4stringAg said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

The arrogance of people on this site who refuse to believe it's possible for the majority of the country to disagree with them is quite astounding.

---

I voted for "None Of The Above" and I don't believe the numbers, anywhere, at all. Biden had zero (0) ground game. He couldn't fill small venues, Trump had to turn people away.

So...yeah...can't believe the made-up numbers when you apply reality and logic.

---

Hillary couldn't fill a stadium either, yet she still got 3 million more votes than Trump did. If we went just based on Rally attendance Trump should've won by 10 million plus votes.

Rally attendance is not a good predictor of electoral turnout. People need to stop judging elections and campaigns based on standards from the 90s. We live in the virtual age now. Much of what used to be done in person, can now be done remotely.

---

HIllary actually drew some large crowds and had a very loyal group of followers. It wasn't as much as Trump but it was sure as hell a lot more than Biden.

---

Tell me, can dislike of a candidate encourage people to vote against just as much as excitement for a candidate can encourage people to vote for them?

It's seems people on here only want to look at one factor.

---

I think it can and the hatred of Trump was pretty powerful. However, its usually not the norm that it is enough of a motivator to win elections (see Bush v Kerry 2004; Obama v Romney 2012). Usually when you have a popular encumbent its enough to overcome the hate. The hate for Trump may be unprecedented but I don't think it was powerful enough to explain Biden getting record turnout. Mail in ballots are probably the real reason.

But that's my opinion only.

---

absentee ballots

SirLurksALot said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

The arrogance of people on this site who refuse to believe it's possible for the majority of the country to disagree with them is quite astounding.

---

I voted for "None Of The Above" and I don't believe the numbers, anywhere, at all. Biden had zero (0) ground game. He couldn't fill small venues, Trump had to turn people away.

So...yeah...can't believe the made-up numbers when you apply reality and logic.

---

Hillary couldn't fill a stadium either, yet she still got 3 million more votes than Trump did. If we went just based on Rally attendance Trump should've won by 10 million plus votes.

Rally attendance is not a good predictor of electoral turnout. People need to stop judging elections and campaigns based on standards from the 90s. We live in the virtual age now. Much of what used to be done in person, can now be done remotely.

---

HIllary actually drew some large crowds and had a very loyal group of followers. It wasn't as much as Trump but it was sure as hell a lot more than Biden.

---

Tell me, can hatred of a candidate encourage people to vote against them just as much as excitement for a candidate can encourage people to vote for them?

It's seems people on here only want to look at one factor.

---

Of course it can, that was Biden's entire campaign. Exit polls show that Biden's voters were anywhere from 51-70% against Trump and not for Biden. Trump's votes were about 70-80% for Trump.

That wasn't the point though. Hillary had monster negatives as well and plenty of people voted against her (or against Trump including myself who voted L last time). The point was that there was literally almost no pro Biden enthusiasm at all to the point of it being freakish. Most Senate candidates could draw more people than Biden. That simply shouldn't be possible. The original point was that Hillary got fewer votes but actually had more enthusiasm.

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieIce said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

The arrogance of people on this site who refuse to believe it's possible for the majority of the country to disagree with them is quite astounding.

---

The arrogance of people on this site who refuse to believe it's possible for the communist surge in this country (under air cover by a complicit media) to blatantly steal a presidential election is quite astounding.

---

Not surprising that someone who believes the election was "stolen" also doesn't know what communism is.

---

Communism is a fantasy inspired by Karl Marx. There has never been a communistic country, a traitor best the closest would have been described by Marx as the dictatorship of the proletariat. There were failed attempts in this country going back into the 1800s and more recently the drugged out hippies in the 69s/79s.

The term communism today is used the describe extreme socialistic countries that are ruled by either dictatorships or oligarchs. So the post you ridicule is correct by today's accepted descriptions. It isn't an accident that BLM organization was formed by admitted Marxists.

richardag said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieIce said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

The arrogance of people on this site who refuse to believe it's possible for the majority of the country to disagree with them is quite astounding.

---

The arrogance of people on this site who refuse to believe it's possible for the communist surge in this country (under air cover by a complicit media) to blatantly steal a presidential election is quite astounding.

---

Not surprising that someone who believes the election was "stolen" also doesn't know what communism is.

---

Communism is a fantasy inspired by Karl Marx. There has never been a communistic country, a traitor best the closest would have been described by Marx as the dictatorship of the proletariat. There were failed attempts in this country going back into the 1800s and more recently the drugged out hippies in the 69s/79s.

The term communism today is used the describe extreme socialistic countries that are ruled by either dictatorships or oligarchs. So the post you ridicule is correct by today's accepted descriptions. It isn't an accident that BLM organization was formed by admitted Marxists.

---

Good point. This is how I use the term because true communism is a fantasy. It will always lead to the reality of a dictatorship or oligarch simply because it breaks the basic rules of economic scarcity and human behavior.

4stringAg said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

The arrogance of people on this site who refuse to believe it's possible for the majority of the country to disagree with them is quite astounding.

---

I voted for "None Of The Above" and I don't believe the numbers, anywhere, at all. Biden had zero (0) ground game. He couldn't fill small venues, Trump had to turn people away.

So...yeah...can't believe the made-up numbers when you apply reality and logic.

---

Hillary couldn't fill a stadium either, yet she still got 3 million more votes than Trump did. If we went just based on Rally attendance Trump should've won by 10 million plus votes.

Rally attendance is not a good predictor of electoral turnout. People need to stop judging elections and campaigns based on standards from the 90s. We live in the virtual age now. Much of what used to be done in person, can now be done remotely.

---

HIllary actually drew some large crowds and had a very loyal group of followers. It wasn't as much as Trump but it was sure as hell a lot more than Biden.

---

Tell me, can dislike of a candidate encourage people to vote against just as much as excitement for a candidate can encourage people to vote for them?

It's seems people on here only want to look at one factor.

---

I think it can and the hatred of Trump was pretty powerful. However, its usually not the norm that it is enough of a motivator to win elections (see Bush v Kerry 2004; Obama v Romney 2012). Usually when you have a popular encumbent its enough to overcome the hate. The hate for Trump may be unprecedented but I don't think it was powerful enough to explain Biden getting record turnout. Mail in ballots are probably the real reason.

But that's my opinion only.

---

Mail in ballots definitely had an impact on turnout.

Both sides have spent the last year or so telling the country just how existential this election was. It's not surprising that much of the country believed them.

aggie93 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

The arrogance of people on this site who refuse to believe it's possible for the majority of the country to disagree with them is quite astounding.

---

I voted for "None Of The Above" and I don't believe the numbers, anywhere, at all. Biden had zero (0) ground game. He couldn't fill small venues, Trump had to turn people away.

So...yeah...can't believe the made-up numbers when you apply reality and logic.

---

Hillary couldn't fill a stadium either, yet she still got 3 million more votes than Trump did. If we went just based on Rally attendance Trump should've won by 10 million plus votes.

Rally attendance is not a good predictor of electoral turnout. People need to stop judging elections and campaigns based on standards from the 90s. We live in the virtual age now. Much of what used to be done in person, can now be done remotely.

---

HIllary actually drew some large crowds and had a very loyal group of followers. It wasn't as much as Trump but it was sure as hell a lot more than Biden.

---

Tell me, can hatred of a candidate encourage people to vote against them just as much as excitement for a candidate can encourage people to vote for them?

It's seems people on here only want to look at one factor.

---

Of course it can, that was Biden's entire campaign. Exit polls show that Biden's voters were anywhere from 51-70% against Trump and not for Biden. Trump's votes were about 70-80% for Trump.

That wasn't the point though. Hillary had monster negatives as well and plenty of people voted against her (or against Trump including myself who voted L last time). The point was that there was literally almost no pro Biden enthusiasm at all to the point of it being freakish. Most Senate candidates could draw more people than Biden. That simply shouldn't be possible. The original point was that Hillary got fewer votes but actually had more enthusiasm.

---

Why? Biden always ran as candidate who could beat Trump. He ran as the anti Trump candidate and basically nothing else. It's not surprising that his voters would be voting more against Trump than for Biden. That was the entire premise of his campaign.

Feel free to live there, but what I have seen is not good. I have nothing against brown people, but rude people suck, and Atlanta is very high on the "rude" meter. Plus the traffic is horrible and the city is the dirtiest city in the south that I've seen.

richardag said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

AggieIce said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

The arrogance of people on this site who refuse to believe it's possible for the majority of the country to disagree with them is quite astounding.

---

The arrogance of people on this site who refuse to believe it's possible for the communist surge in this country (under air cover by a complicit media) to blatantly steal a presidential election is quite astounding.

---

Not surprising that someone who believes the election was "stolen" also doesn't know what communism is.

---

Communism is a fantasy inspired by Karl Marx. There has never been a communistic country, a traitor best the closest would have been described by Marx as the dictatorship of the proletariat. There were failed attempts in this country going back into the 1800s and more recently the drugged out hippies in the 69s/79s.

The term communism today is used the describe extreme socialistic countries that are ruled by either dictatorships or oligarchs. So the post you ridicule is correct by today's accepted descriptions. It isn't an accident that BLM organization was formed by admitted Marxists.

---

Communism as economic system is the public ownership of everything and the abolishment of private property. There are no national elected representatives advocating for such a system. There is no communist surge. As you pointed out, there is a long history of communist sympathizers in this country and Antifa and BLM are just the most recent embodiment of those groups. Yet those groups are no more powerful today than they have been in the past. In fact the communist groups of the 60s and 70s were far more violent and prevalent.

You are correct that there is widespread ignorance as to what communism is, but that doesn't mean we should just accept those ignorant definitions.

SirLurksALot said:

---

VitruvianAg said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

The arrogance of people on this site who refuse to believe it's possible for the majority of the country to disagree with them is quite astounding.

---

I voted for "None Of The Above" and I don't believe the numbers, anywhere, at all. Biden had zero (0) ground game. He couldn't fill small venues, Trump had to turn people away.

So...yeah...can't believe the made-up numbers when you apply reality and logic.

---

Hillary couldn't fill a stadium either, yet she still got 3 million more votes than Trump did. If we went just based on Rally attendance Trump should've won by 10 million plus votes.

Rally attendance is not a good predictor of electoral turnout. People need to stop judging elections and campaigns based on standards from the 90s. We live in the virtual age now. Much of what used to be done in person, can now be done remotely.

---

H e l l o , H e l l o !

Are you keeping up?

---

Oh yeah, I forgot. Widespread Fraud happened in 2016 to and the Trump administration couldn't find any evidence of it during the last 4 years. Maybe Trump is part of the deep state as well. Lol

Honestly the delusion is comical. The meltdown on January 20th is going to be incredible.

---

Wrong!

SirLurksALot said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

The arrogance of people on this site who refuse to believe it's possible for the majority of the country to disagree with them is quite astounding.

---

I voted for "None Of The Above" and I don't believe the numbers, anywhere, at all. Biden had zero (0) ground game. He couldn't fill small venues, Trump had to turn people away.

So...yeah...can't believe the made-up numbers when you apply reality and logic.

---

Hillary couldn't fill a stadium either, yet she still got 3 million more votes than Trump did. If we went just based on Rally attendance Trump should've won by 10 million plus votes.

Rally attendance is not a good predictor of electoral turnout. People need to stop judging elections and campaigns based on standards from the 90s. We live in the virtual age now. Much of what used to be done in person, can now be done remotely.

---

HIllary actually drew some large crowds and had a very loyal group of followers. It wasn't as much as Trump but it was sure as hell a lot more than Biden.

---

Tell me, can hatred of a candidate encourage people to vote against them just as much as excitement for a candidate can encourage people to vote for them?

It's seems people on here only want to look at one factor.

---

Of course it can, that was Biden's entire campaign. Exit polls show that Biden's voters were anywhere from 51-70% against Trump and not for Biden. Trump's votes were about 70-80% for Trump.

That wasn't the point though. Hillary had monster negatives as well and plenty of people voted against her (or against Trump including myself who voted L last time). The point was that there was literally almost no pro Biden enthusiasm at all to the point of it being freakish. Most Senate candidates could draw more people than Biden. That simply shouldn't be possible. The original point was that Hillary got fewer votes but actually had more enthusiasm.

---

Why? Biden always ran as candidate who could beat Trump. He ran as the anti Trump candidate and basically nothing else. It's not surprising that his voters would be voting more against Trump than for Biden. That was the entire premise of his campaign.

---

It's certainly a valid argument but it is a different argument than the original point. You were arguing that Hillary also couldn't draw people which was inaccurate and it also makes less sense since she drew far more than Biden.

Was the movement against Trump big? Sure. He instilled hate like crazy. Of course, so did Bush and so did Reagan. Maybe Orange Man Bad was enough. It's jut not a different point.

aggie93 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

The arrogance of people on this site who refuse to believe it's possible for the majority of the country to disagree with them is quite astounding.

---

I voted for "None Of The Above" and I don't believe the numbers, anywhere, at all. Biden had zero (0) ground game. He couldn't fill small venues, Trump had to turn people away.

So...yeah...can't believe the made-up numbers when you apply reality and logic.

---

Hillary couldn't fill a stadium either, yet she still got 3 million more votes than Trump did. If we went just based on Rally attendance Trump should've won by 10 million plus votes.

Rally attendance is not a good predictor of electoral turnout. People need to stop judging elections and campaigns based on standards from the 90s. We live in the virtual age now. Much of what used to be done in person, can now be done remotely.

---

HIllary actually drew some large crowds and had a very loyal group of followers. It wasn't as much as Trump but it was sure as hell a lot more than Biden.

---

Tell me, can hatred of a candidate encourage people to vote against them just as much as excitement for a candidate can encourage people to vote for them?

It's seems people on here only want to look at one factor.

---

Of course it can, that was Biden's entire campaign. Exit polls show that Biden's voters were anywhere from 51-70% against Trump and not for Biden. Trump's votes were about 70-80% for Trump.

That wasn't the point though. Hillary had monster negatives as well and plenty of people voted against her (or against Trump including myself who voted L last time). The point was that there was literally almost no pro Biden enthusiasm at all to the point of it being freakish. Most Senate candidates could draw more people than Biden. That simply shouldn't be possible. The original point was that Hillary got fewer votes but actually had more enthusiasm.

---

Why? Biden always ran as candidate who could beat Trump. He ran as the anti Trump candidate and basically nothing else. It's not surprising that his voters would be voting more against Trump than for Biden. That was the entire premise of his campaign.

---

It's certainly a valid argument but it is a different argument than the original point. You were arguing that Hillary also couldn't draw people which was inaccurate and it also makes less sense since she drew far more than Biden.

Was the movement against Trump big? Sure. He instilled hate like crazy. Of course, so did Bush and so did Reagan. Maybe Orange Man Bad was enough. It's jut not a different point.

---

Actually, I was arguing that rally attendance is not a good predictor of voter turnout. Trump clearly had much bigger rally attendance than Clinton in 2016, yet Clinton received millions more votes.

YouBet said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

VitruvianAg said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

The arrogance of people on this site who refuse to believe it's possible for the majority of the country to disagree with them is quite astounding.

---

I voted for "None Of The Above" and I don't believe the numbers, anywhere, at all. Biden had zero (0) ground game. He couldn't fill small venues, Trump had to turn people away.

So...yeah...can't believe the made-up numbers when you apply reality and logic.

---

Hillary couldn't fill a stadium either, yet she still got 3 million more votes than Trump did. If we went just based on Rally attendance Trump should've won by 10 million plus votes.

Rally attendance is not a good predictor of electoral turnout. People need to stop judging elections and campaigns based on standards from the 90s. We live in the virtual age now. Much of what used to be done in person, can now be done remotely.

---

H e l l o , H e l l o !

Are you keeping up?

---

Oh yeah, I forgot. Widespread Fraud happened in 2016 to and the Trump administration couldn't find any evidence of it during the last 4 years. Maybe Trump is part of the deep state as well. Lol

Honestly the delusion is comical. The meltdown on January 20th is going to be incredible.

---

Don't ignore your own side who claimed incessantly and still do that Russia, Russia, Russia stole the election from Hillary. We heard much more about that than claims from the right on fraud.

Come on, man!

---

Bbbbut,, bbbbuut, buttt, he told us he voted for Trump!

SirLurksALot said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

The arrogance of people on this site who refuse to believe it's possible for the majority of the country to disagree with them is quite astounding.

---

I voted for "None Of The Above" and I don't believe the numbers, anywhere, at all. Biden had zero (0) ground game. He couldn't fill small venues, Trump had to turn people away.

So...yeah...can't believe the made-up numbers when you apply reality and logic.

---

Hillary couldn't fill a stadium either, yet she still got 3 million more votes than Trump did. If we went just based on Rally attendance Trump should've won by 10 million plus votes.

Rally attendance is not a good predictor of electoral turnout. People need to stop judging elections and campaigns based on standards from the 90s. We live in the virtual age now. Much of what used to be done in person, can now be done remotely.

---

HIllary actually drew some large crowds and had a very loyal group of followers. It wasn't as much as Trump but it was sure as hell a lot more than Biden.

---

Tell me, can hatred of a candidate encourage people to vote against them just as much as excitement for a candidate can encourage people to vote for them?

It's seems people on here only want to look at one factor.

---

Of course it can, that was Biden's entire campaign. Exit polls show that Biden's voters were anywhere from 51-70% against Trump and not for Biden. Trump's votes were about 70-80% for Trump.

That wasn't the point though. Hillary had monster negatives as well and plenty of people voted against her (or against Trump including myself who voted L last time). The point was that there was literally almost no pro Biden enthusiasm at all to the point of it being freakish. Most Senate candidates could draw more people than Biden. That simply shouldn't be possible. The original point was that Hillary got fewer votes but actually had more enthusiasm.

---

Why? Biden always ran as candidate who could beat Trump. He ran as the anti Trump candidate and basically nothing else. It's not surprising that his voters would be voting more against Trump than for Biden. That was the entire premise of his campaign.

---

It's certainly a valid argument but it is a different argument than the original point. You were arguing that Hillary also couldn't draw people which was inaccurate and it also makes less sense since she drew far more than Biden.

Was the movement against Trump big? Sure. He instilled hate like crazy. Of course, so did Bush and so did Reagan. Maybe Orange Man Bad was enough. It's jut not a different point.

---

Actually, I was arguing that rally attendance is not a good predictor of voter turnout. Trump clearly had much bigger rally attendance than Clinton in 2016, yet Clinton received millions more votes.

---

Take out California and Trump won the popular vote in 2016.

YouBet said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

VitruvianAg said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

The arrogance of people on this site who refuse to believe it's possible for the majority of the country to disagree with them is quite astounding.

---

I voted for "None Of The Above" and I don't believe the numbers, anywhere, at all. Biden had zero (0) ground game. He couldn't fill small venues, Trump had to turn people away.

So...yeah...can't believe the made-up numbers when you apply reality and logic.

---

Hillary couldn't fill a stadium either, yet she still got 3 million more votes than Trump did. If we went just based on Rally attendance Trump should've won by 10 million plus votes.

Rally attendance is not a good predictor of electoral turnout. People need to stop judging elections and campaigns based on standards from the 90s. We live in the virtual age now. Much of what used to be done in person, can now be done remotely.

---

H e l l o , H e l l o !

Are you keeping up?

---

Oh yeah, I forgot. Widespread Fraud happened in 2016 to and the Trump administration couldn't find any evidence of it during the last 4 years. Maybe Trump is part of the deep state as well. Lol

Honestly the delusion is comical. The meltdown on January 20th is going to be incredible.

---

Don't ignore your own side who claimed incessantly and still do that Russia, Russia, Russia stole the election from Hillary. We heard much more about that than claims from the right on fraud.

Come on, man!

---

Nobody on the left was claiming the sanctity of the vote itself was tainted, with widespread voter fraud. Russia was all about Russian money buying adds on facebook, and getting Russian operatives to dig up dirt on people.

Your guy lost, get over it.

Sorry wrong thread

VitruvianAg said:

---

YouBet said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

VitruvianAg said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

The arrogance of people on this site who refuse to believe it's possible for the majority of the country to disagree with them is quite astounding.

---

I voted for "None Of The Above" and I don't believe the numbers, anywhere, at all. Biden had zero (0) ground game. He couldn't fill small venues, Trump had to turn people away.

So...yeah...can't believe the made-up numbers when you apply reality and logic.

---

Hillary couldn't fill a stadium either, yet she still got 3 million more votes than Trump did. If we went just based on Rally attendance Trump should've won by 10 million plus votes.

Rally attendance is not a good predictor of electoral turnout. People need to stop judging elections and campaigns based on standards from the 90s. We live in the virtual age now. Much of what used to be done in person, can now be done remotely.

---

H e l l o , H e l l o !

Are you keeping up?

---

Oh yeah, I forgot. Widespread Fraud happened in 2016 to and the Trump administration couldn't find any evidence of it during the last 4 years. Maybe Trump is part of the deep state as well. Lol

Honestly the delusion is comical. The meltdown on January 20th is going to be incredible.

---

Don't ignore your own side who claimed incessantly and still do that Russia, Russia, Russia stole the election from Hillary. We heard much more about that than claims from the right on fraud.

Come on, man!

---

Bbbbut,, bbbbuut, buttt, he told us he voted for Trump!

---

I've repeatedly stated on here that the Russia gate nonsense was delusional.

The delusion we're seeing from some posters on this site is similar to delusion we saw in 2016.

Rapier108 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

The arrogance of people on this site who refuse to believe it's possible for the majority of the country to disagree with them is quite astounding.

---

I voted for "None Of The Above" and I don't believe the numbers, anywhere, at all. Biden had zero (0) ground game. He couldn't fill small venues, Trump had to turn people away.

So...yeah...can't believe the made-up numbers when you apply reality and logic.

---

Hillary couldn't fill a stadium either, yet she still got 3 million more votes than Trump did. If we went just based on Rally attendance Trump should've won by 10 million plus votes.

Rally attendance is not a good predictor of electoral turnout. People need to stop judging elections and campaigns based on standards from the 90s. We live in the virtual age now. Much of what used to be done in person, can now be done remotely.

---

HIllary actually drew some large crowds and had a very loyal group of followers. It wasn't as much as Trump but it was sure as hell a lot more than Biden.

---

Tell me, can hatred of a candidate encourage people to vote against them just as much as excitement for a candidate can encourage people to vote for them?

It's seems people on here only want to look at one factor.

---

Of course it can, that was Biden's entire campaign. Exit polls show that Biden's voters were anywhere from 51-70% against Trump and not for Biden. Trump's votes were about 70-80% for Trump.

That wasn't the point though. Hillary had monster negatives as well and plenty of people voted against her (or against Trump including myself who voted L last time). The point was that there was literally almost no pro Biden enthusiasm at all to the point of it being freakish. Most Senate candidates could draw more people than Biden. That simply shouldn't be possible. The original point was that Hillary got fewer votes but actually had more enthusiasm.

---

Why? Biden always ran as candidate who could beat Trump. He ran as the anti Trump candidate and basically nothing else. It's not surprising that his voters would be voting more against Trump than for Biden. That was the entire premise of his campaign.

---

It's certainly a valid argument but it is a different argument than the original point. You were arguing that Hillary also couldn't draw people which was inaccurate and it also makes less sense since she drew far more than Biden.

Was the movement against Trump big? Sure. He instilled hate like crazy. Of course, so did Bush and so did Reagan. Maybe Orange Man Bad was enough. It's jut not a different point.

---

Actually, I was arguing that rally attendance is not a good predictor of voter turnout. Trump clearly had much bigger rally attendance than Clinton in 2016, yet Clinton received millions more votes.

---

Take out California and Trump won the popular vote in 2016.

---

Omg. What don't you get about rally attendance not predicting voter turnout? You can't just remove an entire state to try to make yo ur argument more plausible.

Trump had significantly larger rallies, therefore if rallies actually predicted turnout he should've had significantly more votes. Yet he didn't.

Ballot harvesting, fraud, tampered ballots, and software manipulation for Biden's current lead.

So instead of 'FTW', it's...standby that is a LOT of letters...

BHFTBSMFBCL

7 hundred thousand..... statistics and math are not on your side.

The Georgia GOP deserves its fate.

Does anyone think the Dems, if they held the cards, would be so feckless?

Keegan99 said:

---

The Georgia GOP deserves its fate.

Does anyone think the Dems, if they held the cards, would be so feckless?

---

Sounds like the lower tier members of the audit team may not recognize they are to follow the election law as written. I guess when you are an auditor, your evaluation is unimpeachable.

Never was that way in my experience...

Shanked Punt said:

---

YouBet said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

VitruvianAg said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

SirLurksALot said:

---

The arrogance of people on this site who refuse to believe it's possible for the majority of the country to disagree with them is quite astounding.

---

I voted for "None Of The Above" and I don't believe the numbers, anywhere, at all. Biden had zero (0) ground game. He couldn't fill small venues, Trump had to turn people away.

So...yeah...can't believe the made-up numbers when you apply reality and logic.

---

Hillary couldn't fill a stadium either, yet she still got 3 million more votes than Trump did. If we went just based on Rally attendance Trump should've won by 10 million plus votes.

Rally attendance is not a good predictor of electoral turnout. People need to stop judging elections and campaigns based on standards from the 90s. We live in the virtual age now. Much of what used to be done in person, can now be done remotely.

---

H e l l o , H e l l o !

Are you keeping up?

---

Oh yeah, I forgot. Widespread Fraud happened in 2016 to and the Trump administration couldn't find any evidence of it during the last 4 years. Maybe Trump is part of the deep state as well. Lol

Honestly the delusion is comical. The meltdown on January 20th is going to be incredible.

---

Don't ignore your own side who claimed incessantly and still do that Russia, Russia, Russia stole the election from Hillary. We heard much more about that than claims from the right on fraud.

Come on, man!

---

Nobody on the left was claiming the sanctity of the vote itself was tainted, with widespread voter fraud. Russia was all about Russian money buying adds on facebook, and getting Russian operatives to dig up dirt on people.

Your guy lost, get over it.

---

As noted elsewhere, I've been over it since Tuesday night and really haven't delved much into the recount embrolio. I don't think he has much of a chance.

And you'll note I said nothing about the sanctity of the vote. The claims back then were that Russia's manipulation helped Trump beat Hillary and stole it from her. Why else do you think we had the fake Russian collusion coup and fake impeachment against Trump?

You been paying attention to anything other than Brexit in the last four years?

GeorgiAg said:

---

4stringAg said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

I met Stacey Abrams when she came to talk to my county bar association. While I don't like her politics and voted for Kemp, she was very impressive and gave a good speech. I wouldn't be surprised if she runs for Governor or senate.

---

Wouldn't surprise me at all to see her as Kamala's VP pick when/if Biden steps aside. I think Biden interviewed her for his VP before settling on Kamala. Reward for her help in delivering GA.

---

I think you're right. People act like she's just out of nowhere, but she's led the house minority in Georgia for years. Yale Law and a masters from t.u. Her resume is impressive. I hope republicans field a better candidate than Trump.

---

Don't forget Mike Bloomberg's $$. She didn't do this in a vacuum.

SirLurksALot said:

---

The arrogance of people on this site who refuse to believe it's possible for the majority of the country to disagree with them is quite astounding.

---

Its truly unbelievable.

And then these guys get mad at me for repeating that Donald Trump only won 46% of the vote in 2016, and only improved that by 1% in 2020.

These guys are acting like Ronald Reagan suspiciously lost in 1984.

AgBMF42 said:

---

Abrams registered 800,000 voters.

---

I mean they effectively put in automatic registration for everyone from what I hear. When more people vote, Republicans lose.

I can't wait until the soup kitchens and food pantries are full if liberals wondering what happened to our great country!

ActualTalkingThermos said:

---

AgBMF42 said:

---

Abrams registered 800,000 voters.

---

I mean they effectively put in automatic registration for everyone from what I hear. When more people vote, Republicans lose.

---

Especially when a lot of those people are ineligible to vote.

snowdog90 said:

---

Feel free to live there, but what I have seen is not good. I have nothing against brown people, but rude people suck, and Atlanta is very high on the "rude" meter. Plus the traffic is horrible and the city is the dirtiest city in the south that I've seen.

---

Someone has never been to New Orleans.

Atlanta is the crown jewel of the Deep South.

I consider Gainesville, Florida to be the Southern most point of the Deep South...meaning I don't consider Orlando, Tampa or Miami to be in the Deep South.
Jacksonville, Pensacola and Tallahassee are definitely Deep South cities in Florida.

Atlanta has the most money, the most people, the highest paying jobs, and the most powerful people.

Cities with big economies and tons of money attract newer residents and Atlanta attracts people from all over the country.

snowdog90 said:

---

Its so obvious GA doesn't make sense and that mail-in-ballots are the reason. And as a ruck driver who has been through/to Atlanta many times the last couple years, I would NEVER live there. It is a hole.

---

So there's this place you hate and would never ever live, and you find it hard to believe that people who do choose to live there have very different opinions from you.

jrdaustin said:

---

AgBMF42 said:

---

Abrams registered 800,000 voters.

---

Let's do the math, shall we?

She ran and lost for governor in 2018. So assume 2 years from her losing the election to Election Day 2020. At 365 days/year x2 that comes to 730 days for 2 years.

800,000 registrations divided by 730 comes to roughly 1,095 people registered per day, 7 days a week, since she lost the election. My, she's a busy and productive woman!

Or not.

Georgia population is roughly 10 million people. Of those, ~25% are 18 and younger. That leaves about 7.5 million of voting age in Georgia.

Per Georgia Secretary of State website, number of registered voters in 2018 was 6,935,816. That leaves about 560,000 adults of voting age that were not registered to vote. So, you are making the argument that Abrams and her bunch registered those 560k people, and another 240k for good measure between 2018 and November 3rd?

To quote W, Fuzzy Math. I don't believe you.

---

Per the Census Bureau, as of June 1, 2019 Georgia had a population of 10.6 million people and 23.6% were younger than 18. Now, that doesn't seem like a big difference, but it changes your 7.5 million number to 8.1 million. Take 1/20th of the under 18 people who would turn 18 from June 1, 2019 till November 3, 2020 and you get to 8.2 million. So, the 560,000 "available" voters is closer to 1,260,000 people. Rounding your numbers in favor of your argument is fuzzy math. If you are going to make a point with numbers, be precise enough and round against yourself such that it doesn't change the outcome on your point if someone else takes 5 minutes to verify it.

Now the truth regarding Stacey Abrams is that she (and her organization) are what delivered Georgia to the Dems. She is going to be a thorn in the side of Republicans in the sate and nationally for the next 30 years. Her resume looks really compelling and her understanding of local, grassroots politics is on par with the best in the county. It's easy to dismiss her as someone you never heard of or as not impressive. But she impresses the hell out of the Democratic voter base and she is great at getting them registered and participating in the election process.

If she was a Republican, she would be front and center for the party. She is one of six siblings of Methodist minister parents, was valedictorian of her high school class, obtained three degrees including a doctorate of law from Yale (I know, it's not Harvard), and has been involved in politics since she was like 17. Oh and as posters have said she is black and a female, which plays pretty well to the Atlanta area voter.

This type of person has the ability to turn a state on it's head. No amount of outside money or "political heavyweights" visiting can overcome her grass roots ground game. The Republicans have to get out in the community and talk to their voters at a level to match hers if they want a chance to turn the tide that she is causing. She's a LEGIT threat. Don't sleep on her or Georgia may be gone for a generation.

Trump told all of his voters to not vote by mail. People who cared about COVID voted by mail. People who cared about COVID were overwhelmingly not Trump voters. So what do you expect?

The in person voting is big time Trump. Then they count the count the COVID folks who stayed at home and voted legally by mail and folks are shocked that those voted are overwhelmingly for Biden? It happens like this every election?

Remember Ohio in 2016? Or for that matter Ohio and Texas in 2020? These states count mail in ballots as they come in and release the results as soon as the polls close. Result? Massive Democratic numbers right off the bat. And nobody cares or thinks the Democrat is going to win because we all know the in person votes haven't been counted yet and they are going to be massively Republican. And sure enough, on election night 2016, we all went to bed with Clinton winning Ohio and nobody called the state becuase nobody thought she would actually lose it. And she did lose it when we woke up the next day and Trump had slowly pulled ahead overnight and not one single Trump voter thought that represented voter fraud.

Same for 2020 when both Texas and Ohio released first numbers showing Biden ahead and by late that night and the next day, Trump was leading. Duh.

So in those states like PA and GA where they count the mail in LAST, the opposite happens. The Republican pulls out in front and the democrat slowly comes back. Sometimes the Democrat comes back and falls short (North Carolina). Sometimes they come back abnd pull ahead (Georgia and Pennsylvaina). Neither is evidence of voter fraud. It all boils down to which votes do you count first.

Kellso said:

---

snowdog90 said:

---

Feel free to live there, but what I have seen is not good. I have nothing against brown people, but rude people suck, and Atlanta is very high on the "rude" meter. Plus the traffic is horrible and the city is the dirtiest city in the south that I've seen.

---

Someone has never been to New Orleans.

Atlanta is the crown jewel of the Deep South.

I consider Gainesville, Florida to be the Southern most point of the Deep South...meaning I don't consider Orlando, Tampa or Miami to be in the Deep South.
Jacksonville, Pensacola and Tallahassee are definitely Deep South cities in Florida.

Atlanta has the most money, the most people, the highest paying jobs, and the most powerful people.

Cities with big economies and tons of money attract newer residents and Atlanta attracts people from all over the country.

---

And it was built when every county in the MSA was red with the exception of Fulton.

Looks like Atlanta is ready to begin its blue decent into ****holesdom see Chicago, Detroit, Milwalkee, Cleveland, Buffalo, Even NYC has people pour out of it. Yep Going blue is a city killing proposition.