Why do they ever lose any elections then? Not sure I buy it. If it’s who counts the votes then why choose to be honest enough to lose sometimes, or lose enough so they aren’t the majority at times? If the counter argument is ‘they can only cheat so much and sway it a little,’ how does that jive with electronic manipulation and crooked vote counting? Doesn’t seem like it should matter.
I will say I have thought that these elections being so closely contested is very strange. Millions and millions vote and it is roughly tied? I always thought that part was very strange.
Freegards
A losing democrat almost always demands a recount, often several recounts, and with the exception of the Gore/Leibermann Sore Loserman 2000 campaign, the recount after recount after recount almost invariably results in enough boxes of ballots found in random car trunks and dusty storage rooms to flip the results.
It's as if the democrats crave power and the abuse of power above all else, and the republicans want all the benefits of power and the abuse of power, without the responsibility (as blame) for any of the abuses. In the political ecology the republicans only exist to ineffectually oppose the democrats and give the plebs the ability to convince themselves that someone in government is on their side so they don't revolt, but merely try to work within the system.
The deep state is nothing more than a game of good cop/bad cop wolves intent on slaughtering the flock one marginalized sheep at a time.
My theory on the governor wins...
They need to win the governor in a state election.
He’s the only state pol with the ability to pardon someone convicted of a state crime.
“Millions and millions vote and it is roughly tied? I always thought that part was very strange.”
I have wondered about that too. I studied statistics in college, so I tried to imagine what statistical anomaly (other than fraud) could account for the seemingly improbable closeness we see in some scores - voting, athletics or whatever.
You see it in basketball. So often, with 2 minutes left on the clock, the score is something like 105 to 104. What can account for that? Are the two teams really that equally matched, or is there something else going on?
I think the answer is in the way the game is designed, the way the rules are set. After each score, the other team gets control of the ball. The rules also favor the offense over the defense, so that once a team gets control of the ball, it is easier for that team to score than it is for the other team to stop them from scoring, without committing a foul.
To demonstrate the theory, you could exaggerate the effect by making a rule that said the defense has to stand still and do nothing. Obviously, the result would be that the two teams would take turns scoring two points and always wind up in a near tie - which is what usually happens. Conversely, you could change the rules so that the other team does NOT get the ball after a score, but instead has to fight for it like a rebound. Then, I think you would see more runaway point spreads.
I see it also in billiards and tennis - tennis pros usually win their serve - billiards pros usually break and run. So if the rules are alternating break, or alternating serve, it will naturally produce a tight race.
How does that relate to voting? I think it comes down to “the rules of the game” favoring the spread of misinformation through dishonest and/or incompetent journalism, and favoring widespread voter ignorance through lack of education regarding civics, economics, and the proper role of government.
For example, let’s say that 95% of voters are so uninformed or misinformed about the true pros and cons of the candidates, that they really have no rational basis for their decision - they are essentially guessing who to vote for. In other words, they may as well be flipping a coin, and we know repeating a coin toss will eventually produce a 50/50 result.
So, according to this theory, elections are only decided at the margin - the, say, 5% of voters who are making a rational, informed decision will favor the superior candidate, while the other 95% cancel each other out.
I think in a re-election scenario the result is usually a wider spread, because the incumbent has become a “known”, so instead of, say, 95% flipping a coin, most voters have at least some rational basis for their decision.
In billiards, that would be the equivalent of a winner breaks rule instead of alternating break - then you are far more likely to see runaway point spreads.
Of course, this is all conjecture on my part, for lack of a better explanation.