Notes From Battleground 2020: Endgame, Part Three
The following copy is a continuation of yesterday’s essay, “Notes From Battleground 2020: Endgame, Part Two.” Today’s material picks up where yesterday’s essay left off, and looks at additional categories of evidence for fraud in the 2020 election.
•Ballot Incongruities
The vast majority of American voters seldom vote “split ticket.” A “split ticket” refers to the case where a voter chooses a different party for President/Vice President than for the other “down ballot” candidates for such positions as Senator and Congress Person. Voters usually favor a unified ballot because it’s likely that elected officials from the same party will work better together, have greater compatibility of agendas and can project a stronger united front regarding legislative issues. Rarely, however, a voter will have reason to split their vote. Personality factors and local loyalties can sometimes come into play. So, a small amount of down ballot incongruity wouldn’t raise any eyebrows. And, since Mr. Trump is a very strong personality, and might be described as an “in your face” individual, a bit more “split ticketing” might be expected in the present election as a result. However, it is extremely unlikely that “split ticketing” has occurred on a scale large enough to have swayed this election to Biden. Why do I say that? The simple reason is that Republicans did VERY well “down ballot.” They picked up six seats in the House and lost only one (Arizona, which, by the way, is STILL disputed) in the Senate. They also did very well in state legislatures. The excellent down ballot Republican performance, therefore, remains incongruous with the claimed presidential result.
•Technical Failures
A number of technical “glitches” have also been reported. As reported in the Western Journal, technical defects in Dominion Voting Systems devices flipped 6,000 votes in Antrim County, Michigan, that SHOULD have been Republican but went to the Democrat instead. Dominion machines were used in 64 counties across Michigan and in THIRTY STATES including ALL BATTLEGROUND STATES. One wonders what ELSE may have been flipped by Dominion machines.
•An Old Favorite
Ever since Chicago Mayor Richard Daley’s political machine enfranchised the dead to vote for John F. Kennedy in 1960, filling in and sending in ballots belonging to deceased voters, schemes along those lines have tempted many a political hack. As reported in the Western Journal, a suit had been filed in Pennsylvania that accuses that state of having TENS OF THOUSANDS dead people on their voter rolls. And, not only that, but the suit further alleges evidence of ACTIVITY from some of those deceased voters. The suit was filed by the Public Interest Legal Foundation, a group NOT affiliated with the Trump campaign.
•A shocking lack of transparency.
In my mind, the most damning evidence of widespread voter fraud is also the simplest: there was a gross lack of transparency in vote casting and canvassing activities. There is documentation that voting facilities in battleground states denied access to the voting facilities for properly documented Republican Election Observers (I’ve seen several videos), which have the RIGHT to be present under voting laws in all states. Numerous suits alleging this are in process across all battleground states. There can be no legitimate reason for such prohibition. Democrat duplicity and legerdemain are the only explanation. If you’ve nothing to hide, why would you block observers?
The above is but a brief recap of the allegations President Trump and his campaign have brought against the Biden/Harris campaign and the Democrat Party. In short, there are cogent reasons to believe that Democrat skulduggery is responsible for Joe Biden’s purported victory.
Now, the situation I’ve presented here can be interpreted in one of two ways. The first interpretation is that all of the subterfuge described above is the result of numerous individuals working independently toward the shared goal of insuring the removal of Donald Trump from the Presidency. If the reader is of a more suspicious bent, however, he or she might consider that all of the above is part of a carefully planned and executed assault on Mr. Trump, coordinated by numerous people in the Democrat Party with significant involvement and collusion of the media. Commentator Dock Morris is in the later category and believes that an overarching plan was conceived and hatched by Pelosi, Schumer and others. In Morris’ view, every single detail was conceived and meticulously managed. For example, the widespread polling over-estimation of Biden’s status wasn’t simply a mistake, it was a deliberate and necessary ruse to establish in the American electorate a defeatist mind set so that when Biden was made victorious by Democrat perpetrated voter fraud, the American populace would NOT be suspicious, simply because the Biden victory had been predicted by all the polls, and, therefore, it was what everybody expected. Very clever, wasn’t it? Likewise, the strategy of promoting mail in and absentee voting was a key aspect of the Democrat plan, because heavy use of non in person voting would make it so much easier to do ballot dumps, to have dead people voting, non resident voting and many of the strategies alluded to above. Which of the two scenarios took place is interesting to speculate on, but is, in the last analysis, irrelevant. BOTH methods lead to the same thing, the corrupt installation of the worst presidential ticket in modern times.
•>What They’re Saying
So, with all of the cogent concerns enumerated above, the LAST part of the “endgame” is that Democrats must now try to ignore all of these concerns, hide them, and make the malfeasance alluded to above seem less outrageous than it really is. They must try to LEGITIMIZE what amounts to a ballot box coup d’ etat.
And to this end, Democrat leaders and their talking heads in the media have been working overtime. In an effort to lend credence to very suspect election results, they have been quick to embrace the putative winners and have been suspiciously eager to dispel any and all notions that there may have been fraud.
First, Biden supporters want us to believe that the POSSIBILITY of election fraud in the US is preposterous. On the contrary, not only is American election fraud possible, it has actually OCCURRED in the past, as indicated above.
Numerous politicians as well as media commentators were VERY quick to claim that “there’s been no evidence of fraud.” Oh, really? Might election fraud, even if it did occur, be a difficult thing to substantiate, especially less than a week after the fact? To come out, at this early date and declare that “there’s no evidence of fraud” is over-reaching in the extreme. Did the “no evidence” claimers review all of the accusations? Did they review ANY of the accusations? Have they sifted through all the documentation? ANY of the documentation? And, all in a couple of days?… I don’t thinks so. And, let me turn the question around: on what grounds would they be able to convince me that there WASN’T any fraud? Normally, of course, they could point to Republican election monitors. Unfortunately, there WERE’NT ANY. Or, at least none in sufficient numbers to have confidently affirmed that a fair process had taken place. Some jurisdictions simply turned Republican monitors away, and many of the jurisdictions that did allow them in, did so, in some cases, at ridiculous distances up to ONE HUNDRED FEET!
One Democrat speaker tried to refute suspicions about the count in Georgia by saying, disingenuously, that there couldn’t have been fraud in Georgia, because the governor is Republican. Oh, really? Isn’t it possible that that fraud could have occurred EVEN WITH A REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR, (perpetrated, obviously, by NON Republicans in the system)?
And, then there were the inevitable juvenile declarations. Jim Kenney, the contemptible mayor of Philadelphia, was quoted as saying that President Trump should “put on his ‘big boy pants’ and concede.” Funny, I don’t recall that he said anything such thing about Hillary putting on her “big girl panties” when she TOOK BACK her concession to Donald Trump and went on to demand numerous recounts. And, what about Al Gore’s “reluctance” to concede? Didn’t he have his “big boy pants” on either?
And, then, referring to his hoped for Trump defeat, Senator Chuck Schumer went on to say, incredulously, that the “long dark night” has ended. To which I would question Mr. Schumer about what “long dark night” he was referring to. Was the “long dark night” economic prosperity, the lowest minority unemployment in history, numerous victories in the international theater, a revitalized military, defeat of ISIS, 3 Nobel Prize nominations, energy independence, and so much more? THAT was the “long dark night?”… I don’t thinks so, Mr. Schumer. And, while we’re on the subject of “long dark nights,” what about the reprehensible Democrat behavior that took place again and again over the last four years: continuous “investigations,” impeachments, allegations and recriminations? What about the tacit support for rioting and violence, the encouragement of Orwellian censorship, the fervent efforts to defund and demoralize the police? And, all of this while accomplishing ABSOLUTELY NOTHING of benefit to the American people? Those things, Mr. Schumer, sound more like a “long dark night” to me.
Addendum:
As promised, what follows is a brief discussion of Benford’s Law for the interested reader:
Benford’s Law is one of those counterintuitive mathematical jewels that make that discipline so endearing to its enthusiasts. A priori, one would expect that in real world sets of data, individual digits would appear more or less equally, resulting in a probability of finding each numeral chosen randomly to be approximately 0.1, or 10%. It turns out, surprisingly, that that expectation is WRONG. It has been found, observationally, that the frequency of a given numeral in naturally occuring sets of data is NOT a constant 10%. For the numeral one it’s actually THIRTY PERCENT! For the numeral two, it’s about 18%. For three it’s 12% and so on.
This counterintuitive fact was first noticed by Canadian-American astronomer Simon Newcomb in 1881 when he observed that reference books containing tables of logarithms (actual printed tables were relied on back then well before the advent of calculators and computers) were MORE WORN OUT in the range of smaller numerals (1, 2 and three for example) than larger ones. Scientist Frank Benford studied and formalized this observation and formulated its mathematical expression.
A common example of the application of this law is the analysis of the set of numbers representing the areas of the world’s various countries. The numeral frequency in this set confirms exactly to Benford’s law. And, the amazing thing about this law is that it’s applies to data sets regardless of the units chosen. In the above example, it doesn’t matter whether the country areas are represented in square miles or square kilometers; the result is the same!!!!
Benford’s Law is commonly used in forensic analysis to determine if a give data set has been manipulated, and, hence, its application here. There are Excel programs that are readily available for this purpose.