Remember when Ann Althouse asserted that late-counted votes were evidence of vote fraud when her preferred candidate was losing? Well, it seems as if the final count will see her preferred candidate come out on top. So does she think that this count is probably fraudulent too, based on her established principles? I think you know the answer:
I wonder if the concept of fraud is suddenly much more appealing to certain people.
Hey, suddenly Prosser is ahead in the vote tally. I wonder if the fraud poo-pooers are singing a different tune now.
Yes. It’s other people changing their tune on vote fraud. Oddly, the only non-hypothetical person we see changing their position on fraud is Althouse. Who woulda thought it?