The Art of Maybe Probably Possibly Perhaps Who Knows

On Wednesday, the Heritage Foundation released a new "study" that looked at the 2016 election and found that in 21 states, 8,471 votes were “highly likely” duplicates.

Okay, so, never mind that 8,471 votes is .006% of the 140 million cast. And that this breaks down to 403 votes per state, or 202 per party.  And that the results are only "highly likely," not definitive and factual, nor actually cast. And that no details were released on how this vote total was, in fact, split among parties.  And also that...

Wait, sorry, I still can't get over the "highly likely" part. So, if "highly likely" is going to be our standard now for coming to a conclusion and making a decision -- so be it.  Hey, given how manically he's trying to hide his tax returns and what we already know on the record, it's highly likely Trump laundered Russian money. So, that's enough for impeachment, conviction and jail, right?

It's "highly likely," too, that the Trump team conspired with Russia. And that Trump is a racist. And highly-likely that Jared Kushner didn't just accidentally forget 100 meetings and $100 million in loans when filling out his national security clearance, but instead lied on his form. So, just to be clear, is that our standard?  "Highly likely."

Hey, according to many psychiatrists, it's "highly likely" that Trump is having early mental issues.  I take it that's good enough evidence for us now.  Well, at least good enough for the Heritage Foundation.

Seriously, now, "highly likely"???  What even semi-respectable research study draws its definitive conclusions based on what appears to be maybe "highly likely"?  And by whose standards?  Presuming that there are standards.  What is the criteria for "highly likely"?  Never mind, of course, that what this suggest is perhaps "highly likely" contradicts all actually-scientific, peer-reviewed research studies that have shown utterly insignificant actual voter fraud with real numbers, even overwhelmingly fewer (like a handful) than the exceedingly low "highly likely" numbers here, Which would seem to make the Heritage findings seriously unlikely.

And even if one bends so far backwards you get a nose bleed and accept this "study" as meaningful, by my calculation, 8,471 votes is still a wee bit short of the 3 million fake-fraudulent votes Trump claimed existed because he had a guy who supposedly had proof of it all.  (If these 8,471 votes not only turned out to be "highly likely," but in actual fact 100% real, and if all of them, every last vote went to Trump...he'd still have lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by 2,991,529 -- or thereabouts, give or take a few.)

The Heritage Foundation, it should be noted, has financial funding ties to such far-right billionaires as the Koch brothers, Robert Mercer and Joseph Coors, the latter of whom was one of the founders.  That doesn't discredit it.  Though some of its racist research papers may (most-recently, a 2016 widely-criticized anti-immigrant paper on the supposed high-cost of low-skill immigrant labor).  Up to you to figure that one out...

I think it's "highly likely."