Kamala Harris Is a Terrible Pick and Here's Why

[HangLow]

I mean, outside of the Senate she certainly breaks ties alright within the party.
So long as she votes the right way unlike that despicable GOP in denial Joe Manchin
and doesn't engage in debauched behaviours,
I can tolerate Kamala for now.
She may be a psychopath, but she's our psychopath.
I definitely wouldn't want her as president though,
and that seems to be what the Dem brass is looking to push come 2024.

Okay, I'll Bite
(D) Harris V (R) Greene
Your VOTE
I VOTE (D) Harris

 

[Surrealistik]

Okay, I'll Bite
(D) Harris V (R) Greene
Your VOTE
I VOTE (D) Harris

What you quoted should be self-explanatory as that goes.

Personally, I just hope I'm not forced to vote for her as POTUS come 2024 if Biden chooses not to run.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Biden is just lucky that Trump mishandled COVID so epically; he would've been toast without Donnie's historic bungling.

Trump did much more than simply mishandle the pandemic. He lied to the American people from the very beginning. There is no doubt that Trump is personally responsible for the deaths of many Americans.

And pandemic or no, Trump’s chance of being re-election was far from certain.

 

[Phys251]

I mean, outside of the Senate she certainly breaks ties alright within the party.

So long as she votes the right way unlike that despicable GOP in denial Joe Manchin and doesn't engage in debauched behaviours, I can tolerate Kamala for now. She may be a psychopath, but she's our psychopath.

I definitely wouldn't want her as president though, and that seems to be what the Dem brass is looking to push come 2024.

You'll never have her as President. You get a prime minister instead!

 

[Surrealistik]

Trump did much more than simply mishandle the pandemic. He lied to the American people from the very beginning. There is no doubt that Trump is personally responsible for the deaths of many Americans.

And pandemic or no, Trump’s chance of being re-election was far from certain.

I would consider that to fall under the umbrella of 'epic mishandling'.

Further, Biden's chance to win was far less certain; after all, the dude barely clinched his win *despite* Trump's truly historic failure to handle a major national crisis, which is extremely telling. Hell, Libertarians alone could have handed Trump the election, so narrow was Joe's victory.

 

[HangLow]

I would consider that to fall under the umbrella of 'epic mishandling'.

Further, Biden's chance to win was far less certain; after all, the dude barely clinched his win *despite* Trump's truly historic failure to handle a major national crisis, which is extremely telling. Hell, Libertarians alone could have handed Trump the election, so narrow was Joe's victory.

2020 United States presidential election

November 3, 2020[a] 2
	66.7% (preliminary)[3]
� Nominee Joe Biden Party Democratic Home state Delaware

81,268,924[5]

 

[Surrealistik]

2020 United States presidential election

Check out the break down in contested swing states; the EC was a hair away from going Trump, and that hair was the Libertarian vote, which is by any measure uncomfortably close; doubly so since Biden should have had this by a landslide.

 

[HangLow]

Check out the break down in contested swing states; the EC was a hair away from going Trump, and that hair was the Libertarian vote, which is by any measure uncomfortably close; doubly so since Biden should have had this by a landslide.

​

 

[Surrealistik]

An ad hominem YT vid link isn't an argument, nor does it refute or undermine that absolute and verifiable fact.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I would consider that to fall under the umbrella of 'epic mishandling'.

No adjective applied to “mishandle” comes anywhere near adequately or correctly describing Trump’s involvement with the ongoing pandemic.

He didn’t mishandle the government’s response to the pandemic. Not even “epically”, because he wasn’t involved in handling the pandemic to begin with. His every effort centered around his own selfish re-election interests, period.

Americans lives meant (mean) nothing to him. His words and actions throughout absolutely prove that simple fact. Irrefutably.

Further, Biden's chance to win was far less certain; after all, the dude barely clinched his win *despite* Trump's truly historic failure to handle a major national crisis, which is extremely telling. Hell, Libertarians alone could have handed Trump the election, so narrow was Joe's victory.

Biden wasn’t my first (second, or third) choice, but he is an infinitely better choice than Trump. Like choosing vanilla ice cream over a fresh cow patty.

And your claim that Libertarians “could have” handed Trump the election is nothing more than unsupported speculation. In other words, biased shit talk.

 

[Surrealistik]

No adjective applied to “mishandle” comes anywhere near adequately or correctly describing Trump’s involvement with the ongoing pandemic.

He didn’t mishandle the government’s response to the pandemic. Not even “epically”, because he wasn’t involved in handling the pandemic to begin with. His every effort centered around his own selfish re-election interests, period.

Americans lives meant (mean) nothing to him. His words and actions throughout absolutely prove that simple fact. Irrefutably.

You can use whatever descriptors you want to describe Trump's COVID **** up, and I would probably agree; I don't care to debate the trivial semantics.

Biden wasn’t my first (second, or third) choice, but he is an infinitely better choice than Trump. Like choosing vanilla ice cream over a fresh cow patty.

And your claim that Libertarians “could have” handed Trump the election is nothing more than unsupported speculation. In other words, biased shit talk.

Obviously, Biden is a better choice; I voted for him after all; that's a complete aside and not what's being discussed.

As a basic point of fact the Libertarian vote could have swung the election to Trump, and this is supported by the actual numbers and Biden's margins of victory in swing states vis a vis their vocation; no shit talk or bias about it, it's pure numbers. If Biden's margins of victory needed to win the EC didn't fall within the bounds of the Libertarian vote I wouldn't claim as much: https://www.wsj.com/articles/libertarians-spoil-the-election-11604867668

 

[RaleBulgarian]

You can use whatever descriptors you want to describe Trump's COVID **** up, and I would probably agree; I don't care to debate the trivial semantics.

You don’t care about the meanings of words. Gotcha.

Obviously, Biden is a better choice; I voted for him after all; that's a complete aside and not what's being discussed.

As a basic point of fact the Libertarian vote could have swung the election to Trump, and this is supported by the actual numbers and Biden's margins of victory in swing states vis a vis their vocation; no shit talk or bias about it, it's pure numbers. If Biden's margins of victory needed to win the EC didn't fall within the bounds of the Libertarian vote I wouldn't claim as much: https://www.wsj.com/articles/libertarians-spoil-the-election-11604867668

Thanks for sharing the link, but I already knew where you were coming from. That’s why I said your assertion is biased shit talk.

Here’s a link for you to read;

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

And although I don’t normally consider a sources perspective if the information presented is valid/verifiable, I thought might be interested in learning about the author of your WSJ opinion piece;

Walter Block - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Surrealistik]

You don’t care about the meanings of words. Gotcha.

I don't care to debate at length exactly how Donnie's bungling should be described, especially since we're fundamentally in agreement about the fact he ****ed up big time; you should calm down.

Thanks for sharing the link, but I already knew where you were coming from. That’s why I said your assertion is biased shit talk.

Here’s a link for you to read;

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

And although I don’t normally consider a sources perspective if the information presented is valid/verifiable, I thought might be interested in learning about the author of your WSJ opinion piece;

Walter Block - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I'm familiar with the article you posted; it's not actually a refutation of the possibility if you actually read it. Moreover the headline is completely misleading; not a soul quoted said that there was 'no chance' of a Libertarian spoiler; instead, they talked about the certitude of their uncertainty, which I don't disagree with; my point was only ever that A: the margin victory was narrow (it was) and B: that margin of victory was narrow enough that the Libertarian vote could have made the difference (it could have):

“We just don’t know what would have happened if the Libertarians had not run a candidate,” said David Boaz of the Cato Institute, who has authored books on the movement. “Libertarians also get votes of people who just would not bother voting if they didn’t have another choice.”

Kenneth Mayer, a professor of American politics at the University of Wisconsin, said of Jorgenson: “It’s possible she played a role, but there is no way to know and it doesn’t matter. The results of the election are the results of the election,” he said.

And yes, I know who Walter Block is; I cited the article less for his opinion which I don't really care about (I mean come on, the guy is slandering my twin heroes Sanders and AOC), and more for his consolidated one stop shop break down of the numbers, which my take is based on.

It is an undeniable fact that the Libertarian vote more than overwhelmed Biden's margin of victory in key swing states, so yes, it is certainly possible that in the absence of a Libertarian candidate Trump could have won the swing states mentioned, and moreover that this is even a possibility speaks to the narrowness of his ultimate win.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I don't care to debate at length exactly how Donnie's bungling should be described, especially since we're fundamentally in agreement about the fact he ****ed up big time; you should calm down.



I'm familiar with the article you posted; it's not actually a refutation of the possibility if you actually read it. Moreover the headline is completely misleading; not a soul quoted said that there was 'no chance' of a Libertarian spoiler; instead, they talked about the certitude of their uncertainty, which I don't disagree with; my point was only ever that A: the margin victory was narrow (it was) and B: that margin of victory was narrow enough that the Libertarian vote could have made the difference (it could have):





And yes, I know who Walter Block is; I cited the article less for his opinion which I don't really care about (I mean come on, the guy is slandering my twin heroes Sanders and AOC), and more for his consolidated one stop shop break down of the numbers, which my take is based on.

It is an undeniable fact that the Libertarian vote more than overwhelmed Biden's margin of victory in key swing states, so yes, it is certainly possible that in the absence of a Libertarian candidate Trump could have won the swing states mentioned, and moreover that this is even a possibility speaks to the narrowness of his ultimate win.

More quotes from my citation you conveniently overlooked;

“There is disagreement over which of the two main parties takes a bigger hit when a Libertarian is in the race. Boaz pointed to a 2016 CBS exit poll that showed that 25% of Libertarians who voted that year would have supported Democrat Hillary Clinton if there had been no Libertarian candidate. For Trump that figure was 15%, while 55% said they would have not voted.”

“John Vaught LaBeaume, a Libertarian political strategist who worked on the 2016 campaign of Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, said most Libertarian voters simply would not vote for either a Democratic or Republican candidate.

Some Libertarian voters agree.

Morgan Thompson, a 39-year-old private detective in Waukesha, Wisconsin, said she eagerly voted for Jorgensen because of the "increased radicalization" of the two major parties.

If no Libertarian candidate had been on the Wisconsin ballot, Thompson said she would have submitted a blank ballot.”

It is an undeniable fact that your “woulda, coulda” argument falls apart under scrutiny.

Biden’s 4.46% margin win over Trump last November was the largest winning margin since Obama’s first win in 2008.

 

[Surrealistik]

More quotes from my citation you conveniently overlooked;

“There is disagreement over which of the two main parties takes a bigger hit when a Libertarian is in the race. Boaz pointed to a 2016 CBS exit poll that showed that 25% of Libertarians who voted that year would have supported Democrat Hillary Clinton if there had been no Libertarian candidate. For Trump that figure was 15%, while 55% said they would have not voted.”

“John Vaught LaBeaume, a Libertarian political strategist who worked on the 2016 campaign of Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson, said most Libertarian voters simply would not vote for either a Democratic or Republican candidate.

Some Libertarian voters agree.

Morgan Thompson, a 39-year-old private detective in Waukesha, Wisconsin, said she eagerly voted for Jorgensen because of the "increased radicalization" of the two major parties.

If no Libertarian candidate had been on the Wisconsin ballot, Thompson said she would have submitted a blank ballot.”

It is an undeniable fact that your “woulda, coulda” argument falls apart under scrutiny.

Biden’s 4.46% margin win over Trump last November was the largest winning margin since Obama’s first win in 2008.

As we should well know by now, the popular vote doesn't matter; it's all about the EC.

I didn't mention those portions because they're frankly not very relevant. Yes, a singular exit poll way back in 2016 had a certain break down that frankly doesn't hold up today, nevermind the general *aggregate* polling inaccuracies of 2016; it doesn't mean much of anything, nor does an individual's anecdotal take.

In otherwords, since neither of us have a crystal ball to know how it would have unfolded, and because Biden's margin in these swing states was more than overwhelmed by the Libertarian vote, there is a significant possibility that a Libertarian vote split cost Trump the election; even if it didn't, those swing state margins specifically were narrow.

No one in their right mind should consider Biden's win convincing on the whole when you consider the EC and how close key states were and even if you did, the results certainly weren't reciprocal to the circumstances and Donnie's many and egregious failures. At worst it was a close call, at best it was far too close in light of Biden's opponent, and it almost certainly took a historic, national disaster complete with a debacle of a response to put Joe over the top.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

As we should well know by now, the popular vote doesn't matter; it's all about the EC.

Utter horse shit.

In 48 out of 50 states, the popular vote winner takes all EC votes.

Get a clue.

I didn't mention those portions because they're frankly not very relevant. Yes, a singular exit poll way back in 2016 had a certain break down that frankly doesn't hold up today, nevermind the general *aggregate* polling inaccuracies of 2016; it doesn't mean much of anything, nor does an individual's anecdotal take.

In otherwords, since neither of us have a crystal ball to know how it would have unfolded, and because Biden's margin in these swing states was more than overwhelmed by the Libertarian vote, there is a significant possibility that a Libertarian vote split cost Trump the election; even if it didn't, those swing state margins specifically were narrow.

No one in their right mind should consider Biden's win convincing on the whole when you consider the EC and how close key states were and even if you did, the results certainly weren't reciprocal to the circumstances and Donnie's many and egregious failures. At worst it was a close call, at best it was far too close in light of Biden's opponent, and it almost certainly took a historic, national disaster complete with a debacle of a response to put Joe over the top.

More horse shit.

The expert opinions of a Libertarian political strategist and the executive vice president of the Cato Institute, an American libertarian think tank are entirely relevant. Far, far more relevant than any layman’s assertions formulated by you or me.

Did you even read what the Libertarian candidate, herself, said?

Jorgensen said in a phone interview on Friday that Trump played the role of spoiler himself, pushing unhappy Republicans her way. She added that she heard from many disaffected Democrats on the campaign trail too.

"They were their own spoilers, by not following through on their campaign promises," Jorgensen said.

She had particular criticism for Trump, who she said sold himself in 2016 as "a political outsider who knew how to balance the budget and cut the deficit, and did neither."

The 2020 candidate, herself, said Trump ****ed himself with Libertarians.

 

[narrowroad]

In a nutshell, Kamala Harris has proven herself a psychopathic career climber more concerned with getting ahead than getting justice, representation or any other such petty inconveniences. She is an appalling and utterly tone-deaf pick in this era of BLM and mass protests and unrest driven by police brutality, militarization, systemic racism, and injustice, the latter of which she is unfortunately exceedingly well versed in, featuring a laundry list of such egrigious offenses as:

#1: Repeatedly refusing the admission of potentially exonerary DNA evidence which was later court ordered by a judge to be submitted. Kamala Harris Refused DNA Test in Murder Case of Kevin Cooper

#2: Repeatedly refusing to release an innocent man from prison, then refused to compensate him for a decade wrongly served in prison.

#3: Repeatedly and systemically violated defendants’ rights by hiding damaging information about a compromised police drug lab technician getting high off evidence and resisted initial court orders by Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo to disclose such information, Kamala incredibly arguing that she was 'unfairly biased' because her husband was a defense attorney in an futile and ridiculous attempt to avoid doing so; this eventually resulted in the dismissal of approximately a thousand cases: 1,000 San Francisco drug cases to be dismissed in lab scandal – The Mercury News | https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...5df094-392b-11e9-a06c-3ec8ed509d15_story.html

#4: Largely ignored bombshell evidence exposing widespread deputy misconduct, perjury and evidence tampering/destruction until much later where she then dragged her feet in starting an ineffectual sham of a probe that found no one guilty or accountable, and resulted in 0 charges filed.

#5: Related to #4: appealed the dismissal of an indictment when a state prosecutor appended two fabricated statements to a confession in an attempt to maximize sentencing.

#6: Set up and oversaw a grossly ineffective Mortgage Fraud Strike Force meant to deal with foreclosure fraud; despite receiving hundreds of complaints, it prosecuted only 10 cases in a period of three years. Less equipped county district attorneys and AGs in other states incredibly filed many more California-based cases despite inferior resources.

#7: Failed to prosecute OneWestBank despite it repeatedly breaking California foreclosure laws ( Mnuchin's Bank Accused of "Widespread Misconduct" ) , and despite the presentation of uncovered evidence of widespread misconduct; Kamala Harris dismissed a year long investigation recommending civil enforcement action against the company, refusing to prosecute or act on those recommendations while offering no explanation for this at all.


In summary, Kamala was a patently idiotic choice that is diametrically opposite and opposed to the current and well-justified zeitgeist. Should Biden win, he will do so in spite, and not because of, Harris as VP.

In other words, she is the epitome of what's wrong w/ the lib party

we're shocked, utterly shocked.

I would say Vote the bums out but We the People have lost the vote. I hope everyone finds Jesus because there is nothing else to cling to.... which may be the best thing to come from this BS

 

[Surrealistik]

Utter horse shit.

In 48 out of 50 states, the popular vote winner takes all EC votes.

Get a clue.

Except that the state popular vote isn't the national popular vote.

The national popular vote is obviously irrelevant to the EC, which is what I was pointing out.

Also I'm not sure why you're being so hostile over me pointing out what should be obvious.

More horse shit.

The expert opinions of a Libertarian political strategist and the executive vice president of the Cato Institute, an American libertarian think tank are entirely relevant. Far, far more relevant than any layman’s assertions formulated by you or me.

Did you even read what the Libertarian candidate, herself, said?

Jorgensen said in a phone interview on Friday that Trump played the role of spoiler himself, pushing unhappy Republicans her way. She added that she heard from many disaffected Democrats on the campaign trail too.

"They were their own spoilers, by not following through on their campaign promises," Jorgensen said.

She had particular criticism for Trump, who she said sold himself in 2016 as "a political outsider who knew how to balance the budget and cut the deficit, and did neither."

The 2020 candidate, herself, said Trump ****ed himself with Libertarians.

Jorgensen probably doesn't want to suffer the blame and flak from Trump's loon supporters which is entirely understandable; in general Libertarians such as the Cato Institute want to avoid that sort of unhinged wrath (you should have seen the psychotic things posted regarding her and Libertarians on 4chan and the like).

And at the end of the day, beyond this, and whether or not you believe there was a desire to avoid confrontation with Trumptards, theirs is an individual opinion which likewise lacks any kind of crystal ball. More neutral academics whose opinions I justifiably hold in higher regard have concluded that no one knows what the impact would be, which in and of itself inherently acknowledges the real possibility that Libertarians were spoilers; that possibility being pretty much indisputably existent no matter what you may wish to believe. Again, it's as simple as the Libertarian vote exceeding the margin of Biden's win. In the absence of the Libertarian ticket we don't know how that votation would have played out, and certainly not enough to say beyond any kind of reasonable doubt that Libertarians absolutely did not spoil the election in Joe's favour.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Except that the state popular vote isn't the national popular vote.

The national popular vote is obviously irrelevant to the EC, which is what I was pointing out.

Also I'm not sure why you're being so hostile over me pointing out what should be obvious.

First, you made no distinction in your last post.

You asserted “As we should well know by now, the popular vote doesn't matter; it's all about the EC.”

Second, there is no such as “the national popular vote”.

EC votes come the states, they aren’t national votes anymore than the popular votes that decide their allocation.

Jorgensen probably doesn't want to suffer the blame and flak from Trump's loon supporters which is entirely understandable; in general Libertarians such as the Cato Institute want to avoid that sort of unhinged wrath (you should have seen the psychotic things posted regarding her and Libertarians on 4chan and the like).

And at the end of the day, beyond this, and whether or not you believe there was a desire to avoid confrontation with Trumptards, theirs is an individual opinion which likewise lacks any kind of crystal ball. More neutral academics whose opinions I justifiably hold in higher regard have concluded that no one knows what the impact would be, which in and of itself inherently acknowledges the real possibility that Libertarians were spoilers; that possibility being pretty much indisputably existent no matter what you may wish to believe. Again, it's as simple as the Libertarian vote exceeding the margin of Biden's win. In the absence of the Libertarian ticket we don't know how that votation would have played out, and certainly not enough to say beyond any kind of reasonable doubt that Libertarians absolutely did not spoil the election in Joe's favour.

Assuming what Jorgensen thinks to support your preferred narrative, and choosing to believe unnamed “neutral academics” instead of named experts, on record asserting otherwise isn’t exactly the strongest case to stand on.

 

[Surrealistik]

First, you made no distinction in your last post.

You asserted “As we should well know by now, the popular vote doesn't matter; it's all about the EC.”

Second, there is no such as “the national popular vote”.

EC votes come the states, they aren’t national votes anymore than the popular votes that decide their allocation.

I'm not sure why there's such confusion on this.

Given the context, I was clearly referring to the nationwide popular vote; I subsequently chose the word 'national' to clearly distinguish it from the stateside popular vote which of course determines who gets the EC for that state. The point being made is that what matters is the margin within the key swing states, which was of course, quite narrow.

Assuming what Jorgensen thinks to support your preferred narrative, and choosing to believe unnamed “neutral academics” instead of named experts, on record asserting otherwise isn’t exactly the strongest case to stand on.

Amusingly, some of those neutral academics were quoted in the very same piece you linked me to:

Kenneth Mayer, a professor of American politics at the University of Wisconsin, said of Jorgenson: “It’s possible she played a role, but there is no way to know and it doesn’t matter. The results of the election are the results of the election,” he said.

Hell even Boaz from Cato rightfully claims he doesn't know what would have gone down:

“We just don’t know what would have happened if the Libertarians had not run a candidate,” said David Boaz of the Cato Institute, who has authored books on the movement. “Libertarians also get votes of people who just would not bother voting if they didn’t have another choice.”

And all this agitated arguing for what honestly? To defend Biden against the unfortunate reality that his win was underwhelming?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I'm not sure why there's such confusion on this.

The confusion (or misspeaking) is yours. I have been clear and precise in all of my posts.
You’re the person who wrongly asserted -

As we should well know by now, the popular vote doesn't matter; it's all about the EC.

The popular vote is crucial because that is how 48 out of 50 states determine which candidate receives all of their Electoral votes

Except that the state popular vote isn't the national popular vote.

There is no such as “the national vote”.

Given the context, I was clearly referring to the nationwide popular vote;

Actually, you were specifically addressing battleground states. The crux of your argument, from the beginning, has been that Biden’s win could be owed to the Libertarian vote.

You’ve made statements clearly implying that you believe that the Libertarian vote likely did give Biden his win, despite the fact that experts and the candidate, herself, suggest that Libertarians unhappy with Trump were likely to vote for Jorgensen, or not at all.

Regardless of the actual shake out of Libertarian votes in battleground states, Biden’s 4.46% margin of victory (bigger than Trump’s win in 2016 and Obama’s in 2012) over Trump proves that he won the race, not by luck, but because more Americans wanted him to be our next president.

Play whatever scenarios in your head that makes you feel better, Surrealistik. I’ll stick with facts.

 

[Surrealistik]

The confusion (or misspeaking) is yours. I have been clear and precise in all of my posts.
You’re the person who wrongly asserted -

The popular vote is crucial because that is how 48 out of 50 states determine which candidate receives all of their Electoral votes

There is no such as “the national vote”.

Actually, you were specifically addressing battleground states. The crux of your argument, from the beginning, has been that Biden’s win could be owed to the Libertarian vote.

You’ve made statements clearly implying that you believe that the Libertarian vote likely did give Biden his win, despite the fact that experts and the candidate, herself, suggest that Libertarians unhappy with Trump were likely to vote for Jorgensen, or not at all.

Regardless of the actual shake out of Libertarian votes in battleground states, Biden’s 4.46% margin of victory (bigger than Trump’s win in 2016 and Obama’s in 2012) over Trump proves that he won the race, not by luck, but because more Americans wanted him to be our next president.

Play whatever scenarios in your head that makes you feel better, Surrealistik. I’ll stick with facts.

This is getting absolutely ridiculous, and to the point I don't think you're discussing this in good faith, so I think I will end things here.

On my part there is exactly zero confusion; to recap and summarize:

#1: Any references to the popular vote being irrelevant that I made are clearly and obviously a reference to the nation-wide, national, whatever the **** you want to call it, the differential in the overall popular vote where you cited that irrelevant, to the argument being made, 4.46% margin; if you can't, or won't understand this that's on you. Yes, the popular vote specific to the battle ground/swing states is important as that defines who gets what Electoral Votes for the Electoral College; obviously. This has not been disputed whatsoever.

#2: My argument is and has always been that Biden's win was disappointingly narrow and close when we look at A: the context of running against such a disastrously and demonstrably poor president as Trump, B: the margins he won by in the battleground/swing states; emphasizing this is the fact that it was so close that Libertarians, whose votation exceeded that margin, could have potentially been a spoiler; something that is acknowledged by academics that have reviewed the issue when they say that 'no one knows' what would have happened without a Libertarian candidacy.

#3: If you actually look over my prior posts, I never opined as to the actual probability that an absence of the Libertarian candidacy would have won Trump the election beyond the fact that it was a notable possibility; which it absolutely was. Also none of the actual experts in the article you linked actually suggested anything about this probability as well, so much as that rightly, that they don't know what would have happened. This can be clearly seen in the misleadingly headlined article you linked me to.

#4: I never argued that Biden won by luck, nor would I; he won because Trump was so intolerably awful he couldn't help but do so despite his lackluster campaigning and candidacy, but I will absolutely stand by my earlier assertion that if it weren't for COVID, Biden probably, if not almost certainly, would have lost.

In general this all smacks of someone who is so vested in his jersey politics, or his own pride, that he doesn't want to concede the point. It would have been great if Biden had that big landslide we all wanted but it just didn't happen; much to our shared chagrin, and with very unfortunate implications.