Presidential Election Results

[Steve R.]

Dan Bongino made an insightful question concerning the 2016, 2020, and 2024 presidential election. Basically where did an approximate 14 million (extra) votes for Biden in 2020 come from? It appears to be a statistical anomaly. Nevertheless the results could still be valid. The 2020 election was a "hot" election were many (Democratic) people may have been extremely motivated to vote for Biden. Also, it has been noted that the election rules were very slack for the 2020 election due to the Covid Crises. Unless further research is conducted, an assessment can't really be made concerning the source of the approximate 14 million (extra) votes.

2016: Clinton receives 65,853,516 votes. Trump receives 62,984,825 votes.
2020: Biden receives 81,284,666 votes. Trump receives 74,224,319 votes.
2024: Harris receives 69,866,511 votes. Trump receives 73,826,530 votes.

How the number 14 was derived: (65+69)/2-81=14

 

[The_Doc_Man]

2016: 128,838,341 votes total, Clinton got 51.11% of the vote, Trump got 48.88%, 2.23% margin
2020: 155,508,985 votes total, Biden got 52.27% of the vote, Trump got 47.73%, 4.54% margin
2024: 143,693,041 votes total, Harris got 48.62% of the vote, Trump got 51.38%, 2.76% margin

The 2020 number does seem to be a statistical outlier. The thing that is odd is that between 2016 and 2020, the country picked up 26.67 million voters. Trump got 12 million (roughly) as an increase from 2016 to 2020, whereas Biden in 2020 got about 15 million more voters than Clinton in 2016. It would have been interesting to do an analysis of where those 26 million extra voters originated. Unfortunately, in 2020 a lot of the records that WOULD have allowed such an analysis were discarded and destroyed. With so few observation points and no detailed analysis of the underlying electorate, it is impossible to say that the 2020 margin is anything more than simply a bit suspicious. But it is anomalous margins like that which caused Mr. Trump to worry that the 2020 election had been stolen.

Understand, I am not saying the election WAS stolen. But it was a statistically unexpected result. It CAN be explained by an unusually high voter turnout unbalanced with more leaning to Biden than to Trump. Therefore I cannot say anything other than that further investigation would have been warranted. But it's all water under the bridge now. Ho-hum, time to move on, nothing to see here.

 

[AccessBlaster]

1988 Biden withdraws from the primary do to allegations of plagiarism.
2008 Biden drops out of the primary early because of traction issues.
2020 Biden out performs Obama by a significant margin, 12 million votes.

Yeah, I guess it's plausible.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Unfortunately, in 2020 a lot of the records that WOULD have allowed such an analysis were discarded and destroyed.

Wonder why?

Therefore I cannot say anything other than that further investigation would have been warranted.

The Democrats fought that like their lives depended on it, because they did. It was their dig in their heels fight to prevent any kind of forensic audit that convinced me that they cheated. They needed time to cover it up and produce enough ballots to come close in the count. This was why they had to destroy the envelops so there could never be a comparison of the raw number of envelopes vs the number of ballots counted. Sadly the weak judges refused to sequester the evidence so we'll never know what actually happened.

 

[Steve R.]

Evidently this is a "two" partter. The image, I am responding to is the second (bottom) image which displays a nice bar graph. I respond to the Economist post with my usual style comment: "Dah!! Democrats have been implementing a Stalinist like government. Recall Beria quote: "Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime". Democrats are the threat to democracy. The Economist needs to point that out."

https://twitter.com/x/status/1855426264431001669

 

[AccessBlaster]

It was to big to rig this time.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

It was to big to rig this time.

Part of the issue this year is that we have to thank Mr. Trump for raising the spectre of fraud in 2020. Because of that suspicion, the voting booth observation and evaluation setup was much more rigorous, which meant it would have been harder to introduce fraudulent practices and events. The Dems didn't want anything to cause doubt on this election and so agreed to some more rigorous vote-handling rules. I've already seen more than just a couple of articles on how cleanly the election went. Very few issues were raised. And that is fine with me. A clean election with a clear result CANNOT be bad for the country regardless of who won.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Also they didn't have a pandemic to run cover for them. Remember the pandemic gave dems magical powers in all areas of our lives.

 

[Steve R.]

Election results, 2022: Analysis of rejected ballots in the 2022 general election

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

I'm doing this from a cellphone, so I will be brief. Pardon any typoes.

In 2020 there was a massive spike in absentee ballot submissions with a corresponding record low rejection rate. However, not enough to unravel the source of the approximate 14 million "extra" votes Biden received.

 

[AccessBlaster]

While all the attention has been on Trump and Kamala, the power structure is slow walking the remaining ballots, it's embarrassing.

 

[Pat Hartman]

While all the attention has been on Trump and Kamala, the power structure is slow walking the remaining ballots, it's embarrassing.

They are using the same tricks they used in 2020. The Senate races are critical and they need to keep counting until they count enough votes for the Dem to win. Sure hope someone is taking photos of every box that has gone into the counting facility since the polls closed and also photos of the person carrying them.

 

[Steve R.]

Based on a comment heard on TV, compared those states that have voter ID to those that don't. Election Results from Fox News.Voter ID Requirements from Newsweek. I couldn't really discern anything, other than the obvious, states that voted for Trump tended to require voter ID. Of course there are some exceptions, such a Colorado.

States that voted for Harris tended not to require voter ID but then these states tended to vote Democratic anyway. Of course there are some exceptions, such a Pennsylvania. Consequently, requiring voter ID may not have changed which party won the state, but may have had an effect on the popular vote.

Would stronger voter ID requirements actually affect the election results in states that are already heavily Democratic party camp?

Consider this a thought experiment. Open for discussion. Any thoughts?

 

[AngelSpeaks]

Voter requirements for federal elections should be the same for all states. An id should be required. When registering, proof of citizenship should be required. In place of mail in ballots, a voter who is not in their home district should be able to place their ballots anywhere in the US. Satellite polling places should be set up in nursing homes and hospitals. And last, voting day should be 24 hours with the latest (in line) being 11:59 PM. The state can decide to open the polls, say 6pm, the previous day and close 6pm on voting day. As long as voters are given 24 hours.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Given that you need a photo ID to do anything important these days, requiring voter ID for voting cannot possibly be racist and the fact that the Dems by insisting that it is racist are simply implying that blacks are too stupid to find the DMV in cities where they may not drive and so technically don't need an ID for the stated purpose. If you don't have a photo ID, you still can't visit a new doctor, open a bank account, cash a check, or get on an airplane without one. That makes a change in vote demographics unlikely.

Anyone who claims the voter ID rule is racist needs to give up his driver's license for 6 months and see how he feels then.

 

[pbaldy]

My wife went to a Harris rally before the election. In the arrival instructions was (bold theirs, not mine):

"To enter, you must provide a government-issued photo ID that matches your name on the check-in list."

So you don't need one to vote, just to get in to her rally...

 

[Pat Hartman]

Typical progressive hypocrisy. I don't want to cause marital discord but did your wife at least notice the hypocrisy?

Too bad she didn't have a concealed weapons permit

 

[Steve R.]

"To enter, you must provide a government-issued photo ID that matches your name on the check-in list."

The very people who sanctimoniously assert election integrity is critical to democracy don't want a person to prove who they are at the voting booth. Moreover, Democrats want lax voting regulations, block all attempts to require verification when a person votes, and even assert that it is illegal to question the citizenship status of a potential voter.

One really has to question: why don't the Democrats want election integrity, since that is one of their claims?
A couple of logical conclusions pop-up. One is that they want the potential to have maximum legal flexibility in "questioning" an election result that they do not like. The other, obscuring the election process creates opportunities for fraud.

 

[pbaldy]

I don't want to cause marital discord but did your wife at least notice the hypocrisy?

No discord, we joke that we usually offset each other's votes. There was a ballot question regarding requiring ID to vote and we both agreed on it. She probably didn't get the memo that she was supposed to oppose it.

She probably falls into the conservative Democrat bin, but she hates Trump, in large part because of his prior treatment of women. When Biden was still the candidate, we talked about Harris and she wasn't a big fan.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Voter requirements for federal elections should be the same for all states.

But they are not, and the U.S. Constitution says that each state gets to set its rules. Article I, section 4 ("Elections), 1st paragraph

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The presidential election is similarly a States' Rights issue. Article II, section 1 (untitled), 3rd paragraph.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress

Congress has NOT acted to bring states into line because election details are a States' Rights issue.

 

[AngelSpeaks]

But they are not, and the U.S. Constitution says that each state gets to set its rules. Article I, section 4 ("Elections), 1st paragraph



The presidential election is similarly a States' Rights issue. Article II, section 1 (untitled), 3rd paragraph.



Congress has NOT acted to bring states into line because election details are a States' Rights issue.

I know. It's something I hope a Convention of States addresses.