it's 100% this. there is no other reasons. everything else is just lies and bluster to hide the truth of this.

Voter fraud is a thing republicans invented and Trump perpetuated to disenfranchise mostly democratic voters. As far as I am aware, there are no cases of systematic voter fraud that have ever been discovered, nor is there any evidence to suggest that it is taking place. It's a fiction, like much of of the agenda that the right wing in the USA pushes.

I believe Arizona found around six cases of voter fraud in 2020. And then there's Florida's special department that found a few. So there's probably a couple dozen cases country-wide. Easily enough to give Trump his landslide .

In 2016, BEFORE the vote, 40% of registered voters (mostly republicans but by far not exclusively) believed the election could be rigged against Trump

/And while just 17 percent of Democrats and 39 percent of independents say they believe the election is at risk of being stolen from Trump, a whopping 73 percent of Republicans say they hold such a fear./

https://www.usnews.com/news/politics...ng-with-voters

I guess the fact that he won in 2016 is not a data point that swayed these critical thinkers?

What can I say, people are stupid. A whole bunch of them believe there is a magic fairy in the sky who grants their wishes to cure their relatives of cancer and rig the lottery on their behalf, too. The fact that a bunch of people are dumb doesn't make what they believe any more likely to be true.

I asked you to quote where it said in the study (or anywhere else) that they polled their readers. You didn't reply. Until you provide that quote then you were indeed wrong.

Like I said, yet another one of these to add to your collection:

No, there is no notion that "fight like hell" means violence, in isolation. Anyone who has been suggesting he meant that is doing so in the context of Trump's other actions. I wouldn't normally speak so definitively about what's in the minds of others, but in this case it seems pretty much impossible to be aware of his speech without being aware of the many, many other things Trump has done and said, and having that influence one's views of "fight like hell". And that is why I find it laughable that using any particular thing Trump said against him will lead to some kind of dangerous precedent. We all know the context in which Trump's individual statements are being criticized.

Standard, although I'd often substitute "Lozen, here's proof you were wrong about a bunch of stuff". In fairness, he sometimes acknowledge these things, but changing the subject or choosing what to reply to are certainly favourite strategies.

Proudly and repeatedly demonstrating those legendary reading comprehension skills and overall mental acuity, I see.

Oh, and I nearly forgot this. Here you go.

Did you just post a tweet quoting the study as though it was an independent source adding credibility to the study?

Fact is they very strongly doubted the legitimity of the process (40% of independents, do you realize how big that is????), BEFORE having any element to think that.

It's not about being stupid, it's about having lost even the minimal trust in society leaders. A ton of people think leaders are simply extremely evil people hellbent on violating all norms to their own advantage every time, so the election rigging hypothesis isn't a special thing, it's just part and parcel of what they think people "in the system" would and could do to achieve their goals.

Btw i only disagree with them because it's not feasible, not because i think they wouldn't do it if they could. I deeply agree with the idea most politicians are evil sociopaths with 0 moral rules governing their lives.

Of course he did. And the article does it too. In fact I think references like 29-33 are all the same poll. It's pretty hilarious.

Why do you think this phenomenon seems to be uniquely American? As far as I know, the voting public in other Western countries doesn't harbour such distrust of the democratic process.

Incorrect. I posted the tweet because it answers the question you asked me in the your quoted post. I even highlighted the relevant part to make it easier for you. Lol

Distrust is growing in many countries, in some more than in others. The reasons why are multifaceted and perhaps not even the same in every country (for example in Italy, more than 20 years of no increase in per capita real gdp might play a very significant role. In some other countries, massive unprecedented immigration might play a role).

Afaik voter turnout, a very rough proxy of trust in the process (not necessarily the electoral process, but in the idea that voting matters because what happens in society can depend on the choices of the elected people and they are different one from the other in meaningful ways). is dropping almost everywhere.



Europe leads the pack in the drop (starting from very high tournouts).

Just some data points to give the magnitude of what happened:

Turnout in Italy in the 1963 national political elections was 93%. In 2022 it was 64%

Turnount in France in 1965 (first direct presidential election, De Gaulle won) was 85% (first round, second was almost the same). In 2022 it was 74% (first round)

Turnout in the USA in 1960 (JFK winning narrowly vs Nixon) was 64%. In 2016 it was 60% (i don't take 2020 because covid rules made turnout not -comparable expanding vote from home a lot)

So as a broad proxy as we mentioned before, if anything the USA always mistrusted the system, and that didn't change much; in Italy there was an exceptional drop in trust in the system, from very very high levels. And In France there is still a wide trust in the system albeit a lower one than 60 years ago.

There are thousands of smart people around the world, of all different political persuasions, who study and monitor elections as a full time career.

If there was any real reason to believe the election was stolen, at least some of them would be saying so. You wouldn't have to rely on some fringe group of crackpots who ran their "study" like 7th graders doing a school project.

@Luciom - I would posit that, at least for Europe, in most countries any party with a realistic chance of getting elected are going to be fairly moderate - a little bit left or a little bit right of centre. In the first few years after World War II, this wasn't necessarily the case. I think it's only natural that voter turnout will drop if there is no danger of an extremist party on either side of the spectrum gaining any meaningful power. We're not in much danger of seeing another Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini. Just my hypothesis, no idea if this has also been discussed by people who understand much more about these things than I do.

In America, there is a far right conspiracy-theory peddling party that purposely sows distrust in the system, so I think the causes there are disntinctly different.

Not sure what you mean especially for France given what everyone (including her supporters) said of Marine Le Pen. Or Wilders in the NL for that matter.

Btw Berlusconi did claim voter fraud stole him the election in 2006 (he lost with a very small margin) [turnout 84%]. He then won in 2008 when an early election was called because the gvmnt had a very thin majority which it lost because of problems within the alliance [turnout 81%].

Guys we now know how he plans to pay those hundreds of millions

https://twitter.com/Breaking911/stat...66049024639179

Yes, I guess in the last 10-15 yearsor so, politics has become more polarised. Did voter turnout rates rise since, say 2008 by any chance? If not, I guess my theory is pretty dead in the water.

In any case, I'm unconvinced that voter turnout rates are a good proxy for general trust in the democratic process. I think there are too many confounding variables.

I think you are wrong. In particualr about 'fight' and in general about the interpretations of what people say.

Very wrong if you think what is happening to trump - overwhelmingly entirely correctly - isn't going to lead to other bad consequences. That is part of the problem of trump - for example every candidate who ever becomes prominent can now expect to spend a lot of time dealing with potential and real lawsuits against them and/or their family. Not just candidates but also lawyers, judges etc etc Especially given but not limited to, the lol usa justice system - this is an epic disaster. Maybe I just care a lot more more when it hurts the left but I do think it hurts the left far more because they are taking on authorities / status quo.

Not the same as the presidential elections but

The things that happened to Trump happened to him because he is a terrible human being and because he breaks laws. Are you suggesting there should be no consequences for those things, because it would set a precedent that the same things might happen in future to someone who is not a terrible human being and doesn't break laws? Because if that is what you are suggesting, I think that allowing someone to do the things he has done with impunity sets a much worse precendent than the one you are trying to avoid.

Could be.

This is plausibly a better indicator, only problem is that afaik we don't have anything equivalent (same exact polling question for decades by serious pollsters) for other countries

But this is quite insane anyway

So let me get this straight. Rasmussen "conducted a national survey of 1,085 likely voters". I notice they failed to mention whether this was a random sample, or anything about how they were chosen. 311 of those surveyed said they had voted by mail-in ballot. The fraud questions were asked of those 311 people.

21% said they voted in a state where they are no longer a permanent resident. How does this affect each state? IE did a few particular states see substantially more votes because of this, or does it all tend to cancel itself out? Unknown.

21% admitted that they filled out a ballot for a friend or family member, 17% said they signed a ballot for a friend or family member “with or without his or her permission.”, 19% said that a friend or family member filled out their ballot, in part or in full, on their behalf. Did these actions change how their votes would have been cast? Unknown.

Heartland then took these numbers, and assumed that, based on 311 people, that this would have broken the same way across all states, and across both parties, and extrapolated results based on that. From those results, based on a shitton of assumptions and extrapolations of 311 people (which would factor to 47 people in the 6 states where they are extrapolating results), people are concluding Trump won.

Do I have that right?