1. As you can see from the map above, RealClearPolitics, the remarkably balanced politics blog (which means that progressives view it as a right wing propaganda organ) still rates the election as undecided.
Notice of Correction: Several sources reported incorrectly that RCP had called the election for Biden and then reversed itself based on, among other developments, the Trump campaign’s lawsuit alleging widespread voting fraud in Pennsylvania. RCP sent out a tweet denying that it had ever had William Penn’s pride and joy listed as anything but unsettled. Thanks to EA readers who pointed this out, and good for RCP for not following the mob and its conventional wisdom. What matters, of course, is what the map says now, and that at least one non-partisan, responsible source officially regards the election as undecided, which, in fact, it is.
RCP also shows Arizona, Alaska for some mysterious reason, Georgia, and North Carolina. All but Alaska currently have the President less than a percentage point behind with recounts looming and legitimate questions popping up daily. Biden’s Electoral vote count is under 270, at 259.
Observes Victory Girls, accurately,
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito ordered the state to segregate votes that came in late. The state has been very reluctant to follow the orders of a Supreme Court Justice. This happened because at the last minute the Governor of Pennsylvania asked the state Supreme Court to extend the voting time. Constitutional expert Ken Starr [explains] this unconstitutional action:
“…[W]hat happened in Pennsylvania over these recent weeks is a constitutional travesty. Governor Wolf tries to get his reforms, his vision, as he was entitled to do, through the legislature of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. He failed. He then goes to the state Supreme Court, which by a divided vote, accepted the substance of what Governor Wolf was doing, and then added thereon nooks and crannies as well.”
In short, there are a lot of Biden votes in Pennsylvania that may be disallowed.
Pennsylvania isn’t enough: Trump still has to run the table to win, and that is a huge long-shot. But the claim that the election is over and settled now is simply and unequivocally false.
2. Regarding those questions that are popping up daily, here is accountant Larry Correia’s recent update to his previous list of “red flags.”
The blunt blogger’s conclusion seems reasonable, if depressing:
Even if Trump conceded today the election process has been irreparably tainted. Even the people pretending this process is sainted and innocent know they are full of shit, but they are going to keep up the polite lie, because they are cool with fraud as long as it benefits their interests. And the people who got robbed have little hope that the system will ever represent them again, because no matter how many votes they have on their side, what’s the point if some blue metroplex can middle of the night fabricate however many votes needed to counter them?
I believe most people on the right already believed that fraud happens in these machine cities, because duh. But I think most of us also believed that our votes still mattered because we could win by beating the margin of lawyer. But after this audacious fuckery? If they can pull off this level of blatant, clumsy, in your face bullshit and get away with it, no amount of regular votes will ever matter again. Even if we overcome Big Tech and the media controlling most information and get more people on our side, they’ll just stop the count when we are too far ahead and make more votes appear until they win. Then the media and Big Tech will declare nothing weird happened. Shut up.
So I can’t say how this is going to go, but none of the ends from this point will be good. At best this marriage goes back to an abusive relationship with irreconcilable differences, and at worst it ends in a murder suicide.
3. OANN Chief White House correspondent Chanel Rion points out that by the standards articulated by the State Department in 2004, our 2020 election rates as “rigged.”
in 2004 the U.S. was monitoring the Ukrainian elections and, after witnessing events that took place there. Ukraine saw multiple irregularities that match what we are seeing now in the U.S. with the 2020 election. “Bottom Line: According to our own State Dept’s assessment of corrupt foreign elections, the 2020 US elections do not meet its own standards,” tweeted Rion.
The State Department’s website provides a description of the Ukraine’s election that sounds familiar…
- Illegal Use of Absentee Ballots: According to the respected NGO “Committee of Voters of Ukraine” (CVU), massive electoral fraud was committed through the illegal use of absentee voter certificates. For example, people were caught in Dnipropetrovsk and Sumy oblasts with their pockets stuffed with blank absentee ballots that they were using to vote at multiple polling stations.
- Opposition Observers Ejected: Observers from Our Ukraine and other opposition groups were expelled from most polling stations in eastern Ukraine on Election Day. For example, in Territorial Election Commission (TEC) district number 42 in Donetsk oblast, Our Ukraine observers were kicked out of all but a few polling stations.
- North Korean-Style Turnout in the East: Turnout in the pro-Yanukovych eastern oblasts was unnaturally high. In several electoral districts, turnout for the run-off round increased by 30 to 40 percent over the first round. In Luhansk oblast, the reported turnout rate hit nearly 96 percent — a number that, to quote the OSCE, even Stalinist North Korea would envy. A similar turnout rate was reported in Donetsk oblast, where 98 percent of the votes went to hometown candidate Prime Minister Yanukovych.
- Mobile Ballot Box Fraud: In the second round of the election, the number of voters who supposedly cast ballots at home using mobile ballot boxes was double that of the first round. Much of this voting occurred without observers being present and was massively fraudulent. In Mykolayiv oblast, for example, nearly 35 percent of the oblast’s voters purportedly cast their ballots “at home.”
- Computer Data Allegedly Altered To Favor Yanukovych: There were credible reports showing that that Yanukovych supporters gained illegal access to the Central Election Commission’s computer system and illegally altered vote tabulation data being transmitted by TECs to the CEC.
- Reports of Opposition Fraud: Yanykovych’s supporters allege that Yushchenko’s supporters stuffed ballot boxes in western Ukraine. But the reports and evidence of pro-Yanukovych fraud greatly outweighed those indicated for Yushchenko.
4. A veteran computer programmer makes a strong argument that the computer “glitch” that was found to have turned 6000 Trump votes into Biden votes in Michigan was no glitch, but an intentional programming choice. That same software was used in 47 other Michigan counties as well as Wisconsin and other states where a sudden surge of votes for Biden has raised questions.
If massive fraud is discovered in Michigan and/or Wisconsin, I don’t know what will happen.
In the absence of a competent, curious, fair and objective news media, independent bloggers are often doing an excellent job investigating what the “real journalists” will not. Sure, there are a lot of mistakes, premature conclusions and other errors that allow this work to be mocked and discredited, because these are amateurs of widely varying skill, acumen and ethics. Nonetheless, they are filling a vacuum left by the disgraceful journalists who abandoned their duties to serve a propagandists.
Ethics Alarms 
Trump doesn’t quite have to run the table. Michigan has a lot of potential problems that could force action that costs Biden the state. Same thing in Wisconsin.
So there are a lot of theoretical “paths” to a fraud-tainted election resulting in a Trump victory, even if all of them are long shots to say the least. No matter how much suspicion can be raised, the problem with vote fraud (and the reason it is almost always successful to varying degrees) is that it’s almost impossible to “un-ring” the bell once the votes have been counted. Ballots become commingled (court orders notwithstanding — “human error,” amirite?) , and the very imprecision of the process makes accurate fraud accounting impossible.
Judges are extremely loath to “estimate.” Without precise numbers or classes to apply, my bet is that any proof that doesn’t overcome a reasonable doubt standard will not be enough to invalidate large numbers of votes. Do-overs are not even a theoretical responsibility — too much of the written constitution would have to be ignored, and that somehow justified. No matter how fair that might seem in the outcome, we can fairly conclude the current Supreme Court would have none of it.
The easier conclusion, even if it is really little more than a rationalization, is to allow the fraud (THIS time ONLY, don’cha know!) and demand judicial oversight of the reform. That’s probably the best outcome America can hope for, and honestly, that’s only slightly better than nothing at all.
Without a national law making voting significantly more restrictive and vastly tightening oversight and monitoring, the parties in favor of having the fraud option available will always win. It pains me to say this, but I’m forced to throw it out there — Republicans may have to learn to play the game by the rules established by the machine cities, much as they have had to do in things like filibuster “reform” and ballot harvesting.
Those of us who care about ethics in government and insist on clean elections are pretty much screwed no matter what.
Glenn
I am a big fan of the doctrine that fruits of the poisonous tree shall be denied. Everyone knows that the purpose is to curtail wrongdoing by those charged with executing laws.
If many a murderer is allowed to go free because an official acted improperly, then voiding all ballots within the county or subdivision where wrongdoing occurred of the candidate benefitting from the wrongdoing would severely chill most fraud.
That would put the onerous of responsibility on party officials to protect their vote.
My only concern is false flag shenanigans.
I still believe all voter rolls should be purged and require all persons to re-register. All persons need to document eligibility as a citizen to register. A photo ID is a must at the polls and absentee ballots must be in by election day. Finally, election officials should be required to certify universe of ballots recieved before canvassing, certify the number of legal countable ballots, and not report any state counts until a final tally.
The “fruit of the poisonous tree” is a doctrine that has never been successfully applied to elections. The reason is because it forces the court to disenfranchise voters, and they have always been extremely reluctant to resort to that remedy. They are happy to disqualify votes that can be proven fraudulent, but when the fraudulent become commingled with the legitimate, they have historically rejected FOTPT as a justification.
That doesn’t mean that if enough fraud is proven well enough, they wouldn’t — it just means, in my view, that it is the remedy of very last resort in vote fraud cases.
False flag issues are always a concern, but there is little to be done there.
I think that if all states required a valid government-issued ID for any in-person voting, did not allow mail-in or other remote voting other than an absentee ballot that is legally applied for, sent to the bona fide address of the voter, and certified by witnesses prior to return. I also think that all defective ballots received that are not cured by the voter in person prior to the day of the election should be invalidated.
That may mean that some military personnel don’t get a vote if they mess up their ballot and can’t get home, but alas, we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Glenn
I realize that fpt doctrine would disenfranchise legal votes. That would seem to be an injustice but doesn’t the fpt create an injustice for a crime victim.
Vote fraud occurs because we choose to allow conditions that promote fraud to prevent any disenfranchisement. I suppose my point is that every illegal vote cast and counted disenfranchises an opposing vote. If we are to choose between preventing disenfranchisement and minimizing fraud the solutions should favor those who were not beneficiaries of the fraud.
With that said there are simple solutions that merely demand some personal responsibility by the voter.
I agree with you, Chris. I’d be very happy to see FOPT applied as you suggest.
But historically, the courts have rejected this, and in our current situation, I am positive they are even less likely now than every to consider it even for a moment absent overwhelming evidence of widespread and otherwise unfixable fraud.
I am reading that Georgia is ordering a manual recount of ALL votes cast in the state.
jvb
Good. And, I think, unavoidable.
Agreed. I am also reading the Republicans are concerned that this will only embolden Democrats in the Senate run-off races set for January.
jvb
I would be, lead Democrats are *openly* calling for fraud now to win the Georgia seats.
Why wouldn’t they be brazenly calling for fraud if they didn’t just have out in the open but undeclared fraud rewarded?
Yes. That should be very enlightening.
The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree keeps governments from misbehaving during the investigation of a crime. Even though a heinous criminal may benefit from it, society is protected because the rule of law, due process, and the civil rights of the larger community are protected.
Harsh though your remedy may be, Chris, it seems only right to establish that illegal voting will not be tolerated anywhere. If Biden’s voters, then, get hosed, so be it; same with Trump if he or the RNC engaged in these shenanigans. Such a result would send the message, signed with a sledgehammer, that parties need to follow the rules.
jvb
Absolutely.
SCOTUS could order the election null and void and order do0ver, I suppose.
I just remember the re-election of a certain mayor despite all polls that showed he would lose. The mayor dismissed the election board and order two of his staff members to count the ballots. He refused to allow any observers. The next morning, the mayor joyfully announced he had won re-election in a landslide. When his challenger took this to court, the mayor refused to be subpoenaed by keeping everyone away from him (a 16 man bodyguard squad armed with automatic weapons and street sweeper shotguns can do that). Then the mayor destroyed that ballots after the 30 days required by law had elapsed. What did the judge do? He told the mayor not to do it again.
That is what I expect from judges.
The destruction of the ballot envelopes in Philadelphia immediately comes to mind.
That might seem best, but I suspect it will never happen. I don’t know where they would find the authority in the Constitution to make such an order.
What’s the likelihood of THAT?
I saw that RCP denied that they ever called PA for Biden. In another thread someone documented daily photos of their map that never showed PA called for Biden. However many said they did see it. Does anyone have proof they did?
Here’s a link to the tweet from RCP president Tom Bevin denying they called or retracted a call of Pennsylvania. I hope the original post will be corrected to remove this false claim. https://twitter.com/TomBevanRCP/status/1325973800891150336
I’ll change it. I’m happy to say that Rudy was not my source, Of course, what matters is that a reliable source is not following the media mob on this, and how and when they got their map is irrelevant.
Thanks. And the thread is hilarious.
Update: Fixed!
I go to RCP every day, and I don’t remember ever seeing PA anything but gray. Anecdotal, yes, but I believe Bevin. RCP is generally a very trustworthy site. It leans more right than left, but that’s a bias they don’t really try to hide, and they mostly try to present both sides of the argument.
For a human endeavor, I think it’s about as good as you’re likely to get.
Related to the posts from Nov. 9 & 10, as of this morning, NOQreport’s JD Rucker still has not updated his Nov. 7 post with the faulty numbers he used for voting in Michigan. His point was that the discrepancy between presidential and senatorial votes(149,700) that he listed showed potential fraud. The actual numbers from Decision Desk HQ (58,881) tend to negate that conclusion. His failure to update after being notified about the discrepancy puts him in the unreliable category.
Yup. I won’t be paying attention to him again, that’s for sure.
If I were a party trying to run a sham election, I’d pick a district we could afford to lose, and run a reverse sham, then make all the evidence easy to find and collect and publish clearly. If the Democrats are corrupt and did corrupt this election, my guess is they’d pull something like this next time. If they didn’t already pull it this time. I wonder if we should keep our eyes open for revelations coming from one of the unexpected GOP pick ups.
Here is one example.
When journalists are perceived as hiding the truth, when Social Media openly suppresses the free flow of information, it is no surprise people are turning towards those like Tariq Nasheed.
I haven’t had time to look into this, but could the courts declare the popular vote null and void in affected states and require the states to select their electors by some other method? As I understand it most states used to use alternatives to popular votes, like vote by state legislature or appointment by governors, and it seems like this is less likely to disenfranchise then throwing out chunks of votes, since I’m sure all these civic minded people voted for their state officials. (Okay, maybe not. But in theory they should have…)
Still might not work out for Trump, but it seems like it would be a fair alternative to accepting obvious fraud.
Where would they find the authority to order such a thing? States are given the constitutional authority to run the election. I suppose the USSC could find a 14th amendment violation, but I can’t see ordering a new federal election as a remedy the Constitution would allow. What if the state simply refused to comply? My reading of the constitution says they could.
Now, perhaps the Court could then order that the state would be unable to certify electors to the EC, but my read on the current court is that they would have to have overwhelming and indisputable evidence to even contemplate such a remedy. Then the question would arise, can a majority of electors present elect the president, or must it be an absolute majority of all available electoral votes? The Constitution refers to “all electors appointed,” and it reserves the appointment of electors to the states. I don’t think the Court could order, for example, PA not to appoint electors because they find their election fraudulent. That seems beyond the reach of the Court.
Finally, even supposing the Court ordered a new election in the states under controversy, what’s to stop the fraudsters from just repeating the same fraud? After all, the states would have to change their election laws and enforce them in a way that they’ve already refused to do.
Finally, how would they deal with the constitutional requirement that the new President be inaugurated by January 20th? Who would be president if the new election weren’t done by then? I see nowhere in the constitution where it says a president’s term can be extended.
No, I can’t see a do-over as a possibility.
Um, I was specifically talking about an alternative to a do-over. I agree, a do over isn’t possible, but could they reject the popular vote without a do-over, but allowing the state to use a different method of selecting electors?
Well, the state legislature has the constitutional authority to select electors. Usually, how this is done is a matter of state law. Could a state change this?
The Constitutional grant to them is very broad, but Bush v. Gore, for example suggested that state courts may have limited authority over Art II sec. 1 clause 2 legislature’s power. It’s a theory that has not yet been tested.
In sum, we don’t know. I am sure the Supreme Court would never order it, but if a state legislature decided to do so, it’s unclear if either the US or state courts could stop them.
I find it ironic that, on the day we are supposed to be honoring those who served, and in some cases spilled blood, to protect the American system, that the supposed most sacred part of that system, the election, is the subject of some very real and legitimate questions about whether it was done fairly and transparently. I find it still more ironic that the party that started as the party closer to the people and that produced the first president who did not belong to the Virginia or Massachusetts gentry appears to be at the bottom of these questions. Most problematic of all is that this party appears to have leveraged a public health emergency to specifically create this questionable system in the name of obtaining power, and now is relying on allies who control the news people see and the means by which people pass information to suppress these questions and create an overwhelming narrative that everything here was completely on the up and up, and that anyone who asks questions is just denying the truth and acting like the fox who couldn’t get the grapes and claims they are sour.
This nation is supposed to have moved past large-scale fraud and behind the scenes party bosses engaging in this kind of crap. It’s precisely to prevent this kind of crap that the states started writing their own constitutions after WW2. My own home state had just such a major problem when Frank Hearst, the mayor of Jersey City, was a shadow king without whose blessing no politician could get elected and no one could count on getting justice. It is for that very reason that the governor of NJ is constitutionally more powerful than most governors in other states. Cities still engage in a lot of this, but I guess there is an unspoken belief that municipal government can’t really do much damage to the system, and a cession of most cities to the Democratic Party after the Great Migration made sure they would vote solidly Democratic. There was always enough of a balance between the cities and the rest of the states and nation to preserve the belief that every vote counted and there was at least a fair chance at your voice being heard.
That being the case, everyone was willing to look the other way on small amounts of fraud. The one time there was a serious challenge to the whole system was in 2000, when Al Gore tried to litigate his way into the White House by cherry-picking three Democratic-leaning counties to do manual recounts and chip away George W. Bush’s lead and flip the winning state of FL. He almost managed it too, before SCOTUS stopped it. I don’t think that the Democratic Party has either forgiven or forgotten. That party has also changed, and not for the better. When your leaders are villains like Harry Reid, bullies like Chuck Schumer, and budding tyrants like Nancy Pelosi, that says something about the party that elected them.
I think we have reached a reckoning point in this country. This election must be fully examined and shown for what it is. If there is no fraud, or minimal fraud, then there needs to be a swift concession and every facility given to the transition. If there is large-scale fraud, then I am not sure what the remedy is. I think it must be a multi-prong remedy, involving punishment of the fraud, a rerunning of questionable elections in person, and probably an overhaul of the system like Florida. If large-scale fraud is allowed to stand and 70 million people believe their voices aren’t being heard, we could be looking at a second civil war.
I will never forget the cherry picking.
It turned public opinion against Gore.
And yet another retraction! The guy in Pennslyvania who claimed the post master instructed workers to backdate late ballots has admitted that he lied. GoFundMe has returned the more than $130,000 raised for the poor guy who for sure now is going to lose his job. A victory for ethics!
You sure about that. I think the stenographers at the Washington Post have retracted the “retraction”: https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1326337154050641920?s=19
Because James O’Keefe is such a reliable source.
No, he’s an unreliable source, but when and if he has the goods, his past issues don’t make them less probative.
Aaand now he says he was coerced.
The ethical situation would require the anonomous sources in the House committee that claimed Hopkins recanted came forth and swear under oath they told the truth. Without that I will take the word of the man who goes on record and has everything to lose.
It was based on anonymous sources?
Yup
Anonymous sources are least reliable when they accuse specific persons of specific misconduct.
Nope. https://lidblog.com/richard-hopkins-wapo/
And this is why I chose the Times, as horrible as it is, over the Post.
Jack, you’re really off base with your analysis on this. Why aren’t you reading the actual lawsuits Trump has filed to see what’s really going on? Instead, you’re going with blogs. I don’t understand.
The number of votes Trump is contesting would never get him to 270 electoral votes, nor would it cause him to win PA.
Also, how would the PA supreme court interpreting legislation be unconstitutional? Isn’t that their job? Did you read their reasoning?
Also, this quote…”even if Trump conceded today the election process has been irreparably tainted”
And that’s the Democrats fault? Not Trump’s for airing unsubstantiated claims? You do know Trump made these claims on election night right? Based solely on the fact that he was up at one point, and then wasn’t. Do you not see what he’s doing?
Where is the proof of fraud? Why can’t I read something concrete and not blog entries? Where is the proof that “some blue metroplex can middle of the night fabricate however many votes needed to counter them?”
Jack has made the case that there is probable cause warranting further inquiry.
Tom R, there’s a reason there are statutes of limitation for bringing actions. It takes time to make a case. The statute of limitations for federal fraud can be as long as six years. How many years did it take Meuller’s team to determine there was no collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia?
Okay? Have you read any of the actual court filings by the Trump administration? I (and many others) have literally seen no proof that there is wide-spread fraud going on. Nor any proof that Biden didn’t win the election or that the election is illegitimate.
Further inquiry is fine. Is that all he’s really suggesting though? I don’t think so. Suggesting that all he is saying is for “further inquiry” seems very motte and bailey to me.
Jack, you’re really off base with your analysis on this. Why aren’t you reading the actual lawsuits Trump has filed to see what’s really going on? Instead, you’re going with blogs. I don’t understand.
False: I read the complaint, and linked to it.
The number of votes Trump is contesting would never get him to 270 electoral votes, nor would it cause him to win PA.
Again, false. There are recounts coming, and more lawsuits. No, the lawsuit in Pennsylvania will not get him to 270. Nobody, literally nobody, has claimed it will. The campaign will be contesting the process in other states, but this one was already set up by a previous SCOTUS decision.
Also, how would the PA supreme court interpreting legislation be unconstitutional? Isn’t that their job? Did you read their reasoning?
I’m not going to explain what is right out there. The Penn. Supremes allowed the governor to override the legislature, which he does not have the power to do. It will be overturned. Watch. This is why Alito required that the last batch of mail-in ballots be separated out–as I already said.
Also, this quote…”even if Trump conceded today the election process has been irreparably tainted”
And that’s the Democrats fault?
Yes, that’s the Democrats’ fault, 100% 100%—for inflicting a non-secure mail in ballot system, and by preemptively declaring victory while there were legitimate questions.
Not Trump’s for airing unsubstantiated claims?
Last chance, Tom. The “unsubtantiated claims” dodge is dishonest, and I don’t want to read it again. The claims are unsubstantiated until they are investigated, like Al Gore’s claims that valid votes had been cancelled, like all election disputes. This is a partisan talking point. There are many, many reasons to be suspicious about the counts. If you have an argument to rebut specifics, do it, but next mention of “unsubstantiated claims” gets you suspended. The evidence so far is circumstantial and anecdotal. They still have to be checked out.
You do know Trump made these claims on election night right? Based solely on the fact that he was up at one point, and then wasn’t.
I don’t care what he said, except that he should not have said he “won,” as I already noted. The mail-in ballots alone justified his objections and challenges.
Do you not see what he’s doing?
He’s doing what he has had to do for four years—fight an organized, unethical effort to remove him from office. And it’s his duty to do so.
Also, how would the PA supreme court interpreting legislation be unconstitutional? Isn’t that their job? Did you read their reasoning?
A State Supreme Court can be overuled by SCOTUS when it violates the rule of law. That’s what SCOTUS did when the Florida Supremes made up new law as the recount went along.
Where is the proof of fraud?
I know you’re smarter than this.
Why can’t I read something concrete and not blog entries?
Because the news media has completely stopped practicing journalism.
Since you said Trump is currently doing what he’s been doing for the last four years…
Do you think the purported election results are an “organized, unethical effort to remove Trump from office?”
See my last post, Tom.
So, yes?
See my post. I don’t believe everyone got in a room and planned a conspiracy.
Here is an update on the overall election. The WSJ breaking news today was that the Democrats will hold the House (which lots of folks had announced last week).
But, when you look at the electoral map, it is pretty astounding. The Republicans have 202 seats so far that have been called, but they’re on track to win at least 6 or 7 more where they’re leading by big margins.
If you take all the districts where they are leading, it comes to 12 districts, which would give them a total of 214 seats — that would give the Democrats a mere 221-214 majority.
Some of those races are very, very close (40 votes is close, right?) so probably one or two will go the other way, but still even 224-211 is pretty doggone slim. There is speculation that Pelosi could actually lose the Speakership — I don’t really credit that, but it did happen to Gingrich as I recall.
Just some further indications that the country actually voted for a center-right government, not either of the extremes.
Hehe…..just heard one of the NC Dem speakers try to convince the troops that losing seats in the legislature, Supreme Court, and appeals courts is really a good showing for the Dems. Uh huh, just keep smoking that….
If the GOP wins 214, it will be the smallest margin for any majority in t5he House since WW 2.
One more suspicious fact that suggests the Presidential vote is “off”….