/sci/ - Science & Math

Yes. Stats are used only for possible predictions not real evidence of anything. Stats pick and choose for what they want to see and base projections on incomplete data.

>>12312094
Ah so like climate change then

Yes, historical Wisconsin turnout is calculated as votes divided by eligible voters whereas the 89.3% is not reported by Wisconsin but by some retard who divided votes by registered voters and thought he finally foiled Biden’s devious plans

>>12312086
Anomaly which is statistically impossible i.e. fraud

>>12312206
Source?

>>12312206
>>12312094
Elaborate

>>12312233
They are fed.

>>12312156
Yeah the climate has never changed. It's not ever constantly changing. The climate is a lie. Reality isn't real.

>poltards searching for help at board they shit every day since orange mans election

>>12312086
this type of analysis only makes sense if you assume that the election turn outs between years are identical (or sufficiently correlated). You would have to be a blithering retard to think that this hasn't been a particuarly divisive year.

>>12312086
>>12312206
This is being spread Fox News personalities, GOP operatives and /pol/tards and it's based on some idiot that doesn't understand how you calculate voter turnout.

What a fucking joke.

>>12312086

>most polarizing president in the history of the U.S.
>way more people care, both in the right and left
>1/3rd more people vote than average (in a cherry-picked example)
>hurr durr anomaly
>hurr durr fraud

get a clue, brainlets

>>12312086

Well, dems cheated.

>>12312246
Why ask him for a source saying the number is made up before asking OP for a source that gives that number? He could have made up any percent he liked. Is your default to believe everything you hear until someone proves it wrong?

>>12312635
there is fraud though

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-D-2GOswwA&ab_channel=ProjectVeritas

>>12312333
You're a blithering retard for assuming that a plausible explanation is an actual explanation.

>>12312086
I believe that the democrats commited widespread fraud in the swing-states, but a aggregate voter turnout is not one of the reasons I think, and the conclusions and calculations here is inaccurate, yet no fact-checking site has done any actual work into actually debunking this properly and instead half-ass it, expecting to change hearts and minds. So let me explain why this graph is miss leading...

>>12312932
Facts don't care about your feelings.

>>12312086
5.5 standard deviations from the mean being unusual would only apply if this happened with extremely comparable circumstances to those other elections, the 2020 election is a completely different random variable with possibly different mean and variance

>>12312156

>>12312094
The only people who say stupid shit like this are people who know nothing about statistics. It is insane they let people graduate with a STEM degree without making them have to learn statistics. Guess what you stone cold retard? What they don't teach you in school is that if you don't understand statistics you will never be more than a lab tech in any field you go into let alone get published for anything. You are gonna look real stupid trying to present data to anyone without statistical analysis on the results. They will likely laugh you out of their office

>>12312086
Democrats obviously cheated

>>12312329
>it's a /pol/ conspiracy!!!!!!!!
>>>/x/

The 2020 turnout was calculated as (votes received/registered voters), while every other turnout in this graph was calculated as (votes received/total voting age population). If you calculate 2020 in the same way as every other year you get 72.3%. It is embarrassing that people on /sci/ are falling for boomer bait facebook memes like this

imagine if you were as retarded as this guy what life must be like >>12312275

>>12312986
>Democrats obviously cheated
Rent free.

>>12313000
imagine if you're so fucking dense that you can't pick up on the most obvious usage of sarcasm ever

>>12312932
Eat a dick I am not finished

>>12312940
So here, the OP was using two definitions of turnout, one out of voting population and one out of registered voters. The latter was used for the 20202 turnout value and is why it seems so large. I calculated the turnout based on registered voters below.

2020 --> (1,610,030+38,271+7,980+5,417+1,630,569)/(3,684,726 ) = 0.89349031651
2016 --> (2,976,150)/(3,558,877) = 0.83626098907

Thus a 5% increase in voter turnout by this definition is not really an indicator of fraud by any means.

Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Wisconsin
https://elections.wi.gov/elections-voting/statistics/turnout
https://elections.wi.gov/publications/statistics/registered-voters-2016-november-2
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/election-results/wisconsin-2020/

>>12312991
don't be like this faggot, he sucks DIcks and smells of shit. Why? All he did was point out that two different values of turnout was use and didn't take the time to actually fully debunk it. It's lazy sacks of shits like these and others on fact-checking sites that just parrot conclusions without putting in the work to communicate them to their audience. You maggots are why we are in this mess, and should promptly blow your fucking brains out.

>>12313012
I mixed up the comments of >>12312932 and >>12312940

>>12313012
>All he did was point out that two different values of turnout was use and didn't take the time to actually fully debunk it
???
The call of fraud is based on the data point violating the trend, pointing out that the data point was calculated differently than the rest of the data set DOES invalidate that.

>>12312333
>You would have to be a blithering retard to think that this hasn't been a particuarly divisive year
Do you have memory rivaling that of tapeworm? 2016 was comparably divisive, arguably more so with the possibility of "first female president" and look at the turnouts.
You can't see the election past the flapping red flags.

>>12313030
Yes, which is the shortest path to "opposing" the claim, but it is the laziest way of "debunking" it. You only invalidate his conclusion from the graph, not his argument that %turnout data is evidence of fraud like I did >>12313012 . Your a terrible debunker and a lousy poster. SAD!

>>12312635
but why are there only huge turnouts in swing states?

>>12313074
We can only conjecture on that, but it is probably the dems pushing for mail votes in those states. You can try to compare it with states like florida and ohio to see if there is anything strange.

>>12313067
I'm not the guy you were initially responding to, I misinterpreted your post. I thought you were slandering him for being wrong, not for being simplistic in his claim. Your slandering is justified.

>>12313099
It's all good and CHECKED

>>12313089
Did you know in PA they wanted to do away with signatures?

>>12312884
I said source, cocksucker

>>12313112
No but it wouldn't surprise me. You see the thing about fraud is that it isn't "Rare" or "common" It just "IS". In a world of ever increasing technology, political/social changes, etc fraud can never be accurately predicted only found. I have no doubt that the dems are corrupt for they seem to think they have a mandate from heaven that justifies there every move, but until I can prove it enough to sway a court decision, it is just conjecture, not useful in any argument or court. I hope they find evidence of fraud, not b/c I want trump to win, but b/c it would be the final blow to people's confidence in the Media, International Organizations, "Experts", and the such. I want them to find fraud b/c without it all the malicious and cutthroat behavior of the last 4-5 years will be forgotten and people will be afraid to speak up about it less they get roped into being a "Trump Supporter". People should be able to voice concern against these monsters without we labeled as a political dissenter as AOC wants (actual tweet btw). Science/Math should be engaging, not a unquestionable mandate of authority in the political/social realm.

>>12312884
GIVE HIM THE SOURCE. Open his eyes. Facts are your mandate, Ctrl-C/V is your terrible swift sword, and your post, your march torward the light.

>>12313156

>>12313112
My democrat dad heard about this and said "that's a good thing. You're signature can't be the same all the time"

The mental gymnastics blew my mind

Yes it is fraud. But it doesn't matter because it was necessary to get rid of that orange hitler

>>12313171
>Reduced unemployment
>4 middle east peace deals
>MUH HITLER, wanting good wages for low skill jobs is RACIST

-_-

>>12313182
Don't worry you can vote in your orange hitler the next time or maybe the time after that. Or some other fascist.

Meanwhile we can have some peace and quiet for 4 years. World war 3 was thankfully delayed to 2030.

>>12312265
>GOP loses zero House races
Not only that, they flipped five House races with several others under possible but too close to call yet.

>>12312333
Were you born in 2017? Are you seriously going to argue that 2016 wasn't divisive? Are you going to try to gaslight the insanity from that election away?

>>12313192
What exactly is hitler about him. I'm genuinely curious. The fact he called ms13 rapists? The fact he deports illegals less than obama did? The fact he uses detainment centers obama built?

>>12312900
What do you guys think of veritas?
I think who they put under the microscope is specific, but it seems like they hit every time, don't just post clickbait bullshit, and have the receipts to back it up

>>12312982
Lmao you can never separate projection from stats
>muh credentials
Institutions train you dogs to be elitist to calcify half the fake shit they teach you

>>12313169
The appearance of the signature is legally unimportant. You can use the letter X as your signature if you want. What is important is that by signing something, you are making a legal assertation that you are the person who is identified as the signer of the document. It's a deliberate action that cannot be claimed to have been done accidentally. No one is going to check signatures on mail-in ballots. Having them just makes the fraud difficult to claim it was done accidentally.

Climate change cannot happen becouse temperature wouldnt raise that much from historic data. Its scientificially impossible something to raise from baseline.

>>12313192
>World war 3 was thankfully delayed to 2030.
Are you a time traveler from before the Democrats were revealed to be the party of planetary conquest? Trump didn't get the US into any new wars. What do you think Hillary Clinton would have done? Sang about teaching the world to sing on a hillside while drinking Coca-Cola? Or giving Iran the Libya treatment?
It's weird how people live in their own reality where Democrats are the peaceniks and Trump is the instigator of world wars.

>>12313233
Signatures can be whatever, but your own has to match your own

>>12313244
Air strikes and drone strikes are a sometime deal. Not a full scale war like what Bush did to Iraq. The only real America war launched this century was by Republicans.

>>12313320
Overthrowing governments and throwing countries into chaos, as Hillary Clinton did during the Obama/Biden administration is as bad a war but far more cowardly. Also you're avoiding the main point: number of world wars started by Donald Trump: Zero.

>>12313231
>burger kang knows everythang
You slay qwank

>>12313218
>tfw no answer

>>12312966
She's actually saying "macaco" (monkey), using it to insult a black soccer player.

>>12313135
Why ask him for a source saying the number is made up before asking OP for a source that gives that number? He could have made up any percent he liked. Is your default to believe everything you hear until someone proves it wrong?

>>12313395
the election was the answer

>>12312206
Yep, Wisconsin voter turnout is a non-starter
There are tens of pages of articles on Google News debunking it
Funnily enough there are zero articles about Benford's Law

>>12313225
They are literally the opposite. Go shill your garbage money grab propaganda mill back to /pol/ Queefer.

>>12312086
It is evidence of voter fraud. On its own it doesn't necessarily mean much, but with all the other accumulated evidence, it is a clear rigged election.

>>12312086
>Can someone explain this statistically?
Sure: vote fraud, it have always happened but this year they outdid themselves. By 2024 they'll exceed 100% and fulfil the prophecy that turns the US into a banana republic.

Next question.

>>12312086
Fake graph, the numbers for prior years are the percentage of eligible voters, not registered voters.

>>12314738
Demonstrating that fraud happened somewhere isn't all that useful. If the specific votes that were entered fraudulently cannot be identified, there's not much that can be done because there's no way to know which candidate benefited how much from the fraudulent ballots. A re-vote would be unprecedented and is unlikely to happen. The most that could possibly happen is declaring the vote totals in states with fraud to be invalid. It would then be up to the legislature in those states who would get their electoral vote. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2000 when it was ruled that state legislatures are ultimately in control of the assignment of electors.
Republicans currently control the state legislatures in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, and North Carolina. Democrats have Nevada. If the vote in any of those contested states was declared invalid, the legislature would decide who are the electors for the electoral college.
The big question is, would the Supreme Court actually declare an entire state's vote to be invalid? The only time I can remember this happening was in Alabama in 1986 when the state supreme court overturned the Democratic primary for governor because Republicans voted for the winner. The result was that the electorate was so outraged, they elected the first Republican governor in over a century. Courts overturning election results have to be very careful to not end up making the public think they were robbed of their vote.

>>12312086
Man I hope it was voter fraud and clean elections are revealed as basically unenforceable/impossible and we can just stop having elections. Imagine if media and entertainment wasn't obsessed with entangling every normie dipshit into vast political/policy decisions whose repercussions they couldn't even begin to understand. People could just be human beings again and not botched victims of mass psychological warfare from all sides. I cannot wait for democracy to end.

>>12314789
Show your math and sources. I'll accept wikipedia even though it can be manipulated.

>>12313670
Republican vote tallies should follow Benford's law more closely since they are distributed more evenly among rural and urban areas.

>>12314799
Did you ask OP for his math abs sources?

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-wisconsin-elections-c14705ea715877b472454e57df022a91

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/nov/05/donald-trump-jr/no-wisconsin-voter-turnout-did-not-jump-67-2016-89/

>>12312086
Fraud. Obvious fraud.

What happened in 1996?

>>12313004
>usage
>sage
Announcing a sage is bannable.

>>12313059
Nobody cares about some wretched hag getting elected president, people care about being locked in their house and having to wear a mask at all times

>>12313012
People don't want to take the time to thoroughly debunk something because it's just going to be ignored by those who don't want to hear it. Notice multiple posts after yours completely ignoring what you wrote and still calling it fraud based on OP's image.

>>12312086
Same day registration.

>fuck up covid response so bad that millions of people (voting age adults) are out of work
>fuck up covid response so bad that election has to spread out for several weeks via early voting and mail in ballots
>people suddenly surprised that voter turnout is high when millions are out of work and those that are still working have ample time to vote

What the hell do you think was going to happen? Actions have fucking consequences. Maybe next time he'll get a clue to have some foresight.

>>12315888
>fuck up covid response so bad that millions of people (voting age adults) are out of work
wait why is that Trump's fault

>>12315858
>Nobody cares about some wretched hag getting elected president
Yes. In 2020 nobody cares. But in 2016, many tears were shed for her.
I remember vividly, i was dumbfounded those two ended up being the most likely candidates.
>people care about being locked in their house and having to wear a mask at all times
Then it makes sense they voted Biden, because they will get much more of that.
Unless corona chan disappears (from the media) and the flu comes (into statistics) back as soon as Biden takes office. Magic.

>>12315888

Millions are out of work in the eu and they have more deaths

Projected 2million dead Americans

Ends up being only 230 000


You're a moron.

>>12315902
Nobody cared about hillary back then either. Only delusional zealots and smug feminists even bothered, but it was a purely symbolic issue with no actual value.
>Then it makes sense they voted Biden, because they will get much more of that.
Trump has already turned the the USA into a global laughing stock in corona terms. And it's not so much if people are for or against whatever strategy, but that they care to begin with. If there is an election where one of the promises is a literal swift kick to the balls for one personally I promise you the voting turnout will be very very high

>>12315891

>know about covid in February
>only shut down travel from Asia
>didn't shut down travel from Europe/everywhere else
>didn't immediately shutdown country in February to minimize spread as humanly possible
>didn't push relief plan immediately in February asking all employers to retain their employees while all non-essential work is paused

Millions are out of work because of a sloppy response.

>>12315909

>EU
>union of 27 countries have more deaths than one country

Yes, anon the number of deaths are larger when you combine 27 countries compared 1. Did you also know the EU has a population total of +440 million too?

>>12315909
>still parroting this fucking talking point
The absolute fucking state of Trump cucks. The 2 million projection was the worst-case scenario of a series of simulations. They were trying to game the numbers to see what the upper limit of infections would be.

>>12315927
So to be clear, everybody lost their jobs because Trump didn't shut down the economy, and not because governors did shut down theirs

>>12315927
Yes let’s just shovel money at companies for potentially years while a vaccine is developed (that may never actually be developed) and shut down the entire “non-essential” 90% of our economy, and things will just work out great!!! Where does the money come from? Straight hot from the printing press of course! Inflation??! WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT!?!!

>>12315923
>Only delusional zealots and smug feminists even bothered
Media shilled her as hard as they did Biden this year. People were actually moving to Canada when she lost. She was almost Obama-tier in that regard, except somehow she lost to an even more unlikely candidate.
>Trump has already turned the the USA into a global laughing stock in corona terms
USA is the global laughing stock in many terms.
And media here in yuropoor are the laughing stock for us wrt. corona anyway, nobody with at least some remnants of higher cerebral activity cares about 'rona. The usual jokes are about media going
>Oh no, Mr. Muffles from Coronaburg died 5 minutes ago, this is terrible
>We're expecting 10 more victims by late noon
>Don't mind Mr. Pufflesnuff and his 50 rommmates dying in the colon cancer ward, fear corona! She killed Mr. Muffles 5 minutes ago!!!1!
It's ridiculous.
>one of the promises is a literal swift kick to the balls for one personally I promise you the voting turnout will be very very high
Yeah, but i would expect people to vote *against* the kick in the balls, not for.
But burgers be burgers, i guess.

>>12315956

Trump is the president and has the power to dictate national response in a national emergency. Instead coordinating the effort as a single entity he let 50 separate entities do it in a uncoordinated effort.

Somehow the US can mobilize for war at a moments notice, force private companies to contribute supplies for it and draft it's citizens to die on foreign soil. Yet it can't mobilize for a national emergency involving a virus immediately to save its own citizens properly.

>>12312086
Things with low probability happens a lot.

>>12312086
about as likely as 95% of the 167,001 (yes exactly that many) Absentee votes in Detroit precincts going to Biden

>>12312086
>15 data points

ahh so can’t prove statistical significance anyway

>>12312086
People were pissed at Trump and decided to finally get their assets up to vote.

>>12316485
That seems very likely, since Trump was pushing for high turnouts on election day.

>>12312086
Sure.
>thing this happens when thing that happens
>...
>we don't know!
Alternative last line
>we're all the same!

>>12312206
If you say your bullshit confidently enough, people will just accept it and move on. Then what is the real %? 85%? So its only a once in fifteen million chance?

>>12312393
>Doesn't easily disprove the assertion by providing the true number.

can someone explain to me how biden's absentee numbers in penn are physically possible?

>>12316837
>Percentage of mail ballots from own party plus independents = mail ballots won by candidate
This is a meaningless comparison.

>>12316979
Anon it's saying joe biden won 99.96% of those ballots.

>>12312156
NOOOOOOOO!!!! YOU CANT JUST USE STATS HOW YOU WANT TO USE THEM!!!!

>>12312086
all this language around "standard deviations" "statistical impossibilities" "black swans" etc. are meaningless drivel because these are not taken from the same event, or even from events with a close similarity.
ofc there are completely different turnouts this time around - have any of you been outside lately? theres crazy mass protests and looting, a pandemic which half the country are terrified of and the other half dont believe exists. These numbers are perfectly in line with the huge increase in voter turnouts in the primary elections for both democrats and republicans reflecting an unprecedented and polarised political climate. (Or were both parties also committing large-scale fraud in their own primary races independently?)
As usual with this board - a whole heap of autists are able to rattle off esoteric terms related to statistical theory but they completely ignore the actual reality that they live in or the practical circumstances of the situation.
tldr go outside please for the love of fucking god

>>12317350
>As usual with this board - a whole heap of autists are able to rattle off esoteric terms related to statistical theory but they completely ignore the actual reality that they live in or the practical circumstances of the situation.
Well-said. Was about to write something similar but in a more retarded way.

Trump literally shitting on mail ballots for like a year while democrats are pushing for it
what the fuck did you think was going to happen?
what percentage of devout muslim eat pork?

COVID experts are now election experts. I think it's time for you clowns to leave 2bh.

>>12317311
No it's not.

If Biden won 80% of mail ballots and 80% of mail ballots were from Democrats and Independents, this doesn't tell you all Democrats and Independents voted for Biden. All it tells you is that the number of Republicans that voted for Biden is equal to the number of Democrats and Independents that didn't.

>>12317626
they're also climate change experts and economics experts

>>12318205
Or a ton of Republicans don't like the orange clown...

>>12313218
They are bugmen dude. They don't know why. Don't even waste your time on them.

You guys clearly have no idea how hard it is to commit voter fraud in the United States.

First, every county in the US has its own ballot and many times individual districts in the US have their own ballots. You would need to forge and print out millions of individual ballots representing THOUSANDS of completely different types across the US.

Additionally you would need to have accurate records of all the citizens you intend to fraudulently vote for. If you are caught voting for someone who's died or moved out you're done.

Next you must convince the person you're fraudulently voting for not to vote. You could leave it to luck but if they show up to vote there are now two votes in the same name and you're done.

How are you going to do all that without being caught? There's just no fucking way. This is why the number of fraudulent votes in the last 20 years are around 50. 50 votes out of over a billion votes cast in 20 years.

The Trump campaign is now suing in individual state courts to block votes in states he lost. His evidence? He wants to throw out 93 votes in Pennsylvania which were fixed by poll workers for containing mistakes. 93 votes.

Trump wants to throw out less than 53 votes in Georgia that were not counted. 53 whole fucking votes.

The only one he has even some semblance of an argument is he wants to throw out votes postmarked on November 3rd in Pennsylvania. These votes were legally cast in the state which allowed voters to vote by mail up until election day. Trump wants to throw out legal votes. Legal fucking votes. It won't even make a difference because these votes were not counted when declaring Biden the winner because they are awaiting the court case to be counted. But the Supreme Court already allowed other states to do the same this year due to Covid-19.

This is what you're basing your fraud case on? The whole thing is to have talking points on right wing propaganda sites. Republicans are a disease.

>>12318310

>>12318310
>You guys clearly have no idea how hard it is to commit voter fraud in the United States.
Pfffrrrt, lol, good one. Look at any first world country and see how it's done.

>>12318479
I only voted for president, I didn't look into the other candidates and questions. Doesn't seem like that should take a miracle, though I suspect many people simply vote along party lines without knowing who they're voting for.

>>12318400
Yay, look at your one example!
>widespread
You guys are fucking stupid.

>>12315927
>That's always tougher than the touch. You know, the touch, you don't have to touch things.
ayy lmao I love Trump but he genuinely sounds like a mentally retarded person here

>>12318488
Ok chang

>>12318495
The software by was actually used in multiple counties and states but they haven't begun recouting yet

>>12312086
if its an obvious fraud, wheres the reaction from the republicans? they have the senate, supreme court and no reaction?

>>12318479
Are they also looking at how many such ballots applied to Trump? Do they have those numbers from past elections to see if that's a common voting trend among Democrats? We don't know if that's an unusual event without something to compare it to.

>>12318510
They can't prove it. They have nothing. It's all theatre.

Can /sci/ poke holes in this? Basically according to this, mail in ballots have an extremely stable vote ratio of Biden vs. Trump votes across reporting batches and across all 50 states. This happens everywhere, including deep blue and deep red states, except for the states with accusations of voter fraud. What do you guys think?

>>12318408
>72000 Biden voters wanted a libertarian senator
>65000 Biden voters submitted the ballot empty
Where do these numbers come from?

>>12318414
I believe everything I read on twitter

>>12318944
>I believe everything I see on TV

>>12318807
It's stupid. Of course the "accusations of voter fraud" are in the close states that took a long time to count votes. Why expect them to follow the same pattern as other states? All of this is delusional wishful thinking, not evidence.

>>12318936
Simple math from the results. It does ignore people who voted cross party.

>>12318974
Where did I cite TV? Nice cope.

>>12319002
>Simple math from the results
You mean incorrect assumptions.

>>12319012
Well, yes. There is an assumption in that post that everyone votes straight party. Most people indicate that is their plan but it certainly isn't 100% so the numbers are going to be off somewhat.

>>12319008
this comment has been debunked by official New York Times fact-checkers, according to CNN

>>12318222
funny how they only didn't vote for him in specific swing states, and funny how they only didn't vote for him in said swing states via mail in and absentee ballots.

>>12319001
Other blue states like WA that did 100% mail-in and are still counting don't have that pattern though.

>>12319018
I think a lot of Republicans voted against the orange clown.

>>12312086
>Using the mean as an estimator
Why don't you just end your lives now?

>>12319054
>funny how they only didn't vote for him in specific swing states
Source?

>funny how they only didn't vote for him in said swing states via mail in and absentee ballots.
Source?

>>12319057
They're not swing states.

>>12319194
Possibly but he did have the highest approval rate among Republicans since St. Reagan so it's doubtful that very many did.

>>12319057
Aren't Washington and Oregon the only states that are 100% mail-in? I've seen it stated but haven't verified that both of those states became reliable blue states right after they went all mail-in. Might research that later if I'm not feeling lazy.

Ok, I checked and it's currently five states: Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah and Washington. Four blue, one red. Looking at the voting history of these states, there doesn't appear to have been an immediate impact on their voting trends in presidential races though Utah saw a 10% increase in youth voting, which probably leans more left than the rest of the state.

>>12319224
The question is not how many approved of him but how many hated him enough to vote for Biden.

>>12319224
Oh and I just looked that up and it's not even close to being true. George W. had much higher approval.

>>12312086
>Can someone explain this statistically?
>what is an outlier

>>12320260
Don't know what to do with such a moronic statement. A person who approves of him isn't going to hate him. His approval rate by Republicans has floated around 94% and 96%, so if you assume every Republican who does not approve of him hates him so much they'd vote for Biden, that's right around 5%.

>>12313542
so this is what autism looks like

>>12320319
Weird that you looked it up but didn't bother to post it here. Let me guess, you're going to post the approval ratings for the first month after 9/11 when even Democrats gave W a high approval rating. Fact is, Trump's approval rating with Republicans is in the mid 90s. Your moronic attempt to claim that large number of Republicans voted for Biden because they hate Trump is transparently self serving.

maybe im wrong in saying this and it would have made no difference but they should have counted all the mail ins first, processed them, got their numbers and then voted, that way if someone really did want to check they would not know how much fake votes they needed, since the gist of the story is mail in ballots, no?

>>12318310
>You guys clearly have no idea how hard it is to commit voter fraud in the United States.

Its actually very easy. Before I had my current job I would help people fill out their n400 applications for naturalization. I would hold their hand so to speak from filling out their application, to the interview all the way to the ceremony where they were sworn in. I can't tell you how many times someone got denied their application because they had registered sometimes voted. It happens all the time and it happened a lot during Obama because everyone who was not a us citizen wanted to vote for him, so these idiots went and registered and voted and counted, their was a record of it because when they went in for their immigration interview with an immigration officer their name came up as someone who voted and were denied. I remember on one occasion a russian guy who went before my client came out the door in tears because he was denied since he voted. Im not saying it happens all the time but I did see several people get denied because of it. Actually its a pretty big deal and can get you deported.

>>12320367
>Don't know what to do with such a moronic statement. A person who approves of him isn't going to hate him.
Oh god the irony. You're a fucking idiot. My point was not that Republicans that approve him hate him, my point is that the amount of disapproving Republicans is not the same as the amount of Republicans that hate him enough to vote for the opposition.

>His approval rate by Republicans has floated around 94% and 96%,
Source?

>so if you assume every Republican who does not approve of him hates him so much they'd vote for Biden
I didn't assume that.

>>12320376
>Let me guess, you're going to post the approval ratings for the first month after 9/11 when even Democrats gave W a high approval rating.
Is this supposed to be an argument? Thanks for admitting your claim is wrong. Oh and I'm also going to post that Bush Senior had a higher approval rating. Cope more Trumptard.

>Your moronic attempt to claim that large number of Republicans voted for Biden because they hate Trump is transparently self serving.
Keep your paranoid delusions to yourself.

>>12320617
Approval ratings don't stay the same for the entire duration of a president's term. I don't like Trump either, but stop arguing in bad faith.

>Implying past election data is predictive of future election data

>Gaussian statistical methods

>>12319057
We knew what would happen weeks ago. You aren't paying attention.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oWkRS2epFo

>>12318944
>I reject everything because it's on Twitter

>>12313670
How can something be debunked before an investigation is finished?

>>12312086
Voter fraud obviously.

there is a graph that represents the normal temperature of a room.
but one day I pour fucking gasoline all over the fucking room and light it on fucking fire.

bump for interest

As cruel as it sounds isn't it the case that while old and sick people die it will be good for economy in the long term because we will not have to spend gold to take care of em. The world is currently got rid of more than 1million people that we dont need pay and take care for.

Natural selection - it's not just ugly people not making it.

>>12321189
1. Death rate is low, the actual problem is infectivity, long recovery time, and long-term organ damage.
2. Even young and healthy individuals suffer from the problems mentioned in 1.
3. We should apparently kill everybody so we don't have to pay for them, you sound like a complete sociopath.
4. Medicine and care are included in natural selection. This is not an argument.

>>12312086
this only applies if distribution of voter turnout is Gaussian, which you have no idea if it is and you would be an idiot to assume so

>>12321352
>what is the central limit theorem

>>12320736
>Approval ratings don't stay the same for the entire duration of a president's term
Where did I say they did?

>>12320998
Burden of proof is on you

>>12321352
>this only applies if distribution of voter turnout is Gaussian
a standard deviation is a standard deviation no matter the distribution

>>12313059
Except in 2016 turnout didn't increase, because most people never expected that Trump might actually win.

>>12321862
For the retards just joining this thread, the graph is fake, like most /pol/tard images.

>>12314789
>>12314807

>>12321828
That's not the point. Can't say I'm surprised you don't understand.

>>12321872
even if the graph was real, it would just mean there are probably other factors not being accounted for (which is obviously true since voter turnout is not a simply function of time)