To be clear, between Biden being overcounted and Trump undercounted you think the totals are off by more than seven million, yes? Being aware that this is enough to flip the states most talked about (AZ, GA, WI, PA, MI, NV) with enough left over to flip California? (Although I presume this would not be considered the most likely spread.)I am pretty sure he did win popular vote in 2020. Voter fraud made it seem like he didnt.
To put that 7 million into perspective: there are 36 states with state populations of less than 7 million.To be clear, between Biden being overcounted and Trump undercounted you think the totals are off by more than seven million, yes? Being aware that this is enough to flip the states most talked about (AZ, GA, WI, PA, MI, NV) with enough left over to flip California? (Although I presume this would not be considered the most likely spread.)
P.S. Do you also agree with Trump that he won the popular vote in 2016 as well?
I think it's a distinct possibility; especially when you consider what came out of Jill Stein's quickly abandoned attempt to deligitimize Trump's 2016 victory with a hand recount in Michigan. Turns out there was something funny going on there, as almost immediately Trump’s margin of victory in the state tripled, when 20,000 fraudulent ballots counted for Hillary were discovered (in just one Detroit precinct, mind you) and thrown out. Needless to say, when it looked like evidence was surfacing that would prove Hillary, and not Trump, cheated; the judge who ruled that the recount could go forward changed his mind, and decided that Jill Stein didn't actually have standing to conduct one after all. Because reasons.P.S. Do you also agree with Trump that he won the popular vote in 2016 as well?
The judge basically accepted a lower court ruling, pushed for by Republicans, saying that since Jill Stein couldn't realistically win no matter how the recount went, she wasn't an aggrieved party. Hardly a simple case of the Judge changing his mind to hide democrat duplicity. Far funnier though is Trump's reactions to the demanded recounts!I think it's a distinct possibility; especially when you consider what came out of Jill Stein's quickly abandoned attempt to deligitimize Trump's 2016 victory with a hand recount in Michigan. Turns out there was something funny going on there, as almost immediately Trump’s margin of victory in the state tripled, when 20,000 fraudulent ballots counted for Hillary were discovered (in just one Detroit precinct, mind you) and thrown out. Needless to say, when it looked like evidence was surfacing that would prove Hillary, and not Trump, cheated; the judge who ruled that the recount could go forward changed his mind, and decided that Jill Stein didn't actually have standing to conduct one after all. Because reasons.
In addition to what Megadeath said, what is your source for the part about tripling his lead? I was not able to find those claims in a quick search and Wikipedia says, "47 precincts across 22 of Michigan's 83 counties had completed their recounts, which resulted in a net gain of 102 votes for Hillary Clinton."I think it's a distinct possibility; especially when you consider what came out of Jill Stein's quickly abandoned attempt to deligitimize Trump's 2016 victory with a hand recount in Michigan. Turns out there was something funny going on there, as almost immediately Trump’s margin of victory in the state tripled, when 20,000 fraudulent ballots counted for Hillary were discovered (in just one Detroit precinct, mind you) and thrown out. Needless to say, when it looked like evidence was surfacing that would prove Hillary, and not Trump, cheated; the judge who ruled that the recount could go forward changed his mind, and decided that Jill Stein didn't actually have standing to conduct one after all. Because reasons.
Yes well, Trump has never had a good track record of doing things that would help him in the long run; and the Republican party as a whole are even worse in that regard. I can only assume that they never seriously considered the possibility that the Democrats had committed extensive voter fraud (as if they had, the 2020 election fraud wouldn't have caught them completely by surprise), and that their thinking was that the margin of victory was too small to risk losing it do to clerical error.The judge basically accepted a lower court ruling, pushed for by Republicans, saying that since Jill Stein couldn't realistically win no matter how the recount went, she wasn't an aggrieved party. Hardly a simple case of the Judge changing his mind to hide democrat duplicity. Far funnier though is Trump's reactions to the demanded recounts!
(Hint: He was not in favour and thought people should just shut up about the idea and accept the certified results.)
After some digging, I think that 20,000 number came from an article I read recently. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to corroborate it as of yet (even though I distinctly recall similar information coming out during and immediately after the aborted recount), so everyone should take it with a grain of salt for now. That said (and forgive me if this sounds like I'm shifting the goalposts, but it's something I only thought about after attempting to find evidence to back up my previous claim); Hillary only won the popular vote by 2.9 million votes, so if you are the sort of person who believes her capable of attempting to cheat in an election, it's not illogical to assume that many if not all of those votes were fraudulent. After all; we know both dead people and illegals vote, and usually neither votes for the Republican candidate.In addition to what Megadeath said, what is your source for the part about tripling his lead? I was not able to find those claims in a quick search and Wikipedia says, "47 precincts across 22 of Michigan's 83 counties had completed their recounts, which resulted in a net gain of 102 votes for Hillary Clinton."
Wikipedia also says, "59 percent of precincts in Detroit were ineligible for recount, as the number of ballots stored in containers in case of a recount did not match tallies given by voting machine printout reports." (They were off by up to five ballots.) Contemporary news reports said that this discrepancy would not have meant that the precincts were excluded from recounted vote totals, but rather that the original figures would stand (i.e. would not be recounted but rather would be taken as is). A local news report characterized this as a bad thing for Democrats because their only hope of winning a recount would be to find extra votes in Democratic vote sinks like these.
I think it's likely that one of the many precincts that failed to have a perfect match on its ballot total had 20k voters in it, and the author or his source misunderstood the consequences of this.After some digging, I think that 20,000 number came from an article I read recently. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to corroborate it as of yet (even though I distinctly recall similar information coming out during and immediately after the aborted recount), so everyone should take it with a grain of salt for now. That said (and forgive me if this sounds like I'm shifting the goalposts, but it's something I only thought about after attempting to find evidence to back up my previous claim); Hillary only won the popular vote by 2.9 million votes, so if you are the sort of person who believes her capable of attempting to cheat in an election, it's not illogical to assume that many if not all of those votes were fraudulent. After all; we know both dead people and illegals vote, and usually neither votes for the Republican candidate.
True, those claims focus on the aspect of the election that is pure popularity contest with no greater consequences. One would hope this makes it easier to evaluate them dispassionately.Because of the electoral college, massed voter fraud was not required. The domeocrats only needed stratiegic voter fraud in key states with a large number of electoral votes. Comparing their vote counts nationally is a red herring, the only thing that matters is the lead the candidates had in specific states and counties.
Is this a typo or wordplay I don't understand?domeocrats
If Hillary's supporters were cheating they did a piss-poor job of it because, while she got more votes, she didn't get enough votes in the right places.Hillary only won the popular vote by 2.9 million votes, so if you are the sort of person who believes her capable of attempting to cheat in an election, it's not illogical to assume that many if not all of those votes were fraudulent.
If that's that case, it's a rather silly mistake to make; though I can see how a misunderstanding like that could persist to this day.I think it's likely that one of the many precincts that failed to have a perfect match on its ballot total had 20k voters in it, and the author or his source misunderstood the consequences of this.
I can see that; though it's possible that logic had nothing to do with it, and the Democrats in those areas were simply doing what had become routine for them.I would say it's illogical to assume Clinton cheated to pad the vote in states she was legitimately winning by a lot already.
One could argue that's why the Democrats ended up cheating a lot more blatantly in the 2020 election; because the subtle approach didn't work out against Trump in 2016.If Hillary's supporters were cheating they did a piss-poor job of it because, while she got more votes, she didn't get enough votes in the right places.
That may be; I've noticed that quite a lot of people only supported him because he was the Republican candidate, and never liked that he was an outsider, who didn't fit the same mold as the career politicians in the party. But that said; most of those people would never vote for a Democrat. They just wouldn't vote; and yet Biden somehow set a new record for number of votes received in a presidential election, despite being deeply unpopular within his own party.As for Trump losing? He is not as popular as he and his supporters think he is. Behind closed doors a lot of people who say they support him actually despise him and want him to go crawl into some hidey-hole so he stops being a nuisance.
Something similar could be said about a fair number of people who voted for Biden: they were never going to vote Republican and don't bother with voting unless it looks like a Republican they really don't like might win.That may be; I've noticed that quite a lot of people only supported him because he was the Republican candidate, and never liked that he was an outsider, who didn't fit the same mold as the career politicians in the party. But that said; most of those people would never vote for a Democrat. They just wouldn't vote; and yet Biden somehow set a new record for number of votes received in a presidential election, despite being deeply unpopular within his own party.
So how come that logic didn't hold true when Bush Jr. ran for a second term? I mean, the man was rather hated by Democrats in 2004, and yet he still won handily. I suppose you could argue that Trump was more hated (though in comparison, it was far less justified), but that still doesn't explain how Biden managed to beat even Obama in terms of total votes received. There's also the fact that the recent audit in Maricopa County found around ninety six thousand potentially fraudulent votes; which makes one think that there are far more out there to discover.Something similar could be said about a fair number of people who voted for Biden: they were never going to vote Republican and don't bother with voting unless it looks like a Republican they really don't like might win.
In 2016, those Democrats stayed home because it looked like Hillary was going to win with ease.
In 2020, those same Democrats did not stay home because four more years of Trump in the White House was something they did not want.
In 2004 John Kerry was put foreward as the alternative to Bush Jr. and, um, how about NO! Personally, I preferred the Texasshat to the Masshole because Bush Jr. was the lesser of two evils.So how come that logic didn't hold true when Bush Jr. ran for a second term? I mean, the man was rather hated by Democrats in 2004, and yet he still won handily. I suppose you could argue that Trump was more hated (though in comparison, it was far less justified), but that still doesn't explain how Biden managed to beat even Obama in terms of total votes received. There's also the fact that the recent audit in Maricopa County found around ninety six thousand potentially fraudulent votes; which makes one think that there are far more out there to discover.
That's interesting; because I remember at least some Democrats expressing similar sentiment about Biden during the primary, in that they considered him to be the greater evil.In 2004 John Kerry was put foreward as the alternative to Bush Jr. and, um, how about NO! Personally, I preferred the Texasshat to the Masshole because Bush Jr. was the lesser of two evils.
Really? Pretty much everyone I've known who is even slightly to the left, and even a good number who lean right generally, were of the opinion that Ed the talking horse would be better than trump. Possibly it's different "on the ground" in the US, but can you point to a single pre-election tweet, article or anything from a "left winger" saying Biden was worse than trump?That's interesting; because I remember at least some Democrats expressing similar sentiment about Biden during the primary, in that they considered him to be the greater evil.
That may be; I've noticed that quite a lot of people only supported him because he was the Republican candidate, and never liked that he was an outsider, who didn't fit the same mold as the career politicians in the party. But that said; most of those people would never vote for a Democrat. They just wouldn't vote; and yet Biden somehow set a new record for number of votes received in a presidential election, despite being deeply unpopular within his own party.
You must not know me then. Or Bacle. Or... look; I could go on, but I think I've made my point to anyone who's willing to listen. In any event, if you were paying attention at all during the primaries, especially around the time Biden was being accused of sexual assault, you would have noticed people saying that sort of thing; particularly Bernie Sanders supporters, who were unlikely to support Biden as the Democrat nominee.Really? Pretty much everyone I've known who is even slightly to the left, and even a good number who lean right generally, were of the opinion that Ed the talking horse would be better than trump. Possibly it's different "on the ground" in the US, but can you point to a single pre-election tweet, article or anything from a "left winger" saying Biden was worse than trump?
So... A handful of personal anecdotal evidence? I did indeed notice a couple of voices saying that kinda thing. They were notable for being borderline unique though. You say you could go on, and I'd love for you to do so. You've given two examples, I bet you can't hit ten. Seriously, even if it's random FB screenshots or twitter posts from nobodies. Trump may have pulled a small group from democrats to republicans, but it was not a statistically significant movement.You must not know me then. Or Bacle. Or... look; I could go on, but I think I've made my point to anyone who's willing to listen. In any event, if you were paying attention at all during the primaries, especially around the time Biden was being accused of sexual assault, you would have noticed people saying that sort of thing; particularly Bernie Sanders supporters, who were unlikely to support Biden as the Democrat nominee.