Election Results

[yossarian22c]

Trump:

...Therefore, I easily win both states.

The ... is all unsubstantiated voter fraud allegations followed by throw out votes for Biden.

Just a question for our conservative friends, is there any amount of lack of evidence for voter fraud at this point that would convince you Trump lost fairly?

[noel c.]

L.R.,

“Being a 'confidential source' doesn't mean he is exempt from being investigated or prosecuted for engaging in illegal activity.”

True enough; but when the CIA told Clinesmith, in the context of a FISA warrant application inquiry, that Page was working for them, one would think that their clear statement would carry some weight. Clinesmith obviously believed that it did, because he subsequently falsified the CIA email, and obtained a counter-intelligence investigation warrant based upon a piece of fabricated evidence.

Come on guys, stop with the BHO Pom-poms.

“Claims of him being a confidential source are irrelevant unless he was specifically tasked with the illegal behaviour he appeared to be engaged in.“

So, the CIA could not figure that out, and you just did?

Y-22,

“Was Page a current informant? Or did his relationship with the CIA end in 2013 when he was involved in a criminal case (as source? witness? double agent?) with two Russian spies.”

The 2016 CIA email identified Page as “working” for them (present tense). Page had informed the FBI as far back as June 13, 2013 that he was in contact with Victor Podobnyy, whom he believed to be a junior attaché at the Russian consulate in New York, and was advising on energy investments.

“Or was Page spying on the Trump campaign for the CIA? I'm sure Obama is to blame either way.“

See, this is why I have full confidence in the Left’s capacity for expansive election fraud. There is a rabid devotion to ideological expediency that no fact-set will overcome.

[TheDeamon]

Just a question for our conservative friends, is there any amount of lack of evidence for voter fraud at this point that would convince you Trump lost fairly?

Courts dismissing the cases would be reasonably sufficient.

But the operative part of courts doing so, not the main stream media or Democratic Operatives.

[TheDeamon]

The ... is all unsubstantiated voter fraud allegations followed by throw out votes for Biden.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/us/politics/voting-fraud.html

Headline:
The Times Called Officials in Every State: No Evidence of Voter Fraud

Nice, they called them, but didn't necessarily speak with them.

Teaser:

The president and his allies have baselessly claimed that rampant voter fraud stole victory from him. Officials contacted by The Times said that there were no irregularities that affected the outcome.

Wait, no evidence of "Voter Fraud" but there might have been... It just didn't affect the outcome? But that means "no fraud" is a lie too. But let us venture further.

“Kansas did not experience any widespread, systematic issues with voter fraud, intimidation, irregularities or voting problems,” a spokeswoman for Scott Schwab, the Republican secretary of state in Kansas, said in an email Tuesday. “We are very pleased with how the election has gone up to this point.”

Sorry NYT, I don't think that quote means what you want it to mean. Please define "widespread" and "systematic issues" in this context?

And speaking of no "evidence of voter fraud" once more:

Some states described small problems common to all elections, which they said they were addressing: a few instances of illegal or double voting, some technical glitches and some minor errors in math. Officials in all states are conducting their own review of the voting — a standard component of the certification process.

Nothing to see here citizen, move along.

Now as to whether or not there was enough fraud or other improper conduct to alter the outcome of the election, we'll have to leave that up to the courts. I do like the idea of auditing the voter rolls, but we'll see what happens.

[msquared]

Well since I think over a dozen of the law suits Trumps lawyers have filed have been thrown out of court already, is that good start.

The claim has been wide spread fraud. No one has claimed no fraud. What they have claimed is individual cases of fraud, that happen in every election. And often get caught.

You seem to equate any fraud with wide spread, massive fraud. And there is no evidence, anywhere, from anyone, that this exists.

[yossarian22c]

Just a question for our conservative friends, is there any amount of lack of evidence for voter fraud at this point that would convince you Trump lost fairly?

Courts dismissing the cases would be reasonably sufficient.

But the operative part of courts doing so, not the main stream media or Democratic Operatives.

How many need to be tossed out for lack of evidence? So far Trump is striking out on anything that impacts the count. His team tried to get a case sealed in Arizona probably because they don't have the evidence and it would only impact around 500 votes. Ask yourself why Trump's legal team wants the court records sealed. Why isn't he trying to shine light on the situation? Why would he want to file a bunch of lawsuits and try to keep the contents of them secret? Could it be he likes the message of we're suing but hates when the public gets to see the absolute lack of anything credible they can present to the courts.

[Grant]

How many need to be tossed out for lack of evidence?

All of them. 

[yossarian22c]

How many need to be tossed out for lack of evidence?

All of them.

How much patience will you have? Presumably he would file the best suits first? So if Trump is still trying to litigate this for 4 years does the right not accept Biden as president the entire time? At some point batting zero is batting zero and you should quit expecting the next swing to be a home run.

[DonaldD]

Some states described small problems common to all elections, which they said they were addressing: a few instances of illegal or double voting, some technical glitches and some minor errors in math. Officials in all states are conducting their own review of the voting — a standard component of the certification process.

Nothing to see here citizen, move along.

You're better than this.

You know why election officials and the media always use words like "widespread", "significant" and "likely to affect the outcome" - because in an election where more than 150,000,000 votes were cast for president, it is impossible for there not to have been any illegal activity whatsoever.  In a population that size, of course there are people who will try to cheat.  And stupid people, who hear about Johnny who got caught voting for his dead grandfather, would make hay out of such findings - anybody caught saying "zero fraud" would then be humiliated and used as an example of media bias.  "See?" they would say, sarcastically. "Nothing to see here.  Move along."


yossarian22c, I think Grant is being humorous...

[Grant]

How much patience will you have? Presumably he would file the best suits first? So if Trump is still trying to litigate this for 4 years does the right not accept Biden as president the entire time? At some point batting zero is batting zero and you should quit expecting the next swing to be a home run.

I don't need patience.  After December 14th, the Electoral College will vote and the entire thing will be moot.  They can keep throwing lawsuits, but the election will be over.  I don't need patience because it's not my job to decide the election.  Every lawsuit should be heard. 

[rightleft22]

How much patience will you have? Presumably he would file the best suits first? So if Trump is still trying to litigate this for 4 years does the right not accept Biden as president the entire time? At some point batting zero is batting zero and you should quit expecting the next swing to be a home run.

I don't need patience.  After December 14th, the Electoral College will vote and the entire thing will be moot.  They can keep throwing lawsuits, but the election will be over.  I don't need patience because it's not my job to decide the election.  Every lawsuit should be heard.

Is their a danger that the GOP use the lawsuits, whether they win or not, baseless or not, as grounds to "Gusification of the electoral college"
Their are laws that allow the Electoral college to over ride the election results with the excuse perhaps because they have been tarnished by the 'lawsuits'

Could that be the game plan? 

[yossarian22c]

Is their a danger that the GOP use the lawsuits, whether they win or not, baseless or not, as grounds to "Gusification of the electoral college"
Their are laws that allow the Electoral college to over ride the election results with the excuse perhaps because they have been tarnished by the 'lawsuits'

Could that be the game plan?

Maybe, we've already seen people here post that Pennsylvania and other states Biden narrowly won should switch and allocate their delegates by CD the same way Maine and Nebraska do. If you do that just in the states Biden won then magically Trump wins.

[rightleft22]

Scary

[noel c.]

RL22,

“Could that be the game plan?”

Trumps game plan is to win, win legally, but win. I was counting him out until yesterday. I also counted him out in 2016. He has a habit of proving me wrong.

[rightleft22]

RL22,

“Could that be the game plan?”

Trumps game plan is to win, win legally, but win. I was counting him out until yesterday. I also counted him out in 2016. He has a habit of proving me wrong.

I fear 'legally' will be in the eyes of the beholder
Trump has a habit of creating the conditions that he then uses for his own gain. In this case creating the distrust in the process, eliminating those who might stand up against him and then taking what he wants.

Be careful what you wish for

[yossarian22c]

RL22,

“Could that be the game plan?”

Trumps game plan is to win, win legally, but win. I was counting him out until yesterday.

What happened yesterday to change your mind?

[TheDeamon]

The claim has been wide spread fraud. No one has claimed no fraud. What they have claimed is individual cases of fraud, that happen in every election. And often get caught.

You seem to equate any fraud with wide spread, massive fraud. And there is no evidence, anywhere, from anyone, that this exists.

The New York Times tried to claim no fraud. Their news headline demonstrates that as they pander to the people who only skim headlines. "The Times Called Officials in Every State: No Evidence of Voter Fraud"

[DonaldD]

The New York Times tried to claim no fraud.

No, they didn't, and you know this since you quoted the parts of the article where they explained the limited extent of problems identified to-date.

You can't make fun of them for reporting on instances of the limited problems, then claiming they didn't report on problems.  Well, you can, but again, you should be better than that.

[TheDeamon]

Is their a danger that the GOP use the lawsuits, whether they win or not, baseless or not, as grounds to "Gusification of the electoral college"
Their are laws that allow the Electoral college to over ride the election results with the excuse perhaps because they have been tarnished by the 'lawsuits'

Could that be the game plan?

1876, Congress can invalidate Electoral votes from any state for any reason so long as a majority agrees. Then if a majority of EC votes (before the deletions by congress) no longer exists, Congress votes on PotUS.

[TheDeamon]

The New York Times tried to claim no fraud.

No, they didn't, and you know this since you quoted the parts of the article where they explained the limited extent of problems identified to-date.

You missed a part:

Their news headline demonstrates that as they pander to the people who only skim headlines.

We've had discussion on this behavior by the press several times in the past, the behavior is disgusting regardless of which side does it. Simply because it agrees with your favored narrative doesn't make it okay.

[yossarian22c]

The claim has been wide spread fraud. No one has claimed no fraud. What they have claimed is individual cases of fraud, that happen in every election. And often get caught.

You seem to equate any fraud with wide spread, massive fraud. And there is no evidence, anywhere, from anyone, that this exists.

The New York Times tried to claim no fraud. Their news headline demonstrates that as they pander to the people who only skim headlines. "The Times Called Officials in Every State: No Evidence of Voter Fraud"

I'll accept that there are 100 fraudulent votes nationwide without any evidence to back that up. So 1 in a million votes is someone voting in two states, non-citizen voting, an impersonation vote, or some other way to game the system. I'll further accept that 1 in a 100,000 votes was misread by a tabulator and there are 1,500 votes across the nation that were misallocated.

Show me where there is a systematic or widespread fraud effort that only helps Biden. With 150,000,000 votes some will be miscounted or a few ineligible votes will get through. Don't use the fact that the NYT slightly oversold their headline to mean anything nefarious is going on behind the scenes.

[Grant]

Is their a danger that the GOP use the lawsuits, whether they win or not, baseless or not, as grounds to "Gusification of the electoral college"
Their are laws that allow the Electoral college to over ride the election results with the excuse perhaps because they have been tarnished by the 'lawsuits'

Could that be the game plan?

I don't believe so.  Regardless, the electors will elect who they said they were going to elect.  It's the state legislatures that could get involved if they don't certify results and appoint the electors that were on the ballots. 

The biggest danger is that millions of Americans are running around in January and February believing that the election was stolen and either shooting at people or causing other mischief. 

I honestly don't think there is a "game plan".  The Trump Administration very rarely had plans at all.  If anything, their plan is to make as much money as possible before having to leave the Whitehouse. 

[TheDeamon]

I don't believe so.  Regardless, the electors will elect who they said they were going to elect.  It's the state legislatures that could get involved if they don't certify results and appoint the electors that were on the ballots. 

The biggest danger is that millions of Americans are running around in January and February believing that the election was stolen and either shooting at people or causing other mischief.

The Trump Admin can run around attempting any number of things, but ultimately it will likely come down to state legislatures and Congress.

Unless Trump manages to get the courts to flip the results, it is unlikely that the Legislatures will intervene in fear of voter backlash in two years. Currently Republicans are on a glide slope to success in 2022, drastic measures to save Trump's 2nd term has to be considered very politically dangerous in any state that such an option is on the table.

Congressionally, it is presumed that there will be a Democrat majority in the House, which makes federal level Congressional intervention highly unlikely in the first place. Which is even before we get into their also having to realize that intervening in such a manner is extremely dangerous in regards to 2022(and quite possibly later), and the other more lasting implications of such an act going forward.

As such, if the courts don't support changing the outcome, it isn't happening. Taking that as a given, that places a hard deadline of when the EC is legally required to vote, give or take a couple weeks. (I could conceive of a potential delay in voting being ordered, but nothing that delays the process beyond when the next Congress convenes.

[NobleHunter]

TheDeamon, do you think when people say "voter fraud" they mean isolated incidences of double-voting, non-resident votes, non-citizen votes, or other types of irregularities that only affect the result in the closest of races ? Or do they say "voter fraud"  meaning widespread, systematic, and/or organized fraud that can change the results of elections even when there's a respectable margin of legitimate votes for the side that would win except for fraud? It seems more dishonest to insist on the former for accuracy's sake when politicians invoke the latter to justify suppressing votes.

I find the conservatives' habit of refusing to understand anything but the nominative meanings of words to be a great barrier to communication.

[yossarian22c]

The Trump Admin can run around attempting any number of things, but ultimately it will likely come down to state legislatures and Congress.

Unless Trump manages to get the courts to flip the results, it is unlikely that the Legislatures will intervene in fear of voter backlash in two years. Currently Republicans are on a glide slope to success in 2022, drastic measures to save Trump's 2nd term has to be considered very politically dangerous in any state that such an option is on the table.

State legislatures that are controlled by Republicans and are getting the chance to draw their own boundary lines may be more willing to take a risk on alienating Biden voters than you think. Particularly if they can hide behind unfounded fraud claims and say things like we can't know the true outcome of the election. Trump and his family have been applying as much pressure as they can to lawmakers to support his claims. If Penn, Georgia, and Arizona all decide to change and maybe try to do something that seems "fair" like allocating electors by CD after the election already happened I can see them trying to get away with it. After the senate republicans completely flipped on their word about SC justices in a presidential election year forgive me if I have no faith in Republican's honor to not change the rules in order to win.

[rightleft22]

The Trump Admin can run around attempting any number of things, but ultimately it will likely come down to state legislatures and Congress.

Unless Trump manages to get the courts to flip the results, it is unlikely that the Legislatures will intervene in fear of voter backlash in two years. Currently Republicans are on a glide slope to success in 2022, drastic measures to save Trump's 2nd term has to be considered very politically dangerous in any state that such an option is on the table.

State legislatures that are controlled by Republicans and are getting the chance to draw their own boundary lines may be more willing to take a risk on alienating Biden voters than you think. Particularly if they can hide behind unfounded fraud claims and say things like we can't know the true outcome of the election. Trump and his family have been applying as much pressure as they can to lawmakers to support his claims. If Penn, Georgia, and Arizona all decide to change and maybe try to do something that seems "fair" like allocating electors by CD after the election already happened I can see them trying to get away with it. After the senate republicans completely flipped on their word about SC justices in a presidential election year forgive me if I have no faith in Republican's honor to not change the rules in order to win.

I suspect that is what is going happen.
If such a thing does happen what would that say about American version of democracy.

[yossarian22c]

The Trump Admin can run around attempting any number of things, but ultimately it will likely come down to state legislatures and Congress.

Unless Trump manages to get the courts to flip the results, it is unlikely that the Legislatures will intervene in fear of voter backlash in two years. Currently Republicans are on a glide slope to success in 2022, drastic measures to save Trump's 2nd term has to be considered very politically dangerous in any state that such an option is on the table.

State legislatures that are controlled by Republicans and are getting the chance to draw their own boundary lines may be more willing to take a risk on alienating Biden voters than you think. Particularly if they can hide behind unfounded fraud claims and say things like we can't know the true outcome of the election. Trump and his family have been applying as much pressure as they can to lawmakers to support his claims. If Penn, Georgia, and Arizona all decide to change and maybe try to do something that seems "fair" like allocating electors by CD after the election already happened I can see them trying to get away with it. After the senate republicans completely flipped on their word about SC justices in a presidential election year forgive me if I have no faith in Republican's honor to not change the rules in order to win.

I suspect that is what is going happen.
If such a thing does happen what would that say about American version of democracy.

Its broken and democracy in America is dying or dead. Because winning at any cost will have be cemented.

We're about to see the worst round of gerrymandering ever. The technology and data to draw really advantageous maps exists and the SC has given state legislatures the green light to politically gerrymander as much as their state courts will allow. Republicans did good in state legislatures, they're likely to turn that into a even bigger advantage in 2022. Democratic controlled states have been more reluctant to gerrymander or have passed non partisan commissions that redraw maps. But republicans tend to hold the state legislatures in more of the swing type states where gerrymandering can sway the results the most.

[NobleHunter]

Given that Congress would refuse to recognize such electors, I doubt they will take the chance. I'm pretty sure it would also be patently illegal and even this Supreme Court still has some respect for the law. It'd be one thing if they could change the outcome with such tactics but they aren't going to give the Democrats precedent and fail to install their own president at the same time.

The election the GOP has to worry about is in January, anyways. They don't want to risk being punished by voters for obviously being undemocratic. It's like the Vice President gambit that keeps getting suggested. While having the President resign two years in so that the VP gets two elections with the incumbency advantage sounds like a neat trick, the risk that the electorate will get pissy about it means they won't actually try it.

[rightleft22]

Should American democracy die?
What should replace it?

[msquared]

Trump would rather break the game than loose.

[rightleft22]

Trump would rather break the game than loose.

I suspect that many of the 70 million supporters/followers support that

I'm not sure why when all in all we live in a time were we have much more to be grateful for then upset about.
I think we ask for to much from life and it makes us stupid. 

[yossarian22c]

Given that Congress would refuse to recognize such electors, I doubt they will take the chance. I'm pretty sure it would also be patently illegal and even this Supreme Court still has some respect for the law. It'd be one thing if they could change the outcome with such tactics but they aren't going to give the Democrats precedent and fail to install their own president at the same time.

If congress refuses enough electors for someone to have a majority then the election goes to the house but they vote by state delegation which again favors the Republicans. Its all kinds of a Hail Mary play, but I can see them claiming enough of a following the rules constitutional fig leaf that they may try if Trump is pushing hard enough and is able to sow enough doubt among enough of his following.

[yossarian22c]

Should American democracy die?
What should replace it?

Trump. Until he dies. If he somehow convinces the Republicans to back him in whatever gambit he throws out, they won't have the will to oppose a third and fourth term for him. There will still be some nod to elections, but the freedom of those elections will be constrained. Just look at Turkey, Poland, and Hong Kong for how democracy can be eroded.

[Wayward Son]

Their news headline demonstrates that as they pander to the people who only skim headlines.

What you forget from your journalism class in Junior High (do they still teach that in JH?  ), is that headlines are NOT supposed to be accurate summaries of the articles.  They are supposed to be short and attention-grabbing, so the reader is drawn in to read the actual article.

While the difference between "no voter fraud" and "no significant voter fraud" is significant for the article itself, it is something that I could easily see an editor drop in the headline for the sake of brevity.  The lack of that one word doesn't change the fact that there has not been enough voter fraud shown to change the election results, as some Republican liars have been insisting.  To say that this proves that the newspaper is trying to fool its readers shows a grasping of straws. 

This is just another example of why I'm finding it harder and harder to take Republican criticisms seriously.  A newspaper headline that isn't 100% accurate (although the article is) supposedly shows that Liberals are trying to lie to us.  But a President declaring that he won the election because of voter fraud (that hasn't been shown) is worth considering as a reasonable assertion. 

[Grant]

In the immortal words of Bart Simpson, everybody:

"Chill out, man"

[DonaldD]

While the difference between "no voter fraud" and "no significant voter fraud" is significant for the article itself, it is something that I could easily see an editor drop in the headline for the sake of brevity. 

Don't even get me started on the ambiguous, and usually accidental, use of homonyms, especially verb/noun homonyms, in headlines.  Or dropping prepositions - I could scream.

[rightleft22]

In the immortal words of Bart Simpson, everybody:

"Chill out, man"

Trying to get my head around how the experience of reality can be so different between people
70 million viewing things one way and 70 million seeing it in another.
Are we all being gas-lit?

[Grant]

Trying to get my head around how the experience of reality can be so different between people
70 million viewing things one way and 70 million seeing it in another.
Are we all being gas-lit?

I dunno, dude.  I think it has some to do with the fact that on some levels, different people just have different values, and we live in an age of eclecticism.  Very rarely have nations had so many different opinions about EVERYTHING.  It used to be that when things like this happened, civil war would occur, and there would be a readjustment.  A nation would keep a certain degree of homogeneity in thought.  Not anymore. 

The other half of it is, I believe, that people want to subscribe the having of different values and different beliefs to sinister motives.  Democrats are crooked.  Republicans are crooked.  Catholics are crooked.  Jews are crooked.  Mexicans are crooked.  All that jazz. 

The final part of it is just plain and simple partisanship.  People are really really invested in their own point of view and their "side".  Because that is what they have been taught by all media because it sells and gets out the vote, and because we live in an age of unprecedented peace and prosperity where only 1-2% of the population has been exposed to the horrors of war that are stark lessons against partisanship. 

[rightleft22]

Trying to get my head around how the experience of reality can be so different between people
70 million viewing things one way and 70 million seeing it in another.
Are we all being gas-lit?

The final part of it is just plain and simple partisanship.  People are really really invested in their own point of view and their "side".  Because that is what they have been taught by all media because it sells and gets out the vote, and because we live in an age of unprecedented peace and prosperity where only 1-2% of the population has been exposed to the horrors of war that are stark lessons against partisanship.

Was the architect  of the "matrix" correct? Humanity can't handle prosperity and needs a certain amount of opposition to 'feel' engaged with life?

What's happening now feels different to me and I wonder if our current communication technology isn't exasperating the tendency towards tribalism.
Confirmation bias, Seeing the world as we are not as it is begs the question. how do we see ourselves.

One of my hopes with a Biden Presidency was that just maybe we get a break from the constant political tweet intended to grab our attention. We need space to look away.

[Fenring]

I think it has some to do with the fact that on some levels, different people just have different values, and we live in an age of eclecticism.

You know what? I think its the opposite. I think in the past it was understood that people are essentially a wild beast and that there are all sorts. Back in Shakespeare's time I think the notion of 'crazy' was barely even a thing compared to how we now think of it. Now, if someone breaks into tears 'for no reason' they are crazy. Back then you could kill a guy and it was like, hey, he's a wild one. I think people have actually become so homogenized nowadays that they can scarcely tolerate people who are different. And I think this has pronounced effects in situations where there are, as you say, real differences between people.

Very rarely have nations had so many different opinions about EVERYTHING.  It used to be that when things like this happened, civil war would occur, and there would be a readjustment.  A nation would keep a certain degree of homogeneity in thought.  Not anymore. 

You know, in some respects this must obviously be correct. 600 years ago you wouldn't have gotten much dissent in proposing the Christian worldview or cosmic understanding. But is that really the sort of personalized view of the world people carry with them day in, day out? You would think it would be, actually, but I'm not so sure it's as simple as that. I suspect that even within a 'Christian society' there was massive variation in personal comportment, views on people, on how to do business, on what we would now call politeness, and so forth. Now someone cuts a line and people scream; it's just a given. Back then I don't really know for sure but I suspect that there was more of an understanding that people are not something you can control so easily. From this standpoint any deviation from what we'd now call civility or normality would be just another instance of the breadth of human variety. Now we have names for each type of deviation of psychological normality; back then it was just people being people. Now we have names for different types or orientations of sexuality; back then there was just sexuality. People were sexual, they liked sexual things. Now there are categories. So yes it means we know more, but also means in a way we demand much more in certain categories of life. I think intolerance of any divergence of opinion is not a symptom of being heterogenous, but of being homogenous. The illusion is that now we are so open to diversity, but actually I think 2020 must be the pinnacle of intolerance to diversity in recent human history. Back in Chesterton's day disagreement through 'wars of letters' was commonplace, even journalistically celebrated. Now people will get offended if you tell them you disagree. That's a new thing, and not one born of being more diverse in nature; I suspect it's born of being less diverse in thought.

That's just my current guess at the subject, though.

[TheDrake]

The New York Times tried to claim no fraud.

No, they didn't, and you know this since you quoted the parts of the article where they explained the limited extent of problems identified to-date.

You missed a part:

Their news headline demonstrates that as they pander to the people who only skim headlines.

We've had discussion on this behavior by the press several times in the past, the behavior is disgusting regardless of which side does it. Simply because it agrees with your favored narrative doesn't make it okay.

.

Rewrite the headline. If they wrote "isolated cases of voter fraud had no impact on election results" would that make any difference?

[Fenring]

Was the architect  of the "matrix" correct? Humanity can't handle prosperity and needs a certain amount of opposition to 'feel' engaged with life?

Nice reference! Even the garden of Eden story tells a similar idea, that people wouldn't stand for being told how to be perfect, and needed to muck about to an extent just an expression of will. I think a perfect demonstration for this need can be found in MMORPG landscapes, where we can see the sorts of mentalities that present themselves, including banding together, forming cartels, doing things for fun, breaking the system just to prove you can, and of course trying to conquer the universe. These really are the things people do; basically you name it someone wants to do it, with the priority being that they chose to do it. As as think the Merovingian says (or is it the Oracle), it all comes down to choice.

[cherrypoptart]

I've got a feeling that what's going to end up happening is that some Republicans will try to use the hoax of massive voter fraud to undermine the integrity of the election and by extension the authority of incoming President Biden and refer to him as an illegitimate President. It may be that some of them even believe it but for most of them it will just be a form of political warfare to grasp at power or at least keep it from the opposition even in the face of a lost election. Exactly like what the Democrats did to Trump with their Russian collusion hoax.

[TheDeamon]

TheDeamon, do you think when people say "voter fraud" they mean isolated incidences of double-voting, non-resident votes, non-citizen votes, or other types of irregularities that only affect the result in the closest of races ? Or do they say "voter fraud"  meaning widespread, systematic, and/or organized fraud that can change the results of elections even when there's a respectable margin of legitimate votes for the side that would win except for fraud? It seems more dishonest to insist on the former for accuracy's sake when politicians invoke the latter to justify suppressing votes.

I find the conservatives' habit of refusing to understand anything but the nominative meanings of words to be a great barrier to communication.

I'm suspicious that there was likely a significant "Stand Alone Complex" going on with regards to voter fraud/abuse in this election cycle. Quite likely enough to swing Georgia for instance, but the others is a lot more dubious.

If you're dealing with SAC scenarios, which incidentally is also something AntiFa is deliberately structured to resemble(but is not actually such a thing--as it lacks the "independent and in isolation" aspect). Trying to call those activities "systemic" or even "organized" is problematic at best, as to "widespread" that's another matter, but depending on how it was done, potentially very hard to detect let alone prove, especially with all of the opportunities for such abuses which were created this year.

[TheDeamon]

Given that Congress would refuse to recognize such electors, I doubt they will take the chance. I'm pretty sure it would also be patently illegal and even this Supreme Court still has some respect for the law. It'd be one thing if they could change the outcome with such tactics but they aren't going to give the Democrats precedent and fail to install their own president at the same time.

Problem is if congress doesn't recognize those electors and no candidate gets 270 electoral votes, it goes to the state delegations in the House... Which the Republicans control, and as the vote is by delegation, they have some degree of cover, although Republicans in general would take the heat regardless of who Congress selects at that point.

The election the GOP has to worry about is in January, anyways. They don't want to risk being punished by voters for obviously being undemocratic. It's like the Vice President gambit that keeps getting suggested. While having the President resign two years in so that the VP gets two elections with the incumbency advantage sounds like a neat trick, the risk that the electorate will get pissy about it means they won't actually try it.

If the state legislatures decide to suddenly become believers in congressional district EC seat allocations(something I'd be okay with if it remains permanent) and that enables Trump to reclaim the EC win, it leaves Republicans in Congress in a bind. If they support Biden, they get hammered in the Primaries by upset voters. If they support Trump, they risk being hammered by upset Biden voters in the next general election. In either case they lose. Still inclined to suspect the state legislatures are going to be gutless in any case and stay out of it.. Letting the courts take the heat instead.

[TheDeamon]

Their news headline demonstrates that as they pander to the people who only skim headlines.

We've had discussion on this behavior by the press several times in the past, the behavior is disgusting regardless of which side does it. Simply because it agrees with your favored narrative doesn't make it okay.

.

Rewrite the headline. If they wrote "isolated cases of voter fraud had no impact on election results" would that make any difference?

It's progress but still not quite right. Nobody knows that those things didn't have an impact as the recounts haven't concluded yet. As such:

"Isolated cases of voter fraud unlikely to have impact on election results"

Would be the more correct and least biased headline.

[TheDrake]

"I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain."

[yossarian22c]

Recent vote counts:
Pn: Biden +54,000
Wi: Biden +20,000
Mi: Biden +145,000
Az: Biden +12,000
Nv: Biden +36,000
Ga: Biden +14,000
NC: Trump +60,000 

If anyone can provide evidence of voter fraud in any of those states that gets close to 1/10 of the margin between the candidates I would be happy to listen. So for Arizona if you have something that would potentially impact 1,200 votes.

If its random Joe double voted then forget it. Unless you can show 1,000's of random Joe's all double voted and they all were of one party. I tend to think that the number of people who are willing to try something like that probably are about evenly split along ideological lines. Based on people being caught doing it in recent years Republicans outnumber Democrats because they've been listening to right wing media and Trump talk about how easy it is for years.

[TheDrake]

Only half of us have the energy to vote once, let alone twice.

[yossarian22c]

Trying to call those activities "systemic" or even "organized" is problematic at best, as to "widespread" that's another matter, but depending on how it was done, potentially very hard to detect let alone prove, especially with all of the opportunities for such abuses which were created this year.

Voter fraud opportunities are
1) Register fake people to vote (states have ways to identify and weed these out).
2) Register real people to vote and pretend to be them. (Hope they decide not to register and vote themselves)
3) Some kind of vote or ballot buying with mail in votes. (Hard to keep a large scale op secret)
4) Harvesting ballots and dumping all the ones from people who you think didn't vote for your guy.

1, 2 can be detected by taking a 1,000 randomly selected voters in the region you think fraud occurred in and go ask all of them if they voted.
3 gets busted by some idiot posting on facebook that he just got $20 for voting for x. Or by an honest person calling the cops on someone trying to give them money for their vote.
4 is detected by individual voters checking the status of their mail in ballots. When a lot of people say I gave my ballot to Dr. Evil and it never was turned in an investigation can ensue.

So what method of voter fraud is so devious and sneaky as to be completely undetectable? Republicans seem to think its so easy, they completely outperformed polls, maybe they are really good at it.