CNN Poll: Percentage of Republicans who think Biden's 2020 win was illegitimate ticks back up near 70%
CNN Poll: Percentage of Republicans who think Biden's 2020 win was illegitimate ticks back up near 70%
The share of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who believe that President Joe Biden’s 2020 election win was not legitimate has ticked back up, according to a new CNN poll fielded throughout July.
The share of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who believe that President Joe Biden’s 2020 election win was not legitimate has ticked back up, according to a new CNN poll fielded throughout July. All told, 69% of Republicans and Republican-leaners say Biden’s win was not legitimate, up from 63% earlier this year and through last fall, even as there is no evidence of election fraud that would have altered the outcome of the contest.
You're viewing a single thread.
69% of republicans say Biden's win in 2020 is illegitimate. Democrats point to Russian interference in Trump's 2016 election. Republicans claim Obama's 2012 and 2008 win is illegitimate because he was born in Kenya (gee, even if that was true, McCain was born in Panama!). Democrats object to Bush's 2004 win certification due to Diebold messing with machines in Ohio. Democrats claim Bush's 2000 win was the result of Supreme court interference. Republicans try to overturn Clinton's 1996 win with impeachment over a sexual affair. Republicans actually accept Clinton's 1992 win.
The excuses may not compare, but I find it troubling that it has been 31 years since the loosing party actually accepted a loss as legitimate.
Ok but what if, now hear me out... the Democrats were correct about 2016 and 2000?
Plus this is the first I've heard of the 2004 issue vs hundreds of times hearing about 2016 and 2000.
With hundreds of millions of people in a country, there is a zero percent chance everybody accepts the truth, but unless I just missed something really big the 2004 election was not seriously contested. And no I'm not some kid who wasn't around to hear about it. I was a news consuming adult even back then.
Feels like you were stretching to make a both sides argument.
I vividly remember the 2004 voting machine issues. It was the first general election with widespread use of computerized voting software, in the wake of the 2000 election disaster, and there was a lot of evidence that the machines could be tampered with quite easily. I'm not sure if there is real evidence that they were actually tampered with, but the fact the machines were not open source and demonstrably falsifiable is in itself alarming.
I don't recall any talk about the 2016 election being illegitimate. The results were horrifying obviously, and we were shocked the polls were so wrong, but actual fraud? I don't think so.
Indeed. All the claims about Russian interference were that they used propaganda to push people to vote for Trump, not that the election itself was fraudulent. It's ridiculous to compare "Hostile foreign actors are manipulating people" with "The outgoing president actually won the election and thus should remain in office despite all the evidence to the contrary."
I felt like trying to say Clinton's impeachment was the R's not accepting the legitimacy of his election was a stretch also. Seems OP is trying to make the facts fit his point.
Trump used 2004 as a starting point for Jan 6th, then added a riot. In order to stop the counting, you need a house and senate member to object to a particular vote (I'm actually in the house district of the guy who objected in 2020, and campaigned for his opponent). The concerns over vote switching were so bad in 2004 that most of the democratic states switched over to having paper trails. From what I remember, Ohio polling was constantly showing a Bush loss and the CEO of Diebold was running around saying "No, those are our machines, Bush will win", and then Bush did.
not that there's like mountains of evidence to prove that or anything /s
Ok but what if, now hear me out… the Democrats were correct about 2016 and 2000?
Dunno about 2000, I was 4 years old, but 2016 was the typical action movie "evil foreign hackers hijacking our great 'Murrican democracy" thing, only told by Democrats. That is, as somebody living in Russia I can't take this seriously.
Russian interference was proven to be true.
Not to mention, if you want to talk about a comically evil villain, invading Ukraine was a comically evil villain thing to do.
Proven by whom?
Not to mention, if you want to talk about a comically evil villain, invading Ukraine was a comically evil villain thing to do.
And how do you imagine that comical villain managing a much more complex operation?
NRA takes foreign money. NRA takes American donors money. NRA does gun education. NRA does political ads for Trump. It is illegal for foreign money to pay for political ads. NRA takes the Russian money, uses it to do gun education. NRA take the American donor's money that was going to gun education and puts it towards Trump ads. Perfectly legal money laundering, but still Russian interference.
It's not about interference, it's about that interference being sufficient to call Trump's victory a result of Russian interference. And if it's logical OR of all inputs, then I'm sure you can call Biden's victory the same.
So it is ok to do bad things if they don't change the outcome?
Don't move the goalposts. Somebody said that the 2016 election was falsified. It wasn't.
Russian interference was proven in the Mueller report.
Bad faith trolls like to scream "the Mueller report exhonerated Trump" which is wrong. It concluded that Russian interference was real, and there was evidence of collision with the Trump campaign, but insufficient evidence to charge him of the crime.
Russia's #1 export is misinformation troll farms. It's really decided to make itself the shitstain of the entire planet.
Oh, I'm not arguing there was some input of power in that direction. Be it by Russia or by Turkey\Azerbaijan or by Israel or by Saudi Arabia or whatever, I'm arguing that its results are negligible and it doesn't explain Trump winning at all.
Because everyone knows Russian citizens know everything their Putzin leader is up to. Too funny.
Because Russian citizens know from their daily life Russian state's capabilities and general competence, and you don't. Which is obvious.
Totally bro. Sure.
What you should have said was nothing.
Al Gore legitimately beat GWB in 2000.
Apples and oranges. The difference is that in only one instance did the losing candidate refuse to concede and peacefully transfer power to the winner.
Indeed, they're not comparable and yet here you are making the comparison anyway.
Starting to think these habitual losers are tired of losing
Stop picking a loser party run by losers who have loser ideas, maybe?