Voting

Are Trump's Phantom Bay State Voters in New Hampshire a Lie or a Delusion?

The president's adviser says massive voting fraud by buses full of Massachusetts residents is "widely known."

|

ABC News

As we all know by now, Donald Trump would have won the popular vote in the presidential election last November if it weren't for "the millions of people who voted illegally." More recently, at a meeting with 10 senators last Thursday, Trump claimed he would have won New Hampshire, which he lost by 2,736 votes, if it weren't for "thousands" of people who were "brought in on buses" from Massachusetts to vote "illegally." During his interview with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, presidential adviser Stephen Miller declined to provide evidence of such massive voter fraud in New Hampshire but averred that it is a matter of common knowledge there:

Stephanopoulos: President Trump again this week suggested in a meeting with senators that thousands of illegal voters were bused from Massachusetts to New Hampshire, and that's what caused his defeat in the state of New Hampshire, also the defeat of Senator Kelly Ayotte.

That has provoked a response from a member of the Federal Election Commission, Ellen Weintraub, who says, "I call upon the president to immediately share New Hampshire voter fraud evidence so that his allegations may be investigated promptly." Do you have that evidence?

Miller: I actually haven't worked before on a campaign in New Hampshire. I can tell you that this issue of busing voters into New Hampshire is widely known by anyone who's worked in New Hampshire politics. It's very real. It's very serious. This morning, on this show, is not the venue for me to lay out all the evidence….

Stephanopoulos: You just claimed again that there was illegal voting in New Hampshire, people bused in from the state of Massachusetts. Do you have any evidence to back that up?

Miller: I'm saying anybody—George, go to New Hampshire. Talk to anybody who has worked in politics there for a long time. Everybody is aware of the problem in New Hampshire…

Stephanopoulos: I'm asking you as the White House senior policy adviser. The president made a statement, saying he was the victim of voter fraud, people are being bused from [Massachusetts]…Do you have any evidence?

Miller: If this is an issue that interests you, then we can talk about it more in the future. And we now have our government is beginning to get stood up. But we have a Department of Justice and we have more officials.

An issue of voter fraud is something we're going to be looking at very seriously and very hard….

Stephanopoulos: Just for the record, you have provided absolutely no evidence. The president's made a statement…

Miller: The White House has provided enormous evidence with respect to voter fraud, with respect to people being registered in more than one state, dead people voting, noncitizens being registered to vote. George, it is a fact and you will not deny it, that there are massive numbers of noncitizens in this country, who are registered to vote. That is a scandal….

Stephanopoulos: But for the record, you have provided zero evidence that the president was the victim of massive voter fraud in New Hampshire….You have provided zero evidence [for] the president's claim that he would have won the…popular vote if 3 million to 5 million illegal immigrants hadn't voted, zero evidence for either one of those claims.

The New York Times rounded up statements from prominent New Hampshire Republicans contradicting Trump's tale of bused-in Hillary Clinton voters:

Steve Duprey, a former Republican state chairman and current national Republican committeeman, wrote on Twitter: "Repeating: there is no voter fraud in NH. None. Zip. Nada. Hundreds of lawyers, poll workers, watchers, press—no buses rolled in." Thomas D. Rath, a former state attorney general, tweeted: "Allegations of voter fraud in NH are baseless, without any merit—it's shameful to spread these fantasies." And Fergus Cullen, a former Republican state chairman, wrote: "I will pay $1000 to 1st person proving even 1 outofstate person took bus from MA 2 any NH polling place last ElectionDay."

There are two schools of thought when it comes to such preposterous Trumpisms. According to one theory, he knows very well that thousands of Clinton voters were not systematically transported from Massachusetts to New Hampshire so she could claim the latter state's four electoral votes. He told that story not because he thinks it's true but because he wanted to irk his enemies in the press, tickle his supporters, and distract people from more serious issues. According to the other theory, Trump is a vain, petty, credulous man who readily believes anything that flatters his ego. Allow me to cite some evidence in favor of the latter explanation.

The Times notes a couple of possible sources for Trump's story. Before the election, Chris Sununu, the Republican candidate for governor of New Hampshire, claimed Democrats were being bused into the state "all over the place." But Sununu retreated from that assertion when asked for evidence, and after winning the election and taking office as governor he now says, "I'm not aware of any widespread voter fraud in New Hampshire." A more plausible source, for Miller as well as Trump, is former Massachusetts senator Scott Brown, a Trump supporter who claimed in a radio interview after the election that 100,000 residents of his state had voted illegally in New Hampshire. "It's well-known," Brown said. "It's no secret."

It is quite plausible that Trump, who is not known as a skeptic of crackpot theories, latched onto these reckless rumors, which help him make the case he is always trying to make: that he does not get the credit and acclaim he deserves. The fact that Trump opened a meeting with senators that was supposed to be about his Supreme Court nominee by whining about an election he won does not make much sense if we view him as a Machiavellian manipulator, but it makes perfect sense if we assume he is a needy, hypersensitive blowhard with a constant need for recognition and approval—an assumption that is consistent with the reputation he has maintained for decades. Did Trump deliberately create that public persona so that one day, when he ran for president, his opponents would underestimate him? If so, I totally fell for it.

Update: In a CNN interview, Cullen, the former chairman of the New Hampshire Republican Party, said of Miller, "Perhaps he has been misinformed. Perhaps he is delusional. I'm trying to give the benefit of the doubt here and suggest he has been misinformed. Same thing with the president who has made these claims repeatedly now." Cullen noted that so far no one has taken him up on his offer of $1,000 for proof that any Massachusetts residents rode on buses to vote illegally in New Hampshire: "So far, shockingly, no one has been able to come up with any evidence. No pictures of any of these magic buses delivering hundreds or thousands of people from Massachusetts to New Hampshire. No one has any evidence at all."

NEXT: A.M. Links: Michael Flynn Resigns, U.N. Condemns North Korea Over Ballistic Missile Test, Trump's Travel Ban Loses Again in Federal Court

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Stephanopoulos knows first hand all about Democrat tricks to win elections they shouldn’t win. NO CREDIBILITY. Sad. And more importantly I always thought it should be “bussed”. Otherwise it seems like you would be pronouncing it b-you-z’d.

    1. Wait… is that not how it’s said?

      Now I know why people always gave me strange looks when I told them I have to a byouz to catch.

      1. They fussed about the time I refused to spell it bused.

        1. Circuits should be fused.
          Students should be bussed. (Well, not actually. They should be home schooled.)

  2. Oh, and they’re neither. They’re misdirection. And everyone is falling for it.

    1. exactly. Trump is playing the same games the Obama admin did. One absurd thing after another while you usher in your cronies through the back door.

      I still would rather have him in there than that cunt but he is not going to drain the swamp. He will likely fill it with his pals because he does not believe in free market capitalism, liberty, or small government.

      I only hope that he is not a disaster because the next president will be castro. and I shutter to think who will be the che of our collapse.

      1. If he does fuck it up (especially if it’s the economy), I suspect it will be because of his policies on trade and jobs that are hard to distinguish from Bernie Sanders. And the left will take entirely the wrong lesson from the whole mess.

        1. The left the left the left!

          Get some new material, morans.

          1. Bernie and trump do agree on a lot of economic policy.

            1. Which says what about Bernie?

              1. That he’s an idiot economic populist like Trump.

                1. And that his supporters are economically illiterate morons, just like Trump’s supporters.

                  1. But could they SPELL “moron”?

              2. He’s a Democrat.

                It’s funny these days, seeing the Democrats pretend to not like populism and tariffs, just because it’s not one of their own pushing them for once.

          2. No one ever makes broad generalizations about the right or libertarians.

    2. How do people keep buying this misdirection shit? They said the same things during the campaign, and it turns out they were wrong there. All the stupid shit he said during the campaign was just stupid shit, and he is following through with the stupid shit he said that everyone presumed he was far too intelligent to believe.

      He is doing the same thing now. He finds some rumor on twitter, or parrots some headline he saw on Fox News, and his PR people try to sell it. It does end up working to his benefit in some sense, because dumb people take his word as truth, and the media spends time being outraged over the dumb shit he said. Rinse and repeat, because Trump is a dumb guy who is going to continually come up with dumb shit to say.

      The truth is rarely so beautifully complex, at least when it comes to individuals. He’s just a dumb dude saying dumb stuff.

      1. He’s just a dumb dude saying dumb stuff.

        So he’s right at home in the media-political complex.

        1. The media isn’t the president though.

          1. What part of “media-political complex” did you not understand? Was it the word complex, or the function of the hyphen?

            1. Irrelevant straw man is irrelevant. Deflection is deflection.

              Trump is an unusually dumb person.

              1. Trump is an unusually dumb person.

                So, he’s smarter than you?

                1. From straw men to ad hominem fallacies. It’s clear that insulting your messiah has awoken something quite irrational within you. Interesting.

                  1. It’s an insult, not an ad hominem. And I never erected any man of straw. You are quite stupid, but then I guess that fits with your playground understanding of politics.

                    1. I can only laugh at the ignorance on display there. What the fuck do you think an ad hominem is? lol, you fail to grasp what it even is, and then launch into another ad hominem. That is beautiful. I’m going to pretend that was your subtle, clever method of winking and revealing you’re just a troll. I don’t want to entertain the alternative, for your sake.

                      You honestly managed to make me chuckle out loud for a moment. Even if it was by accident, nice one.

                    2. What the fuck do you think an ad hominem is?

                      A logical fallacy. It’s not an ad-hom when I call you stupid. It’s an ad-hom when I say or imply your argument is wrong because you’re stupid.

                      To introduce another difficult concept into this discussion, it is ironic that you get so butthurt about being insulted when your entire shtick is to pass off childish insults as insightful analysis.

                    3. “A logical fallacy. It’s not an ad-hom when I call you stupid. It’s an ad-hom when I say or imply your argument is wrong because you’re stupid.”

                      Arguments are not ever wrong because someone is stupid. Stupid people are more than capable of having correct positions. Keep going though. he mental gymnastics are fascinating. It’s an ad hominem.

                      “To introduce another difficult concept into this discussion, it is ironic that you get so butthurt about being insulted when your entire shtick is to pass off childish insults as insightful analysis.”
                      Someone is mad.

                    4. Arguments are not ever wrong because someone is stupid

                      Jesus Tittyfucking Christ you cannot possibly be this dense. No shit. That’s what makes it a fallacy. Were you born yesterday?

            2. Irrelevant straw man is irrelevant. Deflection is deflection.

              So you don’t know what a strawman is, nor do you know what deflection is. Maybe now you should accuse him of positing a non-sequitur then tell him to drop the No True Scotsman shtick, then finish him off with the one-two punch of accusing him of ad Hominem even though he’s insulting you to insult you, not insulting you for the purpose of discrediting your argument. Oh wait looks like you did that.

              1. Building an argument about how dumb the media, and other politicians, is/are when my comment was directly pertaining to Trump isn’t a straw man or a deflection?

                Launching into personal attacks against me isn’t an ad hominem?

                Wow, you guys sure are educating me. I can’t wait to learn how you redefine reality next.

                1. Him:

                  So he’s right at home in the media-political complex.

                  You:

                  The media isn’t the president though.

                  Him:

                  What part of “media-political complex” did you not understand?

                  You:

                  Irrelevant straw man is irrelevant. Deflection is deflection.

                  Luckily posts are public for all to see and for those of us who know what a strawman argument is and what deflection is, we know that you don’t know what those things are, as evidenced by this exchange.

                  1. At least you’re smart enough to concede the ad hominem bit. Stick to battles you have a chance of winning.

                    “So he’s right at home in the media-political complex.”
                    How is this not an attempt to shift the argument? Let’s say it’s not a straw man. I can interpret what he said as being a straw man, but it would take at least two paragraphs to do so. However, it should be, at the least, obvious that what he said was a deflection. He’s taking the focus away from Trump and saying, “Hey, look, everyone over there is dumb like that.”

                    1. He’s taking the focus away from Trump and saying, “Hey, look, everyone over there is dumb like that.”

                      I’m also calling you even dumber than that. Don’t forget that part.

                    2. “I’m also calling you even dumber than that. Don’t forget that part.”

                      You had the time to google what an ad hominem was, didn’t do that, and then launched into ad hominems repeatedly. When attempting to ascertain your own level of intelligence, don’t forget that part.

                    3. I know what an ad hominem is. You do not. I have repeatedly insulted you. I have never said your argument is false because of how stupid you are. But you are very stupid.

                    4. How is this not an attempt to shift the argument?

                      Uhhhh what? He was agreeing with you, it was at best a corollary claim. You then said “the media is not the president”, as if to say that was kbolino’s claim. There’s a term for attacking arguments that weren’t made by your opponent but you’ve implied that it was by attacking it, what is the word for that? Meh nevermind…

                      However, it should be, at the least, obvious that what he said was a deflection.

                      Deflection would mean that he was drawing attention to some other detail irrelevant to the subject of debate in order to skirt an argument that he doesn’t want to face. But he didn’t do that. You said “he’s (Trump) a dumb dude saying dumb stuff”, kbolino then agreed with you and said that “he is right at home in the media-political complex”. He agreed with you by actually quoting the exact piece of text he was supposedly deflecting and then added another observation to the same exact subject. a) he wasn’t even debating you when you claim he deflected so it’s categorically false to assert this was some fallacious debate strategy and b) it just simply wasn’t deflection.

                      I know it’s all the rage to accuse your opponents of logical fallacies to make yourself look smarter, but maybe wait until there is an actual logical fallacy in use before you do that. Perhaps even take some time to understand these concepts before you start tossing around bush league accusations.

                    5. “Uhhhh what? He was agreeing with you, it was at best a corollary claim. You then said “the media is not the president”, as if to say that was kbolino’s claim.”

                      He may have thought he was agreeing with me. The point in me saying that “the media is not the president” was to establish that they are not capable of affecting my life in the way that Trump is, and thusly not really relevant to what I was saying. In fact, they don’t affect my life at all. Within the context of other comments here, it made complete sense to interpret what he said as an attempt to shift attention away from Trump’s unusual lack of intelligence. Nothing that he has said since leads me to believe I was wrong in my interpretation.

                      “Deflection would mean that he was drawing attention to some other detail irrelevant to the subject of debate in order to skirt an argument that he doesn’t want to face.”

                      How dumb other politicians and members of the media are is not relevant to what I said. That’s a different argument. He was bringing attention to how dumb a group was as a whole when I was speaking of an individual case. That’s deflection. Nice try though.

                      “I know it’s all the rage to accuse your opponents of logical fallacies to make yourself look smarter, but maybe wait until there is an actual logical fallacy in use before you do that. ”

                      You might be right in some sense. I might have given kbolino too much credit for having put thought into anything he said. Maybe I didn’t. Who knows.

                    6. The point in me saying that “the media is not the president” was to establish that they are not capable of affecting my life in the way that Trump is, and thusly not really relevant to what I was saying. In fact, they don’t affect my life at all.

                      Your subjective experience defines reality for others. Okay then.

                      How dumb other politicians and members of the media are is not relevant to what I said.

                      It wasn’t a device to distract from anything for the purpose of winning a debate. It is therefore categorically excluded from being dubbed “deflection”. You can seldom be any more wrong than when you’re categorically wrong.

                      You might be right in some sense. I might have given kbolino too much credit for having put thought into anything he said. Maybe I didn’t. Who knows.

                      No, clearly kbolino gave you too much credit to put any thought whatsoever into what he said. He was agreeing with you, and added a corollary claim, that Trump is right at home where he is with his dumbness and you proceed to ironically accuse him every logical fallacy you can summon.

                2. If you were half as smart as you think you are, you would have realized that what I originally said was complementary to what you said not some kind of underhanded pseudo-refutation. But then you decided to become an obtuse motherfucker whose only talent is projection.

                  1. I can see how you could think that it was complementary. I was even aware that you probably thought that at the time. However, my contention was that Trump is an unusually dumb person that people are giving undue credit to.

                    1. However, my contention was that Trump is an unusually dumb person that people are giving undue credit to.

                      Have you ever watched C-SPAN? If Trump is unusually dumb, then at least a quarter of the Congress is functionally retarded.

                    2. “Have you ever watched C-SPAN? If Trump is unusually dumb, then at least a quarter of the Congress is functionally retarded.”

                      Wouldn’t it be easier to point to smart things that Trump has done? You’re not going to get me to defend politicians.

                    3. “Luckily posts are public for all to see and for those of us who know what a strawman argument is and what deflection is, we know that you don’t know what those things are, as evidenced by this exchange.”

                      It’s hilarious that you take a swipe at me, claiming that I don’t understand what a straw man or deflection is, when you obviously have a tenuous grasp of all of the aforementioned. Claiming that a personal attack simply meant to be a personal attack, in the context of a debate about a subject, isn’t an ad hominem is telling.

                    4. Yes, let us not detract from the utmost importance of “Trump is dumb”.

                    5. “Yes, let us not detract from the utmost importance of “Trump is dumb”.”

                      Considering how many hear presume that this is all brilliant misdirection of Trump’s part, maybe it is important to take a step back and contemplate how likely, or unlikely, that is.

                    6. Since the old guard regulars have mostly quit, I’ll pick up the ball and point out just how tedious this and how Tulpical Konima and this whole subthread are.

                    7. “I know it’s all the rage to accuse your opponents of logical fallacies to make yourself look smarter, but maybe wait until there is an actual logical fallacy in use before you do that. ”

                      Now we’re back to “this guy doesn’t agree with me, he must be someone whose opinion doesn’t count”. Fun.

                    8. Since the old guard regulars have mostly quit, I’ll pick up the ball and point out just how tedious this and how Tulpical Konima and this whole subthread are.

                      I know we’re all Tulpa, but some more than others. I just hate to let stupidity go unchallenged, which doubtless is what trolls like this feed from.

                    9. It’s hilarious that you take a swipe at me, claiming that I don’t understand what a straw man or deflection is, when you obviously have a tenuous grasp of all of the aforementioned.

                      See now this here might be construed as “projection”. (note: not strictly a logical fallacy, but a psychological defense mechanism). See I actually defined the concepts and then walked through point by point at how you missed the mark, and yet apparently I’m the one who is displaying a lack of understanding of those concepts. Right….

                      Claiming that a personal attack simply meant to be a personal attack, in the context of a debate about a subject, isn’t an ad hominem is telling.

                      Ad hominem isn’t just a personal attack. Ad hominem is a personal attack for the purpose of discrediting an argument. Looks to me like he thinks you’re being a pedantic prick who can’t even get the pedantry right. Gee wiz, I wonder how he might think that….

                      At any point did he assert that the argument that “Trump is a dumb dude saying dumb things” is wrong by saying ‘So, he’s smarter than you?’ Looks like he offered no objection to your proposition, but added that you were yet still dumber, which is an insult that wouldn’t make any sense if he were disagreeing with the original proposition.

                      While personal attacks are often just bad etiquette, though quite possibly entirely warranted here, they are not synonymous with the ad hominem logical fallacy.

                    10. I just learned more than I ever did in Speech and Debate club.
                      That’s why I come here.

                    11. I trust because through Konima, you now know what not to do in debate.

                    12. “I trust because through Konima, you now know what not to do in debate.”

                      Cool kid.

                    13. “See now this here might be construed as “projection”. (note: not strictly a logical fallacy, but a psychological …Right….”
                      You attempted to walk through point-by-point via claiming that you can read the minds of all involved.

                      “At any point did he assert that the argument that “Trump is a dumb dude saying dumb things” is wrong by saying ‘So, he’s smarter than you?’ Looks like he offered no objection to your proposition, but added that you were yet still dumber, which is an insult that wouldn’t make any sense if he were disagreeing with the original proposition.”
                      I’m 90% sure that I have debated Trump with this person before. Hence him reacting so negatively when I pointed out that the media isn’t the president. With that context, it’s safe to say what he said was a deflection, and the subsequent comments were ad hominem attacks.

                      “At any point did he assert that the argument that “Trump is a dumb dude saying dumb things” is wrong by saying ‘So, he’s smarter than you?’ Looks like he offered no objection to your proposition, but added that you were yet still dumber, which is an insult that wouldn’t make any sense if he were disagreeing with the original proposition.”

                      Again, you’re confused.

                      “Have you ever watched C-SPAN? If Trump is unusually dumb, then at least a quarter of the Congress is functionally retarded.”
                      Are you not reading? Can you not discern his stance? I’m sorry if you can’t. Keep trying if you want, though.

                    14. You attempted to walk through point-by-point via claiming that you can read the minds of all involved.

                      Now this is an ironclad example of a strawman.

                      I’m 90% sure that I have debated Trump with this person before. Hence him reacting so negatively when I pointed out that the media isn’t the president. With that context, it’s safe to say what he said was a deflection, and the subsequent comments were ad hominem attacks.

                      As we’ve covered, nothing you’ve pointed to amounts to a logical fallacy. Your “context”, entirely subjective and insular to your own mind as it is, is just an excuse to insert assertions and arguments that were never made. We’ve already spelled out for you what ad hominem, strawmen and deflection are and how these arguments don’t meet the criteria, and you’ve done nothing show that’s false, you just double down and claim there is some hidden context that no one but you can see and thus everything you claim is accurate. Thus making you possibly the most laughable debater on H&R.

                      Have a great day. I hope you spend it reading about the concepts you don’t understand.

                    15. “Now this is an ironclad example of a strawman.”

                      Uh huh.

                      “As we’ve covered, nothing you’ve pointed to amounts to a logical fallacy. Your “context”, entirely subjective and insular to your own mind as it is, is just an excuse to insert assertions and arguments that were never made. We’ve already spelled out for you what ad hominem, strawmen and deflection are and how these arguments don’t meet the criteria, and you’ve done nothing show that’s false, you just double down and claim there is some hidden context that no one but you can see and thus everything you claim is accurate. Thus making you possibly the most laughable debater on H&R.

                      Have a great day. I hope you spend it reading about the concepts you don’t understand.”

                      It’s ironic that you speak of my hidden context, when the basis of everything you asserted was hidden context. At least I can prove my context. Yours? Not so much. Keep projecting.

      2. He’s just a dumb dude saying dumb stuff.

        And another one caught in the trap.

      3. Stupid shit? Like, “You can keep your plan” and “You can keep your doctor” and “The average family will save $2500 a year on their medical insurance premiums”? That kind of stupid shit?

        Or just irrelevant stupid shit?

        I’m seeing media impugning Trump over a single frame taken from a meeting with the Canadian Prime Minister. I hope Trump quickly gets to the point where he does not CARE what the libtards think. Then he can make real progress. Just run rough shod over the irrelevant anti-American minority in congress. (Not to say that the majority is PRO-American – but it’s certainly no WORSE than the Obozo government.)

  3. Are Trump’s Phantom Bay State Voters in New Hampshire a Lie or a Delusion?

    More like “OUT like Flynn”. Can’t believe I’m the first person to go there.

  4. The bulk of the fraudulent voting isn’t from people hopping on buses and going from polling place to polling place in person. It comes from people who are registered in multiple states and illegally vote by absentee ballot in a jurisdiction where they used to live but don’t any longer.

    This goes on all over the place. I know a person who told me one time that she did this, and she was pretty proud of it (a leftie of course). If she wasn’t a good friend I would have been sorely tempted to turn her ass in.

    1. I don’t know this would be trivially easy for either major party to pull off on at least a moderate scale.

      Both parties get fairly extensive data from the voter registration databases including who actually voted and who didn’t. If you can identify registered voters are are almost certain to not show up at the polls it isn’t too hard to have trusted operatives show up at multiple polling places and cast votes in the names of those voters.

      I doubt it would be enough to significantly skew a state wide election (senate, President, Governor, etc.) but the more local elections it could be a factor.

      That said it certainly would not be a bunch of people being bused in because there would be no way to maintain secrecy on what you had done if you were busing in a bunch of random people.

      The only case where I know of that busing in people to stack an election occurred was Ohio as they had very liberal rules for student voter registration back in Bush v Kerry so there was absolutely concerted liberal effort to have hundreds to maybe thousands of students “relocate” to Columbus for the election. However that was not technically fraud as it was entirely legal at the time. No idea if they have changed the voter registration laws in Ohio since then however as I don’t live there any more.

      1. The dems are famously efficient at voter fraud.
        Remember that one philadelphia precinct where they had 100% votes for Obama in 2012? How is it possible in any normal margin of error that some person did not accidentally vote for any other candidate?

        1. If the dems are so efficient at voter fraud why have they lost so many elections? They control few states and non of the federal branches of government.

          1. Because it’s only possible to run a large scale voter fraud in an area where one party already controls the system due to the preferences of the residents. In contested areas all major parties have monitors to minimize fraud. This is why you only really hear stories of significant voter fraud in places like Philadelphia, Detroit, or Chicago. Stories of fraud from areas outside the control of party machines are generally rogue individuals, not coordinated conspiracies. Thus, it is easier to commit fraud in areas a party already controls, which limits the effectiveness of committing fraud.

          2. Because in the minds of partisan hacks, the other side are like comic book villains: dedicated to evil for its own sake (despite the lack of any logical incentive motivation for their actions), while simultaneously comically inept. But, of course, those on their own side of the aisle are just embattled humans trying to do an impossible job.

            Personally, my partisan affiliation is that of a dedicated cynic, which means that I willfully lack sympathy or empathy for, and absolutely refuse to give the benefit of the doubt to, anyone involved in politics or government, in any capacity, on either side. To me, they are all comic book villains.

      2. NH does have a photo ID requirement for voting. So it wouldn’t be that easy to vote in person, unless you had someone on the inside helping. Absentee ballots would be pretty easy, though.

        There is some talk in NH about making it harder for college students not from NH to vote in state. Which I think is a good idea.

        1. Fascist! It should be absolutely a breeze to decide to register and vote on a whim.

          1. We do have same day registration at the polls. Which the new governor also wants to get rid of.

            1. To clear the air in case my facetiousness wasn’t bleeding through, IMO even post-voter ID reforms, I think it’s stupid simple to vote with the status quo system, and all the pushback pre-reform was absurd and disingenuous whining. I wouldn’t personally be too opposed to some form of registration requirement that makes it a little bit less stupid-simple for out of state UNH students to outrage-register at the 11th hour. After all, if gun purchasers have to pass an instant background check at gun stores, why shouldn’t a civic-minded person that cares about the issues and suffrage have some skin in the game on this super cereal issue.

              1. Regardless of what might be unimpeachable rectitude in every other aspect of your position, as soon as you resort to “two wrongs make a right”-style moral equivalences (“if X has to do Y, then Z should have to do V also!” or “but progs/cons always do the same thing, but way worser!”) then you automatically lose this debate, and all future ones just as a punitive measure (and a bit of righteous FYTW).

      3. If you can identify registered voters are are almost certain to not show up at the polls it isn’t too hard to have trusted operatives show up at multiple polling places and cast votes in the names of those voters.

        Worst case: some of the people who you thought weren’t going to bother showing up at the polls actually do show up or send in an absentee/ mail in ballot, at which point, assuming the two votes by the same person are actually caught, both votes are thrown out (I think, at least in most states, that’s what they do if they catch the same person voting twice).

      4. …in Bush v Kerry so there was absolutely concerted liberal effort to have hundreds to maybe thousands of students “relocate” to Columbus for the election. However that was not technically fraud as it was entirely legal at the time.

        That’s another thing: a lot of times “voter fraud” is actually more accurately described as “using every loophole/ legal grey area to your advantage.” I suspect that in all likelihood both parties do that quite a lot.

    2. I’m gonna need evidence that you have any friends.

      1. His lefty friends use the term Drumpf, which may explain a few things.

    3. Since we’re sharing anecdotes, I have a relative who confessed to voting for Ross Perot twice (absentee in his/her alternate state of residence). She votes Republican normally, “of course”.

  5. Is there some reason Both can’t be true?

  6. Before Stephen Miller became a senior adviser to Donald Trump, I rad he was the communications director for Jeff Sessions. I suspect he got his position on the recommendation of Sessions and because of his loyalty to Sessions.

    But being the press secretary for a senator from Alabama may be fundamentally different from going on national television and handling questions from George Snuffleupagus.

    As excellent as some of Trump’s appointments have been, he’s always suffered for a lack of loyal–and capable–Republicans because few in the establishment were willing to support him during his campaign. Some of Trump’s people got their positions through loyalty and by default–with Jeff Sessions himself being an excellent example of that.

    If I were the Trump administration, I wouldn’t send this Miller guy out to the Sunday talk shows again. Well, maybe the ones on Fox. And they may need to take some chances on new staff who haven’t yet demonstrated their loyalty.

    1. Nobody with any future in politics wants to be associated with Trump. There’s too much danger that he’s going to crash and burn as president and/or betray the GOP base when things get tough. I would say both are near certainties.

      The left already smells blood on the water with Flynn’s resignation. We’re not even a month into the presidency and already he’s beseiged.

      1. There is blood in the water and when you’ve made enemies of the intelligence community and the bulk of the news media (although, it would be hard for any Republican to make friends with the NYT or WaPo) things are not looking good.

        However, the contrarian in me says that noted 9/11 truther Van Jones was also out by the first month of the administration. You may not remember, because the press was behaving as a cheerleader than rather than a rabid opponent.

        1. Making enemies of the dinosaur media was a good strategy. They were going to be against him regardless, might as well get that over with. If anything I think he didn’t go far enough. He should have disbanded the office of press secretary and refused to send anybody onto the Sunday morning dinosaurs, which are just gotcha-fests.

      2. That’s what they thought last summer. Then they scrambled to kiss up when they realized Trump was the future of politics, for at least the next 4 years.

        1. LOL. 26 days into his presidency and he’s completely on his heels.

          He was very lucky in his opponents, both primary and general, and even more lucky in winning those three states by razor thin margins. 1% change in those three states and we’d be grousing about President Hildog.

    2. Is Miller one of the actual Men in Black?
      Or just an android?

  7. whoa-whoa! There’s a NEW hampshire?

    1. HampSHIRE not HamSTER. Or HipSTER.

  8. The system is designed to ensure that there is no evidence of voter fraud when it happens. Therefore, the lack of evidence of voter fraud does not count as evidence of a lack of voter fraud.

    1. Lack of evidence just means they were good at covering up their crime.
      It is a frequent defense used by the left, who has taken covering up and an incurious media to levels never before imagined.

  9. Say–weren’t there some videos that showed Democrats saying they did just this type of thing?

    From Project very-something?

    You know, the ones reason studiously ignored?

    1. If there is, it should be pretty easy for you link to it.

      1. http://projectveritas.com/2016…..d-to-vote/

        Note: I’m not suggesting that this outfit is credible

        1. Spock-level editing is all you need to be able to fake what comes out of someone’s mouth.

      2. If there is, it should be pretty easy for you link to it.

        Selective skepticism for the loss. I find it extremely hard to believe that you didn’t already know about Project Veritas.

        1. No, I’m well aware that Project Veritas is an alt-right fever swamp conspiracy site that lobs allegations fast and furious that it has no actual evidence to back up.

          Here’s an analysis of how PV selectively edits their videos to strip them of context and tilt viewer perceptions

          1. Yeah they’re biased and twist facts. They also report true facts that have an impact, though you’d like to dismiss it apparently. You’re stretching the truth about them more than they do about their stories.

            I’d like to see you set an objective standard for news organizations and then we can see how many mainstream outlets would fail. That article delves into three or four violations which is apparently enough for you (including silly stuff like “he didn’t really wear a furry pimp outfit”). How many outlets have used the misleading statement “muslim ban” for example?

            1. Provide a link to some of these impactful true facts and I will let you know.

              My objective standard is pretty simple, actually: if you make a factual claim, provide evidence for it in the form of multiple sources on the record. No outlet does that 100% of the time, but there are better outlets than PV.

              1. Yeah I’m not seeing a good cost-benefit outlook for that effort. So I think I’ll just limit my efforts to giving my secondary analysis and conclusions after observing the evidence for myself. You just have to take what you can get.

                And your stance is they report zero facts? Or will you just be moving the goalpost when absolutely necessary?

              2. Multiple sources?
                Of the kind that would be indicting themselves if they made these statements on the record?
                How naive can you be?

              3. My objective standard is pretty simple, actually: if you make a factual claim, provide evidence for it in the form of multiple sources on the record.

                I don’t think you can claim that as your standard, since you summarily dismissed the evidence provided by the guy you’re arguing with, while expecting us to accept the flimsy evidence you provided.

          2. That article was s just a long ad hominem. The counter to a claim somethjng is taken out of context is to put it in context. Apparently they were unable to contextualize or justify what was recorded so the just wrote “Okeefe is a poopy head.”

            1. Like I said, selective skepticism.

            2. This is the concluding sentence of the article I linked to:

              Project Veritas’ October 2016 election-related sting videos (embedded above) reveal tidbits of selectively and (likely deceptively edited) footage absent of any context in which to evaluate them. Unless his organization releases the footage in full, undertaking a fair assessment of their veracity is all but impossible.

              1. How is their veracity impossible to determine? The people I n the videos were fired. Christ are we going to say it’s impossible to know if Donald Trump exists because every video on TV is edited.

                This is retard bait for true believers. Don’t believe your lying eyes.

                1. How is their veracity impossible to determine? The people I n the videos were fired.

                  Which proves literally nothing.

            3. What is it, misunderstanding “ad hominem” day?

          3. The alt-right accusation is pretty absurd. Is everyone who is just right of Joseph Stalin ‘alt-right’ now?

            Also, how credible do you rate ‘Snopes’? Serious question

            1. Is everyone who is just right of Joseph Stalin ‘alt-right’ now?

              Yes. /progderp

          4. This is the left’s ‘trump’ of Project Veritas–

            PV selectively edits their videos to strip them of context and tilt viewer perceptions

            Except that the full footage is always made available.

            Always.

            And every time a video comes out this point is made.

            But the left always jumps to PV selectively edits their videos to strip them of context and tilt viewer perceptions as if it hadn’t been made the last seven or eight times.

            Because they’re liars.

  10. Hey MURICANS, you know what might weaken claims of voter fraud?

    Requiring ID to vote.

    *runs away after tossing live grenade*

    1. Sorry, that’s racist. Because reasons.

      1. That’s the problem, they’re accepting Masshole IDs!

        /sarc, obvs

      2. There is a non-ID sworn affidavit option, even for same-day registration, as I recall. Could be wrong though.

        1. Yes there is. I believe they actually follow up on them. So if there was a lot of that going on, it shouldn’t be too hard to produce an example.

          Saying that there is likely voter fraud going on is reasonable. It’s the specific claims like this with no specific data backing them up that are ridiculous.

          1. They do follow up. In 2016 my overwhelmingly apolitical wife decided she wanted to vote against the Clinton identity politics machine and did same-day registration. She had neglected to bring her certificate of naturalisation but brought everything else (driver’s license) and was allowed to submit a vote before the certificate was verified. I brought the certificate in to the precinct for verification about half an hour later just to get it out of the way, but apparently there’s a 2 week window that you have to do that. In no way are the submitted votes held in provisional/limbo status until the verification occurs. The ballot gets submitted into the voting machine anyway immediately after you cast your ballot. As far as I can tell, there is no apparatus to undo that cast ballot since it’s anonymous and not traceable once it is submitted.

            1. Right, it won’t undo any fraud that happened. But it would catch people who did commit ID fraud. So it should be easy to produce an example if that happened to a significant degree.

  11. “Did Trump deliberately create that public persona so that one day, when he ran for president, his opponents would underestimate him? If so, I totally fell for it.”

    Oh, Jake, you bitch.

  12. Just because there’s no evidence for it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. smh

  13. An alternative view is that we could, I don’t know, actually investigate claims of voter fraud rather than just dismissing the concept?

    There was a woman in Texas that was just convicted of voter fraud (and received an unreasonably stiff sentence) Trump’s claims of voter fraud are preposterous (no way two million illegal votes are cast each year), but the more asinine assertion is that there is zero incidences of voter fraud.

    1. In my state it is easy to register to vote when you get a drivers license. You are not required to demonstrate citizenship to get a drivers license, and I don’t recall being required to furnish any evidence when I first registered to vote a long time ago. I guess what I’m wondering is, what’s there to stop an illegal from voting?

      1. Thanks to the motor voter laws and the fact that states like California issue driver licenses to illegals, there is absolutely nothing to stop them from voting.

    2. “no way two million illegal votes are cast each year”

      It seems like a big number, but out of 120 million votes, it’s less than two percent. Isn’t a two percent rate of fraud pretty good? It would certainly be as good or better than the fraud on major entitlements.

    3. When you have polling places in Detroit that count 50 ballots as 300 votes it quickly doesn’t become hard to believe there are 2 million illegal (or at least inelligible) votes. And remember, all of those phantom votes are still part of the popular vote total because Michigan let the original inflated numbers stand.

    4. Honestly, who gives a shit about voter fraud?

      Answer: partisan hacks.

      Fuck off already.

  14. During his interview with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, presidential adviser Stephen Miller declined to provide evidence of such massive voter fraud in New Hampshire but averred that it is a matter of common knowledge there:

    Some people cam him Maurice, cause he speaks of the pompatus of Trump.

  15. OT: Well, no work for the remainder of the day. A water-main broke at my building so here I sit at home.

    Any NetFlix recommendations? I was thinking about getting caught up on Jessica Jones(I fucking love Krysten Ritter. She was great in the short-lived show Don’t Trust the Bitch in Apartment 23) but am open to suggestions.

    1. I’ve been working through Person of Interest. One of the best sci-fi shows in a long time. You do have to be down with some of the more conventional elements of a network procedural, but I think those are usually done with a wink. ‘Course, there’s over 100 hours of it, so this may not be ideal for a single day binge suggestion. But I’m Lovin’ It.

      All the Marvel shows are kinda meh. JJ can be fun with Ritter and Tennant, but it’s flabby.

      Bojack Horseman, Black Mirror, The People v OJ Simpson are all good.

    2. Not exactly related, but if you like cop detective shows with a bit of history, check out the Murdoch Mysteries TV show (not the three movies, which aren’t as good). Set in Toronto in the 1890s and involves historical events and people. Murdoch is quite the scholar and innovative detective what with his new fangled finger marks. One episode, he mentioned new work on blood proteins, which I looked up, and sure enough, the author mentioned had indeed written such a book around that time.

      Remarkably consistent through all seasons (10?), but it sometimes gets silly (invents sonar) and every once in a while throws in some guy shouting national security.

      iZomby is fun — med student turns zombie, quits med school to work in the morgue so she can get brains, discovers that eating the brains of crime victims means she knows how they died, so she has to drop hints to the cops without letting on how she knows — pretends to be psychic.

    3. Jessica Jones followed by Luke Cage is a winning combination.

      Also, The Last Kingdom was surprisingly good. Give it a try unless you dislike the genre.

      1. Seen it. It wasn’t bad. Certainly better than Frontier staring that Khaul Drogo guy. That series was a textbook example of acting talent far outshining the abilities of the writers. Which was a shame, 18th century fur traders in Canada is a rarely touched upon topic and I was genuinely interested in the setting.

    4. Thanks guys. 🙂

  16. Are we fact-checking the random shit Trump says? He just makes stuff up and then you’re trying to argue facts and the story becomes your facts versus his “facts”. You’re trying to argue with somebody who’s not making a good-faith argument. You’re arguing with a troll. DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS.

  17. I hope Trump provides yoga classes in the West Wing for his poor media mouthpieces. It can’t be easy to try and contort your way out of answering direct questions like that.

  18. My proposed reforms:

    1. Reverse voter ID. If the registered voter has a drivers license, or other photo ID, the photo from that ID is provided to the polling place. This can then be compared to the person claiming to be that voter at the poll; if they don’t match, then the claimed voter is asked to provide their photo ID (which is known to be possessed). There would still be a potential for fraud if a registered voter has no photo ID, but that is really a very small number of people, and more importantly, nearly impossible for the parties to determine in advance.

    2. Absentee ballot requestors should have to prove continued residency and prove that they are not able to vote in person.

    1. These are all racist proposals. This is known

    2. Or just ban voting.

      If people want to “get things done”, make them take up a collection, or get everyone to sign a statement agreeing to whatever rules the group proposes.

      1. Yup. “Voter fraud” is one of the great “litmus tests” on Reason. Fake libertarians (who are invariably partisan “conservatives”, typically Trump fanbois) try to co-opt our snark and feign outrage.

        Meanwhile, the actual libertarian make comments like CE.

        WakaWaka, why don’t you fuck off? You don’t belong.

        If reason had any balls they’d exercise their private property rights and ban all of you, just because FYTW. And I do mean that. Fuck you.

  19. Is it a lie or delusion? I’m gratified to see you asking this question, but before you get too lost in the weeds, keep in mind that pursuing this line of reasoning may be unprofitable. Instead, simply call it a lie and demand he answer for it. Think of it like a small child who just tripped a sibling and says, “I’m sorry mommy, it was a accident.” If you let kids get away with stuff like that they grow into adults who can no longer tell the difference.

  20. Sting Video Purports To Show Democrats Describing How To Commit Voter Fraud

    Project Veritas, which has carried out several damaging video sting operations, has posted videos in recent days purporting to show Democratic operatives bragging about inciting violence at Trump’s campaign events, and appearing to detail how they could bus out-of-state supporters in to commit voter fraud.

    Unaware that he was being recorded by a hidden camera, Foval appeared to walk through how operatives could commit voter fraud by shipping in out-of-state people to vote. “You can prove conspiracy if there’s a bus,” he says at one point. “If there are cars, it’s much harder to prove.”

    He also detailed how he and other operatives recruit and train people to protest Trump events and to try to draw Trump supporters into physical confrontations. “There’s a script,” he says. “Sometimes the ‘crazies’ bite … sometimes they don’t bite.”

    “It is not hard to get some of these a******* to pop off,” Foval said at another point. “It’s a matter of showing up to want to get into the rally in a Planned Parenthood T-shirt, or ‘Trump is a Nazi,’ you know. You can message to draw them out, and draw them to punch you.”

    1. Did they ever release the unedited video? It’s hard to take them at their word when they don’t.

      1. More to the point, did they ever find any evidence in voting records to back up the claims made in the video?

        1. The people involved were fired from their positions, so I’d assume that there was not much editing since if the videos were fabricated why didn’t these organizations fight back?

      2. Who cares? They said what they said. Funny how demanding full, unedited videos never seemed important to journalists in the MSM until they no longer controlled who was getting stung.

        Is this proof that Trump is right? Of course not. But I think it’s kind of dumb to assume this stuff never happens. It’s amazing how much credence Reason writers will often give government officials as long as they are saying the “right” things, when at all other times it’s assumed they are being deceitful.

        1. Who cares? They said what they said.

          Yes, but did they say those things in the context that the video tries to place those statements in? Or was it more like this?

          1. The guy lost his job didn’t he?

          2. What context would change those statements? Unless they are reading from a script they’re pretty straightforward.

            1. “If you wanted to commit voter fraud, how would you do it?”

              My recollection is that it is the Project Veritas guy who proposes voter fraud, not Foval (or Vargas, or whomever). The target plays along and talks about how it might be done. The same kind of conversation going on in this thread, and every time voter fraud is mentioned here.

      3. Just google ‘unedited project veritas videos’–they’re all available.

  21. I’m not worried – the canadarch0-frankentrumpkencucks will devise a fail-safe big government strategy to protect us from big government.

  22. I love how everyone claims “there is no voter fraud”, when every investigation into it is stopped prior to reporting the findings.
    Dems scream about sheriffs stopping blacks in the south on the way to the voting both. Reps report rooms of people filling out stacks of ballots in philly. But yet, no investigation ever concludes. Isn’t it strange how Stein’s recount efforts falled to go anywhere?

    The issue with voter fraud is that everyone knows it happens…everyone knows its impactful….but everyone wants to continue doing it because it helps them win elections.

    I have no doubt at all about fraud in NH. I lived up there for 7 years and the hyper liberal enclaves on the Mass border are ripe for double voting or lying about home address. How many Mass citizens vote across the border in NH to swing that state? Hell…people brag about it.

    1. About those hyper-liberal enclaves: http://www.politico.com/2016-e…..hampshire/

      Maybe it happens, but nowhere in NH is so one party dominated that they can get away with anything too blatant.

      1. Yeah, the only two counties where Clinton won by over 10% were on the Vermont border.

        It’s not like Hawaii, where Obama ran up 3-1 victories statewide, and where the really loose automatic issuance of absentee voter ballots after the first time you apply means that kids can vote grandma’s ballot after she dies, year after year.

        1. bah…look at precinct results FFS. The populous southern towns are pushing 30 point spreads for Clinton.

          1. Which towns?
            http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/f…..N=POLITICS

            I can find 2 towns along the Mass. border that are anything remotely close to a 30 point spread in favor of Clinton. And quite a few that went heavily to Trump. You are incorrect about the voting patterns in SE NH.

      2. You can’t look at county maps, ffs. Voting occurs in precincts, not counties, and in many areas, precincts are heavily skewed to one direction as communities have self-selected culturally.

        Look at the voter numbers….the southern areas are where the highest population density is, and there are many communities of Taxachusets refuges who have brought along their politics.

        1. Actually, in NH most voting happens by town. I did look at results by municipality as well. Clinton won Manchester and Nashua, but not by huge margins. Surrounding towns were closer still.

          Here is a map of NH house seats by district. Not 2016 results, but makes it pretty clear that there aren’t “hyper-liberal” enclaves in that region of the state. If there are such places, they are in Portsmouth/Durham area., Concord and in the lower Connecticut valley, not in the SE along the Mass border.

  23. Republicans aren’t in any hurry to lead investigations into wide spread Democratic voter fraud, because they ultimately want no part of uncovering wide spread Republican voter fraud in the process.

    The idea that the two parties don’t thumb the scales at every possible opportunity when it would benefit them is laughable. Of course they do. Both parties run extensive vote milling operations which result in vote totals far in excess of what the actual public support is for their candidates. How much of that is out and out “fraud,” how much is “unethical” but not illegal, and how much is just “get out the vote” it’s hard to say, because they’ve done their level best to keep people from looking into it.

    I dunno, maybe being from Chicago has left me unduly skeptical when someone says “voter fraud is a myth,” but at the very least taking their word for it seems to not be a sufficient reason to make that claim.

    1. The fact that the Michigan recount was cancelled because of what was obvious voter fraud makes me wonder about the motives of people who say their is no fraud.

      I think Trump’s numbers are insane, but to deny the existence of voter fraud is equally insane.

      1. So point to the evidence.

        1. There are essentially no controls on the system. And as any auditor can tell you, a system that lacks proper controls will be exploited at some point.

    2. How do you explain voter ID laws being supported strongly by the GOP and despised by the Dems, then?

      1. A belief that the specific type of fraud addressed by voter ID laws benefits the Democrats more than the Republicans? Not that it affects the case for voter ID.

      2. “How do you explain voter ID laws being supported strongly by the GOP and despised by the Dems, then?”

        Republicans are racists, that’s why.

      3. I’ve always gotten the impression that the Dems try to fudge the results by running up the totals through fraud while the Reps try to fudge the results by decreasing the totals through disqualifying legitimate votes and making it harder for eligible people to vote. Maybe both parties are stuffing ballot boxes and disqualifying people, but their public proposals seem to fit the impression I have (Dems seem to support making it easier to vote while Reps seem to support making it harder).

        1. Reps try to fudge the results by decreasing the totals through disqualifying legitimate votes and making it harder for eligible people to vote.

          Disqualifying legitimate votes would be impossible to conceal and would lead to a firestorm of criticism from the media et al.

          Making it harder for eligible people to vote? How?

      4. Because they believe the particular part of “vote milling” that law purports to address favors Democrats more than Republicans. I’m fairly certain it’s not to “maintain the integrity of our democracy.”

        What counts as “fraud” is hard to say, but, in general, any means by which the voting results are significantly skewed from the latent underlying sample of “the will of the people” is problematic. EG, 3rd party support among the populace is consistently higher than actual 3rd party vote totals.

        By focusing on “what’s illegal” to the exclusion of “what does the public actually want” misses the forest from the trees. The current system is designed to subvert the latter to the benefit of those who are running it. To claim otherwise is laughable.

        1. What counts as “fraud” is hard to say

          No, it isn’t. Casting a vote when you’re not eligible to do so, or impersonating an eligible voter. Clear as day.

          And you’re moving the goal posts. Original claim:

          Republicans aren’t in any hurry to lead investigations into wide spread Democratic voter fraud, because they ultimately want no part of uncovering wide spread Republican voter fraud in the process.

          Now you’re just claiming the Republicans somehow skew voting results from the “will of the people”, whatever that means. You obfuscate over the definition of “fraud” but then expect us to accept such a vague formulation as “the will of the people” as the basis of your argument? Lame.

          EG, 3rd party support among the populace is consistently higher than actual 3rd party vote totals.

          Support of what aspect of 3rd parties? You mean support of 3rd parties being on the ballot/in debates, or intention to actually vote for 3rd party candidates? The former has nothing to do with vote totals, while the latter I don’t think you have evidence to support.

    3. Anyone who says that voter fraud is a ‘myth’ comes off as a bigger jack-ass than Trump for making wild assertions.

      1. It’s a specific type of voter fraud that the GOP focuses on, and it’s Big Foot humping the Loch Ness monster. It exists as a concept solely and exclusively as an excuse to purge the franchise of undesirables, i.e. Jim Crow all over again. If you’d like to prove me wrong, point to some evidence of significant in-person voter fraud.

        1. You know what has never been found, unlike fraudulent votes? An eligible voter turned away from the polls because of this alleged return of Jim Crow.

        2. This is the same game every time. Every example of someone being prosecuted for voter fraud is dismissed as a ‘one off incident’. I get it. You love Team Blue and you’re not interested in combatting voter fraud. What is criminal of investigating how wide spread it is when there are multiple individual cases of it occurring?

          Instead you’d rather continue to play ‘identity politics’, because you really have no argument beyond ‘feelz’. Congratulations, you look like a bigger jackass than Trump. That is a difficult task to achieve.

          1. You should focus less on my feelz and more on Republicans targeting brown people and college students to disenfranchise, if you’re concerned about “identity politics.”

        3. Always remember that the Democrats are the perpetual party of Tammany Hall.

        4. It’s a specific type of voter fraud that the GOP focuses on, and it’s Big Foot humping the Loch Ness monster.

          Conceptually, I think this is correct: if you’re going to commit voter fraud on an impactful scale, the least efficient and riskiest way to do so is to have people come in and vote in-person under someone else’s name. Voter ID laws aim to stem a problem that by all rights shouldn’t exist, yet it’s remarkably effective at curbing the turnout of those demographics most commonly suspected of perpetrating such fraud regardless of the effort the state is willing to go through to furnish ID’s to those who may not otherwise have them (yes, those suspicions can be honestly characterized as bigoted). That points to a problem existing that is largely uninvestigated.

          1. if you’re going to commit voter fraud on an impactful scale, the least efficient and riskiest way to do so is to have people come in and vote in-person under someone else’s name.

            An “impactful” (ugggghhhh) scale is not that big in a close election. Campaigns scramble for every vote they can get. It ain’t that risky either if you choose the voters to impersonate carefully.

            Voter ID laws aim to stem a problem that by all rights shouldn’t exist, yet it’s remarkably effective at curbing the turnout of those demographics

            I’m calling baloney there. You have evidence that Voter ID is “remarkably effective” at suppressing minority votes?

        5. i.e. Jim Crow all over again

          No, Tony. It’s like the Holocaust, the Trail of Tears and the destruction of Alderaan all rolled into one. If you’re going to be an intellectually dishonest hyperbolic twat whose opinion no one respects, do it right.

  24. I bet the $1000 is winnable.

    There is probably at least 1 person who has recently moved to MA or goes to school in MA, who went back to NH to vote. The bus part may be tough, as they may have driven back home.

    I think its almost guaranteed that at least one student did it.

    1. That $1000 is not even the slightest bit winnable. As if he’d actually pay up.

      1. Winning a bet and collecting on it are two entirely different things.

  25. I once had the opportunity to commit voter fraud. I traveled from KY to WI on election day one year and could have voted both places as I discovered that KY had never removed me from the rolls. I didn’t, but I easily could have.

    1. If you aren’t on the roll they will take your vote anyway. You just have to fill in additional info (instead of just checking your name off the list). I’ve voted at the wrong polling place before.

  26. What difference, at this point, does it make?

  27. Jacob Sullum and his crackpot theories about Trump. Going to be a staple for at least the next 4 years.

    1. Most of the writers here are gunning for a job at Think Progress or Slate

  28. According to one theory, … He told that story not because he thinks it’s true but because he wanted to irk his enemies in the press, tickle his supporters, and distract people from more serious issues. According to the other theory, Trump is a vain, petty, credulous man who readily believes anything that flatters his ego.

    Why not both?

    He certainly is having success keeping folks spinning in circles while he moves the ball down the field. And her certainly does seem to be a vain, petty, credulous man who loves flattery.

    So yeah…. both.

    1. I think it’s also possible that he feels that simply keeping the phrase “voter fraud” in the news inherently works to the favor of those opposed to voter fraud. Democrats aren’t doing themselves any favors if they prove that there is systemic voter fraud, but probably not 3 million people. And yet, if they claim there is none, they just look insane or (insofar as it is generally perceived that their side is the net beneficiary) like they are lying their asses off to protect their racket.

    2. He’s not moving shit down the field.

      He signed a bunch of executive orders, which are in various stages of being rolled back in the courts.

      He made a bunch of tough statements to foreign leaders, which are in various stages of being rescinded (One China policy was restored for free)

      He’s already had to throw his key FP advisor under the bus, and now the left smells blood on the water.

      He has gotten basically no significant items from his agenda passed.

      So yeah, tell me how he’s succeeding at anything other than trolling people.

  29. Did Trump deliberately create that public persona so that one day, when he ran for president, his opponents would underestimate him?

    Yes, because he’s a super-duper smart and talented 3-D chess master. The best 3-D chess master in the history of the world. He always wins yuuuuuge! Believe me!

    If so, I totally fell for it.

    That’s because you’re a STUPID KOZMO CUCK FAGGIT! /sarc

  30. If I recall correctly, Trump said there were 3 million illegal votes. Snuffleupagus changes that to 3 million illegal immigrants voting. I don’t buy Trump’s numbers without some evidence, but Snuffleupagus loses a lot of credibility when he can’t even get the basic accusation correct. Illegal votes can come from illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, double registrations, dead people. I wonder if Snuffleupagus is being willfully misleading, or if he believes he’s accurately reporting.

    It’s also ludicrous to believe that there’s no fraud out of the 100+ million votes cast. The real questions are how much, are they predominantly in one direction, and are they concentrated enough in any given district or state to swing the results? If the number is low, if the illegal votes cancel each other out and if they are widely dispersed, then it is probably not an issue, but any attempt to look at it systematically gets shut down.

    1. George Stephanopoulos believes that he’s accurately reporting on a highly partisan issue that directly involves the Clintons. Uh, yeah. I think this is where you insert the overdone fake laugh.

      Even absent the leaks that show that he was carrying her water, we know that he’s been a partisan actor since leaving government service. I say “actor” rather than “hack” because he is no hack. He’s actually good at it and a really good political reporter and interviewer. He just also happens to be massively partisan and utterly, slavishly, lapdog-ishly devoted to the Clinton team.

      On the voter fraud thing, I find it ironic that team D is running around ridiculing Trump on this point when they have spent the last…. what, 40? 50? 70 years? claiming that elections are being stolen by evil republicans. Even in all-democrat areas like south Florida, they claim that “voter suppression” is rampant by the evil racist republicans (that are almost as rare as unicorns down here).

      Every election they trot out conspiracy theories…. every car accident, construction zone, police traffic stop is actually a plot to deny black people the right to vote. The theories are always crazy dumb. But they are at least given lip service all the way to the top of the DNC.

      And now Trump is playing their game. They really are having a hard time dealing with their own tactics

  31. Not like the press will ever seek the truth?they will just print whatever the DNC tells them to print.

  32. “Lie or Delusion?” That’s not much of a choice.

  33. At one time I held resident hunting licenses in 3 different states.

  34. I oversee five polling places in one of those states and at the risk of getting into trouble I have to submit this.

    The polling places were told by very high level Government Officials and by way of certified mail to not only expect to see undocumented illegals at the polling places but to ensure each and every one was allowed to cast a vote.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.