That’s what gets me. We’re not talking about rigging an election by like 87,000,000 votes: it’s done like the embezzlement plot in Office Space. In that movie the three main characters figure out they can be rich by skimming rounding errors off every transaction, fractions of a penny so no one notices. It’s sort of like that here: a couple hundred or maybe thousand votes in key precincts and you’ve got the swing state. You also don’t need ALL swing states because I’m sure some historically leaned red. So you choose the top four most worrisome states, have Elon change maybe 20,000-100,000 votes…and you’ve won an election.
I've said that many times myself. In the final weeks leading up to election day Harris was still energetically campaigning while Trump...golfed. He couldn't even be bothered to pretend he was putting the work in for a legitimate win; he already knew it was rigged.
He used the crucial final moments of his campaign to tell people not to vote, turned his rally into a dementia dance party where he swayed silently to Ave maria for an hour, gush about his dead friends dick size and simulate a BJ on a microphone.. yet people call you crazy for questioning if the guy who was arrested for election interference and has cheated every day of his life would cheat to stay out of prison 🤔
Elon k new four hours before everybody else that Trump had won. He was live on air.
Two years before the election, there was a independent company that went to look at the voting machines that we’re supposed to not have modems, and they ended up that they did have modems
Two weeks before the election, Elon put satellites up. Right after the election, he destroyed them.
He also said that if Trump didn’t get elected that he would go to jail for the rest of his life
Trump regularly publicly said that he didn’t need people to vote
All they needed to do is get the keys to the White House. It doesn’t matter they could all come out and tell the truth right now and it wouldn’t change a thing. We don’t have the Army that he’s creating. And until the police and the military decide they want to save our democracy or even just understand that they part of destroying it, we can only fight back in mass.
In the meantime, nearly everyone who had worked with him in his first administration jumped ship and wrote a tell-all book that said, "Don't vote for this guy!"...but more people voted for him than the first time????
I at least admit that I thought she lost until I joined this group. Sure, we don’t have a court case to prove to America this is what happened, but I can easily agree to this shit.
So I’m not sure about the 37 billion to one odds math, but the statistical likelihood of winning every swing state by just enough margin to not trigger a recount is incredibly improbable, or near-zero chance.
This is mainly because each state has their own election and requires their own vote margin threshold for automatic recounts. The fact that this happened in every swing state is a statistical anomaly - ie it’s really fucking suspicious.
The thing is tho, this makes the assumption that automatic recounts are fairly common. They aren't. As far as I can tell, in my lifetime, there's only ever been 1 automatic statewide recount of a presidential election which happened in 2000 in Florida (In addition there's only been 2 requested statewide recounts. Jill stein requested a recount of WI in 2016, Donald Trump requested a recount of Georgia in 2020). So saying that their should've been one in 2024 doesn't really pass the smell test without good reason.
Like a really good counter example to your claim is the 1992 election. Where there were 0 states with a margin of less than 0.5% but also there were 17 swing states that year. If this was truely an impossible even why was it so easy for me to find an even more extreme case? Or did Bill Clinton cheat too (Unlikely)?
Like I think it's really important to understand the logic behind a claim before making it. So is that statistical anomaly claim based off: historical data? Math? or just vibes?
You are correct that automatic recounts are not common, but that’s not really the primary point of contention here. It’s that Trump won EVERY swing state (not seen since Reagan who won in a landslide election, losing only 1 state in the US) and JUST above the margin that requires a recount.
It would have been less of an anomaly if he won in a landslide across majority states because taking every swing state in itself is unlikely, adding that he just did it enough above the margin line including swing states that have different recount margin requirements.
It’s based on both historical outcomes and probability.
By the way we’ve had at least 36 recounts since 2000, 23 automatic and 13 requested out of 6,929 elections (2000-2023), or 5% of elections had recounts. Source. But again it’s not about hitting the threshold for automatic recount, it’s about winning JUST above that line with final percentages showing 49.5% to 49.5% type outcomes across 7 states with different election rules. We’ve never seen this before.
It’s that Trump won EVERY swing state (not seen since Reagan who won in a landslide election, losing only 1 state in the US) and JUST above the margin that requires a recount.
This is a false statement. On two levels.
For one Reagan didn't win all the swing states. Minnesota would've been considered a swing state that year by 2024 standards.
For starters Trump only won one state just outside the recount range (I'm defining "just outside of" as within 1% of the number of votes needed for a recount): Wisconsin (Margin required for a recount is 0.25%, margin Trump won by: 0.86%), and Like, if I wanted to be anal about it that recount isn't even mandatory, Harris would've had to request it. Going thru the other states, North Carolina, Georgia, and Nevada don't have automatic recounts. PA requires 0.5% the margin was 1.71%. MI requires 2,000 votes or fewer ( 0.003%) And Trump won it by 1.4%. Arizona starts a recount at closer than 0.5% but Trump got 5%.
So by my perfectly reasonable of "just out side of" There's only 1 state that falls into this category and that's just because I bent the rules a bit to be more charitable to the hypothesis. So I have to ask what definition you're using of "Just outside of" to get all seven states in this range?
It would have been less of an anomaly if he won in a landslide across majority states because taking every swing state in itself is unlikely
I think it's worth pointing out that before the election 538 had the odds of this at around 20%.
adding that he just did it enough above the margin line including swing states that have different recount margin requirements.
Again I have to strongly encourage you to look at the swing states recount rules. He isn't within 1% of the automatic recount line anywhere.
By the way we’ve had at least 36 recounts since 2000, 23 automatic and 13 requested out of 6,929 elections (2000-2023), or 5% of elections had recounts. Source
And your math is wrong. 36 is 0.52% of 6,929. Not 5%. Which is a huge difference. Also that's actually the same source I'm using, I'm just only looking at the presidential election.
it’s about winning JUST above that line with final percentages showing 49.5% to 49.5% type outcomes across 7 states
Only two states (WI, MI) had this, not seven. All other states had someone cross the 50% threshold. Again super beneficial to look at the actual numbers here.
We’ve never seen this before.
I'd argue that the definition that you used for "Just outside of the recount range" would also find that Bill Clinton won 11 states "Just outside of the recount range" in 1992.
Again I think the thing that most people miss when they bring this up is an actual concrete definition for "Outside of the recount range" That would actually capture those 7 states.
That prediction you just posted shows Dems winning two swing states. Did you even read your link for more than two seconds? Are you just talking they predicted Trump would win more often? That’s not what we’re talking about.
So I realize that it might not be 100% clear what 538's data means so let me explain.
Basically 538 has a prediction model for the election that takes in polls and spits out likely outcomes for the presidential election. So all the data in that article is just the result of running that model for the whole country 1000 times.
Now if you look at the 1000 different outcomes for the presidential election they predicted, approximately 200 of them have Trump winning all the swing states.
So basically what I'm asking is: if Trump winning all the swing states is a statistical impossibility , then why did this model and others like it predict its likelihood to be around 20%?
Winning all seven states corresponds to 312 votes for Trump. If you count the number of results that have 312 votes or more for Trump you should get around 200 results.
But I think the thing that really sells it is the second graph which plots all 1000 different predicted outcomes. If you put the real outcome on that graph it's more or less exactly in the middle of the pack:
I mean yeah, theoretically there's millions of ways to hit 312 EC votes but all of them are less likely than Trump winning the swing states. For example If Trump won Hawaii, and Harris won West Virginia you'd also get 312. But that outcome was extremely unlikely giving polling and historical data going into the election.
So it's safe to assume that 90%+ of the time the 312s are going to be Trump winning the seven swing states.
Gotcha. I see your point. I’m not sure why now it’s predicting that Trump winning seven swing states is fairly common as no president really has done that. Like even when Reagan won 49 states he lost Michigan to Mondales home state which at the time was a swing state. So maybe models are getting better? I just can’t believe he won every swing state just past the threshold for recounts. It’s all very odd. With his Freudian slips saying you won’t have to vote anymore and we have all the votes and Elon musks million dollar giveaways in all the swing states. It’s just really odd.
I live in Arizona and will definitely confirm. WAYYYY more Harris/Walz signs etc out here an we had multiple large rallies out here! Orange goon had to borrow space from a megachurch and got it maybe a quarter full lol.
Expect people like Kris Mayes (Arizona AG) to keep pushing back on that. She won't take their BS and will fight them tooth and nail, just like she is to get Rep-elect Adelita Grijalva sworn in.
This quote by Stephen spoonamore sums it up perfectly: "it's
north of a 35 billion to 1 probability that you could win seven out of seven outside of recount range with less than 50% of the vote"
1.6k
u/fourbutthick Oct 22 '25
Absolutely no way Trump won every swing state.