Monday, November 9, 2020

UNVERIFIED: A Glitch In Wisconsin?


The Gateway Pundit is reporting another 'glitch,' this time in Wisconsin's Rock County--a county Trump won in 2016. This glitch was a switcheroo, as has been observed elsewhere. I haven't seen any other account of this event, but what TGP is reporting goes like this:

On election night the results of the county were presented during the evening and showed that President Trump won Wisconsin in 2016.  At 10:59 the votes came in and the race was close with both candidates at around 29,000 ballots.  Then by 11:12 President Trump had taken a nearly 1,000 vote lead on Biden with 31,000 votes to Biden’s 30,000.

At 11:21 these results had not changed much.  Then at 11:43 more votes came in and they showed Trump had taken a commanding lead at 46,649 to Biden’s 37,133.  This was a 9,516 vote lead for Trump.

But then suddenly at 11:57 these votes had swapped.  Biden was reported with 46,649 and Trump was reduced to Biden’s former total of 37,133.  These votes had swapped from the President Trump to Biden – again a swap from a Republican to a Democrat.

The net impact was 19.032 votes.

... When this adjustment is confirmed Biden will only hold a 1,508 vote lead.

That would be before any other adjustments were made in Wisconsin, a state that has quite a few other significant problem with its election results. 

This kind of thing just isn't supposed to happen--no vote swaps/flips, in either direction. So as usual the suspicion arises--was this the only instance? And why do they always seem unidirectional--always going against Trump?

TGP has a screenshot:

I may need to be careful about posting these things. TGP doesn't offer any attribution to this info.


  1. I commented on this article on GWP and I agree with your disclaimer. I'm pretty convinced the Hoft brothers are hell bent to Glenn Beck themselves into being the National Enquirer. They are running every anecdotal election innuendo they can pull off of twitter without sourcing or validation.

    They hit the Real Clear Politics thing today about RCP retracting states from Biden that RCP never gave to Biden.

    Kane had fun with them over that

    Another article was someones twitter rant about leased ballot printers and readers in AZ waiting to be picked up by the vendor.

    They're "unattended".🙄

    Apparently all voting equipment can't just be stored, it must be guarded. Nevermind it's an empty room with no PCs, no networking, no nothing... We now fear unloaded guns I guess?

    Or maybe this is just what happens when a site runs out of Hunter Biden porn stories and Simona Papadopoulos puff pieces. 😝It works I guess if their just trying click bait readers into a rabid site traffic frenzy.

    I may dislike Jim and Joe more than the DoJ... 😁 I have issues!

    1. >They are running every anecdotal election innuendo they can pull off of twitter without sourcing or validation.

      Get real! Twitter has some great people doing excellent work on this. Kudos to the thegatewaypundit for linking to these accounts

    2. This report has “Hat tip Kim” at the end, which may name the source who sent this to him.

      Won’t run wild spreading this around, but it’s worth paying attention to and watching for more developments. If any.

    3. At anon,

      I am real, twitter does have great sourcing however in journalism your job is verification.

      The Hoft brothers have painted themselves into poop slinging zoo monkeys by several articles a day now. (Note I'm sighting references in my post)

      To compound it, their choose methodology of retraction is to simply delete articles in whole vs printing or appending corrections.

      Right now we need clarity and solid reporting of real issues and I'm not buying screen captures of counting swings as being proof of anything. The APIs on database reporting alone will cause anomalies.

      Hat tip Fred and Barney < circular referencing isn't validation.

      And as I stated I'm tweeked by GWP right now with the path that they have taken in the last year. It's becoming very hypocritical by the way they complain about the MSM but do the exact same things with a different slant to the right.

  2. My BS meter is swinging wildly on this one. I’ve always considered TGP a don’t trust unless verified source. Who is sitting at home with a phone with no SIM card capturing screen shots of Rock County election results? And Trump did not carry this county in 2016; Clinton did 52.4% to 42%.

    One curiosity is that the votes are reported by individual counties in WI and Rock County’s election page is denying me access on “security” grounds whereas there is no issue with other counties.
    Maybe that’s something unique to my IP address/geo-location; can’t tell.

    And then again, Rock County has glitched in the past:

    And 89% of registered voters voting is pretty darn high.

    Andy S.

  3. looks fake - i could do that on a pc in 3 mins. This kind of thing is simply designed to sow doubt in the public mind. This is a psyop of the most egregious kind aimed at undermining confidence in democracy. You should put a very substantial disclaimer about the reliability of this else you be complicit in a sham.

    1. Sounds kind of like something a Democrat would say - “udermining confidence in democracy” is what they do with every breath...

  4. I was looking for the attribution as well. It sounds like it is just a report from someone watching TV when they saw the numbers swap. Certainly that bears looking into, but I do not see comment or confirmation from Rock County where this is supposed to have happened.

    1. And you are not going to. But that is the point to all this fraud, isn't it. If the fraudsters don't comment or confirm the fraud for you, it doesn't exist. Or maybe all the "glitches" are the explanation/downplay of honest election workers not in on the fraud themselves but not wanting to upset bidens chances or help Trump's chances. But whatever you want to call them the number and volume of data anomalies all occurring to the benefit of one side is damning and must be explained. Calling them "glitches" isn't explaining them.

    2. I agree with Mark A. The term "glitch" is embedded in the public mind as an unintentional error in coding or inconsequential computational error. More accuracy, without necessarily reinforcing a misconception in the public, would be "Cyber Anomaly" or something similar.

      The Dem's are masters at manipulation of language for consumption by and imprintation on the lowest common intellectual level. There is a reason the majority of leading research in semantics is done by the left. They treat manipulation as a science. To them a debate is won, not on facts, but on what prejudices you have inculcated in the audience before they even arrive at the event. The true Right needs to get much better at not being sloppy with language and not letting the Left control the debate through control of terms.

      If I remember correctly the term "glitch" was first thrown out to describe these occurrences by a Dem county official in either WI or MI.
      Tom S.

    3. "The Dem's are masters at manipulation of language for consumption by and imprintation on the lowest common intellectual level. There is a reason the majority of leading research in semantics is done by the left. They treat manipulation as a science. To them a debate is won, not on facts, but on what prejudices you have inculcated in the audience...."

      Quite so.
      Righties would do well, to bone up on (later) Wittgenstein's thinking, incl. on the extent to which people get "bewitched by language", e.g. by neglecting the extent to which words can shift meanings, so much that there need not be "an essence" to (the meaning of) any of a number of key concepts.
      Lefties love to (surreptitiously!) equivocate or conflate concepts (e.g. "racism"), as if there couldn't be such conflation, so as to exploit
      what prejudices they have inculcated in the audience.

    4. So, when an SJW jumps on you about "racism", and you don't (politely?) end the exchange right there (I usually do), you might say
      "as per Wittgenstein, *exactly* what do you mean here, in *this* context?"
      Seeing as most SJW's know nothing about Wittgenstein, they'll likely judge you as too hot a potato to handle.
      If this happens before an audience you hope to make a dent into, you might exploit your just-obtained initiative, and explain how Wittgenstein would've torn these SJWs a new one about such epithets as "racism".

      In the rare case where the SJW knows some Wittgenstein, be prepared to encounter a retort of
      "As you Righties so often talk in similar terms about 'Communism', how do thos cases differ from this case?"
      Your answer could be
      "Ah, this 'racism' case *has* a specific context here (!), while your 'Communism' case (so far) has *none*, so I won't play a game of comparing apples to oranges!"

  5. @Mark

    "TGP doesn't offer any attribution to this info."

    But the screenshots showing the switch in black and white are shots of fox news websites...we can trust them, right?

    By the way, if a trick which involves a switch is a switcheroo, and a mistake which happens on a computer is a glitch, is a trick which is a mistake involving a switch on a computer a glitcheroo?

    Thus, are we entering Glitcheroogate?

  6. Audit the glitches. 71 million americans deserve an answer.

  7. Here's another anomaly presented by the GWP 'screenshots'. The 11:21 screenshot shows "99%" of (presumably) precincts reporting with a total of 62,840 votes recorded. The 11:43 and 11:57 screenshots show "100%" of (presumably) precincts reporting with a total of 85,150 votes recorded. So, presumably, the report of the final 1% resulted in an additional 22,310 (~36%) votes being recorded.

    As Andy S. points out, the local Gazette Extra newspaper reported on November 8 that "[a] record 85,617 people voted in Rock County on Tuesday, exceeding 2012’s record turnout of 81,509. That’s about 70% of the county’s eligible voters and nearly 89% of registered voters."

    FWIW, the final tally of 85,617 votes reported by the Gazette Extra is consistent with the 85,150 total votes reported on the 11:43 and 11:57 screenshots. It seems that the additional 22,310 votes reported on the 11:43 and 11:57 screenshots resulted in the anomalous (extremely high) 89% turnout by registered voters.

    So the GWP post may or may not turn out to be accurate. But, to me anyway, it does raise questions worth finding real answers to.

    1. Thanks, Cassander, I appreciate your input. I try to be careful with TGP, the same as with Judicial Watch--it's unfortunate but true. Also unfortunate, I'm not qualified to pass on the the authenticity of these 'glitches', so I appreciate the pro and con.

    2. We have to be circumspect with all sources. Everyone wants their truth validated and so have a natural tendency to filter out what doesn't support it. Some do it for nefarious reasons (from "any means necessary to win" to "click-bait") others do it because they really want to believe that there is justice in the universe. Reality does not necessarily support either.
      Tom S.

  8. @ Anonymous November 10, 2020 at 1:43 AM

    "looks fake - i could do that on a pc in 3 mins"

    Anonymous: If you are going to post assertions of this kind (which are ok by are entitled to your opinion) you should identify which of the anonymous commenters you actually are so one can assess the credibility of your opinion if and when it turns out you are right or wrong.

    1. There is the film which fix has and which can be compared by auditors and there will be real time transaction logs in real databases where these running totals are stored. Unless it all mysteriously got erased when the operator entered his password incorrectly 10 straight times. (Sarc). The glitches provide pinpoints to rmtargetwith an audit of the physical evidence. Large surges for biden in counties Trump won all occurring later in the evening begin to show a pattern.
      processed by

    2. Ditto! I asked the same thing a while back, Cass. We have rafts of “Anonymous”. I am skipping over their comments unless they include some inititials or identifier.

      When one can post with a username, why do “Anonymous” anyway?

    3. How many "Anonymouses" post here, or would that be "Anonymi".

    4. "When one can post with a username, why do “Anonymous” anyway?"

      I am a Texian and a Southron.
      Futile gestures of defiance to tyranny can be pretty much assumed. Google owns enough of me already.
      Tom S.

    5. I am a Southern Californian and Google doesn’t own me. My username leads nowhere. I have no need to use Anonymous.

    6. Because I haven’t figured out how to get “Andy S.” to appear instead of “Unknown” when I post using my Google Account. I have my nickname in Gmail set to Andy S. but that didn’t change it.

      Andy S. ;-)

  9. A glitch?

    So if someone didn't file a tax return for 20 years, a person could claim there must be a glitch in the program used to file electronically? Sounds about right to me.

  10. Very simple to find out the answer, although tedious, is to hand count all the ballots. Normally, you might start out doing some random sampling and then decide to go further, but with the stakes, you either need to go through every one by hand or find a different vote counting machine from another vendor that could read/speed up the process. That's the only way to ensure the results for legal ballots. Not sure what happens with all the late night drug-deal dropped off ones. I think we are all on the same page with that one..

  11. This story is likely BS- Rock County leans Democrat pretty heavily- Clinton won it in 2016 by about the same amount.

    What is possible is that by late in the night, they had one last batch of mail-in vote to count and it leaned heavily to Biden, and an error was made that got corrected.

    However, if the screenshot is real, then the solution is easy- just hand count the county during the recount phase.

  12. On the glitch subject it's self...

    APIs (The data portal between a data source and reporting database) can be glitchy by nature. I've set up MANY of them over the years and they often require debugging. That debugging for lag time and accuracy can take weeks sometimes.

    To be very honest the idea of throwing up a temporary network on the size and scope we do for an election using 30 different vendors selected by the lowest contract bid from 50 different states and tens of thousands of different pieces of outdated hardware. I'm surprised we don't see MANY more glitches.

    The issue becomes it's too easy to hide "features" within those glitches and they know it. W

    We have not gone to a national standard yet is something I struggle with because to do so is to surrender our whole system to the likes of congress... So no thank you.

  13. I came here looking for collaborating information about the Wisconsin "glitch". For the moment, it only appears to come from the GWP site. However, my instinct is that since this effect has now been found in Michigan (confirmed) and in Pennsylvania (there is a video tweeted by A_Blossom4USA recorded from her TV showing the vote flip in real time) I am going to assume that it probably is real unless someone can show that it didn't happen or the screenshots were photoshopped.

    Like most Americans, I want to know if this vote fraud is real. I am happy to accept the media results if this is all just a disinformation campaign, but it really looks like all the complaints I've investigated so far have been genuine, or at least appear genuine. Would be great to get independent confirmation on this one though.


    haven't seen this discussed much, or maybe I just missed it.
    Tom S.