Call me slow on the uptake. Last week I saw a graph of the Illinois election. It showed that at a certain point in the night the Libertarian Party received a vote spike. It wasn't a minor spike--it was equivalent to 2% of the total IL vote, in one fell swoop. Over the course of the night, however, it mostly bled away to Biden.
I asked myself: Why? This looked like an obvious theft--in 2020 the Third Party vote (Jo Jorgenson) collapsed to 1.1%, compared to combined minor party totals in 2016 of 5.1%. Obviously, Trump was picking up many of those voters. Just as obviously, one of two things had happened to account for that wildly improbable spike: Either those votes were siphoned from Trump and laundering to Biden through Jorgenson, or they were simply manufactured and then dealt out gradually to Biden. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any follow up on this.
Now, at the point in time in question Biden was cruising to a comfortable victory in Deep Blue Illinois. What wasn't so comfortable was that Trump was running well ahead of his 2016 pace and Biden was running somewhat behind Hillary's winning pace in 2016.
With that in mind, I saw a synopsis of a Ron Brownstein article at The Atlantic this morning that included this:
Joe Biden's walloping victory in the popular vote didn't translate down-ballot.
We're all familiar with this implausible phenomenon. Brownstein, of course, wasn't intending to draw attention to the implausibility of it, but to emphasize the narrative that Biden had indeed won a "walloping victory" in the popular vote. Even if the election is still not decided (except in the Media). It was then that I, slow on the uptake, realized the reason that The Steal went down even in Deep Blue states like Illinois: The Dems needed to prevent the Red Wave from handing Trump a popular vote victory in order to preserve their narrative that they are the majority party and any Republican share in governance in illegitimate. That narrative goes to their hoped for trashing of our constitutional order: Court packing, abolition of the Electoral College, packing the Senate with PR and DC, etc.
I suspect that if this happened in Illinois, a thorough examination of the election results on a national basis will reveal similar steals in other Blue states, designed simply to run up popular vote totals.
UPDATE 1: From the article linked by commenter American Cardigan (below), we learn about Dominion--run by radical Leftists like Eric Coomer--and its collusion with the Chicago Election Board. The article includes a video with Coomer in it. They used Covid as an excuse to allow complete access of Dominion to voter info--Chicago Election Board Provided Dominion Complete Access for 2020 Election:
This move by the CEB allowed Dominion Voting Systems contractor personnel, including election systems administrators and technicians from Dominion, full remote access to Chicago’s election systems, files, and databases from anywhere at any time.
Dominion Voting Systems administrators had free, open, and unfettered access to Chicago’s election systems, files, and data for 7-1/2 months prior to the election. They had full access to all voter registration information poll books, requests for absentee ballots, voter mailout lists, and virtually everything related to elections.
One assumes--this one certainly does--that this was going on nationally.
UPDATE 2: Another example of what probably went on in many Blue areas, this time from Clark County, NV:
New affidavit notes 'historically strange' surge in incomplete Nevada voter registrations
A data scientist testifies that thousands of Nevadans listed casinos and temporary RV parks as their 'homes'
Dorothy Morgan, the data scientist in the affidavit, said that she observed a "historically strange" surge in voter registrations that were missing the sex and age of the voter. When those pieces of information are left blank, it is impossible for a poll worker to verify a voter's identity.
In 2016, Morgan said that she saw 68 voter registrations of the sort described above. In 2020, she says she saw more than 13,000 -- 74% of which were submitted between July and September of this year.
In the affidavit, which was originally provided to the Washington Examiner, Morgan wrote, "This investigation found over 13K voters whose voter registration information revealed no sex or date of birth. Not only does this mean we cannot verify whether these voters are old enough to vote, it is also historically strange: While one does not expect voter registration information to be perfect, it is very strange that there were very, very few of these kinds of imperfect records with missing or invalid information until this year – when there are 13,372 of them."
It appears to have been as much about taking votes away from Trump - siphoning them off to third party candidates - as it did to transferring them directly from Trump to Biden.ReplyDelete
Oh, for crying out loud. Freudian slip? I typed Biden in instead of my username Bebe. Ack!Delete
It would make sense that any election theft strategy by Dems would have to run up the total nationally. Already it is difficult to believe GOP ran the table in everything EXCEPT the president's race. Imagine if Biden also "won" without the popular vote?ReplyDelete
Absolutely! And voter fraud happened in all the states.ReplyDelete
And now again we are back to Trump and SP claims, specific claims, that Trump won in a landslide and that Biden stole 3.7 million votes, idlky specific and if we take them at their word it means they have at the very least "looked at" if not figured out and hopefully developed evidence of what is you want Thoroughly examined.ReplyDelete
Virginia is another likely candidate for siphoning votes. It is hard to imagine that state (commonwealth) going for Biden, even with the federal workers' paradise along the Potomac, after what governor Blackface pulled the past two years going after the 2nd Amendment and his crazy virus dictates.ReplyDelete
Mark, do you suppose AG Barr’s visit to Chicago has any connection with this?ReplyDelete
Inquiring minds wish to know.
I wish it were so, but have no way of knowing.Delete
I question NC votes. How did Copper (D) win governor without "coattails" and wins for so many R: Tillis, Lt Gov, and increase of Rs everywhere else? Except my city of Charlotte which went strong D- that's where I'd bet the steal was.ReplyDelete
I was wondering the same thing. In fact, Cooper’s defeat of McCrory had me scratching my head back in 2016.Delete
I have heard it suggested that this is exactly how the extraordinarily unlikeable Mrs Clinton managed to win the popular vote in 2016...In fact, it may be why she didn't push for recounts in swing states she narrowly lost...ReplyDelete
Mark do you remember where you saw the discussion of the Illinois data spike?ReplyDelete
It was at TGP, but it was a presentation by an independent researcher.Delete
I found it.Delete
Wow! I will have to take a deeper look at RedPillX's work on Twitter. This could be the killer data based on what I have read in just the first 2 minutes. I will need to try to confirm some of his work, though. Basically, as I understand the first tweet I linked above- he is looking at Jorgenson's take of the vote graphed across the differing precincts or counties in the different states organized in both directions of Trump and Biden support in those same counties. In the link above, the data for Alabama and Kentucky are what you should see in a fair election- the Libertarian vote take is fairly uniform across time, and drops a bit as Trump's percentage in a jurisdiction rises, and rises as Trump's percentage in a jurisdiction drops, opposite for Biden.Delete
Guess I was wrong about what the graphs are showing- he is showing the divide in the vote over time for the two main candidates and comparing them to the Libertarian candidate. Needs a deeper look and think.Delete
Saw this last week here in Illinois.... er Chicago...ReplyDelete
If I were a Republican who lost in any state in the country, I would be working with Powell to get contests started in those states, too. You can easily find a Republican who lost a seat by a narrow margin in every state in the union.ReplyDelete
Of course, I have the entire time believed the cheating was a 50 state effort- you just have to force the jurisdictions involved to cough up the documentation they are supposed to keep for 22 months following an election. I can pretty much guarantee at this point that when you count the absentee envelopes, documention you are supposed to preserve, we will find certain counties don't have them by the tens and hundreds of thousands- when they came up short late in the night on November 3rd, they were forced to create absentee ballots without envelopes in addition to all the fraudulent absentee ballots they had actually created, forged the signatures on, and mailed back.
The tells have always been there right in front of us- the ridiculously high win rates on absentee ballots for Biden in precisely Michigan and Pennsylvania- the incredibly slow count of the "remaining vote" in Georgia, Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
PA legislator Mastriano is fronting effort to disregard certification and seat electors by action of legislature.Delete
Claims he has half of the GOP reps on board so far.
Grab the popcorn.
If the GOP can win some court rulings on such stuff (e.g. absentee envelopes/ documentation), we should see a flood of moves to seat electors by action of legislatures, and you'll need barrels of popcorn.Delete
The evidence of voter fraud and election fraud in numerous states, if not all the swing states, if not (as Mark suggests) all fifty states is mounting up.ReplyDelete
If so, this was an extraordinary, and extraordinarily complex, criminal conspiracy. Who conceived it? Who directed it? Who 'paid' for it?
Biden must know because he confidently sat in his basement and didn't campaign.
Mrs Clinton must know because she confidently advised Biden to never concede until 'all the votes' are counted...when Biden, she said, would win.
And if they know, who else knows?
One would have to believe that this is a subject matter law enforcement would be looking into. No?
In one real sense, it probably isn't a conspiracy, Cassander- don't overthink it- the plan was pure simplicity. The Democrats, where they had the power to do so, simply inundated the landscape with a vast flood of absentee ballots knowing that if they did so in the right areas, their partisans across the country would know what to do with them without being directed. The rest of it was just the canning of the normal signature checks on the ballot envelopes, and that was done out in the open with consent decrees and court orders issued at the last moment.Delete
Unravelling this requires a focus- a laser focus- on the issue of abrogating the security features enacted for absentee voting- there was a wholesale abrogation of this in PA, MI, WI, GA, AZ etc. and in specifically Democrat run localities.
Trump needs, and I don't know if he will ever get it, is a court ordered sampling of the absentee signatures compared against the signatures they are supposed to, by law, to be matched against in order to be valid. Right now, every judge so far has treated this as a pure Catch 22- Trump can prove the fraud if he can get a study of the signatures, but the courts are requiring him to prove the fraud before he can get the evidence with which to prove it. This is the argument that Trump's lawyers should be making, but I don't know that they are doing so in the right way.
On what legal basis can courts require him to prove the fraud, before he can get the evidence?Delete
How could SCotUS not grant swift relief from such rigged standards?
"In one real sense, it probably isn't a conspiracy, Cassander- don't overthink it- the plan was pure simplicity."
Perhaps. On the other hand, when two or more persons agree to commit an illegal act, with the intent to achieve the agreement's goal, that's a conspiracy.
When, for example, election officials in several states unprecedentedly shut down counting at exactly the same moment, and subsequent analysis shows irregular ballots were wrongfully counted for Biden during the shutdown, that looks like a conspiracy to me -- even without overthinking it.
Precisely. Don't ignore the obvious when it smacks you upside the head.Delete
According to the WSJ, Trump lost his federal suit in PA today:ReplyDelete
“It never claims fraud or that any votes were cast by illegal voters,” wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee, for the three-judge panel. “Plus, tossing out millions of mail-in ballots would be drastic and unprecedented, disenfranchising a huge swath of the electorate and upsetting all down-ballot races too.”
How has Trump not claimed fraud in numbers in excess of Biden's margin?
How does counting illegal votes not also disenfranchise a huge swath of the electorate who are entitled to rely on there being a fair election?
SWC for one has maintained all along that Trump would not get this type of relief from any court short of the SCOTUS. This was a limited case, as it appears to me:Delete
The Trump Presidential Campaign asserts that Pennsylvania’s 2020 election was unfair.
But as lawyer Rudolph Giuliani stressed, the Campaign “doesn’t plead fraud. . . . [T]his is
not a fraud case.” Mot. to Dismiss Hr’g Tr. 118:19–20, 137:18. Instead, it objects that
Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State and some counties restricted poll watchers and let voters
fix technical defects in their mail-in ballots. It offers nothing more.
This case is not about whether those claims are true. Rather, the Campaign appeals on
a very narrow ground: whether the District Court abused its discretion in not letting the
Campaign amend its complaint a second time. It did not.
The Campaign tries to repackage these state-law claims as unconstitutional discrimination. Yet its allegations are vague and conclusory. It never alleges that anyone treated the Trump campaign or Trump votes worse than it treated the Biden campaign or Biden votes. And federal law does not require poll watchers or specify how they may observe. It also says nothing about curing technical state-law errors in ballots. Each of these defects is fatal, and the proposed Second Amended Complaint does not fix them. So the District Court properly denied leave to amend again.Delete
Nor does the Campaign deserve an injunction to undo Pennsylvania’s certification of its votes. The Campaign’s claims have no merit. The number of ballots it specifically challenges is far smaller than the roughly 81,000-vote margin of victory. And it never claims fraud or that any votes were cast by illegal voters. Plus, tossing out millions of mail-in ballots would be drastic and unprecedented, disenfranchising a huge swath of the electorate
and upsetting all down-ballot races too. That remedy would be grossly disproportionate to
the procedural challenges raised. So we deny the motion for an injunction pending appeal.
Why didn’t Guiliani’s team plead fraud, since that is the nub of the matter? This is anecdotal, but at the TG table, one lawyer present claimed that one of the president’s lawyers assigned to the case (a very good friend) thought that Giuliani had done a terrible job. Reading through your post, Mark, it is very hard for a non-lawyer to make sense of this case. The rebuke from the 3 judge panel is stunning.Delete
I assume that in some subsequent action the Campaign or some other plaintiff will allege fraud, similar to fraud allegations in GA and MI...Delete
I'm not sure. I haven't read all the pleadings. My tentative speculation is that Giuliani wanted to go for a very quick win. Jenna Ellis sounded very confident about prospects at the SCOTUS. These are issues of Equal Protection that Alito wanted to take up, but was denied before Justice Amy was on board, so the reception at the SCOTUS could be different.Delete
I expect we'll get some enlightenment on these issues from SWC later. He's been reading it all.Delete
Thanks, Mark and Cassander. I eagerly await further commentary from SWC.Delete
This is somewhat O/T but the thought occurred to me that Justice Kavanaugh will be in no mood for left wing shenanigans, having endured them himself.
No legal background here, but some thoughts. Giuliani and Ellis should not be front and center on technical legal matters on issues of this significance. Is this the best legal talent we have available, their passion and hard work notwithstanding? The cancel culture keeping the best and brightest on the sidelines? I hope SP can get the discovery that seems to be desperately needed to get past this chicken and egg dealDelete
with no fraud but you cannot see the evidence. I understand two theories of the case approach but expecting the SC to save the day to me is a huge and unrealistic risk in the timeframe available.
If I can still read and comprehend (and I am not sure I can in this upside down world) it sure looks to me like Sidney Powell has alleged fraud in the Georgia complaint: Pearson v. Kemp...I haven't looked at the Michigan complaint, but I assume it makes similar allegations...Delete
I would prefer to think that the 3d Circuit (as SWC anticipates) would rather dismiss on narrow grounds and leave it to the Supreme Court whether there are sufficient allegations of election irregularities, and/or voter or election fraud, and/or constitutional infirmities to grant Trump relief...in whatever form it comes.
Since this is where we are likely headed, I'll just say I can't see the Supreme Court (other than perhaps Roberts) dodging the question whether the election was fair and passes constitutional muster on technical (pleading) grounds as the 3d Circuit has. Enough Americans believe the election was stolen and I'll go out on a limb and say the Court will (must) decide whether or not it was. At the end of the day, that's what they're there for.
Yeah, particularly discouraging is the PA court's jab, about howDelete
"the campaign requested that it be allowed to submit an amended version of its legal complaint, in order to “restore claims which were *inadvertently deleted*” from a previous version."
(From https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/27/trump-loses-appeal-of-pennsylvania-election-case.html )
If I can still read and comprehend, I'm with ya.Delete
It doesn't help, that the opinion was written byDelete
Stephanos Bibas, whom Trump nominated to the bench in 2017.
Another try here. If RG is pursuing constitutional issues and SP fraud issues, why is Court of Appeals blasting RG case for alleging no fraud and you are not alleging enough to overturn. Confusing to non-lawyer.Delete
They seemed to be saying you are going to have to do a hell of a lot better than this. This argument gets shot down at this level but it will be seen differently at SC?
Confusing to an (ex-) lawyer, too...Delete
When election officials nationwide abandoned millions of ballots to the postal union, there was no way to verify anything about this election.ReplyDelete
It's completely anecdotal,but my family in both Oregon and California believe election theft has become the status quo in both their respective states, yet is largely unchallenged. It defies human nature to believe the people in these states have continued voting for politicians who have literally turned major cities into third world sh*^ holes.ReplyDelete
Dave, the collusion of the CEB with Dominion in IL suggests that Dems know they'd be on thin ice with the electorate without special help--fraud.Delete
For lack of a better place to put this...its about time! Especially Albright...who was part of Russiagate!
January 2017 might have been a better time, but better late than never. Imagine what Trump could still accomplish in a second term...
Oh, and didn’t Justice Alito order the late arriving ballots segregated, and didn’t the good people tallying the votes brazenly disregard his instructions? Even if the number of disputed votes by itself is not enough to reverse the outcome, it seems likely that Justice Alito will not be pleased.ReplyDelete