I recall the same being said of Gore, and Clinton.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.
No i said there have ben less than a dozen cases of it up until this last event. Which is squarely on the GOPThat's not possible - election fraud does not happen. You've told us so, repeatedly.
Just to point out the stunningly obvious:Historical trends on polls, opinions, voting, etc., seem to have a relevance when talking about polls, opinions, and the resultant voting.
Oh dear dear Sappy. Here's just a bit of reading material for you ....And why did we have to have this election again? GOP election fraud
If I may ...
Oh dear dear Sappy. Here's just a bit of reading material for you ....
Democratic Operative Explains Voter Fraud: We've Been Busing People In For Fifty Years
Florida Democrats on defense amid election fraud investigation
Former Democratic Party leader paid women in alleged Tarrant voter fraud ring, AG says
What confuses me is why you'd bring up arguments against something I never said.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.