20 Nov 20
@vivify saidI entered this thread claiming there was an anomaly. I don't have the access to raw information to prove fraud. But you ask the question "Can you cite specifics from the article?" Your response is kind of the point I'm making.
What point are you trying to make with the article? It points out that a typo was made, by a Republican, which was quickly fixed, and Trump won that county by 8,000 votes.
What "fraud" are you referring to? Can you cite specifics from the article?
No I can't cite specifics from the article. My interest is more in the lack of specifics in the article. When did the numbers get subtracted back out? Shouldn't an intelligent journalist at least address that? From the graph that is being circulated by the skeptics, there is a huge jump for Biden, but there should be a huge decline shortly after. It is amazing how few people are even curious about the fact we see no decline. Is there a graph I'm missing?
20 Nov 20
@no1marauder saidI was looking for the Michigan Graph that would plot vote totals verses time that can be used to debunk RG's claim.
Here's the Michigan vote breakdowns by county on Decision Desk HQ: https://results.decisiondeskhq.com/2020/general/michigan
Shiawassee County is shown with a total of 39,250 votes - 59% for Trump and 39.2% for Biden.
20 Nov 20
@techsouth saidYou're claiming an anomaly while at the same time saying you have no access to the raw data to back up your claim.
I entered this thread claiming there was an anomaly. I don't have the access to raw information to prove fraud. But you ask the question "Can you cite specifics from the article?" Your response is kind of the point I'm making.
No I can't cite specifics from the article. My interest is more in the lack of specifics in the article. When did the numbers get subtracted ...[text shortened]... ing how few people are even curious about the fact we see no decline. Is there a graph I'm missing?
Uh, ok.
Shouldn't the cart be behind the horse ?
20 Nov 20
@mghrn55 saidTell me if I am wrong.
You're claiming an anomaly while at the same time saying you have no access to the raw data to back up your claim.
Uh, ok.
Shouldn't the cart be behind the horse ?
I think that it is not in dispute that there was an apparent 138,000 vote jump for Biden early morning after election day. I am under the impression that everyone here has accepted that as not being in dispute.
Obviously, the dispute/question lies on whether or not this was a mere typo that got corrected or not. I believe that most people that have replied here are confident that this was a mere typo and the correction was made.
But I think the initial 138,000 vote jump meets the definition of anomaly. Regardless, I don't care to squabble about the definition of the word anomaly if that's the direction you want to take this. But it is at least kind of odd and would make an ordinary person want to ask questions.
This was all on TV. The TV had a raw data feed. I did not have that feed and don't have minute by minute updates in an excel spread sheet to analyze.
I thought that basic point of the conversation was obvious.
20 Nov 20
@techsouth saidWhat "graph"? No Decision Desk HQ didn't invent a graph; it just reported unofficial totals received from county offices.
I was looking for the Michigan Graph that would plot vote totals verses time that can be used to debunk RG's claim.
I think the discrepancy has been more than adequately explained. Moreover as your cited article points out it was never included in any official counts anyway.
20 Nov 20
Okay, perhaps this will help. Here is the graph I am talking about. It shows a large jump. I kind of thought everyone has seen this, but I'm beginning to understand the implications of the news' refusal to cover things robustly.
https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/576086328597413899/778672839896989706/Screen_Shot_2020-11-17_at_5.08.27_PM_Cropped.png
If 138,000 votes were added because of a typo, I would expect a 138,000 vote drop to occur shortly after. This graph stops around 9:00am, so perhaps there is something that happened after that. But from what I am seeing, there is no point where Biden's graph has a negative slope. In mathematical terms, this is called "monotone non-decreasing". Maybe I'm missing something, but all real news agencies should be asking, "where is the decline?"
Perhaps this is mass disinformation. I've seen many versions of this graph that look the same. But if this graph is fake, shouldn't someone put up a real graph just to help the losing side accept defeat?
@techsouth saidDo you know what happened in some states ?
Tell me if I am wrong.
I think that it is not in dispute that there was an apparent 138,000 vote jump for Biden early morning after election day. I am under the impression that everyone here has accepted that as not being in dispute.
Obviously, the dispute/question lies on whether or not this was a mere typo that got corrected or not. I believe that most peo ...[text shortened]... in an excel spread sheet to analyze.
I thought that basic point of the conversation was obvious.
I know for sure Georgia and Pennsylvania (and I think Michigan and Wisconsin) The GOP governor set the procedure for how the votes should be counted.
And it was that the mail in votes should be counted last.
Here is roughly what happened:
1 - weeks before the election, Trump started spreading a narrative that mail in votes were by nature fraudulent. Not because there was evidence, but because the President said so. Besides, much of the voting hadn't started yet.
2 - GOP Governors in certain key states (with or without consultation with the White House) put in place a process where mail in ballots would be counted last.
3 - Trump, on Twitter and at rallies, encouraged his supporters to vote in person, irregardless of the threat of exposure to COVID at the rallies and the voter stations.
(2 and 3 above effectively separates the GOP and the DEMS into different voting methods).
4 - Trump shortly before election day openly states that he wants elections to be projected to the candidate who is ahead on election night. He wants an expedited outcome and doesn't want the election to drag out for weeks.
That is a blatant attempt to remove many of the mail in ballots from the count.
5 - When the mail in ballots do get counted, he cries fraud and points to one particular voting method, mail in ballots, as the source of the fraud. Knowing full well that he has pretty much pointed his support away from mail in ballots.
As a sideshow, he has Giuliani hold a news conference in Philadelphia (somewhere) complaining that the networks project California and New York for Biden as soon as the polls close, while not calling Pennsylvania for Trump when he was up 400,000 votes. Knowing full well that the mail in ballots were going to close that gap.
In fact, the 4 states in question were all come from behind wins for Biden because the GOP set it up that way.
Almost all of the lawsuits going on right now pertain to the states where the GOP (not DEMS) set up the vote counting procedure that has led to this fiasco.
I'm not telling if you are wrong.
I'm telling you how I see it.
20 Nov 20
@mghrn55
I understand and would have expected mail-in votes to swing for Biden. And in the age of Internet, any liar can post. One would expect many claims of fraud to be without merit. That doesn't mean none of them have merit.
At the same time, about 1/3 of Americans have been persuaded the Trump is the next Hitler. One would expect that many would be ready and willing to cheat, give the opportunity.
But the 138,000 vote bump is not in dispute. They have said it was a typo.
There should be a 138,000 decline for Biden in the hours that followed. I don't see it.
20 Nov 20
@techsouth saidI’ve seen it and CNN are right it was absolutely bananas, one of the craziest things I’ve ever seen.
I have heard no one threatening violence. I'm just saying in general that societies move in that direction when election results are not trustworthy.
Interestingly, CNN, MSNBC, etc. refused to cover the press conference yesterday because they say it was "bananas". So tell me if you accept this. Television stations refused to cover a news event because it was TOO INTER ...[text shortened]... ve Americans deserve a reasonable answer to this question, even if that requires more investigation.
Are you saying that national media outlets should be made to cover this mixture of blatant lies and off the wall conspiracy theories for the good of democracy?
Is this how far the right have come in their inexorable march toward an Alt Universe?
@techsouth saidI haven't really looked into the Michigan vote. It wasn't close.
@mghrn55
I understand and would have expected mail-in votes to swing for Biden. And in the age of Internet, any liar can post. One would expect many claims of fraud to be without merit. That doesn't mean none of them have merit.
At the same time, about 1/3 of Americans have been persuaded the Trump is the next Hitler. One would expect that many would be ready and ...[text shortened]... a typo.
There should be a 138,000 decline for Biden in the hours that followed. I don't see it.
I never expected Michigan to be close. Biden was up double digits, or close to it, for quite some time before the election.
In fact, that shrank to about 4% on election night, even with the 150,000 vote margin.
I'm also curious why Trump took Texas by 600,000 votes when Biden was even with Trump, or slightly up on, in the opinion polls in the weeks leading up to the election.
I guess Dominion Voting Systems is a more popular topic these days than gerrymandering or knee capping USPS.
20 Nov 20
@techsouth saidThey didn’t need to cheat, most sane people despise and rightly fear another four years of that man in the White House.
@mghrn55
I understand and would have expected mail-in votes to swing for Biden. And in the age of Internet, any liar can post. One would expect many claims of fraud to be without merit. That doesn't mean none of them have merit.
At the same time, about 1/3 of Americans have been persuaded the Trump is the next Hitler. One would expect that many would be ready and ...[text shortened]... a typo.
There should be a 138,000 decline for Biden in the hours that followed. I don't see it.
Given the fanaticism of Trumps evangelical / alt right base why do you think it’s more likely that Biden’s mainly liberal / centrist base would try to steal an election?
20 Nov 20
@techsouth said"The correction appears to be reflected in tweets Decision Desk HQ sent as the results trickled in from Michigan on Nov. 4. In one tweet posted at 5:04 a.m. EST, the service reported 2,130,695 votes for Biden and 2,200,902 votes for Trump. In another tweet at 5:43 a.m. EST, the service reduced the vote count for Biden, putting him at 2,019,899 votes to Trump’s 2,217,540."
@mghrn55
I understand and would have expected mail-in votes to swing for Biden. And in the age of Internet, any liar can post. One would expect many claims of fraud to be without merit. That doesn't mean none of them have merit.
At the same time, about 1/3 of Americans have been persuaded the Trump is the next Hitler. One would expect that many would be ready and ...[text shortened]... a typo.
There should be a 138,000 decline for Biden in the hours that followed. I don't see it.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/04/tweets/no-biden-did-not-receive-thousands-mysteriously-su/
The tweets themselves:
"MI Presidential Election Results
Trump (R): 50% (2,200,902 votes)
Biden (D): 48% (2,130,695 votes)
Estimated: 80-94% votes in
5:04 AM · Nov 4, 2020"
https://twitter.com/DecisionDeskHQ/status/1323929039367741440
Followed by:
MI Presidential Election Results
Trump (R): 51% (2,217,540 votes)
Biden (D): 47% (2,019,899 votes)
Estimated: 78-92% votes in
5:43 AM · Nov 4, 2020"
https://twitter.com/DecisionDeskHQ/status/1323938984830160896
20 Nov 20
@kevcvs57 saidYou realize that what you're stating here is an opinion based on what you've seen. It's not a concrete fact. And what you've seen is substantially shaped by what social media algorithms and news has determined they'd prefer you see.
They didn’t need to cheat, most sane people despise and rightly fear another four years of that man in the White House.
Given the fanaticism of Trumps evangelical / alt right base why do you think it’s more likely that Biden’s mainly liberal / centrist base would try to steal an election?
Trump had massive rallies with huge turns outs. Biden could barely fill a dinning room.
In my own circle, I came across many people who either did not vote for Trump in 2016 that did in 2020. Or did vote for Trump reluctantly in 2016 but were going to vote enthusiastically in 2020. The polls were so far wrong that I can't believe you'd cite them as evidence of anything.
As far as "most sane people" go, I consider myself sane. Perhaps I'm suffering from the Kruger-Dunning effect, but if I consider other areas of my life, I do well compared to the majority.
But yeah, maybe I'm the crazy one and the 35-year old guy flipping burgers as McDonalds for a living understands politics and effective government better than I.
Again, maybe it's Kruger-Dunning with me, but I'd much prefer 4 more years of Trump over Biden.
But part of why I've reached this point is I've seen clear evidence that the media is terribly dishonest. I usually don't have the ability to independently fact check things, but in the cases I can either fact check, or evaluate their lines of reasoning of other known facts, it is clear they care nothing about truth.
At this point, I'd much rather have 4 more years of Trump than 4 years of Biden.
As far as cheating, I asked on my Facebook wall the following question:
If you were living in 1933 Germany and had a chance to stop Hitler that required election fraud, would you do it?
A substantial percentage said that they would. Combine that with the fact that roughly 1/3 of Americans believe Trump is a rising Hitler and you have an environment that breeds cheating. From your own words, if Trump is as bad as you claim to think he is, it sounds like you might be tempted to cheat given an opportunity. (I'm just saying "tempted"😉.
20 Nov 20
@no1marauder saidThanks. I will attempt to digest this and determine why I am not seeing it on any graphs. Based on this, there should be a ~110,000 vote drop for Biden and it should show up on any correct graph and be consistent with the final numbers.
"The correction appears to be reflected in tweets Decision Desk HQ sent as the results trickled in from Michigan on Nov. 4. In one tweet posted at 5:04 a.m. EST, the service reported 2,130,695 votes for Biden and 2,200,902 votes for Trump. In another tweet at 5:43 a.m. EST, the service reduced the vote count for Biden, putting him at 2,019,899 votes to Trump ...[text shortened]... in
5:43 AM · Nov 4, 2020"
https://twitter.com/DecisionDeskHQ/status/1323938984830160896