Will Donald Trump run for President in 2024?

[Pogo]

Will Donald Trump run for President in 2024?

I say he will because at the moment, based on current counts, he lost by small margins in three states that could have changed the outcome of the election. Given his force of personality and control of the Republican Party, I think he is going to run for President again in 2024 and try and avenge his defeat.

People have run from prison before, so that wouldn't be a hindrance.

Whether he'd want to or not hangs heavily on what happens in the interim when he has to answer court charges and debtors. And given the wide gap between how he did and how the rest of the Republican Party did in the same election, I don't think he's quite got "control" of anything. They have no use for him now.

Actually, if the Republicans end up winning the Senate, it will likely be because of Trump. In particular it looks like Trump's potential win in North Carolina may have saved the Republican Senate seat there.

Again, many will say Trump only lost by a combined 49,000 votes in three states, just like Hillary only lost by a combined 77,000 votes in three states in 2016. Trump just had 71,108,000+ Americans vote for him. It does not seem like his popularity has been diminished.

Completely disagree --- if they win the Senate (and/or to whatever degree they hold/held), they do so/did so in spite of Rump. The numbers plainly show that. Clearly voters exhibited a repudiation of Rump and not a repudiation of "Republicans" ---- which title Rump has never qualified for anyway.

As for the Terrible Three, Biden's margin there is already well over 200,000 and climbing. Rump's absolute number increase is the inevitable result of (a) considerably higher turnout. which means more votes for everybody, and (b) dearth of any prominent third parties to siphon votes off as existed in 2016. While Rump's total increased over '16, Biden's increase over Clinton is way bigger. As Colin Jost pointed out, he lost the PV in '16 by three million votes and contrived a story of "three million illegals" coming in and voting against him, which, considering he'll lose this PV by five million, means by his own logic that Rump allowed two million MORE "illegals" in to vote against him than O'bama did.

Rump is pretty much toast. He can run if he wants to, it ain't going anywhere. The various court proceedings between now and then are going to bury him. If he doesn't flee the country altogether.

And his petulant sulking in the present is going to chip away at whatever allure he had as well. He's looking like Richard Nixon circa early 1974 right now.

Biden's margin of victory in Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia combined is only 48,025. A flip of those three states would have given Trump 269 electoral votes. The election would have gone to the House Of Representatives, and because of the rules of contingent elections where each state only gets one vote, Donald Trump would have won.

So were talking 3 states and a combined 48,025 votes separating Trump from victory compared to Hillary Clinton's 3 states(Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania) and 78,000 votes separating her from victory in 2016.

As for the popular vote, outside of California in the other 49 states and territories, Trump wins the popular vote at the moment with 66,389,563 votes to BIDEN's 66,269,626 votes.

I agree that if he fails to handle the transition in a professional manner, that will hurt him going forward.

The point I'm making is that Trump essentially repeated his success from 2016, the only difference being winding up on the other side of the fence in three states where the margin of victory was tiny.


What I wanted to see was a massive repudiation of Trump and Trumpism. Huge margins of victory in all battle ground states and Florida, Ohio, Iowa, North Carolina, and TEXAS all going Blue for BIDEN. An increase in the Democrats majority in the House Of Representatives and at least a 51 to 49 control of the U.S. Senate.

Unfortunately, that did not happen. Votes are still coming in, but Trump nearly repeated his victory in 2016 only missing out by a tiny margin in the three states of Arizona, Wisconsin, and Georgia. Just 48,025 votes separate him from four more years in the White House. I wanted a BLUE WAVE and total repudiation of Donald Trump. What happened is not anywhere near that.

Several simply invalid pretexts here. Biggest of which is that you don't cherrypick states out so you can then say "without California (Texas, Nebraska, whatever), THIS happens, simply because eliminating California (Texas, Nebraska, whatever) is not an option in reality. They are part of the count, like it or lump it. That's the same as saying "if we hadn't given up those 43 runs in the third inning we could have squeaked out a win here". You DID give up those 43 runs. You can play that "if only" game for eternity but we don't live in If land, we live in Reality.

The other one is that you shifted the three states from the ones originally cited to three new ones, comparing apples with oranges. But if we're suddenly switching to three new states, AridZona Wisconsin and Georgia, Rump's combined margin (over Clinton) in 2016 was roughly 343,000. If Biden's is now 48,000 that means a shift away from Rump of 391,000 votes. THAT is the direct comparison.

As for the final numbers, again what they show is that the electorate repudiated Rump and at the same time declined to repudiate Republicans as a label. And that's a good thing. Nobody wants a political party obliterated when it's the only opposition there is.

 

[Pogo]

I must say I'm surprised in a forum that was so supportive of Trump that so far 80% of you think he will not run for President in 2024.

Doesn't really have anything to do with "support" -- it's just raw analysis.

You seem to be making the leap that because Rump didn't get severely trounced he still "controls" Republicans. Considering that the electorate rejected him, singly, without rejecting Republicans in general, that doesn't follow. Again --- the party has no use for him now. He cost them the Presidency and he's got no position.

Look, you could say the electorate rejected him in 2016, but that did not prevent him from being President the past four years. When you only lose by a tiny margin of 48,025 combined votes from three states, it does not suggest a failure that removes him from being the leader of the party. With the Republican party as it is today, who else but Trump would inspire this level of turnout, enthusiasm, and be able to hold rally's with tens of thousands of people?

I don't see how Trump loses all that from such a tiny margin of defeat.

Already addressed, see my last post.

"Ratings" are irrelevant. People show up for freak shows. Traffic slows up to watch the burning tracktor trailer. It doesn't mean those drivers "approve of" burning tractor trailers. Rump's entire focus is and always has been ATTENTION. That's why he acts like such a dick. It does get attention, but it also pisses people off.

 

[U2Edge]

Will Donald Trump run for President in 2024?

I say he will because at the moment, based on current counts, he lost by small margins in three states that could have changed the outcome of the election. Given his force of personality and control of the Republican Party, I think he is going to run for President again in 2024 and try and avenge his defeat.

People have run from prison before, so that wouldn't be a hindrance.

Whether he'd want to or not hangs heavily on what happens in the interim when he has to answer court charges and debtors. And given the wide gap between how he did and how the rest of the Republican Party did in the same election, I don't think he's quite got "control" of anything. They have no use for him now.

Actually, if the Republicans end up winning the Senate, it will likely be because of Trump. In particular it looks like Trump's potential win in North Carolina may have saved the Republican Senate seat there.

Again, many will say Trump only lost by a combined 49,000 votes in three states, just like Hillary only lost by a combined 77,000 votes in three states in 2016. Trump just had 71,108,000+ Americans vote for him. It does not seem like his popularity has been diminished.

Completely disagree --- if they win the Senate (and/or to whatever degree they hold/held), they do so/did so in spite of Rump. The numbers plainly show that. Clearly voters exhibited a repudiation of Rump and not a repudiation of "Republicans" ---- which title Rump has never qualified for anyway.

As for the Terrible Three, Biden's margin there is already well over 200,000 and climbing. Rump's absolute number increase is the inevitable result of (a) considerably higher turnout. which means more votes for everybody, and (b) dearth of any prominent third parties to siphon votes off as existed in 2016. While Rump's total increased over '16, Biden's increase over Clinton is way bigger. As Colin Jost pointed out, he lost the PV in '16 by three million votes and contrived a story of "three million illegals" coming in and voting against him, which, considering he'll lose this PV by five million, means by his own logic that Rump allowed two million MORE "illegals" in to vote against him than O'bama did.

Rump is pretty much toast. He can run if he wants to, it ain't going anywhere. The various court proceedings between now and then are going to bury him. If he doesn't flee the country altogether.

And his petulant sulking in the present is going to chip away at whatever allure he had as well. He's looking like Richard Nixon circa early 1974 right now.

Biden's margin of victory in Wisconsin, Arizona, and Georgia combined is only 48,025. A flip of those three states would have given Trump 269 electoral votes. The election would have gone to the House Of Representatives, and because of the rules of contingent elections where each state only gets one vote, Donald Trump would have won.

So were talking 3 states and a combined 48,025 votes separating Trump from victory compared to Hillary Clinton's 3 states(Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania) and 78,000 votes separating her from victory in 2016.

As for the popular vote, outside of California in the other 49 states and territories, Trump wins the popular vote at the moment with 66,389,563 votes to BIDEN's 66,269,626 votes.

I agree that if he fails to handle the transition in a professional manner, that will hurt him going forward.

The point I'm making is that Trump essentially repeated his success from 2016, the only difference being winding up on the other side of the fence in three states where the margin of victory was tiny.


What I wanted to see was a massive repudiation of Trump and Trumpism. Huge margins of victory in all battle ground states and Florida, Ohio, Iowa, North Carolina, and TEXAS all going Blue for BIDEN. An increase in the Democrats majority in the House Of Representatives and at least a 51 to 49 control of the U.S. Senate.

Unfortunately, that did not happen. Votes are still coming in, but Trump nearly repeated his victory in 2016 only missing out by a tiny margin in the three states of Arizona, Wisconsin, and Georgia. Just 48,025 votes separate him from four more years in the White House. I wanted a BLUE WAVE and total repudiation of Donald Trump. What happened is not anywhere near that.

Several simply invalid pretexts here. Biggest of which is that you don't cherrypick states out so you can then say "without California (Texas, Nebraska, whatever), THIS happens, simply because eliminating California (Texas, Nebraska, whatever) is not an option in reality. They are part of the count, like it or lump it. That's the same as saying "if we hadn't given up those 43 runs in the third inning we could have squeaked out a win here". You DID give up those 43 runs. You can play that "if only" game for eternity but we don't live in If land, we live in Reality.

The other one is that you shifted the three states from the ones originally cited to three new ones, comparing apples with oranges. But if we're suddenly switching to three new states, AridZona Wisconsin and Georgia, Rump's combined margin (over Clinton) in 2016 was roughly 343,000. If Biden's is now 48,000 that means a shift away from Rump of 391,000 votes. THAT is the direct comparison.

As for the final numbers, again what they show is that the electorate repudiated Rump and at the same time declined to repudiate Republicans as a label. And that's a good thing. Nobody wants a political party obliterated when it's the only opposition there is.

Look, I'm not a Trump supporter and I wanted this election to be stiff repudiation of everything Trump is and stood for. Sadly, this is just a tiny victory, the same type of victory that got Trump into office in 2016.

The example of taking California out of the mix and then looking at the popular vote is something Trumpers did after the 2016 election. Its disappointing that in 2020, when you take California out of mix, BIDEN loses the popular vote. If this was the repudiation of Trump I was hoping for, BIDEN would not need California to win the popular vote. Its simply a way of looking at it, a certain margin of victory without having to dip into the giant vote adding California. If you have crushed Trump, you shouldn't need California to show that.

In terms of the three states in 2020 and this thread, I've always been talking about Arizona, Wisconsin, and Georgia. Why? Because you switch 48,025 of those votes around in those three states, and Trump remains President. Its the shortest path to Trump being President and if Trump had a time machine, he would go back and inflate his campaign time and money spent in those three states. For Hillary Clinton in 2016, if she had 77,000 more votes in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, she would have been President. If Hillary Clinton had a time machine, she would go back in spend more time and money in those three states to get the win. What matters is what was the minimum you needed to have done to actually have won the race. For Hillary Clinton it was 77,000 votes in the three states of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. For Trump it was 48,025 votes in Arizona, Wisconsin, and Georgia. For John Kerry it was 200,000 votes in Ohio. For Al Gore it was a few hundred votes in Florida.

Simply winning the election, especially by tiny margins in a few states, is not a repudiation of anything really. That is more of a lucky turn of events. The consequence of spending just the right amount of time and money to get people who don't follow politics or vote to the polls. Trump had no mandate or repudiation of anything in 2016. I wish that BIDEN's victory was a repudiation of Trump. But given the tiny margins so far, you can't say that.

If the Republicans win the Senate races in Georgia, they will have the Senate. No court packing option will be available to BIDEN. The 6 to 3 conservative majority on the supreme court will stand. That will remain Trump's selling point if he is able to run in 2024. If Trump is able to win the Republican nomination in 2024 and we have another close election in 2024, no one is going to be saying that the 2020 election was a repudiation of anything.

Repudiations are not tiny marginal victories. They are supposed to be crushing defeats.

The Senate was always going to be tough for Democrats to take back in this election cycle. The House because of redistricting, has made it more difficult to unseat Republicans. So I would be careful about drawing too many conclusions with the Senate and House races.

 

[Pogo]

The example of taking California out of the mix and then looking at the popular vote is something Trumpers did after the 2016 election.

I'm sure they did, and they were just as wrong then. You CAN'T just "take California out". We don't live in a world without California.

Its disappointing that in 2020, when you take California out of mix, BIDEN loses the popular vote.

It's not "disappointing", it's "illegitimate argument". Same reason as above. You can't do it. Any more than you can say "if you eliminate the red votes" or "if you only consider those born under Sagittarius". It's not a valid analysis.

In terms of the three states in 2020 and this thread, I've always been talking about Arizona, Wisconsin, and Georgia. Why? Because you switch 48,025 of those votes around in those three states, and Trump remains President.

Yet another version of the same illegitimate argument. You or I could go cherrypick any combination of any groups anywhere from any election of any year ever and say the same thing. You simply cannot cherrypick things out like that because votes were not cast in that cherrypicked world. HAD that been the world they were voting in, the whole vote would have been different.

Repudiations are not tiny marginal victories. They are supposed to bae crushing defeats.

Turning the latter three states by 391,000 votes, I'd say that qualifies. Turning the original three states by 289,000 votes, I'd say that qualifies. Doing so while other Republicans successfully held their Senate seats and even gained in the House, I'd say that completes the picture. Don't get greedy.

The other aspect you're leaving out in this apples-oranges comparison is that in the 2016 trio of states Michigan Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, those were all states Clinton was expected to WIN (and retain from 2012), and failed, while your 2020 trio of AridZona, Georgia and Wisconsin were ALL states that Biden had to flip, and succeeded.

 

[U2Edge]

The example of taking California out of the mix and then looking at the popular vote is something Trumpers did after the 2016 election.

I'm sure they did, and they were just as wrong then. You CAN'T just "take California out". We don't live in a world without California.

Its disappointing that in 2020, when you take California out of mix, BIDEN loses the popular vote.

It's not "disappointing", it's "illegitimate argument". Same reason as above. You can't do it. Any more than you can say "if you eliminate the red votes" or "if you only consider those born under Sagittarius". It's not a valid analysis.

In terms of the three states in 2020 and this thread, I've always been talking about Arizona, Wisconsin, and Georgia. Why? Because you switch 48,025 of those votes around in those three states, and Trump remains President.

Yet another version of the same illegitimate argument. You or I could go cherrypick any combination of any groups anywhere from any election of any year ever and say the same thing. You simply cannot cherrypick things out like that because votes were not cast in that cherrypicked world. HAD that been the world they were voting in, the whole vote would have been different.

Repudiations are not tiny marginal victories. They are supposed to bae crushing defeats.

Turning the latter three states by 391,000 votes, I'd say that qualifies. Turning the original three states by 289,000 votes, I'd say that qualifies. Doing so while other Republicans successfully held their Senate seats and even gained in the House, I'd say that completes the picture. Don't get greedy.

The other aspect you're leaving out in this apples-oranges comparison is that in the 2016 trio of states Michigan Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, those were all states Clinton was expected to WIN (and retain from 2012), and failed, while your 2020 trio of AridZona, Georgia and Wisconsin were ALL states that Biden had to flip, and succeeded.

Its not cherry picking to show that if John Kerry had 200,000 more votes in Ohio in 2004, he would have become President. Its not cherry picking to show that if Al Gore had 1,000 more votes in Florida, he would have become President in the year 2000. Its not cherry picking to show that if Hillary Clinton had 10,000 more votes in Michigan, 22,000 more votes in Wisconsin, 44,000 more votes in Pennsylvania, a combined 77,736 votes from those three states, she would have become President in 2016. Its also not cherry picking to show that in 2020, if Trump had 14,747 more votes in Arizona, 20,540 more votes in Wisconsin, 12,337 more votes in Georgia, a combined 47,624 votes from three states, he would have been re-elected President. In all four cases, your showing what the losing side needed at a minimum to attain victory.

I use to talk about how narrow Trump's margin of victory was in 2016, a combined 77,736 votes from three states. Yet, Biden's victory is more narrow than that, currently at 47,624 votes in three states.

 

[Bulletbob]

Will Donald Trump run for President in 2024?

I say he will because at the moment, based on current counts, he lost by small margins in three states that could have changed the outcome of the election. Given his force of personality and control of the Republican Party, I think he is going to run for President again in 2024 and try and avenge his defeat.

I doubt it, I think he will just enjoy life for the rest of his life

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The OP is a worthless question.

There will be no fair elections after this is Trump loses.

 

[j-mac]

Will Donald Trump run for President in 2024?

I say he will because at the moment, based on current counts, he lost by small margins in three states that could have changed the outcome of the election. Given his force of personality and control of the Republican Party, I think he is going to run for President again in 2024 and try and avenge his defeat.

He won’t have to, because he’ll prevail in this election...

 

[j-mac]

Will Donald Trump run for President in 2024?

I say he will because at the moment, based on current counts, he lost by small margins in three states that could have changed the outcome of the election. Given his force of personality and control of the Republican Party, I think he is going to run for President again in 2024 and try and avenge his defeat.

It’s more a question if Republicans learned from the mistake they made in 2016.

Say what now? The hubris to think that your political opposition can only run candidates YOU approve of is the height of arrogance...Fuck you.

 

[The Original Tree]

Will Donald Trump run for President in 2024?

I say he will because at the moment, based on current counts, he lost by small margins in three states that could have changed the outcome of the election. Given his force of personality and control of the Republican Party, I think he is going to run for President again in 2024 and try and avenge his defeat.

You aren't allowed to run for 3 terms.

If The Fraud Investigations and Recounts give Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, Donald Trump is The President, officially. He could also win Wisconsin and Michigan back.

 

[westwall]

Will Donald Trump run for President in 2024?

I say he will because at the moment, based on current counts, he lost by small margins in three states that could have changed the outcome of the election. Given his force of personality and control of the Republican Party, I think he is going to run for President again in 2024 and try and avenge his defeat.

No, because he is going to win this election.

 

[my2¢]

If Biden can run for President from his basement, I see no reason Trump can't run from his jail cell.

"The short answer is that once he leaves the office, his cloak of immunity, actual or implied by (Justice Department guidelines), will disappear," said David Weinstein, a former Florida federal prosecutor.

'Vulnerable to prosecution': When Trump leaves White House, presidential 'cloak of immunity' goes away

Aside from the threat of prosecution and the unearthing of tax returns he has long kept private, Trump faces a litany of other lawsuits.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Pogo]

The example of taking California out of the mix and then looking at the popular vote is something Trumpers did after the 2016 election.

I'm sure they did, and they were just as wrong then. You CAN'T just "take California out". We don't live in a world without California.

Its disappointing that in 2020, when you take California out of mix, BIDEN loses the popular vote.

It's not "disappointing", it's "illegitimate argument". Same reason as above. You can't do it. Any more than you can say "if you eliminate the red votes" or "if you only consider those born under Sagittarius". It's not a valid analysis.

In terms of the three states in 2020 and this thread, I've always been talking about Arizona, Wisconsin, and Georgia. Why? Because you switch 48,025 of those votes around in those three states, and Trump remains President.

Yet another version of the same illegitimate argument. You or I could go cherrypick any combination of any groups anywhere from any election of any year ever and say the same thing. You simply cannot cherrypick things out like that because votes were not cast in that cherrypicked world. HAD that been the world they were voting in, the whole vote would have been different.

Repudiations are not tiny marginal victories. They are supposed to bae crushing defeats.

Turning the latter three states by 391,000 votes, I'd say that qualifies. Turning the original three states by 289,000 votes, I'd say that qualifies. Doing so while other Republicans successfully held their Senate seats and even gained in the House, I'd say that completes the picture. Don't get greedy.

The other aspect you're leaving out in this apples-oranges comparison is that in the 2016 trio of states Michigan Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, those were all states Clinton was expected to WIN (and retain from 2012), and failed, while your 2020 trio of AridZona, Georgia and Wisconsin were ALL states that Biden had to flip, and succeeded.

Its not cherry picking to show that if John Kerry had 200,000 more votes in Ohio in 2004, he would have become President. Its not cherry picking to show that if Al Gore had 1,000 more votes in Florida, he would have become President in the year 2000. Its not cherry picking to show that if Hillary Clinton had 10,000 more votes in Michigan, 22,000 more votes in Wisconsin, 44,000 more votes in Pennsylvania, a combined 77,736 votes from those three states, she would have become President in 2016. Its also not cherry picking to show that in 2020, if Trump had 14,747 more votes in Arizona, 20,540 more votes in Wisconsin, 12,337 more votes in Georgia, a combined 47,624 votes from three states, he would have been re-elected President. In all four cases, your showing what the losing side needed at a minimum to attain victory.

I use to talk about how narrow Trump's margin of victory was in 2016, a combined 77,736 votes from three states. Yet, Biden's victory is more narrow than that, currently at 47,624 votes in three states.

Every time you drop the word "if" ---- it's cherrypicking. We do not live in "If". We live in "Is".

"If" our team hadn't given up that one touchdown, we would have won. Of course that also means we can equally say "if" we hadn't also scored one our team would still have lost. You can cherrypick any artificial section of any election, of any kind, in any year, in any place, and imagine taking out California or changing Ohio, or whatever you want. It isn't reality. At most it shows, in the 2016 example, a falling-short of expectations, and when you use it for a comparator you use the same group of states, where minus-79,000 becomes plus-213,000. You don't suddenly jump out to a whole different group and start all over again. That's what apples-to-apples means.

 

[U2Edge]

The example of taking California out of the mix and then looking at the popular vote is something Trumpers did after the 2016 election.

I'm sure they did, and they were just as wrong then. You CAN'T just "take California out". We don't live in a world without California.

Its disappointing that in 2020, when you take California out of mix, BIDEN loses the popular vote.

It's not "disappointing", it's "illegitimate argument". Same reason as above. You can't do it. Any more than you can say "if you eliminate the red votes" or "if you only consider those born under Sagittarius". It's not a valid analysis.

In terms of the three states in 2020 and this thread, I've always been talking about Arizona, Wisconsin, and Georgia. Why? Because you switch 48,025 of those votes around in those three states, and Trump remains President.

Yet another version of the same illegitimate argument. You or I could go cherrypick any combination of any groups anywhere from any election of any year ever and say the same thing. You simply cannot cherrypick things out like that because votes were not cast in that cherrypicked world. HAD that been the world they were voting in, the whole vote would have been different.

Repudiations are not tiny marginal victories. They are supposed to bae crushing defeats.

Turning the latter three states by 391,000 votes, I'd say that qualifies. Turning the original three states by 289,000 votes, I'd say that qualifies. Doing so while other Republicans successfully held their Senate seats and even gained in the House, I'd say that completes the picture. Don't get greedy.

The other aspect you're leaving out in this apples-oranges comparison is that in the 2016 trio of states Michigan Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, those were all states Clinton was expected to WIN (and retain from 2012), and failed, while your 2020 trio of AridZona, Georgia and Wisconsin were ALL states that Biden had to flip, and succeeded.

Its not cherry picking to show that if John Kerry had 200,000 more votes in Ohio in 2004, he would have become President. Its not cherry picking to show that if Al Gore had 1,000 more votes in Florida, he would have become President in the year 2000. Its not cherry picking to show that if Hillary Clinton had 10,000 more votes in Michigan, 22,000 more votes in Wisconsin, 44,000 more votes in Pennsylvania, a combined 77,736 votes from those three states, she would have become President in 2016. Its also not cherry picking to show that in 2020, if Trump had 14,747 more votes in Arizona, 20,540 more votes in Wisconsin, 12,337 more votes in Georgia, a combined 47,624 votes from three states, he would have been re-elected President. In all four cases, your showing what the losing side needed at a minimum to attain victory.

I use to talk about how narrow Trump's margin of victory was in 2016, a combined 77,736 votes from three states. Yet, Biden's victory is more narrow than that, currently at 47,624 votes in three states.

Every time you drop the word "if" ---- it's cherrypicking. We do not live in "If". We live in "Is".

"If" our team hadn't given up that one touchdown, we would have won. Of course that also means we can equally say "if" we hadn't also scored one our team would still have lost. You can cherrypick any artificial section of any election, of any kind, in any year, in any place, and imagine taking out California or changing Ohio, or whatever you want. It isn't reality. At most it shows, in the 2016 example, a falling-short of expectations, and when you use it for a comparator you use the same group of states, where minus-79,000 becomes plus-213,000. You don't suddenly jump out to a whole different group and start all over again. That's what apples-to-apples means.

Nearly every political analyst has discussed the minimum needed for the losing side to have won in the U.S. Presidential elections of 2000( 1,000 votes in Florida), 2004(200,000 votes in Ohio), and 2016( 77,750 votes combined in WI, MI, and PA). This is nothing new. All of those elections were relatively close. Its not cherry picking, but a legitimate look at where the losing side fell short. Political Analyst and both Republican and Democratic campaign managers study it. It would not make sense to NOT look at the minimum needed for the Trump campaign to have won in 2020 which would be about 46,000 combined votes from Arizona, Wisconsin, and Georgia.

You can talk about IF and Cherry picking all you want, but the political campaigns and political analyst will be seriously looking at these areas, states, from the 2020 election campaign given how close it actually was. A reversal of 46,000 votes in three states allows Trump to stay in office. No doubt flipping Arizona and Georgia back to red in 2024 is where the Republicans will start developing their strategy. Wisconsin would appear the easiest state after those two to flip in 2024. The Democrats focused hard on Wisconsin for 2020, even planning to have their convention in Milwaukee. Yet, after all that planning and focus, they flipped the state by a razer thin margin of 20,000 votes, just as Trump had in 2016.

Its great that BIDEN won. But his victory was on thin ice given the current vote count. That should be a warning to everyone and is the biggest reason why Trump may attempt to run in 2024.

 

[Pogo]

The example of taking California out of the mix and then looking at the popular vote is something Trumpers did after the 2016 election.

I'm sure they did, and they were just as wrong then. You CAN'T just "take California out". We don't live in a world without California.

Its disappointing that in 2020, when you take California out of mix, BIDEN loses the popular vote.

It's not "disappointing", it's "illegitimate argument". Same reason as above. You can't do it. Any more than you can say "if you eliminate the red votes" or "if you only consider those born under Sagittarius". It's not a valid analysis.

In terms of the three states in 2020 and this thread, I've always been talking about Arizona, Wisconsin, and Georgia. Why? Because you switch 48,025 of those votes around in those three states, and Trump remains President.

Yet another version of the same illegitimate argument. You or I could go cherrypick any combination of any groups anywhere from any election of any year ever and say the same thing. You simply cannot cherrypick things out like that because votes were not cast in that cherrypicked world. HAD that been the world they were voting in, the whole vote would have been different.

Repudiations are not tiny marginal victories. They are supposed to bae crushing defeats.

Turning the latter three states by 391,000 votes, I'd say that qualifies. Turning the original three states by 289,000 votes, I'd say that qualifies. Doing so while other Republicans successfully held their Senate seats and even gained in the House, I'd say that completes the picture. Don't get greedy.

The other aspect you're leaving out in this apples-oranges comparison is that in the 2016 trio of states Michigan Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, those were all states Clinton was expected to WIN (and retain from 2012), and failed, while your 2020 trio of AridZona, Georgia and Wisconsin were ALL states that Biden had to flip, and succeeded.

Its not cherry picking to show that if John Kerry had 200,000 more votes in Ohio in 2004, he would have become President. Its not cherry picking to show that if Al Gore had 1,000 more votes in Florida, he would have become President in the year 2000. Its not cherry picking to show that if Hillary Clinton had 10,000 more votes in Michigan, 22,000 more votes in Wisconsin, 44,000 more votes in Pennsylvania, a combined 77,736 votes from those three states, she would have become President in 2016. Its also not cherry picking to show that in 2020, if Trump had 14,747 more votes in Arizona, 20,540 more votes in Wisconsin, 12,337 more votes in Georgia, a combined 47,624 votes from three states, he would have been re-elected President. In all four cases, your showing what the losing side needed at a minimum to attain victory.

I use to talk about how narrow Trump's margin of victory was in 2016, a combined 77,736 votes from three states. Yet, Biden's victory is more narrow than that, currently at 47,624 votes in three states.

Every time you drop the word "if" ---- it's cherrypicking. We do not live in "If". We live in "Is".

"If" our team hadn't given up that one touchdown, we would have won. Of course that also means we can equally say "if" we hadn't also scored one our team would still have lost. You can cherrypick any artificial section of any election, of any kind, in any year, in any place, and imagine taking out California or changing Ohio, or whatever you want. It isn't reality. At most it shows, in the 2016 example, a falling-short of expectations, and when you use it for a comparator you use the same group of states, where minus-79,000 becomes plus-213,000. You don't suddenly jump out to a whole different group and start all over again. That's what apples-to-apples means.

Nearly every political analyst has discussed the minimum needed for the losing side to have won in the U.S. Presidential elections of 2000( 1,000 votes in Florida), 2004(200,000 votes in Ohio), and 2016( 77,750 votes combined in WI, MI, and PA). This is nothing new. All of those elections were relatively close. Its not cherry picking, but a legitimate look at where the losing side fell short. Political Analyst and both Republican and Democratic campaign managers study it. It would not make sense to NOT look at the minimum needed for the Trump campaign to have won in 2020 which would be about 46,000 combined votes from Arizona, Wisconsin, and Georgia.

You can talk about IF and Cherry picking all you want, but the political campaigns and political analyst will be seriously looking at these areas, states, from the 2020 election campaign given how close it actually was. A reversal of 46,000 votes in three states allows Trump to stay in office. No doubt flipping Arizona and Georgia back to red in 2024 is where the Republicans will start developing their strategy. Wisconsin would appear the easiest state after those two to flip in 2024. The Democrats focused hard on Wisconsin for 2020, even planning to have their convention in Milwaukee. Yet, after all that planning and focus, they flipped the state by a razer thin margin of 20,000 votes, just as Trump had in 2016.

Its great that BIDEN won. But his victory was on thin ice given the current vote count. That should be a warning to everyone and is the biggest reason why Trump may attempt to run in 2024.

once AGAIN you *DON'T GET* a reversal of those three states". You get what you have.

Just to pick the one example, and use round numbers, if Wisconsin goes Rump by 20,000 and next round goes Biden by 20,000.... that's a total of 40,000. The other point is that the count is not finished yet, as it's only a week past election day. Thus, the margin of the three cherrypicked states is already up to 47,000, and climbing.

You can search the entire history of elections, I don't think you'll find one with no close state races.

 

[U2Edge]

The example of taking California out of the mix and then looking at the popular vote is something Trumpers did after the 2016 election.

I'm sure they did, and they were just as wrong then. You CAN'T just "take California out". We don't live in a world without California.

Its disappointing that in 2020, when you take California out of mix, BIDEN loses the popular vote.

It's not "disappointing", it's "illegitimate argument". Same reason as above. You can't do it. Any more than you can say "if you eliminate the red votes" or "if you only consider those born under Sagittarius". It's not a valid analysis.

In terms of the three states in 2020 and this thread, I've always been talking about Arizona, Wisconsin, and Georgia. Why? Because you switch 48,025 of those votes around in those three states, and Trump remains President.

Yet another version of the same illegitimate argument. You or I could go cherrypick any combination of any groups anywhere from any election of any year ever and say the same thing. You simply cannot cherrypick things out like that because votes were not cast in that cherrypicked world. HAD that been the world they were voting in, the whole vote would have been different.

Repudiations are not tiny marginal victories. They are supposed to bae crushing defeats.

Turning the latter three states by 391,000 votes, I'd say that qualifies. Turning the original three states by 289,000 votes, I'd say that qualifies. Doing so while other Republicans successfully held their Senate seats and even gained in the House, I'd say that completes the picture. Don't get greedy.

The other aspect you're leaving out in this apples-oranges comparison is that in the 2016 trio of states Michigan Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, those were all states Clinton was expected to WIN (and retain from 2012), and failed, while your 2020 trio of AridZona, Georgia and Wisconsin were ALL states that Biden had to flip, and succeeded.

Its not cherry picking to show that if John Kerry had 200,000 more votes in Ohio in 2004, he would have become President. Its not cherry picking to show that if Al Gore had 1,000 more votes in Florida, he would have become President in the year 2000. Its not cherry picking to show that if Hillary Clinton had 10,000 more votes in Michigan, 22,000 more votes in Wisconsin, 44,000 more votes in Pennsylvania, a combined 77,736 votes from those three states, she would have become President in 2016. Its also not cherry picking to show that in 2020, if Trump had 14,747 more votes in Arizona, 20,540 more votes in Wisconsin, 12,337 more votes in Georgia, a combined 47,624 votes from three states, he would have been re-elected President. In all four cases, your showing what the losing side needed at a minimum to attain victory.

I use to talk about how narrow Trump's margin of victory was in 2016, a combined 77,736 votes from three states. Yet, Biden's victory is more narrow than that, currently at 47,624 votes in three states.

Every time you drop the word "if" ---- it's cherrypicking. We do not live in "If". We live in "Is".

"If" our team hadn't given up that one touchdown, we would have won. Of course that also means we can equally say "if" we hadn't also scored one our team would still have lost. You can cherrypick any artificial section of any election, of any kind, in any year, in any place, and imagine taking out California or changing Ohio, or whatever you want. It isn't reality. At most it shows, in the 2016 example, a falling-short of expectations, and when you use it for a comparator you use the same group of states, where minus-79,000 becomes plus-213,000. You don't suddenly jump out to a whole different group and start all over again. That's what apples-to-apples means.

Nearly every political analyst has discussed the minimum needed for the losing side to have won in the U.S. Presidential elections of 2000( 1,000 votes in Florida), 2004(200,000 votes in Ohio), and 2016( 77,750 votes combined in WI, MI, and PA). This is nothing new. All of those elections were relatively close. Its not cherry picking, but a legitimate look at where the losing side fell short. Political Analyst and both Republican and Democratic campaign managers study it. It would not make sense to NOT look at the minimum needed for the Trump campaign to have won in 2020 which would be about 46,000 combined votes from Arizona, Wisconsin, and Georgia.

You can talk about IF and Cherry picking all you want, but the political campaigns and political analyst will be seriously looking at these areas, states, from the 2020 election campaign given how close it actually was. A reversal of 46,000 votes in three states allows Trump to stay in office. No doubt flipping Arizona and Georgia back to red in 2024 is where the Republicans will start developing their strategy. Wisconsin would appear the easiest state after those two to flip in 2024. The Democrats focused hard on Wisconsin for 2020, even planning to have their convention in Milwaukee. Yet, after all that planning and focus, they flipped the state by a razer thin margin of 20,000 votes, just as Trump had in 2016.

Its great that BIDEN won. But his victory was on thin ice given the current vote count. That should be a warning to everyone and is the biggest reason why Trump may attempt to run in 2024.

once AGAIN you *DON'T GET* a reversal of those three states". You get what you have.

That is NOT THE POINT I'M MAKING!

Its an analysis of where the side that lost came up short and by how much. How convincing of a victory or loss was it? Finding the minimum amount of votes and electoral votes from particular states to overturn the election is NOT Cherry Picking, but a precise number that can be measured in every election.


[/QUOTE]
Just to pick the one example, and use round numbers, if Wisconsin goes Rump by 20,000 and next round goes Biden by 20,000.... that's a total of 40,000. The other point is that the count is not finished yet, as it's only a week past election day. Thus, the margin of the three cherrypicked states is already up to 47,000, and climbing.
[/QUOTE]

That's not what I'm talking about. Although does is show the swing number of votes from one election to the next. As stated before, after the results come in, I'm looking at the minimum it would have taken the losing candidate to overturn the election.

Again, these are not cherry picked states. These states represent the minimum path for Trump to have overturned and won the election. Here are the latest results:

Arizona - 10,457 votes
Georgia - 13,607 votes
Wisconsin - 20,466 votes

TOTAL: 44,530 votes

Right now this margin is getting smaller. Hillary's minimum to overturn the 2016 election was 77,700 votes. Trump's right now is 44,530 votes. Both very close elections where tiny mistakes or actions made all the difference. A very divided country still equally split down the middle essentially.

 

[U2Edge]

Will Donald Trump run for President in 2024?

I say he will because at the moment, based on current counts, he lost by small margins in three states that could have changed the outcome of the election. Given his force of personality and control of the Republican Party, I think he is going to run for President again in 2024 and try and avenge his defeat.

You aren't allowed to run for 3 terms.

If The Fraud Investigations and Recounts give Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, Donald Trump is The President, officially. He could also win Wisconsin and Michigan back.

What do you think now? Still think Trump has a chance of being President on January 21, 2020?

 

[U2Edge]

Will Donald Trump run for President in 2024?

I say he will because at the moment, based on current counts, he lost by small margins in three states that could have changed the outcome of the election. Given his force of personality and control of the Republican Party, I think he is going to run for President again in 2024 and try and avenge his defeat.

He won’t have to, because he’ll prevail in this election...

Still feel that way?

 

[Meister]

Will Donald Trump run for President in 2024?

I say he will because at the moment, based on current counts, he lost by small margins in three states that could have changed the outcome of the election. Given his force of personality and control of the Republican Party, I think he is going to run for President again in 2024 and try and avenge his defeat.

no

 

[U2Edge]

Will Donald Trump run for President in 2024?

I say he will because at the moment, based on current counts, he lost by small margins in three states that could have changed the outcome of the election. Given his force of personality and control of the Republican Party, I think he is going to run for President again in 2024 and try and avenge his defeat.

no

Vote in the poll please.