Ah, but concerning the OP showing the MI and WI 100% Biden spikes, that's all been "debunked" by the official debunkers; that debunker is also the official "fact check" for Twitter and Facebook, allowing those platforms to censor and remove all messages that are counter to their official debunkery.
I was curious about this, so I checked out the MI one first...
www.politifact.com
Apparently, the first screen cap, showing the 138k, 100% Biden spike did occur and is admitted, but MI officials were notified and remarked, "The state noticed the error and produced an updated count," McCoy said. "Once they did, we updated the count accordingly. This happens on election night, and we expect other vote tabulators in (Michigan) experienced this error and corrected in real-time like we did."
They provide a Twitter URL to Decision Desk HQ updates that show that the erroneous Biden data was removed shortly after this 138k "error". From that Twitter feed:
Trump (R): 52% (2,174,533 votes)
Biden (D): 47% (1,953,819 votes)
Estimated: 76-89% votes in
Trump (R): 50% (2,193,771 votes)
Biden (D): 48% (2,119,618 votes) (the "error" occurs in this time frame where the screencap of data shows 100% 138k Biden spike)
Estimated: 80-93% votes in
Trump (R): 50% (2,200,902 votes)
Biden (D): 48% (2,130,695 votes)
Estimated: 80-94% votes in
Trump (R): 51% (2,217,540 votes)
Biden (D): 47% (2,019,899 votes) (see here, the "error" was removed)
Estimated: 78-92% votes in
Phew, debunked and Twitter, Facebook and everyone will tell you so, and remove all pesky posts that outed the scam, by insisting it was a genuine mistake that was rectified...nothing to see here, and Politifact the official fact checkers point this out, case closed! Except keep scrolling through the Decision Desk HQ data, after the correction Politifact and the MI officials all squared away after people noticed:
Trump (R): 52% (2,223,063 votes)
Biden (D): 47% (2,023,654 votes)
Estimated: 78-92% votes in
Trump (R): 51% (2,240,254 votes)
Biden (D): 47% (2,042,417 votes)
Estimated: 79-93% votes in
Trump (R): 50% (2,269,549 votes)
Biden (D): 48% (2,201,319 votes) (this is a 29,295/158,092 split to Biden)
Estimated: 82-97% votes in
I'm going to guess they do have piles of 100% Biden votes, just like WI did, and just like PA does (there are many reports of 10-20k batches being 100% Biden in this new 1-2 million votes left to process after they stopped counting at the 700k Trump lead, then resumed counting the next morning) and these spikes were a natural result. Where they screwed up was they need to fold in other votes during their tally updates, and they failed that a couple times. It seems quite obvious, after being called out for these, they simply added that same 138k 100% Biden vote, later, but this time folded it into some Trump votes in order to hopefully escape as much scrutiny. By subtracting the 138k 100% Biden vote from prior "data error", this last update would be a 29,295/20,902 split, which given the 50%/47% demographics at the time, vs. the split's 58%/42%, more aligns with the contemporary demographics at the time of the counting. As it stands, this last 188k update was a 84%/16% split in Biden's favor, which is nearly as unlikely as grabbing 138k at 100%. We can even go to the NYT and find that even the most Biden friendly county, Washtenaw measures %72/26% favoring Biden https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/results-michigan.html (I edited to MI instead of WI...I was looking into both and my post is devoted to MI, so should make it match)
Washtenaw 72% vs 26% (I edited to a MI county instead of Dane in WI)
The chances of grabbing 188k votes and having them go 84/16 is highly unlikely and the simpler conclusion is they simply added back that 138k 100% Biden vote from earlier, because it wasn't a "data error" but a real vote batch they counted and they had to add it back so that the numbers match their counting tallies at the end of the day.
So Politifact, the fact checkers that "everyone" is using, officially partnered with Twitter and Facebook to censor, helps alert to the disparities people notice, consult the MI officials, they all hop on board to "correct" the problem, so that later on they can retry a slightly better attempt to slip that data back into the totals. Then the Politifact page addresses the same scenario in WI by simply stating that since the MI situation was "corrected" and "debunked", well, that means the WI is also "debunked." That's literally their entire logic concerning the similar 120k WI post of 100% Biden votes captured by watchful eyes.
They think people are stupid. And for anyone maybe not so stupid, all the major internet platforms employ entities like these Politifact "fact checkers" to scrub the 'net and remove anything counter to the "facts" they want people to know. I have 3 kids in high school right now, and just a couple weeks ago, one of them was given an example of "reliable news" where New York Times, New York Post and Atlantic are given as examples; three of the most infamous trashheaps of lies and distortions over the last couple decades are bastions of truth according to their "school." The information most people see or pay attention to is heavily cultivated and it's time-consuming and tiresome if a person always has to do all their own digging, so most don't. So a case like this, not everyone will bother and I suppose that's the entire point.
I was curious about this, so I checked out the MI one first...
No, Michigan didn't find thousands of Biden votes overnight
Widespread posts about vote tallies in Michigan are taking off online as conservatives ramp up their efforts to sow doub
www.politifact.com
Apparently, the first screen cap, showing the 138k, 100% Biden spike did occur and is admitted, but MI officials were notified and remarked, "The state noticed the error and produced an updated count," McCoy said. "Once they did, we updated the count accordingly. This happens on election night, and we expect other vote tabulators in (Michigan) experienced this error and corrected in real-time like we did."
They provide a Twitter URL to Decision Desk HQ updates that show that the erroneous Biden data was removed shortly after this 138k "error". From that Twitter feed:
Trump (R): 52% (2,174,533 votes)
Biden (D): 47% (1,953,819 votes)
Estimated: 76-89% votes in
Trump (R): 50% (2,193,771 votes)
Biden (D): 48% (2,119,618 votes) (the "error" occurs in this time frame where the screencap of data shows 100% 138k Biden spike)
Estimated: 80-93% votes in
Trump (R): 50% (2,200,902 votes)
Biden (D): 48% (2,130,695 votes)
Estimated: 80-94% votes in
Trump (R): 51% (2,217,540 votes)
Biden (D): 47% (2,019,899 votes) (see here, the "error" was removed)
Estimated: 78-92% votes in
Phew, debunked and Twitter, Facebook and everyone will tell you so, and remove all pesky posts that outed the scam, by insisting it was a genuine mistake that was rectified...nothing to see here, and Politifact the official fact checkers point this out, case closed! Except keep scrolling through the Decision Desk HQ data, after the correction Politifact and the MI officials all squared away after people noticed:
Trump (R): 52% (2,223,063 votes)
Biden (D): 47% (2,023,654 votes)
Estimated: 78-92% votes in
Trump (R): 51% (2,240,254 votes)
Biden (D): 47% (2,042,417 votes)
Estimated: 79-93% votes in
Trump (R): 50% (2,269,549 votes)
Biden (D): 48% (2,201,319 votes) (this is a 29,295/158,092 split to Biden)
Estimated: 82-97% votes in
I'm going to guess they do have piles of 100% Biden votes, just like WI did, and just like PA does (there are many reports of 10-20k batches being 100% Biden in this new 1-2 million votes left to process after they stopped counting at the 700k Trump lead, then resumed counting the next morning) and these spikes were a natural result. Where they screwed up was they need to fold in other votes during their tally updates, and they failed that a couple times. It seems quite obvious, after being called out for these, they simply added that same 138k 100% Biden vote, later, but this time folded it into some Trump votes in order to hopefully escape as much scrutiny. By subtracting the 138k 100% Biden vote from prior "data error", this last update would be a 29,295/20,902 split, which given the 50%/47% demographics at the time, vs. the split's 58%/42%, more aligns with the contemporary demographics at the time of the counting. As it stands, this last 188k update was a 84%/16% split in Biden's favor, which is nearly as unlikely as grabbing 138k at 100%. We can even go to the NYT and find that even the most Biden friendly county, Washtenaw measures %72/26% favoring Biden https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/results-michigan.html (I edited to MI instead of WI...I was looking into both and my post is devoted to MI, so should make it match)
Washtenaw 72% vs 26% (I edited to a MI county instead of Dane in WI)
The chances of grabbing 188k votes and having them go 84/16 is highly unlikely and the simpler conclusion is they simply added back that 138k 100% Biden vote from earlier, because it wasn't a "data error" but a real vote batch they counted and they had to add it back so that the numbers match their counting tallies at the end of the day.
So Politifact, the fact checkers that "everyone" is using, officially partnered with Twitter and Facebook to censor, helps alert to the disparities people notice, consult the MI officials, they all hop on board to "correct" the problem, so that later on they can retry a slightly better attempt to slip that data back into the totals. Then the Politifact page addresses the same scenario in WI by simply stating that since the MI situation was "corrected" and "debunked", well, that means the WI is also "debunked." That's literally their entire logic concerning the similar 120k WI post of 100% Biden votes captured by watchful eyes.
They think people are stupid. And for anyone maybe not so stupid, all the major internet platforms employ entities like these Politifact "fact checkers" to scrub the 'net and remove anything counter to the "facts" they want people to know. I have 3 kids in high school right now, and just a couple weeks ago, one of them was given an example of "reliable news" where New York Times, New York Post and Atlantic are given as examples; three of the most infamous trashheaps of lies and distortions over the last couple decades are bastions of truth according to their "school." The information most people see or pay attention to is heavily cultivated and it's time-consuming and tiresome if a person always has to do all their own digging, so most don't. So a case like this, not everyone will bother and I suppose that's the entire point.
Last edited:
