/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12319042
There is always fraud. It's simply a matter of if there is enough of it to change the outcome.

>>12319042
Something something burden of proof

>>12319078
well which proof, both sides claim to have proof

>>12319042
occam's razor recommends you assume there is no fraud until proven otherwise

Remember kids, belief is a fundamentally flawed strategy for finding truth

>>12319042
Republicans ordered 40% of mail in ballots

Read Sextus Empiricus, suspend judgement and be calm.

>>12319480
Source?

>>12319088
He just presented what he considers to be evidence of fraud. Are you going to just sit there and repeat "burden of proof" endless times or are you going to address this alleged proof?

>>12320574
>He just presented what he considers to be evidence of fraud.
Did you look at the image?

>>12320609
It's still anomalous, not many graphs looked like that

>>12320623
It's not anomalous at all. It's a batch of votes where Biden gets like 85% of the votes and Trump gets like 15%. I'm going with no fraud until there's some real evidence.

>>12319042
>unpopular president loses election after mail in ballots are counted
I'm sorry if I don't understand your complaint.

>>12320663
>gains proportion in every demographic except white men
>loses proportion in total popular vote
>is unpopular because of racism

>>12320679
You're putting words in my mouth. Trump has held a less than 45% popularity rating the entire time he was president. He lost against Hillary in 2016 by 3 million votes and only won because of the Electoral College, he lost against Biden by 4 million votes in 2020 but this time Biden was able to win enough Electoral College votes.

Where's the conspiracy? Provide actual proof of electoral fraud and not 'but but he was winning!' Everyone, MONTHS before the election were saying that mail in ballots would decide the election because of the pandemic. Add in the fact that Trump and his team have been spreading misinformation about mail in ballot fraud with no evidence for weeks and it's obvious Democrats would prefer mail in ballots because they don't believe Trump's lies giving the election to those who voted disproportionately by mail.

There is nothing here.

>>12320726
What, only you're allowed to greentext? Everything I said is accurate. Trump did better than 2016 in all demographics except for white men, but he lost enough support among white men to make him get an overall lower share of the vote (47% compared to 48% in 2016).
You can look up the ratio of republican and democrats requesting mail-in ballots, it's around 2:3 reps:dems. Not nearly what accounts for the giant spikes which were almost all in Biden's favor. How does it happen anyway? Do the counters just burn through 40,000 votes all of a sudden?
By "provide actual proof" it sounds like you're looking for a smoking gun, and you won't accept anything less. That's not a good mindset.

>>12320663
>unpopular
Low iq opinion. Anyways, doesn't matter. Trump will remain in office for another 4 years and those gloating about Biden will look stupid in a few weeks at most

>>12320773
Highly irresponsible of the media to call the election yesterday. This is going to be legitimately traumatic for millions

>>12320757
>a smoking gun
Yes, that's what evidence is called. You have nothing.

Please show me the 2:3 reps:dems stat. This at least sounds interesting.

>>12320663
He was definitely popular. The real question is the proof.

>>12320805
What are you smoking? He was never popular. Do you get all your news from Ben Shapiro and Fox?

>>12320802
No not all evidence is smoking gun, in fact that's very rare. Here's the 2:3 stat
https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/index.html
"Of course Biden will get more mail-in voting" is ad hoc reasoning -- it's true, but it can't be used to justify arbitrarily large discrepancies, especially when those discrepancies are isolated in a handful of decisive battleground states that had odd vote-count timelines

>>12320811
He got the second most votes in American history if not the first.

>>12320815
>it can't be used to justify arbitrarily large discrepancies
Most people knew Trump would get fewer mail-ins because he was screaming that mail-ins were fraudulent since like July

>>12320815
seriously? Your own link proves more mail in ballots were done by Democrats. The results are therefore exactly as expected. There's no fraud here, just a bunch of losers trying desperately to feel better about themselves.

>>12320818
Yes, that's why there is a 3:2 lead in mail-in votes for republicans. It doesn't necessarily justify the difference in OP's graph, let alone reports like in pic related

>>12320826
My link shows exactly what I claimed, that democrats led over republicans in mail-in votes by about 3 to 2. The hologram joe bumps show way more than a 3:2 lead for democrats

>>12320817
Biden? I'm not sure who you mean by 'He' because Biden got 4 million more votes than Trump

>>12320836
Trump did, massively overperforming predictions. He's a popular guy.

>>12319042
Hi everyone,
I am your typical incel cuck /his/ and /sci/ poster. I used to be a libtard and believed all the Jewish medias brainwashing just like you. I used to rage at my monitor screaming "POL!!!!!" just like you do whenever someone would post facts that I didn't want to face. They caused a painful reaction I later learned is called cognitive dissonance.

When a poster here called someone /pol/ I wouldn't even read the memes and infographs they posted let alone click any links I didn't want to be associated with an out group and shunned by my peers here and ostracized.

One day I realized "what the fuck am I thinking? This is an anonymous board, no one will know if I read them" so I started to click on them to peek at them through my hands covering my face. At first I only did it with one eye, then after awhile I would even use both eyes! After a time I removed my hands altogether and even actually clicked links! I was so proud of myself for the first month!

I slowly started to realize there is only a small number of people who scream "pol" "x" and "schizo" at people here and that most of them are actually paid to come here and do it which is why they are in every thread every hour of the day. Sounds cray right? I thought so at first too but if you actually pay attention you can easily see it is true.

They are trying to use ridicule and the illusion of being a majority here in order to try and keep sheeple who are easily influenced by social engineering from listening to what these people had to say. It only works on dumb/lazy people mostly but for these kind of people it doesn't take much anyway to get them to continue being dumb and lazy, it is their natural state.

>>12320834
My mistake, I misread your original post. I thought it said 2/3 reps/dems not 2:3 reps to dems. Carry on.

>>12320831
>https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/index.html
It says there's a 3:1 ratio for mail ins for Dems in PA. A 3:2 ratio across the US for Dems

>>12319042

Anyhow after I overcame my initial fear of being called racist and ostracized here I even ventured out to redit, twatter and faceberg and started reading memes and clicking links there too! It seems these people have called everyone alt right, nazi, racist, homophobe, Islamophobe, antisemite etc etc so much no one really gives a shit about being called these names anymore, not even normies!

This was such a relief to me because I didn't have any irl friends but now that I started reading and interacting with the "racist Nazis" and their posts I have met so many great people who have really treated me like family. I even met a gf and got to touch her boobas once!

I don't want to ramble on too much I just wanted to share my story of how much I have grown as a person over these last 4 years of Donald Trump's presidency and how it opened my eyes to how much power the Jews have through the media and how much all these ungrateful sub humans in white nations hate the people that have provided them with every modern comfort and convenience in order for them to shit out babies like rabbits and be absolutely worthless in every other respect as they destroy white nations and white living spaces voting in communism to be slaves to the Jew while white people subsidize it.

I found a new home and a new family who love me for being white and know my genetic potential absolutely dwarfs every other sub human on this planet in comparison. They appreciate me for being me and for being white. If you anons wake up to the threat of niggers and kikes you can have all of this too! All the boobas you could ever dream of to touch on beautiful fashy white women! You can have purpose, drive and pride just like me. It really changed my life and I wish all my anons here to have what I now have to escape their hopeless existence. Heil Hitler!

>>12319042
2

>>12319042
3

>>12319042
4

>>12319042
5

lol

>>12320850
The problem with your cope2.jpg is that in the lower right quadrant both candidates received votes.
The upper right quadrant has Biden receiving well over a hundred and thirty eight thousand votes at one time with zero votes for Trump. This is statistically impossible.

>>12320844
How about that

>>12320854
I wonder if the people sharing this one ever imagined they would be gloating over successfully committing election fraud

>>12320863
>Yes, that's why there is a 3:2 lead in mail-in votes for republicans.
The post I was replying to.

>>12320862
This was a mistake reported by one news station and quickly corrected. Stop bringing it up, it just proves you're an idiot.

>>12320862
I didn't see this on NYT. Are you sure this was the accurate tally?

>>12320862
>Yo we got 150,000 votes in the Biden heap and only 1000 in the Trump heap, can we make some space?
>Yeah get rid of the giant heap that takes all this space
Almost rocket science.
Protip: It isn't even a real call.

>>12319042
6

>>12320868
Yeah and I'm saying the difference for pennsylvania is fishy

>>12320870
how about the pic here? >>12320831

>>12319042
7

>>12320870
source
>>12320872
Yes. Evidence of fraud is being gaslit hard.
>>12320876
Are you saying that they just subtracted Trump votes from Biden votes and added the net amount? Do you realize that's not how vote counting works?

>>12320885
Why would you assume every state in the US is equal? I wouldn't assume democrats in Alabama and democrats in PA have similar voting patterns. Same with Republicans

>>12320894
>Evidence of fraud is being gaslit hard
So why did this show up on decision desk but not NYT? Isn't it more likely Decision desk made an error?

>>12320894
>Are you saying that they just subtracted Trump votes from Biden votes and added the net amount
No I am not, and you interpreting my words in that manner makes me lament the state of education in this country.

>>12320911
>yo
>heaps
yeah, very academic of you

>>12320922
>Obvious sarcastic tone mocking me?!
>No, must be something else!
At least you are amusing, unlike the boring frogposter spam.

>>12320895
Why would the share be higher in Pennsylvania than in New York?

>>12319088
No, Occam's Razor assumes the most simple explanation is likely to be the true one, which in this case points to fraud since the mathematical anomalies across swing states uniformly in favour of one candidate are more difficult to explain otherwise

>>12320930
try restating your point directly, in english, and try to use complete sentences

>>12320932
>many simultanous and so far unproven acts of fraud that would have dire consequences if even one of them would be proven
vs
>butthurt retards who can't into basic statistics in denial
Hmm yeah gonna with the razor being no fraud here.

>>12320944
What's wrong with the stats in that picture?

>>12320931
Unfortunately that site only has data for a few states, but from what I've seen, Kentucky has 35.5% for dems and 27.7% repub. Which is pretty crazy imo. Iowa was 45.1% dem, 33.3% repub, and it went red pretty easily.

I just don't think you can make generalizations like this as each state is very different.

>>12320948
DESU I am not willing to write an essay on the topi on the offchance you are the 1 in 1,000,000 poster in the last days who posted the same image, so why bother.

>>12320963
You don't need to write an essay, you could communicate the essentials in a few sentences

>>12319042
Trump supporters bear the burden of having to prove there is fraud. They won't be able to do this so I'd say go with biden.

>>12320963
* 1 in 1,000,000 poster that won't just deny anything not within his narrow worldview

Getting tired.

>>12320965
Just search the archive, if the frogposter spam hasn't bumped them off there should be plenty of in-depth threads about the election stats, I will call it a day here and go to bed.

>>12320981
>>12320963
>>12320944
>i'm not going to be drawn in on challenges to my dismissal of evidence and lack of engagement with the data, i'm simply going to assert the contrary, proclaim faith in the process and call it a night

>>12320990
I mean, in their defense, this is a frogposting board. Who really cares

>>12320993
I mean he should if he was arguing in good faith. If he wants to state an opinion then he's not above defending it

>>12320623
uff, quite the big boy word there

>>12320773
>denial-in-chief will stay in power cause supporters-in-denial say so
man they should bring back school

>>12320817
>what is pop growth
yikes

>>12320826
this tbqhwyf

>>12320840
rep core voters vote straight ticket rep, not the candidate, numbers reflect that

>>12320859
kek

>>12320862
are you for real

>>12320990
>i want to be catered basic info that is literally intro-levels of easy
you need to go back, /sci/ always gets invaded by brainlets around elections

>>12319083
Neither side has proof. But only one is making a claim.

>>12320963
If you're gonna shut the fuck up then actually shut the fuck up you gay little cracker.

>>12319042
this needs more attention

>>12320867
What will you do when (or to humour you, if) Biden gets inaugurated on jan 20th?

>>12319042
I posted this yesterday and someone asked how to read the chart

Feel free to add any suggestions

>>12321678
It's good anon, the voter precinct names are hard to read and add visual clutter but I can't really think of a solution without splitting it into two charts. The yellow is also drowned out a bit by the darker colours, maybe change it to green, or maybe the blue to lighter green idk

>>12319042
>After the biden spike, the republicans also got one
Citation needed.

>>12321288
Complain online a bit and otherwise go about my life, it'd be pretty pathetic to let a bad presidential election affect my mood that much

>>12321019
>rep core voters vote straight ticket rep, not the candidate, numbers reflect that
Sure some of them but not a lot
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/10/21/large-shares-of-voters-plan-to-vote-a-straight-party-ticket-for-president-senate-and-house/

>>12321023
>only one is a making a claim
Not sure if you're an idiot or just in denial.

>>12321678
what if there are many people who simply dont care about ossoff?

>>12322036
>what if there are many people who simply dont care about ossoff?
That's not a sufficient or believable explanation. The media will certainly use these narratives, but the narratives go against the facts ie Trump has record high GOP support, and Is rarely break by more than 55-45 on a national level, and they break at 20 ppts at worst. State level data support this in all but the last few swing states, where the anomalous spikes happened. Early voting data, and requested ballot rations also doesn't support the unnatural skews toward B after ED, not to mention that the skew became bigger and bigger as the days went by.

>>12319042

>>12322064
Some people.just don't care about senate races at all. From a psychological perspective, I'd imagine uninformed voters in urban Atlanta are voting JUST to get Trump out of office, and have no idea who this "Ossoff" guy is, and thus don't vote for him.

>>12322301
Anon, you just try to validate the TDS narrative. Yes, a lot of people hate T. But those people are likely voting straight blue since forever. The R approval was 95%, record high. Is split a bit toward B, but not by such a huge margin. The approval itself is directly connected to T, not R. The latter could explain why some people vote B but not anything else, or R downballot. But these still don't explain away the skews, the increments, and the record number of ballots voting ONLY Biden. In fact, not even the record amount of turnout explains the increment on the pres.candidate-only voters skewing toward B. I could name any number of other polls such as the Gallup one which indicated that 56% of the respondents still better of than 4 years ago. It is a basic fact that most people vote largely based on economic considerations. But now we should believe that the pro-economy candidate was defeated by the lockdown candidate polls be damned? And they only voted for B to spite T? Nothing adds up in this picture.
But your latter claim might be true: perhaps in urban Atlanta some voters had voted B... even if they don't know about that...

>>12322325
>not even the record amount of turnout explains the increment on the pres.candidate-only voters skewing toward B
Why not? It is well document that senate races typically receive fewer votes than presidential races. In fact, with record turnout, I find it likely.

>>12322336
>Why not?
Because if your turnout eg increases by 5% and said voting type increases by 20% then something is off. They should obviously increase by the same or very similar %.
>In fact, with record turnout, I find it likely
True in numbers, but unlikely in %. One would even surmise that the % ought to remain the same, since more overall voters for the same % is still more people voting that way.

>>12322280
theres literally nothing suspicious about those bottom ones you coping retard

>>12322280
bottom ones look normal=?

is this the new /pol/?

>>12322977
You don't need to be /pol/ to see that there's obvious fuckery afoot, the question is whether the fuckery was warranted to save the planet from 4 more years of Trump

>>12322994

>>12320867
Lol prove it in court faggot

>>12321019
I'd ask you to post tits or gtfo, but you need to be over 18 to post anything here at all, so just gtfo.

>>12321678
>huge number of first time voters due to colossal get out the vote organized by stacey abrams
>omg they didnt go downballot the same way as other years FRAUD
Why would the dems deliberately force run off elections instead of cheating for outright wins? Why would they not have the fake votes as downballot as possible?

>>12322994
I mean, it was a long time coming. Not the fraud, but /sci/ becoming an extension of /pol/.

All the race baiting threads and general conspiracy spam.

>>12320623
A graph of the vote count in Philadelphia, which already always votes 80%+ for the Democrats, and in an election in which Democrats overwhelmingly voted early and by mail, is anomalous because it shows Biden winning 90%+ of the votes?

>>12320773
>Trump will remain in office for another 4 years
Low iq opinion, kill yourself, retard.

There probably was fraud, on both sides, but not enough to matter.

The only reason we are talking about this is the USA is still stapled to a creaky electoral college that no other democracy uses. Biden OBLITERATED Donald in the pop vote.

>>12320862
>upper right quadrant has Biden receiving well over a hundred and thirty eight thousand votes at one time with zero votes for Trump
If you don't even know how to read a graph then why are you on 4chan? 6th graders aren't allowed to post here you know.

>>12323039
maybe the cheaters get paid by presidential ballot but not by senator ballot lol

>>12323066
>There probably was fraud, on both sides, but not enough to matter.
True, true, but nope, it may have mattered just enough, similar to how the 1960 events were (supposedly) enough to to make JFK president over Nixon. Aside from that, we also have the Ballot 13 Scandal of LBJ. What we know:
>fraud is possible, since countless people had been indicted in the past for that
>is something is possible, and been previously observed, then it cannot be dismissed outright
>we also know famous cases (see above) where prominent dems were likely perpetrators (at least beneficiaries) of possible frauds
>in these cases, the fraud was effective enough to tilt elections (allegedly)
>we also know, perhaps most importantly, that just because smtgh cannot be proved at a court, it doesn't mean that fraudulent activities had not taken place (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence)
>that's why a statistical analysis (if it's correct, based in real data) is a good start
So, you can argue, that there were fraud, that both side is probably guilty of it, and that it must be proven at a court to matter (duh), but you cannot deny the possibility that certain fraudulent practice may have changed the outcome of the election.

>>12323009
Nothing weird about this being pasted on everyhing
>>12323021
If they do, liberals will spend the next four years screaming that biased courts stole the election

>>12323122
Im fine with audits-im an advocate of federal voting reform involving blockchain authenticated paper ballots. The us system is a mess.

>>12323052
That's not a graph of the vote count in Philadelphia, it's a graph of the vote count in Wisconsin. Why must you lie?
The ratio of republicans to democrats requesting early voting mail-in ballots is about 2:3
https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/index.html

>>12323009
IM GONNA DEBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONK

oh oh, this data looks like a smoking gun brehs, it's over

>What appears to be happening is that points on the straight line are actually mail in votes. The reason they're so homogeneous across with respect to the ratio of #Biden vs #Trump votes is that they get randomly shuffled in the mail...

>like a deck of cards. Since the ballots are randomly mixed together during transport, spanning areas occupied by multiple voting demographics, we can expect the ratio of mail-in #Biden ballots to mail-in #Trump ballots will remain relatively constant over time...

>When we see mail-in ballot counting where there isn't relatively stable ratios of D and R ballots that slightly drift R, we have an anomaly! Anomalies themselves are not necessarily fraud, but they can help us spot fraud more easily.

>It appears Dems shot themselves in the foot bc making everyone do mail-in ballots actually makes it easier to catch mail-in ballot fraud.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1325592112428163072.html

>pic related is voter fraud in Georgia. It is even worse in Virginia, which hasn't been accused of voter fraud, yet.

>>12323134
>If they do, liberals will spend the next four years screaming that biased courts stole the election
And that's the reason I'm afraid that SCOTUS wouldn't issue a contentious ruling, even if the defendant was in his right. After all, preventing a constitutional crisis and widespread riots may be more important to them than reversing the results of a fraudulent election. The dems certainly has the upper hand here.

>>12323140
Realistically, nothing's gonna happen. Secure elections is probably anathema to both parties. The dems want no IDs and mailins, the reps want gerrymandering and the EC in place ofc.

>>12320932
The argument in this image relies completely on the premise that mail-in ballots are all randomly shuffled and should drift R over time because rural districts get their votes in later. Because the data doesn't align exactly with that retarded premise, the election was fraudulent?

Wow, a smoking gun. Definitely not just bad reasoning dressed up like statistical analysis with fancy charts.

>>12323164
trucks of perfectly sorted votes after a certain suspicious hour is not something that should happen in a normal election

>>12321023
Both sides always make claims lol. Also, one side has massive circumstantial evidence in terms of Benford's law, literally every red flag for stalling counting being violated, statistically impossible returns, non-postmarked votes being counted, plausibility of fraud given ideological tilt of areas, prior political machine based fraud in accused cities, and within-ward statistical impossibilities of the 11th hour ballot bombs. You won't hear of all of these convergent lines of evidence because you only believe in dots that institutional media (read: the Biden campaign) connects.

>>12319042
The left can't meme
The right can't math

all i learned from these faggots is they can't even read a line graph

>>12323212
That's a pretty good summary. And yes, correlation is not causation... but what about multiple correlations each going into the same direction confirming one another vastly? Well, yep... that's called a significant likelihood, something that is not just possible, but probable.

>>12322977
Always was lol

https://www.eipartnership.net/rapid-response/what-the-election-results-dont-tell-us
God u people would get massacred in court trying to use this.

>>12323219
This isn't a Benford's thread

>>12322358
>but unlikely in %
Why do we expect Dems and Repubs to care about senate races equally?

>>12323356
meant for >>12323279

>>12323363
Who would you expect to care more? Try to answer without ad hoc reasoning based on results

>>12323212
The burden of proof is entirely on the Republicans here.

>>12323375
I'm not making a claim about *which* one would care more. I'm simply stating that there is no reason to believe that both groups of voters care the same amount about senate races.

>>12323363
>Why do we expect Dems and Repubs to care about senate races equally?
Because that's how it's always been? Because this is supported by historical data? Another logical angle is this: if something happened before, then it is possible that it'll happen again. Conversely, if something never happened before, then it is possible that it may happen, but not likely. If people tend to vote straight-ticket and president-only at roughly the same %s every single election, then it is reasonable to assume that this will be like that during the next election. Even if a given percentage fluctuates between it's record min and record highest value, it is reasonable to assume that (with negligible variance) it won't go 4-5 times outside it's historical margin.
Another such example: if we know that independents usually split around 50-50, and their highest divergence was 60-40, then it is possible, but not likely that they'll break 90-10 this year. Why would they?

>>12323392
>Because this is supported by historical data?
Is it? I'd love to see the data. This race was also very close in the senate and presidency in Georgia, so you'd have to prove that the differences are significant.

>>12323385
Well either either they care roughly the same, or the republicans care more, or the democrats care more. Which one do you think is most likely?

It would be beliavable if shills didn't spam the whole fucking 4chan with their hatred. I want Trump to win even if Biden didn't cheat. Democrats are literal demons who want war. Just look who is Bidens military advisor. Fucking demons. All of them.

>>12323404
Depends where in Georgia you're talking about

>>12323412
I legitimately have no idea. It also may be regional. Dems may care less in Atlanta than say, Colorado.

>>12323414
Careful or you'll have an aneurysm.

>>12323423
Im beyond anger. Also people can sense evil deep down their soul. No normal human would ever vote democrat if they were not indoctrinated by media and their non-stop lies.

>>12323420
But this has nothing to do with the senate race?

>>12323404
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/10/21/large-shares-of-voters-plan-to-vote-a-straight-party-ticket-for-president-senate-and-house/
>Large Shares of Voters Plan To Vote a Straight Party Ticket for President, Senate and House
Just 4% of registered voters support Trump or Biden and a Senate candidate from the opposing party
>Only 4% of registered voters say they plan to vote for Biden and the Republican candidate for House in their district or Donald Trump and the Democratic House candidate. This is little changed from four years ago. It is more common for voters to say they plan to vote for a third-party candidate for president (or less commonly, for the House) and a major-party candidate for the other race. Still, only 6% of voters say they plan to cast their ballots this way.
It's literally all in front of you. Do you trust Pew? I'd argue that Pew and Gallup are the most reliable non-so-political pollsters in the US. I prefer to refer to their numbers, over anyone else (msm, fox, etc). Now, if they are telling you that only 4% of voters are about to do something, and that 4% is not higher than the one during the previous election, and they even mention that increasing partisanship in the country is trending toward more straight-ticket voting then... do you believe them?

>>12323438
Ooo shit my bad, attatched the wrong pic

>>12323435
>>12323435
Why don't you go on a shooting spree to show people how evil the left is?

>>12323451
This seems like Dems in Georgia don't care for senate races as much as repubs across the board...unless I'm reading it wrong

>>12323435
>t. Marjorie Taylor Green

>>12323446
>Just 4% of registered voters support Trump or Biden and a Senate candidate from the opposing party
The senate race was within 2%, the presidency within 0.2%. This data seems consistent in this case.

>>12323468
Leftists are making huge mistakes. As i said i respect human life and i can see how democrats do not. Why would you want to go to war with middle east again? What reason? Also blatant fraud so you will divide Nation.

Unironically asking for it.

>>12323469
Ossoff not leading Perdue in the Senate race is because of fewer 3rd party voters, most of whom skew Republican (Libertarian voters are primarily Republicans who like Trump, Green voters are nonexistent), rather than because Dems care less about the Senate.

Warnock not winning in the first round is because there were something like 12 candidates in that race.

>>12323469
Or republicans are voting straight ticket except at the top of the ballot, which is consistent with the growing never-Trump movement in the GOP

>>12323488
That's what I was thinking as well. A small percentage probably dislike trump but want a republican senate.

>>12323446
>/pol/tards think polls are accurate now

>>12323487
Ignore me, I actually just looked at the numbers and there were more Libertarian voters in the regular Senate election.

>>12323377
Be careful, grievance mythologies take hold without strong pushback, see what happened when Trump humoured the Dems 2016 Russia cope and consented to the Mueller investigation thinking it'd end with a quick "nothing here" in a few weeks.

>>12323502
This is a good argument for shallowly BTFOing people in internet arguments but it has no real substance

>>12323066
t midwit who doesn't comprehend federalism. The US isn't a compact unitary state.

>>12323488
>growing never-Trump movement in the GOP
The what? Trump had 95% GOP approval right before ED. He literally purged all nevertrumpers years ago. All Rs he wronged or feuded with are now his besties. If anything, the party is more stable and riled up than ever before. Where do you see proof of that 'growing nevertrumper' something?

>>12323497
I call it chunking, it happens in all randomizations from deck shuffling to RNGs to vote counting, it even happened twice during the last presidential election except for Trump votes

>>12323502
Trump wasn't impeached though.

>>12323577
I thought he was? But he just wasn't removed because the Senate said no? Or am I wrong?

>>12323583
>I thought he was? But he just wasn't removed because the Senate said no? Or am I wrong?
Stating that Trump was impeached is equivalent to stating that a person who is indicted is found guilty.
So the analogy is that the House calls the indictment, and the Senate is the judge of that defendant. Similar to a court, the Senate can dismiss the case, find the defendant guilty, or find the defendant innocent. In Trump's case, the Senate found him innocent of the purported charges, though the democrats basically claim that the 'case was dismissed'. That isn't true per se, since the Senate would have been it's power to throw the whole thing back, or to push for the vote without delay.

>>12323577
>>12323633
Fucking retard, stop talking. Impeachment is the equivalent of indictment, removal from office is the equivalent of being found guilty. Trump was impeached by the House and found not guilty on all charges of impeachment by the Senate.

>>12323577
He was impeached but he wasn't removed from office. Also what he was impeached for was a total sham.

>>12323522
Merely pointing out the ideaological inconsistentcy. Four years of polling data that shows he's not popular was called "fake news." Now it's being used as "proof" of fraud. Which is it?

>>12319042
Certainness in not an indicator of correctness.

>>12320845
>>12320850
>>12320854
>>12320856
>>12320859
This is a science board. Your emotionally manipulative propaganda has no power here.

>>12323890
>Four years of polling data that shows he's not popular was called "fake news." Now it's being used as "proof" of fraud. Which is it?
There are various different types of polls and pollsters. A poll is basically a question and the result is dependent on various other statistical and psychological factors along with the methodology and the respondents input itself. Pollsters are entities and they can be biased along with their employees, obviously. No one is truly objective in this life and every entity is funded by someone.
Gallup and Pew are two of the most famous, oldest and least biased pollsters out there, and they are often quoted abroad as well. They are not making 'polls' ie they don't ask people whom are they going to vote for president, they have given up on this contentious question long ago. Gallup does follow the approval rating of a sitting president, and it had measured the lowest and highest records of Trump too. Stating that Trump has a high approval rating atm per Gallup is just stating a fact.
Pew also creates various interesting studies related to voter preferences eg how do they vote, what are they priorities, what are they political leaning, etc... but they aren't doing the trivial 'polls' like many other companies.
So, if someone told you that they don't believe 'polls' than they most likely were talking about the presidential preference polls of likely/registered voters. And apparently, these polls and pollsters were indeed quite a bit wrong this year, more so than in 2016.
But Gallup and Pew were never complicit in these 'findings' in the past 4 years, so there's that...

>>12322370
thats the fucking point, they all look equally non-smooth and jagged. le epic graph isnt evidence of anything.

>>12323664
He was found not guilty by the senate because of GOP majority. That's the only reason. Mitch McConnell literally said on tape that he would not be impartial and would acquit Trump. Trump is McConnell's puppet and McConnell doesn't want to lose him.

>big batch of mail in votes gets added where the vast majority are blue
Woah such a mystery

>>12319042
How do you explain this one?

>>12322977
on pol people just pop into threads post their schizo ramblings and then leave. on /sci/ there's way more actual interaction between posters because people feel a legitimate interest to be right rather than just spam for their favorite team. look at how almost every post has 1 or 2 legitimately written replies as opposed to /pol/ where the vast majority of posts are 1 word taunts or agenda driven imageposts with zero replies.

>>12324074

>>12323279
Unironically the best post in the thread. It's a shame that literal twitter posts and 4chan schizo spam is going to be followed over stuff like this.

>>12323279
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

>the facts and logic board
deal with the facts

Statistical improbability isn't proof. Specially considering the circumstances. Mail-in-ballots, pandemic and one of if not the most controversial president in history all indicated shit wouldn't go down as it usually does.

>>12323926
t. /pol/ shitposter that gets his news from Alex Fucking Jones.

The pinnacle of emotional stability.

>>12324134
Always a good idea to have a general all-purpose refutation like this, very helpful for truthseeking

>>12324123
>>12324141

>>12323890
>Do you think the news is always lying, or do you think the news is always telling the truth?
This is your question, right?

kys poltards and fuck off back to your circle jerk containment board. you lost. get over it. /pol/ is a huge salt mine these days and that is awesome.

>>12324011
>>12324011
https://boards.4channel.org/sci/thread/12320337#p12324017ww was

>>12324187
>>12324141
>>12324011
>>12324017