Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

How Much Voter Fraud Happened In 2020?


Joe Bryant

How much voter fraud do you think happened in 2020?  

464 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

How much voter fraud do you think happened in 2020?

I think this is an awful question. Not a single person that reads or responds to this has a meaningful % of relevant information necessary to potentially offer a cohesive answer.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MAC_32 said:

I think this is an awful question. Not a single person that reads or responds to this has a meaningful % of relevant information necessary to potentially offer a cohesive answer.

I don't. At all. Especially given the wide range of answer choices.

I'm hearing a lot of talk about this. 

And I will very often ask the forum a non leading question like this to get a pulse on what the forum is thinking. The forum is like the market. It answers. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Max Power said:

A follow up question would be if a whistleblower comes forward or there are statistical anomalies, would you support an audit of the process/count?

Depends on how convincing their evidence is. This notion that every unsubstantiated allegation deserves consideration needs to end.

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Joe Bryant said:

I don't. At all. Especially given the wide range of answer choices.

I'm hearing a lot of talk about this. 

And I will very often ask the forum a non leading question like this to get a pulse on what the forum is thinking. The forum is like the market. It answers. 

I'm sure you are. It's a profitable subject for those in the business of making money off politics. Doesn't mean any analysis provided is based on facts though. The counting of the vote isn't even over yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, MAC_32 said:

I'm sure you are. It's a profitable subject for those in the business of making money off politics. Doesn't mean any analysis provided is based on facts though. The counting of the vote isn't even over yet. 

You do see the options for people to answer "minimal" and "non existent", right? 

I'm not sure how I could be more clear. I'm not asking for a debate. I'm asking to see what people are thinking. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Joe Bryant said:

You do see the options for people to answer "minimal" and "non existent", right? 

I'm not sure how I could be more clear. I'm not asking for a debate. I'm asking to see what people are thinking. 

There are no facts available to answer that question. Only feelings. Decision making based on feelings is one big reason we are where we are. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Max Power said:
7 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

Depends largely on how you define "whistleblower."

A partisan poll watcher with an agenda <> whistleblower.

Wait... a partisan can't be a whistleblower now?!?!

Of course a partisan can be a whistleblower.

But, the word "whistleblower" tends to refer to a person who works within the organization that they are, you know, blowing the whistle on.

Poll watchers do not work for election offices. They are just random citizens with binoculars.

If we water down the definition of "whistleblower" to "anyone who makes an accusation about anything," then we have rendered the word meaningless.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Max Power said:

A follow up question would be if a whistleblower comes forward or there are statistical anomalies, would you support an audit of the process/count?

Alternatively, rather than limiting it to a whistleblower or statistical anomalies, one could ask: If there is any credible evidence that calls the election results into question, should that evidence be presented and considered?  I think the answer is clearly yes, but there is a deadline about 6 weeks away.  Its a sort of statute of limitations, by which any challenge must be brought.

 

Edited by CletiusMaximus
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

Of course a partisan can be a whistleblower.

But, the word "whistleblower" tends to refer to a person who works within the organization that they are, you know, blowing the whistle on.

Poll watchers do not work for election offices. They are just random citizens with binoculars.

If we water down the definition of "whistleblower" to "anyone who makes an accusation about anything," then we have rendered the word meaningless.

Ok, so you just want to use a different term. Someone sounding the alarm on polling irregularities should be given a chance to be heard and investigated. It's the reason they are there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

My question to those that believe there was rampant fraud in favor of Biden:

Why didn't those same people bother to win the Senate elections and state legislatures, in a Census year, no less?

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Max Power said:
7 minutes ago, Joe Summer said:

Of course a partisan can be a whistleblower.

But, the word "whistleblower" tends to refer to a person who works within the organization that they are, you know, blowing the whistle on.

Poll watchers do not work for election offices. They are just random citizens with binoculars.

If we water down the definition of "whistleblower" to "anyone who makes an accusation about anything," then we have rendered the word meaningless.

Ok, so you just want to use a different term. Someone sounding the alarm on polling irregularities should be given a chance to be heard and investigated. It's the reason they are there. 

When the story changes from "WHISTLEBLOWER SOUNDS ALARM ON VOTER FRAUD" to "SOMEONE SOUNDS ALARM ON IRREGULARITIES" then the story loses a bit of its momentum.

Which was the point entirely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I not a big fan of mail in, but given covid it made sense. I know people voted in the wrong state and wrong county who haven’t lived there for more than a year because they don’t want to bother changing their license. I suspect a large percentage of recent college grads voted where they registered in 2016. I have a coworker who show up to voted and someone changed her registration to a different county.  Poll workers told her to drive there a vote if she wanted to be sure her vote would count (which messes with the district races) or cast a provisional. 

I voted it maybe made a difference because there were many close races.  I don’t think there was enough to impact who’s president. 

I think the census should be cross referenced to voter registration and driver license records and personal property tax receipts 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Voted Trump, voter fraud was real, enough to maybe impact the outcome. I don't think we'll know everything until after all the dust settles and it's way too late to do anything about it, but NV was a s###show and certainly some shenanigans in PA.

What sort of shenanigans?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

Voted Trump, voter fraud was real, enough to maybe impact the outcome. I don't think we'll know everything until after all the dust settles and it's way too late to do anything about it, but NV was a s###show and certainly some shenanigans in PA.

Without evidence, it's pretty irresponsible to write things like this.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My rural WI area flipped and went for Biden.  No way anyone would get some fraud past these polling hawks either.  Voter turnout was huge, and Trump needed to keep % from 2016.  He did not.  And there isn't anything real unique about my area as you see similar results all across WI.  No fraud, just cold hard factual truths.

Won't comment on other states, but feel as confident as I can that WI's flip is legit.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, beef said:

My rural WI area flipped and went for Biden.  No way anyone would get some fraud past these polling hawks either.  Voter turnout was huge, and Trump needed to keep % from 2016.  He did not.  And there isn't anything real unique about my area as you see similar results all across WI.  No fraud, just cold hard factual truths.

Won't comment on other states, but feel as confident as I can that WI's flip is legit.  

Do you think it was COVID backlash, trade / economics, leadership, or storing else that turned the tide?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RUSF18 said:

You actually didn't answer why but you knew that already. 

I did. NV and PA. I mean there may have been things going on in MI but I don't think enough to impact any outcome. Heck there may have been rampant voter fraud in CA or NY but who cares - the gist of the question was impact. I could be wrong - I HOPE I'm wrong - I hope when all the dust settles we find so little that there's a consensus that it would not have made a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, CletiusMaximus said:
55 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

My question to those that believe there was rampant fraud in favor of Biden:

Why didn't those same people bother to win the Senate elections and state legislatures, in a Census year, no less?

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.

It really can't serve two masters.  One just can't make a cogent argument that Democrats manufactured fake ballots in Georgia and filled in the Perdue oval on those same ballots.  Ditto Tillis in NC.  Ditto state legislatures across the country.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

I did. NV and PA. I mean there may have been things going on in MI but I don't think enough to impact any outcome. Heck there may have been rampant voter fraud in CA or NY but who cares - the gist of the question was impact. I could be wrong - I HOPE I'm wrong - I hope when all the dust settles we find so little that there's a consensus that it would not have made a difference.

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Rich Conway said:

It really can't serve two masters.  One just can't make a cogent argument that Democrats manufactured fake ballots in Georgia and filled in the Perdue oval on those same ballots.  Ditto Tillis in NC.  Ditto state legislatures across the country.

I think the argument is that there were a bunch of ballots that only had the POTUS filled in, and nothing down ballot or that the totals were manipulated.

Both aren't very good arguments for the same reason.  If you are tampering with the vote totals or stuffing the ballot box, you don't just mess with the top of the ticket. Plus, it's easy to verify if the totals for POTUS are significantly bigger than down ballot races.  I have not heard that's the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, 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?

I won't know the credibility until they're investigated. Neither will you, or anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

I won't know the credibility until they're investigated. Neither will you, or anyone.

The vote-processing, vote-tallying, and vote-auditing processes are not black boxes at all. In a sense, they are continuously investigated by representatives of both parties as they go along.

That's why getting traction on a credible allegation is such a high hurdle. There's no point in which ballots are hidden behind someone's back, as it were.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

I won't know the credibility until they're investigated. Neither will you, or anyone.

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gr00vus said:

So any allegation, you think we need to investigate? No threshold for plausibility or evidence? 

No I didn't say either of those things. I mean, I can play this silliness too. Are you saying that voter fraud is not serious and should not be investigated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 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. 

I said consensus. You have issue with that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, NorvilleBarnes said:

No I didn't say either of those things. I mean, I can play this silliness too. Are you saying that voter fraud is not serious and should not be investigated?

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?

Edited by Gr00vus
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Max Power said:

A follow up question would be if a whistleblower comes forward or there are statistical anomalies, would you support an audit of the process/count?

 

 I would hope that whistleblowers were given better treatment from The Left than they have from The Right over the past 4 years.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
  • Create New...