How Did the Dems Win in 2020?

Knowing the correct answer is CRITICALLY important for 2024

Jul 27, 2023

Like a train coming down the tracks of a tunnel we are in, the 2024 national elections are daily looming ever LARGER…

1×

0:00

-0:38

The only ways of avoiding the 2020 results are to: a) accurately determine what happened in 2020, and b) take timely and effective measures to see that it won’t be repeated in 2024.

There are all sorts of theories as to how the Democrats won the 2020 Presidential (and some congressional seats). On closer analysis, they boil down to two main conjectures:

1 - honestly, i.e., the Dems worked harder and smarter than the R’s, and/or
2 - dishonestly, i.e., they cheated, deceived, acted illegally, etc.

The answer is almost certainly a combination of both. That leads to the extremely important question of how much of each: 50/50? 60/40? 90/10?

We MUST know that answer as it will determine the time, effort, and money we invest to respond. For example, if the results were 90% due to #1 and 10% to #2, that says our focus should be on how to work harder and smarter.

On the other hand, if the results were 10% due to #1 and 90% to #2, that clearly tells us that our focus should be on stopping cheating (legislation, lawsuits, audits, etc.).

The problem here is that there is no way to definitively know the answer without meaningful (forensic) post-election audits in key states. This is one of the main reasons why the Left has resisted such audits. The disturbing reality is that zero states have meaningful (forensic) post-election audits! None. Nada.

To see what a meaningful post-election audit consists of, please read this Report. Here is a short video about that Report.

So how do we decide how Dems won in 2020? I propose that we look at some of the evidence for each of the two main theories presented, and decide which is stronger…

……………………………………………….

THEORY #1: The Dems won in 2020 because they worked harder and smarter than Rs.

Working harder and smarter means that they did a better job with key things like: 1) messaging, 2) raising money, 3) getting their supporters to vote (e.g., absentee ballots), 4) legal maneuvering (e.g., lawsuits), 5) taking advantage of COVID (e.g., declaring emergency measures), ETC.

Most objective election experts would agree that (by and large) the Dems did do a better job with ALL of these. For the sake of argument (and to keep this commentary from getting too long) I am willing to concede that these are all true, without having to cite documented examples of each. [BTW, contributing to this conclusion is that the RNC has been considerably short of exemplary (e.g., see here).]

However, let’s not jump the gun here, as correlation does not prove causation. Before we decide what are our best actions for 2024, we need to carefully examine the evidence for the other argument — and then decide which had more impact.

……………………………………………….

THEORY #2: The Dems won in 2020 because they cheated.

As mentioned above, the best way to prove the level of election malfeasance is to do sample post-election forensic audits in swing states. However, since no state did a forensic post-election audit following the 2020 elections, we are left with making conclusions from other evidence. I could cite multiple examples here, but for the sake of brevity let’s just consider the following three (3) independent pieces of lesser-publicized evidence that support the second explanation…

—> FIRST Evidence for Theory #2:

Although no state did a full forensic post-election audit in 2020, these three states did a partial forensic post-election audit in 2020: Nevada, Michigan and New York. In each case, major problems were identified. Let’s look at one as an example.

The Nevada results were testified to at a Congressional hearing, and nationally televised (I happened to see it). A team of experts examined every Nevada voter in the 2020 elections, and compared the voter registration filed with the State to other public records (e.g., death certificates). They found six (6) different categories of fraud (e.g., the same people voting more than once). After deleting duplications, these experts concluded that there were some 130,000 fraudulent Nevada votes in 2020! For perspective, Biden was reportedly Nevada’s Presidential choice, by about 34,000± votes.

Note: Since that national public testimony under oath over two-and-a-half years ago, no one has disproved the findings of the Nevada Report...

So did harder work and smarter efforts win Nevada for Dems in 2020? This evidence says that is not likely, as something like 95% of it is attributable to dishonesty.

Was Nevada an outlier or typical? How many other swing states are similar? Without meaningful audits, we simply do not know. Ironically (or purposefully), the standards for proof of election fraud seem to be much higher than normal.

—> SECOND Evidence for Theory #2:

There were a surprising number of large vote spikes in the 2020 election. My team examined the official 2020 election data and wrote a Report about these aberrations.

They identified twenty-seven (27) large vote spikes for the 2020 Presidential election. Every one of them was in Biden’s favor. Let me repeat that: every one of them was in Biden’s favor! (See page 2 of our Spikes Report for yourself.)

This is statistically unexplainable.

To appreciate the significance of these 2020 Presidential spikes, we need to look at what happened in swing states. This table from our Report is very revealing…

There is no rational explanation that harder work and smarter efforts produced these spikes. The most logical deduction is that this is evidence supporting Theory 2.

—> THIRD Evidence for Theory #2:

Another fascinating Report generated by my team is a Contrast Analysis. What a statistical Ph.D. did was to compare the voting results in the 2016 Presidential election to the 2020 Presidential election — for every county in every state!

Let’s pick one state to see how this works. How about Michigan? The states are listed alphabetically in our Report, so Michigan is on page 31. The top part of the page has a graph of the results, and each of the 83 Michigan counties is one dot:

The bottom part of the page is a partial table showing the actual numbers. The table starts with the counties that had the most change (contrast) on the top, and the least on the bottom. By “change” I mean how many net votes did Trump get in 2016, compared to 2020. (If Trump won by 20,000 in 2016, and by 5,000 in 2020, that would be a positive Dem contrast of 15,000 votes.)

Note that this simplified analysis does not take into account Michigan’s population change between 2016 and 2020 (1± %), voter registrations, voter turnout, etc.). We also do not know how much money (e.g., Zuckerbucks) was allocated where in MI.

What the graph shows is that for 90%± of the counties There was NO APPRECIABLE CHANGE. That is graphed as the roughly straight solid line, above. In other words, Michigan was lost in 2020 due to what happened in eight (8) counties (10% of the State’s counties).

But Theory #1 insists that the Dems won because of reducing checks on voters (e.g., no real voter ID), better messaging, a better job of getting out the vote, etc. If true, those things would generally apply across the board — i.e., to essentially EVERY County in a state. The actual data shows that not to be true, as the Dem’s superior efforts had little or no effect on 90% of Michigan counties. Looking closely at this Report, the same is true of other states.

If the counter argument is that things like Zuckerbucks were focused on limited areas, that supports Theory #2, as Zuckerbucks is considered a form of cheating.

This information also makes a strong case for Theory #2 as it indicates that the Dems victory was due to a few select counties having significant vote changes. Without considerably more investigation, we do not know the specifics as to why these eight counties changed so much. It’s easy to make guesses, but there is too much at stake here to be superficial about this: we must quickly fix most of the gaping election holes.

……………………………………………….

As I said earlier, there is no scientific PROOF of which Theory is right — but the three sample independent pieces of evidence presented for Theory #2 make it MUCH more likely to be the primary explanation for the 2020 Presidential election results.

Some key takeaways here are:

1 - Our efforts should be primarily focused on preventing malfeasances, particularly in the suspect counties in each State identified by our Report.
2 - It is beyond imperative that (as a minimum) every swing state have at least a sample, post-election partial forensic audit. (See our Audit Report for details.)
3 - Without a doubt R’s need to conduct elections (including supporting candidates) in a far more professional manner than has been the case to date. There is no legitimate reason that R’s not exceed what the Dems have been doing.
4 - There should be something equivalent to SOC 2 mandated for election officials, as there needs to be real consequences for failures by election officials.

There are some other worthwhile reports and information on our election website: Election-Integrity.info. We need good citizens to help with elections, so check your State for an organization focused on genuine election integrity.

And for goodness sake: VOTE!

Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues

Discussion about this post