It was always fashionable to trash talk Trump, but to my surprise it has only grown in political correctness post election this year.  For those who wonder why they are so consumed with the need to disparage him, Conrad Black explains in his article today: Establishment’s Threat of Impeachment a Confession of Failure.  An excerpt below is in italics with my bolds and images.

It all begs the question of why Trump’s enemies are still so fanatical in their efforts to separate him from his huge following and destroy him politically, in Stalinist fashion. In part, the Democrats seem now to be addicted to the practice of distracting the public from the political unacceptability of their own program and record by a febrile defamation of the president.

He is not and never in his adult life was a racist or sexist. He has a number of annoying mannerisms. They can be seen by everyone and voters decide for themselves whether they outweigh the president’s better qualities and achievements.

The obsessive desire to destroy Trump even as he leaves the presidency cannot be based on anything but fear of a man who has successfully defied the political establishment, exposed it as substantially a failure, and exploited the fact that the pre-Trump status quo was despised by a majority of Americans.

The logical and creditable response to the collapse in the prestige of the country’s orthodox leaders is to raise their game, put up better candidates in both the parties (not the dismal selection of senatorial candidates available to Georgia’s voters last week), and produce some original policies. Instead, they have just tried to stone to death the person who did produce original policies.

Serving the Country Well

The political establishment has tragically missed the point: if it had been serving the country well Trump would not have been elected four years ago.  If he had not been a capable president most of his policies would not have been effectively endorsed in the congressional and state elections across the country. Those whom he displaced would not have had to resort to such extremes to evict him from the White House.

Polls indicate uniformly that barely 10 percent of Americans respect the legislators in the Congress and no more than 15 percent of Americans believe their media. Even the questionable election revealed that 48 percent of Americans preferred Trump to the candidate of Wall Street, Silicon Valley, Hollywood, academia and the media and social media, despite the Democrats’ huge financial advantage and wall-to-wall media defamation of the incumbent.

The pre-Trump decades brought endless, fruitless war in the Middle East, with an accompanying humanitarian disaster; the greatest economic crisis in the world in 80 years; more than ten million unskilled illegal migrants flooding across the southern border; immense trade deficits; alarming advances by China at America’s expense; and Trump’s predecessors were swindled by North Korea and Iran.

Trump addressed these problems; the dire predictions of his dangerous incompetence came to nothing, his vote total grew by 20 percent between elections, and his party did well in congressional and state elections.

Yet his opponents didn’t respond with better candidates or policies, they exhumed the defeated candidates Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and set them atop a Sanders-Warren far-left program, ignored the worst rioting in the country for over fifty years, apart from defunding police and engineering huge spikes in violent crime, and exploited the COVID crisis to adopt election laws that incite the inference that the election has been stolen.

And they got a free pass when the Supreme Court declined to hear the complaint from Texas supported by eighteen other states that four states had failed to assure a fair presidential election. Trump’s 74 million supporters were left with nothing to do except protest.

Only Alternative

In falsely accusing Trump of inciting insurrection, they have again ignored the public desire for better government and have effectively confirmed Donald Trump as the only alternative to the present familiar source of poor government. Joe Biden’s response to the outrages at the Capitol were that Trump had deliberately incited it, that the motives of the rioters were racist, that the Capitol Police were racists, that Trump was reminiscent of Nazi propaganda minister Josef Goebbels, and then Biden called for national unity.

Trump made a serious mistake in imagining and publicly asking that Vice President Pence reject the determination by the Senate of the Electoral College vote. Pence had no authority to do anything of the kind. But Pence’s election was as much violated as Trump’s and if he attends the inauguration now, Pence will be choosing the Democratic antics over this own party and needlessly compromise his political future.

Impeachment is nonsense, Trump won’t resign and an inept government won’t be able to use defamation and dirty tricks as a substitute for public service for long.

If Trump is the only person who can defend the people against incompetent administration, cowardly legislators and jurists, and a system that has become largely rotten and doesn’t run honest elections or even fair trials, (98 percent conviction rate and a quarter of the world’s prison population), while a totalitarian woke media and dictatorial censors of social media silence dissent, his influence will rise and not be dissipated.

 

John Solomon writes with perspective about what happened along with advice for the future of the republic in his article How the GOP lost control of Washington, and what comes next.  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

News Analysis: Democrats owned the narrative and rules of the 2020 election. Will Republicans learn from it?

The November election (and Tuesday’s Georgia curtain call) wasn’t won and lost by the tactics, spending, individual players and messaging in the weeks before Nov. 3, according to interviews conducted with more than three dozen frontline players.

Rather, its outcome was cemented long before Labor Day 2020 by a Democratic machinery of former Barack Obama proteges, like David Plouffe, John Podesta, David Axelrod and Stacey Abrams, who worried far less about the tactics of ads, travel (Joe Biden hardly did!) and fundraising and far more about the strategy of how to control the narrative and the rules that would shape the outcome.

They even told the Republicans and the public what they planned to do. Just read Plouffe’s book, “A Citizen’s Guide to Beating Donald Trump.” They even boastfully predicted days before how the vote count would roll out on election night and for several days later. Trump would lead early, and Biden would surpass late, they said.  They were right. Why?

Change the Rules in Your Favor

First and foremost, they usurped the powers of GOP-controlled state legislatures in the five battleground states and rewrote the rules of how votes would be cast and counted, using the pandemic as an excuse.

Mail ballots could be sent to everyone, even if they didn’t ask for one, and wide swaths of Americans could vote by mail. Voter ID requirements could be suspended for those who felt homebound by COVID’s wrath. Mobile ballot boxes could be deployed. Spoiled ballots that legally were supposed to be discarded could be “cured” by election clerks. Legally required voter roll purges could be skipped. And a single billionaire could donate $350 million directly to the election clerks, judges and vote counters in the states, requiring them in some cases to register voters, and create more poll locations in Democratic strongholds.

And Republicans — who controlled the legislatures in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona and the constitutional right to set the rules — hardly put up a fight. Instead, they urged their voters not to take advantage of the loosened rules and to vote the old-fashioned way. They, in the words of the Trump-loving Georgia Democrat Vernon Jones, simply unilaterally disarmed.

Democrats understood that in a pandemic and in an America with millions of new millennial, urban and minority voters, the easier you make casting a ballot the more likely a low-propensity voter is to vote. Send it to them, help them register, make easy drop-off locations or the mailbox the final destination, and voters will vote a lot more willingly.

In other words, the liberal brain trust engaged in cutting-edge warfare, while Republicans tossed their comfortable set of horseshoes from the 1980s, hoping the good old recipe of evangelical GOTV, direct mail, talk radio and Fox News would deliver yet another election win as it had done for decades.

It didn’t.

To be fair, Donald Trump mustered — by a mile — the largest national vote ever assembled by a Republican at 75 million-plus voters and barnstormed the country, risking COVID and criticism without fear. Kevin McCarthy picked an all-star slate of candidates and picked up seats. Mitch McConnell raised a ton of money, and Ronna McDaniel put together one of the most impressive get-out-the-vote efforts ever assembled.

But all that could not overcome the advantage of a rewired electoral system in the five battlegrounds, as the Georgia runoffs showed Tuesday, said Tom Price, a former congressman and Trump Cabinet secretary.

Democrats “leap-frogged Republicans’ process, strategy, technology and tactics, and that is to the credit of folks on the Democratic side,” Price told Just the News. “They have perfected harvesting, I believe it is harvesting, of absentee ballots, and I think the numbers will show in these runoff races, the same as they did in November, that Republicans who lost by close margins won the vote on Election Day, won on early voting in person and lost heavily in absentee ballots.”

Control the Narrative by Means of Media Allies

Secondly, liberals spent two decades building an alliance with the mainstream media, the social giants and the search giants and the permanent government bureaucracy until they could control the narrative, even when it wasn’t true. They had it perfected by the time Donald Trump took office.

Those who objected were canceled and shamed. Intelligence and law enforcement and private investigators were misused to create false realities. True facts and legally protected speech were outright censored long enough to create the narrative needed to win.

Trump colluded with Russia, and bribed Ukraine to investigate his political opponents … though he didn’t. The Hunter Biden corruption story was Russian-fed conspiracy theory …. though it is really true, and he was under criminal investigation the last two years … American towns could be burned to the ground and police defunded because a Kenosha, Wisc., officer shot an unarmed man … who turned out to be wanted by police and armed with a knife.

Owning the information superhighway of the 21st century, like the rules of the election, was far more powerful than choosing where to run ads, campaign in person or spend money.

Liberal Donors Contracted Returns on Their Investments

Finally, the liberal oligarchs club — George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg, Mike Bloomberg et al — spent more than ever to win. But they also transformed the way political donations were spent by imposing corporate governance and specific returns on investment.

Every recipient had to deliver very specific outcomes to keep getting money, governed by lengthy contract-like documents. And the outcomes and deliverables were mapped to the two larger goals of controlling the narrative and the rules of the election.

Advice:  Act Now to Change the Rules and Own the Narrative

That’s what interviews with three dozen experts revealed. So what do those same experts advise Republicans do to change their fortunes?  Exactly what the Democrats did. Don’t point fingers, change the rules, and own the narrative, they said.

Reset Rules for Fair Elections

Phill Kline, the former Kansas attorney general, led the Amistad Project’s efforts to challenge some of the Democrats rule changes. He said the the GOP legislatures in the key battlegrounds must reassert their constitutional right to set the rules of election.

Universal mail ballots can be ended, limited only to those who absolutely need it. Voter IDs can be mandated. Exemptions and legal settlements could, by law, be required to be approved by the legislature. Setting the rules of the election are easy if there is a will, Kline added.

“I think the discipline of the party should be all about de-powering Washington and empowering the states, especially the state legislatures,” Kline told Just the News.

Secondly, conservatives need to build their own information ecosystem that rivals what liberals have: a vibrant press that covers conservatives honestly, and powerful delivery channels that can rival YouTube, Twitter and Facebook.

New services like Rumble, Parler, Real America’s Voice, Citizen Free Press and CloutHub are incubating and attracting millions. They need to be grown and spread to tens of millions along with trusted news sources so conservatives have as big a bullhorn to the next generation of GenZ, millennials and cable-cutters as they have had to Boomers, talk radio and Fox News fans, the experts said.

“We are just playing to a draw,” Price explained. “We are not reaching a lot of folks. And we have to be creative about how we reach them, and I think we’ve got to be able to control a lot of that messaging, and right now we just don’t.”

Finally, conservative donors need to have a new approach, stolen from the ROI model of the Soros and Bloomberg NGOs, so their millions don’t just enrich consultants but have measurable outcomes in setting the rules and narratives that win the next elections. Everything from civic education and empowerment for state legislators to media-platform building needs to be funded, the experts said.

“Funding on the left seems much more strategic than funding on the right, which is predominantly tactical,” explained Steve Hantler, who advises several high-net-worth conservative donors. “Liberal elites have for decades controlled the levers of power in education, media and entertainment and have used that power to indoctrinate generations of Americans against America’s founding values.

“Now is not the time for for hand-wringing and finger-pointing. Now is the time for honest, critical self-evaluation.”

Update Dec. 19, 2020:  Redacted Information in Dominion Audit Report Shows Races Were Flipped: Analyst

Article at Epoch Times Excerpts in italics with my bolds:

The analyst who led the forensic audit of Dominion Voting Systems in Michigan said on Friday the information state officials pushed to redact shows that the outcomes of races were changed.

“The original report had log evidence that we published in the report to show exactly what we did and exactly the findings. Now, those did ultimately get redacted. And so now, the complaint is ‘well, but there’s no real proof and Dominion says ‘no, these things can’t be done,’” Russell Ramsland Jr. said during a virtual appearance on Newsmax’s “Greg Kelly Reports.”

“But at that point, Dominion’s argument is no longer with us. Dominion’s argument is with their own user’s manual and their own logs, because the logs—had they been able to be published—show very clearly that the RCV [ranked-choice voting] algorithm was enacted. It shows very clearly that the error messages were massive. It was very clearly [sic] that races were flipped,” he added.

Ramsland on Newsmax predicted the emergence of more explosive information soon.

“I think that there’s going to be some information [to] come forth in the next few days, that is going to drastically change the playing field,” he said.

“And the real question is, will people report on it? We’ll see.”

Biden’s Great Leaps Upward

Wisconsin

The Georgia Leap in detail:

Background from previous post Rise of Dominion Effect

Context from Shocking History of Dominion Voting  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Dominion Voting Systems Corp. is the Canadian company behind the ballot switching software.

Dominion was founded in 2003, with a mission to provide electronic voting systems friendly for progressives. Because of such partisanship, it languished with almost no customers for the next 5-6 years, until the Obama administration came to power. In 2010, the Obama administration confiscated electronic voting systems assets (software, intellectual property, manufacturing tools, customer base, etc.) from two established American companies, and gave them to Dominion. At the same time, Dominion got some employees and assets from a foreign EVS company, tied to Hugo Chavez.

Its software has been used by some 40% of the voters in this election, mostly by Democrat-controlled states and election commissions. Apparently, no protections were put in place against ballot switching, deletion, or creation. According to Dominion’s own website, it software was used in “battleground” states and the largest Democrat states, including MI, GA, AZ, NV, NM, CO, AK, UT, NJ, CA, NY.

The Dominion Effect on Vote Counting

From Fraudspotters Statistical Evidence of Dominion Election Fraud? Time to Audit the Machines. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Overview

Statistical analysis of past presidential races supports the view that in 2020, in counties where Dominion Machines were deployed, the voting outcomes were on average (nationwide) approximately 1.5% higher for Joe Biden and 1.5% lower for Donald Trump after adjusting for other demographic and past voting preferences. Upon running hundreds of models, I would say the national average effect appears to be somewhere between 1.0% and 1.6%.

For Dominion to have switched the election from Trump to Biden, it would have had to have increased Biden outcomes (with a corresponding reduction in Trump outcomes) by 0.3% in Georgia, 0.6% in Arizona, 2.1% in Wisconsin, and 2.5% in Nevada. The apparent average “Dominion Effect” is greater than the margin in Arizona and Georgia, and close to the margin for Wisconsin and Nevada. It is not hard to picture a scenario where the actual effect in Wisconsin and Nevada was greater than the national average and would have changed the current reported outcome in those two states.

Assuming the “Dominion Effect” is real, it is possible that an audit of these machines would overturn the election.

These results are scientifically valid and typically have a p-value of less than 1%, meaning the chances of this math occurring randomly are less than 1 in 100. This article, and its FAQ, shows many ways to model the “Dominion Effect.”

The best way to restore faith in the system is to audit the Dominion voting machines in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin.

Discussion

To do this study, we will link results from 2008 to 2020 by each county, parish, or in some cases city. Since this is usually based on county, we will refer to it as county in this article.

By comparing the county to itself, we are constructing the test similar to how a drug company would test the effects of its proposed therapy. In this case, we have 3,050 counties that do not have Dominion in 2008. In 2020, 657 of the counties have Dominion while 2,388 do not. If we assume that the same societal forces are acting upon all of these counties equally, then in comparing the average change from 2008 to 2020 for Dominion counties versus non Dominion counties, we should have a similar change in voter share. In this regard, it is as if Dominion is the proposed treatment, and non-Dominion is the placebo.

When doing this analysis, we do NOT see a change that is constant across counties. In fact, below are the results comparing 2008 to 2020. A verbal description is “the average US county’s percentage of vote for the Democrat presidential candidate was 8.4 percentage points less Democrat in 2020 (Biden vs. Trump) than in 2008. (Obama vs. McCain). However, despite this 8.4%-point decrease, Dominion counties only decreased 6.4% points, while the non-Dominion counties decreased 9.0% points.”

Unlike a drug company’s test of a new treatment, our counties were not randomly selected to be “treated” by Dominion. These counties chose to install Dominion. Was there selection bias? We should control for other factors to see if the presence of Dominion still significantly affects results.

We can obtain demographic data on a county level basis from the U.S. department of agriculture. By attaching this data on a county basis to our already existing dataset, and running multiple linear regression, we obtain the following results. You’ll notice that Dominion’s p-value became more significant as we controlled for other variables. In some cases Dominion is more significant than the control variables.

To provide a basic interpretation, look at the sign of the coefficient. It is telling you whether the demographic factor increased or decreased Democratic presidential voter percentage. So, from 2008 to 2020:

• The more rural, the less the Democratic share
• The more manufacturing dependent, the less the Democratic share
• The more a county is considered a “high natural amenity,” the more the Democratic share if we consider counties equally weighted but not if we give larger counties more weight. Note this variable has a less significant p-value than some of the others.
• The more a county is considered “high creative class,” the more the Democratic share
• The more a county is considered “low education,” the more the Democratic share
• The more the population increased, the more the Democratic share
• The more international immigration, the more the Democratic share, although one measure had this value with a questionable p-value.
• And most importantly, if Dominion was installed, there was approximately a 1.5%-point increase in Democratic share which also corresponds to a 1.5%-point Republican decrease, so a total swing of 3% points.

If the “Dominion Effect” is real, would it have affected the election?

This article showed a range of estimates for the “Dominion Effect,” the more persuasive being from the multiple linear regression analysis:

Multiple Linear Regress: Ordinary Least Squares: 1.65%
Multiple Linear Regress: Weighted Least Squares: 1.55%

I find the weighted least square model the most persuasive and refer to it often in the FAQ.

If there is a Dominion Effect, it adds that percentage to Democrat presidential vote and subtracts from Republican. If the Dominion Effect is real, it may have affected this close election. For Dominion to have switched the election from Trump to Biden, it would have had to increase Democratic presidential outcomes by 0.3% and reduced Republican outcomes by 0.3% in Georgia. The factors for the other states are 0.6% in Arizona, 2.1% in Wisconsin, and 2.5% in Nevada. Click here to see the math.

If you believe the Dominion Effect is real, it is not hard to believe that this effect would be greater in swing states and could have swung these four states into Biden’s column, putting the electoral college in his favor.

Are there really enough machines in Wisconsin to have changed the outcome there?

If you go to verifiedvoting.org, and selection Dominion, 2020, Wisconsin, and download the data, you’ll see that they are saying 527 precincts, 640,215 registered voters are on Dominion machines. The state only has a 20k vote difference among Biden and Trump. And, in my paper, the Dominion effect was calculated on a county basis, not precinct basis. To the extent counties are split on which machine they used, then my paper is underestimating the Dominion effect: the effect is likely bigger on a precinct by precinct basis; I don’t have the data to go to that detail.

But to answer the question: yes, based on published, public information, there are enough machines to change the election in Wisconsin.

Have you really accounted for very large and very small counties?

In our model, we are already using these adjustments:

• weighting by county size
• a field called “RuralUrbanContinuumCode2013”

These should adjust for county size, but in effort to address concerns of readers, I ran the model with two new flags:

• 657 counties with highest number of voters in 2008
• 657 counties with lowest number of voters in 2008

The Dominion Effect is still 1.55% and the p-values are 0.00% (traditional) 0.09% (robust). These p-values are suggesting less than 1 in 1000 chance of randomly occurring.

To further address this, I ran an additional model which also includes a field for the population per square mile. This model produces identical results of Dominion Effect of 1.55% and a p-value of 0.00% and 0.09%.

Background from Shocking History of Dominion Voting  Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Dominion Voting Systems Corp. is the Canadian company behind the ballot switching software.

Dominion was founded in 2003, with a mission to provide electronic voting systems friendly for progressives. Because of such partisanship, it languished with almost no customers for the next 5-6 years, until the Obama administration came to power. In 2010, the Obama administration confiscated electronic voting systems assets (software, intellectual property, manufacturing tools, customer base, etc.) from two established American companies, and gave them to Dominion. At the same time, Dominion got some employees and assets from a foreign EVS company, tied to Hugo Chavez.

Its software has been used by some 40% of the voters in this election, mostly by Democrat-controlled states and election commissions. Apparently, no protections were put in place against ballot switching, deletion, or creation. According to Dominion’s own website, it software was used in “battleground” states and the largest Democrat states, including MI, GA, AZ, NV, NM, CO, AK, UT, NJ, CA, NY.

The Dominion Effect on Vote Counting

From Fraudspotters Statistical Evidence of Dominion Election Fraud? Time to Audit the Machines. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

Overview

Statistical analysis of past presidential races supports the view that in 2020, in counties where Dominion Machines were deployed, the voting outcomes were on average (nationwide) approximately 1.5% higher for Joe Biden and 1.5% lower for Donald Trump after adjusting for other demographic and past voting preferences. Upon running hundreds of models, I would say the national average effect appears to be somewhere between 1.0% and 1.6%.

For Dominion to have switched the election from Trump to Biden, it would have had to have increased Biden outcomes (with a corresponding reduction in Trump outcomes) by 0.3% in Georgia, 0.6% in Arizona, 2.1% in Wisconsin, and 2.5% in Nevada. The apparent average “Dominion Effect” is greater than the margin in Arizona and Georgia, and close to the margin for Wisconsin and Nevada. It is not hard to picture a scenario where the actual effect in Wisconsin and Nevada was greater than the national average and would have changed the current reported outcome in those two states.

Assuming the “Dominion Effect” is real, it is possible that an audit of these machines would overturn the election.

These results are scientifically valid and typically have a p-value of less than 1%, meaning the chances of this math occurring randomly are less than 1 in 100. This article, and its FAQ, shows many ways to model the “Dominion Effect.”

The best way to restore faith in the system is to audit the Dominion voting machines in Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin.

Discussion

To do this study, we will link results from 2008 to 2020 by each county, parish, or in some cases city. Since this is usually based on county, we will refer to it as county in this article.

By comparing the county to itself, we are constructing the test similar to how a drug company would test the effects of its proposed therapy. In this case, we have 3,050 counties that do not have Dominion in 2008. In 2020, 657 of the counties have Dominion while 2,388 do not. If we assume that the same societal forces are acting upon all of these counties equally, then in comparing the average change from 2008 to 2020 for Dominion counties versus non Dominion counties, we should have a similar change in voter share. In this regard, it is as if Dominion is the proposed treatment, and non-Dominion is the placebo.

When doing this analysis, we do NOT see a change that is constant across counties. In fact, below are the results comparing 2008 to 2020. A verbal description is “the average US county’s percentage of vote for the Democrat presidential candidate was 8.4 percentage points less Democrat in 2020 (Biden vs. Trump) than in 2008. (Obama vs. McCain). However, despite this 8.4%-point decrease, Dominion counties only decreased 6.4% points, while the non-Dominion counties decreased 9.0% points.”

Unlike a drug company’s test of a new treatment, our counties were not randomly selected to be “treated” by Dominion. These counties chose to install Dominion. Was there selection bias? We should control for other factors to see if the presence of Dominion still significantly affects results.

We can obtain demographic data on a county level basis from the U.S. department of agriculture. By attaching this data on a county basis to our already existing dataset, and running multiple linear regression, we obtain the following results. You’ll notice that Dominion’s p-value became more significant as we controlled for other variables. In some cases Dominion is more significant than the control variables.

To provide a basic interpretation, look at the sign of the coefficient. It is telling you whether the demographic factor increased or decreased Democratic presidential voter percentage. So, from 2008 to 2020:

• The more rural, the less the Democratic share
• The more manufacturing dependent, the less the Democratic share
• The more a county is considered a “high natural amenity,” the more the Democratic share if we consider counties equally weighted but not if we give larger counties more weight. Note this variable has a less significant p-value than some of the others.
• The more a county is considered “high creative class,” the more the Democratic share
• The more a county is considered “low education,” the more the Democratic share
• The more the population increased, the more the Democratic share
• The more international immigration, the more the Democratic share, although one measure had this value with a questionable p-value.
• And most importantly, if Dominion was installed, there was approximately a 1.5%-point increase in Democratic share which also corresponds to a 1.5%-point Republican decrease, so a total swing of 3% points.

If the “Dominion Effect” is real, would it have affected the election?

This article showed a range of estimates for the “Dominion Effect,” the more persuasive being from the multiple linear regression analysis:

Multiple Linear Regress: Ordinary Least Squares: 1.65%
Multiple Linear Regress: Weighted Least Squares: 1.55%

I find the weighted least square model the most persuasive and refer to it often in the FAQ.

If there is a Dominion Effect, it adds that percentage to Democrat presidential vote and subtracts from Republican. If the Dominion Effect is real, it may have affected this close election. For Dominion to have switched the election from Trump to Biden, it would have had to increase Democratic presidential outcomes by 0.3% and reduced Republican outcomes by 0.3% in Georgia. The factors for the other states are 0.6% in Arizona, 2.1% in Wisconsin, and 2.5% in Nevada. Click here to see the math.

If you believe the Dominion Effect is real, it is not hard to believe that this effect would be greater in swing states and could have swung these four states into Biden’s column, putting the electoral college in his favor.

Are there really enough machines in Wisconsin to have changed the outcome there?

If you go to verifiedvoting.org, and selection Dominion, 2020, Wisconsin, and download the data, you’ll see that they are saying 527 precincts, 640,215 registered voters are on Dominion machines. The state only has a 20k vote difference among Biden and Trump. And, in my paper, the Dominion effect was calculated on a county basis, not precinct basis. To the extent counties are split on which machine they used, then my paper is underestimating the Dominion effect: the effect is likely bigger on a precinct by precinct basis; I don’t have the data to go to that detail.

But to answer the question: yes, based on published, public information, there are enough machines to change the election in Wisconsin.

Have you really accounted for very large and very small counties?

In our model, we are already using these adjustments:

• weighting by county size
• a field called “RuralUrbanContinuumCode2013”

These should adjust for county size, but in effort to address concerns of readers, I ran the model with two new flags:

• 657 counties with highest number of voters in 2008
• 657 counties with lowest number of voters in 2008

The Dominion Effect is still 1.55% and the p-values are 0.00% (traditional) 0.09% (robust). These p-values are suggesting less than 1 in 1000 chance of randomly occurring.

To further address this, I ran an additional model which also includes a field for the population per square mile. This model produces identical results of Dominion Effect of 1.55% and a p-value of 0.00% and 0.09%.

Readers can now access the deposition by a reputable election fraud analyst at Court Listener King v. Whitmer Exhibit 105 — Document #1, Attachment #15  Excerpts in italics with my bolds

4. Whereas the Dominion and Edison Research systems exist in the internet of things, and whereas this makes the network connections between the Dominion, Edison Research and related network nodes available for scanning,

5. And whereas Edison Research’s primary job is to report the tabulation of the count of the ballot information as received from the tabulation software, to provide to Decision HQ for election results,

6. And whereas Spiderfoot and Robtex are industry standard digital forensic tools for evaluation
network security and infrastructure, these tools were used to conduct public security scans of the aforementioned Dominion and Edison Research systems,

7. A public network scan of Dominionvoting.com on 2020-11-08 revealed the following interrelationships and revealed 13 unencrypted passwords for dominion employees, and 75
hashed passwords available in TOR nodes:

[The deposition then describes devices with two-way access to servers in this network, especially in Serbia, Iran and China.  A search also showed a subdomain which evidences the existence of scorecard software in use as part of the Indivisible (formerly ACORN) political group for Obama.]

14. Beanfield.com out of Canada shows the connections via co-hosting related sites, including
dvscorp.com. 

This Dominion partner domain “dvscorp” also includes an auto discovery feature, where new in-network devices automatically connect to the system. The following diagram shows some of the related dvscopr.com mappings, which mimic the infrastructure for Dominion and are an obvious typo derivation of the name. Typo derivations are commonly purchased to catch redirect traffic and sometimes are used as honeypots. The diagram shows that infrastructure spans multiple different servers as a methodology.

The above diagram shows how these domains also show the connection to Iran and other places, including the following Chinese domain, highlighted below.

15. The auto discovery feature allows programmers to access any system while it is connected to the internet once it’s a part of the constellation of devices (see original Spiderfoot graph).

16. Dominion Voting Systems Corporation in 2019 sold a number of their patents to China (via HSBC Bank in Canada)

Of particular interest is a section of the document showing aspects of the nature of the patents dealing with authentication (at the ballot level).

17. Smartmatic creates the backbone (like the cloud). SCYTL is responsible for the security within the election system.

18. In the GitHub account for Scytl, Scytl Jseats has some of the programming necessary to support a much broader set of election types, including a decorator process where the data is smoothed, see the following diagram provided in their source code:

20. As seen in included document titled “AA20-304A Iranian_Advanced_Persistent_Threat_Actor_Identified_Obtaining_Voter_Registration_Data
” that was authored by the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) with a Product ID of AA20-304A on a specified date of October 30, 2020, CISA and the FBI reports that Iranian APT teams were seen using ACUTENIX, a website scanning software, to find vulnerabilities within Election company websites, confirmed to be used by the Iranian APT teams buy seized cloud storage that I had personally captured and reported to higher authorities. These scanning behaviors showed that foreign agents of aggressor nations had access to US voter lists, and had done so recently.

21. In my professional opinion, this affidavit presents unambiguous evidence that Dominion Voter Systems and Edison Research have been accessible and were certainly compromised by rogue actors, such as Iran and China. By using servers and employees connected with rogue actors and hostile foreign influences combined with numerous easily discoverable leaked credentials, these organizations neglectfully allowed foreign adversaries to access data and intentionally provided access to their infrastructure in order to monitor and manipulate elections, including the most recent one in 2020. This represents a complete failure of their duty to provide basic cyber security. This is not a technological issue, but rather a governance and basic security issue: if it is not corrected, future elections in the United States and beyond will not be secure and citizens will not have confidence in the results. 

Footnote:  On the Anomalies in US 2020 Election

How all of this played on election night in the US is described in an article Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020. Excerpts in italics with my bolds.

A Quantitative Analysis of Decisive Vote Updates in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia on and after Election Night

In particular, we are able to quantify the extent of compliance with this property and discover that, of the 8,954 vote updates used in the analysis, these four decisive updates were the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 7th most anomalous updates in the entire data set. Not only does each of these vote updates not follow the generally observed pattern, but the anomalous behavior of these updates is particularly extreme. That is, these vote updates are outliers of the outliers.

The four vote updates in question are:

1. An update in Michigan listed as of 6:31AM Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 141,258 votes for Joe Biden and 5,968 votes for Donald Trump

2. An update in Wisconsin listed as 3:42AM Central Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 143,379 votes for Joe Biden and 25,163 votes for Donald Trump

3. A vote update in Georgia listed at 1:34AM Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 136,155 votes for Joe Biden and 29,115 votes for Donald Trump

4. An update in Michigan listed as of 3:50AM Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 54,497 votes for Joe Biden and 4,718 votes for Donald Trump

We further find that if these updates were only more extreme than 99% of all updates nationally in terms of their deviation from this generally-observed pattern, that, holding all else equal, Joe Biden may very well have lost the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia, and that he would have 42 fewer Electoral votes — putting Biden below the number required to win the Presidency. Either way, it is indisputable that his margin of victory in these three states relies on four most anomalous vote updates identified by the metric developed in this report.

There is zero doubt the entrenched establishment is out to get Trump banished.  Their animus is not a figment of anyone’s imagination, as evidenced by four long years of odious behavior by political, media and academic elites, including a fake Russia collusion investigation (against Trump instead of Clinton) and a fake impeachment (against Trump instead of Biden).  There were also numerous district judges blocking perfectly legal federal orders, just because it was the Trump administration.

So a mountain of salt must be added to all of the caterwauling over challenges to the recent election results.  Presently TDS victims are claiming there is no evidence of voter fraud, as if journalists are the judge and jury who must be persuaded a crime has been committed. That denial is absurd, since there are always some illegal votes cast, the issue being how many and if the amount is material to the result.  A presidential crusade for clean energy can not emanate from a dirty election.

It is no stretch to suspect Trump’s enemies of conspiring to deny him a second term by any means necessary.  What we await is to see if they have been well and truly caught in a pre-meditated, national organized criminal project to violate the 2020 US presidential election.  If proven that will be the logical conclusion to the crescendo of attempts to remove him from office.

See also The Trapdoor US Election