2020 Elections

[Legacy]

Open Secrets has some good posting on Dark Money. The Basics on how that's classified, court cases and types.

Top Election Spenders

Who are the biggest Dark Money Spenders?
Disclosure requirements mandate that direct political expenditures must be reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). However, expenses by Dark Money groups that are earmarked as educational or membership building fall outside of these requirements. Despite this, these groups do report a large portion of what they spend during election cycles.

This spending has changed over time as organizations have evolved, new rules are established, and requirements are loosened. Some of the most important milestones are outlined below....

Super Pacs

Super PACs are a relatively new type of committee that arose following the July 2010 federal court decision in a case known as SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission.

Technically known as independent expenditure-only committees, super PACs may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, associations and individuals, then spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates. Unlike traditional PACs, super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates, and their spending must not be coordinated with that of the candidates they benefit. Super PACs are required to report their donors to the Federal Election Commission on a monthly or semiannual basis — the super PAC's choice — in off-years, and monthly in the year of an election.

As of November 23, 2020, 2,216 groups organized as super PACs have reported total receipts of $2,530,282,448 and total independent expenditures of $1,892,549,922 in the 2019-2020 cycle.

Then there are Leadership Pacs.

Politicians collect money for their own campaigns — we all know that. But many of them also raise a separate pot of money, commonly called a leadership political action committee, to help other politicians. By making donations to members of their party, ambitious lawmakers can use their leadership PACs to gain clout among their colleagues and boost their bids for leadership posts or committee chairmanships. Politicians also use leadership PACs to lay the groundwork for their own campaigns for higher office. And some use their PACs to hire additional staff—sometimes even their family members—and to travel around the country or eat in some of Washington's finest restaurants. The limits on how a politician can spend leadership PAC money are not especially strict.

Donations to Trump's legal funds for court cases also fund his newly formed leadership Pac - 50% at the start, 60% later, and now at 75%. All are considered charitable organizations under Tax Codes like 501(c)s.

Trump tells his donors they’re paying for recounts. They aren’t.
The president is mostly raising money for a post-White House leadership PAC (WaPo)

Excerpts:

Although the fundraising emails refer to an “election defense task force” or an “election defense fund,” in reality, donors are giving to the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, where contributions are split between Trump’s committees and the RNC.

On Tuesday, a week after the election, the small print changed: Now, 60 percent of every donation goes to Trump’s new leadership PAC, Save America. Only after a donor gives the $5,000 legal maximum to Save America would any portion of their contribution go to Trump’s recount effort.

The remainder of every check, 40 percent, goes to the RNC, up to the legal maximum of $35,500. Only donors who’ve maxed out to the RNC will have their contributions deposited in the party’s legal and headquarters accounts, each of which can accept contributions of up to $106,500.

 

[yankeehater]

Back in 2006, CNN reported about the Smartmatic program. Today their reporting is either nothing to see here or contradicting to what they reported back then. Elizabeth Warren has even testified about this software and its use in elections.

https://eastvalleypost.com/cnn-warned-of-venezuelan-controlled-voting-machines-in-2006/

 

[yankeehater]

The MEDIA swung the election to Joe by covering up the Hunter Biden story based on a new poll out today. We were worried about foreign influence when our own media influenced the vote. 45% of Biden voters polled were unaware of the Hunter story in the battleground states and 9.4% said they would have changed their vote if they had known about it.

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/rich-noyes/2020/11/24/special-report-stealing-presidency-2020

 

[ulukinatme]

Tired old song - every R is a moron and every D is an amazing intellectual.

I find this constant comparison liberals like to bring up silly. They act like their entire party is "educated," which is quite the stretch. The gap in college graduates between Democrats and Republicans is 52% to 40% (20 years ago these numbers were reversed) with the remainder being independent. 12% is a nice gap, but it hardly means most of the party is educated when you consider that only 1/3 of the country 25 and older has a degree. That means the majority of their party is "uneducated" no matter how you slice it. That's why I laugh every time some idiot on Twitter throws out the superior intellect argument based on party...as if a degree even guarantees or awards intelligence.

 

[Legacy]

Democratic counties represent 70% of U.S. GDP, 2020 election shows (CNBC)

Excerpt:

Brookings researcher Mark Muro put it this way: “While the election’s outcome has changed, the nation’s political geography remains rigidly divided.”

“Blue and red America continue to reflect two very different economies — one oriented to
diverse, often college-educated workers in professional and digital services professions and the other whiter, less-educated, and more dependent on ‘traditional’ industries,” he added.

To put a point on this economic-geographic divergence, Brookings noted that Biden flipped seven of the nation’s 100-highest-output counties in the 2020 election and further cemented the link between the Democratic Party and the nation’s core economic hubs.

Biden took away half of Trump’s 10 most economically significant counties from 2016, including Maricopa in Arizona, Tarrant in Texas, Duval and Pinellas in Florida and Morris in New Jersey.

Blue districts have attracted the expanding segments of the U.S. population and workforce; 34% of their residents are non-White and 36% have at least a bachelor’s degree. Red districts, by comparison, are 15% non-White and 25% have at least a bachelor’s degree, Brookings found.

The problem, Muro suggests, is not only that Democrats and Republicans disagree on issues of culture, identity and power but that they represent “radically different” areas of the economy.

Hillary Clinton won counties that represented 64% of the U.S. GDP. Increased productivity? Demographical changes? Higher turnout? High GDP counties just measured by Presidential results not House seats?

 

[ulukinatme]

It's one election, and GDP is a relative measure. The fact remains they starve without the other half. We've seen them try to grow food and it's not pretty.

 

[yankeehater]

This article is a pretty nice breakdown of the statistical anomalies that occurred in the election. The non-polling metrics that have been 100% accurate in every election had five that failed in this election. To put that in perspective, it would be like ND losing to a D3 program not once, not twice, but five times. Can it happen? Yes. Has it ever? No.

It also amazes me that Biden who couldn't draw 100 people to a rally had approx. 15 million more popular votes than the wildly popular Obama did in 2008.

https://spectator.us/reasons-why-the-2020-presidential-election-is-deeply-puzzling/

 

[Rocket89]

This article is a pretty nice breakdown of the statistical anomalies that occurred in the election.

In fact, it is not a nice breakdown at all. Not a single thing in the article is cited and it's full of misrepresentations and useless fluff with no legal backing.

Also, you'd think if someone was seeking to understand Trump's loss as a pollster (he predicted a Trump blowout win) that the word "women" would appear at least once in his article.

It also amazes me that Biden who couldn't draw 100 people to a rally had approx. 15 million more popular votes than the wildly popular Obama did in 2008.

There is a pandemic and Trump is unpopular, this isn't hard to understand.

 

[yankeehater]

In fact, it is not a nice breakdown at all. Not a single thing in the article is cited and it's full of misrepresentations and useless fluff with no legal backing.

Also, you'd think if someone was seeking to understand Trump's loss as a pollster (he predicted a Trump blowout win) that the word "women" would appear at least once in his article.



There is a pandemic and Trump is unpopular, this isn't hard to understand.

So why does a statistician need "legal backing"? Numbers are numbers and no one is disputing what he is analyzing.

Also if Trump is as unpopular as you claim, how do you account for him receiving 12 million more votes than he did in 2016 and improve his results in every category?

 

[Rocket89]

So why does a statistician need "legal backing"? Numbers are numbers and no one is disputing what he is analyzing.

Everyone is disputing what he is analyzing.

Legal backing is important because this guy can't walk up to a judge and say, "Hello, I'm misinterpreting a small section of polling and willfully ignoring other sections this looks fishy to me" which is basically what his argument amounts to.

There's a reason why he's an outcast in his community (and so popular with Trump).

Also if Trump is as unpopular as you claim, how do you account for him receiving 12 million more votes than he did in 2016 and improve his results in every category?

He improved his results in EVERY category? Trump was -2 points among women from 2016 and as I mentioned it's not even brought up in the article.

Then, let's take this gem for example:

We are told that Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history. But he won a record low of 17 percent of counties; he only won 524 counties, as opposed to the 873 counties Obama won in 2008. Yet, Biden somehow outdid Obama in total votes.

Obama won a much larger electoral victory so of course he would win more counties. The country is also 30 million people larger in 2020 than in 2008 with more growth in suburban counties. It would make sense for Biden to not win as many counties overall when he didn't win electorally as large as Obama in 2008.

This is elementary stuff no expert should be confused by. His article is full of inane things like this plus outright lies like, "counting generally resumed without observers."

 

[Old Man Mike]

.... how long must this circus continue ....

Originally quoted from a Roman Senator during the era of Nero
(Circus Maximus.)



Rocket's comments are OK ---trying to make actual sense.

 

[yankeehater]

Everyone is disputing what he is analyzing.

Legal backing is important because this guy can't walk up to a judge and say, "Hello, I'm misinterpreting a small section of polling and willfully ignoring other sections this looks fishy to me" which is basically what his argument amounts to.

There's a reason why he's an outcast in his community (and so popular with Trump).



He improved his results in EVERY category? Trump was -2 points among women from 2016 and as I mentioned it's not even brought up in the article.

Then, let's take this gem for example:

We are told that Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history. But he won a record low of 17 percent of counties; he only won 524 counties, as opposed to the 873 counties Obama won in 2008. Yet, Biden somehow outdid Obama in total votes.

Obama won a much larger electoral victory so of course he would win more counties. The country is also 30 million people larger in 2020 than in 2008 with more growth in suburban counties. It would make sense for Biden to not win as many counties overall when he didn't win electorally as large as Obama in 2008.

This is elementary stuff no expert should be confused by. His article is full of inane things like this plus outright lies like, "counting generally resumed without observers."

His article and analysis is about anomalies. Trump being -2 versus 2016 with women is not something that would raise an eyebrow. You seem to suggest that accounts for what this gentlemen is seeing in the results. If that were the case, would Biden not have won more counties then? There were trends that were happening throughout the country and versus previous elections that went against what happened in certain areas. Ironically or not, these "anomalies" seemed to occur only in areas Biden had to have to win or where voting was stopped on the night of the election. That is all he is saying. I would also think campaigns would delve into this to see how to win future elections.

ND wins 90% of the games in which Book completes 75% of his passes. Never mind, this has not been vetted by a judge.

 

[yankeehater]

.... how long must this circus continue ....

Originally quoted from a Roman Senator during the era of Nero
(Circus Maximus.)



Rocket's comments are OK ---trying to make actual sense.

This made me LOL.

 

[Rocket89]

His article and analysis is about anomalies. Trump being -2 versus 2016 with women is not something that would raise an eyebrow. You seem to suggest that accounts for what this gentlemen is seeing in the results. If that were the case, would Biden not have won more counties then? There were trends that were happening throughout the country and versus previous elections that went against what happened in certain areas. Ironically or not, these "anomalies" seemed to occur only in areas Biden had to have to win or where voting was stopped on the night of the election. That is all he is saying. I would also think campaigns would delve into this to see how to win future elections.

ND wins 90% of the games in which Book completes 75% of his passes. Never mind, this has not been vetted by a judge.

This gentleman is not looking at the full results. And using counties as a metric really doesn’t mean anything for who won or lost.

To use your analogy, he can’t seem to understand why Trump lost when he doesn’t bring up 3 out of the 5 touchdowns the opponent scored. Of course it would look like ND lost to a D3 team when you do that. It’s just not honest.

 

[Old Man Mike]

"Honest" ain't been seen for some time.

 

[RDU Irish]

Milwaukee, Atlanta, Philly and Detroit - bastions of decency and decorum.

 

[Irish YJ]

Milwaukee, Atlanta, Philly and Detroit - bastions of decency and decorum.

ATL puts the Dirty, in the Dirty South..
I don't recall a period when there has not been a huge scandal.

 

[Legacy]

In another in a string of court victories reaffirming the democratic principles on which the Constitution is based as well as for state's rights under its federalism principle, the Supreme Court rejected a lawsuit that attempted to overturn a Pennsylvania statute that allowed mailed ballots in 2019. The lawsuit was brought by Rep Mike Kelly (R). Both houses of Pennsylvania's General Assembly are controlled by Republicans.

At the time of the signing of the Bill, the heads of both Houses:

Pennsylvania Senate Majority Leader Jake Corman (R) said:

“The people of Pennsylvania have sent divided government to Harrisburg and, with that, this is what governing looks like. We are thankful for the governor’s willingness to work with us to enact the most historic change in how we cast votes since the election code was enacted in 1937. Compromise has given Pennsylvanians a modernized election code that preserves the integrity of the ballot box and makes it easier for voters to choose the people who represent them.”

Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Representative Bryan Cutler (R) said:

“This bill was not written to benefit one party or the other, or any one candidate or single election. It was developed over a multi-year period with input of people from different backgrounds and regions of Pennsylvania. It serves to preserve the integrity of every election and lift the voice of every voter in the commonwealth.”

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court had previously rejected the challenge saying,

“At the time this action was filed on Nov. 21, 2020, millions of Pennsylvania voters had already expressed their will in both the June 2020 primary election and the November 2020 general election,” the court said. “Petitioners failed to act with due diligence in presenting the instant claim. Equally clear is the substantial prejudice arising from petitioners’ failure to institute promptly a facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory scheme, as such inaction would result in the disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania voters.”

Lawyers for the state argued before SCOTUS that the Republicans’ requests were “an affront to constitutional democracy.”

“Petitioners ask this court to undertake one of the most dramatic, disruptive invocations of judicial power in the history of the Republic. No court has ever issued an order nullifying a governor’s certification of presidential election results.”

Trump will keep criticizing the election officials, the state courts, legislatures and undoubtedly now the Supreme Court. Pretty sad.

 

[Irish YJ]

Trump will keep criticizing the election officials, the state courts, legislatures and undoubtedly now the Supreme Court. Pretty sad.

Sound like HRC, right? She had 99 excuses, but SCOTUS ain't one.

 

[Old Man Mike]

"If you read the papers you may see
History in the making
You'll read what they say life is all about
They say it's there for the taking
Yeah, but you should really check it out
If you want to know what's shaking
But don't tell me about the things you've heard
Maybe I'm wrong, but I want to believe in humanity

"I know it's often true - sad to say
We have been unkind to one another
Tell me how many times has the golden rule
Been applied by man to his brother
I believe if I really looked at what's going on
I would lose faith I never could recover
So don't tell me about the things you've heard
Maybe I'm wrong, but I want to believe in humanity."

Carole King

 

[Legacy]

Tennessee has joined Texas' lawsuit and 16 other conservative states that signed the amicus briefs that argues that 80,000 voters' ballots in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin should be invalidated. Tennessee's Attorney General said:
"The Tennessee Attorney General's Office has consistently taken the position that only a State's legislature has the authority to make and change election laws."

That is exactly what Pennsylvania's legislature did (noted above) with the leaders of both houses of their legislature applauding the bipartisan bill when it was signed into law.

Further, Michigan voters passed a Resolution with almost 67% of voters in favor in November 2018 on voting changes, which became part of their Constitution. Only part of that change to their Constitution was absentee voting.

So these eighteen states will argue other state legislature's laws and also part of one state's Constitution overwhelmingly passed are illegal and invalid. If Michigan or Pennsylvania brought a lawsuit on Texas to invalidate their voters choices, Texas would throw a fit.

How are any of these eighteen states injured or aggrieved and have any standing in any court?

Certainly, Georgia and the other three states deserve redress for their costs in defending their state's results from this frivolous lawsuit. Georgia's Sec of State Jordan Fuchs responded “Texas alleges that there are 80,000 forged signatures on absentee ballots in Georgia, but they don’t bring forward a single person who this happened to. That’s because it didn’t happen.” and that the conspiracy theories in the lawsuit “are false and irresponsible.”

 

[Old Man Mike]

Sue Texas et al, put the cash into recovery funds for those states. It would be Karmic Justice.

While at it --- sue Trump and do the same thing. "Stimulus Funding via Nuisance Extermination." (I'm only partially being flippant about this. Many a$$holes [right, left, and nowhere] seriously mess with people all the time because they know that there are no consequences. Whether it is referred to as the liberal justice system or the conservative justice system --- both useless unhelpful labels --- these nuisance a$$holes need to be slapped hard and significantly in court decisions.

Our Constitution honors a noble but vague phrase above all else --- Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. In that order allegedly. But by letting a$$holes [individuals and organizations] slide due to extreme interpretations of "Liberty" and "Rights" and "It's within the Law" commentary even though the exercise of that "legal right" impairs both lives and pursuit of happiness and the other party's liberties as well. These sorts of self-oriented (me/us vs them} conflicts occur all the time; it's why we have courts and judges. Those judges need to stop letting those frivolous, nuisance, and with-malice-aforethought court bringings to arise without consequence to the alleged "aggrieved party" when that party turns out to be the real malfactor in the case.)

 

[NorthDakota]

Sue Texas et al, put the cash into recovery funds for those states. It would be Karmic Justice.

While at it --- sue Trump and do the same thing. "Stimulus Funding via Nuisance Extermination." L)

What are you going to sue Texas for? And how much money do you think you'll get out of them?

 

[Old Man Mike]

lol

 

[Legacy]

There exist in Texas elements that would prohibit Presidential elections from voting by citizens to determine Texas's electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. They would have the electoral votes be determined by state legislature.

With the increase of Democratic votes in both urban and rural areas of the state, the Texas GOP The Platform Committee has proposed a state electoral system similar to the national one that elects the President.

The proposal says,

“Be it resolved that the state legislature shall cause to be enacted a State Constitutional Amendment creating an electoral college consisting of electors selected by the popular votes cast within each individual state senatorial district, who shall then elect all statewide office holders.”

A candidate for governor might win a massive landslide of votes in one area or in the entire state, but could still lose if he failed to perform well in other areas.

Texas is a staunch defender of state's rights especially the Texas GOP whose Platform says under "State Sovereignty) #65 that "the federal government has impaired our right to self-govern" and that federal legislation that infringes on that right "should be ignored, opposed, refused and nullified".

Under the section on Judicial Overreach #67 (also included in above link) says that attempts by the judiciary in areas not constitutionally granted "should be nullified".

The Texas GOP Platform also opposes "frivolous lawsuits" and "the abusive use of class action lawsuits". #113

The Texas GOP are hypocrites of the highest rank in suing four other states over their sovereignty to determine their electoral laws by attempting to accomplish it through what they would see as Judicial Overreach that they would see violates the 10th Amendment if applied to their state.

(See #71 for their stance on the State Electoral College).

All about money and power and not the consistency of your values and the integrity of a constituency to be involved in determination of their legislators and the President.

 

[drayer54]

All about money and power and not the consistency of your values and the integrity of a constituency to be involved in determination of their legislators and the President.

Yeah, I don't like it either. I also don't pretend for a second that the other side has a lower threshold for integrity. Look no further than IA02 and NY22 for the Democratic election theft going on to realize it's all a game and they are both going to do what they can within the system.

 

[dublinirish]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The fact that Dems and Reps hate each other (affective polarization) is bad - but worse is that Republican leaders and voters are actively undermining democracy on a regular basis, and Democrats are trying to defend it. 2/</p>— Lilliana Mason (@LilyMasonPhD) <a href="https://twitter.com/LilyMasonPhD/status/1336801929125646338?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 9, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">17% of the electorate can elect a majority of the Senate. Republicans can win a majority of House seats with a minority of American votes. All of these imbalances benefit rural places - which are reliably Republican. Republican voters are super-voters. 4/</p>— Lilliana Mason (@LilyMasonPhD) <a href="https://twitter.com/LilyMasonPhD/status/1336801930916597765?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 9, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This isn't accusing all Republicans of being racist. It's that most of them approve of a racist system and feel personally affronted at the idea of change - it represents a threat to their relative status in American society. 7/</p>— Lilliana Mason (@LilyMasonPhD) <a href="https://twitter.com/LilyMasonPhD/status/1336801933605163008?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 9, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[drayer54]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The fact that Dems and Reps hate each other (affective polarization) is bad - but worse is that Republican leaders and voters are actively undermining democracy on a regular basis, and Democrats are trying to defend it. 2/</p>— Lilliana Mason (@LilyMasonPhD) <a href="https://twitter.com/LilyMasonPhD/status/1336801929125646338?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 9, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">17% of the electorate can elect a majority of the Senate. Republicans can win a majority of House seats with a minority of American votes. All of these imbalances benefit rural places - which are reliably Republican. Republican voters are super-voters. 4/</p>— Lilliana Mason (@LilyMasonPhD) <a href="https://twitter.com/LilyMasonPhD/status/1336801930916597765?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 9, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This isn't accusing all Republicans of being racist. It's that most of them approve of a racist system and feel personally affronted at the idea of change - it represents a threat to their relative status in American society. 7/</p>— Lilliana Mason (@LilyMasonPhD) <a href="https://twitter.com/LilyMasonPhD/status/1336801933605163008?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 9, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Democrats only want power. This is all the typical tear stream of woke tweeter libs. The government works and they just want to change it to gain power so they can steamroll the flyover states with SF/NYC ideas.

 

[NorthDakota]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">The fact that Dems and Reps hate each other (affective polarization) is bad - but worse is that Republican leaders and voters are actively undermining democracy on a regular basis, and Democrats are trying to defend it. 2/</p>— Lilliana Mason (@LilyMasonPhD) <a href="https://twitter.com/LilyMasonPhD/status/1336801929125646338?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 9, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">17% of the electorate can elect a majority of the Senate. Republicans can win a majority of House seats with a minority of American votes. All of these imbalances benefit rural places - which are reliably Republican. Republican voters are super-voters. 4/</p>— Lilliana Mason (@LilyMasonPhD) <a href="https://twitter.com/LilyMasonPhD/status/1336801930916597765?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 9, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This isn't accusing all Republicans of being racist. It's that most of them approve of a racist system and feel personally affronted at the idea of change - it represents a threat to their relative status in American society. 7/</p>— Lilliana Mason (@LilyMasonPhD) <a href="https://twitter.com/LilyMasonPhD/status/1336801933605163008?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 9, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Lol Dems owned the House at one point for like 40 or 50 years....uninterrupted. They've had decades of owning the Senate uninterrupted but yeah...the system is apparently biased against them.

The Senate complaints are particularly funny. Look at the 10 smallest states by population, and then look at who their senators are. As of 2018, it was 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats.

Democrats love protecting democracy and all that just as much as Republicans do....when it benefits them. The complaints about "trying to overturn the election" is particularly dumb. I think anyone with any sort of memory can recall Democrats saying 2016 was illegitimate, there were efforts to convince electors to not cast their vote for Trump.

It's all absurd nonsense that the system is designed to hurt Democrats. Its a stupid coping mechanism. The rules haven't changed.

The idea that "oh its unfair we can't win!" is genuinely dumb. ND had a Dem senator as recently as 2018. Iowa was apparently in play this year. Same with Montana.

"Republicans can't win a fair fight!" If you step into a boxing ring, you can't get mad that you need to play by boxing's rules. Nowhere is it required for Democrats to lose rural areas and win urban areas.

The rules of American democracy are simple and straightforward. Every state has two senators. Everyone gets at least one house rep, and can have more. That system has been in place for hundreds of years. You can't claim to be "defending democracy" while whining about it being hypothetically possible for the bottom 25 states controlling the Senate. If the GOP controls the smallest 25 states' Senate seats, you have much bigger problems within your party to deal with because that means the GOP has overrun the Dems in CT, OR, RI, NM, VT, etc.

In 2014, the GOP flipped Senate seats in Montana, South Dakota, Alaska, Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, and North Carolina. So apparently, while it was reasonable for Dems to think they could compete in largely rural states in 2008, apparently its unfair to expect them to in 2020 and the system is racist.

 

[Legacy]

Yeah, I don't like it either. I also don't pretend for a second that the other side has a lower threshold for integrity. Look no further than IA02 and NY22 for the Democratic election theft going on to realize it's all a game and they are both going to do what they can within the system.

I was just looking at Iowa 2 as a follow up to the toss up districts too close to call. The Rep won by six votes. An explanation of the process was reported in the Quad City newpaper.

US House may decide winner in Iowa's 2nd district. What's next and how we got here

In three districts in California too close to call, all went Republican.
Cal 25 - rated Even - 333 votes
Cal 21 - rated D+5 - 1522 votes
Cal 48 - rated R+4 - 8476 votes

All four seats were flipped. (C 25 was Katie Hill's district considered Open)

Not sure what you feel is the "election theft" is in NY 22 .
Judge orders votes retallied in N.Y. House race with 12-vote margin