Reality-Based Statements

Let's begin with a reality-based statement: Joe Biden ascended to the Presidency in November, 2020. Regardless of any questions about the election results, his presidency should not and realistically cannot be challenged at this late date.

Let's continue with another reality-based statement: There will be other national elections. If errors or fraud or miscounts or significant anomalies (e.g., here) happened during the 2020 election, it would be incumbent upon government officials to uncover and correct them so that they are not reproduced in the future.

Let's conclude with yet another reality-based statement: A biased and dishonest media, following the lead of nation Democratic politicians, showed a remarkable lack of curiosity about reported election anomalies, labeling the 2020 election "the most honest and transparent in history" and suggesting that anyone or any fact that raised questions was "conspiracy theory."  The fact that the same media labeled the Russia Hoax as real, the Hunter Biden lap-top as "disinformation," and the Wuhan Virology lab origins of COVID as nonsense (to name only a few of many examples), might cause a thinking person to question the media's election claims, but whatever ...

So, here we are back at the beginning of this story. In a recent peer-reviewed paper in the journal Public Choice, Dr. John R. Lott of the Crime Prevention Research Center published the results of a statistical analysis of the 2020 federal election. Here's a summary of some of the results from the 39-page paper:

1. Georgia, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin did not match signatures on the outer mail-in envelopes to the official registration records. Some states, like Pennsylvania accepted ballots that were not enclosed in outer envelopes. These acts are in violations of the laws in many states and make it impossible to verify a vote’s legitimacy. 
2. Lott compares votes in adjacent voting precincts, where one of the precincts is accused of voter fraud, as with Georgia’s Fulton County, and finds statistically significant evidence of abnormal mail-in and absentee ballot results. In short, Trump’s absentee ballot share in the Fulton County precincts was depressed, compared to adjoining precincts. The largest estimate of depressed Trump votes was more than Biden’s margin in Georgia. 
3. In Pennsylvania and other states, numerous voters trying to vote in person were told they had already voted absentee, suggesting that someone else had voted using their name. The differences found to be statistically significant in Georgia were not significant in Pennsylvania, but Pennsylvania was missing some essential data for the study, which was a problem.
4. In Nevada, 42,000 people voted more than once, 1,500 dead people voted, and 19,000 did not have a Nevada residence.
5. In Wisconsin 28,395 people voted without identification.
6. In Georgia, Nevada, and Pennsylvania, the rejection of improper absentee ballots in 2020 were a fraction of those rejected in 2016.
   

It's important to note that these data do NOT prove that the election was "rigged" or that Biden's challenger won. But they most certainly do indicate that the election was NOT as pure as the wind-driven snow (a position taken by the Democrat politicians and their trained hamsters in the media) and that a deep-dive into the election process in battleground states is justified so that similar problems do not re-occur in elections going forward.

In addition, a new movie, 2000 Mules, by conservative commentator Dinesh D'Sousa alleges that terabytes of cell phone geolocation data and CCTV footage prove that paid "mules" moved from ballot drop box to ballot drop box in battle ground states inserting tens of thousands of ballots that could not be properly vetted and were in clear violation of the law in every battleground state. The legacy media has shown absolutely no interest in investigating D'Sousa's evidence, but immediately "fact checked" the movie claiming it contained "faulty assumptions, anonymous accounts and improper analysis of cellphone location." Problem is, their panicky "fact checks" and rejection of his evidence contained considerably more "faulty assumptions," disingenuous claims, and factually inaccurate comments on geolocation data. They also rejected his video evidence effectively taking the position, Who are you going to believe, us or your lying eyes. 

Again, D'Sousa's movie does not prove that the election was rigged, but it certainly poses legitimate questions about the manner in which ballots were collected and cast in key states. If the Democrats and the legacy media really cared about fair and open elections, they would want those questions investigated and answered.

Sadly, had Biden lost under the same conditions noted in Lott's paper or D'Sousa's movie, the media would assign teams of reporters to investigate. But in this case, they have already concluded that there's nothing more to know, that the claims of election malfeasance are bogus, that everything is A-OK. 

Sorta like the fact checks they conducted leading to the conclusion that the past president would be indicted by Robert Mueller for treason with the Russians (he was exonerated); that the Hunter Biden laptop wasn't real (it was), and that COVID originated from pangolins in a wet market (it didn't). 

The media's fantasy-based assertions never survive a collision with reality. Reviewing the results of the aforementioned study and movie, it looks like the media's assertions about the 2020 election may very well encounter the same fate.