Our problems remain epistemological.

Sunday, November 22, 2020

This is CNN

CNN lists the current configuration of the House at 222 Ds to 207 Rs—with 6 undecided races. In all 6 races, the Rs lead. <https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/results/house>. 

CA-21: R leads D-inc by circa 1500 votes, with 99% reported; [Valadao versus Cox, Fresno Bee reports Republican win.] 

CA-25: R-inc lead D by circa 400 votes, with 99% reported; [Garcia versus Smith]

IOWA-2: R leads D by circa 50 votes, with 89% reported; [Miller-Meeks versus Hart]

NY-2: R leads D by circa 40,000 votes, with 84% reported; [Garbarino versus Gordon]

NY-11: R leads D-inc by circa 37,000 votes, with 85% reported; [Malliotakis versus Rose] 


NY-22: R leads D-inc by circa 9000 votes, with 92% reported. [Tenney versus Brindisi] [other media show a much closer race: status confused]

In all 6 races, the Rs lead. 

Seth Barrett Tillman, This is CNN, New Reform Club (Nov. 22, 2020, 3:20 AM), <https://reformclub.blogspot.com/2020/11/this-is-cnn.html>; 


Unknown said...

Both Rose and Gordon in New York State have conceded defeat.

PB said...

It is almost 3 weeks after the election. Why is there any precinct anywhere that had not reported? This some is evidence of a flawed election process.

Unknown said...

Maybe because trump is holding up the process with his bogus court claims of voter fraud

Horologium said...

Unknown--you can't blame Trump or the Republicans for California or New York. He hasn't challenged the results in those states, and their entire state government is run by Democrats. Trump hasn't challenged the results in Iowa, either, so that doesn't work.

R.C. said...

Moreover, the claim that there is no fraud is entirely beyond-the-pale absurd. There is some amount of fraud in every American election, of various kinds, because American elections are typically unsecured to nearly 3rd-world degrees.

Sometimes it's ballot-box-stuffing; sometimes it's voting by persons unauthorized to vote (or unauthorized to vote in that location); sometimes it's voting under stolen identity; sometimes it's the graveyard vote; sometimes it's voter-suppression by media outlets calling a state or precinct too early; sometimes it's voter-suppression by pollsters making the race look more lopsided than it really is; sometimes it's overzealous or underzealous purges of the voter-rolls; sometimes it's ballot-harvesting or bundling; sometimes it's overzealous or underzealous rejection of invalid ballots; sometimes it's unlawfully extended deadlines; and, the list goes on. These have been noted in every election of the last fifty years, and few election-years go by without someone, somewhere in the country, going to jail over it...but there's excellent reason to believe that under 1% of the actual instances of unlawful activity ever produce a conviction.

The question, then, is not whether it happens. It always happens, here and there.

The only question is whether the amount is sufficient to change the outcome.

A person who holds that Trump's claims of ballot-fraud, voter-fraud, or tallying-fraud (3 different things) are "bogus" surely doesn't hold that none of these things happened. Of course they happened. The only question is whether there was enough of it to put the presidency in doubt.

About THAT, reasonable persons may disagree.

All of the statistical evidence seems to show that this was an unexpected Red Wave Year, especially in the House: Trump apparently had "coattails" and yet, somehow, managed NOT to be able to win on the strength of all those new and motivated GOP voters. That's odd.

And, in the "blue wall" states which Trump won in 2016, there are dozens of precincts wherein the voter turnout is 90%+ percent of the number of registered voters (a thing less statistically likely than being struck by lightning), and many of them are over 100% (definitionally impossible without cheating), and some of them are over 150% or 200% (c'mon, man).

And wherever vote fraud is suspected, the numbers for Biden are...odd. He apparently is more popular with the black vote than Barack Obama...but only in those districts where fraud is expected. In other districts the black attitude towards Biden was rather apathetic, coming in at under-Hillary levels of interest. So that, also, is very suspicious.

The typical turnout for a precinct across the country is about 70% on a high-turnout election. So what happens if we take all those suspicious precincts and remove the unlikely/impossible votes that came in last, until the turnout drops to 70%? Trump wins GA and PA; and I suspect also MI and WI.

This does not prove that the fraud was big enough to change the outcome.

That, after all, is impossible in a secret-ballot voting system. The system is DESIGNED that way.

But, while not being proof, it certainly is suggestive.

John Tanner said...

Three have been decided in favor fo the Republican. California accepts ballots through 11-20; this caused the delays there. Iowa 2 is being re-counted. Expect recounts in very close races.