[dragonwriter]

> For the most recent presidential election maybe.

Yes, that’s generally what “believe the election was stolen” without further qualification means; its not a reference to the total sum of people who believe at least one election in the history of the US was stolen.

> For the previous one a majority of Democrats including high ranking Democrat politicians and officials were election deniers.

No, they weren’t.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/more-republicans-distru...

A large percentage of Democrats believe Russian interference and other improper interference influenced the election results, but that’s different than thinking the actual vote was rigged or invalid.

[throwawaylinux]

Yes they were a huge number of election deniers for the 2016 election and a vast amount of irresponsible rheotoric around it that was very dangerous to democracy. Don't try to gaslight on this one. A lot of uneducated morons and delusional conspiracy theorists thought "Trump colluded with Putin to hack the election", fueled by dangerous and irresponsible rhetoric from certain anti-democratic election denier politicians and media corporations.

[dragonwriter]

> a huge number of election deniers for the 2016 election

[citation needed]

[throwawaylinux]

No it isn't.

[dragonwriter]

Well, since you are just lying, I can see why a demand for evidence is inconvenient.

[epylar]

How many election deniers?

[throwawaylinux]

A large majority of Democrat voters fell for these baseless and dangerous election-denial conspiracy theories. Why do you ask?

https://twitter.com/peterjhasson/status/1064259048902668289

[dragonwriter]

The one question you present evidence of is not questioning the legitimacy and validity of the election; there is a difference between believing (rightly or wrongly, with or without sufficient cause) that improper activity effected the popular vote tally and believing that the election is illegitimate.

You present no evidence relating to actual election denial.