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? (4 Viewers)

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

Joe Bryant

Guide
Staff member
We had an old thread from 2008. I know this is something some people are talking wanted to ask here to get a pulse on the PSF.

How much voter fraud do you think happened in 2020?

 
I guess I will ask here, but outside Biden getting a lot of votes, what is  the rationale for thinking there was massive fraud? And how was it accomplished?

 
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. 

 
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 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. 

 
I don’t see how any claims can’t be looked at expediently and move forward. Let’s not have tainted results.

Imo stonewalling and not looking would be the best thing that could happen to Trump  

 
Is there a distinction between invalid vote and fraudulent vote?  If so, maybe 1000 with the former, 26 for the latter

Final answer 

 
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. 

 
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 largely on how you define "whistleblower."

A partisan poll watcher with an agenda <> whistleblower.

 
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. 

 
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.

 
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?

 
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.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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. 

 
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.

 
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.

 
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.

 
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 

 
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.  

 
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?

 
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.

 
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.

 
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?

 
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.

 
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.

 
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.

 
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. 

 
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?

 
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?

 
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?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top