"Paxton was a liability for the republicans."

And not just in Texas.

He made a great poster boy for the Democrats.

" I mean, you even lost Texas"

Have Republicans claimed 1.3 million illegals voted yet?

"In primary polling she's currently 4th."

Usually a losing position.

Why don't you comment on her committee assignments or laws passed?

You seem to be avoiding the salient facts.

"guarantee??"

Yes, guarantee. I remember it vividly.

"a vaxx that didn't work"

Thanks for admitting you'd flunk a Virology 101 midterm.

"They haven't been this cheerful since they watched a peaceful debater get murdered on a college campus."

What a riot, coming from someone who cheered Paul Pelosi's attacker.

" none of the candidates who identify as Democratic Socialists seem to want to follow that path."

So do you analyze them based on what they call themselves, or by their actions once in power?

" feel free to list AOC's committee assignments, and list the laws she's authored. It's embarrassing."

Committee assignments are the barometer of trust and sober reflection.

For example, someone with Trump's childish understanding of tariffs would keep him off of EVERY committee using Math.

But I'd definitely vote to put him in charge of party decorations.

(Cups and ice, maybe? He's certainly a feeb.)

" I'd like to hope primary voters would know better but who knows."

"Primary voters" chose Donald Trump. And yesterday, your votes went to enable him and those who support him.

Is "not knowing any better" your excuse?

" she's considered a possible front runner for the party for 2028 POTUS"

By Republicans, who thought they'd win last night.

"They will all be sworn in come January."

Again...never heard of any of them.

Regardless, I'm not worried. Frankly, I've dealt with small bands of idiots in every board situation I've ever been part of.

For example, feel free to list AOC's committee assignments, and list the laws she's authored. It's embarrassing.

Meanwhile, you're pretending fringe aren't treated like fringe.

My lived experiences disagree.

"There is no way that is the case."

That's why I asked what you believe.

Even your most extreme view (one side does it 33% more than the other),means it would take 700 instances to net 100 votes.

Based on current numbers, it would take Texas over 900 years to find that many instances.

"One problem with your take on illegal voting - you operate under the presumption that every illegal vote cast gets detected."

Even if only 10% were caught, that's still suppressing more votes than thwarting.

Again, Texas is no slouch when finding and prosecuting illegals who voted.

Explain why they can't even find ONE per YEAR. 27 in the last 40 years.

Are they inept, or are you delusional?

"Very recently he wrote an article advocating the government seize Musk's companies."

Where does that suggest THE END of ALL private property?

Maybe you should stop using Bellringer's Dictionary.

"Melat Kiros
Adam Halsey
Chris Rabb
Donavan McKinney
Claire Valdez
Darializa Avila Chevalier
Peggy Flanagan"

Never heard of any of them. My guess is neither did you, until your recent google search.

A week ago Saturday I was in central Kansas for a few days, for my grand-niece's wedding.

Every ad on TV was a political one. Most stunning was a Marshall ad, suggesting a generation ago, Hamilton didn't react fully and properly when dealing with a one child molester.

The ad was ridiculously tone-deaf, especially since the next ad (for Hamilton) quotes Marshall saying the Epstein Files weren't important to him, and Marshall voted against their release....protecting HUNDREDs of child molesters.

"Robert Reich."

Why lie?

Still butthurt over the shellacking???

"Communism."

Who has suggested the end of private property?!? Name them.

"Ossoff called for holding his Georgia Senate seat."

So....ten yards, and replay the down???

"I most certainly would. But nobody cares if i do that."

But would you know it's true, regardless?

" Take Texas for example.........eliminated hundreds and hundreds of voting places. where are the lost elections as a result? anything on that? Nope"

What a riot.

So, if Talarico loses by 45 votes ... you'll conclude closing 90 polling places in "certain" neighborhoods had no effect?!?

" any results where it was formally declared as "changed" due to suppression."

Like one side or the other admitting it?!? In what bizzaro world??

If you can't look at a close result, see where folks who look like you and I took 30 minutes to vote, while "certain" voters in "certain" neighborhoods took 4 hours to vote, and conclude the result was affected ... that's on you.

"Because I said exactly that up thread"

And then wondered aloud if ANY results had ever changed due to suppression.

You couldn't put one plus two together to get three.

"Are you suddenly fresh out of any brains whatsoever?"

That's actually my worry about you.

You seemingly can't look at a close race and admit if vote suppression didn't work, nobody would be trying it.

OF COURSE it can, and has, changed outcomes.

"and in any case did it decide an election?"

Without a doubt.

Again, search for a close result in an area where there were 4+ hour waits.

And ask yourself why there are 4+ hour waits in black neighborhoods, versus 4+ minute waits in white neighborhoods.

"It just means you (can't) produce an election that was decided by suppressed votes. or you can and you just don't want to."

The former is a failure of your macro training. And a limited imagination. There's no way less votes are thwarted than protected. Not when you're dealing with, on average, less than one vote per state per year.