Skip to main content may receive compensation from affiliate partners for some links on the site. Read our full Disclosure here.

Steve Cortes: A Biden Win Was Statistically “Impossible”


Could this be the smoking gun?

Late last year I reported on how there were a lot of statistical and data scientists who were pointing out the statistical impossibility of a Biden win.

Still, others went on record saying that while a Biden win wasn’t statistically ‘impossible’ it sure wasn’t ‘probable’ according to the statistical data, polling metrics, and how that data was mapped/distributed on a curve.

Many of these data scientists used complex models, and statistical regression techniques meant to spot fraud; the very same ones some college professors use to catch mass cheating on exams.

Now Steve Cortes is alleging the same thing we have heard from a lot of these data scientists since late last year: the statistical data makes it impossible for a Biden win.

Math doesn’t lie, and if scientists, attorneys, and forensic experts are all telling us that Biden cheated, then it is probably true.

After all, who are you going to trust? The MSM—known liars, or a bunch of people whose lives are centered around data analysis?

Here’s what people are saying:

Fox News relayed what Patrick Basham had to say about this last year:

“In 2016, they all indicated strongly that Donald Trump would win against most of the public polling,” Basham said. “That was again the case in 2020. So if we are to accept that Biden won against the trend of all these non-polling metrics, it not only means that one of these metrics was inaccurate … for the first time ever, it means that each one of these metrics was wrong for the first time and at the same time as all of the others.”

Another anomaly of the 2020 election, Basham told Levin, is the fact that Trump performed better in many key voting metrics than he did four years earlier.

“If you look at the results, you see how Donald Trump improved his national performance over 2016 by almost 20%,” he said. “No incumbent president has ever lost a reelection bid if he’s increased his votes [total]. Obama went down by three and a half million votes between 2008 and 2012, but still won comfortably.

Basham appeared again in Spectator saying the same thing:

Atypical voting patterns married with misses by polling and non-polling metrics should give observers pause for thought. Adding to the mystery is a cascade of information about the bizarre manner in which so many ballots were accumulated and counted.

The following peculiarities also lack compelling explanations:

1. Late on election night, with Trump comfortably ahead, many swing states stopped counting ballots. In most cases, observers were removed from the counting facilities. Counting generally continued without the observers

2. Statistically abnormal vote counts were the new normal when counting resumed. They were unusually large in size (hundreds of thousands) and had an unusually high (90 percent and above) Biden-to-Trump ratio

3. Late arriving ballots were counted. In Pennsylvania, 23,000 absentee ballots have impossible postal return dates and another 86,000 have such extraordinary return dates they raise serious questions

4. The failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots. The destruction of mail-in ballot envelopes, which must contain signatures

5. Historically low absentee ballot rejection rates despite the massive expansion of mail voting. Such is Biden’s narrow margin that, as political analyst Robert Barnes observes, ‘If the states simply imposed the same absentee ballot rejection rate as recent cycles, then Trump wins the election’

6. Missing votes. In Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 50,000 votes held on 47 USB cards are missing

7. Non-resident voters. Matt Braynard’s Voter Integrity Project estimates that 20,312 people who no longer met residency requirements cast ballots in Georgia. Biden’s margin is 12,670 votes

We Love Trump
Thanks for sharing!
Send this to a friend