Interesting numbers, because I’ve been told by some on here that people aren’t listening to Trump much anymore.
The Trump Card...
- Thread starter muttly
- Start date
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
If you believe that is an accurate number I have a slightly used bridge available that you might be interested in ...
Per Google search, the number of people in the US over age 18 is 259.2 million.
Do you mean to suggest every single adult in the US plus 300,000 minors viewed that interview?
I bet plenty of Trump worshippers have watched it multiple times to try to "decode" what he is trying to tell them.....
Bard left out the Democratic electors because I did not ask Bard about that. Now that I have, Bard says this about them:
"... they [met and voted] in good faith, believing that the recount results were incorrect."
Notice the "good faith" difference between the Hawaii electors of BOTH parties in 1960, and the Republican electors in Georgia in the 2020 election. In Georgia, the Republican electors did not act in good faith. They knowingly and intentionally committed fraud. The Hawaii electors had no fraudulent intent.
You're trying to put words in my mouth. I neither suggested nor implied anything; that's the Twitter's own count listed on the post. Remember also that X/Twitter is a worldwide forum.
I have not viewed the interview even once. But the way Twitter (now X) counts the views, my account is responsible for dozens of views.
No, I'm trying to draw words out of your mouth. How do you explain the number that is beyond belief?
More to the point, how many human beings actually watched the interview for more than a few minutes, and how do you know?
Republican Debate; Early Effect on the Polls
Before the Republican debate, Trump led the Republican primary race led by a wide margin. DeSantis was second, Ramaswamy was third. While it's only been a short time since the debate and more polling will be done, it seems little has changed. Trump remains in first place, DeSantis in second, and Ramaswamy in third.
Numbers-wise, Trump came down a bit, DeSantis came down a bit. Ramaswamy came up a bit.
In terms of percentage change, Ramaswamy's numbers are showing the biggest change. His numbers are about 50% higher than his numbers of Aug. 1. Trump's and DeSantis's numbers are pretty close to their Aug. 1 levels.
At present, Trump leads DeSantis by 37.3 points, and Ramaswamy by 42.1 points.
In Trump's distant rear view mirror, the gap between DeSantis and Ramaswamy is narrowing. Currently, DeSantis leads Ramaswamy by 4.8 points. On Aug 1, DeSantis led Ramaswamy by 8.7 points.
We can look at this again in a couple weeks after more polling has been done. For now, it seems the Republican dates made little difference in the big picture. Trump maintains his iron grip on the Republican nomination and his primary opponents are not a threat.
Data Source: FiveThirtyEight
Before the Republican debate, Trump led the Republican primary race led by a wide margin. DeSantis was second, Ramaswamy was third. While it's only been a short time since the debate and more polling will be done, it seems little has changed. Trump remains in first place, DeSantis in second, and Ramaswamy in third.
Numbers-wise, Trump came down a bit, DeSantis came down a bit. Ramaswamy came up a bit.
In terms of percentage change, Ramaswamy's numbers are showing the biggest change. His numbers are about 50% higher than his numbers of Aug. 1. Trump's and DeSantis's numbers are pretty close to their Aug. 1 levels.
At present, Trump leads DeSantis by 37.3 points, and Ramaswamy by 42.1 points.
In Trump's distant rear view mirror, the gap between DeSantis and Ramaswamy is narrowing. Currently, DeSantis leads Ramaswamy by 4.8 points. On Aug 1, DeSantis led Ramaswamy by 8.7 points.
We can look at this again in a couple weeks after more polling has been done. For now, it seems the Republican dates made little difference in the big picture. Trump maintains his iron grip on the Republican nomination and his primary opponents are not a threat.
Data Source: FiveThirtyEight
It's yet to be proven that the "Republican electors did not act in good faith"; right now that's just an assertion. On the advice of Trump attorneys, they organized as alternate electors to be available and have their votes counted in case the recount (which was ongoing at the time) fell in Trump's favor, the same as in Hawaii. Ultimately, Congress decides which electors to accept to certify the election, and in the Hawaii case they correctly counted the Democrat alternate electors according to the results of the recount.
"Two days before the electoral vote count, state Judge Ronald Jamieson determined it was not fraud that the Kennedy electors met before the recount, but rather was crucial for preserving their ability to have their electoral vote counted after a recount revealed Kennedy was the state winner, according to Politico...
Legal experts note Trump’s indictment poses First Amendment concerns and could criminalize “incorrect legal advice.” (emphasis mine)
Hawaii Democrats Used ‘Fake Electors’ During The 1960 Election. Nobody Was Charged.
Democrats who sent alternate Electoral College certificates in the 1960 presidential election were never prosecuted.
dailycaller.com
Do you seriously expect me or anyone else to be able to provide details of Twitter data? Ask Elon Musk; it's his company, not mine.
How do you know they didn't watch for more than a few minutes? Again, you're asking hypothetical questions that only Twitter analysts might be able to answer.
You are making my point. The Twitter view data is meaningless because nobody on the outside really knows what the true views are.
Last edited:
Granted. It is indeed an assertion (an indictment, actually, but not a proven fact).
If the fake electors don't plead out, we'll see them proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in court, I believe.
Fani Willis's conviction rate is over 90%. The DOJ's conviction rate conviction rate is around 97-99%, depending on the source. These prosecutors are deeply experienced and highly skilled. They don't bring cases to court if they don't have the evidence or don't think they can win.
On the flip side, the defendants are GUILTY. They actually committed the crimes they are charged with and they left a trail of evidence for investigators to find and juries to see. (Yes, they receive the presumption of innocence in court. They don't get it from me.)
Last edited:
You mean Bard didn’t mention that the Hawaii Dems could have waited until the recount was over and have the winner get resolved, but instead submitted their slate of electors declaring themselves duly appointed,( a false statement on a legal document) which they had no way of KNOWING that because the recount was still in progress? Why didn’t they just wait for the recount to be over and have the winner get resolved? Because they were concerned perhaps that the recount would be moot if they didn’t send theIr slates by the deadline.
A similar concern was openly discussed about the 2020 “alternate electors”. That if they didn’t send their “alternate electors”, their challenges would be moot.
This Hawaii thing keeps coming up again and again because it's one of the few hopes the fake electors have, and it is a faint hope at that. You are welcome to dissect the details as often as you wish. You do it a lot so you must find some satisfaction in that activty.
I'm content to sit back and watch he Hawaii hope evaporate before the fake electors' eyes, and I'm eager to see them standing convicted before the judge, obligated to answer for their crimes.
Last edited:
It keeps coming up because the basis for submitting “alternate electors” or “contingent electors” came from an actual presidential election. The strategy wasn’t just created out of the ether. In fact, a similar strategy was discussed in the 2000 presidential election challenges. So there is a history of it. It just wasn’t invented in 2020.
Oh, and lookie here. Apparently this wasn’t just the Trump campaign strategy:
Thread by @MikeBenzCyber on Thread Reader App
@MikeBenzCyber: John Podesta, role playing Joe Biden in Transition Integrity Project's summer 2020 simulation to ensure a Biden presidency even if Trump won the election, openly plotted sending a separate elector sl...…
threadreaderapp.com
The only "point" that's being established is pure Trump hate, and apparently everything else is interpreted through that filter. The Twitter data may or may not have pinpoint accuracy, but it shows an undeniable trend; the Tucker interview was widely viewed, likely including a number of countries in which American political elections are followed with great interest.
Last edited:
The Left wanted to humiliate Trump. The must be butt hurt over this though:
The so-called trend is indeed deniable. When you are working with an unknown methodology or methodologies, and numbers the source of which cannot be objectively verified, even from episode to episode, you can confirm or deny anything you wish.