Here Are Some More Troubling Questions About the Election Numbers
Nick Arama
redstate.com
Folks on the left and in media have been downplaying or mocking any questions about the legitimacy of the election.
This despite sworn affidavits as to a variety of issues in multiple states.
You would think that media would want to report on some of the allegations. But in large measure, the national media has mostly turned a blind eye, any of the actual affidavits from witnesses. The only coverage has been from conservative or local media.
But the results of the election themselves raise questions.
As I wrote previously, the “red wave” in the House, with 27 toss-up races all going to the Republicans and with Republicans even winning some lean Democrat races, the holding of the Senate and the winning of state legislatures all raised the question of how all that could be happening, yet not giving President Donald Trump a win?
Yet there are more troubling numbers, as the Spectator observes in an article from Patrick Basham, who is similarly very troubled by what the numbers show.
Trump got 11 million more votes than when he won in 2016, receiving more votes than any incumbent running for re-election. Ok, so let’s accord some of that to the additional mail-in nature of this election.
But the president also made gains among minorities, getting from 8 percent of the black vote in 2016 to getting at least 12% in 2020, according to some measures. Normally that much would have doomed Joe Biden’s candidacy.
Trump also gained with 35% of the Hispanic vote nationally. Bellwether states like Florida, Ohio and Iowa went more to Trump than they had in 2016. Usually the Rust Belt states would go with Ohio as they had in 2016. As Basham notes, there have only been one who “lost” the Electoral College after winning those three states since 1852 – Richard Nixon in 1960 but that’s when there was a lot of question about “help” received by John Kennedy.
Moreover while there were spikes in exactly the cities that Biden needed in the critical swing states, there weren’t comparable spikes in comparable cities. Because while Biden supposedly won more votes than anyone in history (despite not being able to get out people to fill his circles in anemic events), he “won a record low of 17 percent of counties; he only won 524 counties, as opposed to the 873 counties Obama won in 2008.” But supposedly had more total votes. What that says is the increase was where it needed to be, not across the board, in what one would have to say was very unusual.
As I’ve written before, the non-polling metrics had all been going to Trump including party registrations trends; the respective primary votes; candidate enthusiasm; social media followings; broadcast and digital media ratings; online searches; the number of (especially small) donors; and the number of individuals betting on each candidate. So you would have to believe that all these historically accurate measures all suddenly were wrong to believe that Trump lost.
Basham also points to a variety of different irregularities that require answers including:
1. Why late on election night did swing states stop counting votes when Trump was way ahead? Why were some observers stopped from getting to viably observe the counting?
2. Unusual vote counts coming in batches of hundreds of thousands with unusually high numbers for Biden.
3. “Historically low absentee ballot rejection rates despite the massive expansion of mail voting.”
4. Witnesses reporting ballots in pristine condition (not folded), missing votes, invalid residential addresses.
5.
In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch. It is particularly perplexing that all statistical anomalies and tabulation abnormalities were in Biden’s favor. Whether the cause was simple human error or nefarious activity, or a combination, clearly something peculiar happened.
There are serious questions here and it’s the folks who just want to shut aside any of the questions who have the issue, not those who want answers. |
