What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

How Much Voter Fraud Happened In 2020? (1 Viewer)

How much voter fraud do you think happened in 2020?

  • I voted for Biden and I think Voter Fraud was rampant - enough to impact the outcome.

    Votes: 8 1.7%

  • I voted for Biden and I think Voter Fraud was real - enough to maybe impact the outcome.

    Votes: 4 0.8%

  • I voted for Biden and I think Voter Fraud was minimal - not enough to make a real impact

    Votes: 65 13.7%

  • I voted for Biden and I think Voter Fraud was virtually non existent - no impact at all

    Votes: 269 56.9%

  • I voted for Trump and I think Voter Fraud was rampant - enough to impact the outcome.

    Votes: 26 5.5%

  • I voted for Trump and I think Voter Fraud was real - enough to maybe impact the outcome.

    Votes: 23 4.9%

  • I voted for Trump and I think Voter Fraud was minimal - not enough to make a real impact

    Votes: 14 3.0%

  • I voted for Trump and I think Voter Fraud was virtually non existent - no impact at all

    Votes: 8 1.7%

  • I voted for a 3rd party or didn't vote and I think Voter Fraud was rampant - enough to impact the ou

    Votes: 7 1.5%

  • I voted for a 3rd party or didn't vote and I think Voter Fraud was real - enough to maybe impact the

    Votes: 11 2.3%

  • I voted for a 3rd party or didn't vote and I think Voter Fraud was minimal - not enough to make a re

    Votes: 20 4.2%

  • I voted for a 3rd party or didn't vote and I think Voter Fraud was virtually non existent - no impac

    Votes: 18 3.8%
  • Total voters
    473
Gr00vus said:
If there is credible evidence indicating possible fraud, an investigation is merited.

I asked you for credible evidence. You said we can't know of credible evidence without an investigation. I'm asking then what is the justification for beginning an investigation in absence of credible evidence?
Click to expand...
Right, it's early - that's why I wrote "when the dust settles". 

If it turns out there's a consensus there's no credible evidence that's great.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
Gr00vus said:
What you'll find is there wasn't fraud to any significant degree, just as has been determined in the past. What credible evidence are you aware of to support your feeling about this?
Click to expand...
I won't know the credibility until they're investigated. Neither will you, or anyone.
Click to expand...
For the purposes of deciding to commit resources to an investigation, the credibility of an accusation will be judged FIRST -- before anything else. Investigations aren't initiated "just to see" if a credible accusation of wrongdoing can be supported.

Here's an example of exactly such a scenario taking place this past Thursday 11/5 (CNN) (Fox News link of the same hearing). The judge in the CNN article assessed the credibility of the accusation by pressing for further details about the Trump campaign's specific complaint regarding ballot observers:

A Trump campaign lawyer admitted before a federal judge on Thursday that observers for the campaign were allowed to watch ballot canvassing in Philadelphia, after they claimed in court and the President's supporters alleged they were being deprived unfairly. 

But the federal judge was having none of it, instead asking Philadelphia city officials to confirm Democrats and Republicans were being treated fairly to watch the ballot-counting and that they were allowed to watch the ballot counting in the city from six feet away.

When the judge pressed the Trump campaign lawyer if there were observers in the room from the campaign, the lawyer, Jerome Marcus, said, "There's a non-zero number of people in the room."

The judge, Paul Diamond of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, a George W. Bush appointee, also pointed out he believed the President's case appeared to have no reason to be in federal court, and even cracked a joke that the lawyer "shouldn't quit his day job" when the campaign handed the judge a hand-drawn map of the ballot counting room.

After the judge confirmed the parties would have the same number of observers in the room, he dismissed the Trump campaign's request because it was moot.
Click to expand...
From Fox, quoting Judge Paul Diamond:

"The federal court denied the Trump campaign's motion," the Philadelphia City Commissioners said in a statement after the ruling, WPTI-TV in Philadelphia reported. "The City Board of Elections agreed to keep the barrier for all observers where it is - at 6 feet for now, and to continue to admit observers in compliance with the law, but no more than 60 per side. The President and his campaign representatives had falsely claimed throughout the day that their representatives were not allowed in the room. But their counsel admitted at the hearing, after questions from the court, that they had several representatives in the room."
Click to expand...

 
Virtually non existent. And the arguments that the Trump lawyers have made so far seem pretty ridiculous. Most of the louder conspiracies are so ridiculously untrue and so easily debunked with 5 minutes of looking that what is left is the dying whimper of Trumpians full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

 
Doug B said:
For the purposes of deciding to commit resources to an investigation, the credibility of an accusation will be judged FIRST -- before anything else. Investigations aren't initiated "just to see" if a credible accusation of wrongdoing can be supported.

Here's an example of exactly such a scenario taking place this past Thursday 11/5 (CNN) (Fox News link of the same hearing). The judge in the CNN article assessed the credibility of the accusation by pressing for further details about the Trump campaign's specific complaint regarding ballot observers:

From Fox, quoting Judge Paul Diamond:
Click to expand...
Thanks Doug, I think this is a pretty good example of what I'm talking about. If there's a claim that observers were barred that would be pretty suspicious and worth looking into. If, after looking into it, it turns out there were some observers but just not as many as they'd like then that's a different story.

 
Yankee23Fan said:
Virtually non existent. And the arguments that the Trump lawyers have made so far seem pretty ridiculous. Most of the louder conspiracies are so ridiculously untrue and so easily debunked with 5 minutes of looking that what is left is the dying whimper of Trumpians full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Click to expand...
Yes.

Here's another case (Savannah Morning News) where the Trump campaign made an accusation, that accusation went in front of a judge, and ...

Chatham County Superior Court Judge James Bass has dismissed a lawsuit filed against the Chatham County Board of Elections by President Donald Trump’s campaign and the Georgia Republican Party.

On Wednesday, the petition was filed asking a judge to order the county to secure and account for ballots received after 7 p.m. on Election Day.

“The Court finds that there is no evidence that the ballots referenced in the petition were received after 7:00 p.m. on election day, thereby making those ballots invalid. Additionally, there is no evidence that the Chatham County Board of Elections or the Chatham County Board of Registrars has failed to comply with the law,” Bass’ order read in part.

Though the lawsuit listed the Chatham County Board of Elections, the hearing centered around the actions of Chatham Board of Registrars employees.

At the hearing Thursday, BOR Chairman Colin McRae said the absentee ballots received after the deadline — 41 at that point — were already in a secure location at an office at the Board of Registrars building, and the 53 ballots listed in the affidavit were not among them.
Click to expand...

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
Joe Summer said:
But then you won't know the credibility until the investigator is investigated.

And then you won't know the credibility until the investigator of the investigator is also investigated.

Basically, you can keep moving the goalpost infinitely, each time proclaiming that more "investigation" is needed. 
Click to expand...
I said consensus. You have issue with that?
Click to expand...
Well, yeah. When you don't define "consensus" then it's just as meaningless as not defining "investigation."

What if a consensus of judges dismiss Trump's lawsuits? Would that qualify as a "consensus" to you?

What if one investigation goes forward, but it only investigates one district, but finds zero fraud? Would that "one for one" be a consensus to you?

How about two investigations into two districts, also with zero fraud? Is that a consensus?

We could go on and on, each time redefining what kind of "consensus" is required. Each time, moving the goalpost to require the winner to prove that he won.

That's just an awful precedent to be setting.

Find evidence of a crime first, then investigate.

 
Doug B said:
For the purposes of deciding to commit resources to an investigation, the credibility of an accusation will be judged FIRST -- before anything else. Investigations aren't initiated "just to see" if a credible accusation of wrongdoing can be supported.

Here's an example of exactly such a scenario taking place this past Thursday 11/5 (CNN) (Fox News link of the same hearing). The judge in the CNN article assessed the credibility of the accusation by pressing for further details about the Trump campaign's specific complaint regarding ballot observers:

From Fox, quoting Judge Paul Diamond:
Click to expand...
Yeah. And yet we still have a POTUS all caps tweeting the lie that observers weren’t allowed in. 

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
Thanks Doug, I think this is a pretty good example of what I'm talking about. If there's a claim that observers were barred that would be pretty suspicious and worth looking into. If, after looking into it, it turns out there were some observers but just not as many as they'd like then that's a different story.
Click to expand...
I could be wrong, but I think what is getting confused is reports of legal observers being denied when what was happening is crowds being pushed back, etc.  

As far as I know observers were there, but then the fight over how close they were became an issue.  

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
Thanks Doug, I think this is a pretty good example of what I'm talking about. If there's a claim that observers were barred that would be pretty suspicious and worth looking into. If, after looking into it, it turns out there were some observers but just not as many as they'd like then that's a different story.
Click to expand...
Good deal.

Rest assured, any serious accusation of election tampering will get in front of a judge. It's just that, as pointed out before, it's a high hurdle to establish that something untoward went on in the presence of so many observers from both major parties.

 
Joe Summer said:
Well, yeah. When you don't define "consensus" then it's just as meaningless as not defining "investigation."

What if a consensus of judges dismiss Trump's lawsuits? Would that qualify as a "consensus" to you?

What if one investigation goes forward, but it only investigates one district, but finds zero fraud? Would that "one for one" be a consensus to you?

How about two investigations into two districts, also with zero fraud? Is that a consensus?

We could go on and on, each time redefining what kind of "consensus" is required. Each time, moving the goalpost to require the winner to prove that he won.

That's just an awful precedent to be setting.

Find evidence of a crime first, then investigate.
Click to expand...
So basically you think I voted wrong, is that it?

 
KarmaPolice said:
I could be wrong, but I think what is getting confused is reports of legal observers being denied when what was happening is crowds being pushed back, etc.  

As far as I know observers were there, but then the fight over how close they were became an issue.  
Click to expand...
Crowds, indeed. Keep in mind that after Judge Diamond's dismissal (upthread), the two parties agreed to a cap of 60 observers each. That's 120 observers. If that was the compromise number, how many observers were up in there before?

 
Doug B said:
Crowds, indeed. Keep in mind that after Judge Diamond's dismissal (upthread), the two parties agreed to a cap of 60 observers each. That's 120 observers. If that was the compromise number, how many observers were up in there before?
Click to expand...
And who were they? My impression was of Joe Twitter trying to get a peek and calling shenanigans when they were denied access or doors/windows were covered.  If that's the case, it had 0 to do with actual legal observers and normal election procedures.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice said:
And who were they? My impression was of Joe Twitter trying to get a peek and calling shenanigans when they were denied access or doors/windows were covered.  If that's the case, it had 0 to do with actual legal observers and normal election procedures.  
Click to expand...
Yes. This was a problem in Michigan and Arizona, too -- people just rolling up unannounced claiming they were party observers. A few of these folks in Arizona were the ones that accused a Fox News cameraman of sneaking in extra ballots in his camera-toting cases.

 
CletiusMaximus said:
This statistical anomaly, if it is such a thing, is one of the main arguments being made by the Trump team - If there were so many Biden voters in a given state, why did the down-ticket Democrat candidates not show the same support?  I think there is an obvious answer, but the numbers alone can serve two masters.
Click to expand...
Is it plausible Trump alienated many voters who’d otherwise vote Republican? Seems the most likely explanation to me.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
Joe Summer said:
Well, yeah. When you don't define "consensus" then it's just as meaningless as not defining "investigation."

What if a consensus of judges dismiss Trump's lawsuits? Would that qualify as a "consensus" to you?

What if one investigation goes forward, but it only investigates one district, but finds zero fraud? Would that "one for one" be a consensus to you?

How about two investigations into two districts, also with zero fraud? Is that a consensus?

We could go on and on, each time redefining what kind of "consensus" is required. Each time, moving the goalpost to require the winner to prove that he won.

That's just an awful precedent to be setting.

Find evidence of a crime first, then investigate.
Click to expand...
So basically you think I voted wrong, is that it?
Click to expand...
Wow, man.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
Sorry but I think you're getting pretty far away from the original poll question Joe posted.

If the poll question was Who here is in possession of evidence of voter fraud? I would have voted differently.
Click to expand...
In absence of evidence, there seems to be no basis for your certainty that fraud occurred. 

 
Gr00vus said:
In absence of evidence, there seems to be no basis for your certainty that fraud occurred. 
Click to expand...
We'll see I guess If you're certain NO fraud has occurred that's great. Many of the early reports have evaporated under scrutiny - and  I think that's a good thing.

I think Texas has charged someone with over 100 counts of fraud. Now TX went red so it probably doesn't qualify as "impacted the outcome" part of the poll.

There are also reports of dead people voting in NV. If that turns out true AND in significant numbers then maybe it has an impact - which is why I voted for the "maybe" option.

There are some reports that postal workers were told to stamp some ballots with the previous date so they'd be counted. Again, may or may not have an impact (it may or may not have even happened) but worth looking into. 

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
There are also reports of dead people voting in NV.
Click to expand...
When Trump staffer says "We believe there are dead voters that have been counted" — but then fails to provide evidence to support such a claim — then it's really not accurate to describe such a statement as "reports of dead people voting."

 
Joe Summer said:
When Trump staffer says "We believe there are dead voters that have been counted" — but then fails to provide evidence to support such a claim — then it's really not accurate to describe such a statement as "reports of dead people voting."
Click to expand...
Don't know anything about that. I'd seen something on Twitter with a person showing a pic of their grandfather's tombstone saying he'd been dead for so many years, and just voted for Biden. 

Many on the left are in the habit of being dismissive about bias in the media and social platforms because they like what they see. When I go hey the NYT headline doesn't match the article and people say "suck it nazi" or when I see conservatives being removed or shut down on platforms and people say "good riddance Twitter troll!" fine, that's one thing. But the election is different, and I honestly hope there isn't a widespread dismissiveness if there really is voter fraud, in numbers that may make a difference in the outcome.  This wouldn't just be bias in the media and social platforms against one party. It would be bad for everyone. There's no such thing as voter fraud that helps "my side".

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
Joe Summer said:
When Trump staffer says "We believe there are dead voters that have been counted" — but then fails to provide evidence to support such a claim — then it's really not accurate to describe such a statement as "reports of dead people voting."
Click to expand...
Don't know anything about that. I'd seen something on Twitter with a person showing a pic of their grandfather's tombstone saying he'd been dead for so many years, and just voted for Biden. 
Click to expand...
Oh. When you wrote, "There are also reports of dead people voting in NV," why didn't you mention that the source of your "report" was a random person on Twitter? Is it because you knew that the claim would sound less credible if you added that fact?

 
Joe Summer said:
Oh. When you wrote, "There are also reports of dead people voting in NV," why didn't you mention that the source of your "report" was a random person on Twitter? Is it because you knew that the claim would sound less credible if you added that fact?
Click to expand...
No. Personally I think an individual citizen going on record and expressing surprise that their dead grandparent just voted is MORE credible than a Trump staffer, not less. But thanks for dismissing everything I wrote on dismissiveness.

Look, there's lots of things going around. It's been a crazy week. Some things are getting debunked and some things are worth looking into. It's impossible for me to document for you absolutely everything I'm seeing over the past few days that's informing the opinion I voted on.

 
Voted Biden; don't know but trust the state election committees/SoSs when they tell me no foul play.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
Joe Summer said:
Oh. When you wrote, "There are also reports of dead people voting in NV," why didn't you mention that the source of your "report" was a random person on Twitter? Is it because you knew that the claim would sound less credible if you added that fact?
Click to expand...
No. Personally I think an individual citizen going on record and expressing surprise that their dead grandparent just voted is MORE credible than a Trump staffer,
Click to expand...
Oh, fair enough. Can you at least provide a link to this alleged tweet?

Personally, I think that tweets from random users are LESS credible than just about anything. But to each their own. It would be nice, however, if you included a link or mentioned the fact that you saw it on Twitter or Facebook the next time you make a declarative claim about a "report" that you saw.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
No. Personally I think an individual citizen going on record and expressing surprise that their dead grandparent just voted is MORE credible than a Trump staffer, not less. But thanks for dismissing everything I wrote on dismissiveness.

Look, there's lots of things going around. It's been a crazy week. Some things are getting debunked and some things are worth looking into. It's impossible for me to document for you absolutely everything I'm seeing over the past few days that's informing the opinion I voted on.
Click to expand...
Posting something on Twitter is not going "on record." Also, how did this individual know their dead grandparent voted? Also, and saying this with the best intentions, you really really really should not be letting your opinions be formed by random posts you see on Twitter, especially when it comes to accusing your fellow Americans of federal crimes. 

 
Joe Summer said:
Oh, fair enough. Can you at least provide a link to this alleged tweet?

Personally, I think that tweets from random users are LESS credible than just about anything. But to each their own. It would be nice, however, if you included a link or mentioned the fact that you saw it on Twitter or Facebook the next time you make a declarative claim about a "report" that you saw.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I scroll - I don't stop and take screenshots or copy n paste links for possible future forum conversations. 

Just curious - you're not seeing anything? It's just all rainbows and sunshine? To me it's been a pretty dominant topic the past few days.

 
TheMagus said:
Posting something on Twitter is not going "on record." Also, how did this individual know their dead grandparent voted? Also, and saying this with the best intentions, you really really really should not be letting your opinions be formed by random posts you see on Twitter, especially when it comes to accusing your fellow Americans of federal crimes. 
Click to expand...
Fair enough - "on record" wasn't the best phrasing - I just meant I don't think I was referring to the same thing the Trump staffer he was talking about. I don't know how this person knew his dead grandfather had voted. Every election there seems to be stories about dead people voting. If it was particularly bad this year, in a close state like NV then I think it's worth looking into. Collectively, everything you read online and see on TV are going to have an impact on your opinion. Even if you really really really think you're smarter than that. 

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
Just curious - you're not seeing anything? It's just all rainbows and sunshine? To me it's been a pretty dominant topic the past few days.
Click to expand...
It's not a dominant topic for me, but that could be due to the fact that my twitter feed isn't filled with unverified claims involving pictures of gravestones.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
Joe Summer said:
It's not a dominant topic for me, but that could be due to the fact that my twitter feed isn't filled with unverified claims involving pictures of gravestones.\
Click to expand...
You're missing out.
Click to expand...
I just searched twitter for "dead grandfather voted" and there were over a hundred tweets from people claiming that their dead grandfather voted.

They all seem to be joke tweets.

 
Joe Summer said:
I just searched twitter for "dead grandfather voted" and there were over a hundred tweets from people claiming that their dead grandfather voted.

They all seem to be joke tweets.
Click to expand...
Wow, kind of an odd thing for hundreds of people to spontaneously start joking about. I must be getting old.

Anyway, that's wonderful news, thank you. Here's hoping that every report of voter fraud turns out to be a "joke". 

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1325268253241913346

James O'Keefe

@JamesOKeefeIII

BREAKING: Here is the signed affidavit from Erie, Pennsylvania

@USPS

Whistleblower Richard Hopkins that is now in the hands of Sen. Lindsey Graham and the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Click to expand...
This should be investigated.

Prediction 1) whistle-blower is incorrect and no ballots were back dated. The postmaster acted properly by continuing to collect ballots after Nov. 3 as there were legal rulings about this topic that went all the way to the USSC.

Prediction 2) postmaster acted improperly, but the number of votes with falsified postmarks number under 100. Postmaster is fired and could face criminal penalties. 

Mail and election fraud should be punished, especially when done with intent (as opposed to on accident voting when they weren't allowed but didn't know it.)

 
Terminalxylem said:
hagmania said:
This particular mathematical rule is being used as a rallying cry of evidence of fraud right now.
Click to expand...
I'm well aware, but not familiar enough to know if it holds water wrt this election.
Click to expand...
In the older Voter Fraud thread, @GroveDiesel posted a really good unrolled Twitter thread by Isaac Saul that addresses the current fraud claims.

In it, he touches on this, and linked to two papers:

1) https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/557850

His comments:

76/ Okay! This was BY FAR the hardest one for me yet. It took some digging, because I wasn't very familiar with Benford's law and this person is not good at Twitter, so the thread is jumbled. But this is going very viral on FB and Twitter:

Unroll available on Thread Reader

https://twitter.com/statsguyphd/status/1324352213595181059

77/ Basically, this anonymous person with a fresh new Twitter account claims to be applying Benford's Law to Joe Biden's vote and says they deviate so far from where they should be it's clear there is election fraud. I spent a while looking at these graphs and then realized: 

78/ Benford's Law and elections must not be a new marriage. If this were simple, it'd be used everywhere to suss out fraud! So, I looked it up. And guess what: Georgetown Univ has a whole white paper on why Benford's Law can't be applied to elections. repository.library.georgetown.edu/handle/10822/5…

79/ The author came to this conclusion in no uncertain terms. This one took a LOT of work, def toughest yet, and I am now ready for a break and a beer. Keep the submissions coming, I'll try to keep up. Plz read the thread first though, getting lots of repeats now.

NEXT!
Click to expand...


2) https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-analysis/article/benfords-law-and-the-detection-of-election-fraud/3B1D64E822371C461AF3C61CE91AAF6D

His comments:

85/ Earlier in this thread, I cited a Georgetown study debunking Benford's Law as a tool to detect election fraud (a claim going viral online). Some people pointed out that the paper was written by an undergraduate student, and thus couldn't be taken seriously... 

86/ So I kept digging. And I found another study, coming to the same conclusion, with three authors. They are from Cambridge University.

Ever heard of it?

NEXT
Click to expand...


I have not read the full text on either, so I don't feel qualified to comment on the conclusions, but the links may be helpful.

Let me know if you find anything further, as it is interesting to me. 👍

 
The Z Machine said:
This should be investigated.

Prediction 1) whistle-blower is incorrect and no ballots were back dated. The postmaster acted properly by continuing to collect ballots after Nov. 3 as there were legal rulings about this topic that went all the way to the USSC.

Prediction 2) postmaster acted improperly, but the number of votes with falsified postmarks number under 100. Postmaster is fired and could face criminal penalties. 

Mail and election fraud should be punished, especially when done with intent (as opposed to on accident voting when they weren't allowed but didn't know it.)
Click to expand...
He doesn't even know what were done with the ballots. He says he presumes they were back dated.

 
James O'Keefe? The convicted felon who has been wrong about everything. 

Why is the "affidavit" notarized online by someone from Texas, instead of in person and from Pennsylvania?

Also, as many people on the timeline have pointed out: there is no one by that name listed as a current employee for the USPS.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1325268253241913346

James O'Keefe

@JamesOKeefeIII

BREAKING: Here is the signed affidavit from Erie, Pennsylvania

@USPS

Whistleblower Richard Hopkins that is now in the hands of Sen. Lindsey Graham and the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Click to expand...
I can't tell you what to believe. But for the house in general, I can't recommend James O'Keefe -- the founder of Project Veritas -- as a credible source of information.

Further reading (The New York Times 3/9/2020)

 
Encyclopedia Brown said:
James O'Keefe? The convicted felon who has been wrong about everything. 

Why is the "affidavit" notarized online by someone from Texas, instead of in person and from Pennsylvania?

Also, as many people on the timeline have pointed out: there is no one by that name listed as a current employee for the USPS.
Click to expand...
Nothingburger. With a Diet Coke. 

 
Anytime you have millions upon millions of people moving to a mail-in style, there are going to be some instances. There would have to be. Saying that, there would have to be a ton of organized movements to actually make a dent in a vote, even in a tight race.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Republican Officials In New Mexico County Refuse To Certify Election Results
2
Replies
61
Views
1K
roadkill1292
roadkill1292
L
McCarthy and McConnell Wanted ‘Son of a B*tch’ Trump Out of Politics After Jan. 6 Riot,
2 3
Replies
124
Views
3K
ignatiusjreilly
ignatiusjreilly
dozer
****Official DOJ Investigation into Trump, Fake Electors, Fraud, Etc.****
5 6 7
Replies
348
Views
11K
Sabertooth
Sabertooth

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top