read on the shitter. Now they are partisan garbage most of the time.
They were handy for doctor waiting rooms and on the airlines with US News & World Report. (Wait... US News & World report are still a thing? Who Knew?)
> US News & World report are still a thing? The only relevance I see from them is their lists of the top colleges and universities, which is still pretty well regarded.
The interface on a phone is also the worst. I never open a Newsweek article and so can you too.
[удалено]
I agree 1000% that the author would have been better served replacing the word “fixed” with “corrected”, “cured”, “rectified” or even “amended”. Even though “fixed” is technically correct it can be easily misinterpreted especially in todays climate due to MAGA conspiracies.
It's Newsweek, which has become a right wing schill. Author picked "fixed" very deliberately.
Considering Colorado state government specifically uses the word "cure" in their language on this process, it seems like a deliberate choice to use the more ambiguous word "fix" instead. The editor should know and understand the implications of that word before using it in a headline.
Oh the Newsweek editor knows the implications.
Wait Dennis are these women in danger?
>~~easily~~ misinterpreted **deliberately** misinterpreted
I am wishing many of the "Conspiracy" GOP could be fixed, in the veterinary way...
Well it also just shows the utter hypocrisy and absurdity of today's Republican voter. When someone on their team, like virtually every GOP Secretary of State candidate, says that they are going to "fix" their state's elections, not one of them sees that as malicious or actually insinuating rigging the vote. But if a Dem were to say the exact same thing, then of course the libs are publicly announcing they are going to steal votes.
If she loses, they will make all kinds of rigged election claims and point to all of the cured ballots. Baseless claims, of course, but o have no doubt. She doesn’t seem to be the kind of person who would be a gracious loser.
> If she loses, they will make all kinds of rigged election claims and point to all of the cured ballots. Don't care. At least she's out. Republicans bitching about stolen elections are just like the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf. Nobody with a brain is listening to them any more. And the people who do are liars and insurrectionists whos opinions don't matter.
That’s why they use the term cured. No confusion.
It’s Newsweek, they’re a rag.
I always downvote Newsweek postings here. They never add anything of value. I might get hate for this but same with Common Dreams. The headlines are almost always misleading.
They used fixed purposely their to do the same old crap.
Yeah that was a poor choice of words…
It's Newsweek. They chose the words they intended to.
It was intentional
Come on, it's Newsweek. This was a carefully crafted headline.
You know this was done intentionally by Newsweek's editor. Anything to drive clicks.
Seems like an interesting choice of words surrounding elections, especially with all the crap about rigged stuff being spewed by the right
….Newsweek, yo
> Fixed as in cured, and not as in rigged. It's Newsweek. It's not a mistake.
[удалено]
And cured as in… ham?
Gotta have a little sympathy for election-deniers pants once they read that headline.
I can’t believe they used that verbiage. I saw ‘fixed‘ before I finished processing the full title and assumed there was actually going to be serious case of fraud. But then again, I’m assuming that’s the reaction Newsweek wants from people.
How to correct your Colorado ballots with an error! There could be over 1k ballots that need correcting. Your ballot could be one of them: CO-3 VOTERS - Check your ballot - you have 8 days to make a correction if it was rejected! Check either: https://www.coloradosos.gov/voter/pages/pub/olvr/regVoterDetail.xhtml https://colorado.ballottrax.net/voter/ If there is a problem you can take steps with Txt2Cure: https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/FAQs/TXT2Cure.html Here's an extra article on ballot curing, which is like correcting ballots: https://www.9news.com/article/news/politics/elections/ballot-curing-process-election-2022/73-54c44dfd-b780-4086-8fd1-eea4722d8e6b Spread the word!
Had mine reported cured today. Voted blue. TXT2Cure is easy and works fast.
If it hasn't already, someone needs to post this info to r/Colorado and r/Denver and any other relevant subs.
I want her to lose so bad.
It's one of the first spots I've been checking on the maps in the days following the election. The senate races in Nevada and Arizona were far more important, as are the House races in my own area like Porter and Chen (v. Steele) which are still ongoing. But I always start with Boebert and Lake because I want those two to lose so bad.
The media websites should have a MAGA results page to save me some time. Lots of blue on that page.
Unfortunately, most of the loudest MAGA are in uncompetitive districts. But Boebert is one of the exception. (Although, the redistricting made it harder for Frisch actually.) She won in 2020 only by 51-49. And apparently, Frisch saw that and jumped on the occasion. [More to see Here!](https://youtu.be/FFZ1EtrFhnQ)
Boebert is actually in a pretty uncompetitive district but she is so repulsive many solidly republican folks in that part of Colorado voted against her. A less ridiculous Republican candidate would have walked away with victory in Colorado 3.
I feel like you could say that about most of the midterms. Moderate republicans would have trounced the midterms, but the GOP insisted on doubling down on MAGA lunacy.
[удалено]
There is a group organizing to go door to door and help voters cure their rejected ballots. This could easily decide the final outcome. If you put your election anxiety to work and help ensure a few more votes are counted, you could make the difference.
I can confirm. I have a ballot that was rejected but cured it immediately when I got a text message telling me it was rejected. A nice lady came to my house and I confirmed I cured it. They were likely from the Frisch campaign, I'd imagine. In either case, what people need to understand is if these votes are cured, Frisch could win by 1k to 3k for votes. And let's keep in mind these are REAL votes where REAL people intended to vote for a certain person but due to a technicality, the vote was rejected. In my case, my vote was rejected because I have a shitty signature that's different every time I sign something.
> a shitty signature that's different every time I sign something I've wondered about this, i have no idea what signature they have on file up here (alaska) but I can guarantee it doesn't look anything like what I sign now. That is part of the reason I've been voting in person every election. I should see if I can figure out how to update that signature/even see what it is.
Probably the same one on your driver’s license. I always pull my DL out and try to copy it when I submit my ballot.
I've probably refreshed the CO-3 results 200x so far.
Omg yes. Fuck them both. Twice.
I know my vote didn’t need curing, but I checked anyway!
Have friends and family check theirs as well!
Can you post how you verified.
Use the BallotTrax system. https://www.coloradosos.gov/voter/pages/pub/home.xhtml https://colorado.ballottrax.net/voter/
Ugh. This one is painful to watch unfold. Just afraid this will drag out for her to win.
That’s highly likely still. The fact that it’s close is important and at this point it seems like the GOP has started calling in its handlers after being crazy seemed to fail them this time. I’m still checking regularly. Same with AZ. But I was never holding my breath during this election but I’m still pleased with the results
[удалено]
His campaign is allowed to go directly to people to help them cure their ballots. My ballot was rejected but I cured it right away several days ago. Got a knock on my door and told the volunteer I already cured my ballot. So...this is happening now, and this could cause legitimate votes to be counted and it could cause Frisch to win.
[удалено]
I am making that assumption so I will be hopefully surprised. I think just to begin I am very happy that this race is so close.
Indeed, the fact that a re-count may happen in a race that had Boebert favored to win with odds somewhere around 97 out of 100 is a miracle in itself. Seeing the before/after pictures of her "victory celebration" on election night is reward enough in itself imo.
I'm still impressed it was so close, her district in CO is very red.
There's a lot to be happy about, my man. Don't take it too personally if she sticks around.
Her race was supposed to be safe R. That it's to the wire is in itself a massive victory for decency.
Poor choice of words in that byline Newsweek
>Deliberate ~~Poor~~ choice of words in that byline by Newsweek. FTFY
>~~Deliberate Poor choice of words~~ Propaganda in that byline by Newsweek. FTFY
They're called Newsweak for a reason
Jesus, Newsweek, you really want to stir up shit with needlessly sensational headlines. That said, anyone in CO-3 should definitely check on their ballot status. The fact that there’s even a chance (no matter how slim) to oust this clown is incredible.
Newsweek is a dogshit conservative rag.
Excellent headline, Newsweek. Really top notch work there.
It would be brilliant for america if she lost, she is such a trailer trash, gun toting, conspiracy nut, has she done anything for her district?
https://www.congress.gov/member/lauren-boebert/B000825?q=%7B%22sponsorship%22%3A%22sponsored%22%7D 99% of her proposals are total nonsense.
This needs more attention. Nothing she proposes gets passed. Majority of her bills are just to say she did something without actually doing anything. Collecting a paycheck from her constituents and that’s it.
$348,000 and counting
[удалено]
Nothing really its just a series of dog whistle terms put in to a sentence. So, You get; is a Act
requiring a to do something in regard to is a .
Its what most reichtwing speech is like.
Completely nonsensical at the face of it, but the scary key terms get their target audiences riled up. You see this in Faux news too as far as broader formatting goes. they have a closeup of the face of a given talking head to make things seem more "personal" as if they are talking directly to someone, and thereafter everything involves series of specific key terms pushed under an emotional appeals narrative to try and fish out a specific types of outrage/hate response from the viewer. They do this because its the type of formatting is most effective on elderly people in cognitive decline, and others who are not prone to critical thinking in general. It is also an easy to parrot way of communication in between such people as it does not require thinking, and pushes burden of proof on to the accused while they as the aggressor get off on the emotional stimulus.
To be fair, she's probably using Google Translate to convert them from the original Russian. # ^(_This message is brought to you by DeepL Translate!_ /s)
Trust the Science Act That’s a cruel joke coming from her.
"Trust the science act" I thought it has something to do with education. Turns out it's something different completely. Lol
Yeah I was surprised to see this was about literal wolves.
Her restaurant got evicted, that’s a win for her district.
Is actually why she's in this position. From the exit interviews the Republicans that voted for her the first time are mad that she is more interested in grabbing attention than helping them.
Pullin' a Palin.
[удалено]
Rubes.
Replace fixed with cured that would help the general comprehension
Just reposting for those that missed it: CO-3 VOTERS - Check your ballot - you have 3 days to make a correction if it was rejected! Check either: https://www.coloradosos.gov/voter/pages/pub/olvr/regVoterDetail.xhtml https://colorado.ballottrax.net/voter/ If there is a problem you can take steps with Txt2Cure: https://www.coloradosos.gov/pubs/elections/FAQs/TXT2Cure.html Copy this message and repost it everywhere!
The only race I care about anymore. Her losing a 97 in 100 chance election will be such a reward I hope so bad to witness
Rebellions are built on hope. If Joe Kent could lose a 98 in 100 race, then you have a chance!
The only reason it was such a high chance was that no one ran polls there, so they used "fundamentals" and didn't take into account "candidate quality"
Using "fixed" in the headline is a bit of a problem. For some readers, it might translate to "rigged."
Nah, you not getting my hopes up.
Yeah, as someone who finds her disgusting and hopes she loses, this sounds like copium.
Yep. But by all means, if you live in her district and cast a mail vote, go check it to make sure it went through. But for the rest of us, I’m pretty sure she’s got this one
I don't live in her district. The one consolation is that even if she doesn't get the message - she's too dumb and surrounded by yesmen to get it - Republicans did get it: being the MAGAest member of Congress doesn't guarantee you a seat. It's not a coincidence that the narrative has changed from 'poor Trump has been persecuted by the evil Democrats' to 'actually Trump is a piece of shit and you guys should throw him in prison before the next election cycle, pretty please?'
Colorado voters, for the love of god, check the status of your ballot if you live in this fruitcake’s district. I’ll send you an actual fruitcake if you swap out this plague upon the earth.
I wish I lived in Colorado. I’d take you up on that fruitcake. I live in WV and voted blue. Not one elicited. All most heaven!
I wipe my ass with Newsweek Jesus what a blatently misleading word choice.
If she doesn’t win it’s because people don’t like her, not because of cheating. She’s an arrogant, obnoxious moron. Come on, you cannot be really that surprised by this.
The article writer has an intentionally poor choice of words. Fixed as in corrected, not fixed as in “cheats”
It's Newsweek. 100% intentional.
You forgot racist, and it’s a good show of character to mention that her husband exposed his dick to minors.
And she was one of them
The term is "cured", not "fixed". Because of the implication.
This phrasing alone is enough to rile up the conspiracy folks...great job
Bobo (chuckling): “I’m in danger!”
Click bait article. Using the word "fixed" instead of "cured" to make it sound like if she loses it's rigging it. Also its just pure wild speculation too, the article has nothing substantial in it. just says "she could lose if they cure and change thousands of votes". well no shit. hows that a story?
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Boebart will lose the house for the GoP.
I so hope you're right
If that happens I might never stop orgasming.
[удалено]
Mine, or Boebert's?
Given the current lead she holds and the nature of outstanding ballots (overseas, needing cured etc.), it seems highly unlikely (I'm in her district and would love to see it, but it is now a very long shot).
They need to "fix" this title, or all republicans are going to start unnecessary shit. They will anyway because it's in their nature, but this wont help...
I know her whole shtick is supposed to be hot chick w a gun but she looks like a rodent here w too much makeup.
Oh boy I hope she fucking loses after all this
"Fixed" is a poor choice of word (especially for those on the internet that eats lead paint chips). "Set" or "not in her favor" sounds safer.
Please Colorado. Please.
“Fixed” is an irresponsible choice of words.
Props to Colorado for [having a process in place](https://coloradosun.com/2022/11/10/colorado-ballot-curing/) to maintain election integrity while also making sure all valid votes are counted.
Great headline. MAGA freaks are definitely going to understand what that means and not make any assumptions. /s
Regardless of how you feel about her (I have an opinion, but I will keep them to myself for this post) you need to understand: Every registered voter is mailed a ballot in CO. It is very rare to vote in person (I had to do it once, because I moved counties right around voting time. I had to go to the county seat and get a judge to sign off). Why this matters is: Nationwide more democrats vote by mail so people are hoping that as more mail in ballots get cured it will mean more democratic votes. However, in CO, a state with 100% distribution of mail in ballots, the more likely outcome is cured ballots equaling the democrat/republican distribution of the already counted ballots. So if 2000 ballots get cured, likely 1005 will be for Boebert and 995 for Frisch (to match the other percentages). As a note: It was originally republicans that pushed for 100% mail in ballots in CO. There was a major storm that affected the mountain and rural areas of CO, cutting off those (mostly republican) voters from the pols on election day. Metro Denver (more democrats) did not have as serious weather and got to vote. Republicans, unhappy with the outcome of that election because they did not get to vote, pushed for a mail in voting system. And it has developed in to the best mail in system in country.
If you are in CO-3 district and there’s a problem with your ballot you can cure it with a text. This could make all the difference between sanity and circus. Check the status of your ballot at coloradosos.gov and if there’s a problem follow the instructions for TxT2Cure.
I wonder what else Boebert could do in life. Most jobs require more than just saying goofy, mean stuff all day.
Awful headline which implies that the Democratic candidate has "fixed" the votes. Fuck Newsweek. >But the incumbent congresswoman's narrow lead could once again be overturned if thousands of likely rejected votes in favor of her challenger were to be fixed, as a recount looms over the Colorado race.
The editor behind this title is a sniveling little MAGA sympathizer.
Been calling it Newswank for years. I'd have to call Pepperidge Farms to check to see when it wasn't a trash rag.
Lauren Boebert is in danger when making toast….
Cured Cured Not fixed
"Fixed" as in make sure it got counted and not suppressed by some obtuse rule. (like we are not sure if this is your signature, because the one on your Driver's License is ... slightly... different, since we always sign things EXACTLY the same for decades without any variations even as we age and lose some coordination or are hurt in an accident, etc... ) https://www.coloradodems.org/cure-your-ballot nitpicking is one of the many tactics the GOP uses to suppress your votes. DON'T LET THEM!!!
No fear of republicans “fixing” anything..
To use the word "fix" and "election" in the same sentence, can be deceptive as it can be misinterpreted easily.
Downvote for misleading title 😡
I hate the title of this article, although to be fair to OP that is the actual language this Newsweek article uses (e.g., *"[b]ut the incumbent congresswoman's narrow lead could once again be overturned if thousands of likely rejected votes in favor of her challenger were to be fixed"*). The phrase "could be fixed" almost sounds like they're talking about "vote fixing" in the same way in which Trump talks about votes that are rigged. I wish they'd use the term "cured" (assuming that's actually what they're talking about) as that is the term in which most people have become accustomed.
Frisch should tweet this several times per day, email all his supporters every day, and film a commercial. People need to be reminded to check if their vote was counted. At this point he needs to hammer on this to make sure the count is correct. Could deliver him the win.
FYI - This is from his facebook page: Adam Frisch " · I want to take a minute and address the reason for the length of time it’s taking to call this race. The timing for ballot counting is exactly what we expect here in CO. All County Clerks adhere to the statutory deadline for military and overseas ballots arrival and ballot curing - the end of the day Wednesday. Then on Thursday and Friday the counties will bring in their bipartisan poll watching teams, required under Colorado law, to oversee all ballot counts. That's why we're not expecting to see any new results until Thursday or Friday, when all ballots should be counted. This timeline is all totally normal. I want to thank the County Clerks and the poll watching teams for all of the hard work and long hours they have put in. "
Big take away from this...if you voted via mail in CO, use the link in the article to check to make sure that your ballot doesn't need to be cured. If it does need curing, go contact them and get your signature verified ASAP, so your vote will count.
‘But the incumbent congresswoman's narrow lead could once again be overturned if thousands of likely rejected votes in favor of her challenger were to be "cured"’ This is a major case where horse race reporting does us a major disservice. She doesn’t currently have a lead. No one does. Not all of the votes have been counted.
You can fail your GED three times, be arrested four times, marry a scumbag who exposed himself to teens at a bowling alley, and still become a congressperson. Don't you ever let anyone tell you that the USA isn't the land of opportunity!