Biden only gets lucky in PA a full day after that if you look at vote share per batch, well after in-person votes are counted, and the later you go, the luckier he gets.
The pattern is the same in every swing state except Arizona, and in Virginia as well. If you plot out Edison data that has vote count updates, in "normal" states (both Biden and Trump dominant), things are chaotic initially (when in-person votes are counted) and then they settle to a certain GOP/DEM ratio, with a very slow drift towards GOP, presumably because rural votes take longer to show up. In the swing states you observe the same initial chaos, and the same slight initial drift towards GOP, but then Biden starts to get very lucky indeed, and his luck improves as time goes on.
To be fair, this could just be artifact of how votes are counted, in which case I'd like to see what could lead to such a pattern _only_ in the swing states. Or this could be evidence of vote rigging by all means necessary. No matter which side you're on, this should be looked into.
Its not "lucky" at all, this was an orchestrated outcome. Theres 2 components to this:
1. Mail in ballots were heavily partisan. The president made a point to instruct Republican voters to vote in person, and not by mail. And many other correlated factors (eg. COVID and social distancing has also been heavily politicized, influencing whether a voter would vote in person vs mail in).
And now this pre-meditated orchestration, set up by a Republican president and Republican State house, is being used as evidence of some grand conspiracy. Its not, and has been predictable for months now, with countless news articles about it.
Just FYI, in regards to your the 2nd point, while there was rampant speculation about delivery delays, I don’t think there’s any evidence that ballots were actually delayed due to USPS, and quite strong evidence in fact that ballots were not delayed by USPS.
Specifically, in PA where they were segregating late arriving ballots, only about 10,000 ballots arrived after 8pm on Election Day, and there’s no reason to believe those ballots weren’t delivered within the expected delivery timeframe and just mailed late.
The USPS wrote a letter months ago trying to urge states to be sure their mailing cutoff timelines corresponded with USPS’s physical delivery timelines (e.g. basically, don’t let someone request a mail in ballot within 4 days of the election) and there was a massive over-reaction. In the end there has been no incidence of ballots not being delivered on time that I’ve seen.
You do realize GOP observers were thrown out in PA, and they put up bristol board so media observers couldn't see into the counting area right? They also violated orders by Justice Alito to keep mail in votes separate and votes by incoming date separate.
Their State courts also rules to extend the voting deadline for mail-in, which goes against their own laws and may end up going against the constitution.
PA has not been confirmed on some media sites; and been switched back to grey. It will likely make it to the Supreme Cort.
Please stop spreading misinformation. There is a lot of credible voter irregularities. Due process violations occurred in PA and NV (observers not allowed access) and in Detroit (observers were told to go home when 120k votes came in at 4am .. and then those votes changed to 12k).
There are a lot of questionable aspects to this election and they all need to be investigated. Please at least realize that investigation needs to happen. If there are no issues, investigations should not be a big deal. So far every state in question has been actively hindering transparency.
This could turn into one of the most disputed elections of our time and the media is trying to dismiss all the irregularities. This is incredibly dangerous, as we could potentially see riots that would make May look like a Canadian hockey game after party.
# 1 would fit, if there were a proportionate number of mail-in ballots for Jo Jorgensen and Kanye West. If you have 10,000 ballots, some of those will be expected. Tens of thousands of Biden-only? Repeatedly? Doesn't pass the sniff test.
What does “Biden only” votes mean to you? Is that where you see vote totals jump for Biden, but not for any other candidate? Because your conclusion from that, that it’s obviously fraud, seems incredibly naive. The simple answer is they update candidate totals in chunks.
Further, if someone was committing fraud, they could just add a few votes for other candidates to evade your detection. Your sniff test doesn’t pass my sniff test.
Biden-only means the ballot is marked _only_ for Biden, and not for any of the congress or local legislature candidates. That's unlikely as fuck, especially when such ballots come as a large batch or a series of large batches. That's what you do if you bought into the "Joe is ahead by 15%" polls and didn't have the time to make your scam believable at 4AM on November 4th.
Joe Biden: 3,376,367
Donald Trump: 3,326,687
Jo Jorgensen: 77,922
So, for every Jorgensen voter, there are approx. 43 Biden voters.
I mean, if mail-ins were proportional, you'd expect Jorgensen to get what, between 100 and 200 mail-in ballots? But we know that Biden has a much higher ratio of mail-in ballots than Trump, and maybe Jorgensen voters are closer to Trump than Biden, in their voting habits?
Just speculation. Same goes for Kanye West. Who knows how many of those votes were serious and planned, and how many were just for the "lols" at the polling station.
Points is - both Jorgensen and West are so few compared to the rest, that seeing just tens to a couple of hundred votes per TEN thousand doesn't really seem out of place.
Why just those states, though? Other states show more-or-less similar distributions of in-person to mail-in ballots. It's only these handful of swing states (WI, MI, PA, NV, GA) that have such a massively different ratio of votes in-person vs. mail-in.
> It's only these handful of swing states (WI, MI, PA, NV, GA) that have such a massively different ratio of votes in-person vs. mail-in.
No, its not.
Its only those states that got a lot of attention to their count because they were swing states; the states that were easy to project very early on, no one outside of the media decision desks making the call cared about the details. And lots of them didn't have rules separating and delaying the count of mail-in ballots, anyway, which meant that differences in mail-in ballot patterns (which there almost certainly were because of partisan differences in who voted mail-in, entirely predictable given partisan differences in advocacy for and against mail voting) wouldn't show up clearly in the count timing the way it does in places where the process delayed starting counting mail-in ballots.
In Florida, early votes were counted as soon as they were received. In Pennsylvania, by state law the early votes couldn't be counted until the polls closed. That's the main reason for the difference in timing and the large shift.
What are you using for your source for vote totals by vote method to make that determination?
Again, there was a time component here, where battleground states were strategically targeted to delay when votes would be counted. Feel free to read the source I posted above, or look at other state by state summaries here: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/battleground-states-process-...
You will see some difference in ratios by voting method regardless, however. For example, in Arizona, the fact that voting by mail has been common for years, makes it much less partisan.
That's not true as far as I can see. Which other states are you talking about? Are you confusing party registration with vote, maybe? Are you correcting for ballot return rate, which itself was very different between registrations?
Did this only happen in swing states and VA though? And why does drift happen _well after_ in-person vote is already counted? And do you have data to support your point #1? Because people claim that, but I don't really see any evidence to support the claim.
It's substantially more noticeable in swing states because they're swing states and by definition divided roughly 50/50 on partisan lines (really usually 30/30/30[undecided/independent], but the latter varies from place to place). If a state is more heavily tilted one way than the other, the day-of vote is more likely to be just as representative of that tilt as the mail-in vote, especially if you stop paying attention when the state gets called (which was as soon as polls closed for many of the states whose tendencies were more obvious). To add, urban areas have been more heavily hit by covid (so are more likely to vote by mail) and even the in-person vote count in cities takes longer to count. Even in 2016, IIRC Clinton started to (ultimately unsuccessfully) close the gap in MI and WI later at night as the vote counts from Detroit and Milwaukee trickled in.
Because mail delays were strategic against the swing states. Florida, for example, where they're allowed to count mail in votes well before election day, did not see much shift in voting ratios as time went on.
> Did this only happen in swing states and VA though?
I see no evidence that this is the case, but certainly you'd expect differences in the apparent pattern based on state ballot counting procedures. Swing states get a lot more attention, and in addition, the swing states where the effect has been noticed plus Virginia all delay even the beginning of mail-in ballot processing to election day, some not allowing ballot counts of mail-in ballots until after the polls close. So, that forces any systematic differences in mail-in ballots to also produce aystematic differences in vote count over time, whereas systems where the mail-in ballots are preprocessed well before election day and have no required delay after the polls close for counting don't systematically create that issue.
> why does drift happen _well after_ in-person vote is already counted?
Where is the evidence for this? Most states weren't particularly clear about exactly which ballots were being counted when, and didn't report distinct ballot cohorts. The GA data (where they were really good about it after Tuesday) doesn't show the effect you're talking about.
[edit: OK, you're just repeating this point without evidence again and again in this topic, despite being repeatedly asked for a citation. That doesn't seem like rational discussion, and I suspect you're just being a troll.]
Exactly! We didn't see any issues in any non-contested areas. We're seeing serious problems in Detroit, Philly, Atlanta, Milwaukee, Las Vegas.
But we didn't see any issues at all in Miami, or Cleveland, or Iowa City, or Cincinnati, or Dallas, or Nashville, or Houston. All of the other states and cities were able to get their ballots counted.
The irregularities in these key cities is highly suspected, especially after one State senate race was already overturned in a manual recount, where they discovered 6,000 votes were cast to the wrong presidential party due to 'bugs' in the voting machine software .. and that software is used in 40+ counties. All of those votes are going to need to be manually counted now.
As more work is done and the recounts being, I predict the differences between the hand and machine counts is going to be a significant indicator of election interference.
This is on its way to be the most contested election in history.
> All of the other states and cities were able to get their ballots counted.
One has to be careful that comparisons are made between comparable entities. In this case, note that different states can begin processing absentee/mail-in votes at different times [0], so one state being able to handle absentee/mail-in vote processing without apparent incident does not necessarily say anything about how counting might progress in another state.
> Detroit, Philly, ..., Milwaukee
Absentee/mail-in vote processing/counting can only begin on Election Day.
> Atlanta, ..., Las Vegas
Signature verification can be performed upon receipt of the absentee/mail-in ballot, but actual counting can only start on Election Day
> Miami
Ballot verification/counting can start 22 days before Election Day
> or Cleveland, ..., or Cincinnati
Verification and scanning can occur before Election Day. Unclear whether "scanning" includes counting, or just how far ahead of time the process can start.
> or Iowa City
Affadavits may be reviewed the day before Election Day, but counting can only start on Election Day (and must be finished by 10 P.M. on Election Day)
> Or Dallas, ..., or Houston
Verification can be performed upon receipt. Jurisdictions with <= 100k people, counting starts on Election Day; for larger jurisdictions, counting can start at the end of the early voting by personal appearance period, which I think is 4 days before Election Day [1]
> or Nashville
Verification can be performed upon receipt, but counting can only start on Election Day.
So in short, some of the examples of cities that count "without incident" can conceivably do so because they have much more time to do so. Iowa City and Nashville are better comparisons, but that doesn't rule out some other factor that renders the comparison invalid.
> All of the other states and cities were able to get their ballots counted.
Do they actually have all their ballots counted, or do they simply not show up in news stories?
For example, Decision Desk HQ reports that Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Georgia have >99% of their ballots in, while Michigan, Kentucky, Utah, Alabama, Nevada, California, and Washington all are reported to have >95% of their ballots in. So by those metrics, states in the first group are doing better than states in the second group, but some states in the second group get attention heaped upon them, while others seemingly pass under the radar.
New York is a particularly egregious example, with a reported 77.3-88.0% of its ballots in. And yet very little attention appears to be devoted to it.
(This assumes DDHQ's numbers are actually reasonable/accurate, of course)
> especially after one State senate race was already overturned in a manual recount, where they discovered 6,000 votes were cast to the wrong presidential party due to 'bugs' in the voting machine software
You seem to be mixing some stories.
From what I understand, the race whose results got reversed was for the Oakland County Board of Commissions [2]. The margin was 1127 votes.
The 6000 vote reversal was from Antrim county. The Michigan Secretary of State has put out a statement about that specific incident [3], where they claim that the error was due to human error, not software error (though it's not entirely unreasonable to say the software is not entirely blameless, as pointed out in [4] by a University of Michigan professor who claims to have looked into the incident [5]), and that no manual recount was involved.
Track late vote tallies in other states. They shifted Democratic as well. This is why the popular vote count has shifted by about 2,000,000 votes from around election day, even though the counts in the states getting close attention have shifted only by a fraction of that amount. Data is there to fully support this trend, it is not just a PA, Georgia, etc thing. And point #1 is fully supported by the most trivial search to see what President Trump has been saying about mail voting for months, up to & including attempts to make it harder, leading supporters of President Trump to believe the best way to have their vote be counted was to vote in person.
This was literally predicted ahead of time based off the known demographics of the regions and the time it would take to count the ballots in different counties and the expected differences between in-person and mail-in ballots. It's absolutely misinformation to pretend that this is suspicious and should be investigated.
Why is this not happening in non-swing states other than Virginia? And why does Biden's luck improve over time when _only_ mail in ballots are counted?
It is! It's happening right now in NY and CA, which (being big, lazy, and mostly single-party) count their ballots like mollases. Biden's lead there has been steadily and inexorably climbing. And this despite the fact that they are neither swing states nor Virginia.
Can I flip the question around: can you show me a state with late mail ballot counting that is not trending toward Biden? The only exception I can think of is AZ over the past few days, but they're processing primarily provisionals in red counties at this point. The blue counties are done.
Edit: or alternatively, why is Arizona not evidence of fraud by Trump, given that it counted up very rapidly to Biden, leveled off when the early vote was complete, and then began processing different ballots that skewed differently. CLEARLY Trump is cheating with those provisionals, right?
The whole thesis is just silly. Different counties count at different rates. Different populations vote by different mechanisms, and the reported vote over time is an essentially random walk within that space. There's no mechanism by which you'd expect a consistent rate of margin growth. It doesn't even make sense.
Mail ballots come from different counties with highly different demographics. You get massive Biden support in one city and massive Trump support in another rural county - it's not surprising at all. There's also differences in when the ballots arrived: some states could process ballots ahead of time so the late counted ones are only those that arrived late and may be more or less D/R leaning. And different states have different voter registration policies; that's why Arizona has had relatively good Trump performance on the later counts since there are a large number of Republican voters using vote-by-mail and there always have been in Arizona. There is boundless discussion of the specifics of this on twitter, etc. I don't think swing state/non-swing state is a useful categorization here. Just look at the where the ballots are coming from directly.
> Why is this not happening in non-swing states other than Virginia? And why does Biden's luck improve over time when _only_ mail in ballots are counted?
Cause voting is not luck based. Democrats are more likely to vote by mail. Partly because of covid, which they are more likely to believe is an issues. Plus, Trump and republicans discouraged mail voting and claimed it is fraudulent long before election. They did also tried to stop the mail counting and slow down post.
So, republicans were less likely to trust mail and more likely to vote in person.
In addition to my other comment: Mail votes increasing the Democrats' vote tallies is not unique to PA. If you track the overall popular vote from day to day, you will see it has increased drastically to a degree that far overshadows the late counts of mail votes in the few states that decided this election.
This is because many other states that were not swing states, "red" and "blue", simply aren't getting any attention. But the late counted mail votes in those states have followed the same pattern as PA. If you believe PA is somehow special in this phenomenon, you are wrong.
Finally, if you want to complain about your perception of a problem with late votes skewing things, the cause of that comes down to election laws in PA which prevent processing of such votes until election day, which was a law that PA sought to change so results would be known earlier, but they were blocked in this effort by GOP state legislature.
COVID precautions are highly stratified by political affiliation: Republicans have received the message that many/all precautions are unnecessary. Many others have followed more cautious recommendations from medical experts. In addition, Republicans received the message the mail voting was inherently more subject to fraud, while Democrats, cautious of COVID and not believing the "fraud" message, frequently votes by mail.
This had the exactly predicted result that Democrats voted by mail significantly more than Republicans, who were much more inclined to vote by person.
Many states report in-person voting very quickly, while mail in votes take more time to process. This, again, had the easily predicted outcome of increasingly the tally of votes for Democratic candidates by a significant margin over Republican mail votes.
A great example of this same phenomenon can be seen in states like Florida that are allowed to count such votes before election day. In those states, the predicted result of increased Democratic early/mail voting was fully born out by the results: Democrats lead the early available result, and as in-person votes on election day were tallied Republican votes significantly outpaced Democratic votes. Of course neither Republicans, or Democrats whose tallies suffered as more in-person results were processed, complained about this or alleged fraud, because again, it was the exactly predicted result
Another consideration is that, while polls weren't perfect, the overall result of the election is supported by the polls. Yes, in any individual state the polls may have been outside the margin of error, but as a whole, and in national polls, the results of the election follow the direction of the polls, and the national popular vote is generally within the margin of error on display in national polls. While still not perfect in this election cycle, pollsters did rethink their methods after 2016, taking steps like weighting education level in their models in accordance with the 2016 outcomes, so it is not surprising that, overall, the polls more closely mirrored the results of the 2020 election.
A final point with respect to the claim that Democrats are good at or routinely cheat in elections. The record of Democratic wins does not support this. If they were excellent at stealing elections, I would not expect them to have lost more than half of the presidential elections in the last 40 years. I would not expect them to occupy less than half of the state Governorships. I would not expect them to be in control of less than half of state legislatures. I would not expect them to lose very tight races in toss-up states. I would not expect election results in specific regions, counties, etc. to closely mirror party affiliation trends in voter registration.
I would expect massive conspiracies that would require thousands of people across the country to collaborate to be just about impossible to hide. I would expect more concrete evidence of voter fraud to appear than claims that typically disappear on close inspection. I would expect the bipartisan group of election officials, poll workers, etc. to include substantial numbers of people from opposing parties to have witnessed systematic irregularities instead of the rare vague suspicion.
In short, no available data has come to light to support any sort of widespread election fraud. Should any of the very small scale allegations being levelled by President Trump's campaign demonstrate concrete evidence, I fully support a rigorous investigation and legal proceeding to bring the incidents to light.
The pattern is the same in every swing state except Arizona, and in Virginia as well. If you plot out Edison data that has vote count updates, in "normal" states (both Biden and Trump dominant), things are chaotic initially (when in-person votes are counted) and then they settle to a certain GOP/DEM ratio, with a very slow drift towards GOP, presumably because rural votes take longer to show up. In the swing states you observe the same initial chaos, and the same slight initial drift towards GOP, but then Biden starts to get very lucky indeed, and his luck improves as time goes on.
To be fair, this could just be artifact of how votes are counted, in which case I'd like to see what could lead to such a pattern _only_ in the swing states. Or this could be evidence of vote rigging by all means necessary. No matter which side you're on, this should be looked into.