The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

Election 2020

The Paranoid Style of American Politics - Presidential Election Edition

Trying to counter viral election fraud claims is like playing whack-a-mole. [With Updates]


It is nearly a month since election day and yet discredited and debunked claims of election fraud or "irregularities" continue to go viral on social media platforms. Even some otherwise reputable commentators seem to get sucked in. What is particularly frustrating is that so many of these claims are easy to check, and yet so few bother to make the effort.

So, for example, various sites breathlessly report about thousands of absentee ballots in Pennsylvania and Michigan that were returned on the same day they were requested. How could this be?!? In both states, voters were allowed (and often encouraged) to request and return absentee ballots in person at local election offices. Indeed, in both states early in-person voting was conducted just this way. The voter goes to their local election office, requests an absentee ballot, receives it and fills it out on the spot, and then returns it, all in one visit (as both the PA and MI Secretary of State sites make clear). These were technically "absentee" ballots -- and recorded as such -- though used for early in-person voting.

Powerline posted on an allegedly anomalous voter turnout spike in Wisconsin that vanishes upon examination: The spike was caused by comparing turnout as a percentage of eligible voters for 2016 with turnout as a percentage of registered voters in 2020. The apples-to-apples comparison shows turnout increased slightly -- as one would expect given the stakes of the election and how much easier early and absentee voting was this year -- and the alleged spike disappears.

These are hardly the only easy-to-check claims that got spread before folks bothered to check the facts. Through a link on Instapundit, I found this American Thinker piece that is emblematic of the claims that purport to show "election theft" -- and illustrative of how weak these claims are.

The article starts off with the "stunning fact" that Pennsylvania sent out 1.8 absentee or mail-in ballots, logged the return of 1.4 million mail-in ballots, but counted 2.5 million mail-in ballots. This claim was made by Rudy Giuliani at the Pennsylvania "hearing" on election irregularities. And it turns out this "stunning fact" is not true. As the American Thinker piece concedes in an update, "contemporaneous data completely contradicts Giuliani's statement." Whoever fed Rudy this claim confused primary and general election data. 1.8 million mail-in ballots were sent out in the primaries, but 3 million were sent out for the general election.

Continuing through the piece things don't much improve. There are various versions of purportedly anomalous "vote spike" claims (which ignore how vote tallies are reported in batches that, depending on the location, often swing heavily for one candidate or the other), and a credulous cite to the Ramsland affidavit, which purports to show vote fraud in Michigan by accidentally confusing Michigan and Minnesota county level data. (Practice tip: MI and MN signify different states.) And so on.

That batches of absentee ballots from deep blue precincts would swing heavily to Joe Biden should not surprise anyone. For weeks leading up to the election Democrats and media commentators urged people to vote early, while Trump surrogates dismissed the reliability of mail-in voting. Thus it was entirely predictable that mail-in vote totals in deep blue precincts were significantly bluer than election day tallies. [And, as Dan McLaughlin details here, claims that Biden only improved on Clinton's vote totals in four swing-state cities are simply false. Some other election irregularities are actually an artifact of "bad data cleaning," and the failure to note that precincts may move, merge, or shift between elections.]

Conservative commentator AG_Conservative has a useful round up and debunking of other viral election fraud claims (with lots of links) on his Patreon page. Or, if you prefer an MSM outlet, USA Today has its own index of election fraud fact checks. And then there are the silly statistical claims, such as the contention that "Benford's law" somehow shows Biden's vote totals were too improbable to be believed. [For more, see this excellent interview with Christopher Krebs, Trump's Director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in the Department of Homeland Security.]

Conspiratorial claims about election theft are hardly new to 2020. We saw outrageous claims about the 2016 Presidential election and 2018 gubernatorial race in Georgia. Partisans do not like to believe that their candidate lost and often grasp at straws to show that their loss was "illegitimate."

As an Ohio resident, I still remember all the ridiculous claims made about Ohio in 2004, many of which were based upon ridiculous claims of statistical anomalies or concerns that vote totals didn't correlate closely enough to the exit polls. Substitute "Diebold" for "Dominion voting Systems" and you'll get the idea of the sorts of claims that were made. In the end, a few dozen members of the House and one Senator voted against certifying the election results in January 2005.

The claims Ohio was stolen spread more slowly, in part, due to the lack of viral social media channels. More importantly, political leaders and commentators showed more principle and character. John Kerry quickly conceded the election, and party leaders (with the exception of Rep. John Conyers) fell into line, throwing cold water on claims of a Buckeye State conspiracy.

The contrast to 2020 is striking. Kerry put country over party and personal interest. Trump has not. Instead, the President has refused to concede and party officials (encouraged and magnified by online grifters and media personalities) have stoked and spread bogus election fraud claims and pretended as if there is a way to overturn the election results in court.

We've learned not to expect any better from Trump. It is disappointing we cannot expect better from others who claim to act on principle and to care about truth.

[Note: Material in brackets was added after I initially published this post.]


NEXT: New "Flex" Scalia Law Part-Time JD

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. If I remember correctly Dominion bought Diebold voting systems.

    1. Eventually, yes. Diebold was bought up by ES&S (one of the big three elections companies). ES&S then later sold what used to be Diebold to Dominion.

  2. Quite right, but I'd go further - we need to add a new wing to one of the federal prisons, to accommodate all the perjurers who signed affidavits alleging cheating or irregularities or statistical anomalies in the voting. Send a message that this sort of anti-state activity won't be tolerated.

    1. If you're going to make that retroactive to 2020 elections, why not also include 2016 Hillary whiners?

      1. I don't recall Hillary or her supporters claiming election fraud. There was much complaining about the electoral college, but I don't remember any claims that the counting was tainted.

        But if you're going to do "why not also" then why not also do something about people such as yourself who cannot bear to have a Republican criticized without having to bring up a Democrat, even if you have to stretch to do it.

        1. Apparently, there were quite a few Hillary supporters complaining, though not (to be fair) Hillary herself.

        2. "I don’t recall Hillary or her supporters claiming election fraud."

          According to a yougov poll:

          "Two out of three Democrats also claim Russia tampered with vote tallies on Election Day to help the President – something for which there has been no credible evidence."

          1. Neera Tanden, Biden's nominee for OMB claimed Hillary lost because the Russians hacked the election.


            1. You're a Glenn Greenwald fan now, huh?

  3. A. These rumors wouldn't spread so fast if the public weren't predisposed to lend them some credence. The media would have us believe Trump set up that predisposition, but the media is much too leftist to be believable on much of anything, let alone anything connected with politics. More likely, it's just a sign of polarized politics because government has gotten way too intrusive in daily life. A few votes the other way in a few states, and the 2020 conspiracy freaks would have been a repeat of 2016.

    B. Hillary partisans still haven't accepted that Hillary lost 2016. The ridiculous impeachment was a sign of how petty they were. The GOP won't get a chance to show similar pettiness unless they win 2022, which historically is likely.

    1. More likely, it’s just a sign of polarized politics because government has gotten way too intrusive in daily life. A few votes the other way in a few states, and the 2020 conspiracy freaks would have been a repeat of 2016.

      That second sentence in no way follows from the first. The more obvious diagnosis is that the US simply has a ridiculous system for electing Presidents.

      Hillary partisans still haven’t accepted that Hillary lost 2016.

      Like who, specifically?

      1. "Like who, specifically?"

        Nobody important

        "October 26, 2020 By Jordan Davidson

        Hillary Clinton is still bitter about her presidential election loss in 2016.

        “I was the candidate that they basically stole an election from,” Clinton said Monday on the New York Times podcast “Sway.”

        Note the date.

        1. Yeah, that's not an accusation of election irregularities at all. And you know it.

      2. "Like who, specifically?"

        Like Hillary herself:

        "He knows that this wasn't on the level..."

        1. Again, you know full well that that's not an accusation of election irregularities at all. It's an accusation of collusion with the Russians about manipulate people's voting decisions.

    2. "But Clinton won the popular vote!!!!!!"

      1. That's not relevant, President Trump won more counties.

    3. So Trump telling his supporters many times that he could only lose if the Ds cheated has nothing to do with it?

      And yes, the Hillary partisans accepted the loss. Saying otherwise is just a lie.

      1. "The media" he's referring to are the deep state videos of Trump himself saying and doing things. Fake NEWS!

      2. Not Really

        Remember #Not My President ?
        and "The Russians stole the election" ?

        1. Clinton conceded the day after the election and Trump has a smooth transition. There was no claims that the vote itself was tainted or fraudulent. There were no lawsuits, or attempts to bully legislators to ignore the vote. The Russian interference was documented by Mueller and the Senate. In 2020 we are seeing straight out lying from the President.

          1. "or attempts to bully legislators to ignore the vote."

            No, they skipped straight to bullying the electors themselves.

          2. There have been lots of claims, including from Hillary herself, that the the 2016 vote was tainted or fraudulent. There were several attempts, supported by some of the Conspirators, to induce the presidential electors to ignore the election results in their states. Read the comments and links above.

          3. Mueller found no evidence showing Russian interference influenced the election. Multiple states have passed faithless elector laws -not a sign that the election results were accepted. The Trump presidency, administration, and any of its actions have all been labeled illegitimate from day one. The self-styled 'resistance,' a nearly four-year long temper tantrum is ongoing. Trump is not stellar, but before you bash him, get your facts straight.

            1. I should say, Mueller found no evidence of collusion...

          4. Clinton "conceded", a utterly meaningless thing (as evinced by Al Gore's 2000 concession), but then kept her campaign lawyers busy trying to overturn the results in at least three states. Up to December 12th, 2016, in fact.

            An no, just because Stein took the public lead does not mean Clinton was uninvolved - when your lawyers are filing motions in the court, it's your lawsuit as much as theirs.

            1. I mean, that didn't happen, but you do you. Stein's acts — no, not Clinton's, despite your attempt to claim otherwise — were frivolous, but she was asking for recounts, not asking that millions of her opponents' votes be thrown out.

  4. This post is nothing but prejudice and idiocy.

    Those of us on the right are correctly relying on alt-media, blogs, and podcasts for our election news coverage because the Big Media companies (whom I refuse to call "mainstream" any longer) simply don't report the truth, and constantly cast everything in false light to the point of being nothing but vicious lies. This has been true since at least 2008.

    During most of the Trump administration it has been Big Media echoing the liars who accused Trump of Russian Collusion, racism, and everything else that was brought up in his sham impeachment theater, and you swallowed it hook, line, and sinker, while ignoring to this day the real, proven story of Spygate for which all the Obama leftovers who tried to bring him down belong in prison! And that's been proven! Yet, you still believe the BS that Big Media are feeding you for nefarious purposes.

    There is overwhelming proof of election fraud. Start watching alt-media and maybe you'll pick up a clue.

    1. You have shown no more proof than Trump's lawyers. Why should anyone pay attention to all these shouts of "fire" when even the smoke you claim just turns out to be fog?

    2. Or let me put it another way. All the claims of Trump collusion with Russia have been shown, to my satisfaction, to be just the opposite -- deep state bureaucrats colluding with each other to frame the Trump camp with fake documents, albeit without much Russian involvement of any kind. I have little trust in government, period, and would not be surprised at all if such deep state finagling extended into voting. But no one with the Trump campaign has shown anything even close to solid evidence in court, and even if their claims were accepted at face value, they wouldn't change election results, so they throw tantrums because millions of votes don't get discarded. A classic illustration of throwing out baby with the bathwater.

      Your claims of fraud are as credible as claims that FDR knew the Japanese were on their way to attack Pearl Harbor and let them continue unmolested, even to the extent of misdirecting the Pearl Harbor forces to look elsewhere. Whether or not FDR might have been perfidious enough to want to do something so dastardly, he couldn't have done so without leaving hundreds or thousands of witnesses.

      All the election fraud claimed would have required even more witnesses all conspiring to cover things up. Compare that with the Russian collusion claims, which (I believe) were fraudulent and cooked up by Hillary losers; that fraud only required a very few deep state actors, and was uncovered. Now you claim something requiring hundreds or thousands of low level actors not known for being especially quiet and humble, and yet have not managed to uncover any but a handful of dubious claims.

      It just doesn't add up. You'll have to do better than that.

      1. The Russia collusion hoax was orchestrated by fairly typical incompetent Bush Republicans...because Trump was an imbecile that initially surrounded himself with Bush Republicans like Tillerson, McGahn, and Rosenstein.

      2. "All the claims of Trump collusion with Russia have been shown, to my satisfaction, to be just the opposite"
        That's odd, since there are very specific instances of Trump campaign members colluding with wikileaks and Russian intel services members. Stone, Manafort, and Don Jr. we have dead to rights colluding with Russian intel and Stone with wikileaks as well. It's all there; no mysteries are left.

        U) After receiving the GRU' s materials, WikiLeaks timed its document releases for maximum political impact.. WikiLeaks released the GRU-hacked materials obtained from the DNC on the eve of the Democratic National Convention. It released materials stolen from Podesta's email account starting on October 7, 2016, and continued to release Podesta's emails up until the election. '

        (U) While the GRU and WikiLeaks were releasing hacked documents, the Trump Campaign sought to maximize the impact of those materials to aid Trump's electoral prospects. To do so, the Trump Campaign took actions to obtain advance notice about WikiLeaks releases of Clinton emails; took steps to obtain inside information about the content of releases once WikiLeaks began to publish stolen information; created messaging strategies to promote and share the materials in anticipation of and following their release; and encouraged further theft of information and continued leaks.

        (U) Trump and senior Campaign officials sought to obtain advance information about WikiLeaks through Roger Stone. In spring 2016, prior to Assange's public announcements, Stone advised the Campaign that WikiLeaks would be releasing materials harmful to Clinton. Following the July 22 DNC release, Trump and the Campaign believed that Roger Stone had known of the release and had inside access to WikiLeaks, and repeatedly communicated with Stone about WikiLeaks throughout the summer and fall of 2016. Trump and other senior Campaign officials specifically directed Stone to obtain information about upcoming document releases relating to Clinton and report back. At their direction, Stone took action to gain inside knowledge for the Campaign and shared his purported knowledge directly with Trump and senior Campaign officials on multiple occasions. Trump and the Campaign believed that Stone had inside information and expressed satisfaction that Stone's information suggested more releases would be forthcoming.

        1. CNN error extends run of journalistic mishaps

          "CNN was forced to correct a key error in a story about the Trump campaign and access to hacked Democratic National Committee emails on Friday, extending a run of high-profile media mistakes.

          In an “exclusive” story posted to its website Friday morning — and discussed on air throughout the day — CNN initially reported that then candidate Donald Trump, his son Donald Trump, Jr. and other Trump campaign figures received an email on Sept. 4, 2016, offering a website and decryption key for the hacked WikiLeaks documents. That date was incorrect, though: CNN was later forced to correct it to Sept. 14, after a Washington Post report said the email had been sent then.

          The timing is crucial because WikiLeaks released a trove of stolen DNC emails on Sept. 13. The error was the difference between the Trump campaign having advance access to the DNC emails — a potential scandal — and the campaign having access to emails already available publicly."

          1. Can any American access another American’s email by hiring a foreigner to hack the emails and then send them to the American??

          2. So?

            What does cnn have to do with this?

            1. I'll give you a hint, it's related to the bs post about GRU and wikileaks you made. One might think that being suspicious of partisan committee's findings would be natural for people who claim to be libertarians and use the long tab's motto.

        2. Bogus claims. Sure the Russians fed the hacked emails to Wikileaks, but the evidence showed Stone lied about having contacts at Wikileaks, he sent them emails, but never got a response. And wikileaks themselves are not alleged to have direct contacts with the Russians, they were given the emails via an anonymous upload to their website.

          Far from proving collusion, it's proves their was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

          1. You forgot your cite.

            1. You know, that info is actually pretty old news. Did Vox or DailyKos not cover it?

      3. The Trump campaign has demonstrated plenty of red flags demanding further investigation, but then has been repeatedly physically prevented from gathering evidence. If that situation is allowed to prevent them from overturning an election then there is no way for any election to be trustworthy, ever. Therefore obviously the courts must enforce a requirement that it must always be possible to conduct a full forensic audit of every election, and that anyone who prevents that from happening is committing actionable fraud.

    3. The media has indeed lied about many things and for five years has used mischaracterizations and half-truths to cast Trump in the most negative light possible. Even worse, they've high-handedly denigrated his supporters as vile people. Given this, the election accusations we're seeing now are what you'd expect. You can't lie about people for years and then expect them to fall in line and listen when you tell them their guy lost.

      Let's just let the courts adjudicate the various claims and see what happens. Trump certainly has some sympathetic ears on the Supreme Court, so if there's anything to his accusations, they'll get as fair a hearing as possible. That's all we've got. All of the hyperbole in the world won't change that.

    4. " There is overwhelming proof of election fraud. "

      Delusional, aggressive, bigoted clingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.

      In part because mocking their ignorance can be amusing.

    5. "Alternative Facts".
      Enjoy turning your brain to mush, I guess.

    6. If there is "overwhelming proof of election fraud," why have Trump's lawyers not taken any of it into court? Why have they instead relied on hearsay and speculation? Why have they admitted in multiple cases that they are not alleging fraud?

    7. Those of us on the right are correctly relying on alt-media, blogs, and podcasts for our election news coverage because the Big Media companies (whom I refuse to call “mainstream” any longer) simply don’t report the truth,

      No, they do; you just don't want to hear the truth. You want them to report what you want to hear.

  5. It is rather amazing how much certain political factions oppose digital voting techniques because of their vulnerability to election tampering. Yet such folks routinely claim no tampering could take place despite highly disparate procedures used with more introduced this year. At least for presidential elections, far more uniform and time limited rules need adoption nationwide.

    There is no need for people to vote while the serious campaigning in September and early October is still taking place. Two weeks is plenty to allow anyone who wants to vote to cast a ballot. At least in ALameda County CA, absentee ballots were not received more than two weeks in advance of Nov.3.
    This year's procedures are in gross contrast to what is standard in Western democracies. The US should get back in line.

    Digital voting can be made secure with modern authentication and redundant storage techniques. For a country that prides itself on being the world leader in digital technology, the anti-science claims that digital technology is untrustworthy are pathetic ridicule of a huge sector of our economy.

    1. And those who know anything about data encryption and security can tell you even the most advanced techniques can be hacked given enough computing power and resources. And that computing power exists in the hands of both private entities and nation states.

      1. Whereas some of the oldest are utterly unhackable, save by rubber-hose cryptanalysis. One time pads, for example.

        But it's not just a question of making digital voting secure. You've got to make voting secure in a way that doesn't require a computer science degree and a chance to physically examine the hardware to be confident. You want ballot security the average voter can understand, not ballot security they have to take on faith.

        1. "You want ballot security the average voter can understand, not ballot security they have to take on faith."

          Ok, let's have voters enter there votes into an electronic machine that will mark a paper ballot for the voter. No hanging chads, no sloppy filling out of little circles, no nefarious election clerks giving voters magic sharpie pens with vanishing ink. Perfectly executed paper ballot that the voters can examone for accuracy. Then run those ballots through tested and certified tabulation scanners. Count the number of paper ballots count the number of voters, count the number of votes tabulated by the scanners. Maintain a chain of custody on everything and when some whacko crackpot claims of ballot box stuffing, get the paper ballots out and count by hand. Then defend against court suits that want to throw out all the ballots because soeone somewhere thinks that one or two dead people voted because a live voter has the same name and birth month as someone who died or because one of the votes was recorded by someone whose address is out of state becasue of military assignment. But, even that's not good enough because of the kraken.

          1. Stella,
            Not at all a bad idea that you suggest. I support it.
            However, you do realize that it will be decried by the Left as voter suppression of "people of color."

            1. Stella just described how the 2020 election was run.

              1. Except for the "massive numbers of absentee ballots without good chains of custody" part, of course.

              2. I think you did not read what he actually suggested. Those machine are NOT installed at polling places.

              3. Not so. Mail-in ballots do not maintain chain of custody. Recounting without the equivalent of, or use of bodycams fails to maintain basic integrity of the count.

          2. "Ok, let’s have voters enter their votes into an electronic machine that will mark a paper ballot for the voter."

            Lost me at "electronic machine that will mark a paper ballot for the voter." What's wrong with pens or pencils? Have the voter mark the paper ballot themselves? Though as long as there are relatively few races, and the markings are human readable only, that can work. That's the way they do it here in South Carolina. I preferred the scantron ballots back in Michigan, nothing programmable between you and the paper.

            The Devil is in the details, of course: Clear election laws written by the legislature, and not countermanded by the judiciary. Voter rolls regularly purged and no last minute registrations too close to the election to check before voting takes place. Election observers permitted to watch every step. Minimize absentee ballots, because the chain of custody on those comes pre-broken. Election observers permitted to watch every step. Yes, I said that twice, it's IMPORTANT.

            As always, absentee ballots are the biggest security failure in any election, because there isn't any good chain of custody. They should not be permitted except in cases of absolute necessity. (Unfortunately, the trend is in the direction of convenience overriding security.)

      2. And yet there are trillions of dollars of financial resources transferred every day. NSA is not going to hack the election

        1. It isn't the NSA that worries me (although wouldn't a cabal of deep state agents love to be able to select their "boss" every 4 years). What worries me is one of the private entities or maybe China that could do it.

    2. Any digital voting scheme needs to have a voter-verified paper trail as backup. Direct electronic recording of votes is too prone to fraud without a backup.

      It is amazing how the people who lectured us about the supposedly abundant evidence of Trump conspiring with Russia to steal the 2016 election, and getting away with it, are now lecturing us how it is impossible for local officials to have gotten away with any tampering with an election that violated so many longstanding procedures and norms.

      1. Scantron. The voter themselves fills out the paper trail, with no electronic intermediary which could rig things. A couple generations of school kids have been taught to fill them out.

        And the ballots get counted as they're dropped into the ballot box, how convenient is that?

      2. People running elections are screwed. If they do it with machines that leave no paper trail, people assert, without proof, that electronic recording without paper backup is prone to fraud. If you vote with paper ballots, or with machine generated paper ballots, the elections are too prone to fraud because massive quatities of ballots can be added or votes for one candidate or another can be physically destroyed, or just counted fo an opposing candidate. Recounting all the ballots by hand and getting the same result (with minor discrepencies) just proves how clever the fraudsters are.

        1. Stella, they have always been clever.

          There is no reason to ad hoc rules, ballots floating around for several weeks, lax ID rules all justified by a partisan, unscientific scream of voter suppression. Very single one of these ad hoc techniques, every denial of equal and constant poll watching and vote counting by partisans for both major parties is what the Catholic Church might call an "occassion of sin."

          Is there voter suppression? Sure. Is there cheating? Sure. Should we be increasing the opportunities for both? No

          1. " Should we be increasing the opportunities for both? "

            Should we be increasing the opportunities for either? If it's impossible to optimize accessibility and security at the same time, is it proper to inhibit many, many voters for the purpose of eliminating a handful of fraudulant votes?

            1. Stella,
              your proclivity for the cries of "voter suppression" and begging the question of election fraud shows through.
              Why is this not a problem in other Western democracies that have far more rigorous voting procedures?

            2. " If it’s impossible to optimize accessibility and security at the same time, "

              False premise. Accessibility, security, cheap. Pick two.

              Problem is, we're regularly picking 1 and 3, and blowing off 2, when we should be picking 1 and 2, and just grit our teeth over 3.

      3. so are mail-in ballots. People have cheated for centuries with paper ballots.
        No system is unbreakable. NO vote count is a certain measurement of popular will. Yet people deny that science all the time with the slogan, "every vote counts." Just as people like to deny the proclivity to cheat when it serves their partisan interests

    3. The reason US elections are almost impossible to hack is the decentralized nature of the system. The electoral college insures that finding a few vulnerabilities won't be enough to swing an election, because a few million extra votes dumped in california or New York would be meaningless. Plus the fact that the vote is actually conducted at the county level, with local officials independently posting local results, that would stand out if they varied a lot from local sentiment, that by themselves are very unlikely to be able to swing an election.

      1. The electoral college insures that finding a few vulnerabilities won’t be enough to swing an election, because a few million extra votes dumped in california or New York would be meaningless.

        On the contrary, the electoral college ensures that it doesn't take anywhere near "a few million extra votes". A few thousand in the right place is often enough, unless the person you're trying to help loses in a landslide, like Trump did.

        1. But where are those few extra votes needed? And most often it's in a purple state where the election officials are more likely moderates, or a mix of of conservatives and progressives.

        2. A "landslide"?
          45,000 votes would have reversed the result again, like 2016.

          That's how close this election actually is, despite your failure to understand it.

  6. For the sake of balance, you should mention allegations of Russian "collusion" from the 2016 election. It took three years and millions of dollars for the Muller Commission to debunk that.

    We all know how spiteful and vengeful Trump can be. It is not crazy to attribute his rants on the 2020 election as payback for rants about the 2016 election. That doesn't make him right, and it doesn't justify his actions, but neither does it justify the actions of the collusion accusers.

    1. It took three years and millions of dollars for the Muller Commission to debunk that.

      Except that that's the opposite of what Mueller found. You only have to read as far as the executive summary. For example, page 9: " the investigation identified numerous links between individuals with ties to the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign"

      1. I'll save people the click. What they found was that some Russian guys talked to some Trump campaign guys and nothing happened.

        (For those who have never worked on a campaign, these people talk to lots of people foreign and domestic. It is pretty normal.)

        1. You can't comprehend this, Jimmy, but you are part of the reason strong law school faculties are -- properly -- disinclined to hire movement conservatives for faculty positions.

        2. A lot of the contacts listed were just Trump's business exploring building a office building in Moscow. Building such buildings is what his business does, and Moscow does have a market for office buildings. Others seem to have been initiated by a US intelligence asset.

          The Natalia Veselnitskaya meeting was particularly interesting, in that Veselnitskaya is known to have spoken with Fusion GPS's founder both the day before AND the day after the meeting. It may have been part of Fusion GPS's effort to make Trump look bad, but went nowhere.

          1. The ability to see whatever you want to see is truly amazing.

            1. You can read the freaking report yourself. Most of the contacts were ordinary preliminaries to a building project. The report doesn't mention that Veselnitskaya talked to Fusion GPS both before and after the meeting, but it's been reported elsewhere, and Mueller's team probably was aware of it.

              Mifsud has been accused of being an intelligence agent, and denies it. Well, he would, wouldn't he?

              Bottom line is, Mueller didn't find any evidence that these contacts were in any way wrongful.

              1. It is easier just to make the unsupported, blanket statement that saying anything to the contrary means the reader lacks the intellect to understand the content.

              2. The 11 counts of obstruction of justice by the president does indeed make it difficult for law following investigators to get absolute proof.

                Which is why you should actually read the report, and at least sections of the final senate intel report. There is no question as to whether or not the president is innocent if you actually read the source material.

                Go ahead and filter through the federalist a few times though. That improves the flavor quite a bit, if you are used to GOP flavored kool aid.

                1. The report does not list even one count of obstruction.

                  As an example, it actually claims that Trump making public statements about accusations against him may have influenced people to agree with him, if an investigation interviewed them, which it didn't, and therefore that is potentially "obstruction of justice".

            2. Pot, kettle, black.

      2. Also from the same page 9.
        "Further, the evidence as not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election. "

        Such interference was the point of the collusion allegations.

      3. Martinned takes this anorlunda quote "It took three years and millions of dollars for the Muller Commission to debunk that" and points out that wasn't the conclusion of Mueller at all. He didn't "debunk" anything.

        True, enough, but it's important to note the other half of the anorlunda quote is equally unfactual. Mueller's inquiry was established on 17 May 2017 - after Trump fired Comey and then bragged about his deed to Russian foreign minister Lavrov and Ambassador Kislyak during an Oval Office meeting.

        “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.” he told the two Russians.

        Muller issued his report on 22 March 2019, for a time span of about one year & ten months. Perhaps anorlunda confused Mueller with the four-plus years Ken Starr took to investigate Clinton's real estate deals/blowjobs, or the three-plus years Kavanaugh kept his "investigation" of Vince Foster suicide going. (That last one was the crudest & ugliest farce of any special counsel inquiry - easily. It could have only be run by someone with an utter contempt for the law)

        1. What a bunch of crap.

          Mueller found nothing.

          Why wouldn't Trump tell the Russians that he wouldn't let the Democrats scapegoat them because their shock at losing an election.

          I really dislike both the Russians and Chinese governments. But it's embarrassing as an American to see the press and establishment trot out the same tired "foreign interference and provacaturs" crap that the Chinese and Iranians always trot out when when they are confounded because not all their people are completely cowed.

          1. During one stretch of the 2016 election campaign these things were all going on :

            (1) Russian Intelligence was actively working to make Donald Trump president.

            (2) Trump's campaign manager was deeply in debt to Ukrainian oligarchs tied to the Kremlin. This made it strange that Manafort offered to do the job without taking a salary. Or maybe not; he was soon paying off his obligation by giving secret briefings to someone U.S. Intelligence listed as a Russian spy.

            (3) Trump's fixer, Michael Cohen, began taking covert trips to Moscow to negotiate a skyscraper deal with Kremlin officials. This happened throughout the '16 campaign. Right up to the eve of Election Day, Trump was bargaining with a foreign enemy government over a massive business deal and personal gain. When Trump gushed over Putin during interviews, he was using our nation's election to oil a private deal. When Trump was asked about his Russian dealings, he just lied. His people in Moscow offered Putin a free penthouse suite in the proposed building as a sweetener.

            (4) Trump's son was told be an intermediary with Kremlin ties that the Russian government wanted to secretly help his daddy get elected. Junior responded in unrestrained glee - in writing no less.

            If you claim Mueller found nothing, that's because you will yourself to see nothing, and so ignore what's there.

  7. If an urban ward bosses checked the voter rolls at 6 pm to see who had voted and then arranged to have ballots submitted in the names of those who have not voted, could these illegal ballots be identified in states that waived signature verification? if not, the absence of this evidence would not be evidence of absence of fraud.

    This is the kind of stuff that happened in the Mayor Daley days. just wondering if this could still happen today?

    1. What happened then, can happen then. Anyone who doubts that does not want to have her/his eyes open.

    2. By the way, that is not to say that any of the Trump campaign claims have a foundation in reality

      1. Election fraud = never happens.

        Climate change = proven beyond all doubt!

        OK got it. You have decided to not believe in one thing that clearly can and has happened, but have decided the other thing has been proven when the evidence is scant at best. Bias confirmation at its best.

        1. Jimmy you certainly are proficient at criticizing things that were never said.
          Where did you get anything about climate change in the post?

          1. They are both things that are supposed to have assumptions of legitimacy that cannot be rebutted.

            We are supposed to believe things like systemic racism and climate change exist despite lots of evidence to the contrary.

            And we are supposed to believe that election fraud does NOT exist even though there is a lot to point to it occurring and has occurred in the past.

    3. Can you go through that in detail explaining exactly how it works, who does what to whom and the likely magnitude of the resuling fraud and the likely inpact on even the closest of state results in the recent election?

  8. I expected better from our elite overlords who wiped everyone into a frenzy over so-called "Russian hacking" of our 2016 election.

  9. Perhaps claims of election fraud would be more easily disproved if our top law enforcement agencies conducted reputable stress tests on the system and demonstrated that their fraud efforts were turned aside.

    1. Would evidence that there was pre-election testing by government agency do anything to convince you that the election didn't have fraud? Or will you just move the goalpost and decide include whatever evidence there is is clearly part of the conspiracy.

      1. The problem is credibility

        Credibility is in short supply throughout government at all levels.

        1. So the answer is no?

          Trump is now blaming the FBI and his own DOJ run by his own lackey, for his election loss. That's how these wacky conspiracy theories work. No matter what amount of evidence or lack thereof, no matter how many courts rule against you, no matter the party affiliation, nothing can persuade someone to give up their unfounded belief in the conspiracy. You see what the results are first, then, if it agrees with you, it's great. If it doesn't, it lacks "credibility". That way, you're never wrong and your conspiracy will remain unassailable.

  10. I've seen a lot of really stupid fraud claims this year, and it's starting to annoy me.

    But the stupidest claim is that everything was just peachy. I don't think there was enough fraud to have thrown the election, but I don't think we'll ever be confident there wasn't, because so many last minute, ad hoc changes were made to how the election was conducted. And none of it genuinely necessary! Voting isn't any more dangerous than going to the grocery stores, and did they ever shut down? No, they did not.

    A small expansion of absentee ballots for genuinely at risk populations would have been sufficient.

    The thing that burns me the most was the exclusion of election observers from early voting sites in PA. Sure, they've got an excuse for why it was legal, just as they've got an excuse for keeping the election day observers distant from the counting, but, why would you WANT to exclude election observers? Even if you thought you were legally entitled to?

    1. "I don’t think there was enough fraud to have thrown the election, but I don’t think we’ll ever be confident there wasn’t"

      It's just like Obama's birth certificate . . . for some people.

      1. No not like the birth certificate - more whataboutism

      2. The birth certificate was similar to election fraud. If there was nothing to see why didn't they just simply open up the actual record to the public instead of insisting a computer printout of a database record was the actual primary source? Made you wonder.

        Same thing about election fraud. If there is nothing there then why are so many people trying so hard to stop any legitimate inquiry. Makes you wonder, right?

        1. A legitimate certification from the proper authority is all that is necessary to establish the birth record for all purposes. When the original of Obama's birth record was eventually photographed and published, no new information about his place and date of birth was added, or could have been added. By publishing the photo of the original record, Hawaii was verifying the facts -- something which the State of Hawaii had already done with the issuance of the "Certification of Live Birth" that the Obama administration had released in 2008. None of this should have made anybody wonder.

          As for election fraud, if there is reason to justify a legitimate inquiry, inquire away. Thus far, there doesn't seem to have been any significant "legitimate" inquiry nor reason for one.

          1. Keep in mind that the first Birther was David Plouffe because the Obama campaign actually requested the birth certificate in 2007 long before Hillary supporters brought up the issue.

          2. Part of the birth certificate controversy was details in the record produced by the state that did not seem to fit with other information of the time.

            And the reproduction of the "original", something that was withheld for years despite some good faith question as to why the inconsistencies, did not answer some of those questions. Now the answer is probably "island recordkeeping" but still the issuance of the birth certificate numbers (which was supposed to be sequential) did not add up and neither did some dates with the hospital records.

            The point I was making is that we should investigate such claims and dispel them instead of demonizing those who bring them up. Or at least do it consistently instead of saying Democrat claims of election rigging deserve a multi million dollar, multi year federal investigation, but Republican claims are to be dismissed as crazy and censored.

    2. I don't believe that your claim is true. In Pennsylvania there were designated locations where people with absentee ballots could drop them off. Republicans, claiming to be poll watchers, showed up at these locations with the intention of intimidating voters and they were denied entrance and some may have been expelled. That's because these were not polling locations, nobody was voting at these locations and Pennsylvania law does not allow for poll watchers at these locations. Of course, Trump and his ball-washers quickly and falsely claimed that Republican poll watchers were being denied legitimate access. And, it appears that that lie is being spread to this day.

      1. You say my claim isn't true, and you just confirmed it in detail.

        And the sad thing is, you didn't even realize you'd done it.

        1. "The thing that burns me the most was the exclusion of election observers from early voting sites in PA."

          They were not early voting sites. They were not election sites. The people denied entry were not "election observers" as there was not an election to observe. They were merely random wankers making asses of themselves. As you were wrong on all the facts and all the details it's quite obvious that your claim was not true.

    3. Part of me thinks the stupid fraud claims act as a pseudo strawman. By knocking those down, the more serious claims are minimized.

      1. What serious fraud claims would those be and if there are serious fraud claims, why is there nobody in authority on the Republican side pursuing them?

        1. Did you pay any attention to the actual claims made in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, or Michigan?

          Specific ballots have been called out, numbering in the thousands, as voting multiple times, or in multiple states, or after dying. And that's ignoring the entire missing signatures, or witnesses, or addresses, or addresses not being a residence, or poll workers filling out ballot info "for" the voter, etc.

          There are a lot of serious claims. It's just that you aren't seeing them BECAUSE they are serious, and you get your new from sources that don't choose to cover them - they just choose to cover the absurd ones.

  11. "discredited and debunked claims"

    Steele dossier. "Pee" tape. Trump slandering veterans. Many, many other breathless claims.

    Turnaround is fair play I'd say.

    1. Hillary threw the Steele Dossier in the trash...McStain and Lady Lindsey Graham dug it out. You know who forced Trump to give Ukraine the money?? Ron Johnson! Senator Johnson figuratively smacked Trump up side the head after someone tattled to him about what Trump was up to...Trump is such a clown.

      1. You really do not understand Fusion GPS's SOP. They don't give you scurrilous lies to spread around. They do the spreading for you, it's part of the service. They have a bunch of people on retainer in the media ready to insert their stuff into the news reports.

        The problem with the Steele dossier is that it was such a steaming heap that the media wouldn't bite on it. Not until Cohen gave them a 'hook' by briefing Trump on it, so that they could report that he'd been briefed on it.

        1. Exactly, Hillary threw it in the trash. And then when Trump became president he started abusing his power and a tattletale tattled to Ron Johnson and even though nobody likes a tattletale Trump was the one that got smacked around!?! What happened to the tattletale that tattled to Johnson??

          1. Don't be ridiculous. Anyone with a working memory knows that the Russia-Trump collusion story was going at least from September 2016, months before the election

            1. That’s because Junior is a nitwit that met with Russians who said they had dirt on you are conflating things that actually happened with the Steele Dossier. Remember, nobody likes tattletale when they tattle to tell a tale.

              1. The 6 Russians Jr. met with included 4 U S Citizens born in Russia, naturalized as US citizens and a translator that had worked for the US State Department who may have been a U S citizen as well.

                Somehow that almost never gets mentioned in the news coverage.

                1. First rule of oppo research—do no harm to your candidate. When you do oppo research you are opening yourself to negative attacks because you are signaling to the other candidate you are going negative.

    2. Bob from Ohio : "Steele dossier. “Pee” tape.....(etc)"

      I wonder how many Right-types here know there actually were tapes. Mueller got testimony on this from two people, Michael Cohen and Giorgi Rtskhiladze. There's a brief mention in Mueller's report on page 239 of 448 (link below). Quote :

      "Comey’s briefing included the Steele reporting’s unverified allegation that the Russians had compromising tapes of the President involvingconduct when he was a private citizen during a 2013 trip to Moscow for theMiss Universe Pageant. During the 2016 presidential campaign, a similar claim may have reached candidate Trump. On October 30,2016,Michael Cohen received a text from Russian businessman Giorgi Rtskhiladze that said, “Stopped flow of tapes from Russia but not sure if there’s anything else. Just so you know . . . .” 10/30/16 Text Message, Rtskhiladze to Cohen. Rtskhiladze said “tapes” referred to compromising tapes of Trump rumored to be held by persons associated with the Russian real estate conglomerate Crocus Group, which had helped host"

      To be fair, Rtskhiladze thought the tapes were frauds, but Cohen was still doing damage control on them regardless - this during his covert trips to Moscow to negotiate a massive business deal for Trump while the 2016 presidential campaign was underway. Indeed, the secret negotiations with Kremlin officials continued almost up to Election Day itself - even as Russian Intelligence actively sought to help Trump's campaign.

      And Trump? He was asked repeatedly about his Russian business dealings during the campaign and he lied & lied & lied. It's strange Trump cultists find all of that normal - a candidate pursuing secret business deals with a foreign enemy - even while that enemy helps his campaign. It wasn't normal before Trump & won't be after, but the Cult sure has a odd way of looking at the time in-between. Anything for Dear Leader, eh?

      PS : Mueller spare comment doesn't mention - well - urine. I'm not sure whether that's Mueller's delicate sensibilities at work or the rumor got spicier by the time it reached Steele as gossip. But the tapes did exist....

      1. So Rtskhiladze was possibly trying to pull a scam on Cohen and Trump and there is still no evidence that the alleged tapes actually exist.

        1. But you still glossed right over all the lying and illegal campaign assistance.

  12. Losers don't care about facts.

    1. "Losers don’t care about facts."


      “October 26, 2020 By Jordan Davidson

      Hillary Clinton is still bitter about her presidential election loss in 2016.

      “I was the candidate that they basically stole an election from,” Clinton said Monday on the New York Times podcast “Sway.”

  13. Conservative commentator AG_Conservative has a useful round up and debunking of other viral election fraud claims (with lots of links) on his Patreon page. Or, if you prefer an MSM outlet, USA Today has its own index of election fraud fact checks.

    I would prefer something that is neither MSM nor paywalled.

    1. The AG Conservative post isn't paywalled.

      1. Yes it is, it's a Patreon site, you have to subscribe to be a patron to access the content.

        1. In case you are unaware of what Patreon is, it is a way for content creators, mostly authors and artists, to get people to pay them to create content.

          The content posted on the site is only accessible to patrons of the particular content creator on whose page it is posted.

  14. By the way, if you thought Trump's lawyers couldn't sink any lower, think again.

    As the distinguished attorneys for the state of Georgia point out, Trump lawyers are trying to access *proprietary information* about Dominion software,

    1. what is "low" about it?

      If you are alleging the machines were rigged or altered, seems like you have to know how the machine works.

      Court can issue protective orders.

      1. You forget that *all* reports of cheating and irregularity in this election have been debunked. De-Bunked. There's nothing to see here. So obviously the Trumpists are trying to retaliate against Dominion by getting their trade secrets.

        1. Cal, do you honestly believe that there was absolutely NO dishonesty in this election? That is pitifully naive.
          Democrats cheat. AND Republicans cheat.
          As an old lady in Chicago once told me, "It be's like that."

          1. Ok, let's say you find a couple people who voted in both Nevada and California and some guy in Pennsylvania who tried to vote for a dead relative. In Wisconsin you find five or six people who wrongly claimed to be "indefinitely confined". Would any of that justify throwing out thousands and thousands of ballots?

            In none of the court cases that Trumpists have filed, is there any allegation with any substantiation which claims that there was significant (i.e. thousands of votes) fraud in favor of Biden. All the court cases seem to be like the ones in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -- throw out thousands and thousands of ballots that were cast by legal voters in accordance with the rules that existed at the time of the election.

            1. Stella,
              i have not seen any compelling evidence that enough was done anywhere to change the presidential election. I cannot say that it could not happen, but I find it unlikely. Perhaps I suffer from confirmation bias as I thought that the election could be called as the polls were closing in California.
              What I do find compelling evidence of is that Trump blew a golden opportunity to win by a landslide.

          2. Of course there wasn't any cheating.

            Consider this Georgia case, for example. If it were a significant case, with actual potential for uncovering cheating, then presumably a prestidigitous legal blog like Volokh would be covering the case and giving their commentary.

            But, performing the screening function so essential to public faith in our institutions, the Volokh bloggers have simply not mentioned the Georgia case lest it give the Trumpistas another chance to raise frivolous and un-American objections to the counting of votes in the good old USA.

            1. Cal,
              You're simply begging the question by saying that if there were cheating you (or EV or Josh B) would know about it. I will tell you from ancient times, that the political machines were very practiced about methods of cheating that were only mitigated in consequence by full access by both parties to the voting and counting processes. And still close elections were alwas considered with suspicion by both parties.
              I see no reason to believe that today's politicians are any more ethical especially when voting is so ad hoc and protracted.

              1. You forget that the experts in the mass media have certified this election as being the most honestest election ever since George Washington was elected unanimously.

                1. You mean the non-experts who have no charter or ability to certify anything

                  1. Poe's Law really is true - you can't do sarcasm on the Internet because there are people willing to say, in all seriousness, the things you say sarcastically.

                    At least that's the case on *this* blog.

                    1. That Cal is true. Sarcasm is best in spoken conversation

                2. Yet another case of confirmation bias.

        2. That's completely ridiculous.

          There shouldn't be any proprietary secrets in vote counting. If their is there is something fishy about it.

          I don't doubt that the hardware itself has some unique features, but the software itself to record and tabulate the votes should be exceedingly simple.

          I had a long career in IT, being responsible for large complex systems like the Oil Depletion and Intangible drilling cost systems for a major oil company, and accounting and customer information systems for 2 major utilities. So I have a pretty good idea about the kind of applications that are complex and the kind that are simple and straight forward.

        3. Well, as an absolute minimum, there's already been a guilty plea by a guy trying to vote using his dead father's ID, so your claim is straight up bullshit.
          Good try, though.

    2. There should be no "proprietary information" in any US elections equipment of system.

    1. As a general rule, voting machines should be open for analysis of their hw and sw.

      Pros: Anyone can see what's going on, and even build the software to ensure the loaded binary code files match.

      Cons: Large bad actors can search for vulnarabilities more easily, and launch unknown attacks on election day, possibly without anyone noticing.

      Pro response: Many white hats will look and possibly find them, too.

      Con response: Doubtful they will be as motivated as someone in a dictatorship about to be issued a big house for their family. And even so, they can just watch for rolled out updates to see if someone else figured it out.

  15. "In both states, voters were allowed (and often encouraged) to request and return absentee ballots in person at local election offices."

    Have the dictionaries redefined 'absentee' to include the exact opposite?

    1. "absentee" has always included voters who for one reason or another would not be able to cast a ballot on election day.

  16. Academics tend to distinguish "voter registration fraud," "voter fraud," "deliberate vote miscounting," and "erroneous vote counting" whereas the general public does not. The first category is rampant (and not easily proven, particularly for cross-state registration fraud), the second is far less prevalent (and not easily proven, particularly in "inner city" precincts), and the third and fourth are obviously present but are dismissed.

    If election anomalies did not exist, there would be no hesitation to implement tighter voting standards. The fact that partisans (and by that I mean Democrats) have for years fought any form of voting integrity improvements speaks volumes, as does partisan resistance to recounts. If everything is hunky-dory, why would one be so paranoid about a recount or a little more checking? We did it in 2016 and the nation survived -- and thrived.

    So yes, there is paranoia and it is wildly partisan... and I do indeed hope that someday Democrats will get over their unnatural fears of the accuracy and integrity expected by Americans at large.

    1. This is my biggest issue. If PA and WI, the most notorious examples from this last election, had done things just fine, why lock GOP observers out of buildings and cover the windows.

      I'm old enough to remember in 2000, when GOP and DEMs with reading glasses and magnifying glasses poured over punch card ballots right the f*ck next to each other in FL.

      If Biden wants the 74% or so of Trump voters to think he is legit, he should be leading the charge for full transparency. Then Trump voters would be forced to concede that, hey, our guy lost. Of course this would never happen, but one can hope.

  17. It is quite amusing to me, that for 3-1/2 years we heard the Dems go on about "election security", so much so that roughly 1/2 of the party members think that Russia tampered with vote totals and recounts in 3 states in 2016; then suddenly with an unprecedented amount of mail in ballots (that Dems used to be against) and nevermind various statistical impossibilities (like more votes than voters in some cases) the Dems are right as rain with this election and positive in the bone that it was fair and free.

    In short, the parties switch their positions because they like the outcome.

    1. Yep, remember when the GOP supported slaughtering babies in Iraq, shipping jobs to China, turning Mexicans into Americans, and, this is the biggest head scratcher, making a pedo speaker of the House!?!

      1. I'm not sure it was a known fact that he was a homosexual pedophile when they made him Speaker of the House. Anyway, he was caught for the hush money, not the sodomizing of underage boys. But it does put a funny spin on the moralization about Epstein (who did not kill himself) later though!

        1. I just think it’s funny that Democrats think Republicans were better before Trump. So progressives like Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibi seem to remember the Bush Republican Party better than the people on MSNBC who work with a Bush loyalist that is a #NeverTrumper. From my perspective Trump prior to March 2020 Trump was solidly mediocre president while in October 2004 W Bush was a clear failed president...and yet Republicans stood by the failed Bush while many opposed Trump even before his incompetence impacted the country.

          1. Yes, most republicans stood by G.W. Bush through things as bad or worse than the various Trump scandals or "scandals" as it were. However, two points.

            First, every Republican is literally Hitler to most Democrats so what they say about Trump being bad is immaterial, and secondly, the support of a few key Senate Republicans like McCain made all the difference for The Surge, which was able to attain stability in Iraq. The party was ready to cut and run on G.W. Bush when the press was daily reporting how bad things were (if they were ever that bad, which they weren't). Note, that doesn't mean invading Iraq was actually a good idea though.

            1. 2001-2008 was literally the dumbest period in American history, even dumber than the Civil War. The economy was clearly dysfunctional in 2004 because we were hemorrhaging jobs to China so Bush ran on the Housing Bubble and keeping Americans safe and opposition to gay marriage. So in 2000 we were on top of the world and then Bush won and he was the wrong person at the wrong time. Trump was fairly innocuous up until the pandemic which would have been bad under Hillary and quite frankly it would probably have been worse even if she provided better leadership because everything she would have attempted would have led to backlash by Republicans. W Bush was anything but innocuous and he flushed trillions down the toilet in the ME while wasting the final years before boomers started retiring and getting Medicare and SS.

              1. I would only quibble slightly with your take on Trump being incompetent. I would say that was resisted quite inappropriately as an outlier in politics, and was only not competent in that he thought you say "X" and and the executive branch does "X". But yes, I agree.

                1. Do you understand that Trump’s biggest success was judicial appointments?? Do you understand that Jeb! would have appointed the exact same judges?? So an aspect of Trump’s incompetence it completely relinquishing his best leverage over McConnell which was judicial appointments. So he could have forced McConnell to do a lot of things by holding up judicial appointments. So you probably like Trump’s judicial appointments but nobody that voted for Trump in the primary was voting for him because he was best on judicial appointments.

                  1. "Jeb!" would have cut and run with Kavenaugh, and would have played nice and not pushed forward with ACB I suspect, but we will never know for sure.

                    I can't speak for others, but I voted for Trump in 2016 because of SCOTUS for the most part.

                    1. Kavanaugh is a justice because W Bush called Collins personally and urged her to support him!!!!! Romney and McConnell voted to quickly seat ACB and you don’t think Jeb! would have?!? If you voted for Trump in the primary because of judges then you are an offense.

                    2. You don't so "no offense" and call someone an idiot and actually mean no offense.

                      I voted for Trump for Originalist justices, milquetoast or not, because I don't want another living constitionalist. Nor would Jeb! have pushed for ACB, he would have waited, the Dems would still have cheated though it wouldn't be as obvious because he wouldn't have gotten the turnout Trump did, and we'd bet a liberal justice. See the difference.

                      And Jeb! would have cut and run on Kavenaugh.

                      pull your head out of your ass

  18. One question I can't find an answer too (and wish I would have saved the Dominion user manuals when they were posted on the internet) is why are these voting machines reporting to servers across the internet in the first place? Most of the literature you read about "elections can't be hacked because they are not hooked up to the internet" are based upon the fact that they don't even have a network card installed. Is that not the case?

    1. Is there any reason to believe that these machines are, in fact, reporting to servers on the internet except, perhaps, locally? I don't have expert and exact knowledge of how it is done in the various election localities across the country, but it's my understanding that everything with vote counting happens within a very small political entity -- perhaps almost never beyond the county level.

      Where, other than in the blatherings of Psycho Sidney and her confederacy of clowns, cretins, criminals, crackpots and cranks, is there any allegation that Dominion machines are in communication with any remote server while elections are underway?

      1. I've seen the claim that they were reporting over the internet and not just on a LAN. That said, I would like to see the primary source documentation which probably includes the network settings required for the machines to report (which would be distinct if over a LAN as opposed to WAN.) Even a LAN can get hacked, but that is much harder then if the traffic is going over the internet (even if encrypted over a VPN.)

      2. The voting machine companies have said so, themselves. You will only learn anything about this if you look for it.

  19. Lol. This whole thread is QED.

  20. I don't know what all you conspiracy theorists are about.

    We asked the suspects if they were committing fraud and they said no we are not committing fraud. We've repeatedly told you over and over and over that the suspects told us they were not committing fraud.

    So why do you nuts still think something fishy was going on?

    1. I remember once talking to a cop. He said he had someone in custody who was suspect of theft. They couldn't find the article of theft in question but had some other evidence it was the right guy. Wanting to get the article of supposed theft as evidence to make the case open and shut the cop used an interesting tactic.

      The detainee started with the usual "I didn't do anything" kind of explanation so the cop just looked at him and said "oh well if you said you didn't do it I believe you" took off the handcuffs and let him go. The guy couldn't believe it and walked away. Of course the police tailed him to his house where he immediately decided to move the stolen good to a better location and caught him red handed.

      Reminds me of people who say "well we told you we didn't do any election fraud" and then engage in activity which suggests not only it happened but they are trying to cover it up.

  21. "Our politics chillingly reflect...televangelists...a conman with a fake tan and big hair from the mis-named world of “reality TV” competes in the vulgarity and corruption sweepstakes with an eighty year old with fake hair, fake tan, fake teeth, fake morals and fake religion. Underneath all the usual lies and manipulation of politics, whoever is finally declared the winner will be accused by half the nation of having cheated to win, and looking at the histories of both characters who can deny that both of them would lie, cheat and steal the election if they could?"

  22. Sigh.

    So, two points should be looked at.

    1. While Adler points out how absentee ballots could be received and returned the same day, he doesn't point out how ~20,000 ballots could be received and returned the day before they were received. (IE, they were marked as returned before they were sent out) That's something that should probably be looked at.

    2. The following analysis is actually pretty interesting, and looks at the anomalous vote counts and their updates.

    So, Adler points out that you would expect large ballot drops for urban areas, and you would expect them to favor Biden. Fair enough. But how large, and how much should they favor Biden?
    Personally, I'd expect large ballot drops that heavily favor Biden in Seattle, San Francisco, LA, Boston, NYC, Chicago etc.

    But what actually happened?

    The largest discrepancy was the ballot drop for Biden in Michigan at 6:31 AM. It dropped 141,000 Biden ballots and just 6,000 Trump ballots (Rounding). This amazing ratio. >95% Biden. Simply amazing, especially on such a large number of ballots. You might see this ratio on a smaller batch, but on a batch this big??

    The article goes into the full comparison throughout the country, and is well worth reading. But the next most comparable drop that makes sense is the NYC drop at 9:05 PM. That was a very large drop (Almost a million ballots), but it only favored Biden by an 81% to 19% ratio. That's believable. SF, LA....nowhere to be see in these large ballot drop discrepancies.

    Statistically, this, and a couple other of the ballot drops are extreme outliers. And worth investigating.

    1. Like most other sites, their flaw is they are relying on media pool data rather than official data. Media pools use thousands of reporters in county elections offices across the country who physically retype all precinct updates and election numbers into the media pool. They are not the official numbers.

      Any data analysis that does not use the actual elections data easily available from state officials is garbage.

      1. I agree that the data you'll get from the media is mostly worthless, you'd need the actual real time count with time stamps to do a proper analysis.

        I doubt very much that data is actually retained by elections administrators, though it certainly SHOULD be. The media data from Edison Research is, regrettably, the closest we have to a time stamped data set.

        The publicly scraped version is, unfortunately, rounded to too few places to be useful for good analysis, and is deliberately incomplete. (Third party votes left out.) However, Edison probably has the unrounded data archived, and it would make a good target for discovery.

        Mind, since these are unofficial numbers, the only thing they'd be good for is telling you where to go looking for hard evidence.

      2. Al,
        Cal already told use that those media expert can certify elections and the honesty of the process.

  23. Leftists: we spent the last 4 years making up stories about Russia and lying about evidence, covering up and censoring news we don't like, pretending that riots and arson are protests, promoting obvious lies to smear Kavanaugh, trying to obstruct and disrupt every facet of executive branch, and accusing 70+ million regular Americans of being Nazis. Why are so many people so untrusting of our vote counting?

    1. And also telling us ordering pizza via email is quite normal and there was nothing to look for there.

Please to post comments