<img src="https://trc.taboola.com/1320069/log/3/unip?en=page_view" width="0" height="0" style="display:none">

Analysts Believe the 2020 Election Is NOT Adding Up!

Posted by Steve Turley ● Dec 1, 2020 10:27:51 AM

“Aren’t you just being a sore loser?” taunted the left-wing activist disguised as journalist Jim Acosta of CNN at a White House press briefing. Acosta’s, well, accosting is indicative of a dismissive mainstream media that found supposedly insurmountable evidence for a Russian collusion hoax but can’t seem to recognize a single instance of fraud in the 2020 election. But this dismissiveness is itself unjustified. That’s not merely my opinion; it’s the assessment of a number of highly reputable poll analysts who regard the radical anomalies in this election as highly suspicious. For example, analyst Patrick Basham of the Democracy Institute has recently written a very helpful piece entitled ‘Reasons why the 2020 election is deeply puzzling’ that lays out precisely what analysts find so perplexing.

First and foremost, consider how well President Trump actually did on November 3rd. Trump received more votes than any previous incumbent seeking reelection ever. That in and of itself shatters the mainstream media-driven narrative that voters despised and rejected President Trump, or even Ann Coulter’s notion that voters wanted Trumpism without Trump. If that’s true, then why did he receive more votes than any previous incumbent president seeking reelection, including President’s that voters loved, like Ronald Reagan?

How do you explain the fact that Trump got 11 million more votes in 2020 than in 2016, which represents the third largest rise in support ever for an incumbent? By way of comparison, President Obama easily won reelection in 2012 with 3.5 million fewer votes than he received in 2008. 95 percent of Republicans voted for Trump, and he once again won white working-class rural males, who have traditionally voted Democrat in every presidential election since the 1980s.

The voters-despised-Trump narrative further implodes with Basham’s observation that Trump earned the highest share of all minority votes for a Republican since 1960. Trump grew his support among black voters by 50 percent over 2016, and he increased his share of the Latino vote to 35 percent; Floridian Cubans in particular gave Trump over 70 percent of their vote.

But of course, this is trivial to the much more significant question: how did someone who did so well lose?

Well, again, if we look at the data, it doesn’t add up! For example, Trump won Florida, Ohio and Iowa in a blowout. And yet, since 1852, only Richard Nixon has lost the Electoral College after winning this trio, and that 1960 defeat to John F. Kennedy of course was the last time a presidential election was stolen. Further, since 1860, the winner of both Florida and Ohio has won 26 of 27 presidential elections, again, the sole exception being 1960.

Midwestern states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin always swing in the same direction as Ohio and Iowa, their regional peers. That doesn’t mean that the candidate who wins Ohio always wins Pennsylvania; what it does mean is that Pennsylvania will be closer for that candidate if he or she won Ohio. It’s similar to Ohio’s relationship to Florida; he who wins Florida, will generally win Ohio, or at least the support will move in that candidate’s direction. But that’s not what happened in 2020; Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin moved away from Ohio and Florida!

But these 2020 anomalies get even stranger. As Basham points out, Biden ‘won’ these states – Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania – not because the exurbs and suburbs turned their backs on Trump; instead, Biden ‘leads’ these states solely because of an avalanche of votes coming from Detroit, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee that nobody can quite account for. According to pollster Richard Barris, Biden underperformed in every single municipality in comparison with the 2016 election, for the exception of Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia, and Atlanta, coincidently, the very states needed to win the election!

Moreover, Biden didn’t merely overperform in these four municipalities; he super-performed in these four municipalities in a manner completely inconsistent with how he performed in any other municipality! Biden won a record low of only 17 percent of counties; he only won 524 counties, as opposed to the 873 counties Obama won in 2008. Yet, Biden somehow outperformed Obama in the total number of votes. Moreover, Trump won 16 of the 17 bellwether counties that have determined the winner of every general election since 1984, and he won them by an average of 16 points!

Furthermore, these votes that seemed to rain down from heaven for Joe Biden are themselves highly suspect. For example, while the state of Georgia’s rejection rate of mail-in ballots in 2016 was 3 percent, in 2020 it was only 0.24 percent, even though the level of ballots was 6 times larger! At least 39,000 ballots should have been rejected for all kinds of reasons, which would easily give the state to Trump. Pennsylvania was even worse: only 0.03 percent of mail-in ballots were rejected. In Montgomery County, according Newsmax’s Steve Cortez, there is no record of a single mail-in ballot having been rejected! The obvious conclusion is that these votes were simply not vetted as required by law.

Even more suspicious was the manner in which many of these votes were recorded. Immediately after Fox News irresponsibly and impulsively called Arizona for Biden, many swing states inexplicably announced that they would cease counting ballots until the next day. Though Trump was in the lead in all of these swing states by hundreds of thousands of votes, the following day saw that lead evaporate once counting resumed, because election officials in these swing states suddenly ‘discovered’ radically anomalous ballot dumps with 95 percent support for Biden. In Montgomery County, PA, one ballot dump even contained an inordinate amount of support for the Libertarian candidate, making Montgomery County inexplicably the most Libertarian county in the nation!

And note how Biden’s victory didn’t translate down-ticket; Republicans not only held the Senate, but they enjoyed a ‘red wave’ in the House, where they reduced the Democrat majority to the lowest margin in several decades by winning all 27 toss-up contests. Basham notes that the Republicans didn’t lose a single state legislature and actually made gains at the state level.

Another anomaly is found in what are called non-polling metrics. For example, no incumbent has ever lost the general election after receiving 75 percent or more of the votes from their party in the primaries, and President Donald Trump received 94 percent of all votes cast in the 2020 Republican primaries, far exceeding Biden’s primary vote percentage of 50 percent. Indeed, as Helmut Norpoth of Stony Brook University has observed, a sitting president with a superior performance in the primaries compared to the opponent has never lost. That’s why Norpoth – who has developed the single most accurate election forecast model which has predicted rightly 25 of the last 27 elections, going back all the way to 1912 – gave Trump a 91 percent chance of winning reelection, with over 360 electoral votes!

And so, all of these irregularities have given pause to a number of poll analysts who are highly suspicious of the election results, a suspicion that at the very least warrants a careful audit of the vote in all swing states. Many are confident, as am I, that if such an audit were conducted, it would be leftist activists like CNN’s Jim Acosta that would end up the sore losers.

 

Learn More: Podcast Sponsorship