Let’s Just Let This Play Out

Avatar

Kristin Devine

Kristin has humbly retired as Ordinary Times' friendly neighborhood political whipping girl to focus on culture and gender issues. She lives in a wildlife refuge in rural Washington state with too many children and way too many animals. There's also a blog which most people would very much disapprove of https://atomicfeminist.com/

Related Post Roulette

125 Responses

  1. Avatar Will Truman
    Ignored
    says:

    I spent some time criticizing Abrams in my post, but I’m not sure any race but the presidency is really comparable to the presidency here. I guess it’s just as bad when a candidate for senator or governor refuses to concede, but we can afford to let them be sour if that’s what they want to do. They usually end up paying a price for it in future electability. (McDaniel lost again, Rossi lost again, Abrams knows better than to run again…)

    I think 2004 is the most instructive example because in my view the two situations are in similarity and stark contrast. (As opposed to 2000, where the results were so close that it isn’t quite comparable… the outcome was genuinely ambiguous as with the Rossi-Gregoire race that was decided by less than 200 votes out of 3 million cast).

    Kerry didn’t concede the night on, which I was and am fine with. I still don’t completely care that Trump still hasn’t conceded. The lack of intelligent briefings and cooperation in what remains a likely (at least) transfer of power is more problematic. The fact that he will not concede at all (and stay conceded) is a problem. Anyway, at least a couple days out I was saying that Trump was actually right not to concede. I think a day or two past when networks started calling it (and they were really slow and cautious about doing so) he should have, but if that were the only issue that would be a relatively small one.

    Some people argued for some time after 2004 that the election was stolen by hijacked machines. Including some moderately big names like RFK Jr and Keith Olbermann. But they aren’t John Kerry. Kerry did, at some point, make some comments that were on the ambiguous side, but it was more stray voltage than lightning strike. Worthy of criticism, but not damaging in the same sense. I’m less concerned about some comment Trump makes seven years from now. They also had a Theory of the Crime, so to speak. They made claims that could be evaluated about Diebold machine. A few hangers-on aside, for the most part it was resolved when these claims were investigated and came up short. Trump has some specific theories, but is clearly trying to carpetbomb the consciousness with the sheer number of them that it’s hard to keep shooting them down. But none have stuck for a reason. (None are expected to, really.)

    The same applies to similar attempts to suggest that machines threw the election in 2016. And once again, people ran the numbers and found that it didn’t really hold up. Hillary Clinton’s behavior since the election on the whole has been quite poor and quite worthy of condemnation, but even then substantively different from what Trump is doing now in multiple ways. Not least of which because she isn’t the president and can’t interfere with the transition. But she didn’t go to court with spurious claims, try to upend the election outcome, and avoided claims of hacked vote tallies. I used to think this was a low bar, but Trump has managed to make that look better.

    Despite my belief that the lawsuits are show, I do agree with you that we should let it play out legally. Let the lawsuits do their thing and then fizzle out. Politically, though? This election was close but the outcome is clear. As was the case in 2016. Gore fought every legal battle that he could and then conceded and disappeared (for a while) to let things move forward. Kerry evaluated what legal claims he did have and when he determined that there were none valid, conceded and got back to work in the senate.

    Will Trump? If I thought he would this would be a different conversation. (He might technically concede at some point, but as with a lot of things I do not expect it to stick.)Report

    • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Will Truman
      Ignored
      says:

      Please don’t downplay the degree of conspiracy thinking that happened after 2004. You’re right that it blew over within a couple months, but at the time there was no Twitter, no Facebook, and no media copying its stories from those services’ Trending page; the Internet of 2004 was still primarily college students posting on message boards.

      This is not to suggest that Kerry had the same response as Trump, or that Trump’s response is in any way appropriate, but the discussion environment of 2004 is so utterly different from 2020 that saying “well we didn’t talk about it so much back then” is nearly meaningless.Report

      • Avatar Will Truman in reply to DensityDuck
        Ignored
        says:

        To me it was both bigger and smaller than you say. As you say it died down but it was way more than message boards. dKos and Netroots Nation were both very big deals at the time and had big megaphones. They were pushing a lot of it (I should have, at minimum, mentioned them along with RFK Jr and Olbermann) and it could have become a much bigger problem.

        In that sense, it was really quite big.

        But that Kerry and the Democratic leadership didn’t participate is huge and played a much bigger role in its lack of oxygen than the internet media landscape, in my view.

        And in that sense, it was smaller than this one is poised to be.

        If this one does die down as that one did, I will be breathing a pretty big sigh of relief.Report

        • Avatar JakeTheJake in reply to Will Truman
          Ignored
          says:

          Agree agree.

          – What the candidate does matters a lot. In this case we have a candidate pretty untethered to reality, or unprincipled. He is encouraging some really crappy behavior.
          – This candidate is a President, and Presidents refusing to concede is much more dangerous than non-Presidents refusing to do so. Maybe we should amend constitution to limit Presidents to one term …
          – There are always crazies. It mattes when one of them is in the White House.
          – I think voting machines should be open-sourced and in the public domain. The risk is real, even if nothing has been proved yet. This risk is why paper ballots matter.
          – The hand-count of paper ballots and comparison with the machine counts matter. If they substantially differ, we have a problem.
          – Put up or shut up; so far Trump’s lawsuits are 1 win and 23 losses.Report

        • Avatar JS in reply to Will Truman
          Ignored
          says:

          One of our memories is fallible. I’m fairly certain that DKos considered “The 2004 election was rigged/State X was stolen” to be a ban-worthy offense.

          People pushed it, yes. And they got banned for it.Report

          • Avatar Jaybird in reply to JS
            Ignored
            says:

            I remember there being a number of purges at DKos between the years of 2000 and 200…7? 8?

            There was the 9/11 aftermath. There were periodic Israel/Palestine discussions that resulted in nukes. There was the MSOC thing. There was a period where 2004 skepticism was okay before it wasn’t okay. (I don’t remember there being a bunch of bans afterwards, but it wouldn’t shock me. They did that sort of thing often.)Report

  2. Avatar JoeSal
    Ignored
    says:

    Thanks for writing this Kristin.
    There is almost an artform that the left practices. I call it the ‘unmentioned’. Thanks for pulling the rug back and pointing out that mound of dirt swept under it.Report

  3. Avatar Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    1) Joe Biden’s Electoral College spread looks like it will duplicate Donald Trump’s. If it wasn’t close for Trump (and I have lost count of the number of conservatives who claim it wasn’t) then its not close for Biden.

    2) Joe Biden has also garnered more popular votes the Hillary Clinton did, and looks to have broken all the vote total records. Heck even Mr. Trump got more votes this time. Which means that more of the electorate can be motivated to vote. It also means Mr. Biden’s win isn’t close.

    3) The accusations against Hunter Biden are not and never were a legal matter, in much the same way that Mr. Trump’s firm belief the election would be and then was “stolen” from him is not a legal matter. Neither “investigation” is even good solid political theatre – The Senate failed to find anything illegal in Hunter Biden’s conduct and Mr. Trump keeps loosing in court because (in both cases) there is no admissible evidence. That such poorly written theater is allowed to further sully our nation’s politics is a disgrace.

    4) As it turns out there was much illegal activity surrounding Mr. Trump’s first presidential campaign. 17 people were indicted and most either pled guilty or were convicted. In addition, the U.S. Intelligence community (not exactly a hotbed of liberalism), The Mueller Report and the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee ALL found that Russia interfered in our 2016 election in an attempt to get Mr. Trump elected. There is not an equivalent set of facts for Mr. Biden. That should tell you something.

    5) A theory that fits your priors (even mine) isn’t fact. Just because you FEEL something deeply doesn’t make it true.Report

  4. Avatar Slade the Leveller
    Ignored
    says:

    I’ll disagree with the last sentence of this post, but most of it I have no problem with.

    Concession is mostly a matter of politesse. At age 74, Donald Trump is not suddenly going to start having manners. Who cares? The voters have spoken.Report

    • Concession is, as you say, pointless.

      Hindering the transition is more serious. So is trying to persuade large numbest of people that the election was stolen.Report

      • Avatar Slade the Leveller in reply to Mike Schilling
        Ignored
        says:

        Transition, as were finding out, is mostly a matter of courtesy. None of it is spelled out in statute. So, thanks Donald, for finding yet another hole in American governance.

        Given the level of sycophancy in the Trump movement, and what we know of his personality, the election stealing thing should come as no surprise. The guy’s been bailed out in bankruptcy court several times, and by perhaps shady loans several more times. This really is his first true loss, and, predictably, he’s not taking it well.

        What we’re really seeing is the fruits of decades of undermining the public’s faith in its own government, beginning with the efforts of St. Ronnie. It’s just being made manifest in the worst possible way at the worst possible time.Report

    • Avatar JakeTheJake in reply to Slade the Leveller
      Ignored
      says:

      Not sure its pointless. What matters is what the President who doesn’t concede is willing to do about it and what others are willing to do too. Coups are real things that happen.

      Telling Republican voters that their vote didn’t count may backfire though. They might just stay home.Report

  5. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Hey, speaking of the Deep State, it looks like there hasn’t been any draw down in Syria at all! LOL! TAKE THAT DRUMPF!

    Report

    • Avatar Philip H in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      That is actually concerning. I don’t like endless wars (especially ones NOT declared by Congress) and I disagree vehemently that the US needs to be the world’s policeman in every case. But as a fed who takes his job and his oath seriously I don’t like subverting the Administration this way either. It shows a lack of professional integrity. You can always manage up in authentic honest ways. And you can speak truth to power – even this narcissistic bully.Report

    • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      This is a combination of ‘the way the world works’ and another example of how Trump was just a historically bad President who didn’t know how to manage the office of the President.

      I’m not a fan of the term ‘Deep State’ because it implies a sort of coordinated anti-state when the reality is that we have hundreds of mini-states that pursue objectives that have internal coherence to their mission and objectives.

      It would be closer to the truth to say the US is almost ungovernable in the way we imagine governance working… but the sociology of Mass Democratic Institutions is not really an unknown phenomenon. It goes back to the least sexy thing I keep harping on with regards Politics… there’s no top-down change without a bottom-up army.Report

      • Avatar Philip H in reply to Marchmaine
        Ignored
        says:

        there’s no top-down change without a bottom-up army.

        Agreed completely. Which is why running for President with the civil service as your enemy is never going to succeed no mater what your politics or policies are. And telling us we are committing waste, fraud and abuse because we are doing our best to juggle thousands of legal mandates is a non-starter.Report

    • Avatar George Turner in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      I think Biden could solve that problem with ease. “If you are a soldier fighting in Syria, you’re not American!”Report

  6. Avatar DensityDuck
    Ignored
    says:

    People are gonna completely ignore the part of this post that says “y’all spent four years telling us that conspiracy theories about Presidential elections are a healthy response to outcomes we don’t like and also there was Clear Incontrovertible Evidence of it, now you’re telling us that only nutballs think that way and investigating anything will only waste everybody’s time”. Instead they’re gonna focus on the part that says “and maybe there is something”.

    Because the latter is the part that doesn’t make them look bad.Report

    • Avatar Philip H in reply to DensityDuck
      Ignored
      says:

      Or, we are going to say investigations by really professional people have yielded results that we can examine. You may not FEEL that the investigations got the end you wanted, but to pretend they don’t exist or didn’t reach conclusions is folly.Report

    • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to DensityDuck
      Ignored
      says:

      These things are different:

      1. Shady things happened during the campaign/.
      2. The vote count is fraudulent.

      Insisting that nonsensical claims of 2 are justified by factual claims of 1 (or even questionable claims of 1) makes no sense, especially after every suit alleging 2 has failed almost immediately.

      Trump’s victories have been

      * Getting poll watchers closer to the vote counting (6 feet instead of 20)
      * Getting some rules for late-arriving ballots changed

      Neither had anything to do with fraud. Interestingly, both are victories for Trump against his greatest enemy, common sense. We shouldn’t be further exposing poll workers to COVID, and we shouldn’t be rewarding the sabotage of the USPS.Report

  7. Avatar y10nerd
    Ignored
    says:

    Personally, I think that Donald Trump wasn’t born in America. Can he show us his birth certificate?Report

  8. Avatar Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    The lawsuits are frivolous, lack merit, and are brought by a bunch of sycophants and toadies without who fear the wrath of Trump. The toadies in the admin refuse to let the Biden transit team do what it needs to do.

    Biden received over 5 million more votes than Trump. Recounts only change a few hundred votes. Biden’s margins in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

    Trump is now spending his days tweeting resentments, lies, and grievances while ignoring his responsibilities.

    I will never understand why so many people think he is this great hill to die on or should be indulged. But I guess resentment is a hell of a drug. Even if Trump’s behavior is comical, lazy, and half-assed. It should not be indulged. He is trying to wreck havoc and destroy confidence in the democratic process.

    I don’t really care if Trump supporters need time to grieve. I think there was a t-shirt with the sentiment. Didn’t it say “Trump Pence: Fuck Your Feelings?”Report

    • Avatar y10nerd in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      But the feelings of white people are very important! (To be fair, I would also make this critique of white liberals and lefties, but I’m an equal opportunity critic of white people cultures)Report

    • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to Saul Degraw
      Ignored
      says:

      “bunch of sycophants and toadies”

      The interesting thing is that Porter Wright is withdrawing from representation in PA (breaking) and Jones Day is perhaps wavering.

      Under ordinary circumstances, this would be the beginning of a precipitous end to the legal challenges…
      But the targeting of Law Firms with the intent of denying representation to clients by threating social and economic sanctions undermines whether Porter Wright is abandoning the lawsuits for being frivolous and unsubstantiated – which would end the debate – or whether they are doing it out of self-interest – which fuels the debate.

      Bottom line… Kristin has a point… the only norms that exist are the ones you bind yourself by.Report

      • Avatar Philip H in reply to Marchmaine
        Ignored
        says:

        Both the reporting on this withdrawal – and several lawyers I know who know folks there – all say its because the employees don’t want the firm’s reputation sullied by the suits in question. I don’t think that falls into the external social pressure you were hinting at.Report

        • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          That’s a head scratcher to me… if I needed a definition of external social pressure, I’d use your description to describe it.Report

          • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Marchmaine
            Ignored
            says:

            The ghost of Reagan-era Chip floats in to ask, isn’t social pressure to conform to norms of behavior the very essence of conservatism?Report

            • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              What a strange notion. No. I can see why Regan-era Chip ghosted away.Report

            • Avatar Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              Seriously, dude, why is it your depictions of conservatives never sound like human beings? You should consider this for a New Year’s resolution: if people’s motives seem impossible to understand, you’ll consider that you’re misunderstanding them.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                My understanding of conservatism comes from Buckley and Reagan, Thatcher and Moynihan, and all the social conservatives who for decades at National Review lectured us about the little platoons and the beneficial effects of social censure.

                I mean, imagine that we were talking about Screw Magazine and public boycotts of stores that sell it, and it will be a lot more familiar.Report

              • Avatar CJColucci in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                Chip, I guess we must be older than some of these people who call themselves conservatives now. Does no one remember Buckley, Meyer, Kirk, Tyrell, Reagan, Thatcher, Kilpatrick, Buchanan, Goldwater, ………….?
                Relatedly, I recently picked up a print issue of the National Review. Except for the bylines and some topical references, it could have been the magazine I remember from the “70s and ’80s, though Rich “Starbursts” Lowry is no WFB.Report

              • Avatar Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                I’d say that the essence of American conservatism is that there’s merit to the Anglo approach to the balance of individual rights and the common good. That balance includes a lot of things, including common law, religion, the vote, et cetera. In some cases, conservatives may believe that the balance requires laws to be passed or reformed, or individual actions to be the best recourse. The latter may include anything from religious charity to private policing to self-defense to protesting companies. None of those means are the essence of conservatism, though. Sometimes conservatives will protest companies and drive to those protests using cars with radiators, but radiators aren’t the essence of conservatism either.Report

              • Avatar CJColucci in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Well, that certainly clears things up.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                When we encounter issues like how best to regulate human affairs, isn’t the conservative impulse to invoke “subsidiarity”, of finding the least coercive and most local methods, and free association rather than a “top down” government imposition?

                In this case, wouldn’t a consumer shunning of Trump’s legal firm fit that market based approach?

                And wouldn’t a social censure of the law firm partners fit the conservative ideal of free association?Report

              • Avatar Pinky in reply to Chip Daniels
                Ignored
                says:

                First of all, can we agree that social pressure to conform to norms of behavior isn’t “the very essence of conservatism”?

                Secondly, you’re asking what’s the most conservative method of blocking someone from access to the rule of law. I don’t know how to answer that. The tabulation of election results is part of a functioning democratic society, and while the law should be fine-tuned whenever it’s found to be unfair, the idea of turning to the courts for rulings in these matters is entirely appropriate.Report

              • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                No one is blocking anyone’s access to the law, anymore than my neighbors are blocking me from buying pornography at the liquor store.

                In both cases, social stigma is the least restrictive and least coercive method of enforcement of norms.Report

              • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                Seriously, dude, why is it your depictions of conservatives never sound like human beings?

                It’s almost as bad as believing liberalism is a mental disorder!Report

              • Avatar Pinky in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                This is an unfair, out-of-context version of what I said. Please delete it.Report

              • Avatar Pinky in reply to Stillwater
                Ignored
                says:

                OK, no retraction. Then explain what I really said and its context. The comment was so important to you that you bring it up every six months or so, so I’m sure you remember it in detail.Report

              • Avatar gabriel conroy in reply to Pinky
                Ignored
                says:

                I agree that Stillwater’s comment was VERY inappropriate.Report

            • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Chip Daniels
              Ignored
              says:

              Like after 9/11, when conservatives insisted that anyone who defended an accused terrorist was a traitor?Report

          • Avatar Philip H in reply to Marchmaine
            Ignored
            says:

            And how do you figure that employees of a firm asking the frim to do or not do something is EXTERNAL?Report

      • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Marchmaine
        Ignored
        says:

        1. There is no guarantee to a lawyer in a civil lawsuit.

        2. Lawyers are not supposed to bring frivolous or meritless lawsuits. I am generally believe that the definition of meritless should be narrow but so far the lawsuits seem meritless. We have multiple instances where lawyers for Trump have needed to walk back allegations of fraud when questioned by judge. All these lawsuits are being dismissed to the best of my knowledge pretty quickly.

        3. From what I’ve read, there was always a lot of internal division at these firms on whether to represent Trump or not. I get the broad point of representing unpopular clients but doing so in a way that represents a thwarting or attempted thwarting of democracy is a bridge too far.Report

        • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to Saul Degraw
          Ignored
          says:

          “The lawsuits are frivolous, lack merit, and are brought by a bunch of sycophants and toadies”

          In response to both you and Philip.

          To connect the dots more explicitly… if you undermine all Legal representation as sycophantic and toadish and threaten them with economic and cultural sanctions, then when they withdraw their support it doesn’t have the desired effect of illustrating that the suits are frivolous and without merit. Instead, it heightens the fact that some people/teams may not be ‘entitled’ to legal representation… rather than the system working through ordinary channels.

          Don’t do that.Report

          • Avatar CJColucci in reply to Marchmaine
            Ignored
            says:

            Lawyers, even good ones, will always be available for those willing to pay. (The knock on Trump as a client was that he wouldn’t listen and didn’t pay, which explained why many good firms did not want his business, and why many who took it regretted it.) And often unpopular clients who can’t pay much will get good lawyers. Which is good. Paul Porter, one of the founders of what was then Arnold, Fortas & Porter, was braced at a cocktail party by some D.C. poobah in the 1950’s who asked him: “Still representing commies and faggots?” Porter suavely replied: “Yes, we are. Would you like to stop by the office tomorrow and discuss your problem in more detail?”
            But no lawyer is required to embarrass himself, or herself, by pushing dubious claims, whether on behalf of Donald Trump or Mother Theresa. And no law, ethical rule, or social norm immunizes lawyers who do so.Report

          • Avatar Philip H in reply to Marchmaine
            Ignored
            says:

            To connect the dots more explicitly… if you undermine all Legal representation as sycophantic and toadish and threaten them with economic and cultural sanctions, then when they withdraw their support it doesn’t have the desired effect of illustrating that the suits are frivolous and without merit. Instead, it heightens the fact that some people/teams may not be ‘entitled’ to legal representation… rather than the system working through ordinary channels.

            Don’t do that.

            I didn’t. But thanks for the face slap.

            I did point out that the firm’s own staff agitated for the withdrawl. And to be clear – no one on the left is saying Trump shouldn’t be represented. They are saying his case is meritless and designed to 1) graft his followers to line his coffers; 2) distract from his loss and 3) sow enough doubt about the election outcome that his followers (and their politicians) don’t have to play along with a Biden Administration in actually governing. That latter is actually the most pernicious reason to object to the lawsuits, but as noted it can’t stop them from being brought.

            As numerous courts are showing however, lacking evidence and (in at least one case) standing ARE reasons to not bring them.Report

          • Avatar Stillwater in reply to Marchmaine
            Ignored
            says:

            Don’t do that.

            One of the weird things about the post-factual world we now live in is that serving the truth means refraining from expressing it.Report

      • Avatar InMD in reply to Marchmaine
        Ignored
        says:

        I doubt they’re dropping due to fears of social opprobrium. From what I’ve read (which admittedly isn’t everything) there really isn’t merit to these. They all look like losses at motion to dismiss, and hey plenty of cases that are filed are. As I’m sure the other attorneys here will agree, ‘frivolous’ is a very high bar.

        But if you keep showing up without evidence, without a claim under the law for which relief can be granted well…. you will eventually start pushing the line to sanctions and long term damage to professional credibility. That will haunt you and no attorney owes that to a client.Report

        • Avatar Philip H in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          Witness the exchange – widely reported – between a judge in Pennsylvania and a lawyer for the Trump Campaign. Said judge asked flat out of Republican observers were in the room. Said lawyer said there were a “non-zero” number of people in the room. Said judge then rephrased and asked said lawyer if, as a lawyer at bar in that court, said lawyer was asserting there were no republican observers in the room. Said lawyer then responded (having apparently remembered that being at bar is something that matters) That observers were in the room.

          That it takes a judge to force professional integrity in a hearing on the record is a major reason why this farce needs to end.Report

        • Avatar Marchmaine in reply to InMD
          Ignored
          says:

          I would assume so… but there’s context here isn’t there? The context is the post about defecting from norms, there’s context about the fact that any support for Trump is being tracked, there’s context that the Lincoln Project specifically targeting PorterWright and JonesDay and context in this thread that PorterWright is no longer the paragon of “commie faggot” defenders, but toadies and sycophants.

          I guess that’s what’s doubly interesting to me… I’m saying that PorterWright pulling out should be a really solid signal to build consensus around… if we hadn’t undermined our confidence that they are pulling out for principled reasons rather than being craven toadies cowed by outside pressure – that they rightfully ought to bow to.

          I’m staying in context here, not making a Law School 101 point, no?Report

          • Avatar InMD in reply to Marchmaine
            Ignored
            says:

            It’s a data point that’s for sure, and maybe I’m just being overly defensive of my profession.

            On the larger issue I see the point. I mentioned ‘roughing the ref’ in the comments to Will’s post, and said fixing our situation ‘requires putting down certain weapons and resisting the urge to pick them back up again when circumstances change.’

            Of course I think posts like this one become impossible to take seriously when they turn the corner into a justification for righteous use of the same burn-it-all-down, bad faith tactics they criticize. The same piece could have been written from the perspective of extremist intersectionality to justify defection. It isn’t a solution, it’s flameout.

            I should probably leave it at that since last time I tried to gently comment in this fashion I was accused of violating the OT rules and (I think) sexism. Better to take my thoughts to one of the more solutions oriented posts.Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Marchmaine
        Ignored
        says:

        It’s quite possible that they’ve realized that their client is someone who never pays his bills.Report

      • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Marchmaine
        Ignored
        says:

        The Lincoln Project are grifters and self-promoters — insult the all you like, and I’ll cheer you on.

        But assuming the withdrawal is due to them rather than to being unwilling to keep filing meritless lawsuits is unwarranted.

        Also, this kind of BS can hurt a firm’s reputation as well as lead to legal sanctions, so it’s self-interest either way.Report

  9. Avatar Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    comment in mod.Report

  10. Avatar Chip Daniels
    Ignored
    says:

    This is yet another vivid illustration of how the conservative faction in America has become a revolutionary faction, battling against not any policy or idea or theory of government, but against the American government itself, seeing it as illegitimate.

    Their embrace of the conspiratorial term “Deep State” is a good example. What this refers to is simply the civil service bureaucracy, but to them, this is their enemy and wholly illegitimate.

    What is astounding is that even when they themselves control the Presidency and the Senate, they still view the government with fear and suspicion, and view the organs of the state as enemy forces.

    Not even entities with defects to be cured, but enemy forces working with malign and illegitimate aims.Report

  11. Avatar Saul Degraw
    Ignored
    says:

    I’m shocked by these revelations by which I mean I am not shocked at all: https://twitter.com/Bill_Maxwell_/status/1327273831937892352?s=20Report

  12. Avatar Rufus F.
    Ignored
    says:

    I don’t see a problem with recounting and triple counting and whatever else it takes to get the full count. What I suspect will happen though is something like climate change, where no evidence that is ever marshaled can convince a certain group since the real aim is to keep the debate going indefinitely and gum up the works, rather than arrive at the truth. See also: the “fake” pandemic.Report

  13. Avatar Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    Kristin, I don’t know if you’ve seen this:

    Report

    • Avatar DensityDuck in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      But the Pee Tape was real, Jaybird!Report

      • Avatar Jaybird in reply to DensityDuck
        Ignored
        says:

        If you look at the last 4 years, you see Putin’s fingerprints all over this presidency and you just know that Putin wants to drive a wedge between the US and China!

        The most honorable Joe Biden will bring us back to China’s sweet embrace and we can say goodbye to Putin’s harmful meddling! Three cheers for Joe Biden! Three cheers for Kamala Harris! Three cheers for Xi Jinping!Report

  14. Avatar gabriel conroy
    Ignored
    says:

    I haven’t read any of the comments yet–mostly because I wanted to say this before I let myself be influenced by them. I do agree with your chiding those of us who have opposed Trump for looking at things ahistorically. And I confess that I, for one, am guilty of that. Yes, Trump came from somewhere, not out of nothing. I’ve also been pretty firm in my conviction that removing Trump legally was one of my highest priorities.

    At the same time–and please forgive me because I’m being personal here and “personal” is code for “anecdote” and “touchy-feely, but not real argument,” but I feel I must say this–I never questioned the legitimacy of Bush’s victory and I never bought in to the notion that 2004 was rigged. I never questioned that Trump legitimately won in 2016. I may grumble (and in my opinion, with good reason) about the voter repression efforts that helped make that victory (and 2004 and 2000) possible, but I accept that those efforts were probably mostly legal or quasi-legal. And I am, and have been since it became a “meme,” hostile to the “it’s the Russians!” argument (I’m not a big fan of red scares). I also believe fraud can theoretically exist in a way that Mark from New Jersey didn’t address.

    All that said, I do think Trump is different, and his way of challenging the election is very different from what has come before, at least in recent history. In my opinion, it’s dangerous in a way that prior challenges haven’t been. He is a wolf, though I admit that I’ve cried wolf before (abut W. Bush, even though I didn’t question the legitimacy of his election). But this time, I do believe that he and those who support him are in the wrong. And not in the “well, they disagree and I think they’re mistaken” sense of wrong. But wrong in the sense that we–the country–is in a real danger here. It was, of course, in real danger before Trump, and you and I might agree on some of the reasons even as we disagree about others of them. But I do see this as the house being on fire, and the fire needs to be put out before we can resume either business as usual or (one would hope) a better and more just (as in “fair,” not as in “retribution”) reckoning than before.

    I know this probably sounds as a criticism. But I’d like to be clear that your post really made me think about the issues at hand. Thanks for writing it!Report

  15. Avatar treeoffreedom
    Ignored
    says:

    Is ED Kain still running this site? I haven’t been around for ages, and it’s shocking to see the drop in quality of the front pagers here. What is this site even for anymore? To promote conspiracy theories?

    And the quality of the writing has fallen off a cliff as well. At least in the old days, the front pagers are actually good writers, even if I don’t always agree with what they’re saying.Report

    • Avatar Jaybird in reply to treeoffreedom
      Ignored
      says:

      Hey, were you back here in the days when a commenter by the name of M.A. commented here? Man, those were some crazy days, huh?Report

      • Avatar George Turner in reply to Jaybird
        Ignored
        says:

        I would say the conspiracy theory is that Biden won.

        Only three of 17 bellwethers said he did. In aggregate, those 17 bellweathers have a 90.58% success rate, with 231 correct calls out of 255, across 15 election cycles (ignoring 1960 because it was rigged).

        What is the expected number of bellwethers to miss at that rate?

        18.6% of the time, it’s a perfect call – all counties correct.
        32.9% of the time, one county should miss.
        27.3% of the time, two counties should miss
        14.2% of the time, four counties should miss
        5.1% of the time, five counties should miss
        1.4% of the time, six counties should miss
        0.29% of the time, seven counties should miss
        0.047% of the time, eight counties should miss
        0.0057% of the time, nine should miss
        0.000066% of the time, ten should miss

        11 or more didn’t miss in a billion elections (billion with a B), which would be almost as old as the Earth itself.

        This time, 14 bellwethers missed. Either this was the one election that shouldn’t happen during the entire age of the universe, or all those hundreds of red flags indicated election fraud are really indicating fraud.

        Happily, it only took my Ryzen 5 3600 a few minutes to run a billion simulated elections to give me those numbers. 🙂Report

        • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to George Turner
          Ignored
          says:

          This assumes that the bellwethers each have an independent 90.58% chance of calling the election, which I don’t think is a valid assumption. This also doesn’t account for the partial realignment, with the WWC going for Trump and affluent urban voters going more heavily Democratic (or at least for Biden). Under a realignment, the predictive power of the bellwethers declines.Report

          • Avatar George Turner in reply to Brandon Berg
            Ignored
            says:

            The bellwethers are bellwhethers because for the past 60 years they been the most representative possible subsample of America as a whole. What happens in America happens in those, too.

            For this result (only three right) to occur even 25% of the time, the odds of each bellwhether (which are scatter all across the nation) have to drop from 90% to 20%, in just four years, with no real shift in the voters. That’s about as infinitely unlikely than the previous result.

            We’re talking unlikelihood so big that I had to change my approach to the problem because an Intel double-precision number doesn’t have a big enough exponent. It only goes to 2^1024, and I needed it to go over 2^6000.

            And that’s just one of a staggering number of statistical analysis indicating massive, overwhelming election rigging, such as impossible turnouts, impossible ballot ratios, such as in Georgia where 95,000 ballots without any downvotes on them went 94,993 for Biden, 7 for Trump, or another apparent batch that was 20,000 Biden and -1000 Trump. How do you get negative votes?Report

            • Avatar DavidTC in reply to George Turner
              Ignored
              says:

              Don’t worry, George. I’ve been assured by a conservative I know, George Turner, you might know him, I’ve been assured this massive fraud will be discovered in the recounts, and why was why the Democrats were against the recount.

              Luckily, the Democrats attempts to block the recounts by *check notes* doing nothing to stop the recounts, have failed totally. So there will be recounts everywhere, even in Georgia, where it’s hard to get them, but the state is close enough to trigger automatic one.

              And now you’re talking about bellwethers and nonsense like that, which makes me think you _don’t_ the recounts will help your position, now that they’re happening?Report

        • Avatar DavidTC in reply to George Turner
          Ignored
          says:

          I like how you just wanders in with frothy-right conspiracy theories and expects anyone to understand it. So I had to google to find this nonsense:
          https://boards.4channel.org/sci/thread/12318560/what-could-possibly-have-caused-this

          *sigh*

          I suppose I better explain ‘bellwethers’ to people, and why the entire concept is bogus.

          So, let me introduce a specific sort of fraud. It’s very simple. You get 1024 people, and give them a stock tip. Half one way, half the other. The ones you guessed wrong, you drop. Now you have 512 people. And you keep doing it.

          After 10 rounds of this, you have 1 person who just saw you guess ten stocks in a row correctly and in their mind, you know the damn future.

          Guess how many voting counties there are in the US? 3243.

          And how many counties guessed the results of the last ten elections before _this_ one? 6 of them.

          It’s about double what pure chance would tell us juts from coin flip, which would be ‘3’. But…presidential election are not decided by coin flip. It’s actually weird it’s not higher then that, in my mind.

          So there is nothing special about any of these counties…they are merely the lottery winners. The only thing I suspect is ‘interesting’ about these counties is that are fairly equally urban and rural, because those are almost the only counties that can _change_ politically, from year to year. They are ‘purple counties’, in that you don’t know how they’re going to vote in advance. But they, unlike probably a thousand other of the purple counties, rolled the dice better.

          That’s how most ‘bellwethers’ work. They are just statistical anomalies, and don’t actually mean anything. It’s possible to _find_ smaller samples that reflect things, but generally we don’t do that geographically, we do it via _polling_.

          As is pointed out on that very page, one of the most accurate counties in history is Valencia New Mexico, which has matched the outcome in every single election since 1956 until this year…and is 50% Hispanic and 1% Black. It is not some sort of mystical ‘typical American’ county.

          Oh, also, you decided to throw away 1960 because it was ‘rigged’…but the problem is that doesn’t work unless you’re asserting it was rigged _specifically in the counties that were correct_. The actual ‘bellwethers counties’ were split, which means…_either_ of the election outcomes would be wrongly picked by half of the supposed bellwethers! Either Kennedy or Nixon was American’s choice, pick one…or possibly your assertation is that Democrats were cheating in North Carolina and Wisconsin!

          And your math is horribly wrong on top of that. So wrong I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to do.

          You have somehow asserted that 1.4% of the time, six counties should miss.

          Six counties _did_ miss, back in 1968. Excluding this election, and the one you have magically decided doesn’t count, that’s 6.7% of the time.

          You said there’s a 14.2% chance 4 counties missing…again, a thing that happened once, 6.7% of the time.

          You somehow managed to skip list three, but we can add up the other percentages, which…add to about 100%, so…no change that 3 counties match? It actually happened 20% of the time.

          Missing two counties happened once, so, again, happened 6.7 of the time.

          I don’t even know what you’re doing with your math.Report

          • Avatar JakeTheJake in reply to DavidTC
            Ignored
            says:

            Starting with the baseline probability that some county might have called the election correctly the last x times through chance alone is a really good place to start with debunking this crap. You’ll need to do some kind of correction for multiple comparisons.

            Then understanding that in the real world the counties votes aren’t statistically independent helps too.Report

          • Avatar George Turner in reply to DavidTC
            Ignored
            says:

            The bellwether counties aren’t random guesses, or they’d miss about half the elections. Everybody would miss about half. An election is not like the NCAA tournament, because the outcome is determined by how the people in the counties are voting.

            Counties that are strongly Republican will miss all the elections where a Democrats wins, and counties that are strongly Democrat will miss all the elections where Republicans win. Thus, of those 3243 counties, the vast majority are horrible at picking elections, unable to beat 50%.

            But in between those are counties that are very evenly spit, mirroring the country as a whole. Each of them has turned out to be a very representative polling sample of the nation, and each has a county-sized sample. Not 1,000 people as in most polls, but 20,000 or 30,000 people.

            So it’s like a network built over a dozen giant, carefully-crafted focus-groups and had them all actually vote. That should be the best election predictor possible. The odds that all those focus groups would be wrong are, essentially, none, because they are just a very representative subset of the population that is making the decision about who actually wins.

            And I added 1960 to see how it changed things. It dropped each county’s odds from 90.58% accuracy to 88% accuracy. I then ran 10 billion elections, which would be older than the universe itself, and there was still no case where 5 bellwethers were wrong.

            The outcome simply isn’t possible. It’s what you might term a statistical tell. Natural outcomes don’t have the same signature as rigged outcomes, because the fake votes cause a major deviation from natural patterns, whether spatially, temporally, demographically, or in turnout, cross-over patterns, down-ticket patterns, male-female vote ratios, precinct-turnout rates, and all kinds of other natural statistical relationships that get violated. As you compare the statistical patterns of natural elections to rigged ones, huge anomalies pop out. You might see something where people who voted early in the day aren’t remotely similar to the people voting right before polls close (or days after!), and go back and look to see that the pattern doesn’t remotely match that pattern seen in ten previous elections. There are all kinds of statistical features that are indicating that this was a rigged election. Bellwethers are just one of them that I happened to do myself.

            Yesterday I was completing a spreadsheet of the vote totals in the 50 largest metropolitan areas in 2012, 2016, and 2020. All kinds of glaring anomalies are popping out. Heck, Virginia 2016 looks highly suspicious.Report

        • Avatar JakeTheJake in reply to George Turner
          Ignored
          says:

          you are not accounting for correlation between these. So you can’t just multiply them together as if they are independent predictors. this is shoddy statistical theater.Report

  16. Avatar DavidTC
    Ignored
    says:

    There’s a difference between saying ‘Foreign countries meddled illegal in the election and the campaign seems to coordinate with them’, vs ‘There is something wrong with the vote counts’.

    Even if all the claims against Trump in 2016 were correct, those were not claims he had not _won_. Everyone acknowledged that Trump had won the election, and thus would be the next president!

    People were just suggesting that various laws had been broken during that and needed to be investigated…which they _had_. Now, those specific crimes didn’t implicate the president, but even if they had, he would still be president. (Unless impeached and removed by Congress.) No one was arguing he hadn’t won the election, they were arguing that criminality was involved and there should be legal repercussions for that. Not _electrorial_ repercussions.

    What Trump is doing is casting doubt on the actual outcome of the election, as in, who will become president next January. Which candidates don’t do.

    There have been plenty of voting conspiracy theories over the years, and not a single one echo by the _candidate_ or the political party. (To the vast annoyance of people like me who would have liked people to look at the theories, not because I think they were true, I don’t. But to realize they _could_ be true and we’d have no idea and so we needed to stop using moronically insecure machine.)

    And, no, waiting for recounts isn’t the same thing. If a recount of a close race could change things, yes, don’t concede yet. But…it’s very clear no possible recount can could changed things, and most people accept that, and the ones that don’t, like George Turner here, say the recounts will change things when MASSIVE FRAUD will be discovered. Not…normal recount stuff like ‘a couple of these votes were miscounted’, but a massive conspiracy.

    The norms say a candidate concedes at this point…or, rather, last Saturday. Maybe Sunday, or evne Monday, that’d be fine. And, honestly, the ‘hasn’t conceded yet’ isn’t really the problem. It will become once the recounts are _over_, but it’s not the problem now. But once the recounts have finished and have resulted in…well, they’re going to result in the total for Biden going _up_, because Biden voters voted by mis-readable mail, while Trump voters voted in person and had their votes counted perfectly.

    So when the recounts fail to help Trump, he will continue to conspiracy monger. A lot of which are involving lawsuits that literally…can’t do anything, and are only for PR purposes.

    He’s suing in at least two states to demand less than 1000 ballots total aren’t counted. Amounts that will have absolutely no bearing on who won the election. He’s doing this not to alter anything, but simply so he can claim he’s suing and there is MASSIVE VOTE FRAUD.

    Note: None of these lawsuits involve fraud of any sort, they involve changed deadlines and unreable postmarks and stuff. This are legitimate votes cast by legitimate voters, the only question is ‘Are they allowed within the rules?’, a technical issue, and…again, it’s utterly pointless, as none of them will change anything.

    In fact, there are, legally, right now, no challenges that could change the results of a _single_ state. Not a single one. Or any allegations of fraud! The lawsuits are…literally nothing, all the ones but ‘obscure ballot rules’ were basically immediately thrown out because they were random allegations about things that _might_ be things.

    And yet he’s repeatedly saying how he’s going to prove this is fraud.Report

    • Avatar George Turner in reply to DavidTC
      Ignored
      says:

      Here are 234 pages of allegations, including people who said their dead relative voted (PDF).

      The media is gaslighting the American public when they keep saying “There are no allegations of fraud.” There are lots.

      Also, see my above math on the statistical near impossibility of Biden being the actual winner. The Democrats rigged the vote in some key states, but they forget to rig the vote in the bellwether counties.

      The problem for Democrats is that people like me, and the 70 million like me, aren’t going away. We’re going to be extremely vocal, forever. Victims are like that. That’s one reason normal, non-criminal people don’t run around robbing people blind.Report

      • Avatar DavidTC in reply to George Turner
        Ignored
        says:

        Firstly, that isn’t what gaslighting is, second, I am not reading 234 pages, but I did read 40, and there not only were no allegations of dead people voting, there were actually no allegations of _actual criminal activity_.

        It’s random complaints about positioning, people repeating _rumors_ they heard, people assering ‘hostility’, and people saying…very nonsensical things who clearly didn’t understand what was going on.

        I stopped on page 39, when the actual low-quality became clear. That’s…random guy who showed up, not a observer, who couldn’t get in. And he signed an affidavite to that, and it somehow became ‘evidence’ of…something. Probably that the poll workers were doing and not letting random people wander around.Report

        • Avatar George Turner in reply to DavidTC
          Ignored
          says:

          They’re collecting affidavits, not grading them.

          The woman who’s dead son voted is towards the end. I’ve looked up lots of dead people who voted in Michigan, by their year of birth and Zip Code, and they indeed voted. I’ve even seen their death records.

          But that’s just one kind of fraud. This time they used pretty much all known forms of election fraud, such as voting under women’s maiden names, voting for people who’d moved away (America’s national champion wrestler found out he voted in Arizona, and he doesn’t live there anymore and didn’t receive a ballot). A reporter there sent in eight ballots under eight names and the signature machines let all but one go right through. Pennsylvania is likewise not checking signatures, intentionally, or their mail-in-rejection rate would’ve shot up instead of plummeting to almost nothing.

          Votes in Michigan were being moved from Trump to Biden using a simple algorithm based on the Republican/Democrat ratio of straight ticket voting (STVR), which would range from 0 (no Republicans) to 1 (all Democrats), as told by the straight ticket votes.

          If (STVR > 0.2) then ‘district is not more than 80% Democrat – heavily Democratic
          ‘precincts are untouched

          shift = Trump_total * (0.15 * (STRV – 0.2)) ‘start stealing votes at the 20% STVR
          ‘range, and steal up to 15% of votes in direct proportion to the STVR ratio.
          Trump_total = Trump_total – shift
          Biden_total = Biden_total + shift
          endif

          This left a glaring statistical foot print, which MIT researchers uncovered, and which cannot be explained in any other way.

          And they sometimes just punched in made-up numbers, which is why Biden’s votes counts fail Benford’s law of first digits, unlike all the other candidates. You can’t even say “Benford’s Law” on Twitter without risking an account suspension. As they say, you know you’re over the target when the firing gets intense.

          And there’s the swing over time in the ratio of Biden to Trump votes in mail-in-ballots. That ratio should remain fixed, or swing every so slightly towards Republicans due to their more rural locations and longer mailing delays. And indeed, those ratios are rock solid in states like Florida. But in Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, and Minnesota, they are dramatically different. Since that ratio is like an isotope signature, and the Postal Service doesn’t have gaseous diffusion equipment, it means that the swings in the ratio were almost certainly due to fraud.

          And there’s the percentage of ballots with no down-ticket votes. Anomalies in that rate are a red flag for election fraud, and three Pennsylvania counties stick out like a sore thumb in my plots. And there are wild anomalies in turn-out rates, with some places apparently exceeding 200%. And anomalies compared to other, similar demographics in similar cities. In explaining why blacks in city A where shattering turnout records, with Biden getting 178% of Obama’s turnout, you also have to ask why this wasn’t happening in any similar cities that finished their voting quickly and cleanly. Why did it only happen in the cities known for rampant voter fraud, which were still counting votes two weeks later?

          An author asked professional fraud investigators their opinion of the case.

          In your entire career, have you ever seen a case that threw up this many flags that DID NOT turn out to be fraud?

          Their professional opinions were clear.

          The answer was that none of them has ever even seen a case with this many red flags before. Usually they go on one or two red flags, sometimes three. This election has dozens and dozens. And again, they said that when a case starts out with flags like this, it is ALWAYS fraud. They knew of no exceptions.Report

          • Avatar DavidTC in reply to George Turner
            Ignored
            says:

            “Wow, it sure is mysterious that a conspiracy-mind political party that started running around demanding people provide them with red flags sure had people provide a bunch of red flags! This is exactly the same as investigators objectively coming across independent people saying these things.”Report

            • Avatar George Turner in reply to DavidTC
              Ignored
              says:

              Nobody demanded any red flags. We were just looking at the obvious fraud, and seeing it everywhere, each person noting dozens and dozens of indicators. Finally someone just asked if the sheer number of indicia of fraud is a direct sign of fraud, in and of itself.

              The answer, from fraud investigators, was a resounding “Yes!”Report

          • Avatar DavidTC in reply to George Turner
            Ignored
            says:

            BTW, while I think we all know how ‘I looked up their death records is’ (Hint: Different people can have multiple names and blindly looking up name si moronic.), it’s worth pointing out that a lot of George’s version of fraud is ‘Not enough mail-in ballots are being rejected’.

            He’s just sorta _hypothesizing_ there’s a bunch of fraud, _and_ that that fraud is part of a conspiracy that is being done by the Democrats, _and_ the lack of rejection is part of the conspiracy.

            Here’s a fun fact in Pennsylvania: It has no required voter ID at the polls, after the first time voting. None. People can show up, and if they know the name, and where that person votes, they can vote.

            So explain to me, _exactly_, why Pennsylvania not doing a good job of checking signatures is a problem, when whoever cast that ballot literally could have walked in and voted in person, without having _any_ confirmation of who they were?

            Because here is the actual truth: The only fraud that happens with mail-in ballots is a staggering minute amount of people who have access to someone’s mail and take their ballot and vote for them. That’s it. And that’s an incredibly small amount of people.

            In fact, that’s how _all_ the complaints are. They _start with_ the presumption there was some massive fraud operation, and thus any difficulties or oddities in a giant process is evidence of that, to the point of someone placing a ballot in what _might_ be the wrong place is part of it. Or ‘The room seemed anti-Trump’.

            It’s literally ‘begging the question’, in the real meaning of that.

            You know what will still notably _don’t_ have. Any _actual_ fraud. We’ve got:
            1) Republicans misunderstanding how statistics work.
            2) Republicans alleging things that could _cover up_ fraud
            3) One or two instances of what sound like normal ‘voting for someone else’ mail-in fraud (Which…we have no idea what their political positions are.) aa the levels we normally have. Which Republicans seem to think implicates Democrats, somehow?
            4) And then misc stuff, like Republicans asserting that delays THEY THEMSELVES CAUSED in Pennsylvania are evidence of fraud. Hey, George, if Republicans wanted those results faster, perhaps you should have let them _start counting_ earlier?

            But this allegation of ‘massive fraud’ require _hundreds of thousands_ of voting alterations. And that is something we not only haven’t see, but don’t have any real allegations of how it could happen.Report

            • Avatar George Turner in reply to DavidTC
              Ignored
              says:

              Okay, so we looked up people who had the same name, same Zip Code, and were born in the same month and year as each other, each over 100 years old…

              So there were thousands and thousands of them who were dead, who voted, and yet had that doppleganger who shared their Zip, name, birth year, and birth month, who were obviously also over a hundred years old, and these quasi-twins were still up and kicking?

              That’s really the defense argument you want to go with? How dumb do you think people are?Report

          • Avatar DavidTC in reply to George Turner
            Ignored
            says:

            Anyway, in case anyone wants to know what’s frothing in the right-wing stew, here’s something talking about it:

            https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/06/technology/false-dead-michigan-voter-claims.html

            The media is mostly ignoring these claims because they are…utterly false.

            George, of course, has not bothered to cite any of _his_ examples, probably because people would, very annoyingly, debunk them.

            But, again, one or two example of someone filling out a dead person’s ballot or a ballot mailed to someone that lived at the previous address would not prove a vast conspiracy, or any conspiracy at all.Report

        • Avatar Brandon Berg in reply to DavidTC
          Ignored
          says:

          In George’s defense, one might reasonably infer from typical Twitter-trash usage that the meaning of “gaslight” is “say anything I disagree with.”Report

          • Avatar DavidTC in reply to Brandon Berg
            Ignored
            says:

            Yeah, I know, I almost explained what it was there, but it’s honestly not worth it and would just give George another silliness to wander into. But here we go:

            Gaslighting, for people who don’t know, is telling people who _personally know or have observed things_ that they didn’t see those things.

            It’s trying to convince people their own memories and perceptions are wrong.

            Thus, the media can’t be ‘gaslighting’ the American public that there was no fraud, because the American public did not _observe_ fraud.

            Even if we want to count these dumb complaints as ‘observations of fraud’ (Most of them are actually complaints about how the people didn’t like how the observation process worked and that there could have, hypothetically, been fraud somewhere they weren’t allowed to see.), that would be _those people_ are being gaslit by the media, not the ‘American public’.Report

  17. Avatar Mike Schilling
    Ignored
    says:

    This is a complete lie. That he keeps this shit up just further demonstrates that he’s unfit.

    Report

  18. Avatar Kazzy
    Ignored
    says:

    This DID play out. The voted were counted. They told us Biden won the Presidency. They also told us Republicans likely improved their standing in Congress.

    You’re asking for overtime in a game decided by 20 points because you think a few plays that were already reviewed by replay didn’t change and even if they had, they weren’t enough to change the outcome of the game. There’s no do-overs. This isn’t teeball.Report

    • Avatar George Turner in reply to Kazzy
      Ignored
      says:

      Gee. Democrats said the exact opposite in 2000 and 2016. Apparently you can only demand thorough recounts or allege foreign election interference if a Republican wins. We’re still waiting on Democrats to concede the 2016 election. They never did, and spent four years saying that Trump was illegitimate, in the absence of any evidence to support it.

      As the fraud investigators pointed out, sometimes there’s one or two red flags but no fraud, but it’s rare to have three, and almost unheard of to have four and not be able to prosecute the case to a successful conviction.

      This one has dozens of red flags. During the act, we have:

      1) Trump was winning all the keys states by huge margins on election night. Even people here said 2020 was reminding them of exactly what they went though on 2016. And then, in the middle of the night, Biden surged ahead. That doesn’t happen in multiple states.

      2) All the key states mysterious stopped counting at about 1:00 AM, and only the key states stopped counting. Why would a state do that? Red flag.

      3) Georgia claimed they stopped counting, saying the Atlanta arena was flooding from a burst pipe and the vote counters had to be evacuated. That was false. The arena never filed any paperwork for a contractor to come and fix anything. The only confirmation that there was even a leak said it was a minor drip that was quickly mopped up, and was nowhere near the counting. Red flag.

      4) Republican observers were sent home because ballot counting had stopped, and that’s when the new fake ballots showed up. The delivery vehicles full of ballots were caught on video. Ballots aren’t normally driven across a state to be counted somewhere else. Red flag.

      5) How did Biden’s lead massively increase while ballot counting was stopped? If you’re not counting ballots, the number shouldn’t be changing. Yet it did, by hundreds of thousands, but only for one candidate. That one would cause any international election observer to throw a red flag.

      6) Republican election observers weren’t present when the new ballots were arriving in the middle of the night, because they’d been sent home. Another red flag.

      7) Republican election observers weren’t allowed to observe in many of the states. Trump is correct, as backed up by their affidavits. Many were barred, many were ejected, some by “security”. In Philly they weren’t allowed to observe, even with a court order. The sheriff blocked them. That went on for days. Huge red flag, and another that UN observers take as evidence of election fraud.

      8) Long delays in counting the votes in key states. Under international standards, long delays in vote counting are taken as suspicious, and usually indicate election rigging. Counting just isn’t at all hard compared to making up fake ballots that can survive cursory scrutiny. A long delay likely means they’re making sure they have enough “recount survivable” fraudulent ballots, or enough to cover for a rigged vote tally that was made up on election night.

      9) All the long counting delays concerned cities with a long history of machine politics and rampant election fraud.

      10) Observed real-time vote tally’s in multiple states where Trump or Jorgensen’s total count decreased. Negative votes aren’t supposed to exist. That’s a sign that the election were being hacked.

      11) Mail-in-ballots arriving in Pennsylvania before they were even shipped out. That can’t happen in this universe, and is definite sign of fraud.

      12) Large numbers of dead people, who were born over a hundred years ago, being recorded as having voted. I’ve confirmed plenty of those myself.

      13) Large number of women reporting that someone voted under their maiden name. This happened to some of the women I comment with.

      14) Large numbers of people showing up on election day and being told they’d all ready voted.

      15) Republicans checking to make sure their ballot was recorded and finding out that it wasn’t, and then having to harass election officials for days to get it recorded. This happened to a blogger I’ve read for years, who happens to be a member of the US diplomatic corps.

      16) The use of different voting standards in Democrat counties compared to Republican counties. One of Trump’s lawsuits is based on that.

      17) New ballots showing up days after the election. The number of ballots still to be counted kept increasing, for days in some counties. Nothing like this remotely happened in normal states.

      18) Late changes to election laws (in many states) and last-minute changes to election procedures and standards. Changing the system virtually during the act is a sign of election rigging by people in power. Trump has already had some rulings in his favor on that issue, as state election officials only have the power to enforce election laws, not to modify them on the fly.

      19) Turning off or turning down voter signature verification so fraudulent ballots aren’t caught. This occurred in most or all of the key states. One reporter in Arizona voted nine times under different names, and all but one of the votes passed their signature checks. Pennsylvania’s mail-in-ballot rejection rate plummeted from 0.95% to 0.03%. It should’ve gone up because of the vast influx of first-time mail-in-voters, who often have a 3% rejection rate in that state. Since only election officials (the people running the election) can do that, it is a sign of election rigging.

      20) Observations of people outside election areas making fake ballots. Some of this is on video, with “activists” signing multiple ballots just outside the election locations, with boxes of ballots in their vehicles, and with attempts to keep people from photographing them.

      21) That the media was making very unsupportable calls on election night, all favoring one candidate over the other. In other countries, this is taken as evidence of a thumb on the scales.

      22) The press suppression all allegations of voter fraud. Again, that happens in banana Republicans and is often evidence of voter fraud. Note that the same media organizations doing this are the ones who spent four years hyping every last hint that the Russian’s may have flipped even one vote, or that big data may have been used, or that dozens of people trolling Facebook counts as election rigging.

      23) A rush to be declared the winner and get a concession, so as to avoid any recounts or investigation into election irregularities. Shoplifters try to get out the door as quickly as possible, just as all criminals try to avoid being searched or questioned.

      24) Attempts to intimidate opposition lawyers. Some of the law firms hired by Trump have quit because of attacks, doxing, threats to their firms, and death threats. This is common in corrupt countries where an election has been rigged, and is a clear indication that one party does not want any evidence presented because it will expose their criminal activities, or show that the rigged an election. In normal legal practice, law firms are rarely if ever threatened, even when they’re defending ISIS terrorists.

      25) People coming forward saying they were paid money to rig the election. That’s was already happening even prior to the election.

      26) Whistle blowers coming forward saying they were told to perform illegal acts to sway the election. We’ve already got those.

      27) Attempts to suppress and intimidate whistle blowers, along with attempts to silence or discredit them. We’ve already had that.

      28) Attempts by top officials to suppress evidence that there was a coordinated effort to rig the election. We’ve had that too, with threats by a state AG to prosecute a reporter for playing a tape of instructions being given to election workers, in which they were told to attack Republican observers and throw away Republican ballots.

      29) Attempts by media or other large communications concerns to suppress any discussions of election rigging, or anything questioning the results of the election. We’ve got that happening at Communist Chinese levels of censorship. The conservative half of the country can’t say anything on Twitter or Facebook. This just screams organized election fraud.

      30) Organized media and tech suppression, to extreme levels, of stories that would harm their candidate, especially stories about ongoing criminal behavior. It means access to public information is being restricted, and if they will do that, they will do anything else. In other countries that is taken as a glaring red flag that the media is as corrupt as the system itself.

      Statistical red flags

      31) Extremely large and unusual voter turnouts in key areas that overwhelmingly favor one candidate. This is very prevalent, and also appeared in Putin’s re-election.

      32) Voter turnouts that are above 90%. The highest turnouts in 60 or70 years in some areas (breaking records set when election rigging was commonplace), while most areas have close-to-normal turnouts, is a red flag of of election rigging to all international observers.

      33) Voter turnouts exceeding 100%. If you run out of people long before you run out of ballots to count, you’re obviously counting fake ballots. In this election, some precincts exceeded 200% turnout.

      34) extremely high turnouts for one candidate among certain demographics, which didn’t occur in similar cities in nearby non-battleground states that have similar demographics. This sticks out with a sore thumb where ever you look in this election, with northern Indiana and northern Ohio looking nothing like Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, or Atlanta compared to Birmingham, etc.

      For example, in Miami-Date, Baltimore city, and New York City’s five counties, Joe Biden got less votes than Obama or Hillary (99%, 99% and 76%). He barely outperformed Hillary in Chicago (up 4%), Columbus (11%), San Francisco (8%), Boston (3%), Washington DC (8%), New Orleans (10%), Arlington VA (14%). But then he does 50% better in places like Phoenix and Colorado Springs, 40% better in Austin, and 32% better in Atlanta? And Biden does this after ditching the Democrats’ famous and effective voter-turnout ground game?

      35) Unusual ratios of Biden votes in mail-in-ballots in only certain areas. In Pennsylvania, Biden’s gap over Trump in mail-in-ballots was 40% of Trump’s lead in same-day voting, across all counties, except in the problem areas around Philly, where the gap inexplicably skyrocketed.

      36) Swings in the Biden/Trump ratio of mail-in-ballots over time. When you look at the time when mail-in-ballots were counted, they’ve been randomized by the individual voters’ daily routines, personal procrastination levels, pickup routes, post-office procedures, sign-in times, and where they got placed on the floor at the election sites. The ratio should be like an isotopic signature at the point, and be extremely constant, as it is in non-key states. In the problem areas were fraud is historically highly prevalent, this ratio goes nuts, with the later ballots becoming more and more skewed towards Biden. The only way that can happen is through fraud.

      37) Biden getting more and more of the expected number of votes, as predicted by the ratio of straight-ticket voters, as a district or precinct becomes more heavily Republican, again judged by the ratio of straight-ticket voters. This can only happen via a computer algorithm, because real voters don’t know how everybody else is voting, much less defect to Biden the more Republican their district is. In fact, the opposite should happen due to social influences like seeing thousands of signs supporting their favored candidate. This is very clear evidence of intentional election rigging via computer, and appears on a very wide scale.

      38) Straight lines showing up in scatter plots that should look random. This is related to red flag #37, and show up in data in Wisconsin. Real data is messy, and when a statistical analysis turns that mess into a perfect, straight line, you’re seeing the work of a computer rigging results, not the actions of human beings who are hard to predict, and who drink a lot and sometimes lick Tide Pods.

      39) The polls, which were wildly wrong, apparently got the suspect states surprisingly more accurate than states that got their ballots counted quickly. Basically, it looks almost like the vote in the late-counting states is being rigged to match polls that were wildly off everywhere else. Obviously all the pollsters shouldn’t have been close only in a couple of states.

      40) It’s pretty much impossible for the result to deviate so much from the bellwether counties. Even if we’d been holding elections since before the Big Bang happened, we still wouldn’t have had a result where even eleven of seventeen bellwethers were wrong. This time 14 of them missed. Statistically, that simply can’t happen. When you find a result that is statistically virtually impossible, it is. So Biden forgot to rig the bellwether counties when he was rigging the key states, because only statisticians care about bellwethers.

      41) The New York times election night live feed of raw data – for Virginia. Virginia is odd in that it apparently allows fractional voting, so a batch will come in that looks like this:
      Batch stamp (GMT) Biden #, Trump #, Biden %, Trump %
      2020-11-04T13:02:17Z 252.39 210.09 54.573171% 45.426829%

      That one had 252.39 votes for Biden, and 210.09 votes for Trump, which were added to the running totals.

      42) But the fractional voting gets weirder, because some of the batches have huge negative votes, like 2020-11-04T05:12:38Z, which had -37,510.39 votes for Trump. Kind of odd, eh?

      43) But it gets weirder. In that dump, the first seven batches each gave Trump 45.4278% of the batch total, even when the number of votes was 11.28 to 9.39 or 1544.41 to 1285.57. The standard deviation of the Trump % of those 7 batches was 0.001653%, or a thousandth of a percent. The next 11 batches shifted slightly, giving Trump 45.22% of the vote, with a standard deviation of 0.02587%. The second group differed from the first group by 7 standard deviation of the second group, and 125 standard deviations of the first group. Only a machine creating fake ballots could do this, and by the way, there’s no such thing as a floating point vote. My assumption is that some coder didn’t realize he’d declared the wrong data type for his fake vote generator – which fed the New York Times election feed.

      44) Hundreds of thousands of votes came in for Biden, out of nowhere, late in the night, while hundreds of thousands of Trump votes disappeared from the totals. The vote ratio on the later batches didn’t look remotely like what it had been in the first 125 batches of votes, in which Trump was taking a commanding lead. It’s like someone saw Trump was easily winning Virginia and hit the election-rigging panic button.

      I’m sure I’ve forgotten many, many other red flags, but the point is that three or four red flags usually indicate a strong case for conducting an investigation that will most likely result in prosecution and conviction. Here, off the top of my head (except those last 5 because I’d just been punching them through a spreadsheet), are ten times the number of red flags that you’d probably have when looking into a company like Enron. There’s so much of it, that you can probably see this fraud from the moon.Report

      • Avatar Philip H in reply to George Turner
        Ignored
        says:

        Hey George – where are the Hillary indictments and John Dunham’s obama official indictments? You have been promising them to us for 4 years now.

        given your track record there, perhaps you should put down the kool-aid and come back to the real world.Report

      • Avatar JakeTheJake in reply to George Turner
        Ignored
        says:

        YOu can count to 44. Or did you just copy/paste this drivel.

        Voter turnout exceeding 100%. This is funny. Many states have same day voter registration. People who aren’t registered can just show up an vote. And how amazing is that!?Report

        • Avatar George Turner in reply to JakeTheJake
          Ignored
          says:

          I didn’t copy and paste it, I wrote it off the top of my head, just based on all the fraud I’ve seen. However, it’s now being copy and pasted all over the place. I posted it at Instapundit and told everybody to grab it, use it, and expand it, and they did, posting it on their own blogs and sending it to their friends and family. It’s just going to grow.

          Try explaining any four of those red flags, much less all of them.

          Heck, maybe there’s some rational explanation for why Virginia votes in floating point numbers, so a person can cast 1.29 votes for Biden. I’m assuming it didn’t get flagged earlier because most everyone who’s set up an automatic processing of New York Times raw vote data would have programmed their end of the feed to use integers, so they weren’t even seeing what was really coming in.

          Maybe there’s a natural reason that some batches of Virginia votes had -373,121.35 votes (negative). Maybe there’s a reason that all the tiny little numbers coming in had the same Biden/Trump ratio with a standard deviation of 0.001%. I can’t think of one. Can you?Report

  19. Avatar Mike Schilling
    Ignored
    says:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/brad-raffensperger-georgia-vote/2020/11/16/6b6cb2f4-283e-11eb-8fa2-06e7cbb145c0_story.html

    Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said Monday that he has come under increasing pressure in recent days from fellow Republicans, including Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), to question the validity of legally cast absentee ballots in an effort to reverse President Trump’s narrow loss in the state.

    In a wide-ranging interview about the 2020 election, Raffensperger expressed exasperation with a string of baseless allegations coming from Trump and his allies about the integrity of the Georgia results, including claims that Dominion Voting Systems, the Colorado-based manufacturer of Georgia’s voting machines, is a “leftist” company with ties to Venezuela that engineered thousands of Trump votes not to be counted.

    The atmosphere has grown so contentious, Raffensperger said, that both he and his wife, Tricia, have received death threats in recent days, including a text to him that read, “You better not botch this recount. Your life depends on it.”

    Report

    • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Mike Schilling
      Ignored
      says:

      Trump also wants to connect the signed ballot envelopes with the ballots they contained, that is, break ballot secrecy. Not because they have any evidence of fraud, just as a fishing expedition.

      This is playing out, and we’re seeing exactly who Trump and his bootlickers are, not that there was much doubt.Report

      • Avatar George Turner in reply to Mike Schilling
        Ignored
        says:

        I may have had something to do with that, though I’m not sure. I’ve been talking it up. One of the odd statistics I’m seeing is that Biden is outperforming Hillary by pretty good margins in many cities, but not Milwaukee, Chicago, Philly, Detroit, and parts of Atlanta. It’s like voter turnout went way up in the key states, but not in the cities known for cranking out fraudulent votes, where we would normally point to a ridiculous rise in turnout as evidence of possible fraud.

        So what I’ve been suggesting is to look at the postmarks on the ballots, not for the time stamp, but for where they originated, as they get postmarked at the first post office that processes them.

        With mass mail-in-balloting, the fraud-factories in the machine-cities would’ve been smart to forge ballots for contests everywhere in the state – except the city of origin. So Philly will look clean, and simultaneously it will look that there was an unusually large Biden turnout in Mechanicsburg, Lancaster, and Hershey that nobody expected.

        But if they did that, large number of ballots in those smaller towns and cities would likely carry Philly postmarks. Say there’s 800,000 of them. There’s no way 800,000 Pennsylvanians drove to Philly and crashed on somebody’s couch just to mail a ballot. The same thing would be true in Detroit, Minneapolis, and Milwaukee. Almost no Hershey ballots should carry a Philly postmark, as anyone who’d moved to Philly shouldn’t be voting in Hershey.

        Yet even if the ballots are separated from the envelopes, the envelopes are still election-related papers that must, under Federal law, be retrained for 22 months after an election, so at some point that will be looked into. The pattern to look for would be an unusually large number of mail in ballots from across a state that came from a particular place.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *