Media 2016; “Trump Won By only 80k Votes” Silent That Biden Won By 43,809 Votes

 

After Trump’s 2016 election the shell-shocked media and Democratic Party operative’s main meme from day one was that “Russian collusion” had stolen the election from Hillary Clinton. Not far behind this long running propaganda exercise was that not only had Trump lost the popular vote by millions but that he had squeezed out the narrowest of wins in the Electoral College. The latter concept completed a trifecta. 

Not only was Trump, at best, a stooge of Putin and at worst a complicit traitor, but he was rejected by the voters and only was installed, by a tiny minority of votes, due to the quirks in an outmoded and arcane electoral system.

At The Washington Post’s  ‘The Fix’ Philip Bump’s post-election survey of the result advised that effectively Trump was elected by less than 1% of the voters.

“Donald Trump will be president thanks to 80,000 people in three states. The most important states were Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Trump won those states by 0.2,0.7 and 0.8 percentage points, respectively-and by 10,704,46,765, and 22,177 votes. If Clinton had done one point better in each state she’d have won the electoral vote too. Or put it another way: But for 79,646 votes cast  in those three states she’d be the next president.”

That theme was parroted again not only by the Washington Post (whose “The Fix” got the election preposterously wrong) but by numerous other media. What Bump et al failed to advise was that but for about 1.5% of Evan McMullin’s quixotic run in Minnesota, a tiny 0.3 further swing to Trump in New Hampshire and Harry Reid’s Nevada machine win for Clinton by 27k Trump would have received 326 electoral votes nearing landslide proportions.

The corollary to the “Trump’s narrow win” was “ it was about the size of the number of people attending  a big NFL game” (a theme that goes back to how the media reported John Kerry’s loss in Ohio, and thus the presidency, against President G.W. Bush in 2004.) 

Oddly the same media who were at such pains to point out that the shift of a tiny number of voters in three states would have given Hillary the presidency have not examined what would have happened in the 2020 election if even fewer voters had shifted to Trump in just three states.

 Former vice-president Biden won the Electoral College, which is all that matters election wise, by 306 electoral votes to President Trump’s 232 electoral votes a winning margin of 74.Thus, if Trump had received 37 electoral votes more and Biden37 fewer then the result would have been a 269/269 tie. At that point the election would have been decided by the House with  each state delegation, of which the Republicans have a majority, having one vote and in all probability assigning the office to Trump.

Would such an election outcome have been possible? It could well have been not only possible, but Biden’s election was achieved by the narrowest of popular vote margins.

Arizona (11 electoral votes) 10,457, Georgia (16 electoral votes) 12,670 and Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) 20,682. Thus, a total of 43,809 voters across three states out of the 157,997,573 total voters decided the election

Biden's wins in those states on a percentage basis were Arizona by 0.3 percent, Georgia 0.2 percent and Wisconsin 0.7% a lower  aggregate level than Trump’s 2016 three state win. 

These facts and that Biden’s win was by 23,000 fewer people than attend an average NFL game has thus far escaped the entire media’s and, oddly, GOP operatives and sundry pundits attention but it may make an appearance after the Biden “honeymoon period’ ends and the regular mid-term election disaster looms for the sitting president’s party in 2022.

 

A Rewarding Read-Conservatives Must Avoid Complicity With Dems "Demographics Are Destiny" Trap

VIA 'Law and Liberty"  LINK

"America’s Complicated Demographic Destiny"

Extract

"Conservatives, on the other hand, continue to gladly speak of “people of color.” They have too often allowed their minds to be colonized, and it isn’t clear that what Trump achieved—or how, or why—will sink in. 

Minority leader Kevin McCarthy, for example, has complied with the opening of an “Office for Diversity and Inclusion” in the House of Representatives, even though it should be equally blindingly obvious to him that these endeavors are expressly intended to further the left’s project. 

Conservatives have also become comfortable with the concepts of multiculturalism, the victim categories, anti-racism training, etc. They think nothing of continuing to allow the government to impose ethnic categories through the census and other surveys, to endorse the racial preferences of affirmative action that suborn individuals to victim groups, and, until Donald Trump finally banned it, of supporting indoctrination through Critical Race Theory sessions that pass for anti-racism training.

They do because they fear being called “racist” if they buck these worrisome trends. That is not an insignificant fear. But Trump was called that for four years by a press that used the term in straight-up news articles, not just in op-eds and editorials, and he won a larger share of these groups than any Republican since the 1960s.

Conservatives should understand that the second-class citizens of the Ottoman, Russian, and Hapsburg Empires came in search of prosperity and liberty here because in this country we have no official castes, as those empires did. 

We did only with Americans of African descent, and the Civil Rights Movement finally and thankfully destroyed legal discrimination. Ironically, the same movement produced, through its entitlement dispensations, a new caste order in America. 

Conservatives must shed their fear of proclaiming this truth to all Americans, otherwise, they will lose what Trump gained, rather than expand it. Demography is only destiny if we allow it to be, by accepting the left’s transformation of culture. 

Until now, conservatives have thought only of the DNA part of demography, and have not minded the culture as much. Understanding that the DNA churned from 1670 on, but that the Bournes and Kallens had to be defeated, is the mental challenge going forward.

 If the left understands that today’s immigrants don’t see the racial politics the way the elites think they should, the left is sure to do something about it. What will conservatives do?

mike gonzalez

 

Dems Attempt To Steal A Certified GOP House Win Via The House Dem Majority

 Via Politico

Iowa Democrat will challenge election results with House

Rita Hart, who trailed by only six votes following a recount, will ask the House to examine the vote in her district, foregoing a state process for contesting the race.

A Democratic candidate who fell six votes short of holding an open battleground congressional district in Iowa is planning to challenge those results directly with the House, placing the chamber in the highly unusual position of potentially determining the outcome of the race.

After what appears to be the tightest congressional election in decades, Rita Hart, a state senator, has decided to forgo a legal battle in her home state and will instead contest the election directly with the House Administration Committee. Iowa election officials certified Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks as the winner on Monday after a recount diminished her initial victory margin from 47 votes to only 6 votes.

The move, the aggressiveness of which has stunned some Democrats, will trigger a rarely used congressional process, which was memorably deployed to settle an election in the mid-1980s. But the stakes are high: Speaker Nancy Pelosi has a severely diminished majority, which could be as small as five votes after sustaining unexpected losses last month.

But some Democrats question the optics of challenging certified election results, as President Donald Trump still refuses to concede and makes baseless claims of widespread election fraud, despite losing by much larger margins than the Iowa race.

Hart faced a deadline Wednesday to appeal the recount results through state channels. Under Iowa law, Hart’s challenge would trigger the formation of a tribunal, which would include the chief justice of the state Supreme Court and four other district court judges.

 That panel would have until Dec. 8 to rule on the matter, a timeline that the Hart campaign suggested would be insufficient. "With a margin this small, it is critical that we take this next step to ensure Iowans’ ballots that were legally cast are counted," said Zach Meunier, Hart's campaign manager. Many operatives in both parties thought Hart would exhaust all state methods of challenging the election before seeking relief from the House of Representatives, in part because it will force the new, smaller Democratic majority to wade into a state election.

The process for contesting an election with the House is complex. If Hart challenges the results under the Federal Contested Elections Act of 1969, the case would be referred to the House Administration Committee, which could conduct an investigation of its own before making a recommendation to the full House, which would decide by a simple majority vote whom to seat.

The process that played out under this act after the 1984 election was exceedingly bitter. The Democratic-controlled House under Speaker Tip O’Neill refused to seat Republican Richard McIntyre, even after Indiana’s secretary of state certified McIntyre as the winner over incumbent Rep. Frank McCloskey (D-Ind.). McCloskey objected to what he said was a rushed certification and inconsistent standards for counting ballots, and McIntyre was not seated in the House.

The nonpartisan General Accounting Office conducted a recount and found McCloskey the winner by four votes. The House voted to seat him, triggering a walkout protest from Republicans. At the time, Democrats had a larger majority and did not need the extra seat as badly as they do now.

"It is worth noting that in the 2020 election, every single seat Republicans took away from the Democrats was won by a woman or a nonwhite candidate.

 From The American Conservative and Salena Zito (Full article AT LINK)

 "If you want to know how the Republican Party elected a bunch of women to the U.S. House, it was because a bunch of Republican women worked very hard to get themselves elected, relentlessly pursuing and earning the support of the voters in their districts despite scant attention by the press and sometimes even by members of their own party.

No one exemplified that relentless pursuit better than Mariannette Miller-Meeks, who was certified on Monday afternoon, becoming the first woman to earn the support of voters to represent the 2nd Congressional District in Iowa.

It was a win that came after Miller-Meeks's three failed attempts for the seat since 2008. She persisted, she said, because persisting has been her motto all of her life and not a catchphrase or campaign slogan.

“I'm one of eight kids,” she said in an exclusive interview with the Washington Examiner. "My father was a master sergeant in [the] Air Force, so we traveled around a lot with his career."

Miller-Meeks won her seat by six votes, proof, she said, that no one should ever sit home as if their vote doesn’t matter.

“I used to say my state senator won by 10 votes — every vote counts," she told me. "The mayor in one of the towns in my congressional district and in my state Senate district was decided by drawing the name out of the hat because it was tied. So, it really is important to show up.”

Miller-Meeks laughed recalling emails she’s received from people who calculate their family was the one that put her over the top. “They are not wrong, actually," she said. "Anyone could have been one of those six votes that put me over the top.”

Her Democratic rival, Rita Hart, in the open contest to succeed seven-term Democratic Rep. David Loebsack, could either choose to concede the race or contest the election further.

In 1984, in one of the closest congressional races in history, Republican Rick McIntyre and Democratic Rep. Frank McCloskey of Indiana ended up in a tie. The Republican secretary of state declared McIntyre the winner. But Washington Democrats bristled, and the Democrat-controlled U.S. House refused to seat him. Both men, for a while, drew congressional pay. Months of recounting led to the Tip O’Neill-controlled House voting to declare McCloskey the winner. When he was seated, the entire GOP House delegation walked out of the Capitol in protest.

Miller-Meeks lost to Loebsack in the 2008, 2010, and 2014 general elections, but she hasn't been idle in the time since. She served as the Iowa director of public health in 2013, when she described a viral pandemic from overseas as the greatest threat to Iowa. She also ran and won a state Senate seat in 2018.

While Miller-Meeks could easily be the poster child for the big year for Republican women just had in the House, she’s not the only one who had to keep trying. Both Rep.-elect Maria Elvira Salazar in Florida and Rep. Young Kim in California ran and lost in 2018; all three ran and lost getting tied to President Trump that year, but then, all three ran and won with Trump at the top of the ticket in 2020.

It is worth noting that in the 2020 election, every single seat Republicans took away from the Democrats was won by a woman or a nonwhite candidate.

Unlike their Democratic counterparts, who made history just four years ago with their own historic female wave of House victories, Miller-Meeks is doubtful there will be a sea of white fashion statement when they attend their first State of the Union address.

She is also doubtful that she and her female congressional peers will be written about in the same glamorous way that class was. But she is OK with that.

“I think that's because we see ourselves beyond our sex, that we're a party that values what made America the exceptional nation that it is. That you use your talents and through merit, you can achieve anything. We are women, but we're accomplished women. We've earned the right to be here, and we'll make a difference.”

Updated; "Let's Be Even More Realistic"

 And that's that as any realistic person knew from the start. Again, as I set out below in my November 23rd post, I am not deriding the GOP personnel/bloggers who ran/run with this as, as I said, it serves a wider purpose but for anyone who believes there could possibly be fraud on such a massive scale without it being detected they might reexamine their thinking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Barr: No evidence of fraud that’d change election outcome" LINK

Published November 23rd

President Trump's "Stolen Election" campaign is of course theater with no chance whatsoever of succeeding. That's not to say it is invalid in of itself-far from it.

The campaign serves, with great value, to give those who believe in it a bone to chew on for four years and solidifies the core base. It is unprovable either way and any tidbit such as the discovery of a few thousand votes in sum here and there which were miscounted or not counted until well after the election only serves to reinforce the opinions of those who hold to the concept.

It is also valuable as a mechanism to delegitimize the Biden administration  in exactly the same way that the "Russia/Putin stole the election from Hillary/P tape" nonsense was used by the Dems/MSM against Trump.

Republicans like Toomey and Christie who are attacking Trump over this, while well knowing why it is being done, are just using it as a way of getting back at Trump for perceived slights and simple jealousy. They have no political future beyond where they are now because of their disingenuous actions.

It would be too easy to condemn Twitter activists and bloggers who are holding out hope to their followers that Trump will succeed as playing on the naivety of their, mostly young who believe such fantasies, audience for page clicks and to build up their following. 

But, to be totally cynical in the context of what is a fight to the death against the forces of leftism anything that keeps conservatives motivated is of value no matter how cynical and self-serving the methods used to reach that goal are.