New Report Reveals Trump Would Have Won in 26 out of 29 Mail-in Ballot Fraud Scenarios During 2020 Election

Gateway Pundit ^ | Feb. 8, 2024 | Brian Lupo

[george76]

During the run-up to the 2020 Presidential Election, election processes were changed to roll out “no excuse mail-in voting.” Some states even went as far as sending ballots to every voter on the voter registration roll. Most of these changes were made without the consent of the state legislatures, as mandated by the US Constitution in Article 1, Section 4, Clause 1.

As a result of this, the number of mail-in ballots cast, according to the US Elections Assistance Commission, went from 33 million mail-in ballots in 2016 to approximately 65.5 million in the 2020 Election, despite warnings from a 2005 bipartisan report from President Jimmy Carter and former US Secretary of State James Baker in 2005 that stated mail-in balloting was “one of the major sources of fraud.”

As mentioned in the Heartland Institute report, the narrative in the Mockingbird Media shifted from calling out the dangers of no-excuse mail-in ballots prior to 2020 to falling in line with the idea that mail-in balloting was perhaps “even more secure than in-person voting” (NY Times, May 2020) and “voting by mail is the surest path to a more inclusive, more accurate and more secure election.” (Times, August 2020)

Last December, the author of the report, the Heartland Institute, partnered with Rasmussen Reports to conduct a poll of 1,085 people who voted in the 2020 Presidential Election. The results were shocking. The Gateway Pundit covered this poll as well as some of the warnings issued in the build-up to the 2020 Election.

...

The Heartland Institute took the polling results a step further: they measured “the effect of mail-in ballot fraud in the Trump-Biden race for the White House” through their report, titled “Who Really Won the 2020 Election?”

Spoiler Alert: President Trump wins outright in 26 of the 29 scenarios. If you include a tie-breaker, Trump wins 27 out of 29.

Before reporting the results of the individual assessments of swing-state races based on varying levels of fraud, it is worth acknowledging the results of Heartland’s poll with Rasmussen that formed the basis of their assessments.

In a poll of 1085 voters in the 2020 Election, 30% responded they voted by mail. Of those:

21% of mail-in voters admitted that in 2020 they voted in a state where they are “no longer a permanent resident” 21% of mail-in voters admitted that they filled out a ballot for a friend or family member 17% of mail-in voters said they signed a ballot for a friend or family member “with or without his or her permission” 19% of mail-in voters said that a friend of family member filled out their ballot, in part or in full, on their behalf The report’s analysts were able to determine that “28.2% of respondents who voted by mail admitted to committing at least one kid of voter fraud”:

After analyzing the raw survey data, we were also able to conclude that 28.2 percent of respondents who voted by mail admitted to committing at least one kind of voter fraud. This means that more than one-in-four ballots cast by mail in 2020 were likely cast fraudulently, and thus should not have been counted.

Next, the Heartland analysts took the electoral results and applied varying levels of mail-in voter fraud to each of the “swing states”, for which the report defined as Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. They then assessed each state individually based on the following assumptions of fraud levels:

28.2% fraud – President Trump wins AZ, GA, MI, NV, PA, and WI. Trump wins Electoral College 311-227 27-14% fraud – same result as above. Trump wins Electoral College 311-227 13-6% fraud – President Trump wins AZ, GA, PA, and WI. Biden wins MI and NV. Trump wins Electoral College 289-249 5-4% fraud – President Trump wins AZ, GA, and WI. Biden wins MI, NV, and PA. Electoral College is a tie at 269-269. This would have triggered a US House vote with each state’s legislature getting exactly 1 vote for the Presidency. Since the Republicans control more state legislatures, President Trump likely would have won. 3% – President Trump wins AZ and GA. Biden wins MI, NV, PA and WI. Biden wins Electoral College 279-259 2-1% – President Trump doesn’t win any states. Biden wins Electoral College 306-232 The report also assessed what would happen if the fraud occurred at different rates. While the sample size was insignificant, the Rasmussen/Heartland poll did find that “Biden voters admitted to committing at least one form of fraud at a rate of 23.2%, and Trump voters self-admitted fraud rate was 35.7%.” Even with the adjustment, President Trump would have won Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. This would have resulted in a 278-260 Electoral College win for President Trump.

Several “proactive” and “preventative” recommendations were also offered in the report. The “proactive” suggestions included updating and verifying registration rolls annually, requiring identification to vote in person, encouraging in-person voting, requiring a witness or notary signature on all mail-in ballots, and requiring a valid excuse to request a mail-in ballot.

The “preventative” measures suggested were outlawing ballot harvesting, forbidding unattended and unsecured drop boxes, requiring signature verification for mail-in voting, and perhaps the two most important: establishing state-level agencies to investigate claims of election law violations and passing laws that impose harsh penalties for those who commit voter fraud.

Heartland Institute suggested requiring a notary to validate all ballot signatures and went as far as recommending the notaries do it for free or offer a program that reimburses notaries for the service.

The report concludes that “even if the level of fraud shown by our survey (28.2 percent of all mail-in ballots) substantially overstates the true level of fraud that occurred, Trump would still have won in most of the likely scenarios, with only three exceptions.” The authors claim they have “no reason to believe that [their] survey overstated voter fraud by more than 25 percentage points”.

[CommerceComet]

Oh yes. People are going to admit to felonies to someone they don’t know on the telephone. You bet.

There are no consequences here. If the pollster is not law enforcement, then any information he reports is hearsay evidence and not admissible in court. If the pollster is law enforcement, the person could claim that they were lying to the pollster just to cause problems (no crime here) or the person could claim that they did not completely understand the question (no crime here). No DA in the world would do anything with this information.

[pgyanke]

Thank you.

[matthew fuller]

Jose Robinette Biden- "THIEF IN CHIEF"

[remember]

Agreed. I do not believe that 20% of poll respondents would admit to election fraud. They have no way of being sure that there will be no consequences. Also, I find it interesting that the study says that that "Biden voters admitted to committing at least one form of fraud at a rate of 23.2 percent, and Trump voters self-admitted fraud rate was 35.7 percent". Do Trump voters generally commit more fraud? Or are they just more likely to confess to fraud as it agrees with the views of their Great Leader?

Also in agreement with the Trump's views, the study assumes that all fraud and other election irregularities helped Biden. I could well imagine a study from a liberal organization that purports to show that, without the voter suppression that occurred in 2016, Hillary Clinton would have won and Biden would have won by even more in 2020. But this study looks only at the six states that Trump lost by a small percentage - Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. What about those states that Trump won by a small percentage - North Carolina and Florida? Is there any chance that Republicans flipped those states through fraud? The study doesn't even look at those states. I addressed some of these questions in a prior post:

I have looked at too many studies where the data is cherry-picked and/or the analysis is flawed or incomplete. If the author cannot take the time and effort to provide the source data and code to reproduce the conclusions, I usually have no time to hunt for the data and reverse engineer the code. I generally ignore the study and move on to a study that is documented and reproducible.

In addition, the idea that the election was stolen seems to rest on the flawed assumption that, because Trump lost, any "irregularities" must have helped Biden. Lindell never seems to consider the possibility that some of the irregularities that were allegedly found (or other irregularities that they haven't yet found) may have helped Trump. In fact, there are many researchers who follow the shift between the exit polls and the final vote counts. This shift is shown in the following plot:

In the above plot, the x-coordinate of each point is equal to the state's margin in the exit poll. The y-coordinate is equal to its margin in the actual vote MINUS its margin in the exit poll. Hence, the y-coordinate is the SHIFT in the margin from the exit poll to the actual vote. On both axes, the positive direction is defined to be more Democratic. Hence, the plot shows that of the 22 states exit polled, only California was more Democratic in the final vote than in the exit poll. All of the rest became more Republican. This shift to the right has been called the "red shift" as described here.

The dashed line has special significance. It is the line representing y = -x. In this formula, x is equal to Margin1 and y is equal to (Margin2 - Margin1). Taking M to be Margin, the dashed line represents (M2 - M1) = -M1. Adding M1 to both sides gives M2 = 0. Hence, the dashed line basically represents the y-axis of the second race. This means that the points between the solid y-axis and the dashed y-axis are points that, being left of one axis and right of the other, switched sides or "flipped" because of the shift. In the triangle bordered by these y axes and below the x-axis are the two states that flipped, Iowa and North Carolina. The exit polls of both states were Democratic but they shifted so far right as to be Republican in the final vote. The 6 states closest to the right of the dashed line are those states that went for Biden by the smallest percentages. Those 6 states were Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsic (AZ, GA, MI, NV, PA, and WI). The plot and table also show that Florida (FL) was only 0.4% Trump in the exit poll but red-shifted to be 3.4% Trump in the final vote.

Of course, this doesn't prove that these states were all manipulated by Republicans. At least a portion of the red-shift could be due to voter suppression. Also, some portion of it could be due to errors in the exit polls. That is what is always assumed by big media since it would be rather awkward to suggest that some of the error was in the official vote totals. In any case, I saw nothing in the Lindell presentations that provided evidence that the entire election, if done properly, would have gone to Trump. The only rational way to change an election result is to audit and/or recount the vote according to existing election law. The discovery of any other irregularities are only useful in improving the system to avoid errors in future elections. This is what I had hoped that Lindell would do - present a clean proposal to minimize the use of voting machines and then push both the Democrats and Republicans to accept it or work out a compromise. This seemed to have been the chief idea expressed in the discussion between Emerald Robinson and Clint Curtis on Day 1.