Wtf do you mean "finally"?

That was my position from the start, stop taking the piss. Your position was anyone questioning the possibility of shenanigans was "delusional" , which was my objection. You are getting a bad habit of making silly assertions then insulting people who disagree so I called you on it. Now you have degenerated to making false attributions. Its unsightly.

If you think your CA reference wasnt a false analogy, you need to rethink.

Since your grasp of the obvious is apparently weak, I will explain it for you.

There are two key points that you are ignoring

1) Absolute number of votes that would need meddled with. It doesnt matter if its 5 states or 1 state, this is the most important number in this discussion. Provided that is, all states had sufficient number of vulnerable points.


2) public acceptance. Obviously the whole world would go "wtf?" if CA voted GOP. It would be pretty hard to swallow, especially since even the most right wing polling data never gave GOP a shot at CA. Other states were too close to call. On top of that, while I have not bothered to look - I would wager plenty of real money that the CA spread was far far higher than 300k.

I think this demonstrates many things - namely that you have a very difficult time determining what data is actually important in regards to analyzing a particular problem. Suddenly it becomes clear how you arrive at some of your other various conclusions.

For who could be free when every other man's humour might domineer over him? - John Locke (2nd Treatise, sect 57)