First, by using the Supreme Court original jurisdiction, it at least forces them to take a position on it. This can't just be slapped down by some no-name judge in Hawaii.
And if there's anybody with the social authority to overrule these states, it's the Supreme Court.
Second, this forces the media to do something they've studiously ignored - focus on actual serious allegations going on, not just ignoring the issue or cherrypicking the stupidest claims.
Ignoring a Texas lawsuit filed at the Supreme Court is a hell of a gamble for the media, so they're going to feel pressured to say *something*.
And the allegations in the lawsuit about how voter security was systematically weakened in these states, in dubiously legal ways, are far from stupid.
Expect a lot of quibbling over standing, and original jurisdiction, and things like that. Which is fine.
But the strategy so far of claiming "only nobodies, kooks, and the President himself are pushing these claims" is suddenly looking rather untenable.
If the Supreme Court actually rules in Texas' favor, the media is going to have a tough time explaining to its readers why their knowledge of the whole event went from "absolutely nothing to see here" to "holy hell, are we actually going to lose this?" in the space of two days.
This hasn't been something that sprung up overnight, but you wouldn't know that if you just read the mainstream press on this stuff.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Hey @Elaijuh , you've been doing a great job writing about election issues in Philadelphia. Ross Douthat in the NYT today linked to this Revolver piece documenting significant anomalies in @MontcoPA . Have you thought about doing a story on it?
Montgomery also looks highly suspicious along this entirely separate measure of voter fraud, which is quite a coincidence, and would be worth including as part of the same analysis. revolver.news/2020/11/explos…
Ordinary citizens could really benefit from your leadership on this issue. I've tried repeatedly asking @kenlawrencejr and @MontcoPA about this stuff, but they won't answer me or even acknowledge the questions.
It's worth noting that for a county to look suspicious along multiple independent proxies for voter fraud is quite a coincidence, and seems worth investigating.
Hey @AGHamilton29 , I really hate to ask you to do work. But given you're the go-to debunker, and you linked to the Douthat piece, I notice you haven't written about the Revolver Montgomery piece Douthat links, which is here: revolver.news/2020/11/explos…
Public service announcement: Twitter is full of these troll accounts that pop up in every voter fraud thread to do a disingenuous "just asking questions" shtick. Hallmarks of their style are as follows.
This came out in Revolver recently. It’s a new twist on identifying voter fr**d: Instead of starting with weird vote patterns, find *other data* that look weird (here, voter birthdays), and then relate it to votes.
(1/N)
It’s surprisingly hard to generate fake birthdays without leaving some trace in the data. The piece considers two broad ways that pull in opposite directions. First, you’ll probably pick too many round numbers – 1st, 15th & 31st of the month, Jan and Dec etc.
(2/N)
So, you think, I’ll be clever. I’ll use a uniform distribution over months of the year. Bzzt! Months have different numbers of days. Okay, hmm. I’ll choose uniformly over days of the year. Bzzt! Wrong again. It turns out that actual birth data aren’t uniform here either.
(3/N)
I'm firmly of the opinion that nobody owes any duty to investigate anyone else's claims. But I note that he doesn't address any of the anomalies I found most suspicious:
1. In Milwaukee, why did later votes swing more towards Democrats in races they were previously losing?
What on earth was going on in Montgomery County with the most suspicious looking update in the entire NYT dataset? As in, what's the specific theory here? Or is it just "unspecified errors"? revolver.news/2020/11/explos…