It all comes down to evidence, but the commentariat will not or can not go there

It all comes down to evidence, but the commentariat will not or can not go there. Paul Mirengoff makes some good points which show up the difficulty the commentariat has in dealing with election fraud:

Team Trump does the nation a great disservice if it makes wild allegations it can’t support. …

The nation was damaged when Democrats tried to blame their loss in the 2016 election on Russian interference in the election. These claims were a boon to Russia because they undermined America’s faith in its system of government. Putin surely was delighted by the chaos the Democrats inflicted on America.

If millions of Americans believe that Trump was deprived of election victory — and a landslide victory, at that — the damage will be worse than that caused by the Democrats after the 2016 election. The Democrats’ claim that Trump conspired with Russia was investigated and found to be unsubstantiated. All that was left was the ridiculous claim that Russian involvement in our social media somehow swung the election to Trump.

By contrast, the claim that foreigners can deprive candidates of millions of votes by manipulating machines is truly frightening. If true, it means that we can never be confident in the outcome of an election, and certainly not one that a conservative loses. It means our democracy is a sham. If millions of people believe this, the American experiment will be all but dead.

Another problem with pursuing a wild and baseless conspiracy (if that’s what this turns out to be) is that it tends to discredit legitimate election fraud claims in the public’s mind. The problem of voter fraud is real. Its existence shouldn’t be controversial, but it is. Irresponsible claims of such fraud made it too easy for Democrats and their media allies to dismiss well founded claims.

Finally, pursuing a baseless conspiracy theory would impede, if not prevent, an honest inquiry into why Trump lost this election. When a party’s presidential candidate loses, he or she lets down not just the party, but tens of millions of supporters.

Yep, Paul understands that part well. But he — and Tucker Carlson — do the world a great disservice if they cede the argument by default to the fraudsters because they refuse to engage with certain types of evidence.

Evidence of computer-enabled voting fraud comes in two main flavors.

First, there is the trail of evidence of fraud left in the vote counts. Do the official results contain odd patterns, and how do they correlate with voter registrations, past voting patterns, ticket voting, down-ticket voting, exit polls, and so on? Are there major discrepancies between Biden’s voting “results” in the battleground states and the results in other states and for other candidates?

Many commentators refuse to go there because it involves maths and numbers. Benson’s law, Shiva’s analysis, and D to R ratios — which all point towards the same manipulation — are too much for them. Their brains hurt, and they cannot explain it to viewers. Understandably, many people cannot be bothered delving into the details.

It’s like climate change. Much of the commentariat will simply not engage with any understanding that involves more than the most elementary quantification. But that is where the evidence for failing models is. All it takes is some person in authority to say that the “science” is correct and their critics are wrong, and they fold. They are unwilling to think their way through, or examine the arguments in any detail. They totally cede the field to the “authorities”. So whoever appoints the “authorities” wins this argument in their eyes, because there is no discussion that they are willing to try and understand.

Journalists, politicians, and bureaucrats operate by asking the person with the most authority in an area. That’s how they find “the truth,” because they don’t know enough about the area themselves. But they overlook the highest authority of all — the data. That is the lesson of science and the enlightenment. The data tells you the truth and is the highest authority, not the Pope. So our commentariat are easily misled if the highest authority is a person who tells them something that is contradicted by the data. They go with the fool or liar at the top, not the data.

By admitting only certain types of evidence, our commentariat permits certain types of fraud.

They are word people trying to solve a number problem.

Eight discrepancies about the 2004 Venezuelan election were apparently proved beyond reasonable doubt, but were ignored by the journalists and politicians for lack of intellectual understanding. Chavez got away with massive manipulation. Poor Venezuela — look what happened as a result.

Second, there is the testimony of whistle-blowers, and of workers on a witness stand. The Trump team is complaining that fear of violent retribution from the left or the elite is making it hard to gather evidence by this means. It’s like prosecuting the mob.