Facts are famously stubborn things. But when you hear the term “objective data,” be careful how you process what comes next. Numbers and metrics can be considered data — or facts — only if they rest on a foundation of mathematical certainty. And they are only truly objective if analyzed in pristine fashion and not commingled with subjective information, such as polls or projections. They are perhaps best described as data that neither side can dispute as distorted in one way or another.
While we have seen and heard the stories of expelled election observers, hundreds of affidavits alleging ballot fraud, and grounded theories of voting system manipulation, the most plausible case to be made — and widely accepted for its objectivity — about the dubious outcome of the 2020 presidential election is based on verifiable, publicly available data, specifically patterns of voting behavior in battleground states and how they compare to those of the rest of the nation.
You don’t need to understand algorithms or the details of election laws to comprehend just how implausible the reported outcome of this election really is.
In analyzing how many votes were officially recorded, where and when, and then comparing those trends to the rest of the country, it is relatively easy to detect statistical anomalies, improbabilities, and, in the case of this election, virtual or actual impossibilities.
The bulk of allegations about widespread irregularities are concentrated in just six states — 12% of the nation — and so the results reported in those states should be roughly comparable to those of the remaining 44 states. They should be similar to, not radically different from, the remaining 85% of the country. This is particularly relevant when you consider that Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, Nevada, and Arizona were battlegrounds, meaning they were almost evenly divided and thus reflective of the nation writ large.
The saga of Election Night 2020 will be told for many years to come. And atop the list of tales will be the tidal wave of black votes that hit in the middle of the night, after voting had stopped and then restarted free of observers. These votes came in just four cities — the largest in each of the four most bitterly contested swing states — Detroit, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and Atlanta. Biden’s black vote spiked only in those locations, the ones necessary to secure victory, and nowhere else. They numbered in the hundreds of thousands, with more than 90% going to Biden.
Moving from the realm of the implausible to the impossible, the prime exhibits may be in Michigan, where no less than eight cities showed the entirely impossible turnout of 100% or more — far more — in Democrat-dominated districts. In North Muskegon, more than 700% of registered voters cast ballots. In Zeeland Charter Township, it was more than 400%.
Just as hard to process is the matter of turnout. Over the last 80 years — and 20 presidential elections — the national average was roughly 56%. This year we are told it was 66%, a previously unheard-of number. In Wisconsin, turnout was jaw-dropping: more than 90%. In Milwaukee, it was 84%; compare that to a city with similar demographics, Cleveland, where 51% turned out. Biden’s margin of victory in Montgomery County, a critical suburban area surrounding Philadelphia, is incredibly reported as double that of Barack Obama in 2008.
At the height of his rock-star status that year, Obama received 69 million votes across the land. He got 65 million in 2012, as did Hillary Clinton in 2016. But this year, we are told that Joe Biden, for whom there was zero enthusiasm, received more than 80 million votes.
Donald Trump received 11 million more votes than in 2016, increased his support among black voters by almost 50%, and bumped his share of the Hispanic vote up to 35%. Republicans down-ballot won virtually every competitive race in the House of Representatives, most in the Senate, and held every statehouse and won control of three more. And yet Trump apparently came up short.
Yes, the GOP won at every level except the top, where the pace is universally set by the presidential candidate. So we are essentially told to believe that President Trump did the impossible. After all, how can you have coattails if you’ve got no coat?
These are but the most glaring of the statistical facts that should, by all reliable measures, have produced a different outcome at the top of the ticket. Debates over the legitimacy of the ultimate result will carry on for years to come. But one thing is clear: The objective data will never change.
Read more from Tim Donner.