Login/Sign up

World Association of International Studies

Post Hacked or Stolen? A Final Look at the 2020 Numbers
Created by John Eipper on 12/09/20 4:17 AM

Previous posts in this discussion:


Hacked or Stolen? A Final Look at the 2020 Numbers (A. J. Cave, USA, 12/09/20 4:17 am)

The burning question:

In the late 19th century, what the church-going public wanted to know more than anything else was whether the flood of the new information from the clay tablets, tombs, and trophies from the Ancient Near East confirmed or contradicted the Bible.

In the late year 2020, what we want to know is whether the US presidential elections were "hacked" in favor of the Democratic party candidate and "stolen" from the incumbent Republication President.

My thought process:


In regards to the Dominion voting machines, it is impossible to know based on the current information available from the election officials across the US.

The official soundbite is that "the 2020 elections were the most secure."  But how they have reached that conclusion and what methodology they have used to verify their assumptions is not transparent.

There are a number of ways the officials responsible for the elections could have or should have checked the results. The most straightforward way was to check the software code. That option is no longer available, since that "code" could have been wiped out by multiple rewrites. Another way would have been to re-run the mail-in ballots through the machines and check the paper printouts to see if they matched. Across the 28 states that use these machines, that's not a trivial process, but doable. For those ballots cast in person, sample printouts could have been verified by the voters themselves. This is an oversimplification of the hardware/firmware/software combinations that could have failed at multiple points. I don't know about CISA, but NSA, CIA and FBI have enough security experts on their payrolls to test these voting systems. The typical testing of these types of systems for certification is usually done on one or a couple of machines. It does not mean that all the machines are or have been tested.

Hacking remains a possibility, but it would have been crazy difficult to pull off because of the complexity across states and election rules. If hacking happened, it probably took at least couple of years to plan and prepare. That would have been extremely expensive and not for the faint-at-heart to execute.


I don't know what governing law applies here. But the President and his people were not able to get their key message(s) to the registered voters through the national media and social media outlets, mostly due to being blocked or flagged and censored.

In a nutshell, the key campaign messages of the president remained at the local media level. The social and traditional media were very successful in labeling anything "Trump" as fake and false. By the same token, the same outlets protected Joe Biden from any up-close and personal scrutiny. Hunter Biden's dealings in China and Ukraine were dismissed as fake or irrelevant. Ukraine is a bit player in Hunter Biden drama, but China is major. They basically bought access to the Vice President of the US during the President Obama administration for a billion dollars. That "investment" looks cheap, since that Vice President is now the next US President, deciding the fate of US-China relations.

The better term to describe what happened at the 2020 U.S. presidential elections is that the sitting president was overthrown by the liberal media: The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC and their derivatives (bloggers, alt-media, talking heads) and by the influencers, movie personalities and performers, celebrities, singers, and sports players on Silicon Valley's Twitter and Facebook.

Classic death by a thousand cuts

In the last couple of days, three paid commentators from MSNBC have left the network to join the Biden camp. Jon Meacham, the 51-year-old historian and former editor of Newsweek--RIP--who has been painting President Trump as the biggest threat to democracy on MSNBC over the last four years, wrote Biden's "Restore the Soul of America" victory speech. He was terminated for not disclosing the conflict of interest. He is going to be Biden's speech writer and can return to MSNBC as an unpaid guest.


10% of voters who voted for Biden have said that they would not have voted for him had they known about the Hunter Biden-China dealings, especially with the role of China in Covid-19 pandemic. Biden received 81,271,129 votes. 10% of that is 8,127,222, or roughly 8 million votes less. The poll didn't publish the distribution of the spread, so I can't say if that gap would have impacted the electoral votes, but would have annulled the popular vote advantage.


As of last Friday, California certified the 55 electoral votes, giving Biden 279 electoral votes (270 needed to win the election).

In the 13 swing states, Biden leads with a total of 20,682 votes. That's a pretty small number.


The 2020 presidential elections were actually "driven'" by the national media, possibly for the sake of ratings and paid memberships.

However, 74,209,290 or roughly 74 million Americans, believe that the 2020 presidential elections were rigged by the Democrats. That's a pretty big number.


My totals have been consistently higher than the numbers reported by the Associate Press. I thought that was my error.

But, as of December 7th, Pearl Harbor Day, both numbers have converged and the difference is zero. The reason for the earlier errors was the sloppy reporting by AP. They reported the individual state updates, but never bothered to update the totals.

Here are the current numbers (still subject to change):

Biden 81,271,129; 51.4%

Trump 74,209,290; 46.9%

Other 2,704,107; 1.8%

Difference in favor of Biden 7,061,839

Total voted 158,184,526

Total eligible to vote 237,276,789

% of eligible voters voted 66.7%

Highest turnout in Minnesota 79.9%

Lowest turnout in Oklahoma 55%


Biden 11,109,764

Trump 6,005,961

Difference in favor of Biden 5,103,803

New York:

Biden 5,244,006

Trump 3,251,230

Difference in favor of Biden 1,992,776

California + New York in favor of Biden 7,096,579

Eliminating California and New York popular vote from popular votes difference -34,740

(means popular vote concentration is in California and New York, with the rest reversing the popular vote difference)

Swing states:

Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Wisconsin

Difference in favor of Biden 20,682

I read this as the signal that the Electoral College vote now mainly works in abstraction, where in reality, California (big tech center) and New York (big money center) are providing the big media (communication) backbone to crown (and dethrone) presidents.

JE comments:  A. J., why do you use the verb "dethrone"?  The whole point of elections is to prevent thrones from existing in the first place--accountability and all that.

Regardless, I believe we can all agree on one thing:  the election was close, but not quite as close as several we've had in recent memory.  It will be up to the loser in 2024 to establish the historical precedent:  either s/he will graciously concede and we return to the time-honored tradition, or protest the result and ensure that every four years for eternity, we'll have accusations of election shenanigans.  If that is the case, then Trump will truly have left his mark on history.

Rate this post
Informational value 
Reader Ratings (0)
Informational value0%

Visits: 312


Please login/register to reply or comment: Login/Sign up

  • US Elections 2020: Another Burning Question (Paul Preston, -UK 12/10/20 3:35 AM)
    Let me ask another burning question related to the US election.

    Why is the assumption that, if there has been hacking of the machines, it has been done only by the Democrats? Given the determination of Mr Trump to win at all costs, not to mention his tenuous relationship with ethical behaviour, not to mention the superior power of the Presidency, is not equally likely that, if there was hacking, some of it was done in the Republican interest?

    JE comments:  Excellent point, Paul.  I suppose the logical answer is that Republican hacking, if there was any, didn't turn out so well.  We've scrutinized the results in Georgia, a Republican-controlled state that voted for Biden.  There were no Democratic-controlled states that went for Trump.  Might this be "proof" of something...?

    Please login/register to reply or comment:

    • What is Meant by "Hacking" an Election? (A. J. Cave, USA 12/11/20 3:29 AM)
      In mulling over Sir Paul Preston's burning question about the possibility of hacking the US Presidential elections by the Republicans, it is certainly a possibility, just like all other hackings. But, in my view, highly improbable.

      At a very basic level, if there was massive hacking (other than typical election fraud), then we should have seen a sweep, either by the Democrats or by the Republicans in the congressional races--politically advantageous for either party, and technically a freebie (president + congress, on the same ballot) without any additional overhead. Our Electoral College vote favors the 51% model. So, all such an algorithm had to do was to push the votes over the 51 threshold--not 100%.

      Democrats lost seats in the House, but maintained a majority, and the Senate is still in play.


      In most massive hackings, we normally don't know who. We just know or think we know what they did, usually long after the fact. Just couple of days ago, FireEye, one of Silicon Valley's largest cybersecurity firms, disclosed that it was targeted and hacked by a "state actor" (possibly the Russians, Chinese, or other smaller players, like Iranians and North Koreans), using a combination of methods not seen before. The hackers stole the tools that FireEye uses to test the networks of its clients. It's like breaking into a police station and stealing all the ammo (firearms, etc.).

      There's also a big difference between hacking and cyber attacks.

      In cyber attacks, hackers aim to manipulate, damage and destroy a network(s).

      In more common hackings, hackers want to have fun, for bragging rights (kids), or just steal data and use or sell to data brokers (professionals). This is where the infamous Yahoo email hack in 2013-2014 falls, where at least 1 billion email accounts were compromised (including mine).

      If the 2020 elections were hacked, the hack falls into the cyber attack category--manipulating the data.

      Since the voting machines are distributed among 28 states with various rules, the "hack" needed a more granular planning and execution that is uncharacteristic for impulsive and impatient younger hackers and not lucrative enough for professional hackers. So, it falls into the category of state players, either ours, or others, for political gains. So, the question is whether the GOP as an institution and or as individual Republicans, have the expertise and the financial resources to pull off something like this at scale. Same goes for Democrats.

      Among US governmental agencies, only NSA, FBI and CIA have these kinds of capabilities at their fingertips. There is no indication that any of these agencies are particularly pro-Trump to risk their necks.

      And, then, there is the Covid-19 factor, which complicates everything.

      Battleground states could have also changed election voting rules due to Covid that could have confused the voters--both elderly and newbies not used to voting. Deciphering the 2020 elections is already an industry.

      JE comments:  A. J. makes a convincing argument:  if either side (Democrats or Republicans) engaged in hacking, they didn't do a very good job.  The Republicans for obvious reasons (their guy lost), but the Democrats could have shifted just a handful of already close races to take control of the Senate, in addition to the White House.

      Monday (December 14th) is the celebrated Electoral College "meeting" date.  This event should put Decision '20 to rest, but it inevitably will not.

      Please login/register to reply or comment:

      • It's Still Not Over: Texas Lawsuit Against PA, GA, MI, WI (George Aucoin, -France 12/11/20 2:30 PM)
        With all due respect to A. J. Cave (love her analytical approach) and Sir Paul Preston, discussion of this this noun "hack" when considering the US presidential election of 2020 artfully sidesteps the real issue before us.

        Fraud is the actual subject of discussion, however distasteful. The problem with discussing hacking is that it obscures the discernible intent of the actor(s), whereas fraud does not. Fraud necessarily implies immoral, illegal intent and this is why I believe it has not heretofore been a topic of polite discussion on the WAIS network.

        The basis for the incredulity of a Joe Biden win that simply will not go away is the appearance of massive coordinated electoral fraud. As in any criminal analysis, it follows that the Democratic Party had motive and opportunity. The evidence of actus reus is overwhelming in terms of firsthand observer testimony, video recordings of ballot counting rooms, electronic election machines and software having the programmed ability to fractionalize votes and, of course, the unprecedented ballot counting stoppage of four autonomous and independent US States--Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia--all within minutes of each other on election night followed by a resumption of counting in the wee hours in which the lead irrevocably changed hands. The missing element in this criminal analysis is proof of mens rea, or criminal intent. The obvious reason why the Republican Party isn't suspect of the same crime is:

        --No dead people voted for Donald Trump

        --No underage voters voted for Donald Trump

        --No unregistered voters in the ballot receiving state voted for Donald Trump

        --No illegal aliens (that's undocumented visitors to most of you) voted for Donald Trump

        --No felons voted for Donald Trump

        --No voters registered in more than one state voted for Donald Trump

        --No electronic voting machines fractionalized votes in favor of Donald Trump

        (For those of you aghast at the claims of this non-exclusive list--prove me wrong.)

        The most recent election suit filed in this matter relies on no such analysis. State of Texas v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of Georgia, State of Wisconsin and State of Michigan rests on the legal theory that the compact required by the US Constitution (Art. I Sect. 4) by the independent and autonomous US States require them to conduct their separate presidential elections based only upon the laws of their individual legislatures. Not decisions by their State Courts, not decisions by their State Governors or their Secretaries of State, but explicitly by their respective State Legislature only. The four-square complaint filed by Texas, and joined by at least 17 other US States, is that failure to convene an election under this constitutionally prescribed requirement disadvantages the voters in any compliant US State in a national election. Naturally, many US States (all with Biden majorities) have moved to dismiss the suit in solidarity with the defendant states.

        Contentious right? Oh indeed. And consequential. The US Supreme Court cannot dodge this filing, the first on this matter in which it has original jurisdiction. Dismissing this complaint will not mollify some 74,000,000 voters in all 50 States. As everybody on WAIS has certainly surmised, this one is for all the marbles. That's why so many are holding their breath.

        I'm not. The advance of the Left since the early 1960s--bigger, more brazen, and more outrageous every year--has finally come to this epic contest on the battlefield of American politics. Not to sound overly dramatic, but not since 1865 has the Nation's future turned on such an outcome. The individual inaugurated on Jan 20, 2021, Donald Trump or Joe Biden, will signify the success or failure of the United States as the oldest ongoing experiment in representative government and federalism.

        JE comments:   George, I found a map that breaks down the different state laws on voting rights.  See below:  you are correct that the two states (Maine and Vermont) that permit voting from prison went for Biden, but we can be confident it wasn't at 100%.  And they have a combined total of just 7 electoral votes.  So yes:  some felons voted for Trump.  Many states, red and blue alike, permit voting by felons after they serve their sentences (some before, some after parole/probation).


        Could you give us a simpler explanation of the argument Texas is making to the Supreme Court?  Are they saying that any state with election rules established by governors, courts, or Secretaries of State should have its results thrown out?  Presumably, the four states in question would then allow the legislatures to decide, which conveniently all have Republican majorities.

        Or if they don't get their way, at least one Texas official has a different solution:  Texit:


        Please login/register to reply or comment:

Trending Now

All Forums with Published Content (44633 posts)

- Unassigned

Culture & Language

American Indians Art Awards Bestiary of Insults Books Conspiracy Theories Culture Ethics Film Food Futurology Gender Issues Humor Intellectuals Jews Language Literature Media Coverage Movies Music Newspapers Numismatics Philosophy Plagiarism Prisons Racial Issues Sports Tattoos Western Civilization World Communications


Capitalism Economics International Finance World Bank World Economy


Education Hoover Institution Journal Publications Libraries Universities World Bibliography Series


Biographies Conspiracies Crime Decline of West German Holocaust Historical Figures History Holocausts Individuals Japanese Holocaust Leaders Learning Biographies Learning History Russian Holocaust Turkish Holocaust


Afghanistan Africa Albania Algeria Argentina Asia Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Belize Bolivia Brazil Canada Central America Chechnya Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark East Europe East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador England Estonia Ethiopia Europe European Union Finland France French Guiana Germany Greece Guatemala Haiti Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran (Persia) Iraq Ireland Israel/Palestine Italy Japan Jordan Kenya Korea Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Latin America Liberia Libya Mali Mexico Middle East Mongolia Morocco Namibia Nations Compared Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North America Norway Pacific Islands Pakistan Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Polombia Portugal Romania Saudi Arabia Scandinavia Scotland Serbia Singapore Slovakia South Africa South America Southeast Asia Spain Sudan Sweden Switzerland Syria Thailand The Pacific Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan UK (United Kingdom) Ukraine USA (America) USSR/Russia Uzbekistan Venezuela Vietnam West Europe Yemen Yugoslavia Zaire


Balkanization Communism Constitutions Democracy Dictators Diplomacy Floism Global Issues Hegemony Homeland Security Human Rights Immigration International Events Law Nationalism NATO Organizations Peace Politics Terrorism United Nations US Elections 2008 US Elections 2012 US Elections 2016 US Elections 2020 Violence War War Crimes Within the US


Christianity Hinduism Islam Judaism Liberation Theology Religion

Science & Technology

Alcohol Anthropology Automotives Biological Weapons Design and Architecture Drugs Energy Environment Internet Landmines Mathematics Medicine Natural Disasters Psychology Recycling Research Science and Humanities Sexuality Space Technology World Wide Web (Internet)


Geography Maps Tourism Transportation


1-TRIBUTES TO PROFESSOR HILTON 2001 Conference on Globalizations Academic WAR Forums Ask WAIS Experts Benefactors Chairman General News Member Information Member Nomination PAIS Research News Ronald Hilton Quotes Seasonal Messages Tributes to Prof. Hilton Varia Various Topics WAIS WAIS 2006 Conference WAIS Board Members WAIS History WAIS Interviews WAIS NEWS waisworld.org launch WAR Forums on Media & Research Who's Who