AKA Conservative Theories - More Evidence the 2020 Election was Stolen

[jwoodie]

There have been three U.S. Presidential election in the past 100 years where the incumbent was not reelected: Hoover in 1932, Carter in 1980 and Trump in 2020. This is commonly ascribed to a loss of popularity among voters who had previously voted for them. For example, Hoover received over 21 million votes in 1928, but less than 16 million votes in 1932. Similarly, Carter received over 40 million votes in 1976, but less than 36 million votes in 1980.

But what about Trump? He received 63 million votes in 2016, but he received more than 74 million votes in 2020. How can an incumbent President gain more than 11 million votes and still lose reelection? To use a common phrase, the numbers don't add up. Incumbents are supposed to lose reelection because their popular support decreases, not increases by almost 20%. So what happened?

Well, we all know the answer: Tens of millions of unverified mail-in ballots were flooded into the election, with an astounding 90% voting for Joe Biden. The volume and statistical distribution of these ballots are so far beyond reasonable probabilities as to make them invalid on their face, just as reporting more votes than eligible voters would be (another Democrat tactic). But this is almost beside the point.

An immensely popular President can't be voted out of office. He has to be removed.

 

[Magnus]

There have been three U.S. Presidential election in the past 100 years where the incumbent was not reelected: Hoover in 1932, Carter in 1980 and Trump in 2020. This is commonly ascribed to a loss of popularity among voters who had previously voted for them. For example, Hoover received over 21 million votes in 1928, but less than 16 million votes in 1932. Similarly, Carter received over 40 million votes in 1976, but less than 36 million votes in 1980.

But what about Trump? He received 63 million votes in 2016, but he received more than 74 million votes in 2020. How can an incumbent President gain more than 11 million votes and still lose reelection? To use a common phrase, the numbers don't add up. Incumbents are supposed to lose reelection because their popular support decreases, not increases by almost 20%. So what happened?

Well, we all know the answer: Tens of millions of unverified mail-in ballots were flooded into the election, with an astounding 90% voting for Joe Biden. The volume and statistical distribution of these ballots are so far beyond reasonable probabilities as to make them invalid on their face, just as reporting more votes than eligible voters would be (another Democrat tactic). But this is almost beside the point.

An immensely popular President can't be voted out of office. He has to be removed.

Hillary won 65,844,954 popular vote. That would be 2 million more than the orange douchebag.

So, the election was stolen from Hillary? Or, this kind of math only works when your orange douche bag loses?

 

[Faun]

There have been three U.S. Presidential election in the past 100 years where the incumbent was not reelected: Hoover in 1932, Carter in 1980 and Trump in 2020. This is commonly ascribed to a loss of popularity among voters who had previously voted for them. For example, Hoover received over 21 million votes in 1928, but less than 16 million votes in 1932. Similarly, Carter received over 40 million votes in 1976, but less than 36 million votes in 1980.

But what about Trump? He received 63 million votes in 2016, but he received more than 74 million votes in 2020. How can an incumbent President gain more than 11 million votes and still lose reelection? To use a common phrase, the numbers don't add up. Incumbents are supposed to lose reelection because their popular support decreases, not increases by almost 20%. So what happened?

Well, we all know the answer: Tens of millions of unverified mail-in ballots were flooded into the election, with an astounding 90% voting for Joe Biden. The volume and statistical distribution of these ballots are so far beyond reasonable probabilities as to make them invalid on their face, just as reporting more votes than eligible voters would be (another Democrat tactic). But this is almost beside the point.

An immensely popular President can't be voted out of office. He has to be removed.

Thanks for proving Trump didn't get 74 million legit votes. Maybe he got about 60 million.

 

[Moonglow]

There have been three U.S. Presidential election in the past 100 years where the incumbent was not reelected: Hoover in 1932, Carter in 1980 and Trump in 2020. This is commonly ascribed to a loss of popularity among voters who had previously voted for them. For example, Hoover received over 21 million votes in 1928, but less than 16 million votes in 1932. Similarly, Carter received over 40 million votes in 1976, but less than 36 million votes in 1980.

But what about Trump? He received 63 million votes in 2016, but he received more than 74 million votes in 2020. How can an incumbent President gain more than 11 million votes and still lose reelection? To use a common phrase, the numbers don't add up. Incumbents are supposed to lose reelection because their popular support decreases, not increases by almost 20%. So what happened?

Well, we all know the answer: Tens of millions of unverified mail-in ballots were flooded into the election, with an astounding 90% voting for Joe Biden. The volume and statistical distribution of these ballots are so far beyond reasonable probabilities as to make them invalid on their face, just as reporting more votes than eligible voters would be (another Democrat tactic). But this is almost beside the point.

An immensely popular President can't be voted out of office. He has to be removed.

You left out George Herbert Walker Bush senior.

 

[Moonglow]

The popular vote doesn't elect a president.

 

[Vrenn]

There have been three U.S. Presidential election in the past 100 years where the incumbent was not reelected: Hoover in 1932, Carter in 1980 and Trump in 2020. This is commonly ascribed to a loss of popularity among voters who had previously voted for them. For example, Hoover received over 21 million votes in 1928, but less than 16 million votes in 1932. Similarly, Carter received over 40 million votes in 1976, but less than 36 million votes in 1980.

But what about Trump? He received 63 million votes in 2016, but he received more than 74 million votes in 2020. How can an incumbent President gain more than 11 million votes and still lose reelection? To use a common phrase, the numbers don't add up. Incumbents are supposed to lose reelection because their popular support decreases, not increases by almost 20%. So what happened?

Well, we all know the answer: Tens of millions of unverified mail-in ballots were flooded into the election, with an astounding 90% voting for Joe Biden. The volume and statistical distribution of these ballots are so far beyond reasonable probabilities as to make them invalid on their face, just as reporting more votes than eligible voters would be (another Democrat tactic). But this is almost beside the point.

An immensely popular President can't be voted out of office. He has to be removed.

Where's your proof. I can claim the Earth is flat because there were 4 ship belonging to Columbus. The Nina, the Pinta, the Santa Maria and the Clyde. Only 3 made it across the ocean. Clyde fell off the edge of the Earth. So you see, the Earth is flat because I have this Theory.

 

[Ralph Norton]

Hillary won 65,844,954 popular vote. That would be 2 million more than the orange douchebag.

So, the election was stolen from Hillary? Or, this kind of math only works when your orange douche bag loses?

Not a fan of the Electoral College, I take it?

 

[Lastamender]

Where's your proof. I can claim the Earth is flat because there were 4 ship belonging to Columbus. The Nina, the Pinta, the Santa Maria and the Clyde. Only 3 made it across the ocean. Clyde fell off the edge of the Earth. So you see, the Earth is flat because I have this Theory.

A link to a video was just posted showing ballots delivered (twice) after the deadline in MI. It is fraud and there is no denying it. Biden stole 71 electoral votes.

More 2020 ballot stuffing exposed

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/election-integrity-investigator-gregg-phillips-announces-investigative-team-identified-unique-devices-interest-location-tcf-center-election-night-ballot-dump/ theft is not a loss.

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[jwoodie]

Hillary won 65,844,954 popular vote. That would be 2 million more than the orange douchebag.

So, the election was stolen from Hillary? Or, this kind of math only works when your orange douche bag loses?

Not clever by half. The OP is about incumbent Presidents who were not reelected. Raw vote totals, particularly in Blue states, are almost irrelevant. What is more meaningful is whether an incumbent's support is increasing or decreasing from the previous election. Can you cite an example, other than Trump, of someone who lost reelection despite a huge increase in popularity?

P.S. Good luck with your TDS.

 

[DGS49]

You can't prove that a tree falling in the woods with nobody around makes a noise. But you add up all the indications and know that it's true.

Same, same.

 

[Faun]

You can't prove that a tree falling in the woods with nobody around makes a noise. But you add up all the indications and know that it's true.

Same, same.

LOL

No, not the same. Not even close. A tree can't physically fall without making a sound; whereas an incumbent can get more votes and lose.

 

[Magnus]

Not a fan of the Electoral College, I take it?

Not a fan of reading/comprehension, I take it?

 

[Magnus]

Not clever by half. The OP is about incumbent Presidents who were not reelected. Raw vote totals, particularly in Blue states, are almost irrelevant. What is more meaningful is whether an incumbent's support is increasing or decreasing from the previous election. Can you cite an example, other than Trump, of someone who lost reelection despite a huge increase in popularity?

P.S. Good luck with your TDS.

So, in your crazed diseased mind, the popular/electoral vote works differently for incumbent presidents? LOL

As for your barb about my TDS? You fucking retard, this is your thread about the orange douche bag being defeated. Who else am I going to bring up?

You're not too bright, are you?

 

[Magnus]

A link to a video was just posted showing ballots delivered (twice) after the deadline in MI. It is fraud and there is no denying it. Biden stole 71 electoral votes.

More 2020 ballot stuffing exposed

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/election-integrity-investigator-gregg-phillips-announces-investigative-team-identified-unique-devices-interest-location-tcf-center-election-night-ballot-dump/ theft is not a loss.

www.usmessageboard.com

Yup, we stole it. And we did it when the orange douche-bag was in power. Now, that Biden is in power...

You guys should just sit the next few elections out. We. Got. This.

 

[Slade3200]

There have been three U.S. Presidential election in the past 100 years where the incumbent was not reelected: Hoover in 1932, Carter in 1980 and Trump in 2020. This is commonly ascribed to a loss of popularity among voters who had previously voted for them. For example, Hoover received over 21 million votes in 1928, but less than 16 million votes in 1932. Similarly, Carter received over 40 million votes in 1976, but less than 36 million votes in 1980.

But what about Trump? He received 63 million votes in 2016, but he received more than 74 million votes in 2020. How can an incumbent President gain more than 11 million votes and still lose reelection? To use a common phrase, the numbers don't add up. Incumbents are supposed to lose reelection because their popular support decreases, not increases by almost 20%. So what happened?

Well, we all know the answer: Tens of millions of unverified mail-in ballots were flooded into the election, with an astounding 90% voting for Joe Biden. The volume and statistical distribution of these ballots are so far beyond reasonable probabilities as to make them invalid on their face, just as reporting more votes than eligible voters would be (another Democrat tactic). But this is almost beside the point.

An immensely popular President can't be voted out of office. He has to be removed.

Haha, well we were in a world wide pandemic where citizens were locked down and everything was very politically charged. Turn out was bound to be at record levels which it was. Y’all seem to forget these things. Why is that?

 

[candycorn]

Not clever by half. The OP is about incumbent Presidents who were not reelected. Raw vote totals, particularly in Blue states, are almost irrelevant. What is more meaningful is whether an incumbent's support is increasing or decreasing from the previous election. Can you cite an example, other than Trump, of someone who lost reelection despite a huge increase in popularity?

P.S. Good luck with your TDS.

As a % of the vote in most states Trump won, he got fewer votes than in 2016

 

[jwoodie]

Where's your proof. I can claim the Earth is flat because there were 4 ship belonging to Columbus. The Nina, the Pinta, the Santa Maria and the Clyde. Only 3 made it across the ocean. Clyde fell off the edge of the Earth. So you see, the Earth is flat because I have this Theory.

Ironically, your attempted analogy proves my point: Trump's alleged defeat is the probabilistic equivalent of a ship falling off the edge of the Earth.

 

[Ralph Norton]

Not a fan of reading/comprehension, I take it?

What did I miss?

 

[Vrenn]

You can't prove that a tree falling in the woods with nobody around makes a noise. But you add up all the indications and know that it's true.

Same, same.

Oh, sail the seas on the Clyde, on the Clyde, oops, it fell off the edge of the Earth and no one ever heard it fall. But it's obviously true and proves the Earth is Flat.

 

[Vrenn]

Ironically, your attempted analogy proves my point: Trump's alleged defeat is the probabilistic equivalent of a ship falling off the edge of the Earth.

If that is the meaning you get from it, so be it.