Report: 255,000 Excess Votes For Biden

[Rightguide]

Well now...

New report: 255,000 ‘excess votes’ for Biden in six key 2020 states​

by Paul Bedard, Washington Secrets Columnist |
| March 28, 2022 10:14 AM

A new deep dive into discrepancies in the ballot counts of six key battleground states in the 2020 election has turned up more than 250,000 “excess votes” for President Joe Biden, and maybe far more.

The key point in the upcoming peer-reviewed study for the journal Public Choice by economist and noted gun expert John Lott Jr. is that the excess voting may challenge — or explain — Biden’s margin of victory over former President Donald Trump in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

In his report, on the Public Choice website but still awaiting final approval, Lott said that there were 255,000 excess votes and possibly as many as 368,000 for Biden in the key states.

And in a review of his statistical study he provided to RealClearPolitics, he said that “Biden only carried these states — Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin — by a total of 313,253 votes. Excluding Michigan, the gap was 159,065.”

Lott, who runs the Crime Prevention Research Center, said that his report was not meant to overturn the 2020 election but to reinforce the need for changes to voter identification, absentee voting, and provisional ballots.

More here:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...excess-votes-for-biden-in-six-key-2020-states

 

[Rotadom]

Does this include Arizona?

 

[ll74]

Looks like this one hit the Trumpie airwaves... second post in an hour

 

[oggbashan]

Fraudster John Lott?

Why believe any shit he posts?

 

[pecksniff]

Fraudster John Lott?

Why believe any shit he posts?

More importantly, why believe anything that appears in the Washington Examiner?

The Washington Examiner is a right-wing political journal that is heavy on psychological projection and denialism. It could be thought of as Townhall.com's more "respectable" cousin, but even then, the site looks like a tabloid desperately trying to pass itself off as real news. Although their reporting has been rated as factually mixed after failed fact checks,[1] it is common to see them used as a source among more extreme right-wingers, who seem to like how proper the site pretends to be.

On science issues, the site is pretty abysmal. Global warming denialism is rampant,[2] as is myths about DDT bans and other anti-environmentalist rhetoric,[3] leading to the site having a weird obsession with defending coal as being not all that damaging to the environment.[4] Also, Barack Obama only beat Mitt Romney because of the damned liberal media,[5] with implementing socialism being part of Obama's (and liberals) master plan.[6][7] The site also appeals to railing for the "fuck you I got mine" sentiments of fiscal conservatives.[8] Also, they regurgitate "IQ is hereditary" as a mud sling against their imaginary low-IQ alarmist strawmen. Basically the site is what you'd expect from a publication that makes most of its money from winding up wingnuts.

 

[oggbashan]

I used to prefer the Sunday Sport. You knew every report was a lie, but with loads of Tits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunday_Sport

From Wiki:

"It does not publish journalism, instead featuring sensationalized, fictionalized, and satirical content alongside celebrity gossip, sports coverage, and numerous images of topless female glamour models."

 

[pecksniff]

Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; the Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country, and the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.

Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?

Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.

 

[Rightguide]

Fraudster John Lott?

Why believe any shit he posts?

Please, stop with the tired old fairy tales.

 

[pecksniff]

Please, stop with the tired old fairy tales.

It's no fairy tale to call John Lott a fraudster.

John Richard Lott Jr. (1958–) is an economist known mainly for his "research" claiming to prove that less restrictive gun laws reduce crime. He originally attracted public attention with a study he co-authored with fellow economist David Mustard that was published in the Journal of Legal Studies in 1997 claiming to prove that "right-to-carry laws", which make it easier for people to obtain concealed weapons permits. Shortly before the study was published, Lott testified in front of Nebraska lawmakers claiming that the study proved that right-to-carry laws reduce violent crime.[1] Debunkings swiftly followed: the very same year, an article in the American Journal of Public Health pointed out that "Several serious flaws in the study render the authors' conclusions insupportable."[2] A reanalysis of the Lott and Mustard data published in 1998 by Black and Nagin found "no basis for drawing confident conclusions about the impact of right-to-carry laws on violent crime".[3]

Lott followed this study with a book entitled More Guns, Less Crime, first published in 1998, with new editions following in 2000 and 2010. Despite additional debunkings of the claims in this book, by everyone from Stanford and Yale researchers[4] to computer scientist Tim Lambert[5] Lott continues to insist that he is correct about more relaxed concealed carry laws increasing public safety. In 2003, he admitted to having invented the pseudonym "Mary Rosh" to argue with his critics online (including Lambert) over the previous three years, after being criticized for being unable to provide data from, or basic information about, a survey he claimed to have conducted.[6][3]

In 2013, Lott founded a phony "think tank" called the "Crime Prevention Research Center", through which he has excreted numerous methodologically shoddy non-peer-reviewed papers onto the Social Science Research Network

on all manner of pro-conservative topics, ranging from police supposedly not being racist[7] to undocumented immigrants supposedly committing crime at super-high rates[8][9] to the 2020 U.S. presidential election supposedly being rife with fraud.[10]

 

[oggbashan]

Please, stop with the tired old fairy tales.

Please stop posting easily debunked right-wing propaganda too.

 

[zipman]

Please stop posting easily debunked right-wing propaganda too.

That's all he has

 

[pecksniff]

"Please stop" is something he only ever says when he knows he's wrong.

 

[WillJ8787]

Please, stop with the tired old fairy tales.

You're wasting everyone's time bobococksucker with this false information.