@dave
Do you mean before or after the 2am mail in votes gets added?
Final numbers ended up being fairly close to polling. Trump wasn't robbed, he just lost.
And speaking of polling, it's currently looking very favorable for republicans. People are fed up.
@dave
I wish I was able to even pretend to believe things that you actually do.
@dave
> That democrats were more likely to use mail-in ballots during the pandemic
Sure. what ratio would you expect? 60:40? 55:45?
That the final results roughly matched polling?
Yes, I believe, that polling is bullshit, especially, if a leftie asks someone reasonable. If someone were to call me today, trust me, that diversity would be my strength...
But the main problem is this.
1) The democrats were boasting about the fact they will cheat. They were even openly calling for it.
2) This had to be THE most transparent election. Yet, all I heard was democrats saying, that even questioning the results was an attack on THEIR democracy.
3) The mere fact, that mail in voting was possible is a problem.
4) The push to get rid of trump was so well planned, they managed to
4.1) Get an universal excuse to stop anyone from questioning the integrity of election
4.2) Get a shiny object (Jan 6th) to distract attention and scare republicans by demonstrating brute force
4.3) Banned Trump from all social media WHILE HE WAS A PRESIDENT. (again, to demonstrate force)
If you get a group screaming against transparent election, I am sorry, but I simply cannot believe, that they aren't hiding something. Simple as that.
Sure. what ratio would you expect? 60:40? 55:45?
Much higher. See attached. In a lot of states the spread was huge, and there was evidence that this was going to be the case before the election, hence the term “The Red Mirage”. One of my preferred political commentators, Kyle Kulinski, was calling this a few days before the election, since many states count their mail-in ballots after the in-person ones.
Note that we saw the opposite trend in Texas, where counties started counting their ballots before election day, and so had a lot of them counted when election night began.
The people that love to point to the charts where Trump was leading early in the night but then flipped to Biden at 2AM don’t really have a good answer when you point out that this same phenomenon made it look like Biden had a chance of winning Texas for a while, even though he didn’t.
@dave
Yes, this is the final data.
You have shown me the result, not the cause.
The cause is that the democrats were taking the pandemic more seriously. Don’t you remember how it was blue states that did lockdowns first, tended to have stricter masking requirements, etc.? You had people like Candace Owens bragging about how many needless errands she was running, claiming COVID was overblown, etc?
@dave
"what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."
Exactly my point.
The election was not transparent. Therefore the result was asserted without evidence.
@dave
Tell me, what is the unreasonable claim, that needs extraordinary proof?
1) The control of one of the richest nations in the world was decided without any manipulation
2) Someone who bragged about cheating, who attacked people for questioning the results and fought against transparent election on every single oportunity MIGHT have cheated
@dave
Oh, realy?
And what else do you think I am supposed to be talking about?
Elections must be transparent, and cannot be trusted otherwise. If you cannot agree with this, then I have a bridge I would like to sell you. (You'll be rich if you tax it properly.)
"attacked people for questioning the results" is more vague bullshit. Who attacked who? In what manner were the results questioned? What was the "attack" in response?
> Elections must be transparent
Yes, and they were. If you disagree, give me specifics. What part of the election process do you believe was hidden that shouldn't have been?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/05/media/detroit-windows-covered-ballots-vote-center/index.html
>use fake polling to drive narrative
>come Election Day, count ballots in secret
>wow look at that we were right all along yay democracy
Is that what you were trying to set me up for?
What you’ve presented is an interesting lead for potential fraud, but what you’re telling me that in 2 years no Trump supporters followed up on this lead to find out whether there was actual fraud?
If there was fraud, then there should be some kind of evidence of it in the data. An anomalously high number of votes, a shift towards Biden that deviates from polling in the county, etc.
Also, no, polling isn’t bullshit. In 2016, maybe you saw some dumb projections that claimed HRC had like a 97% chance to win, but those were based on cherry-picked polls. Looking at all of them, 538 projected her chances of winning at something like 71%.
71% is by no means a foregone conclusion. Play some poker and you’ll understand what losing almost 30% of the time feels like. Hillary was only favored to win, not a shoe-in.
In the end, Trump only won like 1% more of the popular vote than he was projected to. But that 1% was enough, because it was a tighter race than CNN wanted to admit.
And then what happened in 2020? Biden was further ahead in polling, 538 had him at like 90% based on all polling data, and even though Trump once again slightly outperformed polling, it wasn’t enough to overcome the gap.
“Polling is bullshit” is bullshit. There’s a margin of error where you sometimes get surprises in close races, but Trump’s 2016 victory wasn’t only really a surprise if you cherrypicked your polling data.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etx0k1nLn78
@polarisera @dave @Matty
His baseline is the polling data...
It is comparing two data points from the same person.
That is about as reliable, as asking a suspect if he commited a crime, and then asking him who does he believe did it instead.
@polarisera @Matty
Also, I don't think you understand exactly my point.
There is a common english phrase @dave "A Matter of Life and Death".
It is meant to signify a situation of highest importance.
Well, election is not a question of one "Life and Death". It is a question of War and Peace. That is "A Matter of Life and Death" times the popullation of your nation times 2.
This is not something, where you can afford questioning it years later. If people have a "reasonable doubt" about the results, you failed at the ONE JOB, that was holding the illusion of choice over your life.
On that night, the democracy in the US had died. All, because some elites didn't want a guy who sends mean Tweets.
Off topic, but holy shit this guy is a 2016 throwback to T_D lol
I write shorter responses, you complain because I’m not responding to everything, but this is why. Because you don’t like to read at any length unless you expect it’s going to tell you what you want to hear.
At least I'm respecting you enough to just tell you I didn't read that shit. I'm not going to keep stringing you along in order to troll you.
I would think at this point you would know the way the media frames things and makes claims. It doesn't take a "rocket scientist" to realize this. If I, with my tiny nigger brain, can make these distinctions, I am sure you can as well.
I. do.
That's why I'm fucking citing 538, because they were a far better source of information for election projections than what you see on CNN.
Part of the reason so many on the left were so shocked by Trump's victory is that they were too far up their own asses and living in a bubble, although frankly this isn't a new thing. Hence the old joke “I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.”
I think you are claiming that polls are bullshit, because *the TV* told you that Trump didn't stand a chance in 2016, and then he won anyways. But his win wasn't that surprising with good analysis of the available polling data, only with bad analysis of it.
One, the media samples a very heavy weighted district (like D+50) and then claims that ANY% of Georgians want X to happen. The sample size will be like 400 people as well because larger sample sizes would indicate, even in weighted areas, at least *some* dissent.
Two, because it was revealed to me in a dream.
Consistently low quality comments, you my friend are blocked.
@dave @Matty
This is democracy... As long as it ends up as the Zog expects, it's working.
Btw, here's a collection. Quality will varry, but at least, I hope it will help you see why I have a problem with saying, that the election was perfectly transparent.
https://files.shittyurl.org/fraud.7z
@dave
> "attacked people for questioning the results" is more vague bullshit. Who attacked who? In what manner were the results questioned? What was the "attack" in response?
I quit.
I mentioned the Jan 6th hearings several times already. If you're still asking what do I mean, then this conversation is pointless.
You might have missed the source of the term "fortifying the election". The article talked openly about a secret cabal steering the wheels towards a desired result. If that's not bragging, I don't know what is.
@dave
Do you REALY want a proof?
Look at the Jan 6th hearings.
That is my proof.
All of the "proof" of mail-in ballot fraud that I've seen so far has been misrepresentation, or bad analysis in the case of that one guy claiming "anomalies" in Arizona or Nevada or whatever that "forgot" to include the sizeable portion of Independents in their analysis, rendering his findings worthless), or straight up fake news.
Audits were conducted in a lot of states, many with republican governors and leadership because they're swing states, and none of them found evidence of widespread fraud. Georgia even re-did their investigation like twice because people couldn't accept that Trump lost the state.
Anyways, to quote Hitchens, "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence."