Peer Reviewed Research Finds Evidence of 2020 Fraud

[Faun]

Very good article.



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...inds_evidence_of_2020_voter_fraud_147378.html

What a shame that article leads with a lie.

 

[Faun]

Not what this research is about.

Yes, the Republicans caught cheating really did commit voter fraud; whereas that "research" doesn't actually prove any fraud occurred.

 

[Delldude]

What a shame that article leads with a lie.

Don't like the poll?

You should see the one where 1 in 4 dems said they wouldn't have voted for Biden if the media and big tech hadn't suppressed the Hunter/Big Guy laptop story....now that's election fraud.

 

[Stann]

Don't like the poll?

You should see the one where 1 in 4 dems said they wouldn't have voted for Biden if the media and big tech hadn't suppressed the Hunter/Big Guy laptop story....now that's election fraud.

I'm just glad he's no longer number one of them Republican voters. DeSantis has replaced him as the number one choice now. Has Trump keeps battling on about his " stolen " election lie and the past. Most Republicans have moved on and are looking to a salvaged future with DeSantis. I think he's just another lost cause waiting for an accident.

 

[Faun]

Don't like the poll?

You should see the one where 1 in 4 dems said they wouldn't have voted for Biden if the media and big tech hadn't suppressed the Hunter/Big Guy laptop story....now that's election fraud.

I have no problem with the poll. The problem is with the article you linked which falsely claimed, "by a margin of 52% to 40%, voters believe that “cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election.”

 

[MagicMike]

It could be there was massive fraud.

There wasn't

 

[Stann]

There wasn't

There could be Angels and demons too.

 

[Lastamender]

There wasn't

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Here's the actual link if yere skeered:

Simple tests for the extent of vote fraud with absentee and provisional ballots in the 2020 US presidential election

Did you download the actual study and read it?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The author of the paper has a clear bias against mail-in-voting based on his first few pages. Never a good sign when someone is open about their bias before they even give their conclusions.

He also makes some assumptions that are not supported by his data.

Any difference in Trump's share of the absentee ballots would not have been caused by the general shift to absentee voting among Democrats, because Democrats encouraged their voters to vote by absentee ballot at both the national and state level. The absentee voting rate shouldn't differ substantially between two precincts next to each other and similar in terms of their in-person voting support and demographics. After all, Democrats cared about winning the state, not a county, or even a precinct.

This is not really accurate. There are many reasons that someone votes by mail. If often has to do with the ease, or lack there of, of voting in person. People that have to stand in line for an hour to vote are more likely to vote by mail than those that can just walk in and vote.

I will read more of the study later and comment on it. Have to do some real work for a bit!

 

[Stann]

Don't like the poll?

You should see the one where 1 in 4 dems said they wouldn't have voted for Biden if the media and big tech hadn't suppressed the Hunter/Big Guy laptop story....now that's election fraud.

It would seem like anyone can publish anything and get on this SSRV site. No qualifications needed, none desired.

 

[Stann]

Very good article.



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...inds_evidence_of_2020_voter_fraud_147378.html

The author is an economist. He is no degree in politics. He is also a gun-toting conservative, most likely a trump supporter And he has an inferiority complex. ( He purposely did not use the Jr. In his name ) and the love of guns probably has other shortcomings.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It would seem like anyone can publish anything and get on this SSRV site. No qualifications needed, none desired.

And their peer review process does not touch upon the validity of what is being posted

 

[Stann]

And their peer review process does not touch upon the validity of what is being posted

We can both stop posting on this, it's just another bogus far-right ploy.

 

[Oddball]

I read that some of these states that sent unsolicited mail in ballots actually had operatives go door to door and badger people into completing their vote, then of course, we'll mail it for ya.

One of the provisions in Pelosi's HR-1 was exactly that, unsolicited ballots.

AKA ballot harvesting....Illegal everywhere except Fornicalia.

 

[Oddball]

The author is an economist. He is no degree in politics. He is also a gun-toting conservative, most likely a trump supporter And he has an inferiority complex. ( He purposely did not use the Jr. In his name ) and the love of guns probably has other shortcomings.

Economists are really good with the maths, which you moonbats are not.

 

[Delldude]

The author of the paper has a clear bias against mail-in-voting based on his first few pages. Never a good sign when someone is open about their bias before they even give their conclusions.

And so did Jimmy Carter.

Did you download the actual study and read it?

Yes

 

[Delldude]

The author is an economist. He is no degree in politics. He is also a gun-toting conservative, most likely a trump supporter And he has an inferiority complex. ( He purposely did not use the Jr. In his name ) and the love of guns probably has other shortcomings.

Attacking the author doesn't dispute his findings.

Aren't you one of Biden's "we believe truth over facts" boys?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Attacking the author doesn't dispute his findings.

Aren't you one of Biden's "we believe truth over facts" boys?

His findings are not supported as they are based on assumptions that are not supported.

 

[Delldude]

His findings are not supported as they are based on assumptions that are not supported.

Yet it is peer reviewed.