2024 Election Results

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump dipped below 50%...

Donald Trump 76,732,720 49.999%
Kamala Harris 74,191,300 48.343%

That was days ago, it’s even lower now.

There goes the mandate.

312 electoral votes for Truml with 3 million more actual votes than last time. And Dems got over 6 million less than than last time. In these divisive times, with the most controversial candidate of all time, I would say that is a mandate when essentially 10 million people changed their voting behavior despite being told that the Republican candidate was a fascist Nazi who would destroy democracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump dipped below 50%...

Donald Trump 76,732,720 49.999%
Kamala Harris 74,191,300 48.343%

That was days ago, it’s even lower now.

There goes the mandate.

312 electoral votes for Truml with 3 million more actual votes than last time. And Dems got over 6 million less than than last time. In these divisive times, with the most controversial candidate of all time, I would say that is a mandate when essentially 10 million people changed their voting behavior despite being told that the Republican candidate was a fascist Nazi who would destroy democracy.

When a candidate doesn't break 50% support, there is no mandate. Citing the electoral college is a loser ploy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump dipped below 50%...

Donald Trump 76,732,720 49.999%
Kamala Harris 74,191,300 48.343%

That was days ago, it’s even lower now.

There goes the mandate.

312 electoral votes for Truml with 3 million more actual votes than last time. And Dems got over 6 million less than than last time. In these divisive times, with the most controversial candidate of all time, I would say that is a mandate when essentially 10 million people changed their voting behavior despite being told that the Republican candidate was a fascist Nazi who would destroy democracy.

When a candidate doesn't break 50% support, there is no mandate. Citing the electoral college is a loser ploy.

Definitely not a mandate. If the third party voters and those that stayed home supported Trump they would’ve voted accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump dipped below 50%...

Donald Trump 76,732,720 49.999%
Kamala Harris 74,191,300 48.343%

That was days ago, it’s even lower now.

There goes the mandate.

312 electoral votes for Truml with 3 million more actual votes than last time. And Dems got over 6 million less than than last time. In these divisive times, with the most controversial candidate of all time, I would say that is a mandate when essentially 10 million people changed their voting behavior despite being told that the Republican candidate was a fascist Nazi who would destroy democracy.

When a candidate doesn't break 50% support, there is no mandate. Citing the electoral college is a loser ploy.

So 50% equals mandate, but not 49.9%? Hmm, if you say so. Feels like a mandate, and a strong one, under the circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump dipped below 50%...

Donald Trump 76,732,720 49.999%
Kamala Harris 74,191,300 48.343%

That was days ago, it’s even lower now.

There goes the mandate.

312 electoral votes for Truml with 3 million more actual votes than last time. And Dems got over 6 million less than than last time. In these divisive times, with the most controversial candidate of all time, I would say that is a mandate when essentially 10 million people changed their voting behavior despite being told that the Republican candidate was a fascist Nazi who would destroy democracy.

When a candidate doesn't break 50% support, there is no mandate. Citing the electoral college is a loser ploy.

So 50% equals mandate, but not 49.9%? Hmm, if you say so. Feels like a mandate, and a strong one, under the circumstances.

He won by a collective 230,000 votes from approximately 16 million cast across Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. It's a paper-thin victory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woah. This is an interesting article - computer scientists and cybersecurity experts raising the red flag on anomalous election results. An unusually high number of "bullet ballots" - where the ballot only chose the President and nobody else - occurred in states that Trump won. This could point to a potential election hacking situation.

https://www.planetcritical.com/p/cyber-security-experts-warn-election-hacked

I am an avid politics follower and even I had no idea about my down ballot choices for Senator and AG. I am not at all surprised that there were many people who just wanted to sound the alarm and vote for Trump.

If they were so clueless about politics that they didn't know who to vote for downballot, they were probably also pretty clueless about what Trump actually stands for and are about to find out the hard way.

But that said, your theory would only make sense if it were entirely new voters, but that's not the case. The article talks about a lot of weird, inorganic patterns in those bullet ballots.

Agree with the poster above, both could be true - a shift in sentiment AND election interference of some kind.

Trump voters going in and only voting for Trump and NGAF about the rest of the ballot seems totally on brand. Remember pollsters were underestimating Trump in part because some Trump voters would answer the phone, yell something like “Eff you I’m voting for Trump” and then hang up. Some pollsters were counting those and some were throwing those results out because they didn’t complete the survey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Literally almost every Demographic group except college educated white women swung right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reddit and Twitter are abuzz with voter fraud by starlink

Let me know when any leaders in the Democratic Party, including either Harris or Biden, start pushing this theory and planning their protest.

Why are magas so jittery? Nervous that Dems aren’t interested in discourse with you. It’s a bit quiet in current Potus administration. I know why, do you?

I don't know why MAGAs are jittery but I'm a Democrat and I'm nervous that Dems won't learn anything from the loss if we continue to rationalize it away like many are doing here. Candidates for next election will need to make themselves known in 2 years. They better focus their messaging on the economy and immigration and turn away from wokeness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump dipped below 50%...

Donald Trump 76,732,720 49.999%
Kamala Harris 74,191,300 48.343%

That was days ago, it’s even lower now.

There goes the mandate.

312 electoral votes for Truml with 3 million more actual votes than last time. And Dems got over 6 million less than than last time. In these divisive times, with the most controversial candidate of all time, I would say that is a mandate when essentially 10 million people changed their voting behavior despite being told that the Republican candidate was a fascist Nazi who would destroy democracy.

When a candidate doesn't break 50% support, there is no mandate. Citing the electoral college is a loser ploy.

So 50% equals mandate, but not 49.9%? Hmm, if you say so. Feels like a mandate, and a strong one, under the circumstances.

No, neither is really a mandate. It has been pointed out that in the last 4 elections the popular vote margin has been extremely close, much closer than in the entire previous century.
This shows that there is pretty even support for both sides. However the electoral college suppresses the popular vote because a lot of people feel their vote doesn’t matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reddit and Twitter are abuzz with voter fraud by starlink

Let me know when any leaders in the Democratic Party, including either Harris or Biden, start pushing this theory and planning their protest.

Why are magas so jittery? Nervous that Dems aren’t interested in discourse with you. It’s a bit quiet in current Potus administration. I know why, do you?

I don't know why MAGAs are jittery but I'm a Democrat and I'm nervous that Dems won't learn anything from the loss if we continue to rationalize it away like many are doing here. Candidates for next election will need to make themselves known in 2 years. They better focus their messaging on the economy and immigration and turn away from wokeness.

If people prefer a literal crazy person who didn’t even take his campaign seriously to an accomplished person with a history of government experience, then I don’t know what Democrats can really do better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump dipped below 50%...

Donald Trump 76,732,720 49.999%
Kamala Harris 74,191,300 48.343%

That was days ago, it’s even lower now.

There goes the mandate.

312 electoral votes for Truml with 3 million more actual votes than last time. And Dems got over 6 million less than than last time. In these divisive times, with the most controversial candidate of all time, I would say that is a mandate when essentially 10 million people changed their voting behavior despite being told that the Republican candidate was a fascist Nazi who would destroy democracy.

When a candidate doesn't break 50% support, there is no mandate. Citing the electoral college is a loser ploy.

So 50% equals mandate, but not 49.9%? Hmm, if you say so. Feels like a mandate, and a strong one, under the circumstances.

No, neither is really a mandate. It has been pointed out that in the last 4 elections the popular vote margin has been extremely close, much closer than in the entire previous century.
This shows that there is pretty even support for both sides. However the electoral college suppresses the popular vote because a lot of people feel their vote doesn’t matter.

The absolute absurdity of the electoral college. A person's vote in New York doesn't count in the same way that a person's vote in Alabama doesn't count. Why bother showing up when a handful of voters in a handful of states get to decide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump dipped below 50%...

Donald Trump 76,732,720 49.999%
Kamala Harris 74,191,300 48.343%

That was days ago, it’s even lower now.

There goes the mandate.

312 electoral votes for Truml with 3 million more actual votes than last time. And Dems got over 6 million less than than last time. In these divisive times, with the most controversial candidate of all time, I would say that is a mandate when essentially 10 million people changed their voting behavior despite being told that the Republican candidate was a fascist Nazi who would destroy democracy.

When a candidate doesn't break 50% support, there is no mandate. Citing the electoral college is a loser ploy.

Bill Clinton won two elections and never broke 50%. I guess he should have resigned the Presidency to Republicans then because he actually lost because he didn’t have 50%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump dipped below 50%...

Donald Trump 76,732,720 49.999%
Kamala Harris 74,191,300 48.343%

That was days ago, it’s even lower now.

There goes the mandate.

312 electoral votes for Truml with 3 million more actual votes than last time. And Dems got over 6 million less than than last time. In these divisive times, with the most controversial candidate of all time, I would say that is a mandate when essentially 10 million people changed their voting behavior despite being told that the Republican candidate was a fascist Nazi who would destroy democracy.

When a candidate doesn't break 50% support, there is no mandate. Citing the electoral college is a loser ploy.

Bill Clinton won two elections and never broke 50%. I guess he should have resigned the Presidency to Republicans then because he actually lost because he didn’t have 50%

Can you re-attempt the point you're trying to make here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump dipped below 50%...

Donald Trump 76,732,720 49.999%
Kamala Harris 74,191,300 48.343%

That was days ago, it’s even lower now.

There goes the mandate.

312 electoral votes for Truml with 3 million more actual votes than last time. And Dems got over 6 million less than than last time. In these divisive times, with the most controversial candidate of all time, I would say that is a mandate when essentially 10 million people changed their voting behavior despite being told that the Republican candidate was a fascist Nazi who would destroy democracy.

When a candidate doesn't break 50% support, there is no mandate. Citing the electoral college is a loser ploy.

Bill Clinton won two elections and never broke 50%. I guess he should have resigned the Presidency to Republicans then because he actually lost because he didn’t have 50%

Can you re-attempt the point you're trying to make here?

Screaming “no mandate” is a foolish argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump dipped below 50%...

Donald Trump 76,732,720 49.999%
Kamala Harris 74,191,300 48.343%

That was days ago, it’s even lower now.

There goes the mandate.

312 electoral votes for Truml with 3 million more actual votes than last time. And Dems got over 6 million less than than last time. In these divisive times, with the most controversial candidate of all time, I would say that is a mandate when essentially 10 million people changed their voting behavior despite being told that the Republican candidate was a fascist Nazi who would destroy democracy.

When a candidate doesn't break 50% support, there is no mandate. Citing the electoral college is a loser ploy.

Bill Clinton won two elections and never broke 50%. I guess he should have resigned the Presidency to Republicans then because he actually lost because he didn’t have 50%

Can you re-attempt the point you're trying to make here?

Screaming “no mandate” is a foolish argument.

It is not a foolish argument. The "mandate" argument is being used as support for Trump re-inventing all of government. He doesn't have a mandate for that. Most of the country doesn't even want that (even his voters only prioritized a couple of issues personal to them). He won a paper-thin victory in three states that decided the election.