2020 Election Commentary

[jhkim]

And a brief follow-up to Pat:

But we need a process to determine one way or the other, and it should be followed honestly and fairly. Claims of fraud should be given due process, but until there is proof otherwise, the vote should be followed.

If you believe that, you should be objecting vociferously to how the media has handled this, because the vote hasn't been certified. The media does not decide who wins the election, the states do.

In every election for decades, the different media sources have always made their call as to the winner before the legal process of vote-counting is finalized and the Electoral College meets. The media's calls are their predictions - which don't have any legally binding power. This came up most prominently in the election of 2000, where a number of media outlets made gaffes in calling certain results in what turned out not to be the final result.

[EOTB]

Why don't all "gimme proof" people simply come clean that they're exploiting a colloquial/technical gap.

The gimme proof people are asking for Proof, the technical term.  They are not asking for evidence, the technical term, which concerned posters are using "proof" for in the colloquial sense - which is perfectly fucking appropriate on a forum that is not a court room.

I have been asking for and looking into evidence. I gave a list earlier of claims that I have looked into so far. My beef is that no one seems to be arguing against me regarding any of the claims. Instead, they tend just post new claims. I would love it if someone would actually argue over the evidence of a prior claim. Here are ones I've looked into so far (slight repeat from a while back):

1) The Antrim County glitch that caused 6000 votes to count towards Biden. I do not believe that this constitutes evidence of fraud. It was caught by cross-checks, and no one official has claimed that it was intentional fraud. That county is Republican dominated, and the local officials are Republican.

2) Crowder's video showing bringing a wagon and luggage into a building in Detroit where ballot counting is happening. I watched and didn't see any proof that there was any illegal activity. There was nothing on video to indicate that either the wagon or the luggage contained ballots, or that either got into the ballot-counting area without being checked.

3) A quote supposedly from a sworn affidavit of an election monitor in Michigan, posted by jeff37923, posted in Reply #691, claiming major problems in the process. jeff37923 was asked for a link to show that, but he himself said that the link was no longer there and to take it with a grain of salt. Until more evidence shows up to confirm that this the affidavit exists, I'd also say that this is not evidence.

4) A statistical analysis from RedState author Scott Hounsell. I tried looking into it, but it didn't give any sources for it's numbers and doesn't seem to have any cross-checks by anyone else. Until there is more offered here, this is also a dead end. I'll revisit it if anyone can provide corroboration or sources for the claims.

5) The claim that there were more votes than registered voters in Wisconsin, advanced by Brad, followed by the claim that it was ludicrous that 90% of registered voters had voted. I don't believe this claim is warranted or constitutes fraud. The initial claim was wrong, and the idea that 90% is ludicrous doesn't add up given that 2016 had 87% nationally.

6) The Benford's Law analysis claim. I don't have a conclusion yet on this. This at least gives it's sources as well as code - which is good. It claims a statistical anomaly, but it doesn't give a likelihood or explain why it chose the three districts that it did.

7) GameDaddy's claim in Reply #789 that the odds of PA, GA, and AZ were 308 to 1 that it was valid. That calculation of odds is based on the assumption that each state's vote is a random throw, and that 3% for Biden, 50% for Biden, and 97% for Biden were all equally likely. I believe this is a false assumption - which Pat also backed up.

8 ) The countering claims regarding Pennsylvania postal worker Richard Hopkins. This does constitute evidence and should be followed up on, I agree. If true, the postal manager should absolutely be prosecuted.

Again with the "that's not proof" bit.  No one is expecting anything to be proven here.  They're pointing out why it stinks, and should be audited - not recounted, but audited.  Just like the IRS audits your tax return without "proof" if it thinks something doesn't look right.

No, I don't think your presenting all the reasons for you to be skeptical of most of the listed items, here.  I don't expect to.  I'm not interested in your skeptical opinion or wish to invest effort into changing it.  It should invite derision or a re-evaluation of overall credibility in future discussions.  But that's best done without bothering to express it to the person re-evaluated.

EDIT - let's put it another way.  In another thread, your assessment of Bannon saying someone's head should be on a pike, was that this was a non-metaphorical threat of bodily harm.  I simply don't have time nor energy to attempt persuading anyone who demonstrates a cognition/context floor at that level.

[Pat]

1) The Antrim County glitch that caused 6000 votes to count towards Biden. I do not believe that this constitutes evidence of fraud. It was caught by cross-checks, and no one official has claimed that it was intentional fraud. That county is Republican dominated, and the local officials are Republican.

Don't obsess about the word fraud. It's being thrown around a lot in the public sphere, but it's very hard to prove deliberate fraud, and that's not what's being alleged in any of the suits. It's not the real topic, it's just hyperbole and distraction.

What's being alleged in the suits, and what this is an example of, is an election irregularity or impropriety. That's indisputable. 6000 votes went to the wrong person. They caught it, but opens up a ton of questions about the software, which was apparently used is many other counties and states. That's more than enough to be outraged, and to demand broad recounts in order to make sure it was an isolated event. Investigation might turn up evidence of deliberate malfeasance, or might not. But that doesn't change anything we should be doing, right now.

2) Crowder's video showing bringing a wagon and luggage into a building in Detroit where ballot counting is happening. I watched and didn't see any proof that there was any illegal activity. There was nothing on video to indicate that either the wagon or the luggage contained ballots, or that either got into the ballot-counting area without being checked.

3) A quote supposedly from a sworn affidavit of an election monitor in Michigan, posted by jeff37923, posted in Reply #691, claiming major problems in the process. jeff37923 was asked for a link to show that, but he himself said that the link was no longer there and to take it with a grain of salt. Until more evidence shows up to confirm that this the affidavit exists, I'd also say that this is not evidence.

4) A statistical analysis from RedState author Scott Hounsell. I tried looking into it, but it didn't give any sources for it's numbers and doesn't seem to have any cross-checks by anyone else. Until there is more offered here, this is also a dead end. I'll revisit it if anyone can provide corroboration or sources for the claims.

5) The claim that there were more votes than registered voters in Wisconsin, advanced by Brad, followed by the claim that it was ludicrous that 90% of registered voters had voted. I don't believe this claim is warranted or constitutes fraud. The initial claim was wrong, and the idea that 90% is ludicrous doesn't add up given that 2016 had 87% nationally.

6) The Benford's Law analysis claim. I don't have a conclusion yet on this. This at least gives it's sources as well as code - which is good. It claims a statistical anomaly, but it doesn't give a likelihood or explain why it chose the three districts that it did.

[snip because it's a bad example]

8 ) The countering claims regarding Pennsylvania postal worker Richard Hopkins. This does constitute evidence and should be followed up on, I agree. If true, the postal manager should absolutely be prosecuted.

Are you familiar with how audits work? They almost never start with a smoking gun. You'll never find a single shot video showing someone fraudulently filling out ballots, boxing them, driving them to the election office, and slipping them in with the others. Instead, they look for red flags. Signs of impropriety. None of them are indisputable proof in themselves, because you can explain away individual cases as exceptions, using various justifications and contortions. But if there are enough of them, then it starts getting suspicious. The patterns themselves can be evidence, sufficient justification to declare an election fraudulent. That's how it works in developing countries, where independent election observers come in, and look for these kind of patterns.

There are a fuck ton of red flags in this election, and you've only mentioned a handful. There are all the vote dumps with a statistically impossible pro-Biden bias. There are all the local counts that swung toward Biden to a completely improbable degree, when compared to similar areas. There are the absentee ballots that favored Biden more than expected, by statistically improbably margins (not just 60-40 or 70-30, but things like 97-3). The fact that all these favored one side and not the other is another major red flag. The observers being barred is another. Putting up boards to block peoples' view is another. Keeping observers so far away they couldn't watch what was happening is another. And it was those areas that saw many of the statistical anomalies, which is yet another red flag.

There's a reason they put away Capone on tax charges. White collar crime is even slipperier. It's about looking for patterns, and assessing whether those patterns exceed the expected norms. That requires experiences, which none of us have. I do have some background in statistics, but it's a big country, with a lot of votes, and I've never been part of the voting apparatus. I have no idea what constitutes an improbable margin in most of these cases. But all these reported instances, especially collectively, are very worrisome. We really need some honest workers experienced with uncovering voting fraud or irregularities to investigate the whole mess, uncover more information, and put it all into context.

[Pat]

< - - - >

I'm getting a playback error.

Edit: Looks like it's Youtube in general. Sites are reporting all their videos are down. Official tweet: https://twitter.com/TeamYouTube/status/1326681978037444608
... and they're back up.

[consolcwby]

Just thought I'd put this here for historical reasons:
https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1326535761718554624
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-1/clause-2-4/electoral-college
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxii

He's right, of course. And people here think it's a shit-show NOW. I think it's only just begun. Also, WTF is up with YooToob? Oh, well. :/

[Ratman_tf]

Just thought I'd put this here for historical reasons:
https://twitter.com/TomFitton/status/1326535761718554624
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-1/clause-2-4/electoral-college

He's right, of course. And people here think it's a shit-show NOW. I think it's only just begun. Also, WTF is up with YooToob? Oh, well. :/

I didn't think any States would go against the popular vote. That's generally a Bad Idea. But legally possible.

[HappyDaze]

In another thread, your assessment of Bannon saying someone's head should be on a pike, was that this was a non-metaphorical threat of bodily harm.  I simply don't have time nor energy to attempt persuading anyone who demonstrates a cognition/context floor at that level.

Well, if Bannon is channeling Vir Cotto, then I can see it...

[Shasarak]

But somehow, the Democrats want everyone to believe that Biden won this election, and is more popular than any presidential candidate in American history? I just don't buy it.

I haven't seen anyone claim this. Biden currently looks to be getting 50.8% of the popular vote - that's about the same as George W. Bush (50.7%). It's more than Trump (46.1%) and Bill Clinton (43.0% and 49.2%) -- and less than Obama (51.0% and 52.9%) or George H.W. Bush (53.4%). That's nowhere near the most popular in history. It's slightly below average among all presidents.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin

I agree that there should be investigation.

Maybe you should look at total votes rather then a percentage.

51% of a hundred voters is not so impressive.

[HappyDaze]

Maybe you should look at total votes rather then a percentage.

51% of a hundred voters is not so impressive.

51% of the voters can get you over 90% of the votes if they are the voters casting thousands of votes each.

[rawma]

Oh look...

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/2020/president/

Look at what? That RCP yanked PA away from Biden? It's not true; they never gave it to Biden. (If you meant something else, then go ahead and clarify.)

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/11/falsehood-tells-of-withdrawn-pennsylvania-projection/

If you really believe Trump will still win, you can make big bucks on the betting markets. There are plenty of suckers who think at least one of PA, GA and AZ are going for Biden. Put your money where your mouth is.

[jhkim]

Again with the "that's not proof" bit.  No one is expecting anything to be proven here.  They're pointing out why it stinks, and should be audited - not recounted, but audited.  Just like the IRS audits your tax return without "proof" if it thinks something doesn't look right

Actually, many posters are claiming that it is proven that the election was completely fraudulent. Even if you aren't one of the ones who considers it proven -- I would submit that not everything rises to the level of calls for an audit, though. I agree, for example, that the sworn testimony of named witnesses bears investigation. I also agree that the Antrim County glitch means that other counts should be checked for whether they could have had a similar error.

However, I don't agree that certain other points so constitute red flags. For example, Gamedaddy claimed his 308 to 1 odds was *proof* that the election was rigged - but I don't consider it even a red flag. It's just a mistake on his part. Other things I don't consider red flags: testimony where the only source is a deleted social media post - or claimed statistical results from a single author with no listing of source data or explanation of methods.

A lot of this seems to be "Well, if there are hundreds of Twitter posts all claiming the election was stolen - then there *must* be some truth in it, even if some of them prove wrong. There are so *many* claims, it means there's definitely something to it." I don't buy that. The only thing hundreds of Twitter posts prove is that people are strongly motivated. People can and have produced mountains of evidence for Bigfoot, UFOs, faking the Moon landing, and tons of other false beliefs. Both liberals and conservatives often believe wrong things mainly because they really want it to be true.

I'm not making any claim overall, and I agree that some things should be investigated. But I don't agree that "Well, it was said on the Internet - so that's a red flag indicating something wrong."

There are a fuck ton of red flags in this election, and you've only mentioned a handful. There are all the vote dumps with a statistically impossible pro-Biden bias. There are all the local counts that swung toward Biden to a completely improbable degree, when compared to similar areas. There are the absentee ballots that favored Biden more than expected, by statistically improbably margins (not just 60-40 or 70-30, but things like 97-3). The fact that all these favored one side and not the other is another major red flag. The observers being barred is another. Putting up boards to block peoples' view is another. Keeping observers so far away they couldn't watch what was happening is another. And it was those areas that saw many of the statistical anomalies, which is yet another red flag.

I've only mentioned a handful because (a) those were the claims that other posters specifically cited in this thread, and (b) I only have limited time to read on the subject. By emphasizing the fuckton of them, you're implying the narrative of "If there are hundreds of Twitter posts, surely something must be up." I disagree with that logic. 

Among these supposed other red flags, which few do you think are the most well-founded that would bear following up on?

[rawma]

What do you suppose the odds are statistically speaking that we have elections in three states PA, GA, AZ with a combined population of 15,400,000 people voting, and the separation of all three combined vote tallies is less than 50,000.

The odds are 308 to 1 the vote should be that close in three states combined.

So this is not an accident. Nor is the narrow race apparently the result of people just voting.

The margin in PA is now more than 50,000 by itself; since the remaining votes were generally early mail-in votes (which favored Biden because Trump told his followers not to vote that way, and because Democrats were more likely to fear the coronavirus), it was pretty obvious that would be the case before it was called by anyone on Saturday You probably want to revise your talking point to WI, GA and AZ; flipping all three could give Trump a very close electoral win. Currently a lead for Biden of 47,431 out of about 11,500,000 two party votes.

What were the odds that Florida in 2000 would differ by 537 votes out of 5,963,110?

What were the odds that MI, PA and WI in 2016 would differ by 77,736 votes out of 13,967,630 voting?

Unlikely things can happen without requiring an elaborate but barely effective multistate conspiracy.

I speculate that the equilibrium in the closest swing states was close to even votes; either candidate appearing to be well in the lead in that state might lead to voters who don't like either switching to the other - trying to vote against a landslide for either candidate.

[rawma]

A decisive win for Biden. The last time an incumbent president's challenger got as high a percentage of the vote* was 1932. Even Jimmy Carter held Ronald Reagan below that percentage; incumbency is clearly a powerful advantage, as it led to the only Republican popular vote win since 1988. Trump was just that bad a president and candidate.

(* Based on present vote totals; entirely possible for Biden to end up over 80 million votes and with over 51% of the popular vote.)

[Pat]

I've only mentioned a handful because (a) those were the claims that other posters specifically cited in this thread, and (b) I only have limited time to read on the subject. By emphasizing the fuckton of them, you're implying the narrative of "If there are hundreds of Twitter posts, surely something must be up." I disagree with that logic. 

Among these supposed other red flags, which few do you think are the most well-founded that would bear following up on?

Bullshit, I implied nothing of the sort. Did you even read the rest of my post? You're claiming that there's a hidden message in my post. That it's supporting some third party group's line. Not only is that ridiculous, it's insulting, because you're implying that I can't think on my own.

The points I made is that there are a lot of reported red flags. Those red flags must be investigated, and nobody here is really qualified to put together the pieces because we lack the expert knowledge. I'll add that even if we can assesses individual irregularities, it's mostly pointless, because it's not about the individual cases, it's about the overall pattern. And that the point of investigating those red flags is twofold: One, two ensure election integrity. And two, to prove to the public that election integrity is taken seriously. Both the facade and the reality are important. The people denying there's a problem and saying it's a threat to democracy to challenge the results are the threat, because if we don't look into those issues people will lose faith in the machinery of democracy, which can't function without that belief.

[Brad]

A decisive win for Biden. The last time an incumbent president's challenger got as high a percentage of the vote* was 1932. Even Jimmy Carter held Ronald Reagan below that percentage; incumbency is clearly a powerful advantage, as it led to the only Republican popular vote win since 1988. Trump was just that bad a president and candidate.

(* Based on present vote totals; entirely possible for Biden to end up over 80 million votes and with over 51% of the popular vote.)

How much money did you get paid to post this? Was it at least in USD?