Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election - Page 12

pgwenthold · 10th November 2020, 05:53 AM

Originally Posted by Cain

It's just inconceivable that Biden would edge a victory in states that have a history of voting Democratic when Trump trailed by so much for so long in all of the opinion polls.

I know this is Cain, but, that is funny, because it's exactly the point.

No Other · 10th November 2020, 05:54 AM

Originally Posted by dirtywick

Maybe, maybe not. Physicians use xrays to find fractures. Can you identify election fraud with Benford's law? Sounds like people are just talking nonsense to me at this point.

The x-ray is only a medium; the x-ray needs to be interpreted... just like anything that utilizes Benford's Law.

wareyin · 10th November 2020, 05:55 AM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

One of our resident conspiracy theorists hilariously thought it would be a good idea to mention “evidence” gathered by Project Veritas.

Well, this is how that’s going.

On a reload: "Project Veritas is offering a $25K reward for tips related to election fraud...which strikes me as something you do if you don't already have a ton of evidence of voter on hand."

What are the odds that that $25k gets paid out of the Trump campaign fund?

Meadmaker · 10th November 2020, 05:56 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Two answers here:
1. A "conspiracy theory" that only a handful of insignificant loons believe may not be worth investigate, where an identically false idea believed by half the country might be worth investigating.

2. As I keep saying, I believe a similar situation applied in 1960. Nixon had to conduct his own investigation first before an official one was begun, unfortunately for him he ran out of time and it had to be handed over to the new administration to complete and disappeared into the weeds. The "irregularity" there was of the sort of scale Trump would need to find here. An investigation was allowed in 1960 on less evidence than we have now, I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed today.

For me, I don't object to an investigation.

I do object to the behavior of the White House, and especially it's primary occupant, in this. Suppose he were to come out and say, directly or through a spokesman, "We believe that there are some serious irregularities in the voting process that could affect the outcome of the election. We believe these should be investigated in accordance with our laws, and we ask your patience as we await the outcome of the investigation. As many state elections have noted in recent days, it is more important to have an accurate result than a quick one.". If he did that, I'm sure lots of people would scream, holler, and whine about it, but, personally, I would shrug and say that's fine.

Instead, what we have is a moron raging into his cell phone saying, "I WON".

It's embarrassing, but more than that, it's dangerous. He is telling millions of Americans, "Your election system can't be trusted." The dangerous part is that a lot of people are believing him.

Meanwhile, though, we have some specific allegations to investigate, but the ones that we've actually heard about are a big plate full of nothing. Somebody heard that somebody did something somewhere. The allegations we've heard so far are either easily debunked or of very little consequence, or both.

No Other · 10th November 2020, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

Your medical expertise is impressive, on a par with our current president. The vast majority of fractures are diagnosed by x-rays alone.

Your swarmy and stupid remark is noted. X-rays do not diagnose a fracture, a Technician, or some other Professional interprets the x-ray.

Quote:

Even fractures not definitively identified by x-ray (e.g., nondisplaced fractures) are often simply treated presumptively with splints/casts and rechecked on x-ray later.

Rechecked by a Professional... the x-ray does not check itself.

The Great Zaganza · 10th November 2020, 06:00 AM

Democrats should start investigations of all House and Senate seats races they lost within a margin of, say, 5 points.

No Other · 10th November 2020, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

This is not just wrong, but trivially wrong. Benford's Law for the first digit breaks down completely as soon as the span of results falls below one order of magnitude; it cannot possibly succeed because not all leading digits are even present in the sample. It's well established that its applicability increases with the number of orders of magnitude spanned, so at the point of just one order of magnitude its applicability has decreased to the point where it's right on the verge of breaking down completely.

Benford's Law for the second digit is perhaps more credible. I'd note that the analysis originally presented as evidence for vote-rigging has only one instance of Benford's Law for the second digit, in which it presents one set of Biden data on an expanded Y-axis and one of Trump data on a compressed Y-axis to give the false impression of an obvious difference between them, and when the data is plotted on consistent Y-axes the Biden data shows only a very slightly greater variance than the Trump data. We can assume from the entire slant of the piece that the data has been chosen to show the most damning possible result in each case.

So we have one cherry-picked instance of a deviation from Benford's Law in the first digit in Biden data, compared with instances of Trump data that shows a different deviation from Benford's Law; and we have one cherry-picked instance of a very minor and unexceptional deviation from Benford's Law in the second digit in Biden data, which is dishonestly presented to give the appearance that it's much more severe than it actually is.

Overall, against a burden of proof required to cast doubt on the basic honesty of the electoral system, one minor statistical anomaly and one piece of blatantly dishonest spin is pretty pathetic.

Your fallacy is: Reversed burden of proof. Explain how this tool is appropriate for election results, given that there is, taking the best possible interpretation for your claim, clearly no consensus among experts that this is the case.

Dave

You have no idea what you are talking about. You lifted an incorrect descriptive phrase regarding Benford's Law and passed yourself off as an Expert. Now you write a lengthy paragraph as if you posses inherent mathematical skills.

You are a fake.

Meadmaker · 10th November 2020, 06:07 AM

Factcheck.org has a page dealing with various viral videos alleging voter fraud:

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/11/vi...isinformation/

As one might expect, the videos are manipulated, taken out of context, or demonstrated to be misleading in a number of ways.

I've been looking for the story behind ST's "backdating ballots" claim, but haven't found anything. It doesn't match any of the factcheck examples that I noticed.

shuttlt · 10th November 2020, 06:09 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I do object to the behavior of the White House, and especially it's primary occupant, in this. Suppose he were to come out and say, directly or through a spokesman, "We believe that there are some serious irregularities in the voting process that could affect the outcome of the election. We believe these should be investigated in accordance with our laws, and we ask your patience as we await the outcome of the investigation. As many state elections have noted in recent days, it is more important to have an accurate result than a quick one.". If he did that, I'm sure lots of people would scream, holler, and whine about it, but, personally, I would shrug and say that's fine.

If Trumps manner isn't factored in at this point, it never will be.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Instead, what we have is a moron raging into his cell phone saying, "I WON".

It's embarrassing, but more than that, it's dangerous. He is telling millions of Americans, "Your election system can't be trusted." The dangerous part is that a lot of people are believing him.

I'm not sure it is greatly worse than telling millions of Americans that the president is a white supremacist working for the Russians and people who vote for him a racists. Whether these things are done eloquently or with an air of seriousness and gravitas makes no difference to me.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Meanwhile, though, we have some specific allegations to investigate, but the ones that we've actually heard about are a big plate full of nothing. Somebody heard that somebody did something somewhere. The allegations we've heard so far are either easily debunked or of very little consequence, or both.

These things have yet to be investigated. We have to wait and see.

quadraginta · 10th November 2020, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

That's a classic conspiracy theorist wedge argument. If there's an investigation that finds no significant wrongdoing, that also will be seen as a cover up.

Dave

By some people, sure but that isn't any reason to help them by implementing a coverup of what might be nothing.

The same people. Which is the point.

Those same people would insist that not having an investigation when no investigation was warranted is a "cover up".

Big deal. There is nothing that they wouldn't consider a cover up.

All they are interested in is fomenting FUD. They have no desire for facts or the establishment of verified outcomes. That isn't their goal.

They get what they want either way.

SuburbanTurkey · 10th November 2020, 06:14 AM

In any sufficiently large system, there will be errors.

I have no doubt that after all this squawking coming from the Trump team, they will eventually find some example of legitimate improper or even fraudulent votes. Some example where a poll worker gave improper instructions or didn't follow proper protocol,
mail in ballot without the proper format or signatures, some example of an ineligible voter casting a ballot, or even an example of a double vote or impersonation fraud.

It's important to remember that nobody credible says that voter fraud doesn't exist, it's just that voter fraud is insignificant. It simply does not occur at high enough rates to be meaningful. The Trump team may be able to find some poster boy example of an illegal vote, but there's nothing to suggest voter fraud changed the course of the election.

It's important to remember where the goal posts actually lie in this scenario. Trump lost in several swing states, often in margins of 10's or 100's of thousands. Even flipping one state, like GA, through legal maneuvering would not tip the election back his way. This isn't a Bush/Gore 2000 scenario where a single state with a tiny margin can decide the result. There is no nail biting as a single county deals with hanging chads. Biden's lead is substantial, there's no avenue for nibbling around the edges to make a victory. Huge chunks of Biden's votes have to be eliminated.

The Trump team will have to find hundreds of thousands of illegal ballots, in the right states, to squeeze out a win. This means finding massive, widespread flaws in our voting system that have previously gone undetected. Only a moron or a propagandist would honestly believe this is even remotely likely.

shuttlt · 10th November 2020, 06:15 AM

Originally Posted by quadraginta

The same people. Which is the point.

Trump voters aren't a monolith.

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Those same people would insist that not having an investigation when no investigation was warranted would consider that a "cover up".

Big deal. There is nothing that they wouldn't consider a cover up.

All they are interested in is fomenting FUD. They have no desire for facts or the establishment of verified outcomes. That isn't their goal.

They get what they want either way.

Well, perhaps some Trump voters may be persuaded. You can do no harm to people who aren't open to persuasion and you may persuade the people who are.

If you abandon trying to understand people who disagree with you and trying to persuade them, then there is nothing left but power and compulsion.

Meadmaker · 10th November 2020, 06:16 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Benford's Law for the second digit is perhaps more credible. I'd note that the analysis originally presented as evidence for vote-rigging has only one instance of Benford's Law for the second digit, in which it presents one set of Biden data on an expanded Y-axis and one of Trump data on a compressed Y-axis to give the false impression of an obvious difference between them, and when the data is plotted on consistent Y-axes the Biden data shows only a very slightly greater variance than the Trump data.

After doing all that work to figure out Benford's Law beyond the superficial understanding I had yesterday, I went back to the original links and paid closer attention and.....it's nonsense.

The graphs often don't actually show what they are claiming. There are graphs that show distributions that don't follow Benford's Law, captioned as showing that they do follow Benford's Law. The axis deformation is one of the ways they used to facilitate the flim-flam.

Around the web are all sorts of nonsense claims being printed, along the lines that "natural data" is expeted to follow Benford's Law. No, that's not true. There are a lot of exponentials in the world, and those follow Benford's Law. There are also lots of Gaussian and uniform processes. Those don't.

What we have is a bunch of people who heard there was this magic formula that could be used to detect fraud, and so they said the incantations and they are sure that the spirits are telling them there's fraud in the data, but it really is no more credible than that. It's psuedoscience. it looks like science, but it isn't.

I would be curious to go and look at the Iranian election data. I am strongly suspecting that it was not critically examined and it was very easy to go with headlines that said, "Math Wizards Prove that Iranian Elections Were Rigged!", because we were pretty sure that the Iranian elections were rigged anyway, or at least that's what we wanted to hear.

quadraginta · 10th November 2020, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Democrats should start investigations of all House and Senate seats races they lost within a margin of, say, 5 points.

Seems reasonable.

They would only be following the lead that the Repugnicans have established.

Why would Democratic candidates in a Senate race have a smaller percentage of the vote than the Democrat who headed the ticket.

Seems pretty suspicious to me. Must be election fraud.

shuttlt · 10th November 2020, 06:19 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

It's important to remember that nobody credible says that voter fraud doesn't exist, it's just that voter fraud is insignificant. It simply does not occur at high enough rates to be meaningful.

And yet a congressional election in North Carolina is being rerun because of fraud.

Meadmaker · 10th November 2020, 06:21 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I'm not sure it is greatly worse than telling millions of Americans that the president is a white supremacist working for the Russians and people who vote for him a racists. Whether these things are done eloquently or with an air of seriousness and gravitas makes no difference to me.

For what it's worth, I think there's some truth to that. It's a more complicated topic, but I think some of what has happened over the past four years has been damaging, and not all of the bad stuff came from Trump.

shuttlt · 10th November 2020, 06:22 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

For what it's worth, I think there's some truth to that. It's a more complicated topic, but I think some of what has happened over the past four years has been damaging, and not all of the bad stuff came from Trump.

Thank you. Comments like that are how people are brought back together. :-)

SuburbanTurkey · 10th November 2020, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

And yet a congressional election in North Carolina is being rerun because of fraud.

Was rerun. The Republican election fraud scheme occurred in 2018.

Yes, an honest to god example of election fraud (not voter fraud) that left behind clear pieces of evidence and ended with criminal indictments for the fraudsters involved. A great example, thanks.

That election was originally tilted by a few hundred illegal votes, which left behind detectable evidence of a crime that was readily discovered by those overseeing the process.

Surely an election fraud scheme that resulted in 10's of thousands of illegal votes will make finding evidence of widespread, systematic illegal schemes easy.

BobTheCoward · 10th November 2020, 06:27 AM

Obviously, democratic circles talked about fraud 2004 and 2016. Some of the claims were similar.

The tone is different now.

Speculation: difference in tone comes from right wing background in apocalyptic evangelism.

quadraginta · 10th November 2020, 06:29 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

<snip>

If you abandon trying to understand people who disagree with you and trying to persuade them,

Do you not recognise that some people are unwilling to be persuaded and even the simple act of trying to will only cause them to dig in deeper. That facts and evidence are useless and will only make them angry?

And that this is a common and widespread characteristic of the sort of people who continue to support Trump even after four years of blatant, incontrovertible proof that he is an unprincipled, narcissistic, pathological liar with absolutely no regard for laws or for the welfare of the country or anything else aside from adulation ... and his bank account.

Quote:

then there is nothing left but power and compulsion.

Nonsense. They can simply be ignored until their intransigence becomes threatening.

Then you can let the law deal with them.

shuttlt · 10th November 2020, 06:32 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Was rerun. It was in 2018.

Yes, an honest to god example of election fraud (not voter fraud) that left behind clear pieces of evidence and ended with criminal indictments for the fraudsters involved. A great example, thanks.

That election was originally tilted by a few hundred illegal votes, which left behind detectable evidence of a crime.

Surely an election fraud scheme that resulted in 10's of thousands of illegal votes will make finding evidence of widespread, systematic illegal schemes easy.

Right, so you are for some reason restricting your claims to voter fraud, while Trump is claiming voter fraud AND election fraud. Fraud can clearly swing elections and can be a significant problem.

SuburbanTurkey · 10th November 2020, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Right, so you are for some reason restricting your claims to voter fraud, while Trump is claiming voter fraud AND election fraud. Fraud can clearly swing elections and can be a significant problem.

The moment the Trump team produces evidence of, at a minimum, 10's of thousands of illegal votes, I'll give the claims credence.

Do you honestly believe that Trump's team is making these claims in good faith? Do you think Trump's legal wrangling here will be successful?

Such a narrative will likely be useful for raising money for paying off his campaign debts, and help with Trump's fragile ego by refuting a clear loss at the polls, but I see no path to overturning the election results.

Dave Rogers · 10th November 2020, 06:41 AM

Originally Posted by No Other

You have no idea what you are talking about. You lifted an incorrect descriptive phrase regarding Benford's Law and passed yourself off as an Expert. Now you write a lengthy paragraph as if you posses inherent mathematical skills.

You are a fake.

Your fallacy is: Argumentum ad hominem.

Dave

shuttlt · 10th November 2020, 06:44 AM

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Do you not recognise that some people are unwilling to be persuaded and even the simple act of trying to will only cause them to dig in deeper. That facts and evidence are useless and will only make them angry?

Some people, sure. I don't know about angrier.

Originally Posted by quadraginta

And that this is a common and widespread characteristic of the sort of people who continue to support Trump even after four years of blatant, incontrovertible proof that he is an unprincipled, narcissistic, pathological liar with absolutely no regard for laws or for the welfare of the country or anything else aside from adulation ... and his bank account.

Again, that is your view. If you want to win them over you have to start from their perspective, or there is nothing left but power. I would say that the trick to convincing them that they are wrong is to try not to live up to every one of their fears about Democrats. All the lists of people who supported Trump being thrown around and absolute denial of any need to investigate isn't helping.

Originally Posted by quadraginta

Nonsense. They can simply be ignored until their intransigence becomes threatening.

This is one of the first things that caused me to question if I was on the right side and start giving the political right and populism serious thought. The idea that you are Right and historically inevitable and don't need to look for compromise appals me. It's a cruel, zealous, puritan, totalitarian way of looking at the world. I'm for small government and living and let living.

SuburbanTurkey · 10th November 2020, 06:47 AM

As the results stand now, Trump needs to invalidate 37 electoral college votes from Biden's win to flip the result.

Looking at the states with the closest margins:

GA: Biden up by approx 13,000 - 16 EC votes
WI: Biden up by approx 10,000 - 10 EC votes
AZ: Biden up by approx 15,000 - 11 EC votes

These are the 3 closest elections that would get Trump over 270. Assuming every fraudulent vote was in Biden's favor, Trump needs evidence of 38,000 illegal votes, at a minimum, in the exactly right places to flip the election.

That's the lowest possible bar to clear. The margins in other states are higher. PA flipping means finding 40,000 illegal Biden votes. NV means finding 36,000 illegal Biden votes. Michigan is over 100,000.

Election fraud at this magnitude would leave behind huge amounts of evidence.

Dave Rogers · 10th November 2020, 06:50 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I would say that the trick to convincing them that they are wrong is to try not to live up to every one of their fears about Democrats.

The problem with that is that either the Democrats enact the policies they were voted in to enact, thus living up to a small part, but enough, of their fears to result in them being convinced that they're going to live up to all the rest, or do exactly what Trump would have done for the next few years, thus disenfranchising everyone who voted for a different approach. The Republican approach, seen from afar, for the last couple of decades seems to have been to refuse flat out to compromise with the Democrats on anything while excoriating the Democrats for not compromising with them.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

The idea that you are Right and historically inevitable and don't need to look for compromise appals me.

Have you ever heard of someone called Donald Trump?

Dave

rambaldi · 10th November 2020, 06:50 AM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank

Well he mentions his "instincts" yes, but he makes it clear that this is based on his personal knowledge of party politics and operations. .

Probably the usual, "we wanted to do it, let's accuse the democrats"

The Great Zaganza · 10th November 2020, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Obviously, democratic circles talked about fraud 2004 and 2016. Some of the claims were similar.

The tone is different now.

Speculation: difference in tone comes from right wing background in apocalyptic evangelism.

The other difference is that Democrats could point to Intelligence Assessments of foreign interference and the very public release of hacked documents.
And, of course, the Campaign Manager of one side (not mentioning which one) had to resign because of his Ukraine/Russia connections.

In short, there was a lot of smoke going into the elections.

This time, the most curious aspect of the election is the degree to which it has worked out well, given to much larger number of voters and much more difficult circumstances.

I Am The Scum · 10th November 2020, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Again, that is your view. If you want to win them over you have to start from their perspective, or there is nothing left but power. I would say that the trick to convincing them that they are wrong is to try not to live up to every one of their fears about Democrats. All the lists of people who supported Trump being thrown around and absolute denial of any need to investigate isn't helping.

We're literally talking about the party that tried to stop the vote before it was even finished. I'm not trying to convince them, because they don't value representative democracy and the rule of law.

shuttlt · 10th November 2020, 06:56 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

The moment the Trump team produces evidence of, at a minimum, 10's of thousands of illegal votes, I'll give the claims credence.

Fine, but that is going to require an investigation.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Do you honestly believe that Trump's team is making these claims in good faith?

How should I know? I can well believe that he is exaggerating to try and make it harder to ignore the calls for an investigation. That would be in keeping with his style. Whether he is actually convinced there is fraud isn't something I am in a position to know and isn't particularly important to me. Like I say, I believe he uses exaggerated and outrageous statements strategically the same way Kamala Harris uses accusations of racism, if it turns out that he is doing that now it wouldn't change my views on him.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Do you think Trump's legal wrangling here will be successful?

No. Regardless of the merits of his cases, I don't think the courts, or the FBI, or congress are going to want to be put in a position of deciding the election. I think there will be a strong desire to decide by not deciding. He would have to discover something huge to change that. I would say that his best chance would be to make it as painful as possible for the Republican party to sit this out. Like impeachment, ultimately it's a political question, not a legal question.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Such a narrative will likely be useful for raising money for paying off his campaign debts, and help with Trump's fragile ego by refuting a clear loss at the polls, but I see no path to overturning the election results.

Maybe, ultimately I think it depends on whether he finds something spectacular which would then give the courts or congress the political space to decide in his favour. Without that, I think he's done for 2020.

shuttlt · 10th November 2020, 06:59 AM

Originally Posted by I Am The Scum

We're literally talking about the party that tried to stop the vote before it was even finished. I'm not trying to convince them, because they don't value representative democracy and the rule of law.

Didn't they try to stop counting while they were being prevented watching the counting? There are rules and laws in place around the election, the Democrats push hard on the rules and laws as do the Republicans.

SuburbanTurkey · 10th November 2020, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Fine, but that is going to require an investigation.

How should I know? I can well believe that he is exaggerating to try and make it harder to ignore the calls for an investigation. That would be in keeping with his style. Whether he is actually convinced there is fraud isn't something I am in a position to know and isn't particularly important to me. Like I say, I believe he uses exaggerated and outrageous statements strategically the same way Kamala Harris uses accusations of racism, if it turns out that he is doing that now it wouldn't change my views on him.

No. Regardless of the merits of his cases, I don't think the courts, or the FBI, or congress are going to want to be put in a position of deciding the election. I think there will be a strong desire to decide by not deciding. He would have to discover something huge to change that. I would say that his best chance would be to make it as painful as possible for the Republican party to sit this out. Like impeachment, ultimately it's a political question, not a legal question.

Maybe, ultimately I think it depends on whether he finds something spectacular which would then give the courts or congress the political space to decide in his favour. Without that, I think he's done for 2020.

Is there any reason to believe that the Trump team has any special knowledge that widespread voting fraud exists and decided the election? What do they know about a public election that the rest of us don't? Why can't they produce any meaningful evidence?

Trump is declaring the conditions of his victory exist and is desperately searching for evidence to support this claim. Sure, it's his right to challenge the results, but there's no reason for anyone to pretend this is a credible claim. The simplest explanation here is that Trump is just making stuff up because he doesn't want to concede the loss.

Mockery and dismissal is the reasonable and appropriate response.

sackett · 10th November 2020, 07:03 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

<snip to the juicy part>
Such a narrative will likely be useful for raising money....

Bingo. Old Man Occam is our friend.

bonzombiekitty · 10th November 2020, 07:03 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Obviously, democratic circles talked about fraud 2004 and 2016. Some of the claims were similar.

The tone is different now.

In 2004, the concern was over electronic voting machines with no paper trail. I recall people being very concerned over the generally lax security. There was concern that fraud COULD happen, and we'd have no way to really know.

But of course, when the results came in, both sides accepted it.

In 2016, we were shocked that Hillary lost, but accepted it. The concern there was not that votes were somehow rigged for Trump, but that foreign governments got involved in the campaign in support of Trump. On top of that, the Trump campaign knew about it, encouraged or sought it out, as did Trump himself.

shuttlt · 10th November 2020, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

As the results stand now, Trump needs to invalidate 37 electoral college votes from Biden's win to flip the result.

Looking at the states with the closest margins:

GA: Biden up by approx 13,000 - 16 EC votes
WI: Biden up by approx 10,000 - 10 EC votes
AZ: Biden up by approx 15,000 - 11 EC votes

These are the 3 closest elections that would get Trump over 270. Assuming every fraudulent vote was in Biden's favor, Trump needs evidence of 38,000 illegal votes, at a minimum, in the exactly right places to flip the election.

That's the lowest possible bar to clear. The margins in other states are higher. PA flipping means finding 40,000 illegal Biden votes. NV means finding 36,000 illegal Biden votes. Michigan is over 100,000.

Election fraud at this magnitude would leave behind huge amounts of evidence.

I think given that we had a 6000 vote error in one county, it's not impossible to suppose that errors or 15,000 votes couldn't be found state wide if the election way audited.

No Other · 10th November 2020, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Your fallacy is: Argumentum ad hominem.

Dave

If facts don't work you... go after the Individual.

The Great Zaganza · 10th November 2020, 07:07 AM

Trump administration says we should investigate even if there is no evidence?

I thought the stance of Trump's lawyers was that you aren't allowed to investigate unless you have already actionable evidence.

shuttlt · 10th November 2020, 07:09 AM

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Is there any reason to believe that the Trump team has any special knowledge that widespread voting fraud exists and decided the election? What do they know about a public election that the rest of us don't? Why can't they produce any meaningful evidence?

Maybe they can and maybe they can't. They are filling court cases and will presumably show what they have then. In so far as telling the public, we saw with the laptop that the dribbled it out a bit at a time. Maybe they will do the same here? I don't know.

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

Trump is declaring the conditions of his victory exist and is desperately searching for evidence to support this claim. Sure, it's his right to challenge the results, but there's no reason for anyone to pretend this is a credible claim. The simplest explanation here is that Trump is just making stuff up because he doesn't want to concede the loss.

I can buy that he's exaggerating his certainty/the scale of what he can show. I don't see that he is making up the testimony of the poll watchers and others. They might I suppose be making it up, but we are now getting into the territory of claiming a conspiracy to steal the election.

ServiceSoon · 10th November 2020, 07:10 AM

Detroit's sketchy past and present. This article discusses the re-count process in Michigan.

Originally Posted by Detroit Free Press

After ballots are counted the first time around, they must be securely stored. If the storage is tampered with, or if the number of ballots reported to have been cast does not match the number tallied in poll books, then clerks may not be able to recount votes in that particular district.

This has been a problem in Detroit in the past. During the Aug. 4 primary, the number of recorded absentee ballots did not match the actual number of ballots cast in 72% of the city's precincts.

ServiceSoon · 10th November 2020, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Trump administration says we should investigate even if there is no evidence?

I thought the stance of Trump's lawyers was that you aren't allowed to investigate unless you have already actionable evidence.

What a quandary you have constructed there! You cannot investigate unless you have evidence, but you cannot get evidence unless you investigate

10th November 2020, 05:53 AM	#441
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,061	Originally Posted by Cain It's just inconceivable that Biden would edge a victory in states that have a history of voting Democratic when Trump trailed by so much for so long in all of the opinion polls. I know this is Cain, but, that is funny, because it's exactly the point.
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

10th November 2020, 05:54 AM	#442
No Other Muse Join Date: Feb 2016 Posts: 670	Originally Posted by dirtywick Maybe, maybe not. Physicians use xrays to find fractures. Can you identify election fraud with Benford's law? Sounds like people are just talking nonsense to me at this point. The x-ray is only a medium; the x-ray needs to be interpreted... just like anything that utilizes Benford's Law.
No Other Muse Join Date: Feb 2016 Posts: 670

10th November 2020, 05:56 AM	#444
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 24,859	Originally Posted by shuttlt Two answers here: 1. A "conspiracy theory" that only a handful of insignificant loons believe may not be worth investigate, where an identically false idea believed by half the country might be worth investigating. 2. As I keep saying, I believe a similar situation applied in 1960. Nixon had to conduct his own investigation first before an official one was begun, unfortunately for him he ran out of time and it had to be handed over to the new administration to complete and disappeared into the weeds. The "irregularity" there was of the sort of scale Trump would need to find here. An investigation was allowed in 1960 on less evidence than we have now, I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed today. For me, I don't object to an investigation. I do object to the behavior of the White House, and especially it's primary occupant, in this. Suppose he were to come out and say, directly or through a spokesman, "We believe that there are some serious irregularities in the voting process that could affect the outcome of the election. We believe these should be investigated in accordance with our laws, and we ask your patience as we await the outcome of the investigation. As many state elections have noted in recent days, it is more important to have an accurate result than a quick one.". If he did that, I'm sure lots of people would scream, holler, and whine about it, but, personally, I would shrug and say that's fine. Instead, what we have is a moron raging into his cell phone saying, "I WON". It's embarrassing, but more than that, it's dangerous. He is telling millions of Americans, "Your election system can't be trusted." The dangerous part is that a lot of people are believing him. Meanwhile, though, we have some specific allegations to investigate, but the ones that we've actually heard about are a big plate full of nothing. Somebody heard that somebody did something somewhere. The allegations we've heard so far are either easily debunked or of very little consequence, or both.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information? Last edited by Meadmaker; 10th November 2020 at 06:00 AM.

10th November 2020, 05:59 AM	#445
No Other Muse Join Date: Feb 2016 Posts: 670	Originally Posted by Babbylonian Your medical expertise is impressive, on a par with our current president. The vast majority of fractures are diagnosed by x-rays alone. Your swarmy and stupid remark is noted. X-rays do not diagnose a fracture, a Technician, or some other Professional interprets the x-ray. Quote: Even fractures not definitively identified by x-ray (e.g., nondisplaced fractures) are often simply treated presumptively with splints/casts and rechecked on x-ray later. Rechecked by a Professional... the x-ray does not check itself.
No Other Muse Join Date: Feb 2016 Posts: 670

10th November 2020, 06:00 AM	#446
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,413	Democrats should start investigations of all House and Senate seats races they lost within a margin of, say, 5 points.
	__________________ Ceterum autem censeo fox et amicis esse delendam.

10th November 2020, 05:55 AM	#443
wareyin Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 8,177	Originally Posted by johnny karate One of our resident conspiracy theorists hilariously thought it would be a good idea to mention “evidence” gathered by Project Veritas. Well, this is how that’s going. On a reload: "Project Veritas is offering a $25K reward for tips related to election fraud...which strikes me as something you do if you don't already have a ton of evidence of voter on hand." What are the odds that that $25k gets paid out of the Trump campaign fund?

10th November 2020, 06:05 AM	#447
No Other Muse Join Date: Feb 2016 Posts: 670	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers This is not just wrong, but trivially wrong. Benford's Law for the first digit breaks down completely as soon as the span of results falls below one order of magnitude; it cannot possibly succeed because not all leading digits are even present in the sample. It's well established that its applicability increases with the number of orders of magnitude spanned, so at the point of just one order of magnitude its applicability has decreased to the point where it's right on the verge of breaking down completely. Benford's Law for the second digit is perhaps more credible. I'd note that the analysis originally presented as evidence for vote-rigging has only one instance of Benford's Law for the second digit, in which it presents one set of Biden data on an expanded Y-axis and one of Trump data on a compressed Y-axis to give the false impression of an obvious difference between them, and when the data is plotted on consistent Y-axes the Biden data shows only a very slightly greater variance than the Trump data. We can assume from the entire slant of the piece that the data has been chosen to show the most damning possible result in each case. So we have one cherry-picked instance of a deviation from Benford's Law in the first digit in Biden data, compared with instances of Trump data that shows a different deviation from Benford's Law; and we have one cherry-picked instance of a very minor and unexceptional deviation from Benford's Law in the second digit in Biden data, which is dishonestly presented to give the appearance that it's much more severe than it actually is. Overall, against a burden of proof required to cast doubt on the basic honesty of the electoral system, one minor statistical anomaly and one piece of blatantly dishonest spin is pretty pathetic. Your fallacy is: Reversed burden of proof. Explain how this tool is appropriate for election results, given that there is, taking the best possible interpretation for your claim, clearly no consensus among experts that this is the case. Dave You have no idea what you are talking about. You lifted an incorrect descriptive phrase regarding Benford's Law and passed yourself off as an Expert. Now you write a lengthy paragraph as if you posses inherent mathematical skills. You are a fake.
No Other Muse Join Date: Feb 2016 Posts: 670

10th November 2020, 06:07 AM	#448
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 24,859	Factcheck.org has a page dealing with various viral videos alleging voter fraud: https://www.factcheck.org/2020/11/vi...isinformation/ As one might expect, the videos are manipulated, taken out of context, or demonstrated to be misleading in a number of ways. I've been looking for the story behind ST's "backdating ballots" claim, but haven't found anything. It doesn't match any of the factcheck examples that I noticed.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?

10th November 2020, 06:09 AM	#449
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by Meadmaker I do object to the behavior of the White House, and especially it's primary occupant, in this. Suppose he were to come out and say, directly or through a spokesman, "We believe that there are some serious irregularities in the voting process that could affect the outcome of the election. We believe these should be investigated in accordance with our laws, and we ask your patience as we await the outcome of the investigation. As many state elections have noted in recent days, it is more important to have an accurate result than a quick one.". If he did that, I'm sure lots of people would scream, holler, and whine about it, but, personally, I would shrug and say that's fine. If Trumps manner isn't factored in at this point, it never will be. Originally Posted by Meadmaker Instead, what we have is a moron raging into his cell phone saying, "I WON". It's embarrassing, but more than that, it's dangerous. He is telling millions of Americans, "Your election system can't be trusted." The dangerous part is that a lot of people are believing him. I'm not sure it is greatly worse than telling millions of Americans that the president is a white supremacist working for the Russians and people who vote for him a racists. Whether these things are done eloquently or with an air of seriousness and gravitas makes no difference to me. Originally Posted by Meadmaker Meanwhile, though, we have some specific allegations to investigate, but the ones that we've actually heard about are a big plate full of nothing. Somebody heard that somebody did something somewhere. The allegations we've heard so far are either easily debunked or of very little consequence, or both. These things have yet to be investigated. We have to wait and see.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

10th November 2020, 06:11 AM	#450
quadraginta Becoming Beth Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of) Posts: 26,139	Originally Posted by shuttlt Originally Posted by Dave Rogers That's a classic conspiracy theorist wedge argument. If there's an investigation that finds no significant wrongdoing, that also will be seen as a cover up. Dave By some people, sure but that isn't any reason to help them by implementing a coverup of what might be nothing. The same people. Which is the point. Those same people would insist that not having an investigation when no investigation was warranted is a "cover up". Big deal. There is nothing that they wouldn't consider a cover up. All they are interested in is fomenting FUD. They have no desire for facts or the establishment of verified outcomes. That isn't their goal. They get what they want either way.
	__________________ "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." "Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation." Last edited by quadraginta; 10th November 2020 at 06:12 AM.

10th November 2020, 06:14 AM	#451
SuburbanTurkey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 7,350	In any sufficiently large system, there will be errors. I have no doubt that after all this squawking coming from the Trump team, they will eventually find some example of legitimate improper or even fraudulent votes. Some example where a poll worker gave improper instructions or didn't follow proper protocol, mail in ballot without the proper format or signatures, some example of an ineligible voter casting a ballot, or even an example of a double vote or impersonation fraud. It's important to remember that nobody credible says that voter fraud doesn't exist, it's just that voter fraud is insignificant. It simply does not occur at high enough rates to be meaningful. The Trump team may be able to find some poster boy example of an illegal vote, but there's nothing to suggest voter fraud changed the course of the election. It's important to remember where the goal posts actually lie in this scenario. Trump lost in several swing states, often in margins of 10's or 100's of thousands. Even flipping one state, like GA, through legal maneuvering would not tip the election back his way. This isn't a Bush/Gore 2000 scenario where a single state with a tiny margin can decide the result. There is no nail biting as a single county deals with hanging chads. Biden's lead is substantial, there's no avenue for nibbling around the edges to make a victory. Huge chunks of Biden's votes have to be eliminated. The Trump team will have to find hundreds of thousands of illegal ballots, in the right states, to squeeze out a win. This means finding massive, widespread flaws in our voting system that have previously gone undetected. Only a moron or a propagandist would honestly believe this is even remotely likely.
	__________________ Gobble gobble Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 10th November 2020 at 06:17 AM.

10th November 2020, 06:15 AM	#452
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by quadraginta The same people. Which is the point. Trump voters aren't a monolith. Originally Posted by quadraginta Those same people would insist that not having an investigation when no investigation was warranted would consider that a "cover up". Big deal. There is nothing that they wouldn't consider a cover up. All they are interested in is fomenting FUD. They have no desire for facts or the establishment of verified outcomes. That isn't their goal. They get what they want either way. Well, perhaps some Trump voters may be persuaded. You can do no harm to people who aren't open to persuasion and you may persuade the people who are. If you abandon trying to understand people who disagree with you and trying to persuade them, then there is nothing left but power and compulsion.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

10th November 2020, 06:16 AM	#453
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 24,859	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers Benford's Law for the second digit is perhaps more credible. I'd note that the analysis originally presented as evidence for vote-rigging has only one instance of Benford's Law for the second digit, in which it presents one set of Biden data on an expanded Y-axis and one of Trump data on a compressed Y-axis to give the false impression of an obvious difference between them, and when the data is plotted on consistent Y-axes the Biden data shows only a very slightly greater variance than the Trump data. After doing all that work to figure out Benford's Law beyond the superficial understanding I had yesterday, I went back to the original links and paid closer attention and.....it's nonsense. The graphs often don't actually show what they are claiming. There are graphs that show distributions that don't follow Benford's Law, captioned as showing that they do follow Benford's Law. The axis deformation is one of the ways they used to facilitate the flim-flam. Around the web are all sorts of nonsense claims being printed, along the lines that "natural data" is expeted to follow Benford's Law. No, that's not true. There are a lot of exponentials in the world, and those follow Benford's Law. There are also lots of Gaussian and uniform processes. Those don't. What we have is a bunch of people who heard there was this magic formula that could be used to detect fraud, and so they said the incantations and they are sure that the spirits are telling them there's fraud in the data, but it really is no more credible than that. It's psuedoscience. it looks like science, but it isn't. I would be curious to go and look at the Iranian election data. I am strongly suspecting that it was not critically examined and it was very easy to go with headlines that said, "Math Wizards Prove that Iranian Elections Were Rigged!", because we were pretty sure that the Iranian elections were rigged anyway, or at least that's what we wanted to hear.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?

10th November 2020, 06:18 AM	#454
quadraginta Becoming Beth Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of) Posts: 26,139	Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza Democrats should start investigations of all House and Senate seats races they lost within a margin of, say, 5 points. Seems reasonable. They would only be following the lead that the Repugnicans have established. Why would Democratic candidates in a Senate race have a smaller percentage of the vote than the Democrat who headed the ticket. Seems pretty suspicious to me. Must be election fraud.
	__________________ "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." "Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."

10th November 2020, 06:19 AM	#455
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey It's important to remember that nobody credible says that voter fraud doesn't exist, it's just that voter fraud is insignificant. It simply does not occur at high enough rates to be meaningful. And yet a congressional election in North Carolina is being rerun because of fraud.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

10th November 2020, 06:21 AM	#456
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 24,859	Originally Posted by shuttlt I'm not sure it is greatly worse than telling millions of Americans that the president is a white supremacist working for the Russians and people who vote for him a racists. Whether these things are done eloquently or with an air of seriousness and gravitas makes no difference to me. For what it's worth, I think there's some truth to that. It's a more complicated topic, but I think some of what has happened over the past four years has been damaging, and not all of the bad stuff came from Trump.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?

10th November 2020, 06:22 AM	#457
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by Meadmaker For what it's worth, I think there's some truth to that. It's a more complicated topic, but I think some of what has happened over the past four years has been damaging, and not all of the bad stuff came from Trump. Thank you. Comments like that are how people are brought back together. :-)
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

10th November 2020, 06:24 AM	#458
SuburbanTurkey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 7,350	Originally Posted by shuttlt And yet a congressional election in North Carolina is being rerun because of fraud. Was rerun. The Republican election fraud scheme occurred in 2018. Yes, an honest to god example of election fraud (not voter fraud) that left behind clear pieces of evidence and ended with criminal indictments for the fraudsters involved. A great example, thanks. That election was originally tilted by a few hundred illegal votes, which left behind detectable evidence of a crime that was readily discovered by those overseeing the process. Surely an election fraud scheme that resulted in 10's of thousands of illegal votes will make finding evidence of widespread, systematic illegal schemes easy.
	__________________ Gobble gobble Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 10th November 2020 at 06:32 AM.

10th November 2020, 06:27 AM	#459
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 20,168	Obviously, democratic circles talked about fraud 2004 and 2016. Some of the claims were similar. The tone is different now. Speculation: difference in tone comes from right wing background in apocalyptic evangelism.
	Last edited by BobTheCoward; 10th November 2020 at 06:30 AM.

10th November 2020, 06:29 AM	#460
quadraginta Becoming Beth Join Date: May 2009 Location: Central Vale of Humility (USA, sort of) Posts: 26,139	Originally Posted by shuttlt <snip> If you abandon trying to understand people who disagree with you and trying to persuade them, Do you not recognise that some people are unwilling to be persuaded and even the simple act of trying to will only cause them to dig in deeper. That facts and evidence are useless and will only make them angry? And that this is a common and widespread characteristic of the sort of people who continue to support Trump even after four years of blatant, incontrovertible proof that he is an unprincipled, narcissistic, pathological liar with absolutely no regard for laws or for the welfare of the country or anything else aside from adulation ... and his bank account. Quote: then there is nothing left but power and compulsion. Nonsense. They can simply be ignored until their intransigence becomes threatening. Then you can let the law deal with them.
	__________________ "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." "Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation." Last edited by quadraginta; 10th November 2020 at 06:31 AM.

10th November 2020, 06:32 AM	#461
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey Was rerun. It was in 2018. Yes, an honest to god example of election fraud (not voter fraud) that left behind clear pieces of evidence and ended with criminal indictments for the fraudsters involved. A great example, thanks. That election was originally tilted by a few hundred illegal votes, which left behind detectable evidence of a crime. Surely an election fraud scheme that resulted in 10's of thousands of illegal votes will make finding evidence of widespread, systematic illegal schemes easy. Right, so you are for some reason restricting your claims to voter fraud, while Trump is claiming voter fraud AND election fraud. Fraud can clearly swing elections and can be a significant problem.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

10th November 2020, 06:35 AM	#462
SuburbanTurkey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 7,350	Originally Posted by shuttlt Right, so you are for some reason restricting your claims to voter fraud, while Trump is claiming voter fraud AND election fraud. Fraud can clearly swing elections and can be a significant problem. The moment the Trump team produces evidence of, at a minimum, 10's of thousands of illegal votes, I'll give the claims credence. Do you honestly believe that Trump's team is making these claims in good faith? Do you think Trump's legal wrangling here will be successful? Such a narrative will likely be useful for raising money for paying off his campaign debts, and help with Trump's fragile ego by refuting a clear loss at the polls, but I see no path to overturning the election results.
	__________________ Gobble gobble

10th November 2020, 06:41 AM	#463
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 32,254	Originally Posted by No Other You have no idea what you are talking about. You lifted an incorrect descriptive phrase regarding Benford's Law and passed yourself off as an Expert. Now you write a lengthy paragraph as if you posses inherent mathematical skills. You are a fake. Your fallacy is: Argumentum ad hominem. Dave
	__________________ There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

10th November 2020, 06:44 AM	#464
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by quadraginta Do you not recognise that some people are unwilling to be persuaded and even the simple act of trying to will only cause them to dig in deeper. That facts and evidence are useless and will only make them angry? Some people, sure. I don't know about angrier. Originally Posted by quadraginta And that this is a common and widespread characteristic of the sort of people who continue to support Trump even after four years of blatant, incontrovertible proof that he is an unprincipled, narcissistic, pathological liar with absolutely no regard for laws or for the welfare of the country or anything else aside from adulation ... and his bank account. Again, that is your view. If you want to win them over you have to start from their perspective, or there is nothing left but power. I would say that the trick to convincing them that they are wrong is to try not to live up to every one of their fears about Democrats. All the lists of people who supported Trump being thrown around and absolute denial of any need to investigate isn't helping. Originally Posted by quadraginta Nonsense. They can simply be ignored until their intransigence becomes threatening. This is one of the first things that caused me to question if I was on the right side and start giving the political right and populism serious thought. The idea that you are Right and historically inevitable and don't need to look for compromise appals me. It's a cruel, zealous, puritan, totalitarian way of looking at the world. I'm for small government and living and let living.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

10th November 2020, 06:47 AM	#465
SuburbanTurkey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 7,350	As the results stand now, Trump needs to invalidate 37 electoral college votes from Biden's win to flip the result. Looking at the states with the closest margins: GA: Biden up by approx 13,000 - 16 EC votes WI: Biden up by approx 10,000 - 10 EC votes AZ: Biden up by approx 15,000 - 11 EC votes These are the 3 closest elections that would get Trump over 270. Assuming every fraudulent vote was in Biden's favor, Trump needs evidence of 38,000 illegal votes, at a minimum, in the exactly right places to flip the election. That's the lowest possible bar to clear. The margins in other states are higher. PA flipping means finding 40,000 illegal Biden votes. NV means finding 36,000 illegal Biden votes. Michigan is over 100,000. Election fraud at this magnitude would leave behind huge amounts of evidence.
	__________________ Gobble gobble Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 10th November 2020 at 06:55 AM.

10th November 2020, 06:50 AM	#466
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 32,254	Originally Posted by shuttlt I would say that the trick to convincing them that they are wrong is to try not to live up to every one of their fears about Democrats. The problem with that is that either the Democrats enact the policies they were voted in to enact, thus living up to a small part, but enough, of their fears to result in them being convinced that they're going to live up to all the rest, or do exactly what Trump would have done for the next few years, thus disenfranchising everyone who voted for a different approach. The Republican approach, seen from afar, for the last couple of decades seems to have been to refuse flat out to compromise with the Democrats on anything while excoriating the Democrats for not compromising with them. Originally Posted by shuttlt The idea that you are Right and historically inevitable and don't need to look for compromise appals me. Have you ever heard of someone called Donald Trump? Dave
	__________________ There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

10th November 2020, 06:50 AM	#467
rambaldi Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 273	Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank Well he mentions his "instincts" yes, but he makes it clear that this is based on his personal knowledge of party politics and operations. . Probably the usual, "we wanted to do it, let's accuse the democrats"
rambaldi Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 273

10th November 2020, 06:54 AM	#468
The Great Zaganza Maledictorian Join Date: Aug 2016 Posts: 14,413	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Obviously, democratic circles talked about fraud 2004 and 2016. Some of the claims were similar. The tone is different now. Speculation: difference in tone comes from right wing background in apocalyptic evangelism. The other difference is that Democrats could point to Intelligence Assessments of foreign interference and the very public release of hacked documents. And, of course, the Campaign Manager of one side (not mentioning which one) had to resign because of his Ukraine/Russia connections. In short, there was a lot of smoke going into the elections. This time, the most curious aspect of the election is the degree to which it has worked out well, given to much larger number of voters and much more difficult circumstances.
	__________________ Ceterum autem censeo fox et amicis esse delendam.

10th November 2020, 06:54 AM	#469
I Am The Scum Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2010 Posts: 4,558	Originally Posted by shuttlt Again, that is your view. If you want to win them over you have to start from their perspective, or there is nothing left but power. I would say that the trick to convincing them that they are wrong is to try not to live up to every one of their fears about Democrats. All the lists of people who supported Trump being thrown around and absolute denial of any need to investigate isn't helping. We're literally talking about the party that tried to stop the vote before it was even finished. I'm not trying to convince them, because they don't value representative democracy and the rule of law.

10th November 2020, 06:56 AM	#470
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey The moment the Trump team produces evidence of, at a minimum, 10's of thousands of illegal votes, I'll give the claims credence. Fine, but that is going to require an investigation. Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey Do you honestly believe that Trump's team is making these claims in good faith? How should I know? I can well believe that he is exaggerating to try and make it harder to ignore the calls for an investigation. That would be in keeping with his style. Whether he is actually convinced there is fraud isn't something I am in a position to know and isn't particularly important to me. Like I say, I believe he uses exaggerated and outrageous statements strategically the same way Kamala Harris uses accusations of racism, if it turns out that he is doing that now it wouldn't change my views on him. Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey Do you think Trump's legal wrangling here will be successful? No. Regardless of the merits of his cases, I don't think the courts, or the FBI, or congress are going to want to be put in a position of deciding the election. I think there will be a strong desire to decide by not deciding. He would have to discover something huge to change that. I would say that his best chance would be to make it as painful as possible for the Republican party to sit this out. Like impeachment, ultimately it's a political question, not a legal question. Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey Such a narrative will likely be useful for raising money for paying off his campaign debts, and help with Trump's fragile ego by refuting a clear loss at the polls, but I see no path to overturning the election results. Maybe, ultimately I think it depends on whether he finds something spectacular which would then give the courts or congress the political space to decide in his favour. Without that, I think he's done for 2020.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

10th November 2020, 06:59 AM	#471
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by I Am The Scum We're literally talking about the party that tried to stop the vote before it was even finished. I'm not trying to convince them, because they don't value representative democracy and the rule of law. Didn't they try to stop counting while they were being prevented watching the counting? There are rules and laws in place around the election, the Democrats push hard on the rules and laws as do the Republicans.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314

10th November 2020, 07:00 AM	#472
SuburbanTurkey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2018 Location: Massachusetts, USA Posts: 7,350	Originally Posted by shuttlt Fine, but that is going to require an investigation. How should I know? I can well believe that he is exaggerating to try and make it harder to ignore the calls for an investigation. That would be in keeping with his style. Whether he is actually convinced there is fraud isn't something I am in a position to know and isn't particularly important to me. Like I say, I believe he uses exaggerated and outrageous statements strategically the same way Kamala Harris uses accusations of racism, if it turns out that he is doing that now it wouldn't change my views on him. No. Regardless of the merits of his cases, I don't think the courts, or the FBI, or congress are going to want to be put in a position of deciding the election. I think there will be a strong desire to decide by not deciding. He would have to discover something huge to change that. I would say that his best chance would be to make it as painful as possible for the Republican party to sit this out. Like impeachment, ultimately it's a political question, not a legal question. Maybe, ultimately I think it depends on whether he finds something spectacular which would then give the courts or congress the political space to decide in his favour. Without that, I think he's done for 2020. Is there any reason to believe that the Trump team has any special knowledge that widespread voting fraud exists and decided the election? What do they know about a public election that the rest of us don't? Why can't they produce any meaningful evidence? Trump is declaring the conditions of his victory exist and is desperately searching for evidence to support this claim. Sure, it's his right to challenge the results, but there's no reason for anyone to pretend this is a credible claim. The simplest explanation here is that Trump is just making stuff up because he doesn't want to concede the loss. Mockery and dismissal is the reasonable and appropriate response.
	__________________ Gobble gobble Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 10th November 2020 at 07:02 AM.

10th November 2020, 07:03 AM	#473
sackett Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Detroit Posts: 6,309	Okay, now! Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey <snip to the juicy part> Such a narrative will likely be useful for raising money.... Bingo. Old Man Occam is our friend.
	__________________ Fill the seats of justice with good men; not so absolute in goodness as to forget what human frailty is. -- Thomas Jefferson What region of the earth is not filled with our calamities? -- Virgil

10th November 2020, 07:03 AM	#474
bonzombiekitty Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 1,711	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Obviously, democratic circles talked about fraud 2004 and 2016. Some of the claims were similar. The tone is different now. In 2004, the concern was over electronic voting machines with no paper trail. I recall people being very concerned over the generally lax security. There was concern that fraud COULD happen, and we'd have no way to really know. But of course, when the results came in, both sides accepted it. In 2016, we were shocked that Hillary lost, but accepted it. The concern there was not that votes were somehow rigged for Trump, but that foreign governments got involved in the campaign in support of Trump. On top of that, the Trump campaign knew about it, encouraged or sought it out, as did Trump himself.

10th November 2020, 07:04 AM	#475
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314	Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey As the results stand now, Trump needs to invalidate 37 electoral college votes from Biden's win to flip the result. Looking at the states with the closest margins: GA: Biden up by approx 13,000 - 16 EC votes WI: Biden up by approx 10,000 - 10 EC votes AZ: Biden up by approx 15,000 - 11 EC votes These are the 3 closest elections that would get Trump over 270. Assuming every fraudulent vote was in Biden's favor, Trump needs evidence of 38,000 illegal votes, at a minimum, in the exactly right places to flip the election. That's the lowest possible bar to clear. The margins in other states are higher. PA flipping means finding 40,000 illegal Biden votes. NV means finding 36,000 illegal Biden votes. Michigan is over 100,000. Election fraud at this magnitude would leave behind huge amounts of evidence. I think given that we had a 6000 vote error in one county, it's not impossible to suppose that errors or 15,000 votes couldn't be found state wide if the election way audited.
shuttlt Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 7,314