“In other words, vote suppression cost Kamala Harris no less than 3,565,000 votes. Harris would have topped Trump’s official total by 1.2 million. Most important, this 2.3% suppression factor undoubtedly cost Harris the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia. If not for the wholesale attack on votes and voters, Harris would have won the election with 286 Electoral votes.”
You could consider re-posting the information as a new thread.
People who think like you are why Harris lost in one of the worst landslides in recent history. Thanks for that, neoliberal
Absolutely not a landslide. She lost the popular vote by 1.5%
Although this is one of the few times in recent history a Republican became president while actually winning the popular vote.
Don’t forget: 3% of that was vote nullification.
A recent article suggests Trump actually lost when you include rejected ballots. https://www.gregpalast.com/trump-lost-vote-suppression-won/
“In other words, vote suppression cost Kamala Harris no less than 3,565,000 votes. Harris would have topped Trump’s official total by 1.2 million. Most important, this 2.3% suppression factor undoubtedly cost Harris the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia. If not for the wholesale attack on votes and voters, Harris would have won the election with 286 Electoral votes.”
You could consider re-posting the information as a new thread.
Liberal Qanon
I don’t really know what this is supposed to mean, but I assume it’s some kind of silly quip.
Regardless, I’m not arguing for the article - just thought it was interesting.
That’s ok, normal people will be able to tell what I mean