The Dan Bongino Show - Stunning Election Anomalies You Must Hear (Ep 1403)

Episode Date: November 30, 2020

In this episode, I discuss a series of astonishing election data abnormalities which will leave you speechless.  News Picks: Reasons why the 2020 election is puzzling. Don’t miss this analysis of the vote dumps in the middle of the night.   Candace Owens wins a huge fight against fake “fact-checkers.” Facebook is dead, it just doesn’t know it yet.  How an elite hit squad ambushed and killed Iran’s top nuclear scientist.  Democrats for Kanye West booted off the Illinois ballot for signature issues.  Copyright Bongino Inc All Rights Reserved. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

After decades of shaky hands caused by debilitating tremors, Sunnybrook was the only hospital in Canada who could provide Andy with something special. Three neurosurgeons, two scientists, one movement disorders coordinator, 58 answered questions, two focused ultrasound procedures, one specially developed helmet, thousands of high-intensity focused ultrasound waves, zero incisions, and that very same day, two steady hands. From innovation to action, Sunnybrook is special. Learn more at sunnybrook.ca slash special. Get ready to hear the truth about America on a show that's not immune to the facts with your host,

Dan Bongino. You know, folks, I was skeptical of the results, air quotes, results of the 2020 election. I think that's obvious if you listen to my show. But I read a piece this morning Rand Paul had put out in his social media accounts that I have to tell you, without an ounce of hyperbole, blew my mind. These statistical anomalies, folks, make absolutely no sense. Here's what I'm going to talk about on today's show. I got a big announcement I'll make right at the beginning. I don't want to tease out. Wait till the end of the show.

I'm just going to put it all right. But here's the anomaly. Here's the core of it that I'm going to talk about today. It's not unusual to have big ratios in elections. You know, you can have a small town where 18 out of 20 people vote for Biden. And it's not unusual to have large margins of victory. Joe Biden beat Trump by a large margin in the city of Baltimore. But it's really, really unusual to have both.

Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh. Don't go anywhere. Don't go anywhere. Today's show brought to you by ExpressVPN. Ladies and gentlemen, protect your online activity from prying eyeballs today. Get a VPN. Don't wait.

Go to expressvpn.com slash Bongino. Welcome to the Dan Bongino Show. This is going to be an explosive week. Producer Joe, how are you fine, sir, on this incredible Monday? I'm doing very well, Dan. Very well. And just ready for the show. So here we go. Yeah. Wow. That was very, you sound super excited. Yeah. He was so excited before the show. What happened?

What did you take a Valium bear? Come on guy. Coach Stan time. Come on guy. Get in the game. Hey, big announcement. Maybe it's because Joe,

you did an energy dump after I told you what was going to happen. So Joe knows we have an outstanding interview this week. Lieutenant general, Mike Flynn. Yes. Yes. Yes. We will be interviewing him this week

to air later in the week details to come you're probably not going to want to miss that one i'm just guessing just throwing that out there all right let's get to it today show brought to you by vincero they make the most incredible looking watches you know how i know because i have one on right now i wear them on the show and I get probably 20 or 30 emails a week from people going, hey, what's that watch you wear on your show? It's Vincero, V-I-N-C-E-R-O, the best part. They're affordable. Why waste money on an overpriced watch that looks terrible? You get a better looking watch. This is my personal fave, the Altitude Blueface Brown Leather Band. I have my second fave, Black Band, Blueface as well. Joe has the Altitude as well in green.

Avoid the rush of last-minute gifts. We're going to give you exclusive access to an early site-wide sale of vincerowatches.com slash bongino. Get up to 15% off all products. Seriously, avoid the rush of last-minute gifts. Shop the sale right now. I give these as gifts. People absolutely love them.

Vincero sent over some of their new stuff and their new watches. They just keep getting better. They sent some for my wife as well. They make the perfect gift, especially with the holidays coming up. Look at the beautiful Paula there. Nice. Now there's a watch in that picture. Plus they offer engraving on the back of their watches. So pick out a watch and write something special on the back for that loved one. With Vincero, there's no brand name markup, no big time price tags. Their promise to you is simple. Well-made products that are simple and you'll enjoy wearing. They know how important it is to shop from local brands you can trust. Vincero offers free shipping, 30-day returns, guarantees your watch for two years. They believe in what they're doing,

so their customers give them the best reviews. That's why they have over 25,000 five-star reviews. You're not going to find a better looking watch that's better made for this good of a price anywhere. I don't wear anything else. My listeners have been the hero for Vincero this year. The guys at Vincero told me they are extremely, not kidding, extremely grateful for your support. These watches have been flying off the shelves. So keep the emails, messages, and letters going, but most importantly, keep supporting the show and these great products at Vincero. Go shop Vincero. That's V-I-N-C-E-R-O watches.com slash Bongino. Go to my link, Vincero watches.com slash Bongino. Pick out your favorite watch,

get a great discount right now. All right, Joe, let's go. So let's get right to this, ladies and gentlemen. You know, when President Trump says something on a interview, he was on Maria Bartiromo's excellent show this weekend. There's always, you know, he's hit, you know, hit the nail on the on the head when all the right people get upset by all the right people. I mean, all the losers. So whenever Tater, you know, George Costanza over at CNN gets upset and what's his face, Aiden McLoser over at MediaEye, whenever they lose their marbles over an interview, you know, President Trump is typically over the target.

And for all the knocks on President Trump and what he says in interviews, and there are lots of them, every time he opens his mouth, some media loser has something to say. When he says something that's particularly insightful and he's onto something, maybe he doesn't say it in words they like, you know, he's onto something when the media loses their minds. Let me get right to it. Here's clip number one, president Trump yesterday. And I will say this, maybe we should get a different term for these, these votes that came in late at night, we're talking about massive dumps, conversation can go in some disturbing directions. But listen to President Trump on a serious note, talking about these voter dumps that happened late at night. And why was everybody upset? I'm going to tell

you in a minute, play this. What happened, if you watched the election, I was called by the biggest people saying, congratulations, political people. Congratulations, sir. You just won the election. It was 10 o'clock and you looked at the numbers and I'm sure you felt that way. This election was over and then they did dumps. They call them dumps, big, massive dumps in Michigan and Pennsylvania and all over.

Sorry. I'm sorry. I know it is a serious topic. Sounds. I'm sorry. I know it is a serious topic. Sounds like a possible drop. I assume we'll hear that again from Joe. We'll hear that in some, just like his commandment. Massive dumps are always a problem. But they can be a particular problem when the statistical abnormalities don't add up.

I said to you in the opening, teasing this segment, folks, it's very possible to have ratios that are very, let me explain this very simply. I explained Joe, and if this doesn't make sense, I've already explained it to Paula.

She got it. You need to stop me right away. It is having run for office myself and been on the other side, receiving ends of these, these massive vote dumps, it is not uncommon for ratios to be abnormally high. It's also not uncommon for gross numbers of votes in liberal cities to go towards, you know, excuse me, net number of votes to be very high for Democrats. Let me give you an example. You have that town in, what is it, Vermont or New Hampshire,

Let me give you an example. You have that town in, what is it, Vermont or New Hampshire. Every year, they're the first ones to report. They were like, oh, my gosh, this year Biden won whatever, 18 out of 20 votes for Biden in that building. Would anybody say that's evidence of fraud? Hell no. It's Manhattan. I'll give you, I'll do you one better. Pick up a high rise in San Francisco in Nancy Pelosi's district. If you were to get a ratio of 85% Biden, 15% Trump, would anybody be like, that's fraud? ratios of votes Democrat to Republican or Republican to Democrat in small numbers are not unusual you tracking Joe yeah yeah yeah we're good factor two while we're talking about massive dumps the deuce factor two on this one having net numbers of votes go for one candidate in liberal areas and high numbers is not unusual either. The fact that Joe Biden got probably 20, 30,000, who knows how many more votes than Donald

Trump in the city of Baltimore, Maryland, which is very liberal, is not unusual either. But, but, But, but, but, but, having ratios that are really high for one candidate and numbers that are really high for one candidate that drop at four in the morning, only in swing states that don't marry up with the ratios and numbers elsewhere. Ladies and gentlemen, we got a problem i want you to look at this tweet by ran paul that's causing all kinds of chaos again all the right people are upset folks when costanza at cnn and the media crew are all upset the media crew is important um they're important for all the wrong reasons they're important because people in the media read this stuff. They're the only ones that read it. The articles get no traction anywhere, but people in the media read it. So I'm giving you a little inside baseball. Their stuff is important. I'm not going to sell them short, but when they're upset, you know, some, they're all upset at Rand Paul too, for tweeting this this morning. Here's an article in Substack, vote

pattern analysis. This article is an absolute must read. If you don't read it, I'm sorry, you've done yourself a huge disservice. Here's Rand Paul's tweet. Interesting. Trump margin of defeat in quotes in four states occurred in four data dumps between 1.34 and 6.31 a.m. Statistical anomaly? Fraud? Look at the evidence and decide for yourself. That is, if big tech allows you to read this. Anomalies and vote counts, and he attaches the article. Folks, if you've ever been questioning, do I subscribe to Dan's show? Subscribe to the show notes.

It's free. It doesn't require anything. Go to bongino.com slash newsletter. This article is right there at the top. It's with the Spectator article. You don't want to miss these two articles today. You need to read this. It's very long and it's very mathematically oriented, but it is genius. Let's go to take number one from this Substack article, which is going to bake your bagels, cook your muffins, toast your muffins, do whatever you need to do to your muffins, read this article, and your muffins will be toasted. Vote pattern analysis and substack. He says anomalies in vote counts and their effects on election 2020. It's a quantitative analysis. It's very mathematical. Don't worry.

I'm going to tease it out. Statistics was my thing. Took it repeatedly in experimental psychology and in my MBA program. Okay, you went to school. Nobody cares. Just saying. It's not the math I'll decipher for you. Don't worry about it. Let's go to number one, where he describes this ratio versus vote count thing. By the way, I've never done nine screenshots ever from an article. That's how important this article is. And these, they're going to be long, but they are worth your time. He talks about,

the guy who wrote this, his vote pattern analysis, talks about his report. He says he's only relying on publicly available data. He looked at 8,954 individual vote updates, we'll call these voter dumps,

and differences in vote totals for each candidate between successive changes to the running vote totals, colloquially referred to as dumps or batches. Listen to this. We discover a remarkably consistent mathematical property.

There's a clear inverse relationship between difference in candidates' vote counts and the ratio of the vote counts. In other words, it's not surprising to see vote updates with large margins, and it's not surprising to see vote updates with large ratios of support between the candidates. But it is surprising to see vote updates with large margins and it's not surprising to see vote updates with large ratios of support between the candidates but it is surprising to see vote updates which are both now again i think i translated that preemptively with my tease and follow-up you all get it that makes sense joe you got ratios that are high in small numbers but you also don't get big vote differences in huge ratios right you well you do in iraq pre uh pre and u.s uh takeover there we uh you know we freed the iraqis saddam hussein joe he aced the ratio and vote difference thing he aced it joe he pulled 99.9

it was amazing what a job what a campaigner out there knocking on doors. Hey, it's Saddam Hussein. You want to vote? We love 99%. He pulled that off magically. There's another way to describe this. I want to get to, I don't want to, but the statistics will make sense. If you understand what I just said, which Joe approved of and Paul, so I'm the ratio

versus the vote. You get that. Only Saddam gets 99.9%. But here's another way to describe this. As sample sizes grow in statistics and science, you traditionally see experimental effects or the size of them dissipate. Let me simply translate that for you. Whether it's experimental psychology, whether it's the effect of school choice, as the sample size gets smaller, you see huge effects. I'll give you a perfect example.

You take a drug for, let's say, cancer. Some drug, you give it to one person, only one. This person is extremely susceptible to the effects of that. The person's magically cured in six months. You're like, we found a cure for cancer. No, you didn't. You found a cure for that person.

Now you start giving the drug, Joe, to 10, 100, 1,000, 30,000 people, and all of a sudden you find that drug for cancer may have cured that person in only 10 20 percent of cases because of some some genetic difference in the population as sample size increases experimental effects get smaller and smaller and smaller why would we want the effect to get smaller and smaller and smaller? Because we want to make sure the drug works, that it's not some unique effect on one person. The same thing happens with vote counts.

As the vote tallies get larger and larger and larger, those ratios should decrease and decrease and decrease. You shouldn't get 99.9% Saddam Hussein numbers anywhere. You dig? I know you do. It's the smartest audience in the business. Now that you have that background in statistics 101, the distribution of statistical effects over larger populations, let's go to screenshot number two. About the foremost puzzling dumps. This is great. Oh, this piece is epic. Here's the foremost puzzling dumps where the

ratios were super high and the vote counts were high too. Let's go to number one. Quote, an update in Michigan, listed as of 6.31 a.m. Eastern time on November 4th, showed 141,258 votes for Biden and 5,968 for Trump. Wow, look at that. Saddam numbers. Saddam. Must have had some great campaign signs at Biden. Here's number two, a 3.42 a.m. batch that came in on November 4th.

Which shows 143,379 votes for Biden and 25,163 for Trump. There we go. That's Saddam. He's at it again. That's incredible. Knocking on doors that campaign sign votes. Saddam. There we go. That's Saddam. He's at it again. That's incredible. Knocking on doors, that campaign sign, vote Saddam. Saddam 2020. What the hell? Here's another one in Georgia, 1.34 a.m., November 4th. 136,000 for Biden, 29,115 for Trump. Man, that Biden was a camper. Biden magic everywhere, Joe. Here's the last one. An update in Michigan.

Oh, this one's going to cook. This one's going to cook your, what are we running out of food items to cook? Cook your blueberry pie. It was a good one. We ate that up. 54,000 votes at 3.50 a.m. for Biden. 4,700 for Donald Trump. that up 54 000 votes at 350 a.m for biden 4 700 for donald trump

weird that biden magic man those middle of-night dumps. Those Biden dumps are powerful. When Biden dumps, it's just amazing. Oh, man. Biden's massive dumps are just... The power of a Biden dump is just... It's like roses.

The aroma's everywhere. You know what's really weird about these Biden dumps? That the differences in these Biden dumps were enough to turn the whole election. Let's go to the next screenshot from this Substack piece. You just have to read this. This one's a little shorter. He says, we find that the extent of the respective anomalies here are more than the margin of victory in all three states,

Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia, which collectively represent 42 electoral votes. Gee, that's kind of strange. represent 42 electoral votes. Gee, that's kind of strange. Making lines here so I don't forget any of these. Folks, he goes on in the next screenshot here to again discuss the critical takeaway. You can have big ratios.

I can't say this enough. And you can have big skews in votes in liberal areas. But big ratios and big skews? That's kind of weird. Those are like Kim Jong-un type numbers. 99.99% of the vote is in and Kim Jong-un won every one. Crazy time. Let's go back to this piece.

Genius. There's also a number of general intuitions upon which we draw to direct our research. This is what I was talking, this is why I talked about the sample size thing when it comes to the effect of drugs or school choice or any big sample sizes matter. So you make sure it's not a unique effect to one person. He says, quote,

in general, the larger the sample size, the smaller we expect the deviation from the population average to be. Again, experimental effects tend to go down as population sizes go up. Everybody got that simple statistical tautological statement. All right. While anomalous vote ratios may occur, the statistical chance of anomalous margins goes down as the size of the sample or vote update goes up. Again, you have a small town, you can have a high ratio. You have a huge city, you're not going to get 99% of the vote. Something's up.

That's what he means by the size of the effect goes down as the size of the sample goes up. Takeaway. The basic intuition here is big margins are one thing and so are super skewed results, but it's weird to have them both at the same time as they generally become inversely related as either value increases. That's a fancy way of saying what I just told you. You can have big ratios or you can have big margins, but you can't have big margins with big ratios. I can't say this enough.

I'm not trying to hammer you over the head with it with my gavel here. I'm trying to speak to all the lunatics that watch this show on the left that you're not curious about this. Of course you're not. You're in the media. They're not curious about anything but propaganda. Crossing these out as we go along here.

All right, I'm going to get to my next. This goes on. Now we're going to get specific. Don't go anywhere. We've got more from this excellent piece about the insane batch of votes that came in in Michigan that makes no sense whatsoever. And how exactly, when the ratios get out of skew, is there a way to hide it? In other words, Joe, even vote fraudsters or attempted vote fraudsters aren't dumb enough to put Kim Jong-un-type numbers. They know they get caught.

So how do you hide that? How do you hide that? Oh, oh, there's a way to do that too. That shows up in the numbers. Don't you go anywhere. All right, our second sponsor today. I told you this show would be killer. I know, self-praise things.

It's not, this is his stuff. I'm just giving you the high points. ETS, ladies and gentlemen, for the firearm enthusiasts listening, I know I have a lot of them. I have an incredible gift idea for the firearm owner in your life. When it comes to training or personal defense, you all know the magazines you use are just as important as the firearm and the ammo you carry. Your magazines don't work.

You got a paperweight. You know how difficult it can be to find durable, reliable, lightweight magazines for everyday use. That's why I chose, and I'm telling you about my friends at ETS. They've been a sponsor for a long time because they're the best in the business. Here they are. For the past six years, ETS has manufactured the toughest, roughest polymer magazines. They're impact resistant. They won't crack or break when exposed to harsh environments, chemicals, or extreme cold, or I might add extreme heat or whatever else you want to subject them to. Plus, they're clear. You can see right through them. You can stack them. Beautiful. That means you can see how many rounds you have loaded. Why didn't anyone else think of this? What a great idea. ETFs magazines, they come with a

lifetime warranty. They're available right now for Glock, Smith & Wesson M&P Shield, SIG P320, H&K VP9, plus MP5, AR-15, and new for this year, CZ Scorpion Evo. In these tumultuous times, you need a durable and reliable magazine for every situation. Stock up today, etsmags.com, etsmags.com. While you're there, don't forget their lineup of speed loaders. They're amazing. Pop the magazine's seconds, load them up, save your thumbs. They're the fastest in the world. That's etsmags.com. Here's a promo code for you. Don't forget the URL, etsmags.com. Promo code Dan, D-A-N, for 15% off your entire order. All right. Thanks, ETS, for supporting the show.

So let's get back to these very puzzling batches of votes that came in early in the morning. Gosh, that's so weird, isn't it? Let's talk specifically about the Michigan dump. That's so weird, isn't it? Let's talk specifically about the Michigan dump. This is kind of weird. Let's get right to it. Another screen cap from this excellent piece in Substack. The Michigan dump arrived at 6.31 a.m. on November 4th and went 141,258 for Biden to 5,968 for Trump.

Wow. Representing both the largest vote margin for Biden to 5,968 for Trump. Wow. Representing both the largest vote margin for Biden of any of the 502 vote updates we have here at 135,290 votes of a difference, while representing by a factor of more than two, the largest Biden-Trump ratio at a whopping 23 to 67.1, the log of which is 3.16. Don't get too complicated with it. Don't worry about it. I'll explain all this stuff. As we'll see when comparing with other states by our metric, this is the single most anomalous

point in the entire nation. Huh. a 135,000 vote difference in Michigan in one data dump and a ratio that's absolutely off the charts. Again, is it crazy? We got North Korea, like numbers here, just weird.

These guys are such great camp. The Biden magic, Joe, the Biden magic rubs off. This guy's dumps are amazing. This guy does dumps like no other person on the planet. It's probably true in more ways than one. That Michigan dump is really weird.

And no one in the media is even remotely concerned about it. And it also explains, again, why they want us desperately to not talk about this and why they'll lose their minds over my show today, why they lost their minds over Rand Paul's tweet and why they lost their minds over President Trump's appearance on these data dumps late at night. Now, I said to you before, that's a really odd ratio in Michigan and really odd vote difference, which you almost never see ratios and vote differences. But if you were going to disguise your fraud, let's say President Trump was, let's just play a game for a minute. And let's say you expected President Trump to lose or win Michigan, lose by a margin of error plus or minus three, meaning he'd win by three or lose by three based on polling. And then all of a sudden, President Trump votes start coming in and he's winning by five or six. And you had if you had some kind of plan for fraud, you'd be thrown because you'd be like, oh, my gosh, how do we make up a five percentage point difference? Get it.

How would you hide that? Because you'd need extraordinary ratios of votes coming in and high numbers to get rid of some of those votes. But you don't want Kim Jong-un type numbers. Why? Because people aren't stupid. If someone told you Detroit voted 99.9% for Donald Trump, everybody, even leftists, well, probably not leftists, they're real idiots. But I'm talking about sane people. Everyone would be like, my gosh, that sounds awfully strange for Detroit. So Joe, the question becomes, how do you lower the ratio to a number that's not going to elicit

as much suspicion? Oh, it's only 87% for Biden. But get rid of certain Trump votes. Oh, I got a crazy idea, Armacost. How about you just take some votes away for Trump and give them to a third party?

Oh, Kenny bell time. Yep. Did we do the bell at the beginning of the show? Yeah. I missed that. How did I miss that? I'm so,

I was looking at the Kenny bellow. It's Kenny bell time. Thank you. We're wishing we've had another moment. I don't like to ring the Kenny bell too much, but the Kenny bell, that's a great idea. Now, if you did that, though,

because you don't want to give too many votes to Biden because the ratio will go up. Biden, 99 to 1. But you don't want to give them to Trump either. What do you do? You give them the third-party candidates. But then, Joe, what would happen? You'd see an abnormal pattern of third party candidates getting more votes in cities where there was alleged fraud. Then you would see those third party candidates getting in similar cities around the country. Wouldn't you see that?

statistics. What if I told you that did happen? You'd be curious. Media morons won't be, of course, because they're morons by nature. So let's go to this next screenshot from this piece in Substack where that is exactly what happens. He talks about this update, this one in Michigan. He says, it's also particularly interesting for another reason. Oh, wow. There are 2,546 non-two-party votes meaning third-party candidates that weren't trump or biden why donald trump has only 5,968 votes in this dump then he shows you a histogram of the other ratios around the country. Oh, I got more on this. So that seems awfully odd. These third party non-Trump Biden candidates got an unusually high number of votes in this same batch where Donald Trump lost overwhelmingly.

He lost by 135,000 votes. Third party candidates get votes all the time. But they generally get the same amount of votes in similar ideologically oriented cities around the country. So let's look exactly about what happened with this particular data dump and how these third party candidates, Joe, did unbelievably well. Crazy time here. Check this out.

From the piece. This is crazy, by the way, citing this many screenshots. But if it wasn't worth your time, I wouldn't waste it. He says, in particular, it calls into serious question the veracity of this vote update and perhaps some of the strongest direct evidence of fraud in this entire report. Here, pay close attention to this. Someone looking to fraudulently improve Biden's margins relative to Trump is likely to be focused on covering their tracks by keeping Joe Biden's share of the update at some reasonable value. 95% of Biden might seem plausible, but 99.9% at this scale, with this number of votes, becomes prima facie implausibility to any honest observer. It goes on one more, one more. One effective way of achieving

this desired goal of decreasing Trump votes at this point would be to suppress the Trump vote while artificially inflating the non-two-party vote, i.e. third parties, in an attempt to disguise just how Biden favoring this update actually was. Oh! Oh! Well, that would show up in the ratios, right? You know, liberals and media imbeciles watching. You know, imbeciles, they don't really understand basic math and algorithms, but ratios, statistics, numbers,

anomalies, you can point them out by showing how the ratio of third-party votes in this city would be unusually high compared to third-party votes elsewhere. By the way, ladies and gentlemen, the piece is brilliant. Again, it's the Substack piece in the show notes today, Bongino.com slash newsletter. Please read it. But he makes another fascinating point, the piece is brilliant. Again, it's the sub stack piece in the show notes today. Bongino.com slash newsletter. Please read it. But he makes another fascinating point in the piece I'd like you to consider. You know, when you're doing a Bernie Madoff type fraud and you're just making up numbers, you're just making them up. It's not necessarily zero sum.

If I want to tell Joe Armacost and I'm a Bernie Madoff type, hey, Joe, your $1,000 investment made 10 grand last week and I'm just making up the numbers. I just make them up. I make up a fake bank statement, brokerage account. But Joe, $10,000. Hey, Joe, look, Joe's like, yeah, $10,000. What's the problem? It's just made up. It doesn't come from anyone else because it's not zero sum. He made it up. It wasn't taken from us. There's no money until Joe tries to cash out and figures out there's no money. That's not the case with voting.

You understand why? Because you may say to yourself, well, why give them, why even inflate the third party vote account? Joe, are you asking this question? I mean, why not just take away the votes in general? Yeah. Arrowhead. Of course Joe's asking that question. He's smart. Why not?

Because you can't. Arrowhand. Of course Joe's asking that question. He's smart. Why not? Because you can't. Because at these large numbers, ladies and gentlemen, you have firewalls you butt up against. People who are registered to vote. The population of the entire state of Michigan.

In other words, Joe, this is zero-sum. What you give to Biden or take away from Trump, you have to hide somewhere else. Because you're limited by certain factors like the number of people who are actually alive in Michigan. You tracking what I'm saying, Joe?

I've stated very simply. Yes, I am. You can't add 62 million votes in Michigan to Joe Biden. 62 million people don't even live in Michigan. You have to hide it somewhere. And when you hide it somewhere, this piece makes this point brilliantly. He talks about middle of the P or C.

I don't know who wrote it. Talks in the middle of the piece about symmetry. What he's talking about is zero sum analysis. What you take from one, you have to hide elsewhere because you're limited. You're not, that doesn't happen in a standard accounting fraud. We just make it numbers up.

It doesn't matter. You dig? He hammers his point further on this third-party analysis here in this next screenshot. Talking about this piece, he says, in particular, because the non-two-party candidates received far less media attention than the 2016 presidential cycle. And the Green Party candidate was even successfully sued off the ballot in one or more states. It's hard to believe that this vote update only favored Trump over the non-two party vote by less than a factor of 2.5 when the statewide ratio was over 31. I'll explain. Don't you worry. It goes on. Absent a compelling explanation

of why this particular update at such a crucial time in a crucial state, which improved Biden's standing in the state so dramatically, also had non-two-party votes performing so unusual relative to Trump votes, it seems unlikely that this vote update reflects an honest accounting of the legitimate votes. Ha ha! Ha! I do a double Kenny Bell, but I don't want to ring your ears out.

Let me, Jodo, I need to translate that. Let me translate that. Yeah, please do. We can use it, yeah. Let me just put that in a little, like, Reader's Digest bullet for you. The author of the piece is saying, wow, these third party candidates on the presidential ballot, in other words, the not Trump Biden people. They did incredibly well relative to 2016, despite the fact that they got almost no media attention.

Joe, remember 2016, Jill Stein? Remember she was from Dr. Jill Stein? Remember she was all over the media remember that yeah yeah yeah all over she was the third party candidate 2016 quick outside of Jorgensen who most people don't know anyway but we know because who was the third party candidate about Joe come on quick quick quick Paula tell me tell me okay two out of three neither one of you know I'm not going to waste your time it's not your fault nobody else knows either I'll be honest with you I don't know know. I know Jorgensen. That's it.

So you're telling me in the 2020 election cycle, despite no media attention whatsoever of any significance for third-party candidates, that they did better than Jill Stein, who was all over the media in 2016 as a third-party candidate. Yeah. That makes a whole boatload of sense, if you're an

idiot. is a third party candidate. Yeah, yeah, that makes a whole boatload of sense if you're an idiot. So that's point one where he's talking, but you can read it again in the article and follow along at home. I encourage you to do so. He talks about the media attention.

That's point one. He makes another point in the piece that around the entire state of Michigan, President Trump outperformed the third party candidate by a ratio of 31 votes for every vote for a third party candidate. You tracking? But you're suggesting to me with this fraudulent or excuse me, I'm going to be sure these are allegations, but this allegation of a fraudulent vote dump here or the hint at it in this piece, it's what he's doing, hinting at it, that President Trump only outperformed the third party candidate by 2.5 to 1?

While I still have it. My hair. I don't even care about losing the hair on my head. I care about losing the facial hair. It's going to be very disturbing. I don't even care about losing the hair on my head. I care about losing the facial hair. I'm just going to be very disturbing. I got another appointment tomorrow. Folks, does that make any sense to you? No.

He outperformed the third party candidate throughout the entire state 31 to 1, but in this suspicious vote dump, he only outperformed them 2.5 to 1. Uh. vote dump, he only outperformed them 2.5 to 1. I got one more here. Let me get to my third sponsor, but I got one more. It's an interesting summary chart in this piece, and

there's a graph, too. I know liberals have a tough time with that, but you may want to look at the graph and summary chart that sums up this whole piece, and you'll start to wonder, so the ratios are out of whack, the vote counts are out of whack, the third party vote counts are out of whack, and the third party ratios are out of whack. And this all happened suspiciously in the morning following election night while no one was paying attention. Gosh, that's awfully weird. Now you know why the media wants to shut us up.

No thanks. All right, today's show also brought to you by friends at Pearl Source. Jewelry is one of the most popular gifts you can get for the holidays. There's good reason for it. You can rarely go wrong, especially if you're going with the classics. Bought this for my wife, I might add. She looks great. I know you do.

I know you love it. There's nothing more classic and timeless than fine pearl jewelry, which doesn't need to break your budget. At the Pearl Source, you get the highest quality pearl jewelry. There you go. You see the picture right there on the screen. Look at that at up to 70% off retail prices. Why? Because the Pearl Source cuts out the middleman. They eliminate the traditional five times markups by jewelry stores. They sell directly to you, the consumer. What an idea. Shop safely and securely for the comfort of your own home at the Pearl Source. You'll find the largest selection of beautiful pearls available anywhere.

And each piece is custom made for you. Customize your jewelry based on pearl size, quality, gold type, length, and many more choices. The Pearl Source offers fast and free two-day shipping on a fast and free two-day shipping on every order comes with no hassle, 60-day money back guarantee. So it's risk-free. Plus for more than 20 years in the Pearl business and over 7,000 five-star reviews, you can be sure you're shopping from a trusted retailer. Do not overpay for jewelry. Go to the Pearl Source today, save up to 70% off retail prices. And for a limited time, listeners from my show, you can take 20% off your entire order for

the holidays. I'm going today. Go to thepearlsource.com slash Dan and enter promo code Dan at checkout for 20% off your entire order. If you want fine pearl jewelry at the best prices online, go straight to the source, the Pearl Source, thepearlsource.com slash Dan. Enter promo code Dan at checkout. You're going to love it. Beautiful. Big hit in my house. All right. So folks, just to tell you where we've been, tell you what you're going to tell you, tell you, and then tell you what I told you. You can have high ratios. You can have high vote count differences. It's very unusual to have both. It's very unusual to have them in the early morning when some vote observers were kicked out.

And even more unusual when you factor in third-party candidates who did unusually well despite no media attention whatsoever. They must be great campaigners too. So here's a summary of this piece, ladies and gentlemen. We've done kind of a college one-on-one statistic 101 statistic course i'm gonna get to some other video for trump and another article to spectator about all these anomalies that no one seems concerned about in the media but here's a summary of the whole piece here summed up and what here's a chart of all these suspicious voter dumps you have them laid out if you want to watch and i encourage you to do so rumble.com

slash bongino you'll see the times highlighted 631, 442 a.m. This is in the morning, 134 a.m., 350 a.m. You see the score where he does, he goes to an analysis. You'll see the Biden votes and the Trump votes. He says below this chart there, as we can see, four of the seven most anomalous vote updates, for liberals, that means unusual, which is to say updates which the margin and ratio are co-extreme are in election critical states man that's weird and occurred

during the same five-hour period where the circumstances on the ground were and remain contested and highly suspicious ah crazy crazy pills everywhere ratios, extreme vote counts, third party candidates doing exceptionally well, all in the same five hour window, all in swing states. Biden needed to win all in states. Trump was up dramatically by hundreds of thousands. In one case, 700,000 votes in Pennsylvania. They all seem to happen, man. You know, in some limited circles, circles Joe we got to go back to the old standby we'd call that a clue when I was an old federal investigator but not the media

they don't seem to care because Trump said it keep in mind if the situation was reversed and Joe Biden was on television having lost the election, talking about the same anomalies, Joe, you'd be sure not only would the anomalies be front page stories, but they'd be blaming the Russians for it. Putin did it. Putin was campaigning somewhere in the US. You know, Putin, that's what they'd be doing. Collusion.

There's no doubt about it. But because these anomalies, if the allegations turn out to be evidence of fraud, the media doesn't care because the fraud benefits their guy. I should have just called this the election fraud special. I got another video, President Trump. Remember, whenever the media loses their mind, the golden rule about something Trump says, these data dumps, whatever they may be, it means you're over the target and should double down and just ignore these idiots.

Here's the second part of that interview where President Trump openly questions this Biden magic we're talking about, where he dramatically outperformed Trump, not only in ratios, but in gross numbers too. The Biden magic, which we saw at his rallies where six people attended and four staffers. So he mentions three things here. Number one, in this clip, he talks about the Biden magic air quotes. He talks about two, stuffing the ballot box. And three, he mentions how the statistics don't add up. Again, everybody likes to tell you in the media because they're morons that Trump's a moron.

But he's bringing this up for a reason. All the reasons I just said. Play this cut. They use COVID as a means to stuff the ballot boxes. Joe Biden did not get 16 million more votes than Barack Hussein Obama. He didn't get it. Joe Biden did not get 14 million more votes than Hillary Clinton. Joe Biden did not get 14 million more votes than Hillary Clinton.

And by the way, he didn't beat Obama in the black communities. You go to some of these communities where Obama is very, very popular and he beats him in some of these communities. But all throughout the rest of the United States in a black community, he does. He does actually poorly. He doesn't do very well. But he beats Obama in swing states. Now think of that. He beat Obama in swing states. You know that didn't happen. They stuffed the ballot box.

Everybody knows that. This is some of the impossible statistics that we have found. And this is from the Federalist article. They call it Biden magic. And they list a number of ways that Joe Biden magically outperformed election norms. Keep in mind, nothing Maria Bartiromo, who's fantastic, said there, Trump, is untrue. Nothing.

The statistics don't add up. The Biden magic is a joke. By the way, we covered that Federalist article on Friday's show, which did bonkers numbers, thanks to you. Nothing Trump said there is untrue. That's why it drives the media crazy. The statistics don't add up. Let me caveat. They stuffed the ballot box. I can't confirm that. I do facts here.

But what Trump said about the statistics and the Biden magic is absolutely true. Rather than going back and relitigating the Federalist piece, which is in Friday's show, let's do a new piece I found at The Spectator, which is really just as good as the Federalist piece, which is in Friday's show. Let's do a new piece I found at the Spectator, which is really just as good as the Federalist piece. And again, we'll be in the show notes. I think it's on top, that and the sub stack.

They're one and two. Don't miss the show notes again, please, today. This is by Patrick Basham, Spectator. Reasons why the 2020 presidential election is deeply puzzling. So weird. It's on the news right now. That's so crazy. Let's get into this piece.

I want to dig through some screen caps on this one too, because this is just a straight up doozy as well. Let's go to number one. First, let's consider some facts. Trump received more votes than any previous incumbent president seeking reelection. He got 11 million more votes in 2016, the third largest rise in support ever for an incumbent. By way of comparison, Obama was comfortably reelected in 2012 with 3.5 million fewer votes than he received, fewer votes, fewer votes than he received fewer votes fewer votes than he received in 2008 so obama's comfortably re-elected absolutely routes mittens gets 3.5 million fewer votes

trump gets 11 million more and is routed by joe magic biden who had tens of people at his rallies. Folks, it gets worse. I've got a few more of these from the spectator piece. Let me get to my last sponsor of the day. They appreciate, I appreciate them being here. It's important, but I got more here. That is, none of this makes any sense at all.

Now you're wondering why overwhelming majorities of people who identify as conservatives and trump supporters don't think this election is passing the smell test my final sponsor today are friends at we the people ladies and gentlemen this is my we the people holster it literally says we the people on it i have liked the printed designs and i love the constitution so it was a perfect match for me, the pending results of the election will no doubt cause a spike in firearm sales. If you're making a purchase because you're worried about the future of the second amendment, I want you to be safe, responsible, and carry with the best holsters out there. We, the people holsters starting at just $40 is mine. We, the people holsters are custom designed to fit your

firearm perfectly. You get that click in there, nice and secure. They're made right here in the USA. They have thousands of options to choose from, plus an amazing selection of printed holsters. Their proprietary clip design, you can see right here on the back, allows for you to easily adjust

the cant and the ride of the holster so it fits comfortably and securely at all times. How do you get one? That's the big question. Makes a great stocking stuffer too. Go to wethepeopleholsters.com slash Dan, get yours today.

Every holster ships free, comes with a lifetime guarantee. Get an additional $10 off with offer code Dan. It makes a great gift. Satisfaction's guaranteed. If it's not perfect, the fit isn't perfect, send it right back for a total refund. It will be. wethepeopleholsters.com slash Dan, wethepeopleholsters.com slash Dan, offer code Dan. Check out this cool We The people printed holster too it's really cool it's one of mine check it out today okay so getting back to this piece so not only did president trump just absolutely annihilate his former vote tallies and yet somehow managed to lose here's another one he did particularly well with minority voters too a point I can't state enough from the spectator piece. He earned the highest share of all minority votes for Republicans since 1960.

Trump grew his support amongst black voters by 50% over 2016. Nationally, Joe Magic Biden, I'm throwing that in there. His black support fell well below 90%. By the way, the level below which Democratic presidential candidates usually lose. No, not this cycle, Joe. Magic was back. Joe Magic Biden. Magic Biden.

Record numbers of triple doubles. Guy's just magic with a basketball and vote tallies, Joe Biden. He's just incredible. The guy's such an over-performer. I mean, he just crushed it on the campaign trail. Remember in the primaries where he just destroyed everyone right out of the shoot? Yeah, yeah. Remember when he got crushed? He finished like 72nd in Iowa and New Hampshire. A little hyperbole, but not far from the truth. Remember he did so bad in New Hampshire, he left before the night was even over? Oh, you don't remember that? He abandoned his rally there because he performed so badly.

The magic came later, though, Joe. It just came later. South Carolina is when the magic kicked in. Let's check out the Hispanic vote. Clearly, Trump must have underperformed with the Hispanic vote because Biden won, right, folks? That's what they're telling us. So he had to get the votes from somewhere.

So he didn't get it from Republicans. He didn't perform particularly well with Democrats. He didn't perform well with the black vote. So definitely the Hispanic vote. Well, let's read the numbers here, too, from the spectator piece. That can't be right, Joe. It says here Trump increased his share of the national Hispanic vote. That's got to be wrong.

It says he increased his share of the Hispanic vote to 35%. With 60% or less of the national Hispanic vote, it is mathematically impossible for a Democratic presidential candidate to win Florida, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico. Bellwether's state swung further in Trump's direction than in 2016. Florida, Ohio, and Iowa each defied American media polls with huge wins for Trump. Gosh, this is like all adding up. Since 1852, only Richard Nixon has lost the electoral college after winning this trio of states. And that 1960, the JFK is still the subject of great suspicion.

If you don't believe me, go to a search engine, put in 1960, Nixon, Kennedy, Chicago, Illinois. You'll see what I mean. Still wondering media types. Why? Overwhelming majorities of Trump supporters are like, nah, not so much 2020. We're not really feeling it. But just keep disregarding us. We'll just keep talking about the truth.

By the way, some guy responded back to one of my social media posts and was like, Dan, enough talk. Fix it. I'm trying. What do you want me to do? All I can do is put the information out there. You know, you're the leaders you've been waiting for. You and my, again, I'm not using this one guy as indicative of my whole audience,

but I put this out there. Believe me, I'm making every call I can. Trust me. I need you to do it too. I'm just one guy. I'm not a monarch. I'm calling everyone, shaking every tree I can. I need you to do it too. That's why I talk about one guy. I'm not a monarch. I'm calling everyone, shaking every tree I can. I need you to do it too.

That's why I talk about this stuff. Let's go on to another anomaly. You'll be like, this can't get any worse. Oh, it can. And it does. The county level anomalies. We're told Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history. Wow, that's crazy.

But he won a record low of 17% of counties. This is strange. So, Joe, he wins the most votes of anyone ever. And yet, percentage-wise, wins the record low amount of counties in 17%. He only won 524 counties as opposed to 873 counties for Obama in in 2008 yet biden somehow outdid obama in total votes whoa it goes on victorious presidential candidates especially challengers usually have down ballot coattails you know where other democrats would win i mean biden got a record number of votes biden really did that, right?

No, Biden did not. The Republicans held the Senate and enjoyed a red wave in the House where they gained a large number of seats, winning all 27 toss-ups. Trump's party did not lose a single state legislature and actually made gains at the state level. Gotta watch Rumble for check that one out.

What's holding 15 yards? 15, I'm holding 15 yards. Repeat first down. So Joe magic Biden wins the most votes of any candidate ever. Destroys air quotes, president Trump and the popular vote, despite Trump getting 11 million more votes than last time,

and yet has a record low number of victories in the county and gets wiped out down ballot everywhere, even in California, where the Republicans are going to net probably three plus House seats. California. California. California.

You know, that bastion of right-wing conservatism. Crossing these off so I don't forget them. Here's another one that's just straight up weird. These rejection rates I've been talking about forever. So, you know, statistics, math. In pretty much every election, you get a consistent number of rejections of mail-in ballots. Why? People screw up, forget the date, forget the sign, forget the security sleeve. The rate of rejection is about 1% or 2%, twice as much as in-person voting, where you can correct it right there. person, especially in voter ID states, one, they know it's you. Secondly, if you forget to date it, they're like, hey, you forgot to date it. Right? This makes sense. Do that in the mail. The mailman is not going to do that for you. Hey, buddy, you forgot to date your buddy. He doesn't know that.

It's not his job to know that. So rejection rates are pretty consistently higher for mail-in ballots, but not this election where we had a bunch of first-time mail-in ballot voters who magically figured it out just like Biden on the first time from the spectator piece. Historically low absentee ballot rejection rates despite the massive expansion of mail-in voting. Such is Biden's narrow margin that as political analyst Robert Barnes observes, quote, if the state simply imposed the same absentee ballot rejection rates as recent cycles, then Trump wins the election. Just weird, man. If ballots were rejected at the same rate they were forever, like in human history, then Trump would have won. But no, if you reject them at lower rates, meaning you accept other questionable ballots, magically Biden pulls it out.

Joe Magic Biden back again. The triple double. Joe Magic Biden back again, the triple double. The Magic Joe. With his magic dumps. They're massive too. I'll leave that, Paula would kill me. So I'm going to leave that. Maybe when my brain gets a little scrambled tomorrow. I'm going to leave that. Paula would kill me. So I'm going to leave that. Maybe when my brain gets a little scrambled tomorrow, I'm going to leave that for another day.

Let's get to the last one from the spectator piece. I really, I know you should never laugh at when my eyes start getting red. This is the cue that I'm laughing at my own jokes. You shouldn't do that. It's terrible broadcasting policy, but I think I'm funny. I don't know why,

because I'm not, I'm not funny, but I think I'm fun, which is very bizarre. C because I'm not. I'm not funny, but I think I'm funny, which is very bizarre, cognitive dissonance. Let's get to the last piece from the spectator. Here we go with these ratios again. Now, this is in the spectator piece, but again, it kind of doubles down

on what we saw in the substack piece from the voter integrity guy. Quote, statistical anomalies are weird. In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89% of the votes counted. So in other words, when 89% of the votes were in, that's when Biden took his lead because there are liberals listening. So we got to be slow here. This is just strange, Joe.

After Biden took the lead for the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95% margin in every single batch. Oh my gosh, the chances. It is particularly perplexing that all statistical anomalies and tabulation abnormalities were all in Biden's favor. Whether the cause was simple human error or nefarious activity or a combination, clearly something peculiar happened. So in Georgia,

where we saw historically low rejection rates for ballots, seemingly accepted all of them, whatever you want. Looks good there. That's the signature matchup. Who knows? They're like, we did signature matching. Well, how'd you get a historically low rejection rate?

Then you listen to dunces like Frank Luntz. Oh, they did a PSA. Yeah, Smokey the Bandit. That always works. It's not like we've seen any forest fires since then. Don't you find it weird? This will sum up the whole show. This Georgia ratio part of the spectator piece. That after Biden takes the lead, when 89% of the Georgia vote is counted,

after he takes the lead, all of a sudden, the ratios are almost flat. Joe, why would they do that? Joe, why would they do that? Paula, why would they do that? Let me just say, let me caveat this because it is important. Because unlike the mainstream media, we do facts. If you were going to fraudulently try to alter the results of a red state that's barely a swing state like Georgia. If you were going to do it, let me pose this as a question because it's not fair

because Joe's busy doing producing stuff, so is Paula. Everybody knows Georgia's a red state, right? So if you wanted Biden to win Georgia, Joe, would you do it and give Biden 90% of the vote and Trump 10? Or would you give Biden 50.5 90 of the vote and trump 10 or would you give biden 50.5 of the vote and trump 48.5 or something like this one one which one would you choose door number two yeah he would choose the lap miss paula miss paula paula's agreeing with joe two out of three ain't bad meatloaf style so we agree that you would choose a slight margin so that's awfully

weird right that right after biden takes the lead in georgia the vote ratios are exactly the same for all the remaining batches just just just bizarre two out of three it's actually three out of three i just stay silent all right i going to get into some other stuff too. Can you know what, can we just do this quickly? The Wall Street show. I'll cover this a little more tomorrow. This is just hilarious. I want to leave you on a good note, but that kind of sums up the whole show. How the ratios were just all these statistical abnormalities. They all magically favored Joe magic, but I'll address this more tomorrow because there's a bigger story here about fact check. You know, the fact checks I've been telling you about forever

that happen on Facebook and Twitter and they only seem to happen to conservatives and their fact checks are in fact so absurd. Did I not say this, Paula? Remember this show? Where the fact checks that they're doing on Facebook and Twitter to get your voice silenced on Facebook and Twitter

if you're a conservative have had the absolute opposite effect. How now conservatives read a liberal fact check on Twitter on a conservative post and believe now that the facts displayed are even more accurate in contrast to the fact check. And that's why Facebook's concerned. You remember, Joe, you remember this show? Yeah, I do. As a matter of fact, yep. I know you do because I was complaining to you the whole day about it afterwards. Now we have data to back it up that that's actually what's happening.

This is hilarious, this story. In the Wall Street Journal today. I'll cover it more tomorrow because it involves Candace Owens and how she fought back and won. But we'll do a little tease today. Wall Street Journal editorial board. The social media fact check farce.

They go right to the screenshot because the screenshot is just beautiful. So Twitter and fake book, fact check conservative pages, they're fake fact checks, and they do it to suppress your reach. They use it to silence and throttle your page. It's become so ineffective at fact checking that it's had the opposite effect. Check this out. This is great. So they did this study at Boston University in Cornell where volunteers were shown a May 26 tweet by Trump attacking mail-in voting,

and it had one of these fact checks. The tweet said, mailboxes will be robbed, ballots will be forged, and even illegally printed out and fraudulently signed. These groups of participants, Joe, were shown the corrections, air quotes, to Mr. Trump's tweet,

including Twitter's explanatory text. In other words, their fact check. Look what happened. Conservatives did not find mainstream media assurances convincing, oh, that's a shocker. For Republicans who were shown Twitter's effort to debunk the president, its belief that mail-in fraud was 13% higher than in the control,

the belief that the mail fraud occurs was more than 13% higher than the control. I read that totally wrong. Or in other words, the authors put it, the corrections by Twitter increased misperceptions amongst those predisposed to believe President Trump. In other words, we think fake book and Twitter are so fake that when Twitter and fake book do a fact check on the president, their supporters are 13% more likely to believe the president's tweet. Arrow hand.

Nice job, Twitter and fake book. Well done. Well done. You're so good at this. And by so good, I mean so terrible. What a bunch of idiots. I told you this was going to happen. Now we have the data to back it up. Fake book fact checks it. People are more likely to believe it because fake book is so fake and so is Twitter. John, what a bunch of idiots. You had one job. What a bunch of idiots.

I'll get into the fact check tomorrow as to what Candace Owens, how she fought back and won, because these fact checks are fake. They're fake. All right, folks, thanks again for tuning in. I really appreciate it. Again, you're not going to want to miss the show this week. Please subscribe. We were number one all weekend in news on Apple's charts, thanks to you.

That's from subscriptions, not from listens. It's weird, I know. Subscribe to this show. It's free on Apple Podcasts. And please, please on Rumble. We are almost, almost at 700,000 subscribers on Rumble, and we're about to surpass YouTube. It is all free. Rumble, R-U-M-B-L-E dot com slash Bongino. Please watch the show there. Paula puts a lot of great work into it. So does Drew. Joe on the audio side. Please subscribe, Rumble and Apple.

We have an outstanding, outstanding exclusive this week with General Mike Flynn coming up in the show. You're not going to want to miss that. Thanks for tuning in. See you tomorrow. You just heard Dan Bongino.