Did Trump really think he had won on election night?

[brucejoel99]

Yes. Because apparently if you're opponent's votes come in later on average than your votes it must mean something's fraudulent. Honestly, I was surprised how many states counted mail-in votes first and looked so badly for Trump at first, more states seemed to do that but the three in the midwest did the opposite (and GA). I was expecting this kind of thing to happen if Trump ended up losing - because they were leading in enough EV's to win at some time, therefore it felt 'stolen'. If Biden had lost, I don't think it would've been much different, you'd have claims of voter suppression and votes wrongfully rejected with mail-in ballots to this day if it happened. But instead, it's "most secure election in US history" - sure, I'm supposed to believe that after the supposedly least secure election in US history in which Trump colluded with Putin to steal the 2016 election.

I would be entertained if in the future the Dems find a way to count all their votes faster so they don't have that late-night excuse. But of course, that doesn't address the people who believe the machines systematically shifted votes via an equation.

Congrats, you've managed to senselessly both-sides the ideal of American democracy! Here's your reward!!

[South Dakota Democrat]

Yes. Because apparently if you're opponent's votes come in later on average than your votes it must mean something's fraudulent. Honestly, I was surprised how many states counted mail-in votes first and looked so badly for Trump at first, more states seemed to do that but the three in the midwest did the opposite (and GA). I was expecting this kind of thing to happen if Trump ended up losing - because they were leading in enough EV's to win at some time, therefore it felt 'stolen'. If Biden had lost, I don't think it would've been much different, you'd have claims of voter suppression and votes wrongfully rejected with mail-in ballots to this day if it happened. But instead, it's "most secure election in US history" - sure, I'm supposed to believe that after the supposedly least secure election in US history in which Trump colluded with Putin to steal the 2016 election.

I would be entertained if in the future the Dems find a way to count all their votes faster so they don't have that late-night excuse. But of course, that doesn't address the people who believe the machines systematically shifted votes via an equation.

The bolded part is kind of silly, seeing as some of those states were prevented from counting their early votes until election day by Republicans in those states.

[ElectionsGuy]

Yes. Because apparently if you're opponent's votes come in later on average than your votes it must mean something's fraudulent. Honestly, I was surprised how many states counted mail-in votes first and looked so badly for Trump at first, more states seemed to do that but the three in the midwest did the opposite (and GA). I was expecting this kind of thing to happen if Trump ended up losing - because they were leading in enough EV's to win at some time, therefore it felt 'stolen'. If Biden had lost, I don't think it would've been much different, you'd have claims of voter suppression and votes wrongfully rejected with mail-in ballots to this day if it happened. But instead, it's "most secure election in US history" - sure, I'm supposed to believe that after the supposedly least secure election in US history in which Trump colluded with Putin to steal the 2016 election.

I would be entertained if in the future the Dems find a way to count all their votes faster so they don't have that late-night excuse. But of course, that doesn't address the people who believe the machines systematically shifted votes via an equation.

Congrats, you've managed to senselessly both-sides the ideal of American democracy! Here's your reward!!

DNC cheerleaders like you believe Glenn Greenwald is a Republican, so I take that as a compliment. But would you really deny that most Democrats would try to blame a narrow loss on voter suppression and spend weeks or months trying to justify why certain ballots should or shouldn't be counted? Anybody who saw the rhetoric on both sides prior to the election knew there were large portions of both parties that wouldn't accept defeat. Pundits on the left so believed the polls, that they suggested that if the election turned out to be a narrow Trump win, it's not the polls that were wrong, it was the election (see below for example). Why did Dems and cable news propagate a baseless foreign collusion theory for three years after a narrow loss in 2016, when they now are banning any talk about baseless theories of voter fraud on the right? Their insistence of needing 'evidence' seems to be very selective.

https://twitter.com/AmandiOnAir/status/1322378847711563776?s=20

[brucejoel99]

Yes. Because apparently if you're opponent's votes come in later on average than your votes it must mean something's fraudulent. Honestly, I was surprised how many states counted mail-in votes first and looked so badly for Trump at first, more states seemed to do that but the three in the midwest did the opposite (and GA). I was expecting this kind of thing to happen if Trump ended up losing - because they were leading in enough EV's to win at some time, therefore it felt 'stolen'. If Biden had lost, I don't think it would've been much different, you'd have claims of voter suppression and votes wrongfully rejected with mail-in ballots to this day if it happened. But instead, it's "most secure election in US history" - sure, I'm supposed to believe that after the supposedly least secure election in US history in which Trump colluded with Putin to steal the 2016 election.

I would be entertained if in the future the Dems find a way to count all their votes faster so they don't have that late-night excuse. But of course, that doesn't address the people who believe the machines systematically shifted votes via an equation.

Congrats, you've managed to senselessly both-sides the ideal of American democracy! Here's your reward!!

DNC cheerleaders like you

Aaaand that's where I stopped. You clearly have no intent on holding anything that even resembles a legitimate viewpoint.