Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Edge-]

I don't see the harm in doing a proper investigation myself. Sure you will never convince the die hards but it would help reassure some people. The election was an extremely close call ( via the system the states uses not popular vote) to be honest I'm surprised there is so much resistance to it.

Investigation into what, exactly?

And how is a 74 EC spread and a spread of 6 million votes an "extremely close call"? It's the same margin of victory Trump claimed was a "landslide" in the EC.

[Levelfive]

You're missing the point; Charlie Baker is also a Republican. And Biden committed early to making his VP a woman. Regardless, I'm not sure Buttigieg would bring as many votes as Harris, Warren, or Sanders would.

Massachusetts has a Democratic super majority in the legislature.

[Rasulis]

This is fucking hilarious.

Rudy Giuliani: "There are many more affidavits here. I'd like to read them all to you, but I don't have the time. You should have had the time and energy to go look for them. That's your job, like it's my job to defend the president and to represent the president. It's your job to read these things and not falsely report that there's no evidence."

PowerLine: "Challenge accepted!"

The funny part is that Powerline is a conservative website. I am not talking "lean conservative." It is all out conservative.

Power Line is a site that features commentary on the news from a conservative perspective. We have been serving readers since Memorial Day weekend 2002. Four of us contribute to the site and add our personal interests to the mix of commentary on the news.

[xmirrors]

I don't see the harm in doing a proper investigation myself. Sure you will never convince the die hards but it would help reassure some people. The election was an extremely close call ( via the system the states uses not popular vote) to be honest I'm surprised there is so much resistance to it.

We've given the GOP the opportunity to present their arguments, and they have repeatedly failed to do so. What would we be investigating? They've said in court they have no evidence. We're against it because it is a sham - they say one thing publicly, and another in court when under scrutiny.

[Krakan]

Investigation into what, exactly?

And how is a 74 EC spread and a spread of 6 million votes an "extremely close call"? It's the same margin of victory Trump claimed was a "landslide" in the EC.

Because we both know the popular vote doesn't matter in the states so I'm not going to take it into consideration. The votes for each state in many cases were extremely slim and the method of mailing in votes has never been attempted anywhere close to level before in history.

I don't think it will change the outcome but I don't really see a case against double checking it.

[PhaelixWW]

They were from red districts in Minnesota? Not even Michigan? What?

So I checked each city on that list and marked the corresponding county on a map of Michigan Minnesota, and sure enough...




More than half the towns listed were in Becker county alone, which voted 2/3 for Trump. Only a single town was in a blue county.

[Krakan]

We've given the GOP the opportunity to present their arguments, and they have repeatedly failed to do so. What would we be investigating? They've said in court they have no evidence. We're against it because it is a sham - they say one thing publicly, and another in court when under scrutiny.

Would they have access to that information? I admit this could be my ignorance of election law in the states showing but votes are kept confidential are they not?

Unless they have access to the votes themselves they couldn't possibly show any evidence.

[wunksta]

This is fucking hilarious.

PowerLine: "Challenge accepted!"

DO TRUMP’S LAWYERS KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING?

The answer may not surprise you.

[Edge-]

The votes for each state in many cases were extremely slim and the method of mailing in votes has never been attempted anywhere close to level before in history.

Multiple states have been doing expansive mail-in voting for years, including CA and WA.

Except that broader use of mail-in voting is new, why should there be investigations? What evidence is there to suggest any are necessary?

That something is new doesn't make it suspicious.

Also, vote margins in most states that I've seen that were "close" were less close than in 2016 so...that goes out the door too.

I don't think it will change the outcome but I don't really see a case against double checking it.

Because it continues a pointless attack on the credibility and integrity of our electoral system and the results will not matter to the people who currently reject the results.

See: Sidney Powell claiming that Hugo Chaves, who has been dead since 2013, had a hand in orchestrating the changing of millions of votes in international servers that don't exist.

- - - Updated - - -

Would they have access to that information? I admit this could be my ignorance of election law in the states showing but votes are kept confidential are they not?

They've sued multiple times claiming that bipartisan/nonpartisan observers were not allowed to observe the vote counting in states.

They've dropped, I believe, every one of those lawsuits. Often after a judge asks them if the observers were they and, because they don't want to go to jail, they have to tell the judge the truth and admit that observers were present.

Unless they have access to the votes themselves they couldn't possibly show any evidence.

Because it suggests a massive, multi-state conspiracy theory that includes both Democratic and Republican led states/districts that would require hundreds, if not thousands of people involved in the single largest national attempt of voter fraud ever.

And somehow, they've managed the "Immaculate Deception", according to Peter Navarro. They're just SO GOOD, there is no evidence. And they also didn't bother rigging the House/Senate races, nor any of the state level races. Just the presidential vote.

[Krakan]

Multiple states have been doing expansive mail-in voting for years, including CA and WA.

Except that broader use of mail-in voting is new, why should there be investigations? What evidence is there to suggest any are necessary?

That something is new doesn't make it suspicious.

Also, vote margins in most states that I've seen that were "close" were less close than in 2016 so...that goes out the door too.



Because it continues a pointless attack on the credibility and integrity of our electoral system and the results will not matter to the people who currently reject the results.

See: Sydney Powell claiming that Hugo Chaves, who has been dead since 2013, had a hand in orchestrating the changing of millions of votes in international servers that don't exist.

Define expansive for me... what does that mean? 100? 1000? 10000?

Its arguing in bad faith to claim we have ever seen something like this before and I believe you know it.

I don't see a negative to having a second group check when there is this much suspicion surrounding it.

[Levelfive]

Multiple states have been doing expansive mail-in voting for years, including CA and WA.

Except that broader use of mail-in voting is new, why should there be investigations? What evidence is there to suggest any are necessary?

That something is new doesn't make it suspicious.

Also, vote margins in most states that I've seen that were "close" were less close than in 2016 so...that goes out the door too.



Because it continues a pointless attack on the credibility and integrity of our electoral system and the results will not matter to the people who currently reject the results.

See: Sydney Powell claiming that Hugo Chaves, who has been dead since 2013, had a hand in orchestrating the changing of millions of votes in international servers that don't exist.

I was a little surprised she didn't invoke Saul Alinsky.

[Benggaul]

"Some guy said" isn't perjury, sadly. You're in trouble if you know it's false, but since when does Team Trump ever look into evidence? They grab a conspiracy theory headline and run out the door with it shrilling "Rigged! Riiiiiiiiigged!"

I was referring to them presenting Minnesota "data" as if it was Michigan. Like I said, it comes down to whether or not they did so intentionally or through their own inability to do their jobs. If they were intentionally misrepresenting the data then they're in deep bantha poodoo. I suspect, however, that it's just them being phenomenally--but not quite criminally--bad at what they do for a living.

I don't see the harm in doing a proper investigation myself. Sure you will never convince the die hards but it would help reassure some people. The election was an extremely close call ( via the system the states uses not popular vote) to be honest I'm surprised there is so much resistance to it.

No, it was not an "extremely close call", neither in the popular vote nor in the EC. It looked like it might have been a close call the day after the election but as time went on and all of the absentee ballots were tallied it was very apparent that this wasn't "close".

[Bodakane]

You're missing the point; Charlie Baker is also a Republican. And Biden committed early to making his VP a woman. Regardless, I'm not sure Buttigieg would bring as many votes as Harris, Warren, or Sanders would.

I'm not missing the point.

I keep getting told the primaries prove Biden was the right choice, but if the primaries were THAT important, the Dems would have went with Biden and any other candidate that got delegates. They didn't, which proves the primaries aren't indicative of anything when it comes to the general election.

If Pete wouldn't bring as many votes as Harris, that is literal proof primary delegates don't translate to the general election.

[Levelfive]

Define expansive for me... what does that mean? 100? 1000? 10000?

Its arguing in bad faith to claim we have ever seen something like this before and I believe you know it.

I don't see a negative to having a second group check when there is this much suspicion surrounding it.

How about the fact that election officials, both Democrat and Republican, on both the state and federal level, have stated clearly there's absolutely no evidence of any kind of widespread voter fraud, either with mail in ballots--which is how soldiers have voted since the civil war--or otherwise?

[Breccia]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

Trump lawyers to avoid Michigan lawmaker meeting after COVID exposure

HAHAHAHAHAHA they won't even meet HAHAHAHAHAHA

Rudy Giuliani and other key members of President Trump's outside legal team won't be attending today's meeting with two Michigan lawmakers because they've been exposed to the coronavirus, two sources familiar with the internal discussions tell Axios.

This added turmoil inside the president's legal operation comes at a time when the president is urging Republican state lawmakers to interfere with the electoral process and reverse Joe Biden's victory to a Trump win.

"It's just a shitshow, it's a joke," said a Trump campaign adviser.

HAHAHAHAHAHAH stop stop I need to breathe HAHAHAHAHA

This raised the obvious question of which member of Rudy Giuliani's legal team would join the White House meeting.

But those contingencies fell apart on the call. One of the participants told the group that Andrew Giuliani, a White House staffer and son of Rudy, has tested positive for the virus.

One of the participants on the call said Rudy Giuliani should not attend the White House meeting because he'd surely been exposed to his son. Then Ellis, a Giuliani sidekick, said if that was the case then the entire Giuliani-affiliated legal team was probably exposed, the sources said.

Trump's campaign lawyers have been holed up for days in a conference room at Trump campaign headquarters in Arlingon, Va., one of the sources said, Andrew Giuliani had been around all of them.

Oh man...the disaster that Trump caused, the disaster that cost him re-election by any honest metric, is now trying to stop him from getting it illegally too.

Also, Giuliani is clearly...um...I don't think he can survive COVID. He needs to get clear of his son quickly.

[Edge-]

Define expansive for me... what does that mean? 100? 1000? 10000?

Man, this is a good example of why it helps to be informed rather than, "Just asking questions!"

WA and CA both allow anyone to request a mail-in ballot without a reason, and CA has had 50%+ of the vote be by mail for a long time now. This may be newer for some states, but this ain't remotely new nationally.

Its arguing in bad faith to claim we have ever seen something like this before and I believe you know it.

We have never seen something like this before on the national scale, no. But that it's "new" doesn't make it suspicious.

I don't see a negative to having a second group check when there is this much suspicion surrounding it.

Why is there suspicion? What is a "second group"? Is the suspicion warranted? Is there evidence to support these suspicions?

[Breccia]

I was referring to them presenting Minnesota "data" as if it was Michigan.

I am going to guess that "whoops we submitted the wrong file" is the lawyer version of "I don't remember" on the stand. I.e. shady as shit, not prosecuted.

[Felya]

I don't see a negative to having a second group check when there is this much suspicion surrounding it.

Will you admit you are wrong, when Trump claims the recounts are also unfair?

[Krakan]

Man, this is a good example of why it helps to be informed rather than, "Just asking questions!"

WA and CA both allow anyone to request a mail-in ballot without a reason, and CA has had 50%+ of the vote be by mail for a long time now. This may be newer for some states, but this ain't remotely new nationally.



We have never seen something like this before on the national scale, no. But that it's "new" doesn't make it suspicious.



Why is there suspicion? What is a "second group"? Is the suspicion warranted? Is there evidence to support these suspicions?

I find it a circular argument to where is the evidence while at the same time knowing that there isnt a way to produce evidence without an investigation. I see no harm if double checking a new system to reassure people of its validity I don't know why it's being seen so negatively in what was an extremely close election.

[Levelfive]

I'm not missing the point.

I keep getting told the primaries prove Biden was the right choice, but if the primaries were THAT important, the Dems would have went with Biden and any other candidate that got delegates. They didn't, which proves the primaries aren't indicative of anything when it comes to the general election.

If Pete wouldn't bring as many votes as Harris, that is literal proof primary delegates don't translate to the general election.

To be clear, I never said the primaries prove Biden "was the right choice," I said it showed that it wasn't Hillary's establishmentarianism (just wanted to use that word) that was the problem.