The media, like the left, hasn't learned much of anything in the past few years

The undeclared but glaringly obvious war between the "traditional" press and Trump continues to heat up.  Trump, it seems, made the claim that voting by illegal immigrants cost him the popular vote.  The press immediately claimed that there was no evidence that it happened and intimated it just wasn't even possible.  Jake Tapper is typical:

CNN’s Jake Tapper, and many other pundits, assert there is “no evidence” to support Trump’s belief about a large number of illegal votes cast in the election.

But, as it turns out, that's probably not true. There is a basis for Trump's belief.  Now note, I'm giving Jake Tapper and other "pundits" the benefit of the doubt.  I'm not calling them liars.  I'm instead intimating they are ignorant.  Why?

The best study on the subject — a study that meets the Daubert standards for admissible evidence in a jury trial in a legal courtroom — provides substantial evidence that non-citizen voting alone likely reached over a million in this election.  A trio of well-regarded scholars used scientifically approved methods to study the question of non-citizen voting in federal elections. The result of their study published in one of the best-regarded peer-review political science journals, Electoral Studies. The evidence from their study suggested upwards of 10% of non-citizens voted in 2008; given the issues implicated in this election, a higher number would be a reasonable inference for a jury to conclude. 

Given the increase in non-citizen members of the population, the same study’s conclusions would project out to millions of illegal votes from non-citizen voters in this election. Now Trump’s opponents will surely argue several experts have questioned the study’s methods, with the Washington Post giving Four Pinocchios to the use of this study to support claims of problems with illegal immigrants voting. However,the scholars well defended their study against critics in this Washington Post article. At the very least, that is enough to move forward with a case, and I believe raises legitimate questions that should be debated.

Indeed, it should be debated, but this is something the left has long denied and claimed simply wasn't true ... period.  But unless they didn't know about this study, the fact that it was positively peer reviewed and, in fact, establishes a basis for Trump's argument, then they're ignorant.  If they did know about it and dismissed it, they're disingenuous.  

Of course Tapper and the rest have some wiggle room if you parse the assertion - there's no evidence about a "large number of illegal votes cast in the election."  This election. Got it. That's true to this point.  But it doesn't change the larger point - there is indeed evidence, as presented by the study, that it has happened in the past and there is reason to believe that something that happened in the past most likely happened in this election, given nothing has changed in voting procedures. With the numbers this election generated, the anomalies demand explanation.  For instance:

Trump’s inference of voter fraud, if true, should suggest disparate turnout rates in the parts of the country with the highest non-citizen population or history of ballot-counting controversy. Here again, California’s turnout both exceeded expectations, differed substantially from turnout in other non-competitive states, and produced vote totals no major pollster in California forecast for Hillary, when most polls under-counted Trump votes across the state and country.

Anyone who thinks our election system is fraud free is either a fool of a liar.  There are too many opportunities and benefits to be had with fraud (see Dem primary for immediate proof), starting with lack of identification requirements and the horribly relaxed procedures for absentee ballots.  It's also well known that many people are registered in more than one state.  So denial of fraud is ignorance on the part of the denier or it is advantageous for them to see it continue.  

There is nothing particularly startling about Trump's assertion to anyone who has looked at the voting system in this country in any depth.  The media relies on you not having that depth of knowledge and one final important thing - them having the last word on the subject.  

That formula doesn't quite work as well as it once did. The internet makes it easy to quickly research just about anything you wish to know about.  And, there are alternative sites now who actually do the work journalists used to do and present it to the public, denying them the last word.  Just ask Dan Rather.  Additionally, they're faced with someone in Trump who won't let them have the last word and punches back.  And that's what really angers them.

By the way, I agree with Charlie Martin.

~McQ