Jump to content
Alias Detective

*Official 2020 Election Thread*

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Unleash the hounds. 

Twitter will sensor,  its almost like they picked a side, very Russian of them to interfere like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, drobeski said:

Stalin ?

👋

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, posty said:

Is there any way you can post the entire article?  WSJ is blocked at work...

Please and thank you...

 

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/trump-biden-election-day-2020/card/myg0PPnyCePAcnvufS3k

Shortly after 8 a.m. ET on Wednesday, Twitter users began sharing images purporting to show an implausible jump of more than 138,000 in the number of votes for Joe Biden in Michigan, when other candidates received none.

“This is voter fraud,” wrote one of the first users to post it. It eventually caught the eye of President Trump, who retweeted the image with a post that said, “WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT?”

But the claim was false.

A Wall Street Journal examination of snapshots of the Associated Press’s live election feed, taken every two minutes, shows no such jump in the tally for Mr. Biden occurred. By the time the AP reported Mr. Biden had garnered as many votes as appeared in the first social-media image, Mr. Trump had already been attributed at least 20,000 more votes than the picture showed.

The false claim that Mr. Trump shared underscores the test facing social-media platforms that have pledged to prevent election-related abuses of their tools. Twitter minutes later added a warning label to Mr. Trump’s post and other prominent ones like it, but that didn’t stop the president’s tweet from garnering more than 177,000 replies, retweets and likes.

Matt Mackowiak, a Texas-based Republican consultant, whose post was shared by the president, deleted his Tweet three hours after posting it. He explained on Twitter that he had shared the post honestly, but removed the tweet once he learned that the data referenced “was a typo in one county.”

The images in the tweets appear to be screenshots of the website for Decision Desk HQ, a company that compiles election results for media companies and websites. Decision Desk said on Twitter that there had been a clerical error in its feed for one county in Michigan.

“Once we identified the error, we cleared the erroneous data and updated it with the correct data as provided by officials,” the company said on Twitter.

Discussion of Mr. Mackowiak’s since-retracted allegation remained widespread on Twitter late Wednesday, including by Mr. Trump, who wrote in one tweet that he was claiming victory in Michigan and asserted “there was a large number of secretly dumped ballots as has been widely reported!”

The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, posty said:

 

You could probably verify every single absentee ballot in about 15 minutes.  All of them were required to get a confirmation e-mail, once received.  :dunno:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

Fair enough.  I would still argue that there are irregularities which, if you do the math, are highly improbable.  Wisconsin’s 90-ish % voter turnout is, umm... very high, for instance.

https://www.12newsnow.com/article/news/verify/verify-wisconsin-turnout-not-massively-larger-than-normal/507-ac05b2f4-fdfe-4bc5-91d5-7a22496c3314

The charts show the following voter turnouts:

2000 - 67%
2004 - 72.9%
2008 - 69.2%
2012 - 57.8%
2016 - 67.34%

But the 2020 number in the claim is actually achieved using a different formula than the one Wisconsin uses.

To get 89%, the claim takes the current votes cast in Wisconsin this year and divides them by the registered voters in Wisconsin. 

So that’s 3,240,268 votes cast among 3,684,726 registered voters, which equals roughly 89%.

But that’s the wrong equation to use, at least in Wisconsin. 

It clearly states on its site that “Wisconsin does not calculate turnout based on the number of registered voters.” Instead it uses the “total voting-age population.” That’s anyone in the state above the age of 18. For 2020, Wisconsin says that number is 4,536,293.

So let’s run that math again with the Wisconsin formula for voter turnout. We keep the same total voter count, but instead of dividing by registered voters, we divide by “total voting-age population.”

That’s 3,240,268 votes cast among 4,536,293 voting-age adults.

That equals roughly 71%, a number that is much closer to the past turnout numbers in the state.

In fact, there were only 200,000 more votes cast in Wisconsin in this presidential election than in the last. A total of 3,004,051 voted in Wisconsin in 2016. So the total votes cast in Wisconsin this year isn’t that ridiculous given record turnout nationwide.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Voltaire said:

I saw the jump with my own eyes in real time. I live overseas, it happened mid-afternoon, I was up and invested in the process. There has to be hundreds of thousands or millions of others who saw the same thing. What I cannot vouch for however, is total number of votes recorded before and after the jump occurred as I was only looking at the percentage numbers. So that 20,000 number... honestly, maybe. I can't say one way or the other about that.

Look, it was a massive irregularity that I'd never seen before. Numbers don't go from 9.6% lead to 1.3% in one update when there's upwarrds of 85% of the vote in. (Those numbers are not real, I made them up as an example since I don't remember the numbers, but it was something like that.) A 9.6 lead becomes 9.5 becomes 9.3 become 9.0 gradually. Drip drip drip. Maybe a half hour or 45 minutes later you're underwater if the trend takes you there. It doesn't fall off a cliff instantaneously which is what I saw happened from one update to the next. 

 

Read the article, it explains it. It is a wall street journal article and they lean right. It is important to not jump to conclusions and to wait for real evidence.

 

If there is fraud(and there may well be) it will come out in the lawsuits and the recounts. It is not going to be discovered by a twitter poster analyzing a real time graph on election night.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MTSkiBum said:

 

https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/trump-biden-election-day-2020/card/myg0PPnyCePAcnvufS3k

Shortly after 8 a.m. ET on Wednesday, Twitter users began sharing images purporting to show an implausible jump of more than 138,000 in the number of votes for Joe Biden in Michigan, when other candidates received none.

“This is voter fraud,” wrote one of the first users to post it. It eventually caught the eye of President Trump, who retweeted the image with a post that said, “WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT?”

But the claim was false.

A Wall Street Journal examination of snapshots of the Associated Press’s live election feed, taken every two minutes, shows no such jump in the tally for Mr. Biden occurred. By the time the AP reported Mr. Biden had garnered as many votes as appeared in the first social-media image, Mr. Trump had already been attributed at least 20,000 more votes than the picture showed.

The false claim that Mr. Trump shared underscores the test facing social-media platforms that have pledged to prevent election-related abuses of their tools. Twitter minutes later added a warning label to Mr. Trump’s post and other prominent ones like it, but that didn’t stop the president’s tweet from garnering more than 177,000 replies, retweets and likes.

Matt Mackowiak, a Texas-based Republican consultant, whose post was shared by the president, deleted his Tweet three hours after posting it. He explained on Twitter that he had shared the post honestly, but removed the tweet once he learned that the data referenced “was a typo in one county.”

The images in the tweets appear to be screenshots of the website for Decision Desk HQ, a company that compiles election results for media companies and websites. Decision Desk said on Twitter that there had been a clerical error in its feed for one county in Michigan.

“Once we identified the error, we cleared the erroneous data and updated it with the correct data as provided by officials,” the company said on Twitter.

Discussion of Mr. Mackowiak’s since-retracted allegation remained widespread on Twitter late Wednesday, including by Mr. Trump, who wrote in one tweet that he was claiming victory in Michigan and asserted “there was a large number of secretly dumped ballots as has been widely reported!”

The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The biggest evidence of voter fraud might end up being the fact that Biden himself publicly stated he has the biggest voter fraud organization ever.  For all the times the left wants to hold Trump accountable for misspeaking, it may the holding Biden accountable that is key here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MTSkiBum said:

https://www.12newsnow.com/article/news/verify/verify-wisconsin-turnout-not-massively-larger-than-normal/507-ac05b2f4-fdfe-4bc5-91d5-7a22496c3314

The charts show the following voter turnouts:

2000 - 67%
2004 - 72.9%
2008 - 69.2%
2012 - 57.8%
2016 - 67.34%

But the 2020 number in the claim is actually achieved using a different formula than the one Wisconsin uses.

To get 89%, the claim takes the current votes cast in Wisconsin this year and divides them by the registered voters in Wisconsin. 

So that’s 3,240,268 votes cast among 3,684,726 registered voters, which equals roughly 89%.

But that’s the wrong equation to use, at least in Wisconsin. 

It clearly states on its site that “Wisconsin does not calculate turnout based on the number of registered voters.” Instead it uses the “total voting-age population.” That’s anyone in the state above the age of 18. For 2020, Wisconsin says that number is 4,536,293.

So let’s run that math again with the Wisconsin formula for voter turnout. We keep the same total voter count, but instead of dividing by registered voters, we divide by “total voting-age population.”

That’s 3,240,268 votes cast among 4,536,293 voting-age adults.

That equals roughly 71%, a number that is much closer to the past turnout numbers in the state.

In fact, there were only 200,000 more votes cast in Wisconsin in this presidential election than in the last. A total of 3,004,051 voted in Wisconsin in 2016. So the total votes cast in Wisconsin this year isn’t that ridiculous given record turnout nationwide.

Wow the excuse machine is rocking them out today. 

Nothing to see here, look over there,  russians!

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, MTSkiBum said:

https://www.12newsnow.com/article/news/verify/verify-wisconsin-turnout-not-massively-larger-than-normal/507-ac05b2f4-fdfe-4bc5-91d5-7a22496c3314

The charts show the following voter turnouts:

2000 - 67%
2004 - 72.9%
2008 - 69.2%
2012 - 57.8%
2016 - 67.34%

But the 2020 number in the claim is actually achieved using a different formula than the one Wisconsin uses.

To get 89%, the claim takes the current votes cast in Wisconsin this year and divides them by the registered voters in Wisconsin. 

 

I would much more prone to vote by mail than in person. I have never voted, too lazy. you might convince me if I could mail it in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, edjr said:

I would much more prone to vote by mail than in person. I have never voted, too lazy. you might convince me if I could mail it in.

I have not been voting recently either. I have not voted the last two elections. Way too much hassle.

I was going to vote this year doing a mail in, however in Texas they compare it to the signatures on record. My handwriting is so bad I cannot produce the same signature twice. Why go through all of that work if my vote would not be counted anyways.

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/10/19/texas-mail-in-ballots-signatures/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MTSkiBum said:

Read the article, it explains it. It is a wall street journal article and they lean right. It is important to not jump to conclusions and to wait for real evidence.

 

If there is fraud(and there may well be) it will come out in the lawsuits and the recounts. It is not going to be discovered by a twitter poster analyzing a real time graph on election night.

 

 

The blips are real. I know what I saw. I checked Wisconsin and Trump was ahead 4.1%, then I ran the gauntlet.... Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, Georgia, Alaska numbers were finally creeping in, I'd done this dozens if not hundreds of times, there's always no change or there's 0.1, 0.2% difference. This particular time, I came back to Wisconsin again and ... WTF... Biden 0.3?!?! That's what happened. Just boom! 

 A half hour to to 45 minutes later, the same thing happened in Michigan. This was like 80% reporting, becoming 81%, it wasn't 2% becoming 3%.

Well that was weird. Then, the next morning, I read CDub's post and I'm telling you, what he's saying is exactly how it went down. The Wisconsin and Michigan leads just cratered unexpectedly out of nowhere. I'm not the Wall Street Journal. I am admittedly a Trump supporter so feel free not to believe me. I'm telling you, I was online, they were both wholly irregular and highly suspicious. The leads did not fade. They went ((BOOM)).

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dems are supposed to be beyond reproach when it comes to election fraud when they unabashedly rig every presidential primary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

The blips are real. I know what I saw. I checked Wisconsin and Trump was ahead 4.1%, then I ran the gauntlet.... Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, Nevada, Georgia, Alaska numbers were finally creeping in, I'd done this dozens if not hundreds of times, there's always no change or there's 0.1, 0.2% difference. This particular time, I came back to Wisconsin again and ... WTF... Biden 0.3?!?! That's what happened. Just boom! 

 A half hour to to 45 minutes later, the same thing happened in Michigan. This was like 80% reporting, becoming 81%, it wasn't 2% becoming 3%.

Well that was weird. Then, the next morning, I read CDub's post and I'm telling you, what he's saying is exactly how it went down. The Wisconsin and Michigan leads just cratered unexpectedly out of nowhere. I'm not the Wall Street Journal. I am admittedly a Trump supporter so feel free not to believe me. I'm telling you, I was online, they were both wholly irregular and highly suspicious. The leads did not fade. They went ((BOOM)).

I saw the same. Massive dump. The explanation was weak. Nobody else was doing that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Voltaire said:

Well that was weird. Then, the next morning, I read CDub's post and I'm telling you, what he's saying is exactly how it went down. The Wisconsin and Michigan leads just cratered unexpectedly out of nowhere. I'm not the Wall Street Journal. I am admittedly a Trump supporter so feel free not to believe me. I'm telling you, I was online, they were both wholly irregular and highly suspicious. The leads did not fade. They went ((BOOM)).

Could you link cdub's post here please?  That way some of us (i.e. the lazy people like me), won't have to dig back through multiple pages to find it...

Thank you...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Democrats cheated in their own primary. That’s a fact, and there’s no getting around it. What makes anyone think they wouldn’t cheat for an even bigger prize? 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, FlyinHeadlock said:

I saw the same. Massive dump. The explanation was weak. Nobody else was doing that.

Are they allowed to request access to those votes? if that is possible, we would have the answer as to what happened. If they just talk & don't produce any fraud, then it's just talk. 

Same as with Hunter Biden. If Trump is out, it all magically disappears. The senate will do a dance for the public yet nothing will happen. I'm guessing the hunter biden crap is not a big deal or they would have sprung it much earlier. No way they didn't already know the laptop existed.

I want to see some damn concrete evidence, not the d1ck dances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neocon swamp monsters who won't defend Trump:

 - Marco Rubio

- Rob Portman
- Mike Lee
- Gov.-elect of Utah
- Chris Christie
- Rick Santorum 
- AZ Gov. Ducey
- Mike Huckabee
- John Bolton

- Tim Scott

- Nikki Haley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these states withholding results or saying they won’t report til later is nothing short of a circus. How long until someone finds out there’s a 1 to 1 correlation of people who died from COVID this year yet somehow still sent in a mail in vote? 😂

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, iam90sbaby said:

Neocon swamp monsters who won't defend Trump:

 - Marco Rubio

- Rob Portman
- Mike Lee
- Gov.-elect of Utah
- Chris Christie
- Rick Santorum 
- AZ Gov. Ducey
- Mike Huckabee
- John Bolton

- Tim Scott

- Nikki Haley

They would all secretly like him out so they can get back to the business of elected officials, colluding with the Ds behind closed doors and line their pockets with the citizens $. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, lod001 said:

They would all secretly like him out so they can get back to the business of elected officials, colluding with the Ds behind closed doors and line their pockets with the citizens $. 

Add Crenshaw to the list 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, tanatastic said:

All these states withholding results or saying they won’t report til later is nothing short of a circus. How long until someone finds out there’s a 1 to 1 correlation of people who died from COVID this year yet somehow still sent in a mail in vote? 😂

I would just like to see some of this. It's all talk until it is proven. 1 is not proof, neither is 10 or 100 since Biden is 10s of 1000s ahead. If there are 10000 fraudulent votes, it should stick out like a sore thumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, iam90sbaby said:

Add Crenshaw to the list 

It's all of them. From McConnell & Pelosi on down. Right now, McConnell is BFing Pelosi in the senate chambers both saying 'we finally got rid of him, lets steal some $.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.5M votes have not been counted in AZ and they are mostly Trump. This is from a top AZ rep. Trying to get her name...this is 5:02 MT.  Saying it should be 2.5 to 1. He can easily take this state. 

Also, the % of votes counted being reported for all states is not an exact thing. The numbers are flawed from what she's saying.

Uggg. Newsmax is so raw. They don't put her name oh...it's Dr Kelli Wars Chairperson of the AZ GOP.

 

Man I sooo hope FOX has to swallow their own feces on this one. Deuchbaggery on them.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, iam90sbaby said:

Neocon swamp monsters who won't defend Trump:

 - Marco Rubio

- Rob Portman
- Mike Lee
- Gov.-elect of Utah
- Chris Christie
- Rick Santorum 
- AZ Gov. Ducey
- Mike Huckabee
- John Bolton

- Tim Scott

- Nikki Haley

🤬

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, FlyinHeadlock said:

1.5M votes have not been counted in AZ and they are mostly Trump. This is from a top AZ rep. Trying to get her name...this is 5:02 MT.  Saying it should be 2.5 to 1. He can easily take this state. 

Also, the % of votes counted being reported for all states is not an exact thing. The numbers are flawed from what she's saying.

Uggg. Newsmax is so raw. They don't put her name oh...it's Dr Kelli Wars Chairperson of the AZ GOP.

 

Man I sooo hope FOX has to swallow their own feces on this one. Deuchbaggery on them.

 

You know who told them to call it?  The Jew Arnon Mishkin.  :thumbsdown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, fandandy said:

You know who told them to call it?  The Jew Arnon Mishkin.  :thumbsdown:

whodat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×