Trump’s seemingly unhinged pounding on election “fraud” looks to most people like bad strategy for getting re-elected. But is it?
Imagine a world in which substantial fraud is someday verified in at least one precinct that flipped from Trump to Biden. Suddenly Jan 6th looks different even if it shouldn’t.
Now ask yourself how likely it is that a vast and sometimes chaotic process such as a national election could have at least one discoverable example of confirmed fraud in one precinct. Maybe 100% odds?
I accept the outcome of the 2020 election. Our imperfect system picked Biden. But Trump’s “bet” that corruption — at any level— is discoverable is not crazy.
Trump doesn’t need to prove in court that enough votes were flipped to cost him the election. He just needs one super-sketchy precinct to sell to the public.
I don’t know if you have noticed, but Trump is good at making the nation focus where he wants you to focus. He can ruin a whole barrel of apples with one bad apple — or one bad precinct.
And for Trump’s bet to make sense, he only has to understand how flawed humans can be in general, and how many of them were involved in managing the elections. He knows people. And he can count.
Don’t be so quick to bet against him for 2024. He’s motivated. He’s pissed. And he placed a better bet than you might think.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Scott Adams

Scott Adams Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ScottAdamsSays

28 Jul
Debunked mask arguments:

- Science says masks don’t work
- Masks only make a tiny difference
- Masks harm people (physically)
- Masks don't block virus
- Masks allow lots of leakage around edges
- People wear/touch masks improperly
- Only N95 masks are good enough
Debunked doesn't mean untrue. For example, science could be wrong about any of these items. I'm just presenting the current scientific opinion so you know if you side with science or not.
In this context, it can be true people wear masks suboptimally and also fuss with them too much. The debunk is that it doesn't make them useless.
Read 4 tweets
11 Apr
The topic of slavery reparations makes everyone run to their political team and get into battle mode. But just for fun, what if we looked at it like a puzzle to solve instead of a fight?
The puzzle is how to make everyone happy at the same time. Seems impossible on the surface. But maybe we are just limiting ourselves in our thinking. Let me see if I can fix that.
Let’s stipulate that any solution that makes one group happy and another group unhappy is not a good enough solution. It has to make everyone happy with both its scale and structure. Impossible?
Read 7 tweets
3 Apr
Here’s a reframe that will change some people’s lives forever: Your mind is the outcome of genetics, traumas and hacks.
If you don’t learn to hack (program) your own brain, the default is that you are little more than genes and traumas.
An example of a brain hack is education. It is a conscious choice to physically alter your brain via learning. Another hack is intelligent skill stacking.
Read 9 tweets
25 Mar
Half the country thinks the Republic will be better off if people without IDs vote. If we had a real press in this country, I'd like to see a politician get pushed to explain the reasoning in some detail.
Is the idea here that people who can't figure out how to get a drivers license or other identification will improve the quality of the electoral decision-making?
And if we are not trying to improve the quality of election decisions, what ARE we trying to accomplish? Do we want to avoid politically disenfranchising people with no IDs? Because I think that's the least of their problems.
Read 4 tweets
21 Feb
Seems a bit of a mystery to me that masks and social distancing completely eliminated normal seasonal flu deaths but not COVID-19.

I see a few possible explanations.
One explanation is that this novel coronavirus is much more catchable by its nature. Maybe. The other explanation is that normal seasonal flu deaths were never real. They are based on excess death estimates, I believe, not counting.
Was our belief in 50K seasonal flu deaths per year in the United States ever substantiated, or is it just a way to sell vaccinations? All I know for sure is that I've never heard of anyone dying of seasonal flu complications, and I've been around awhile.
Read 4 tweets
15 Feb
When you hear someone in the news talking about science, that isn't science. That's someone's interpretation of science, and it has the same level of credibility as a political opinion, which is low.
None of us are "following the science." We are following people who tell us they can accurately interpret science and create rational policy from it. Sometimes they are right. But you and I can't tell in advance which times those people are right. We only imagine we can.
Are the people interpreting science for us usually right, usually wrong, or something closer to a coin toss? You and I have no idea.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!