The M word
An unedifying protracted conversation on Twitter, started by someone I don’t know from Adam.
With no evidence https://t.co/wwiXfxFQAf
— Ophelia Benson (@OpheliaBenson) November 28, 2016
@OpheliaBenson True. Stein (and Clinton indirectly by joining) made similar claims in legal action (not just a tweet). All are wrong.
— Bob Seawright (@RPSeawright) November 28, 2016
@RPSeawright No. There are specifics in Wisconsin case. Trump is just babbling.
— Ophelia Benson (@OpheliaBenson) November 28, 2016
@OpheliaBenson Trump *is* babbling. But even HRC concedes "no actionable evidence" in Wisconsin — recount anyway. https://t.co/E7vVWhVWew
— Bob Seawright (@RPSeawright) November 28, 2016
@RPSeawright But you said they were comparable. They're not.
— Ophelia Benson (@OpheliaBenson) November 28, 2016
@OpheliaBenson They are comparable in that each is a silly claim w/o supporting evidence. That Trump insists his is bigger is no surprise.
— Bob Seawright (@RPSeawright) November 28, 2016
@RPSeawright I.e. not comparable in any way that matters.
— Ophelia Benson (@OpheliaBenson) November 28, 2016
@OpheliaBenson Keep telling yourself that if it helps you to sleep better.
— Bob Seawright (@RPSeawright) November 28, 2016
@RPSeawright Why on earth would it help me sleep better?
— Ophelia Benson (@OpheliaBenson) November 28, 2016
@OpheliaBenson You want to pretend that Stein and (indirectly) HRC aren't (yet again) making manifestly poor and unevidenced choices. 1/2
— Bob Seawright (@RPSeawright) November 28, 2016
@RPSeawright No I don't. That's a huge leap from what I said. I simply disputed your claim that they're *the same*.
— Ophelia Benson (@OpheliaBenson) November 29, 2016
@OpheliaBenson Your assertion was that Trump's claims are unevidenced. Stein's (and Clinton's, indirectly) are equally unevidenced.
— Bob Seawright (@RPSeawright) November 29, 2016
@RPSeawright But Stein & Clinton haven't *made* claims of the type Trump made. He made a wild factual assertion; they haven't.
— Ophelia Benson (@OpheliaBenson) November 29, 2016
@OpheliaBenson Utterly unevidenced assertions all around, now repeated in PA. https://t.co/74mlsmu0B9
— Bob Seawright (@RPSeawright) November 29, 2016
@RPSeawright Requesting a recount is not the same as asserting there were "millions of people who voted illegally."
— Ophelia Benson (@OpheliaBenson) November 29, 2016
@OpheliaBenson But Stein (and HRC indirectly) did more than ask for a recount. Per the NYT and other outlets, she alleged fraud w/o evidence
— Bob Seawright (@RPSeawright) November 29, 2016
@RPSeawright Not that I've seen. She said likely, plausible, etc. Link to her asserting it as fact the way he did or stop insisting on it.
— Ophelia Benson (@OpheliaBenson) November 29, 2016
@OpheliaBenson "The Petitioner…believes that an irregularity has occurred affecting all wards in Wisconsin." https://t.co/tbEz21PijG
— Bob Seawright (@RPSeawright) November 29, 2016
@RPSeawright "believes that" – thus it's not a stark factual assertion. This is elementary stuff.
— Ophelia Benson (@OpheliaBenson) November 29, 2016
@OpheliaBenson Confirmation bias writ very, very large. She has to say "believe" in a court filing because she has no evidence. Duh.
— Bob Seawright (@RPSeawright) November 29, 2016
Sigh.
Oh, goddammit. I wonder if having his head so far up his own ass will give ol’ Bob any incentive to reconsider his diet.
“Irregularities” can mean a lot of things in the context of an election. Doesn’t have to be fraud.
There’s also a big problem with his attempt to lump HRC in with Stein. The Clinton campaign has said that they’ll participate in any recount. The Trump campaign almost certainly will participate, too. Participating (as I understand it) just means that their representatives will be present to make appropriate objections and challenges, and generally preserve each campaign’s rights.
There are all sorts of good reasons for Clinton’s campaign to participate in a recount if Stein’s supporters are already paying for it. There is value in discovering irregularities even if they aren’t enough to change the result in one state, let alone all three. There’s value in putting the nail in the coffin of conspiracy theories and allowing Clinton supporters to move on. There’s also the chance that what Stein is really up to here (aside from trying to raise more money and stretch out her 15 minutes of fame) is to INCREASE the margin by which Clinton lost, in the hopes of refuting arguments that Stein acted as a spoiler, in which case Clinton’s people should be present to push back on that attempt.
I also wonder if Stein is looking to claim that base percentage that would get the Greens an automatic slot on many state ballots going forward.
Can’t contemplate why Stein is doing this though I do think it will reveal that Hillary got even more of the popular vote (though not enough).
Okay – I’m bracing myself for a massive forehead smack in asking this but… what is “the M word”?
Heh, nah, it’s not obvious. Mansplaining.