First I will state unequiviacllay, as if I need to, I already am convinced that the elections was fraudulent, so yes I havve a bias, that
A) I am ready to believe that the system failed, and
B) facts that support my belief are not examined with quite the fervor that facts that challange it do.
I also grant that those arguing against fraud have similar biases.
The following contains no new facts, or data. It is not intended to present anything new. It is simply as rigorous an exercise in logic as I can construct. All of my reasoning and my biases are clearly stated so even the least training in logic should allow you to follow it with ease. The arguments and inferences are also basic enough that if I am in error that should be readily apparent as well. You may disagree, in fact I am sure many will, but my reasoning should be crystal clear and unambiguous. Agree or disagree, prove my assertions rght, or prove them wrong, they are as clear as I know how to state them.
There is HUGE evidence that ALL traditional predictors of elections were wrong and more wrong in the so-called battle ground states.
There is also MASSIVE evidence of small scale, and some medium scale evidence of deliberate fraud, combined with massive incompetence.
Now incompetence might swing individual races one way or another, but across the nation, in case after case, the apparent swings by incompetence show a distinct pattern. Maybe if one or two cases happened to be a areas where they had a disproportionately large effect, they might have altered the results enough that the others did not balance out, and one side gained disproportionately.
The reported cases however, ran in the neighborhood of 10-1 in favor of one side. (I am not a statistician, so I can only argue statistics from a layman's point of view, but in ENGINEERING, a 10-1 ratio is a VERY key marker.
10-1 means that the smaller effect HAS NO EFFECT. It is insignificant and can be ignored in all but the MOST PRECISE MEASURES. In measuring something where even votes themselves are only the most precise measure, NOT a definitive measure of the "mood" of the country, that ratio makes the smaller side completely irrelevant.
Long winded way of saying that "incompetence" is NOT a valid explanation for any discrepancies.
Similarly, while there was DOCUMENTED pre-election FRAUD attempts from both sides, they again seemed larger in scale, and more numerous biased to one side.
Now we come to the differences between the traditional predictors and the outcome. Again, in every single meaningful way the outcome separated from ALL traditional predictors, by a large and consistent amount for one side.
Now Fraud is certainly one possible explanation, so is incompetence.
Other explanations have been put forward, and I even will acknowledge, they might be plausible.
Yet fraud has ample evidence to support it, both in actions we already KNOW were taken, and PUBLIC ALLY STATED INTENTIONS.
________________
So the question:
Why is any piece of evidence that suggests fraud instantly suspect, no matter how rigorously researched? And why is any counter proposal no matter how unlikely, or unsupported a valid refutation?
_
_________________
Several proposals have been presented. A large block of voters suddenly voted as a block that never has been previously identified, and that block leaned one way. Now, that is always possible. That is specifically why polling for a race, especially a tight race is always so qualified. Polling always assumes, and to function MUST ASSUME that all such blocks are accounted for.
On the other hand, there are pollsters on both sides whose JOB it is to discover previously un identified blocks and reach out to them if they support you, or neutralize them if they don't.
Neither side seems to have ever gotten a hint of their existence. We have people that have received enough data to know if they other side had real faith such a block might exist, we would have at least known that they were counting on such a group, if not any details about them. Our pollsters should, (NOTE THE QUALIFIER PLEASE, I said SHOULD have, as in been expected to, NOT WOULD have as in not having detected them is proof that they did not exist.) have detected them, so they are always possible, but remain as only a conjecture at this point. There is SOME circumstantial evidence, in at least one Florida analysis that this might have occurred, but that was one analysis, and has not been repeated anywhere else that I have seen. It is a possibility, but still a VERY remote one.
Similarly, an unusual number of split ticket voters are suggested to explain why only certain races in certain states deviated from the traditional predictors. Again, they are ONLY someone's creations, and not a valid argument that they DID occur, until some EVIDENCE that supports them appears.
And NO, basic logic says that if you are trying to determine why the hypothesis and the results differ, it is NOT valid to propose a possible cause for the difference, and argue that the difference alone is proof of your argument.
The same holds true that polling and exit polling somehow got it wrong because one side or the other chose to participate in numbers significantly different from each other or any prior case. Again that is ALWAYS a possibility, but again with NO evidence except that the results were different, and if that occurred it would make the results different, this not evidence of anything.
In the end, the most likely cause, and the ONLY cause with ANY significant evidence to support it is fraud. That is the only explanation that reliably accounts for all discrepancies, in vastly different states with VASTLY different populations all biasing the same amount. (even I know enough statistics to KNOW WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that if several events all deviate from the hypothesis, (in this case the individual elections that deviate from traditional predictors,) by the same or very close amounts, it is beyond credence that different events were influenced by different factors, which all HAPPENED to have the same bias.
What ever caused the results of individual elections to diverge from the traditional predictors, is ONE EFFECT, uniform in it's distribution from state to state, in the states were the divergence occurred, and meaningless in the sates were it did not occur. ANY theory to explain why ALL traditional predictors were wrong this year, MUST explain why in vastly different political climates they were all either dead on, or differed by the exact same amount state to state.
Each of the suggestions given so far either are proposed in only specific states, or would have no reason to be mathematically precisely aligned in vastly different states, and had zero effect in others. (In fact, fraud is the ONLY proposed cause that by its nature is going to tend to bias the results consistently in different places.) All other proposals would be political, in that they would be individual voters in individual races, and each case coming out in the same range in vastly different political situations would be so unlikely that they can really be discounted on their face, unless there is no, more likely explanation.
A word about the predictors. The information used to poll, is not terribly accurate. Hell, I argued and still believe that the statistical assumptions that pre-election polls are based on, are so invalid that they cannot be counted on. Yet they ARE accurate enough that they have been used successively for at LEAST 40 years, with NO MAJOR discrepancies. They have a strong and unsullied track record.
Exit polling is the one exception. All of this talk of random samples is garbage. Again I am NOT a statistician, so I only have my understanding in layman's terms, but the validity of exit polling relies ENTIRELY on the the precincts being specifically and deliberately chosen before hand.
Some are chosen as bellwethers, battleground precincts that historically have accurately predicted the mood of the district, and when enough in different areas are chosen the entire state. My understanding is that there has NEVER been a race that massively diverged from the exit polls. Even in countries with out a history of voting as rich as ours, they have been predictive enough that variances between exits and the results alone are PRIMA FASCIA evidence of wide spread tampering. So why in states with a hundred years or more of tabulated results, just WAITING to be analyzed to determine districts that traditionally mirror the state consistently be MORE inaccurate.
Again as I understand it other districts are chosen to gauge turnout, and still others to break down subgroups to determine how they voted. Yes they are BUILT on a random distribution within that particular precinct, and they are WHERE we get the data that republicans seem to vote earlier in the day, at least in general. Of course they assume that no one deliberately lies to them, (why would you vote for someone, walk out and chose to tell a pollster that you voted for his opponent?) The same applies to outright refusal to answer. It is possible to claim that suddenly the numbers changed this round, but WHY ON EARTH would that number change SIGNIFICANTLY in one direction by similar amounts in specific states and NOT CHANGE AT ALL IN OTHERS.
AGAIN for any of the effects to have been real, they would have hade differing effects in different states, and it is EXTREMELY unlikely that they would have had zero effect in the states that they did not swing in a large way.