Trump vs Biden 2020, Day 64 of the Pennsylvania count (pt 5) Read OP

paleoperson

duffman13 wrote: »

Somewhere in the region of 23 million additional votes apparently

Roughly 160 million turnout in an electorate of 240. 66% turnout

Yes, in the middle of a pandemic, miraculous isn't it? All turning up for Biden.

sheeplover55

km991148 wrote: »

And what about Watergate?

Of course, biggest of them all. I'm pretty young was only thinking back to somewhat recent elections.

looks like biden might have to call it himself

nonsense system that leaves it to networks without a clear central authority anyway

tho america being what it is, any clear central authority would just be bought or otherwise corrupted within a cycle or two

robinph

paleoperson wrote: »

I can't understand how this argument is being bandied around, it's utterly ridiculous. It's like saying if you cheat then why not get 98% in every exam - if you get too greedy suspicions are raised a lot higher.

Furthermore a lot more republicans would get really upset. They would help Trump and the investigation a lot more. The way it is a lot of them will be much more inclined to just get on with it. Better to let them have a toss-up in the house and senate.

Would it not just be easier to try and persuade people to vote for you rather than try to fix an election where you win by 0.1% that then results in a recount?

gmisk

paleoperson wrote: »

Yes, in the middle of a pandemic, miraculous isn't it? All turning up for Biden.

It's almost as if one set of voters was encouraged to vote by mail and the other wasn't....
Your really grasping at straws here imo.

AllForIt

AllForIt wrote: »

Yes this is breaking on CNN. It is said the amount is so small it won't make a difference.

sensible ruling, allows the issue to be put on hold until other factors make it irrelevant

omega man

eagle eye wrote: »

I would never call myself a math genius but I love it and I'm quite good at it.
I don't have all the information from Pennsylvania but it appears there is about 100kbvotes left to count and that 70%+ of them are in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh and suburbs around them where Biden has been getting 80%+ of these mail in ballots.
It's quite easy to call it now and I don't understand why it's not been done at this stage.

There is also around 50k “provisional” ballots I think.

Padre_Pio

MrStuffins wrote: »

Don't underestimate the power of the reduced effort involved in voting via post vs voting in person.

A lot of people are just lazy!

Exactly.

34% of the population have not voted.
There's enough people to vote in a third candidate as president.

If a democrat drives100 people who may not vote into going to to the centre, and persuades them to vote democrat, their 100 votes are every bit as valid as a person who made the trip with no persuasion.

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

looks like biden might have to call it himself

nonsense system that leaves it to networks without a clear central authority anyway

tho america being what it is, any clear central authority would just be bought or otherwise corrupted within a cycle or two

No the election does get certified by Congress. This is all ceremonial at this point, so we can all move on with the transition.

km991148

sheeplover55 wrote: »

Of course, biggest of them all. I'm pretty young was only thinking back to somewhat recent elections.

Yeah look, I'm taking the piss obviously, but there are enough shenanigans in this election cycle. None of it is justified by past shenanigans and none if the past should be excused either.

MeMen2_MoRi_

AllForIt wrote: »

Yes this is breaking on CNN. It is said the amount is so small it won't make a difference.

I'm here watching fox, and I'm half listening to it, but it came across as it was breaking.. but other poster said it's old news..

MoonUnit75

paleoperson wrote: »

Yes, in the middle of a pandemic, miraculous isn't it? All turning up for Biden.

I doubt Biden had such a big draw, people were voting Trump out. Biden is even more of a wet blanket than John Kerry was. It will be a return to business as usual though. I just hope he has the backing and the stamina to keep check on the radicals in the party.

Overheal

omega man wrote: »

There is also around 50k “provisional” ballots I think.

100k*

patsman07

paleoperson wrote: »

I can't understand how this argument is being bandied around, it's utterly ridiculous. It's like saying if you cheat then why not get 98% in every exam - if you get too greedy suspicions are raised a lot higher.

Furthermore a lot more republicans would get really upset. They would help Trump and the investigation a lot more. The way it is a lot of them will be much more inclined to just get on with it. Better to let them have a toss-up in the house and senate.

There is a conspiracy forum you know?

kowloon

paleoperson wrote: »

So let me get this straight - Trump got 2.97 million in Pennsylvania in 2016 and beat Hillary.

Trump got 3.3 million votes this time and still somehow loses to Biden???

Trump got 2.1 million votes in Georgia in 2016 and won - now he has 2.5 and "lost"?

**** is not adding up!!!

Higher voter turnout? Expanding population? No way - you don't have 20% increase in voter turnout from one election to the next. Voter turnout was huge the last time.

Shenanigans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwdba9C2G14

omega man

Overheal wrote: »

100k*

Pretty sure cnn said 47 but I could be wrong.

eagle eye

sheeplover55 wrote: »

You're not, like I said previously you change your stance based on the trend and force your assertiveness upon others while saying how smart you are in an "I told you so manner". You're doing it again "but I love it and I'm quite good at it".

I don't see any math in that post you put up of I'm mine.
Also I've maintained all along that Biden is a poor candidate so i haven't changed.
I'll admit though that I've been happier about him since the presidential debates began and was well impressed with his speech the other night.

I'm already on record in these threads saying that if the Democrats don't learn from this election that the USA is not ready to elect a female president then they'll never learn.
They have a sure fire winner in four years in Andrew Cuomo. Just go with him and guarantee another four years.
I don't understand how you bring up what you did in a post about math and the numbers?

km991148

robinph wrote: »

Would it not just be easier to try and persuade people to vote for you rather than try to fix an election where you win by 0.1% that then results in a recount?

It's fkn ridiculous notion really.

Countries where elections are fixed go to town on it.

When did Kim Jong-un ever win by 1%..!

paleoperson

robinph wrote: »

Would it not just be easier to try and persuade people to vote for you rather than try to fix an election where you win by 0.1% that then results in a recount?

Than to cheat? Of course it wouldn't be easier to get votes the normal way than to cheat.

They had no idea how close it would be in the end, they just ballot stuffed as much as they could without letting it be too obvious.

robinph

Deleted User wrote: »

looks like biden might have to call it himself

nonsense system that leaves it to networks without a clear central authority anyway

tho america being what it is, any clear central authority would just be bought or otherwise corrupted within a cycle or two

It's not a nonsense system, at least in this part of it. This carry on with TV networks calling the results is purely down to us all being too impatient to wait until next week when the results are actually all counted.

Still only 66% of the California vote counted, and that hasn't changed all day. They have no reason to bother counting them just yet though, but they will be at some point in the next week.

The real result is not by the TV networks, they are just making best guesses and usually get it right.

MeMen2_MoRi_

Poor tucker, there is so much butthurt oozing out his mouth about Joe..

froog

ridiculous they're dragging this out so long.

km991148

paleoperson wrote: »

Than to cheat? Of course it wouldn't be easier to get votes the normal way than to cheat.

They had no idea how close it would be in the end, they just ballot stuffed as much as they could without letting it be too obvious.

And miraculously, only the states with Biden winning had fraud? Not one unsuccessful attempt in and Red states?

Overheal

paleoperson wrote: »

So let me get this straight - Trump got 2.97 million in Pennsylvania in 2016 and beat Hillary.

Trump got 3.3 million votes this time and still somehow loses to Biden???

Trump got 2.1 million votes in Georgia in 2016 and won - now he has 2.5 and "lost"?

**** is not adding up!!!

Higher voter turnout? Expanding population? No way - you don't have 20% increase in voter turnout from one election to the next. Voter turnout was huge the last time.

Shenanigans.

Although millions of presidential ballots are still being counted, total voter turnout has already surpassed 2016’s level.

The latest figures, based on 2020 votes counted and additional known early votes, stand only a few percentage points away from breaking a 60-year-old record set in 1960.

So far, records from 1980 have already been broken in 31 states. Turnout was especially high in many battleground states, where expectations of a close contest appeared to boost voter participation.

Texas broke it’s 1992 record by over five percentage points, despite continuing to restrict access to mail-in ballots. Turnout in Minnesota reached nearly 80 percent.

The projection for where this turnout could end up is based on estimates of how many votes are still to be counted, from The Post’s own modeling and that of Edison Research. If this projection holds, 2020 turnout will be the highest since 1900, when 73.7 percent of eligible Americans cast ballots.

But America had a much smaller voting pool over a century ago. Women did not yet have the right to vote, nor did Asian Americans and many Native Americans. The most recent change to federal eligibility requirements was in 1971, when the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18.

Being eligible to vote didn’t necessarily mean being able to vote. Millions of African Americans had the federal right to vote throughout the 20th century but Jim Crow laws, intimidation and even violence meant, in practice, they couldn’t.

Expansions to the American electorate have often caused turnout to fall, and American’s highest-turnout years were all in the 19th century. 2020 won’t set the all-time record, but as final 2020 results trickle in, it could end up the highest in living memory.

Emily Liu and Daniel Hoerauf contributed data analysis.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/elections/voter-turnout/

paleoperson

km991148 wrote: »

And miraculously, only the states with Biden winning had fraud? Not one unsuccessful attempt in and Red states?

It's quite possible there was somewhere along the line, but the mail in ballots are a lot more susceptible to fraud.

robinph

paleoperson wrote: »

Than to cheat? Of course it wouldn't be easier to get votes the normal way than to cheat.

They had no idea how close it would be in the end, they just ballot stuffed as much as they could without letting it be too obvious.

Why create fake ballots when you can get the population to complete the votes for you themselves, and you don't then need to worry about someone catching you cheating?

km991148

It also tells you a lot about Trumps mind. The only way he can lose is if the other guy cheats. Why does he think that. Obviously be can't accept that some people don't like him but also.. that's what he would do..!

Like his time magazine covers, his golf wins, his whole life is built on appearance.

robinph

paleoperson wrote: »

It's quite possible there was somewhere along the line, but the mail in ballots are a lot more susceptible to fraud.

Where wasn't having the mail in ballots then?

Tell me how

Fox, via Tucker Carlson now are pushing Trump to continue to cry foul and for the good of America to not accept the results they are being given.

He has a contributor on now going after Lindsey Graham. The civil war we feared could take place within the Republic party. And I'd be ok with that.

paleoperson

robinph wrote: »

Why create fake ballots when you can get the population to complete the votes for you themselves, and you don't then need to worry about someone catching you cheating?

How dumb are you? How DUMB are YOU?

Are you trying to incite me into getting moderated?

You just asked this same ridiculous question in your last post - why not just get them to vote for you - and I politely answered you - because you just can't.

You can't just campaign more and have it reliably pick up all the votes. If that were the case they'd do nothing except campaign every day. There are some people you would never reach. It's diminishing returns.