I had a lot of election thoughts over the last week in this post plus the most recent data dump. As long as the election is continuing--and no, media calling the election does not make it over--I might as well continue.
One, there is no president-elect until the Electoral College votes (via Instapundit):
There is no 'president-elect' until December 14th at the earliest, when the electoral college "meets." In 2000, the Supreme Court didn't render their decision on Florida's decisive electoral votes until December 12.
Until then all we have is an apparent winner proclaimed by the media.
Two, while I have not yet seen evidence of enough fraud to flip the apparent results, as I wrote in the last data dump:
It is not far-fetched to think that Democratic cities in swing states committed fraud sufficient to swing the election. I'm not saying I have seen proof of it. But there are opportunities in those cities and a record of cheating. And there are things that look ... odd. Perhaps there are good explanations. I'd like to hear them. As for motive, Democrats have been saying for four years that Trump is Hitler. Are you telling me that Democrats in the Resistance wouldn't rig an election count to stop Hitler? This is worth looking into. Remember, it took 37 days to resolve the outcome of the 2000 election. Patience.
And three, the same media that says Biden won has forfeited any faith in their honesty or accuracy (via Instapundit):
“When it comes to the media and conservative voters and their politicians, the media lie, they lie, they lie, and then they lie,” Hemingway said on Fox News “MediaBuzz.” “They were shocked by what happened because they spend the last four years lying about the success of the Donald Trump administration.”
Hemingway continued: “They created false narratives, such as the Russia collusion hoax, Anonymous, the Kavanaugh situation, the Covington kid, and they lied through intentionally false polling, which said that this was going to be a blowout for Democrats.”
Again, I suspect that Trump has a tough fight to prove sufficient errors and fraud to win the election based on legally cast ballots. And it has to be based on fraud and major error, because I don't think a simple recount could move enough votes by identifying normal error that creeps into anything of this size. But the race is close enough in the states that seem to have put Biden over the top to justify scrutiny.
Heck, Democrats spent the last four years wrongly saying that Putin put Trump in office. Shouldn't we look for that just in case?
If Trump lost I will accept that. I won't be happy about it, but that's how the system works. But he should not give up before it is demonstrated he lost.
Everyone should want that clarity. Even the people celebrating in the streets suddenly not worried about "super spreader" events.
America deserves that clarity.
UPDATE: I'm hearing that Democrats are complaining that Republicans haven't "accepted" the election result. Pray tell, what is to accept at this point? I accept that Biden is ahead in published electoral votes. But the votes aren't certified, the Electoral College hasn't voted, and challenges to the published results are not completed. There is nothing to accept or deny yet. Will Democrats accept the results more than they did in 2016 if the apparent result is reversed before it becomes official?
I will accept the official result regardless of who the winner is. Will Democrats do the same? I say their history since 2016 is a resounding "only if Biden wins."
UPDATE: Tuesday morning. Related to the chart I put in the last data dump showing how divided the vote has usually been in America, a reminder that we're politically divided as we have been for twenty years (via Instapundit). I suppose somebody will figure out how to appeal to 55% of the people and start winning Electoral College landslides. We're clearly not there yet.
UPDATE: For a couple decades I listened to NPR on the way to and from work in my 140 mile commute. I was always astounded at their view of balanced debate: "Republicans. Are they evil or just too ignorant to know better?" Since then the left learned the power of "and." Because of the Victim Sweepstakes, the Left can't wonder whether African Americans and Latinos who voted for Trump are evil. So they will settle on too ignorant to know better. Which is kind of racist when you think about it.
UPDATE: Democrats have no credibility complaining about Trump's challenges to voting in key states. There was fraud. We just don't know how much. The question is whether it was decisive fraud.
Even if it wasn't decisive it is good to finally expose it. You never know how much will be decisive in the next election. We can't let the Democrats' four-year temper tantrum exhaust us from spending a few weeks making sure there was no fraud in this election.
UPDATE: Jesus Christ, I just saw a headline that says Trump "balks at giving up power". Trump is obliged to give up power in January if his defeat is certified in December. Until then he is contesting the outcome and not refusing to leave office. Stop the Tyrant Porn already!
UPDATE: The media is covering for the Democrats. If the Democrats cheated, the media won't dig into it--which is the media's formal job description. You can see this relationship is true by the media's repeated claims that Trump hasn't provided any proof of fraud. The question is did the Democrats cheat enough to slide under the media shield.
UPDATE: Early afternoon. Thoughts plus select state voter certification deadlines. The clock is ticking.
UPDATE: Maybe Trump should make Democrats' heads explode by asking the United Nations to examine the votes in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, and Arizona.
UPDATE: For the sake of election integrity in the future, Trump should win his Pennsylvania suit. Even if it isn't part of drawing to an inside straight to win the election, it's a good battle to win.
UPDATE: Wednesday morning. This is really odd. When I cited law--when I was but a non-lawyer researcher--I always included the actual citation of the law I mentioned. It was such an obviously routine thing to do that I figured that out on my second interview when answering a test question despite having no familiarity with the legal world. I didn't know what it meant, but I followed the pattern in my answer of "Section W of PUBLIC ACT ZZZ of YEAR, as amended, being MCL Section XXX.YYY." It still trips off my fingers. Yet there is nothing in the AG letter--if genuine, of course--like that suggesting a violation of a specific section of law. Or a cited court case. Or even a mere AG Opinion. It appears to be a "shut up, she said" letter. Tip to Instapundit.
UPDATE: I see "no widespread fraud" is the new "mostly peaceful protests." Fraud doesn't need to be widespread. It needs to be decisive. I want to know if that is the case. Let the process continue. We have time.
UPDATE: Don't get your hopes up for "Benford's law" applying to the election. I probably linked to it at some point. But I've heard that it isn't the smoking gun that is alleged. But that doesn't prove that there wasn't fraud.
UPDATE: Biden says he has already spoken to six world leaders. I assume the FBI will begin processing the Logan Act violation any minute now. I kid. It actually isn't a thing. But it wasn't a thing when Flynn was targeted over that four years ago.
UPDATE: Early afternoon. Are there really sentient humans outside of CNN and MSNBC who think that forces loyal to Biden will need to shoot their way into the White House if Biden ultimately wins the election? I may not think that Trump has a high chance of proving enough fraud to win. But I'm 100% sure that Trump will leave peacefully on time if he loses. What is with the Tyranny Porn that high-profile Democrats are addicted to?
UPDATE: To be fair, Biden probably doesn't remember pledging not to claim victory until certified. Via Instapundit.
UPDATE: Thursday morning. I've mentioned you don't need massive fraud to shift an election. Just decisive fraud in key areas hanging in the balance. You also don't need a conspiracy if you set up a system that encourages individuals to make the decision to commit fraud in large numbers. Telling people for four years that Trump is Hitler and sending out unsolicited ballots to millions of people is a recipe for lots of individuals to illegally cast votes in the belief that they are saving the world.
Did that happen? I want to know. I hope we have time to find out before the system validates potential fraud. And thank God we have an Electoral College system so these inquiries only have to take place in states that hang in the balance rather than in every state under a system that elects the president by popular vote.
UPDATE: Wow, Republicans worried about Democratic voter fraud are so off base.
UPDATE: Hahaha!
UPDATE: Much like good vaccine news, this had to wait until after the election to be written.
UPDATE: So you're saying Trump has a shot. But seriously, the election is not yet called.
UPDATE: Early Thursday evening. A big Trump court win in Pennsylvania. This is significant for rule of law in honest elections. If only Pennsylvania was the only state Trump needs to win this might be significant for the election outcome.
UPDATE: Friday morning. Trump is optimistic that he can reverse his apparent and tentative defeats in enough states to win. He may be wrong. But he has the right to check, which the system accommodates. This is not a coup. This is not a con. This is the process. Democrats spent four years trying to prove non-existent Trump-Russian collusion. Trump should get at least four weeks to demonstrate error or fraud in the vote-counting process.
Does the Pennsylvania preliminary count make sense?
Well that's an odd Georgia event, no?
UPDATE: On the bright side, I guess Democrats have to give Trump credit for preventing Russian, Chinese, and Iranian election interference. Which stands in stark contrast to the Democrats' claims that Obama failed miserably to prevent decisive Russian interference in the 2016 election.
UPDATE: And a reminder that just because something in the voting process looks odd doesn't mean it is odd. But we should be sure one way or the other.
UPDATE: Late morning. I wonder if the Green Party could have been targeted for Biden voter theft? Again, mere speculation.
UPDATE: Afternoon. Maybe that track record means something. Or maybe the track record was good until it wasn't. But by all means, let's look.
UPDATE: Saturday morning. While I don't expect Trump to find enough fraud and error to flip the election, it is outrageous that that the media is claiming there is no evidence of fraud or error. They seem like they are closing their eyes and saying they see nothing, proving all is well.
UPDATE: Sunday morning. Ominous for the integrity of the election--if true: “Trump won the largest non-white vote share for a Republican presidential candidate in 60 years. Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton in every major metro area around the country, save for Milwaukee, Detroit, Atlanta and Philadelphia.”
UPDATE: This article framing is complete BS. We do not yet have an official election result yet--we have an apparent victory by Biden. Trump has simply not conceded yet--he isn't refusing to concede ever (if that even mattered)--because he is pursuing legal challenges. And denying any possibility of problems with the election is a little hard to bear when the same media claimed prior to the election that Trump was stealing effing mailboxes to sway the election.
