Perspectives; Thoughts; Comments; Opinions; Discussions

Posts tagged ‘election’

5 Historical Trends That Show It’s Utterly Shocking If Trump Lost In 2020


Reported by J.B. Shurk NOVEMBER 13, 2020

If I told you an incumbent president had 52 percent approval on Election Day and ended up winning 10 million more votes than during his first election, would you predict victory? What if 56 percent of voters felt they were better off since the president had entered office? What if you knew that the incumbent had a nearly 30 percent enthusiasm edge over his opponent, or that when asked for whom they thought their neighbors were voting, nearly 10 percent more Americans expected the president to be re-elected than to lose?

With those numbers in mind, wouldn’t you feel pretty confident that the sitting president had, indeed, been re-elected? Alternatively, wouldn’t you consider it an amazing feat if, instead, the president’s challenger was victorious? The improbability of that result should be newsworthy all on its own.

Donald Trump has majority approval. Nearly six in 10 Americans feel better off today than when Barack Obama was in office, and 15 percent more voters pulled the lever for his re-election than in his 2016 victory. These are not the numbers of a losing candidate, yet we’re told Joe Biden managed to prevail.

The media and pollsters, of course, predicted a Biden landslide, not a very narrow squeaker in which Democrats lost in almost every other avenue of government. Considering the following five facts about the election, it’s no wonder Biden failed to achieve a landslide victory.

1. 10 Million More Votes

Not since President Grover Cleveland’s re-election campaign in 1888 has a sitting president won more votes the second time around and still lost, which is one reason he successfully ran again four years later. To put this in perspective, Obama lost 5 million votes between his 2008 and 2012 elections. He is the only president to have lost voters and still won re-election.

By comparison, Trump not only added about 10 million votes to his 2016 haul but also shattered the record for most votes received by a sitting president. Trump won a greater share of minority votes than any Republican presidential candidate since 1960 and brought more Democrats over to his side than in 2016. More than nine in 10 evangelical Christians voted to re-elect the president. For Trump to expand his coalition of voters so substantially and still lose is historic.

2. 56 Percent of Americans Better Off Than in 2016

This is a huge number. According to Gallup, only 32 percent of Americans say they aren’t better off since Trump was inaugurated. No sitting president has lost re-election when more than half of the country is doing better than before the incumbent entered office.

In fact, Obama, George W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan all won re-election, even though only about 45 percent of the country felt better off than when their presidencies had begun. For Biden to have won the election, despite nearly six in 10 Americans doing well under the current president, is noteworthy. It simply has never happened before.

Part of the reason for Americans’ strong sense of being better off under Trump surely stems from the unprecedented prosperity Americans were experiencing until this past spring when the Chinese coronavirus stopped the world’s economies. Under the president, minority unemployment had reached record lows, and minority wealth savings had reached record highs. At the same time, the stock market had risen to all-time record highs. In other words, the Trump economy was benefiting Americans at all economic levels.

After the pandemic caused an election-year recession, the economy has steadily rebounded since summer. Unemployment has already dropped back below 7 percent, much faster than many economists thought possible, and the stock market is back to its pre-pandemic highs.

In the past, the performance of the S&P 500 in the three months before Americans head to the polls has predicted 87 percent of elections since 1928 and 100 percent since 1984. If the S&P is in positive territory by the end of those three months, the incumbent party almost always wins. On the last trading day in July, the S&P 500 closed at 3,271, was up nearly 7 percent by mid-October, and closed at 3,310 on the Monday before the 2020 election. The market predicted a Trump victory.

3. Nearly 30 Percent Enthusiasm Gap Favoring Trump

In June, during the middle of the pandemic, pollster Scott Rasmussen was blown away by the enthusiasm gap between Trump and Biden voters. He wrote in amazement: “Wow! 76 percent of Trump voters are enthusiastic about their candidate compared to just 49 percent of Biden voters.”

This enthusiasm gap, measured consistently as somewhere between 15 and 30 percent, was picked up by many pollsters. Richard Baris, the director of Big Data Poll, told the New York Post in mid-October that enthusiasm for Trump “is historically high,” while “Biden’s enthusiasm level is historically low.”

Anyone who saw a Trump rally would not be surprised. At one of his last campaign stops before Election Day, about 60,000 Trump supporters showed up to see the president in Butler, Pennsylvania. Trump tractor paradesboat parades, and 30-mile-long highway caravans have been a common feature of the 2020 campaign.

Republican support for the president has been higher than for any president of either party since Dwight D. Eisenhower. Until Biden’s presumed victory, no incumbent president winning so handily in voter enthusiasm had lost re-election.

4. More People Thought Neighbors Were Voting for Trump

Just as in 2016, polling this election cycle proved decisively wrong. Republicans in the House, Senate, and state legislatures across the country all out-performed polling estimates. Pollsters consistently predicted a Biden blowout, but instead, the race is one of the closest in American history.

Pollsters have partially excused their efforts by pointing to a “shy Trump voter” error in the polls that failed to capture the president’s true support. To get around this problem, some pollsters asked respondents to name the candidate for whom they believed their neighbors would likely vote, hoping to elicit more candid voting intentions.

By a 7 percentage-point margin, Harvard/Harris polling found in late September that more Americans believed their neighbors would vote for Trump’s re-election than for Biden. In the week before the election, USC Dornsife published a poll asking a similar question: “Do you think your friends and neighbors are voting for Trump?” USC concluded that “it’s looking like an Electoral College loss for Biden.”

5. Trump Still Has 53 Percent Approval

Just 12 days before the election, Trump’s approval rating popped over 50 percent and has held steady since that time. As Gallup noted, “[A]ll incumbents with an approval rating of 50 percent or higher have won re-election, and presidents with approval ratings much lower than 50 percent have lost.” Rasmussen and Zogby both had Trump hitting that holy grail approval number tied to certain re-election.

On the day before the election, Rasmussen had Trump at 52 percent approval. At the same point in his presidency, and before his own re-election, Obama had 50 percent. As of Nov. 11, Rasmussen shows 53 percent of the country approves of Trump, compared to 46 percent who disapprove. No incumbent president has ever lost re-election with numbers such as these.

All of these numbers have historically contributed to a victory for an incumbent president. Considering them, it’s no surprise Biden didn’t win in a landslide, but that they did not produce a win for Trump in 2020 is almost unbelievable.

J.B. Shurk is a proud American from Daniel Boone country.

Partisans Cheating By Ignoring Election Law Is A Problem As Big As Vote Fraud


Reported by Margot Cleveland NOVEMBER 13, 2020

Fraud represents only one aspect of concern over the results from last week’s election. Of equal import when judging the legitimacy of the next president of the United States is whether states complied with the election rules established by their legislatures. These are not questions of mere “technical errors,” but raise significant constitutional concerns.

On Wednesday, Jim Geraghty of National Review tweeted his “Morning Jolt” summary of post-election lawsuits. “The Trump campaign,” Geraghty stressed, “conceded in oral arguments they were not contending fraud or improper influence, merely technical errors,” he wrote of a recent election case. Geraghty’s article, linked in his tweet, continued: “It is one thing to fume on Twitter that there is a sinister effort to steal an election; it is another thing to assert that sweeping claim in a court of law, before a judge, under penalty of perjury and/or disbarment.”

Not to pick on Geraghty, whom I respect immensely, but he is conflating two separate issues: fraud and violations of the election code. Those are two distinct problems, yet there has been little analysis of the latter, which over the next several weeks might prove more significant.

There are multiple allegations of fraud, such as the middle-of-the-night arrival of unsecured ballots in Detroit or the dead man voting in Nevada. Then there’s the even more devastating suggestion that votes for Donald Trump were swapped to Joe Biden via vulnerable computer systems. Frankly, this idea strikes me as unbelievable, but then again, so did the idea that the FBI would obtain illegal secret court warrants to spy on the Trump campaign, and we know how that turned out.

Election Code Violations Might as Well Be ‘Fraud’

Violations of the election code, however, are a different matter, and unfortunately, sometimes the public views election officials’ bending of the rules as a harmless ignoring of technicalities. As the attorney in the Montgomery County Board of Elections case noted after “conceding” he was not alleging fraud: “The election code is technical.”

That makes technical violations constitutionally significant because Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 grants state legislatures the ultimate authority to appoint the electors who choose the president: “Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”

In Bush v. Gore, former Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist stressed the significance of this constitutional provision in a concurrence joined by Justice Clarence Thomas and former Justice Antonin Scalia. As Rehnquist wrote, that clause “convey[s] the broadest power of determination” and “leaves it to the legislature exclusively to define the method” of appointment of electors. Furthermore, “a significant departure from the legislative scheme for appointing Presidential electors presents a federal constitutional question.”

The three concurring justices in Bush v. Gore concluded that the Florida Supreme Court’s order directing election officials to count improperly marked ballots was a “significant departure from the legislative scheme,” and “in a Presidential election the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must prevail.” Accordingly, those justices would have declared the Florida recount unconstitutional under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2.

While the concurrence in Bush v. Gore failed to garner support by a majority of the justices, the Supreme Court’s composition has changed dramatically since then, and the reasoning of this concurrence provides a strong basis to view deviations from the technicalities of the election code as unconstitutional. As Rehnquist stressed, “[I]n a Presidential election the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must prevail.”

So, if the legislative branch mandates voter signatures, or verification of signatures, or internal secrecy sleeves, or counting only in the presences of poll-watchers from each party, it is no answer to say it is a technicality and not fraud at issue. The state legislatures, through the election code, define the validity of votes, and allowing state officials or courts to read those provisions out of the law raises serious questions under Article 2 of the Constitution.

Ignoring the Election Code Denies Equal Protection

Allowing state officials to fudge on the mandates of the election code raises a second significant constitutional issue, this one under the Equal Protection Clause, which served as the basis for the majority opinion in Bush v. Gore. The majority in Bush v. Gore held that the varying standards violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, reasoning: “The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person’s vote over that of another.”

When state officials ignore the technicalities of the election code, however, it virtually guarantees voters will be denied equal treatment. The proof is in Pennsylvania. There, for instance, even though the election code prohibited inspecting ballots before Election Day, some county officials — those in larger counties with access to mail-sorting machines that could weigh ballots — weighed the ballots to determine if the voter failed to include the required inner secrecy sleeve.

Then those officials, again contrary to the election code, provided information to representatives of the Democratic Party so they could identify the voters whose ballots would be canceled. Voters whose election officials abided by the technicalities of the election code, however, did not receive that notice nor the opportunity to “cure” their ballot.

Now thanks to the unprecedented push toward mail-in voting over the last year, we are seeing this same pattern repeat itself throughout the country. Some election officials bent (or broke) the rules the legislative branch had set, while others followed the letter of the law. As a result, voters in different counties in the same state were treated disparately and on an arbitrary basis. Unlike the situation in Bush v. Gore, however, it is not the state courts altering the plain language of the election code, but secretaries of state or local election officials.

The majority in Bush v. Gore recognized the rightful place of election officials to interpret and apply the rules established by the legislative branch. This difference provides some leeway to states, which through interpretative guidance tweak the technicalities of the election code. But as in other areas of the law, such interpretations must be reasonable and must not violate the clearly expressed intent of the legislature.

The Supreme Court will likely decide where that line will be drawn in the coming days.

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

Christians Aren’t In Existential Despair If Biden Won, Because Government Isn’t Our God


Commentary by Elle Reynolds NOVEMBER 10, 2020

On Election Night, I was crowded around the television with a dozen college friends in a tiny apartment above our government professor’s house. The Virginia night air seeping through the window was rescuing the feeble air conditioning unit and someone had propped up the three-legged TV with a handful of textbooks. Everyone watched the colorful maps on TV flip colors and we good-naturedly heckled CNN hosts who had been talking nonstop for the better part of two hours.

When Trump started gaining votes in Pennsylvania, everyone glanced at the three Pennsylvanians in the room. “All the Republicans just got off work,” said one, a pastor’s son from Pittsburgh. We all laughed.

But his joke stuck with me. I imagined that amorphous group of Pennsylvania Republicans going about their days, serving customers, trading smiles, clattering dinner plates in the kitchen. They would vote proudly and then they would move on with their daily responsibilities to the people around them.

I can’t say for sure if those Norman Rockwell-esque voters in rural Pennsylvania exist the way I imagined, but I have been inspired and convicted by their imaginary example following the election. They cheerfully did their civic duty, and they went about their day. They didn’t drop the responsibilities and joys around them to hang all hope of salvation on a presidential candidate.

As Christians, that’s how we should approach the electoral process — both before and after the results are announced. We should be educated and enthusiastically involved in our governing authority. We should surely fight to protect our families, our right to worship, and the rights of those who cannot defend themselves. But at the end of the day, we do all we can and then leave the results in eternal hands.

We preach that Christ alone is the hope of our salvation. But how graciously we handle the results of this election will show those around us whether we mean it.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be rightly concerned about protecting the electoral process where there is evidence of voter fraud. It also doesn’t mean we should give up being politically involved or holding our elected officials accountable for their words and actions. Advocating for liberty and justice in the civic process is a legitimate and necessary calling.

But it does mean we have an excellent opportunity to live out our faith by remembering that we trust in something greater than elections. “Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation,” the psalmist says. “Blessed is he whose hope in is the Lord his God.”

Because our hope is not in this world, we have no reason to be fearful. We may be disappointed and should be aware of policies that threaten our ability to live as we have been called. Yet we have no need to feel afraid, distraught, or betrayed. Any earthly idol would betray our trust.

It is because we hope in an eternal savior that we joyfully continue our daily lives. We don’t need a week off of classes or work to mourn an election. Our daily joys have suffered no loss of meaning. We continue to enjoy fellowship with other members of the body of Christ. We keep going to work and serving those around us. We go on cooking dinner and enjoying it around the family dinner table. And we remain completely fulfilled by the daily grace of God. Because of our faith, we know that politics isn’t everything (and thank God it isn’t). Our lives shouldn’t revolve around who sits in the Oval Office.

After all, the whole concept of government is merely a means to enable people to live well in community with each other. We cannot let the means become the end. Instead, we should continue to live full and fruitful lives with the people placed around us. Furthermore, watching other reactions to election results reminds us how dangerous and disappointing it is to place our trust in fallen human beings.

A video of a woman screaming uncontrollably at Trump’s inauguration in 2016 became a meme because it captured the disconsolate reaction to Trump’s victory by some of his opponents. “I’m so sorry to my world,” the woman sobbed. “There’s so much potential for beauty and for devastation in this one moment, it’s just almost incomprehensible that they can exist right now.”

Other Clinton supporters reminisced a full year after Trump’s election about how devastated they were by his victory. “It kind of just hit you,” said Trent Vanegas, explaining how he broke down in tears when the 2016 election results were announced. “One moment, there’s hope and the next moment it’s complete despair.” Another Clinton voter expressed fear that he and his wife would have to raise their newborn child under a Trump presidency.

Even the positive reactions to Biden’s apparent victory show an obsessive and unhealthy faith in political power. Members of the media literally wept on television when they called the race for Biden. “I don’t know why I’m crying so much,” MSNBC contributor and former Democratic senator Claire McCaskill said. “I keep crying, I’m going to cry now.”

“I’m very emotional,” CNN’s Don Lemon said. “So when you ask me how I’m feeling right now, I’m sorry, that’s all I can tell you.” CNN’s Van Jones repeatedly wiped his eyes with a tissue on camera.

And then there was Stephen Colbert on Thursday night, in what was supposed to be a comedy routine. Because of Trump, “I’m not sitting down yet, I just don’t feel like it yet,” Colbert said. “I’m also dressed for a funeral, because Donald Trump tried really hard to kill something tonight.”

Two minutes into the show and without having told a single joke, Colbert hung his head and just stood awkwardly in silence. “What I didn’t know is that it would hurt so much,” he finally added. “I didn’t expect this to break my heart, for him to cast a dark shadow on our most sacred right.”

Comedian Marc Maron led off his podcast on Monday — after about 30 seconds straight of profanity — by proclaiming “the weight has been lifted…I don’t know that people really fully understand the power, the symbolic power of the head of state that determines on some level how grounded people feel in the country.”

“We just barely f—ing avoided real fascism, people,” he added, before calling Trump supporters “brainf—ed, brainwashed people or just people who believe that fascism is the way to go.”

Watching these reactions, we should not make a mockery of their joy or sorrow. We should, however, be inspired to share the promise that we have. After all, we are blessed with the confidence that politics is not our final hope. And we are called to live accordingly.

Elle Reynolds is an intern at the Federalist, and a senior at Patrick Henry College studying government and journalism. You can follow her work on Twitter at @_etreynolds.

Democrats Turn On Minority Voters For Discovering Trump Isn’t The Real Racist


Reported by Helen Raleigh NOVEMBER 10, 2020

One of the biggest stories in this election is how President Trump, whom leftists and their media allies have constantly called a “racist,” made great inroads with minorities. The left is clearly shocked. Rather than humbly spending some time on self-reflection, however, they are doubling down on identity politics by blaming minority Trump voters.

Since Election Day, leftists have been attacking minority Trump voters from two angles. First, they claim minorities who voted for Trump are “white” voters who shouldn’t be classified as minorities. This nonsense is nothing new. Prior to the election, Joe Biden famously said black voters who vote for Trump “ain’t black.”

Immediately after the election, this nonsense came up again courtesy of none other than Nikole Hannah-Jones, the creator of the now-debunked 1619 Project. When it became clear that Trump would win Florida thanks to enthusiastic support from Latino voters, Hannah-Jones tweeted: “One day after this election is over I am going to write a piece about how Latino is a contrived ethnic category that artificially lumps white Cubans with Black Puerto Ricans and indigenous Guatemalans and helps explains [sic] why Latinos support Trump at the second highest rate.”

National Public Radio’s Gene Demby quickly endorsed Hannah-Jones’ assertions. In an NPR post-election segment, titled “Who is the White Vote?” Demby said:

It’s important that, you know, we think about the ways that there are many, many white Latinos. And because whiteness so thoroughly informs voting behavior, we should probably be asking better questions about Latino voters, like whether they identify as white or not. That might be more illuminating than simply whether someone refers to themselves as Latino in some ways.

No, Democrats Don’t Own Brown People

Here is the thought process behind these kinds of comments Only white people vote for Republicans. Since skin color trumps ethnicity, of course, light-skinned minorities would vote for a Republican candidate because of their “whiteness.” They shouldn’t be counted as minority voters at all.

This thought process is deeply flawed. Dividing the Latino community by skin color is possibly the most racist thing to do. Latino voters are unique, both as individuals and based on their diverse Latin American countries of origin, but it’s wrong to use colorism to explain Latino voters’ behaviors. Regardless of skin color, many Latino immigrants have suffered or watched their families suffer under socialist policies in their home countries. Many came to America to escape socialism, so naturally, they will not vote for Democrats, whose party enthusiastically embraces it.

Further, claiming skin color drives a voter’s behavior is an insult to minority voters’ intelligence. During Trump’s first term and prior to the pandemic lockdowns, both black and Hispanic unemployment rates were at historic lows. The black and Hispanic household median annual income increase (adjusted for inflation) more than doubled during Trump’s term compared to the Obama years. Minority voters, like any other voters, will naturally support the candidate whose policies have benefited them.

By the same token, minority voters will reject candidates whose policies might bring them harm. Domingo Garcia, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, explained to a puzzled NPR journalist why Biden lost Latino support in Texas. “For example, a lot of the Border Patrol law enforcement are heavily Latino in the Rio Grande Valley,” Garcia said. “So when you are talking about defunding the police, and you don’t stand up to those types of rhetoric, then it leaves an opening for Republicans to come in and take advantage of that.”

When will leftist pundits such as Hannah-Jones and Demby ever realize it is the radical policies and ideas they support that have driven away minority voters?

The Left Believes Minorities Have No Agency

Apparently, blaming minority Trump voters’ “whiteness” doesn’t go far enough for some on the left. Charles M. Blow, a New York Times columnist, complained that some minority Trump voters have Stockholm syndrome, a psychological response that occurs when abuse victims bond with their abusers.

In his most recent article, Blow listed statistic after statistic showing that “a larger percentage of every racial minority voted for Trump this year than in 2016,” including Trump doubling black women’s support from 4 percent in 2016 to 8 percent in 2020, and increasing black men’s vote from 13 percent in 2016 to 18 percent in 2020. “It is so unsettling to consider that many of our fellow countrymen and women are either racists or accommodate racists or acquiesce to racists,” Blow said, calling all Trump voters either racists or accomplices of racism.

There’s more. According to Blow, the number that really put him on his heels was “the percentage of L.G.B.T. people voting for Trump doubled from 2016, moving from 14 percent to 28 percent. In Georgia, the number was 33 percent.”

Although none of the statistics Blow presented even remotely support the title of his piece, “Exit Poll Points to the Power of White Patriarchy,” he found a way to blame white patriarchy and demean minority Trump voters in the end. According to Blow, Trump’s widening support across racial and gender groups “points to the power of the white patriarchy and the coattail it has of those who depend on it or aspire to it. … Some people who have historically been oppressed will stand with the oppressors, and will aspire to power by proximity.”

In the eyes of leftists such as Blow, nonwhite voters and non-straight voters who supported Trump are nobody but coattail riders who have neither personal agency nor the ability to make it on our own in the world. I had never read anything more racist, more divisive, and more insulting than this, and I am not the only one. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a human rights activist and a fellow at the Hoover Institute, tweeted: “This is the dumbest, most divisive drivel I’ve read in a long time. We should be talking about what unites us now. Not doubling down on ID-Politics. Shame on you!”

Minorites Had Good Reason to Vote for Trump

It is obvious that leftist pundits are dumbfounded by Trump’s widening support among minority voters in 2020. Since the 2016 election, rather than trying to understand half of the country who voted for Trump the first time, these talking heads turned toward nurturing their hatred of Trump and getting him out of office as their full-time jobs.

They thought that after repeating “Orange Man Bad” day after day for four years, the electorate would just follow their lead. They have no clue why someone they despised so much could have attracted even more minority votes this time around. Since they are unable to come up with any reasonable explanation, let me shed some light on the matter.

Minorities like me voted for Trump because we like his policies: lower taxes, fewer government regulations, and strong national security. American people, especially minorities, have seen real economic benefits during Trump’s first term. He stands up to socialism and promises, “America will never be a socialist country,” and his unconventional foreign policy approach has brought a historical breakthrough of peace in the Middle East.

We want a safe environment to raise our families. We don’t want to see our cities burned, our shops looted, and our statues toppled. We want good-paying jobs so we can enjoy the lifestyle we desire through our own hard work. We want all families, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to be able to choose the best school that matches their children’s educational needs. We want to continue to express ourselves without being censored or canceled.

We certainly don’t believe race and sex are the roots of nor the answer to every social ill. We are tired of identity politics, critical race theory, and cancel culture, all of which have sucked the fun out of life and shut down the exchange of ideas. We know our country has room for improvement, but it is not a racist nation. We take pride in being Americans and in all the progresses our nation has made, and we are tired of the left condemning our country’s founding and the American ideal.

As long as leftists continue to weaponize identity politics and dress us down as if we are mindless cattle, their candidates will continue to lose our support.

Helen Raleigh, CFA, is an American entrepreneur, writer, and speaker. She’s a senior contributor at The Federalist. Her writings appear in other national media, including The Wall Street Journal and Fox News. Helen’s new book, “Backlash: How Communist China’s Aggression Has Backfired,” is available for pre-order with a release date of October 20, 2020. Follow her on Twitter: @HRaleighspeaks.

Yes, Democrats Are Trying To Steal The Election In Michigan, Wisconsin, And Pennsylvania


Reported John Daniel Davidson By NOVEMBER 4, 2020

In the three Midwest battleground states, vote counting irregularities persist in an election that will be decided on razor-thin margins. As of this writing, it appears that Democratic Party machines in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania are trying to steal the election.

As reporters and commentators went to bed early Tuesday morning, all three states were too close to call, but President Trump led former Vice President Joe Biden by comfortable margins—far beyond what had been predicted in the polls. None of the networks called these states because enough mail-in ballots remained uncounted that it could swing either way, but Trump’s position looked good.

Then, something strange happened in the dead of the night. In both Michigan and Wisconsin, vote dumps early Wednesday morning showed 100 percent of the votes going for Biden and zero percent—that’s zero, so not even one vote—for Trump.

In Michigan, Biden somehow got 138,339 votes and Trump got none, zero, in an overnight vote-dump.

When my Federalist colleague Sean Davis noted this, Twitter was quick to censor his tweet, even though all he had done was compare two sets of vote totals on the New York Times website. And he wasn’t the only one who noticed—although on Wednesday it appeared that anyone who noted the Biden vote dump in Michigan was getting censored by Twitter.

Others were quick to note the partisan censorship from Twitter and raise concerns over how 100 percent of a vote dump could possibly go to Biden. But the social media giant has maintained its crackdown on sharing this information. Twitter users could not like or share a tweet from the Daily Wire’s Matt Walsh noting the 138,339-vote dump.

Buzzfeed later reported that according to a spokesperson at Decision Desk HQ, the votes for Biden were the result of a “data error” from a “file created by the state that we ingested.” When the state noticed the “error” it updated its count, which somehow gave 138,339 votes to Biden and zero to Trump.

It turns out, the vote dump was the result of an alleged typo, an extra zero that had been tacked onto Biden’s vote total in Shiawassee County, Michigan. It seems the error was discovered only because Davis and other Twitter users noted how insane and suspicious the vote totals looked, and demanded an investigation that uncovered what was either a typo or an incredibly clumsy attempt to boost Biden’s vote count.

There was also something suspicious about the vote reporting in Antrim County, Michigan, where Trump beat Hillary Clinton by 30 points in 2016. Initial vote totals there showed Biden ahead of Trump by 29 points, a result that can’t possibly be accurate, as plenty of journalists noted.

After the strange results caught national attention, election officials in Antrim County said they were investigating what they called “skewed” results, working with the company that provides their election software to see what went wrong. The county clerk said they plan to have an answer by Wednesday afternoon.

Then another mysterious all-Biden vote dump happened in Wisconsin. Biden miraculously overcame a 4.1-point Trump lead in the middle of the night thanks to vote dumps in which he got—you guessed it—100 percent of the votes and Trump got zero.

Note the vertical lines in both graphs below:

On Wednesday, the Trump campaign demanded a full recount in Wisconsin, citing “reports of irregularities in several Wisconsin counties which raise serious doubts about the validity of the results.”

In Pennsylvania, the Democratic scheme to steal the election is a bit different. Rather than vote dumps that impossibly go 100 percent to Biden, Pennsylvania is relying on the Democratic Secretary of State’s plan to count indisputably late mail-in ballots as though they were received on Election Day—even if they have no postmark.

This plan was of course rubber-stamped by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which cited the need for “equitable relief” to address mail delays amid the pandemic.

Note that this isn’t just about ballots that come in after Election Day, but about ballots that come in after Election Day that don’t even have a postmark—that is, there is no way to tell when the ballots were mailed, or from where.

Although it’s true that the long delays we’ve seen for absentee ballot counts are due in part to state laws in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania that prohibit the counting of absentee ballots before Election Day, which is not the case in most other states. But the cumulative circumstances under which these absentees ballots are now being tallied is highly suspicious.

Unless election officials in Michigan and Wisconsin can explain the overnight vote-dumps and, in Michigan, the “typo” that appeared to benefit Biden, and Pennsylvania officials can explain their rationale for counting ballots with no postmark, the only possible conclusion one can come to right now is that Democrats are trying to steal the election in the Midwest.

John is the Political Editor at The Federalist. Follow him on Twitter.

Voter Fraud: Massive Illegal Voting Ahead


Posted by Phil Bailey |

URL of the original posting site: https://www.electionforum.org/events-2/voter-fraud-massive-illegal-voting-ahead/

Four women were recently indicted on 30 felony counts of voter fraud and arrested after an investigation by the office of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. The defendants were members of an organized voter fraud ring and were paid in a scheme to generate large numbers of mail ballots in the 2016 election by targeting elderly voters in certain Fort Worth districts.

How did they do it? They falsified the voters’ signatures on mail-in ballot applications … then either intercepted the ballots when they were mailed out … or “assisted” the elderly voters in filling out their ballots.

Another Texas suspect was arrested and convicted of similar “ballot harvesting” in West Dallas for a 2017 city election…

Mail-in ballot theft is just one example of the many different types of widespread voter fraud taking place … in local as well as in national elections. And it’s only going to get worse – much worse – until a national photo ID program is implemented.

Here’s how voter fraud is going to skyrocket…Los Angeles County is planning to implement the little-known California Voter’s Choice Act – Senate Bill 450 – for the 2020 election.

This bill includes the following scary provisions for California’s 58 counties:

  • An official ballot will be mailed to every registered voter (remember: you don’t have to be a U.S. citizen to register to vote in California).

  • Local polling places will be replaced with “vote centers.”

  • The paper sign-in rosters will be replaced with electronic poll books connected to the statewide voter database.

  • Election Day will be replaced by 11 days of voting.

That last provision will result in massive voter impersonation…

Over the 11-day voting period, anyone can go to a vote center anywhere in the county … give the poll worker the name and address of any registered voter … sign the electronic poll book with that person’s name … and vote. There’s no intention of checking the signatures in the poll books at the vote centers against the signatures on file in the voter registration records. The only way the illegal voting will be detected is if the real person whose vote was stolen shows up at a vote center later and is told, “Sorry, you’ve already voted.”

The fake voter’s ballot is already in the electronic ballot box and is indistinguishable from every other ballot. It won’t be retrievable…The real voter will be given a provisional ballot. But these aren’t examined until weeks later.

What’s especially scary about this scheme is that counties sell their voter files and voter history data for election-related or research purposes…A simple database program can create a list of registered voters who seldom vote … or who haven’t voted since their death… Thus, a small group of activists could vote for 11 days in 800 vote centers around the state and never be detected.

The only way to prevent this – and all other forms of voter fraud – is with a federal voter ID law.

Did You Know Obama’s Immigration Raids Closed Restaurants BEFORE the Election?


waving flagBy Dave Jolly February 20, 2017

immigration arrests

The liberal mainstream media is having a field day reporting about the few illegal aliens being arrested for deportation. They talk about how terrible Trump is by breaking up families and threatening businesses. Every day, the news is filled with images and interviews with protesters and illegals. The reports are given in such a way as to vilify President Donald Trump and make him to be some unfeeling, cold-hearted bigoted hater.enemedia

Last week, the same liberal mainstream media made a spectacle of a nationwide liberal protest called ‘Day Without Immigrants.’ It’s a clear example of how biased the liberal news is because nothing Trump has done even suggests that he’s against legal immigrants.

Thousands of American citizens, legal and illegal immigrants walked off their jobs and out of classrooms all across the nation in protest against Trump and his executive order. The mainstream media reported on the thousands of protesters and they reported on how some restaurants and other businesses closed for the day in solidarity with the Day Without Immigrants protest. Ironically, one restaurant fired 12 Hispanic workers for not showing up to work in order to take part in the protest. They now say it’s unfair that they were terminated, but no one looks at it from the perspective of the employer who has a restaurant to open and run. If workers are excused for just not showing up to work for what they believe to be a worthwhile cause, then how can any employer rely on his staff to show up any day? Liberals can find an excuse to protest every day, so how many days should employees be allowed to just not show up for work and leave the employer stranded?

Trump fully supports legal immigration and legal immigrants already here. His executive order to stop immigration and acceptance of refugees was only TEMPORARY in order to improve and tighten the vetting system used to screen legal immigrants and refugees. There are several examples of how the vetting system used by the Obama administration failed to keep out some individuals who should never have been allowed to enter the United States. I speak specifically of Tashfeen Malik and several others like her.

Even though liberals are celebrating the rulings of liberal judges who blocked Trump’s order, they fail to realize that most of the terrorist attacks taking place in European countries have been carried out by refugees that were not properly screened. Even Syria’s President Assad said that when the judges blocked Trump’s order that many terrorists flocked to the US disguised as refugees, and that’s exactly what President Trump wanted to prevent.rapeugees02

However, no one seemed to be reporting about the same thing happening during Obama’s presidency when his immigration officers made raids, arrested illegals and forced the closure of restaurants.

On October 18, 2016, less than a month before the November election, Immigration and Customs agents raided a number of restaurants where they arrested and detained a number of illegal aliens.

In Buffalo, New York, ICE agents entered the Agave Restaurant and arrested a 19-year-old cook named Sergio Roblero. He came to the US from Chiapas, Mexico on a work visa and then overstayed his work visa and never bothered to try to renew it. Consequently, he was arrested. Three of the ‘sister restaurants’ of Agave were also raided by OBAMA’s ICE agents leading to the arrests of 25 illegal aliens. Of the four restaurants raided by Obama’s ICE agents, only one has yet to reopen its doors for business. The other three remain closed.

But where is the mainstream media coverage of how the arrest of illegal aliens have resulted in the closing of businesses and loss of jobs and income for Americans, under the regime of Barack Obama? Why is the mainstream media feasting on similar things under Trump, but totally ignored the very same thing happening under Obama? When is the last time you heard the liberal mainstream media report that during Obama’s tenure in the White House, around 3 million illegals were arrested and deported?

Yet, the media is focusing on a few dozen arrests of illegals here and there under Trump, but ignored the 3 million arrests made under Obama. This is a clear example of the worst kind of journalism there is – biased, twisted and agenda driven instead of an unbiased reporting of the truth.propaganda machine

ABOUT THE AUTHOR: Dave Jolly

R.L. David Jolly holds a B.S. in Wildlife Biology and an M.S. in Biology – Population Genetics. He has worked in a number of fields, giving him a broad perspective on life, business, economics and politics. He is a very conservative Christian, husband, father and grandfather who cares deeply for his Savior, family and the future of our troubled nation.

Trump Takes The Lead In Major National Poll


waving flagNovember 1, 2016 By

donald-trump-vs-hillary-clinton-232

Leftists are simply getting sick and tired of Hillary Clinton. What the media used to call “strong enthusiasm” for Hillary has plummeted since the FBI’s announcement of the continuing email investigation.

What does that mean? Trump is now up in the polls. A new ABC/Washington Post tracking poll shows 46 percent of likely voters support Donald Trump compared to 45 percent for Clinton. Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson now has 3 percent support (a new low) while Green Party candidate Jill Stein is at 2 percent.

The poll is actually even closer than one percent. Taking it to the decimal, as ABC reports, Trump has a zero-point-seven percent advantage.

These results are a two-point switch for the candidates since one day earlier and a dramatic change from one week ago. On Oct. 23, Clinton enjoyed a 50 percent lead over Trump’s 38 percent.

When asked how enthusiastic voters were about their candidate, Clinton fares much worse. On Oct. 22, 52 percent of Clinton supporters were enthusiastic about their candidate compared to 49 percent of Trump supporters. Now, 53 percent of Trump supporters are enthusiastic and only 45 percent of Clinton voters feel that way.

enthusiasm

This poll is unique also because they asked a significantly larger number of Democrats than Republicans. “Partisan divisions are 38-28-29 percent Democrats-Republicans-independents.”

Nationally, there are a few more self-identified Democrats than Republicans, but the numbers hardly break that far to the left. And Independent voters are impossible to measure, since there is no “independent” presidential candidate.”

This is a close race, but vote preference even one week out is not necessarily indicative of election results. In the 2012 race, Romney was ahead of Obama by one point and President Obama went on to win by four percentage points.Happy Happy Joy Joy

The Value of the Vote


waving flagAuthored by 

URL of the original posting site: http://ipatriot.com/the-value-of-the-vote/

people-vote-hands-raised-crowd

Why is it so important to vote, and is it a moral decision? Sort of.

The constitution declares that this is a nation under the watchful eye of the Creator of the universe. As the author of all creation, He established this nation as a representative republic composed of a free and independent people, and as such, He gave us the right to choose who will represent us through our voting. As a free people, we have a right to choose not to fulfill this responsibility to our government, be disobedient to God, and to suffer the consequences. If we do not vote, then we can not complain about the outcome.

In the past, we have elected a crook and a cheat (Nixon), two Philanderers (Kennedy and Clinton) and none of the presidents for the last century have been particularly religious or even moral, and we have elected them to be leaders and presidents, and not priests or prophets. Our obligation, this election is to determine who will best represent all the people. Let us look at only four major issues that we are all concerned with, the preservation of our form of government, the preservation of our sovereignty, the preservation of our security, and the preservation and advancement of our economy.

Preservation of our form of government – The third branch of our government, The Judiciary, needs to be composed of strict constitutionalists who are not trying to be legislators as well. If we need to change laws, we have The Legislative branch, voted in as representatives of the people to do this. Changing laws is not the judge’s mandate. We do not need to change or reinterpret the framework, and it does not need to be modernized. It works perfectly well the way it is.

Preservation of our sovereignty – Immigration is out of control, and it has been since way before Ronald Reagan. Why are we the only nation on earth that doesn’t even try to control who comes here? Just try to go to Mecca. The solution is simple. Close the borders, then control who we want in. Implementing that is not so simple, but it is necessary to try.

Preservation of our security – Throughout history, there has never been a less imperialistic country than the US. Americans have a desire for peace and a distaste for war, but it is insane not to fight like we are at war with those who war against us. As the most powerful country in the world, we need to fight to win and fight to eliminate future wars. The war in the Middle East has cost the lives of over 370,000 people, over 7million have lost their homes, and we have spent over 61 billion dollars. It is about time to put an end to this swiftly and decisively.

Preservation and advancement of our economy – For the past 8 years the economy has slumped along as the worst recovery in modern times and the government has had no effect on a recovery that naturally would bounce back after all this time, without the government interfering. The do-nothing political posture needs to stop regulating businesses to death and chasing them out of the country with oppressive taxes. Stop this “fair share” mantra and do what is necessary for us all to prosper. If we are arguing about splitting up a piece of pie, bake more pies and we will all have more.

Yes, there are more concerns, but if any candidate will even attempt to tackle just these four issues that the present government has ignored and done nothing about, then it doesn’t matter if they are a saint or a sinner, a professional politician or a novice, or even if you like them. We need to get rid of the do-nothing government we have and elect someone who will at least try to bring this country back on a winning track, winning for all Americans.

FRANKLIN GRAHAM: Weighs In On Trump’s Sex Comments From 2005 – You’ll Be SHOCKED!


waving flagPublished on October 10, 2016

URL of the original posting site: http://clashdaily.com/2016/10/franklin-graham-weighs-trumps-sex-comments-2005-youll-shocked/

Franklin Graham isn’t timid. He speaks his mind and is unapologetic about his faith. He even held a ‘Decision America Tour’ ahead of the Presidential Campaign, insisting that America needs a ‘moral revival’ or it will fall.

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FFranklinGraham%2Fposts%2F1271741769548668&width=500

Here is the full text of his Facebook post:

The crude comments made by Donald J. Trump more than 11 years ago cannot be defended. But the godless progressive agenda of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton likewise cannot be defended. I am not endorsing any candidates in this election. I have said it throughout this presidential campaign, and I will say it again—both candidates are flawed. The only hope for the United States is God. Our nation’s many sins have permeated our society, leading us to where we are today. But as Christians we can’t back down from our responsibility to remain engaged in the politics of our nation. On November 8th we will all have a choice to make. The two candidates have very different visions for the future of America. The most important issue of this election is the Supreme Court. That impacts everything. There’s no question, Trump and Clinton scandals might be news for the moment, but who they appoint to the Supreme Court will remake the fabric of our society for our children and our grandchildren, for generations to come.AMEN

ALERT! ALERT! ALERT! This man was paid $3,500 to protest Donald Trump


June 1, 2016June 2, 2016

This man was paid $3,500 to protest Donald Trump

Mexican flag-waving anti-Trump protesters outside the Trump rally in Costa Mesa, CA on 28 April. (Image: Screen grab of video from Patriotic Populist via YouTube)

We finally have proof that progressive front groups are giving actors money to protest presumptive GOP candidate Donald Trump. After eight years of failed Obama policies, Democratic strategists are desperate to get voters agitated enough to gamble on another four years of big-government experimentation. And if they can’t generate real passion among the electorate, make-believe anger will do just fine.

ABC News reports:

Today a man from Trump’s rally last week in Fountain Hills, Arizona has come forward to say that he was paid to protest the event. “I was given $3,500 to protest Donald Trump’s rally in Fountain Hills,” said 37-year-old Paul Horner. “I answered a Craigslist ad a little over a week ago about a group needing actors for a political event. I interviewed with them and got the part.”

Trump supporters have been claiming for weeks that the protesters are being paid for by Bernie Sanders ’ campaign, but Horner disagrees.

“As for who these people were affiliated with that interviewed me, my guess would be Hillary Clinton’s campaign,” Horner said. “The actual check I received after I was done with the job was from a group called ‘Women Are The Future’. After I was hired, they told me if anyone asked any questions about who I was with or communicated with me in any way, I should start talking about how great Bernie Sanders is.”

Here’s the ad that ran on Craigslist:

Ad

All of this, meantime, sounds like vintage Hillary to me: Attack Donald Trump, then frame Bernie Sanders.

Horner also shared an observation that is sure to crack up all the millennials in the room:

“It was mostly women in their 60’s at the interview that I went to. Plus, all the people that I communicated with had an AOL email address. No one still has an AOL email address except people that would vote for Hillary Clinton.”

This report is confirmation that desperate Democrats are manufacturing outrage and planting protesters in an attempt to instigate violence at Donald Trump rallies. Partyof Deceit Spin and Lies

Cross-posted at DeneenBorelli.com

Deneen Borelli

ABOUT HTE AUTHOR: Deneen Borelli

Deneen Borelli is Outreach Director for FreedomWorks, a grassroots organization dedicated to limited government. She is a contributor at Fox News and has written for The Blaze, The Daily Caller, Los Angeles Times, and dozens of other publications. She is the author of the book ”Blacklash: How Obama and the Left are Driving Americans to the Government Plantation.”

 

Picture1 true battle Picture1 In God We Trust freedom combo 2

Some Final Thoughts Before Tomorrows Big Election


The rhetoric has been fierce this Presidential Election 2012. You’ve read what I have had to say as well as others I have shared with you. You’ve heard the Political ads, read reviews, heard speeches and what other investigation you’ve accomplished. Congratulations. If more Americans where to do that kind of research I believe we would have a vastly better America today. Sadly too many do not do any research, and barely listen to any News outlets to get informed. Based on many “On The Street” interviews, it seems that most young people get their political insight from John Stewart.

Recently a group of people got together and created a political ad that has run here in Southern California. In it the woman makes this statement, “Mr. President, what is it about your first four years that will tell me that the next four years will be any different?” Great question.

Another person took all of President Obama’s speeches from 2008 and compared them with 2012. Same tag lines, same promises, same plan, same emphases. That should answer the lady’s question.

President Obama has made it clear that he was highly influenced by his years in Islam schools, Indonesian society and socialistic family influences. His thought, ideas and perspectives are all from Collectivist/Socialist/Marxist teachings and beliefs. The proof is in the way he has grown the government, created a greater hatred of rich people, and stirred the pot of race hatred and created a class war that rivals anything in history. He has demonstrated his disregard for the Constitution with his Czar appointments, over 150 executive orders bypassing the congress and his utter disdain for the American people where the truth is concerned with such things as “Fast and Furious”, his political hit list and the latest, the Benghazi attack.  Four more years of this will be a disaster of the American Constitution, and the American way of life prior to President Obama’s election.

Please vote. Please vote prayerfully.

How About That Herman Cain?


I’m nearly 65 years old and have been active follower of politics for over over 40 years. Like you I’ve heard all the various arguments, the ideology and baseless charges about the “other side”. I admit I am growing tired of all the rhetoric and aggravated with the “pundits” telling me that what I am thinking is not right, and they are smarter than the rift-raft that is anything other than themselves (i.e., Cable News Anchors and Commentators). I’m even getting fed up with O’Rielly. I am seeing a growing number of people like me. Maybe, they are underestimating our research and influence.

A perfect example is Herman Cain. Since the first time I heard him speak I have been a fan. The more I hear him, the more I like him. I’ve been thrilled at his growth in the polls, and yet all the “big-mouths” want to put us down saying he has no chance. No Chance? Let’s take a look at Mr. Cain as compared to President Obama as a candidate;

  • Herman Cain has years of Corporate Leadership experience employing people and delivering a great product. He has dealt with budgets, business ups and downs, and the art of negotiating. As a candidate, Barack Obama had none of this experience, and got elected.
  • Herman Cain’s number one attribute for me is that he is NOT, NOR HAS HE EVER BEEN A POLITICIAN. We have had over two hundred years of what politicians can do for us. It’s time to let a business man do it right.
  • I get angry every time I hear someone point out his lack of experience (especially those supporters of President Obama). Do I really have to list his vast experience as a leader, as a profit maker, as an employer, as a community leader, as a local, State and National tax producer as an employer and his experience with many other business as an adviser.
  • His 999 plan may not be perfect, but non of the others are even understandable. Sorry pundits, and that includes you Mr. “RINO” Romney, more often than not the simple answers work out to be the longest running solution to an over complicated problem.
    • By the way, do I really have to explain to you that the complicated tax code is for the subjugation of the American People? In the last several years we’ve heard multiple examples of people on the left making millions of dollars and NOT paying taxes. Why is it that when they are being considered for political office, or another movie role, do these back taxes become an issue?

There is so much more I want to say, but I am wrung out now because of a major crisis that hit our family recently. However I leave you with this. Do we want another politician ignoring us for the next four years, are we ready for REAL CHANGE and give men like Herman Cain with Newt Genrich as his Vice President a chance to go in there and kick  some tail?

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: