Pollster Compiles “Troubling Questions” About The Election While Mainstream Media Maintains Fraud Is A Moot Point

antitox

Well-Known Member
OPINION | This article contains political commentary which reflects the author's opinion.

by Natalie Argyle

A pollster with a noteworthy track record and director of the Democracy Institute in D.C., Patrick Basham, seems to have taken issue with the general dismissal by the mainstream media of the inconsistencies and irregularities that were rampant in this election. And people are appreciating his streamlined compilation of those oddities.

Newt Gingrich
@newtgingrich
Every Republican state legislator should read Patrick Basham’s analysis https://spectator.us/reasons-why-the-2020-presidential-election-is-deeply-puzzling/
and demand an oversight committee to review their state’s vote. Basham makes clear the election was almost certainly stolen in 5 states. Every American should be worried by the theft.

Kyle Becker
@kylenabecker
READ THIS: "I am a pollster and I find this election to be deeply puzzling."
1. "President Trump received more votes than any previous incumbent seeking reelection. He got 11 million more votes than in 2016, the third largest rise in support ever for an incumbent." [Thread 1/13]

Nathan Lands
@NathanLands
This article is the best summary I've seen about the fraudelent 2020 election. In this thread, I'll summarize the article. Please read and share.

Initially, the mainstream media said there was “no evidence of voter fraud.” None at all.

Daniel Dale
@ddale8
Nope. No proof of voter fraud to date, and certainly no proof of "state election fraud."
Note: there are often a handful of people charged post-election for voter fraud; it happens. The point is that it is very uncommon, a microscopic fraction of votes cast.

Then they were presented with clear evidence of voter fraud, like dead people voting.

They realized they could no longer say there was NO evidence of voter fraud, so they switched their narrative to “no evidence of WIDESPREAD voter fraud,” silently conceding that there was some voter fraud, it just wasn’t widespread.

Now, after hearings across the country, most notably an entire day in an Arizona court that was full of firsthand testimony of widespread voter fraud, the media powers-that-be realized they also can’t really say “no evidence of widespread voter fraud.”

RSBN

@RSBNetwork
Watch Live: Arizona State Legislature Hearing on Election Fraud

So their new narrative is that while there may have been fraud, and it may have even been widespread, there is no evidence that the widespread voter fraud “changed the result” of the election.

Lesta Nediam
@LestaNediam
CNN began by saying there was no evidence of widespread voter fraud, but now they say there's no evidence it changed the election's outcome!

Oh, I see. So since Joe Biden still appears to be the presumptive President-elect, which is what you wanted, then widespread voter fraud isn’t really a big deal and we don’t need to look into it.

Well, I disagree. I believe that even if the lawsuits, inquiries, and audits don’t yield the result I hope for (a second Trump term), they should still be thoroughly investigated to prevent the same issues from happening in future elections. If they don’t get investigated this time, perpetrators will be emboldened next time, and then the time after that, and eventually it WILL affect the outcome of the election, if it hasn’t already.

So what are some of the strange things that warrant a second look? Scholar, author, and pollster Patrick Basham compiled a number of oddities from this election. While none of these individually seem to be sufficient to overturn any election results, they should certainly raise some eyebrows. Here are some interesting bullet points from his article:

A pollster with a noteworthy track record and director of the Democracy Institute in D.C., Patrick Basham, seems to have taken issue with the general dismissal by the mainstream media of the inconsistencies and irregularities that were rampant in this election. And people are appreciating his streamlined compilation of those oddities.

Initially, the mainstream media said there was “no evidence of voter fraud.” None at all.

Then they were presented with clear evidence of voter fraud, like dead people voting.

They realized they could no longer say there was NO evidence of voter fraud, so they switched their narrative to “no evidence of WIDESPREAD voter fraud,” silently conceding that there was some voter fraud, it just wasn’t widespread.

Now, after hearings across the country, most notably an entire day in an Arizona court that was full of firsthand testimony of widespread voter fraud, the media powers-that-be realized they also can’t really say “no evidence of widespread voter fraud.”

So their new narrative is that while there may have been fraud, and it may have even been widespread, there is no evidence that the widespread voter fraud “changed the result” of the election.

Oh, I see. So since Joe Biden still appears to be the presumptive President-elect, which is what you wanted, then widespread voter fraud isn’t really a big deal and we don’t need to look into it.

Well, I disagree. I believe that even if the lawsuits, inquiries, and audits don’t yield the result I hope for (a second Trump term), they should still be thoroughly investigated to prevent the same issues from happening in future elections. If they don’t get investigated this time, perpetrators will be emboldened next time, and then the time after that, and eventually it WILL affect the outcome of the election, if it hasn’t already.

So what are some of the strange things that warrant a second look? Scholar, author, and pollster Patrick Basham compiled a number of oddities from this election. While none of these individually seem to be sufficient to overturn any election results, they should certainly raise some eyebrows. Here are some interesting bullet points from his article:


“President Trump received more votes than any previous incumbent seeking reelection. He got 11 million more votes than in 2016, the third largest rise in support ever for an incumbent. By way of comparison, President Obama was comfortably reelected in 2012 with 3.5 million fewer votes than he received in 2008.”
According to exit polls, “ninety-five percent of Republicans voted for him.”
“Trump grew his support among black voters by 50 percent over 2016. Nationally, Joe Biden’s black support fell well below 90 percent, the level below which Democratic presidential candidates usually lose.”
Trump did very well with the Hispanic vote, increasing to 35%. “With 60 percent or less of the national Hispanic vote, it is arithmetically impossible for a Democratic presidential candidate to win Florida, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico.”
A “bellwether” is an indicator of trends. Based on past voting trends, bellwether states indicate a likely outcome. “Bellwether states swung further in Trump’s direction than in 2016. Florida, Ohio and Iowa each defied America’s media polls with huge wins for Trump. Since 1852, only Richard Nixon has lost the Electoral College after winning this trio.”
Bellwether counties were also an anomaly. The Wall Street Journal explained the voting pattern of these bellwether counties: “From 1980 through 2016, 19 of the nation’s more than 3,000 counties voted for the eventual president in every election. Only one of them, Washington state’s Clallam County, backed President-elect Joe Biden last week.” Biden won only one bellwether county by only 3 points while Trump won the other 18 by an average of more than 16 points. Hmm.

Rob Schmitt
@SchmittNYC
“Amazingly, Biden managed to secure victory while also losing in almost every bellwether county across the country. No presidential candidate has been capable of such electoral jujitsu until now.”

“Midwestern states Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin always swing in the same direction as Ohio and Iowa, their regional peers. Ohio likewise swings with Florida. Current tallies show that, outside of a few cities, the Rust Belt swung in Trump’s direction. Yet, Biden leads in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin because of an apparent avalanche of black votes in Detroit, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee.”
The margin by which Biden is winning in midwestern states “was derived almost entirely from [black] voters” in big cities like Detroit, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee. “Coincidentally his black vote spiked only in exactly the locations necessary to secure victory. He did not receive comparable levels of support among comparable demographic groups in comparable states, which is highly unusual for the presidential victor.”

Above The Fold Headlines
@FletchTalaya
Nov 4, 2020
Replying to @JennaEllisEsq
There is zero evidence of voter fraud.
Zero evidence.
Zero.

President Elect - Jeff Pullen

@TheJeffPullen
So Trump got better numbers among blacks all across the country except in Philadelphia, Minneapolis, Milwaukee & Detroit where Biden's black support beat him 99 to 1 and beat Obama's 08' turnout, but that's totally normal...

Biden apparently won more national votes than any presidential candidate in history with about 80 million votes. He shattered Obama’s record of 73,890,000. Which is interesting considering that he only won 17% of counties in the country. Biden “only won 524 counties, as opposed to the 873 counties Obama won in 2008.”
Another anomaly is the crushing losses down ballot for Democrats. Usually, victorious presidential challengers (as opposed to incumbents) see sweeping victories down ballot at the state and local level. But in this case, “Republicans held the Senate and enjoyed a ‘red wave’ in the House, where they gained a large number of seats while winning all 27 toss-up contests. Trump’s party did not lose a single state legislature and actually made gains at the state level.” The American people clearly rejected the message of the Democratic Party despite apparently embracing it overwhelmingly at the Presidential level.
Another interesting aspect of this election was the comparison between official polls and non-polling metrics. Such metrics include trends in party registration; candidates’ primary votes respectively; candidate enthusiasm; social media presence and influence; broadcast and digital media ratings; online searches; number and size of donors; and betting trends. While the pollsters have made fools of themselves recently, their record is about 80% correct in recent decades. Non-polling metrics, however, are spectacularly accurate, and overwhelmingly indicated a Trump victory. “For Trump to lose this election, the mainstream polls needed to be correct, which they were not. Furthermore, for Trump to lose, not only did one or more of these metrics have to be wrong for the first time ever, but every single one had to be wrong, and at the very same time; not an impossible outcome, but extremely unlikely nonetheless.”
On the night of the election, many states simply stopped counting. They just shut it down and told people to come back the next day. Except then they kept counting in the middle of the night and the next morning, Biden had miraculously overcome massive and statistically improbably deficits. “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.”

President Elect Kraken - Education Is Key
@PoetryPatriot
Important to Remember:
What the Vote Totals looked like in Key States before they STOPPED COUNTING on Election Night.

Mindy Robinson

@iheartmindy
Eye witness testimony of huge boxes of Biden ballots being delivered with no chain of legal custody at 3:30AM election night in Detroit....you know, after they “stopped counting.”
So how much widespread fraud is it going to take for the media to admit there’s widespread fraud?

Historically, a certain percentage of absentee ballots are rejected each election due to ineligible voters, errors and improper markings on the ballot, signature differences, misplaced addresses, and other mistakes. Newsmax covered this particular irregularity by comparing ballot rejection percentages from the 2016 election and this election. “Despite massive warnings about mail-in ballot rejection rates being around 1% historically, 3% for first-time absentee ballot voters and as high as 6.5% in some states, the rejection rates in 2020 contested states like Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Nevada were “strikingly” low, according to U.S. data (2016 from a congressional report and 2020 from the U.S. Elections Project run by the University of Florida).

-Georgia: 6.5% rejections in 2016 to a mere 0.2%, more than 30 times lower.

-Pennsylvania: 1% in 2016 to 0.03% this year.

-Nevada: 1.6% in 2016 to around 0.75% this year.

-Michigan: 0.5% in 2016 to 0.1% this year.

-North Carolina: 2.7% in 2016 to 0.8% this year.”

To read more:
https://www.chicksonright.com/blog/...stream-media-maintains-fraud-is-a-moot-point/
 
Top