Trump Post Election News.

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
I am pretty sure he did win popular vote in 2020. Voter fraud made it seem like he didnt.
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?
 

bintananth

behind a desk
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?
To put that 7 million into perspective: there are 36 states with state populations of less than 7 million.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
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.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
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.
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.)
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
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."

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.
 

Doomsought

Well-known member
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.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
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.)
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.



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.
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.
 

strunkenwhite

Well-known member
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.
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 would say it's illogical to assume Clinton cheated to pad the vote in states she was legitimately winning by a lot already.
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.
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.
domeocrats
Is this a typo or wordplay I don't understand?
 

bintananth

behind a desk
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 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.

If Bush Jr.'s supporters were cheating, and some probably were, they didn't botch it because Al Gore was slightly more popular and still lost.

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.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
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.
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 would say it's illogical to assume Clinton cheated to pad the vote in states she was legitimately winning by a lot already.
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.



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.
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.

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.
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.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
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.
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.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
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.
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.
 

bintananth

behind a desk
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.
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.

As for Biden (and Trump) getting more votes than Obama did: "No More Trump" and "We Want Trump" convinced a lot of people who otherwise wouldn't vote to vote instead of taking a nap on election day.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
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.
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.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
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.
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?
 

Airedale260

Well-known member
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.

Actually it's not because Trump was an outsider -in fact that is actually how he got the nomination in the first place. One can be a successful outsider and retain the loyalty of the establishment (as Ronald Reagan did).

Rather, it's because Trump did a number of things no sensible person (not just a politician) would do, like wasting time trying to prove the crowds for his inauguration were bigger than Obama's and using satellite imagery to prove it (they weren't and the imagery didn't). Or doing things like demanding he personally interview an applicant for the job of DOJ spokesman because said applicant had previously made a couple of published remarks critical of Trump. Or get pissy when his subordinates would either refuse to break or at least strongly bend the laws (and risk provoking a constitutional crisis or scandal), or tell him things he didn't want to hear or believe and take those as a personal attack.

As for how Biden got more votes...well, so did Trump as was pointed out earlier in this thread. It's a combination of 1) absentee ballots being used in the states to a much greater degree than they were in 2016, 2) Trump motivating his opponents to vote as much if not more than his own supporters, and 3) also population growth.

You're right that, in normal circumstances, people would just grumble and stay home, but between the extra motivation to go as well as the increased availability of mail-in ballots, the 2020 election was quite different from normal.

As for the Maricopa County thing...that hasn't really been borne out when there have been three audits done, only one of which is claiming what's cited in that story (and the full results of which haven't actually been made public).

As for Bush? (Note to all: he isn't a "junior" you can just say 'W' as opposed to 'H.W.'). Pet peeve of mine...anyway. In 2004, Bush was overseeing what had been largely a response to the 9/11 attacks as well as what at that time was seen as a successful invasion of Iraq to get rid of Saddam. The trouble with Iraq and Afghanistan didn't really start to become apparent until after the election. So, between a country still very twitchy about terrorism as well as the overthrow of a guy who'd been a thorn in the side of the U.S. for well over a decade (as well as a decently growing economy), Bush was in a very strong position.

Trump didn't have that; instead, while he did get al-Baghdadi, the guy wasn't the household name Saddam and Osama were in terms of 'enemies of America" and, while he presided over a very strong economy, the perceptions people had over his public handling of COVID (like picking fights with the press and people like Fauci without going into details on WHY he had problems with them), plus making the election about himself rather than the issues...he ended up doing more harm to himself.

Also I'd like to see about these left wingers who thought Trump was the lesser evil as well, because I know of quite a few people (from center left to actual socialists) who all voted for Biden even if they weren't happy with him as the nominee, simply because they hated Trump that much.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
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?
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.
 

Megadeath

Well-known member
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.
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top