Posted on 06/07/2026 9:56:32 PM PDT by Red Badger
The fake news is now brazenly defending the (alleged) election fraud happening in California.
To give you a quick rundown of what’s been going on in the LA Mayor race, Spencer Pratt was solidly in second-place to Karen Bass on Election Night, with Nithya Raman trailing behind in third.
But, as Election Day turned into days, flood after flood of mail-in ballots have come in. And, they have not been favorable to Spencer Pratt.
Now, at this point, he’s only barely beating out Nithya Raman and may not advance at all.
We covered the latest in the race here:
Spencer Pratt’s Lead Over Progressive Nithya Raman Nearly Vanishes After Latest Ballot Drop
One ballot dump this week had exactly zero votes for Spencer Pratt.
Not just a few in the batch, which honestly would be suspicious in and of itself.
No. There was not even a single vote for Pratt in the tens of thousands of ballots that flooded in from that drop.
Social media posts, like this one, pointed out the extremely sketchy election update when it happened:
\
If that’s not clear-cut evidence of something fishy going on, then I don’t know what is.
In fact, it’s statistically impossible for such a thing to occur.
But, the Los Angeles Times is now trying to explain why this happened.
They are pinning the blame on a convenient “glitch” in the system and telling everyone that it is absolutely not proof of fraud.
According to the news outlet, Spencer Pratt actually did get more votes during that ballot drop. But, they did not get processed immediately due to a “lag” in the system.
From the Los Angeles Times:
Since election night in California, a single theory of election fraud has taken root like no other among online conspiracy theorists, bot accounts, conservative influencers and people close to President Trump. It proved to be a simple misreading of the voting data.
Late on election night, an update of vote counts in the Los Angeles mayor’s race appeared on election results pages of various media outlets including the Los Angeles Times. It showed leading Democrats Mayor Karen Bass and Councilmember Nithya Raman receiving tens of thousands of new votes, and leading Republican former reality TV star Spencer Pratt receiving no new votes.
Some observers of the vote tally immediately took screenshots, with some shouting fraud. Others ran statistical analyses that showed it would be impossible for a candidate such as Pratt — running second in the race — to receive zero votes in such a large batch of ballots.
In fact, the update that showed zero Pratt votes was followed one minute later by another update that showed tens of thousands of votes for Pratt, and none for Bass or Raman.
There was no batch of votes that included zero votes for any candidate, as Los Angeles County’s own data show plainly.
But the claim fit into the broader, false narrative being pushed relentlessly by Trump and other Republicans in recent days, that California Democrats were cheating.
Voting data pushed out by the Associated Press came as two separate updates one minute apart, with Bass’ and Raman’s votes in the first and Pratt’s in the second.
“The AP vote count receives updates as provided by election officials and adds them to our vote count. What happened in this case is that there was a lag in an automated update such that some candidates’ votes were added in one update and the other candidates followed about a minute later,” the Associated Press said in a statement to The Times.
“Specifically, an electronic update from the Los Angeles County website pulled in votes for only one group of candidates, including Karen Bass and Nithya Raman. Exactly one minute later, the electronic update picked up the votes for another group of candidates including Spencer Pratt. Taken together, the updates included 21,870 votes for Pratt, 12,850 votes for Bass and 9,521 votes for Raman, along with votes for other candidates.”
The Times’ election results page relies on the AP’s data feed, and checks for updates once a minute.
According to a Times review of election night results data, The Times pulled data from the AP’s feed at approximately 8:35 p.m. that included 0 new votes for Pratt and eight other candidates. When The Times’ system next checked for new numbers a minute later, there was an update with votes for Pratt but no new votes for Raman, Bass and others.
The LA Times also put out a video to assure everyone that “conspiracies” about election fraud are totally baseless and explain the apparent glitch in more detail.
Watch here:
VIDEO AT LINK.............
Here we go, the Los Angeles Times is admitting that yes, tens of thousands of mail in ballots did get processed for only Mayor Karen Bass and Nithya Raman but it was “a glitch”
They say the system just “glitched” for a minute and didn’t process any ballots for Spencer Pratt but really there were ballots for Spencer, they just didn’t get processed during the “glitch”
No, we don’t believe you. This is fraud and Democrats are cheating
“It was the result of a lag in an automated collection of the data in which there was one data collection that captured votes in a single batch of votes for Bass and Raman, and then about 1 minute later, the collection of the rest of that same batch of votes — Folks I spoke to also said there is no fraud. But again, there was no batch of votes without any Pratt votes. There was sort of a 1-minute variation between the upload of Bass and Raman votes and Pratt votes on some media websites.
Officials and others who have reviewed the data say that is not any proof of fraud. There was no fraud.”
Again, yeah right. We need a federal audit into California elections
What do you think?
Are you buying this explanation?
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
The same “glitch” that resulted in 81,000,000 votes for Biden.
It’s not a “glitch.
It’s a feature.
According to Polymarket, Spencer Pratt has a 1% chance of winning, he has gone into freefall on the site, he was never above 20-25%.
Steve Hilton is still holding a strong position to advance to the runoff and has a 10% chance of winning in November.
This is the stuff that results in civil war.
This sort of thing is EXACTLY why the 2nd amendment was written into our Constitution.
Tyranny in any form begs for correction BAMN.
IT'S NOT A GLITCH!
It is purposeful, by design.
A democRAT / DemoKKKrat must succeed.
Failure (to cheat) is not an option!
Biden’s greatest voter fraud operation is still up and running.
Looks like nothing is going to be done about it.
Maybe a few years from now, some Senator will ‘demand a full investigation’ of it. Yeah. OK.
Actually, if that is the way the neo-communist progs want to roll then fine.
Just don’t expect the NORMAL States or fed government to pay the slightest bit of attention to any OTHER voting results for say, a Presidential election.
Let them whine, cry, threaten... whatever.
If I could advise PDJT on the 2028 election it would be...
The progs start in on their usual BS of “we are still counting” let them wake up on day 3 to a division of Marines confiscating EVERYTHING and arresting everyone, ship them to Git-Mo as tratorious insurrectionists that refused to obey the laws of this nation’s most sacred duty.
Leave them there as a warning to the others.
.
Who is going to fight back 😤
Exactly
Other articles are now showing Pratt trailing Ramen Noodle. They had to give Pratt some votes, just not enough.
If they wanted to fix this, they'd only send ballots to those requesting them. And they would automatically mark the voter list that this person has voted.
Of course they do
And welker today already started the Big Lie type talk that soon they’ll all be shouting in perfect unison
What a coincidence!!
“Glitches” always work in favor of Demonrats.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.