Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive October 9, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas

Context —

s a year. But we should be working toward it. If you think it can be done of course it can be done. Of course it can. It's not, I mean conceptually it's not even difficult. I just told you how to do it. All you need is for people to be able to track their vote. Now the only thing it would catch is fake votes, right? Am I right? The only thing you wouldn't catch is a fake vote. But could you engin…

← Previous segment →

ted it to. But secondly if there are votes that are fake people that you can randomly, not all of them but randomly, you can query the real person and say your vote was registered, did you vote?

I feel like it's doable and I think Joe Manchin might be the only person who has enough power to make it happen. Stick that in there as a requirement by 2024 you have to have a fully auditable system or whatever. There would be your golden age if we could get that done.

There's a video that I tweeted around that I highly recommend just because it's fun to watch. In China they demolished 15 skyscrapers at the same time and there's a video of that looks like maybe a city block or something. So there were 15 skyscrapers that they built but never had any occupants for. They didn't finish them so I guess they got the basements got flooded and maybe they became unsafe or something so it was no longer practical to finish them so they blew them up.

Now I guess this is not the first time they've done massive multiple building destructions. They've done it in other places where they're clearing out buildings. I think they've done like 36 at one time. But watching 15 skyscrapers blow up at the same time, you know because they blow up in a controlled explosion so that they just sink into the dust, it's really cool. It's really cool.

So look on my Twitter feed. It would be, I just tweeted it this morning so it's near the top. And just to watch it for fun. It's really kind of impressive. Kind of impressive.

Well let's talk about the California recall race. The election is today or the official election day and something very odd has happened. Very odd. Number one, well a few odd things. Number one Newsom said I think it was yesterday that a vote for Larry Elder is a vote against diversity and racial justice. That's right. A vote against who would be the first black Republican governor, Larry Elder. If he wins, voting for him to be the first black Republican governor of California is a vote against diversity. It's against diversity. I don't even, I don't know how you even say that with a straight face.

Now apparently there is approved diversity and unapproved diversity and the type of diversity that Larry Elder would bring is apparently unapproved. The Democrats do not approve of that particular type of diversity. There's good diversity and bad diversity and I guess he's got the bad kind according to Newsom.

But we've got this match and gasoline situation happening with this California recall. I don't feel that the mood of the voters is up to revolution mostly because Democrats are going to be, I'm sorry Republicans will be the victims and they tend not to hit the streets so much. But there's something very bad going on that could be coincidence or something very bad is going on. I don't know which it is but I'm open to the possibility it's either one.

So let me give you an example what's going on here. You may know that the polling for who's going to win or whether or not the recall would be successful, the polling in August looked like it was too close to call. It was like within one percent. What's the polling today? Not even close. Newsom is going to win like 57 if the polling is accurate.

Now what happened between August and now that would make it from a super tight race where it looked like Elder would win actually because of the trend line to not even close? One month. In one month it went from too close to call and not even close.

Somebody says his money, something about the way they campaigned. Nope. It turns out that the explanation given in the news today is that the August polls were wrong and it's because they worded the poll wrong and they got the wrong result. Now isn't that convenient?

The one race that we think, not we, I'll take myself out of it, the one race which many many Republicans think will be rigged, I'm not saying it will be, I'm saying that Republicans are claiming that, that happens to be the same race that the polls suspiciously went from totally agreeing with Republicans to suddenly totally disagree exactly the way you'd expect a rigged poll to come out.

Because what would be the problem if the polls said it was super close but the vote wasn't? Because we were almost heading for a really big problem, weren't we? Wouldn't it be a really big problem if the polls said it should be close but the vote said it wasn't and people thought it was a rigged vote? Republicans would take that as proof.

But suddenly by coincidence and by the way I'm only going to claim it's a coincidence because I don't have evidence of anything else but as coincidences go I don't think it could be worse. It's a coincidence of a match being dropped in gasoline. Because if the polls are and you already don't believe the vote itself your credibility is just shot. And credibility is the only thing that holds our system together. That's it. Credibility. You take the credibility away and all you have is force.

So how many irregularities are happening in the vote? Well if you're following Dave Rubin and you should follow Dave Rubin on Twitter and also on Locals, he and a number of other people are sort of getting into the details of what's happening there and there's a lot of tweets in which people are responding to what they've personally observed.

Now it's all anecdotal. Anecdotal means it doesn't mean it necessarily represents a large trend. It's just people having specific experiences and reporting them and you don't even know if they're real people, right? So whatever credibility you want to put on these next claims, lower it a little bit.

Right now remember I've told you that all election fraud claims, if you looked at the whole body of all claims made about all elections everywhere all the time at least in the United States, they're going to be wrong 95% of the time, right? So 95% of all election fraud claims at least big ones, big claims, turn out to be wrong. At least 95%. Could be 100% but at least 95%.

So keep that in mind. And when I tell you that there are all kinds of reports of irregularities in the California election. So you got people who got mailed two ballots, one for the person who used to live there, one for them. People got two ballots, one for their maiden name and one for their old name. People who got ballots in a state when they haven't been in the state for a long time. And I won't go through all the examples but it's just lots of examples of people with a specific complaint.

Now are those specific complaints enough or even credible enough to imagine that there's some massive problem going on? I don't see it yet. It looks like just a whole bunch of individual complaints of various credibility but boy is it a red flag.

If you're asking is fraud proven I'd say no. No there's no fraud proven and I don't see evidence that necessarily will be proven but damn there's a lot of questions. And can you have a system that doesn't have credibility because there are so many questions? And if Joe Manchin had done the job that we'd love him to do wouldn't we already have an election where you'd say well there are lots of irregularities but thank goodness you can check to see if your vote got registered correctly. You can't. All of these problems would go away. It wouldn't matter how many claims you heard of irregularities as long as you could check your own vote you'd be pretty happy.

Please provide data if you're 95% false claim. That's observational. It's not based on data. So I observe over the years that if you watch the claims and then you just wait long enough to see if they get proven or disproven they're 95% of the time they'll be disproven. So that's exactly the experience we had with the 2020 election. I mean I haven't seen any that were proven but certainly there were a lot of claims.

And apparently there's one story that 70% of the voters somewhere were being turned away because the system said they had already voted and then there was a claim that it was a software problem but then there was a clarification that it was more about an out of date poll book. I don't know what an out of date poll book is or how that fit into the story but let's say that they do know that was a problem. It turned out it was more like a handful of people. When they figured out what the problem was

Context —

they fixed it. I think it's been reported as a massive problem where it might have been just an anecdotal thing that one area screwed up a little bit so I wouldn't be too worried about that. Anyway there are massive reports of individual problems but I haven't seen enough of the same kind of problem to suggest massive fraud. Now what are the odds the Republicans will believe there was massive fr…

Next segment → →