I've been astonished at the moral and ethical blindness of some of my left-wing acquaintances over the 2020 Presidential election. These are people with whom I may disagree over politics, social policy, and other issues, but whom I'd believed were nevertheless rational, reasonable, thinking human beings who could weigh up both sides of an issue and recognize truth when it presents itself. Instead, almost unanimously, they're denying the mathematical and statistical reality that confronts us, and insisting that "evidence" or "proof" must be provided before they'll admit that electoral fraud took place. The same denial is evident in almost all the mainstream media. They parrot the same nonsense about "no proof".
What more proof could they possibly want? Anybody trained in even basic levels of mathematical and statistical analysis can look at several states and point to the indicators of fraud. They're as plain as the nose on your face. There is no doubt about it - none whatsoever. We've covered the situation extensively in these pages over the past week, and others (for example, Larry Correia) have done so in far more detail. It's all real. Follow those five links for more information. You'll find many more reports at links such as this one and this one.
As Joseph Kynaston Reeves, who blogs occasionally at Squander Two, points out when examining the statistical evidence:
Those graphs are evidence of something highly suspicious happening. Clearly and obviously, to anyone who understands numbers. That has nothing to do with what they're measuring. If they were graphs comparing the performance of two brands of dishwasher, they'd be suspicious. If they were exchange rates or share prices, the financial regulator would be demanding an explanation from the banks involved, and actively considering raiding those banks if such explanation was not forthcoming. The idea that those numbers are not suspicious is just preposterous. I shan't bother explicating why; one thing I've discovered this week is that those who can't already see it will determinedly continue not to. But the evidence honestly couldn't be much clearer. And yet the dominant claim, repeated all week throughout the world's media, is that there is "no evidence". Not that the evidence is, on balance, unconvincing, or that it can be explained, but that there simply is none. That so many millions of people are apparently willing to believe such a thing is the most damning indictment I have ever seen of the state of maths teaching.
. . .
There are various scenarios that could explain graphs like that. "This is normal; nothing to see here" is not one of them — but that's the one we've been given, again and again, smugly and condescendingly, by people insisting that even being suspicious of numbers like that is a sign of knuckle-dragging stupidity.
. . .
I currently work in financial regulatory reporting. If I were to see numbers like that and not investigate them, I could go to prison. And I'd deserve it.
Yet, despite that mathematical reality, one still runs into adamant denial. For example, here's the perspective of Earth-Bound Misfit, whose blog I read regularly, and with whom I've corresponded in the past. She's one of many who are waxing vitriolic about any allegation of electoral fraud. I'm merely using her blog articles as representative of many others out there, from many sources.
That's my message to those claiming massive fraud: Show your proof. If there's massive fraud, you should be able to easily produce massive evidence of that.
So far, other than the rage-tweeting of Soon-to-Be-Former President Trump, there's nothing. Oh, there's some fourth-hand rumors of boxes of fake ballots that turned out to be photography equipment and lies about the use of Sharpies, but all of that is smoke, mirrors and bullshit.
If you're claiming fraud, you must show real proof. Not innuendo, not conspiracy theory manure, real proof suitable for admission in a court of law.
Otherwise, quit wasting our time and shut the f*** up.
She added yesterday: "If you are one of those parroting baseless claims of fraud, you are one of Putin's useful idiots."
Well, I'm sorry, but the claims of fraud are not baseless. There's overwhelming evidence to show that. As for "real proof", statistical and mathematical evidence has long been acceptable in court. Why are they suddenly not sufficient? Why are eyewitness affidavits, security camera footage, and admissions from some of those involved in electoral fraud, not convincing enough?
This is only one example of the sort of denial I'm seeing from bloggers, journalists and others whom I'd thought were more balanced in their analysis. Comrade Misfit is a lawyer. How can any lawyer, trained and experienced in the use of evidence, see the numbers that are pouring out of this election in a now unstoppable tide, and pretend that with so much smoke, there's no fire? I wish I knew. It's a willful blindness that, for the life of me, I simply can't understand.
I can only repeat Mr. Kynaston Reeves' observation, cited above:
If they were graphs comparing the performance of two brands of dishwasher, they'd be suspicious. If they were exchange rates or share prices, the financial regulator would be demanding an explanation from the banks involved, and actively considering raiding those banks if such explanation was not forthcoming. The idea that those numbers are not suspicious is just preposterous.
This has nothing to do with the people involved, or the political parties. I'd be just as outraged if the situation were reversed, and President Trump and the Republican Party had manipulated the election in order to deny victory to Joe Biden and the Democratic Party. It's got everything to do with the fairness and justice of our electoral process, and the constitutional foundation of our Republic. Why is it so hard to admit that simple justice demands a detailed, thorough investigation when so much evidence points to the need for it?
Intolerance and vitriol are now dominating our political process. It's reached such a fever pitch that even if the courts rule that electoral fraud took place, and take steps to correct the situation and produce an honest result according to the true, real will of the people, there will be many who reject that as a biased and corrupt decision. The truth is no longer acceptable, unless it fits their prejudices. That's a tragedy for our Republic, and may yet destroy us.