” … ‘not statistically impossible, but … statistically implausible.'” Basham


"Those metrics, according to Basham, include "party registration trends, how the candidates did in their respective presidential primaries, the number of individual donations, [and] how much enthusiasm each candidate generated in the opinion polls."

"In 2016, they all indicated strongly that Donald Trump would win against most of the public polling," Basham said. "That was again the case in 2020. So if we are to accept that Biden won against the trend of all these non-polling metrics, it not only means that one of these metrics was inaccurate … for the first time ever, it means that each one of these metrics was wrong for the first time and at the same time as all of the others."


Another anomaly of the 2020 election, Basham told Levin, is the fact that Trump performed better in many key voting metrics than he did four years earlier. 

"If you look at the results, you see how Donald Trump improved his national performance over 2016 by almost 20%," he said. "No incumbent president has ever lost a reelection bid if he's increased his votes [total]. Obama went down by three and a half million votes between 2008 and 2012, but still won comfortably.

"If you look at those results, you see that Donald Trump did very well, even better than four years earlier, with the white working class. He held his own with women and suburban voters against all of most of the polling expectations, did very well with Catholics, improved his vote among Jewish voters," continued Basham, who detailed his incredulity in an article published in the American edition of the Spectator. "He had the best minority performance for a Republican since Richard Nixon in 1960, doing so well with African-Americans, and importantly with Hispanics."

In fact, Basham suggested, Trump's performance was so impressive that if anyone asked 100 observers "who were sequestered for the actual election night" and had been given "the vote breakdown by demographic group" who they thought won the election, "99, at least out of those 100 independent, well-informed observers would say, well, obviously, Trump.""  foxnews


And yet Trump's people cannot thus far find a judge who will accept the power of such arguments.  Those who deny justice are sowing the wind.  pl


This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

33 Responses to ” … ‘not statistically impossible, but … statistically implausible.'” Basham

  1. Horace says:

    This is a standard problem with STEM people who provide information to decision makers. When dealing with statistical data, there are no 100% solution recommendations.
    Why are well-trained STEM people this way? Because the real world is filled with uncertainty and one always has be aware of the capacity for error. If they stop being careful then bad things happen, like the bridge falling down at Florida International University.
    However, most people don’t do nuance and probability well, especially politicians whose continued wealth acquisition depends on getting the ‘right’ answer. They shy away from uncertainty, conflating it with a negative assessment. If the probability of fraud is 99.9% then it is both terribly unpersuasive and unwise to be throwing out caveats and sheet anchors. Sometimes the real world demands one’s best ‘yes’ or ‘no’.

  2. Bro More says:

    Thanks Sic Semper – been reading awhile, but first post. If you’re not into the pessimist/realist comments right now, which I can appreciate, I will understand failure to approve. 😉
    Despite the very tenuous situation it likely puts us in, I give the benefit of the doubt to many of these judges. For better or worse, there SHOULD be a very high threshold for invalidating votes, and in general, they are very unlikely to do that without physical evidence of EACH BALLOT that should be tossed. Doing it at a wholesale level (aka 10K+ at a time based on blanket rulings) is just not going to happen, unfortunately. The SC is undoubtedly going to do the same thing, or at least whatever they rule on will not be adequate to turn the tide. As such, what is very strong suspicions and anecdotal evidence will still not move the needle.
    This coup overwhelmed the system and shocked even those who were already cynical, IMO. It was so widespread and using so many diverse methods that to truly break it all down would take years – if only the victors had any intention of letting the investigations continue. Obviously they won’t. The tsunami method worked.
    If there is a chance, this must be fought at the state legislatures to refuse cert or delay, other measures, so that real forensics can be conducted. And if our side does not figure out how to be a lot more loud and vociferous REALLY SOON to force their hand and convince them that we mean business, we lose. They do not give a wit about emails, phone calls, or dancing to YMCA in a park for a couple hours on Saturday (assuming you can find some parking and its warm enough). That is not resistance.
    And while there has been an awful lot of wink nods and strutting around to the 2A lately, I simply don’t believe that many Americans are going to be willing to put every comfort and luxury we have been addicted to at risk to pursue a very unclear objective. We are a weak people, and we have a lot further to fall.
    I would bet good odds that there will be some noisy and violent unrest and a couple big events, but in the absence of some defined end-game to them, it will be easy for the state Leviathan to isolate and eliminate them – followed by the usual propaganda of labeling them lone nuts, white nationalists, the dreaded “militias”, the usual canards. Like Waco, it will even give them impetus to crack down and seize more authority.
    Unless there are tens or hundreds of thousands of us at a time, we are easy pickings.
    My prediction: in the end, we consent.

  3. Deap says:

    What did the 20 million plus government employees, their families and friends do in 2016 and what did they do in 2020.?
    One might suspect they got lazy in 2016 and did not bother voting because all polls put Clinton in such an extraordinary lead.
    In 2020 however, stung by that loss, and were never going to throw their votes away again by not showing up. In the ensuing four years, Trump reduced the government work force by a quarter million employees.
    Motivation enough for the remaining 20 million government employees to vote as a solid block for Biden, and show up in droves this time. This alone could explain the 2020 vote disparities for Biden over the 2016 turnout numbers.
    Which takes nothing away from the potential for gross manipulation of the vote count inside the secret chambers of Dominion-Smartmatic voting systems. But the partisan reality of a 20 million dedicated and disciplined voting block of government employees, created by our own tax dollars whose sole purpose is to demand even more tax dollars, should never be overlooked in future election.
    We do vote our self-interests, first and national interests only secondarily. We the people created this kraken within our midst. Got to call it by its real name if we are ever to do anything about it. Every Biden plan so far expands the government employee workforce. Every Trump plan reduced them.
    Only in the aftermath can these numbers be analyzed. But I suspect they will reveal one of the reasons Biden by doing nothing pulled in more votes in 2020 than Clinton did in 2016. The oddity of the pre-election polls showing a huge Biden win must have made some nervous, if they were to have the same Democrat voter passivity effect as the massive polls favoring Clinton created in 2016

  4. Deap says:

    The curious new alliance between Soros Open Society an Smartmatic’s Malloch Brown: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/12/mallochbrown_returns_to_the_soros_mothership.html
    What is that saying? There are no coincidences in politics. Or was it loyalty has a price. Either could work. In any case, a case of very bad optics.

  5. Deap says:

    Illegal votes invalidate or amplify legal votes. The threshold should be very low, not high, when evidence is presented illegal votes may have in fact invalidated duly cast legal votes.
    The only quibble is evidence of only one illegal vote canceling out a legal vote sufficient, or does it take evidence of many more illegal votes than just one? Evidence of one illegal vote is one illegal vote too many.
    Do you want your vote canceled out by someone else’s illegal vote?
    Or in reverse do you want one illegal vote amplifying the legal vote cast for your opponent, so that candidate now gets two votes in their favor instead of one legal one?
    The threshold for evidence of illegal voting must be very low, because the consequences of illegal voting is so extreme.

  6. srw says:

    Could someone please tell me a factual scenario on how 50 different voting entities came up with over 7 million more “fraudulent” votes for Biden vs the Trumpster?
    I think Occam’s Razor reigns here.

  7. Fred says:

    The people running the affirmative action led company that built the defective bridge in Miami were incompetent. The people doing this analysis of the election aren’t. Inspect the signatures, Honest Joe has nothing to hide but evidence of the stolen election. The same goes for Dominion’s software.

  8. BillWade says:

    I’m not concerned about statistical analysis or how government employees vote. I’m concerned about laws being broken and it’s obvious to me that they have been. Sydney Powell said this morning she has thousands of ballots in her office that have been shredded (the law is that these records must be preserved for 22 months). That’s just one instance and most of us have heard of many more laws being broken.
    We have no country if half of it can break laws with impunity and the other half can’t. (Antifa and BLM destroy property and get off scot-free, young white male defends himself from being attacked and possibly killed gets arrested).
    We can’t be complacent for fear of losing our jobs, social standing, and property. If we are complacent those things will happen anyway over time. The question, for which I have no answer is, what do we do now?

  9. Eric Newhill says:

    Bro More,
    IMO SCOTUS can simply declare there is a lot of evidence of fraud – deliberate and accidental – because there was insufficient time to establish the massive mail-in ballot system that was necessary due to covid. In light of that, they can follow constitutionally prescribed rules and throw the election over to the house of reps.
    That gives everyone a nice out. Face saving for all – and the rule of law remains intact. The nation can move on.
    First Trump needs to get to SCOTUS in time. I fear he will not.

  10. Barbara Ann says:

    “Under the 12th Amendment, “the President of the Senate [i.e., the Vice President] shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates [of the electoral votes of the states] and the votes shall then be counted.” Left unclear is who is to “count” the electors’ votes and how their validity is to be determined.
    Over the decades, political figures and legal scholars have offered different answers to these constitutional questions. We suggest that the Vice President’s role is not the merely ministerial one of opening the ballots and then handing them over (to whom?) to be counted. Though the 12th Amendment describes the counting in the passive voice, the language seems to envisage a single, continuous process in which the Vice President both opens and counts the votes.
    The check on error or fraud in the count is that the Vice President’s activities are to be done publicly, “in the presence” of Congress. And if “counting” the electors’ votes is the Vice President’s responsibility, then the inextricably intertwined responsibility for judging the validity of those votes must also be his.
    If that reading is correct, then the Electoral Count Act is unconstitutional.. ..The new Congress chosen in the 2020 elections, rather than the current Congress, would choose the President.”

    Emphasis added is mine.
    If Pence were to declare enough EC votes invalid due to rampant fraud for there to be no majority, might the House (by voting as state delegations) end up choosing the next president? Can anyone else foresee the possibility of this angle being tried by team Trump, if appeals to the courts fail? Nancy Pelosi certainly can, as evidenced by her letter to House Democrats last month (Politico link).

  11. JM Gavin says:

    Are you basing this on anything other than conjecture? I was a federal government employee in 2016 and 2020, and my personal experience in wholly inconsistent with your hypothesis. Federal workers aren’t politically monolithic.
    It also seems as if you are trying too hard to find an excuse to view a Biden victory as legitimate. Your perspective seems to have changed substantially in the last month.

  12. TV says:

    JM Gavin
    Federal and state government employees generally benefit from bigger and bigger government.
    It is in their interest to vote for the party of all government all the time. And Trump is obviously not a fan
    of the bureaucracy.

  13. turcopolier says:

    A “factual” scenario? How about a plausible scenario? OK. A loosely tied together coalition of groups well funded but not well enough organized to avoid a lot of mistakes.

  14. Eric Newhill says:

    The areas inhabited by federal bureaucrats, around DC, vote 90% democrat.
    So technically not monolithic. There is that 10% after all.

  15. JM Gavin says:

    Read my original post again, and pretend I addressed it to you instead of Deap.
    Federal and state employees don’t “generally benefit from bigger and bigger government.” Potential employees might, and union bosses and contract companies certainly do, but actual employees don’t. I am a federal employee. I have a job. The size of government has no bearing on my job. I have zero motivation to want bigger and more government. It isn’t in my “professional” interest to vote for one party or the other. A Biden presidency doesn’t affect or improve my employment situation.
    Due to an Executive Order from a Democrat president, I am barred from union representation. That should really make me excited about Democrat admins, right? How does that square with your perspective about what people like me automatically want?

  16. blue peacock says:

    Question: Has anyone presented to a court tangible evidence of fraud that would overturn the election other than statistical improbability? For example, that mail-in ballot signatures were not accurately verified or that certain ballots were counted multiple times or that the tabulating machines were programmed to favor a certain ballot which if reversed would change the outcome of the election in that state.
    I don’t believe that statistical implausibility is sufficient for any judge to rule that an audit is required prior to certification. Of course I have no legal expertise but politically and judges at the end of the day are political IMO would not want to take on the heat.
    It would appear that legislatures which are the final selectors of the electors would have much more leeway to determine if they can or cannot certify electors. However, being politicians would they want to take on the ire of the media hysteria and the proven rioters? They have seen to date that Trump & the MAGA crowd will tweet furiously but not take any direct action. IMO, only state legislatures can intervene at this point in time and it appears they are unlikely to do that.

  17. Artemesia says:

    Bill Wade wrote: “Sydney Powell said this morning she has thousands of ballots in her office that have been shredded (the law is that these records must be preserved for 22 months)”
    Recall that anger among Iranian students was heightened after they took over US embassy, discovered shredded diplomatic documents and wove them together — a particular skill of Iranians, especially women.
    Too bad Trump hates Iranians so much: you never know when the toes you stepped on yesterday are attached to the arse you need to kiss tomorrow.
    (The reconstructed docs revealed perfidy on the part of the US diplomats. I do not know the nature of the offenses revealed.)

  18. blue peacock says:

    “..Trump is obviously not a fan of the bureaucracy.”
    Yet he stacked his administration with Swampsters and grew federal spending by increasing the annual federal debt by over a trillion dollars in each year of his presidency with the greatest economy evah!!

  19. turcopolier says:

    blue peacock
    You have not been paying attention. A great deal of direct evidence has been presented in court.

  20. Deap says:

    Why government employees both vote and fund Democrats over the GOP – data up to 2012, but assume not much has changed by 2020. 12 of the top 20 political donors were public sector unions, leading with the two teachers unions and AFSCME.
    Link also sets out benefits accruing to government employees, compared to private sector employees which has not changed much either. https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121005123201AAJ1PYC
    Weigh all comments made by Biden and Harris of late – they intend to grow government which in turn grows government employee union dues because they know those are the gals that brung them.
    No one is making this up. No sure there is any value being blind to this internal deep state self-interest. It is not controversial. Nor is its material impact is changed by personal anecdote to the contrary.

  21. Barbara Ann says:

    Bro More
    And welcome to SST.

  22. scott s. says:

    Barbara Ann:
    Faced with pretty much an unprecedented situation, the Congress in 1877 passed an act to deal with the disputed electors of the 1876 contest. That act was subsequently fleshed out as the 1887 Electoral Count Act. Since the change in the term calendar, it has really compressed the time available for any constitutional challenge to the ECA. If the ECA prevails, it’s hard to see both House and Senate agreeing on a challenge to electors and moreso if the Georgia runoffs go to Ds.

  23. JM Gavin says:

    blue peacock,
    There has been a great deal of evidence, both direct and circumstantial, concerning wide-scale fraud in the election.
    One of the major problems, however, is that it is impossible to tie fraud to specific votes once the mail-in ballot envelopes were separated from the ballot and destroyed. It could be proven that a certain percentage of votes cast did not come from lawful registered voters, but, which votes? Same for vote data stored in Dominion hardware and software.
    As a result, we’ll likely never know for certain if there was enough fraud to change the outcome (even if the relevant law enforcement entities and courts were willing to look, which, they aren’t). This causes a loss of confidence in the system. That loss of confidence becomes the legacy of this election, and leads to the end of the Republic.
    The powers that be in the branches of government don’t really care, as long as their place at the trough remains. They are busy arguing over the seating arrangements on a sinking ship.

  24. blue peacock says:

    Col. Lang,
    If direct evidence has been presented in court then it can be appealed to SCOTUS if the lower courts dismiss them. I agree that I have a hard time discerning all the allegations from actual evidence of outcome changing fraud. The ones that makes most sense to me are the statistical implausibilities. How is it that only 5 cities which turned the election in their respective states had such unprecedented same day registrations? That doesn’t pass the smell test to me.

  25. lux says:

    Posted by: Erich Newhill | 06 December 2020 at 03:08 PM
    Spread by the truth tellers including Guiliani it seems.
    Big But: They will inspect Dominion voting machines, but it is not about the presidential election but about…
    well see for yourself:

  26. Deap says:

    Fake news or smoking gun – we can’t even tell any longer:
    Claim: Test run in Georgia county using an equal numbers of ballots for Trump and for Biden, but ended up with a Dominion machine vote count of more votes for Biden than for Trump. Tried it again, same results.

  27. Barbara Ann says:

    That article on the Dominion machine is out by the factor of 50. Look closely at the embedded press release by VOTER GA, it says 37 votes were incorrectly read/flipped from Trump to Biden, so a 74 vote swing out of 14,192 total = 0.52%, not 26%. As the release says, if that ‘error’ was replicated state-wide the correct result would be a Trump win. Smoking gun will be if they find the ‘error’ was not an error.

  28. srw says:

    Trumpism and it’s future?
    Yale historian Beverly Gage compares the GOP’s reluctance to confront McCarthy (and Trump), out of both fear and opportunism. McCarthy might have ended up as the most hated man in America, but he maintained the support of a third of the country even after he was driven out of politics in disgrace.
    “Something similar is likely to happen as Trump departs the Oval Office warning of elite conspiracies and rigged ballots, encouraging his base to see themselves as noble warriors against an illegitimate political order. While the Trump presidency will soon be over, the history of Trumpism is just beginning.”
    “Trump’s story of what happened in the 2020 election bears all the hallmarks of McCarthyite myth: conspiring elites, hidden corruption, even the threat of an imminent socialist takeover. And though Trump will no doubt leave office on Jan. 20, that story — and the powerful sense of grievance behind it — is sure to thrive in the years ahead …
    Today’s Republican establishment may ultimately repudiate the man who has held it in thrall — and in fear — for four-plus years. But it is Trump’s base, and their interpretation of his ouster from Washington, that will determine the future of Trumpism.”
    Trump at last Saturday’s Valdosta rally, “”We’re all victims. Everybody here. All these thousands of people here tonight. They’re all victims. Every one of you.”
    If you wanted a plain and simple definition of Trumpism, McCarthyism or any other version of the conspiracy-addled conservative mindset, there it is. This sense of grievance has been there for many decades now.
    The kool-aid has a lasting effect!

  29. blue peacock says:

    Beverly Gage’s analysis is rather superficial and shallow but reflective of the establishment groupthink.
    The fact is that a large number of Americans have been laid waste by 40+ years of market concentration and financialization that has led to unprecedented wealth inequality, devastation of communities as manufacturing got off-shored and political distractions of identity & wokeness. The political & economic system continues to concentrate much to the detriment of Americans who are not part of either the oligarchy or the urban managerial class.
    There is no Trumpism. Trump got the zeitgeist and coalesced those who have been on the losing end of this concentration of economic & political power. The continuous attacks on him during the last campaign and during his presidency was purely because he called out this deception and devastation of working class Americans. Not that he threatened the power of the establishment or attempted to make any meaningful reforms. In fact, he enabled the concentration to grow even further and supported the huge growth in federal spending & debt growth and supported the trillions of printed money transferred by the Fed to Wall St under the guise of pandemic economic support.
    This election demonstrated this divide. Biden only won 17% of the counties. Another politician substantially more competent than Trump will come along to harness those on the losing end of the past 40+ years of the Party of Davos. Let’s hope that this person is not an extreme demagogue. Note that the attack on the current extreme concentration of power could come from either a left or right perspective and will be populist in nature and possibly lead to sentiments of hanging the overlords on lampposts. Remember too that in past instances of history the urban managerial class were also targeted in the pogroms.
    The disgust and complete lack of trust in institutions is a precursor to the extreme response. The wokesters are all smug and believe that virtue signaling is the future. History is not kind when large numbers of citizens have been shafted to the point of destitution. Trump is a symptom not the cause.

  30. Deap says:

    srw, sit down when you read this but it is unlikely those “in the thrall of Trump” will ever reject his 250 judicial appointments and his 3 new originalists appointed to SCOTUS. You measure Trump through a different lens; we do not.
    In fact, I suspect it will be people like you who will find Trump’s reach from his first four years in office will reach much further down into your own den than your dismissive attitude about him currently allows.

  31. ked says:

    srw & blue peacock,
    you might find Hedges’ latest essay illuminating, depressing, liberating … or all three.

Comments are closed.