Annaliese Levy – Patrick Basham, the Director of the Democracy Institute and a professional pollster, spoke with Mark Levin on Fox News’ “Life, Liberty and Levin” in an interview Sunday night about how President-elect Joe Biden’s victory was “statistically implausible.”
— Mr Producer (@RichSementa) December 7, 2020
Basham studied three aspects to assess the “outcome” of the election as an independent-minded person- quasi results, non-polling metrics and how the vote ballots were accumulated and tabulated on election night and since.
“Donald Trump improved his national performance over 2016 by almost 20%,” Basham said. “No incumbent president has ever lost a reelection bid if he’s increased his votes. Obama went down by three and a half million votes between 2008 and 2012, but still won comfortably.”
“Donald Trump did very well, even better, than four years earlier with the white working class, he held his own with women and suburban voters against most of the polling expectations. He did very well with Catholics and 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,” Basham noted.
Trump performed so well that Basham said if 100 independent, well-informed observers were given all the demographic and exit poll data and asked who they thought won the election, “99, at least out of those 100 independent, well-informed observers would say, well, obviously, Trump.”
“So, we know from the vote itself, the alleged vote, the alleged result, that something very strange has happened because the numbers just don’t add up. They don’t measure up to our polling that was conducted right up to the election,” Basham said. “Everything suddenly went very strange in the middle of the night. Now, that could happen it’s just very, very unusual.”
“[Biden] has apparently, allegedly, received more votes than any candidate for president in American history. And yet, he has done very, very poorly in most of the country, except where it absolutely mattered,” Basham added.
According to Basham, non-polling metrics include “party registration trends, how the candidates did in their respective presidential primaries, the number of individual donations, how much enthusiasm each candidate generated in the opinion polls.”
“These metrics have a 100% accuracy rate in terms of predicting the winner of the presidential election. In 2016, they all indicated strongly that Donald Trump would win against most of the public polling. That was again the case in 2020,” Basham said. “So if we are to accept that Biden won against the trend of all these non-polling metrics, it not only means that one of these metrics was inaccurate … for the first time ever, it means that each one of these metrics was wrong for the first time and at the same time as all of the others.”
Basham noted that while there was an increase in mail-in and absentee ballots for this year’s election, there was a “historically low ballot rejection rate for absentee and mail-in ballots.”
“Rejection rates in the primaries were well into the double digits and have historically 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 0. Now giving the increase in absentee balloting and the lack of experience that most of the new voters and those doing the counting would have with those ballots, it is implausible to put it politely, that that figure would be as low as it was.”
SF Source Sara Carter Dec 2020