Will Donald Trump run for President in 2024?

[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

Vote in the poll please.

I rarely vote in the polls.

 

[Dragonlady]

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'll be dead or too deranged to run. He's too deranged to run now, but his followers felt he was great the way he was.

 

[TheParser]

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.

So you're assuming he won't be in prison in 2024?

His force of personality won't mean much in front of a jury.

A jury in D.C. or New York or Chicago or Atlanta or ...?


Oh, sure, he would be certain to get a fair hearing there!

 

[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.

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.

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.
[/QUOTE]

That analysis doesn't make sense. Biden has a SIX MILLION VOTE LEAD and in percentages, 3.8 probably headed to 4. That's not razor-thin close at all. Rump won the Terrible Three in a perfect storm, but in your states above you can take away AridZona, you can take away Georgia (actually you can take away both) and Biden still has the win. There are more electoral votes in Rump's three states than in Biden's, so you're still comparing apples and oranges, no pun intended.

 

[basquebromance]

Let’s gather the new and join it with the old. We must marry the party of Reagan with the party of Trump.

But having the right ideas is just half the battle. The other half is implementing it.

that was Trump's biggest flaw. he didn't keep his promises. that's why he lost, my friends

 

[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.

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 analysis doesn't make sense. Biden has a SIX MILLION VOTE LEAD and in percentages, 3.8 probably headed to 4. That's not razor-thin close at all. Rump won the Terrible Three in a perfect storm, but in your states above you can take away AridZona, you can take away Georgia (actually you can take away both) and Biden still has the win. There are more electoral votes in Rump's three states than in Biden's, so you're still comparing apples and oranges, no pun intended.
[/QUOTE]

The popular vote has not impact on who actually wins the election. Its the electoral college. So its votes in key states that get you to 270 that determine whether its razor thin margin or not.

In 2016, Trump won PA, WI, and MI with 77,744 votes. A razor thin margin. You could also take away two of the three and Trump still would have won in 2016.

In 2020, Biden wins WI, GA, and AZ with 43,306 votes.(YEP, it keeps shrinking as the remaining votes are counted.) Sure, just as in 2016, take a way two of the states and its a Biden win.

The Electoral votes in the three states in 2016 and the three states in 2020 are not being compared. What is being compared is the number votes in each state it would have taken to overturn the election and give the loser the victory. In Hillary's case, 77,744 votes combined to win WI, MI, and PA in 2016. In Trumps case, 43,306 votes to win AZ, WI, and GA in 2020.

The minimum amount of votes Hillary Clinton needed to reverse in 2016 to win was 77,744 votes. The minimum amount of votes that Trump needed to reverse in 2020 in order to win is now down to 43,306 votes.

 

[candycorn]

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.

He will pretend like he is for the next 4 years.

Trump has a lot of debt coming due. He needs money. The news network was rumored to be started up in 2016 (As I recall Patricia Heaton was to be one of the personalities on it). Not enough cash in Politics.

 

[Fiero425]

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.

He will pretend like he is for the next 4 years.

Trump has a lot of debt coming due. He needs money. The news network was rumored to be started up in 2016 (As I recall Patricia Heaton was to be one of the personalities on it). Not enough cash in Politics.

You're kidding?! Bill Bennett bragged about blowing $8 million gambling! Republicans have plenty of suckers who'll turn over their last dollar for the cause! They buy those "echo chamber" books from conservatives like Ingraham and Coulter! Trump is ripping his followers off as we post asking for $$ to fight the good fight! They really think there's a chance to overturn multiple states for the election win! They're giving this con man $$, not realizing the fine-print says he can use those funds for other reasons like spa treatments for his orange tan and gifts for his bimbos!

 

[Aldo Raine]

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 hasn't lost the 2020 election yet.

Yes he has, he was schlonged!

MAGA

 

[candycorn]

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.

He will pretend like he is for the next 4 years.

Trump has a lot of debt coming due. He needs money. The news network was rumored to be started up in 2016 (As I recall Patricia Heaton was to be one of the personalities on it). Not enough cash in Politics.

You're kidding?! Bill Bennett bragged about blowing $8 million gambling! Republicans have plenty of suckers who'll turn over their last dollar for the cause! They buy those "echo chamber" books from conservatives like Ingraham and Coulter! Trump is ripping his followers off as we post asking for $$ to fight the good fight! They really think there's a chance to overturn multiple states! They giving this con man $$, not realizing the fine-print says he can use those funds for other reasons like spa treatments for his orange tan and gifts for his bimbos!

Those aren't office holders...
That was my point.

 

[Fiero425]

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.

He will pretend like he is for the next 4 years.

Trump has a lot of debt coming due. He needs money. The news network was rumored to be started up in 2016 (As I recall Patricia Heaton was to be one of the personalities on it). Not enough cash in Politics.

You're kidding?! Bill Bennett bragged about blowing $8 million gambling! Republicans have plenty of suckers who'll turn over their last dollar for the cause! They buy those "echo chamber" books from conservatives like Ingraham and Coulter! Trump is ripping his followers off as we post asking for $$ to fight the good fight! They really think there's a chance to overturn multiple states! They giving this con man $$, not realizing the fine-print says he can use those funds for other reasons like spa treatments for his orange tan and gifts for his bimbos!

Those aren't office holders...
That was my point.

Again I ask, "are you fk'n kidding?" The graft is above board with campaign contributions and "PAC" money awash in DC! Years ago I saw Boehner passing out checks on the floor of Congress! Not to mention the millions in their pension funds they'll be ripping right out of the treasury when they retire! Please study some before bantering about these things!

 

[candycorn]

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.

He will pretend like he is for the next 4 years.

Trump has a lot of debt coming due. He needs money. The news network was rumored to be started up in 2016 (As I recall Patricia Heaton was to be one of the personalities on it). Not enough cash in Politics.

You're kidding?! Bill Bennett bragged about blowing $8 million gambling! Republicans have plenty of suckers who'll turn over their last dollar for the cause! They buy those "echo chamber" books from conservatives like Ingraham and Coulter! Trump is ripping his followers off as we post asking for $$ to fight the good fight! They really think there's a chance to overturn multiple states! They giving this con man $$, not realizing the fine-print says he can use those funds for other reasons like spa treatments for his orange tan and gifts for his bimbos!

Those aren't office holders...
That was my point.

Again I ask, "are you fk'n kidding?" The graft is above board with campaign contributions and "PAC" money awash in DC! Years ago I saw Boehner passing out checks on the floor of Congress! Not to mention the millions in their pension funds they'll be ripping right out of the treasury when they retire! Please study some before bantering about these things!

Again, there isn't enough cash in politics when you have a billion coming due. You're talking about campaign funding and graft. You don't graft that much money. Pensions are also not going to pay off the billion the blob has coming due.

Can you make some money? Sure. You can make a shitload more giving speeches and being on TV. Please study some before embarrassing yourself. Perhaps ask yourself why you never see these conservative blowhards run for office...Limbaugh, Hanity, Levine, Ingram, Coulter, O'Reiley, Tucker, Savage, etc...

They would take a pay cut.

Mumbling platitudes isn't a substitute for thinking it through.

 

[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.

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.

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.

That analysis doesn't make sense. Biden has a SIX MILLION VOTE LEAD and in percentages, 3.8 probably headed to 4. That's not razor-thin close at all. Rump won the Terrible Three in a perfect storm, but in your states above you can take away AridZona, you can take away Georgia (actually you can take away both) and Biden still has the win. There are more electoral votes in Rump's three states than in Biden's, so you're still comparing apples and oranges, no pun intended.
[/QUOTE]

The popular vote has not impact on who actually wins the election. Its the electoral college. So its votes in key states that get you to 270 that determine whether its razor thin margin or not.

In 2016, Trump won PA, WI, and MI with 77,744 votes. A razor thin margin. You could also take away two of the three and Trump still would have won in 2016.

In 2020, Biden wins WI, GA, and AZ with 43,306 votes.(YEP, it keeps shrinking as the remaining votes are counted.) Sure, just as in 2016, take a way two of the states and its a Biden win.

The Electoral votes in the three states in 2016 and the three states in 2020 are not being compared. What is being compared is the number votes in each state it would have taken to overturn the election and give the loser the victory. In Hillary's case, 77,744 votes combined to win WI, MI, and PA in 2016. In Trumps case, 43,306 votes to win AZ, WI, and GA in 2020.

The minimum amount of votes Hillary Clinton needed to reverse in 2016 to win was 77,744 votes. The minimum amount of votes that Trump needed to reverse in 2020 in order to win is now down to 43,306 votes.
[/QUOTE]

================================================== (quoted post break)

There you go again, changing the three states. That's not a valid comparison.

In '16 Rump won those three states by under 80,000 while Biden erased that 80,000 and added (roughly) 255,000. In '16 Rump could not win a majority of the vote in any of them while this round Biden did so in two out of three and is at 49.5 in the third. THAT is your comparison.

If you'd like to compare AridZona Wisconsin and Georgia then you use 2016 as your comparator, not 2020 by itself. Conveniently the Cook Political Report does that for us, at least in percentages:

AridZona: Biden adds 3.9% vs Clinton 2016 (this is another state where Rump didn't break 50%)​

Georgia: Biden adds 5.4%​

Wisconsin: Biden adds 1.4%​

You could in fact go down the list of ALL the states, regardless which candy won it either time, and find the same pattern. Click the second button on the right on that page, "Swing vs 2016 margin" and see all the blue. That's telling us that the vast majority of states went "bluer" than they were four years ago, whether they went all the way to a "blue" vote or not --- i.e. "blue" states went "blue" while "red" states veered toward "blue" even if they stayed a lighter "red". The glaring exceptions are New York and a couple of other "blue" states which had gone SO "blue" that they had little room to veer anywhere except back towards "red".

That of course applies only to the POTUS election; if we had a map showing the same swing in the Congressional races it should look much redder. And that contrast tells us that the country was singling out Rump for removal rather than "Republicans" in general.

Btw the reason I keep mentioning the states where Rump could not break 50% in 2016 is that that indicates a very soft and therefore vulnerable base of support. Clinton had the same issue in Minnesota, Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada and (I think) Colorado. Biden broke 50% in all of those. And finally, one way to look at this last point is to conclude that while we may not be better off than we were four years ago, we are less divided.

 

[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.

Correction to the above --- he's going to lose by over SIX million, not five million.

 

[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 and (b) dearth of any prominent third parties 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.

Way to be unifying. Thank you.

You're welcome. And I got your 'unifying' right here, copied from another post:

>> Btw the reason I keep mentioning the states where Rump could not break 50% in 2016 (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, AridZona, Utah) is that this indicates a very soft and therefore vulnerable base of support. Clinton had the same issue in Minnesota, Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada and (I think) Colorado. Biden broke 50% in all of those, and in two out of three of the Terrible Trio. You can punch the button marked "Swing vs 2016 margin" on the Cook Political Report and see how the entire country went "bluer" than it was, whether a given state went all the way "blue" or stayed a lighter "red". And one way to look at this last point is to conclude that while we may not be better off than we were four years ago, we are less divided.

Yes Virginia, getting rid of a divisive troll does help to unify, ask any message board. Whelp, that's what we just did. Again ........ you're welcome.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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 and (b) dearth of any prominent third parties 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.

Way to be unifying. Thank you.

You're welcome. And I got your 'unifying' right here, copied from a post in another thread:

>> Btw the reason I keep mentioning the states where Rump could not break 50% in 2016 (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, AridZona, Utah) is that this indicates a very soft and therefore vulnerable base of support. Clinton had the same issue in Minnesota, Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada and (I think) Colorado. Biden broke 50% in all of those, and in two out of three of the Terrible Trio. You can punch the button marked "Swing vs 2016 margin" on the Cook Political Report and see how the entire country went "bluer" than it was, whether a given state went all the way "blue" or stayed a lighter "red". And one way to look at this last point is to conclude that while we may not be better off than we were four years ago, we are less divided.

Yes Virginia, getting rid of a divisive troll does help to unify, ask any message board. Whelp, that's what we just did. Again ........ you're welcome.

Two wrongs make a right?

 

[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 and (b) dearth of any prominent third parties 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.

Way to be unifying. Thank you.

You're welcome. And I got your 'unifying' right here, copied from a post in another thread:

>> Btw the reason I keep mentioning the states where Rump could not break 50% in 2016 (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, AridZona, Utah) is that this indicates a very soft and therefore vulnerable base of support. Clinton had the same issue in Minnesota, Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada and (I think) Colorado. Biden broke 50% in all of those, and in two out of three of the Terrible Trio. You can punch the button marked "Swing vs 2016 margin" on the Cook Political Report and see how the entire country went "bluer" than it was, whether a given state went all the way "blue" or stayed a lighter "red". And one way to look at this last point is to conclude that while we may not be better off than we were four years ago, we are less divided.

Yes Virginia, getting rid of a divisive troll does help to unify, ask any message board. Whelp, that's what we just did. Again ........ you're welcome.

Two wrongs make a right?

Don't know what you're trying to say here.

Are you saying, if we take the total number of your posts and divide by two, you're "right"?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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 and (b) dearth of any prominent third parties 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.

Way to be unifying. Thank you.

You're welcome. And I got your 'unifying' right here, copied from a post in another thread:

>> Btw the reason I keep mentioning the states where Rump could not break 50% in 2016 (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, AridZona, Utah) is that this indicates a very soft and therefore vulnerable base of support. Clinton had the same issue in Minnesota, Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada and (I think) Colorado. Biden broke 50% in all of those, and in two out of three of the Terrible Trio. You can punch the button marked "Swing vs 2016 margin" on the Cook Political Report and see how the entire country went "bluer" than it was, whether a given state went all the way "blue" or stayed a lighter "red". And one way to look at this last point is to conclude that while we may not be better off than we were four years ago, we are less divided.

Yes Virginia, getting rid of a divisive troll does help to unify, ask any message board. Whelp, that's what we just did. Again ........ you're welcome.

Two wrongs make a right?

Don't know what you're trying to say here.

Are you saying, if we take the total number of your posts and divide by two, you're "right"?

Figure it out

 

[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 and (b) dearth of any prominent third parties 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.

Way to be unifying. Thank you.

You're welcome. And I got your 'unifying' right here, copied from a post in another thread:

>> Btw the reason I keep mentioning the states where Rump could not break 50% in 2016 (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, AridZona, Utah) is that this indicates a very soft and therefore vulnerable base of support. Clinton had the same issue in Minnesota, Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada and (I think) Colorado. Biden broke 50% in all of those, and in two out of three of the Terrible Trio. You can punch the button marked "Swing vs 2016 margin" on the Cook Political Report and see how the entire country went "bluer" than it was, whether a given state went all the way "blue" or stayed a lighter "red". And one way to look at this last point is to conclude that while we may not be better off than we were four years ago, we are less divided.

Yes Virginia, getting rid of a divisive troll does help to unify, ask any message board. Whelp, that's what we just did. Again ........ you're welcome.

Two wrongs make a right?

Don't know what you're trying to say here.

Are you saying, if we take the total number of your posts and divide by two, you're "right"?

Figure it out

Deep.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

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 and (b) dearth of any prominent third parties 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.

Way to be unifying. Thank you.

You're welcome. And I got your 'unifying' right here, copied from a post in another thread:

>> Btw the reason I keep mentioning the states where Rump could not break 50% in 2016 (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Florida, AridZona, Utah) is that this indicates a very soft and therefore vulnerable base of support. Clinton had the same issue in Minnesota, Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada and (I think) Colorado. Biden broke 50% in all of those, and in two out of three of the Terrible Trio. You can punch the button marked "Swing vs 2016 margin" on the Cook Political Report and see how the entire country went "bluer" than it was, whether a given state went all the way "blue" or stayed a lighter "red". And one way to look at this last point is to conclude that while we may not be better off than we were four years ago, we are less divided.

Yes Virginia, getting rid of a divisive troll does help to unify, ask any message board. Whelp, that's what we just did. Again ........ you're welcome.

Two wrongs make a right?

Don't know what you're trying to say here.

Are you saying, if we take the total number of your posts and divide by two, you're "right"?

Figure it out

Deep.

Shallow