That's a fair point, though the prosecution over NC 9 in 2018 is evidence that the Rs have used that sort of tactic at least once. My honest POV here is "I don't find the idea the dems were doing this convincing because they're not subtle enough to not fix downballot too."
-
-
Replying to @shadowcat_mst @MorlockP
Only one Senate race in 3 key states of WI, MI, PA. Skillful, small-scale vote-stealing is a traditional folk art in Chicago-style cities, like Milwaukee, Detroit, and Philadelphia. It depends upon late reporting of vote totals.
2 replies 7 retweets 56 likes -
Replying to @Steve_Sailer @MorlockP
If you look at e.g. WI Trump underperformed the house candidates in a bunch of conservative districts by (between them) more than his total statewide vote deficit. Plus wrt late reporting the Ds were calling for prescanning of postal votes and opposed in that by R legislatures.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
I still really can't square "the Dems' plan depends on late reporting of vote totals" with "the vote totals are being reported late because the GOP legislature forced that to happen over Dem objections". The Dems ain't playing that high a dimension of chess in my experience.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @shadowcat_mst @MorlockP
Democratic big city machines have held back reporting some reliable precincts since Richard J. Daley was a lad. When the GOP finally lays their cards on the table, the Dems get to decide: - We won honestly! - We lost too big to even try - Let the boys know what needs to be done
2 replies 11 retweets 30 likes -
Both sides cheat or at least try to game the system. GOP suppresses the vote in various legal ways. Dems have Daley-type machines that raise the dead to cast their votes. Not saying it's always a wash but if people cry fraud it has to be clear cut and egregious.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ChristophKevill @Steve_Sailer and
A challenge I see is that active review for election fraud appears to not exist. Does any state perform auditing & review of major districts to ensure validity of the process and results?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @michaeljauquet @ChristophKevill and
I mean, there are observers from both major parties watching every count which is a fair chunk of process review.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @shadowcat_mst @michaeljauquet and
> watching every count Except for where they were illegally excluded > count So presume 100% accurate counting of inaccurate / fraudulent ballots injected before the count...
2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @MorlockP @michaeljauquet and
> So presume 100% accurate counting of inaccurate / fraudulent ballots injected before the count... Looking for those is why observers are allowed to raise ballot challenges and insist on extra scrutiny. It's not perfect (see the D and R fraud cases we found earlier) but still.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Count observers can do nothing about a blank mail in ballot signed by an elderly person and then filled in by a party functionary before being delivered. A social worker was arrested for this 2 days ago, and its a well known scam.
-
-
Replying to @MorlockP @michaeljauquet and
Yes, I know. That was the D and R fraud instances I specifically called out since we already linked them up thread. (ok, I'm *assuming* the social worker was D, whereas the R supporting fraudster was prosecuted as such, but it seems like by far the most probable option)
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.