he can't net lose voters when he gained voters from 2016. 74 million > 62 million
Scary stuff on Halloween
- Thread starter Sharky1203
- Start date
This one is American Insider. Microsoft Start is not the same as MSN and is not a source, it’s an aggregator. It’s like citing Twitter for breaking news yesterday at the NFL trade deadline.
He net lost them verses the D. Because while he gained 12 million new voters, Biden gained 15 million over Clinton.
Remember also that Clinton actually WON the popular vote the first time around by almost 3 million votes.
The narratives just don't match the math... that's all. I know Trump has his base, and they could see him piss on a stripper and murder 3 black people live on TV, and they would still vote for the guy. I also know there are people who aren't big trump people but they are gonna vote republican no matter what... one of those groups is already baked into the cake of the other.
So now we're saying despite losing some of the people who voted for him the first time, he out performed those defections to the tune of 12 million new votes, and lost... to a guy who didn't even campaign...
Yes, she did. No argument there, I guess I wonder who the 30 million new voters are then?
It should be pretty obvious and the numbers you cited bear that out - historically speaking, the US turns out way more voters when there’s a close, contentious election. When it’s close and heated, people are, generally speaking, much more motivated to get to the polls (which is a good thing). There were a LOT of people who hated Trump and voted against him, just as Trump drew record numbers because his supporters (and others against the Democrats) were highly motivated to keep him in office.
It was said for a full 2 years+ before the 2020 election - that election was 100% a referendum on Trump. Sure, there is a percentage of people out there who genuinely like Biden and were excited for him, but I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of the record turnout was motivated to either re-elect Trump or to fire him.
It’s also worth noting when citing “record numbers of votes” how much bigger our total population is now than during close, heated elections of the past. This wasn’t record turnout on a percentage basis….of course, the types of people allowed to vote now has expanded significantly since 1876 as well.
In fairness, there wouldn’t be. If you catch the fake registration, it then can’t be used to cast a vote.…but either way, it’s fraud and needs to be punished. The idea that anyone is risking fraud charges to sneak in fake registrations with no future thoughts or plans to use those fake registrations is pretty laughable.
The biggest voting block are people who are eligible and don't vote. Trump tapped into this block like no other.
Voters who sat on the sideline in 2016 mostly.
Some of them are people who turned 18 between 2016 and 2020. A few are people who became citizens in the meantime.
There are many news sites reporting it. Just not CNN and MSNBC. So, it's not aggregator.
This is a weird take. Trump energized people on both sides. There were a lot of people that never vote that were motivated to come out. Some were energized because they thought Trump was railroaded with the impeachments and saw that this would be a close election. The reason there were record numbers is because a lot of people that generally don’t vote came out.
There is absolutely no doubt that there is a significant part of the population that felt ignored and completely unmotivated to participate in the process prior to Trump. Trump made those people feel heard, which is why his supporters are so zealous. Him increasing his vote totals is not a surprise at all.
There were a couple of reasons why Trump won in 2016 and a big one is that a lot of people who were either Dem voters or did not like Trump gave him little chance. When an election is expected to be a blowout, a lot of people are less motivated to go vote (1996 was among the worst turnouts since WWII, as Dole didn’t motivate independents or even a lot of people on the right and Clinton won as expected pretty handily). I just don’t think this stuff is that hard to cipher out.
Really, and in 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996, 1992, 1988? Were they sitting on the sidelines then? Or just maybe the mail in ballots was the problem?
While being vile, disgusting, and hated, he lost some of his 2016 vote which contributed to Biden's totals or simply subtracted from his own because they chose to sit it out, but he was also liked/loved enough to overcome those losses while also gaining 12 million plus new votes.
Also in the process, he inspired 16 million new votes for the democrat side minus whatever flipped from Trump to Biden because he was that vile, disgusting, and hated.
That's the simplified version of this tale?
Point is cite a reputable source.
If you are afraid that the lefty sources won't report it the WSJ is a reputable conservative leaning news source.
Reputable to you. Anything CNN and MSNBC and Fox says isn't reputable to me.
He got over 70 million. He didn't lose very many, in fact he gained a bunch. Biden got and insane amount of votes. Something here just doesn't add up.
Of course it can be true and make sense. In 2016, there were 128.8 million votes cast and in 2020, there were 155.5 million votes cast. That’s 26.7 million more people voting. Some of that is due to population growth, but a huge part of it is that Trump was significantly polarizing, which motivated many more people to come to the polls than before - some were motivated to support him when they didn’t vote at all in 2016 and some were motivated to come oppose him.
Biden got record votes too - the size of the pie got significantly larger.
Yes they were sitting on the sidelines then too.
The 2020 presidential election had a record 66.9% turnout of eligible voters. Which was much larger than 2016's 59.2% and 2012's 58% and even blew away 2008's 62.5% which was then a record.
Voter turnout in United States presidential elections - Wikipedia
It only doesn't make sense because you are invested in the lie that the election was stolen. You might not say it outright but you want to keep up appearances.
He obviously gained voters, but Biden gained more over what Hilary got in 2016 (plus the whole Electoral College vs. popular vote thing). Trump certainly lost support in some circles, but he gained more than he lost when you factor in people motivated to come vote who didn’t vote in 2016. There were similar trends in 2008 when minority voters who hadn’t participated in the process before became highly motivated to go vote for Obama.
The “MSN” titled in the link IS an aggregator. The story linked was absolutely from American Insider. It may well also be published by 500 other sources and you’re free to link any/all of them….I’m not even judging American Insider as a source, I’m just correcting what the source of that story really is. Microsoft Start is not a news agency that wrote the story, just as Twitter isn’t the news agency that broke and published NFL trade news.
Turn out, really you want to go down that road?Yes they were sitting on the sidelines then too.
The 2020 presidential election had a record 66.9% turnout of eligible voters. Which was much larger than 2016's 59.2% and 2012's 58% and even blew away 2008's 62.5% which was then a record.
Voter turnout in United States presidential elections - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The vast majority of "turnouts" were Trump voters. Vast majority of mail in voters were Democrats.
You are missing the point, if there was going to be corruption in the voting process, that's a very easy way of doing it. No person to stand at the booth, no verifying an absentee ballot. Just get some ballots and mail them in baby. Don't give me any BS about they are certified. People make money with a simple coping machine. Not so easy now, but they used to a lot, and it took 25 years for the Gov. to figure out how to stop it.
Not really. Everyone has their articles they hit it right with but remember it's a person who is writing it and some projection goes into everything printed or reported.
Spin is spin but facts are facts. If they can get the facts right I can read through the spin. Generally those places are acceptable in terms of getting facts correct.
Mail in ballots certainly helped expand those who could cast a vote. There are red states that have used mail-in ballots for a long, long time. The interest of the American populace who is able/motivated to go cast a ballot ebbs and flows over time. In one of the pieces cited, it called out 1876 as the highest turnout as a percentage of eligible voters (remember then that blacks, women and a number of other groups didn’t have the vote). 1876 may well have been the nastiest election in our country’s history and certainly huge swaths of voters were motivated to come out. In other elections, it’s not expected to be all that close, which reduces the motivation of many to go vote.
The biggest point, though (as already mentioned in this thread) is that the single biggest voting bloc in this country is made up of those that don’t vote. Even in the heated 1876 election, only 2/3 of voters came out and as close as that election was, the numbers show that Rutherford B. Hayes got a touch over 4 million votes, Samuel Tilden got about 4.3 million and 4.2 million eligible voters couldn’t/didn’t vote in that election. That untapped pool is huge is a space both parties try to play in, but only see significant inroads in very specific elections. There’s a huge number of people that just don’t want to vote or can‘t vote or don’t care about the process or don’t like any of the candidates or whatever.
I watched CNN and MSNBC throw facts after facts out about Russia hoax. Even won prizes for such accurate news. I watch Fox report countless stuff that was just dribble. The facts always come out days/weeks and months later. We just blow by it because it isn't news anymore.
I will not disagree with one thing you posted. Very nice to see someone understand more than the repeated dribble over and over. But we have to be secure in our voting. We have to be. Otherwise, Democracy and voting rights mean nothing. We will just get anyone the establishment wants. We kind of already do, but there will be zero chance of voters being able to vote out someone who is corrupt.
That may be the "intent", but it is far harder to create fake registrations and THEN to vote WITHOUT leaving a paper trail behind.
Which is why this one wasn't successful AND we've discovered ZERO EVIDENCE any have worked in the past.
If they did it, then where's the evidence it worked? ALL of those fake registrations and fake votes are archived. But you cannot find any - and you KNOW why that is...
Yep
It gets much harder to use "fake registrations" and not get caught later.
Which is why - despite claims that there were thousand of fake votes - Trump's supporters could find NONE.
Not in >60 court cases.
ZERO.
So anecdotal evidence based on bumper stickers and yard signs is your basis for 2020 Presidential race voter fraud? Ok bruh, LOL.
And just to set the record straight, the "fraud" story you linked occurred in May 2021 in what I am assuming was a city mayoral primary election. Furthermore, the fraud itself was attempting to submit ~1,000 fraudulent voter registration forms, not voted ballots, that's an important distinction. I'd sure love to know just exactly how this moron was planning to actually convert those documents to voted ballots because I know firsthand that it's extremely difficult to circumvent the election controls in place to prevent fraudulent voting.
If you think it's so plausible, I'd love to hear your opinion on what the remaining part of the fraud scheme was that would result in fraudulent voted ballots being counted.
Huh?
If someone had a fake registration AND voted, you have a permanent record of both transactions.
Yet, no one seems to be able to find any of them....
Didn't read the full post. I said optics did show how a man that was unpopular in his own party could get the most votes of all time and it's going to be a very long time before anyone gets close again.
It's okay to question things, I'm questioning what I saw with my eyes. If you don't like that I question something, then America isn't for you. There's plenty of nice countries that allow you to group think as long as it falls in line with what they want you to think about.
Fair point, but there’s also a repeated dribble from the right that mail-in voting is mostly fraudulent (I’ve seen that in this thread). A lot of states have had varying levels of mail-in balloting for years and do it very well. At some point (perhaps using block chain), we’ll move to e-voting, which will freak people out, too. The more we make voting easy, the better off we’ll be. Early voting, mail-in voting, eventually electronic voting are just the newest iterations of making voting more accessible. Since becoming a nation, we’ve eliminated the requirement to be a landowner to vote, eliminated the requirement to be a white male, eliminated the requirement to go only on a specific day within a specific time window and eliminated the requirement to go in-person. We’ve survived them all. There were countless lawsuits into various state balloting processes after 2020 election and none of them cleared (as noted in this thread) the low legal bar to warrant further hearings.
I get the mindset. Trump is very, very good at being the victim and using vague language to point at “them” in order to conjure up an enemy. He’s good at selling an image, whether true or not and he’s been among the best in the business of doing that for 50 years, but Trump playing the persecuted victim doesn’t make his election claims true.
I was being semantic about that specific case. There’s no evidence of fraudulent votes in that case because the fraudulent registrations were caught. On the whole, I completely agree with you, just seemed you both talking past each other in that bit of the thread.
That's kind of it for me... Somehow a tomato garnered 80+ million votes. I'm not saying the election was stolen or there was clear cut fraud, but what I've read in this thread is that Trump was incredibly unlikeable, divisive etc. and yet after 4 years of it, a couple impeachments, scandals, lies, media attacks, you name it, they tried it... he comes out on the other side with 12 million MORE votes than he got the first time around... A number that would have won EVERY previous election.. and Joe got JUST ENOUGH votes in JUST the right places to win the electoral college.
And you can like it, love it, hate it, but you damn well better accept it, and any questions will not be heard of.
I mean, as pointed out already in this thread, Trump got 12 million more votes than in 2016 in an election where 26.7 million more people voted than in 2016. Biden got almost 16 million more votes than Clinton did in 2016.
You say “questions will not be heard of”…there have been 60+ lawsuits filed, multiple recounts in multiple states and privately funded investigations. There have been tons of questions and none of the answers have passed the threshold for court adjudication, and in several cases, the people raising the questions and doing the investigations have found that there’s not significant evidence of voter fraud.
Every one of those challenges were met with extreme opposition and not just in the courts.
That paragraph says it best. There were lawsuits by private citizens. Not once did the Government agencies investigate. They Dems have been at this questioning almost every election since 2000, that the got good at it. Everything stinks to high heaven and all we get is the courts said. Hell, no they weren't going to let anything more go to save cities from being burnt to the ground. That is my opinion and what I feel happened. As an American voting citizen (and on that has spoken on here at length of personal experience of fraud under my name) want answers and am entitled to them.
