NC-09

[_EAllusion]

There's genuinely sketchy things going on in that election outcome. The short of it is the results in one county are mathematically sketchy as all get out and there's a bunch of affidavits from people claiming a woman was going door to door collecting their absentee ballots illegitimately in that county. The local elections board refused to certify the results pending further investigation. There's a legitimate chance we're looking at an attempt to defraud the election at a scale large enough to swing a Congressional race. It happens to be Republicans who would have benefited if this happened.

Here's a Nate Silver link:

https://Twitter.com/NateSilver538/statu ... 3162481664

[_EAllusion]

The Charlotte Observer link buried in my initial link strongly implies that bogus claims of absentee voter fraud in 2016 by Democrats may have motivated a Republican activist or a few to actually engage in that fraud. That would be a rather extreme illustration of the problem of how false claims of untoward behavior are used to justify actual untoward behavior in "since everyone does it, it might as well be for the right team" logic.

[_subgenius]

But you have no proof that it was a Republican....nice. Most likely it was a Democrat that was "making sure"....apologies, I interrupted the perpetuation of your myth, please continue.

[_EAllusion]

But you have no proof that it was a Republican....nice. Most likely it was a Democrat that was "making sure"....apologies, I interrupted the perpetuation of your myth, please continue.

Assuming the affidavits reflect systematic fraud, what makes it likely that it was a Republican is that the absentee ballot math is heavily distorted against expectations in favor of Republicans in comparison to historical trends and surrounding counties this election. It makes no sense for the math to be in actuality be even more distorted in favor of Republicans. This is contained within my links. In order for it to be a Democrat , it almost certainly have to be a Democrat cheating on behalf of Republicans to swing the election towards them, hoping to be caught, face felony charges, and maybe possibly make Republicans look bad if the Democrat part isn't figured out too. This makes no sense whatsoever.

What evidence do you have that "most likely it was a Democrat?"

[_Kevin Graham]

On a related note,

This Woman Got 8 Years In Prison For Illegal Voting. Texas Is Showing No Mercy.

FOX News and many other Right Wing rags have been calling her an illegal alien who voted for Hillary. But she voted for Mitt Romney over Obama and she even voted for the Attorney General who is prosecuting her.

She came here as a baby and she didn't know she couldn't vote. “She has a sixth-grade education. She didn’t know she wasn’t legal,” Ortega’s lawyer told The New York Times in 2017. “She can own property; she can serve in the military; she can get a job; she can pay taxes. But she can’t vote, and she didn’t know that.”

But Republicans want to use her to justify their irrational hysteria about rampant voter fraud and they're making her pay a ridiculous price for their political agenda.

[_honorentheos]

I read about this story this morning. I had no idea how often a county has refused to certify election results due to uncertainty about irregularities so I searched for it. I didn't find anything but didn't try for very long. It does seem extremely unusual.

The other aspect of the story that is frustratingly vague are the investigations of a paid lobbyist for the Republican candidate who was responsible for the campaign's absentee vote strategy and promised a meaningful bonus if the candidate won. It gets brought up that this is being looked into, hints that it could be related to the other apparent issues of vote collecting and potential tampering or theft, but it doesn't make it clear if these are being considered related or two separate issues being investigated independently,

[_subgenius]

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.

[_Chap]

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.

So "most likely" means "I dunno. But I hate Democrats, so ..."

Good to be warned ...

[_honorentheos]

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.

That's explains a lot. It's difficult to imagine how it happened that the election can show equally anomalous issues that favor the Republican candidate and the Democrat candidate at the same time but that would certainly be an anomaly worth withholding certification of the results.

[_EAllusion]

I read about this story this morning. I had no idea how often a county has refused to certify election results due to uncertainty about irregularities so I searched for it. I didn't find anything but didn't try for very long. It does seem extremely unusual.

The other aspect of the story that is frustratingly vague are the investigations of a paid lobbyist for the Republican candidate who was responsible for the campaign's absentee vote strategy and promised a meaningful bonus if the candidate won. It gets brought up that this is being looked into, hints that it could be related to the other apparent issues of vote collecting and potential tampering or theft, but it doesn't make it clear if these are being considered related or two separate issues being investigated independently,

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.