QAnon

@mrmhead Said

No. "The Left" aka Dems, did not say the election was stolen.
It was shown that Russian Interference (not collusion) duped the gullible.

.. and then trump did it to them again on Jan 6.

@4d4m Said

It's not this time I'm referring too. Say in 2024 another "Trump" appears (or Trump reappears) then looses by 3 million votes but wins the electoral college in an election that was rigged. Anyone attempting to bring attention to it will have a more difficult time thanks to the stupid show in DC last month. It's psychological manipulation. The sheep won't be thinking about which group of people or which party was behind it, that's not how their minds work. They'll just remember the 3 minute news shots from the riots.

@mrmhead Said

I still think it would be nearly impossible to rig an election that would affect a national outcome.
Maybe there could be enough interference and disruption to invalidate the election for a do-over, but not secretly steal it. The process and checks and balances are too decentralized to coordinate on a national level.

@DiscordTiger Said



This. Once you *actually* understand the system, you can’t outright steal or influence it with rigging.

You would go at it with voter suppression, gerrymandering, and disinformation campaigns.
Easier to do, harder to get caught “red handed”, and more efficient outcomes.

@DiscordTiger Said

Yup. There has been a Republican political long game afloat for decades. Nothing happening now is new or unexpected.

The writing has been on the wall for over 40 years. Q isn’t even unique. Just a byproduct of the process. If not Q then it would be something/someone else at the heart of whatever “conspiracy de jour”.

Abortion is a perfect example.

An easier example, because it’s infinitely easier to blame everything on evil baby killers. And use that as an argument that the ends justify the means.

@mrmhead Said

I still think it would be nearly impossible to rig an election that would affect a national outcome.
Maybe there could be enough interference and disruption to invalidate the election for a do-over, but not secretly steal it. The process and checks and balances are too decentralized to coordinate on a national level.

@4d4m Said

The way to do it is to hit the exact right districts that will affect the outcome in states that have a winner take all policy for the electoral college reps. The ones to hit would be ones that will be close but you are pretty sure will go the way of the candidate you don't want to win. It would also be necessary to use places where the voting machines can be hacked and are online. The vote in 2000 (Bush Jr vs Gore) came down to a couple of districts in Florida.

The vote in 2016 was decided by three districts with a combined population of 80,000 people. If those districts would have chosen Clinton the election would have gone the other way. Here's an article from the Washington Post that details what I'm talking about. Here's an article from Endgadet about hacking voter machines. Here's and article from NBC about voting machine systems being connected to the internet, even though they are not supposed to be.

@4d4m Said

The way to do it is to hit the exact right districts that will affect the outcome in states that have a winner take all policy for the electoral college reps...

@nooneinparticular Said

Of course, just predicting ahead of time which districts those are to begin with requires what basically amounts to clairvoyance, but I suppose if you presuppose that you're psychic anything is possible...

@4d4m Said

Actually it requires AP or Gallup polls

You two do realize I'm referring to the 2016 elections right?

@4d4m Said

Actually it requires AP or Gallup polls

@chaski Said

What about all the other polls (Rasmussen Reports, Economist/YouGov, Politico/Morning Consult, Reuters/Ipsos, The Hill/Harris, Quinnipiac, etc)?

With the obvious exception of Rasmussen Reports, most of the various polling companies seem to come up with numbers that are reasonably within statistical variation.... both now and in 2016.... of course many (if not most) were wrong about 2016.

@nooneinparticular Said

You do realize that most polls have a variance of 3-5%, right? And that you're talking about using them to attempt to predict races in districts that typically fall in that 3-5% variance, right?