[stokesjokes]

Well, the minority swing to Trump with Biden still winning is easy to explain: Trump lost significant ground in the biggest demographic in the country: white men. Lost 8 percentage points from 2016. And that’s not anomalous either. The 2018 Republican losses saw a significant shift in white men away from the party.

And you’re still thinking in terms of votes *for* Biden when comparing to what Obama got, when the data going in showed that a very large chunk of Biden votes were going to be votes *against* Trump. You can’t deny Trump’s polarizing nature, people have been fired up to get him out of office for 4 years.

[thepostman]

I think a lot of people underestimate how much people dislike Trump, including me. It was also easier for folks to vote that normally don't vote and there was a ton more registered voters this time around. All of those things combined worked in Biden's favor.


Just because something happens in a way we may not expect it does not mean the whole thing was a fraud.

Bottom line is, a lot of people don't like Trump. He lost and it wasn't some kind of conspiracy. It is just an impossible thing to pull off in such a widespread way.

[Purple Haize]

Well, the minority swing to Trump with Biden still winning is easy to explain: Trump lost significant ground in the biggest demographic in the country: white men. Lost 8 percentage points from 2016. And that’s not anomalous either. The 2018 Republican losses saw a significant shift in white men away from the party.

And you’re still thinking in terms of votes *for* Biden when comparing to what Obama got, when the data going in showed that a very large chunk of Biden votes were going to be votes *against* Trump. You can’t deny Trump’s polarizing nature, people have been fired up to get him out of office for 4 years.

But in the areas under dispute the loss of the White Male Voter shouldn’t have mattered. (I thought it was the Suburban Female Vote but whatever)
Yes Trump was polarizing but that works both ways. Trump GAINEd not lost support from 2016. So by your theory the HRC voters plus the Never Trumpers of 2016 were joined in such great numbers that they surged passed Trumps gains and Obama’s gains to be the highest vote getting President candidate ever? Sorry, can’t buy that. But again, can I prove it? Nope. But logically it makes 0 sense.

[Jonathan Carone]

Why is it so unbelievable that Biden could get more votes than Obama but it’s totally believable Trump can get more votes than Obama?

[Purple Haize]

I think a lot of people underestimate how much people dislike Trump, including me. It was also easier for folks to vote that normally don't vote and there was a ton more registered voters this time around. All of those things combined worked in Biden's favor.


Just because something happens in a way we may not expect it does not mean the whole thing was a fraud.

Bottom line is, a lot of people don't like Trump. He lost and it wasn't some kind of conspiracy. It is just an impossible thing to pull off in such a widespread way.

Again, it doesn’t have to be a broad conspiracy. Just targeted. Changing the election rules midstream was a recipe for disaster. Predicted by news outlets befor the General election even.

[Purple Haize]

Why is it so unbelievable that Biden could get more votes than Obama but it’s totally believable Trump can get more votes than Obama?

Putting Biden in the same category as those two in terms of a following and ability to get out the vote is laughable.
Trump got a lot of “Reagan Democrat” types along with the afore mentioned gains in just about every demographic. Out performed past elections in all but a few, very few, places. Which also had issues pre election with how they were handling their changes in the law.
Lookit I’m not going to change your mind. You hate all thingsTrump. So be it.

[thepostman]

You still really underestimate how much people don't like Trump.

For the record so did I. That is why I predicated Trump would win even though every poll said otherwise.

[Jonathan Carone]

But you admitted Trump’s polarization worked both ways. So if it galvanized Trump’s base to vote for him more than any other president in American history, and if it works both ways, why is it implausible that more people voted against Trump than in any other president in American history?

[stokesjokes]

Interestingly, women swung more towards Trump, but white suburban voters overall went more against Trump than in 2016.

You’re missing two things in your comparisons to past elections: population growth and voter enthusiasm. It’s not HRC voters and never Trumpers, it’s also a big chunk of people who didn’t vote in the last election. For instance, compared to Obama’s first run, there were 25 million more people in the US of eligible voting age, so pretty easy to make up ground on Obama’s vote totals there. Voter enthusiasm was up 19 whole percentage points from 2016 this time around so clearly a ton of people who didn’t vote in 2016 were going to show up this year.

I just don’t get how we swung from Biden being up significantly in all the national polls to winning by less of a margin than predicted to so many claiming that he couldn’t have possibly gotten so many votes. That’s what doesn’t make sense, people forming reactions based on emotions and cherry-picked exit polls when all the available data before the election suggested it would basically go the way it did.

[TH Spangler]

Voter enthusiasm was up 19 whole percentage points from 2016 this time around so clearly a ton of people who didn’t vote in 2016 were going to show up this year.

Who are you kidding, it was the mailing out of millions of unsolicited mail in ballots and vote harvesting. I still don't trust Dominion either.

[Purple Haize]

You still really underestimate how much people don't like Trump.

For the record so did I. That is why I predicated Trump would win even though every poll said otherwise.

I’m not sure that’s the case. In a Popular vote setting you would see that manifest by Biden out performing HRC in every Democrat hotbed. That didn’t happen. It did in just a few. The ones that are in contention. Biden underperformed by a lot. This was a close election It’s just not passing the smell test with me. Again, nothing has been proven or probably will be, so I deal with it and move on.

[Purple Haize]

I just don’t get how we swung from Biden being up significantly in all the national polls to winning by less of a margin than predicted to so many claiming that he couldn’t have possibly gotten so many votes. That’s what doesn’t make sense, people forming reactions based on emotions and cherry-picked exit polls when all the available data before the election suggested it would basically go the way it did.

These same polls and prognosticators said the GOP would lose about 15-20 seats in the House. The will GAIN about that many. So I’m not sure how that is helping the cause. Unless we are to believe that a massive number of people either split their ticket (plausible but tough) or voted for President only (even less plausible). I mean if you HATE Trump why would you just vote him out? Why would you not vote all his cronies out too? Not that hard to check the box for all D’s. Yes I know that some people split tickets (I did this year) and I know a few people vote for President only. But in the numbers that had to happen this year in order to get these results is credulity straining. Biden doesn’t just have no coattails he’s not even wearing a coat.

[stokesjokes]

So it’s more plausible to you that Democrats cheated on a scale never before seen and yet also decided to lose 15-20 house seats?

Seriously? That’s more plausible than believing a lot of republicans hated Trump enough to vote against him but still voted for other republicans down ballot?

[stokesjokes]

You still really underestimate how much people don't like Trump.

For the record so did I. That is why I predicated Trump would win even though every poll said otherwise.

I’m not sure that’s the case. In a Popular vote setting you would see that manifest by Biden out performing HRC in every Democrat hotbed. That didn’t happen. It did in just a few. The ones that are in contention. Biden underperformed by a lot. This was a close election It’s just not passing the smell test with me. Again, nothing has been proven or probably will be, so I deal with it and move on.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/n ... te-cities/

It’s not true. I the election is not passing the smell test because your sources are feeding you bullcrap.

[Purple Haize]

The National Review Online isn’t exactly non biased when it comes to Trump. Yes there are some explosions to some of these coincidences. But there certainly seem to be a lot of them.
And for the 100th time the fraud or malfeasance didn’t need to be widespread just focused. It wasn’t easier for me to believe a month ago. But everything since has certainly made it easier to believe than before. I have outlined numerous times the 2 or 3 simple steps that could be done to abate a lot of fears about this election. They were not done and were fought tooth and nail. So that has taken me from very skeptical to not that skeptical.

[stokesjokes]

The National Review is using publicly available data that says your people are lying to you when they say Biden didn’t outperform Hilary in democratic hotbeds. He absolutely did. And I’ve linked the data on all the other things these people have been lying about as well. If I were you, I would start to distrust the other things these people were telling me, but the MO has been to just pivot to some other specious claim. This is not what people do when they are interested in truth, this is what people do when they are trying to subvert the truth.

This is not people looking at the evidence and then drawing conclusions. This is people who have already decided the conclusion and will grasp at any straw that may appear to support their conclusion.

We need someone on here to teach a class on epistemology and evaluating truth claims. I nominate @willflop , he seems like he knows those waters.

[thepostman]

The National Review Online isn’t exactly non biased when it comes to Trump. Yes there are some explosions to some of these coincidences. But there certainly seem to be a lot of them.
And for the 100th time the fraud or malfeasance didn’t need to be widespread just focused. It wasn’t easier for me to believe a month ago. But everything since has certainly made it easier to believe than before. I have outlined numerous times the 2 or 3 simple steps that could be done to abate a lot of fears about this election. They were not done and were fought tooth and nail. So that has taken me from very skeptical to not that skeptical.

What the Campaign is alleging in court says otherwise. Attempting to overturn or throw out 100s of thousands, sometimes millions of votes, is not focused. That is widespread.

What you are saying and what Trump's lawyers are saying in court filings are totally different things.

[Purple Haize]

The National Review Online isn’t exactly non biased when it comes to Trump. Yes there are some explosions to some of these coincidences. But there certainly seem to be a lot of them.
And for the 100th time the fraud or malfeasance didn’t need to be widespread just focused. It wasn’t easier for me to believe a month ago. But everything since has certainly made it easier to believe than before. I have outlined numerous times the 2 or 3 simple steps that could be done to abate a lot of fears about this election. They were not done and were fought tooth and nail. So that has taken me from very skeptical to not that skeptical.

What the Campaign is alleging in court says otherwise. Attempting to overturn or throw out 100s of thousands, sometimes millions of votes, is not focused. That is widespread.

What you are saying and what Trump's lawyers are saying in court filings are totally different things.

I don’t see it that way. When i say “widespread” I’m saying nationwide all 50 states. This is just a couple of states at key junctures. Due to the nature of the lawsuits it will affect a lot of votes. But if there are fraudulent mail in votes that can’t be completely separated than you’re going to probably throw out a lot of votes. For instance if the infamous “suitcase” was at a center counting mail in votes it’s going to be tough to prove how many of the votes were fraudulent. So what do you do? Throw out all the votes from there? Or allow fraudulent votes to count? Again the actual fraud wasn’t all that great but the remedy might be seismic
Which begs another question: why has no one interviewed, under oath those individuals who stayed behind in GA after everyone was told to evacuate? I would love to hear their stories.

[stokesjokes]

They were. It’s all BS.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/12/video ... n-georgia/

[Purple Haize]

They were. It’s all BS.

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/12/video ... n-georgia/

“Fact-check”. Ha. The lazy man’s rebuttal. Look I appreciate your effort and your desire to put this to bed but it’s not going to happen. Even this “fact check” article has inconsistencies and has been called in to question.
I’ve stated ad Infinitum what could have been done to get me off the fence and have this put to bed. Not a big ask. It didn’t happen. And it’s not going to fit on your box.
Something shady happened, I’m almost convinced of it. But it cannot be proven so it is irrelevant There are absolutely ways to keep this from happening again, but nothing will be done. Which only reinforces my first thought.

[stokesjokes]

Calling fact-checks “lazy” let’s me know exactly where you stand, especially when this is an article detailing the results of investigations by the state into what you have questions about. You’re not interested in facts, only what you’re already convinced of. It wasn’t evidence that led you to your beliefs, so it was foolish of me to assume evidence would dissuade you from them.

[Purple Haize]

Calling fact-checks “lazy” let’s me know exactly where you stand, especially when this is an article detailing the results of investigations by the state into what you have questions about. You’re not interested in facts, only what you’re already convinced of. It wasn’t evidence that led you to your beliefs, so it was foolish of me to assume evidence would dissuade you from them.

Fact check sites are notoriously unreliable. And lazy
And you are right. Facts have not led me to my destination because the facts I would like to see have not been produced. It’s really as simple as that. Since they were not there is doubt in my mind.
If you believe this election was completely above board with no tomfoolery or shenanigans that is absolutely your right. Despite a lot of unanswered questions. In light of which and with the addition of an enormous amount of coincidences lead me in a different direction. I cannot prove anything and nothing has been proven yet. I readily admit that and understand where that leaves me.

[Jonathan Carone]

I’m sure something happened but I can’t prove it but I’m still pretty sure it did happen so I’m going to say it absolutely happened.

[Purple Haize]

I’m sure something happened but I can’t prove it but I’m still pretty sure it did happen so I’m going to say it absolutely happened.

Did I say it absolutely happened? Nope. Thank you for playing.

[stokesjokes]

Fact checking has been demonized by a president who doesn’t want to be fact-checked because he lies all the time. That article was thorough, well-sourced journalism featuring exactly what you were asking for, but you dismiss it because you don’t like it’s conclusions. Your questions are unanswered because you’ve already dismissed the answers because they don’t affirm your beliefs. See: our past 2 interactions on the subject.