Conservative commentator Steven Crowder claims to have found “173K Anonymous Votes” in the Detroit election returns.

Crowder is a good guy, but he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.  The “precincts” with no registered voters are for absentee votes (that’s what AV means).  Some jurisdictions put their absentees in separate “precincts”, which often combine several real precincts together.  (Kalamazoo County used to do this.)  Note that Detroit has 503 real precincts, but only 134 AV precincts.  It’s a dumb system, but that’s how Detroit does it.

Does anyone think local Republicans or the Trump campaign wouldn’t have complained about fake precincts with thousands of votes if there was something here?  They didn’t, because they know how Detroit reports election results.

Recall that Detroit had 1000 FEWER votes for Joe Biden than for Hillary Clinton in 2016, which is hard to square with massive voter fraud there.

From investigative reporter John Solomon, formerly of the The Washington Post, The Washington Times, and The Hill:

Detroit city worker blows whistle, claims ballots were ordered backdated, FBI probing

The FBI is investigating allegations of election fraud in Detroit after a city worker stepped forward and claimed election workers were asked to backdate ballots that had come in after the election deadline had passed, multiple officials said.

A senior law enforcement official in Washington confirmed that an investigation was opened after the whistleblower’s concerns were forwarded from the Michigan Republican Party. “The FBI is investigating,” the official said.

GOP officials in Michigan said the whistleblower was identified and assisted by Phill Kline, the head of the Thomas More Society’s Amistad Project, which has been litigating voting disputes and irregularities across the country for months.

I doubt this would change enough votes to change the outcome of the election, but regardless this needs to be investigated, and any fraud prosecuted.

President:  50.6-47.9 Biden over Trump.  The raw margin was about 146,000.  Close, but not quite enough.

Senate: 49.8-48.3 for Peters over John James.  The raw margin was about 84,000.  That’s probably too large a margin to be due to voter fraud, but any credible allegations of fraud should be investigated.

Proposal 1 (natural resources): 84% yes.

Proposal 2 (privacy): 89% yes.  A rare moment of bipartisan agreement.

Supreme Court:  32% McCormick, 20% Welch for the two winning Ds.  17% Kelly, 14% Swartzle for the two Rs.  Ds take a 4-3 majority on the court.  This will have bad consequences.

State Board of Education:  Ds took both slots, with a 45K vote margin between the second and third candidates.
University of Michigan:  D Mark Bernstein was reelected.  R Sarah Hubbard snagged the second slot with a 12K vote margin over the other D.
Michigan State:  R Pat O’Keefe took the top slot, and D Rema Vassar took second.  D incumbent Brian Mosallam took third, and R Tonya Schuitmaker was fourth.
Wayne State:  R former SOS Terri Land was first, and D Sherley Stancato was second.

Congress:

1. 61-37 for Bergman.  If Bergman keeps his term limits pledge, this seat will be open in 2022.
2. 59-38 for Huizinga.
3. 53-47 for Meijer.  Kent has trended in the wrong direction.  Hopefully Meijer locks it down.
4. 65-32 for Moolenaar.
5. 42-54 for Kildee.  Closer due to Trump’s appeal to blue collar workers.
6. 56-40 Upton.  A better result against the far-left Hoadley.  If Upton is thinking about retirement, 2022 would be a good year to do so.
7. 59-41 Walberg. This is Walberg’s best margin yet in what was once a swing district.
8. 47.3-50.9 for Slotkin.  A stronger candidate could have won.  This district will likely change significantly in redistricting.
9. 38-58 for Andy Levin.
10. 66-34 for McClain.
11. 47.8-50.2 for Stevens.  Esshaki did well under the circumstances.  This district probably gets chopped up in redistricting.
12. 31-66 for Debbie Dingell.
13. 19-78 for Tlaib.
14. 19-79 for Lawrence.

State house.  Republicans lost two seats and picked up two, for no net change.  The majority is now 58-52.  Conservative Jason Wentworth will be the new speaker.

3-9. Rs got 2-7% in the all-Detroit districts.
13. 42-58 for Tullio Liberati.  This district might be worth contesting in the future.
19. 49.8-50.2 for Pohutski (258 votes).  The same margin as in 2018.  Rs should contest this again.
20. 45-55 for Koleszar.  This upscale suburban district was lost in 2018.
23. 47.5-52.5 for Camilleri.  This district must be contested in 2022, when it will be open.
25. 47-53 for Shannon.  This could have been won with a better candidate.
31. 44-56 for Sowerby.  This could be worth more effort in the future.
38. 48.4-51.6 for Breen.  LOSS in an open suburban seat that was close in 2018.
39. 52-47 for Berman against a far-left candidate.  This was heavily targeted by Ds.
40. 42-58 for Manoogian.  This upscale suburban district swung hard in 2018 after long being safe R.
41. 45-55 for Kuppa.  Lost in 2018, but may be worth contesting again.
43. 60-40 for Schroeder.  Some pundits absurdly thought this would be close.
44. 60-40 for Maddock.
45. 52.3-47.7 for Tisdel.  Close win in a district heavily targeted by Ds.
48. 50.5-49.5 for David Martin.  PICKUP in a blue collar suburban Flint district against far-left incumbent Sheryl Kennedy.
50. 46-54 for Sneller.  Close due to Trump performing well in suburban Flint.
59. 64-36 for Carra.  Possibly the most conservative new member.
60. 25-75 for Rogers.  She previously lost the 61st in 2006 and 2008.
61. 46-54 for Morse.  LOSS in an open suburban seat that was close in 2018.
62. 48.7-51.3 for Haadsma.  Another close loss for Dave Morgan.
63. 61-36 for Matt Hall.
66. 59-41 for Beth Griffin.  The D here got some hype, but it wasn’t close.
67. 46-54 for Hope.  This district is sometimes close, but never close enough.
71. 47.3-51.2 for Witwer.  This district was lost in 2018.
72. 55-45 for Steven Johnson.
73. 57-42 for Posthumus.  MIRS had a poll that showed a 1 point race.
79. 57-43 for Wendzel.  The D candidate got a lot of hype here.
91. 60-40 for VanWoerkem.  Big win in a former swing district.
96. 57-43 for Timothy Beson.  PICKUP in a blue collar Bay County against an incumbent who renounced his pro-life position.
98. 59-41 for Annette Glenn.  Much bigger margin than in 2018, when utilities spent heavily.
99. 61-37 for Hauck.
104. 51-47 for John Roth.  Better candidate than the scandal-plagued incumbent.
109. 42-57 for Cambensy.  This district may be worth targeting when open.
110. 58-41 for Markkanen.  This was a surprise pickup in 2018.

In 2022, Rs should target districts 19, 23, 25, 38, 50, 62, and 71.  Of course, there will be a new district map, so some district boundaries or numbers will change.

My ratings turned out to be pretty accurate.  Every race I had at likely or safe for a party was won by that party.  The only lean races I missed were house 48 and 96.  My state house tossups had margins of 0.4, 3.2, 5, 8, and 4.  My lean R races had margins from 4 to 24.  My lean D races had margins of 10, 6, -1, 1, and -14.  The closest margin in a race I had at safe was 5 (house 23).  My lean ratings for Congress had margins of 6, 16, 3.6.

For a long time, those of us on the right have suspected that voter fraud is widespread on the left.  There have been plenty of isolated cases where fraud has been proved, but these were usually small or amateurish.  This allowed democrats to claim that voter fraud was rare and oppose measures to secure elections, branding them ‘voter suppression’.

That all changed a week ago with the publication of a bombshell article in the New York Post.

Confessions of a voter fraud: I was a master at fixing mail-in ballots

A democrat operative from New Jersey, speaking anonymously, has exposed the democrats’ operation.  They collect ballots from unsuspecting voters (ballot harvesting), then steam open the envelopes, and replace the ballots with copies they have filled in.  Postal employees can also collect ballots from the mail do the same thing, or just destroy them.  Nursing home employees can also “help” the elderly fill out ballots.  Homeless people can be bribed to vote their way.

The right has focused most on voter impersonation, while mail vote fraud has always been a bigger threat.  Nonetheless, impersonation is also one of their tactics.

So what can we do?  The most secure way to vote is in person.  If you can’t vote in person, fill out your absentee ballot and bring it to your local clerk yourself.  You absolutely should not trust anyone you don’t know (including postal employees) with your ballot.  Then make sure your friends know this as well.