Republican Wins NC Special Election - CNN Responds

awpitt

Main Streeter
Dan Bishop should've won this district by double digits. Trump won it by 12 points in 2016. With all the effort Trump and Pence put into this race, reasonable people would think Bishop would've run away with this instead of squeaking out a 2 point lead.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Dan Bishop should've won this district by double digits. Trump won it by 12 points in 2016. With all the effort Trump and Pence put into this race, reasonable people would think Bishop would've run away with this instead of squeaking out a 2 point lead.
I recall the same being said of Gore, and Clinton.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member
That's not possible - election fraud does not happen. You've told us so, repeatedly.
No i said there have ben less than a dozen cases of it up until this last event. Which is squarely on the GOP

Why must you always make up conversations with me in your head? You must think about me a lot. You might even say you have SDS



"State investigators established their theory of the case — that a Republican operative, Leslie McCrae Dowless, directed a coordinated scheme to unlawfully collect, falsely witness, and otherwise tamper with absentee ballots — and workers who say they had assisted him in the scheme delivered damning testimony describing their activities. Dowless himself refused to testify, on the advice of his lawyer.

On Thursday afternoon, after four days of evidence indicating fraud and an attempt to conceal the scheme from state investigators, Harris himself told the state election board that he believed a new election should be called. The board voted to do so soon afterward.

 

transporter

Well-Known Member
Historical trends on polls, opinions, voting, etc., seem to have a relevance when talking about polls, opinions, and the resultant voting. :sshrug:
Just to point out the stunningly obvious:

1. The thread isn't about polls or opinions. The thread is about the actual vote. The GOP candidate, as Gilligan (for once) correctly stated was won by a slim margin in an election later deemed fraudulent due to GOP candidate/campaign actions. THAT result was relevant to the current result. This seat has been in R hands since the early 1960s. THAT history is relevant. That historical trend when compared to current results is relevant. This should not be a swing district.

2. The thread isn't about a Presidential election in the 1990s but a House election in 2019. A presidential election from over 20 years ago is not relevant to a House race in 2019.

Not sure why those points are so confusing to you.
 

Sapidus

Well-Known Member

You are using James Okeefe as your source? The man who has been shown to be repeatedly doctoring his source given probation fined, and made to pay over $100k in restitution?

Thats what you lead with.

No wonder you vote for Trump if you believe anything that liar does still
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Just to point out the stunningly obvious:

1. The thread isn't about polls or opinions. The thread is about the actual vote. The GOP candidate, as Gilligan (for once) correctly stated was won by a slim margin in an election later deemed fraudulent due to GOP candidate/campaign actions. THAT result was relevant to the current result. This seat has been in R hands since the early 1960s. THAT history is relevant. That historical trend when compared to current results is relevant. This should not be a swing district.

2. The thread isn't about a Presidential election in the 1990s but a House election in 2019. A presidential election from over 20 years ago is not relevant to a House race in 2019.

Not sure why those points are so confusing to you.
What confuses me is why you'd bring up arguments against something I never said.

AWPitt said this candidate should have won by more. I said, "heard that before".

Not sure why that confuses you.
 
Reactions: BOP
Top