spurgistan wrote:The amount of time and money we spend investigating voter fraud compared to fraud cases discovered
This is a meme that is, (a) a sophistry, and, (b) endlessly regurgitated by the lying press without any critical thought applied by those doing the regurgitating.
According to this meme, the lack of discovery of a crime means there is no reason to investigate any allegations of similar crimes ever again.
"A Supreme Court nominee has never been convicted of groping a woman, therefore, it is unreasonable to ever investigate Supreme Court nominees alleged to be gropers."
Indeed, it takes it one step further and proclaims that the lack of discovery of a crime means there is no reason to take any steps at all to prevent said crime.
"My house has never been broken into, therefore, it is unreasonable for me to even close the front door when I'm not home."
The reason Americans don't buy this is because the people who trumpet the meme usually are also - at the same time - trumpeting the conspiracy theory of "voter suppression" and proclaim that, somehow, this is a concern that merits attention. In other words, we must be vigilant about "voter suppression" even though there is not a single case of a criminal conviction related to voter suppression. But we must
not pay attention to vote fraud because, while there
have been convictions for vote fraud, they don't crest some minimum threshold for concern we randomly made-up.
spurgistan wrote:Congressional Republicans got destroyed in blue states. Destroyed.
Meh.
If outspending the GOP nearly 2-1 and still only clawing out a 14-seat majority in a 435-seat chamber constitutes a "GOTCHA! DESTROYED!" type victory for Democrats, they have truly massive problems with their long-term viability as a party. Particularly since more than 14 Democrats are already
voting with the Congressional Republicans most of the time anyway.