If Less Than 115,000 Votes Had Switched in Three Battleground States, Harris Would Have Beaten Trump : somethingiswrong2024

If Harris had won she'd have won

But they didn't and she lost.

This is all us, right? People aren't actually this r-slurred?

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle a real and valid woman

It was pretty nuts that the Right was able to import a ton of ballot machines, packed with the bodies of dead Ukraines, that display the Russian flag on startup, and make sure absolutely zero Democrats had access to any source code or checksums to verify these were on the up-and-up.

Or is it more likely a single natural-born US citizen with a Russian uncle worked on the software and a few of the capacitors were built using ink from Russia, and that's enough to count as Russian interference?

That this keeps marching on despite that Harris quickly conceded is the funniest part. At least in 2020 the r-slur in charge was leading the effort

>the electoral college is good actually

https://old.reddit.com/r/somethingiswrong2024/comments/1hix708/comment/m34m5oj/?context=8

And if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their asses every time they jump.

YMCA ON REPEAT FOR THE NEXT 4 YEARS BB

And if my Auntie had balls she'd still be my Auntie

I can never tell if these people are aware that all of their theories are basically rehashed QAnon talking points or if they really do just have the self awareness of cashews.

Well yeah, if more people had voted for our losing candidate, they would have won. This isn't hidden esoteric knowledge. Are they really grasping at straws here?

if different people voted, a different person wouldve won

Popular-votecels get fricked, the electoral college isn't going anywhere.

Wasn't it 11,000 in 2020? What does this prove?

The official chant of that subreddit is "If ifs and buts were clusters of nuts we'd all have a bowl of granola."

You can play this r-slurred game every cycle. Harris didn't get 115,000 specific votes that would have won her the election, but Trump got millions of extra votes he didn't need to win. That spread obviously favors the candidate who wins more votes, since they'll have more paths to victory.

For the numerically-minded, this stuff is always true. You can only do it once all the votes are in, so it's always a fixed data set. Then you can either monte-carlo it or PCA or whatever and find the optimal minima that would have the maximum effect.

It's always an interesting thing, but it is interesting because it's an artefact of statistical analysis of what was, not what could have been. It has no comment on actual voting, only on the voting numbers.

Yeah but trump only lost to biden by 47k in the same way. Also what happened to the popular vote lmao dems.

if my mom had wheels she'd be a bike

I may not be quick to have the answer as soon as you ask it about a specific policy issue sometimes because I'm going to want to research it, I'm going to want to study it. I'm kind of a nerd sometimes, I confess...

And some might call that a weakness, especially if you're, you know, in an interview, or just kind of, you know, being asked a certain question and just expected to have the right answer right away. But that's how I that's how I work.

Snapshots:

https://old.reddit.com/r/somethingiswrong2024/comments/1hix708/if_less_than_115000_votes_had_switched_in_three/:

• undelete.pullpush.io

• ghostarchive.org

• archive.org

• archive.ph (click to archive)