[commandlinefan]

> Without any evidence whatsoever, he said that Democrats were trying to steal the election through "FRAUD."

Well, wait a minute - both of those races had already been called in favor of the Republican candidate on the night of the election until boxes and boxes of mysteriously Democrat-leaning ballots were suddenly found the following day... I think that constitutes evidence, even if it's not conclusive.

[orf]

Evidence of a poorly managed election system split into tens of thousands of individual parts across 50 states in dire need of reform (but will never be, because one party benefits from the status quo), or evidence of a Democratic conspiracy to fraudulently seize power by creating 'mysterious' ballot boxes in the most hamfisted and public way possible?

Sure.

[forapurpose]

For any set of boxes, there is a 50-50 chance that they will favor one or the other party. Given the geographic polarization of the parties, the boxes seem likely to heavily favor one or the other party. We can't distinguish the event from random chance, afaik, and therefore it's not evidence.

> mysteriously

Is there a basis for this word?

[hammock]

Seems the basis would be, that the new votes were highly un-representative of all the other votes previously tallied (majority Republican)

The parent comment probably disagrees with your assessment of 50/50.