Patrick Basham is a pollster. Like tens of millions of Americans, Basham is questioning the legitimacy of the November 2020 general election results. Like Basham, we all saw the miles-long lines for Trump’s rallies. We saw the enthusiasm for President Trump across America, from men and women of every age, race, creed, and color.
We saw the spontaneous flash mob rallies, like the one in Sterling Heights, MI that drew over 10,000 Trump supporters to a parking lot, the staging area for a massive road rally through the formerly blue Macomb County. President Trump didn’t attend the road rally, and neither did any of his surrogates. There were no celebrities or musicians stumping for Trump—just a massive group of Americans who came together to show their love and appreciation for a man who kept his 2016 campaign promise to help blue-collar Americans.
How does anyone expect Americans to believe that a man who spent most of his time bumbling his way through zoom calls from his basement managed to get more votes than President Trump, arguably the most popular American President in modern history?
Kyle Becker summarized pollster Basham’s article that can be found in its entirety in The Spectator.
“I am a pollster and I find this election to be deeply puzzling.”
READ THIS: "I am a pollster and I find this election to be deeply puzzling."
1. "President Trump received more votes than any previous incumbent seeking reelection. He got 11 million more votes than in 2016, the third largest rise in support ever for an incumbent." [Thread 1/13]
— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) November 29, 2020
1. “President Trump received more votes than any previous incumbent seeking reelection. He got 11 million more votes than in 2016, the third-largest rise in support ever for an incumbent.”
2. “Trump’s vote increased so much because, according to exit polls, he performed far better with many key demographic groups. Ninety-five percent of Republicans voted for him.”
3. “He earned the highest share of all minority votes for a Republican since 1960. Trump grew his support among black voters by 50 percent over 2016… Joe Biden’s black support fell well below 90 percent, the level below which Democratic presidential candidates usually lose.”
4. “Trump increased his share of the national Hispanic vote to 35 percent. With 60 percent or less of the national Hispanic vote, it is arithmetically impossible for a Democratic presidential candidate to win Florida, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico.”
5. “Bellwether states swung further in Trump’s direction than in 2016. Florida, Ohio and Iowa each defied America’s media polls with huge wins for Trump. Since 1852, only Richard Nixon has lost the electoral college after winning this trio”…
6. “Midwestern states Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin always swing in the same direction as Ohio and Iowa, their regional peers. Ohio likewise swings with Florida. Current tallies show that, outside of a few cities, the Rust Belt swung in Trump’s direction.”
7. “Yet, Biden leads in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin because of an apparent avalanche of black votes in Detroit, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee. Biden’s ‘winning’ margin was derived almost entirely from such voters in these cities”…
8. “… as coincidentally his black vote spiked only in exactly the locations necessary to secure victory. He did not receive comparable levels of support among comparable demographic groups in comparable states, which is highly unusual for the presidential victor.”
9. “We are told that Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history. But he won a record low of 17 percent of counties; he only won 524 counties, as opposed to the 873 counties Obama won in 2008. Yet, Biden somehow outdid Obama in total votes.”
10. “Victorious presidential candidates, especially challengers, usually have down-ballot coattails; Biden did not. The Republicans held the Senate and enjoyed a ‘red wave’ in the House, where they gained a large number of seats while winning all 27 toss-up contests.”
11. “Trump’s party did not lose a single state legislature and actually made gains at the state level.”
12. “Another anomaly is found in the comparison between the polls and non-polling metrics. The latter include: party registrations trends; candidates’ respective primary votes; candidate enthusiasm; social media followings; broadcast and digital media ratings; online searches”…
“Adding to the mystery is a cascade of information about the bizarre manner in which so many ballots were accumulated and counted. The following peculiarities also lack compelling explanations”.