graham meets Nebraska gov. in attempt to get one more electoral vote for trump by changing how they do things there

[butters]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...1&cvid=3824879658214a37b02874936bc0d46f&ei=27

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) met with Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen and around a dozen Republican state lawmakers Wednesday as Republicans seek a last-minute change to the way the Cornhusker state allocates its electoral votes, per multiple reports.

Why it matters: Nebraska and Maine are the only states that don't apportion votes on a winner-take-all basis. Vice President Kamala Harris looks likely to pick up the swing congressional district around Omaha — a single electoral vote which could prove decisive depending on how other swing states break down.

• Graham and other Republicans, including Pillen, want to change to a winner-take-all system before November. That would virtually guarantee former President Trump all of the state's electoral votes.
• If Harris were to win the Blue Wall states of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, but lose the Sun Belt swing states, the race would come down to which candidate won that single purple district in Nebraska.

Zoom in: Republicans have failed to gain sufficient support to overcome all the procedural hurdles to making the change, so Harris looks likely to take that vote — for now at least.

 

[Bn2f]

My senator probably should have been indicted after giving his testimony on his involvement in trying to sway/bribe the election process in the state of Georgia. Now you’re telling me he’s in f’in Nebraska? So glad he’s working hard for the interests of the people of South Trumpbraska, er, I mean South Carolina.

 

[Rotadom]

Is this the election interference that I've been hearing so much about?

 

[butters]

with exclusions such as the allowances put in place to vote during the pandemic, it shouldn't be legal to change voting rules beyond 6-8 months out from the election

 

[SevMax2]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...1&cvid=3824879658214a37b02874936bc0d46f&ei=27

If this election gets close enough, that one vote could be enough to put the election in the House, and then, well, Trump's right back in.

 

[adrina]

This is getting ridiculous.

 

[SevMax2]

This is getting ridiculous.

It's desperation. I mean, think about it. If he wins or loses has a very different meaning for him vs. everyone else. His election or hers will shape the fate of this nation, and arguably the world, but it is very personal for him. If he loses, he could possibly go to prison. No wonder he's very, very worried about the outcome this time around. Eight years ago, he expected to lose and probably get a network deal. Nowadays, his personal freedom is potentially at stake.

 

[butters]

This is getting ridiculous.

indeed... in fact, i am finding myself thinking in line with the republican who opposed the Nebraska change, thereby stopping it: that any changes should be posited in the year following an election in order to allow plenty of time for changes to be fully discussed, voted upon and disclosed to the voting public.

that is allowing for exceptions such as Covid.

 

[adrina]

It's desperation. I mean, think about it. If he wins or loses has a very different meaning for him vs. everyone else. His election or hers will shape the fate of this nation, and arguably the world, but it is very personal for him. If he loses, he could possibly go to prison. No wonder he's very, very worried about the outcome this time around. Eight years ago, he expected to lose and probably get a network deal. Nowadays, his personal freedom is potentially at stake.

I realize it is desperation. But it is also hypocrisy. Changing the rules so close to the election isn't acceptable.

 

[SevMax2]

I realize it is desperation. But it is also hypocrisy. Changing the rules so close to the election isn't acceptable.

I've never known Trump to run from hypocrisy. Remember, he railed against the Electoral College in 2012, when he thought that Romney won the popular vote. He was fine with it, though, when he took the White House by means of it.

 

[adrina]

I've never known Trump to run from hypocrisy. Remember, he railed against the Electoral College in 2012, when he thought that Romney won the popular vote. He was fine with it, though, when he took the White House by means of it.

Everything with Trump is transactional and conditional - how he sees how it best benefits him.

It is one of his core traits and one of the main things that makes him completely unsuited for the office.

 

[SevMax2]

Everything with Trump is transactional and conditional - how he sees how it best benefits him.

It is one of his core traits and one of the main things that makes him completely unsuited for the office.

It's a sobering thought this man was the nominee of one of the two major parties not once, not twice, but thrice now. People might mistake my issues with Harris, which I retain, as some kind of endorsement for the Donald. They're not. I have no illusions about this guy, and his latest push to shut down the government has particularly angered me of late. I never voted for him in the past. I see a rush of fresh reminders lately of why I never voted for him.

 

[adrina]

It's a sobering thought this man was the nominee of one of the two major parties not once, not twice, but thrice now. People might mistake my issues with Harris, which I retain, as some kind of endorsement for the Donald. They're not. I have no illusions about this guy, and his latest push to shut down the government has particularly angered me of late. I never voted for him in the past. I see a rush of fresh reminders lately of why I never voted for him.

Until the GOP voters get their heads on straight and quit supporting Trump and these extreme policies (Heritage judges, Project 2025, wealthy tax cuts, environmental denialism etc), this is an all hands on deck fight for what remains of the United States.

That means that Harris is the only viable candidate. No candidate is perfect, but given the two choices she is heads and shoulders above Trump. Plus, she's got a lot of good things going for her. I think she deserves an honest chance. We've had a lot worse to choose from in the past. (Heh, see Reagan 2 V Mondale.)