oldmanfan

If you are not going to trust the state elections, many of which are run by Republicans in those that Trump lost, then what do you suggest? Recounting by who and to what purpose? We have an electoral system that has worked for centuries. Why are so many now wanting to upset the apple cart because Trump decided in advance there was no way he could lose? He lost. The vote will be finalized, certified, and we’ll move on.

Let me ask you this. Knowing there are more mail ins, do you think states with higher mail in are being more careful analyzing those ballots? Logic would suggest so. Neither of us know for sure of course, but again all states have methods to validate before they finalize their submissions. I din’t Doubt there will be some errors here and there, but you would need a monumental number of individual errors or some giant systemic flaw to change results in states where the winner has tens of thousands more votes. Also, I am not sure you can say Trump’s team has more info, because at this point they have not presented any claim in court that supports that.

And they will do their QC before finalizing what is reported. And there were observers for both parties present.

You don’t understand research. In research you make a hypothesis to explain an observation and you then experimentally test your hypothesis. And then analyze the data obtained by appropriate statistical methodology. But here is the key thing: You are always testing the null hypothesis; I.e. that there is no effect. You are assuming an effect. That’s wrong. What you are calling to be done is exactly what the states do to validate their outcomes via audits and such. I see no resistance from anyone to do so. What people are saying is simply this: all the states have said their elections were carried out consistent with their laws and procedures, and that there is no reason to suspect the outcomes. They will validate because that is part of their procedure. And again, you are assuming there is in fact some egregious error with absolutely no data to back it up. You have a conclusion in your mind and want to bend circumstances to fit your pre-made conclusion. I hope you don’t do that for your clients. Where did I say acquiesce and submit? That’s crap and you know better. I specifically stated that the states have processes to audit and verify final results and they will do so.

It is not a certainty there is a high error rate with mail in balloting. I am a research scientist with over 40 years experience in data analysis and management and as I pointed out above you are assuming an outcome and then trying to make data fit your pre-conceived conclusion. The states audit and check data before finalizing results and that is what should drive any recounts, not the upset feelings of the loser of the election.

I remember guys bringing cases of Genny into the Rockpile

Do you know what you are describing here? How states audit and certify their vote totals before they finalize their elections. You are committing the classic mistake I see when I review scientific manuscripts for various journals. Poor science and poor researchers decide what they want the outcome to be ahead of time, and then bend their experiments and data analysis to fit the presupposed conclusion. Here, Trump announces the only way he could lose is if the election was rigged. And now that he has lost, he and his sycophants scream that results are tainted because it violates the presupposed conclusion. The states will validate their data. If and only if during that verification issues show up, then further examination will be warranted. Doing a recount and such just because you want to make up stories about a rigged process, with absolutely no data to support it, is ridiculous.

Couldn’t agree more.

Then why have the lawyers not shown it? Why have any challenges thus far been thrown out of court? Thta is not as you put it an elementary school concept, it is the reality o the situation and folks like you refuse to come to terms with it. Every Secretary of State in charge of elections has validated their state's vote count as far as I can see. Historically the evidence of voter fraud tells us that, if present, it is extremely, extremely small. The lead Biden has is higher than the state's cutoffs for recounts, with the exception of Georgia (which will recount) and Wisconsin which allows a candidate to demand one. Why is this a problem? Several reasons. It prohibits the peaceful transition of power which is a staple of our democracy and makes us different than other countries. It is slowing down the transition making it harder for the new administration to hit the ground running on January 20th. And it places an even bigger divide between people in this country, which is the last thing we need.

Because you like him.

You have to have some kind of evidence to challenge in court. Where is it and why is that such a difficult concept to grasp?

But with a ring of truth

Because our legal system is not supposed to deal with claims with no evidence. If you were to take the "well, we think something is wrong so we're going to court" thought process being used by trump and apply that to anyone who feels butt hurt about something the legal system as we know it would cease to exist. What Trump and his supporters are doing right now is the equivalent of a frivolous lawsuit.

Love your name on here, Freebird is one of my favorite songs. But Coach Tuesday is right. You can pursue legal remedies but you have to have evidence that harm has been done. And there is none. You don’t use lawsuits as a fishing expedition; judges laugh at it as the one did in Pa when the lawyer had to admit in court that there were in fact observers present. Losing an election does not mean harm has been done, it means the people used their constitutional right to select someone else.

Good dialog. Regarding the above, you have to have a reasonable claim of harm to pursue legal remedy. There simply is no data to support that either in the historical review of electoral outcomes or from any of the states this time. The only reason this is happening is because the incumbent claimed before the election that he could only lose by fraud, and he cannot accept that he lost. At some point the majority of the electorate that are in the middle with conservative and liberal thoughts on specific areas have to take the country back from the crazies at the periphery.

Thanks for responding. Having media and other outlets declare the winner has been done for decades. Having a peaceful changing of the guard with sufficient time for the incoming administration to come up to speed is not only traditional but essential. I want folks to come together, but I think you have to acknowledge this post-election period is more bizarre than any other than 2000 and the Hayes-Tilden election, and it is because the loser cannot accept it, and the members of his party and too scared for their political futures to tell him so. Legally there are a couple states that will be recounted. There is virtually no chance tens of thousands of vote differentials change.

He has a right to contest, but you have to have some basis for doing so. Thus far there has been no logical basis aid out. The only thing I can see held up being held up by the court is not counting certain provisional ballots in Pa; they would not affect the outcome. Bottom line is thus: the loser of this election claimed before the election the only way he can lose is by fraud and he cannot accept he got voted out. He has a pre-conceived idea and is trying to make the outcome fit that. That is not the way it works.

As I pointed out above under Trump’s administration they convened a study under that guy from Kansas to uncover all the supposed fraud. It was quietly disbanded because nothing was found. Other studies of fraud have similarly shown none to very small fractions of a percent incidence. The data is there. It seems you don’t want to believe it.

The truth is of course necessary. But looking at the 2016 election the Trump administration put together a committee to examine supposed fraud in voting, and it was disbanded because nothing was found. Looking at the current election, it seems that voters followed state laws for submitting votes, either by voting in person early, by mail in, or by voting in person last Tuesday. Those empowered by their states to run elections, including Republicans, have stated the counting was done properly. And while legitimate challenges should of course be allowed, vague accusations with no proof or validity should not. You mention challenges about observers. When that was brought before a judge, the Reublican’s attorney had to admit that their observers were in fact present. So I’m all for truth, but I am not for blind accusations with no proof or validity being done simply to try and raise suspicions. That harms the electoral process more than anything.

Then how do we get the country working together again? Looks like we share similar political philosophies, so I’d be interested in your thoughts. i think of historical examples. Reagan and O’Neil were as opposite politically as you could get, but every week had drinks together, and got things done, notably saving Social Security. My favorite President was Truman, not for his politics but because he was faced with so many critical decisions and took them on unflinchingly. When it came to big things like saving Europe with the Marshall Plan, we had bipartisanship. More recently Bush and 9/11. We came together. We are each middle of the electorate it seems, conservative in areas and liberal in others. Should we not be able to work together?

I have to admit you’ve lost me here. I am a political independent, actually quite conservative in a number of areas, so when you use the all inclusive “we” and try and lump me in with left wingers, that dog just don’t hunt. I think you’re trying to bring up the idea that Obama’s administration tried to do something to take down Trump in the 2016 election? This has been looked at, one FBI agent was nailed for screwing up. But the ultimate decision was that there was cause to look into it. Barr’s guy is looking into it, and if he finds something then those responsible should be held to account. But since nothing came out before the election (when it would have had obvious advantages politically) I suspect it will be like Ron Johnson’s Senate investigation of Ukraine that ultimately showed nothing. But feel free to be specific in your thoughts without reference to Game of Thrones (never seen it) and we can discuss over a virtual beer. I think Trump lost for one reason: too many people were just tired of his act. Tired of the insults, tired of the tweets all the time, tired of the tone. Biden offers a change. I think we need to come together as a country, thought so 4 years ago. One guy has said he wants to work towards that, one guy by his actions said he didn’t and was voted out.

Biden has appealed to folks, even those who voted against him, to come together, and I hope that happens. I do not recall anytime during his term where Trump appealed to those opposing him to come together.

Why don't you just admit to the fact that you actively rooted for the Bills, the team you are supposedly such a fan of, to lose last year? You are not a fan of the Bills, you are an entertainment fan. People that actively root for a team to lose cannot then be a fan of the team.

You are not a Bills fan. You actively supported them losing last year because they weren’t exciting enough for you.

He is not racist because he put a crime bill together which had both intended and unintended consequences. And as for the pandemic he is going to put together experts in the field and rely on their expertise, which is a welcome change.