Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 3, 2016
This is what Trump always does when he loses. The identity of his opponent is irrelevant. It's just a reflex, like the one that causes you to gag.
I've been reading up on some of the election fraud allegations, with an eye toward debunking them. The problem is that the allegations tend to be so sketchy that they do not really permit a non-sketchy rebuttal. For example, the referent of pronouns is always unknown: who is the corrupt and cheating "they"? Presumably, sinister operatives loyal to the Democratic party who possess unlimited subtle skills which they nevertheless chose not to exercise in races for the Senate, House of Representatives, and state legislatures. As is often the case, it's pretty easy to discern a racial undertone to some of the complaints—for example, vague references to "what's happening in Detroit and Philadelphia." Since we aren't told exactly what's happening, let's check the results. Four years ago, Hillary Clinton carried Detroit's county by 66.4 to 29.3 percent; Biden's margin in the county is 68.0 to 30.6 percent. Hillary Clinton carried Philadelphia's county by 82.3 to 15.3 percent; Biden is winning the county by 80.9 to 18.1 percent.
The obvious conclusion is that the 2016 election in these venues was fair but that this year there was "massive fraud."
I'll mention another tactic that involves a kind of dangling, unspecific accusation that seems intended to foster suspicion and distrust. By this technique, the alleger of fraud adopts a pose of requisite skepticism regarding the high rates of voter turnout in the crucial Great Lakes states won by Biden. For example:
Wisconsin has 3,684,726 active registered voters.
— HARLAN Z. HILL 🇺🇸 (@Harlan) November 4, 2020
They counted 3,288,771 votes.
That's, um, a bit unbelievable.
89% turnout? Ok sure. 🙄
If 89 percent turnout seems high, that is because "voter turnout" is usually defined as votes cast divided by eligible voters. This fellow is redefining it as votes cast divided by registered voters. Fine, but if that's the way you want to do it, then "89 percent turnout" isn't unusual, since—believe it or not!—registered voters are very much more likely to vote than people who aren't registered. Moreover, the distortion is amplified by the fact that Wisconsin allows same-day voter registration and these ballots are included in his numerator (votes cast) but not his denominator (which is the number of registered voters in Wisconsin at sunrise on election day). Just a fundamentally dishonest apples-to-oranges "analysis."
Hill, a Republican political consultant who was fired by Fox News after tweeting that Kamala Harris is an "insufferable lying bitch," purports to show that there must have been voter fraud in Wisconsin. Alas, it's simply a case of him being a lying hack—unless he's fooled by his own crapola, in which case he's a dope.
Comments