We knew that Fulton County, GA, had been hit by a 'glitch.' Now Breitbart is reporting--Another Georgia County Encounters ‘Glitch’ Causing Delay Counting 1000s of Votes--that Gwinnet County was also hit by a 'glitch.' It seems that just as there's a yearly flu season, there is also a 'glitch' season that strikes only in election years:
Another county in Georgia has reported encountering a “glitch,” which has caused a delay in the counting of thousands of votes in the 2020 presidential election.
A glitch in software has caused a delay in vote-counting in Georgia’s Gwinnett County, according to a report by Fox 5 Atlanta.
Election officials estimate that roughly 80,000 absentee ballots were impacted by this glitch, yet decided to push the impacted votes through, knowing some of the votes would likely change.
That doesn't quite make sense, does it? First Breitbart says the 'glitch' is causing a delay in counting the votes, but then we learn that the ballots were "pushed through" in the full knowledge that "some of the votes would likely change."
Does that sound like after the fact CYA to you, too? Could it be that the ballots were "pushed through" because "some of the votes would likely change?"
A "glitch" is not a thing.ReplyDelete
Glitches be glitchin'Delete
C'mon, man! You know the thing!ReplyDelete
Thank you Cassander. I needed that laugh.Delete
A glitch, on the order of, let's say, Antrim County, Michigan in counties with 400,000 votes would not be nothing.ReplyDelete
Like I wrote in an earlier comment today- the change in voting in Cobb and Gwinnett Counties in Georgia are statistical outliers. It is possible for the partisan difference to change that much from one election to another, but it usually occurs after dramatic drops in the support for a party in power. Basically, those two counties added almost 150,000 votes combined from 2016, but Biden got 125,000 of them. That looks like tabulation error to me of some sort. A hand recount will probably be necessary where there is doubt, and there is doubt here now.
And, legally speaking, it's a foot in the door. It appears that Gwinnett County did not want to wait for someone else to discover this.Delete
Scott Adams (Dilbert) has his usually insightful and humorous periscope take on all the frauds using big data, and how probable it is that they happened:ReplyDelete
In a nutshell:
1. Dems have lots of motive
2. Dems have lots of opportunity
3. Dems have lots of experience in how to do it and haven't been caught before
4. You only need a few people to do it
Also discusses the likely chances that they'll be exposed.
Lucky for all of us that they're scrupulously honest people, right?Delete
I've been watching Adams and just got to the middle where he's summarizing and he says two things. He'd been trying to play it straight, but at this point he has to just laugh:Delete
1. Expect to see more and more anomalies cropping up, like the ones we're already seeing.
2. Expect the "data geeks" to find out what's going on because, if they don't, that will be the most surprising thing that has happened to Adams all year--the fraud is just too massive to hide.
It relies very heavily on timing though. Even a broad-based "exposure" past or even within a couple days of the electoral college convening (is that what they do is "convene"?) will be shrugged off. IMO they have about two weeks to blow it wide open. Sort of like the Hunter laptop thing - their drip drip hit the money too late.Delete
Saw this on Doug Ross’s top 20 tweets tonight. Gwinnett County results 2020:ReplyDelete
(I confirmed these numbers at Decision Desk HQ
Compare to 2016:
So Trump dropped 20,000 in 4 years. Perhaps plausible in a blue county. But Biden got 76,000 more than Hillary? That looks like a glitch to me.
Well, I'll be glitched! More hanky panky. And there's always the possibility that them glitches we're active in 2016, too.Delete
In the senate race:Delete
2020: per Decision Desk HQ
2016: source. https://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/results/georgia-senate-isakson-barksdale
Isakson (R). 154,572
Barksdale (D). 141,141
And a recap of 2016 by a local:
So a real anomaly for the senate republican candidate to be so far behind this year. And if corrected, could avoid a runoff.
It looks like Trump gained - not dropped - 20,000.Delete
That suggests Biden should have gotten less than Hillary, or MAYBE a free more if now people voted, but certainly not 76,000 more.
You are correct. My bad. Thanks.Delete
It looks like Trump gained - not dropped - 20,000.Delete
That suggests Biden should have gotten less than Hillary, or MAYBE a few more if more people voted, but certainly not 76,000 more.
Sorry about the double post..Delete
Phone was behaving weird.
That must have been a glitch!!Delete
Big if true. Bigly big.ReplyDelete
132,000 "Change of Address" RED FLAGS in Fulton County, GA. These votes are "highly likely ineligible to vote and have moved," per source.
Biden leads Georgia by 10K votes as of last update.
It's enough to be a *gamechanger.*
Oh! I guess that explains why the SecState and all those investigators were there.Delete
Just read this as well. Hmmm...I wonder. Is this sort of fraud just so common place that Trump absolutely knew he would find it? Sort of like Blagojevich commenting that Dems stealing elections is par for the course--everyone knows it happens EVERY year. 2016 was no different than 2020, but they weren't expecting Trump last time--he won in spite of the usual cheating.Delete
I know Blago owes Trump a favor, and the best legal one he could offer would be insights into the Dem machine's vote fixing. If anyone knows all the Dem tricks, it would be someone like Blago.
And glitches in PA: https://wmbriggs.com/post/33377/ReplyDelete
A veritable pandemic of glitches.
Glitches, glitches everywhere and nary a fraud to prove!Delete
Apologies in advance if "Sgt Friday's" tweets below have already been reported and discussed here. As Mark has said, there's a lot going on...ReplyDelete
This Twitter user, “Sgt Friday”, claims that Biden’s “victory” was fraudulently engineered through a conspiracy to program the computerized voting systems in swing states to take a random percentage of Trump votes away from Trump and add that number to Biden's reported total. Friday calls this a “clever trick” because the majority of the cheat in every cheating state would occur in Red districts that outnumber Blue districts. Thus, smaller numbers would have to be changed which should have been easier to hide.
Unfortunately, he says, as election results unfolded Tuesday evening, the conspirators began to realize that Trump was getting votes in Blue areas in numbers much higher than the conspirators had foreseen. They began to realize that stealing of votes based only on random percentages in Red districts was not going to be enough for Biden to win.
So, what Friday is saying, is that what the conspirators needed to do when they shut down counting was to reprogram the computers to increase the random percentage of Trump votes being switched to Biden votes. But it was too late to reprogram and reboot the computers.
So, Friday suggests, they reverted to the time-tested strategy of manual vote changing of Trump votes in Blue districts, resulting in increasing the proportion of Biden vote in Blue districts, which increased proportion is seen in no other state.
A big red flag, I think Friday is suggesting, indicative of a broad conspiracy to commit election fraud.
In a general way that falls in pretty well with what Scott Adams was saying this morning (above).Delete
Not sure about that, but in Florida 2018, the exact same thing happened. No counting, few hours later, more D votes found, etc. Finally, after seeing his vast win margin go almost away, DeSantis with Trump support, said enough. Yeah, Democrat Broward County. The hanging chad county.Delete
So, Mark explain if you will if the Trump campaign is on the case as described above why is Sidney Powell talking about this? She is now an election lawyer? Happy to have her. Don’t you keep this very close until you drop the bomb? Or are they using her PR skills to let the other side know they are coming and any of you who wish to avoid prison should come forward sooner rather than later. Absolute radio silence as you know from Barr/Durham but talking about this? Higher level strategy than I can deal with.Delete
Powell has her own agenda and has deeper connections to this than most are aware of. She represented Dennis Montgomery who tried to blow the whistle on domestic spying--so that connects at least conceptually to Trump and Flynn.Delete
I know you didn't ask me, but I'll throw in my own 2c.
I don't see much risk in Sidney talking about her theory of the conspiracy. They either did it or they didn't. The beauty of the computer, from a forensic point of view, is that every keystroke is recorded forever. If they did it I have to assume they'll get caught.
I read and pondered over that and it seems pretty compelling as an explanation of the Dem Fraud Strategy going in, and why they ended up having to scramble and do things that--as Scott Adams says--"for sure" will be detectable by the "A Team" guys who are now looking at the data.
Sidney also has a vested interest in Flynn, who gets screwed without Trump.Delete
I think this is an interesting theory. That said, am I being a total Eeyore/pessimist for being skeptical of anything coming from anonymous twitter sources who cannot express basic grammar? What is this guy's credentials?Delete
When I last saw the stats on the Ga. Senate race, Purdue had garnered 49.8% of the vote. It would not take much of an adjustment to bump him up over 50%. Loeffler was a few points below, but who knows what the real state of the race is?ReplyDelete
Loeffler will have a runoff regardless- the Republican candidates split about 60% of the vote in the jungle primary- Loeffler actually finished second to Warnock, but neither got to even 40% of the vote. That is a sure runoff. It is possible, still, that Perdue avoids it- there were only three candidates in his election- Ossoff, Perdue, and whoever the Libertarian was.Delete
FWIW, Sgt Friday has tweeted again:ReplyDelete
"The way to fix this election is as easy as 123
Manually recount REPUBLICAN DISTRICTS. To determine if Trump votes were credited to Biden's Total
Based on what I am seeing w/Biden's huge gains in red areas. This recount will return to Trump enough Votes to win all Swing states"
I was about to write a reply to your first one above- hand recount the Republican counties first. I wonder if Atrim County was just so small someone overlooked that 3000 votes was 30% of the counties voters.Delete
Yes....imagine if we find just a handful of wrongly tabulated votes in many R leaning districts...could count a bunch of the smaller ones quickly.Delete
The funniest part of this strategy is that the DNC may not even be opposed to recounting republican districtsDelete
I am a little more hopeful tonight than I was last night. The more I look at the details of the election, the more the partisan changes in the states look less rational. For the last few days, I have been working on the assumption that Biden might have beaten Trump fairly simply because it was a mostly mail-in-vote- just more Democrats showed up to vote because. However, the thing that cuts against this is that in most of the states, Republicans turned out just as hard in the early vote tallies- they just did so in early in-person voting in addition to mail-in votes.ReplyDelete
The piece of information I would really like to see that I can't seem to find anywhere is the absentee vote for all of the counties in Pennsylvania. The NYTimes has been selling the story about Biden's absentee edge of 78-21 to now 80-20 for 5 days- I mean, selling it hard. As the state finished the count, that ratio hasn't budged but upward since very early Wednesday morning (like 4 a.m.- I was awake watching). My question is, was the entire state absentee ration 78-21? No doubt the more efficient and competent red counties counted most of their absentee votes on Tuesday night as Trump was running up a 700K lead, so I can't believe the entire state's absentee went to Biden 80-19- if it did, then that is surely fraud right there.
"The NYTimes has been selling the story about Biden's absentee edge of 78-21 to now 80-20 for 5 days- I mean, selling it hard."Delete
That alone should be a big red flag, pardon the pun. I'm sure Biden's ratio will soon be 120 to -20. This may be a train wreck still in progress. Be patient.
Everyone needs to watch this video. It is Russell Ramsland whose company audited certain 2018 Dallas elections and found massive election fraud by the same private companies like Dominion who run the systems in MI and elsewhere. These races are corrupted and Ramsland even has a screen capture of a CNN report that shows the rigging in real time.ReplyDelete
Brilliant! Judging by the proliferation of glitches, they are gonna have a lot of splainin to do if we start physical ballots to the vote registered in the "system". When is the finger pointed army Vladimir? Is that when FBI starts "investigating"?ReplyDelete
A compelling thread from a data scientist, who scraped the national ballot counting time series data off the @nytimesReplyDelete
By plotting the # ballots counted over time, he is able to see where and when the frauds occurred.
Big data analysis has revolutionized the world, in so many ways.
Thanks, looks interesting.Delete
I'm no statistician but that looked pretty compelling. One thing, he says that there are no allegations of voter fraud--yet--in VA, but last night a fairly major allegation came up with regard to a congressional race (so not state wide).Delete
I agree...looks pretty compelling to me. As the poster of the information points out, this shift in R vs D is not necessarily proof fo fraud, but tells you where to look for it. In Milwaukee, the early morning of the after election counting period when all of a sudden there is a stark shift in D vs R. I've been skeptical of claims of fraud in Milw (other than thee usual small scale stuff), but this looks significant.Delete
My problem with this analysis is multi-fold.Delete
First, the y-axes on those D/R graphs all look wrong to me- first the ratios in PA, just for an example, are all well above 3 in the real data series, yet the graph still shows around 1 (Biden won the mail in vote 4 to 1 over the last 5 days, and it look like that, too, in both WI and MI, yet the y axes don't indicate that).
Secondly, many of these states reported the mail in vote first because they counted them as they came into the counting centers over the last 4 weeks. The specific examples he cited are the states that counted them after the Election Day in-person vote.
Finally, while the mail-in vote is shuffled together by the Postal Service, they are unshuffled when they are delivered back to the counties- Milwaukee County gets Milwaukee County mail-in ballots back from Milwaukee County voters, Kenosha County gets Kenosha County mail-in ballots back from Kenosha County voters etc. What you saw in those states from 11-3-2020 on was that the rural red counties were very quick count their mail-in vote- in Wisconsin, for example, it was all pretty much done in those counties by midnight- after midnight, almost all of the remaining vote was in Milwaukee County, and Milwaukee County reported that one large batch around 4 in the morning- the step up you see in the time series data. Pennsylvania and Michigan were quite similar, but in those larger states, the transition to the big counties getting to their mail-in vote was not quite as gapped vs the rural counties- there were no step ups early on- just a rise in the D/R ratio until all the rural counties were done, leaving just the big Democrat counties in both states- then you see in Michigan a couple of gap ups, but I remember those- they were the big Wayne County vote dumps around 4 and 5 a.m. on Wednesday. In PA, there weren't these huge 100K dumps, there were just a lot smaller high D/R ratio batches.
In short, I don't buy this analysis as fraud detection. I would focus more on the D/R ratios of mail-in vote explicitly, comparing them across states close geographically and demographically- let's say compare Ohio to Pennsylvania and Michigan, compare Wisconsin to Illinois and Minnesota, compare Arizona to New Mexico and Nevada, compare Georgia to Florida and North Carolina. I keep returning to that 4 to 1 ratio in Pennsylvania. I did finally track down the mail-in vote for all the counties of PA- it isn't tabulated the way I wanted, so it is difficult make spreadsheets of it, but that 4 to 1 ratio was for the entire state. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the corresponding data for Ohio. I suspect that is where the fraud is if there is fraud- not saying there is, but 4 to 1 seems statistically improbable to me given the registration data of those who requested and returned absentee ballots in PA- something stinks, I am just not sure why.
This thread from CulturalHusbandry is a pretty good summary. The one critique I would offer to that is the Benford Analysis part- you probably can't use 1st digit analysis on ward/precinct reports because there is simply too narrow a range of numbers involved- wards and precincts are usually divided to be roughly equal in number of voters, so in a pretty uniform demographic, the votes won by one candidate or another might will have a tight range, too, like say Biden winning precinct after precinct in Chicago with 300-600 votes, for example, while Trump wins with between 75 and 200. In other words, 1st digit analysis really does require the range of numbers be spread across at least 2 magnitudes, and better to 3 or more- not going to be seen in city voting data. Better to focus on 2nd digit and last digit frequency analysis. In last digit analysis, fraud might be indicated if you see too many zeros or fives- humans are predicable that way when they are the ones making up data.Delete
Oh, forgot- here is the linkDelete
@Yancey, regarding the Benford analysis, do you not find it striking that all other candidates' votes satisfy the Benford test? Why do we have to explain it away just because Biden's votes do not?Delete
Roscoe Davis onReplyDelete
"All the dirty voter rolls, mysterious midnight dumps and sharpie claims, are nothing but a distraction, as well is the counting room lockouts, all deliberate distractions to draw attention to a dead end road."
"all these obvious distractions are blatant voter fraud, but they are so obvious on purpose, and that's to be the shiny object to distract the crying baby"
"The dirty work is done in the electronic tabulation database and both these guys are convinced not even on US soil, Their best guess is Barcelona Spain & Frankfort Germany.And this all ties back to a company called SCYTL & its subsidiary Clarity"
"the most disturbing findings are the large-scale & pervasive foreign storage, processing, hosting, & reporting of US election data & outcomes, as well as foreign ownership of several key election machine companies used in most states!"
"And in this case every one of the states key to fixing this election were tied into the Clarity/SCYTL network."
Probably we're back to China.
I'd guess that Roscoe is summarizing what he's hearing from the Russell Ramsland team. I like that he's saying what Scott Adams was saying yesterday, that Trump is all over this, that the A Team for forensic data is all over this. There's no way, IMO, that a guy who Trump (who made no secret that he knew he was facing crooks) didn't prepare for this.Delete
But I'm not really hearing any of this from Trump's team. What are hearing seems to be the fight over all the 'obvious' stuff.Delete
Does that concern you, or is to be expected as part of info gathering and strategy?
This is my thought, too Mistcr. I want to believe this story about the "Big Sting", but it does sound too good be true, and it looks too good to be true. So, I am not letting my hopes run unchecked at this point. I am prepared for the outcome where Biden really did just win the election regardless of the fraud.Delete
So many states have a paper-trail. In my state (WI), it is literally every filled out paper ballot. Only thing electronic is the tabulating. It will all come out in a recount. Recounts in and of themselves do not typically result in large scale changes. We have to insist on manual recounts, and if we do and discover a large difference, it puts all elections in every district in this country in doubt.Delete
mistcr, IMO the Trump campaign is walking a very thin line in the court of public opinion. If you launch out of the gate with something this simultaneously explosive and wonky, the media brothels will make fast work of these "absurd conspiracy theories" full of statistics and graphs - you know, believing the science and what not.Delete
The "obvious stuff is unfortunately what has to trigger the recounts, discards, or other small steps that lead to the big fish, if there is truly one to be caught.
I am not sold and trying to be as skeptical as possible with a bunch of anonymous tweeters - but the methodically damning analyses are starting to add up fast.
@Anon, that makes sense to me and is basically where my head is.Delete
I've been sold on the major election fraud story ever since the massive all-for-Biden ballot dumps were discovered and pieced together with the count pauses.
My chief concern is proving these arguments in court.
A republic, if you can keep it.
When I voted I got my printout and saw all my selections correctly recorded along with the bar codes and thought, how do I know those bar codes equate to my intent?
It's the system, stupid.
On "*proving* these arguments in court":Delete
Is the standard in court going to be "preponderance of evidence", or what, in election-law cases (when "the whole world is watching")?
"walking a very thin line in the court of public opinion. If you launch *out of the gate* with something this simultaneously explosive and wonky...."Delete
Why must they launch out of the gate with any particular thing?
Why not just present everything in curt, as it becomes available?
Why stew so much about "public opinion", when you can *insist* on *your Const.* rights, to have smoking-gun evidence get its day in court?
Let the media brothels whine about "divisiveness" like they usually do.
Let them expose themselves even more, as caring only about the Const. rights of *their* favorites.
Typo: "everything in cOurt...."Delete
Embedded in Roscoe's thread is another thread discussing Clarity Elections, aka SCYTL, and discussing the 2018 Kentucky race. (Bevin/Beshear)ReplyDelete
Embedded is a video that actually shows the split-second transfer of 560 votes from one candidate to another. On CNN!!
Video is cued at that spot.
Right. That's in the long Russell Ramsland presentation.Delete
Forgive me if this has already been posted... https://www.zerohedge.com/political/it-defies-logic-scientist-finds-telltale-signs-election-fraud-after-analyzing-mail-ballotReplyDelete
The Gwinnett County hits keep coming.ReplyDelete
"Georgia poll manager says voting machines arrived at her precinct unsealed, unlocked, serial numbers not matching the documentation and 'the green bar coded tags that are supposed to cover the door covering the memory card was broken'."Delete
But other than that, OK?Delete
How easily, how naturally election fraud comes to them...ReplyDelete
Democrats urging supporters to violate Georgia voting laws
"I hope everybody moves to Georgia, you know, in the next month or two, registers to vote and votes for these two Democratic senators," New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman told CNN on Monday night.
One of our monitors discovered a 9,626 vote error in the DeKalb County hand count. One batch was labeled 10,707 for Biden and 13 for Trump - an improbable margin even by DeKalb standards. The actual count for the batch was 1,081 for Biden and 13 for Trump.ReplyDelete
Had this counting error not been discovered, Biden would have gained enough votes from this one batch alone to cancel out Trump’s gains from Fayette, Floyd and Walton.
We were limited to 1 monitor for every 10 counting tables and we were kept some distance from the tables. There is no telling what we missed under these unreasonable restrictions. The miscounted batch had been be signed off by two official counters.
Biden’s margin of victory in this batch of votes (99.9%) bested Bashar al-Assad’s 2007 margin (97.6%) and Raul Castro’s 2008 margin (99.4%). It matched Kim Jong-il’s 2009 margin (99.9%).
Our attorneys have turned over an affidavit from our monitor to the Secretary of State and requested an investigation.