To use a sports analogy, it would be a team pitching a perfect game in the World Series.
Not one game, nor two…but in all four games to “sweep” via pitching
perfection.
Is
it possible?
Theoretically,
sure. Is it probable?
Hell
no – and so, we must commence with a vigorous audit as the future of our
republic hangs in the balance.
STATISTICS CONTINUE TO CAST REAL DOUBT ON THE
PROBABILITY OF A PRESIDENT TRUMP LOSS IN THE ELECTION.
The statistical case is,
admittedly, circumstantial rather than conclusive.
But the numbers also firmly point
to the intense improbability of the accuracy of the present Biden lead. The
statistical case 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.
There are four key elements to the
numerical thesis:
1. TURNOUT
Clearly,
high turnout was expected in an intensely political year with vastly expanded
access to mail-in voting. But the kinds of numbers reported simply defy
reasonable expectations.
For Wisconsin overall, the turnout
was above 90% of registered voters. Even in a state with same-day registration,
such a number seems implausible.
After all, in Australia, a place
where voting is mandatory, and failing to vote is punishable with stiff fines,
the total turnout for the
most recent election was still only 92%.
Even more importantly, looking
within the Wisconsin vote, the decisive locale for Biden was, unsurprisingly,
Milwaukee. Wisconsin’s largest city reported an 84%
turnout to secure a 145,916 vote lead there for Biden.
Consider a comparison to another
very similar Midwestern city, Cleveland, OH. Milwaukee has a population of
590,000, 67% of them minorities. Cleveland has 381,000 people with 60% of them
minorities.
But Milwaukee’s 84% turnout dwarfs
Cleveland’s more believable 51% turnout rate. Like many of the
suspect statistical trends evident from last Tuesday, the abnormal factors
favoring Biden seem only present in the key swing states that Biden allegedly
won.
2. OUTPERFORMANCE
VS. OBAMA
The breakouts higher for Biden
relative to Obama’s performances in key areas simply do not seem credible.
Could a candidate as doddering and
lazy as Biden really have massively outpaced the vote totals of a politician
who boasted rock star appeal?
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. For Montgomery County, Obama won this swing county
by 59,000 votes in his 2012 re-election.
But in 2020, Biden won Montgomery
County by a whopping 131,000 votes, more than twice the prior
Obama margin.
Biden’s 2020 total vote in
Montgomery is reported at 313,000, crushing Obama’s 233,000 take in 2012 – and
population growth does not explain the gains, as the county only grew by 22,000
residents during those eight years.
Such eye-popping
outperformance vs.Obama, in just the right places, naturally raises a lot
of suspicion.
3. Biden-Only Ballots
Trump campaign legal counsel
Sidney Powell reports that,
nationwide, over 450,000 Biden-only ballots were cast, meaning the voter
allegedly selected Biden but then neglected down-ballot candidates, including
closely-contested Senate and House races.
Again, this phenomenon appears far
more prominently in battleground states, raising the alarm for manipulation.
Why would so many people vote
Biden–only in battleground Georgia, but not in deeply-red Wyoming,
for instance?
In the Peach State, President
Trump’s vote total 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.
By comparison, in Wyoming Biden
only registered a surplus “Biden-only” take of just 725 votes over
the Democratic Senate candidate there, or about 1/4th his take in in
Georgia, on a percentage basis.
The Biden-only ballots do not
conclusively prove fraud, but they sure reek of something very amiss.
4. ABSENCE OF
MAIL-IN VOTE VETTING
Democratic
governors clamored for massive amounts of mail-in voting, knowing full well
that most states would become overwhelmed and wholly unable to establish the
validity and legality of almost all the votes that poured in via mail.
In the case of Pennsylvania,
Governor Wolf made such changes unilaterally, in stark violation
of Pennsylvania law and in contradiction of the clear US
Constitutional assignment of voting regulatory authority to state legislatures,
not governors. Governor Wolf’s election boards clearly just accepted the ballots…
en masse, without appropriate vetting.
By their own admission, the scant
0.03% of rejected ballots represents a refusal rate that is just
1/30th the level of 2016 in Pennsylvania.
First-time mail-in voters
typically see a rejection rate of about 3% historically, or 100 times the
rejection rate of Pennsylvania in 2020.
When neighboring New York state
moved to widespread mail-in voting this summer, their election
officials rejected 21% of mailed ballots in June, representing a rate
700 times higher than Pennsylvania’s.
This total lack of filtering or
controls raises enormous suspicion regarding a seriously-tainted ballot
pool in the Keystone State.
RIGGED?
The statistical case, in
isolation, does not prove fraud. But the confluence of highly unlikely results
does, emphatically, paint of picture of utter improbability.
Any one of these four factors alone would cast intense doubt upon
election results.
Put all four together, and the result is a seemingly impossible
statistical perfect storm.
To use a sports analogy, it would be a team pitching a perfect game in
the World Series.
Not one game, nor two…but in all four games to “sweep” via pitching
perfection.
Is
it possible?
Theoretically,
sure. Is it probable?
Hell
no – and so, we must commence with a vigorous audit as the future of our
republic hangs in the balance.