“Certainly not alarming!” is a weird response from a campaign to an opponent’s recount request. Does the Woodall campaign have something to be alarmed about?
Recount is a sensible thing to pursue if original count has you down by a small margin.
It is unlikely to change the vote by hundreds when there isn’t good reason to think the original count had more than a few random errors, but you never know what will turn up.
So how many of those votes are from un-auditable machines?
"Oh, yes, four watches. No! No! No, one watch. No! No, not even one watch!
“the secretary of state’s office said their legal team is reviewing Bourdeaux’s request”
Tells you what the answer’s going to be without even going to court.
Once again, voting machines ought to provide receipts and an auditable paper trail!
All of the ballots cast on Election Day were voted on paperless insecure Diebold voting machines that we’ve known how to hack since 2006. At https://www.verifiedvoting.org/ you can see a 5 minute NYT video showing how to hack them remotely. I wish Talking Points would start paying attention to the voting technology. Georgia uses some of the most insecure voting machines known - and have done so since 2002.