Data Analyst Says Election Findings Could 'Easily' Overturn Results in Three States

Overturning the results will happen -Though the pathetically dishonest ‘mainstream media’ continues to bleat, “There is no widespread election fraud!” – the Trump campaign and attorneys aligned with it have continued to present reams of it to federal courts and, on Wednesday, to a panel of GOP state lawmakers in Pennsylvania.

Thus, far, the cowardly federal courts have refused to even acknowledge the campaign’s findings as well as the hundreds of sworn affidavits from people who have attested to, under penalty of perjury, having witnessed various aspects the alleged fraud.Courts have regularly dismissed Trump campaign lawsuits out of hand, claiming that the suits did not contain any proof (since when did sworn affidavits no long constitute proof in a court of law?).

Nevertheless, experts who have spent weeks since the election examining the materials the campaign has discovered have come to the conclusion that the evidence of massive fraud is overwhelming.

One of them is former data and strategy director for President Donald Trump’s 2016 election campaign Matt Braynard, who has said he’s uncovered enough evidence to “easily” overturn election results in favor of President Trump.

“I have no confidence that Joe Biden is the deserved winner of this election, based on our findings,” Matt Braynard said in a Nov. 25 video  “He may have won, he may not have won. Trump may have lost, Trump may have been reelected. “We just can’t know because of how bad this election system has operated.”

The Epoch Times has more:Braynard assembled a team just days after the election to look for inconsistencies in six contested states: Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada.

The group initially identified 1.25 million voter issues and followed up on them through phone calls and by cross-checking data against other databases.

The team ran several major analyses including of voters who had moved out of state but still voted in the state they had left; voters who registered to vote using a post office box number rather than a residential address as required; voters who requested a mail-in ballot and sent it in, only for it not to be counted; voters who didn’t request a mail-in ballot and didn’t receive one, but discovered a vote had been cast in their name; as well as research on people who voted more than once and on those who are listed in the death index.“The number of questionable ballots surpasses the vote margin in at least three states right now—Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin,” Braynard told the outlet on Wednesday. “Those three states have a combined total of 37 electoral votes. This isn’t speculative. This is just what the data shows.

“I can give you the list of the people who voted in this election, who filed National Change of Address cards in Georgia, moving themselves to another state,” Braynard added.

“And I can also show you the subsequent state voter registrations of these individuals in other states, who then cast early or absentee ballots back in Georgia. I can show you the names of the people and the records of them having voted in multiple states and the raw data that the states make available.”

And when your prediction fails to come to pass, will you post here saying that you were wrong?

There's one hilarious stupidity in your "reporting." This one Trump stooge clown says there are forty-eight bazillion frauduent votes, but even if that were true, why couldn't they be Trump votes just as easily as Biden votes?

There is no way that this moron could know if anybody voted twice. He's just pulling that accusation out of his ass. He's enjoying his fifteen minutes of fame. If he actually jnew that, he would provide proof. But he can't, because he has no proof.

Of course, we have the rulings of multiple courts, many of them presided over by Trump judges, all saying that there was no widespread or significant fraud---and on the other hand, we have one raving Trump stooge wingnut.

David believes the wingnut.

Proof is forthcoming. 

No, some random bullshit you will CALL "proof" MIGHT be forthcoming.

Poor David. The time to present proof is when you file a lawsuit and appear in court. All of the Trump lawsuits get dismissed because when the time to present evidence comes team Trump is unable to do so. Team Trump has also admitted in court there is no evidence of fraud and Trump was treated no differently than Biden in the election. 

A bunch of pro-Trump guys chatting at the Wyndham is just that and nothing more. 

None of these supposed databases were submitted in evidence in ANY of the 38 lawsuits by the Trump team.

And David apparently relies on the Epoch Time, which is run by the Falun Gong cult.

None of this is a surprise.

Proof, maybe not.  But certainly unexplainable coincidences and / or inconvenient truths.

1) Biden won a record low 16.7% of counties in the US but had the most votes of any presidential candidate ever. 10 million more than Obama.

2) Voter turnout for every election in the past 100 years fell within 2 standard deviations but 2020 was above 3 standard deviations. This should happen roughly 1 in every 2,666 elections and is 99.7% indicative of voter fraud.

3) Republicans won all 27 “contested” House seats but lost the presidency?

4) The winner has always carried 15 or more of the 17 Bellwether counties but Biden won just 1 of them.

5) Trump had the highest % of non-white votes of any Republican in history.

6) Biden was down more than 10% in NY but up huge in very specific large cities –but only in the cities in battleground states.

7) 450,000+ ballots in battleground cities had a vote for only Biden. No down ballot votes cast, no independents, green party or write in candidates voted for on those ballots.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/11/saturdays-fun-fraud-facts-seven-unexplainable-results-reveal-democrats-didnt-even-try-hide-fraud/

Actually, none of those statistics are "unexplainable" or in any way indicative of fraud.

Whoever wrote this idiot screed seems to not understand that this election was very unusual in a number of ways. For instance, the moron says that record-high voter turnout is "99.7% indicative of voter fraud." Just like Rudy the Rat--accusations without evidence.

I hope you're posting this tongue-in-cheek and aren't credulous enough to believe any of this clown's bullcrap. The statistics that he cites--even if they're accurate--in no way indicate that there was anything wrong with the election.

But of course, a Trumper reading this would explode like an overripe zit in faux indignation.

so a 1 in 2,666 chance of these voter turnout numbers is just a coincidence......OK

The fool who wrote this "article" doesn't understand statistics. Apparently, neither do you.

He calcuated the likelihood of the volume of voter turnout in 2020 compared to the last 100 years. Surely even you see that such a comparison makes no sense! It's like saying, what are the chances that the US population would be 330 million in 2020, since it's always been smaller than that?

He talks about standard deviations as if he knows what they are. They're only useful in comparing outcomes of similar events. And how, exactly, is voter turnout in, say, 1960 a similar outcome to voter turnout in 2020? It was historically high because there were a historically high number of voters, from a historically high population!

DUH!

You echo his pathetically wrong "calculation" that there was only a 1 in 2,666 chance of the voter turnout that occured. The chance was much greater than that (see below; actually about 2 in 5). To educate you, the statistic that has actual meaning is voter turnout as a percentage of eligible voters. That figure was historically high--but only by a small margin. 65.6%, as compared to four other elections that have seen turnout over 60% and one (1908) that saw higher turnout than 2020.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/elections/voter-turnout/

Look at the graph in the following article. Historical turnout rates (expressed as the percentage of the voting-eligible population that actually voted) were as high as 80% in the mid-19th century, and in the 100 years prior to this election, fluctuated between 60 and 65 percent.

https://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present

I was able to research this in maybe five minutes. I have a fairly good grasp of statistics, but this should be simple to understand. The guy who wrote your article had an agenda and a pretty poor grasp of statistics. The actual result in terms of standard deviations was approximately 1/3 of a standard deviation higher than the average (of turnout percentages in the last 100 years). The chance of such an outcome was about 40%.

Hardly enough to get one's panties all twisted and write an embarassingly inaccurate article, isn't it?

And BTW---one generally agreed-upon reason for the high turnout was that there has almost never been an incumbent President so unpopular. A LOT of people voted solely to get rid of Trump--thus the phenomenon, noted by your clown, that many ballots contained only a vote for President and no down-ballot choices. (One of the reasons why this fool's reasoning was so specious is that he doesn't mention how many such ballots were cast for Trump.)

This just shows how many people are fooled by propaganda nonsense because they choose not to think.