Tuesday, November 10, 2020

No Evidence of Voter Fraud

 NY Times:

The Times talked to officials in 49 of 50 states -- Texas election officials wouldn't talk to them, but officials from the largest county in Texas, Harris County, did.
PHILADELPHIA — Election officials in dozens of states representing both political parties said that there was no evidence that fraud or other irregularities played a role in the outcome of the presidential race, amounting to a forceful rebuke of President Trump’s portrait of a fraudulent election....

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....

The office of the state’s [Pennsylvania's] top law enforcement official said that there was no evidence to support Mr. Giuliani’s claims, and that the election in the state was “fair and secure.”

“Many of the claims against the commonwealth have already been dismissed, and repeating these false attacks is reckless,” said Jacklin Rhoads, a spokeswoman for Josh Shapiro, a Democrat who is Pennsylvania’s attorney general. “No active lawsuit even alleges, and no evidence presented so far has shown, widespread problems.”


David in Cal said...

The Times's headline is not supported by the article. The article says, "...there was no evidence that fraud or other irregularities played a role in the outcome of the presidential race"

These anonymous election officials did not say there was no fraud at all.

It's a shame that the New York Times can no longer be relied upon for accuracy. I suspect the mistake in the headline was intentional. I think it's part of a media campaign, which I referred to earlier, to downplay fraud allegations.


David Appell said...

Now you're quibbling about headlines? It's a headline, not an abstract.

Where's your tangible evidence? Where's Trump's?

I get it -- it hurts when you lose -- It's hard to believe. I felt that way in 2016. But U didn't say the election was stolen by fraud. Hillary Clinton conceded before noon the next day in 2016. That took some mighty big cojones. Trump's cojones haven't even descended yet.

David in Cal said...

David - We seem to be debating different things. I'm arguing against your contention that there was absolutely no evidence of election fraud. You appear arguing that there was no conclusive evidence of election fraud. If that's not the point you're trying demonstrate, I invite you to state exactly what you're trying to prove.

In order to prove my contention, I only needed to find a single piece of evidence of fraud, even if it's weak and inconclusive. I did that.


J. D. said...

DiC. I don't think anyone would think that they meant there was definitely no isolated instances of fraud that slipped through the net. If anyone did think that then they didn't have to read far past the headline to see they meant that there couldn't be enough fraudulent votes to affect the outcome. Or that it was highly unlikely.

Compare that to your "conservative" sources making out that there is almost certainly enough fraud to flip the result in Biden's favour. Even if there were significant fraud, its just as likely, if not more likely to work in Trump's favour.
Why is there all this controversy? It can be summed up in one word - Trump. Everyone knew he wouldn't go quietly if he lost. Clinton conceded the day after the election in 2016. This attack on American democracy is shameful. If Clinton had even took a couple of days longer to concede those same sources that are claiming Trump has won this time would be calling her a bad loser and worse.

David Appell said...

David, I'm not going to play your game.

You want to quibble instead of providing real evidence Trump was cheated out of a second term. It's a way to soften your defeat. I get that, but you'll have to deal with that on your own, as we must all deal with our pains and losses.

David Appell said...

David, back here you wrote:

"In fact, there is a great deal of evidence."

Now you're arguing about whether there is a SINGLE piece of fraud.

This is what I mean -- you've drastically changed your argument from the original. It's not worth any of our time to argue endlessly about whether there was or was not a single instance of fraud in the entire country in the 2021 presidential election, out of ~150 M votes cast. Nor about a headline. If you don't want to read the NYT, don't read it -- I couldn't care less.

Trump lost, and by a large margin. His fat ass will be gone by Jan 20.

David Appell said...

Also, Obama invited Trump to the White House the day after the 2016 election:


Because Obama had, and will always have, class.

David in Cal said...

David - I take that you are withdrawing your claim that there was "no evidence of fraud whatsoever." Now we can debate two questions:

1. Was there enough evidence of fraud for a court to overthrow the election?

2. Was there enough evidence of fraud so that a reasonable person can believe that Trump would have won an honest election.

My answers would be NO to #1 and YES to #2.


J. D. said...

So where is the evidence for #2? You've been asked and haven't provided any.

If the position were reversed and the media had called this for Trump as in 2016 there wouldn't have been all this drama. Biden would have conceded just as Clinton did. The difference is that Trump is a pathological liar and he has followers who will back him up.

David Appell said...

David, I haven't seen any hard evidence of fraud, and you haven't provided any.

David in Cal said...

David - what is "hard" evidence? I don't think that's a legal term.


David Appell said...

I'm not in a legal court.

Evidence that would convince a rationale, skeptical, logically thinking person.

After all these days, you haven't produced any.

David in Cal said...

David, I agree with you. I don't have evidence that's totally convincing. There is plenty of evidence that's highly suggestive. E.g., the sworn affidavit about the Republican vote-count watchers who were blocked from seeing certain ballots come in and get counted. That suggests that they were prevented from seeing fraud, but it's not conclusive that they were prevented from seeing fraud.


David Appell said...

What sworn affidavit about vote-count watchers?

Even if blocked, it doesn't at all suggest fraud was going on. That's exactly the kind of illogical leap that judges have been throwing out all around the country. Without knowing more about this affidavit it's impossible to say more about the situation, but immediately leaping to "it must be fraud" isn't logical.

David Appell said...

But this is what I'm talking about: you just presented hearsay. You didn't say where this alleged vote-count blocking was done, or when, or where affidavit is from, or when, or give a link to it, or to a new story about it. Without even this as a start, it's nothing we can even have a conversation about. I'm not going to agree to agree about things like this, because I've read news stories about lawsuits about such blocking being thrown out in court.

Layzej said...

"The difference is that Trump is a pathological liar and he has followers who..."

Who are pathological patsies.

"I heard someone somewhere suggested something that may be suggestive of wrongdoing if you ignore all the obvious explanations. I'm not saying it's proof, but it sure makes you think!"

David in Cal said...

David, Layzej - here's an excerpt from one of my links

We are aware of the reports of thousands of votes cast in Nevada that were not eligible…right now we would point you to that. That information is publicly available.”

Lawsuit: Poll Workers Allege Voter-Coaching, Back-Dating, Cheating Occurred in Detroit Election Centers

McDaniel jumped back in to add that the whistleblower in Michigan has sworn an affidavit alleging: being told by a supervisor to backdate ballots that came in after the legal deadline; witnessing poll workers encouraging voters to vote straight Democrat; and even poll workers going into the booths with voters. These allegations of illegal votes being counted must be examined through the legal process. The press conveniently continued to ignore the evidence presented to them and pretended McDaniel never said it. “Why aren’t you worried about these irregularities?” McDaniel asked over a member of the press heckling her with stupid questions.

“Do you have any evidence you can show us today that illegal ballots were cast?” a member of the press asked AGAIN. An exasperated McDaniel replied that backdating ballots is illegal and that would mean they were cast illegally.


This looks to me like a report of hard evidence of fraud. It's not the evidence itself. The report says the evidence is publicly available, but I don't know how to access it.


David Appell said...

David, these are anecdotes, not hard evidence.

From WaPo, yesterday 3 pm PST:

"On Wednesday, President Trump’s campaign asked a federal judge to take a drastic step: block the state of Michigan from certifying the results of its presidential election. President-elect Joe Biden now leads Trump by about 148,000 votes there.

"To back up that lawsuit, Trump’s campaign had promised “shocking” evidence of misconduct.

"Instead, the campaign produced 238 pages of affidavits from Republican poll watchers across Michigan containing no evidence of significant fraud but rather allegations about ballot-counting procedures that state workers have already debunked — and in some cases, complaints about rude behavior or unpleasant looks from poll workers or Democratic poll watchers."


David Appell said...

From Detroit News, yesterday 6:13 pm ET:

"The city denied each allegation, citing among its proofs an affidavit from Chris Thomas, the retired 36-year director of elections for Michigan under Republican and Democratic secretaries of state. Thomas served as a senior adviser to Detroit Clerk Janice Winfrey during the Nov. 3 general election after issues with unbalanced poll books in Detroit surfaced during the August primary.

"It is clear from the affidavits attached to the complaint that these challengers do not understand absent voter ballot processing and tabulating," Thomas said in his affidavit.

"It is clear also that they did not operate through the leadership of their challenger party, because the issues they bring forward were by and large discussed and resolved with the leadership of their challenger party."...

"Election officials have said they allowed the maximum number of poll watchers for both Democrats and Republicans, only restricting access to any additional poll watchers because of COVID-19 concerns."


David in Cal said...

David - when someone swears under oath that they have seen fraud, that is indeed evidence. When someone else, under oath, denies what the first person testified to, that is also evidence.

I think, by "hard" evidence, you mean "conclusive" evidence. I agree that these affidavits may not be conclusive. You and I can't evaluate them without seeing each and every one of them.


J. D. said...

Here's a recent tweet from Trump quoting a Fox News program as evidence.

These states in question should immediately be put in the Trump Win column. Biden did not win, he lost by a lot!

The program is about a couple of isolated errors which were immediately picked up and corrected and would have been found by further checks anyway. But there you have Trump declaring victory on something that would not have affected the vote.

It was always obvious that there was no bottom with Trump but now we are finding out how many of his supporters are as bad. If anyone wondered how seemingly normal people could have stood aside whilst Germany slipped into dictatorship in the 1930's then we are seeing it happening now. Hopefully it still can be stopped here but it's not certain and it's obvious that most of the people who have enabled Trump's behavior over the last few years will just say Trump was right and that he had no choice.

David in Cal said...

J.D. - Your Hitler comparison is ridiculous. To a Jew like me, it's also offensive. Trump often says wildly exaggerated things. He sometimes gets facts wrong. These flaws are real, but nothing like Hitler's crimes against humanity.

BTW Trump's enemies also say exaggerated things. The Trump-Hitler comparison is one example.


P.S. Trump's election lawsuits are almost certainly hopeless, but there's nothing illegal or immoral about them.

J. D. said...

I didn't mention Hitler. I said dictatorship. You said Trump says wildly exagerated things. That you have to make the excuse that he was "wildly exaggerating" suggests that what he said was outrageous. Do you really think he was joking? He tried to declare victory with millions of votes still to count. This was no surprise as he'd signaled as much well before the vote started. This is him at an election rally,

"We're going to go in the night of, as soon as that election is over, we're going in with our lawyers."

Saying there is nothing illegal or immoral about his lawsuits is just more making excuses for dictorial behaviour. Making all sorts of outlandish claims about fraud and using that to tryand claim victory is certainly not moral and this type of behavior if not stopped never ends well.

I read earlier about an electoral law expert saying that up to now he'd been certain that Trump couldn't steal the election but now he wasn't sure. The reason was Republican state legislators in Pennsylvania changing their tune on whether they would interfere in the selection of state electoral college electors. He thinks it likely that they are coming under pressure from the White House. If you think that Trump would have any problem with stealing the election then you haven't been watching for the last few years. Trump is absolutely convinced he has won and that it's everyone else that's cheating.

As for your being Jewish your race really makes no difference to me but do you really think that should stop anyone speaking out when we believe that someone supported by people who chant "Jews will not replace us" is trying to undermine the will of the majority of the eloctorate? Anyone who has studied history, particularly the last century, knows that there were always those that said of wanna be dictators "oh he didn't really mean what he said" or "if he goes to far we'll be able to stop him". Even now when he should be preparing to transfer power Trump is sacking people and installing more yes men. That is not the action of someone who respects democracy.

David in Cal said...

J.D. - Trump is obviously pro-Jewish. His policies have been more pro-Israel than any President since Truman. When his daughter married a Jew, he welcomed the Jewish son-in-law into his family. That's not what my late father-in-law did when I married a Gentile.

Trump has done nothing remotely dictatorial. The President has the power to select many people in the Executive Branch. When President Trump fires someone and replaces him, he's properly using his Constitutional authority. There's nothing dictatorial about that. The fact that the President is appointing people who support him is utterly normal.

What is the will of the majority? If Biden won only because of thousands of votes submitted via fake absentee ballots, then Trump is the will of the majority. OTOH if there weren't a great many fraudulent votes, then Biden is the will of the majority. I think we should try to find out which is the case. Trump's lawsuits hopefully will help us find the truth. I don't think we should just sweep this question under the rug.


J. D. said...

Trump has done nothing remotely dictatorial

Nonsense. Continually trying to undermine the election result with dubious claims that he started pushing before voting even started and saying that because of these false claims they should immediately call states for him is not dictatorial? Of course it is.

What is the will of the majority?

The will of the majority is Biden having more than five million more votes than Trump when Trump lagged by nearly three million when he won at the last election. With Biden's projected electoral college margin the same as Trump's in 2016.

Trump's lawsuits hopefully will help us find the truth.

You wouldn't have said the same if Clinton and Obama had played the same games in 2016. They could have made the same arguments as Trump. They certainly couldn't have been worse with case after case getting laughed out of court and lawyers having to admit under questioning that they're based on hearsay.

Trump should be proceeding with the transition and dealing with the growing covid crisis instead of scheming and sulking. He's just blamed the number of cases on testing again whilst hospital staff are stretched to the limit where covid is becoming out of control.

David Appell said...

David, you haven't even linked to the affidavit.

The signer of this affidavit hasn't appeared in court, AFAIK.

The Erie postman recanted his affidavit.

Where is your hard evidence, something that, yes, is conclusive.

You have none, buddy.

David Appell said...

I agree with JD in the sense that I'm shocked that 70+ M Americans would vote for an obvious liar, adultier, narcissist, who clearly cares little about them and has done nothing for them. That was the shock after the 2016 election, too. Suddenly, there was half of the country I clearly did not know.

It *is* reminiscent of the early 1930s in Germany. I don't know how much further you can take that, but it has nothing to do with anti-Semitism or the Holocaust. But if bears watching. It's reminiscent of the cult and its potential for violence.

I don't think today's followers of Trump have any ideological heft behind them -- they just like to show off their guns and camo. They like to scare people, but they are intellectually vapid, as is Trump himself. This is no revolution coming out of either Trump or his Proud Boys (etc), because they aren't smart enough to coordinate one, they aren't educated enough to understand this time in history. They could still create a lot of death if they so choose, because they have a lot of guns. But it takes more for a real revolution.

David Appell said...

Fake absentee ballots???

Says who?

David in Cal said...

David - You are right. There is no conclusive evidence of fraud. That's why I expect Biden's victory to stand. However, there is a huge amount of suggestive evidence of fraud. That's why many people will continue to believe that the election was stolen.


David Appell said...

David: no there isn’t, which is why you or anyone else hasn’t provided any evidence.

David Appell said...

“Suggestive evidence” sounds like “alternative facts”

David in Cal said...

David - Here's an example of suggestive, but not conclusive, evidence:

Pollster: It's Curious How Biden Underperformed Hillary Clinton In Every City...Except These Four....

The turnout numbers are odd in some states, like Wisconsin, which hit 89 percent. Now, is that figure impossible? No. Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel did the math, but it’s highly improbable given the turnout rates in the surrounding areas. It would require 900,000 people showing up for same-day registrations....

How curious that, as Baris notes, “Trump won the largest non-white vote share for a Republican presidential candidate in 60 years. Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton in every major metro area around the country, save for Milwaukee, Detroit, Atlanta and Philadelphia.”

Robert Barnes, the foremost election analyst, observes in these “big cities in swing states run by Democrats…the vote even exceeded the number of registered voters.”

Trump’s victories in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin were on target until, in the middle of the night, counting was arbitrarily halted. Miraculously, several hundred thousand votes – all for Biden – were mysteriously ‘found’; Trump’s real leads subsequently vanished.


To a numbers geek like me, that pattern clearly shows big time fraud. However, how can one prove conclusively that 900,000 people didn't show up for same day registration in Wisconsin?

BTW you and J.D. impugned the motives of those supporting the lawsuits. Maybe the motives of those opposing the lawsuits is that they're concerned that fraud will be discovered.


David Appell said...

David, the lawsuits are being thrown out everywhere, with the judges all but laughing at them. At least four law firms representing Trump's campaign have withdrawn.

David Appell said...

Consider the source: townhall.com

Hardly known as a bastion of truth. It's another place conservatives go to whine about their victimhood.

I'm going to believe the Department of Homeland Security over a column in townhall.com, and all the election officials in the country (per NYT's interviews) over townhall.com.

David Appell said...

In the townhall column, notice how the author approvingly quotes Newt Gingrich, who immediately blames a Jew:

"Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was blunter last Sunday, when he said, 'I think he would have to do a lot to convince Republicans that this is anything except a left-wing power grab, financed by people like George Soros....'"

Gingrich has zero evidence of any involvement of Soros -- he just thinks anti-Semitism will set off alarm bells amongst Trump supporters. And the townhall author apparently agrees. And then we're supposed to take their analysis seriously.

David Appell said...

From the townhall.com article:

"Robert Barnes, the foremost election analyst, observes in these “big cities in swing states run by Democrats…the vote even exceeded the number of registered voters.”

"Trump’s victories in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin were on target until, in the middle of the night, counting was arbitrarily halted. Miraculously, several hundred thousand votes – all for Biden – were mysteriously ‘found’; Trump’s real leads subsequently vanished."

More anecdotes! No hard facts. Why should I believe any of what these people have to say? Why??

Anybody can spout an opinion. That doesn't make them facts. That doesn't mean you should believe them. You WANT to think Trump was cheated so you're going to find people who tell you that, facts or not.

David Appell said...

"Fact check: Detroit voter registration figure discrepancies are from a 2019 lawsuit and were corrected before the election," Reuters 11/6/20.



"The posts ( here , here , here , here ) appear to show a graphic from a Fox2 TV news report with the header, “Detroit Voter Roll Lawsuit. Filed by Public Interest Legal Foundation.” The graphic underneath says, “4,788 duplicate registrations; 32,519 more registered voters than eligible voters; 2,503 dead people registered; one voter born in 1823....”

"The statistics come from a lawsuit ( here , here ) filed against the City of Detroit in December 2019 by The Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) (publicinterestlegal.org/). The lawsuit said that the City of Detroit had failed to reasonably maintain accurate and current voter registration records as required by federal law.

"PILF said in a summary of the lawsuit that, amongst other concerns, the number of dead registrants aged over 85 in Detroit was 2,503, that the number of registrations flagged for duplicate and triplicate concerns was 4,788, and that one registrant was stated as being born in 1823 (here)....

"The lawsuit was dropped on June 29, 2020, before the Nov. 3 presidential election, because the PILF said that the Defendants in Detroit and the Michigan Secretary of State had acted on the data provided to them ( here , here ). The PILF lawyers wrote, “Defendants have taken action on the list of likely deceased registrants provided by the Plaintiff. Further, almost all of the duplicate registrations that Plaintiff brought to Defendants’ attention have been corrected.”

"Detroit City Clerk, Janice Winfrey, told Detroit News (here) that the case of the registrant being born in 1823 was a “typographical error.”"

David Appell said...

WDIV-TV Detroit:

"While claims have been made in signed affidavits made under oath, they were not presented with any other evidence to back them up. Claims made in a similar way were dismissed as hearsay by a state judge in a lawsuit last week."


David in Cal said...

David - IMO the numbers alone prove the fraud. However, I doubt that the fraud will be provable in court.

I'm sorry to see you picking up the spin that criticism of Soros is somehow connected with anti-semitism. I have huge respect for Soros. I read two of his books. He's an extremely capable person. However, Soros isn't much of Jew. He's not religious. One thinks of Soros as an investment wizard, not as a Jew. It's noteworthy that Trump's enemies, who claim to be so sensitive to anti-semitism, have no trouble criticizing Stephen Miller, Jared Kushner, and Ivanka Trump.

My post did present some hard facts, such as the 89% turnout in Wisconsin. In 2016, only about 58% of eligible Americans voted.


David Appell said...

What numbers?

Gingrich offered no evidence whatsoever that Soros is financing anything post-election.

So why would he say it??? It's a dog whistle.

Anti-semites don't care if Soros is an observant Jew or not. They just know he's a Jew. There has long been anti-semitism directed against him:


Stephen Miller, Jared Kushner, and Ivanka Trump are criticized for their actions, not for their religion. You know that. I didn't even know Stephen Miller was Jewish. He's a vicious racist responsible for some of the most vile policies of the US since WW2 that have occurred at the US-Mexico border. Shameful, inhumane policies, crimes against humanity.

Layzej said...

DiC: "IMO the numbers alone prove the fraud...the 89% turnout in Wisconsin. In 2016, only about 58% of eligible Americans voted."

Americans voting is evidence of fraud, in your opinion? Well, there may be fraud by whoever gave you those numbers. The actual numbers for Wisconsin are 67% of all eligible voters in 2016 compared to 72% this year.

Republicans must know that Trump is a liar. I'm beginning to think they want to be lied to.

David in Cal said...

Layzej - do you have a breakdown of those numbers by area? I am particularly interested in the percentages for Milwaukee and for remainder of Wisconsin.


David Appell said...

David, don't you have anything to say about being so wrong?

Thanks, Layzej.

David Appell said...

Wisconsin County Election Websites:

J. D. said...

DiC: Trump said that Obama's 2012 victory was fraudulent and encouraged people to march on Washington. When he lost the Iowa caucus in 2016 he said he lost because Cruz had rigged the election. He then kept saying the contest with Clinton was rigged so that he had his excuses ready if he lost. He did the same before this last election and everyone knew that if he lost he wouldn't concede. He has now had court case after court case thrown out and yet you incredibly say,

Maybe the motives of those opposing the lawsuits is that they're concerned that fraud will be discovered.

There's an old saying, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Have you considered that the reason we don't believe Trump is because he not only behaves this way every time but he signals beforehand that that's what he's going to do? The mystery for those of us who haven't bought into this fantasy is why so many people are prepared to be fooled over and over and then still come back for more.

David Appell said...

As kids we all had a name for kids who acted like Trump does: crybaby.