The candidate who curiously outperformed the leading counties? trump card.

Placeholder while loading article actions

It is emphatically true that any claim by former President Donald Trump regarding the suspicious vote in the 2020 election is dubious. This is partly because there was no credible evidence that any suspicious ballot papers were cast in that race. This is also partly because Trump’s self-serving assertions should always be viewed with skepticism.

So when Trump produced last week lengthy document which allegedly outlined evidence of fraudulent or questionable votes in that contest, one could be forgiven for treating them as not being serious. It was mostly a paraphrase of things that had been adjudicated many times before, things that Trump was treating as unresolved not because it hadn’t been resolved but because he didn’t like the decision. It included a number of things you might have heard before, from suspicious voting machines to Nonsense “2000 mule”.

Subscribe to How to Read This Chart, Philip Bump’s weekly data newsletter

I am uploading this now because new article Written by Michael Anton at Compact, titled “System Fails on January 6th.” In the absence of the title, the focus is on undermining the notion that the investigation into the Capitol riots is well-founded and appropriate in its scope.

As part of his argument, Anton echoes Trump. In short: the riot may have been caused by very shady things happening! For example:

How plausible is Joe Biden getting 10 million more votes than Barack Obama? That Trump became the first incumbent since the 19th century to win the vote (8.4 million) and still lose his re-election bid? The first to win all of the leading states and 18 of the 19 leading counties and still lose? The first to obtain seats in the House of Representatives (14) and lose? The first to see his primary vote go over 75 percent (he got 94 percent) and still lose? “

“To all these questions and other doubts, the ruling class has but one answer: shut up, white supremacist.”

Well, I don’t think I can speak for the ruling class, but I can give a more satisfactory answer to those questions and doubts: all these questions have been answered, many times, in a wholly satisfactory manner.

How did Trump get the votes? Because turnout was low in 2016, the competition was between two unpopular candidates. How did Joe Biden beat Barack Obama in 2008? Partly because the population grew by about 10 percent, and partly because Trump pushed millions of people to come out and vote against him. How did Trump do well in the primaries? Because his party often shuts out other candidates. How did the Republicans get seats even after Trump lost? Because a lot of people simply voted against Trump and not other Democrats – and a lot of Republicans voted for Republican House candidates but not Trump.

None of this is so confusing once you remember that Trump was a very polarizing president, by his doing.

But now we get to the most ridiculous purported example — and one of the oldest — of Trump being robbed in 2020, the assertion of “pioneering counties.” Trump included it in his latest 12-page document: “Eighteen out of 19 districts consistently vote for me as the winning candidate, yet are we supposed to believe Joe Biden won the election?”

Yes, we are, because this metric is so stupid.

What we’re talking about here are 19 counties in a number of states — Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin — that have voted since 1980 with the eventual winner of the election each time. But in 2020, they mostly voted for Trump, despite Trump losing. The only exception, circled below, was Clam County, Washington.

However, you will notice that this is somewhat arbitrary. Why since 1980? What is the significance of that ten electoral period in particular? Why are these provinces supposed to be more important than they fit into this pattern?

But that’s kind of beside the point. The point, instead, is that if these counties are suspicious of failing to match election results, the competition we should worry about isn’t 2020. It’s 2016 — the election that first brought Trump to power.

After all, in that election (and, of course, in 2000), he favored more voters Democrat to the Republican. The fact that these “pioneering” counties vote for the candidate who won only because of the fluctuations of the Electoral College does not seem particularly important in this light. It’s just a coincidence.

If we disregard this definition of the term “leadership” in favor of considering counties that have consistently voted with plural Voting in every election since 1980, we see that there have been six jurisdictions that meet this definition. In all of them, Biden won in 2020. The leaderboards held up.

We can also update our list of leading counties to reflect the new results. Three counties have voted with the eventual winner in each of the past 10 elections, including Clamam County. The others are Winnebago County, Ill. , and Pike County, Miss. If these three counties end up voting against the winner in the 2024 election, that doesn’t mean that winner cheated in some way. This means, instead, that the constitution of the term “pioneer” has changed again.

Again, this is trivial to determine. These are not puzzles that demand the elites to remain unanswered because they are too scary. They are childish claims made by the unconditioned, by people who care more about appearing like daring truth-hunters than actually telling the truth.