Happy Thanksgiving

 

I told you they're still cheating (2nd opinion)

They cheat, they cheat, they cheat:

The 2020 Presidential election shared a problem with the 1998 MLB home run race: the winning candidate did too well. In 1998, steroid juicer Mark McGwire broke Roger Maris’s home run record by nine home runs or roughly 15 percent.

In 2020, Joe Biden’s 81 million votes broke Barack Obama’s 2008 record 69 million votes by 12 million votes or roughly 17 percent. Obama’s 2008 numbers were anomalous. Hillary Clinton’s 2016 numbers were closer to the norm, and Biden got nearly 25 percent more votes than she did, a cool 16 million additional votes when finally counted.

Campaigning from his basement, this cognitively-challenged, charisma-free codger did much too well in 2020, and now even the Left is noticing. With virtually all the 2024 presidential election votes counted, Kamala Harris’s vote total remains roughly seven million votes shy of Biden’s ballot box-busting performance in 2020.

In trying to explain the differential, Michael Bender of the New York Times hinted at the truth. Wrote Bender, “[S]ome backsliding could be expected after the record turnout in 2020, which was aided by pandemic rule changes that increased mail voting.” You think?

As should be expected, Bender chose not to pursue this line of thinking to its natural end. If he had, he might have asked why only the Democrats seemed to have been aided in 2020 “by pandemic rule changes.” President-elect Donald Trump did not “backslide” in 2024. He upped his 2020 vote total by about two million.

Thank you American Thinker, for taking up the cause. 

I told you they're still cheating

Rasmussen helps make my point:

Was Sunny Hostin radicalized in college?

Based on this clip, perhaps yes. The thing is, she hasn't gotten over it.

This Alan Lichtman guy

This Alan Lichtman guy has cooked himself and is ruining the shreds of his own credibility and that of his model. This election cycle he was way off, and instead of addressing why, he continues to dig himself into a deeper hole.

I can tell you why his model can be right and still provide the wrong answer. It's actually pretty amazing. His model has been highly accurate previously.  It isn't perfect, but it was a pretty good model.  Here's the problem with it; it's open to a high degree of subjectivity from the person inputting stuff into the model. I read the keys to the model and got a different score than Lichtman did and a different score than Tim Pool did when he tried it.

The model did not fail, Alan Lichtman fed partisan garbage into it.  I don't even mean that in a pejorative way. I mean garbage in -> garbage out.  The model wasn't wrong, Alan Lichtman was wrong. If he had been far more objective in his assessment of his own keys, he would have gotten it right.  He live-streamed the election and you can see his slow burn meltdown, trying to convince himself that his model was correct. 

Now, was his judgement clouded by partisanship or was his partisanship that night a result of his projection and trying to have his model come up a winner again?  I don't know for sure but I suspect the former; his original inputs were weirdly partisan skewed. It was a rose-colored glasses view of the Harris campaign, across the board. Either he's ill-informed at that point, or purely partisan. 

I believe he's highly partisan.  He's taking any criticism (and there have been a lot, from many different corners) as a personal attack. That's still not enough evidence that it's the partisan views that sank his model vs. just not being well informed about the state of the nation and political winds. But this ought to clinch the deal on the partisanship; here he is throwing the credibility of his model out the window in a quest to defame president-elect Trump. It's partisanship over reason at the highest setting:

So we're calling this done now?

Honestly, I think Trump will let this go, but as a proactive measure against future government lawfare, this should be pursued as a malicious prosecution.