Posted on by Californiacontrarian

Hmmm, I Didn’t Read That . . .


It is widely recognized that especially in their coverage of matters related to Donald Trump, the mainstream media long ago abandoned any pretense of impartiality. Did their vituperation carry over to how they reported on possible election fraud? Does the sun rise in the east, and set in the west? . . . Absolutely!

Most of what follows is quoted from an article by Claes Ryn in the American Conservative:

“European experts on American elections, some of whom also had advanced expertise in statistics, have published articles or given interviews in which they claimed to have seen clear evidence that the election was ‘rigged’! In Sweden of all places, an expert on American elections published a series of articles showing that Biden’s win in the swing states simply could not be explained without assuming major fraud.” 

Hmmm, I did not read about this in my ‘newspaper.’

“The historical record indicates that when a sitting president increases his vote totals relative to his original election, he is reelected. President Trump did increase his vote, not by hundreds of thousands of votes, but by over 10 million (not counting votes of which his supporters claim that he was robbed). Trump’s support among Hispanics, a group often described as hostile to him, expanded to 32 percent, even more among Hispanic men. His support among blacks increased this year by 50 percent.”

Hmmm, I did not read this in my ‘newspaper.’

“Another basic fact: certain American states almost always go with the winner. Florida and Ohio are at the top of that list, partly because they reflect the demographic composition of the U.S. as a whole. If you add Iowa, you can predict with high confidence that the winner of those three states will also be the winner of the presidential election. Trump not only carried these states, he won them very comfortably, Ohio and Iowa by about 8 percent, Florida by over 3 percent.”

Hmmm, I did not read that in my ‘newspaper.’

“There are numerous bellwether counties across the United States that almost always vote for the winner in the national election. There are counties that voted for the winner in the presidential elections from 1980 to 2016. In 2020, with rare exceptions, these counties suddenly reversed course. They did not vote for the person regarded as the winner, but for Donald Trump. Nineteen counties have been identified whose vote is viewed as a particularly good predictor of the outcome in the presidential election. They are virtually certain to go with the winner. It has been assumed that if a candidate carries 15 to 16 of those 19 counties, he is also bound to be the winner of the presidency.

How, then, did the 2020 election turn out in those bellwether counties? Trump won no fewer than 18 of the 19! Even more telling, he improved his performance in these counties. (A few examples of such counties are striking. Valencia County in New Mexico has mirrored the outcome of every presidential election since 1952. In that county, Trump won by 10 percent in 2020. Indiana’s Vigo County voted for every president except two since 1882. This year, Trump carried that county by 15 percent. Westmoreland County in Virginia has failed only twice since 1928 to vote for the winner of the presidential election. Trump carried that county by 16 percent. These are but specific illustrations of a trend in the competitive counties that favored Trump about as emphatically and overwhelmingly as was possible.)”

Hmmm, I did not read about this in my ‘newspaper.’

“An astonishing example of Biden meeting strong resistance is that he won fewer American counties than any previous modern American president-elect. Obama won 873 counties in 2008. Biden barely captured 500 in 2020! (Trump won about 2,550 counties.) The record of a winner? His percentage of the vote per state did not even match that of Hillary Clinton. Democrats are ordinarily dependent on the black vote being 85 to 90 percent in their favor to win a presidential election. Biden was not very close to that percentage. He received a much lower percentage of black votes than Obama and an even lower percentage than Hillary Clinton. Among black men he did not reach 80 percent, for Democrats a worrisomely low number. You might have thought that for Biden to win the election, he would have had to equal or surpass Hillary Clinton’s vote percentages around the country. But in general, the opposite was the case. He underperformed in the bigger cities, Democratic strongholds that are crucial to Democratic victories in presidential and other elections.”

Hmmm, I did not read any of this in my “newspaper.”

When you consider all of these patterns, one feature of the presidential election stands out as remarkable—as very difficult to explain. That feature casts grave doubt on Biden’s supposed election victory. What raises disturbing questions is the paradoxical exception to Biden’s weak national performance. For some reason, in just a few states, the reported Biden vote ran counter to the national trends just described. And where was this wholly aberrant pattern? Why, in the battleground states, which Trump had won in 2016. They are the states that Biden now simply had to win to capture the presidency. In those states, Biden somehow dramatically reversed his substandard trend in the rest of the country! As mentioned before, Biden could win only one of the 19 battleground counties around the U.S., but he supposedly won all of the battleground states! How could he possibly accomplish this feat? By performing very much better in the bigger cities in the battleground states than in the bigger cities elsewhere.”

Hmmm, I didn’t read any of this in my ‘newspaper.’

While all of these stats are very interesting, none of this is actual proof. However, it is very suspicious. Why didn’t the MSM pick up on any of this? 

Hmmm, don’t you wonder why you didn’t read about any of this in the ‘newspapers’ or hear about it on the TV ‘news?’

127 Replies to “Hmmm, I Didn’t Read That . . .”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.