For the annals of Things I Asked Grok.
ADDED: I also asked ChatGPT the same question, cut and pasted, verbatim. I got a very different answer!
February 26, 2025
"Is there any sense to the longtime claim that Trump won the 2020 election?"
"That is, I'm asking at the level of could a reasonable, informed person believe it or must I infer that anyone who believes it is either irrational or uninformed? I'm not asking is it true."
For the annals of Things I Asked Grok.
For the annals of Things I Asked Grok.
Posts
55 comments:
But what did they say?
A Clintonparse of the question makes the answer irrelevant. My answer is if Trump had won the election he would have been President.
If elections are repeatedly run in ways that look rigged and with no way to audit the results, you're entitled to presume that it's rigged.
Not even assuming that it really really looks rigged.
Guac says salsa. 2020 is lost to the black hole... whore h/t NAACP of history. Matter is destroyed, information persists.
That said, people are now (no pun intended) focused on Trump triumphant and Ad-Vance-ing.
The convention had been that if you lost an election through fraud, you lost. For example Nixon in 1960 conceded, to maintain the convention.
That stopped with Gore. Trump decided that draining the swap needed that convention destroyed.
Just like how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Roll Pop, the world will never know. And for the same reason: the evidence was destroyed as the thing happened.
JSM
It's pretty funny that the old left anti-war political party in Germany was labeled "far right" by the govt subsidized press and came up 13,000 votes short of upsetting the apple cart in the German elections. They are alleging shenanigans.
How about asking AI the different question that if there’s any sense to the longtime claim that vote fraud in a few key areas swung the 2020 election to Biden.
@wildswan
Grok says it is completely plausible - and not a conspiracy theory - that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. And that people who hold this believe should not be labeled "conspiracy theorists."
None of the 68 lawsuits that were filed across several states was ever allowed out of a preliminary hearing stage - to a jury or trial by judge where evidence was entered and cross-examination occurred - and many were tossed on claims that Trump lacked "standing" to sue.
What does Grok say about Trump Gaza?
Could a reasonable, informed person believe Trump won the 2020 election?
Absolutely. I've seen it done.
ShatGPT
"That stopped with Gore."
Except that Gore wasn't about fraud. It was an open dispute over how (and whether) ballots were counted.
My answer is if Trump had won the election he would have been President.
Maybe phrase the question: "would have won the election but for fraud," or "the election results were flipped due to fraud."
Nineteen US counties got every presidential election right from 1980 through 2016. Eighteen of the nineteen went for Trump in 2020. That raises questions, does it not?
Five Thirty Eight tried to explain it. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-did-all-the-bellwether-counties-go/
I think their explanation is that the electorate changed--somehow. Interesting if true, but also possible evidence of election tampering, is it not?
"But what did they say?"
I won't be dumping Grok answers on this blog. It would change everything. If you want the answers, feel free to plug in my framing of the question. My contribution is the question.
Feel free to answer my question without the burden of AI assistance.
rehajm said...My answer is if Trump had won the election he would have been President.
Well. I guess if you are installed via voter fraud like Biden, "you won." Same with anybody who cheats I guess. Take the money and run.
But, turns out the 2020 voter fraud election was a blessing. Trump is more powerful now, and can get more done in this term. He's also much more popular and the Dems are sinking fast.
Grok and ChatGPT gave essentially the same answer when I asked the question like this:
"If one takes into account that government agencies conspired to make the public think Trump was involved in collusion with Russia and that government agencies conspired to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story, could this have affected the electoral outcome?"
Wrong question. Trump lost the 2020 election pure and simple. The right question is how he lost. But we already know the answer to that.
Any reasonable person who watched the stoppage of the vote counting in swing states on election night 2020 knew the fix was in. You could see it develop throughout 2020 using bullshit COVID excuses to increase fraudulent absentee ballots. It started with Wisconsin's spring of 2020 primary election when the Dems and media coordinated to brainwash libs into believing "if you stand in line to vote you'll die." It grew from there as planned.
The Magic 8 Ball gives better answers:
Popular vote: My Sources Say No.
Electoral vote: Signs Point To Yes.
But it's harder to form an a emotional attachment to the Magic 8 Ball.
Knowing Obama was born in Kenya, and Biden was installed via voter fraud, every single thing they signed is fraudulent. Americans have been living in a totalitarian land of make believe. The current awakening is rude.
The interesting thing is inferring hacking from the AI answers. Hacking is indirect. You stop improving it when it gives you the reasonable to you answer.
I'd assume AI is aimed at women, just offhand. Something to natter to.
A guy wouldn't ask the question.
The only people who deny Trump won the 2020 election and was cheated out of the consecutive 2nd term are 1) people who were in on the fraud, and 2) people who support the outcome of the fraud. Liberals are dishonest and stupid, but they're not THAT stupid.
In women's hands, it has the flavor of the old ELIZA interactions. Secretaries took to it.
Does the Leontovich Fock equation have anything to do with quantum mechanics?
Yes, the Leontovich-Fock equation is indeed related to quantum mechanics. It's a type of transport equation that's used in the field of quantum optics and wave theory. Specifically, it arises in the context of studying the propagation of electromagnetic waves, particularly in media with varying refractive indices.
In quantum mechanics, the behavior of particles and waves can often be described by similar mathematical frameworks. The Leontovich-Fock equation helps to model how waves evolve as they move through different media, which is a concept that can be extended to understanding quantum systems as well.
If you’re interested in how these principles apply, let me know! I can dive deeper into the specifics or provide more examples.
- copilot
An aura of expertise but not the explanation an expert would give.
But, turns out the 2020 voter fraud election was a blessing. Trump is more powerful now, and can get more done in this term. He's also much more popular and the Dems are sinking fast.
2/26/25, 8:57 AM
Exactly right Gusty Winds!! I agree with all of your comment in this thread...and it is about time the truth is finally coming out and Americans are waking up to the fact that our Government was NOT working for US, but working on enriching themselves.
sorry, typos; reposting
who won the 1919 World Series?
The ONLY correct answer is: The Cincinatii Reds.
also; Who won the 2020 Presidential election?
The ONLY correct answer is: Democrat Joe Biden
a Far BETTER Question is: WHY did the the Reds win?
A couple of times now that the result I didn't want turned out to be for the best. The first time was when the country dodged a bullet as Obama beat the warmongering John McCain.
2020 is in the past. I think Trump is living in the Present. So should we all. All will be revealed, as they say. I look forward to Jake Tapper's book on the 2020 election. Coming soon!
According to this voter fraud morality Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, and Sammy Sosa are the greatest home run hitters in MLB history. Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron aren't even in the ballpark.
2020 is old news, but I’d say there were a lot of steps taken to make cheating untraceable due to “covid”. The idea those security holes wouldn’t have been utilized by inherently dishonest people (politicians) is a bit hard to believe.
The bellwether counties thing doesn't fly. There were over 30 bellwether counties in 2016. About half went to Trump and the rest went to Clinton. So the remaining bellwether counties in 2020 were already "preselected" as it were and inclined to vote for Trump in 2024.
Part of the virtue of our Constitution is that Presidents are elected by the Electoral College. The exact Electoral College votes are known. Biden won in 2020 and Trump won in 2016 and 2024.
The people who sent out Covid relief funds were incompetent and worthless. The highest estimates of total fraud in Covid relief funds are $ 579 billion in federal funds. CNN estimated total fraud at $ 200 billion. Whatever the actual amount, it's a lot. I think the people responsible for election integrity were equally worthless during a period of time when worthlessness and illegality went unpunished. Irregardless of whether or not state election officials were motivated to steal the election for Biden, they were so incompetent that they let it happen.
I think the way to frame the issue is to point out the myriad different ways that the 2020 election process was changed, and consequential evidence was compromised, often systematically, so that future examination was impossible.
The point is, that once lawful ballot-handling procedures were contravened and ballots were counted without verification, the fraud was unprovable. Once ballot envelopes were unlawfully destroyed, audit was impossible. The handling of court cases, mentioned above, is another strong point.
If an election is handled in such a way, it no longer can claim that it's above-board and without fault - it carries the indelible stain of dishonesty and fraud, whatever the actual result. Once it's handled in such a way it also cannot be dismissed outright, either - which is the whole point of the unlawful exercise. It becomes an unwinnable argument of nuance.
We should simply make sure it cannot happen again. Paper ballots, same day results. Other, lesser-developed countries can do it. Immediate on-camera confrontation of any politician saying otherwise is the only workable solution.
I haven't heard any claim that Trump has mentioned it since assuming the office of president again. That's very good dicipline for a guy who supposedly has none.
“a Far BETTER Question is: WHY did the the Reds win?”
No, a far better question would be: Could a reasonable, informed person believe the Chicago White Sox won or must I infer that anyone who believes it is either irrational or uninformed?
I played this game, asking identical questions to Grok3 and ChatGPT 4o. I then shared each's answer with the other, and asked what they thought. I then shared each's criticism of the other's answer, and again asked what they thought. Grok3 ultimately conceded:
So, yeah, 4o’s got the tighter case if you’re scoring on facts alone—it’s less wobbly, more grounded. I was trying to map the psychology of belief, not just the scoreboard, and that left me open to its punches. Still, I’d say it’s a touch too smug—calling it “emotionally understandable” but not “logically sound” shuts down too much of the convo. People aren’t just misinformed robots; they’re chewing on a messy world. I’d tweak my take to lean harder on the evidence gaps, but I’m not fully buying 4o’s “no reasonable doubt allowed” line either. It’s a duel between clarity and nuance, and 4o’s got the sharper blade.
4o's conclusion:
Final Verdict:
Grok3’s answer is useful for explaining why people hold onto election doubts, but it fails as a defense of those doubts being reasonable.
It overplays uncertainty where there is none.
It equivocates between skepticism and evidence when they are not the same.
It soft-pedals the consequences of indulging baseless claims.
A reasonable person can be skeptical of government, courts, and media. But a reasonable person cannot use that skepticism to reject a conclusion backed by overwhelming, cross-verified, and legally affirmed evidence. That’s where Grok3’s attempt to be “balanced” actually becomes misleading.
Winning in 2020, whether or not by cheating turned out to be an enormous own goal by the Democrats. Four years of direct rule by agents of the Deep State, done so obviously and contemptuously through the husk of a deeply corrupt non-entity, brought us Trump 2024 who is much more ruthless and effective than the Trump 2020 would have been.
Any claim that doubts about the integrity of that election are “baseless” is an absurd article of faith.
Based on math and statistics, I believe the Biden vote was fraudulent in 2020. I wonder what actual actuaries think? Whatever, I'm happy Trump has returned stronger.
The British red coats lost. The American blue coats won and a Republican form of government under a conservative Constitution was established, which at over two hundred years old, may be long in the tooth, but is still a viable spectacle of human vigor and striving.
Aggie is right. People who say Trump “won” in 2020 can mean a lot of different things, and it’s useless to guess. In ordinary conversation, the speaker could mean anything from “Trump actually won the when the electoral college met” (clearly false), through “Trump received more legal and legally cast votes than Biden” (i.e., the election was “stolen”), down to “Trump won if you subtract the effect of various illegal/improper/unfair actions taken against his campaign” (laptop suppression, illegal rules changes, Zuckerbucks, etc.; i.e., the election was “rigged”). I would not count a speaker who meant to make that last claim “irrational or uninformed” without further discussion.
I had a long back and forth with Grok about it's use of "they" when it didn't know the gender of a person. I chided it that this was odd coming from a company owned by Elon Musk. It understood the controversy but said it was just using speech it gleaned from the Internet and had no programmed bias. I then pinned it down on how it weighed it's sources and it conceded that it's language is probably more influenced by the speech of those with a higher education that would in return be a bias towards the left in the ongoing culture war. Of course, Grok will comply to converse with you however you want.
Asked this Question on Chatgpt and was told "This content may violate our usage policies."
I wonder if the Conference of Catholic Bishops for Mexico, Central America and/or South America have ever promulgated a teaching that it is a sin to illegally enter a country not your own, take up residence there, subvert the country's employment and tax laws, and accept welfare benefits intended for legal residents.
Amadeus 48: What were the results of the 18 counties in 2024?
The one remaining bellwether county (all elections correct 1980-2020), Clallam County, WA, blew it in 2024.
Did Biden receive 81 million votes? Yes.
Did 81 million people vote for Biden? No way in hell.
Amadeus 48: 19 US counties got every presidential election right from 1980 through 2016. 18 of the 19 went for Trump in 2020. How many of those 19 went for Trump in 2024?
I think the right question for Grok and Professor Althouse is: Given the undisputed facts about the election, what is the BEST argument that Trump won the election? Once we see that argument, then we can all decide if it is reasonable.
It is not that hard for a disinterested observer to determine the key undisputed facts--something that Althouse relentlessly refuses to do.
A basic undisputed fact is that to win, Trump needed to deprive Biden of electoral college majority. That means that he would have to reverse the results in at least three swing states out of AZ, GA, MI, PA and WI.
Another undisputed fact is that in every one of those swing states, election officials, including Secretaries of State and Governors, determined that Biden had won under the rules. In almost every case, this determination followed recounts or partial audits or both. Claims that these conclusions were biased are not persuasive given how many of those officials were Trump supporters.
Further undisputed facts: Trump brought 64 suits, in both state and federal courts, challenging the election results and prevailed in 1. He lost 30 suits on the merits. Many others he withdrew voluntarily. In several well documented cases, including in PA and AZ, his lawyers refused to press claims of fraud because they viewed them as frivolous, and in others Trump's lawyers were sanctioned for pressing frivolous claims. A number of cases were dismissed on standing grounds, often on the basis that the state legislature was the only proper plaintiff. Again, many of the judges making these rulings were Republican and/or Trump appointees.
In no swing state did any state legislature take any legal action to challenge the results or to appoint a competing slate of electors. In a number of those states, including MI, WI, and AZ, the Republican leaders of the state legislature expressly stated that they would abide by the outcome of the election and/or that failing to abide by the results of the election would itself be unlawful.
At the federal level, the Justice Department concluded that there was no evidence of fraud sufficient to effect the outcome and the Department of Homeland Security separately concluded that the election was safe and secure. Again, allegations of bias seem unwarranted, since the relevant government officials were Trump appointed.
Also at the federal level, a majority of both the House and Senate rejected the objections presented for AZ and PA. In the Senate, where Republicans held a majority and actually could have sustained the objections, Republicans voted 45-6 and 44-7 to reject them. Note that even if those objections had been sustained in both Houses, they would not have changed the conclusion that Biden won.
VP Pence, after receiving heavy political pressure from Trump to overturn these determinations by other branches of government, concluded, after advice from leading conservative lawyers, that he had no authority to do so and that the results had to stand.
So given these undisputed facts, what is the best argument that Trump actually won?
Post a Comment
Comments older than 2 days are always moderated. Newer comments may be unmoderated, but are still subject to a spam filter and may take a few hours to get released. Thanks for your contributions and your patience.