Even the most generous numbers would still have it in the hundreds, which wouldn't even be 1% of the number of votes it takes to flip a single state, let alone the entire election.
So yes, a small handful of cases within 150M+ votes (0.0001% or less as I said) is indeed insignificant, as it couldn't flip a single state.
20,000 here, 40,000 there, and enough EC votes flip.
Right, but again the actual numbers are in the dozens, nowhere near tens of thousands. So what you're saying is completely irrelevant.
...a suitcase hidden under a table surely contains more than "dozens".
...a (D) electoral judge missing his (R) counterpart can surely "adjudicate" more than "dozens" in the course of a night.
...far more than "dozens" of mail-in ballots were received from "voters" who are either dead, registered elsewhere, or otherwise ineligible.
These same claims were presented by Trump most recently on a phone call in which he tries to shake down, with threats like a mobster, the same votes plus 1 that he is down by in Georgia. Trump is shaking down the Georgia Secretary of State. There is your fraud.
But the Georgia Secretary of state goes through the claims anyway, and sums it up with: Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong.
And specifically the ridiculous and unfounded claim of 5000 dead people voting he says: The actual number were two. Two. Two people that were dead that voted. And so that’s wrong.
I do not understand what possesses sore losers to insist that their fragile emotional state must be coddled this much for this long, and to tell lies so prolifically. But it is not the responsibility of everyone else to provide emotional support for them.
You think the shorthand is innocuous. I think the shorthand is often a purposeful attempt at using anchoring bias.
In any case, what is large-scale? Shifting the results by only 1% in only six out of 50 states doesn't seem like much proportionally, but it's all the Democrats had to do to steal the 2020 election.