President-elect Joe Biden’s election victory wasn’t a statistical impossibility but defied key measures according to pollster Patrick Basham.
During a Fox News interview set to air Sunday night, Basham says non-polling metrics have a “100% accuracy rate in terms of predicting the winner of the presidential election,” which includes party registration trends, number of individual donations, and Google searches. Basham, the founding director of the Democracy Institute, said all non-polling metrics predicted President Trump would win in 2016 and may have wrongly predicted the outcome of the 2020 election.
“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 this time 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 the others. It is not statistically impossible, but it is statistically implausible,” Basham says.
Earlier, Basham analyzed the results of the election and discussed how Trump increased his vote count while seeking reelection rather than losing votes, a common occurrence seen when incumbent presidents run for reelection.
“If you look at the results, you see how Donald Trump improved his national performance over 2016 by almost 20%. No incumbent president has ever lost a reelection bid if he’s increased his votes. Obama went down by three and a half million votes between 2008 and 2012, but still won comfortably,” he said. “If you look at those results, you see that Donald Trump did very well, even better than four years earlier, with the white working class. He held his own with women and suburban voters against all of most of the polling expectations, did very well with Catholics, improved his vote among Jewish voters. He had the best minority performance for a Republican since Richard Nixon in 1960, doing so well with African-Americans, and importantly with Hispanics.”
Basham suggested the president’s performance was so well, among a variety of demographics, that if he polled 100 independent, well-informed voters in a room, he believed 99 of them would say the data suggest Trump would win the election. “We know from the vote itself, the alleged vote, the alleged result, that something very strange has happened,” Basham said.
In an op-ed in the Spectator, Bashman analyzed “peculiarities” from the election that lacked “compelling explanations.” He outlined counting without observers, late-arriving ballots, failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots, and low absentee ballot rejection rates.
