A Statistical Case for Fraud
A senior Trump adviser shows why Biden’s vote totals simply don’t pass the giggle test.
Many of us need no persuading. We already know in our bones that the Democrats stole this election from Donald Trump. Others, though, still need convincing. This article is for you.
One of the points we’ve been making is about the utter improbability of all these votes for Joe Biden. This, after all, is the guy who couldn’t draw flies to a rally, but who has so far racked up a lot more population-adjusted votes than the then-record 69 million that young, dynamic Barack Obama got in his once-in-a-lifetime 2008 campaign. We also mentioned the many tens of thousands of “Biden-only” ballots we’re seeing in key states — ballots that appear to have been hastily filled out with no regard whatsoever to high-profile state and local races. And, of course, we noted that President Trump has received more votes — many millions more votes — than all but one candidate in the history of the Republic: an uninspiring, gaffe-prone, 77-year-old career politician named Joe Biden and his now 77 million votes.
It just doesn’t pass the giggle test, does it?
Steve Cortes clearly doesn’t think so. The senior Trump campaign adviser and self-described Voice of the Deplorables has put together a brief, plain-as-day statistical case for the unlikelihood of Biden’s media-declared victory — a case that, in his words, “provides more than enough reasonable suspicion to require hand recounts and immediate investigation into fraudulent activities, including the new damning revelations of on-the-record whistleblowers.”
Turnout in the crucial swing state of Wisconsin, Cortes notes, was above 90% for registered voters, and it was 84% in Wisconsin’s most populous city, Milwaukee, which gave Biden 145,916 more votes than it did Trump. Cortes compares Milwaukee turnout to that of a very similar Midwestern city with a very similar racial composition, Cleveland, which had a far more believable 51% turnout rate.
What are the odds?
As for Biden cleaning young Barack’s electoral clock, “Could a candidate as doddering and lazy as Biden really have massively outpaced the vote totals of a politician who boasted rock star appeal?” Cortes asks. “For example, consider that in key Pennsylvania counties of Chester, Cumberland, and Montgomery, Biden bested the Obama election performances by factors of 1.24-1.43 times.” (No, population growth doesn’t explain the gains.) But such eye-popping numbers in just the right places?
And how to explain all those “Biden-only” ballots, reportedly more than 450,000 of them nationwide? Is it really plausible that so many folks would be civic-minded enough to vote but would ignore closely contested Senate, House, and local races and initiatives down ballot? And that this odd behavior would be confined mostly to key battleground states? As Cortes writes, “President Trump’s vote total [in Georgia] almost exactly tracked the vote totals for the Republican senate candidates, separated by merely 818 votes out of 2.43 million votes Trump earned there. But, Joe Biden saw an astounding surplus of 95,801 votes over the Democratic Senate candidates.”
Finally, people on both sides of the political spectrum agree that mail-in ballots are far more likely to result in fraud than in-person voting. And yet in critical Pennsylvania, the rejection of just 0.03% of mail-in ballots represents a refusal rate that is just 1/30th the level of 2016 in Pennsylvania and 1/700th the rate of the 21% of mail-in ballots rejected in New York state this past summer. Why, it’s as if the election officials in Democrat-controlled Pennsylvania just knew all those mail-in votes would help their guy.
The bottom line? There’s a whole lot of fraudulent meat on this here election bone. But regardless of whether the Trump team can change the outcome, we need to track down and investigate every irregularity, particularly the Democrats’ massive bulk-mail-ballot fraud. Otherwise, this behavior will become their standard for stealing elections in 2022 and beyond.
Start a conversation using these share links: