Someone posted this on X
Here's what happened on Thursday in the disbarment trial of Trump's attorney John Eastman. The main findings came from Dr. Stanley Young, who the judge actually agreed to designate as an expert unlike all the other experts who she claims aren't, who discussed his findings of states that had bizarre vote spikes for Biden in 2020 compared to Hillary Clinton in 2016.
Here's the damning part from his report (note if Dems' explanation was accurate, that the mood in swing states trended for Biden, then why did Ohio trend for Trump????):
"ALL of the top states where Biden picked up significant votes from 2016, in some way relaxed the voting regulations from what they had done before. Conversely, Ohio, Louisiana, Alabama, and Utah required that all absentee ballots be received by the day before Election Day (November 2). Trump not only won in those four states, but he also showed an improvement over the 2016 results.”
That quoted comment is false, from what I recall of Arizona's voting rules. Arizona had mail in balloting prior to 2020 and kept those rules in place for the 2020 election. I don't recall and don't care to look for the other states, but the fact that he is wrong with Arizona calls his claims into question.
The other interesting thing I noticed, in 4 of the 5 swing states, Trump received a higher percentage of the vote in 2020 than he did in 2016. In Arizona, Trump went from 48.7 to 49.1%; in Michigan he went from 47.5 to 48%; in Pennsylvania he went from 48.6 to 48.8%, and in Wisconsin he went from 47.2% to 48.8%. Georgia is the outlier, Trump went from 51 to 49.3%.
The difference appears to be that the Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson got far more of the vote in 2016 than in 2020 -- getting between 3-4% of the vote in 4 of these states, and in the fifth Johnson only got 2.4% but there was still roughly 4% that voted third party. So, while Trump did better, getting some of the Republican votes that went to Johnson in 2016, most of the Johnson votes appear to have gone toward Biden in 2020.
It would seem that most of the "anomalies" are from Trump being a rather unpopular candidate, at least among some groups of Republicans, in 2016; causing a large number to vote for a third party. This seems to be particularly true in Utah, where there are 24% more Republicans than Democrats but Trump could only get 45.5% of the vote -- enough to win the state (Clinton only got 27.5%) -- but with more than a quarter of the vote going to third party candidates.
What caused the anomalies in 2020 are because voters tended to have decided on Trump, and either vote for Trump or Biden and not third party. In 2020, rather than third party, some chose to vote for Trump while more decided they'd had enough and would vote for the Democrat.
Now, you can claim you see the results differently, and that is fine. In the end, it merely points out the issue with statistics -- particularly someone trying to claim statistical anomalies that "prove" voter fraud; that for every "anomaly" that can be pointed out, there can be other explanations -- also "proven" -- that show the opposite. In this case, from my experience, when you really look at all the statistics, particularly combined with exit polls, you find that Trump lost because some groups of Republicans (in particular suburban mothers) did not vote for Trump in 2020, who either voted Trump or voted third party in 2016. This also explains Trump's drop in Georgia, if you look at exit polls from 2016 and 2020, Trump lost the vote of suburban women (this is in Republican counties with Republican election officials), which caused him to lose in Georgia.