Election Findings Could ‘Easily’ Overturn 3 States, Data Analyst Concludes......

theepochtimes ^ | 11/26/2020 | Charlotte Cuthbertson SENIOR WASHINGTON REPORTER

[caww]

The former data and strategy director for President Donald Trump’s 2016 election campaign Braynard assembled a team just days after the election to look for inconsistencies in six contested states: Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Nevada.

Braynard said he has signed declarations to go with his work, which is being used in court filings in five states.

One of Braynard’s biggest findings involved voters who had submitted a National Change of Address form to the post office, indicating they had moved out of state, yet appeared to have voted in 2020 in the state they moved from.

In Georgia, the team found 138,221 such people, which represents a much larger number than the state’s current vote differential (12,670) in the presidential race.

In Michigan, there were 51,302 such people; Wisconsin had 26,673, Nevada had 27,271, Arizona had 19,997, and Pennsylvania had 13,671.

Braynard said the numbers are high enough that they could “easily” overturn current election projections.

“The number of questionable ballots surpasses the vote margin in at least three states right now—Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin,” Braynard told The Epoch Times on Nov. 25. Those three states have a combined total of 37 electoral votes.

“This isn’t speculative. This is just what the data shows.”

The current vote count difference between the two main presidential candidates and the electoral votes involved are as follows:

Arizona: 10,457 votes (11 electoral votes)

Georgia: 12,670 votes (16 electoral votes)

Nevada: 33,596 votes (6 electoral votes)

Michigan: 154,188 votes (16 electoral votes)

Pennsylvania: 80,555 votes (20 electoral votes)

Wisconsin: 20,608 votes (10 electoral votes)

Braynard said the team also found people who had voted more than once.

[tired&retired]

Maybe Trump could call in a favor from Blago, Rod Blagojevich. Blago owes Trump.

I’m sure he knows election fraud techniques very well.

[tired&retired]

I’ve done stastical projections professionally for 40 years, often for court appearance as a professional witness.

The key is to watch your assumptions and make them as real as possible. The second is to identify and define your population and your sampling procedures to assure a representative sample.

By manipulating those two items you can manipulate results. That’s why I would write the cross examination questions to shoot holes in opposing testimony.

Fast talkers get destroyed in the courtroom. Down to earth simple examples that the jury can understand or apply in their own life win the cases.

[tired&retired]

Common sense must prevail.

Problem is, it’s not so common anymore.

[djf]

Yup! If you look at the graphs of Ga, Wi, and Pa you can see they were manipulated.

[FroggyTheGremlim]

Should have a redo.

A redo isn't necessary - just accept the count right before each state's shutdown.

Then identify and prosecute the perps.

[MayflowerMadam]

Blago has been out supporting Trump in this.

[MayflowerMadam]

“Should have a redo.”

All lawyers have said that’s not possible except for down-ballot races. The Constitution doesn’t have a provision for it with Presidential races. That’s when it goes to the legislatures / electors.

I figure that if SCOTUS, etc., would decree a re-do in spite of the Constitution, “they” will just figure out how to cheat better. They’re probably having strategy meetings even as we speak.

[IrishBrigade]

‘Pennsylvania is appearing to be a slam dunk.’

really...? what makes you think PA’s electoral votes are going to be awarded to Trump...?

[angmo]

I think he means the election in PA is soured beyond any reasonable means of salvage, so it will be tossed by the SC.

[Liz]

This appears to be a tried and true Democrat vote fraud trick:
<><> residents submitted a National Change of Address form to the USPS, indicating they had moved out of state,
<><> yet they voted in 2020 in the state they no longer resided in.

---

Data analyst Matt Braynard, data and strategy director for Pres Trump’s 2016 election campaign, found 138,221 such people in Georgia, a much larger number than the state’s current vote differential (12,670) in the presidential race. In Michigan, there were 51,302 such people; Wisconsin had 26,673, Nevada had 27,271, Arizona had 19,997, and Pennsylvania had 13,671.

“The number of questionable ballots surpasses the vote margin in at least three states w/ a combined total of 37 electoral votes——Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin,” Braynard told The Epoch Times on Nov. 25. Braynard said, “This isn’t speculative. This is what the data shows, the numbers are high enough to ‘easily’ overturn current election projections.”

[Guenevere]

Bump

[sodpoodle]

It’s pretty obvious the Dems tried this same fraud in 2016 for Hilary Clinton. It didn’t work, but they learned some diabolical lessons!!!!

[Mr Information]

I would like to see information such as this on a widely-used public forum, such as Wikipedia. They are biased against Trump, they don’t permit original research, and they require all facts to be from reliable sources, but I think it can be done (at least partially).

To take a simple example: the Wikipedia article “2020 United States presidential election”, in the “Results by state” section, has a “Total votes” column. It could also have a “Registered voters” column for the number of registered voters, and a percentage column showing the proportion of registered voters who actually voted. This might show anomalously high percentages in the swing states.

The next step might be to show the corresponding sets of figures for each county in the state. (I looked up the Wikipedia article on Georgia, and it shows the total votes cast for each county. But that is not true for Michigan.)

And then at a still more detailed level.

The ban on original research might prevent comparing the average for the swing states with the average for the remaining states, but a graph, with an appropriate choice of scale, should be acceptable and could drive the point home (especially if the previous election figures are shown for comparison and they are noticeably different).

The requirement for reliable sources could be difficult because of the bias of the mainstream media, but small local media should be acceptable, and might even be more likely to publish the more detailed data.

[mo]

the really important thing about that analysis, is that it should automatically take the issue out of those states hands and courts.

It obviously is an external assault upon those states=-making it a Federal issue

[DoodleDawg]

Yeah we’ll see how easy it is.

[Stonewall1]

General McInerny in an interview yesterday says that after the stoppage the algorithms changed by exactly the same percentage in all of the states

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JVlyvQd7Vo&list=UUSIkh5eSbFA8a6vFQuAPT5Q&index=5

[Gay State Conservative]

later

[tired&retired]

I heard that. It’s a pretty good interview.

Thanks for sharing.

[LS]

FWIW, I think Trump needs 4 to win; but losing 3 would cost Biteme the 270

[who knows what evil?]

Trump WON; Biden is NOT the ‘president-elect’.