Adding some more info, about why that website appears to be bogus.

Rejection Rates (the graph presents total rejections at rates):
- Georgia rejected 2,011 absentee ballots in 2020 (that graph shows 2,646) and 454 absentee ballots in 2018 (that graph shows 41,008). The rates for both general elections were ~0.15% - see Georgia SOS (https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/n...rom_2018). So where did they get their numbers from? That needs to be answered.

Also, perhaps they're trying to show that if we take Georgia's rejection rate in 2018, and apply it to 2020, we would see the result they're presenting? If that's the case, they need to make sure they're comparing apples to apples, and not apples to oranges (what I'm commenting on above).

- It would be best to compare results from general elections - so 2016 to 2020 - given the number of voters are more similar.

- Have we seen large changes in rejection rates between years before? If so, was that related to fraud? Or are we unable to say whether or not rejection rates should or shouldn't remain constant? Perhaps people were more careful with mail in or absentee ballots? See this line of thinking:

Quote:Many experts feared that rejection rates would mushroom even more as mail voting reached new highs this fall. Instead, it appears that many voters have risen to the challenge.

“Historically, you’ve seen about 1 percent of ballots get bounced for one reason or another, mostly because of lateness,” said Nate Persily, a Stanford University professor of law and an expert on election administration. “But people are more attuned to the deadline this year, and voters are more aware of the criteria for casting absentee ballots.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/02/us/el...tions.html

(12-10-2020 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think you’re taking issue with a discussion with how a conversation could be confusedly misinterpreted - how the percent of votes cast could possibly being confused with total votes cast. I don’t see a bias in how it was discussed here - it was clearly presented as a change in % of votes (and specifically the delta between the two - a common metric for political races). I didn’t take that the conversation was indicating Trump lost any votes, but rather the difference between the vote share decreased.

But yeah, maybe this is an issue in the sphere’s we both orbit. In my sphere I’ve almost always heard how Trump’s total vote count was second all time - behind only Biden.

FBO just focused on the delta, which in rebuking the false claims of voter fraud, seems to be relevant.

Just think you’re stretching a bit here in the criticism of that point.

A) my criticism isn't about FBO. He just did essentially the same thing that others have done.

B) Trumps percentages of the total and total number of votes in Alaska both went up. Yes, the delta went down and that is clearly what he is speaking about, but the comment he made was 'percentages Trump lost'. Why is it not 'percentage Biden gained? Since Trumps numbers did not change on a percentage basis and certainly not on a numerical basis.

How can you argue that Trump LOST anything?



Here is a media example, from (surprise surprise) Bloomberg News. It's important to note that all I did was type 'Trump lost voters' into google and then look for the first article not related to challenges after the election. This was LITERALLY the first link I pulled... and not one of even a hand-full that I had to look for someone doing this....

CityLab Daily: How Trump Lost White Voters in Swing States

The story then goes on to say what FBO implied, what I said and what you're saying I'm too focused on...

Quote:While President Donald Trump was able to pull in more votes from his core constituency of white, non-college-educated voters in largely rural areas, the 2020 election results expose the political limitations of an America that’s becoming more diverse, urban and better educated.

In the 13 swing states, suburban and urban counties with majority white, educated voters shifted away from Trump, supporting President-elect Joe Biden by 4.4 more points than they did Hillary Clinton in 2016. Trump’s average margin of victory in those areas, meanwhile, shrank by 1.8 points.

So the focus, even the HEADLINE of the article is how Trump lost rural, uneducated white voters... but the STORY is that Biden beat Hillary by 4.4 and the margin shrank by 1.8. The story even says that he pulled MORE voters from his core constituents.

Simple math assuming a 50/50 break... If Biden beats Hillary by 4.4 points, Trump's Margin shrinks by 2.2 points, not 1.8. So MATH says that Trump GAINED white voters in swing states, but that Biden gained MORE (by approximately 0.4% of the total cast or 0.8% of the numbers cast for each) and guess what? Trump won these states last time by about or less than 0.4%... hence the swing.

My fixation on this is not that great... I notice it and its demonstrable just as I have done. I simply took the time to explain something that you questioned.

If you read the article, I see a clear intent by the writer to imply that as people become more educated, they vote more liberal. I'd be interested to see evidence from her that between 2016 and 2020, 'America' has become more diverse, urban and better educated. I can't prove the opposite, I just wonder if her claim is actually true or if it is just something she wants to believe.

The fact that Michael Bloomberg is a fixture in NY, that the FIRST article I found on this subject was from HIS (business) website, that he said he would spend something like 100mm to oust Trump and that I hear the same things from my NY ultra-liberal/progressive son is pretty telling I think. I never said this was especially widespread and I don't know where FBO got his information or why he worded it the way he did.

I think we agree that a VASTLY more correct way of saying what he was saying is that Biden closed the gap or gained more than Trump did... To say that Trump lost is telling in a few ways to me. Did Rice win last weekend or did Marshall lose? Rice supporters would say Rice won. MOST Marshall supporters would agree. They might say that Marshall didn't help themselves, but they would say that Rice won.
Die-hard Marshall fans would probably say Marshall lost

Why are we even TALKING about Trump 'losing' percentages or losing votes or voters, instead of talking about Biden GAINING percentages or GAINING votes or Voters, unless the subtle point being made (consciously or not) is that Biden didn't win, but Trump lost??

If you choose to believe that I picked this article because of the source... please do the search yourself. Here is what comes up for me...

wbur.org.
Trump Lost. So Why Is The Media Still So Fixated On His ...

I skipped this because this reads like a blog... 'fetish' is in the headline

***ETA, I just now clicked on this out of curiosity and it IS a blog it seems... Trump lost, so why is the media still so fixated on his supporters?

In many ways, she is asking the exact same question I am... but if you read it... she's a VERY strong liberal voice.

So you may not see it and that's fine... but I'm clearly not making this up.

abcnews.go.com
'It's critical' for Republican leaders to explain to voters Trump lost

Not pertinent to my comments.

USATODAY.com
Fact check: Trump lost the 2020 presidential ... - USA Today

Also not pertinent

BLOOMBERG which I selected because it says what FBO said...
CityLab Daily: How Trump Lost White Voters in Swing States ...

If I skip the next few that also aren't pertinent... I get
VOX
Meet the Biden and Trump voters who switched parties in the...

This MIGHT have some comments on point, but I don't know. We're not talking about switchers from BOTH parties

and the Pewresearch in an article from 2018.

(12-10-2020 12:55 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I think you’re taking issue with a discussion with how a conversation could be confusedly misinterpreted - how the percent of votes cast could possibly being confused with total votes cast. I don’t see a bias in how it was discussed here - it was clearly presented as a change in % of votes (and specifically the delta between the two - a common metric for political races). I didn’t take that the conversation was indicating Trump lost any votes, but rather the difference between the vote share decreased.

But yeah, maybe this is an issue in the sphere’s we both orbit. In my sphere I’ve almost always heard how Trump’s total vote count was second all time - behind only Biden.

FBO just focused on the delta, which in rebuking the false claims of voter fraud, seems to be relevant.

Just think you’re stretching a bit here in the criticism of that point.

A) my criticism isn't about FBO. He just did essentially the same thing that others have done.

B) Trumps percentages of the total and total number of votes in Alaska both went up. Yes, the delta went down and that is clearly what he is speaking about, but the comment he made was 'percentages Trump lost'. Why is it not 'percentage Biden gained? Since Trumps numbers did not change on a percentage basis and certainly not on a numerical basis.

How can you argue that Trump LOST anything?



Here is a media example, from (surprise surprise) Bloomberg News. It's important to note that all I did was type 'Trump lost voters' into google and then look for the first article not related to challenges after the election. This was LITERALLY the first link I pulled... and not one of even a hand-full that I had to look for someone doing this....

CityLab Daily: How Trump Lost White Voters in Swing States

The story then goes on to say what FBO implied, what I said and what you're saying I'm too focused on...

Quote:While President Donald Trump was able to pull in more votes from his core constituency of white, non-college-educated voters in largely rural areas, the 2020 election results expose the political limitations of an America that’s becoming more diverse, urban and better educated.

In the 13 swing states, suburban and urban counties with majority white, educated voters shifted away from Trump, supporting President-elect Joe Biden by 4.4 more points than they did Hillary Clinton in 2016. Trump’s average margin of victory in those areas, meanwhile, shrank by 1.8 points.

So the focus, even the HEADLINE of the article is how Trump lost rural, uneducated white voters... but the STORY is that Biden beat Hillary by 4.4 and the margin shrank by 1.8. The story even says that he pulled MORE voters from his core constituents.

Simple math assuming a 50/50 break... If Biden beats Hillary by 4.4 points, Trump's Margin shrinks by 2.2 points, not 1.8. So MATH says that Trump GAINED white voters in swing states, but that Biden gained MORE (by approximately 0.4% of the total cast or 0.8% of the numbers cast for each) and guess what? Trump won these states last time by about or less than 0.4%... hence the swing.

My fixation on this is not that great... I notice it and its demonstrable just as I have done. I simply took the time to explain something that you questioned.

If you read the article, I see a clear intent by the writer to imply that as people become more educated, they vote more liberal. I'd be interested to see evidence from her that between 2016 and 2020, 'America' has become more diverse, urban and better educated. I can't prove the opposite, I just wonder if her claim is actually true or if it is just something she wants to believe.

The fact that Michael Bloomberg is a fixture in NY, that the FIRST article I found on this subject was from HIS (business) website, that he said he would spend something like 100mm to oust Trump and that I hear the same things from my NY ultra-liberal/progressive son is pretty telling I think. I never said this was especially widespread and I don't know where FBO got his information or why he worded it the way he did.

I think we agree that a VASTLY more correct way of saying what he was saying is that Biden closed the gap or gained more than Trump did... To say that Trump lost is telling in a few ways to me. Did Rice win last weekend or did Marshall lose? Rice supporters would say Rice won. MOST Marshall supporters would agree. They might say that Marshall didn't help themselves, but they would say that Rice won.
Die-hard Marshall fans would probably say Marshall lost

Why are we even TALKING about Trump 'losing' percentages or losing votes or voters, instead of talking about Biden GAINING percentages or GAINING votes or Voters, unless the subtle point being made (consciously or not) is that Biden didn't win, but Trump lost??

If you choose to believe that I picked this article because of the source... please do the search yourself. Here is what comes up for me...

wbur.org.
Trump Lost. So Why Is The Media Still So Fixated On His ...

I skipped this because this reads like a blog... 'fetish' is in the headline

***ETA, I just now clicked on this out of curiosity and it IS a blog it seems... Trump lost, so why is the media still so fixated on his supporters?

In many ways, she is asking the exact same question I am... but if you read it... she's a VERY strong liberal voice.

So you may not see it and that's fine... but I'm clearly not making this up.

abcnews.go.com
'It's critical' for Republican leaders to explain to voters Trump lost

Not pertinent to my comments.

USATODAY.com
Fact check: Trump lost the 2020 presidential ... - USA Today

Also not pertinent

BLOOMBERG which I selected because it says what FBO said...
CityLab Daily: How Trump Lost White Voters in Swing States ...

If I skip the next few that also aren't pertinent... I get
VOX
Meet the Biden and Trump voters who switched parties in the...

This MIGHT have some comments on point, but I don't know. We're not talking about switchers from BOTH parties

and the Pewresearch in an article from 2018.

You ask why things might be framed this way. I think there is a simple answer, because Trump was the incumbent. We have previous election results to compare to for Trump, but not for Biden.

Biden can't really win or lose votes because he hasn't run for president. It's why the Bloomberg discussion talks about how many more points Biden received compared to Clinton. For Trump, you're comparing his 2020 results against his 2016 results.

I couldn't really find post-2012 election coverage easily to see we saw similar analyses back then, but I do know that in 2016, we heard a lot about how Clinton lost X, Y, and Z and Trump won or gained some former Obama voters.

I see the point you're trying to make, and I have understood the math from the start. I just think you're stretching to fit this in a narrative you are convinced of about the mainstream media and its anti-Trump bias. A more simple, straight forward, and more likely answer is that Trump is the incumbent, so coverage will talk about how his relative votes changed from 2016 to 2020.

(12-10-2020 01:18 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You ask why things might be framed this way. I think there is a simple answer, because Trump was the incumbent. We have previous election results to compare to for Trump, but not for Biden.

Biden can't really win or lose votes because he hasn't run for president. It's why the Bloomberg discussion talks about how many more points Biden received compared to Clinton. For Trump, you're comparing his 2020 results against his 2016 results.

This still makes no sense to me why you characterize someone who got (from memory, not looking it up) 51% of the vote in Alaska and 3mm votes... who gets 52% of the vote in Alaska this year and 3.5mm votes as having LOST votes. He lost the election, but he didn't demonstrably lose votes. You previously spoke about confusing a percentage with an amount... but both in terms of percentage AND amount, the numbers went up.

I think the inclusion of Alaska (which he still won) is meaningful because it demonstrates that even in a state that he still won, AND where he actually gained in both percentages and totals (so turnout was higher)... that Biden MEASURABLY outperformed Hillary and closed the gap. Biden was clearly much more popular (or dems much more single-minded) in 2020 than Hillary in 2016, but the headline says nothing about that... and the story all but glosses over that fact.

Quote:I couldn't really find post-2012 election coverage easily to see we saw similar analyses back then, but I do know that in 2016, we heard a lot about how Clinton lost X, Y, and Z and Trump won or gained some former Obama voters.

But as you allude to, that's not remotely the same thing. You said... Trump won Obama voters. You didn't say Hillary lost them.

You just proved my point about the focus on 'losing' votes is uncommon.

Quote:I see the point you're trying to make, and I have understood the math from the start. I just think you're stretching to fit this in a narrative you are convinced of about the mainstream media and its anti-Trump bias. A more simple, straight forward, and more likely answer is that Trump is the incumbent, so coverage will talk about how his relative votes changed from 2016 to 2020.

Well, as I said... A liberal blogger that I've never heard of shows up with a similar observation from the opposite perspective... where her complaint seems to be that we're still giving Trump and his people the headlines as opposed to giving them to the winners.... and your own example above focuses on the winner's gains, not the losers losses... AND that when voting percentages go up and vote totals go up as in Alaska, and it is used to describe a LOSS of voters, that's demonstrably false on its face.

So I think I've made my point, with your, Google, a liberal blogger and FBO's help, even if you don't agree.

FTR, that comment was pretty innocuous and you questioned why I had that perception. I tried to answer you (trying to be polite) and you responded by challenging my perception. I presented public support for my perception demonstrating that it isn't just me... and not even just conservatives who notice it... in fact the ONLY other similar comment I saw (on the first page of Google) was a liberal... and you continue to challenge what was a really relatively minor point. I'm not upset about it... couldn't care less... Just like the liberal blogger, I wonder why the focus still seems to be on Trump LOSING votes, even when he gains in both percentages AND numbers as in Alaska... And (because I looked) Texas and likely many others... as opposed to noting how much better DEMOCRATS did.

If it were me, I'd be saying Biden won... or that Biden closed the gap and not that Trump lost... or lost the gap.

If you disagree on my perception, that's fine... But you aren't going to convince me to ignore my experience, nor are you going to change my mind about a preference for focusing on the guys who won and not the guy who lost (just as you did in your Obama example).

Outside of that, thanks for the civil disagreement

(12-10-2020 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  FBO just focused on the delta, which in rebuking the false claims of voter fraud, seems to be relevant.

FBO made this claim:


"The bottom line is almost every red state or swing state in the country had a 1 to 3 percent swing where people switched their vote from Trump in 2016 to Biden in 2020."

Nothing in these percentages indicates that ANY former Trump voter switched to Biden. All that is indicated is that Trump's percentage of the total vote changed.

Of course, from TV interviews, we know that some people changed from Trump to Biden - and some changed from Hillary(2016) to Trump(2020). But nothing in the stats indicated those changes.

(12-10-2020 02:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  FBO just focused on the delta, which in rebuking the false claims of voter fraud, seems to be relevant.

FBO made this claim:


"The bottom line is almost every red state or swing state in the country had a 1 to 3 percent swing where people switched their vote from Trump in 2016 to Biden in 2020."

Nothing in these percentages indicates that ANY former Trump voter switched to Biden. All that is indicated is that Trump's percentage of the total vote changed.

Of course, from TV interviews, we know that some people changed from Trump to Biden - and some changed from Hillary(2016) to Trump(2020). But nothing in the stats indicated those changes.

Oh yeah - that data cannot be used to show that this happened. It likely did, given the down ballot results, but just looking at the % of total votes doesn’t tell us that.

(12-10-2020 02:39 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  If it were me, I'd be saying Biden won... or that Biden closed the gap and not that Trump lost... or lost the gap.

After 4 nonstop years, maybe they just cannot break the habit of denigrating all things Trump.

(12-10-2020 02:39 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  FTR, that comment was pretty innocuous and you questioned why I had that perception. I tried to answer you (trying to be polite) and you responded by challenging my perception. I presented public support for my perception demonstrating that it isn't just me... and not even just conservatives who notice it... in fact the ONLY other similar comment I saw (on the first page of Google) was a liberal... and you continue to challenge what was a really relatively minor point. I'm not upset about it... couldn't care less... Just like the liberal blogger, I wonder why the focus still seems to be on Trump LOSING votes, even when he gains in both percentages AND numbers as in Alaska... And (because I looked) Texas and likely many others... as opposed to noting how much better DEMOCRATS did.

If it were me, I'd be saying Biden won... or that Biden closed the gap and not that Trump lost... or lost the gap.

If you disagree on my perception, that's fine... But you aren't going to convince me to ignore my experience, nor are you going to change my mind about a preference for focusing on the guys who won and not the guy who lost (just as you did in your Obama example).

Outside of that, thanks for the civil disagreement

No problem.

To be clear, I'm not trying to change your preference about focusing on the winner, rather than the loser. I was trying to convince you that the comment "but apparently Dems still have to suggest that people hate Trump" was a bridge to far, when it came to extrapolating why the discussion was framed how it was.

In 2016, there were discussions of what voters Clinton lost, even though she was a loser. And Trump was the incumbent - so any share of voters that went down would be viewed as him losing votes. There are two reasonable, and simple, reasons why the change in percentages would be viewed as a loss for the incumbent, and not a gain for the challenger. It seems to be a focus out of ease, not malice.

(12-10-2020 03:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  To be clear, I'm not trying to change your preference about focusing on the winner, rather than the loser. I was trying to convince you that the comment "but apparently Dems still have to suggest that people hate Trump" was a bridge to far, when it came to extrapolating why the discussion was framed how it was.

And I'm still suggesting that based on posts and articles and comments on my son's and his friends facebooks and twitter feeds, some from liberal politicians... and the numerous media sources, some of which I've produced... and that has been noticed by a liberal blogger, that do exactly what FBO did in terms of focusing on Trump (in a negative way... Trump lost) as opposed to a positive one (Biden won)... that has found its way (and you seem to generally agree) into SOME comments like FBOs that may or may not be coincidental have influenced the way people (like PERHAPS FBO) frame their own conversations.

I KNOW that there are factions of the left (specifically my NYC son's friends and the writers and politicians they quote) are certainly that way. I've witnessed it first hand and I can see the sources of some of their links or tweets.

I perhaps should have added the word 'some', but as we all generally avoid proofreading and I wouldn't expect someone to read something I wrote like that and assume that I meant each and every democrat, especially in that I was already giving FBO, whom I consider a friend but don't know well, an 'out'. I don't think he came up with that perception and data all on his own. I think he read it somewhere and paraphrased it.... so I think THAT person may be one of those. Is it POSSIBLE that he made it up himself? Of course... He's intelligent and capable... but I don't see FBO as being that sort of person. I see him as a Rice won, not a Marshall lost person. I would expect him to talk about how well Biden did or how well Democrats did in motivating more of their infrequent voters than Republicans did or something like that.

Quote:In 2016, there were discussions of what voters Clinton lost, even though she was a loser. And Trump was the incumbent - so any share of voters that went down would be viewed as him losing votes. There are two reasonable, and simple, reasons why the change in percentages would be viewed as a loss for the incumbent, and not a gain for the challenger. It seems to be a focus out of ease, not malice.

Sure... but they wouldn't talk about her losing VOTES relative to Obama and then provide evidence (Alaska for Trump) where she actually outperformed him. They would talk about her losing the election.

Trump lost because he didn't motivate enough of the 'new-found' voters... or as many as Biden did. That's demonstrable. Trump lost because Biden was more likeable, even by democrats than Hillary. Trump lost because Democrats convinced Progressives to come out for their 'second' choice to avoid a repeat of 2016... Trump lost because Biden united the left. Trump lost because his crappy personality united the left against him. All of those things are at least somewhat demonstrable. Trump losing because he lost voters is certainly likely true in SOME places, but the first one on the list (and the only one with specifics) does not remotely demonstrate that.

Bottom line, we've now gone round and round about what you think about my comment. Sure, I could just let it go, but since you're the one challenging my perception, I don't think that's right... and it DOES make me a bit angry that I have to continually defend something that is clearly my perception, supported by demonstrable facts. I'm not WRONG, you just have a different thought. We haven't really discussed why YOUR thought could be wrong....

So you're pressing me on something where you quite literally have zero chance of being 'right' about.

A) there IS no 'right' and
B) you aren't me and don't have my experiences and perspectives

You're entitled to your own opinion about things, which you stated long ago... but you're not entitled to your own facts... and mostly, you aren't entitled to over-rule MY opinions.


This is my perspective... this is my opinion... It is not part of some meme out there in a Right wing chat room, but my own personal opinion based on my observations and supported at least to my satisfaction by numerous sources, including some things that you have said yourself trying to debate me.

Stop trying to convince me that my perspective and opinion is flawed in ANY way. Its not.

Thanks

(12-10-2020 07:48 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I personally am pissed about the election results - I'm shocked more people fed up with Trump didn't vote for Democrats down ticket. In my county, we went higher for Biden than Clinton, but yet we voted for a Republican House candidate to replace Pete Olsen at the same time rejecting Troy Nehls' twin brother for sheriff.

Holy cow, that's some serious whining! Evidently your fellow voters are more perceptive than you think they should be, and realized that Trump and the down-ballot candidates are not the same person.

(12-12-2020 06:39 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 07:48 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I personally am pissed about the election results - I'm shocked more people fed up with Trump didn't vote for Democrats down ticket. In my county, we went higher for Biden than Clinton, but yet we voted for a Republican House candidate to replace Pete Olsen at the same time rejecting Troy Nehls' twin brother for sheriff.

Holy cow, that's some serious whining! Evidently your fellow voters are more perceptive than you think they should be, and realized that Trump and the down-ballot candidates are not the same person.

The antiTrump voter is not necessarily antiGOP or anticonservative. The Democrat campaign was totally antiTrump. No policy at all, just HATE TRUMP? Vote for me, I am not Trump.

so all the negativity was concentrated in one race.

(12-12-2020 07:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-12-2020 06:39 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 07:48 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I personally am pissed about the election results - I'm shocked more people fed up with Trump didn't vote for Democrats down ticket. In my county, we went higher for Biden than Clinton, but yet we voted for a Republican House candidate to replace Pete Olsen at the same time rejecting Troy Nehls' twin brother for sheriff.

Holy cow, that's some serious whining! Evidently your fellow voters are more perceptive than you think they should be, and realized that Trump and the down-ballot candidates are not the same person.

The antiTrump voter is not necessarily antiGOP or anticonservative. The Democrat campaign was totally antiTrump. No policy at all, just HATE TRUMP? Vote for me, I am not Trump.

so all the negativity was concentrated in one race.

Agreed. It doesn't even seem that Dems themselves were united down ballot.

The frustration with Trump certainly wasn't over his policies... at least not as compared to what was being presented by Democrats.

(12-14-2020 09:58 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(12-12-2020 07:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-12-2020 06:39 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 07:48 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I personally am pissed about the election results - I'm shocked more people fed up with Trump didn't vote for Democrats down ticket. In my county, we went higher for Biden than Clinton, but yet we voted for a Republican House candidate to replace Pete Olsen at the same time rejecting Troy Nehls' twin brother for sheriff.

Holy cow, that's some serious whining! Evidently your fellow voters are more perceptive than you think they should be, and realized that Trump and the down-ballot candidates are not the same person.

The antiTrump voter is not necessarily antiGOP or anticonservative. The Democrat campaign was totally antiTrump. No policy at all, just HATE TRUMP? Vote for me, I am not Trump.

so all the negativity was concentrated in one race.

Agreed. It doesn't even seem that Dems themselves were united down ballot.

The frustration with Trump certainly wasn't over his policies... at least not as compared to what was being presented by Democrats.

Essentially, he was presented, with the conscious aid of the MSM, as the most stupid, inept, evil genius, foreign agent, greedy, grasping, selfish, racist, mean, horrible person in the world, and a lot of feeble minded people bought it, or enough of it to vote for AnybodyButTrump. President Anybody will take office Jan. 20.

During the election, I kept asking people is they were voting FOR Biden or AGAINST Trump. Most people dodged it or gave some weak response like they hoped Biden would be better for the environment. Well, I guess we will find out. Two years to save the planet.

WI Supreme Court, in the first of its two rulings today, admitted and ruled there WAS fraud in the form of 220,000 or so ballots that the Supreme Court ruled should NOT be counted. It then denied the request to have all thron out together in one blanket action, without first looking at them on a case-by-case basis.

yes, they ruled more unfavorably in their second ruling later in the day, but did that based solely on laches, or timeliness, and NOT completely denying the Evidence which they acknowledge exists for the fraud that they admit took place. And they admit the numbers were more than great enough to swing the result the other way in WI (220,000 bad ballots that should NOT have been counted, the margin of difference between President trump and Mr. Biden was only about 20,000 votes.)

+Those who have claimed and continue to claim that there was no fraud: Debunked.
+That there wasn't "enough" fraud to make a difference: Debunked
+That there was "no" evidence: Debunked
+That there is not "enough" evidence: Debunked.


What is truly amazing for those who are paying attention is that despite the full-on propaganda rush of disinformation by the MSM, the turning of Fox-news against American interests and bending to the lies, the far-Left and the Dem party and several State leaders who are panicking, is that not only is majority American Citizen public opinion (including a hefty number of Democrats) swaying to where more folks now believe not only there was fraud in this election, but that it was widespread and enough to change the results, but that one by one, albeit slowly, everything that the MSM and the Dems and the Leftist have said has turned out to be 100% lies and debunked. We'll keep going and watch today's Dem and MSM lies become debunked tomorrow. I gotsa gets me more popcorn.

(12-12-2020 07:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-12-2020 06:39 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-10-2020 07:48 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I personally am pissed about the election results - I'm shocked more people fed up with Trump didn't vote for Democrats down ticket. In my county, we went higher for Biden than Clinton, but yet we voted for a Republican House candidate to replace Pete Olsen at the same time rejecting Troy Nehls' twin brother for sheriff.

Holy cow, that's some serious whining! Evidently your fellow voters are more perceptive than you think they should be, and realized that Trump and the down-ballot candidates are not the same person.

The antiTrump voter is not necessarily antiGOP or anticonservative. The Democrat campaign was totally antiTrump. No policy at all, just HATE TRUMP? Vote for me, I am not Trump.

so all the negativity was concentrated in one race.

Don’t quite follow why this is a stain for the Dems. It’s likely anyone that voted Biden/down-ballot Reps were conservatives who were tired of Trump and not necessarily influenced by the Democratic Party, but rather the reality of the past 4 years.

Color me shocked that the Democratic Party did not win over conservative voters.The Dem focus was about primarily about turning out their vote, which they did in droves. Trump’s similarly policy-lite campaign (what was his vision for a second term?), turned out both his conservative supporters and conservative detractors.

(12-14-2020 11:14 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  WI Supreme Court, in the first of its two rulings today, admitted and ruled there WAS fraud in the form of 220,000 or so ballots that the Supreme Court ruled should NOT be counted. It then denied the request to have all thron out together in one blanket action, without first looking at them on a case-by-case basis.

yes, they ruled more unfavorably in their second ruling later in the day, but did that based solely on laches, or timeliness, and NOT completely denying the Evidence which they acknowledge exists for the fraud that they admit took place. And they admit the numbers were more than great enough to swing the result the other way in WI (220,000 bad ballots that should NOT have been counted, the margin of difference between President trump and Mr. Biden was only about 20,000 votes.)

+Those who have claimed and continue to claim that there was no fraud: Debunked.
+That there wasn't "enough" fraud to make a difference: Debunked
+That there was "no" evidence: Debunked
+That there is not "enough" evidence: Debunked.


What is truly amazing for those who are paying attention is that despite the full-on propaganda rush of disinformation by the MSM, the turning of Fox-news against American interests and bending to the lies, the far-Left and the Dem party and several State leaders who are panicking, is that not only is majority American Citizen public opinion (including a hefty number of Democrats) swaying to where more folks now believe not only there was fraud in this election, but that it was widespread and enough to change the results, but that one by one, albeit slowly, everything that the MSM and the Dems and the Leftist have said has turned out to be 100% lies and debunked. We'll keep going and watch today's Dem and MSM lies become debunked tomorrow. I gotsa gets me more popcorn.

Would be really helpful if you provided some sources.

So the court did NOT rule that there was fraud. Two justices indicated that the issue at hand, county clerks filling in addresses for witnesses, could be challenged in the future.

Note, also, that the Trump campaign only challenged votes in specific areas that would help their case, and did not look statewide.

Quote: Trump sought to throw out more than 220,000 ballots cast in Milwaukee and Dane counties, the state's most populous and most Democratic areas. He wanted to let stand ballots that were cast the same way in the state's 70 other counties.

Trump attorney Jim Troupis contended clerks had broken the law by filling in the addresses of witnesses on absentee ballot envelopes. With the support of Republicans, the state Elections Commission four years ago told clerks they could do that if they were able to confirm the addresses.

In some cases, clerks filled in full addresses, but in many others they added only part of the addresses, such as the city or state.

The majority did not weigh in on that argument, saying it was among those Trump waited too long to raise.

The dissenters contended that having clerks fill in the addresses violated the law, and Monday's writing suggested that view could prevail at least in part in future litigation. That's because two of the justices in the majority, Hagedorn and Ann Walsh Bradley, suggested in a concurring opinion that clerks could not fill in entire addresses for witnesses. (They argued they might be able to fill in partial addresses.)

The majority opinion acknowledged that issue or another could be before the courts in the future.

"Nothing in our decision denying relief to (Trump) would affect the right of another party to raise substantive challenges," the majority wrote.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.jsonlin...6529642002

Similarly, the ruling found that voters had followed the rules laid out...

Quote: In a concurring opinion, Justices Karofsky and Rebecca Dallet said there was no proof of fraud.

"Wisconsin voters complied with the election rulebook. No penalties were committed and the final score was the result of a free and fair election," Justices Dallet and Karofsky wrote.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews...tors-meet/

Could you point out exactly where the rulings said there was fraud?

(12-15-2020 06:21 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Don’t quite follow why this is a stain for the Dems. It’s likely anyone that voted Biden/down-ballot Reps were conservatives who were tired of Trump and not necessarily influenced by the Democratic Party, but rather the reality of the past 4 years.

Here is the thing though Lad....

You can't demonstrate what you claim. You can't show that people voted for Biden and then for down-ballot Democrats. The numbers can be manipulated to imply that, but you can't demonstrate it.

As an example, more ballots were cast for President than for the sum of Senators, meaning plenty of people just voted at the top of the ticket. These are most likely to NOT be 'party' people. When you also look at the number of states where the sum of Senate votes of the top two contenders doesn't equal 100%, that tells you that there were third party/write ins involved. As a perfect example, in 2016 and 2020 Trump got 52% of Texas with Hillary getting about 43, while Biden got 46.... Meaning there was another 5% who voted for someone else in 2016. Libertarians got 3% in Texas in 2016 vs 1% in 2020. That's 2/3rds of the difference. Write ins and greens were a fraction of what they were in 2016.

So there are a ton of things you can speculate about... you can argue that libertarians went for Biden... You can argue that Reps left the party but were replaced by libertarians.... You can argue that dems simply 'got out the vote' especially in border towns, but that many of them simply voted for the top of the ballot... You can argue that swing voters swung this time to Biden and Libertarians to Trump. All sorts of things could be implied by the data... and you have chosen the most unlikely (imo) one AND the one that 'bodes the worst' for your opposition party by implying that Republicans 'broke ranks' against Trump.

So lets go look at Pennsylvania... and I just picked this one as a swing state from the last election. MAYBE I just got lucky that the three states I've looked at all say essentially the same thing. Texas because it is my home state, Alaska because it was the first on FBOs list and PA because it was a NE swing (where Trump surprised) that came to my mind.

2016, Trump gets 48.18%. This time he got 48.84%. His percentage went up... his total went up. Yet in some ways he once again 'lost' votes?? Hillary got 47.46% and Biden got 50.01%. Libertarians went down by 1% and 'others' did as well (Greens/Constitution/Write in).... so that's much of the difference. Maybe they didn't vote? Maybe they switched? Who knows. Again, I think the most likely scenario is that more of these NEW voters simply went to Biden at the top.

Down ballot, I think Dems may have suffered from a split in the party between progs and libs... either a lack of excitement or an actual challenge. Dems have said this themselves. I don't think this was all of the battles and may not have even been most. The most likely scenario is once again... new (or at least rare), low information or interest voters only following the populist meme of 'not Trump'. They also followed the 'turn the Senate' meme, but forgot about the house.

Quote:Color me shocked that the Democratic Party did not win over conservative voters.The Dem focus was about primarily about turning out their vote, which they did in droves. Trump’s similarly policy-lite campaign (what was his vision for a second term?), turned out both his conservative supporters and conservative detractors.

See? Where do you get statistical support for your claim of conservative detractors? The fact that you gained the White House, made gains in the Senate but lost in the House implies much more strongly that your focus on the top two was effective, but no indication that Reps weren't also effective... just slightly less so. The fact that you lost seats in the house means that you didn't focus there (and you didn't, certainly not as compared to the Senate and White House) OR that you had the fights between progs and libs as I suggested that split some of the left vote (or at least unmotivated some). You're seeing this exact same battle continue as Biden selects his cabinet.

I mean sure, anecdotally you can find people who voted for Trump last time who didn't this... AND you can find those who didn't vote for him last time who did this. I also know some who voted for Hillary who stayed home this time. So what?

(12-15-2020 06:32 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Could you point out exactly where the rulings said there was fraud?

You quoted it, though its not the description that most would use to describe fraud.

What you quoted says...
The dissenters contended that having clerks fill in the addresses violated the law, and Monday's writing suggested that view could prevail at least in part in future litigation. That's because two of the justices in the majority, Hagedorn and Ann Walsh Bradley, suggested in a concurring opinion that clerks could not fill in entire addresses for witnesses. (They argued they might be able to fill in partial addresses.)

If there were actually 220,000 ballots where some portion was filled in, it is not at all unlikely that 20,000 or even many more of those would have been 'entire' addresses... I'd also suggest that they'd consider '220 Sycamore Street' to be something those in the majority might not accept, but that they COULD easily add Houston or Tx. The former would/might impact which district you could vote in while the latter wouldn't really matter or would be assumed... while those in the minority seem to suggest that they can't do it at all.

If those votes are thrown out, then the results are potentially invalid. I think most would be okay calling these fraudulent results... even if no act of intentional fraud was demonstrated.... because you have so few ways of identifying an intentional act vs a mistaken one.

I'm not arguing Good's point... I'm simply reading what YOU posted and answering how someone with a different perspective could argue that there was evidence of fraud. It seems there were some portion of 220,000 ballots where something that the majority of the justices think shouldn't be done may well have been done.