Election 2020 Election Fraud: Let's face it, this year will be a shitshow

[Blasterbot]

I have thought, and guess what, 90% of what Trump did/tried to do either didn't stick after he left, or was never effective to begin with.

And SCOTUS was less Trump and more Graham and McConnell.

Trump was only good as a bull in a china chop that made the elite and Dems drop the mask on things, he wasn't effective at actually governing or accomplishing much that was lasting.

The populism Trump embodied is not dead, far from it, however DeSantis is far, far more effective at actually accomplishing shit via gov mechanism, rather than think a tweet or off-the-cuff remark was good enough to create policy around, like Trump tried to on multiple occasions.

I think this is a naive view point that writes off a large part of the population, the part most key to actually winning elections, as too dumb to deal with, and is effectively saying the GOP has no hope for anything but local gains in the future.

If it wasn't trump and instead was jeb bush or one of the others? they would have lost to Hilary. and then those would be 2-3 dem seats added to the court. meaning McConnel's plan to kick the can on the court pick would have backfired. it needed to be trump to win that election. without him the GOP was a dying party. I certainly would have been unmotivated to vote for them. I know many who also would not have.

I am not writing them off. they may understand now and be willing to vote for a different party. but if they aren't going to vote trump they would not vote desantis. if they aren't willing to vote in a manner that will help them they will vote in a manner that hurts the country. themselves included. If you believe that the "moderates" are not at that point yet? maybe by 2028 they will be. and if not then they can keep voting for what will rot america and keep winnning. I am sure we could survive what comes. it won't be fun. the world would be worse if the US loses its status as hegemon. but if they insist on this we will.

 

[Zachowon]

Trump will not win in 2024 even without cheating by the dems.

 

[Blasterbot]

Trump will not win in 2024 even without cheating by the dems.

then you better hope the dems get a good candidate. Kennedy may not be too awful. he is pretty bad in most respects and I would never vote for him. If a far left guy gets in we will be bent over the barrel. maybe china will play nice with the rest of the world.

 

[S'task]

If it wasn't trump and instead was jeb bush or one of the others? they would have lost to Hilary.

Jeb Bush may have lost to Hillary, but Rubio, Cruz, or anyone else who were more between the Establishment and Populists would have trounced her as badly if not MORESO than Trump.

You seem to be forgetting that in 2015 the Media went all in giving Trump as much airtime and support as it possibly could. This was because Clinton was a HISTORICALLY bad candidate from an electability position, she was the most unpopular person to ever run for office and while she had a huge amount of the Dem power brokers in her pocket, she turned off large swaths of their rank and file (remember, she actually got FEWER votes than Obama did in his 2012 reelection campaign, not just a lower percent, fewer votes IN TOTAL). Their internal polling consistently showed this, with her best chance at winning being against Trump or Jeb, with other Republicans either with much narrower losses OR outright beating her.

While we cannot be sure, the assumed "Trump effect" later studies have shown to be largely overblown, at MOST he MIGHT have accelerated a voter realignment (rust belt middle class from D to R), but that shift was underway long before Trump, tracing back to W Bush in 2000. To really see this, look at W. Virginia's voting history, prior to 2000 it only went to Republicans in true High Sweep elections (Reagan 84, Nixon 72), all other elections it was reliably D, until 2000 when it flipped to R and has remained solidly red ever since, with adjoining states that are also part of the Rust Belt being more swingy.

This idea that ONLY Trump could have won against Hillary is a brainbug that's not actually brought out by FACTS. Cruz could have fired up the base and GOTV as much as Trump did. Rubio would have peeled off massive amounts of Hispanic support and likely would have WIDENED the victory in Florida over Trump (Bear in mind, Rubio got MORE VOTES in Florida in his 2016 Senate election than Trump did with 4.8 million votes compared to Trump's 4.6 million (which was barely above Hillary's 4.5 million). Based on those numbers, it's arguable Trump rode in on Rubio's coattails in Florida. And while there was no Texas senate race in 2016, there was one is 2020, where Texas' less well known Senator, Senator Cornyn ALSO outperformed Trump. In fact, when you look at the 2016 election in all the critical states for Trump's victory that ALSO had a Senate race that year, the Republican candidate for Senate OUTPERFORMED Trump's vote total. This is not usual voting patterns for a presidential elections, as usually more people vote for the President than down ballot races.

 

[Sobek]

Why? "Baggage"?

 

[Blasterbot]

Jeb Bush may have lost to Hillary, but Rubio, Cruz, or anyone else who were more between the Establishment and Populists would have trounced her as badly if not MORESO than Trump.

You seem to be forgetting that in 2015 the Media went all in giving Trump as much airtime and support as it possibly could. This was because Clinton was a HISTORICALLY bad candidate from an electability position, she was the most unpopular person to ever run for office and while she had a huge amount of the Dem power brokers in her pocket, she turned off large swaths of their rank and file (remember, she actually got FEWER votes than Obama did in his 2012 reelection campaign, not just a lower percent, fewer votes IN TOTAL). Their internal polling consistently showed this, with her best chance at winning being against Trump or Jeb, with other Republicans either with much narrower losses OR outright beating her.

While we cannot be sure, the assumed "Trump effect" later studies have shown to be largely overblown, at MOST he MIGHT have accelerated a voter realignment (rust belt middle class from D to R), but that shift was underway long before Trump, tracing back to W Bush in 2000. To really see this, look at W. Virginia's voting history, prior to 2000 it only went to Republicans in true High Sweep elections (Reagan 84, Nixon 72), all other elections it was reliably D, until 2000 when it flipped to R and has remained solidly red ever since, with adjoining states that are also part of the Rust Belt being more swingy.

This idea that ONLY Trump could have won against Hillary is a brainbug that's not actually brought out by FACTS. Cruz could have fired up the base and GOTV as much as Trump did. Rubio would have peeled off massive amounts of Hispanic support and likely would have WIDENED the victory in Florida over Trump (Bear in mind, Rubio got MORE VOTES in Florida in his 2016 Senate election than Trump did with 4.8 million votes compared to Trump's 4.6 million (which was barely above Hillary's 4.5 million). Based on those numbers, it's arguable Trump rode in on Rubio's coattails in Florida. And while there was no Texas senate race in 2016, there was one is 2020, where Texas' less well known Senator, Senator Cornyn ALSO outperformed Trump. In fact, when you look at the 2016 election in all the critical states for Trump's victory that ALSO had a Senate race that year, the Republican candidate for Senate OUTPERFORMED Trump's vote total. This is not usual voting patterns for a presidential elections, as usually more people vote for the President than down ballot races.

nope. those people would not have reached the same disaffected group trump did. Trump got people who had given up on politics for decades that everyone wrote off to turn out. trump brought a massive group to the republican party. a group that has been spat on for a while and that the establishment republicans find boorish and uncouth. unfortunately for them they have to maintain that group or they will lose. you needed the rust belt to flip and trump did that. you would have been looking at a Romney repeat year with the rest of those guys. Cruz did not fire up the base back then. he needed to crib off of trumps play book to get where he is on the right. Rubio? nope. the Republican party needed to crib off MAGA to try and retain those votes. unfortunately they are obsessed with trying to half ass it while kicking Trump to the curb. this will lose them their base. when trump was there they voted down ballot and the never trumpers never trumped. if trump wasn't there the never trumpers would have been there for you but you would not have those gains. you want the Romney numbers back? you can get them.

 

[Terthna]

Jeb Bush may have lost to Hillary, but Rubio, Cruz, or anyone else who were more between the Establishment and Populists would have trounced her as badly if not MORESO than Trump.

You seem to be forgetting that in 2015 the Media went all in giving Trump as much airtime and support as it possibly could. This was because Clinton was a HISTORICALLY bad candidate from an electability position, she was the most unpopular person to ever run for office and while she had a huge amount of the Dem power brokers in her pocket, she turned off large swaths of their rank and file (remember, she actually got FEWER votes than Obama did in his 2012 reelection campaign, not just a lower percent, fewer votes IN TOTAL). Their internal polling consistently showed this, with her best chance at winning being against Trump or Jeb, with other Republicans either with much narrower losses OR outright beating her.

While we cannot be sure, the assumed "Trump effect" later studies have shown to be largely overblown, at MOST he MIGHT have accelerated a voter realignment (rust belt middle class from D to R), but that shift was underway long before Trump, tracing back to W Bush in 2000. To really see this, look at W. Virginia's voting history, prior to 2000 it only went to Republicans in true High Sweep elections (Reagan 84, Nixon 72), all other elections it was reliably D, until 2000 when it flipped to R and has remained solidly red ever since, with adjoining states that are also part of the Rust Belt being more swingy.

This idea that ONLY Trump could have won against Hillary is a brainbug that's not actually brought out by FACTS. Cruz could have fired up the base and GOTV as much as Trump did. Rubio would have peeled off massive amounts of Hispanic support and likely would have WIDENED the victory in Florida over Trump (Bear in mind, Rubio got MORE VOTES in Florida in his 2016 Senate election than Trump did with 4.8 million votes compared to Trump's 4.6 million (which was barely above Hillary's 4.5 million). Based on those numbers, it's arguable Trump rode in on Rubio's coattails in Florida. And while there was no Texas senate race in 2016, there was one is 2020, where Texas' less well known Senator, Senator Cornyn ALSO outperformed Trump. In fact, when you look at the 2016 election in all the critical states for Trump's victory that ALSO had a Senate race that year, the Republican candidate for Senate OUTPERFORMED Trump's vote total. This is not usual voting patterns for a presidential elections, as usually more people vote for the President than down ballot races.

Trump may not have been the only person who could have beaten Hillary, but I'd argue he was hands down the best candidate that could have in that primary by a country mile. All the others would have just given the establishment everything it wanted without question.

 

[Bacle]

Trump may not have been the only person who could have beaten Hillary, but I'd argue he was hands down the best candidate that could have in that primary by a country mile. All the others would have just given the establishment everything it wanted without question.

Wasn't Rand Paul in that primary; he might have been able to do what Trump did.

Cruz and Rubio may have kept some Never-Trumpers on board, however...I'm not sure either of them would have flipped Michigan and Wisconsin. Paul might have been able to flip those, like Trump did, while onboarding significant Libertarian vote.

Because people here keep forgetting there is a thrid party out there that has electoral power, even if some of their policies make the Ferengi look like OSHA supervisors.

 

[LordsFire]

Wasn't Rand Paul in that primary; he might have been able to do what Trump did.

Cruz and Rubio may have kept some Never-Trumpers on board, however...I'm not sure either of them would have flipped Michigan and Wisconsin. Paul might have been able to flip those, like Trump did, while onboarding significant Libertarian vote.

Because people here keep forgetting there is a thrid party out there that has electoral power, even if some of their policies make the Ferengi look like OSHA supervisors.

...The Libertarian party has electoral power? Have they ever won 2% of the vote in a Presidential?

 

[Blasterbot]

Wasn't Rand Paul in that primary; he might have been able to do what Trump did.

Cruz and Rubio may have kept some Never-Trumpers on board, however...I'm not sure either of them would have flipped Michigan and Wisconsin. Paul might have been able to flip those, like Trump did, while onboarding significant Libertarian vote.

Because people here keep forgetting there is a thrid party out there that has electoral power, even if some of their policies make the Ferengi look like OSHA supervisors.

OK fair. if it was Rand life would be good. i doubt it would have happened but he would have been great. on the libertarian party I would not have voted for them pre mises caucus but now they are better.

 

[Bacle]

...The Libertarian party has electoral power? Have they ever won 2% of the vote in a Presidential?

They can and have played spoiler for Dems against the GOP before, do have/hold local office in a larger and larger amount of states, and Trump did manage to get a lot of Libertarian backing in 2016.

You may not like their politics, but in fair elections Libertarians are often part of that swing 10%.

 

[Blasterbot]

I would settle for them getting on the debate stage if the republicans can't win with or without trump. they probably won't take their pants off on stage during the debate now that the Mises caucus is running things.

 

[Zachowon]

then you better hope the dems get a good candidate. Kennedy may not be too awful. he is pretty bad in most respects and I would never vote for him. If a far left guy gets in we will be bent over the barrel. maybe china will play nice with the rest of the world.

Trump will not win because he can not win the independent or moderate voters.
He is to negative, and has become to much of a bad taste for them.
They are patt of the reason most of his backwd people didnt win in the general elections last year

They can and have played spoiler for Dems against the GOP before, do have/hold local office in a larger and larger amount of states, and Trump did manage to get a lot of Libertarian backing in 2016.

You may not like their politics, but in fair elections Libertarians are often part of that swing 10%.

And are the reason the dems control the senate still

 

[S'task]

nope. those people would not have reached the same disaffected group trump did. Trump got people who had given up on politics for decades that everyone wrote off to turn out. trump brought a massive group to the republican party. a group that has been spat on for a while and that the establishment republicans find boorish and uncouth. unfortunately for them they have to maintain that group or they will lose. you needed the rust belt to flip and trump did that. you would have been looking at a Romney repeat year with the rest of those guys. Cruz did not fire up the base back then. he needed to crib off of trumps play book to get where he is on the right. Rubio? nope. the Republican party needed to crib off MAGA to try and retain those votes. unfortunately they are obsessed with trying to half ass it while kicking Trump to the curb. this will lose them their base. when trump was there they voted down ballot and the never trumpers never trumped. if trump wasn't there the never trumpers would have been there for you but you would not have those gains. you want the Romney numbers back? you can get them.

(Citation needed). I've seen this claimed numerous times, but I've never actually seen anything to actually BACK these claims up. The supposed people he "reactivated" are primarily people in the Rust Belt and Appalachians. In neither of those places did Trump do any different than many Republican candidates had in the past with a single expection.

To make sure folks understand the places we're talking about. The Appalachian states are Pennsylvania, Maryland*, West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Meanwhile the Rust Belt States are Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and being generous Wisconsin.

You know which of those States was unique to Trump from the past two Republican Presidents? Wisconsin. Every other State in those lists either was and remained solid Democrat (Maryland), or had swung between Democrats and Republicans in that period (literally every other State). West Virginia had moved to the R column ENTIRELY by 2000 and had not changed since. Indiana likewise was solid R EXCEPT for 2008. Ohio had been a bellwether state for decades, going for the winner in every election going back decades UNTIL 2020. Meanwhile, Trump UNDERPERFORMED Romney in Virginia in 2016, which Obama had managed to turn D in 2008 but barely lost. Where are those supposed dissatisfied voters in Appalachia in one of the States with the largest swath of the Appalachian mountains in the country?

Meanwhile the rest of the Appalachian corridor WAS safe R territory. Kentucky and Tennessee had not voted for a Democrat since 1996 (and like W. Virginia they'd shifted to the Rs in 2000 and remains solid since). N. Carolina was more debatable as it had gone for Obama in 2008, but had gone back to the Rs for ROMNEY for goodness sake, and polling there generally put Rs ahead and, oh, N.Carolina was another State where the Republican Senate candidate GOT MORE VOTES than Trump did (also winning his race). South Carolina had been solid R since 1976 and was another State where the Republican senator outperformed Trump. Georgia likewise was long term R and again, saw their senator outperform Trump.

So in the Appalachian corridor we don't see Trump changing ANYTHING. Now, the Rust Belt is more favorable to Trump in this analysis. Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin being in play ARE quite probably due to Trump... but here's the thing: someone like Rubio likely could have seen Virginia, New Hampshire, and other States in play that Trump didn't, and if the Rs pick up, say, Virginia in 2016 they wouldn't need ANY of the non-regularly R voting Rust Belt states that Trump won to win (all they'd need to keep were Indiana (a gimmee) and Ohio (also highly likely with a generic R vs Clinton)). Finally, those states Trump won? He then proceeded to lose them all, and more, in 2020, losing Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Arizona.

Now, let me guess, this is where you claim "vote fraud". Let's say that I agree with you, that all those states were stolen in 2020. What's you're plan for Trump having a chance there in 2024? Which states that he lost in 2020 can he flip back to win in 2024? How do you propose he overcome the margin of fraud in the Rust Belt states in order to recapture them? He burned his bridges with the Arizona and Georgia GOP, and the Dems resolidified their control of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Given how much antipathy towards Trump is on the other side, and their willingness to do everything they can to stop him from having power (you need to remember, the Dems and media basically painted Trump as a existential threat to the Republic in a way they had not done to any Republican before, and they cannot pull that same stunt off again because other candidates are not Trump and do not engender the same strong response in people Trump did... and that strong response is, in large part, why they COULD get away with the fraud they did, because people thought they were saving the Republic. Against any other Republican candidate they'd not be able to engender the same amount of panic and danger they did with Trump, they don't have the time to, nor the specific events to.

---------------
* Only by strictest definition, the amount of Maryland in the Appalachians is negligible, hence why it never swings R due to the small amount of rural and Appalachian areas compared to the urban cooridore that is DC-Baltimore-Annapolis

 

[Bacle]

And are the reason the dems control the senate still

Yep, the margin in the Georgia race was such that the Libertarian votes were enough to be a deciding factor.

Pretty sure they spoiled another race as well, just forget if it was one of the AZ races, or one of the one's in New England.

I may not agree with all their politics, but I cannot deny their electoral power in swing/key races, and Trump picked some crap candidates to back.

 

[Zachowon]

GA GOP has basically pushed away Trump even though he has a large voter base there.
Kemp, who basically had pushed away Trump, beat his dem competition handedly. Yet the Trump backed senate race lost.
Trump has lost GA, because our good governor who has done more for our state then a vast amount of others, and has kept to what he believes.
Losing Kemps support lost the state for Trump even with Fraud.

Yep, the margin in the Georgia race was such that the Libertarian votes were enough to be a deciding factor.

Pretty sure they spoiled another race as well, just forget if it was one of the AZ races, or one of the one's in New England.

I may not agree with all their politics, but I cannot deny their electoral power in swing/key races, and Trump picked some crap candidates to back.

Yes he did, and helps prove that Trump is not the end all be all, every republican votes for him, and every independent does as well.
Nope, not how it happens

 

[Blasterbot]

almost as much text as a leftist meme

Cool story. you are right. I don't got receipts. just what I have seen. Just what I have observed starting late 2015 early 2016. just obsessively listening to literally thousands of hours of political content referencing this stuff a year. maybe your right. maybe if you kick trump to the curb you will see literally 0% drop off from your base. ask Liz Cheney how that worked out. Maybe if you get Desantis in he will be the best president since George Washington. I doubt it. I won't convince you. I won't convince Bacle. and I won't convince Zach. I will posit the following. we may both be correct in our assessments. that having trump means the needed "moderates" who cannot set aside his odious personality will not vote for him. and that if the republican party ditches trump in a way that pisses off his base? they will not win.

 

[S'task]

will posit the following. we may both be correct in our assessments. that having trump means the needed "moderates" who cannot set aside his odious personality will not vote for him. and that if the republican party ditches trump in a way that pisses off his base? they will not win.

I'm actually in full agreement with you on these. I'm not advocating for the establishment to forcefully eject Trump, that would be committing electoral suicide as surely as running Trump is, because you're right, it WOULD turn off much of the R base if the Party Establishment did to Trump what was done to Sanders in 2016, and rightly too, heck, pulling some backroom deal to keep him out would piss ME off and, as you note, I'm hardly pro-Trump, but I've fucking had it with the Establishment for a LOT longer than you have (let me tell you, all you Trump people who only started hating the establishment when it turn on Trump, y'all are LATE to the party, I'd seen their betrayal of the populist outsider YEARS earlier...).

There's only two ways forward out of this mess that sees the Republicans having a shot at winning the 2024 general, and both involve Trump being something he's not: a humble loser. Ideally Trump should bow out of the 2024 race and instead literally act as kingmaker. Whoever he backs, unless it's some really crazy outsider with no connections, is likely to win the R primary, and then campaign to the hilt for that person in Trump country while giving them enough space to establish themselves as separate from Trump for those uncomfortable moderates.

The second route would be a clean Primary season that Trump loses and he accepts the loss and backs the winner to the hilt.

Yeah, I've become less and less optimistic regarding the R chances in 2024 as time has gone on, in large part thanks to Trump.

 

[Terthna]

I'm actually in full agreement with you on these. I'm not advocating for the establishment to forcefully eject Trump, that would be committing electoral suicide as surely as running Trump is, because you're right, it WOULD turn off much of the R base if the Party Establishment did to Trump what was done to Sanders in 2016, and rightly too, heck, pulling some backroom deal to keep him out would piss ME off and, as you note, I'm hardly pro-Trump, but I've fucking had it with the Establishment for a LOT longer than you have (let me tell you, all you Trump people who only started hating the establishment when it turn on Trump, y'all are LATE to the party, I'd seen their betrayal of the populist outsider YEARS earlier...).

There's only two ways forward out of this mess that sees the Republicans having a shot at winning the 2024 general, and both involve Trump being something he's not: a humble loser. Ideally Trump should bow out of the 2024 race and instead literally act as kingmaker. Whoever he backs, unless it's some really crazy outsider with no connections, is likely to win the R primary, and then campaign to the hilt for that person in Trump country while giving them enough space to establish themselves as separate from Trump for those uncomfortable moderates.

The second route would be a clean Primary season that Trump loses and he accepts the loss and backs the winner to the hilt.

Yeah, I've become less and less optimistic regarding the R chances in 2024 as time has gone on, in large part thanks to Trump.

Thing is, even if he did go the kingmaker route, we've already seen thanks to the 2022 midterms that the controlled opposition GOP establishment would sabotage anyone he backs to ensure they lose; even though it meant their party lost power.

 

[Cherico]

Thing is, even if he did go the kingmaker route, we've already seen thanks to the 2022 midterms that the controlled opposition GOP establishment would sabotage anyone he backs to ensure they lose; even though it meant their party lost power.

I'm honestly surprised that so many of them got purged already, I expected that process to take much longer than it has. Like I expected at least 20 more years of Liz cheney.