More Nonsense About the Election

A shadowy flight into the realm of evidence that does not exist.

I am likely to drive myself crazy if I spend too much more time looking into the claims of what I suppose should be called “fraud truthers.” But, to go along with my posts yesterday, I have allowed myself to get sucked into looking at the claims of Patrick Basham at The Spectator: Reasons why the 2020 presidential election is deeply puzzling. I also looked at some of the loquacious meanderings of Roger Kimball at American Greatness.

None of this, nor some other side trips online and on social media yesterday, were especially impressive.

Overall this whole genre is of the “I’m just asking questions” type of thing, or “gee, isn’t this weird?” Although the real hallmark of all of it, which is the dangerous part, is that a lot of these pieces are based on a series of singular, unsubstantiated accusations/assertions that are then repeated as if they had foundation. I am seen several of these (like the 47 USB drives noted below) all over the place.

I use the “truther” label quite deliberately, as the logic (so to speak) being used in a lot (most? all?) of these essays sound an awful lot like 9/11 Truthers (or Birthers). After all, who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?

In 2001 it wasn’t enough that, you know, a massive passenger jet crashed into a building to explain why the building, you know, caught fire and fell down. And in 2020 it isn’t enough that largely normal voting procedures produced tallies and a winner.

This leads me to start with Kimball’s essay, which asserts:

The strongest argument for Biden’s victory is not the vote tally. It is the monolithic narrative, pumped up like one of those inflatable play castles at a child’s birthday party. With every passing day, that narrative becomes more boisterous, more assertive, more uncompromising. It is a collective primal scream, emitted with eyes shut and ears plugged.

Except, no, the strongest argument for Biden is very much the vote tally. And, indeed, the only reason that the “narrative” is that his victory is inevitable is because he won enough popular votes in the right states so as to lead to an electoral vote tally of 270+.

It really, truly, is that simple.

This is how every election plays out. We vote. We count. We color the maps. And then the narrative is that the person with the most electoral votes is going to be president.

Even in 2000, when there was much waiting and gnashing of teeth, that was the focus: count and tally.

Kimball’s overall “argument” comes across like basically classic “the media is against us” narratives (if I am may appropriate the term). You know, dastardly outlets like Fox News who called Arizona on election night, and whatnot.

His essay contains laments about press treatment of Trump and a disgression comparing a Kamala Harris tweet to Orwell before ranging into claims of “Huge anomalies” in “Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.” Such a statement continues to make me ponder: if such “huge” problems exist, why is it so bloody hard to find a way to coherently put them into a court pleading?

His examples include:

How is it possible that Joe Biden, who barely campaigned, garnered more votes in just those spots than even Barack Obama had done?

I would need to know what he was specifically referring to there in terms of “spots” but I will say that a lot of this Biden v. Obama discussion that I have seen has been either based on incorrect assertions or a result of simple population growth.

The whole “barely campaigned” bit is just silly. First, most voters know who they are going to vote for based on party, so don’t need campaigning to make up their minds. Second, most campaigning is done via television in any event. Third, a huge chunk of Democratic voters were motivated to oust Trump, meaning the specific message of the Democratic nominee was not the central motivator.

How is it possible that, as everyone was getting tucked into bed on the night of November 3, Donald Trump had notable leads in almost all of those states and then, suddenly, all at once, in the wee hours, floods of votes poured in and—wouldn’t you know it—they were overwhelmingly, sometimes exclusively, for Biden?

It is possible, primarily, because of the volume of mail-in ballots that needed to be processed, especially in states like PA wherein processing of those ballots could not start until election day. Indeed, the entire scenario was predicted and known well in advance: that the likely in-person vote would lean Republican and that the mail-in vote would lean Democratic. This was known for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that Trump himself discouraged mail-in voting.

Also: larger jurisdictions, like Philadelphia, are going to take longer to count than rural counties. So, on election night, it was more likely to have the Trump-leaning rural vote counted in places like AZ, GA, and PA and to have the Biden-leaning urban precincts take longer.

If you are going to write about elections, it is not unreasonable that you should understand these things

And what about those voting machines from Dominion: are we confident that they are secure? 

To which I can only say: what about them, indeed? To date all I have seen about said machines are wild, baseless assertions.

All of this sums to a whole lot of nothing.

Evidence, evidence, my kingdom for some evidence!

Meanwhile, let’s pivot to Basham, whose piece has the following subtitle: “If only cranks find the tabulations strange, put me down as a crank” and concludes with “If you think that only weirdos have legitimate concerns about these findings and claims, maybe the weirdness lies in you.”

Well, I have some bad news.

He starts:

To say out-loud that you find the results of the 2020 presidential election odd is to invite derision. You must be a crank or a conspiracy theorist. Mark me down as a crank, then. I am a pollster and I find this election to be deeply puzzling. I also think that the Trump campaign is still well within its rights to contest the tabulations. Something very strange happened in America’s democracy in the early hours of Wednesday November 4 and the days that followed. It’s reasonable for a lot of Americans to want to find out exactly what.

It really is, as noted above, pretty straightforward: a large turnout election, conducted more by mail-in ballots than usual, took a few days to count in some localities.

Indeed, a pollster should know that it is not unusual for some states to take days to finish the count, but since it often doesn’t matter to the EV totals, we don’t usually pay that much attention.

The following claim alone really suggests one of the following: he is being disingenuous, he isn’t a very good analyst, or he is a victim of motivated reasoning:

First, consider some facts. President Trump received more votes than any previous incumbent seeking reelection. He got 11 million more votes than in 2016, the third largest rise in support ever for an incumbent. By way of comparison, President Obama was comfortably reelected in 2012 with 3.5 million fewer votes than he received in 2008.

I keep seeing this and I keep thinking: why does anyone think this means anything? First, population growth plus increased turnout meant Trump was almost certainly going to get more votes this election. Second, since he lost the popular vote in 2016, trying to fit him into a pattern of past winners of the presidency makes no analytical sense. He is an outlier regardless of anything else going on.

We are told that Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history. But he won a record low of 17 percent of counties; he only won 524 counties, as opposed to the 873 counties Obama won in 2008. Yet, Biden somehow outdid Obama in total votes.

This is the kind of thing that sounds smart, but it leaves out a key bit of information: what are the populations of the counties under discussion? After all, county lines are largely arbitrary as it pertains to population (especially population growth since the lines were drawn).

Plus, since Obama won the national popular vote in 2008 by 7.2 percentage points, it stands to reason he would have won more counties. You think a pollster would understand that dynamic. It is therefore either a poor analytical choice to compare 2020 to 2008 (instead of 2016 to 2020) or an attempt to create doubt by distracting.

A 2016 to 2020 comparison of counties provides this:

Based on an NPR analysis of the more than 3,000 counties, it was, in fact, mostly a base election with some key persuasion in Democratic-leaning suburbs that went for Joe Biden by wider margins than they did for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

In 2020, there have been far fewer counties that flipped from one major party to the other, as compared with four years earlier. In 2016, 237 counties changed allegiances from 2012 — 216 of them went from President Barack Obama to Donald Trump.

In 2020, just 77 counties total have flipped so far, and Biden won 59 of them.

See, also, this piece from Brookings: Biden-voting counties equal 70% of America’s economy. What does this mean for the nation’s political-economic divide?

BTW: all 50 states are not fully certified, so some of this analysis is, by definition, incomplete. Indeed, it would seem a lot of the skeptical claims about the numbers have been missing the fact that they are using incomplete counts in comparison in 2020 to complete ones from the past.

We then have this, which is a kind of weird set of assertions to be made by a self-identified pollster:

Another anomaly is found in the comparison between the polls and non-polling metrics. The latter include: party registrations trends; the candidates’ respective primary votes; candidate enthusiasm; social media followings; broadcast and digital media ratings; online searches; the number of (especially small) donors; and the number of individuals betting on each candidate.

Despite poor recent performances, media and academic polls have an impressive 80 percent record predicting the winner during the modern era. But, when the polls err, non-polling metrics do not; the latter have a 100 percent record. Every non-polling metric forecast Trump’s reelection.

A couple of responses:

  1. If non-polling metrics have a 100% success rate, we don’t we use them instead of polls? Indeed, if that claim is correct there is a massive money-making opportunity here for someone given public concerns about polling.
  2. If you are going to assert that such metrics are awesome, it sure would be nice to see some of those metrics and an explanation of why they are so great.
  3. I am sincerely amazed that a pollster would think such non-random metrics like social media following would mean anything. For example: is it a shock that the President of the United States would have a lot of Twitter followers? Further, it doesn’t take mad analytical skills to suss out that “follow” does not mean “supporter” in that context. The same logic would apply to television ratings.
  4. The primary vote thing is simply a ridiculous metric, as I noted yesterday.

He concludes with a list:

1. Late on election night, with Trump comfortably ahead, many swing states stopped counting ballots. In most cases, observers were removed from the counting facilities. Counting generally continued without the observers

I dealt with the main issue here above. I continue to find it impossible that these guys don’t understand what happened here.

And the observer thing is an attempt at sleight of hand to create doubt. First, specific evidence is not provided. Second, observers are not required in any event.

2. Statistically abnormal vote counts were the new normal when counting resumed. They were unusually large in size (hundreds of thousands) and had an unusually high (90 percent and above) Biden-to-Trump ratio

That’s easy: some precincts are heavily in favor of one party. Trump won some precincts 90-10, Biden won others. There are entire cities and counties that are overwhelmingly populated by voters that support one party. Clinton won Philadelphia County 83-15 in 2016. I guarantee that there were precincts within the county that were 90+% Democratic. Trump won Fulton County 84-14 in the same contest.

A pollster should know better. Getting a 90-10 Biden outcome in a precinct known to be roughly 90% Democratic is not statistically abnormal, indeed quite the opposite. What would be statistically abnormal would be that if a precinct known to have a 90-10 Dem-Rep split was coming up 50-50.

If you poll favorite football teams in Seattle Washington, it would not be statistically abnormal for the poll to overwhelmingly find Seahawks fans.

This is pretty basic stuff.

3. Late arriving ballots were counted. In Pennsylvania, 23,000 absentee ballots have impossible postal return dates and another 86,000 have such extraordinary return dates they raise serious questions

First, just because a ballot is late does not, ipso facto, make it problematic.

Second, this claim is misleading because the state allowed a three-day grace period for ballots to arrive, and this was upheld by the US Supreme Court (Supreme Court Allows Longer Deadlines for Absentee Ballots in Pennsylvania and North Carolina).

4. The failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots. The destruction of mail in ballot envelopes, which must contain signatures

This falls into: the “got evidence?” category.

Also: IIRC it is standard procedure to trash the envelopes after processing. (I am happy to be corrected if I am mistaken). One thing is for sure: once the ballot is seperated from the envelope, the envelope is worthless for determing any specific ballot’s valildity, since due to privacy the ballot is not connected back to the envelope in any way (any more than an in-person ballot is connected to a specific voter).

5. Historically low absentee ballot rejection rates despite the massive expansion of mail voting. Such is Biden’s narrow margin that, as political analyst Robert Barnes observes, ‘If the states simply imposed the same absentee ballot rejection rate as recent cycles, then Trump wins the election’

This is just an assertion.

6. Missing votes. In Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 50,000 votes held on 47 USB cards are missing

As best as I can tell, despite this being a rampant assertion on Twitter and cable news, this is based solely on one man’s statements. Statements not made under oath, I would note. Via Fox News: Pa. poll watcher, a Navy vet, alleges missing USB cards, up to 120,000 questionable votes.

This boils down to “some dude said.” (Again, I am open to correction).

(Side note: who call USB thumb drives, “USB cards”?).

7. Non-resident voters. Matt Braynard’s Voter Integrity Project estimates that 20,312 people who no longer met residency requirements cast ballots in Georgia. Biden’s margin is 12,670 votes

This is one guy’s estimate. And that guy’s Twitter bio describes him as “Former Data Chief and Strategist for Trump for President.” As such, I think I need to see a bit more on this before I take it especially seriously.

8. Serious ‘chain of custody’ breakdowns. Invalid residential addresses. Record numbers of dead people voting. Ballots in pristine condition without creases, that is, they had not been mailed in envelopes as required by law

We are back to the “got evidence?” category. Assertions aren’t evidence.

9. Statistical anomalies. In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch. It is particularly perplexing that all statistical anomalies and tabulation abnormalities were in Biden’s favor. Whether the cause was simple human error or nefarious activity, or a combination, clearly something peculiar happened.

Gotta admit, 53 counts in a row with the exact same percentages sounds fishy. But, I would need a lot more than just this assertion, especially when this list also shows the author’s willingness to accept single-sourced assertions.

Look, I take elections very seriously and very much think that if there is evidence of voting irregularities and fraud that we ought to investigate them,

But, I also take the notion of evidence seriously. Assertions aren’t evidence. And the fact that we can conceive of a scenario does not make it so.

I can conceive of a massive international plot by a shadowy communist organization to subvert US elections by hacking our system.

But I can also conceive of matter/anti-matter explosions being harnessed in the warp core of a starship to warp space so as to traverse vast distances.

I can conceive of an alien orphan crash landing in Kansas who ends up having the capacity to transform solar radiation into fantastic powers.

Heck, we can conceive of a scenario in which Barack Obama was born in Kenya, but someone had the foresight to put a birth announcement in a Hawaii newspaper just in case young Obama wanted to run for president some day.

The human mind can conceive of many things but at the end of the day, that isn’t enough for those conceptions to be reality.

If all that the human mind could conceive was also true, then we would have no fiction.

Reality requires facts, data, and evidence.

So far, whether it be Team Trump in court or the keepers of the flame of doubt as per above, I have seen precious little evidence of anything other than a normal election process.

(BTW, in reading this over, I realized I left out several additional claims that I meant to address, but this is already long enough and I think the point is made, so I shall not add those in).

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2020, US Politics
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is a Professor of Political Science and a College of Arts and Sciences Dean. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter

Comments

  1. reid says:

    The strongest argument for Biden’s victory is not the vote tally.

    I literally laughed out loud when I read that. How stupid can one get? I understand I’m not the target audience for the essay.

    ReplyReply
    9
  2. gVOR08 says:

    Virtually everyone who writes on such matters, including IIRC Dr. T, predicted that Trump would have a lead on election night, but Biden would gain as an unusually high number of mail-in, early, and other votes were counted. Then,

    as everyone was getting tucked into bed on the night of November 3, Donald Trump had notable leads in almost all of those states and then, suddenly, all at once, in the wee hours, floods of votes poured in and—wouldn’t you know it—they were overwhelmingly, sometimes exclusively, for Biden?

    Hoocoodanode. I have often tried, and failed, to explain to conservative friends that their ignorance of how things works is not evidence of a conspiracy.

    ReplyReply
    7
  3. DrDaveT says:

    To me, the greatest irony is that if one were really going to infer conspiracy and fraud on the basis of outlandish, unexpected outcomes, then all of the alarm bells should have gone off at top volume when a narcissistic non-politician who is almost physically incapable of telling (or understanding) truth was elected president while massively losing the popular vote. With known interference from Russian social media bots. And a last-minute announced sort-of-investigation of his opponent by the FBI, which was immediately withdrawn right after the election. To elect a president who was then unprecedentedly deferential to Russian interests.

    If that didn’t trigger your conspiracy radar, then clearly there is nothing at all to see here and you’re just another lying Republican sack of anti-democratic agitprop.

    ReplyReply
    25
  4. drj says:

    If you are going to write about elections, it is not unreasonable that you should understand these things

    It’s not that they don’t understand (they do), it’s that they don’t care.

    Assertions aren’t evidence.

    They are if they confirm their priors.

    All this is to say that the pieces you critique aren’t sloppy (no professioal writer is genuinely that stupid): they are mendacious.

    ReplyReply
    9
  5. al Ameda says:

    I am likely to drive myself crazy if I spend too much more time looking into the claims of what I suppose should be called “fraud truthers.” But, to go along with my posts yesterday, I have allowed myself to get sucked into looking at the claims of Patrick Basham at The Spectator: Reasons why the 2020 presidential election is deeply puzzling. I also looked at some of the loquacious meanderings of Roger Kimball at American Greatness.

    Honestly, I’ve come to see the conservative press – The National Review, The Spectator, and a few others – as ta kind of Vichy Press, a Fifth Column dedicated to maintaining Republican power whatever the cost.

    ReplyReply
    11
  6. Kathy says:

    I didn’t take notes, but I recall Biden leading in Ohio and Florida for some time on election night.

    This is proof republicans stole those states, and ought to give them back.

    ReplyReply
    14
  7. ImProPer says:

    “He got 11 million more votes than in 2016, the third largest rise in support ever for an incumbent.”

    This, by far and large is the most suspicious outcome of the entire election. Couple it with the fact that the leaders of the GOP were constantly, all but guaranteeing wide spread voter fraud, for me provides a conclusion that the most likely source is on their end. Besides the GOP is the only party right now, monolithic enough to pull off a major wide spread plan to steal an election. I remember a while back that it was the Republicans that actually sued to be able to use the dominion voting machines. Makes one wonder if they failed to anticipate the suze of the land slide for Biden, and only programed 11 million or so votes for Trump. Things that make you go hmm.

    ReplyReply
    13
  8. Jay L Gischer says:

    A friend of mine, who is a psychologist, told me that if you’re going to be a good psychologist, you have to deeply understand the Fundamental Attribution Error. People’s behavior and decisions are strongly influenced by what is going on around them, by what they see and hear. That is, people do not so much have “intrinsic character” as they have habits, strategies, opportunities and obstacles. So, I have set my mind on what a conservative might be seeing and hearing.

    One person, whom I play board game with (over the internet these days), was deeply puzzled that Trump lost. We had a brief conversation where he said, “I really thought Donald would pull it out” He also indicated that maybe Trump had kind of checked out, not tried hard, because “he’s done it all”. I decided to respond by saying, “Well, he never actually wanted to be president”.

    But I shake my head. What kinds of environment, what kind of information ecosystem, would lead to these beliefs. I think the things you are looking at are probably the sort of data the conservative information system was feeding people, since the actual polls, national or statewide, were not that encouraging.

    And it must be said, +11 million voters is pretty impressive. It’s just that the Democrats put what, +13 million voters on the table? Somehow they underestimated our resolve, which is a very common thing in American history, it must be said.

    Maybe one can think of the sorts of things you engage with, Steven, as the kinds of things they were being served up with, and telling each other before the election. Primary results. Non-polling data. Bellwether states. And so on.

    The rumors of irregularities are, at this point, laughable. With all the effort expended by True the Vote, the Trump Campaign, and Rudy Giuliani, you have to ask yourself why they didn’t bring the “47 USB cards” into court. Seems important. They should have their day in court, but for some reason, they didn’t want it. Given the garbage they did bring into court, one can make an inference about how solid it was.

    ReplyReply
    7
  9. Kylopod says:

    Second, since he lost the popular vote in 2016, trying to fit him into a pattern of past winners of the presidency makes no analytical sense.

    I’d add something that I’m surprised hasn’t received more discussion: there was a dramatic drop-off in the third-party vote between 2016 and 2020. Therefore, it’s not surprising that both candidates showed an increase in both vote percentage and vote totals compared to the R and D nominee in 2016.

    Fun fact: Adlai Stevenson won more votes in both 1952 and 1956 than Harry Truman did in 1948. I wonder why?

    ReplyReply
    7
  10. @Kylopod:

    I’d add something that I’m surprised hasn’t received more discussion: there was a dramatic drop-off in the third-party vote between 2016 and 2020. Therefore, it’s not surprising that both candidates showed an increase in both vote percentage and vote totals compared to the R and D nominee in 2016.

    An excellent point.

    ReplyReply
    1
  11. An Interested Party says:

    Love the Knight Rider reference… 😉

    ReplyReply
  12. @An Interested Party: I am always pleased when someone notices one of my dumb references 🙂

    ReplyReply
  13. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    When I got up on Wednesday and looked at the interactive Red/Blue map on MSN.com, I said, “Wow! If trends continue (an important “if,” I would add), Trump will pull this off again. And in fact, I made approximately that statement on one of the threads that day. Turns out the trends didn’t continue–nor did the “blue wave” materialize (which contributed to my initial reaction in the morning). People on the thread were saying, “no, factors X, Y, and Z will come to bear, and the count will shift.” These people were generally the same ones predicting the blue wave and an EV total as high as 400+, so I remained skeptical.

    Where my experience differs from the current crop on “fraud Truthers” (I like that term), is that as factors X, Y, and Z happened, my reaction was “huh, guess I was wrong.” Being a non-voter helped me to come to that realization in that I really had no stakehold in the outcome, I suppose, but anyone should be able to realize when they are wrong. I see the continuing complaints as mostly marketing for people who will want to be considered the next time the GOP (or the Democrats, I suppose) want to challenge the outcome and void 10 or 20 million votes. Sort of an audition, if you will.

    @al Ameda: Ya think? I can embrace that concept.

    ReplyReply
  14. Kathy says:

    @reid:

    Well, you know how the argument a team won a game is never the points tally, right? It’s like that.

    Also, notice the projection about the narrative being pushed. The only people pushing a narrative are the Cult of the Ugly Cheeto, claiming the vote tally is a fraud.

    ReplyReply
    1
  15. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @al Ameda: I just gotta say, what was your first clue?

    ReplyReply
  16. Michael Cain says:

    One odd thing happened in Arizona: the usual “blue shift” didn’t show up. Later ballots there tend to favor Democratic candidates. Eg, the 2018 Senate results were touch and go for a few days, then Sinema stretched her final lead to 2.4 percentage points (about 60,000 votes). This year I was ready to call it about the same time Fox News did. Biden was up by 50,000 votes, things were pretty much down to Maricopa County, so I thought Biden would finish with a 75,000 vote lead. Instead, his lead steadily decreased for days and wound up closer to 10,000. No blue shift.

    I think Arizona may have purchased a bunch of new equipment to speed things up, and that may have changed the order in which different categories of ballots were tallied.

    ReplyReply
  17. Flat earth luddite says:

    The human mind can conceive of many things but at the end of the day, that isn’t enough for those conceptions to be reality.

    Dr. Taylor,

    Of late, Pluto has been hosting the ‘Mission: Impossible’ channel. Even binging on Barney, Cinnamon, and the rest of the team, their 60’s/70’s adventures are more believable than the horsepucky Team Trump is promoting.

    ReplyReply
    2
  18. Blue Galangal says:

    @Flat earth luddite: “Oh, that explains it. That explains it, sir. Uh… just one more thing, Mr. Trump…” /columbo

    ReplyReply
    4
  19. grumpy realist says:

    for those of you who want to see a lawyerly fisking of the hairball that Sidney coughed up for her Biblical Kraken lawsuit, it’s a doozy.

    If this is what she thinks is a “good legal filing”, no wonder she flaked out from being a prosecutor. (Also–how in the HELL do you get a “permanent injunction” on the first crack? Hello, Due Process clause?)

    ReplyReply
  20. Fitzman says:

    Re: “First, population growth plus increased turnout meant Trump was almost certainly going to get more votes this election.”
    Don’t you think that all the measures that made it easier to vote this year (extended hours/extended early voting days/expanded mail voting) are a big reason the numbers are higher? Maybe it just means that when it is easier to vote, more people vote – for both parties.

    ReplyReply
  21. @Fitzman: It may well be that vote-by-mail helped increase turnout, yes.

    It will be interesting to compare the turnout rates in states that made it easier to vote versus those that didn’t (and to put them in historical context, including if we saw similar state-specific behavior in 2018 without the increase in ease of voting).

    ReplyReply
  22. Carl Lundell says:

    So which is it!? In 2018 you wrote an article about Russian interference in the US 2016 election. Interestingly you wrote how Russia may have influenced the election without needing to hack a voting machine – yet this piece is about the strength of the election system (ie. “show me evidence”). Which is it – is the system on solid footing and Trump won without help, or should we be concerned with the democratic process and be skeptical of Biden’s win? Seems like a lot must have changed in only a short few years (including apparently a real falling out between Russia and Trump).

    ReplyReply
  23. @Carl Lundell: While I not sure which post you are referring to specifically, I guarantee you I never questioned the vote totals in the 2016 elections.

    There was plenty of evidence of the Russians attempting to interfere with the 2106 campaign, including hacking DNC emails, among other things. Even the GOP-controlled Senate Intel Committee came to that conclusion.

    There is no inconsistency in my positions on the 2016 and 2020 elections.

    ReplyReply
  24. Forthdeck says:

    @al Ameda: @al Ameda: Actually if you read National Review you would see both pro and against Trump columnists, stories. National Review by definition since the its founding is Conservative – you have to accept that proposition just like many other institutions and media outlets have a bias. The only media you need to question any more is the mainstream media because they no longer do their job of really questioning & investigating no matter who is in office. Either editors are ignoring their job or journalism majors are failing their profession or both.

    ReplyReply
    1
  25. WilliamF says:

    @DrDaveT: ” while massively losing the popular vote” If you are referring to 2016, the entirety of Clinton’s popular vote win was provided by CA. Without CA, Trump won the popular vote in the 49 remaining states. When you add up the Center Right votes (GOP + Libertarian) vs the Center Left (Dem + Green), Center Right won the popular vote in all 50 states.

    ReplyReply
  26. Don says:

    Wow, such diverse and unbiased perspectives here. No group think whatsoever. You convinced me, the other half of the country is just a bunch of idiots and you philosophers have it all figured out. Congrats. You figured out the Matrix and have the magic formula to unite everyone.

    ReplyReply
  27. Der Williams says:

    “We are back to the “got evidence?” category. Assertions aren’t evidence.

    9. Statistical anomalies. In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch. It is particularly perplexing that all statistical anomalies and tabulation abnormalities were in Biden’s favor. Whether the cause was simple human error or nefarious activity, or a combination, clearly something peculiar happened.

    Gotta admit, 53 counts in a row with the exact same percentages sounds fishy. But, I would need a lot more than just this assertion, especially when this list also shows the author’s willingness to accept single-sourced assertions.”

    Your lack of curiosity is breath-taking. All America should be calling for a look see at the batches received when news media and Republican observers were chased out of State Farm Area in Georgia and votes from suitcases under tables were then surreptitiously tabulated for the next couple of hours. That’s compelling video evidence that smells to high heaven. That event is time-stamped. How hard can it be? Either it matches up or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t show ballot-stuffing fraud, I’ll eat a bug. The Georgia margin of victory is in the balance from that event alone. Topple that domino and more will follow, guaranteed. Which, sadly, explains your lack of curiosity.

    ReplyReply
  28. @Der Williams: First, I am open to a clear presentation of evidence. I have looked and all I see are half-baked (at best) theories and wild assertions.

    If this was all crystal clear, it would be quite easy to make a logical presentation. I have seen none as yet.

    In regards to the GA tabulation noted in your comment, it appears that what was going one was that the 53 tabluations in a row were the result of very small batches of votes being process and with little mathematical effect on the actual totals. Hence the lack of change in the tabulations. I you add very small numbers into much larger tallies, the percentage difference between two candidates isn’t going to change much, if at all.

    “votes from suitcases under tables were ”

    Fact-checking claims about Fulton County’s election | These ‘suitcases’ are actually ballot containers

    No, Georgia election workers didn’t kick out observers and illegally count ‘suitcases’ of ballots

    Election officials disprove Trump’s viral suitcases of ballots ‘smoking gun’ video

    Video Doesn’t Show ‘Suitcases’ of Illegal Ballots in Georgia

    No, Atlanta Didn’t Count Illegal Ballots In Secret (Or In Suitcases)

    I would further note, that if any of the allegations being made about the election had any traction whatsoever, the evidence would have been presented in court. To date: nothing.

    Are you really willing to believe that all these attorneys working for/on Trump’s behalf are incapable of presenting evidence in court?

    Or, might it be, that they know they can lie on TV and are press conferences, but are quite aware of the penalties for lying in court?

    ReplyReply
  29. Eve says:

    I didn’t vote for Biden or Trump so I guess you can say I don’t have a horse in this race, but I do appreciate your attempt to logically account for why Biden was chosen over Trump. It would
    be nice to see more pieces that discuss possible alternative explanations to fraud.

    I think the 3rd party vote,or lack thereof, played a big role in my state & deserves more attention.

    This election wasn’t a normal election. There were lots of changes due to Covid. Therefore, I dont think there is any harm in makings sure things ran as smoothly as election officials have claimed they have. Trust but verify!

    ReplyReply

Speak Your Mind

*