Trump will win again

FiftySeven said:
I find it so telling that you assume that Steele, a British national with a history of working national security specifically on Russia, is a Democratic operative.
Click to expand...
That's cool.
 
I am also suspicious of your denial of the germ theory of disease, but that is, while related, a whole nuther story.
 
Seth Keshel on Telegram:
The way the election was presented to the people on 11/3 is critical to understanding the entire sequence of events.

For those still watching FOX - turn it off. They were the key player in initiating the steal. See the top of this graphic - Trump enters election with 204 EVs in bag (yes, GA was 300,000+ at end of election night and even the local paper didn’t have it competitive, or Richard Baris)...NC takes him to 219 (won over fraud), FL takes him to 248 (won), and then, if he gets AZ, he only needs PA or MI to win or WI/MN to go to 269 tie.

In steps FOX - call AZ. Why did it have to be them? Because with NC/FL won and GA won, hitting the breaker on AZ puts the 70% of Trump voters watching FOX to bed without expecting victory that evening.

In the dead of night the operation began, as we all know.

The five red states targeted for steal are below. Why steal them? To distract from PA WI MI surgical operations. Example: “why would you expect Trump to win PA when he can’t win GA, which is always red?”

***

Here is how voter registration trend works at state or county level.

1) not all states register voters by party. Those that do not require special modeling (I made them for MI, MN, WI, GA).

2) for those that do, the party that made the gains leading up to an election makes the gains in margin (widening or shortening margin of victory/defeat).

3) this is nearly bullet proof. Only small exceptions - such as an urban county where a ton of indies change the denominator and thus shift the county slightly more favorable to GOP- the indies can upset the predictor just a little if they lean left.

4) the trend in play: In 2004, PA has 7% more D than R. Kerry wins by 2.5%.

In 2008, Ds widen lead to 14%. Massive. Suggests state moves D. PA to Obama by 10. This was their peak. In 2012, D registration plummets and so does R, but R plummets less. D lead shrinks to 13%. Suggests rightward drift. PA to Obama by only 5.

In 2016, GOP gets a working class nominee and massive GOP gains begin. Dems tank. Registration edge cut to 10% for Ds. Suggests serious right movement. Trump wins state. I called PA based on this. So, if in 2020, Trump were to lose PA truly, I’d expect the Dems to make registration gains up from 10%. Instead, what happened was a historic bloodying. The Ds didn’t gain a net new registration until the final push. Rs netted over 240,000, some counties over 10% shift to GOP.

This ratio was a staggering 21 to 1 in favor of TRUMP. This was all Trump because the RINO GOP of PA does not work with those working class voters.

And in spite of this massive trend, they managed to snatch the state, as both candidates somehow received a greater vote total than Obama 2008, in a dwindling population. Several red 2016 counties like Erie and Northampton trended much more red in registrations as they had from 2012-16 and somehow flipped back.

“Somehow.”

So, that is how voter registration trends work. And it’s why I knew FL was all Trump, and how I knew NC was rigged with fraud. CO is the only state relatively competitive that was a dead ringer for a Dem victory. AZ - Dems cut the margin of GOP lead since 2016, BUT after presidential primaries it was GOP at 1.3 to 1.

Alright - what are your questions ?

***

Very important to understand that you don’t want information about the Arizona audit all over the place. Loose lips sink ships. Any legitimate leaks would be used by the MSM to persuade that the auditors didn’t have a professional operation. Likely only a couple folks have the full picture there as information is amassed. My guess is that left wing operatives are leaking juicy numbers and presuming dates for various releases to cause audit results to be untrustworthy once released. Trust nothing but the report.
 
FiftySeven said:
@larry806q , @David54 referred to an officer being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher, you respond with a list of well sourced news articles indicating that media reports of an officer who died from such a blow were false. Were you trying to say that no fire extinguishers were used as weapons against the police? It would seem so but infact that was not the case as the affidavit that @SlowUpTake posted demonstrates. Your response is apparently an invitation to anyone trying to make sense of this ongoing discussion as to what is true and what is deception is to read a long article about the Steele dossier. So since the police officer who died in the media reports was not hit in the head with a fire extinguisher, the whole fire extinguisher assault is false just as since the Steele dossier was chock full of russian disinformation therefore the whole trump-russia collusion thing is false. Have I got that right [comrade] ?
Click to expand...

Sadly you are being serious with this post. Will you please point out where I either stated the fire extinguisher didn't exist or that it wasn't used? (I'll save you some time you can't - I didn't). What is the lefts need to create things out of whole cloth to then try and use that against the opposition? No, it most certainly does not seem so (that I am making a case that the fire extinguisher existed) - that is you jumping to wild assumptions to try and make your point to invalidate my accurate point which is and was: the Officer did not die because he was hit in the head with a fire extinguisher. That isn't even logic for a leftist. Your basis isn't accurate which in and of itself invalidates everything past that, beyond the fact your A equals B premise is also invalid.

Now to your second point (which has nothing, as in nada to do with my post on the officer dying. Yes, as has been documented by even leftists organizations, the House of Representatives as well as the Senate, the Steele Dossier is indeed potentially not full of but, completely of Russian dis-information. Yes again! The entire (all of it) again as has been documented by the Media - including some of your faves, the House of Representatives and Senate been proven as FALSE - ALL of it. Sorry, no pee tape, never happened never existed. No trips to Prague...no valid reason for the FISA warrants.....the list goes on and on. I will work on a "documented source" in a bit.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...8i-literally-do-not-know-e2-80-99/ar-BB19vuFB

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...na-hill-knew-about-dossier-source/ar-BB1d0RCb

https://thefederalist.com/2019/04/0...sed-fisa-applications-surveil-trump-campaign/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: o2b
David54 said:
no, no he wont win again in 2020...end of story
Click to expand...
Why do you bother posting in this topic?

You state an allegation without ever offering a shred of justification for your claim. Every time. No exception. One would have to be a doormat to give you any credibility whatsoever.

Repeated claim with repeated lack of any substantiation for it.

That is simply not a credible rational discourse. Others, such as I, have a contrasting perception of things. Why would you expect your words to have any coercive substance whatsoever?
 
No expectations in this thread what so ever. It is simply a place for folks to vent their spleen about the last election. I'm not going to watch the videos or engage with the debate for there is nothing to debate.
while we were not pleased with trump winning in 2016, we accepted the reality. We didn't invent crazy to make us feel better..
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: acd
David54 said:
We didn't invent crazy to make us feel better..
Click to expand...
I am extremely doubtful Roses or larry or myself believe we are inventing crazy or think ourselves doing so to make us feel better.
 
o2b said:
Seth Keshel on Telegram:
The way the election was presented to the people on 11/3 is critical to understanding the entire sequence of events.

For those still watching FOX - turn it off. They were the key player in initiating the steal. See the top of this graphic - Trump enters election with 204 EVs in bag (yes, GA was 300,000+ at end of election night and even the local paper didn’t have it competitive, or Richard Baris)...NC takes him to 219 (won over fraud), FL takes him to 248 (won), and then, if he gets AZ, he only needs PA or MI to win or WI/MN to go to 269 tie.

In steps FOX - call AZ. Why did it have to be them? Because with NC/FL won and GA won, hitting the breaker on AZ puts the 70% of Trump voters watching FOX to bed without expecting victory that evening.

In the dead of night the operation began, as we all know.

The five red states targeted for steal are below. Why steal them? To distract from PA WI MI surgical operations. Example: “why would you expect Trump to win PA when he can’t win GA, which is always red?”

***

Here is how voter registration trend works at state or county level.

1) not all states register voters by party. Those that do not require special modeling (I made them for MI, MN, WI, GA).

2) for those that do, the party that made the gains leading up to an election makes the gains in margin (widening or shortening margin of victory/defeat).

3) this is nearly bullet proof. Only small exceptions - such as an urban county where a ton of indies change the denominator and thus shift the county slightly more favorable to GOP- the indies can upset the predictor just a little if they lean left.

4) the trend in play: In 2004, PA has 7% more D than R. Kerry wins by 2.5%.

In 2008, Ds widen lead to 14%. Massive. Suggests state moves D. PA to Obama by 10. This was their peak. In 2012, D registration plummets and so does R, but R plummets less. D lead shrinks to 13%. Suggests rightward drift. PA to Obama by only 5.

In 2016, GOP gets a working class nominee and massive GOP gains begin. Dems tank. Registration edge cut to 10% for Ds. Suggests serious right movement. Trump wins state. I called PA based on this. So, if in 2020, Trump were to lose PA truly, I’d expect the Dems to make registration gains up from 10%. Instead, what happened was a historic bloodying. The Ds didn’t gain a net new registration until the final push. Rs netted over 240,000, some counties over 10% shift to GOP.

This ratio was a staggering 21 to 1 in favor of TRUMP. This was all Trump because the RINO GOP of PA does not work with those working class voters.

And in spite of this massive trend, they managed to snatch the state, as both candidates somehow received a greater vote total than Obama 2008, in a dwindling population. Several red 2016 counties like Erie and Northampton trended much more red in registrations as they had from 2012-16 and somehow flipped back.

“Somehow.”

So, that is how voter registration trends work. And it’s why I knew FL was all Trump, and how I knew NC was rigged with fraud. CO is the only state relatively competitive that was a dead ringer for a Dem victory. AZ - Dems cut the margin of GOP lead since 2016, BUT after presidential primaries it was GOP at 1.3 to 1.

Alright - what are your questions ?

***

Very important to understand that you don’t want information about the Arizona audit all over the place. Loose lips sink ships. Any legitimate leaks would be used by the MSM to persuade that the auditors didn’t have a professional operation. Likely only a couple folks have the full picture there as information is amassed. My guess is that left wing operatives are leaking juicy numbers and presuming dates for various releases to cause audit results to be untrustworthy once released. Trust nothing but the report.
Click to expand...

Well done you! (this is not going to be received well) you racist/sexist/homophobe/Nazi/KKK supporting/Drumpfite!
 
  • Like
Reactions: o2b
FiftySeven said:
I find it so telling that you assume that Steele, a British national with a history of working national security specifically on Russia, is a Democratic operative.
Click to expand...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...ired-firm-later-linked-steele-dossier-n815256

This is NBC News owned by Comcast they make Pravda look Conservative (that was a joke - maybe).

I sincerely do want to thank the opposition. Even though I followed this as closely as Icould via TeeWee I couldn't keep all the details clear. With this research things are now clear and make a lot more sense - so, THANKS!
 
More Keshel on Telegram:

Bellwether states - In 13 occurrences from 1896-2016, No candidate, regardless of party, has ever carried OH IA NC and FL and lost.

Until...
[end of excerpt]

I heard that near the border of Ohio and Pennsylvania, the sensibilities of folks are basically the same. The voting behavior is the same. The only difference is the Ohio folks root for the Buckeyes, the Pennsylvania folks for the Nittany Lions.

I would LOVE ot see the purported tallies of neighboring counties for Ohio and Pennsylvania. I just know we would see anomalies everywhere with Pennsylvania having much higher Biden totals.
 
I don't think that past voting behavior is evidence that the election was stolen. Trump was a very controversial figure and even Republicans found themselves alienated from their own party. I think it's more likely many Republicans voted him out (while voting for other Republican candidates for lower offices).
 
Last edited:
Continuing on the national topic - you may have seen my bellwether county video.

Here is the scorecard. Bellwethers are indicators. They come in county format and also in groups of states, which I’ll show shortly.

Some bellwethers die every year, especially in coalition shifts, but these 19 have all voted for the winner since 1980.

Trump won 18 of them. Most are in the working class regions, suggesting no loss of that base.counties.jpg
 
acd said:
I don't think that past voting behavior is evidence that the election was stolen. Trump was a very controversial figure and even Republicans found themselves alienated from their own party. I think it's more likely many Republicans voted him out (while maintaining other Republican candidates for lower offices).
Click to expand...
But, we can assess your assertion by simply looking at the 2016 results. Trump correlated with these observations close to perfectly. Look at how his PA win correlated to Keshel's trends. Look at how in 2016, Trump won all Belweather counties.

Your claim is baseless.
 
o2b said:
But, we can assess your assertion by simply looking at the 2016 results. Trump correlated with these observations close to perfectly. Look at how his PA win correlated to Keshel's trends. Look at how in 2016, Trump won all Belweather counties.

Your claim is baseless.
Click to expand...
People can change their minds.
 
It seems that the only opinions that matter are those of the pro trump minority
 
acd said:
People can change their minds.
Click to expand...
Am I correct in assuming that you pose a hypothesis which is roundly refuted by the data available to us and so you follow up by suggesting people can change their minds?

So, these trends fit like a hand in a glove with respect to Trump and 2016, but we should expect completely otherwise for 2020 because people can change their minds. Really?
 
David54 said:
It seems that the only opinions that matter are those of the pro trump minority
Click to expand...
That is a loaded statement.

Opinions matter on an individual to individual basis. For you, my opinions do not matter and that's OK. But, yours, 57's, and the opinions of others matter.

Meanwhile, 57's and acd's opinions rarely matter to me because upon examining them, I think they don't pass muster.
 
o2b said:
Am I correct in assuming that you pose a hypothesis which is roundly refuted by the data available to us and so you follow up by suggesting people can change your minds?

So, these trends fit like a hand in a glove with respect to Trump and 2016, but we should expect completely otherwise for 2020 because people can change their minds. Really?
Click to expand...
Well clearly the votes indicate enough people changed their minds. But that's data you don't accept because you don't like the result. Predictive models are just that, predictions. Why bother having an election if past voting indicates so accurately who the winner will be? Most polls and models showed Hillary winning in 2016 and she didn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top