This reminds me of the “data analysis” touted by Rudy Giuliani at his press conference with Sidney Powell that allegedly found many more votes cast in certain Michigan precincts than one would expect based on population. Proof that Biden and the Democrats had rigged Michigan’s election after all? Nah. It turned out those precincts were actually … in Minnesota. In red-leaning areas, in fact. In their haste to delegitimize Biden’s win and give Trump a face-saving claim of fraud to explain his defeat, his lawyers made an error a reasonably competent eighth-grader would have avoided with a bit of diligence.
Same goes for the tweet below from last night, which has more than 61,000 retweets 147,000 “likes” as I write this. How come? Well, our president decided to amplify the claim not once but twice to his 88 million followers, first by retweeting it and then by tweeting it out again with a sensational accusation of fraud attached.
Whether Trump or Doug Mastriano are knowingly lying to people at this point or so intoxicated with paranoia that they’re willing to latch onto any claim of fraud without taking two minutes to check it, we’ll never know. My guess is that Mastriano’s a willing liar hoping to ingratiate himself to the president while Trump is operating in his usual gray zone of lunging at whatever garbage information floats past his eyeballs without caring whether it’s true or not.
This was posted on our Department of State dashboard but had since been deleted. pic.twitter.com/bDmvCK0kDB
— Senator Doug Mastriano (@SenMastriano) November 27, 2020
The 1,126,940 votes were created out of thin air. I won Pennsylvania by a lot, perhaps more than anyone will ever know. The Pennsylvania votes were RIGGED. All other swing states also. The world is watching! https://t.co/zmnk34Ny23
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 28, 2020
Pause here and consider what you’d need to believe in order to take Mastriano’s claim seriously. If 1.5 million mail-in ballots were returned but somehow 2.6 million mail-in ballots were counted, we’re talking about fraud to the tune of more than a million votes. A million votes. Mastriano presumably also believes that all or nearly all of those phony 1.1 million ballots were marked for Biden since Biden would have needed virtually all of them to overtake Trump and finish with his final margin of victory of 80,000 votes or so.
In other words, Mastriano wants us to believe that Biden received only 2.3 million legitimate votes in Pennsylvania plus the 1.1 million fraudulent votes that put him over the top. That would mean he underperformed Hillary Clinton by 600,000 votes in the state, as she got 2.9 million in PA in 2016. It would also mean that Trump, who defeated Clinton in Pennsylvania by just 44,000 votes and less than a percentage point four years ago, utterly crushed Biden there this time. Under Mastriano’s theory, the president won the state with something like 58 percent of the vote while Biden limped to the finish line with just 40 percent or so. That would mean total turnout in Pennsylvania *declined* this year from 2016 even though turnout broke records everywhere else in America.
Does that seem plausible? Biden, who was born in Pennsylvania, is better liked than Hillary, and who overperformed Clinton in many other blue districts across the map, got obliterated in a purple state which Trump barely won four years ago?
It turns out there’s a simpler explanation for the anomaly Mastriano identified. The reason 2.6 million mail-in ballots were counted even though only 1.5 million mail-in ballots were returned is … Mastriano’s confusing the numbers from two different elections. There were 1.5 million mail-in ballots submitted in the Pennsylvania presidential primaries this year. Not the general election.
To be really clear about it, since I’ve gotten some questions:
1.8M ballots mailed in the *primary*
1.5M ballots returned in the *primary*
2.5M ballots counted in the *general*
There’s no gap between 1.5M cast and 2.5M counted. Those are from two separate elections.
— Jonathan Lai