A GRAVE warning in Arizona. With the primary one week away, Trump’s pick for governor @KariLake wants people to know one thing.

WATCH: 👇 @OANN pic.twitter.com/EtbTwDJR2L

— Daniel Baldwin (@baldwin_daniel_) July 26, 2022

I have an idea for Kari. send people down the road to Runbeck demanding "their fully auditable processes" to be fully audited in real time with daily reporting.

Tina Peters was able to raise >$200K in two weeks to force a hand recount of her CO SoS race.

Whoop! She needed it.

Hopefully, this blows up in faces of Zuck and Soros:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/will-bring-evil-empire-huge-update-candidate-tine-peters-raises-funds-recount-stolen-colorado-primary-race-incredible-achievement/

I listened to her on War Room yesterday, was hoping she could get it together.

We'll see what happens.

BadMoonRisin said:

---

I listened to her on War Room yesterday, was hoping she could get it together.

We'll see what happens.

---

There was another Colorado primary race that was weird.

Quote:

---

This is the first time Lundeen who is a favorite to become Senate president if Republicans flip the chamber has faced a primary challenge during his nearly eight-year career in the Colorado legislature. Lundeen ran unopposed in the Republican primaries for the 2014 and 2016 House elections, as well as in his most recent 2018 Senate election.

---

Quote:

---

Even more surprisingly, Wilson won more votes than Lundeen during the Colorado Republican Party's state assembly on April 9. Though both candidates received more than 30% of the votes and, therefore, made it to the ballot, Wilson secured 52% compared to Lundeen's 48%, the Glendale Cherry Creek Chronicle reported.

This victory came less than two weeks after Wilson entered the race, while standing at a significant fundraising disadvantage. As of Friday, her campaign raised just over $870 in contributions, while Lundeen's campaign hauled in more than $73,000, according to data from the Secretary of State's Office.

---

At 8:12:


At 8:50


Then:


That happened.

Link

peacedude said:

---

Tina Peters was able to raise >$200K in two weeks to force a hand recount of her CO SoS race.

Whoop! She needed it.

Hopefully, this blows up in faces of Zuck and Soros:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/will-bring-evil-empire-huge-update-candidate-tine-peters-raises-funds-recount-stolen-colorado-primary-race-incredible-achievement/

---

This is all interesting hardball from both sides. Peters (and other primary candidates) did not "force a hand recount", to my understanding. She's demanding a hand recount. I think GP is misleading here. So I looked into it a bit.

tldr: Candidates can request recounts. I believe today, July 26 is the very last deadline to both request and pay for a recount. That recount would be tabulated using the same procedure/method as the original election. Peters previously objected to this recount, which was offered by the State.

Requesting Recount

According to Colorado recount laws:

Quote:

---

Can a recount be requested?
Yes, the recount must be requested within 28 days after the election. The deadline for completion is no later than 37 days after the election. No margin is required.

Who pays for a requested recount?
The requester.

Is a refund available for requested recount costs?
Yes. Costs paid by the requester are refunded if the recount changes the election outcome or changes the results to the point where they would have triggered an automatic recount.

Can a partial recount be requested?
No.

---

July 11 - First Request: Peters submits a request for recount in letter to Secretary of State.

July 11-15 - Secretary of State replies with recount information. State responds (not sure exact day) to recount request asking Peters to deposit certified funds for a recount "in the same manner as the initial tabulation in each county".

July 15 - Peters misses payment deadline: Peters misses deadline to pay the $236,000 that was due for the estimated recount costs as required by law.

July 15 - Second Request: Peters writes letter to Secretary of State that "objects" to the State's proposed recount. Again asks for a hand recount:

Quote:

---

"I hereby object to your proposal to conduct the requested recount via the electronic voting systems used for the original count, request that you revise your plan to ensure conduct of a recount by hand count of paper ballots..."

---

July 19 - State rejects second request: sends letter stating Peters et al:

Quote:

---

"were wrong about the statute and elections rules and offered a second chance to pay the $236,279 if they want a recount that is conducted "in the same manner as the original ballot count," as statute requires if there are not discrepancies in the bipartisan risk limiting audits counties conducted post-election, which there were not, according to the office. Should you wish to go forward with the recount allowed under state law and rule, you will need to resubmit a notarized written request to our office before the July 26, 2022, statutory deadline, followed by payment of the cost of the recount."

---

July 25-26. Final deadline for another recount request. Peters has not yet requested (the third request?) a recount unless it's happened here the last couple hours. But she has until 5pm today, July 26 to request and pay for the recount. And Peters says she will be doing so.

Presumably the State wouldn't respond to anything submitted today until next week. There is some discussion of whether each recount request would start the whole timeline over again (due dates etc).

Recount Procedures

Additionally, according to the State any recount must be done in the same method/procedure as the original election:

Quote:

---

On July 19, Peters sent a letter to the Secretary of State requesting a hand recount rather than one done by machine. The secretary of state's letters said a hand recount is not allowed under the office's regulations and dismissed the candidates' concerns about possible fraud. It said they have one last window to pay for a recount until July 26.

---

Same method. Is that the law? They say "office regulations", which seems flimsy. Or perhaps Peters has known a full hand recount was never possible or allowed in the first place.


As of yesterday, the Secretary of State repeated its stance saying, "a hand recount is not possible":

Quote:

---

The Colorado Recount Coalition website says that candidates will be "demanding" a hand recount of the June 28 primary. But a hand recount is not possible, according to Annie Orloff, spokesperson for Secretary of State Jena Griswold. A recount can still be requested through Tuesday, but it must be conducted in the same manner as the original election, which was tallied through tabulation machines, Orloff said.

---

Bots defending Pedo Pete

Honest US citizen here pic.twitter.com/82q82NjT6x

— Kevin McMahon (@Kevin__McMahon) July 25, 2022

Seriously? There is a bot problem. @elonmusk @LPNational @POTUS pic.twitter.com/tqyfGtb4yc

— ThrownRod (@thrown_rod) July 20, 2022

You should call your own fbi hotline on (your crush) Jena Griswold, who has been trying to cover up her Soros-funded election fraud scheme for years: https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/05/colorado-bill-to-mandate-electronic-voting-supported-by-soros-backed-secretary-of-state/

Beyond that, Lindell proved the machines will count fraudulent votes months ago, so the ballots will have to be proven legit/legal/1-1 in the courts (unless Jena has Tina off'd and not just arrested).

I'm surprised those bots don't know that we only have one President at a time. It's good to know that ol' craps his pants is at least one of the best we have right now!

Are you proud of your profession still? Serious question. Used to be folks that I really looked up to, but with Comey/Mueller and all that's gone on the last decade, not a big fan anymore. It's like you all are blinded in your little bubble as to what is going on.

Hawg did you see this resurfacing? Quite relevant to this thread.

https://texags.com/forums/16/topics/2912732/replies/62559665

aggiehawg said:

---

BadMoonRisin said:

---

I listened to her on War Room yesterday, was hoping she could get it together.

We'll see what happens.

---

There was another Colorado primary race that was weird.

Quote:

---

This is the first time Lundeen who is a favorite to become Senate president if Republicans flip the chamber has faced a primary challenge during his nearly eight-year career in the Colorado legislature. Lundeen ran unopposed in the Republican primaries for the 2014 and 2016 House elections, as well as in his most recent 2018 Senate election.

---

Quote:

---

Even more surprisingly, Wilson won more votes than Lundeen during the Colorado Republican Party's state assembly on April 9. Though both candidates received more than 30% of the votes and, therefore, made it to the ballot, Wilson secured 52% compared to Lundeen's 48%, the Glendale Cherry Creek Chronicle reported.

This victory came less than two weeks after Wilson entered the race, while standing at a significant fundraising disadvantage. As of Friday, her campaign raised just over $870 in contributions, while Lundeen's campaign hauled in more than $73,000, according to data from the Secretary of State's Office.

---

At 8:12:


At 8:50


Then:


That happened.

Link

---

When you say "That happened" it would much more honest and certainly less deceiving if you let people on this board know that 1) this information comes from The Gateway Pundit, who rarely gets accused of posting information that is not deceiving, and 2) the Fox station obviously made a mistake with their graphics.

Mistakes do happen, even with vote counts. In this case, they obviously got the order of the names in the graphic reversed.

In typical election results reporting, the convention is that the incumbent is listed first, then the challenger(s) (similar to the convention of listing the home team last when reporting sports scores). When there is no incumbent in a race, they will usually be listed in alphabetical order by their last names.

If was anything other than a simple mistake, it would not have taken a month for anyone to notice.

Retired FBI Agent said:

---

peacedude said:

---

Tina Peters was able to raise >$200K in two weeks to force a hand recount of her CO SoS race.

Whoop! She needed it.

Hopefully, this blows up in faces of Zuck and Soros:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/will-bring-evil-empire-huge-update-candidate-tine-peters-raises-funds-recount-stolen-colorado-primary-race-incredible-achievement/

---

This is all interesting hardball from both sides. Peters (and other primary candidates) did not "force a hand recount", to my understanding. She's demanding a hand recount. I think GP is misleading here. So I looked into it a bit.

tldr: Candidates can request recounts. I believe today, July 26 is the very last deadline to both request and pay for a recount. That recount would be tabulated using the same procedure/method as the original election. Peters previously objected to this recount, which was offered by the State.

Requesting Recount

According to Colorado recount laws:

Quote:

---

Can a recount be requested?
Yes, the recount must be requested within 28 days after the election. The deadline for completion is no later than 37 days after the election. No margin is required.

Who pays for a requested recount?
The requester.

Is a refund available for requested recount costs?
Yes. Costs paid by the requester are refunded if the recount changes the election outcome or changes the results to the point where they would have triggered an automatic recount.

Can a partial recount be requested?
No.

---

July 11 - First Request: Peters submits a request for recount in letter to Secretary of State.

July 11-15 - Secretary of State replies with recount information. State responds (not sure exact day) to recount request asking Peters to deposit certified funds for a recount "in the same manner as the initial tabulation in each county".

July 15 - Peters misses payment deadline: Peters misses deadline to pay the $236,000 that was due for the estimated recount costs as required by law.

July 15 - Second Request: Peters writes letter to Secretary of State that "objects" to the State's proposed recount. Again asks for a hand recount:

Quote:

---

"I hereby object to your proposal to conduct the requested recount via the electronic voting systems used for the original count, request that you revise your plan to ensure conduct of a recount by hand count of paper ballots..."

---

July 19 - State rejects second request: sends letter stating Peters et al:

Quote:

---

"were wrong about the statute and elections rules and offered a second chance to pay the $236,279 if they want a recount that is conducted "in the same manner as the original ballot count," as statute requires if there are not discrepancies in the bipartisan risk limiting audits counties conducted post-election, which there were not, according to the office. Should you wish to go forward with the recount allowed under state law and rule, you will need to resubmit a notarized written request to our office before the July 26, 2022, statutory deadline, followed by payment of the cost of the recount."

---

July 25-26. Final deadline for another recount request. Peters has not yet requested (the third request?) a recount unless it's happened here the last couple hours. But she has until 5pm today, July 26 to request and pay for the recount. And Peters says she will be doing so.

Presumably the State wouldn't respond to anything submitted today until next week. There is some discussion of whether each recount request would start the whole timeline over again (due dates etc).

Recount Procedures

Additionally, according to the State any recount must be done in the same method/procedure as the original election:

Quote:

---

On July 19, Peters sent a letter to the Secretary of State requesting a hand recount rather than one done by machine. The secretary of state's letters said a hand recount is not allowed under the office's regulations and dismissed the candidates' concerns about possible fraud. It said they have one last window to pay for a recount until July 26.

---

Same method. Is that the law? They say "office regulations", which seems flimsy. Or perhaps Peters has known a full hand recount was never possible or allowed in the first place.


As of yesterday, the Secretary of State repeated its stance saying, "a hand recount is not possible":

Quote:

---

The Colorado Recount Coalition website says that candidates will be "demanding" a hand recount of the June 28 primary. But a hand recount is not possible, according to Annie Orloff, spokesperson for Secretary of State Jena Griswold. A recount can still be requested through Tuesday, but it must be conducted in the same manner as the original election, which was tallied through tabulation machines, Orloff said.

---

---

An excellent example of critical thinking and critical research. I really liked your:

Quote:

---

I think GP is misleading here. So I looked into it a bit.

---

As near as I can tell, almost everything the Gateway Pundit puts out is, at best, misleading. Thank you for researching the truth.

It seems to me that Peters never wanted a recount to begin with. Taking a page straight out of Trump's Book of Grifting, she beseeched the loyal followers of the Great Orange Leader to make donations to pay for a recount, but at the last minute, made demands that would never be accepted.

By insisting on a hand recount while knowing that a hand recount could never be completed by the statutory deadline, she knew she would never have to pay for it. This way, she gets to keep the money that was donated to pay for it.

It was not donated as part of a political campaign, so campaign finance laws don't apply. In fact, as it was given freely with no expectation for anything in return, the IRS does not tax it (provided individual contributions are below the maximum gift amount). Free money!

Yes. Have to see if anything comes of this.

You and FBI guy should get together for some "I hate America" drinks.

agcrock2005 said:

---

You and FBI guy should get together for some "I hate America" drinks.

---

It would help if he realized that I have him on permanent ignore, so addressing posts to me are futile.

Alcona County, MI GOP also passed a resolution to reject the certified results of 2020 Presidential Election. If our elected officials would like for us to have confidence in election results, they need to be more transparent. They could start by fulfilling our FOIA requests.

— Patrick Colbeck✝️ (@pjcolbeck) July 27, 2022

Quote:

---

Cass County and Alcona County GOP in Michigan voted this week to reject and rescind the 2020 presidential election.

The two Michigan counties joined the Texas GOP, the Maricopa County GOP, Arizona GOP, Montana GOP and several Wisconsin counties in recognizing the 2020 presidential election was fraudulent and stolen.

---

Link

agcrock2005 said:

---

You and FBI guy should get together for some "I hate America" drinks.

---

Why do you think they "hate America"?

Right now we are about level with papua New Guinea

Election observers in #PapuaNewGuinea are calling for an urgent review of the 2022 election after reported incidents of violence and issues leading to a “high numbers of eligible voters” being disenfranchised. https://t.co/AnW3iYadZs

— The Epoch Times - China Insider (@EpochTimesChina) July 27, 2022

New World Ag said:

---

agcrock2005 said:

---

You and FBI guy should get together for some "I hate America" drinks.

---

Why do you think they "hate America"?

---

The simple answer is that if you're on the side of the authoritarian left regime that is intentionally destroying this country, then you must hate it and everything it has stood for. The globalist communist utopia we're on track for is nothing like America.

What's crazy is these people are on the team that always uses the "protect our democracy" or x is a "threat to our democracy". What a sham. Your team is elitist special interests and globalist & monopoly interests - putting actual Americans last in almost every policy as a platform, and it's anything but democracy and being a government of the people, for the people, by the people if you have stolen an election to get it done.

It must be so rewarding and fulfilling for people like watermelon to know that half of all Americans are disenfranchised, don't trust our election system at all, and can't even question results because 'talking points' something something suburban women probably so there: DEBUNKED!

The thought that team left thinks asking questions about a clearly F'd up election is a threat to "our democracy" while fighting tooth and nail to not actually have to prove that you don't have phony crooked stolen elections is not a threat to "our democracy" just indicates that they don't care how it happened and don't care about real democracy; just that their team seized power. That, and an unarmed shirtless vegan dude with a viking hat - that's a real threat to "our democracy".

But why do they hate America? Well, if you really feel strongly about the team that has full control of the permanent government bureaucracies and all of mainstream media and tech platform monopiles to impose its will, wants to print trillions to devalue our currency and inhibit our own most valuable resources at Americans' expense in the name of climate and you really want to give amnesty to 30 million illegal immigrants and open the border for 2-3 million more per year and all the fentanyl that comes with it, and you're a big fan of your authoritarian regime imprisoning its political opponents in a two tiered unequal justice system, and you really want to take guns away from the citizenry because your daddy government has guns to protect you, then you certainly don't want a government of the people, by the people, for the people anyway. If this is what you want, you must hate America and all it has ever stood for. It has to be really exciting for watermelon to watch Americans suffer for the greater global climate good and to protect whatever he thinks "our democracy" is.

Quote:

---

The dirty cop FBI Assistant Special Agent Timothy Thibault, outed by Senator Grassley this week as the one who covered up Hunter Biden's laptop while posting anti-Trump Lincoln Project garbage, was also the FBI's spokesman for 2020 Election integrity.

---

Quote:

---

Grassley pointed out that FBI Assistant Special Agent Timothy Thibault shared anti-Trump social media posts while covering up Hunter Biden's laptop scandal.

---

WATCH — FBI Agent Timothy Thibault, who publicly posted anti-Trump Lincoln Project tweets, and buried the investigation into Hunter Biden's laptop, was also one of the FBI agents tasked with "combatting election fraud".

Truth Social (https://t.co/IB4vMLa3zV) | @KanekoaTheGreat https://t.co/JLMlzF58m7 pic.twitter.com/td5iU93lus

— ✨TRVSHCVN✨ (@HiKaylaMichelle) July 27, 2022

Link

Dear FBI Agent Timothy Thibault

Hope you are prosecuted, found guilty and spend the rest of your natural life behind bars.

richardag said:

---

Dear FBI Agent Timothy Thibault

Hope you are prosecuted, found guilty and spend the rest of your natural life behind bars.

---

Was just talking about this with The Hubs and his response was that everyone talking about how corrupt Ukraine was is not paying attention to how corrupt our government has become.

aggiehawg said:

---

richardag said:

---

Dear FBI Agent Timothy Thibault

Hope you are prosecuted, found guilty and spend the rest of your natural life behind bars.

---

Was just talking about this with The Hubs and his response was that everyone talking about how corrupt Ukraine was is not paying attention to how corrupt our government has become.

---

they are one in the same. our corrupt government installed their corrupt government.

Quote:

---

Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch told Jared Kushner, former President Trump's son-in-law and a top White House adviser, that there was nothing he could do about the network's decision to call Arizona for President Biden on election night 2020.

In an upcoming memoir, Kushner writes about election night at the White house and says he called Murdoch shortly after Fox's Decision Desk called Arizona for Biden, a move that shocked and infuriated the Trump campaign.

---

Quote:

---

Murdoch told Kushner he would look into it, Kushner wrote, and then the media mogul called him back.

"Sorry, Jared, there is nothing I can do," Kushner quoted Murdoch as saying. "The Fox News data authority says the numbers are ironclad he says it won't be close."

---

Yeah, 10,000 votes or 0.3% margin is considered a landside now?

Quote:

---

Kushner's call to Murdoch was widely reported after the election, but Kushner's account is the first insight into what was said between the two powerful political figures.

After Fox made the Arizona race call, Trump's campaign attacked the network's Decision Desk head, Arnon Mishkin, describing him as a "[Hillary] Clinton-voting, Biden-donating Democrat."

Mishkin and a number of other top Fox News politics staffers have since left the cable news giant. One of them, Chris Stirewalt, a former editor at Fox, testified before the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.

---

Link

Remember ballots kept being delivered to the counting center in Maricopa County for at least ten days after election day, yet somehow Fox had solid numbers early on election night? Throwing the BS flag on that one.

I've asked this question to a lefty before. Basically: aren't you simply, from an intellectually curious point of view, interested in what happened and whether or not there was wrongdoing?

But the answer was essentially no. They compartmentalized it that all reporting that confirms their worldview is true and logical and anything else is conspiracy theory nonsense. They didn't attempt critical thinking if it confirmed their view and poked every possible hole into what didn't.

You need to be able to question yourself and your motives. What if Arizona was totally legitimate? Can you read through affirming and dissenting opinions with that viewpoint? Sure I can.

I see no such questioning on the Left. And that's why it's so scary. They literally will believe it. All of it. Whatever the TV box tells them.

Decay said:

---

I've asked this question to a lefty before. Basically: aren't you simply, from an intellectually curious point of view, interested in what happened and whether or not there was wrongdoing?

But the answer was essentially no. They compartmentalized it that all reporting that confirms their worldview is true and logical and anything else is conspiracy theory nonsense. They didn't attempt critical thinking if it confirmed their view and poked every possible hole into what didn't.

You need to be able to question yourself and your motives. What if Arizona was totally legitimate? Can you read through affirming and dissenting opinions with that viewpoint? Sure I can.

I see no such questioning on the Left. And that's why it's so scary. They literally will believe it. All of it. Whatever the TV box tells them.

---

I think it goes back to what someone posted on another thread today. The left is almost completely incapable of empathizing with anyone who does not see eye to eye ideologically with them. They can't put themselves in our shoes. Whereas, if the late night election shenanigans and boarded up windows (never mind all of the other stuff that unfolded afterwards) had occurred in my party's favor, I would feel really sour about that...and would definitely be able to understand why they would be upset 100%. Yeah, I may hope that it was all just coincidental BS with some type of explanation, so as to confirm that my party's victory was sound...but at a very minimum, I'd be like "whoa, that looks AWFUL...I can totally see how they would be outraged".

But then again, my side has never has the media, social media, and virtually all of Hollywood and major corporations in our back pocket. I don't really know what that is like...or what it is like to be a conditioned useful idiot.

Decay said:

---

I've asked this question to a lefty before. Basically: aren't you simply, from an intellectually curious point of view, interested in what happened and whether or not there was wrongdoing?

But the answer was essentially no. They compartmentalized it that all reporting that confirms their worldview is true and logical and anything else is conspiracy theory nonsense. They didn't attempt critical thinking if it confirmed their view and poked every possible hole into what didn't.

You need to be able to question yourself and your motives. What if Arizona was totally legitimate? Can you read through affirming and dissenting opinions with that viewpoint? Sure I can.

I see no such questioning on the Left. And that's why it's so scary. They literally will believe it. All of it. Whatever the TV box tells them.

---

My biggest problem related to that issue is the number of Dems who were calling out electronic voting machines as inscrutable black boxes that were insecure for years and years...until November 3, 2020.

Stacey Abrams sued over electronic voting machines after her loss in 2018 and that's why the state bought into Dominion. Literally.

It was a bi-partisan concern and rightly so since at least 2004. Again, FTR, I no longer believe Kerry lost in 2004.

And using ballot marking devices (BMDs) versus direct recording electronics (DREs) did not rectify that. Fact is, Dominion BMDs have a QR code for the voters' selections, that cannot be verified by the voter. It is the QR code that is read by the tabulators, not the ovals. In multiple states that have Dominion, that is against state law. In Georgia, for instance.

Quote:

---

One last thing about Maricopa County. Even the highest placed election officials in the counting center had no idea of how many ballots were still outstanding for days and days after the election. How could that be? And if they didn't know, how did the Fox Decision Desk know?

---

Note: I'll first say: Fox and AP definitely "called" Arizona too early and contributed to a lot of doubt and skepticism. I've said this before, but the way in which the MSM and various media outlets "call" elections has gotten way out of hand, exacerbated by social media, and so misunderstood that it hurts our electoral process (this in addition to the lack of actual journalism to pair with it).

Clearly, many Americans do not understand the difference between these media decision desk projections vs. actual raw ballot tabulation (I think you do understand, hawg, btw).

Projecting votes Counting ballots

• Projecting. Decision desks and media groups project votes to model the election results and drive viewership. To do so, they use combinations of pre-election survey data, interview data, exit polls, partner data, machine learning, AND track the actual raw vote.
• Counting. Election officials don't use any of that. Election officials and counties count ballots to tabulate the actual vote. That's it. Whether they do so in accordance to their respective election laws/rules is another discussion throughout this thread. I'm just making a distinction.

Back to Fox. Fox Decision Desk did not know how many ballots were outstanding. Did they claim they did? I don't think so. No, I think their model spit out Biden, it either automatically updated graphics or triggered an intern to, overseen by Mishkin, and then if I recall the Fox personalities see it change live and are a bit perplexed.

So how did Fox project Arizona to Biden? This is a decent article where Arnon Mishkin (head of Fox Decision Desk) explains how Fox News projected races pre-2016 vs post-2016 and their break from using a traditional exit poll approach.

Fox's old election projection model pre-2016: Exit Polls.
Pre-2016 Fox News was part of the National Election Pool (NEP), a large exit poll dataset. But Fox, along with NEP, were concerned those traditional exit polls were becoming less reliable and resulted in a skew and misnomers about a candidate having such a thing as a "lead". Mishkin explains:

Quote:

---

Arnon Mishkin: From the get-go, we were part of the National Election Pool (NEP) consortium, which basically ran the exit poll or purchased the exit poll both the exit poll as well as the vote counts from the Associated Press. Following 2016, we were concerned about two things and it wasn't just us, I think folks on the NEP were equally concerned. The two concerns were primarily the growth in the mail-in vote, and whether or not the exit poll was covering those people adequately enough. And the second was a tendency, for whatever reason, for there to be differential non-response people who voted for one party seemed to be overrepresented in the sample than were represented when you actually count the vote. So there was a tendency for the results to skew.

We'd gotten sort of comfortable with realizing, well, if there's a lead here, that doesn't mean it's a lead because we know there's going to be a skew with the results.

---

Fox's (and AP's) new election projection model post-2016: pre-election surveys/interviews.
100,000 Americans surveyed. Some already voted. Some haven't yet voted. Not 81 million. 100,000. Associated Press joined Fox in this new approach to election projections, both coining AP VoteCast and Fox News Voter Analysis. How does one project a winner then, if not with exit polls, Mishkin asks:

Quote:

---

And we thought, let's do sort of a combination of a phone and internet poll across the country in the days before an election, which we thought would be the same tool for covering early voters, Election Day voters, and mail-in or absentee voters.

---

Mishkin then discusses how these data are combined with other tools to ultimately feed their model and make decisions:

Quote:

---

We think that the combination of the three tools we'll have on election night to study the vote will give us a good idea of what's really happening, but it is much more complicated than it is historically. Those three tools, I should point out, are the Fox News Voter Analysis, the sample precincts that we'll be getting from the Associated Press, as well as the actual raw vote that you're getting county by county.

---

My take: "A good idea of what is happening". I laughed reading that from Mishkin. For me personally, that's about as far as I'd go in using any of these projection myself ...they merely represent a good estimate of the election ... especially only a few hours after polls closed. But some media personalities, modelers, candidates, voters act as if these projections are the raw vote feed itself. Far from the truth. MSM knows this. Heck, some STILL point to graphics from CNN and Fox changing live (as some intern refreshes their excel sheet) as evidence of fraud.

More importantly in my opinion, is how counties release and publish their raw results. Because that, in addition to media projections, has become just has important as the count itself.

note: i wrote this fast .. errors my own.

Quote:

---

Back to Fox. Fox Decision Desk did not know how many ballots were outstanding. Did they claim they did? I don't think so. No, I think their model spit out Biden, it either automatically updated graphics or triggered an intern to, overseen by Mishkin, and then if I recall the Fox personalities see it change live and are a bit perplexed.

---

According to Rupert Murdoch in his call to Kushner later that night, they did. Biden won and "it wasn't even close."

Call Kushner and Murdoch liars but that Time magazine article that admitted to stealing the election put too much emphasis on the Fox Arizona call for Biden. That was the stand down call for them. Planned riots were called off because of it. They knew the steal was successful. Or in their twisted terms "fortified" election.