2020 Election early voting and eventually results

I’m sure that the various rows over attempts to disqualify votes that should be accepted will overshadow any normal problems.

Perhaps. But the "normal problems" affect a much broader spectrum of ballots than the "rows". For example, in California there most likely won't be as much challenging (on either side) because California isn't likely to be a state in contention (or, if it is, it means the election is a landslide for Trump!). That still means thousands, even hundreds of thousands of ballots in California may be called into question by "normal problems" that will hit so much harder this year because of the early/mail balloting.

That’s sort of inconsistent. If nobody is going to complain about the antics of the Republican Party in California because the result won’t be close, why would they complain about completely normal disqualifications? And there are serious issues in other states, too.

Anyone who cannot answer that question hasn't been paying attention for the last 4 years.

I wasn't speaking to which things get more attention. Think of it as snow in winter. Some of it is natural, you can't "blame" anyone for it. Some of it is the result of snow-making, you can "blame" ski resorts for "cheating". But the amount of natural snow, even nowadays with global warming well on its way, far outweighs the "cheating". And so it is with ballots. That's not to say cheating might not swing a tight election, especially in some swing states, but there is bound to be lots of press about ballots disqualified for innocent reasons and, since the Democrat vote appears to be more heavily weighted to early/mail-in voting which has incurred more (innocent) problems even in less-stressful years, the stories will have a partisan result.

If you read my post you'll see I was commenting on a possible reason for liberal apathy. I don't think it's likely that liberals (of whatever flavor) have been hiding under rocks (though maybe they've been fleeing to Canada?) for the last four years.

Again, my point is that the open attempts to disqualify perfectly valid ballots - by being so egregious - will outweigh the natural disqualifications. As so far, they have.

Doesn't matter. Anyone asking such a question is either blind or stupid if they can't see a major difference.

Or willfully amoral.

The "natural" disqualifications are, by their very nature, not "egregious" (at least in the sense that there is nothing deliberate about such disqualification - clearly it isn't a good thing to have spoiled ballots for whatever reason). I was saying that the QUANTITY of disqualifications for reasons that are innocent will be far greater than the QUANTITY of disqualifications perpetrated by nefarious evildoers, simply because innocent mistakes are committed by some fraction of all voters everywhere.

So . . . your comment was a non sequitur?

No. It was a political opinion ... as was yours.

It could be both a political opinion and also a non-sequitur, of course.

I suppose you could build an argument but in this case, no.

I don’t think you can argue quantity at this point, not when many egregious disqualifications are proposals or pending final court decisions at this point.