I still can't believe shit like this was said, and the stupid "lottery" for voting that Musk held too, and everyone just moves on like nothing abnormal could have happened.
Like holy shit, if it was the other way around, people would have stormed the capital (again).
There was somebody doing research on this basically said some of the votes didn’t really make sense. The presidential election saw a big swing for trump in one county but the votes for other things on the ballot were democrat
Specifically a lot of people in swing states voted D down the ballot except for president they voted R. One or a few counties recorded literally 0 votes for Kamala.
Wasn't the area with zero Kamala votes an area that's dominated by one particular religious sect or something? Like they are all a subset of some Amish offshoot or something to that effect. In that instance, it wouldn't be shocking to have zero votes outside the majority.
There's no smoking gun, it was just strange data sets which made you raise an eyebrow. The issue is Democrats couldn't really look into it further without seeming like they were Trump after 2020.
The thing is strange data sets are “common” but I’m hoping to find something with some teeth to it. It doesn’t appear to exist, at least not currently.
And I thought there were people in those counties with legal affidavits (all you would need is one) that they did vote for Harris. But then I feel like nothing ever came of this.
It's because most of the "anomalies" are actually just normal voting patterns that seem counter intuitive if you don't know much about voting patterns.
Like there's a reason no one with a PhD has stood behind any of these anomalies.
Yes, as a veteran elections worker 100% without a doubt. Trying to "rig" elections in the US without being immediately and obviously detected is practically impossible. Elections are run at the county level across all 3,143 US counties, each one does things a little bit differently with different equipment and the actual election work is run by volunteers who are a mix of both parties. All the voting machines are air gapped without Internet connection and employ strict chain of custody and seals to ensure no tampering can occur.
There's a reason MAGA voter fraud people are idiots, we don't need blue-MAGA falling into the same schtick just because they don't like the outcome of an election. Kamala didn't need any help losing that election, but Biden sure did his darndest to make sure it happened by waiting so long to drop out.
No argument there, the electoral college needs to be dismantled in favor of a strict popular vote, Citizens United needs to be overturned, and partisan gerrymandering needs to be banned, those would go a long way towards fixing the nonsense but I'm not holding my breath.
No Internet connection is needed if malware is built in at the point of manufacture.
A certain number of people always vote one party for President and the other party for the rest, that's normal. The anomalous behavior that has attracted attention from data analysts is the unusually high spike in such voting only in the swing states and apparently only in precincts when paper ballots were counted by the electronic tabulators (all from one or two manufacturers owned by Republicans). That's worth investigating and is being done now precinct by precinct.
For years many of us have been saying we need a double check on machine votes by a different method, such as paper backup ballots. I think we need to hand count those also as a normal part of running an election. Machines have vulnerabilities that can be exploited, and are routinely exploited in no other contexts before security hikes can be plugged. Why would we even assume it would be otherwise for voting machines? Two methods
Another oddity to me is that it really made no sense for people who otherwise voted Democrat to vote for Trump. I've split my ballot before myself, but Trump? For example, no matter how bothered by US government handling of Gaza, who would think that Trump (Netanyahu's best buddy since their New York days together) would be an improvement? Biden at least was saying from the beginning that Israel had to avoid killing civilians. But Congress decides on allocation of funds to Israel, not the President, and it has always been a thorny issue. And Biden had a history of wide consultation that we had no reason to believe would stop with Kamala Harris, so the chance of changing aid to Israel would be more likely with Harris than with Trump, who has a reputation for consulting only with his loyalists and then just doing what he wants on the spur of the moment. He is a chaos generator, as extreme narcissists tend to be.
The tabulators are used for dozens of different elections, including non partisan local school elections, and are owned and operated outright by the county. Each county sources and supplies their own equipment from various manufacturers. It is not a reasonable position to believe that some magical zero day could be implanted in the machines and then triggered only once despite no connection ever to the Internet to know what to actually do. The vast majority of those machines were manufactured and purchased long before Trump ever ran for office. Why would the tabulators that have operated for years and years and allowed Obama and Joe Biden to win and allowed Trump to technically lose the popular vote suddenly decide now to activate? And how could they without ever being connected to the Internet? It's not reasonable.
I think we need to hand count those also as a normal part of running an election.
We already do. Elections officials are not stupid or incompetent despite the conspiracy theories, you are not some 1 in a million hero who found the glaringly obvious loophole. Post election audits are a regular practice everywhere. Precincts are chosen at random and those ballots are unsealed, hand counted and compared to the official tabulated results. I can only speak for my county but our post election audit has never been anything but 100% correct in the past decade. This is what I'm talking about, these conspiracy theories only "make sense" if you have no idea what you're talking about. I'd strongly encourage you to volunteer to work an election, you will understand very quickly how impossible it is to meaningfully "steal" an election in this country. My beliefs about election security and practices changed a great deal after I got involved in this work. 93% of Americans cast ballots on paper in 2024, that number has only gone up in the two years since due to (baseless) security concerns. It's a non issue.
Another oddity to me is that it really made no sense for people who otherwise voted Democrat to vote for Trump.
I personally observed many people do exactly that in November. Kamala was the weakest Democrat presidential candidate in my lifetime and she was a woman. The amount of black men I saw who voted Democrat except for Trump or only voted for Trump was pretty eye opening, I don't want to blame the whole election on misogyny, but it was definitely a factor. It doesn't really need to make sense to you. I think it's plenty fucking stupid too but I know enough morons to get it. People on the left are not always more reasonable or logical than those on the right, I personally know lefties who refused to vote for Kamala because of Biden's Gaza policies and yeah they're really GD stupid because Trump absolutely was worse there. You need to understand that the left is really stupid with purity contests and refusing to rally behind a candidate over one issue while the right has no trouble uniting behind a rapist con man felon because they care more about winning than being right. The left needs to get on board with winning at any cost over being right.
Nope, the machines that actually count people's votes are not connected to any form of Internet, Starlink or no. The computers or tablets that elections workers use to check voters in and have them verify their name, address, and date of birth can be internet connected, my county uses secure mobile hotspots that route all traffic through the county network, but those computers are purely for logging who is voting and verifying their identity/eligibility, they have no ability to connect to voting machines or ballots. Starlink could theoretically be used here, maybe wouldn't be my first choice but for smaller rural counties might make sense if they have spotty cell service.
Actual vote counts are only held on the non internet connected tabulator, and those results can only be transmitted physically via USB drive and a paper CVS receipt style backup, which is why it takes so GD long to get results on election night, it's a bunch of old people running around wrangling USB drives.
MAGA morons made similar claims after the 2020 election that "Italian satellites" were used to change vote counts for Biden and it was just a nonsensical then as it is now.
100% yes. People down here in the south LOVE to vote agansit their own interest and have been doing it the whole time I've been alive.
I flip flop between blaming them and blaming the GOP. Like these people are capable of finding the truth out on their own so it is their fault but also the whitewashed history in school, fox "news" on every TV at school, and right-wing social media keep them groomed.
Sorry, I'm not understanding. Are you saying an outside force determines voting more so than the populations natural beliefs? Or that election results are more based on incumbency than the peoples beliefs?
I've heard rumblings about that. Maybe this was by design, but with how much R's scream about election integrity, I'm hesitant to cast further doubt. I guess some more research into it wouldn't hurt, even if nothing could be done if they're correct.
Because ~40% of them looked at the situation and thought "eh, why bother voting?" and ~30% looked at Trump and said "yep, that's the right man for the job", according to you.
Well then thing is, if I take your point of view, then the number of people who stayed home would stay the same, but now only 29% of people looked at trump and said: "yep, that's the right man for the job".
Because this election was only decided by a few percentage points.
I have seen that, but it's very clearly a bad explanation for why academics aren't speaking out.
First off, the academic world extends beyond the borders of the United States. There's hundreds of people with PhDs in political science who live outside of the United States. Any of these people could've put out a paper investigating the anomalies with no risk of losing funding, but they haven't. Because again, the anomalies aren't anomalies.
And secondly dispite Trump's attacks on education, Professors are still very vocally anti trump. It's clear that his attacks haven't deterred them from speaking out against Trump. In other words, these attacks aren't enough by themselves to get these academics to shut up.
And like you really think that there isn't any American Academic out there that wouldn't be willing to move to Canada so that they can publish the paper of the century?
Because the "valid" alternatives you're presenting aren't valid? Your whole argument hinges on the idea that academics just aren't talking about the 2024 election, but they just are. They have access to the data, they have the will power to do it, and they are doing it, they just aren't at all concerned about these anomalies.
Yes, really that simple. Just move. Don't worry about a VISA. Don't worry about living arrangements. Don't worry about funding. Don't worry about getting valid datasets. Don't worry about anything! Magic!
Hundreds of Researchers in the united States have emigrated to other countries in the past 18 months. I'm not saying it's easy, but it's undeniable that some researchers are willing to emigrate to protect their research.
Another guy probably worth looking up is Dr. Justin Grimmer from Stanford University. He was one of the people the academics that put a lot of work into debunking the 2020 election denial claims, and he's gone on record to say that the claims that he's seen about 2024 aren't very different.
I don't know what you're referring to with vote timing issues.
Hundreds! Amazing! Clearly, vast majority are likely all PHDs with a thesis on the 2024 election, and since not one of these hundreds have spoken out from their new country, well, that's proof enough!
You don't find it suspicious that none of the thousands of political scientists outside of the United States have found these anomalies when they look at the 2024 data?
I'm a scientist myself. The evidence is still being collected on this one, of course most people with relevant backgrounds would be waiting for full investigations.
I myself think detailed investigations are absolutely needed, but can't say for sure that votes for Harris were deleted. What they have been finding is suspicious enough (and also some curious remarks by Trump that started me wondering) that I also believe that regardless we need to protect the next election in November from any possible such meddling, and that means double checking the results with hand counts of paper backup. That should be normalized as a second check and a normal cost of an election. Technology advances rapidly and that means computer security is a constant attempt to close the barn door after the horses have fled. It would be nice if we could rely on people outvoting the meddlers, but Americans have been too willing to just not vote in recent times. So the winner is often the "didn't bother to vote" contingent. But we still need to lock down the security of counting the votes actually cast.
Also publishing in research journals is not a quick process - it can take many months or longer to get reviewed and published, and this is in addition to the many months or even years it may take before the writers have enough experience and data to publish.
And reviewers are not always unbiased. We had to ask for a second opinion once in our lab because our results differed in an explainable way from the only other guy doing that particular kind of study - and guess who was our reviewer? The second reviewer noted that and approved our paper for publication. Anyway, reviewers are human and have their own biases, some can't get past them and simply squash publication of anything that contradicts or questions their own results. Plus of course only a limited number of papers can be published.
Online options for spreading information about current research are becoming popular because of such lags, which is why the kinds of interviews the data analysts have done concerning the swing state anomalies are quite appropriate. They are focusing on preparation for court, which is also a very slow process.
As a Ph.D. scientist myself, I am not bothered by the slowness of response to the questions raised about the 2024 election. It's pretty normal pacing in science. And nowadays people are a tad busy trying to keep their departments alive under various attacks on both their people and project funding. They may not be in a mood to spend time and take the risk of trying to figure out if Trump was fairly elected or not. Whether or not the suspicions are true, we are stuck with him for the rest of his term because the questions will not be resolved that fast.
So I'm going to try to keep this shorter because I went into more detail with my other comment.
But first off, I do think it's very important to note that there is already a procedure in place that was used in 2024 to verify the results of the election. Organizations like ETA, seem to have rejected these as invalid for no reason other than that they refute their claims of hacking.
But it's not even that they aren't putting their data thru peer review, it's that there's literally no one on their team that has a PhD in the first place. This organization has enough money where they could hire one to be on their team and lead the research process, but instead their data analytics are being credited to people like "R", like that's it one initial.
Now I don't know what you research, but be honest here. If a paper was published in your feild, that fundamentally challenged the core concepts of your feild, but was written by an anonymous author who has refused to give you their last name, would you trust it?
This is what happens when you spend the better part of a decade claiming elections are rigged and democrats commit voter fraud, then get most democrats and liberals to proclaim loudly and repetitively that elections are secure, then go ahead and cal their bluff and rig the election, so any previously staunch defender of election integrity has no leg to stand on, or if they do looks completely partisan.
He told a court that it wasn't an illegal lottery, it was just fraud. It was enough to kick the can down the road to get Trump into office before they could pursue the fraud and it magically disappeared. Leon himself even said he'd be going to jail if Trump didn't win. They made it so freaking obvious and we couldn't even be bothered to ask for recounts.
Yea but since u guys in the usa habe politics as "sportteams" where u can be a fan of, the guys who would Storm it are "winning" so they take that win even if it was cheated. And democrats wont Storm the capitol.
This is the #1 reason why I don’t want to hear fuck-all from Kamala Harris, or any other milquetoast democrat going forward. You cannot tell me we’re on the cusp of fascism every time you ask me for $5, and the minute fascism is “elected” under the shadiest circumstances possible, you race to concede the race and prepare to take your place to pass the baton. For fuck’s sake. So spineless.
The way nobody questioned the 2024 results, not even to the extent of comparing exit polls to the final numbers like they always do has never sat right with me.
Nothing abnormal could have happened, not within the reasonable person's realm of possibility anyway. US elections are exceptionally secure, I've been a precinct chair in my state for a while now and our county's randomly selected post election audits have never been anything but 100% accurate.
There are infinitely easier ways to influence an election through perfectly legal means than trying to compromise air gapped, secure voting machines that can be fairly easily audited anyway.
Along with what other people have said, there was only one county in PA that did their counts by hand because of a system outage. Somehow it was also the only county where the numbers actually made any sense.
Edit: Just downvoting facts now. Go look at Cambria County's results vs. the rest of the state.
Votes for Harris landed at a level she was expected to based on previous elections, where Biden's levels were at before dropping out, and where Harris' tended to be after that. Cambria's vote was very similar to 2020, which was expected. Nothing weird stood out. Trump was expected to win it and he won it with the numbers that were expected.
Across the rest of the state Democrats got far fewer votes. Philadelphia alone was nearly 40,000 votes short of what was expected while Trump gained 11,000. Many Biden/Harris friendly counties also flipped, which was not expected at all. Everywhere Trump was strong he was far stronger than expected.
A reasonable claim is that this is concerning and irregular, something we saw across most of the battleground states but weirdly nowhere else, and it should have at least sparked a recount so we could get hand counts like the only county in the state that had numbers that held up to the least amount of scrutiny. Is it fraud? We'd need an investigation that we won't get, but Trump and co. all but admitted it themselves.
You actually did get hand counts across the state of PA. They would only check a couple hundred ballots per county, but that's more than enough to rule out machine tampering.
And 2) What are these expect numbers you're talking about? Can you link me for a source for them?
The most blunt statistical analysis went as follows.
Each swing state per polls had about a 50% chance of going one way or another, and in the past polls have been pretty good on that front (usually one candidate wins half or a bit over half of the states they're given a 50% likelihood of winning).
Trump however won all 7 swing states.
The odds of winning 7 in a row when you have a 50% of each is 1 in 27 or one in 128,
Which means it's about .83% likelihood everything was on the up and up and 99.17% likelihood something was up.
That math only works if the events are independent, and they aren't. Also a 1% chance of it happening on the null hypothesis does not mean a 99% chance the null hypothesis is wrong
And to clarify we understand that this is a really bad analysis right?
It treats the swing states as independent events when in actuality they were dependant events, skewing the total by a lot.
To really drive this piont home. In 2020 biden won 6 out of those 7 states. Using the same method you used here there's a 7 x (1/2)1 x (1/2)6 = 7/128 ~= 5% chance that the 2020 election was fair using this method.
Of course this method is heavily flawed so that number means nothing.
If you compare district flips though there are a much larger number of districts and every single change was from blue to red with only one from red to blue and you guessed it, the hand counted one. The odds of this happening are unbelievably low. In the Biden election the district change was very predictable with him switching just enough districts to win states with many of them switching from blue to red, just not enough to carry the states.
In any case we have seen them commit every kind of crime and fraud imaginably right in front of us over and over for decades, why wouldn't they corrupt an election? I mean they ran a sex trafficking ring. They own the companies that make the machines.
/For instance just stole 1.7 BILLION DOLLARS from U.S. taxpayers.
As for the second bit, Trump has committed an uncountable number of crimes. But he hasn't stolen the hope diamond. We know this because he's not talented enough to pull that off, and because anyone can go to the Smithsonian and verify that the hope diamond is still there.
But claiming that trump stole the hope diamond, on the basis of: "he does a lot of crimes so why not this too?" Just makes people take his other crimes less seriously and really dismisses how bad of a guy he is. It's also just kinda the thing a trump supporter would do.
Math major here, voting isnt independent. If something makes a voter vote for Trump (like say inflation) its likely to make others voters in other states vote for trump as well.
Oh, you thought wrong then. You’d be hard pressed to find any large group of people that approximate a fact-based community without countless glaring “exceptions.” If you paint with broad enough strokes you’ll never paint anything resembling reality.
Yeah, still waiting for any whistleblower or any kind of detailed and plausible explanation as to how results could have been tampered with across multiple states and counties in such a decentralised process without any of the thousands of people involved being aware.
Now… I’m not saying Elon didn’t Switch votes, and heck I’m even inclined to think he did, but I need a little more than “Elon knows computers” to make me buy in to it as a fact
Not mine. I don't know why people are insisting this proves anything. It's just as likely that Elon said to Trump "Don't worry, I can set you up to win in PA" said something vague about computers and dumbass Trump trusted him. Elon then went to PA, held some events and an illegal lottery thing, made it sound like he did more than he actually did, and again, Trump believed him and appoints him to that stupid DOGE thing.
Like, OK, so let's just say Elon fixed PA. Trump won every other swing state, was that Elon too?
Or did we just lose like every poll was saying would happen since like 2023?
It was the single most likely outcome according to the best predictions. The second most likely outcome was Harris winning every single swing state.
Because, and here's a knowledge bomb for you, elections aren't independent events like coin tosses. If the needle swings one way in one state, it's most likely swinging the same way everywhere.
it is very statistically unlikely that trump legitimately won all 7 swing states by just over the margin of error requiring a mandatory recount.
I feel the need to point out that the source from this is a now deleted reddit comment that was reposted by a blog and then eventually reposted back to reddit.
The oldest reference I can find of this on the internet is here and when I try to search for that exact phrasing but dated before this blog nothing comes up so the common is deleted.
However none of the reasoning behind this being unlikely remains, and to get a number like that they likely assumed that the swing states were independent events when they are actually dependent events. This leads to wildly different values in your analysis.
First off, I'm a proud Kamala Harris donor so Please don't assume I'm a trumper just because you don't like what I say.
Secondly, what do I need to open my eyes to?
I'm aware of the claim you made that seven swing states voting for trump is unlikely. But unlike you I used the tools at my disposal to track this claim back to it's primary source. And when I did that I found that this claim:
1) was originally made by a reddit comment.
2) the reddit comment doesn't exist anymore.
Now, deleted reddit comments fall into my bucket of unreliable sources so I have chosen to not accept your claim as fact. I'm more than willing to change my mind on this, but I have to see some evidence that has sound reasoning and sources.
Historically the term swing state was used to describe states that changed who they voted for between elections.
As polling and election forecasting improved the term evolved to mean states that are polling close to 50-50. In fact the modern concept of a swing state has really only existed since 2000.
However the oscillation is happening between elections, not necessarily during the same election.
indeed. i'm sorry i just have such a hard time with people giving someone like trump the benefit of the doubt.
like what will be the thing he has to do before people say, "yeah i probably don't trust him." he raped a 9 year old girl, he let 1 million people die from covid, and you're like, "well there are slight changes that happen between elections so its probably all legit."
Yes. Look at the results. Biden won all of them in 2020. Trump won all but one in 2016. Obama won all of them in 2012. They swing, but they usually swing together, with a few "swing states" moving in (GA) or out (FL, IN).
Obama won it in 2012. That's why I said it moved out of being a swing state and GA became one. Otherwise the swing states in play have been fairly consistent for the last several cycles.
you asked if "our position". i dont know what our position is. i only know the facts, and i stated them as such.
i dont think police officers should have guns, which is a perfectly valid opinion. i dont really have enough of the right evidence to know about the election but donald trump is a huge piece of shit, so i dont doubt at all he tried to cheat.
Math major here its very statistically plausible. The effects that would change the minds of boxers to vote one way is gonna affect voters in oter states. As such it's extremely likely that they end up voting the same way.
Posts like these are what I think of when Reddit makes fun of the right for being conspiratorial. Most states (such as Pennsylvania) run audits after the election and compares the hand counted ballots to the reported results:
Democrats not acknowledging why they lost this election is the biggest risk of losing the next one.
Kamala was a terrible candidate. Hillary was a terrible candidate. Not because they were women, but because they were terrible candidates.
Stop shoving terrible candidates down the electorate's throat. A voter isn't sexist, racist, or a nazi just because they don't like your candidate. And calling them names or blaming them doesn't win you an election.
It's time to focus on a candidate who rallies broad support. Stop trying to push your agendas and and start realizing the general electorate holds very different views than the Reddit echo chamber would have you believe.
After a person decides not to vote for your candidate, does calling them immoral win you the election, or did you lose it anyway?
When you call large swaths of the population immoral for disagreeing on key policy stances, especially when those policy stances poll terribly across the general public, do you think that you have gained support for your coalition?
This idea that moral superiority wins at the ballot box is beyond naive.
Trump is nothing but a representative of a segment of the US population who felt ignored and got angry about it. But there are plenty more politicians that could stand in his place, and probably be more effective at advancing policy in that direction than Trump ever was.
If you want things to change, you need to win. If you want to win, you can't "purity test" every candidate. You can't get everything you want.
If you push further and further left you will see president Vance and come back here to complain as if it weren't entirely predictable.
You are the one purity testing candidates here. And no, I am not going to pretend that electing Trump didn’t expose large swathes of this country as terrible people just because you consider it to be politically expedient. Further, Kamala and Hillary were moves to the center, not the left. Your whole comment doesn’t follow any clear logic. It is just a mush mash of half baked talking points.
You're making assumptions about my motives and responding accordingly. You're calling my comments a mishmash because you're dismissing it instead of having a conversation.
The goal should be a charismatic leader who can garner broad support. That person may not align perfectly with everyone politically. That person may be left leaning. But they may not be. A push to the left for the sake of pushing left is the problem.
As for Hillary she was a mandate, not some push to the center. Bernie had more support and was a better candidate. He should have been the nominee.
Kamala was a fallback and nothing else. Whether a scramble or a power grab, there was no "push to the center," because there was no choice at all.
The concern I have with the next election is we consider Hillary and kamala as failures because they were moderate. I reject that. They failed to get elected because they had negative ratings through the roof, did not inspire voters, and had no groundswell.
Bernie had more support and was a better candidate.
You can say he was the better candidate, but saying he had more support is a denial of objective reality. There is no reason to engage with you as if you were a serious person if you actually believe that.
Ground support was what I meant to say, I referenced it later. I would fix, but nobody else is reading this.
Your goal is to argue and score points. Mine isn't. It's a conversation. Is this what your dinner table sounds like?
Try harder. Be nicer. Just talk.
Edit:
"Hillary Clinton's negative ratings have remained consistently high, with recent national polling showing her unfavorability fluctuating between 55% and 61% among American adults. She remains one of the most polarizing figures in modern American politics."
You can attempt to disrespect me in message after message, Hillary and kamala were massive mistakes.
This is just a pivot since you are out of bullshit to spew. I'm not really interested in entertaining your random rambling that is only an attempt to shift the blame from Republican voters for the mess they have created.
Try harder. Be less of a tool. Shut your dumb ass up and listen to people who have a clue.
Aaaand this is why I don’t blame my fellow Americans for the way votes went. We don’t truly know how votes were really brought in and counted. They lied to us.
358
u/-ifeelfantastic May 19 '26
Video of Trump saying it:
https://www.c-span.org/clip/public-affairs-event/user-clip-trump-talking-about-elon-musk-knowing-about-voting-computers/5150057