3 Comments
User's avatar
тна Return to thread
Linda Weide's avatar

What I last saw from Robert Hubbell is that Trump had less than 50% and that was a couple of days ago. I think it is important that we have an accurate vote count, and that we know about any irregularities. Did you read the Spoonamore letter to see how he got his irregularities? Doesn't it make you want to know what is going on?

Expand full comment
Terry Hilldale's avatar

These days everybody has a substack. Why should I pay attention to some random substack? Today CNN has Trump at 49.9 %. Right now he has merely a plurality. When all the votes are counted, we may find that he lost the popular vote three times in a row.

I read Spoonamore very carefully. I think people like Chris Krebs (who was in charge of government cyber security during the Trump administration and famously wrote a report asserting that 2020 was the most secure in history) or other experts. I wonder where Spoonamore gets his numbers of bullet ballots for 2024. Where is that sort of granularity being reported apparently on the fly as votes are being counted?

Spoonamore makes assertions about relative numbers of bullet ballots but does not tell us if swing states have generally more than non swing states in other elections. Perhaps swing states always have many times more bullet ballots than non swing states. The rationale here is that there is no incentive for a voter to produce a bullet ballot in a non-swing state because bullet ballots will have no effect on the outcome in those states.

Spoonamore's scenario requires electronic voting. Perhaps Harris should call for hand recounts in e very precinct (not just swing precincts) that use electronic voting.

Expand full comment
Linda Weide's avatar

Terry you are right to be skeptical. My friend has debunked Spoonamore for me. She researched him. Here is what she found.

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-election-starlink-musk-steal-trump-38757341656d4f44243076d6356cb68b

She also says,

"I looked into this guy a little bit today. This story is dangerous. HeтАЩs not a data scientist. He went to Wharton for a little while and dropped out to found a tech company. I listened to his interview with Thom Hartmann. Some of the ways they speak are alarmingly similar to тАЬnews sourcesтАЭ like One America Network. This is not my area of expertise, but his arguments are bad. He is confusing correlation and causation, heтАЩs giving the listener a huge data dump of information that is not connected in any way, and he is making a false connection to a lot of things he is an тАЬexpertтАЭ in to make unsubstantiated claims. A lot of the things he is talking about are not possible, and they have already been debunked."

She shared this site too.

https://electionlawblog.org/?p=147216

Rick Hasen is a law professor at UCLA.

Expand full comment