[rlmorel]

“2000 Mules” had a very different conclusion on the effects and impact on the results, concluding correctly that if not for the fraud, it would have been a Trump landslide in the Electoral College.

A lot of people still don’t understand-to swing an election dramatically in the electoral college, you don’t have to changed a lot of votes.

The number is relatively small. This fact has been known for years, but likely seems counterintuitive to many people, somewhat understandably.

[MarDav]

What 2000 Mules did for me was put the finishing touches on why we always lose these arguments. Democrats cheat. We can all agree on this . The more time and space to do so means too many windows to shut, doors to close. Votes mishandled, duplicated, manufactured will always be a problem (somehow) just as long as Election Day is allowed to be a month(s?) long event.

MEDADA - Make Election Day A Day Again!

[BushCountry]

“A lot of people still don’t understand-to swing an election dramatically in the electoral college, you don’t have to changed a lot of votes.”

True, that is how JFK won (graveyard vote in Chicago and corrupt pols in Texas). Nixon was told to shut up too. However, they really needed to cheat big this election. There is no hiding the scope of the theft if anyone would seriously look at it. Each battleground state gained around 500,000 extra dem voters (never happened in history or will happen again). The normal change of increase is around 10,000 - 20,000 votes, not several 100,000s.