A Pennsylvania television station ignited a flurry of conspiracy theories when it aired the statewide presidential election results on a graphic, though the election is days away.

The mistake happened on Sunday, but it picked up speed on Wednesday when conservative media outlets, social media skeptics and conspiracy theorists got wind of it, many claiming that this is “proof” the election is rigged.

The flub occurred while the station was airing a Formula 1 race. Viewers then noticed at the bottom of their screen a graphic showing Vice President Kamala Harris winning Pennsylvania by 52% compared to former President Donald Trump’s 47%. This stirred confusion and concern, with even Elon Musk, the chairman of X, weighing in, calling it a Freudian slip.

However, the station that was responsible says the mistake was simply a test that accidentally made it on the air and that there is no evidence of any fraud.

In a statement, WNEP-TV says the numbers were “randomly generated test results set out to help news organizations make sure their equipment is working properly in advance of election night.” WNEP said it “regrets the error and apologizes apologized for any confusion.” It said it has taken steps to ensure the mistake is not repeated.

RELATED STORY | Republicans ask US Supreme Court to block counting of some provisional ballots in Pennsylvania

WNEP-TV also went on to note that it wouldn’t have been able to have access to vote counts anyway, as Pennsylvania law doesn’t allow mail-in ballots to be taken out of their envelopes until 7 a.m. on Election Day and no votes can be counted until after polls closed at 8 p.m.

This mistake is also not unprecedented. A Detroit TV station made a similar error back in 2020, and in 2022, it occurred in Arizona.

Still, the error is being held up as “evidence” of election fraud and misconduct, mostly by Trump and his allies, with no proof. Many supporters of the former president also pointed to the Pennsylvania station being an ABC-affiliated station, as they’ve often criticized the friendship between Harris and Dana Walden, an executive of Disney Entertainment who oversees ABC News. However, the error only aired in the local market and was not affiliated with Disney ABC News.

In the weeks and days leading up to the election, officials around the country have had their hands full fighting this disinformation like this. They insist that despite those isolated incidents though, the integrity of the election system in this country is intact.

Former President Donald Trump may be facing unexpected challenges in Pennsylvania, where new polling shows a dip in his support among white voters—a crucial demographic in the battleground state.

According to the latest Fox News poll, conducted between October 24 and 28 among 1,310 registered voters in Pennsylvania, Trump is leading white voters by only 4 points, 52 percent to Vice President Kamala Harris’ 48 percent. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus percentage points.

White voters are central to Trump’s base. In 2016, 54 percent of the demographic voted for him nationally, giving him a 15-point edge over Hillary Clinton, while 55 percent voted for him in 2020, giving him a 12-point advantage. His lead among white voters was just as large in Pennsylvania in 2020, when he won the demographic by 15 points, according to CNN exit polls.

But polls suggest Trump’s white voter base may be shrinking in Pennsylvania. According to AtlasIntel’s latest poll, conducted between October 25 and 29, Trump leads among white voters by just 6 points. The latest CNN/SSRS poll, conducted between October 23 and 28, showed Trump leading among white voters by just 4 points.

Meanwhile, Quinnipiac University’s latest poll, conducted between October 24 and 28, showed Trump leading among white voters by a larger margin, but still by a smaller amount than previous years, with an 11-point lead. Newsweek has contacted the Trump and Harris campaigns for comment via email.

With the national race tight, Trump’s narrowing base of white voters in Pennsylvania could jeopardize his path to victory in the state—and potentially in the overall election. Pennsylvania, with its 19 critical Electoral College votes, has historically been a bellwether, voting for the winning candidate in 48 of the past 59 elections.

Meanwhile, Pennsylvania’s population is predominantly white and working class, with this demographic making up 75 percent of the state’s residents—making it a crucial component of Trump’s base.

Overall, polls remain extremely tight in Pennsylvania. Harris was leading in the Keystone State after becoming the Democratic nominee, but in the last two weeks Trump has taken the lead, according to 538’s poll tracker, which shows Trump with a slim 0.4-point edge. Pollster Nate Silver’s data similarly puts Trump up by 0.6 points, while RealClearPolitics has him leading by 0.7 points.

But there is still potential for the state to flip in Harris’ favor following remarks by comedian Tony Hinchcliffe at Trump’s rally in Madison Square Garden in New York on Sunday that sparked a firestorm of criticism and dominated news headlines.

Hinchcliffe joked that Puerto Rico was a “floating island of garbage.” While Trump campaign adviser Danielle Alvarez said Hinchcliffe’s controversial remarks “do not reflect the views of President Trump or the campaign,” the joke went over badly. The backlash could hit Trump especially hard in Pennsylvania—the swing state with the highest percentage of Puerto Rican residents with 3.7 percent of the population. In 2020, Joe Biden won the state by 1.2 points after Trump won it in 2016.

On the same day as the Madison Square Garden rally, Harris was in Allentown, Pennsylvania, and used the visit to release a video on her plan for Puerto Rico, which Puerto Rican music icon Bad Bunny shared on his Instagram account.

Early voting data from Pennsylvania shows that more Democrats than Republicans have voted, with registered Democrats making up 57 percent of early voters, compared with 32 percent for Republicans, according to the University of Florida’s early vote tracker. It is unclear what this means for the election since the early vote data reveals only whether voters are registered with a party, not who they are voting for.

We’re down to days and still don’t know who wins the state most say is most needed to win White House. It’s that kind of year.

Not because candidates are so good. But because neither one’s convincing a majority of Pennsylvanians that they’re good enough. That’s just how we see it. And have seen it.

Check this out. I looked at 70 Pennsylvania polls on Kamala Harris or Donald Trump (and, yeah, and I know you’re thinking, geez, get a life). But guess how many times either got above 50%?

Remember, this is in the oh-so-split Keystone State, in polling from the start of the race — right after President Biden got out and backed Harris in July — to the dwindling days of the campaign.

Okay, you don’t have to guess. I’ll tell you. Harris topped 50% just four times. And not by much. She hit 51% in a Bloomberg Poll in August. Then, in September, 52% in a Boston-based MassINC poll, 51% in another Bloomberg Poll, and 51% in a Quinnipiac Poll.

Trump? Topped 50% only once. He got 51% in a September AtlasIntel Poll out of Sao Paulo, Brazil (I don’t know, maybe somebody said, `Just find me a good poll. I don’t care if it’s in South America!’).

The latest of the 70 polls were just before Trump’s Madison Square Garden “lovefest” last Sunday. So, they don’t reflect any impact a speaker calling Puerto Rico “a floating island of garbage” has on the state’s 620,000 eligible Hispanic voters. Nor any effect of Joe `that’s-not-what-I-meant’ Biden then calling Trump supporters “garbage.”

But of the 70 polls, all showing a tight race, 20 were ties, Harris led slightly in 32, Trump led slightly in 18. And the average of the last seven had Trump up, 48.1% to 47.7%. A Quinnipiac poll released Wednesday shows Trump 47%, Harris 46%. Or, as we say in the biz, a virtual tie possibly trending toward Trump.

Now what? Well, now it’s what every election’s about, turnout. Who votes? How much of each candidate’s reliable base shows up? And what about the intangible, slippery, maybe-not-even-voting undecideds? I mean this in the sense of who votes Tuesday and by mail: 1.3 million mail-ins are in; about 2 million mail ballots were requested.

State polls point to candidates’ strongest support: for Harris, women, Blacks and college-educated voters aged 30-to-44 in Philadelphia and Allegheny County; for Trump, white men without college degrees, aged 45-to-64 in central and western counties. Generalizations, I know, and maybe over-stated. But what in politics isn’t?

Plus, this is a squirrely race. And speaking of squirrely, national Democratic guru James Carville, who made his bones in Pennsylvania, wrote in The New York Times he’s “certain” Harris wins. Meanwhile, national polling expert Nate Silver wrote in The Times on the same day he has a “hunch” Trump wins.

As for me, I’m not certain of anything. But I have a hunch. Since this is Pennsylvania – Land of Low Expectations — things won’t go smoothly. I hope I’m wrong.

But there’s mail-in ballot processing, which, thanks to the feeble minds writing our state laws, can’t begin until Election Day. That flaw, left unfixed by our Legislature for four years, could cause conspiracy-inspiring delayed results, as it did in 2020.

State officials expect fewer mail-ins this year (no pandemic), and note county election boards got state grants for more personnel and new equipment to speed the process. We’ll see.

There’s also litigation over improperly filed mail-ins. The state Supreme Court recently ruled voters whose mail-ins are rejected for errors such as being undated can cast “provisional” ballots which can still count. State and national Republicans sought a stay of that court order pending an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

And this stuff we know about. Who knows what else lurks out there?

I keep wondering how history judges this election. U.S. voters chose wisely? U.S. voters chose poorly? Seems it’s up to Pennsylvania voters to write that history.

John Baer may be reached at baer.columnist@gmail.com