I'm only going to address your response to Claim 2, because the rest is either tone-policing or whining.
You call the suggestion that the majority of mail-in ballots in Milwaukee would be for Biden "faulty thinking", and suggest that the differential should only be "a few percentage points".
However, as noted in the article, Clinton took Milwaukee with 77% of the vote in 2016, and pre-election polls this year have shown an even greater split in favor of the Democrats for 2020. You accuse me of "assuming that the near totality of people who sent in their votes by mail did so [for various Democratic-leaning reasons]", but that's simply untrue. I'm pointing to the actual counts of the votes, the polling that has been done for this election, and the historical swing of Milwaukee in 2016.
Your fundamental problem with this vote "jump" seems to be that you just don't believe the mail-in ballot margin could be so high for Democrats in Milwaukee, yet historical data, polling data, and ballot trends for this year all point toward it being a very high margin.
You're choosing to characterize this as "impropriety", but I haven't seen a single, specific allegation here, other than that you don't like how high the margin was. This is strange to me, because again, all of the data we have points to a very high likely margin for Democrats in Milwaukee on mail-in ballots. You're acting like the mail-in margin in Milwaukee for Democrats is some kind of statistical outlier, when in fact it's well within what we'd expect.
The only reason to suspect impropriety here would be if there were some kind of outlier, and there simply isn't. The only thing that even made it an issue is that there was a sudden increase in vote totals overnight, and that's been accounted for as the city releasing their mail-in tallies all at once. Unless there is some other smoke here, I don't see any evidence of fire.
This is the only time I'm going to spend effort responding to you about a claim for which you don't bring any evidence. I appreciate the engagement with my article, but my goal is to have evidence-based discussions, not the same back-and-forth that happens on every Facebook post.