I’m aware of the politics of the authors. Both articles you posted amount to ad homs. Neither even attempt to engage with the evidence presented in the reports.
You’ve heard of this report, correct? Or the paper written by John Lott of the DOJ?
There is evidence, but it sounds like you’ve only heard contradictions (not rebuttals) and rhetoric designed to avoid factual debate, as evidenced by your comments in this thread.
I posted in a sibling thread but there is evidence that it was enough to sway the election. Check out the Navarro Report, for instance, which provides several dimensions of evidence for this claim.
The cheating only really needs to occur in a handful of key urban counties to sway a national election, so it doesn’t actually need to be wide spread.
Have you read the Navarro Report (two parts), or the paper written by John Lott at the DOJ? You may not agree with their politics but these are Economics PhDs from Harvard and UCLA, not exactly knuckle draggers.
There was also hours upon hours of witness testimony given to state legislatures.
The media didn’t really cover any of this material, instead just repeated ad homs and contradictions (not rebuttals) and touted all the tossed court cases, all of which were for procedural reasons like standing and laches so evidence was never considered.
I would say there’s actually a significant amount of evidence, but nobody wants to hear it because it implicates players on both sides of the aisle.