Oh my goodness, again with the virtually non-existent "voter fraud". I've discussed it with you before. You keep bringing up this laughable claim. People do not have the ability to impersonate millions of legitimate voters and get away with it. Trying to find out the necessary information to do so is almost impossible itself.
And if many people even tried to do so, it would become apparent immediately. Voter information on voting registration forms is cross-checked with federal data like Social Security numbers (it's required when you fill out a voter registration form here). The truth is the truth, you cannot run away from it.
"Voters acting on their own have no rational cause to vote fraudulently. The odds of casting a deciding vote are miniscule and cheaters risk criminal prosecution under state laws on the books for decades. The costs of fraudulent voting are steep and the benefits practically non-existent. Spurious, politically-motivated allegations of voter fraud are a distraction from the real problems in U.S. elections."
- Replicating my methodology, 24 journalism students at twelve universities reviewed some 2,000 public records and identified just six cases of voter impersonation between 2000 and 2012.
- Under Republican President George W. Bush, the U.S. Justice Department searched for voter fraud. But in the first three years of the program, just 26 people were convicted or pled guilty to illegal registration or voting. Out of 197,056,035 votes cast in the two federal elections held during that period, the rate of voter fraud was a miniscule 0.00000132 percent!
- No state considering or passing restrictive voter identification laws has documented an actual problem with voter fraud. In litigation over the new voter identification laws in Wisconsin, Indiana, Georgia and Pennsylvania, election officials testified they have never seen cases of voter impersonation at the polls. Indiana and Pennsylvania stipulated in court that they had experienced zero instances of voter fraud.
- When federal authorities challenged voter identification laws in South Carolina and Texas, neither state provided any evidence of voter impersonation or any other type of fraud that could be deterred by requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls."
http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/brief/misleading-myth-voter-fraud-american-elections
Most illegal immigrants are so afraid of the government, that they won't even let themselves be interviewed by the census, even though they are assured that no harm will come to them. They avoid the police and other government institutions too. The idea that millions of them filled out voter registration forms and tried to vote (and somehow got away with it) is nothing short of hilarious. And in any case, there was
no incentive for people to vote illegally in safe states anyway. Hillary Clinton was going to win California easily, and everyone knew that.
Well, I'm not trying to get you to change your positions on issues, or for you to abandon your support for Trump. I'm merely stating some facts. Urban areas have been steadily moving away from the Republican Party, while less-populated rural areas have been moving towards it. This is a fact. Please compare the election maps for the elections of the last 35 years.
California has turned blue due to the changing voter patterns in the West Coast and the Northeast, along with
legal immigration. Look at Washington and Oregon too. Areas in the South have become much more Republican, in contrast. If you lived out here, you would realize how liberal white voters in coastal California are (where the vast majority of the state lives), and how even independent and Republican Whites are pretty moderate as well. I know of many who voted for Clinton, personally (despite having voted for Romney and/or McCain).
Well, if you're talking about the urban areas in the Midwest (which has always been a swingy area in recent elections), then they too moved away from the Republicans in most areas (with a few exceptions). You can see it on the map. It was the rural areas in these states that moved strongly towards Trump, which resulted in very narrow victories in a few states that ultimately won him the Electoral College. Keep in mind that many Midwestern Democrats simply stayed home or voted third-party. This was the biggest reason he won, although there was a shift in support towards him.
Not to mention that these areas are diversifying and younger whites are much more Democratic than their older counterparts (see exit polls). The Republican voter base of rural whites, older generations, and non-college educated whites is steadily shrinking. College educated-whites, in contrast, shifted strongly towards Clinton, and their ranks are growing. These are facts.
Well the polls weren't exactly wrong. They measured people's preferences correctly. However, they incorrectly predicted turnout, and that's what doomed Hillary Clinton in those states.
Actually, that's very fortunate for the Democrats. Republicans are the incumbent Party now. The President's party almost always loses seats in midterm elections:
I don't think he's necessarily going to be a "failure" by 2018. I don't expect things to change too much between now and then. But if things simply stay the same, a President with an approval rating in the low 40s, will not do well in the midterm election.
Well, you can keep posting videos of Nancy Pelosi. I certainly don't mind. I don't really even like her.
But yes, I definitely prefer her to this:
Some of us are very happy that Trump won on November 8th. The more you mention it, the more I smile. The unpopular Hillary Clinton is gone forever, but the unpopular Trump is still here, enacting many unpopular policies. We're in agreement that we like Trump is President. Please don't take my comments as a reaction to his election.
