Has anyone provided proof the election was stolen?

[snowthx]

I am still perplexed at the whole “Stolen Election” idea here - it is now GOP canon that the Democrats did “something” and threw the election away from the their candidate. Yet, no evidence of widespread fraud or other shenanigans has so far surfaced, after all these long months. Lots of lawsuits but all of them thrown out. Recounts galore, and audits, but nothing. If there was a massive conspiracy perpetrated by the Democrats, by now someone would have cracked and squeaked, but so far, nothing. The GOP is giving the Democrats WAY too much credit if they think they were able to pull off such a massive fraud. Just because someone says something does not make it true, no matter how much you want it to be - WTF is wrong with people that they are so gullible to these lies? I don’t get it.

Clearly this whole meme is being used as a lever by the GOP to push election “reform” to address perceived “integrity” issues with the elections process (of course, only reforms that shore-up confidence for Republicans). This part makes sense.

[enipla]

@snowthx

Clearly this whole meme is being used as a lever by the GOP to push election “reform” to address perceived “integrity” issues with the elections process (of course, only reforms that shore-up confidence for Republicans). This part makes sense.

Yeah, but I wonder if they are smart enough to do that.

But “Never underestimate the power of stupid of people in large groups” ~ George Carlin

[Czarcasm]

Proof? There isn’t even evidence.

[Atamasama]

I don’t think there are even any plausible anecdotes.

[XT]

@CC

I keep looking for what people are claiming is proof that the election was stolen. That would be HUGE news if something turned up. The closest anyone seems to have come up with is 2nd or 3rd hand reports - i.e. somebody heard that someone saw something nefarious. If 20% of the population believes the election was not honest or fair, what are they using as evidence? What constitutes proof that the election was stolen for these people?

Nope, after several decades I still haven’t seen convincing evidence that Bush II stole the election from Gore and…

Oh, did you mean Trump/Biden? Again, nope…I’ve seen zero evidence that this was stolen in any way. But thinking that lack of evidence will ever be enough for anyone is pretty much wishful thinking.

@bobot

No. No one has. In another thread, someone made a ridiculous fact free claim about China, and I asked for evidence. What I got was “just wait! You’ll see!”

What was the fact-free claim? Just curious if I was the one who made it.

[bobot]

No, not you. That poster has since been banned.
(But seriously, Bush/Gore? That ain’t even in the big lie ballpark. C’mon.)

[XT]

Ah, that’s good then. Thanks.

@bobot

(But seriously, Bush/Gore? That ain’t even in the big lie ballpark. C’mon.)

It was supposed to be tongue in cheek. But, on this board anyway, it was a pretty big thing for a while wrt Bush/Gore.

[Horatius]

@snowthx

If there was a massive conspiracy perpetrated by the Democrats, by now someone would have cracked and squeaked, but so far, nothing. The GOP is giving the Democrats WAY too much credit if they think they were able to pull off such a massive fraud.

The GOP is now, and has been at least since they nominated Trump, the party of Conspiracy Theories. What you describe is exactly the world that CTists believe exists: vast, infinitely powerful and secret forces that can pull off massive frauds, leaving no evidence, and yet, somehow, also being so transparently obvious that “everyone” knows what they really did.

Don’t expect anything better from them, any time soon.

I have no idea what it will take for this mindset to start to lose ground in the general population, but I’m pretty sure none of us are going to enjoy the process. I thought, 12 months ago, that massive death due to COVID denial might be the breaking point, but I was, once again, apparently too optimistic.

[RickJay]

@Thing.Fish

Gore and Clinton were both US Senators. They both were very close advisors of President Clinton, though only Gore had an official government title. So that’s a draw – and then consider that Clinton also served as Secretary of State.

So we’re going to skip past the fact that Gore was also a Representative, and that being Vice President is an actual government job?

Let’s also compare Clinton’s resume to George H.W. Bush, who was Vice President, a Representative, an Ambassador, and Director of the CIA? The claim Clinton was “the most qualified candidate ever” relies on some really odd decisions around how to weigh certain elements of experience.

[Horatius]

@RickJay

Let’s also compare Clinton’s resume to George H.W. Bush, who was Vice President, a Representative, an Ambassador, and Director of the CIA?

Heh. I recall a comedy act from back then that listed all of the government jobs that Bush the Elder had held, and then declared, “This loser can’t even hold a job!”

[Thing.Fish]

I don’t think anyone denies that Hillary was at least as close an advisor to her husband as Gore was, so, no, I don’t think the official job title is relevant. And OK, Gore was in Congress, but that doesn’t outweigh Secretary of State.

I’ll give you Bush I as being the only other recent candidate who you could plausibly argue had comparable experience.

[Little_Nemo]

@Tristan

That, combined with her lackluster effort to actually campaign, I think doomed her.

She should have come to the fight prepared to fight, instead of assuming that there was no way a criminal douchebag racist could possibly whip up enough base support to win.

Can we put to bed the story that Hillary Clinton ran a terrible campaign? She got almost three million more votes than Trump got. In a normal democracy she would have won.

The problem in 2016 wasn’t Hillary Clinton. The problem is we have a system that allows a Republican to come in second place and still be declared the winner. 2016 was the fifth time a Democrat got the most votes but the other guy won.

[Atamasama]

@Little_Nemo

2016 was the fifth time a Democrat got the most votes but the other guy won.

But only the second time in the last 125 years. In fact it didn’t happen at all in the 20th century.

Way to pine for Old Hickory though.

[Kolak_of_Twilo]

@Little_Nemo

Can we put to bed the story that Hillary Clinton ran a terrible campaign? She got almost three million more votes than Trump got. In a normal democracy she would have won.
SNIP

Three million more votes than Trump but, in the wrong states. So, maybe not a terrible campaigner, just a really terrible strategist.

[Great_Antibob]

Not even a terrible strategist but made one mistake.

This last election was decided by about the same margin (80-100k votes) in about the same states (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin). This time those swung to Biden over Trump by about that margin of votes. In 2016 they went to Trump over Clinton by about that margin. In the aftermath, the actual key (not the several inane narratives pushed about like we’re seeing even in this thread) seems to be that the Clinton analytics people got their margin in Pennsylvania wrong and they should have made more appearances there.

And that was with Comey’s now infamous letter a week before the election and buttery males from Benghazi and so on through the entire election cycle (and, if we’re being honest, for 30 years before that).

We all like narratives but the real question is why Biden’s win was so narrow rather than how Clinton could lose so badly. The margins in the critical states were very similar to 2016 so Trump’s performance was not much of a drag and Biden didn’t flip quite so many voters as we like to think.

[Horatius]

@Great_Antibob

We all like narratives but the real question is why Biden’s win was so narrow rather than how Clinton could lose so badly. The margins in the critical states were very similar to 2016 so Trump’s performance was not much of a drag and Biden didn’t flip quite so many voters as we like to think.

I think the real story of 2020 was how Trump managed to get the highest turnout of eligible voters in about 60 years. The problem is, a lot of those people who didn’t vote in 2016 decided they liked what they saw in Trump, liked it enough to get off their asses and vote.

The saving grace is that even more of that demographic hated him enough to vote against him.

The real question is why the margin in that demographic was so slim. Even with the record-level turnouts, there’s still over 30% of the US voting population that stayed home. Get even a few more percent of that group to vote Democratic, and the whole game changes.

[Tristan]

he real question is why the margin in that demographic was so slim. Even with the record-level turnouts, there’s still over 30% of the US voting population that stayed home. Get even a few more percent of that group to vote Democratic, and the whole game changes.

There is a media shell that exists in this country that exists, in part, to drive a monsterous wedge between those on the left and those on the right.

That media bubble gently cradles those on the right, and tells them that all their fears are legitimate, that the country is being destroyed, that the Democrats are evil, horrible people and that they want to destroy America. That they will force people to be gay, that they will outlaw Christianity, that they will force people to pay money to people who are too lazy and selfish who don’t want to work that live in big cities.

This same bubble tells these people, over and over again, that they are the “silent majority”, that they are the only REAL Americans, that those Democrats, those big city folks, those “coastal elites” and so on and so on hate America, hate them, and deserve to be hated in return.

It also tells them that the “liberal media” are brainwashing the people that watch things like CNN, PBS, or really anything that is outside of their bubble. That that media lies, that that media is part of a sinister plot to destroy America.

In the cities, in the media, and in general, while there are some outlets with an anti-right, or anti-republican bias, there is nothing on the scale of the vast network of talk radio, cable news, blogosphere and TV personalities who hit that “everyone that isn’t one of us hates you and is your enemy”. None.

And a lot of those people were told by that bubble that Trump was one of them, that he was going to really hurt those evil people on the coasts, that he would make America what it was supposed to be, what they believe (wrongly) the nation was like when it was at it’s best.

Trump, obviously, never had any intention of doing that. All he did was stoke the divide as hard as he could.

But a lot, a LOT of folks in that bubble turned out for Trump because they believed, genuinely believe that Trump not getting elected was going to destroy the nation.

It is a serious, serious problem that I do not know if we can overcome.

[RickJay]

@Little_Nemo

Can we put to bed the story that Hillary Clinton ran a terrible campaign? She got almost three million more votes than Trump got. In a normal democracy she would have won.

In a democracy without an electoral college votes the manner of campaigning and spread of votes would have been substantially different. You cannot change the system of determining a winner without also changing how the campaigns would have worked, and so it’s impossible to say if the popular vote would have been the same had popular vote determine the winner.

Like it or not, Trump’s campaign focused on flipping rust belt states because they were campaigning in accordance with what logically gave them the best chance of winning. They fought the election in a rational manner consistent with the rules of the election. Clinton’s campaign, for reasons I still don’t totally understand, was not focused in that manner.

[Great_Antibob]

@RickJay

Clinton’s campaign, for reasons I still don’t totally understand, was not focused in that manner.

Except it was.

As above, the true margin of victory in both 2020 and 2016 was about the same number of votes in the same 3-4 rust belt states. Both years came down to a relative handful of votes across 3-4 states that came out one way in 2016 and another way in 2020.

There can be a legitimate discussion about how the campaign polling was off and how time was allocated to different states in light of that polling. And another on how to deal with the astroturfing and so on.

But the idea that the Clinton campaign did not focus on rust belt states is quite frankly ludicrous given how much time they spent there overall and how tight the races have been in those states for decades. This seems to be conflating outcomes with effort. Just because the result did not come out a certain way does not mean the effort was nonexistent or lacking. The tactics may have not worked out, but the strategy was certainly there.

Just because some people think it was beyond ridiculous that Trump won so many votes does not mean that a ‘good’ candidate (which apparently means somebody who ekes out a narrow win) could magically wave their arms and win by large margins in all closely contested states.

[BobLibDem]

I think there is something to the notion that Hillary did not work had enough in the rust belt. This map from 538 shows the last 10 weeks of stops for each candidate. Note that Hillary completely ignored Wisconsin and campaigned heavily in out of reach states such as FL, NC, IA, and OH. To be fair to her, she still would have won had Comey not intervened.