78 % of Trump voters believe election was rigged and stolen

 Trending Politics:

… Luntz’s focus group found that more than 91% of Trump’s supporters would vote for him again (we think that number is much higher). In addition, Luntz said that 78% of Trump voters believe that the election was stolen (as they should).

“91% of those who voted for Donald Trump on Election Day would vote for him again. This is a poll that was done on Monday, just 48 hours ago,” Luntz began with a depressed look on his face.

“And it’s astounding. And only 5% would switch their votes from Donald Trump to Joe Biden. And I’ve got two more numbers for you. 67% believe that if the votes were counted accurately and fairly, Donald Trump would have won. And the most staggering of all, 78% believed that the election was rigged and stolen. So you’ve got a large segment of the American people who do not trust our electoral process,” he concluded.

The attempt to “persuade” Trump voters that the election was on the up and up has totally failed.  The “Shut up” chorus is not working.

Source: 78 % of Trump voters believe election was rigged and stolen

Did the Democrats Steal the Presidential Election?

Democrats are making extraordinary efforts to suppress all discussion of whether Joe Biden actually won the 2020 presidential election. In fact, they go even farther: they want to suppress all discussion of the extent to which voter fraud occurred. That naturally makes me want to write about voter fraud, and who really won the election.

First, this question: why are the Democrats so hysterical in their insistence that fraud not be mentioned? One reason is obvious. Joe Biden will take office under a cloud, since close to half of all Americans doubt that he really won the election. The Democrats want to stamp out such doubts to preserve Biden’s authority as president.

But there is a second reason that may be more important. The Democrats want the lax voting procedures that prevailed in 2020 to continue in the future. They know that efforts will be made in many states to improve ballot integrity, and they want those efforts to fail. By rendering all discussion of voter fraud out of bounds, they hope to forestall reforms that would make it harder for them to cheat, or enable cheating, in the future.

Source: Did the Democrats Steal the Presidential Election?

The Ghost Who Votes

My house has a ghost, a former resident that moved out in 2009 but still receives mail from unions, political campaigns and the government.  On a sneaking suspicion, I contacted my state representative about my ghost.  Voting records are not freely shared in Illinois, but sure enough, my ghost has been voting.  My state representative won by 34 votes in 2018, now by 35 votes.  Spurred on growing numbers of confirmed reports, he will present a bill to the Illinois General Assembly to clean up the voter rolls, but would such a cleanup be enough?


Are 1%, 10% or 50% of registered voters actually stale registrations?  Most anyone telling you a number based on data analysis is certainly wrong, probably on the low end.  Every year about 10% of people move, and about 16% of those move to another state, so playing the averages, about 3.2% of last elections’ voters will have moved to another state and are likely still registered, and it accumulates.


I usually door knock for the Republican Party, for the purpose of getting out the base.  My walk sheets contained people who voted in three or four of the last four Republican primaries.  On rare occasion, the voter I was to contact had moved out, but I never encountered stale voters because they didn’t vote Republican primaries and so had been filtered off the list.

This changed in 2014, when I knocked doors for Bruce Rauner.  His data analysis team incorporated other resources to identify Democratic and routine and infrequent non-partisan voters (general elections only) who might be sympathetic to his message.  The stale registrations were numerous, and so were the stale voters.  I visited one home that had three different family names listed on the walk sheet, all with recent voting records.  From the ages and sexes, it was clear that these were different middle-aged couples.  The current residents had lived there for a year and had not yet registered to vote, but one of their ghosts voted in the Democratic primary that Spring.  At one strong Republican house, which I had knocked many times before, their daughter appeared on the sheet as a strong and routine Democratic voter.  She moved out-of-state 10 years prior.

From the number of similar experiences at other houses, I estimated that 2.0% of the voters in my precincts were stale, with 7/8 of it going Democratic, meaning that Democrats received +1.5% from stale voters in my 75% Republican precincts.  Many races are won and lost by less.  If these statistics hold, that 0.33% of Republican votes and 7% of Democratic votes are from stale voters, then stale voters make up about 3.67% of the total vote in swing states, giving Democrats a 3.33% margin of fraud.  In most “blue” states, Democrats would gain a 4.5% margin of fraud from stale voters.

Source: American Thinker

Raffensperger on line 2

(Scott Johnson) Following up on my the adjacent post , I want to add a few comments to draw out facets of the phone call that have been shortchanged — i.e., suppressed — by the mainstream media.

• The fact that the call was secretly recorded is scurrilous. As is apparent at a couple of points, the call was for the purposes of settlement of the pending Trump lawsuit. Who secretly records settlement discussions?

• The Trump team contends that there were more illegal votes included in the Georgia certified election results than the number of voters separating Biden from Trump. Secretary Raffensperger et al. failed to respond to specific questions and to provide information or reports or records demonstrating that the numbers of illegal votes identified by the Trump team are incorrect. They just say it. They offer no evidence.

• At the end of the call Trump local counsel Kurt Hilbert stated: “We would like to sit down with your office, and we can do it through purposes of compromise and just like this phone call, just to deal with that limited category of votes….” Hilbert reiterated the request, seeking Raffensperger et al. “to sit down with us in a compromise and settlements proceeding and actually go through the registered voter IDs and the registrations.”

• Although Secretary of State general counsel Ryan Germany agreed to set up such a meeting, there has been no further response other than the release of the recording of the conversation by Raffensperger or someone acting on his behalf. It is reasonable to infer that Raffensperger doesn’t want the meeting to happen.

• Cleta Mitchell, by the way, is a volunteer lending President Trump a hand by acting essentially as a liaison in the litigation. She is not not an attorney of record. The left media crowd on Twitter is now conducting a vile campaign against Cleta and her firm. These people are ignorant thugs.


Source: Raffensperger on line 2

In 2021, is there such a thing as a “margin of fraud” in elections?

With computer voting machines, it’s entirely possible that the “margin of fraud” concept has been superseded by pre-programmed victories. One of the things I check out every day is the Morning Report by J.J. Sefton over at Ace . I have absolutely no idea how J.J. manages to process and summarize that much material but every day, there it is, all processed and summarized.


Unionizing federal workers opened the door to a level of corruption that even Franklin D. Roosevelt, a hard core wealth-class socialist wouldn’t contemplate.

For those unfamiliar with the problem, in a normal union situation, both labor and management have skin in the game. Both want the company to survive and both are reliant on the marketplace for money. If either gets too greedy, they risk killing the goose that’s keeping their golden eggs flowing.

In the government context, though, neither of the two parties has any skin in the game. Labor understandably wants more money and the government representative has an interest in getting more money for labor, in exchange for labor’s promise to donate to the Democrat party. (It’s always about Democrats, since JFK started this scam.) The taxpayer is not at the table. He’s just the endless piggy bank. This is how you end up with a federal labor force that’s 90% Democrat and is willing to go to any lengths to keep a reforming Republican from getting elected — and, if that Republican gets elected, will violate any laws (because they’ll protect each other) to destroy him.

Source: In 2021, is there such a thing as a “margin of fraud” in elections?


Larry Correia has a post primarily addressing possible election fraud in the Presidential election. However, his opening comments about audits made me think of something else.

When you run a business you will get audited by the government. If something your company does raises a red flag with the government, they will audit you. If there is an anomaly in your government mandated paperwork you must legally submit, it can trigger an audit. And sometimes, various agencies will just randomly audit you to make sure you are obeying all their regulations.

The IRS audits everyone’s financials to make sure they are paying all their taxes. That’s federal, but you will also be audited by your state tax commission. If your state has sales tax you will eventually undergo a sales tax audit.


My comment was:

Given that if you run a business, you will get audited by the government, it occurs to me to wonder about something.

What does anyone expect to find in Donald Trump’s tax returns that hasn’t already been uncovered by swarms of government auditors, including the IRS?

“No evidence” of election fraud?

From what I’ve gleaned from discussions with liberal friends, this statement is true:

…evidence of massive election fraud in swing states during the 2020 election is widely known and understood by Americans who obtain their information from independent and conservative media. Those who only pay attention to legacy media sources, and most members of the political class, are almost completely unaware of that fraud and/or have swallowed the Democrat-media narrative that the fraud was insufficient to have changed the outcome of the election.

I purposely left out the first word of the quote, however. It was “Direct” as in “Directevidence.” I left it out because I’m not so sure there is much direct evidence. First, take a look at what “direct evidence” is:

Evidence that directly links a person to a crime, without the need of any inference (for example, they were seen committing the crime).

Much of the evidence we’ve seen so far is indirect and comes in the form of extremely suspicious activities (throwing out observers, videos of ballots that were under tables, etc.), and statistical anomalies that are very convincing but are not “direct evidence.”


Of course, in a normal trial, circumstantial evidence is also used to convict a criminal. However, that takes at least three things. The first is enough time to prepare a case, the second is access to the evidence, and the third is a court that doesn’t dismiss the case on technical grounds. With allegations of widespread fraud in the 2020 election, we don’t have nearly enough time, in many cases those who supervised the election are not willing and/or able to make the harder evidence available (for example, how does one match envelopes to ballots once the latter have been separated from the former?), and most of the cases so far have been dismissed on technical grounds such as lack of standing or the doctrine of laches.

Unfortunately, if a party is willing and able to commit massive election fraud, the legal system is inherently unable to deal with it in time, even if it had the will to do so. I think our system presently lacks both will and ability, and the MSM is invested in saying “nothing to see here; move along.” Therefore, this split will continue between the portion of the populace that believes such a fraud was perpetrated and the portion that thinks the first group to be delusional.

Source: “No evidence” of election fraud?