Anyone with eyes can see that Trump visibly has more support than Biden, whose crowning achievement during “campaigning” included drawing around 100 cars or so (half of which were likely aids or reporters). Trump, on the other hand, routinely came out for tens of thousands of supporters, with the image above providing just a taste of the same type of support that poured out across the nation.

Needless to say, the outcome of the presidential election was rather shocking to many, especially those with the clear dichotomy of Trump’s rallies versus Biden’s rallies in mind. A shock to everyone who didn’t pre-plan the fraud, that is.

And while the fake news media loves to shut down Trump supporters, not to mention those who have risked their careers and reputations with sworn affidavits, it will be a bit more difficult for the fake news media to dismiss some rather difficult to argue quantitative facts about the election.

Especially since the fake news media is the self-proclaimed “fact-checker.” Too bad the “fact-checking” goes out the window when it comes to anything at all to do with Trump, not to mention anything at all when it comes to their own (aka, communists hell-bent on destroying America through any means necessary).

Patrick Basham, a knowledgeable, intelligent pollster, recently gave an interview in which he stated that a Biden win was not “statistically impossible”, though a Biden win is certainly “statistically implausible”. The implausibility assertion alone should make several Americans gleeful over a Biden (i.e., Harris) win take a seat back.

First, Basham crisply points out that if non-polling metrics had been taken into account in 2016 (i.e., metrics, not media propaganda), Trump clearly would have won, which he did. Basham notes that these metrics are associated with a “100% accuracy rate in terms of predicting the winner of the presidential election”, which is precisely why a Trump win should not have been so shocking in 2016.

In fact, it was only shocking to liberal crybabies and nefarious communists, who curiously seem to forget their own tantrums after the 2016 election. In fact, media reports of conservative college students refusing to take exams as a result of the 2020 election have yet to surface, and certainly no reports of students burning flags in protest to a Biden win have emerged.

And that would be because conservative students tend to be American Patriots.

However, the real damage in Basham’s analysis occurred when he used the same metrics to analyze the 2020 election, an analysis that will undoubtedly anger unhinged leftist to an even greater degree.

“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 this time 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 the others. It is not statistically impossible, but it is statistically implausible …

If you look at the results, you see how Donald Trump improved his national performance over 2016 by almost 20%. No incumbent president has ever lost a reelection bid if he’s increased his votes. 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. He had the best minority performance for a Republican since Richard Nixon in 1960, doing so well with African-Americans, and importantly with Hispanics …

We know from the vote itself, the alleged vote, the alleged result, that something very strange has happened.” [Source: The Washington Examiner]

“No incumbent president has ever lost a reelection bid if he’s increased his votes.” Not to mention the enormous performance amongst minority voters, who were clearly not sold on Michelle Obama’s visions of chaos.

Most disturbingly of all. Something very strange has happened indeed. And “strange” is one of the nicest ways to put it.

In fact, something else very strange happened recently, namely when Biden gave a rather troubling interview to Jake Tapper at the Communist News Network. Among all the bizarre statements, the most disturbing were as follows:

“It’s a matter of, the thing, we are simpatico on our philosophy of government and simpatico on how we want to attach, approach these issues that we’re facing. And so I don’t have — and when we disagree, it will be just like — so far, it has been just like when Barack and I did …

“It’s in private. She’ll say, I think we should do A, B, C, or D, and I will say, I like A, don’t like B and C. And let’s go, OK. But — and like I told Barack, if I reach something where there’s a fundamental disagreement we have based on a moral principle, I, I’ll, I’ll, I’ll, I’ll develop some disease and say I have to resign.”
[Source: Biz Pac Review]

Ok. Talk about revealing the real plan prematurely. “I’ll develop some disease and say I have to resign?” Over “moral principle”?

God help us all, in that scenario. One can only hope that Trump secures victory in somehow or some way, otherwise, Ms. Harris just may be the leader of the newly unfree world in the near future …

Ad Blocker Detected!

Advertisements fund this website. Please disable your adblocking software or whitelist our website.
Thank You!