Election 2020 From the perspective of US history, which would have been a more suspicious outcome of the 2020 election?

[raharris1973]

From the perspective of US history, which would have been a more suspicious outcome of the 2020 election?

Biden winning

or

Trump winning

I would note that Trump winning reelection would have broken precedent with him being the fourth reelected President in a row.
Aside from the specifics of the particular year, a one-termer was probably pretty likely to come up at least once in a stretch of 28 years (1992-2020)

 

[Terthna]

From the perspective of US history, which would have been a more suspicious outcome of the 2020 election?

Biden winning

or

Trump winning

I would note that Trump winning reelection would have broken precedent with him being the fourth reelected President in a row.
Aside from the specifics of the particular year, a one-termer was probably pretty likely to come up at least once in a stretch of 28 years (1992-2020)

I could just as easily argue that Trump not winning broke precedent with the vast majority of presidents who got re-elected for a second term, compared to the small minority who did not. What makes the election "suspicious" wasn't the result (or at least not primarily the result; Biden was a supremely unpopular candidate, even within his own party); it was the blatant and widespread fraud that was allowed to happen, as well as the still-ongoing efforts to discredit and/or silence (sometimes violently) anyone who tried to point any of it out and stop it.

 

[Bigking321]

If you look at the various bellweathers and mathematical probabilities Biden winning at around 8:00 pm was incredibly unlikely.

Fortunately, they found and dropped off huge amounts of mail in ballots with no chains of custody hours after the deadlines giving Biden a practically impossible victory.

Equally fortunately for biden republican observers legally required to be there were barred from entry from the counting places because of sudden covid restrictions. And all the videos of people blocking windows with cardboard and such so no one could see in.

And of course if you bring any of this up you are immediately declared anti democracy and a conspiracy theorist.

Not suspicious at all.

 

[Laskar]

From the perspective of US history, which would have been a more suspicious outcome of the 2020 election?

Biden winning

or

Trump winning

I would note that Trump winning reelection would have broken precedent with him being the fourth reelected President in a row.
Aside from the specifics of the particular year, a one-termer was probably pretty likely to come up at least once in a stretch of 28 years (1992-2020)

Obviously, I think that Trump winning would have been the least suspicious outcome of the 2020 election. I don't think that the precedent-breaking nature of a fourth second term has as much predictive power as the bellweather counties.

 

[ATP]

TRump win.Unfortunatelly for USA,Biden win counting votes.Like in all good commie states.

 

[bintananth]

Trump winning.

We can go back and forth about 2020 election fraud all day but he didn't win the popular vote in 2016 and wouldn't have been a President running for re-election if that decided things.

 

[Bigking321]

Fortunately the popular vote is worth literally nothing and doesn't decide anything.

I'm certainly grateful California and New York don't rule the rest of the country. They are busy enough destroying their own stuff.

 

[LordsFire]

What's suspicious isn't the result, in and of itself.

It's the absolutely unyielding determination by the Democrats to resist any and all audits. If they believed they'd won fair and square, they would welcome audits, so that they could have proof in hand while laughing at Republican 'conspiracy theories.'

The iron-clad resistance to any form of election integrity tells you all you need to know about whether or not the Democrat leadership thinks they actually won legitimately.

 

[Cherico]

What's suspicious isn't the result, in and of itself.

It's the absolutely unyielding determination by the Democrats to resist any and all audits. If they believed they'd won fair and square, they would welcome audits, so that they could have proof in hand while laughing at Republican 'conspiracy theories.'

The iron-clad resistance to any form of election integrity tells you all you need to know about whether or not the Democrat leadership thinks they actually won legitimately.

it often isnt the crime that shows you up its the cover up.

 

[Terthna]

Trump winning.

We can go back and forth about 2020 election fraud all day but he didn't win the popular vote in 2016 and wouldn't have been a President running for re-election if that decided things.

Oh please; the Democrats were committing widespread voting fraud even then. Or did you forget the results that came out of Jill Stien's aborted attempt at a recount? You'd have to be a fool to argue that he didn't win the popular vote in 2016, without accounting and compensating for that fact; as the official results were complete bunk.