(If only I coulda bet you this year…)
Well, one disputes a bet on a poker game when it’s discovered that the opponent is cheating . . .
Patrick Basham, founding director of the Democracy Institute, said Biden’s victory of Trump was ‘not statistically impossible, but it’s statistically implausible.’ . . .
According to Basham, there are a ‘dozen or more’ non-polling metrics that ‘have a 100% accuracy rate in terms of predicting the winner of the presidential election.’ . . .
‘If you look at the results, you see how Donald Trump improved his national performance over 2016 by almost 20 per cent.’ said Basham.
‘No incumbent president has ever lost a reelection bid if he’s increased his votes [total]. Obama went down by three and a half million votes between 2008 and 2012, but still won comfortably.’
Basham noted that Trump gained ground with minorities, Catholics and other groups.
‘If you look at those results, you see that Donald Trump did very well, even better than four years earlier, with the white working class,’ Basham said.
‘He held his own with women and suburban voters against all of most of the polling expectations, did very well with Catholics, improved his vote among Jewish voters.
‘He had the best minority performance for a Republican since Richard Nixon in 1960, doing so well with African-Americans, and importantly with Hispanics.’ . . .
He discussed a ‘historically low ballot rejection rate for absentee and mail-in ballots.’
‘Rejection rates, which in the primaries earlier this year were well into the double-digits and which historically have often been very, very high in these key swing states, or at least in the key swing counties, we’re seeing rejection rates of less than 1%, often very close to to zero,’ said Basham.
Note that in 2000, the Dems refused to accept the verdict of SCOTUS and talked about Bush being an illegitimate President his entire two terms. He ended up in the low 30s for approval: far lower than Trump.
As long as he says the election was stolen, they’ll believe him.
[Dershowitz] “There certainly is probable cause for investigating and looking further. Giuliani has made very serious accusations. The question is, which institution is designed, constitutionally, to look into it. Is it the state legislature? Is it the courts? Is the clock running in such a way that there won’t be time to look into this?
“I have proposed, for the future at least, the creation of a vote integrity panel, VIP, that would consist of former justices, judges, neutral non-partisan, that any complaint about an election, either before the election, during the election, or after the election, could go to this group which could then look into it because we know the media doesn’t give it a fair shake and we know that everybody else is partisan. The American public wants to know, is Giuliani correct, or isn’t he correct? I don’t know whether we’ll find that out in time for the meeting of the Electoral College votes.”*[Maria Bartiromo] “Alan, you said earlier about the Supreme Court and the Pennsylvania state we’re watching but also that we need evidence. Do you feel that Giuliani has been presenting evidence with all of these videos and these witness testimonies? You said he’s got 1,000 affidavits.”
[Dershowitz] “Yes. These are retail evidence that have to be determined to be true by cross-examination and witnesses. The core constitutional question that Ken [Starr] correctly pointed to is clearly state legislatures have the power before the voters vote to pick the electors. The unanswered constitutional question is do they have the power, state legislatures, to pick electors after the voters vote, after they conclude that the voters’ count has been in some way fraudulent or wrong. That is a constitutional question we do not answer to, and the Supreme Court may get to decide that question if a state legislature decides to determine who the elector should be and changes the electors from Biden to Trump. That will be the key constitutional question.”