"There's No Evidence Of Fraud"

There are a fair number of unjustified claims and accusations flying around, some from each side. This, IMO, is the most irrational/unjustified of those claims. That there is evidence of fraud is patently obvious--at least on a thin conception of evidence. Perhaps there is no good or sound evidence--but that's a different question. There is undoubtedly evidence. Another way to express this assertion is: A reasonably well-informed voter (where that's going to have to entail something like: a person who is not locked into the MSM thought-bubble) knows of credible allegations of shenanigans. I revert to the extremely vernacular there at the end because I can't think of another way to make the claim suitably vague.

   I don't believe there were (was?) enough shenanigans to change the outcome...but I also don't believe there weren't. The absence of belief either way is, I guess, suspended judgment. Under these conditions, I'd be inclined to let the process play out normally...but then there's a question of what the process is... I was very alarmed, at first, by the GOP's plans. But they seem Constitutional, from what I've read. If so, then, well, I guess that's the system. But, then, I don't think that there's much chance of them changing the result. I might change my tune if they actually pull it off...

   But that second paragraph is beside the point--which is: there is plenty of evidence of shenanigans. How much of it, if any, is good evidence, if any, I do not know. Nor do I know how good if good, obviously. Nor do I know what fraud is, really. So I end up with: Clear evidence of shenanigans--but maybe no good evidence.

   The reds are, I'd say, going out on a limb here. If they end up being right, it'd be a big epistemic win for them. But I doubt that they're going to end up being right. If wrong, I'd say it's a substantial moral loss.