EAllusion wrote:What evidence do you have that "most likely it was a Democrat?"
exactly the same evidence that you have for it being a Republican...imaginary.
The evidence that it was a Republican backer if someone untoward happened with ballot harvesting is the jump-off-the-page statistical aberrations that all tilt Republican.
EAllusion wrote:His primary candidate won basically all the mail-in absentee ballots in the same area in an upset victory where that trend existed no where else. The same person also made a then baseless charge that Democrats were engaged in absentee mail-in fraud in 2016. This is all pregnant with implication, but too vague to say anything definitive happened yet.
That's essentially what I had gathered, along with the $40k bonus tied to his candidate's successful win. It implies that he had monetary incentive to cheat.
I read there are somewhere around 1000 ballots in question in a race decided by around 900 votes so the potential irregularities could have decided the election which is leading to this highly irregular refusal to certify the election results. But there are very few specific and confirmed details right now to say much else other than there appears to be serious problems that are being investigated, the problems may have given the Republican candidate the election, and the problems may have been a concerted attempt to interfere with Democrat voters successfully providing mail-in ballots. Or it may be all of these things are unrelated to one another, the suspicious activities those of one or more individuals acting alone out of different motives and the paid activities of the lobbyist completely above board. We know very little but it looks highly suspicious.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
EAllusion wrote:The evidence that it was a Republican backer if someone untoward happened with ballot harvesting is the jump-off-the-page statistical aberrations that all tilt Republican.
"The evidence" ? please cite the actual evidence. (and ix-nay on the allot-bay arvesting-hay, there are Californians around here)
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
After noting that there were irregularities and quoting from the content of the affidavits they make the closing argument, "Democrats argue that voter fraud doesn't happen that often while Republicans see it as a major issue. Looks like it happened. We're not saying anything more than that. We report, you decided." Other than quoting both candidates as being supportive of a clean election process they offer no information about how this may have affected the outcome.
OTOH, the Washington Post has been reporting on this quite heavily and with clear comment about who benefited from it. I'm sure it isn't necessary to point out but I will, they are laying out the case the situation clearly appears to have benefited the Republican candidate so dot, dot, dot, we report, you decide.
Republican Mark Harris beat Democrat Dan McCready by 905 votes. He carried Bladen County by 1,557 votes.
The man at the center of speculation about the alleged activities, McCrae Dowless, was paid by the Harris campaign as a contractor for the candidate’s top consultant.
...
In seven of the eight counties in the 9th District, for example, McCready won a lopsided majority of the mailed-in absentee ballots. But not in Bladen County. There, Republican Mark Harris won 61 percent even though registered Republicans accounted for only 19 percent of the county’s accepted absentee ballots.
Unaffiliated voters accounted for 39 percent. Bitzer said Harris’ margin “could potentially come from all those unaffiliated voters.”
“But to have each and every one of those unaffiliated voters vote Republican, that’s pretty astonishing,” he added. “If that’s the case, there’s a very concerted effort to use that method to one candidate’s advantage. . . . But at that level there’s something else beyond a concerted effort that could be at work.”
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
EAllusion wrote:The evidence that it was a Republican backer if someone untoward happened with ballot harvesting is the jump-off-the-page statistical aberrations that all tilt Republican.
"The evidence" ? please cite the actual evidence. (and ix-nay on the allot-bay arvesting-hay, there are Californians around here)
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
The evidence is that the county is an anomaly in the district, and the 19% Republicans and 39% unaffiliated of voters who requested absentee ballots doesn't add up to the 61% margin of advantage in winning among absentee voters the Republican gained in the only county in the district where the Democrat failed to win what was described as a lopsided margin of absentee votes among eight counties.
That's pretty compelling. It certainly doesn't add up to equal evidence it could be a Democrat responsible.
I'd suggest taking a different line of argument. This one is comically bad.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth? ~ Eiji Yoshikawa
subgenius wrote:No evidence for your claim there. Please clarify.
The evidence is that the county is an anomaly in the district, and the 19% Republicans and 39% unaffiliated of voters who requested absentee ballots doesn't add up to the 61% margin of advantage in winning among absentee voters the Republican gained in the only county in the district where the Democrat failed to win what was described as a lopsided margin of absentee votes among eight counties.
That's pretty compelling. It certainly doesn't add up to equal evidence it could be a Democrat responsible.
I'd suggest taking a different line of argument. This one is comically bad.
So an anomaly is now evidence for something?
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
subgenius wrote:So an anomaly is now evidence for something?
Well, yes, statistical anomalies are famously an example of something that can be evidence. In this case, it's evidence that if there were election shenanigans, it likely was to benefit Republicans. That is to say, it is significantly more probable that the election was naturally more tilted towards Democrats if not for Republican meddling than it is that this one area was even more anomalously in favor of Republicans prior to Democrat meddling.
subgenius wrote:So an anomaly is now evidence for something?
Why shouldn't it be? If a data sample in a survey sticks out from all the others, it is normally taken as an indication that the investigator needs to check that nothing irregular is happening in the region from which that sample comes.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.