Jump to content
270soft Forum

Which states did Trump 'actually' win?


Anthony_270
 Share

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Berg2036 said:

https://ktar.com/story/4564937/sen-fann-says-audit-ballot-totals-dont-match-maricopa-countys-numbers/

I think AZ for sure was won by Pres. Trump and I have a feeling GA PA and MI also suffered the same things where laws were changed by the court and had suspicous moves toward the democrats.

No expert, but some of these details from the AZ audit released today sound pretty bad to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm confident that the official state results are accurate. All signs were pointing that direction as I discovered when making my own predictions prior to the election (I only missed ME-2 which had few polls). Turnout was arguably the largest since 1900, and larger turnout generally favors Democrats. AZ and GA have been shifting Blue. Democrats made a special focus for turnout in both Atlanta and Philadelphia. As a resident of Philadelphia--by far the largest city in PA--Biden/Harris signs lined the streets. Energy was far higher than I ever saw for Clinton in equally left-wing Austin in 2016. According to residents I talked to here, there was much more of a determination to vote because of what happened in 2016. I think results in AZ and in GA were helped by the fact that Democrats ran strong candidates for the US Senate. Biden+these candidates were mutually supportive. 

I do think Trump would have won both AZ, GA, and with an outside chance of PA, if COVID and the COVID recession had never occurred. I also don't think it helped that Trump continually shot himself in the foot with his own mouth. Never having an approval rating averaging even 45% also couldn't have helped. That's a thermometer on the pulse of the nation. Trump was likely facing an uphill battle as soon as he took the oath of office.  

I think if Trump runs again in 2024, he'll have an even tougher time. Part of me wants him to run just to see him lose the popular vote three times and the EC twice. Although, I'd prefer to not hear him speak again. 

I won't give any consideration to AZ or GA as having been "stolen" until 1) a notable independent, non-partisan election group goes on record with evidence of the election going in favor of Trump and 2) that evidence makes front page news on the Associated Press, Reuters, TheHill, Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, BBC, and similar credible news networks, and 3) the front page evidence isn't just posted there to make those promoted the evidence seem like conspiracy theory nuts. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Anthony_270 said:

What do you make of the specific details released today re the AZ audit?

I haven't heard that covered anywhere but here, so I haven't read anything about it. However, I've also been in downtown Philadelphia all day. Do you have a link from a credible source?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

I haven't heard that covered anywhere but here, so I haven't read anything about it. However, I've also been in downtown Philadelphia all day. Do you have a link from a credible source?

They were discussed at an AZ Senate hearing. Trump weighed in.

https://www.newsmax.com/politics/maricopacounty-forensic-audit-electionfraud/2021/07/15/id/1028806/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Anthony_270 said:

Even if all of those could be proven, and all the states de-certified, I don't think anything changes re who's President, though. There's no post hoc recourse AFAICT.

I fully agree that it wont change anything, but the truth needs to known regardless, if there was no cheating or malpractice awesome! If there was then things need to be changed asap. I am concerned that the mainstream media wont cover the proof even if it is 100% accurate. The media choses what is true nowadays instead of it being a factful source.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Berg2036 said:

I fully agree that it wont change anything, but the truth needs to known regardless, if there was no cheating or malpractice awesome! If there was then things need to be changed asap. I am concerned that the mainstream media wont cover the proof even if it is 100% accurate. The media choses what is true nowadays instead of it being a factful source.

Of course - there are 2 strategies. For media, attack the integrity of the audit (sloppy, poor security, biased auditors, and so on) and or ignore or down play. For social media, suppress or censor news of it if talking Google, Twitter, or FB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Anthony_270 said:

Of course - there are 2 strategies. For media, attack the integrity of the audit (sloppy, poor security, biased auditors, and so on) and or ignore or down play. For social media, suppress or censor news of it if talking Google, Twitter, or FB.

Thats what is happening unfortanatly and i feel that all states should do an audit much like Arizona is doing but if Georgia also does one that would be really good. I just cant imagine that in 4 years Trump goes from winning 50 percent in georgia to losing the state, even if as some people say its turning blue a lot of people would need to move to tip the balance and Georgia did not pick up a seat in redistricting which is a whole other can of worms that need to be discussed.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Anthony_270

Taking a brief look at this audit, which isn't being covered much at all. Seems strange that it was Arizona Republicans trying to dismiss the audit, which was then blocked by the court. 

If you google Arizona audit, almost nothing comes up. I see something about "Democrats leading an investigation into the Republican-led audit." 

Politico mentions that the Arizona ballot audit might backfire on the GOP. Apparently, independents strongly oppose the audit in AZ. This wouldn't surprise me. It was definitely a coalition of Democrats, Independents, McCain-Flake-Republicans that defeated Trump in AZ. Trump shot himself in the foot by unleashing targeted attacks on both McCain and Flake. That probably decisively swung Independents and some Republicans to Biden, or at least kept some of them from voting for Trump, otherwise. 

Just in case you're curious, when I made my election prediction, which correctly predicted, AZ, FL, PA, GA, WI, and MI, as well as everything else but ME-2, here's how many days before election day I was projecting a win for Trump in the states Trump won in 2016 but lost in 2020:

  • AZ: I had Biden winning AZ every day during the last 100 days of the election, when I started projecting the winner. Biden's lead, while not big, was consistent throughout the last 100 days. Solid but not big. 
  • GA: I had Trump winning here 32 days before the election and with Biden winning 31 days through the election. However, except for the 5 days leading up to the election, I was barely projecting a Biden lead. Biden's probability of winning GA started rising in the last 5 days. 
  • MI: Biden was going to be the clear winner of this state throughout the entire 100 days. He had a consistently solid--although not strong--lead. I had zero skepticism in this state.
  • PA: Biden had a solid--but not--strong lead throughout the 100 days. However, I was showing his momentum decreasing in the last 4 days in PA, which might explain why PA was closer than expected. 
  • WI: Similar to MI in that Biden had a solid--although not strong--sustained lead for the entire 100 days. 

Of the above state, only GA seemed like a real toss-up. Here were my predicted PV margins for the above:

  • AZ - Biden wins +2.1 (margin was actually +0.3 for Biden). I correctly got the state, which isn't surprising since the state was expected to go to Biden and it did go to Biden. 
  • GA - Biden win +0.6 (margins was actually +0.2 for Biden). I got really close. Because I handicapped my predictor for Trump (which is why I beat the Pundits, I think), I was expecting Trump to narrowly win this state and I was surprised that Biden held on to GA on election day. I should note that the above section of 100 day projections slightly differs from my election day projector, which has more pro-Trump handicaps. Biden's 100 day projections in GA looked slightly better than his election day projector in GA. 
  • MI - Biden win +7.1 (margin was actually 2.8% for Biden). I'm not quite sure why I was off here, considering I was more conservative than the pollsters. I'm wondering if turnout in Detroit was higher than in 2016 but a lot lower than expected in 2020 because of weather or because of some feeling that Biden was going to win or something. I got the state winner, but I was certainly off on the PV.
  • PA - Biden win +3.5 (margin was actually 1.2%) This is actually a pretty decent PV prediction. Not too far off as far as trying to predict a PV goes. 
  • WI - Biden win +7.9 (margin was actually 1.4% for Biden). Same as with MI. I got the state but was off on the PV for reasons I can't explain. 

Overall, Trump slightly overperformed, especially in WI and MI. 

As far as states that pundits thought Biden would win but that I projected Trump as winning:

  • I had Trump winning FL by +1.4 (Trump actually won by +3.4). Decent guess on PV by me.
  • I had Trump winning NC by +0.1 -- true toss up (Trump actually won by +1.4). Pretty good guess by me again on PV. Still close but not the nailbighter my algorithm projected. About as close as the PA result. 

My only real error was with ME-2. It had very limited data with which for my algorithm to work with, so I probably shouldn't have even considered projecting it or NE-2. As such I was far less confident in the ME-2 and NE-2 predictions, but I just put whatever my algorithm projected. I had ME-2 going +2 for Biden (It went +7.6 for Trump!!!!!). I had NE-2 going only +0.5 for Biden but it went +6.5% for him! That's the issue when you don't get consistent polling. It's hard to tell where the momentum is going. The shifts in the polls are generally more helpful than the actual poll numbers.....is the polling trending a certain direction, is the polling consistent as to who is winning, etc.

The other thing I want to bring up about AZ, GA, and PA, where some Trumpites are claiming fraud (and etc.), is that these are all states with Republican dominated legislatures--and long-serving Republican dominated legislatures. If anything, they were in a position to restrict votes of demographics that tend to vote Democratic. This tends to happen in GA and OH (Democrats are known to do this in IL and NJ just to be fair, and probably in NY too). Unfair voting restriction can include making poling access easier for some neighborhoods over the other. Some tactics include, changing polling locations in the last moment, having fewer or fewer well-working polling machines in some locations, having more polling stations in some areas than others, etc. Technically, it's more voter discouraging than voter restricting. Voter discouraging should be illegal. If anything I think every state should be audited for every election to see if poling is completely fair and balanced for all neighborhoods and all demographics. Voting Day should probably be a federal holiday. There should be more poling stations. Any polling station that is having electrical malfunctions or other issues that delay voting for more than an hour should have the deadline extended at that polling station or have backup forms on paper that they fill out.

I'll make one last statement on the AZ audit. I support audits of elections in all states. I think there should be automatic audits and like 5 recounts -- maybe like three before the audit and two after. However, the audits cannot be politically motivated, as this one clearly seems to be. A politically-motivated audit (whether by Dem or GOP) is just going to have a result they want, and they will just pull stuff out of their ass to meet their desired result. Fortunately, it even seems that most of the GOP people in the Senate and Congress believe the election was legitimate. They aren't loonies like this AZ group seems to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, vcczar said:

However, the audits cannot be politically motivated, as this one clearly seems to be. A politically-motivated audit (whether by Dem or GOP) is just going to have a result they want, and they will just pull stuff out of their ass to meet their desired result.

Yes, this seems to be the standard defense right now. It's politically motivated, and therefore we can dismiss any findings. Be interesting to see whether this strategy can hold once the findings are officially released - it just might be. Let me put it this way - if the specific findings given under oath before the Senate committee are true, what would you make of it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@vcczar I think you did a great job at forecasting the election, better than some highly prominent people out there.

But the line of your argument here is a bit baffling. You are using your forecasts as evidence that the election results in AZ or GA are correct? It doesn't make sense. The evidential line is the opposite - to the extent the actual results support your forecasts, you have some evidence that the way your forecast works was somewhat accurate. You can't then turn around and say *because some result might not fit with your forecast*, therefore it's wrong. As you yourself state, the forecast didn't get things right. But the margins in AZ and GA are so slim to be beyond any forecasting method, however accurate, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Anthony_270 said:

@vcczar I think you did a great job at forecasting the election, better than some highly prominent people out there.

But the line of your argument here is a bit baffling. You are using your forecasts as evidence that the election results in AZ or GA are correct? It doesn't make sense. The evidential line is the opposite - to the extent the actual results support your forecasts, you have some evidence that the way your forecast works was somewhat accurate. You can't then turn around and say *because some result might not fit with your forecast*, therefore it's wrong. As you yourself state, the forecast didn't get things right. But the margins in AZ and GA are so slim to be beyond any forecasting method, however accurate, IMO.

I'm not using the method as evidence that it is correct. I'm using it as evidence to show that even in a conservative forecasting it seemed likely that Biden was going to win AZ and GA. A lot of the "stop the steal" people operate on an assumption that Biden won states that were supposed to go to Trump. If anything, Trump overperformed. He was lucky to make it as close as he did. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Anthony_270 One thing I do want to say is that, since I support transparency, integrity, authenticity, democracy, etc., that if AZ, GA, and PA were legitimately stolen (which I don't think they were), then I support overturning those results, even if it means removing Biden from power and replacing him with Trump or a compromise choice via a special election or something. Obviously, in the unlikely event an election should be overturned because of corruption, then the situation should be handled delicately. President Biden would have to be convinced to voluntarily step down as a patriotic duty and do so in a way that diminishes the chance of domestic instability. To his credit, I think he would be much more likely to do that (I'd say 85% likely) than Trump (0% likely if in the same situation). 

I think the misinformation and "Stop the Steal" movement should encourage more checks and balances, transparency, non-partisan/independent vote counts, double checking, audits, etc. 

I'd suggest this timeline:

  • Vote in first week of November. Federal Holiday. Relatively equal access to polls for each neighborhood. Whatever can be done so that one party/demographic cannot discourage voting of another group. Each election day polling station should also have a drop box for early voting for however many months early voting is allowed prior to election day. Early voting should be an option for the elderly, handicapped, people that won't be in their state or town on election day, or people working essential jobs that can't take Election Day off. Mail-in votes would be approximately the same as Early Voting rules. 
  • An initial ballot count will occur as votes are coming in on election day, starting with mail in votes and early votes. Initial results will be announced as soon as possible but no victor is declared. Nominees will be prohibited from giving a victory speech (that is, formally declaring victory and the media cannot declare a victor), but they can give a speech.  
  • Following this, the first week after initial votes are counted, there will be a recount of all votes in all states by a non-partisan, independent committee. For states that were won by a candidate by a margin of less than 5%, there will be a second recount. Following this, there will be an audit of votes in states in which a candidate won by a margin of less than 3%, followed by a third recount. 
  • The Electoral College will not meet during their specific date to meet if the above has not been accomplished. That is, the EC will be delayed until all the checks and balances occur. 
  • Once the EC confirms the votes and announces a victor, the nominees must accept the result and agree to a transfer of power. An incumbent president will immediately be required to work with the incoming president, sharing essential information and allowing the incoming president the benefit of being prepared for the nation. 
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...