Basham, the founding director of the Democracy Institute, explained to host Mark Levin that there are "a dozen or more of these metrics ... [that] have a 100% accuracy rate in terms of predicting the winner of the presidential election."
Those metrics, according to Basham, include "party registration trends, how the candidates did in their respective presidential primaries, the number of individual donations, [and] how much enthusiasm each candidate generated in the opinion polls."
WATCH: "WE WILL OPEN YOU UP LIKE A SOFT PEANUT"
"In 2016, they all indicated strongly that Donald Trump would win against most of the public polling," Basham said. "That was again the case in 2020. So if we are to accept that Biden won against the trend of all these non-polling metrics, it not only means that one of these metrics was inaccurate ... for the first time ever, it means that each one of these metrics was wrong for the first time and at the same time as all of the others."
WATCH: HOW WAS JURY SELECTION HANDLED IN TRUMP'S TRIAL?
Another anomaly of the 2020 election, Basham went on to tell Levin, is the fact that Trump performed better in many key voting metrics than he did four years earlier.
A LOOK INSIDE DEMOCRATS' PLAN TO WIN BACK THE HOUSE WITH RECORD INVESTMENT
"If you look at the results, you see how Donald Trump improved his national performance over 2016 by almost 20%," he said. "No incumbent president has ever lost a reelection bid if he's increased his votes [total]. Obama went down by three and a half million votes between 2008 and 2012, but still won comfortably.
"If you look at those results, you see that Donald Trump did very well, even better than four years earlier, with the white working class. He held his own with women and suburban voters against all of most of the polling expectations, did very well with Catholics, and improved his vote among Jewish voters," continued Basham.
DEMS' LAST-MINUTE BID TO SAVE SEATS AMID SOUTHERN BORDER TURMOIL!
Basham suggested Trump's performance was so impressive that if anyone asked 100 observers "who were sequestered for the actual election night" and had been given "the vote breakdown by demographic group" who they thought won the election, "99, at least out of those 100 independent, well-informed observers would say, well, obviously, Trump."
FOX NEWS COLUMNIST TEARS APART MTG'S "RECKLESS AGENDA"
Basham also cited what he called a "historically low ballot rejection rate for absentee and mail-in ballots."
"Rejection rates, which in the primaries earlier this year were well into the double-digits and which historically have often been very, very high in these key swing states, or at least in the key swing counties, we're seeing rejection rates of less than 1%, often very close to to zero," he noted. "Given the increase in absentee balloting and the lack of experience that most of the new voters and those doing the counting would have with those ballots, it is implausible, to put it politely, that that figure would be as low as it was."
Discover alternative ideas that will make you think
Engage in mind bending debate
Earn points, rise in rank, have fun
