Discover more from ☕️ Coffee & Covid 2023 🦠
☕️ C&C NEWS ☙ Thursday, November 10, 2022 ☙ VOTE INJECTIONS 🦠
An spicy election update on all the important contested elections, plus a quick roundup of what else you need to know.
Good morning, C&C, it’s Thursday! We’re now two days after the Tuesday elections, and this morning we have an election update on the important contested elections, plus a couple quick roundup items.
🗞 *THE C&C ARMY POST* 🗞
🪖 ERRATA: Yesterday I erroneously illustrated an accurate story on new peace initiatives from Ukraine by using an old headline from March. The error was misleading and confusing. I had the story right, but moving too quickly, I screen-grabbed the wrong headline for the article. (Before time constraints arose, I was planning to use the March headline in a longer story, about the last time Ukraine talked peace in March before NATO interfered.) After realizing the error, I removed the story from the online version (leaving editorial marks). I apologize.
🗞*ELECTION NEWS AND COMMENTARY* 🗞
Here’s where we stand as of this morning:
🔥 There’s a giant anti-Trump narrative deploying, apparently intended to discourage him from even announcing his 2024 run. One of the most obvious indications is corporate media’s nonstop reporting that “Trump candidates lost badly” in the elections Tuesday. For example:
This is a fake corporate media narrative, and not even a very good one. President Trump endorsed 183 candidates. Of those, 174 won. If, in order to get credit, Trump’s candidates had to perform better than THAT, I’d like to know who’s beaten that record.
Let’s see Biden’s record of endorsements and how THEY performed.
Meanwhile, popular and feisty ex-press-secretary Kayleigh McEnany thinks Trump should “pause” any announcement about 2024 until all elections are over, including the pending Georgia runoff.
I kind of agree with that one.
The New York Post appears to be on board with the new narrative:
Editor’s note: I have not yet disclosed my opinion on 2024, or even hinted at it. So don’t assume because I praise or criticize either Trump or DeSantis that means I’ve taken a side. I like them both. I also think it would be a horrible mistake for conservatives to go to war over this. We need to work it out somehow without giving democrats a chance to make it a wedge issue.
📈 Just as independent analysts predicted, Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake’s chances continued to improve throughout the day yesterday, as Arizona’s Secretary of State — run by Lake’s opponent, Katie Hobbs — diligently and meticulously continued counting votes at glacial speeds. In other words, NOT at the speed of science, whatever THAT is.
In interviews late yesterday, Kari Lake seemed very optimistic:
There are still 650,000 uncounted votes — nearly a quarter of the total. And, Lake says those uncounted votes include Election Day ballots and heavily-Republican drop-off ballots. Soundig a smidge fed up, Kari assured Tucker, “Day one, I’m going to take my hand off the Bible. We’re issuing a declaration of invasion at the border, and [then] I’m getting the legislators to a special session to change our elections so that they are fair, honest, and transparent.”
Tucker and Kari agreed the solution includes having just one election DAY instead of an entire election SEASON, along with paper ballots, of course. Kari also said the state needs to move back to using small precincts (like Florida) instead of these large voting centers where it’s easy to have problems.
📈 Nineteen hours ago — a day and a half late — corporate media finally threw in the towel and called the election for Ron Johnson, Wisconsin’s newly-re-elected Senator.
Corporate media was hardest hit by the announcement.
Letting you know how important HE thinks Johnson’s re-election was, Dr. Peter McCullough published a Substack yesterday headlined, “The Vital Importance of Senator Ron Johnson’s Reelection.”
🔥 Georgians learned yesterday they have their work cut out for them, as the Walker-Warnock race officially headed toward a runoff, with a margin too close to call.
In 2020, democrats sank conservative hopes for a runoff by convincing many voters that it wasn’t worth turning out, which depressed conservative turnout and ensure the democrats got control of the Senate.
You Georgians need to make sure that doesn’t happen again this time.
🔥 Nevada Republican candidate Joe Lombardo widened his lead and now looks to be far enough ahead to safely be called Nevada’s next governor, defeating democrat incumbent Steve Sisolak by a margin too big for cheating to help.
🔥 As of last evening, Nevada Republican candidate Adam Laxalt was feeling very confident that he would win the Nevada Senate seat, displacing democrat incumbent Cortez Masto. But overnight mail-in ballot dumps have considerably closed Laxalt’s lead.
Arizona’s liberal voting laws could stand a few updates.
🔥 I have seen a lot of chatter about potential cheating in the high profile races, especially in Michigan, Georgia, Arizona and Pennsylvania. There might have been cheating, who knows, it would sure explain bizarre results like Pennsylvanians electing a brain-damaged man to represent them in the Senate without one scrap of proof from a doctor suggesting he can do the job.
Like me, you may have seen alarming looking charts of sudden vote spikes, like this one from the Walker-Warnock race:
That spike in Warnock’s favor, right when Walker was pulling even, sure looks troubling, like it might be a timely booster injection of fraudulent ballots. It’s odd enough that someone on the Walker campaign should demand an explanation from Georgia elections officials, and then they should demand evidence if the explanation doesn’t make sense, or if they don’t get an explanation.
But WE can’t know for sure without more. I thought I’d type up a little primer of some basics about how elections and vote counting work. Some of you may already be well-familiar with this stuff and can skip ahead.
Generally, states control voting and set the election laws in their state. Counties *supervise* voting, and create procedures to manage elections. Counties are usually divided up into precincts where people physically vote, excepting early voting, mail-in voting, and drop-off voting, which happen at other designated places. Each precinct is managed by a ‘clerk’ or ‘supervisor.’
Here’s a very basic diagram for you:
Depending on the state, early votes, mail-in/absentee votes, and dropped-off ballot box votes are usually already counted by the time the polls close on Election Day. Those are usually the very first votes recorded, and are the first ones to show up on the reports right after the polls close.
The real-time vote data that streams in over the hours after polls close usually comes from Election Day voting, as data from the precincts comes in to each county supervisor’s office for counting. Those results are then transmitted up to the state.
Precints report to county supervisors of elections, and county supervisors of elections report to the state.
Precinct information doesn’t always immediately come in when the polls close. For example, some states require anyone standing in line when the polls close must be allowed to vote, even if that takes two hours after the official cut off time.
In some states, precincts use dial-up modems or wifi routers to upload their cast ballot data. Others transport memory cards taking from precinct scanning machines to the supervisor’s headquarters for loading into the tabulation software system.
Because of the electronic machines, votes come in to the supervisor’s office in precinct-level batches. So a large heavily-democrat precinct can cause an apparent ‘spike’ in votes, and would show results like in the example above. You’d want to see a smaller spike for the Republican candidate too in that case.
Cheaters know this too, so the existence of any large spike probably requires explanation, even if everything else looks right. It’s the candidate’s job to ask those questions in real time. Later, in most states, citizens can get reports via public records requests showing the vote breakdown by precinct.
On the other hand, a spike like the one shown above could signal something more problematic, like a tardy batch of mailed-in ballots, which would raise serious questions like why weren’t they already counted at the beginning of the evening?
That’s what Walker’s team might need to find out about Warnock spike.
Candidates carefully watch precinct-level reporting, which is what Lindell’s team should be doing, rather than watching state-level data coming in from news networks. The ’spike’ might have come from a well-known heavily-blue precinct and could have been expected, saving a lot of speculation.
There are several ways to “smell test” precinct-level cast vote reports. For example, well before the election, candidates know exactly how many registered democrats and registered republicans live in each precinct. Going in to the election, candidates usually already know how many people in each precinct already voted right before the election. Most of that information is available from public records in most states.
So, there are easy ways to do rough tests on by comparing a precinct’s totals against the known registered voters, to see if the reported totals makes sense. It’s not perfect, but candidates aren’t operating completely in the blind, either.
That said, early voting and — especially — mail-in voting pose problems, because there are just too many opportunities for bad actors to manipulate the system and too few ways to double-check the data.
For example, here in Florida, we recently discovered a ballot-harvesting operation in densely-populated Orange County, where harvesters were paid $10 each for ballots collected from low-income folks. And because it was trivially easy to request mail-in ballots, we suspect that harvesters were really the ones making the requests, to make sure everyone in those neighborhoods got a ballot that could be harvested.
I would be SHOCKED if this wasn’t happening all over the country. Harvesting is what I think is happening in those cases you hear about where a supervisor automatically mails ballots to every registered voter in the county. It’s not complicated.
Historically, it would have been too hard and too expensive for harvesters to swing a national election. Pre-Covid, mail-in (absentee) ballots were only provided to people showing a good reason, like living overseas, being disabled, and so forth. And it’s expensive to pay a lot of harvesters.
But now, with new covid rules, and with Soros cash and Zuckerbucks, it’s not only feasible, but likely. In fact, we’ve already confirmed at least one large, well-organized group operating in Orange County.
And that’s only ONE example of organized cheating.
The solution is same-day voting using serialized, watermarked paper ballots that are counted by hand.
🗞*WORLD NEWS AND COMMENTARY* 🗞
🔥 Oddly, right after Gregg Phillips and Catherine Engelbrecht were released from prison, yesterday the New York Times ran a story headlined, “L.A. Drops Criminal Charges Against Election Software Executive.” The sub-headline explained, “Eugene Yu was accused of illegally sending data about poll workers to China, in a case that became fodder for election deniers.”
The story is bizarre. I have never known a criminal case to be dismissed so quickly after it was filed. It should have taken at least a year. Even the Times seems to have realized how odd it was. Here’s how they described the invisible rationale for Yu’s dismissal:
The district attorney’s office said in a statement that it had dropped the case against the executive, Eugene Yu, because of concerns about the “pace of the investigation” and the “potential bias in the presentation” of evidence in the case. The office said the county had assembled a new team to “determine whether any criminal activity occurred.”
Bias? Who was biased? The investigators? The D.A.? Cops? And, what bias? Racial bias? Why “potential” bias? And, pace of the investigation? It’s just getting started! Normal criminal investigations take months and years. They just filed charges last month.
That’s not all. Even the Times, which reiterated several times the charges against Yu had nothing whatsoever to do with changing election results, still seemed dissatisfied with the D.A.’s non-explanation for why charges were abruptly dropped, when the original case seemed clear. The Times wondered about things:
The abrupt dismissal left several unanswered questions about the case and Mr. Yu’s suspected activities. The district attorney’s office did not clarify whether the company had, in fact, stored data in China. It was also not clear whether additional criminal or civil charges could be filed against Mr. Yu or Konnech from Los Angeles County or dozens of other counties that use Konnech’s election management software.
“Unanswered questions” is kind of an understatement. This sure LOOKS politically-motivated. I doubt any citizen lacking high-level political connections could get a criminal case dismissed in under 30 days. And the fact that people with high-level political connections apparently CAN do this is very upsetting.
If this dismissal was legit, LA’s District Attorney should have taken great pains to explain EXACTLY why Yu’s case was being dismissed, to avoid just this kind of speculation about what really happened. The lack of transparency screams “cover up.”
Don’t Yu worry though. They’ll Konnech the dots, sooner or later. But you should probably start learning Chinese. Just saying.
💉 Of all places, the Miami Herald ran a vaccine-skeptical story last week, headlined, “COVID Booster May Lower Protection Against Omicron Reinfection, Study Finds. Here’s Why.” The fact that a science-loving liberal newspaper like the Miami Herald could deny vaccine science like this is ten times worse than the horrors of climate change.
Anyway, the article reported on a Qatar study titled “COVID-19 primary series and booster vaccination and immune imprinting.” According to the Herald, the researchers found that triple-jabbed patients were more often reinfected with an Omicron variant than were twice-jabbed patients.
In other words, that one more jab was one jab too many. Should’ve stuck with two.
Researchers concluded the higher risk of reinfection occurred because “the immune response against the primary omicron infection was compromised by differential immune imprinting in those who received a third booster dose, consistent with emerging laboratory science data.”
That’s a mouthful, but “immune imprinting” occurs when exposure to part of a virus through vaccination subsequently suppresses a person’s immune response against future new variants. The notion is that the immune system can get “locked in” to a specific past variant by a vaccine, becoming ineffective at countering new variant types.
This happens mostly when the virus is a type that quickly evolves. Like coronaviruses. They’ve known about immune imprinting for a long time. Some people even warned it could happen with covid jabs.
Anyway, according to the study and the Herald article, not only does the third shot NOT work, but it also makes you MORE likely to catch covid. That means it’s working! Haha, the experts euphemistically call this kind of vaccine failure “negative efficacy.” It’s like buying a fire-sprinkler system that short circuits, making it more likely your house will burn down.
In other words, they’re a garbage product. But good luck getting your money back. All jabs are final.
Have a terrific Thursday! I’ll see you back here tomorrow for more, when I can hopefully get beyond the election news and back to roundups.
C&C is moving the needle and changing minds. If you can, I could use your help getting the truth out and spreading optimism and hope: https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/-learn-how-to-get-involved-
Truth Social: @jchilders98
C&C Swag! www.shopcoffeeandcovid.com
Emailed Daily Newsletter: https://www.coffeeandcovid.com