You are correct. As I was writing what I wrote above the thought crossed my mind that a response could be that they actually did steal more. That the the Republicans winning so many elections was not in itself determinative. That if there had not been such widespread fraud that they would have won ever MORE elections. That would be all be consistent thinking. But I don't believe any of it.SomeDude wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 11:31 amWho's to say they didn't steal a lot more?vnatale wrote: ↑Tue Nov 24, 2020 11:21 am How do you explain the many non-presidential elections on all levels won by the Republicans?
Were the tampered or fraudulent ballots only done so for the presidential elections and NONE of the other elections?
That is a basic question that needs to be satisfactorily answered by anyone believing the presidential election was stolen. Why stop there? Why not steal lots of other ones?
Vinny
Republicans winning back a lot of seats and holding the Senate despite having twice as many seats up for grabs is an argument that there WAS fraud at the presidential level, not against it.
Unless you believe one of these things:
1. Republican voters turned out in record numbers to enthusiastically vote for their congress people and senators who they love so much but decided to vote for Harris-biden as well.
2. Democrats and liberals came out in record numbers to vote for Harris-biden (millions more than for Obama), but then broke for republicans or otherwise ignored the down ballot races.
Those scenarios seem like wild conspiracy theories to me. Which one of them do you think happened?
Occam's razor - it's much more likely the down ballot stuff had less fraud. If there was too much fraud in the small races that are much more easily verifiable, audits of votes in congressional districts would put the obvious fraud at the presidential level at great risk.
What I believe?
What I heard a Republican say on C-Span during the last week make sense. This was a Republican who'd served in two Republican administrations. He did not believe that there was any election fraud of any consequence and that all the election results were valid. Under that assumption it says that a lot of people in this country like the Republican brand, policies. But also a lot of them just could not take another four years of Trump so they voted for the alternative.
This is exactly the question I'd asked here prior to the election. What voting groups were going to vote for him in a higher rate in 2020 than they had in 2016? I could not see any. All I could see that the ones who had voted for Obama prior had voted for Trump because of perceived change decided that he was not the type of change that they were seeking. There were definite consequences to the way he carried out his presidency. I do now acknowledge that there were some voting groups (blacks, Latinos?) who did vote at a higher rate for him in 2020 than 2016 but this increase was no where the decrease the from those he alienated (I believe this was the educated).
Vinny