This is an interesting read by a data forensic scientist of sorts who argues Trump would not have won the 2024 election without the numerous voter suppression efforts .
This is an interesting read by a data forensic scientist of sorts who argues Trump would not have won the 2024 election without the numerous voter suppression efforts .
Suppression includes the mass rejection and disqualification of perfectly legal ballots for various “reasons”.
They turned up alright. But their vote was thrown away.
Rejected ballots aren’t counted in turnout numbers. It takes conspiracy level thinking to think there was a coordinated suppression effort to get just enough Harris voters that aren’t willing to verify or cast a provisional ballot.
So you didn’t read the article. Just claim that the turnout being high eliminates any possibility that voter suppression happened and couldn’t have made a difference. Under a context of historical widespread use of voter suppression by the Republican party. With millions of legal votes being arbitrarily rejected, strangely overrepresenting black voters. With mass rejection of mail-in ballots which are statistically overrepresenting Democrat votes. With targeted potential voters being purged for not responding to a “poison letter” that almost nobody responds to. Within an election what was decided under one percent of the votes. Got it.
I’m claiming it’s unlikely that suppression managed to suppress almost exactly enough votes to swing an election. If you assume these efforts were perfect in targeting Harris voters, which is unlikely. It also would need to assume that the Trump conspirators targeted almost exactly enough voters with a sub 1% margin of error, which is again unlikely. Alternatively, there could have been extreme levels of suppression, and Trump was so unpopular he still barely won, but this is even more unlikely given the similar vote totals.
Trump didn’t successfully steal any elections.