There were a handful of democratic states prior to this election that used mail in voting. The data suggests that there was either no change, or not change enough to matter, in who voted by mail more. What I mean is that people keep saying that Democrats are more likely to vote by mail, but before this election there was no evidence to support that. The dems suddenly started changing laws just before corona in swing states for this election (without a test run), and what we have to ask ourselves is why did they do it. Republicans fought it and there is at least some question as to if what the dems did is constitutionally legal.
To go back to this quote that Yoda already responded to, and why others are asking for sources, well first you imply these changes happened without a test run though Yoda noted that was not true, at least in one state. 1 for 1. Should we just take it for face value that anything else holds water when you conflate opinion with fact or at least is not exaggeration?
You claim "data" suggests that there was no change or not enough to matter before the election as to who voted by mail more. Sure. But you (or whatever your source is that may or may not be an editorial opinion piece) assumes that exists
in a vacuum. For all of your investigative prowess, why not apply that curiosity
evenly to ask what might be different during this election cycle? Could it be a novel virus pandemic? Could it be that (generally speaking) Republicans feel unaffected with a portion of that voting base believing it's an outright conspiracy run by corrupt fake media; or that (generally speaking) Democrats might actually think the pandemic is legit and would prefer to error on the side of caution by submitting mail in ballots this season?
Surely, that would
potentially skew past vote-by-mail patterns, no? If parts of that statement can be explained when more context is provided, why omit/ignore that context? If some parts can be explained and then removed as an argument, then what
other parts could also be explained and removed given the pattern that appears when one makes that effort? Why haven't you asked that? Why didn't your source ask that?
Have you looked to see what vote totals by state are relative to 2016 or previous election years?
(edit) Totals for physical election day votes vs mail-in votes? Totals by political affiliation within election day totals vs mail-in? Are those totals and gain percentages in line? If they are, then have votes honestly been affected? ANY of these questions could be asked, but weren't. I assume the source also didn't ask those questions, but I will never know. My point is, there is risk of bias here. Knowing the source of information allows 1) you to verify what you claim that until verified can only be treated as opinion, and 2) provides others a path of deduction and decision-making processes that the author used to come to these conclusions that you seem to trust without question. Why others aren't allowed that same latitude is another matter, but hey! Reading the article may convince me or others. Until then, I just have to take your word for it which is already proven to slip into opinion guised as fact.
You may be right. But here's the thing of it all: I don't care if you're right or wrong or if I or anyone else is right or wrong. My issue, as it always has been in the faux debates, is the
method of coming to conclusions and how you hold others to a higher bar to clear than you do yourself. It's frustrating, dude.
I do not at all mind if we have differences of opinion. I'm more concerned with
how you came to your conclusions. Hell, I might learn something. you might. Not necessary, but cool when it happens. What I hope for when entering conversations with people I disagree with is to come to some mutual understanding and agreement on verifiable facts. We can still totally disagree on the
value of those facts. How does one step lead to another, to another. If I can follow that path then I might better empathize with an opposing view point. However, when one side of the argument has to maintain some standard that the other side does not, or when topics shift from one point to another when an argument is made against the earlier point, there's nothing to be learned and it becomes a game. If it's a game, then why should I take it any more seriously? I always thought it was understood that if I want to make a claim, then it's on me to provide evidence of that claim and not your responsibility to prove me wrong after the fact. I mean, unicorns
exist. Prove me wrong!
Kinda wonky, ain't it?