Don’t you dare question the integrity of the 2020 presidential election 状语从句because Democrats can always be trusted to run fair, honest, and transparent elections. That’s the narrative, and you’re expected to stick with it, even in the face of the nation’s biggest, richest, most sophisticated city obviously bungling the race to elect its next mayor.
It’s so blatant 主语从句that even the New York Times recognizes the problem and applies the word “chaos.” Katie Glueck writes:
The New York City mayor’s race plunged into chaos on Tuesday night 状语从句when the city Board of Elections released a new tally of votes in the Democratic mayoral primary, and then removed the tabulations from its website after citing a “discrepancy.”
The results分词定语 released earlier in the day had suggested 宾语从句that the race between Eric Adams and his two closest rivals had tightened significantly.
But just a few hours after releasing the preliminary results, the elections board issued a cryptic tweet revealing a “discrepancy” in the report, 分词状语saying that it was working with its “technical staff to identify where the discrepancy occurred.”
By Tuesday evening, the tabulations had been taken down, replaced by a new advisory 同位语从句that the ranked-choice results would be available “starting on June 30.”
Then, around 10:30 p.m., the board finally released a statement, 分词状语explaining that it had failed to remove sample ballot images used to test its ranked-choice voting software. 状语从句When the board ran the program, it counted “both test and election night results, 分词状语producing approximately 135,000 additional records,” the statement said. The ranked-choice numbers, it said, would be tabulated again.
The extraordinary sequence of events seeded further confusion about the outcome, and threw the closely watched contest into a new period of uncertainty at a consequential moment for the city.
状语从句While it took Ms. Glueck and her editors five paragraphs to get to the key fact 同位语从句that 135,000 extra ballots showed up, the New York Post’s coverage was (predictably) more pointed:
The Democratic primary race for mayor was thrown into chaos Tuesday 状语从句as the city Board of Elections appeared to have botched the count amid the city’s first ranked-choice election — adding 135,000 pre-election “test” ballots that hadn’t been cleared from a computer.
According to a BOE statement Tuesday night, “it has determined 宾语从句that ballot images used for testing were not cleared from the Election Management System . . .
“The Board apologizes for the error and has taken immediate measures to ensure宾语从句 the most accurate up to date results are reported.”
Preliminary results released earlier in the day showed a total of 941,832 ballots cast for mayor, an increase of more than 140,000 from the 799,827 定语从句that were counted on June 22, the day of the primary.
The glaring discrepancy at first went unnoticed 状语从句until it was flagged by front-runner Eric Adams.
“The vote total just released by the Board of Elections is 100,000-plus more than the total 分词定语announced on election night, raising serious questions,” an Adams spokesman said. [emphasis added]
Now, here’s where it gets really interesting. 状语从句When only the first choices of voters were tabulated, retired police captain Eric Adams, running as a law-and-order candidate took such a big lead that Democrats started soiling themselves and came up with the ridiculously laughable argument 同位语从句that it is Republicans trying to defund the police.
But when the second choices started being counted:
The unofficial results from the first round of voting last week put Adams ahead of Maya Wiley, a former counsel to outgoing Mayor de Blasio, by 253,234 (31.66 percent) 177,722 (22.22 percent).
But Tuesday’s unofficial results, after a total of 11 rounds of ranked-choice counting, had Adams narrowly leading former city Sanitation Commissioner Kathryn Garcia by 368,898 (51.1 percent) to 352,990 or 51.1 (48.9 percent), with Wiley and 10 other candidates eliminated.
A total of 219,944 ballots “with no choices left” were listed as “inactive.” But the city still has yet to count more than 124,000 absentee ballots sent by mail[.]
Why, nobody would ever cheat using mail-in ballots, would he?
Plus, there are still more rounds of ranked choice calculations 定语从句that are so complex that it will be weeks more until results are known.
状语从句If Adams ends up losing, the Democrats’ best hope to salvage their reputation as soft on crime as our cities endure skyrocketing violence will be lost. Worse yet, he might even take it into his head to complain about the fairness and integrity of the election定语从句 in which he was defeated.
Democrats may be amoral and sneaky, but they aren’t geniuses.
Follow Me 👉🏿
