Election Coverage And Results Thread

SonOfSun

SonOfSun

.308 Win
Messages
4,032
Reaction score
4,758
Location
WNY
Grimscale said:
I'm trying to correlate your comment with the previous statement that Biden could not have won the "record number of votes".

As far as I was aware, the "record number of votes" was the popular vote. ie: each person counted. That information can be tabulated in many ways. The statement was that he "won" only 16.7% of the Counties in the United States.

so you're telling us that 16.7% of the Counties in the United States account for over 80 milion people?
Click to expand...

2018 Census Data is the most recent posted, at least that I could find anyways, here is that table for 2018 by county


I popped it in R quick and summed it up, PR removed.

Code: 
PopulationData <- read_csv("ACSDT5Y2018.B01003_data_with_overlays.csv")

PopulationData <- as.data.frame( dplyr::filter(PopulationData, !grepl('Puerto',AreaName)))

CountyCount <- nrow(PopulationData)
CountyCount

PopulationData$Tiled  <- ntile(PopulationData$popest2018, 1000)

PopulationData$Top167County <- ifelse(PopulationData$Tiled >= (1000-167),"Yes","No")

table(PopulationData$Top167County)

aggregate(PopulationData$popest2018, list(population = PopulationData$Top167County), FUN = sum)


> CountyCount
[1] 3142


> table(PopulationData$Top167County)

No Yes
2615 527


Top167County x
1 No 74480795
2 Yes 248422235



TLDR:
The top 16.7% of 3142 counties have over 248 Million people, so yes, they do account for over 80 million people... and significantly so.
 
Last edited:
ManrisFrack

ManrisFrack

.223 Rem
Messages
1,486
Reaction score
2,205
Location
Wayne County
SonOfSun said:
2018 Census Data is the most recent posted, at least that I could find anyways, here is that table for 2018 by county


I popped it in R quick and summed it up, PR removed.

Code: 
PopulationData <- read_csv("ACSDT5Y2018.B01003_data_with_overlays.csv")

PopulationData <- as.data.frame( dplyr::filter(PopulationData, !grepl('Puerto',AreaName)))

CountyCount <- nrow(PopulationData)
CountyCount

PopulationData$Tiled  <- ntile(PopulationData$popest2018, 1000)

PopulationData$Top167County <- ifelse(PopulationData$Tiled >= (1000-167),"Yes","No")

table(PopulationData$Top167County)

aggregate(PopulationData$popest2018, list(population = PopulationData$Top167County), FUN = sum)


> CountyCount
[1] 3142


> table(PopulationData$Top167County)

No Yes
2615 527


Top167County x
1 No 74480795
2 Yes 248422235



TLDR:
The top 16.7% of 3142 counties have over 248 Million people, so yes, they do account for over 80 million people... and significantly so.
Click to expand...

You're assuming that the top 16.7% most populous counties all went for Biden, right? I would be shocked it that were the case.

Regardless, the point isn't that Biden winning only 16.7% of counties nationwide makes it mathematically impossible for Biden to have won. The point is that this "fact" doesn't fit with historical data. It's a new record low for a "successful" candidate by nearly 5 percentage points. It's a smaller portion of counties than either Obama or Hillary won. Obviously we know what happened with Hillary. For Biden to obliterate Obama's record vote total of 2008 and capture a larger percentage of the total US population at the time of the election while winning significantly less total counties is counterintuitive. It doesn't mean it's impossible, just odd.

Conservatively speaking, there are a lot of "odd" things about this election. If it were just this anomaly with the counties won, maybe even with a couple other anomalies, I would say it isn't enough. We're beyond that now.
 
masterswimmer

masterswimmer

.450/400 Nitro Ex
Messages
9,600
Reaction score
17,390
Location
Nrth of Mason Dixon
Dr. Evil said:
rumble.com

Dominion Contractor Drops a BOMBSHELL

The media will ignore this so they can pretend there's no evidence of fraud.
rumble.com rumble.com
Click to expand...

Dr. I'm on your side of the fence. You know it. That video testimony was not good. That woman couldn't speak fact without injecting her opinion for more than a minute or two. Her explanation about clearing a jammed ballot was horrific. Fortunately I've heard the jamb clearing explanation so many times I knew how to explain it to my wife better than she did. I soooo wanted to hear what she had to say but any judge would discard her testimony based on her being an eyewitness not an expert witness. She was giving her explanations as if she was an expert witness yet kept offering opinions.

You've posted much better witnesses, testimony, opinions, facts, and helpful videos. This one just didn't cut it. Sorry.
 
SonOfSun

SonOfSun

.308 Win
Messages
4,032
Reaction score
4,758
Location
WNY
ManrisFrack said:
You're assuming that the top 16.7% most populous counties all went for Biden, right? I would be shocked it that were the case.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not assuming that.

A question was asked: "so you're telling us that 16.7% of the Counties in the United States account for over 80 milion people? "

The post was an answer to the question, nothing more or less than that.



To answer your sort of question according to the current data I have, see below. Obviously the result data for the current election is incomplete at this point, so I'm just going by current counts where available. Code included as a spoiler below if that's your sort of thing. I'm a show your work or F off kind of guy, so yeah, it's there for you to look at if you so choose.


#US Census Survey/Program: American Community Survey Universe: Total population TableID: B01003 Product: 2018: ACS 5-Year Estimates Detailed Tables
PopulationData <- read_csv("ACSDT5Y2018.B01003_data_with_overlays.csv")

#election results, by county with FIPS IDs
ElectionData <- read_csv("https://raw.githubusercontent.com/kjhealy/us_elections_2020_csv/master/results_current.csv")

PopulationData <- as.data.frame( dplyr::filter(PopulationData, !grepl('Puerto',AreaName)))

CountyCount <- nrow(PopulationData)
CountyCount


PopulationData$Tiled <- ntile(PopulationData$popest2018, 1000)


PopulationData$Top167County <- ifelse(PopulationData$Tiled > (1000-100),"Yes","No")

table(PopulationData$Top167County)

aggregate(PopulationData$popest2018, list(population = PopulationData$Top167County), FUN = sum)


ElectionData <- as.data.frame( dplyr::filter(ElectionData, grepl('President',race)))
ElectionData <- as.data.frame( dplyr::filter(ElectionData, grepl('REP|DEM',party)))
ElectionData <- ElectionData %>% drop_na(fips5)
ElectionData$UID <- paste("840",ElectionData$fips5,sep="")

newdf <- ElectionData
newdf <- filter (newdf, newdf$race == "askjdhasjkdasd")


FIPSlist <- unique(ElectionData$UID)
x<-1
while (x <= length(FIPSlist)) {
currentFIPS <- FIPSlist[x]
countyDetails <- filter(ElectionData, UID %in% currentFIPS)
totalvotes<-sum(countyDetails$votes)
countyDetails$voteperc <-countyDetails$votes / totalvotes
countyDetails$winner <- ifelse(countyDetails$voteperc > .5,countyDetails$lname,"No")
newdf <- rbind(newdf,countyDetails)
x <- x+1 #next item
}

ElectionData <- newdf
ElectionData<- (merge(ElectionData, PopulationData, by = 'UID'))


ElectionData <- as.data.frame( dplyr::filter(ElectionData, !grepl('No',Top167County)))
aggregate(ElectionData$votes, list(TC = ElectionData$lname), FUN = sum)


ElectionData <- as.data.frame( dplyr::filter(ElectionData, !grepl('No',winner)))
table(ElectionData$Top167County,ElectionData$winner)



> aggregate(ElectionData$votes, list(TC = ElectionData$lname), FUN = sum)
TC x
1 Biden 60313607
2 Trump 40943783
>
>
> ElectionData <- as.data.frame( dplyr::filter(ElectionData, !grepl('No',winner)))
> table(ElectionData$Top167County,ElectionData$winner)

Biden Trump
Yes 192 104


Biden won 88 more large counties assuming we are talking about the top 10% of counties as large counties, totaling 19+ million more votes for Biden. Again, this is all on the results available now, and can change as finalized tallies roll in. Still, this gives a good rough picture.

Trump's strength is unsurprisingly in the rural areas, he completely dominated Biden in vote counts there.



ManrisFrack said:
Regardless, the point isn't that Biden winning only 16.7% of counties nationwide makes it mathematically impossible for Biden to have won. The point is that this "fact" doesn't fit with historical data. It's a new record low for a "successful" candidate by nearly 5 percentage points. It's a smaller portion of counties than either Obama or Hillary won. Obviously we know what happened with Hillary. For Biden to obliterate Obama's record vote total of 2008 and capture a larger percentage of the total US population at the time of the election while winning significantly less total counties is counterintuitive. It doesn't mean it's impossible, just odd.
Click to expand...

The whole election is abnormal. The country has never been more politically polarized in my lifetime. Both sides *really* don't like the other sides candidates at all. The hate for Trump is off the charts with Dems. Turnout for this past election was always going to be massive. Then add in Covid and mail in voting. Nothing about this election is really what I would call normal, if there is such a thing in politics.
 
spat

spat

.700 Nitro Express
Messages
26,120
Reaction score
54,300
Location
Formerly Geneseo, NY. Now free in AZ
FrankenCub said:
Which is absolutely true. Unfortunately, I fear the cover up far more than the actual damage the fraud created.
Click to expand...
The cover up is part of the fraud though.

They know the cover up will fail if the fraud doesn't succeed.

If Biden takes office, they know *any* fraud can be covered up. All investigations will effectively cease. If he doesn't, then they will certainty continue.
 
Grimscale

Grimscale

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,738
Reaction score
12,805
Location
Rochester
So it was said in here that Barr's statement only indicated that the DoJ didn't investigate.
Then I hear that Barr admitted in an AP News interview that the DoJ did investigate.

So which is it?


I'm beyond confused. I'm reaching the point where I hope the "great reset" occurs. I may not survive it, but many of these slimy self-serving corrupt politicians won't either.
 
Celt

Celt

.338 Win Mag
Messages
9,151
Reaction score
18,409
Location
Westchester
masterswimmer said:
With all due respect celt, and I say that with the utmost sincerity, the damage to our Republic would be irreparable if it is NOT uncovered that there was widespread cheating and they allow creepy Joe to be sworn in. At that point we'll never have an election by the people ever again.

This is a turning point in the history of America. Trump MUST prevail or we go down in history as a country, a Constitutional Republic that survived only 244 years.
Click to expand...
It's all good man, my fear is that the other side will be more powerful in the silencing this using the excuse that the damage to the Republic would be too great. For me personally, along with yourself, and like most here, if it is not uncovered the damage will have been done and our Republic lost.

It is literally all the world powers against us. The globalist elite want Trump out because of his America First agenda, I'm afraid to see what will become of this country, and the world if this is allowed to be silenced.
 
Calculon

Calculon

.308 Win
Messages
4,549
Reaction score
8,877
Location
Dutchess
masterswimmer said:
Dr. I'm on your side of the fence. You know it. That video testimony was not good. That woman couldn't speak fact without injecting her opinion for more than a minute or two. Her explanation about clearing a jammed ballot was horrific. Fortunately I've heard the jamb clearing explanation so many times I knew how to explain it to my wife better than she did. I soooo wanted to hear what she had to say but any judge would discard her testimony based on her being an eyewitness not an expert witness. She was giving her explanations as if she was an expert witness yet kept offering opinions.

You've posted much better witnesses, testimony, opinions, facts, and helpful videos. This one just didn't cut it. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Listening to her was difficult at times but don’t let her passion and delivery of the message delivered take away from the important points she is making. She is clearly pissed off and saw blatant fraud and wants to be sure she is heard.

These people are brave to stand up in the public forum and be identified at great risk to their professional lives/businesses and even their personal safety.

Keep in mind that for four years we had to listen to the scummy dems talk about protecting anonymous whistleblowers who made wild unfounded accusations but the media and dem automatons praised them. These people are not the same - they are real American patriots risking everything to try to bring criminals into the light.
 
Phazer

Phazer

.338 Win Mag
Messages
9,175
Reaction score
18,825
Location
Province of Westchester
Defilade said:
And that right there is 4D chest. Trump will win by the way of the Constitution! HA!
Click to expand...
After listening to several of the state hearings, especially those where Democrat state representatives were present, I've come away with several conclusions:
  1. There is sufficient evidence that substantial fraud and electoral malfeasance occurred nationwide, and especially in battleground jurisdictions.
  2. The degree of the fraud cannot be absolutely discerned without forensic analysis of voting equipment and paper ballots (including envelopes)
  3. The Democrat "long game" whereby they insisted that corrupted voter rolls never be purged of ineligible voters (deceased, moved) has paid off for them when the COVID-19 pandemic gave them the cover that they needed to blanket mail ballots to "all voters."
  4. Most of our elected officials have no interest in pursuing electoral fraud. They declare that they "do not want to disenfranchise anybody" by invalidating votes that are potentially fraudulent. All the while, they ignore the fact that legitimate voters are necessarily disenfranchised when their votes are negated by fraudulent ballots.
  5. The courts do not have the guts to rule on law, and tell the states that their election was spoiled, because the courts cannot figure out how to remedy the election based on their decision. The courts need to, but will not, understand that it is not their job to fashion a remedy for electoral fraud. The courts only need to rule that an election was unconstitutional and instruct the state legislatures to figure out their own solution.
  6. The media will continue to tell the public that we need to "move along" since the election is completed and that we need to "put this all behind us for the good of national unity." Many will agree and become weary of election litigation.
  7. Unless there is a very plain, easy to understand, example of egregious overwhelming fraud, Biden will be our next president (illegitimate as he may be).
  8. Regardless of who becomes the next president, investigations into election fraud must continue at the federal level. If the fraud is not uncovered for all to see, then those who executed the fraud will simply use 2020 as a teaching tool for their operations and they will more finely tune their operations the next time. Their fraud will be more difficult to discern, harder to prove, and inextricably mingled into the greater electoral process. As a result, we will never, ever, have anything like a legitimate election again in our nation.
 
Defilade

Defilade

.577 Tyrannosaur.
Messages
23,364
Reaction score
33,567
Location
Elsewhere
Phazer said:
After listening to several of the state hearings, especially those where Democrat state representatives were present, I've come away with several conclusions:
  1. There is sufficient evidence that substantial fraud and electoral malfeasance occurred nationwide, and especially in battleground jurisdictions.
  2. The degree of the fraud cannot be absolutely discerned without forensic analysis of voting equipment and paper ballots (including envelopes)
  3. The Democrat "long game" whereby they insisted that corrupted voter rolls never be purged of ineligible voters (deceased, moved) has paid off for them when the COVID-19 pandemic gave them the cover that they needed to blanket mail ballots to "all voters."
  4. Most of our elected officials have no interest in pursuing electoral fraud. They declare that they "do not want to disenfranchise anybody" by invalidating votes that are potentially fraudulent. All the while, they ignore the fact that legitimate voters are necessarily disenfranchised when their votes are negated by fraudulent ballots.
  5. The courts do not have the guts to rule on law, and tell the states that their election was spoiled, because the courts cannot figure out how to remedy the election based on their decision. The courts need to, but will not, understand that it is not their job to fashion a remedy for electoral fraud. The courts only need to rule that an election was unconstitutional and instruct the state legislatures to figure out their own solution.
  6. The media will continue to tell the public that we need to "move along" since the election is completed and that we need to "put this all behind us for the good of national unity." Many will agree and become weary of election litigation.
  7. Unless there is a very plain, easy to understand, example of egregious overwhelming fraud, Biden will be our next president (illegitimate as he may be).
  8. Regardless of who becomes the next president, investigations into election fraud must continue at the federal level. If the fraud is not uncovered for all to see, then those who executed the fraud will simply use 2020 as a teaching tool for their operations and they will more finely tune their operations the next time. Their fraud will be more difficult to discern, harder to prove, and inextricably mingled into the greater electoral process. As a result, we will never, ever, have anything like a legitimate election again in our nation.
Click to expand...
#5..It goes to the House. One State, One Vote. That's what the Constitution states.
 
Calculon

Calculon

.308 Win
Messages
4,549
Reaction score
8,877
Location
Dutchess
If it doesn’t happen there is only one reason - they no longer fear the wrath of the people. They view all 300+ million of us as docile sheep who will roll over and say “better luck next time sport.” They need to fear ALL of us.
 
Phazer

Phazer

.338 Win Mag
Messages
9,175
Reaction score
18,825
Location
Province of Westchester
Calculon said:
If it doesn’t happen there is only one reason - they no longer fear the wrath of the people. They view all 300+ million of us as docile sheep who will roll over and say “better luck next time sport.” They need to fear ALL of us.
Click to expand...
Nowadays, that kind of speech is called "terroristic." In the late 1700s, it was called "patriotic." Times have changed.
 
Calculon

Calculon

.308 Win
Messages
4,549
Reaction score
8,877
Location
Dutchess
Phazer said:
Nowadays, that kind of speech is called "terroristic." In the late 1700s, it was called "patriotic." Times have changed.
Click to expand...
No threats or rabble rousing intended in what I say. Elected reps need to know that unless they abide by the Constitution we will vote them out or, if necessary, physically remove them. They used to tar and feather these traitors. I'm not going that far at this point.

Americans have allowed .gov to divide us on a handful of emotional issues. They have effectively focused us on each other rather than on them so they can back door legislation and chip away at everyone's rights. Both sides need to wake up and see them as the common enemy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top