News networks have boiled down the widespread skepticism about the Los Angeles mayoral election into a simplistic, bite-sized story about President Trump spreading “baseless conspiracy theories.” Despite numerous segments on left-wing cable (CNN and MS NOW) and broadcast (ABC, CBS, and NBC) networks which acknowledged the President’s criticism of the process — not to mention incessant claims of “no evidence” — none of these networks has acknowledged any of the details about the election that are raising eyebrows.
When election night concluded in Los Angeles, Democratic incumbent Karen Bass led the race with about 37 percent of the vote. Behind her were Spencer Pratt (~30%) and Nithya Raman (~20%). Due to the rules of California’s “jungle primary,” in which the top two finishers always advance to a general election run-off regardless of party affiliation, Pratt was not guaranteed to advance despite being the only Republican in the race.
In the subsequent week, Raman, somewhat incredibly, would go on to receive over 40 percent of the vote across all post-election night, mail-in ballots — more than double her share of support at the end of election night. Not only was this enough for Raman to overtake Pratt and secure a spot in the general election, but it was also more than the share of support that Karen Bass received from post-election night ballots.
Obviously, the optics of such an astronomically small statistical anomaly are troubling. They were further exacerbated by the fact that ballots were being flown into election offices by the helicopter load. To make matters worse, when the Department of Justice subpoenaed California for voter registration information, the state refused to comply.
None of this is proof of fraud, but it’s certainly circumstantial evidence that suggests something strange may have gone on.
The news media, meanwhile, who have spent the past week chanting “no evidence of fraud,” have somehow neglected to mention any of the above details in their reporting. That’s strange, because if none of it counts as evidence of fraud, one should assume they’d have no problem with discussing it, or at least acknowledging it at all.
