« "We come in peace." Really? | Main | The powerful lawsuit in state court on the Pennsylvania voting process »

06 December 2020


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


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'.


Colonel, do you find this analysis remotely plausible?


Bro More

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.


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


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.


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.


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.



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.


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?

Eric Newhill

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.

Barbara Ann
"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).



JM Gavin

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.



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.



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.

Erich Newhill

It looks like judges in Michigan have decided to do something about it. Should be interesting.


Eric Newhill

The areas inhabited by federal bureaucrats, around DC, vote 90% democrat.

So technically not monolithic. There is that 10% after all.

JM Gavin

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?


blue peacock

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.


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.)

blue peacock

"..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!!


blue peacock

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


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.

Barbara Ann

Bro More


And welcome to SST.

scott s.

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.

JM Gavin

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.


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad