Supremes Steer Clear of Penn Case of Election Fraud

JUST IN – U.S. Supreme Court refuses to review #Pennsylvania election cases. No standing before an election, moot after. Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas dissent from the denial. Since it only takes 4 justices to hear a case, these cases were only one vote away from getting a full hearing at the SCOTUS. (Source: Disclose.tv tweet)  Excerpts in italics with my bolds from dissenting opinions. Full text available at Gateway Pundit post Supreme Court Refuses to Review Pennsylvania Election Cases – Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas Dissent.

Justice Thomas:

Changing the rules in the middle of the game is bad enough. Such rule changes by officials who may lack authority to do so is even worse. When those changes alter election results, they can severely damage the electoral system on which our self-governance so heavily depends. If state officials have the authority they have claimed, we need to make it clear. If not, we need to put an end to this practice now before the consequences become catastrophic.

Because the judicial system is not well suited to address these kinds of questions in the short time period available immediately after an election, we ought to use available cases outside that truncated context to address these admittedly important questions. Here, we have the opportunity to do so almost two years before the next federal election cycle. Our refusal to do so by hearing these cases is befuddling. There is a clear split on an issue of such great importance that both sides previously asked us to grant certiorari. And there is no dispute that the claim is sufficiently meritorious to warrant review. By voting to grant emergency relief in October, four Justices made clear that they think petitioners are likely to prevail. Despite pressing for review in October, respondents now ask us not to grant certiorari because they think the cases are moot. That argument fails.

The issue presented is capable of repetition, yet evades review. This exception to mootness, which the Court routinely invokes in election cases, “applies where (1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subject to the same action again.”

And there is a reasonable expectation that these petitioners—the State Republican Party and legislators—will again confront non legislative officials altering election rules. In fact, various petitions claim that no fewer than four other decisions of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court implicate the same issue.  Future cases will arise as lower state courts apply those precedents to justify intervening in elections and changing the rules.

One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.

Justice Alito, joined by Justice Gorsuch:

Now, the election is over, and there is no reason for refusing to decide the important question that these cases pose. . .A decision in these cases would not have any implications regarding the 2020 election. . . But a decision would provide invaluable guidance for future elections.

Some respondents contend that the completion of the 2020 election rendered these cases moot and that they do not fall within the mootness exception for cases that present questions that are “capable of repetition” but would other-wise evade review.  They argue that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision “arose from an extraordinary and unprecedented confluence of circumstances”—specifically, the COVID–19 pandemic, an increase in mail-in voting, and Postal Service delays—and that such a perfect storm is not likely to recur. 

That argument fails for three reasons. First, it does not acknowledge the breadth of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision. That decision claims that a state constitutional provision guaranteeing “free and equal” elections gives the Pennsylvania courts the authority to override even very specific and unambiguous rules adopted by the legislature for the conduct of federal elections. . .That issue is surely capable of repetition in future elections. Indeed, it would be surprising if parties who are unhappy with the legislature’s rules do not invoke this decision and ask the state courts to substitute rules that they find more advantageous.

Second, the suggestion that we are unlikely to see a recurrence of the exact circumstances we saw this fall misunderstands the applicable legal standard. In order for a question to be capable of repetition, it is not necessary to predict that history will repeat itself at a very high level of specificity.

Third, it is highly speculative to forecast that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will not find that conditions at the time of a future federal election are materially similar to those last fall. The primary election for Pennsylvania congressional candidates is scheduled to occur in 15 months,and the rules for the conduct of elections should be established well in advance of the day of an election. . .As voting by mail becomes more common and more popular, the volume of mailed ballots may continue to increase and thus pose delivery problems similar to those anticipated in 2020.

For these reasons, the cases now before us are not moot. There is a “reasonable expectation” that the parties will face the same question in the future. . ., and that the question will evade future pre-election review, just as it did in these cases.These cases call out for review, and I respectfully dissent from the Court’s decision to deny certiorari. 

Background:  SCOTUS Conference on Election Integrity

Election Integrity is up for conference at SCOTUS on Friday.  The petition to be discussed is the complaint by the Pennsylvania legislature against the state Election Officer Boockvar, a proceeding that began on Sept. 28, 2020.  The petition makes clear the intent is not to overturn any completed election, but to ensure future elections are conducted according to laws in force.  From scotusblog:

Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar

Issue:  Whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court usurped the Pennsylvania General Assembly’s plenary authority to “direct [the] Manner” for appointing electors for president and vice president under Article II of the Constitution, as well as the assembly’s broad power to prescribe “[t]he Times, Places, and Manner” for congressional elections under Article I, when the court issued a ruling requiring the state to count absentee ballots that arrive up to three days after Election Day as long as they are not clearly postmarked after Election Day; and (2) whether that decision is preempted by federal statutes that establish a uniform nationwide federal Election Day.

The petition to be discussed is the December 15, 2020 brief from the petitioners Republican Party:

No. 20-542 REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Respondents’ Oppositions only confirm what some
Respondents told the Court just weeks ago: that the
Court should grant review and resolve the important
and recurring questions presented in this case. Pa.
Dems. Br. 9, No. 20A54 (Oct. 5, 2020) (advocating for
review because the questions presented are “of
overwhelming importance for States and voters across
the country”); Sec’y Br. 2-3, No. 20A54 (Oct. 5, 2020).
Respondents uniformly fail to mention that after the
Republican Party of Pennsylvania (RPP) filed its
Petition but more than a month before Respondents
filed their Oppositions, the Eighth Circuit created a
split on the question whether the Electors Clause
constrains state courts from altering election
deadlines enacted by state legislatures. See Carson v.
Simon, 978 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir. 2020). Instead,
Respondents seek to obfuscate the matter with a
welter of vehicle arguments turning on the fact that
Pennsylvania has certified the results of the 2020
general election. In reality, however, this case is an
ideal vehicle, in part precisely because it will not affect
the outcome of this election.

Indeed, this Court has repeatedly emphasized the
imperative of settling the governing rules in advance
of the next election, in order to promote the public
“[c]onfidence in the integrity of our electoral processes
[that] is essential to the functioning of our
participatory democracy.” Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549
U.S. 1, 4 (2006). This case presents a vital and unique
opportunity to do precisely that. By resolving the
important and recurring questions now, the Court can
provide desperately needed guidance to state
legislatures and courts across the country outside the
context of a hotly disputed election and before the next
election. The alternative is for the Court to leave
legislatures and courts with a lack of advance
guidance and clarity regarding the controlling law
only to be drawn into answering these questions in
future after-the-fact litigation over a contested
election, with the accompanying time pressures and
perceptions of partisan interest.

Note:  As reported in Gateway Pundit, legally required chain of custody for ballots was broken in every battleground state and in other states as well.

Democrats Were ONLY Able to “Win” in 2020 By Breaking Chain of Custody Laws in EVERY SWING STATE

President Trump was ahead in Pennsylvania by nearly 700,000 votes.
In Michigan Trump was ahead by over 300,000 votes.
In Wisconsin Trump was ahead by 120,000 votes.

Trump was also ahead in Georgia and Nevada.

And President Trump already trounced Joe Biden in Ohio, Florida, and Iowa — three states that ALWAYS go to the eventual presidential winner.

Then suddenly Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin announced they would not be announcing their winner that night. This was an unprecedented and coordinated move in US history.

Then many crimes occurred to swing the election to Biden, but perhaps the greatest crime was the lack of dual controls and chain of custody records that ensure a fair and free election. At a high level, when ballots are transferred or changes are made in voting machines, these moves and changes should be done with two individuals present (dual control), one from each party, and the movements of ballots should be recorded.

So when states inserted drop boxes into the election, these changes first needed to be updated through the legislature, which they weren’t, and all movements from the time when the ballots were inserted into drop boxes needed to be recorded, which they weren’t.

After Counting Mail-in Ballots, Senate Finds Trump Guilty

Babylon Bee has the special report In Mail-In Impeachment Vote, Senate Convicts Trump 8275 To 3.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

WASHINGTON, D.C.—In a historic move, the U.S. Senate decided to switch to voting by mail for Trump’s second impeachment trial. After all the votes were counted by an intern in a back room with no cameras, the Senate ruled to convict President Trump of incitement to violence by a vote of 8275 to 3.

“Our holy democracy has spoken,” said Senator Chuck Schumer. “Do not ask any questions or you are a blasphemer against the sacred sacredness of our vote. Everyone can go home now!”

A couple of troublemaking Senators attempted to overthrow the Constitution by bringing up the point that there are only 100 Senators, making it impossible to arrive at a tally of 8275 to 3, but they were quickly removed from the Senate Chambers and condemned for “attempting to suppress the votes of people of color.”

The Senate then moved on to other business, passing universal healthcare by a margin of 320,000 to 4.

Footnote:  SCOTUS Conference on Election Integrity

Humor aside, Election Integrity is up for conference at SCOTUS on Friday.  The petition to be discussed is the complaint by the Pennsylvania legislature against the state Election Officer Boockvar, a proceeding that began on Sept. 28, 2020.  The petition makes clear the intent is not to overturn any completed election, but to ensure future elections are conducted according to laws in force.  From scotusblog:

Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar

Issue:  Whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court usurped the Pennsylvania General Assembly’s plenary authority to “direct [the] Manner” for appointing electors for president and vice president under Article II of the Constitution, as well as the assembly’s broad power to prescribe “[t]he Times, Places, and Manner” for congressional elections under Article I, when the court issued a ruling requiring the state to count absentee ballots that arrive up to three days after Election Day as long as they are not clearly postmarked after Election Day; and (2) whether that decision is preempted by federal statutes that establish a uniform nationwide federal Election Day.

The petition to be discussed is the December 15, 2020 brief from the petitioners Republican Party:

No. 20-542 REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Respondents’ Oppositions only confirm what some
Respondents told the Court just weeks ago: that the
Court should grant review and resolve the important
and recurring questions presented in this case. Pa.
Dems. Br. 9, No. 20A54 (Oct. 5, 2020) (advocating for
review because the questions presented are “of
overwhelming importance for States and voters across
the country”); Sec’y Br. 2-3, No. 20A54 (Oct. 5, 2020).
Respondents uniformly fail to mention that after the
Republican Party of Pennsylvania (RPP) filed its
Petition but more than a month before Respondents
filed their Oppositions, the Eighth Circuit created a
split on the question whether the Electors Clause
constrains state courts from altering election
deadlines enacted by state legislatures. See Carson v.
Simon, 978 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir. 2020). Instead,
Respondents seek to obfuscate the matter with a
welter of vehicle arguments turning on the fact that
Pennsylvania has certified the results of the 2020
general election. In reality, however, this case is an
ideal vehicle, in part precisely because it will not affect
the outcome of this election.

Indeed, this Court has repeatedly emphasized the
imperative of settling the governing rules in advance
of the next election, in order to promote the public
“[c]onfidence in the integrity of our electoral processes
[that] is essential to the functioning of our
participatory democracy.” Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549
U.S. 1, 4 (2006). This case presents a vital and unique
opportunity to do precisely that. By resolving the
important and recurring questions now, the Court can
provide desperately needed guidance to state
legislatures and courts across the country outside the
context of a hotly disputed election and before the next
election. The alternative is for the Court to leave
legislatures and courts with a lack of advance
guidance and clarity regarding the controlling law
only to be drawn into answering these questions in
future after-the-fact litigation over a contested
election, with the accompanying time pressures and
perceptions of partisan interest.

Note:  As reported in Gateway Pundit, legally required chain of custody for ballots was broken in every battleground state and in other states as well.

Democrats Were ONLY Able to “Win” in 2020 By Breaking Chain of Custody Laws in EVERY SWING STATE

President Trump was ahead in Pennsylvania by nearly 700,000 votes.
In Michigan Trump was ahead by over 300,000 votes.
In Wisconsin Trump was ahead by 120,000 votes.

Trump was also ahead in Georgia and Nevada.

And President Trump already trounced Joe Biden in Ohio, Florida, and Iowa — three states that ALWAYS go to the eventual presidential winner.

Then suddenly Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin announced they would not be announcing their winner that night. This was an unprecedented and coordinated move in US history.

Then many crimes occurred to swing the election to Biden, but perhaps the greatest crime was the lack of dual controls and chain of custody records that ensure a fair and free election. At a high level, when ballots are transferred or changes are made in voting machines, these moves and changes should be done with two individuals present (dual control), one from each party, and the movements of ballots should be recorded.

So when states inserted drop boxes into the election, these changes first needed to be updated through the legislature, which they weren’t, and all movements from the time when the ballots were inserted into drop boxes needed to be recorded, which they weren’t.

 

 

 

Biden’s Hostile Takeover Triggers Poison Pills

Poison Pill is a defensive mechanism technique prevalent in the corporate world to thwart a hostile takeover. It is a strategy used by the Target Company to avoid the hostile takeovers completely or at least slow down the acquiring process.(Source: financemanagement.com)

Rupert Darwall explains the traps and pitfalls in the way of the Biden agenda in his Epoch Times article Fettering Biden’s Administrative State.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Trump-era rules will constrain the new president’s activism

The administrative state will get a new lease on life under President Joe Biden, but America’s administrative state is far more constrained than that of many other countries. Britain, for example, wrote its net-zero climate target into law after only a 90-minute debate in the House of Commons, without any examination of what the cost might be. Arguably the European Union is an administrative state, where the unelected European Commission proposes legislation, enforces it, and even levies billion-euro fines on companies without so much as a court hearing.

By contrast, executive-agency rulemaking in the United States is more circumscribed. Agencies must show cause, respect precedent, and demonstrate that their rulemaking is properly grounded in the relevant statute and in a factual record sufficiently compelling to refute any suggestion that their action was “arbitrary or capricious.” They should expect controversial rules to be able to withstand challenges in the courts.

In 2016, the Supreme Court stayed the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan promulgated by the Obama administration to decarbonize the electrical grid. On the last full day of the Trump administration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the Obama plan’s successor, the Affordable Clean Energy plan, in a 2-1 opinion. The majority ruled that the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Air Act had been too narrow; the dissenting judge—a Trump appointee—opined that both plans relied erroneously on the wrong provision of the Act to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. These rulings illustrate just how difficult the EPA will find crafting a new rule to fulfill Biden’s promise to decarbonize the grid by 2035.[See post: Latest Court Ruling re EPA and CO2]

The new administration is constrained not only by the courts but also by the late-term rulemaking of its predecessor. It could use the 1996 Congressional Review Act to nullify recently finalized federal regulations with a simple majority vote in each house of Congress. But Republicans can inflict a political price. Last October, the Department of Labor finalized a financial factors rule. It requires managers of corporate pension plans to justify incorporation of environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) factors solely on the grounds of boosting risk-adjusted investment returns by reference to generally accepted investment theories.

Wall Street hated it when the rule was first proposed, but all it does is operationalize the requirement of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974 that plan managers perform their duties for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to plan beneficiaries and defraying reasonable plan expenses. In reality, opponents of the rule oppose the exclusivity hardwired into ERISA that pension savings be invested with “eye single” to the interests of plan beneficiaries. A vote to nullify the rule would be a vote in favor of socializing retirees’ savings and deploy them for wider societal ends. For Republicans, it would be a debate worth having.

Similarly, congressional Republicans can gain politically by taking a stand opposing nullification of the EPA’s Jan. 3, 2021 transparency-in-science rule. This rule broadens and strengthens the agency’s 2018 transparency rule and aims to ensure that regulatory decisions are taken on the basis of robust, verifiable scientific studies. Polling shows that voters are more motivated to support environmental regulations when presented as protecting public health. This creates a market for studies linking pollution to public-health harms, however flimsy they might be. Environmental regulations mandating national standards on ozone and PM2.5 targeting fossil-fuel combustion are often based on epidemiological studies drawing on undisclosed data that can’t be re-analyzed to check for errors and sensitivity to assumptions.

A justification often made for this anti-scientific practice is safeguarding patient anonymity in such studies, lsomething for which the new rule provides. Covering up is never a good look, however, and the spectacle of the self-proclaimed party of science arguing for secret science and against transparency would demonstrate how deeply politicized the science used to justify environmental regulation has become.

The Trump administration left the best till last. With just one week to go, on Jan. 13, the Federal Register published an EPA regulation that quickly became known as the banana peel rule. Section 111(b) of the Clean Air Act states that the EPA Administrator shall include a category of sources that “causes, or contributes significantly” to pollution anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The new rule defines the level deemed “significant.” At the rule’s chosen level of 3 percent of U.S. stationary-source greenhouse-gas emissions, the only category deemed significant is electrical power generation—a category that accounts for 43 percent of such emissions.

Should the Biden administration ditch the 3 percent threshold and use the Clean Air Act to enmesh more sectors in greenhouse-gas targets, it will be compelled to develop an objective rationale for doing so. This is far from straightforward, hence the “banana peel” epithet. As the Trump rule notes, greenhouse gases “do not have the local, near-term ramifications found with other pollutants;” their impact is based on “cumulative global loading.” Directly or by inference, significance must therefore be linked to global emissions (U.S. power station emissions account for 3.6 percent of global emissions) and how effectively they are regulated at a global level. It would be irrational to regulate domestic emissions if there were little prospect of global emissions falling, too.

As the Obama administration realized after the collapse of the Copenhagen climate conference in 2009, when China—along with India, South Africa, and Brazil—vetoed a global climate treaty, Beijing holds the key to a credible global greenhouse-gas regime. The 2014 U.S.-China climate accord negotiated by Presidents Obama and Xi paved the way for the Paris Agreement on climate the following year. Xi’s statement at the U.N. last September that China would aim for “carbon neutrality” before 2060 is widely seen as a climate gamechanger.

Writing in a January 2021 Foreign Policy essay, Ted Nordhaus and Seaver Wang argue that China’s climate diplomacy is part of a bigger geopolitical play—Beijing’s desire to “counterbalance rising Western concerns about China’s belligerent posture in the South China Sea, its saber-rattling toward Taiwan, its human-rights crackdown in Hong Kong, its genocidal assault on the Uyghur minority in northwestern China, and much more.” It would be naïve not to recognize the geostrategic and political trade-offs in elevating China as climate savior. In a break with the routine formulation of climate change as existential threat trumping all else, Nordhaus and Wang warn that “a world that succeeds in addressing climate change will not necessarily be a more equitable, inclusive, or humane one.”

On his last full day as Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo declared China’s persecution of the Uyghurs a crime against humanity. His successor agrees. During his confirmation hearing, Tony Blinken said that he supported Pompeo’s genocide finding, and that China poses “the most significant challenge” of any nation-state to the United States. China is playing for higher stakes than the climate. This reality confronts the new administration with its greatest dilemma: “saving the planet” requires appeasing Beijing. How the dilemma is resolved could well come to define Joe Biden’s presidency.

WordPress Censorship?

A strange thing happened this morning.  I wanted to improve some wording in a post from last night, and the edit function came up in WordPress block editor.  To my surprise, some of the text and image blocks were no longer visible, covered with a warning label:  “This block contains unexpected or invalid content.” Canceled text started with a reference to the last US election and a video image of Biden signing executive orders.

If I open the post in classical editor, the text is available as I wrote it.  And the post still appears without censorship:  See: Climate Science Victim of Fake News

Footnote:  As suggested in comment below, here is a screenshot:

Hitting the “Attempt Block Recovery” button creates a blank block.

Soviet Jokes About Living Under Oppression

The Soviet people lived under a regime where private life, ideas and opinions were banished from public expression by state media.  Now the USA has state media rivaling the USSR, only difference is ambiguity whether the media runs the state or vice-versa as in Soviet days.  In any case, Russians and others under that regime voiced their resistance by sharing jokes at the expense of the autocrats.  Wikipedia provides some instructive examples for Americans in the days ahead.

A judge walks out of his chambers laughing his head off. A colleague approaches him and asks why he is laughing. “I just heard the funniest joke in the world!”
“Well, go ahead, tell me!” says the other judge.
“I can’t – I just gave someone ten years for it!”

Q: “Who built the White Sea Canal?”
A: “The left bank was built by those who told the jokes, and the right bank by those who listened.”

Q: Will there be KGB in communism?
A: As you know, under communism, the state will be abolished, together with its means of suppression. People will know how to self-arrest themselves.

Q: How do you deal with mice in the Kremlin?
A: Put up a sign saying “collective farm”. Then half the mice will starve, and the rest will run away.

“Lubyanka (KGB headquarters) is the tallest building in Moscow. You can see Siberia from its basement.”

A new arrival to Gulag is asked: “What were you given 10 years for?”
– “For nothing!”
– “Don’t lie to us here, now! Everybody knows ‘for nothing’ is 3 years.”

Q: What’s the difference between a capitalist fairy tale and a Marxist fairy tale?
A: A capitalist fairy tale begins, “Once upon a time, there was….”. A Marxist fairy tale begins, “Some day, there will be….”

A Soviet history professor addressed his university students: “Regarding the final exam, I have good news and bad news.  The good news: All the questions are the same as last year.  The bad news:  Some of the answers are different.”

Q: What is the difference between the Constitutions of the US and USSR? Both of them guarantee freedom of speech.
A: Yes, but the Constitution of the USA also guarantees freedom after the speech.

Q: Is it true that the Soviet Union is the most progressive country in the world?
A: Of course! Life was already better yesterday than it’s going to be tomorrow!

Khrushchev visited a pig farm and was photographed there. In the newspaper office, a discussion is underway about how to caption the picture. “Comrade Khrushchev among pigs,” “Comrade Khrushchev and pigs,” and “Pigs surround comrade Khrushchev” are all rejected as politically offensive. Finally, the editor announces his decision: “Third from left – comrade Khrushchev.”

Q: “What is the main difference between succession under the tsarist regime and under socialism?”
A: “Under the tsarist regime, power was transferred from father to son, and under socialism – from grandfather to grandfather.”

Q: What are the new requirements for joining the Politburo?
A: You must now be able to walk six steps without the assistance of a cane, and say three words without the assistance of paper.

Our Soviet industry system is simple and works very well.  Our bosses pretend to pay and we pretend to work.

An old woman asks her granddaughter: “Granddaughter, please explain Communism to me. How will people live under it? They probably teach you all about it in school.”
“Of course they do, Granny. When we reach Communism, the shops will be full–there’ll be butter, and meat, and sausage. You’ll be able to go and buy anything you want…”
“Ah!” exclaimed the old woman joyfully. “Just like it was under the Tsar!”

A man walks into a shop and asks, “You wouldn’t happen to have any fish, would you?”. The shop assistant replies, “You’ve got it wrong – ours is a butcher’s shop. We don’t have any meat. You’re looking for the fish shop across the road. There they don’t have any fish!”

Q: “What happens if Soviet socialism comes to Saudi Arabia?
A: First five years, nothing; then a shortage of oil.”

Stalin appears to Putin in a dream and says: “I have two bits of advice for you: kill off all your opponents and paint the Kremlin blue.” Putin asks, “Why blue?” Stalin: “I knew you would not object to the first one.”

 

 

Wither the GOP?

Daniel Gelernter has some interesting ideas about where things may be headed in this turbulent time in US politics.  His article is Why Is the GOP Glad Trump Lost?  Excerpts in italics with my bolds and images.

Establishment Republicans will learn the hard way how very much they have lost in helping Joe Biden win the way he did.

A little after 2 p.m. Eastern time on Wednesday, protesters crashed into the U.S. Capitol and forced a halt in the certification of the electoral vote. As the Senate reconvened that night, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), speaking as though he had just survived 9/11, condemned the “thugs” waving flags who had forced them to run away for a few hours. Man of the People Mitt Romney, who probably will not repeat his mistake of flying commercial, called the Capitol storm “an insurrection, incited by the president of the United States.”

If you wonder where these big politicians were last year when people were having their businesses closed down by government mandates or watching their cars torched by Antifa with Molotov cocktails, the answer is they were most likely in incredibly comfortable homes, enjoying taxpayer-guaranteed salaries and genuinely insane expense accounts, secure in the knowledge that, whatever happens—whether they return to Capitol Hill for the rest of their lives or are forced one day into semi-retirement on K Street—they will never again have to live like “normal people.”

And when they blame President Trump for the Capitol protest, they are doubly foolish and doubly deceived.

First, they implicitly deny that these protestors had any reason to be upset. Even the CHAZ protestors who demolished central Seattle were granted the presumption that they might have had reasons, however misguided.  But the Capitol Hill protestors had already been told, repeatedly, by the news media, social media, and their political leaders, to shut up and go home. And yet they didn’t—so it must be Trump’s fault.

The idea that a large part of America genuinely could be infuriated by the behavior of our elected officials has not dawned on them. When they get yelled at on planes, they think, “Why don’t my constituents believe me? Why don’t they trust me? It’s Trump’s fault!”

But they never ask themselves if they might have given their constituents legitimate reasons not to trust them. Did they ever, for example, vote to send a $10 million check to Pakistan and a $600 check to some Americans? Would that upset anyone?

Today, these politicians are breathing a sigh of relief—their second mistake: “My constituents trusted me before Trump came,” they think. “Now that he’s on the way out the door, they will trust me again!” They believe that Trump not being president means that they can go back to vacuuming up money and power just as before. They think Trump is finished.

In reality, they are finished.

Trump could have announced the formation of a new political party. A majority of Republican voters probably would have followed him. Eventually, after a few election cycles of mutual destruction, the rest of the GOP reluctantly would acquiesce in a new party which would likely have many of the same ills as the old. Instead, Trump has made clear his intention of primarying every Republican who opposed airing election fraud claims in court.

Career GOP politicians will spend the next several years watching “their” party rapidly remade in what they mistakenly believe to be Trump’s image. But it is actually the image of a large part of America that feels totally ignored.

The principals that Trump represents do not start and end with Trump. Limited regulation, limited government, low taxes, fair trade, stricter immigration laws, belief in God and in the earnest goodness of the average American, a weariness of foreign wars and entanglements: You might call it George Washington conservatism. These ideas have been absent from politics for at least 30 years, as voters had a choice between the party of big government and the party that claims to prefer limited government but also embraces big government.

These are the ideas Trump has expressed and on which he governed.. America First: You mind your business and we’ll mind ours.

If a politician rolls his eyes at that suggestion, he’ll never understand why the people don’t want him. He’ll never understand why those angry Americans were at the Capitol the other day. He’ll never understand why he lost his seat and had to become a highly paid consultant instead of a highly paid public servant.

When Trump tells his supporters that the journey is only beginning, the leftist media and conservative elite bite their collective nails—Does this mean Trump will come back? Not necessarily. It means that the movement Trump has started will go on no matter what—it means that America will come back.

We’ve been terribly governed for large parts of the last century, and before. How would you feel if one day the government told you you weren’t allowed to buy or drink alcohol, and that if you owned a distillery you’d just lost your livelihood? Of course that happened in 1920, and most Americans responded by quietly disobeying the law. Most politicians also disobeyed the law, but in much greater comfort and with the tacit approval of their friends in law enforcement. The arrival of organized crime in America was an unintended consequence.

How would you feel if the government declared that employers couldn’t raise wages? That happened in 1942. Employers skirted the law by creating the concept of “health benefits,” which did not count as wages. That had the unintended consequence of spawning a monster health insurance industry that destroyed private medical care in America.

One day in the future Americans might be told that their guns are illegal and must be turned in—and the government would probably discover that Americans somehow own vastly fewer guns than was thought. And that might have the unintended consequence of all those missing guns showing up one day in the hands of a well-regulated and very displeased militia.

Americans will not submit themselves to laws that they, on a large scale, think unjust. Nor will they submit themselves to be governed by leaders whom they, on a large scale, do not believe are elected. In 1960, Nixon decided it would be best to hush up his having been cheated out of the presidency. He was well-intentioned, but he was wrong. Trump knows that stealing an election isn’t a personal affront—it’s an attack on every American who casts a ballot. Precisely the opposite of the media’s demented obsession, Trump is one of the very few people in politics who understand that it isn’t just about him.

By pretending that it is all about him, our big-shot politicians have an excuse to ignore the Americans whom Trump has represented.

But the George Washington conservatives are awake now, and they will find other voices, and more voices. Trump will be with them, but they will find new leaders as well. They don’t want much—put in a single phrase their demands boil down to “Leave us alone!” A Biden Administration, unelected though it may be, can survive if it listens to that very basic demand. But the GOP will learn the hard way how very much they have lost in helping Biden win the way he did.

See also posts by David Gelernter (Daniel’s father?):

The Real Reason They Hate Trump

How Science Is Losing Its Humanity

 

 

Trump Takeaways

It was always fashionable to trash talk Trump, but to my surprise it has only grown in political correctness post election this year.  For those who wonder why they are so consumed with the need to disparage him, Conrad Black explains in his article today: Establishment’s Threat of Impeachment a Confession of Failure.  An excerpt below is in italics with my bolds and images.

It all begs the question of why Trump’s enemies are still so fanatical in their efforts to separate him from his huge following and destroy him politically, in Stalinist fashion. In part, the Democrats seem now to be addicted to the practice of distracting the public from the political unacceptability of their own program and record by a febrile defamation of the president.

He is not and never in his adult life was a racist or sexist. He has a number of annoying mannerisms. They can be seen by everyone and voters decide for themselves whether they outweigh the president’s better qualities and achievements.

The obsessive desire to destroy Trump even as he leaves the presidency cannot be based on anything but fear of a man who has successfully defied the political establishment, exposed it as substantially a failure, and exploited the fact that the pre-Trump status quo was despised by a majority of Americans.

The logical and creditable response to the collapse in the prestige of the country’s orthodox leaders is to raise their game, put up better candidates in both the parties (not the dismal selection of senatorial candidates available to Georgia’s voters last week), and produce some original policies. Instead, they have just tried to stone to death the person who did produce original policies.

Serving the Country Well

The political establishment has tragically missed the point: if it had been serving the country well Trump would not have been elected four years ago.  If he had not been a capable president most of his policies would not have been effectively endorsed in the congressional and state elections across the country. Those whom he displaced would not have had to resort to such extremes to evict him from the White House.

Polls indicate uniformly that barely 10 percent of Americans respect the legislators in the Congress and no more than 15 percent of Americans believe their media. Even the questionable election revealed that 48 percent of Americans preferred Trump to the candidate of Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, academia and the media and social media, despite the Democrats’ huge financial advantage and wall-to-wall media defamation of the incumbent.

The pre-Trump decades brought endless, fruitless war in the Middle East, with an accompanying humanitarian disaster; the greatest economic crisis in the world in 80 years; more than ten million unskilled illegal migrants flooding across the southern border; immense trade deficits; alarming advances by China at America’s expense; and Trump’s predecessors were swindled by North Korea and Iran.

Trump addressed these problems; the dire predictions of his dangerous incompetence came to nothing, his vote total grew by 20 percent between elections, and his party did well in congressional and state elections.

Yet his opponents didn’t respond with better candidates or policies, they exhumed the defeated candidates Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and set them atop a Sanders-Warren far-left program, ignored the worst rioting in the country for over fifty years, apart from defunding police and engineering huge spikes in violent crime, and exploited the COVID crisis to adopt election laws that incite the inference that the election has been stolen.

And they got a free pass when the Supreme Court declined to hear the complaint from Texas supported by eighteen other states that four states had failed to assure a fair presidential election. Trump’s 74 million supporters were left with nothing to do except protest.

Only Alternative

In falsely accusing Trump of inciting insurrection, they have again ignored the public desire for better government and have effectively confirmed Donald Trump as the only alternative to the present familiar source of poor government. Joe Biden’s response to the outrages at the Capitol were that Trump had deliberately incited it, that the motives of the rioters were racist, that the Capitol Police were racists, that Trump was reminiscent of Nazi propaganda minister Josef Goebbels, and then Biden called for national unity.

Trump made a serious mistake in imagining and publicly asking that Vice President Pence reject the determination by the Senate of the Electoral College vote. Pence had no authority to do anything of the kind. But Pence’s election was as much violated as Trump’s and if he attends the inauguration now, Pence will be choosing the Democratic antics over this own party and needlessly compromise his political future.

Impeachment is nonsense, Trump won’t resign and an inept government won’t be able to use defamation and dirty tricks as a substitute for public service for long.

If Trump is the only person who can defend the people against incompetent administration, cowardly legislators and jurists, and a system that has become largely rotten and doesn’t run honest elections or even fair trials, (98 percent conviction rate and a quarter of the world’s prison population), while a totalitarian woke media and dictatorial censors of social media silence dissent, his influence will rise and not be dissipated.

 

How Washington Was Lost, What to Do Now

John Solomon writes with perspective about what happened along with advice for the future of the republic in his article How the GOP lost control of Washington, and what comes next.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

News Analysis: Democrats owned the narrative and rules of the 2020 election. Will Republicans learn from it?

The November election (and Tuesday’s Georgia curtain call) wasn’t won and lost by the tactics, spending, individual players and messaging in the weeks before Nov. 3, according to interviews conducted with more than three dozen frontline players.

Rather, its outcome was cemented long before Labor Day 2020 by a Democratic machinery of former Barack Obama proteges, like David Plouffe, John Podesta, David Axelrod and Stacey Abrams, who worried far less about the tactics of ads, travel (Joe Biden hardly did!) and fundraising and far more about the strategy of how to control the narrative and the rules that would shape the outcome.

They even told the Republicans and the public what they planned to do. Just read Plouffe’s book, “A Citizen’s Guide to Beating Donald Trump.” They even boastfully predicted days before how the vote count would roll out on election night and for several days later. Trump would lead early, and Biden would surpass late, they said.  They were right. Why?

Change the Rules in Your Favor

First and foremost, they usurped the powers of GOP-controlled state legislatures in the five battleground states and rewrote the rules of how votes would be cast and counted, using the pandemic as an excuse.

Mail ballots could be sent to everyone, even if they didn’t ask for one, and wide swaths of Americans could vote by mail. Voter ID requirements could be suspended for those who felt homebound by COVID’s wrath. Mobile ballot boxes could be deployed. Spoiled ballots that legally were supposed to be discarded could be “cured” by election clerks. Legally required voter roll purges could be skipped. And a single billionaire could donate $350 million directly to the election clerks, judges and vote counters in the states, requiring them in some cases to register voters, and create more poll locations in Democratic strongholds.

And Republicans — who controlled the legislatures in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona and the constitutional right to set the rules — hardly put up a fight. Instead, they urged their voters not to take advantage of the loosened rules and to vote the old-fashioned way. They, in the words of the Trump-loving Georgia Democrat Vernon Jones, simply unilaterally disarmed.

Democrats understood that in a pandemic and in an America with millions of new millennial, urban and minority voters, the easier you make casting a ballot the more likely a low-propensity voter is to vote. Send it to them, help them register, make easy drop-off locations or the mailbox the final destination, and voters will vote a lot more willingly.

In other words, the liberal brain trust engaged in cutting-edge warfare, while Republicans tossed their comfortable set of horseshoes from the 1980s, hoping the good old recipe of evangelical GOTV, direct mail, talk radio and Fox News would deliver yet another election win as it had done for decades.

It didn’t.

To be fair, Donald Trump mustered — by a mile — the largest national vote ever assembled by a Republican at 75 million-plus voters and barnstormed the country, risking COVID and criticism without fear. Kevin McCarthy picked an all-star slate of candidates and picked up seats. Mitch McConnell raised a ton of money, and Ronna McDaniel put together one of the most impressive get-out-the-vote efforts ever assembled.

But all that could not overcome the advantage of a rewired electoral system in the five battlegrounds, as the Georgia runoffs showed Tuesday, said Tom Price, a former congressman and Trump Cabinet secretary.

Democrats “leap-frogged Republicans’ process, strategy, technology and tactics, and that is to the credit of folks on the Democratic side,” Price told Just the News. “They have perfected harvesting, I believe it is harvesting, of absentee ballots, and I think the numbers will show in these runoff races, the same as they did in November, that Republicans who lost by close margins won the vote on Election Day, won on early voting in person and lost heavily in absentee ballots.”

Control the Narrative by Means of Media Allies

Secondly, liberals spent two decades building an alliance with the mainstream media, the social giants and the search giants and the permanent government bureaucracy until they could control the narrative, even when it wasn’t true. They had it perfected by the time Donald Trump took office.

Those who objected were canceled and shamed. Intelligence and law enforcement and private investigators were misused to create false realities. True facts and legally protected speech were outright censored long enough to create the narrative needed to win.

Trump colluded with Russia, and bribed Ukraine to investigate his political opponents … though he didn’t. The Hunter Biden corruption story was Russian-fed conspiracy theory …. though it is really true, and he was under criminal investigation the last two years … American towns could be burned to the ground and police defunded because a Kenosha, Wisc., officer shot an unarmed man … who turned out to be wanted by police and armed with a knife.

Owning the information superhighway of the 21st century, like the rules of the election, was far more powerful than choosing where to run ads, campaign in person or spend money.

Liberal Donors Contracted Returns on Their Investments

Finally, the liberal oligarchs club — George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg, Mike Bloomberg et al — spent more than ever to win. But they also transformed the way political donations were spent by imposing corporate governance and specific returns on investment.

Every recipient had to deliver very specific outcomes to keep getting money, governed by lengthy contract-like documents. And the outcomes and deliverables were mapped to the two larger goals of controlling the narrative and the rules of the election.

Advice:  Act Now to Change the Rules and Own the Narrative

That’s what interviews with three dozen experts revealed. So what do those same experts advise Republicans do to change their fortunes?  Exactly what the Democrats did. Don’t point fingers, change the rules, and own the narrative, they said.

Reset Rules for Fair Elections

Phill Kline, the former Kansas attorney general, led the Amistad Project’s efforts to challenge some of the Democrats rule changes. He said the the GOP legislatures in the key battlegrounds must reassert their constitutional right to set the rules of election.

Universal mail ballots can be ended, limited only to those who absolutely need it. Voter IDs can be mandated. Exemptions and legal settlements could, by law, be required to be approved by the legislature. Setting the rules of the election are easy if there is a will, Kline added.

“I think the discipline of the party should be all about de-powering Washington and empowering the states, especially the state legislatures,” Kline told Just the News.

Secondly, conservatives need to build their own information ecosystem that rivals what liberals have: a vibrant press that covers conservatives honestly, and powerful delivery channels that can rival YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.

New services like Rumble, Parler, Real America’s Voice, Citizen Free Press and CloutHub are incubating and attracting millions. They need to be grown and spread to tens of millions along with trusted news sources so conservatives have as big a bullhorn to the next generation of GenZ, millennials and cable-cutters as they have had to Boomers, talk radio and Fox News fans, the experts said.

“We are just playing to a draw,” Price explained. “We are not reaching a lot of folks. And we have to be creative about how we reach them, and I think we’ve got to be able to control a lot of that messaging, and right now we just don’t.”

Finally, conservative donors need to have a new approach, stolen from the ROI model of the Soros and Bloomberg NGOs, so their millions don’t just enrich consultants but have measurable outcomes in setting the rules and narratives that win the next elections. Everything from civic education and empowerment for state legislators to media-platform building needs to be funded, the experts said.

“Funding on the left seems much more strategic than funding on the right, which is predominantly tactical,” explained Steve Hantler, who advises several high-net-worth conservative donors. “Liberal elites have for decades controlled the levers of power in education, media and entertainment and have used that power to indoctrinate generations of Americans against America’s founding values.

“Now is not the time for for hand-wringing and finger-pointing. Now is the time for honest, critical self-evaluation.”

Dominion Election Fraud Redacted

In 2008, although Dominion was in many counties in New York and had an insignificant presence in Wisconsin, it had no presence in the rest of the USA. Dominion built up its presence in 2012, increased it in 2016, and increased it further in 2020.

Update Dec. 19, 2020:  Redacted Information in Dominion Audit Report Shows Races Were Flipped: Analyst

Article at Epoch Times Excerpts in italics with my bolds:

The analyst who led the forensic audit of Dominion Voting Systems in Michigan said on Friday the information state officials pushed to redact shows that the outcomes of races were changed.

“The original report had log evidence that we published in the report to show exactly what we did and exactly the findings. Now, those did ultimately get redacted. And so now, the complaint is ‘well, but there’s no real proof and Dominion says ‘no, these things can’t be done,’” Russell Ramsland Jr. said during a virtual appearance on Newsmax’s “Greg Kelly Reports.”

“But at that point, Dominion’s argument is no longer with us. Dominion’s argument is with their own user’s manual and their own logs, because the logs—had they been able to be published—show very clearly that the RCV [ranked-choice voting] algorithm was enacted. It shows very clearly that the error messages were massive. It was very clearly [sic] that races were flipped,” he added.

Ramsland on Newsmax predicted the emergence of more explosive information soon.

“I think that there’s going to be some information [to] come forth in the next few days, that is going to drastically change the playing field,” he said.

“And the real question is, will people report on it? We’ll see.”

Biden’s Great Leaps Upward
Wisconsin

The Georgia Leap in detail:

Background from previous post Rise of Dominion Effect

Context from Shocking History of Dominion Voting  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Dominion Voting Systems Corp. is the Canadian company behind the ballot switching software.

Dominion was founded in 2003, with a mission to provide electronic voting systems friendly for progressives. Because of such partisanship, it languished with almost no customers for the next 5-6 years, until the Obama administration came to power. In 2010, the Obama administration confiscated electronic voting systems assets (software, intellectual property, manufacturing tools, customer base, etc.) from two established American companies, and gave them to Dominion. At the same time, Dominion got some employees and assets from a foreign EVS company, tied to Hugo Chavez.

Its software has been used by some 40% of the voters in this election, mostly by Democrat-controlled states and election commissions. Apparently, no protections were put in place against ballot switching, deletion, or creation. According to Dominion’s own website, it software was used in “battleground” states and the largest Democrat states, including MI, GA, AZ, NV, NM, CO, AK, UT, NJ, CA, NY.

The Dominion Effect on Vote Counting

From Fraudspotters Statistical Evidence of Dominion Election Fraud? Time to Audit the Machines. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Overview

Statistical analysis of past presidential races supports the view that in 2020, in counties where Dominion Machines were deployed, the voting outcomes were on average (nationwide) approximately 1.5% higher for Joe Biden and 1.5% lower for Donald Trump after adjusting for other demographic and past voting preferences. Upon running hundreds of models, I would say the national average effect appears to be somewhere between 1.0% and 1.6%.

For Dominion to have switched the election from Trump to Biden, it would have had to have increased Biden outcomes (with a corresponding reduction in Trump outcomes) by 0.3% in Georgia, 0.6% in Arizona, 2.1% in Wisconsin, and 2.5% in Nevada. The apparent average “Dominion Effect” is greater than the margin in Arizona and Georgia, and close to the margin for Wisconsin and Nevada. It is not hard to picture a scenario where the actual effect in Wisconsin and Nevada was greater than the national average and would have changed the current reported outcome in those two states.

Assuming the “Dominion Effect” is real, it is possible that an audit of these machines would overturn the election.

These results are scientifically valid and typically have a p-value of less than 1%, meaning the chances of this math occurring randomly are less than 1 in 100. This article, and its FAQ, shows many ways to model the “Dominion Effect.”

The best way to restore faith in the system is to audit the Dominion voting machines in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin.

Discussion

To do this study, we will link results from 2008 to 2020 by each county, parish, or in some cases city. Since this is usually based on county, we will refer to it as county in this article.

By comparing the county to itself, we are constructing the test similar to how a drug company would test the effects of its proposed therapy. In this case, we have 3,050 counties that do not have Dominion in 2008. In 2020, 657 of the counties have Dominion while 2,388 do not. If we assume that the same societal forces are acting upon all of these counties equally, then in comparing the average change from 2008 to 2020 for Dominion counties versus non Dominion counties, we should have a similar change in voter share. In this regard, it is as if Dominion is the proposed treatment, and non-Dominion is the placebo.

When doing this analysis, we do NOT see a change that is constant across counties. In fact, below are the results comparing 2008 to 2020. A verbal description is “the average US county’s percentage of vote for the Democrat presidential candidate was 8.4 percentage points less Democrat in 2020 (Biden vs. Trump) than in 2008. (Obama vs. McCain). However, despite this 8.4%-point decrease, Dominion counties only decreased 6.4% points, while the non-Dominion counties decreased 9.0% points.”

Unlike a drug company’s test of a new treatment, our counties were not randomly selected to be “treated” by Dominion. These counties chose to install Dominion. Was there selection bias? We should control for other factors to see if the presence of Dominion still significantly affects results.

We can obtain demographic data on a county level basis from the U.S. department of agriculture. By attaching this data on a county basis to our already existing dataset, and running multiple linear regression, we obtain the following results. You’ll notice that Dominion’s p-value became more significant as we controlled for other variables. In some cases Dominion is more significant than the control variables.

To provide a basic interpretation, look at the sign of the coefficient. It is telling you whether the demographic factor increased or decreased Democratic presidential voter percentage. So, from 2008 to 2020:

  • The more rural, the less the Democratic share
  • The more manufacturing dependent, the less the Democratic share
  • The more a county is considered a “high natural amenity,” the more the Democratic share if we consider counties equally weighted but not if we give larger counties more weight. Note this variable has a less significant p-value than some of the others.
  • The more a county is considered “high creative class,” the more the Democratic share
  • The more a county is considered “low education,” the more the Democratic share
  • The more the population increased, the more the Democratic share
  • The more international immigration, the more the Democratic share, although one measure had this value with a questionable p-value.
  • And most importantly, if Dominion was installed, there was approximately a 1.5%-point increase in Democratic share which also corresponds to a 1.5%-point Republican decrease, so a total swing of 3% points.

If the “Dominion Effect” is real, would it have affected the election?

This article showed a range of estimates for the “Dominion Effect,” the more persuasive being from the multiple linear regression analysis:

Multiple Linear Regress: Ordinary Least Squares: 1.65%
Multiple Linear Regress: Weighted Least Squares: 1.55%

I find the weighted least square model the most persuasive and refer to it often in the FAQ.

If there is a Dominion Effect, it adds that percentage to Democrat presidential vote and subtracts from Republican. If the Dominion Effect is real, it may have affected this close election. For Dominion to have switched the election from Trump to Biden, it would have had to increase Democratic presidential outcomes by 0.3% and reduced Republican outcomes by 0.3% in Georgia. The factors for the other states are 0.6% in Arizona, 2.1% in Wisconsin, and 2.5% in Nevada. Click here to see the math.

If you believe the Dominion Effect is real, it is not hard to believe that this effect would be greater in swing states and could have swung these four states into Biden’s column, putting the electoral college in his favor.

Are there really enough machines in Wisconsin to have changed the outcome there?

If you go to verifiedvoting.org, and selection Dominion, 2020, Wisconsin, and download the data, you’ll see that they are saying 527 precincts, 640,215 registered voters are on Dominion machines. The state only has a 20k vote difference among Biden and Trump. And, in my paper, the Dominion effect was calculated on a county basis, not precinct basis. To the extent counties are split on which machine they used, then my paper is underestimating the Dominion effect: the effect is likely bigger on a precinct by precinct basis; I don’t have the data to go to that detail.

But to answer the question: yes, based on published, public information, there are enough machines to change the election in Wisconsin.

Have you really accounted for very large and very small counties?

In our model, we are already using these adjustments:

  • weighting by county size
  • a field called “RuralUrbanContinuumCode2013”

These should adjust for county size, but in effort to address concerns of readers, I ran the model with two new flags:

  • 657 counties with highest number of voters in 2008
  • 657 counties with lowest number of voters in 2008

The Dominion Effect is still 1.55% and the p-values are 0.00% (traditional) 0.09% (robust). These p-values are suggesting less than 1 in 1000 chance of randomly occurring.

To further address this, I ran an additional model which also includes a field for the population per square mile. This model produces identical results of Dominion Effect of 1.55% and a p-value of 0.00% and 0.09%.

Rise of the Dominion Effect

In 2008, although Dominion was in many counties in New York and had an insignificant presence in Wisconsin, it had no presence in the rest of the USA. Dominion built up its presence in 2012, increased it in 2016, and increased it further in 2020.

Background from Shocking History of Dominion Voting  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Dominion Voting Systems Corp. is the Canadian company behind the ballot switching software.

Dominion was founded in 2003, with a mission to provide electronic voting systems friendly for progressives. Because of such partisanship, it languished with almost no customers for the next 5-6 years, until the Obama administration came to power. In 2010, the Obama administration confiscated electronic voting systems assets (software, intellectual property, manufacturing tools, customer base, etc.) from two established American companies, and gave them to Dominion. At the same time, Dominion got some employees and assets from a foreign EVS company, tied to Hugo Chavez.

Its software has been used by some 40% of the voters in this election, mostly by Democrat-controlled states and election commissions. Apparently, no protections were put in place against ballot switching, deletion, or creation. According to Dominion’s own website, it software was used in “battleground” states and the largest Democrat states, including MI, GA, AZ, NV, NM, CO, AK, UT, NJ, CA, NY.

The Dominion Effect on Vote Counting

From Fraudspotters Statistical Evidence of Dominion Election Fraud? Time to Audit the Machines. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Overview

Statistical analysis of past presidential races supports the view that in 2020, in counties where Dominion Machines were deployed, the voting outcomes were on average (nationwide) approximately 1.5% higher for Joe Biden and 1.5% lower for Donald Trump after adjusting for other demographic and past voting preferences. Upon running hundreds of models, I would say the national average effect appears to be somewhere between 1.0% and 1.6%.

For Dominion to have switched the election from Trump to Biden, it would have had to have increased Biden outcomes (with a corresponding reduction in Trump outcomes) by 0.3% in Georgia, 0.6% in Arizona, 2.1% in Wisconsin, and 2.5% in Nevada. The apparent average “Dominion Effect” is greater than the margin in Arizona and Georgia, and close to the margin for Wisconsin and Nevada. It is not hard to picture a scenario where the actual effect in Wisconsin and Nevada was greater than the national average and would have changed the current reported outcome in those two states.

Assuming the “Dominion Effect” is real, it is possible that an audit of these machines would overturn the election.

These results are scientifically valid and typically have a p-value of less than 1%, meaning the chances of this math occurring randomly are less than 1 in 100. This article, and its FAQ, shows many ways to model the “Dominion Effect.”

The best way to restore faith in the system is to audit the Dominion voting machines in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin.

Discussion

To do this study, we will link results from 2008 to 2020 by each county, parish, or in some cases city. Since this is usually based on county, we will refer to it as county in this article.

By comparing the county to itself, we are constructing the test similar to how a drug company would test the effects of its proposed therapy. In this case, we have 3,050 counties that do not have Dominion in 2008. In 2020, 657 of the counties have Dominion while 2,388 do not. If we assume that the same societal forces are acting upon all of these counties equally, then in comparing the average change from 2008 to 2020 for Dominion counties versus non Dominion counties, we should have a similar change in voter share. In this regard, it is as if Dominion is the proposed treatment, and non-Dominion is the placebo.

When doing this analysis, we do NOT see a change that is constant across counties. In fact, below are the results comparing 2008 to 2020. A verbal description is “the average US county’s percentage of vote for the Democrat presidential candidate was 8.4 percentage points less Democrat in 2020 (Biden vs. Trump) than in 2008. (Obama vs. McCain). However, despite this 8.4%-point decrease, Dominion counties only decreased 6.4% points, while the non-Dominion counties decreased 9.0% points.”

Unlike a drug company’s test of a new treatment, our counties were not randomly selected to be “treated” by Dominion. These counties chose to install Dominion. Was there selection bias? We should control for other factors to see if the presence of Dominion still significantly affects results.

We can obtain demographic data on a county level basis from the U.S. department of agriculture. By attaching this data on a county basis to our already existing dataset, and running multiple linear regression, we obtain the following results. You’ll notice that Dominion’s p-value became more significant as we controlled for other variables. In some cases Dominion is more significant than the control variables.

To provide a basic interpretation, look at the sign of the coefficient. It is telling you whether the demographic factor increased or decreased Democratic presidential voter percentage. So, from 2008 to 2020:

  • The more rural, the less the Democratic share
  • The more manufacturing dependent, the less the Democratic share
  • The more a county is considered a “high natural amenity,” the more the Democratic share if we consider counties equally weighted but not if we give larger counties more weight. Note this variable has a less significant p-value than some of the others.
  • The more a county is considered “high creative class,” the more the Democratic share
  • The more a county is considered “low education,” the more the Democratic share
  • The more the population increased, the more the Democratic share
  • The more international immigration, the more the Democratic share, although one measure had this value with a questionable p-value.
  • And most importantly, if Dominion was installed, there was approximately a 1.5%-point increase in Democratic share which also corresponds to a 1.5%-point Republican decrease, so a total swing of 3% points.

If the “Dominion Effect” is real, would it have affected the election?

This article showed a range of estimates for the “Dominion Effect,” the more persuasive being from the multiple linear regression analysis:

Multiple Linear Regress: Ordinary Least Squares: 1.65%
Multiple Linear Regress: Weighted Least Squares: 1.55%

I find the weighted least square model the most persuasive and refer to it often in the FAQ.

If there is a Dominion Effect, it adds that percentage to Democrat presidential vote and subtracts from Republican. If the Dominion Effect is real, it may have affected this close election. For Dominion to have switched the election from Trump to Biden, it would have had to increase Democratic presidential outcomes by 0.3% and reduced Republican outcomes by 0.3% in Georgia. The factors for the other states are 0.6% in Arizona, 2.1% in Wisconsin, and 2.5% in Nevada. Click here to see the math.

If you believe the Dominion Effect is real, it is not hard to believe that this effect would be greater in swing states and could have swung these four states into Biden’s column, putting the electoral college in his favor.

Are there really enough machines in Wisconsin to have changed the outcome there?

If you go to verifiedvoting.org, and selection Dominion, 2020, Wisconsin, and download the data, you’ll see that they are saying 527 precincts, 640,215 registered voters are on Dominion machines. The state only has a 20k vote difference among Biden and Trump. And, in my paper, the Dominion effect was calculated on a county basis, not precinct basis. To the extent counties are split on which machine they used, then my paper is underestimating the Dominion effect: the effect is likely bigger on a precinct by precinct basis; I don’t have the data to go to that detail.

But to answer the question: yes, based on published, public information, there are enough machines to change the election in Wisconsin.

Have you really accounted for very large and very small counties?

In our model, we are already using these adjustments:

  • weighting by county size
  • a field called “RuralUrbanContinuumCode2013”

These should adjust for county size, but in effort to address concerns of readers, I ran the model with two new flags:

  • 657 counties with highest number of voters in 2008
  • 657 counties with lowest number of voters in 2008

The Dominion Effect is still 1.55% and the p-values are 0.00% (traditional) 0.09% (robust). These p-values are suggesting less than 1 in 1000 chance of randomly occurring.

To further address this, I ran an additional model which also includes a field for the population per square mile. This model produces identical results of Dominion Effect of 1.55% and a p-value of 0.00% and 0.09%.