Was there a change between 2020 and 2024? Because I think we’ve established that Trump did attempt to commit election fraud in 2020. So if he was able to attempt election fraud in 2020, I don’t see why he couldn’t have attempted it in 2024.
Or is your point that while Trump may have committed election fraud in the 2024 election and then subsequently won that election, his election fraud wouldn’t have been a factor in his victory?
My point is that trying to rig, hack or fraud a U.S. presidential election is a highly difficult undertaking, given that multiple swing states and precincts use different voting methods, there are thousands of workers involved, poll watchdogs, etc. The only way an election could be stolen this way would be if there were a lot of people willing to do the stealing who also manage to pull it off without anyone confessing a word or being reported. That’s highly unlikely.
Again, we are in disagreement on what a word means. I feel you are using the word likelihood incorrectly.
And we need to consider the level of competency and ability to learn displayed in prior instances.
Do we have evidence he is willing to cheat? Hell yes, and also evidence that he repeatedly screws it up and fails. Do we have specific evidence regarding 2024 that he got better skilled, enough to presume a specific result came from improved cheating? Not quite really.
It does, its “indicative”. It’s definitely not “evidence”. You are wrong, stop doubling down.
I still disagree but if vocabulary is the issue causing problems, I’ll let it slide.
I will amend my initial statement that caused all this contention and say that the reason that claims that Trump “stole” the 2024 election are not the same as claims that Biden “stole” the 2020 election is that Trump’s actions in 2020 are indicative of an increased probability of him committing election fraud in 2024 and there were no equivalent indications about Biden.
Are you in favor of a federally-issued national ID card? Like they have in other countries, where you need one in order to get a job, open a bank account, receive welfare and so on. Since everyone will already have one, it’ll make voting much easier for everyone. You wouldn’t even have to register!
Taking an aleatory doubting post, there are many. Evidence is hard, long (est. reading time: 21 minutes) and tedious. Nobody reads it till the end. And nobody fact checks it. The usual media silence it. Conspiracy? Lazyness? I don’t know, but it is not the first time I have posted this link in the SDMB and so far I got zero reaction.
Is this guy legit? Does he have many readers? No idea.
But of course trump and the republican party cheated. The democrats tried to bend the rules too, naturally. But the republicans are better at it and have Fox News and social media and religion on their side. And SCOTUS.
ETA: Oh, and this too, thee times shorter:
But his argument relies on counting people who didn’t vote as if they had.
Voter suppression is a real thing and certainly played a part in his election, but saying he lost is factually wrong. He won, in part because inequitues are baked into our stupid system, but he did win. Nobody can be said to win fairly in our system if the election is at all close, because the system isn’t fair.
I agree with the thinking that Trump trying to sway elections in the past is evidence that he could try again. I don’t necessarily thinks it his MO, he is much more likely to complain when something doesn’t go his way, than actually make elaborate plans in advance, but sure his lack of respect for election integrity is evidence he would try to sway them.
However, you can’t ignore the rest of the evidence. The Yankees having the best player in baseball is a good evidence they will make the world series. The fact that they are not currently playing in the AL championship series (and I am sleeping soundly) is much strong evidence that they will not.
Elections are nerd heaven. They produce nearly endless amounts of data. Want to know how some precinct in Oklahoma voted for Robert Kennedy, you can get that information. And people study it for profit and for fun. If there are any discrepancies they will be found, but they don’t exist. The results were in line with independent polling. The shift right was nearly universal and in fact most pronounced in places like New York rather than swing states. The changes were consistent across demographics. There was no weird unexplained data or events.
Look I understand it is hard when you hate Trump and everyone you know hates Trump, but you got to accept that there are Trump supports out there and they slightly outnumber your side. Harris didn’t lose because of cheating. She didn’t lose because voter suppression. She lost because she didn’t convince enough people to vote for her. If you want to next time that is what you need to fix.
I agree.
The Venn diagram would show that voter suppression and people just staying home are overlapping rather than one circle. Many Democrats did not want Harris. Or at least nothing the party did could get them out of their houses to show up at the polls. The simplest answer is not always the right one. It is here.
Yes, mostly. There were about 4 million fewer votes cast in 2024 than in 2020. Harris lost the popular vote by about 2.3 million, while Biden won the popular vote by about 7 million. With the electoral college, exactly how those margins are distributed across the states makes all of the difference.
Voter suppression does not need to be an important factor in the national popular vote. Voter suppression (or even fraud) only needs to change 15,000 votes in Wisconsin, for example, to change the outcome.
Saying voter suppression was immaterial is missing the point. All it requires is making voting a little bit more difficult in a few districts in a few states, and it can change the national results. Close a polling location or ten, add an ID requirement, etc.
This is the point, though. The whole election could have been stolen by undercounting a few polling locations in a few states. I’ve have yet to see any hard evidence of this. Some voter suppression tactics and complicated statistical analysis of undercounting based on poll results seem to be about it.
Swing states moved less to the right to the country. Wisconsin was one of the least moving states in fact and yet still the vast majority of counties swung at least a little right. The move the right was systematic across the country and where it was most pronounced there was logical reasons that agreed with the polling. This is the opposite of what you would expect if there were any shenanigans in swing states. There were no counties with weird results. The theory that there was fraud or suppression that influenced the election is just not supported by the evidence.
I don’t doubt that Republicans make it harder for some people to vote, but I don’t really buy that if they didn’t these votes would really swing Democratic. These in general are low information, low formal education voters, who the Democrats have had a ton of problems with these last few years. Democrats do much better in fact in elections with low turnout. I don’t think they should reverse course on voter suppression, but we need to not act that we will magically win if everyone voted.
Donald Trump is not the brains of the Republican party.
There are actual smart, albeit evil, people in the Republican party. They can read poll numbers and election results and figure out which voters are likely to vote for Democrats and then design voter suppression procedures which will target those voters. It’s not an exact science. But if you can design a system that affects 90% potential Democratic voters and 10% potential Republican voters, then you’ve got a system that helps get Republican candidates elected.
So it’s not just random unfairness we’re fighting. It’s unfairness designed and implemented by the Republicans to gain an advantage for the Republicans.
I don’t think it is as easy as you think you is. If you are the GOP how would you suppress the vote? Well you could try to make it harder to vote in cities that will go very blue. It is probably difficult, because blue areas will have blue elected, But lets say you succeed in limiting polling stations, particularly in Black and Latino areas. You lower the cities voting percentage by 1%. Great, but did you really help?
Always voters and sometimes voters are not the same. The demographics of the Democrats middle/upper class college educated people. They are good at voting. The people who hate or indifferent to politics, who don’t regularly vote have been drifting to the right. Even members of minorities, these people have no loyalty to the Democratic party. . Trump success is largely bringing unreliable voters to the polls. Even in blue areas you may well be preventing as many Republican votes as Democratic.
If anything voter suppression would likely help the Democrats at this point. I’m not suggesting using that as a platform, but there is a reason democrats have great results in off year cycles and special elections. There was a point where more voters meant better results for Democrats, but that is clearly not true anymore.
You seem to be saying that we should just accept Republican efforts to rig elections because their attempts have no effect.
This is a hard argument to believe when the Republicans have a majority in the House and the Senate, control the court system, and Donald Trump is President. It appears to me that the Republicans have achieved substantial success in their ongoing program of rigging elections.