Why The Numbers Behind Mitch McConnell's Re-Election Don't Add Up

[orangecrush]

Donate

Wednesday December 30th 2020
Home » Elections » Why The Numbers Behind Mitch McConnell’s Re-Election Don’t Add Up
Why The Numbers Behind Mitch McConnell’s Re-Election Don’t Add Up
Elections, Featured Story, The Latest News
Why The Numbers Behind Mitch McConnell’s Re-Election Don’t Add Up
How Does an 18% Approval Rating Result in a 58% Win?
By Alison Greene

DCR
Alison Greene

On a Thursday in August in Louisville, months before the 2020 election, a parade of cars filled with Kentucky Teamster representatives and labor groups, showed their fury at Mitch McConnell’s constant blocking of critical COVID aid. They drove by McConnell’s office raucously honking and bearing signs saying “Mitch better have my money.”

In 2017, a Public Policy Polling Survey asked Kentuckians, “Do you approve or disapprove of Senator Mitch McConnell’s job performance?” Only 18% approved. He clawed his rating back up to 39% on the eve of the election.

McConnell, leader of Senate Republicans, rarely holds town hall meetings with Kentucky voters—not since a heated exchange with an angry constituent went viral.

1 out of 5 voters appear to have filled out their ballots with votes for both the female Democrat Amy McGrath and the Republican pussy-grabber Donald Trump.

So, what exactly drove these angry Kentuckians to re-elect Mitch McConnell with a 19-point advantage over opponent Amy McGrath—57.8% to 38.2%?

Even as Republicans across the country still insist that the election was rife with fraudulent Democratic votes, no one’s asking how McConnell managed one of the most lopsided landslides of the Nov. 3 election. They should. An investigation of Kentucky voting results by DCReport raises significant questions about the vote tallies in McConnell’s state.

McConnell racked up huge vote leads in traditionally Democratic strongholds, including counties that he had never before carried.
There were wide, unexplained discrepancies between the vote counts for presidential candidates and down-ballot candidates.
Significant anomalies exist in the state’s voter records. Forty percent of the state’s counties carry more voters on their rolls than voting-age citizens.
Kentucky and many other states using vote tabulation machines made by Election Systems & Software all reported down-ballot race results at significant odds with pre-election polls.

https://www.dcreport.org/2020/12/19/mitch-mcconnells-re-election-the-numbers-dont-add-up/



Time to start investigating this one man band.

[orangecrush]

15. One man wrecking crew

Even the other Goppers are sick of his shit.

[orangecrush]

38. Word

[iluvtennis]

61. +100. nt

[calimary]

112. Yep! Totally agree.

[wnylib]

144. But wouldn't challenges have to

come from Kentucky? Other states can't do it. And for this year, it's too late to challenge the outcome, isn't it?

But, if it could be proven that there was criminal intervention in his election, Ivthink the Senate could take action against him.

So is anybody DOING something besides writing articles about it? Anybody trying to get solid evidence to prove criminal behavior?

[wnylib]

169. Happy New Year to you, too.

:

[onetexan]

168. +1 -K&R

[pwb]

2. All red state elections need a good look at.

When pukes say look over here, look over there.

[NoRoadUntravelled]

6. Exactly. They made a LOT of noise about fraud regarding Democrats.

It seems highly possible that at least part of that noise was to distract from their own nefarious voter fraud.

[Newest Reality]

62. +1

[c-rational]

70. +2

[uponit7771]

8. 👍

[orangecrush]

16. Exactly.

[tecelote]

90. Perfect response.

"When pukes say look over here, look over there."

I believe the reason Trump was so sure he won was that he had faith in the cheat.

The reason he hated mail-ins was that it could disrupt the cheat.

We're busy defending our position instead of investigating theirs.

[LiberalLovinLug]

109. "We're busy defending our position instead of investigating theirs."

Bingo.

This is one of their tactics they repeat because it works so well.

1. A Republican breaks the law, cheats, embezzles etc....

2. Sees that it may look odd enough that some Democrat may call for an investigation

3. Go on air and accuse your Democratic rival of the exact same thing

4. "We're busy defending our position instead of investigating theirs."

and also

5. If we ever then finally DO accuse them of that same thing, it comes off as phony, as desperate, as a red herring, and GOP spokespersons make THAT the next news story. And then, at the very least, it comes across to the viewing public as BOTH sides accuse the other, and BOTH sides say they are innocent. And becomes more fuel on the democracy killing notion that politicians are all crooks and that's why I never vote mantra

[orangecrush]

143. X 1000000000000

And they get really upset when we stop defending and start attacking, as witnessed by a couple of comments in this thread.

[badboy67]

3. I think we should look at KY

ME SC and TX vote totals.

[barbtries]

5. NC?

possibly, possibly not.

[BComplex]

19. And NC. I saw some really really strange things happen in my own county, and I know this

county. What they say happened here in my county, never could have happened.

Maine, South Carolina, Texas, Kentucky and North Carolina are where a great many votes were cast for trump and certain senators that never ever could have happened.

[tritsofme]

23. Maybe Sidney Powell can unleash the kraken?

[orangecrush]

55. Thanks for your concern.

[Tribetime]

29. And Ohio

[safeinOhio]

34. Florida too.

[barbtries]

4. he cheated.

he always knew he would win. I am afraid the same mechanism is in place for GA. he does not seem concerned about the possibility that he won't be majority leader anymore. he never seemed to doubt that he would win in November.
this is all my thinking on it. i have no evidence.

[uponit7771]

10. +1,My buddy was saying race was way too close relative to counties Trump won. He was saying he,

... would have to win 90% of the red counties he won last time with 90% turnout in those counties in GA (or something close) and we know that didn't happen.

Looking at how kGOP is acting now I have ... NO DOUBT ... that if there was outright cheating in their favor 99% of them would have no issue with it.

Attempted voter suppression needs to be a felony

[stopdiggin]

119. funny. 538 never said anything like that

and I think they always had McConnell winning that race? Maybe your buddy was projecting a little bit?

[shanti]

125. Exactly

His smug looks and responses to Amy McGrath proved that. He's probably been cheating for a long time now.

[barbtries]

137. i think so. nt

[leighbythesea2]

166. This

He seems unconcerned about GA as if it's a foregone conclusion in his favor.

[Irish_Dem]

7. Would McConnell let voters stop his quest for unlimited power and wealth?

I don't think so.

[BComplex]

25. That's it right there. Mitch doesn't seem the least bit worried about losing.

The republicans (trump) was accusing counties of just running through the same ballots over & over when nobody was looking....I think that's what happened in NC, and I think that is what happened in Kentucky...only in NC for trump and Tillis, and in Kentucky for McConnell. A few cheating republican election officials in certain counties would have no problem doing this.

[Irish_Dem]

60. GOP got the results they wanted. Trump gone and GOP senate.

The loathe Trump and needed him gone.
McConnell never seemed a bit worried about the election outcome.

[napi21]

9. THAT'S why the Pubs keep accusing the Dems of election fraud! THey always accuse their opponents of

the stuff THEY'RE already doing!

[orangecrush]

17. This.

[Susan Calvin]

39. Been saying this for years.

And said it again when the Republicans started screaming voter fraud.

[brooklynite]

11. Funny how the Democratic Governor of KY doesn't agree with you...

[BComplex]

27. North Carolina has a democratic governor also, but the votes in my county never did make sense.

One of our family members was running for office in our county as a republican. The SECOND day of early voting, he told me that our county election officer told him that republicans were voting overwhelmingly.

First of all, this is a very democratic leaning county. Second, republicans hardly ever vote early, at least not here. Third....how was she so sure?

[oldsoftie]

89. When you go in to vote, doesnt your affiliation show up when you sign in?

Seems as though it would.
Doesnt say HOW you voted, because we already know there were a lot of GOP voters who voted against Trump but (R) the rest of the way, just that you DID vote.
Just like when absentees are coming in, they know that most are Democrats

[yellowdogintexas]

151. correct. In a state which requires party affiliation on your registration

you can tell who the registered Democrats are. They have just not bothered to change their voter registration information. I am quite confident there are large numbers of registered Democrats in KY who haven't voted for one in years.

Texas does not require party affiliation - if we want we can jump in and out of primaries depending on the candidates.

The only way we can isolate Democrats in our precincts is to run a tabulation of those who vote in Democratic primaries and hope for the best when trying to GOTV. There are always Republicans who vote in our primaries to try and mess with our outcomes,(never works) then when we call them or knock on their door we get railed at because we are Democrats and have a lot of nerve calling them/ I advise them to vote in their own primaries.

We had a LOT of ticket splitting down here. My county went blue for Biden/Harris but not for the down ballot except in one Congressional race, three State House Seats, a County Commissioner's seat (all incumbents) and three Constable seats (one incumbent). This was pretty much the case state wide. Biden/Harris did not carry the state, but in the counties they won, the incumbent Democrats pretty much held on but no new winners that I can remember. We also had a LOT of undervoting - voters only voting the top line. It was depressing. .

[chomper]

12. Biden need to announce special counsel to look into voter fraud

on day 1.

[Tommymac]

24. No, Election Fraud. There is a difference.

Voter Fraud is almost non-existent in this country.

Election fraud on the other had is real and probably occurs every cycle.

https://www.findlaw.com/voting/how-u-s--elections-work/what-is-electoral-and-voter-fraud-.html

[Susan Calvin]

41. Thank you.

It's an important difference.

[Bettie]

110. An important distinction

We all need to remember that.

[Progressive dog]

13. There is a real problem with "legal" voter suppression

There is none with rigged voting machines. The only poll that counts is the election.
Claiming rigged voting machines discourages voters and probably suppresses votes.

[BComplex]

30. But that insists that we ignore the fact that republicans cheat.

without remorse.

[Progressive dog]

33. No, there is no cheating in counting the vote

so claiming there is without any evidence is wrong and not helpful.

[stopdiggin]

118. Thanks! By and large elections are run

99% cleaner and with more transparency than they were in days past. If you have direct evidence of cheating or fraud then by all means speak up. If you don't ... Then you're not serving any useful purpose -- and succeeding in poisoning the well at the same time. (as per above comments)

Voter suppression is something different, and should be vigorously highlighted and fought off -- but if you're making a claim that votes are being changed .... Please bring something to the table beyond, "Well things don't look right in ___"

And at the same time keep in mind how utterly ABSURD many of the claims made of voting fraud in this cycle have turned out to be.

[questionseverything]

140. After hc lose she said we need paper ballots

Why would she say that if she trusted the paperless machine counts?

Stacey abrams worked hard in Georgia to get paper ballots instead of the paperless machine counts

Why if she “trusted “ the count

I find it hilarious that you think repubs would be above rigging a machine count or rigging the reporting page when they will cheat in every other possible instance

[Progressive dog]

146. Hillary wants paper trails because they eliminate suspicions of fraud

not because she had any evidence that there was fraud. You accuse Republicans of cheating on the votte without no evidence which is a conspiracy theory. I don't find it hilarious that anyone would imagine that posibilities are the same as proof.

[questionseverything]

149. Both hc and Stacey want paper ballots because it is the only way to

Guarantee the reported outcome is accurate

Germanys high court has ruled hand counted paper ballots are the only method that guarantee regular citizens get to oversee their own elections

The burden of proof is not on the citizen to show an incorrect outcome.....the burden is on the state to provide a transparent election that any regular citizen can oversee

Or as stalin said “it’s who counts the votes “

[Progressive dog]

150. There is no way to guarantee an outcome.

That should be obvious. Electronic voting is a bad idea that is more susceptible to fraud.
In the USA, Stalin is not running our elections--in fact they are run by people, many of them volunteers and from the entire political spectrum.
BTW 538 gave McConnell a 96% chance of winning based on the polling. Maybe 538 and the polls are part of the voting conspiracy.
(sarcasm)

[questionseverything]

152. The idea is to oversee an accurate outcome

There are many honest hard working volunteers and even paid officials that would be clueless about guarding the accuracy of an electronic election

What 538 says about anything means less than nothing to me

I am an American citizen and when it comes to elections I will believe what my eyes show me as every other citizen should

[Progressive dog]

153. So you saw fraud,you should have reported it.

https://spectrumnews1.com/ky/northern-ky/ap-top-news/2019/08/13/analysis-shows-2020-votes-still-vulnerable-to-hacking

[questionseverything]

154. That's the second time you have accused me of something I didn't say

Our democratic system is built on checks and balances

We voters are the check on bad politicians but if we can’t oversee the accuracy of the results we cannot be a proper check

None of us can “oversee “ the counting software in any voting system

So back to the hand count of paper ballots in full public view

[Progressive dog]

155. You claim the system is inaccurate but

money, assets, property, and just about everything that can be counted is kept track of on computers. Yes, they can be hacked but that requires access. Paper can burn and humans are more likely to make counting mistakes than computers. Most of the voting machines are overseen by auditing them with known votes and seeing if they get it right. The machines and software were approved by the states where they are used.
Primitive countries still use hand counts, there is no reason or benefit to counting by hand. They are certainly not going to do it with whichever members of the public self choose standing next to them to "oversee."

[questionseverything]

157. That's your third inaccurate claim

I said the system is non transparent because regular citizens can’t oversee the accuracy of the counting

If you want to give up your personal right to oversee the elections that affect your life, that’s up to you but you don’t have the right to take my rights away

[Progressive dog]

158. The last I knew, the opposite of accurate is inaccurate

and you wrote

The idea is to oversee an accurate outcome

You have no personal right to oversee elections. That is fact.

[questionseverything]

159. So we citizens have no right to oversee our elections?

We need to just trust the result whichever ruling oligarchs decides to give us?

I think you have us mixed up with Russia

[Progressive dog]

160. You have no personal right to oversee the election

and you will find no law or precedent that gives you that right. Your right would be contrary to the actual right to vote of the other millions of citizens. You either don't know what oversee means or you are the one confusing us with the USSR and yourself with one of the commissars.

[questionseverything]

163. Every citizen being able to oversee the count does not

Stop anyone from voting


All votes were hand counted until the mid sixties

Why you are so dedicated to defending non transparent vote counting I don’t understand

[Progressive dog]

172. Of course not your oversight would take no time no resources

and wouldn't slow the vote. You don't seem to be aware that voting rules are set by states, that there are already election observers who are picked by the candidates' parties. The Congress can make voting laws that apply to all states if they choose to. The courts can be used to enforce the voting laws and you should ask the courts in your state if you are so sure you have a right to oversee the elections.
Actually, if you want to oversee the election, you need to first get elected to a state oversight board. You would still be expected to obey the law.
I do have big problems with people claiming that their personal oversight of my voting is somehow their right. That is unconstitutional, illegal, and anti-democratic.

[questionseverything]

174. We all have the right to oversee the counting of the votes

Your vote doesn’t look any different from anyone else’s vote....and you also get to oversee the count because the system is open and transparent enough that we all can believe in the system

If the votes were hand counted for intent in 2000 al gore would have easily won. There were 275,000 overvotes the machines rejected, about 2/3 of those were for gore, where people punched next to his name and then wrote in his name in the write in spot....lance dehaven smith discovered it as gore was conceding and several newspapers confirmed gore would of won if a hand count of the entire state had occurred

Now in Florida it is illegal to look at the ballots, when they say recount, they just mean running it thru the machine again....so right now we don’t have a legal system

But, we keep working in that direction

Two years ago Georgia had no paper to count and now it does

[Progressive dog]

175. Making up facts does not help your argument.

First, if anyone who wanted could oversee votes, someone would actually have been allowed to do it.
Second, your claim of rejected overcount in Florida did not happen
Repeating falsehoods does not make them true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida

[questionseverything]

177. my numbers were a little off but result the same...from your link

The overvotes with write-in names were also noted by Florida State University public policy professor and elections observer, Lance deHaven-Smith, in his interview with Research in Review at Florida State University:[81]
...Everybody had thought that the chads were where all the bad ballots were, but it turned out that the ones that were the most decisive were write-in ballots where people would check Gore and write Gore in, and the machine kicked those out. There were 175,000 votes overall that were so-called "spoiled ballots." About two-thirds of the spoiled ballots were over-votes; many or most of them would have been write-in over-votes, where people had punched and written in a candidate's name. And nobody looked at this, not even the Florida Supreme Court in the last decision it made requiring a statewide recount. Nobody had thought about it except Judge Terry Lewis, who was overseeing the statewide recount when it was halted by the U.S. Supreme Court. The write-in over-votes have really not gotten much attention. Those votes are not ambiguous. When you see Gore picked and then Gore written in, there's not a question in your mind who this person was voting for. When you go through those, they're unambiguous: Bush got some of those votes, but they were overwhelmingly for Gore. For example, in an analysis of the 2.7 million votes that had been cast in Florida's eight largest counties, The Washington Post found that Gore's name was punched on 46,000 of the over-vote ballots it, [sic] while Bush's name was marked on only 17,000... –Lance deHaven-Smith[81]
Furthermore, the Florida Administrative Code: 1S-2.0031, "Write-in Procedures Governing Electronic Voting Systems", (7) at the time specified, "An overvote shall occur when an elector casts a vote on the ballot card and also casts a write-in vote for a qualified write-in candidate for that same office. Upon such an overvote, the entire vote for that office shall be void and shall not be counted. However, an overvote shall not occur when the elector casts a vote on the ballot card but then enters a sham or unqualified name in the write-in space for that same office. In such case, only the write-in vote is void." There were two write-in candidates for president who had been qualified by the state of Florida. Under the FAC, a ballot with any other name written in (including Bush and Gore, who were not qualified as write-in candidates) was not an overvote, but rather a valid vote for the candidate whose name was marked by the voter.

[Progressive dog]

180. That has nothing to do with you thinking that

you can oversee elections. You can't.
The Gore campaign missed the mistake until it was too late.
I can't imagine why you think you could have found it. All those people recounting and none of them found it either..

In 2001, the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago, sponsored by a consortium of major United States news organizations, conducted the Florida Ballot Project, a comprehensive review of 175,010 ballots that vote-counting machines had rejected from the entire state, not just the disputed counties that were recounted.[3] The project's goal was to determine the reliability and accuracy of the systems used in the voting process, including how different systems correlated with voter mistakes. The study was conducted over a period of 10 months. Based on the review, the media group concluded that if the disputes over the validity of all the ballots in question had been consistently resolved and any uniform standard applied, the electoral result would have been reversed and Gore would have won by 60 to 171 votes.[4] On the other hand, under scenarios involving review of limited sets of ballots uncounted by machines, Bush would have kept his lead. In one such scenario — Al Gore's request for recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Bush would have won by 225 votes.[a] In another scenario (if the remaining 64 Florida counties had carried out the hand recount of disputed ballots ordered by the Florida Supreme Court on December 8, applying the various standards that county election officials said they would have used), Bush would have emerged the victor by 493 votes.[74]

The scenarios involving limited sets of ballots included the completed uncertified recount by Palm Beach County, which nevertheless had excluded a set-aside cache of dimpled ballots with clear indications of intent, an uncounted net gain of 682 votes for Gore.[c][5][75] In contrast, the scenarios involving all uncounted ballots statewide considered all votes from Palm Beach County, subjected to various standards of inclusion. The Washington Post qualified the tallies conducted by the NORC consortium with the statement: "But no study of this type can accurately recreate Election Day 2000 or predict what might have emerged from individual battles over more than 6 million votes in Florida's 67 counties."[76]

Further analysis revealed that black-majority precincts had three times as many rejected ballots as white precincts. "For minorities, the ballot survey found, a recount would not have redressed the inequities because most ballots were beyond retrieving. But a recount could have restored the votes of thousands of older voters whose dimpled and double-voted ballots were indecipherable to machines but would have been clear in a ballot-by-ballot review."[77]

That quote that you didn't link to is not in the link I posted.

[questionseverything]

181. They didn't find it because they didn't hand count the entire state

So we ended up with the incorrect result

Election officials are generally happy to have observers,the one case trump won moved the observer from 10 ft to 6ft

The problem with electric vote counting is a human can’t see what the software says

Hand counted paper ballots are the solution, counted in full public view with tight chain of custody and correct reporting

[blueinredohio]

14. Someone should check into it, that's for sure.

[shrike3]

18. Anger at the Democratic governor, Beshears, over the lockdown?

That drove people to vote for McConnell? I'm just guessing here. Feel free to set me straight.

[orangecrush]

44. Oh really?

Putting the shoe on the other foot seems to make them VERY uncomfortable.

I WONDER WHY?

[intheflow]

108. And your proof of this is where?

The author in the OP has been looking at the numbers. It's absolutely true that he won two counties that never voted for him in the past. And who would vote for McGrath AND the pussy-grabber? Then there was this creepy laugh when McGrath pressed him on COVID relief. Only a politician 100% sure they would win reelection (and/or was psychotic) would laugh while discussing people hurting during a pandemic.

This is a legit Democratic concern, with way more legs than the freeper arguments about Trump winning 2020. So kindly fuck off telling other DUers in good standing to go join the freepers.

[Bettie]

111. While we can't definitively say that he ISN'T psychotic

I tend to fall on the side of he's keeping his seat through less than honest means.

[stopdiggin]

120. I believe the onus is on the party claiming cheating/fraud

not the other way around. Several of the "points" made in the article happen in every election -- and are thus virtually meaningless.

"And who would vote for McGrath AND the pussy-grabber?"

Extremely stupid people who have been screwing up their ballots -- since ballots were invented. Happens in every election.

[tritsofme]

22. Maybe these nutjobs can hire Sidney Powell?

Delete this nonsense.

[My Pet Orangutan]

26. Trump won KY 62 - 36% . Kentucky is a very red state

There's a big difference between being dissatisfied with Mitch and switching sides.

They turned out for Tump. 4% said no to Mitch. That seems about 'right'

[Hoyt]

28. This is why you purge registration lists, even at risk for being charged with voter suppression.

https://upload.democraticunderground.com/100214731103

There were at least 5 threads on this same junk earlier this month.

[stillcool]

31. I don't trust any election on face value

and don't understand why so many people feel it's a "conspiracy theory" to question results. The need to insist that an
unverified declaration be true is an interesting trait, but it seems the longer you go through life the less there is to believe.

[Progressive dog]

37. Conspiracy theories always are always based on

"questioning" whether facts are facts or if evidence is evidence. Questioning reality never changes the answer.

[stillcool]

46. a theory based on evidence

that shows individuals conspiring to commit an act is not 'questioning reality'. Questioning reality never changes the answer? You mean like the world is flat?

[judesedit]

32. You know it. Should've already been done or be in the process.

PLEASE step forward if you were involved in the vote theft from McGrath to McConnell. I'm sure they were paid a pretty penny and had to sign an NDA. Screw that! Face up to your fellow Americans.

[PatrickforO]

35. I am glad this is finally getting out.

With an 18% approval, there is NO way Moscow Mitch could have won but for cheating.

[maxsolomon]

77. As I posted yesterday, his opponent was a baby-killing Soshlyst.

As are all Demonrats (except Beshears, I guess) to the majority of white Kentuckians. Mitch is what they've known for 3 decades, and they enjoy how he sticks it to us in their name.

The Devil you know...

[KPN]

36. Where is the Kentucky Democratic Party on this?

Have they raised any questions? Have they discussed these purported anomalies? Have they determined there is conclusive proof of legitimacy?

[tritsofme]

47. Probably not wading in on Sidney Powell kraken-esque internet conspiracy theories.

Would be my guess

[orangecrush]

53. Moscow Mitch

[tritsofme]

54. Thanks for the response?

[KPN]

57. What specifically do you refer to as Sidney

Powell kraken-esque? What is kraken-esque about being curious regarding apparent data anomalies? Have you no curiosity?

[tritsofme]

58. These "concerns" are no less baseless than the nonsense being spread by Powell.

The OP even openly admits in this thread that this accusation is just disinformation, and that she is spreading it out of some misplaced sense of “getting back” at Republicans.

[KPN]

67. No she doesn't. You are making stuff up. There is

no comparison between healthy skepticism in the face of a party that has proven it cannot be trusted when it comes to fair and free elections, and the ridiculous “story” that Sidney Powell made up and spread.

Now if you can show me some evidence that counters these data anomalies or a conclusory look into and explanation for the Kentucky/McConnell anomalies by the Democratic Party, I will share your view. Otherwise, why on earth would I trust a poisonous snake?

[tritsofme]

68. Look at the multiple threads on this subject, it is throughly discredited.

No one is “investigating” it because aside from loony toons like Powell, people don’t spend time and resources formally investigating every nonsense conspiracy theory on the internet.

I didn’t make anything up, it seems very clear that OP understands this is nonsense, but misguidedly thinks there is some political salience in spreading disinformation.

[KPN]

71. It isn't clear at all. You are making it up. Shame on you.

Nothing has been discredited that I have seen here at DU. I’ve seen opinions without any evidence. I’ve seen attacks on those who seem to believe a measure of skepticism is healthy. If I’ve missed something, please share.

[tritsofme]

73. Shame on anyone gullible enough to fall for baseless conspiracy theories like this.

This is how people like Powell make their money.

[KPN]

76. I am not gullible. I won't resort to as hominems.

Not worth it.

[orangecrush]

83. I said no such thing.

You seem very invested in defending Mitch McConnell.

[tritsofme]

91. lol, the Sidney Powell playbook to a tee, granted as writ small.

Believe and act on our nonsense conspiracy theories or have your partisan loyalty questioned.

[orangecrush]

92. Too late

McConnell has been exposed.

And he WILL be investigated.

[tritsofme]

94. This is pure fantasy.

But I do apologize for my previous characterization of your motives, you are definitely a true believer.

[orangecrush]

97. Pure fantasy

Is Trump and his supporters believing he will still be President after January 20, to protect the likes of McConnell.

[intheflow]

107. Yep. n/t

[Johnny2X2X]

40. Moscow Mitch double crossed trump

Mitch cheated to win his race, he went behind Trump's back to get the Russians to help him, but not help Donald as much this time. Mitch is done wit Trump.

[Loki Liesmith]

42. This is nonsense.

McGrath lost because she was a bad candidate and KY will vote for a Lovecraftian monster over a Democrat.

We already have one set of crazy conspiracists casting doubt on the recent election. Let’s not be another.

[orangecrush]

52. Moscow Mitch

[IronLionZion]

43. That's why GOP keeps projecting about voter fraud

they're probably guilty. There were several senate and house seats that GOP managed to win despite polling lower. Collins in Maine is one that many were sure would lose.

[orangecrush]

49. Redirection

and misinformation.

Their stock in trade.

[barbtries]

138. good point.

they do it, why should they believe Democrats don''t? it's like a compulsive liar who rationalizes that everyone lies.

[tritsofme]

45. Threads like this should really be relegated to the woo-woo conspiracy forum.

It’s just embarrassing to see people here defending Sidney Powell level nonsense.

You can see how foolish and ignorant Trump and his ilk appear with their goofy conspiracy theories, why try to emulate and out-crazy them? Makes no sense.

[orangecrush]

48. Putting the shoe on the other foot

Seems to make rethugs very uncomfortable FOR SOME REASON.

[tritsofme]

51. So you don't actually believe this nonsense? I guess that makes me feel a little better.

Posing as a fool to “stick it” to Republicans seems like a questionable strategy to me.

[orangecrush]

59. I believe it raises valid questions

That need to be investigated.

[tritsofme]

63. Then maybe start a Go-Fund-Me to retain Sidney Powell.

[DFW]

50. ESS is one of the two Republican outfits that "delivered" Ohio for Cheney-Bush in 2004

When their machines are used, Republican "surprise upset victories" almost always result.

[pecosbob]

121. Odd, that.

[DFW]

126. Quite the coincidence

Wouldn‘t you say?

[pecosbob]

127. Rove's 2008 meltdown on FOX pretty much showed the entire nation ES&S was aiding election fraud

[RealityChik]

176. Rove's meltdown was in 2012

Rove repeated the all the 2004 preparations and used the same excuses about needing to to swap out "malfunctioning" machines and tabulating software so he could repeat the flip exactly as he did in 2004, when Kerry actually won. I thought to myself, "Oh God, here we go again".

He was still so sure his IT people would succeed that he had his little tantrum to convince Fox to wait a little longer Fox before calling the election. Romney was also so convinced he was going to win that he never bothered to write a concession speech!

Rumor was that Anonymous, who posted a worldwide video warning to Rove a few days before Election Day if he tried a repeat of 2004, they were going to break into the vote tabulating server and block entry by Rove's IT guys to prevent the flip. And reportedly, on various 4Chan forums, Anon acted on their threat. Whether or not that is fact or fiction, the SOMEBODY Rove recruited to do the flip either couldn't or wouldn't get it done and the rest is history.

[pecosbob]

178. Thanks for the correction...I also heard the same rumour about Anonymous.

[CaptainTruth]

56. I would like more scientific audits of elections, especially where machines are used.

It frustrates me to see some Dems dismiss any talk of GOP vote manipulation as conspiracy theory & say we shouldn't discuss it. That amounts to handing the GOP a blank "cheating check" & telling them to go ahead & cheat all they want. How in the heck does that help our candidates, our party, or our country?

I'd like auditing of all elections, modelled on quality assurance methods used in (for example) manufacturing. There's a whole science behind random sample testing to achieve a statistical confidence level in a result & it's done millions of times a day around the world, yet we choose to not apply it to our elections. Another example of how our government repeatedly rejects "industry best practices."

[questionseverything]

139. Ty for that well thought out suggestion

Also i have read all the comments before yours and never saw anyone bring up the need for transparency


Democracy demands the average citizen be able to oversee every part of every election

Only a hand count can satisfy that requirement

Ky still has some paperless voting machines, that is a total “trust me” system

[Rotegard]

64. Not much more substantive than the trumpy line of thought

If we think there has been election fraud in Kentucky it is only appropriate to raise if we can point out where and by whom. Otherwise it is just dangerous gossip

[orangecrush]

135. Welcome to D.U.

[ck4829]

179. Dangerous gossip is the best kind of gossip

[Baitball Blogger]

65. How do we go about investigating something like this?

Can you imagine the country being held hostage to a man who not just cheated, but completely slimed his way into power?

[orangecrush]

72. Seems very strange

That even with repugs breaking ranks to give a larger stimulus, ONE MAN is stopping it in it's tracks.

ALEC and other right wing think tanks, funded by concentrated wealth, spent millions studying the system, looking for fulcrum points where they could focus their efforts to put their rotten thumb on the balance of power.

But, the stimulus fight has blown up in their faces - Mitch has been exposed for exactly what he is.

The cats paw for concentrated wealth.

[Turin_C3PO]

66. The machines aren't rigged.

I believe actual experts over internet detectives. And the Democratic leadership agrees.

[twodogsbarking]

69. Mitch counted the votes himself.

Putin approved.

[orangecrush]

74. Moscow Mitch

Has got to go.

[SheltieLover]

75. Ty, OC!

Yes, Mitch, LET'S investigate elections. Yours for starters!

[orangecrush]

78. Turtle soup

Is the cours du jour

[SheltieLover]

81. Haha yup

I'm thinking FELON du jour (so as not to offend our planetary neighbors).

[randr]

79. This may be the dirt Trump has on Republicans

He has known all along they cheat and he expected them to cheat one more time for him.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

80. Stop. Just stop. Nobody rigged any elections.

It's fucking Kentucky. That's why the elected McConnel.

We don't need to be like crazy Trump supporters that think anytime and election has an outcome we don't like, it's somehow fraud.

[samsingh]

82. those are good points and investigations must start immediately.

[orangecrush]

85. When life gives you turtles. .

Make Turtle soup!

[Music Man]

84. Kentuckian here.

This is nonsense, no more substantive than Trump's complaints about the states he lost.

Kentucky is a primarily conservative, rural state, and as unpopular as McConnell is, there is still a strange sense of "he keeps the pork coming in." Believe me: McGrath was a weak candidate, and non-Kentuckians seem to think we were more enamored of her than we actually were.

Lots of Kentuckians are registered Democrats, perhaps it's because they were registered Democrats growing up. In fact, east Kentucky--which is solidly Red now--used to elect Democrats, especially because coal mining unions were so strong. But cultural issues (abortion, religion, guns) coupled with years of telling voters that Democrats are anti-coal made the switch happen.

No merit to this article.

[orangecrush]

88. This really bothers them.

I think I know why.

[intheflow]

106. Did you read the post?

This is more than about voter registration. There are counties that never voted for McConnell that suddenly turned in McConnell strongholds. There are more voters registered in some counties than voting-age people living in those counties.

[grantcart]

122. In a state with a Democratic Governor

So they rigged the election for McConnell but not for Governor?

Not one ounce of evidence.

Just groundless speculation.

[stopdiggin]

124. yet another "point" that is an absolutely

common occurrence

"There are more voters registered in some counties than voting-age people living in those counties."

And another reason why this kind of "evidence" is scoffed at -- (and laughed out of court)

[orangecrush]

134. Link

To support your "common" claim?

[stopdiggin]

136. registration rolls retain names

(sometimes for years and years) until they are actually "purged" in some manner. They were never intended to (or claimed to) tally with current occupancy. A foolish and ignorant assumption on the face of it. And one of the reasons the article is so poorly supported and unconvincing.

And, no -- I have no intention of doing your research for you. It's readily available. Make your own efforts.

[orangecrush]

142. No blue linkys!

[stopdiggin]

156. you're doubting my factual statement?

or that I wouldn't play your cheesy game?
Here ya go, chump.

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/stateline/2019/10/25/the-messy-politics-of-voter-purges

For the first time ever, Ohio this year lifted the veil on its voter purging system. It left the state astonished.

Secretary of State Frank LaRose, a Republican who has focused on modernizing the state’s elections system, announced in the months after he took office that he would, in compliance with state law, drop 235,000 people from voter rolls. Those people, he said, had either moved away, died or, mostly, failed to vote in six years.

The names were culled from a decentralized registration system in which Ohio’s 88 counties manage their own voter rolls and use one of four different election vendors to run their databases.

It’s a system that is ripe for errors, as officials would soon find out.

And Ohio isn't even a particularly bad example ...

https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/pewupgradingvoterregistrationpdf.pdf|

Research commissioned by the Pew Center on the States highlights the extent of the challenge:
Approximately 24 million—one of every eight—voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or are significantly inaccurate.
More than 1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as voters.
Approximately 2.75 million people have registrations in more than one state.

And on it goes ...... Like I said -- all readily available.
----- -----

[orangecrush]

164. "Research commissioned by the Pew Center"

"THE PEW CHILDREN
The Pew family derived their wealth from Sun Oil (which became Sunoco) and from shipbuilding through Sun Oil’s subsidiary, Sun Shipbuilding and Dry Dock. Sun’s founder, Joseph N. Pew Sr. (1848-1912) had participated in the Spindletop oil strike of 1901 and was one of the few independent oil refiners not bought out by the Rockefeller family. In World War II, Sun Ship built 285 ships for the military, including 40 percent of the oil tankers used in the war and repaired 1,500 ships damaged in combat. Sun Ship built its last ship in 1979 and the company was sold by Sun Oil in 1982.[4]

All of Joseph N. Pew’s children were Republicans and two of them — J. Howard Pew, Jr. (1882-1971) and Joseph N. Pew, Jr. (1894-1963) —were conservatives. The Pew family specialized in donating to Philadelphia charities and to conservative and libertarian organizations, such as the Foundation for Economic Education. J. Howard Pew was also a devout Presbyterian, who was the primary backer of Christianity Today for its first decade. [5] Joseph N. Pew, Jr. was a corporate lobbyist who led the successful effort to overturn President Franklin Roosevelt’s National Recovery Act. He bought Farm Journal and Pathfinder (a rural newsweekly) and turned them into market-oriented publications critical of the growth of government. Pew Jr. was a major contributor to Republicans, giving $1 million to the Pennsylvania Republican Party and an additional $200,000 to the campaign of Arthur James, the successful Republican candidate for governor of Pennsylvania in 1938. Pew fundraised heavily for 1944 Republican Presidential nominee Thomas E. Dewey, earning Pew the attacks of Democratic National Committee chairman Robert E. Hannegan, who denounced him as “one of the wealthy group of little-known, power-hungry men whose steady stream of money dominates the Republican party.”[6]"


https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/pew-charitable-trusts/


Pew! Pew!

[stopdiggin]

167. so all those figures are nonfactual?

and my original statement that "registered voters" or "voter rolls" often vary, for well established reasons, from current voting populations is to be discounted because -- you don't appreciate the source?

Shall we move the goalposts a third time?
Cheesy games -- cheesy players.
----- -- -- -----

[Music Man]

141. Look at the map of the 2014 McConnell-Grimes race

And then look at the 2020 race. They're virtually the same.

McConnell beat Grimes 56.2-40.7

McConnell beat McGrath 57.8-38.2

Heck, in 2016, Rand Paul beat Jim Gray 57.3-42.7. These numbers didn't just fall out of the sky.

Most of us knew McGrath was going to lose in the ballpark of at least 15 points. Kentucky is primarily conservative and McGrath was a TERRIBLE candidate. That's what it comes down to.

Yes, I read the article. It's bunk.

[yellowdogintexas]

147. Bingo! I grew up there when KY was a very dependable Democratic state

Most of the governors in my lifetime have been Democrats, and many members of the House as well. However, the Commonwealth has long had a tendency to elect Republicans to the US Senate. The Senators I remember would look down their noses at Mitch. In fact one of them was his mentor, Senator Marlowe Cook who was quoted in an interview as 'not recognizeing the man I took to DC as my Chief of Staff'.

Amy's big support came from reliably Democratic areas like Jefferson and Fayette counties. The rural turnout would have been heavy for Trump and thus McConnell.

He is going to have to die in order for KY to be rid of him.

[shrike3]

171. Thanks for your "hometown" POV. Your points make sense to me.

[Nululu]

86. Sounds rational. Lots of indirect evidence.

[BobTheSubgenius]

87. The time for investigating him has been apparent for a long while.

"What can be done?" That's the question.

[orangecrush]

95. We have

Some very smart Democrats in Congress and in the incoming administration.

I'm sure they'll have some ideas.

[TryLogic]

93. I CANNOT understand why people accept election results like this.

What is wrong with Democratic candidates who just give up???

[orangecrush]

96. Unlike repubs baseless claims

That get warning tags on twitter and other social media,
THESE QUESSTIONS HAVE A FACTUAL BASIS.

When a majority of Senate repubs push for bipartisan compromise, and ONE MAN DERAILS IT WITH NO REGARD FOR ELECTION CONSEQUENCES, IT IS TIME TO START ASKING WTAF.

[liberalla]

98. Bookmarking! Thank you!

[orangecrush]

114. You are very welcome!

If this starts people asking questions about McConnell, it was worth it.

Something is seriously wrong here, imho.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

100. Wouldn't any fraud in KY need to be investigated by those in KY?

Surely there is an ACLU or others there to demand investigating.

[tritsofme]

101. Why would an organization like the ACLU involve itself in Sidney Powell level conspiracy theories?

[SleeplessinSoCal]

102. The ACLU is the perfect vehicle to discern fraud or fiction. n/t

[tritsofme]

103. Given their inaction and complete lack of interest, perhaps you can infer their interpretation

of this nonsense.

[orangecrush]

117. Agree 100%..

[Barbara2423]

104. McConnell's wins never made sense.

[bdamomma]

105. an investigation

would be warranted how did he manage to get in again by not playing by the rules that is for sure. He is worth 34 million I heard that on MSNBC last night. I hope he loses his position in the Senate.

[birdographer]

113. This has come up here before

and a lot of people bashed it down, said we sounded like trumpers, and said there is nothing to it. I have believed from the get-to that something was fishy with that whole election. In fact, with McConnell all around. Look at his income record. Where is it all coming from?

[orangecrush]

116. He apparently had no choice

He is bucking Trump and his own party.

Someone(s) are very worried about "going down the slippery slope of wealth redisteibution", as one anti stimulus Gopper put it.

Concentrated wealth is probably shitting it's collective pants that the pandemic is going to show Americans just
how big the wealth gap is, and they would rather see massive numbers of us starve and die than give up a $2000 fucking dollar check

In fact, I actually have to wonder if that is the motivation behind the promoting of anti science hogwash that is making this thing much worse.

[scipan]

123. Any place that uses electronic voting machines

with no paper ballot backups is suspect. Too easy to hack.

There should also be regulations that make it fairly easy to get a manual recount.

[orangecrush]

129. We had paper backup here in Pa. in November

They never did before.

They were probably warned of an attempted russian hack.

And we see what the results were - a big Biden win, when it was kept honest.

[orangecrush]

131. We had paper backup here in Pa. in November

They never did before.

They were probably warned of an attempted russian hack.

And we see what the results were - a big Biden win, when it was kept honest.

[yellowdogintexas]

148. Each county selects its own voting system

In Texas we still have counties without paper backup; most of those are rural counties though.

[Neema]

128. The biggest clue, IMHO, is that Republicans always accuse the Dems of the crimes

they themselves are committing. So the fact that Dominion was falsely accused of helping Dems win likely means that Republicans were using some other voting software to do exactly that for the GOP.

[Neema]

130. I have tons of friends and family in KY. Many of them are not Dems, yet ALL of them HATE

Mitch McConnell. ALL OF THEM. They can't understand why he won, especially why it wasn't even close. He is so universally despised.

[orangecrush]

133. Working Kentuckians

Have even more reason to hate him now.

[orangecrush]

132. They borrowed

Putin's playbook.

The day of reckoning has arrived.

[IsItJustMe]

161. Well, as one Republican polling company (Rasmussen Reports) once put it

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." - Stalin

I know one thing, these folks don't give a sh!t about Democracy.

[appmanga]

162. I've been saying this for years...

...it's unlikely that polling variances account for some of these results. This year Democrats won THREE statewide races in NC, but Cunningham lost to Tillis by a big margin. This is strange, to say the least.

[RosevilleSparky]

165. Not Dominion voting machines in Kentucky

I saw something that raised a red flag during the debate between Mitch and his opponent. She raised an issue that should have put him on the defensive BUT HIS REACTION WAS A SMIRK. He knew he was going to be re-elected regardless of poll numbers. THE FIX WAS IN. The debate was just a media event and didn’t matter.

The Kentucky voting machines are evidence of a serious crime. Anybody know if they even exist now?

[orangecrush]

170. Trump had that same attitide

Last edited Thu Dec 31, 2020, 03:52 PM - Edit history (1)

In 2016.

He knew the fix was in.

This time, there was a paper trail in my location and in most here in Pa., and of course Trump lost.