/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.12318560]

What could possibly have caused this statistically?

[Anonymous No.12318613]

Higher voter turnout among those who typically would not have voted, because of mail-ins. Getting young people to vote has always been democrat's issue

[Anonymous No.12318630]

>>12318613
>because of mail-ins
I think all sides can agree this is the case

[Anonymous No.12318642]

>>12318630
Take that theory to /pol/. Those folks are going off the charts right now

[Anonymous No.12318647]

>>12318642
Yeah, it's pretty cool.

[Anonymous No.12318677]

>>12318560
Is there a single statistical anomaly this election which worked out in Trump's favor?

[Anonymous No.12318688]

>>12318642
/pol/ agrees mail-ins were where the voting became disconnected from normal patterns.

[Anonymous No.12318697]

The funniest gaslighting attempt this year has been trying to convince everyone that 2016 wasn't a contentious election year.

[Anonymous No.12318699]

>>12318688
It is highly amusing to watch /pol/ attempt math and statistics or to attempt any kind of logic at all.

[Anonymous No.12318704]

[Anonymous No.12318820]

>>12318699
They've demonstrated skill in astronomy and trigonometry to play capture the flag.

[Anonymous No.12318834]

>>12318560
>posted by:
>anime picture with MAGA hat, turk name
opinion discarded

[Anonymous No.12318839]

this is cargo cult shit

bellwethers are inherently unreliable in the long term due to demographic changes and shifts. Texas is probably going to flip blue eventually as older white people die out and younger whites lean far more left,probably slightly balanced out by a rightward shift in latinos.

[Anonymous No.12318840]

>>12318697
'Voter fraud' is maga cope now like 'russia hackers' was dem cope then

[Anonymous No.12318842]

>>12318704
i sure love this sourceless image with no context of unofficial reporting of results that seems to show an error. this is clearly proof of fraud that will hold up in a court.

[Anonymous No.12319027]

>>12318688
are they close to figuring out voter suppression mostly helps republicans?

[Anonymous No.12319053]

>>12318839
Young people become old people. Latinos are interesting though because the ones in Florida are trending even more conservative than they already were while Latinos elsewhere appear to have a general trend rightward but at a much slower rate.

[Anonymous No.12319059]

>>12319027
Not sure, haven't been there today but voter suppression isn't what the Trump people have been alleging happened.

[Anonymous No.12319122]

>>12318820
>They
Like 0.1% of them.

[Anonymous No.12319128]

>>12319059
I know, because democrats are too fucking weak to call out voter suppression by republicans

[Anonymous No.12319164]

>>12318613
>Higher voter turnout among those who typically would not have voted
Happened across the board in all the United Stated, regardless of intention, and including in-person voting. Biden won(apparently, pending courts) because he "had" Obama-level turnouts in 4 specific cities: Milwuakee, Detroit, Philly, Atlanta.

[Anonymous No.12319189]

[Anonymous No.12319231]

>>12318560
That's gamblers fallacy in a nutshell.
If you throw a coin and get 99 consecutive heads, the 100th coin toss is not guaranteed to be head.

[Anonymous No.12319244]

>>12319231
>Each consecutive bellwether is like a coin toss, independent and isolated from each other

How do idiots like you find this board

[Anonymous No.12319253]

>>12319244
the same way trumptards with the Dunning Kruger effect in the field of statistics and fraud detection found this board.

[Anonymous No.12319264]

>>12319244
Trumptards act like bellwether states are statistically guaranteed to be correct.
They have yet to prove that.

[Anonymous No.12319269]

>>12319253
so you have no argument just senseless drivel. We are here to debunk and not debunk and if you can't handle your argument being utterly rejected then just go.

>>12319264
Your making a strawman, no one is saying "statistically guaranteed" only "statistical Anomally". Whether the latter can turn into an actual argument for fraud is yet to be seen.

[Anonymous No.12319271]

>>12318560
>bellweathers
Literal astrology schizo shit.

If you don’t deeply understand the causes of something looking at completely arbitrary indicators is just like voodoo magic

[Anonymous No.12319274]

>>12319269
>Whether the latter can turn into an actual argument for fraud is yet to be seen.
Well, then prove your point.
You're the one waving around your stupid picture as if it proved anything.

[Anonymous No.12319277]

continued from >>12319269
One obvious thing to do that no one in this thread has asked for is the source for the data in the pic. Why are we speculating on a twitter picture?

>>12319271
This is a bad post with no real argument

>>12319274
what stupid picture? I am not OP!

[Anonymous No.12319288]

>>12319277
>This is a bad post with no real argument
You said it yourself in your post that it’s just a Twitter image, what argument should I bring you? It’s baseless inductive shit, don’t care about it

[Anonymous No.12319292]

>>12318560
/sci/ is the worst place to ask this question. Just a bunch of retards who think that everything is isolated in a vacuum. They have no grasp in societal dynamics

[Anonymous No.12319300]

>>12319189
Of course this post has no replies :-)

[Anonymous No.12319301]

>>12319288
Then you should not bump the thread with your unironic shitposting! Are you genuinely disabled! Op brings and argument with an unverifiable source and I just am posing the question why hasn't anyone asked for it, yet you keep shitting up the thread guaranteed to get even more shitposting replies. We already cleany debunked >>12312086 and they have thus stopped posting it everywhere. Please act like you have an iota of a brain cell, and make better post or ignore the OP.

[Anonymous No.12319310]

>>12319301
The Wikipedia page of every one of these counties has their voting histories
It's verified you sperg

[Anonymous No.12319315]

>>12319301
>unironic shitposting
It’s my factually based opinion, bellweathers are useless indicators that cater to people with delusion and gambling disorders, the data behind the photo being fake or real doesn’t change what I wrote

[Anonymous No.12319316]

>>12319292
Societal dynamics aren't science. It's some guesses about what people do based on what a womyn in the gender studies department thinks others think.

[Anonymous No.12319317]

>>12319292
>/sci/ is the worst place to ask any question. Just a bunch of retards
fixed for truth

[Anonymous No.12319333]

>>12319315
You literally just stated an opinion not a fact, citation needed for "useless indicators"

[Anonymous No.12319335]

>>12319300
There is a potential explanation for what's written in that post: Democrats are lazy. Republicans are less likely to procrastinate, so they get their ballots in early. Democrats tend to sit around on the couch saying they'll get to it later. Only after they've been prodded dozens of times by leftist organizations to get off their ass and mail in their votes do they actually make the effort to mark the ballot and mail it. This assumes that mail-in ballots are stored in order they are received and then processed in batches based on that order. I have no idea if this is true or not.

[Anonymous No.12319378]

>>12319301
>debunked
HAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.12319405]

>>12318630
We should ban mail-in ballots cause it makes voting too easy.

[Anonymous No.12319414]

>>12319405
This but unironically

[Anonymous No.12319424]

>>12319405
True, fuck the will of the people amirite? Mandatory IQ test or bust

[Anonymous No.12319427]

>>12319405
real easy to fraud

[Anonymous No.12319446]

>>12319424
>the will of the people
blacks aren't people

[Anonymous No.12319501]

>>12319292
/sci/ has a shitload of autists who think they understand how the world works because they got their bachelors. They will argue for hundreds of posts about inherently unanswerable and paradoxical scenarios.

[Anonymous No.12319506]

>>12319292
>"muh societal dynamics"
You being a sociology major doesn't make you any more of an expert than anyone else. In fact I would say it has the opposite effect.

[Anonymous No.12319517]

>>12319506
I abhor sociology. But I also realize that political polarization makes it impossible for swing counties to go from 100% to 18% in 4 years

[Anonymous No.12319533]

>>12318677
How exactly is it an anomaly for urban counties to have far more voters than rural, most of whom are democrat?

[Anonymous No.12319540]

>>12319053
Yeah but millenials are overwhelmingly left-leaning even as they age out, unlike their older peers. It happens when you get absolutely butt-fucked by the previous generations

[Anonymous No.12319552]

>>12319540
It happened because they're the first generation to experience the hyper-isolation we experience as a society. TV was the first step and it affected the boomers, but the 90s and onwards were like a turbo button on it. Basically they keep having minds of children even as they get older, and that of course means they stay left-leaning

[Anonymous No.12319558]

>>12319552
More like 'pull yourself up by your own bootstrap' mentality goes out the window when you realize Boomers literally did nothing but receive freebies their entire lives, then made it impossible for their kids to get those same freebies.

[Anonymous No.12319576]

>>12319533
Reading doesn't seem to be your strong suit if you fail to read titles and axis labels.
>2020 vs 2016 Vote Totals per County in GA
>Increase in 2020 Vote Compared to 2016 Vote by Party
Now to me it would seem that you didn't read these fairly important labels at all, since it would become immediately clear that it isn't about comparing urban areas to rural ones. Since it is highly unlikely that within only four years every single urban area flipped into a rural one and vice versa, in fact you would be hard-pressed to find this sort of dramatic inversion anywhere.

[Anonymous No.12319581]

>>12319540
The leading edge of millennials are entering middle age. None of them are "old".

[Anonymous No.12319586]

>>12318699
>It is highly amusing
Back to plebbit bro

[Anonymous No.12319599]

>>12319558
I realize you're very convinced of this, but it's too one-dimensional even if you're right on it specifically. It's like when people find a racial context in everything they see, it's silly. What I'm talking about is about of our fundamental mental capacity in the context of things that are readily available and are used by everyone

[Anonymous No.12320134]

>>12318699
you got room to talk, the people on this board are borderline retarded and can rarely understand simple logic. I dont even go to /pol/ btw so save your predictable retort about insulting /pol/. Just saying don't trhow stones when you live in a glass house

[Anonymous No.12320243]

>>12319335
But that wouldn't explain why the anomalies are only occurring in some states but not in others, since presumably democrat psychology doesn't change dependent on geography.

[Anonymous No.12320251]

>>12318704
Don't trust the mainstream media but also use them as irrefutable proof of voter fraud is your point?

[Anonymous No.12320264]

>>12318613
>>12318630
>Dems voted Biden be president but voted in their local and state government positions be Republican
Democrat cope mixed with lies.

[Anonymous No.12320290]

>>12318699
i love the 105 IQ midwits here that think everybody else is retarded lmao

[Anonymous No.12320292]

>>12320251
>what is a strawman

[Anonymous No.12320295]

>>12320292
You tell me buddy

[Anonymous No.12320306]

>>12320290
But everyone but me is a retard? How can I everyone I disagree faggot, faggot.

[Anonymous No.12320315]

>>12320306
did you just have a stroke?

[Anonymous No.12320327]

>>12320306
>But everyone but me is a retard? How can I everyone I disagree faggot, faggot.
lmao you cannot make this shit up

[the pepe slayer No.12321263]

>>12318560
voter fraud no question about it

[Anonymous No.12321270]

>Biden tells his supporters to vote through mail in ballots
>Trump tells his supporters to vote in person instead
>People wonder why Biden got so many mail ins for him

[Anonymous No.12321302]

>>12319576
Man, you’re not very bright, are you. If turnout increases by 10%, then thats 100,000 more votes in Atlanta, and 1000 more votes in hicksville.

[Anonymous No.12321307]

>>12319189
If mail in votes get stored in multiple facilities then that explains those patterns. Two or more facilities could have batches with different ratios. It explains both the jump (last facility is done counting, now a new facility is) and the gradual increase (both facilities are counting but one is counting faster).

Why did he bother posting a linear regression for 5 states, he didn't even use it to explain anything.

[Anonymous No.12321312]

>>12318560
you have to be literally brain dead comatose to not see the fraud. Too much conveniently "errors" and "glitches" and mystery ballots that fly in at 4am

[Anonymous No.12321316]

>>12321307
Also, to add to this: data scientists are liars. A good data scientist can tell any narrative they want and make a convincing case.

[Anonymous No.12321324]

>>12319189
But isn’t this just because the later ballot batches are from larger cities, which lean more dem? Would need to see the same graphs for other states.

[Anonymous No.12322002]

>>12321270
>Trump tells his supporters to vote in person instead
This is the talking point but you can't find video of him saying this

[Anonymous No.12322004]

>>12320251
Do you trust the mainstream media anon?

[Anonymous No.12322006]

>>12322002
nah he did but it still doesn't explain dumps that went 100% for biden and 0 for trump or jorgensen and all the rest

[Anonymous No.12322030]

>>12319335
Generalised stereotypes like that aren't exactly a waterproof argument anon. By the same logic I could argue that 'Democrats are more likely to cheat'.

[Anonymous No.12322045]

>>12321324
Why would later batches be from larger cities?

[Anonymous No.12322048]

>>12322006
Every time I see that talking point I ask for video, not once have I gotten it

[Anonymous No.12322123]

>>12319269
You have yet to prove that it is a statistical anomaly.
Also about whether or not states guess a presidential result correctly, it's literally a coin toss. I used the following data
https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/VOQCHQ
which spans 2000-2016 results in every county, and computed that a state guesses on average the correct result with probability 58.9%.

The impressive bellwethers track record is easily explained by the fact that among 3243 counties you have a good chance that some would eventually guess the correct result 16 times in a row. Same reason why some of 3243 series of 16 coin tosses will exhibit specific patterns, like heads all the time. The fact that this series actual breaks down after a certain time is a statistical guarantee if the number of county remains the same.
The fact that they all broke down on the same election year is not an anomaly because all those counties basically vote the same as each others every year (just look at each column, the correlation is extremely high), so if one were to fail, all others would as well, which is what happened.

[Anonymous No.12322128]

>>12322123
>elections are like a coin toss

[Anonymous No.12322132]

>>12322123
>You have yet to prove that it is a statistical anomaly.
>Same reason why some of 3243 series of 16 coin tosses will exhibit specific patterns, like heads all the time
Heads all the time is an anomaly you retard

[Anonymous No.12322147]

>>12322004
I trust no one who has something to sell

[Anonymous No.12322157]

>>12322123
>which spans 2000-2016 results in every county, and computed that a state guesses on average the correct result with probability 58.9%.
we are talking about belwethers not every fucking county in america

>The impressive bellwethers track record is easily explained by the fact that among 3243 counties you have a good chance that some would eventually guess the correct result 16 times in a row
Not all the counties are Bellwethers my friend and alot of counties have a miniscule population. Are you saying that the concept of "Belwethers" is flawed because out of 3243 counties there is a high chance you will find a group that adheres to each election by chance? We would need the data OP created to look into this further. For OP does not hace Georgia, PA, or MI

[Anonymous No.12322164]

>>12322147
Who do you trust?

[Anonymous No.12322192]

>>12322132
The chance that among 3243 series of 16 toss a series exhibits 16 heads is
(1-(1-0.5**16)**3243) = 0.0482 ~ 4.82%
Which is not negligible, and not anomalous

In the case of counties, each county guesses the correct result with 58.9% like I stated above.
So the chance that a county guesses right an election 16 times in a row is:
(1-(1-0.589**16)**3243) = 0.493 ~ 49.3%
Literally one chance out of two.
So the fact that two counties guessed right 16 times in a row was far from being anomalous.

>>12322128
I computed that counties are right 58% of the time for the 2000-2016 period, so yes, they do behave similarly to a coin toss on average on every election.

>>12322157
>we are talking about belwethers not every fucking county in america
You can prove anything by cherry picking, which is what looking only at bellwether counties is.

>Not all the counties are Bellwethers my friend
Well that's why not all counties guess right 16 times in a row. Which is something I didn't contradict, and in fact explained.
Among 3243 counties, you have a chance to have a set of bellwether counties for a limited amount (here 16) of consecutive elections.

[Anonymous No.12322217]

>>12318560
poor design

They selected the wrong way to display the data. Either use a better format so the data can be properly digested, or give the raw data so I can do it correctly. The is no key, no color declaration, no definitions of what the score % is referencing. I can read this 5 different ways and make a compelling case for each one, and they all could be wrong.

When we people learn!?! I am getting tired of this. I only picked up the basics from some designers I talk with, but apparently the people who make nearly every chart and graph don't even know the half of the basics I have picked up. How many more people have to die before we collectively take the visual display of information seriously.

Until I can process this as intended or get the data directly, I am going to say the reason for your surprise is simply bad formatting as nothing in this election was that surprising.

[Anonymous No.12322240]

>>12322217
That's what happens when morons try to use mathematics to validate their feelings.
Cherrypicking, incomplete analysis, incompatible usage of statistical laws, logical leaps.. This is when you realize that 90% of the population is mathematically illiterate.

[Anonymous No.12322254]

>>12319189
Virginia sounds inexplicable. Why would they try to fraud a state that had been safe dem?

[Anonymous No.12322272]

>>12319405
The real takeaway from the election is the supremacy of mail in ballots as a GOTV strategy. Republicans had an excellent GOTV effort that turned out a record number of their voters and probably performed the best it possibly could on election day, and they got swamped by the Democrats mail GOTV.

Election day GOTV is one shot chance with no redundancy. Mail GOTV gives you months of chances with extreme redundancy. Anyone serious about winning future elections will have to pursue a mail GOTV strategy that hits voters every day for months so none get missed and waverers get badgered into acting.

[Anonymous No.12322308]

>>12322272
Mail in ballots are not inherently bad themselves, and they actually are a good thing during this coronavirus outbreak.
What is indeed morally dubious is the GOTV strategy, where partisans could be forcing people's hand, challenging them emotionally to get their vote instead of letting them decide for themselves.
A solution to this problem would be to forbid single partisan to fish out for votes and make it mandatory that at least the two parties are represented each visit.

[Anonymous No.12322328]

Just like how Florida improved after 2000, our election process will learn from this mistakes. Hopefully mail-in ballots would be outlawed for able-bodied citizens.

[Anonymous No.12322344]

>>12322254
If fraud occurred there, it might not have been the presidential election that was the target but rather down ballot offices and they didn't make the mistake made in other states of only half completing ballots.

[Anonymous No.12322357]

>>12322217
In what possible way could you read this table other than "green means county was correct, red means incorrect, letter means party of the winner of the county, score is the percentage of these counties which picked the correct person"

[Anonymous No.12322361]

>>12320243
Leftist organizations could have targeted their lazy supporters in states they knew would be battlegrounds. Putting more effort into those states isn't weird. Democrats had no motive to put effort into California or South Dakota because neither state had a chance in hell of flipping.
>>12322030
It's just a possible explanation. I certainly wouldn't claim it to be waterproof. Fraud is also a possible explanation.

[Anonymous No.12322362]

>>12322192
>(1-(1-0.5**16)**3243).
This is not calculated correctly.
What is the probability of an event that makes it anomalous?

[Anonymous No.12322378]

>>12322362
Probability that one series gets heads 16 times in a row:
0.5**16
Probability that one series does not get heads 16 times in a row:
1-0.5**16
Probability that no 3243 series gets heads 16 times in a row:
(1-0.5**16)**3243
Probability that at least one of the 3243 series gets heads 16 times in a row:
(1-(1-0.5**16)**3243)

>What is the probability of an event that makes it anomalous?
Depends on how comfortable you want to be with the result.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/68%E2%80%9395%E2%80%9399.7_rule
>In the social sciences, a result may be considered "significant" if its confidence level is of the order of a two-sigma effect (95%), while in particle physics, there is a convention of a five-sigma effect (99.99994% confidence) being required to qualify as a discovery.

[Anonymous No.12322383]

>>12322378
Overlapping series being all heads are not independent events

[Anonymous No.12322403]

>>12322383
Are you saying that if I toss a coin and get heads 16 times in a row, then it influences the probability of the outcome of getting another 16 heads in a row?

[Anonymous No.12322442]

>>12322403
If you toss a coin seventeen times and the first sixteen are not all heads, that influences the probability that the final sixteen are not all heads

[Anonymous No.12322466]

>>12322442
All 3243 series of 16 tosses are realized independently, they're not bleeding into each others, they are separated.
Same as the series results of the 3243 counties, you don't have county series made up of results from different counties, only series with all results from one county.

[Anonymous No.12322479]

>>12322466
Oh gotcha. I misread your original post, thought you were committing a very common probability fallacy. Instead you're committing this new fallacy that election results in bellwether counties are like a 50-50 coin flip, which I haven't seen before this week

[Anonymous No.12322481]

>>12322254
No one has ever considered VA safe dem until this year, if it had flipped red while GA turned blue no one in the country would fall for the fraud not existing

[Anonymous No.12322551]

>>12322479
>Instead you're committing this new fallacy that election results in bellwether counties are like a 50-50 coin flip, which I haven't seen before this week
Imagine you perform 3243 series of 16 coin tosses and get one series where you have head 16 times.
Now you take out all series and present only the 16 heads series to some random person.
What will that person conclude with that information only?
He will think that the coin did not behave like a regular coin, because it got head every single time. So he will say that the coin is special, when it's obviously not.

Same thing is happening here in OPs pic. You think a bellwether county like Valencia is special because it guessed the election results 16 times in a row, when statistically there was 50% chance that at least one county did it, since there are 3243 counties playing the same game.

This 50% chance of getting 16 results right was deduced from the fact that statistically, counties have a 58% chance of guessing the correct result on average every election, which I computed with the data mentioned above.

If you think bellwethers counties actually have a higher chance of guessing the result of an election than just 58%, then you'll have to prove it mathematically.
But using bellwethers track records is not proof that they are always right, because it can be explained when put in the context of the other 3243 counties playing the same game, using the calculation I just did.

[Anonymous No.12322556]

>>12320264
no that would be independents and undecideds
alternatively you don't have to vote for every position on the ticket, it's very possible the mail in voters only cared about the presidential spot and the in person voters went with a straight ticket

[Anonymous No.12322563]

>>12322551
Why is the failure rate for bellwether counties so much higher this year than in previous years?

[Anonymous No.12322569]

>>12322556
>it's very possible the mail in voters only cared about the presidential spot and the in person voters went with a straight ticket
Why would this be the case?

[Anonymous No.12322584]

>>12322563
Because apparently they all vote for the same candidate as others (check each column) every election.
If one gets the result wrong, all of them are.

[Anonymous No.12322587]

>>12322584
Then it's not like a series of independent coin flips.

[Anonymous No.12322601]

>>12322002
he said it was unreliable and his supporters don't take the coronavirus as seriously so why would they use mail in?

[Anonymous No.12322616]

>EVERYTHING MUST BE ISOLATED IN A VACUUM
>NO THESE COUNTIES DONT VOTE AS A BLOCK THEY ARE COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT THEY ARE LIKE A COIN TOSS
i hate /sci/

[Anonymous No.12322623]

>>12322601
Because many of them would find it more convenient and don't take everything Trump says literally. Republicans requested about 40% of early mail-in ballots, as you can see here
https://electproject.github.io/Early-Vote-2020G/index.html

[Anonymous No.12322644]

You know what's hysterical? Apparently with all the polling suggesting (D) would win last time, (R) winning by a narrow margin was not evidence of fraud, but (D) being called as winning this time and winning by a significant margin is "an anomaly" and suggests fraud.
What's even funnier is that (D) was winning even before most of the mail in ballots had been counted, but somehow I guess the mail ins being like the rest of the vote was abnormal.
The scientific conclusion is that (((R)))s are great at jokes. This conclusion is backed up by historical evidence as my picture shows. I'm impressed, please tell me another one guys.

[Anonymous No.12322650]

>>12322644
>but (D) being called as winning this time and winning by a significant margin is "an anomaly" and suggests fraud.
nobody said this

[Anonymous No.12322663]

>>12322644
D has a higher ceiling in those industrial midwest states, similar to how R has a higher ceiling in states like North Carolina and Florida

[Anonymous No.12322666]

>>12322587
You're right. That's a problem.

I see two solutions:
- those states are independent, so instead of considering all bellwether counties, we only have to consider one of them, and the calculation I did with all counties still applies given the large number of total counties (removing all but one bellwether county from the 3243 total counties does not impact the result significantly).
- they are not independent (which is a possibility because OP's pic contains a certain amount of dissent). We would need to compute whether or not this apparent correlation (all voting seemingly the same candidate) is statistically reasonable. And then we would still be left with the open question of why those counties all broke down on the same election year since they're supposed to be independent. I think it would require us to compute the odds that any set of 17 counties from the 3243 select the same candidate. If those odds are not reasonable, then I would be forced to admit that there's something strange about it. Fraud? I can't rule out the possibility, but I don't see how.

Also we would have to make sure that all bellwethers countries have been included in this list, and that some were not discarded for some reason.

But I'll do that this later this evening because I have other things planned.

[Anonymous No.12322673]

>>12318677
Florida

[Anonymous No.12322676]

>>12322666
God I wish people were as skeptical about coronavirus statistics and proof that masks work as they are about things like this

[Anonymous No.12322682]

>>12322673
What anomaly? Pic unrelated

[Anonymous No.12322685]

>>12322673
Latino areas swung in Trump's favor everywhere, not just in Florida. In addition, Florida has a cuban population which was already more right-leaning

[Anonymous No.12322693]

>>12321312
...all ballots are mystery ballots, that's the point
Also are you unfamiliar with time to ship things around? If you are familiar then you must have an issue with them being too quick, right? Would you have preferred they wait until 6 AM? 8 AM? What rigor would satisfy you? That's the question I have girl all the doubters, what would make you believe the loss that isn't present?
Finally, damningly, Biden was ahead well before the polls even closed... what does that suggest, hmm?

[Anonymous No.12322712]

>>12322644
>>12322693
lol fucking lying with no shame. Trump was leading after polls were closed in PA MI and WI, but not in AZ.

[Anonymous No.12322719]

>>12322569
Republicans often feel they have a moral obligation to vote because of religion, so are less likely to split their vote. As for Dems not voting for the whole ticket, I don't know, it's just a possibility. I would go back to thinking it's probably independent and third parties.

[Anonymous No.12322728]

>>12322712
Biden had more states and higher popular vote the whole time. Cope harder.

[Anonymous No.12322734]

>>12322719
Why would independent and third parties be more likely to vote for Biden? I would think they'd be more likely to vote for Trump, atypical a republican as he is

[Anonymous No.12322745]

>>12322728
then what's with the odds?

[Anonymous No.12322752]

>>12322728
When and what relevance does it have? Trump was leading in the industrial midwest when polls closed there, and you lied about it.
>>12322734
Voters in the middle always swing to the opposition. Romney won independents by 5%, Kerry won them by 3%. Bush and Obama won re-elections because they expanded their own base. Trump worked aggressively on this exact strategy, so independents probably swung even harder against him

[Anonymous No.12322775]

>>12322752
Why must you lie?
Clinton won independents by 7%
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-1996
Reagan won independents by 28%
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/how-groups-voted-1984

[Anonymous No.12322784]

>>12322775
This was before hyper-partisanship, especially during the 80's where 20% of DEMOCRATS would always vote Republican.
Since 2000 it's correct.

[Anonymous No.12322808]

>>12322784
n=2 is a pretty shit sample size, if that argument is convincing to you then you should be accepting Benford arguments as well

[Anonymous No.12322822]

>>12318840
There was an investigation into the Russia cope, so why not have an investigation into the voter fraud cope? Turn-about is fair play, right?

[Anonymous No.12322824]

>>12322808
I'm not that anon, I think the fraud during the 2020 election is obvious, mainly due to the bellwether county results and this >>12319189

[Anonymous No.12322858]

Although I have no interest in the US elections, I just want to take a moment to thank our /pol/ travellers for not being particularly disruptive this time. Usually your posts here are overly inflammatory, but this time you appear to be behaving well enough. Good on you.

[Anonymous No.12322891]

>>12318560
Selective bias? There are 3141 counties and 19495 cities in the US.
>Not pictured, the other handful of counties that have been correct since the 50's that went for Biden
>Also record voting turnout changes the regime

[Anonymous No.12322901]

>>12322745
lol I saw the 7:1 Trump odds that night and thought it was outrageous. Wish I had went in one Biden

[Anonymous No.12322948]

>>12322891
Valencia and Vigo are the only counties that had a 100% record since '56. And voter turnout rose symmetrically across the board. Biden inexplicably had turnouts overperforming Obama in black cities in crucial swing states.
I won't be surprised if his blowout in the South Carolina Dem primary was also fraudulent

[Anonymous No.12322971]

>>12322891
Make a more accurate table then.

[Anonymous No.12323053]

>>12322217
>>12322240
>can't read and interpret a simple chart without being spoonfed
>calls others illiterate

[Anonymous No.12323058]

>>12322971
Do it urself.
Take the best bellweathers defined up to 2012 and use them for 2016. Then do that for 2008-2012. Are the same things as with 2020 observed?

[Anonymous No.12323116]

>>12322673
FL's absentee ("mail-in") ballots are uniquely identifiable, traceable, and auditable per individual voter. This is much more difficult to fraudulently spoof vs tens (maybe hundreds) of thousand of loose pieces of paper whose sole security feature is their custody.

>>12322328
Mail-ins don't need to be outlawed - they need to be auditable, traceable, and accountable. And most of all, there is no logical reason NOT to count the ballots as they come in (see all highly partisan dem states/areas from Wisc, MI, PA, and ATL). Counting them as the come in is much easier, much less oversight necessary (b/c you don't have 1,000,000 to count per day, maybe just 15,000, so there can be much more oversight and confidence that all sides are on the up-and-up) Had the Dems counted the votes as they came in (and stubbornly insisted on waiting until AFTER the election was over) there would be no question as to the provenance of the votes. But since they felt it necessary to only count mail-ins after they already knew Trump's high turnout #'s, it makes it yet another extremely sketchy coincidence.

[Anonymous No.12323278]

>>12319405
This but unironically. I am literally offended by others voting.

[Anonymous No.12323283]

>>12322673
Yes, Florida, one of few states that try with above minimally acceptable effort to make sure that you can't have 11th hour fraud ballot bombs.

[Anonymous No.12323285]

>>12323058
Yes

[Anonymous No.12323299]

>>12318560
Proof that Trump supporters are literally retarded.

[Anonymous No.12323310]

>>12323299
This
Literally every one of those counties voted for Biden this year
/pol/ can't into fact checking

[Anonymous No.12323332]

>>12323310
heh

[Anonymous No.12323342]

>>12323332
That doesn't count since New Mexico is an atypical state
Literally all the other ones voted for Biden.

[Anonymous No.12323344]

>>12323342
heh

[Anonymous No.12323348]

>>12323344
That one doesn't count either, we're in a pandemic and Trump told his supporters to not mail in their votes. Two out of seventeen counties doesn't prove anything

[Anonymous No.12323351]

>>12323348
heh

[Anonymous No.12323355]

>>12323310
>>12323332
>>12323342
>>12323344
>>12323348
>>12323351
Case in point. Take it back to thedonald, mouthbreather.

[Anonymous No.12323360]

>>12323355
Seething

[Anonymous No.12323362]

>>12323351
Look, I don't know what you're trying to prove here. There were three "bellwether" counties that voted for Trump instead of Biden. In fact since they got this election wrong, they technically don't even qualify as bellwethers

[Anonymous No.12323365]

>>12323362
Three?

[Anonymous No.12323387]

>>12323365
Like I said, that's technically not a bellwether

[Anonymous No.12323389]

>>12323387
If those aren't bellwethers then there are no bellwethers at all. Have we gone from 17 bellwethers to 0 in just one election cycle?

[Anonymous No.12323391]

>>12323387
Lol these people are retarded. Bellweathers are simply a rule of thumb, not a physical law of nature.

[Anonymous No.12323401]

>>12323391
They aren't a physical law of nature but they are an naturally emergent property which managed to be more accurate than almost every pollster in 2016

[Anonymous No.12323409]

>>12323391
So are you telling me that as polarization increased in the last 60 years, the accuracy of these counties increased to near perfection, and then - in an election which continued that polarization - suddenly collapsed to 18%?

[Anonymous No.12323411]

>>12323401
Polls are very bad, and are certainly not a "law of nature" either.

[Anonymous No.12323434]

>>12323409
I'm telling you that you're reading tea leaves.

[Anonymous No.12323452]

>>12322745
Thats simple. I was checking through 538's live blog, and the feeling was that Trump had done enough because lots of people underestimated
>The strength of Bidens mail ins
>The time it would take for those mail ins to come through
The last 2 elections got called pretty early so people looked at results after 4-5 hours and thought that it was in the bag, even though they knew Biden had mail ins in his favour.
That plus the fact Hilary was odd fav to win and lost meant it wasn't unlikely for the polls to pick the wrong winner again.

[Anonymous No.12323467]

>>12323434
Voters move in blocks. This causes snapshots of the entire country to occur in some counties, who serve as a mirror to the country. External factors affects their accuracy, like polarization as I said which makes them more accurate. So it's tempting to lash onto the higher turnout meme, but turnout rose across the entire country and indeed in these counties as well. The real anomalies are in the black cities in the crucial swing states where Biden somehow got Obama+ levels of turnout. As I said, voters move in blocks, but these black cities decided to be isolated from everyone else and give Biden the victory? I doubt it.

[Anonymous No.12323476]

>>12323411
What laws of nature are used in fraud analysis?

[Anonymous No.12323490]

>>12323452
Ok but the original anon was claiming Biden was in the lead the entire night. I wouldn't say people underestimated the strength of Biden's mail-ins, that was a talking point for weeks before the election. There was even a buzzword, "red mirage"

[Anonymous No.12323492]

>>12323476
"Fraud analysis" uses a multitude of different techniques. Then there has to be actual evidence of fraud. Idk if fraud is ever concluded based off statistics alone. It can point you in the right direction, sure.

[Anonymous No.12323508]

>>12323490
desu I won't be surprised if Biden the Dems and the media are already expecting for Trump to prevail through the courts and they are simply building a narrative of Trump stealing the election

[Anonymous No.12323510]

>>12323467
>This causes snapshots of the entire country to occur in some counties
Yes, but eventually these counties aren't indicative of the entire country. They don't remain bellweathers forever. And I'm sure an Ohio county compared to a densely black area like Detroit is a poor mirror, especially with record black turnout.

[Anonymous No.12323513]

>>12323492
Are there any laws of nature which are used, or is it okay to use rules of thumb which are not laws of nature?

[Anonymous No.12323515]

>>12323508
This is literally the strategy Trump has been using since July, except in reverse.

[Anonymous No.12323523]

>>12323513
All I'm saying is that using bellweathers to prove fraud isn't a great strategy. Sure, it might give an idea of where to look for fraud, but actual evidence needs to be found to conclude anything

[Anonymous No.12323529]

>>12323523
What would be a better strategy?

[Anonymous No.12323542]

>>12323510
Record black turnout would surely have flipped Calhoun, Colleton and Darlington counties in South Carolina. But no, they voted Trump.

[Anonymous No.12323543]

>>12323529
Actually looking through voter lists for fraudulent ballots. Not this pseudo-statistical analysis.

The main issue is that I've never seen anyone compare this election to previous elections, so pointing out that there are "statistical anomalies" is kinda useless unless we can compare this data to previous years, and see if it is really anomolous

[Anonymous No.12323547]

>>12323542
I don't think you can generalize across states in that way.

[Anonymous No.12323552]

>>12323543
>Actually looking through voter lists for fraudulent ballots. Not this pseudo-statistical analysis.
I don't think that's a possibility
>The main issue is that I've never seen anyone compare this election to previous elections, so pointing out that there are "statistical anomalies" is kinda useless unless we can compare this data to previous years, and see if it is really anomolous
This is a good idea and way more feasible. Why are you not doing it?

[Anonymous No.12323558]

>>12318613
That explains why Biden would win. But it doesn't explain why the bellwethers would be less bellwether-y. Part of their function as bellwethers is that they are sensitive to many of the same things that swing the election, such as youth turnout. So for example in 2008 a lot of youth probably turned out for Barack Obama, and lo and behold, Obama won 94% of the counties shown.

The question is, why did the bellwethers cease to be sufficiently sensitive to that stuff this year, while other counties still were?

[Anonymous No.12323565]

>>12323547
States aren't isolated in vacuums. Just because rednecks are most associated with the South doesn't mean you can't find rednecks all over the US. And indeed, they move as a block across state lines.

[Anonymous No.12323567]

>>12323552
>I don't think that's a possibility
So how do you possibly *prove* fraud? Even stuff like Benford's is just a guide, not a rule. So for financial fraud you actual need to look at transactions and stuff.
>Why are you not doing it?
Because I'm lazy and only have enough brainpower to spot bad ideas, not come up with good ideas.

[Anonymous No.12323576]

>>12323565
>States aren't isolated in vacuums.
No, but certain voting blocks are responsive to campaigning. Atlanta was a huge focus of this campaign.

[Anonymous No.12323590]

>>12323567
>So how do you possibly *prove* fraud?
I don't think a smoking gun proof of fraud exists. There are pieces of evidence with varying degrees of strength, and there is meta-evidence such that nearly every anomaly works out in Biden's favor.

[Anonymous No.12323594]

>>12323576
Campaigning doesn't cause extreme turnout anomalies. It's nothing but the campaigns maintaining their presence so that turnout won't be *depressed* in a critical area.

[Anonymous No.12323606]

>>12318630
Yes, please believe that this is my oppinion also, OK new administration. I'm with you guize too. OK. All my previous posts were satire.

[Anonymous No.12323610]

>>12323543
>>12323552
>>12323567
>>12323590
The point you guys are missing is that invalidating a vote is not like proving a crime. A vote has to be proven legal, not the other way. If a court finds that the measures to ensure votes are legal were improper, those votes would have to be invalidated

[Anonymous No.12323615]

>>12323594
So you don't think it's possible to improve turnout?

[Anonymous No.12323619]

>>12323610
>A vote has to be proven legal
How do you prove that *any* vote is legal, then?

[Anonymous No.12323629]

>>12323615
Well, all in all, this was not the most heated president race and the turnout is quite staggering in some places. Does it correspond to having a one party rule for generations?

[Anonymous No.12323634]

>>12323615
Campaign-grinding is only a way of maintaining baseline turnout. Significant changes in turnouts relate purely to organic sentiments within that group.

[Anonymous No.12323635]

>>12323629
>this was not the most heated president race
I think this was the most heated race in quite some time

[Anonymous No.12323642]

>>12323634
How do you know this?

[Anonymous No.12323663]

>>12323619
There are measures to be taken when you vote to check if it's legal. So if a measure is approved and lawful, then every vote that passes it is proven legal. But if a measure is struck down, its votes should be invalidated. Usually of course this is no problem since the legislatures are in charge of these measures and they literally make them lawful, but 2020 has been peculiar in that the state courts stepped in to enforce these covid rule changes. So the Supreme Court may very well find them improper

[Anonymous No.12323680]

>>12319405
This but unironically
The minor inconvenience of physical voting is a big enough deterent to filter out people who don't care enough to have their vote matter

[Anonymous No.12323683]

>>12323635
Still not the most heated, and even the more heated ones had only a slightly larger turnout. This one was. Several standard deviations away:

1932 75,768,000 39,817,000 52.6%
1936 80,174,000 45,647,000 56.9%
1940 84,728,000 49,815,000 58.8%
1944 85,654,000 48,026,000 56.1%
1948 95,573,000 48,834,000 51.1%
1952 99,929,000 61,552,000 61.6%
1956 104,515,000 62,027,000 59.3%
1960 109,672,000 68,836,000 62.8%
1964 114,090,000 70,098,000 61.4%
1968 120,285,000 73,027,000 60.7%
1972 140,777,000 77,625,000 55.1%
1976 152,308,000 81,603,000 53.6%
1980 163,945,000 86,497,000 52.8%
1984 173,995,000 92,655,000 53.3%
1988 181,956,000 91,587,000 50.3%
1992 189,493,000 104,600,000 55.2%
1996 196,789,000 96,390,000 49.0%
2000 209,787,000 105,594,000 50.3%
2004 219,553,000 122,349,000 55.7%
2008 229,945,000 131,407,000 57.1%
2012 235,248,000 129,235,000 54.9%
2016 230,931,921 136,669,276 59.2%
2020 239,247,182[21] 157,100,00 - 165,000,000[21][24] 66.4% - 72.1%[21][24]

[Anonymous No.12323688]

>>12323642
Because campaigns always throw everything they can. They throw all they have and the kitchen sink and manage regular turnout. When a campaign DOESN'T grind, it affects the turnout negatively. Actual bounces are caused by for example if a candidate is of the same group identity, or is perceived to resonate with their core interests

[Anonymous No.12323713]

Unironically, I wonder if the BLM protests, NBA and soccer kneeling etc etc actually worked in terms of them actually going out and voting.

[Anonymous No.12323719]

>>12323713
Why only there? Why not anywhere else?

[Anonymous No.12324679]

>>12322357
>"... correct ... picked the correct person"
Please stop and think about what you just posted. How are you defining as "correct" candidate? That automatically implies one candidate is the correct one, and one is incorrect, heck you even use the term "incorrect". I would assume given this seems to be a bellwether variation data set that a better term would be "expected" and "unexpected" and I would still insist that you include the context of in what relationship that is referring to as well.

If you can't see the danger of calling out one candidate "correct" in a case like this, then I don't think I can explain my stance to you as the way you use words appears too laxed for such debate.

[Anonymous No.12324690]

>>12323663
>but 2020 has been peculiar in that the state courts stepped in to enforce these covid rule changes.
PA actually set this ballots aside and hasn't counted them yet for this exact reason.

[Anonymous No.12324695]

fraud

[Anonymous No.12324698]

>>12323683
>Something that happens 2% of the time happened 1/22 times

[Anonymous No.12324729]

>>12324690
The Supreme Court (or Justice Alito to be specific) had to step in and order that rule to be followed because it was being ignored. How many ballots slipped in before the order? We have no way of knowing because once ballots are comingled, they cannot be sorted back out.

[Anonymous No.12324910]

>>12324729
Actually we can, because the case in PA was to enforce a rule that was already on the books and being followed. As PA has rules to not commingle groups declared by the laws, which were made many years ago.

The whole case was just a political stunt to make it sound bigger then it was. The reason the lower cases ruled against was that they tossed it because getting a ruling to follow the law is basically textbook case of needless lawsuit so it should be ignored. Thus so it was ruled pointless and that allowed them to appealed to the supreme court which then said they must follow the law. As to then allow political spin to imply the law was not being followed prior, despite that is was.

[Anonymous No.12324920]

>>12323558
>why did the bellwethers cease to be sufficiently sensitive to that stuff this year
Voter Fraud you fucking retard

[Anonymous No.12324938]

>>12323594
Trump being so controversial, absolutely worshiped by his base while despised by everyone else really helped turnout. I would say the largest contributor to turnout was how much early, absentee and mail in voting there was compared to normal years. Actually being able to think about and plan ahead by several weeks just makes people much much more likely to vote. Especially compared to having to physically go to the polls when most Americans still have to show up to work.

[Anonymous No.12324947]

>>12324920
>WE FOUND 6 CASES OF FRAUD IN PENNSYLVANIA SHUT DOWN THE ELECTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DEMOCRACY HAS FAIILED

[Anonymous No.12324956]

>>12318613
>Higher voter turnout among those who typically would not have voted, because of mail-ins.
Like, dead people?

[Anonymous No.12324958]

>>12324956
The only verified case of fraud was a man who registered his dead mother to vote. (for trump)

[Anonymous No.12324973]

>>12324958
I bet you also think that only athletes who use doping are the ones who got caught.

[Anonymous No.12324988]

>>12324973
No i just assume all votes for the person I like are real and good, while all votes for the person I don't like are zombies voting. I don't need any proof or evidence I just believe whatever I want.

[Anonymous No.12325002]

>>12324973
Only the stupid ones get caught

[Anonymous No.12325008]

>>12324973
>>12325002
you know it's pretty fucking easy to prove someone is dead right?

[Anonymous No.12325089]

>>12319189
>large amounts of mail in votes in large cities are added to the counts later because their laws said that mail ins get counted last
>this is somehow fraud

[Anonymous No.12325208]

>>12324973
The baseball doping scandal was a PR plot to cover up amphetamine abuse look it up.

[Anonymous No.12325217]

>>12324973
Put up your evidence then we're waiting :)

[Anonymous No.12325219]

>>12318699
I hear the head kicker guy in portland just got sentenced to 2 years in prison. /pol/ ID'd that guy from a grainy video and autisticly chased him across the internet, till they had a name. Not the first time they've done that. Hardly the dim wits you make them out to be.

[Anonymous No.12325258]

>>12325219
damn browsing facebook really takes a whole lot of brainpower, i'm in awe, truly this is the power of the white race.

[Anonymous No.12325324]

>>12318560
Does activate the almonds.

>>12318613
This seems unlikely given Trump's overperformance with women and minorities (traditional democrat voters) this election season, and also given how shitty of a candidate Biden was.

[Anonymous No.12325328]

>>12319122
0.1 is all it takes. l2 engineer. I don't even know what I'm typing or writing most of the time and I'm still passing comp and elec.

[Anonymous No.12325336]

>>12325324
which was oddly enough overshadowed by his losses among white men (traditional republican voters) this election season, biden was a shit candidate but Trumps horrible management of the pandemic turned what should have been an easy victory into a loss.

[Anonymous No.12325337]

>>12319231
dumbass what if each time you throw 20 coins and the last time you get 19 times head? isn't it weird?

[Anonymous No.12325341]

>>12325337
as unlikely as any other combination of heads and tails

[Anonymous No.12325355]

>>12325341
no dude that's not how probability works

[Anonymous No.12325356]

>>12325355
it's exactly how probability works

[Anonymous No.12325361]

>>12325356
can someone prove mathematically to this retard that he's wrong?
need to go to course

[Anonymous No.12325362]

>>12325361
Why don't you do it? it's fifth grade math.

[Anonymous No.12325426]

>>12324938
But it's already established that turnout rose across the entire country, including in the bellwether counties. I'm talking about the anomalous turnouts in the black cities

[Anonymous No.12325434]

>>12318839
>Texas is probably going to flip blue eventually as older white people die out and younger whites lean far more left
Texas is going to flip blue because of illegal immigrants you fucking mongoloid

[Anonymous No.12325451]

>>12325336
Trump got good results in white areas you sperg. He 'lost' because of extreme turnouts in black cities, likely caused by fraud

[Anonymous No.12325454]

>>12325336
White men are more likely than women and nonwhites to blame the pro shutdown crowd for the pandemic difficulties rather than Trump for not wanting to cave to that crowd. The midwits who think a two month shutdown and mandatory quarantine would have solved anything were already voting Biden.

[Anonymous No.12325505]

>>12325451
trump actually did better than 2016 in most demographics except white men where he lost considerable ground. Which is why he lost. Sorry to burst your bubble bud.

[Anonymous No.12325508]

>>12325434
*legal immigrants if they're voting in texas

[Anonymous No.12325510]

>>12325505
Nigger, if Trump overperforms everyone else and then underperforms white men by only 3%(yeah I saw the exit polls), he wins easily. He didn't lose "considerable" ground anywhere. There are key precints and counties that are being looked at for these exact indicators and there was indication for what you're claiming, only exit polls which as I already said display minor changes. Anomalous turnouts in black cities caused Trump to "lose"

[Anonymous No.12325512]

>>12325434
Texas is going to flip because its like Georgia and they set up a little hollywood propaganda city to spread all the biased information and influence local politics.

[Anonymous No.12325513]

>>12325454
honestly we just need to accept that the American people are too stupid to handle a pandemic properly like any first world nation did. Americans deserve to die in droves, and American politicians should help facilitate it.

[Anonymous No.12325515]

>>12325510
there was no* indiciation of course.

[Anonymous No.12325523]

>>12325510
>black cities
you of all people should know that's less than 13% of the voter eligible population while white men are one of the largest demographics he lost by 5 million votes when he needed that margin to be closer to 3 to win. Sad but true, I know you're trying to cope but oh well.

[Anonymous No.12325529]

>>12323515
imagine having your brain this deformed and rotted by CNN and youtube trannies

[Anonymous No.12325533]

>ITT and similar
Americans find out that its absolutely fucking retarded not to have a centralized electoral body, then promptly forget about it until next election

>mfw

[Anonymous No.12325534]

>>12325523
White men account for roughly 33% of the electorate while black (men and women) are under 10% oddly enough that 3% of 33% comes out to about 1.5 million which is pretty close to the margin he needed to win.

[Anonymous No.12325535]

>>12325523
anon, the US a whole may be 13% black, but black cities are at least 50%. So when you re-adjust the turnout and toss away the fraud, Trump wins. And indeed the results statewide indicate he would win by a slightly bigger margin than 2016

[Anonymous No.12325537]

>>12325535
let me know if you find any evidence of fraud, so far it's mainly been trump voters getting caught

[Anonymous No.12325541]

>>12325533
They won't forget about it. 2000 caused Florida to become extremely efficient at counting votes fast and secure. In 2018 Democrats in Broward county tried to steal the Governor and Senator races there but they were stopped, and their local election officials were fired. Hopefully 2020 will cause all of these different states to improve their system, and also abandon this retarded mass mail-in ballot scheme
>>12325537
>he thinks the anomalous turnout is real
safe sign to ignore you from now

[Anonymous No.12325548]

>>12325541
It's a pretty normal reaction to current events, cope harder.

[Anonymous No.12325549]

>>12321316
show on the doll where the data scientist hurt you

[Anonymous No.12325550]

>>12325541
>2018 Democrats in Broward county tried to steal the Governor and Senator
What is it with you conservatives and evidence free conspiracies?

[Anonymous No.12325551]

>>12325541
Which party refuses to pass any election security measures again? remind me.

[Anonymous No.12325554]

>>12325548
Again nigger, I'm not talking about the rise in turnout that happened all across the United States and including the bellwether counties and all the statewide key counties. I'm talking about the extreme 98% turnouts in black cities which didn't occur anywhere else across the nation

[Anonymous No.12325558]

>>12325258
That's something that niggers cant do, so yes

[Anonymous No.12325559]

>>12325554
98% turnout in black cities? sauce please

[Anonymous No.12325561]

>>12324973
>we should behave based on sheer supposition
youre the kind of person who says "where there is smoke there is fire"

[Anonymous No.12325567]

>>12325434
texas is goign to flip bc shocker people who arent fucking morons tend to the left, and American politics is calibrated so far right that voting dem is an easy no brainer.

[Anonymous No.12325570]

>>12325550
>Gillum concedes defeat
>All of a sudden Broward announces new ballots found
>Lock themselves up in a room, prevent people from coming in to observe
>Gillum retracts his concession
>Only after then-governor Scott intervenes to clear all the mess they announce final results which don't change the outcome
>Local election officials are then fired
>>12325559
Usually it would be https://county.milwaukee.gov/EN/County-Clerk/Off-Nav/Election-Results/Election-Results-Fall-2020
but it seems to be conveniently down right now at least for me.
So https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/milwaukees-sky-high-voter-turnout-prompts-lawsuit-seeking-explanation

[Anonymous No.12325571]

>>12325570
Again, no evidence just "suspicions".

[Anonymous No.12325572]

>>12325570
>Those numbers are not without some precedent. Turnout for many of those wards in 2016 hovered around the 85%-89% range. Many broke 90%, though nowhere near as many as did this year.
>"There are some villages in the Milwaukee County area where turnout is usually above 80%," she said. "Whitefish Bay and Shorewood are good examples. If statewide turnout is around 70-plus%, these villages will be much higher."

>"This year's turnout was really high in some places like this," she continued. "But these are high-education, high-earner areas near a major urban market, so they are primed for high turnout in an election like this one."

[Anonymous No.12325573]

>>12325571
That's right, and that was a good example from Florida of how to treat niggers like you who have plausible deniability. You stop them in their tracks. Hopefully the states who were exposed in 2020 would become more vigilant

[Anonymous No.12325575]

>>12325541
The fact you think mail in voting is stupid is wild given there are areas that have been doing it for decades with no problems lmao.

[Anonymous No.12325577]

>>12325572
hol' up is you sayin rich white people vote?!?!?!!??!?!

[Anonymous No.12325581]

>>12325513
Very based. I was actually disappointed that we didn't lose a significant fraction of the retards in this hyped up dietburger.

[Anonymous No.12325584]

>>12325575
Absentee ballots were always much more likely to be fraudulent. Now, what's the difference between 2020 and past elections?

[Anonymous No.12325585]

>>12325573
You just agreed that you have no evidence for something you claimed happen.

This is one of the rare times I wish this site was moderated so someone could permanently dropkick you off /sci/

[Anonymous No.12325587]

>>12325584
citation needed, perhaps you can tell me the total number of cases of voter fraud in the past 20 years or so, compared to the total number of votes. would really help us out.

[Anonymous No.12325588]

>>12325584
>Absentee ballots were always much more likely to be fraudulent
Why? Cite your sources. Otherwise its just a hypothesis, and there is no reason to base electoral decisions off it.

[Anonymous No.12325589]

>>12325573
Banana republic. Scream about voter fraud when there isn't any to fire up the base.

However, there was voter fraud in the 2018 election. Someone was actually charged. Is it because it was the Republicans doing it you don't mention it?

[Anonymous No.12325591]

>>12325587
>>12325588
Here https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/pacei-voterfraudcases.pdf

Vast majority of cases here are absentee ballot frauds.

[Anonymous No.12325741]

>>12325591
This just show that voter fraud is extremely rare?

[Anonymous No.12325742]

>>12325741
Because voting by absentee ballots wasn't inflated to an enormous amount due to a pandemic

[Anonymous No.12325772]

>>12325742
How many absentee ballots in 2020 compared to 2016?

[Anonymous No.12325789]

>>12325772
2016: 24,218,607 Mail Ballots Returned
2020: Mail Ballots Returned: 65,487,735 • Mail Ballots Outstanding: 26,611,661

[Anonymous No.12325805]

>>12325789
Thank you.
The Heritage Foundation database spans literally decades and proves fraud is extremely rare. I don't see how inflated mail in ballots in 2020 would even remotely come close to flipping the election. 100 of thousand or even millions of fraudulent votes over dozens of states would be necessary, no?

[Anonymous No.12325837]

>>12325805
There is no system that cannot be gamed. You presume that all fraud must be alike, but it's far from that:
>backdating B votes
>curing B votes but not T votes
>not rejecting B votes but rejecting T votes whenever possible
>discarding T votes
Creating fraudulent ballots/votes is just one technique, but if you combine every possible trick and method, then it's enough if each of these create just a few increase, especially in a year with an unprecedented amount of mail-in ballots (the easiest vote-type to defraud).

[Anonymous No.12325848]

>>12325837
>but if you combine every possible trick and method
Making the whole conspiracy extremely complex and unlikely.

[Anonymous No.12325882]

>>12318560
more democrat votes than 2016, looks good to me considering how 50/50 this election was

anything pre 2016 is irrelevant

[Anonymous No.12325883]

>>12325848
>Making the whole conspiracy extremely complex and unlikely.
You mean, if a conspiracy is sufficiently complex and intricate then it must surely be false? The fact that this was a unprecedented turnout election due to the last minute push of a record amount of mail-in votes is a fact. We also know that mail-in voting is far less secure than in-person voting. We also know that dems in PA eg demanded the system be even more lenient (no signature match req, accept ballots post ED, etc). This creates not only a higher-than-ever possibility to game the system, but it also shows possible intent to do just that. Again, curing your candidate's votes while failing to that to the other party is not even illegal, technically speaking. But it does seem to give an unfair advantage to the perpetrator. This doesn't even have to be centrally coordinated, mind you, it just requires partisan leaning and intent from poll counters.

[Anonymous No.12325888]

>>12323680
>The minor inconvenience of physical voting is a big enough deterent to filter out people who don't care enough to have their vote matter
Hopefully, if Trump wins reelection, we'll ban mail-in voting all together.

[Anonymous No.12326125]

>>12325888
just use voting ID, every citizen gets in the census by default and use the proper mail voting channels like the rest of the civilized world

[Anonymous No.12326150]

>>12325883
>You mean, if a conspiracy is sufficiently complex and intricate then it must surely be false?
It makes it more unlikely.
You say mail in voting is less secure and all that jazz but it's still extremely rare. Why would it all of a sudden be very common? You're also making the assumption that all fraud would have to be made by democrats? And it's not even organized. It's just tens (hundreds?) of thousand of democrats just decided that they are gonna cheat? It's just absurd.

[Anonymous No.12326160]

>>12322254
Same reason why Nixon went through with Watergate even when he was almost guaranteed to win the next election.

[Anonymous No.12326192]

>>12326150
>It makes it more unlikely.
You can argue that statistically speaking the simultaneous occurrence of multiple events is less likely than the possibility of a single event. True. But as I stated, we're talking about the same party who pushed for a huge change in the electoral process based on a pretext, less than 2 months prior to the elections. They also lowered safety measures in at least one key state. These facts ought to alter the likelihood in the other direction ie making it more likely, not less likely, that they had bad intentions.
>it's still extremely rare
Yeah, afaik or afaiw proven/detected so far based on historical mail-in volume.
>Why would it all of a sudden be very common?
Not common per se, and they why is obvious. Dems wanted Trump gone, no matter what. The motive is obvious, whether they did it, or were just lucky enough having to do it, is another question.
>all fraud would have to be made by democrats?
Nope, far from it. I mistrust any and all politicians ofc. But the fact is, dems have the advantage by controlling the largest pop.centers. Both parties/operatives committed fraud in the past. But dems were in the need this time, and they had the (double) upper hand this year.
>not even organized
There may have been organized, and not organized parts.

[Anonymous No.12326199]

>>12318560
Math PhD here, you lost. Get help, digging yourself deeper in a rabbit hole of lies is purposeless.

[Anonymous No.12326211]

>>12326192
Come on anon. I could make the exact same arguments for why Republicans cheated. They were even down in the polls.

[Anonymous No.12326234]

>>12326211
>They were even down in the polls
a-anon I...
>Republicans cheated
They possibly did, but not in any meaningful way that it mattered. Ds possible do it all the times in big cities, and again, not in any meaningful way that it matters. This year T was leading on ED, as was expected, and then he somehow lost. Ds foretold this, claiming that 'well yes, but mail-ins will keep coming until B becomes the winner'. Now, I'm not saying that this specific part is all that suspicious but it's just funny how the events played out so conveniently. The real mathematical question is this: how much (%) of the post-ED mail-in ballots counted are valid (so not invalid, and not fraudulent either)? Also, if I were to cheat, and I have the faculties to do just that (large pop.centers) this is how I'd do that. I'd wait for my opponent to vote on ED, and I'd wait for the count to end or reach a certain high %. Then I'd estimate the amount of votes I need in case my projected lead is insufficient. And then I'd somehow achieve my goal, using one, or more techniques.
I should also say that my suspicion would be the same, if parties were to switch position. That is because my suspicion is based upon their past action/claims, and the facts that D took over the lead over R in the end. Aside from 2000, there has never been any other election in recent memory where the results were not obvious right after ED.

[Anonymous No.12326260]

>>12326234
>Aside from 2000, there has never been any other election in recent memory where the results were not obvious right after ED.
You can thank republican legislature for that.

[Anonymous No.12326266]

Whats astounding is that murrifats don't even have voter ID.

Even the 3rd world use voter ID as a means of preventing voter fraud

[Anonymous No.12326278]

>>12326260
>You can thank republican legislature for that.
To me, it doesn't really matter, I've got no horse in this race. But it's curious since republicans did win 2000 eventually, so if anything, this proves that it's not futile to try and take election results to court. And yes, there were suspicious facts surrounding the FL results in 2000, it certainly didn't help their optics that Jeb was governor and daddy's ex-lawyer was their state secretary. Then again, if we're being honest and objective, we have to present and accept suspicious facts, statements and actions on both sides. In 2000, it was the GOP, this year, it's clearly the dems that are suspicious. And no, I wouldn't go into the 'who is better, who is worse' argument since again, I wouldn't care.

[Anonymous No.12326290]

>>12326278
2000 was not about election fraud.

I'm not gonna entertain your conpsiracy theories anymore. Take care.

[Anonymous No.12326292]

>>12326278
How about the brooks brothers riot stopping a recount? Especially when half the people that participated ended up working within the bush administration or republican party.

[Anonymous No.12326342]

>>12326290
>2000 was not about election fraud
No, but most if not all dems are still claiming that Bush stole election, and as I stated, not without merit.

>>12326292
What's your point? I just explained that in 2000 the GOP were the suspicious party, while this year it's the dems. I'm totally aware of both parties' shenanigans so you don't have to convince me/remind me about that.

[Anonymous No.12326506]

maybe telling your 50+ constituency to go get themselves infected with a virus that preferentially kills the 50+ in the 6 month lead up to the election was a bad idea.

[Anonymous No.12326539]

>>12326342
They're only "suspicious" because Trump has been calling for fraud and they knew mail ins would get counted later which were primarily Dem

[Anonymous No.12326547]

>>12318560
Fraud. Biden stole the election from Trump. Notice how in every state that didn't randomly decide to stop counting at 3 am had no major mail in late comers from Biden?
Biden got less of the vote than Obama and Clinton in every state except for PA MI WI and GA. makes you wonder

[Anonymous No.12326577]

>>12324920
I understand that that is an explanation. But the whole point of this thread is to get people who deny the widespread fraud accusation to come up with a different coherent explanation. So I ask again, to those who deny the fraud accusations- why did the bellwethers cease to be sufficiently sensitive to voter turnout or youth turnout this year, while other counties still were?

[Anonymous No.12326578]

>>12326547
>Biden got less of the vote than Obama and Clinton in every state except for PA MI WI and GA. makes you wonder
This is not even true. Why lie?

[Anonymous No.12326585]

>>12326577
Because bellwethers are post hoc explanations for elections. They have no predictive power. It's like reading tea leaves.

[Anonymous No.12326590]

>>12326539
This. Trump has been priming you saps on voter fraud since like July when he knew he would lose. And you fuckers are marching right along like good little soldiers

[Anonymous No.12326596]

>>12326585
Really, no predictive power? I understand that they have no causal power, but something with no causal power can still have predictive power if it correlates with the thing you're attempting to predict.

So in 2024, if we were to add another column to this chart, your best guess would be a random assortment of green and red cells, with an accuracy of about 50%?

[Anonymous No.12326605]

If there's so much evidence for fraud then why the best thing Trump's campaign has been able to produce in PA is some washed up NJ candidate who's a sex offender? Why not clearly show evidence?

[Anonymous No.12326606]

>>12326596
>your best guess would be a random assortment of green and red cells, with an accuracy of about 50%?
I have no idea, as there is no predictive power in a bellweather.

There are so many counties in the US, that it is no surprise that a county has matched up with an election result randomly for many years. Especially when considering how close some counties are to 50-50

[Anonymous No.12326607]

>>12326539
>They're only "suspicious"
No, they're not 'only' susp. cause of those reasons, I already explained multiple other factors too.
>Trump has been calling for fraud
T warned that it will make fraud more likely, was he wrong? If mail-ins are 1% fraudulent yearly, then clearly a 20x increase in mail-ins will produce more fraudulent votes than ever before. Changing a system so close to the elections is also ill advised.
>knew mail ins would get counted later
No all of them, and not in every state, but yes. But that doesn't mean anything, since it would also be the perfect cover/excuse.
>were primarily Dem
Define primarily please. You do realize they were way less D than they wanted it to be, right?

[Anonymous No.12326616]

>>12326607
>mail-ins are 1% fraudulent yearly
Are they?

[Anonymous No.12326618]

>>12326606
I guess we'll find out in 2024. If these same counties turn up ~90% green on the extended chart, would you then admit that the bellwether counties do have predictive power?

[Anonymous No.12326625]

>>12326618
No. As I said, bellweathers are post hoc explanations for election results.

[Anonymous No.12326635]

>>12326616
>Are they?
That was supposed to be an example to show you that 1% of X is less than 1% of 30X. So claiming that more mail-in ballots this year will produce more fraudulent (or rejected) ballots is completely true. Unless we believe that a huge increase in the volume of mail-in ballots will somehow produce roughly the same amount of fraudulent votes as before.

[Anonymous No.12326637]

>>12326625
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "post hoc". How can it be post hoc if the counties are chosen 4 years before the election?

[Anonymous No.12326641]

>>12326635
Is the amount of fraud significant, though? For example, if the actual rate of fraud is 0.00001% for mail-ins, who really cares?

[Anonymous No.12326650]

>>12326637
Because people look at these counties after the fact and say: "ah yes, these counties voted with the winner, so they must have predictive power". When the real conclusion you should draw is that there a fuckton of counties in the US, so a spurious trend like this is very likely in a small number of counties.

[Anonymous No.12326653]

>>12326607
Verification for mail ins is more rigorous than election day votes and in states like PA the Republican state legislature specifically blocked the early counting of mail ins until after election day was over, leaving 2m+ early votes from large cities, where they were 70% blue. Same goes for other states that took long to count mail ins from large cities, causing Biden to flip the state. Of course trump knew this for a while, that's why he's been shitting out baseless fraud accusations for months and so far his campaign has not been able to produce any concrete evidence, with the state republicans from those states saying there's no evidence.

[Anonymous No.12326660]

>>12326635
The only verified cases have been voters who had their mailed ballots stolen and were promptly caught by verification

[Anonymous No.12326664]

>>12326607
It's only suspicious because the whole right wing ecosystem didn't read the memo that said the mail in votes would go in Biden's favour. Everybody else expected it.

[Anonymous No.12326673]

>>12326650
But it's not spurious if the correlation continues for elections you don't yet know the results of.

Look, suppose you didn't read any news or watch any TV or anything, so you didn't know the results of the election. Then in 2024, I show you data from just these bellwether counties, and 90% of them voted Democrat. Wouldn't that substantially increase your certainty that a Democrat won the election?

Now run the same experiment, but instead of showing you results from bellwether counties, I show you results from counties that tend to vote Democrat every year no matter what- e.g. big cities. That really wouldn't affect your uncertainty regarding who won at all, right?

[Anonymous No.12326677]

>>12326641
>Is the amount of fraud significant, though?
That's the real and relevant question here, and we don't know for certain. Even after audits and recounts, it may not be certain. The perfect fraud is the one that cannot be proven. That's why the stat analysis was important since it can highlight anomalies that are otherwise undetectable by manual recounts. Let's say dems somehow were able to vote on behalf of people who are registered non-participants. How would you prove that the vote of actual living people that had been validly submitted, are in fact, fraudulent? Especially if signatures need no to match. I'm not saying that as a fact, all I'm saying that it is a possibility.

[Anonymous No.12326680]

>>12326641
>There was no fraud
>Ok, there was fraud, but it wasn't widespread fraud
>Ok, there was widespread fraud, but it wasn't targeted enough to change the outcome anywhere
>Ok, there was targeted fraud, but the places where it changed the outcome don't have enough votes to change the entire election
>Ok, there was targeted fraud that changed the outcome of the election, but the end justified the means for getting rid of Cheeto Hitler
It's interesting how quickly the narrative has switched away from "there was no fraud" to "it didn't change anything". Only by completing the investigations can it possibly be determined if the outcome was affected or not. Claims that the impact of the fraud are moot are just there to stop the investigation before it discovers something inconvenient.

[Anonymous No.12326685]

>>12326673
You're still trying to convince yourself that these random correlations as a result of large sample size have any meaningful predictive impact.

For example, Valencia NM has the longest track record of being correct. Want to know the demographics of Valencia? It's 50% hispanic and 0.76% black. Why should this county have any predictive power? It doesn't. It's a 50-50 county that happens to follow election results due to random chance. You could probably find "anti-bellwethers" too that get the election result *wrong* nearly 100% of the time.

[Anonymous No.12326694]

>>12326680
You might be retarded. There is fraud every election. You'd have to be naive to think otherwise. It's typically very small. The claim that I was responding to stated that mail in voting has a higher percentage of fraud than walk in voting. Even if that were true, we have to know how *much* more fraud can come from mail ins, and if this makes a significant difference.

Should we throw out the results of the last 50 elections too because of a very small amount of fraud?

[Anonymous No.12326696]

>>12326653
>Verification for mail ins is more rigorous
Laughably false. Anyone could have filled out and mailed in any of the mail-in ballots. There is zero verification of that aspect. In person voting requires a signature so the claim that the signature on the mail-in envelop is superior is obviously false. But go on telling us how we've always been at war with Oceana. The people who are already on your side will eat up your deception like fat man at the Ol' Country Buffet. To everyone else, it's simply further proof of your intent to use whatever dishonest means is necessary to get your way.

[Anonymous No.12326698]

>>12326685
They have no causal impact but they do have a predictive impact. You didn't answer my questions about the experiment. In the first case, where I show you results from the bellwether counties, wouldn't that substantially raise your certainty? In the second case, where I show you results from an equal number of big cities, wouldn't that barely change your certainty at all?

[Anonymous No.12326718]

>>12326698
Basically, a bellwether county is a county that is typically close to 50-50 split. I have no reason to believe that individual counties can tell me anything about the general election trend. Especially when the demographics of these small counties are not representative.

I'm fact, if you look at a big Dem city, it's probably more useful than a bellweather by looking at HOW MUCH the Dems won by, and the turnout there. That can help gauge enthusiasm

[Anonymous No.12326723]

>>12326673
>>12326698
These are analyses made after the fact, that after the election there's some counties out of the 3,114 that happen to have gone the way of the election. What part of that you don't understand?
>Then in 2024, I show you data from just these bellwether counties, and 90% of them voted Democrat. Wouldn't that substantially increase your certainty that a Democrat won the election?
Gambler's fallacy

[Anonymous No.12326742]

>>12326696
>Anyone could have filled out and mailed in any of the mail-in ballots.
The need a signature.

[Anonymous No.12326743]

>>12326718
>>12326723
So to be clear, you're saying that you would react roughly the same way in both experiments- "Oh, 25 counties selected at random (or which might as well have been selected at random) voted Democrat, I guess I will say the odds for Democrat are higher, but only slightly." You wouldn't see some counties' results as more predictive than others?

Assume I only give you binary win/loss results, for simplicity's sake.

[Anonymous No.12326749]

>>12326742
>The need a signature.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court says ballots can’t be rejected based on signature comparisons
The court ruling backed up a policy issued by the state election office earlier this year.
>The ruling is a defeat for President Donald Trump’s campaign and other Republicans, who had challenged the decision by Pennsylvania election officials, arguing that efforts to match signatures on ballots to signatures on voter rolls were necessary to prevent fraud.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/23/pennsylvania-court-ballot-signatures-431794

[Anonymous No.12326754]

>>12326743
No, I would not see some counties as more predictive than others, unless they are large enough to influence a state race.

A much more useful analysis is looking at IMPORTANT counties. For example, as soon as Biden had such a small lead in Miami, I knew he would lose Florida. It did *not* tell me anything about other states, except for maybe a general trend with hispanics.

Looking at only these tiny counties is completely meaningless

[Anonymous No.12326757]

>>12326749
But that's only in Pennsylvania. What about other states?
And btw how does one go about to get 1000, 10000 or 100000 ballots?

[Anonymous No.12326763]

>>12326749
i'm actually curious of how you think this works? How do YOU think that enough voter fraud happened (only for biden) to sway the results of the election (several million votes)

[Anonymous No.12326766]

>>12326749
That's why you have many other verifications and bipartisan observers in the polls when counting is happening. For example it would be readily verifiable to check for where the ballot came from since you had to request it prior to voting that gets verified that came from the correct address

[Anonymous No.12326767]

>>12326754
Well then I guess we'll find out in 2024 if these counties are good predictors.

[Anonymous No.12326773]

>>12326749
As I said before, the only confined cases were some handful of votes where they were stolen from the person's mailbox and they were caught.

[Anonymous No.12326777]

>>12326743
Let me interject here: bellwether counties were not only wrong this year by a record amount of counties, some of them even breaking their dozen term long streak, but they were also wrong by a large margin. This means, that those of them who predicted a Trump win had actually a decent T margin. At least one bw county that 'predicted' so to say a Biden win had only got a thin B margin. So they weren't just wrong, they were apparently 'very fucking wrong' this year. If someone wants to entertain the bw idea at all.

>>12326757
>But that's only in Pennsylvania. What about other states?
So you weren't aware of the PA case, or you purposefully tried to claim that mail-in is vastly more secure than in-person voting?
>get 1000, 10000 or 100000 ballots?
Is it really that hard to figure? All you need is personal data and ballots and the willingness to defraud them. A city controlled by the same party for decades surely doesn't have the means to access these things, right?

[Anonymous No.12326779]

>>12326773
there was also that dude who registered his dead mom to vote for trump

[Anonymous No.12326784]

>>12326777
>A city controlled by the same party for decades surely doesn't have the means to access these things, right?
Damn, shame that in PA the Sec of State and the legislature are Republicans

[Anonymous No.12326794]

>>12326767
That's not how it works, but ok.

[Anonymous No.12326797]

>>12318560
There are about 3,141 counties

Let's say we have every county flip a coin every 4 years to simulate predicting the presidential election, with heads simulating the correct outcome.

On average, about 12 counties would correctly predict every outcome 8 times in a row. 6 would 9 times in a row, 3 would 10 times in a row, 1-2 11 times in a row. And these are perfect streaks, if we include counties with a few mistakes our list of "bellwethers" gets a lot larger. If we didn't know this was a coin flip and we thought this was a predictive skill, we would be impressed with these counties.

You can see the chart does a little better than random chance, but the presidential race isn't as random as a coin flip. You have other factors like incumbent advantage and obvious landslides that increase the odds of predicting each outcome better than 50%.

[Anonymous No.12326804]

>>12326784
I think it's likely the only reason PA was even close is because there was massive republican voter fraud.

[Anonymous No.12326806]

>>12326784
>A city controlled by the same party for decades surely doesn't have the means to access these things, right?
>Damn, shame that in PA the Sec of State and the legislature are Republicans
Sorry, but this /pol/ tier retort is beneath me. You're talking about state level officials, when I was talking about democrat controlled cities. If you want to obfuscate, please do it elsewhere, this is /sci/.

[Anonymous No.12326807]

>>12326777
I'm guessing that the republican observers in the polls just roll with it am I right?

[Anonymous No.12326810]

>>12326797
Thank you for the analysis. It's reading tea leaves. There is simply no reason for a small NM county (Valencia) with 50% hispanic and 0.76% black to be predictive of anything

[Anonymous No.12326811]

>>12326797
But you aren't updating your list of counties every election. You're picking a set list and sticking with it, right? So if you were just coinflipping, even if you had picked the coins that came up heads 7 times in a row, the next time you would expect chaos- roughly 50/50 accuracy.

In 2024 do you predict that the current list of bellwethers will be inaccurate? Or do you think they'll just go back to ~90%?

[Anonymous No.12326815]

>>12326777
Didn't know about PA. Still need signature in other states.

>Is it really that hard to figure? All you need is personal data and ballots and the willingness to defraud them
How does this work? You need an ID of some sort to get a mail-in ballot in PA. It is sent to you when approved. How the fuck does one get a hold of tens of thousands of ballots? Drive around to each house and steal it from the mailbox?

[Anonymous No.12326823]

>>12326807
>I'm guessing that the republican observers in the polls just roll with it am I right?
You do realize that there's a claim from the GOP that their observers had not been allowed to monitor the counting process, right? Again, you're willfully ignorant or just trying to obfuscate here. I don't know if the GOP is telling the truth regarding that topic or not, but I am aware that they did make the claim, at least concerning some key states' sites.

[Anonymous No.12326831]

>>12326823
That was basically one guy complaining he couldn't stand super close to the counters.

And then there were a whole bunch of retards claiming to be poll watchers who were upset they weren't allowed in.

[Anonymous No.12326835]

>>12326823
My understanding is that poll watchers are kept in a strict balance to ensure the number of Republican, Democrat, and Independent watchers is the same. So maybe some of them weren't allowed in so that the balance could be kept, rather than to exclude Republicans from the process entirely.

[Anonymous No.12326837]

>>12326811
Well if my explanation is complete and you don't update the list with emerging bellweathers, the current ones will likely regress to the mean

The only thing that interests me about the OP is that the current bellwethers were overwhelmingly wrong in one direction. I don't know how likely that is, assuming none of this was cherry picked.

[Anonymous No.12326840]

>>12326823
Weird how they make these claims on twitter but never in court.

[Anonymous No.12326843]

>>12326823
There are republican observers. The complaints were about wether the observers could be closer then the 6 foot social distancing limit and another not allowing people from the campaign from outside to enter the polling premises. Not to mention there were cameras set up all over the place. The claim that there were no Rep observers there is false.

[Anonymous No.12326858]

>>12326837
Right, so do you predict that that would actually happen with a non-updated list of bellwethers? Or do you think they are actually more predictive than an average county (and therefore that your explanation was incomplete)?

[Anonymous No.12326866]

>>12326858
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean

[Anonymous No.12326882]

>>12326866
I know what regression to the mean is.

[Anonymous No.12326977]

Every election year there's accusations of fraud. Because /pol/ it's happening all over 4chan when the republican loses.
Since everyone is always saying there's fraud, why assume that this year is particularly egregious?
It's incredibly likely there's normal level of fraud. Don't complain about it because the incredibly normal cycle of shift from republican to democrat to republican to democrat happened again.

[Anonymous No.12326998]

>>12326815
Basically what would have to happen in this schitzo fantasy is:
>election employees first steal the identities of unregistered voters, including names addresses, social security numbers drivers license numbers etc.
>they then fill out registration forms for them in some places this could be done online but in many areas you would have to mail these in they couldn't just appear out of thin air.
>once the registration has been approved you need to fake mailing the ballot somehow because it's incredibly obvious if ballots just aren't mailed yet end up counted anyways you also need to make sure the voter isn't contacted by the party once they register as that's a dead giveaway someone registered for you.
>from here you fill out the ballots including forging the signature. Then mail them. You also have to mail them in different locations across the county because if a ballot appears in one mailbox in the middle of the city nowhere near the return address people start asking questions.
>repeat this process at least 10,000 times to make a difference. Several million times across the country.
Each step leaves a paper trail a mile long and requires the cooperation and complete silence of dozens of people. It's also incredibly illegal and you would be looking at 7 years minimum for even doing one thing listed, once.

[Anonymous No.12327021]

>>12326977
much much more vote by mail

[Anonymous No.12327023]

>>12326977
The heritage foundation found 1,298 cases of voter fraud since 1982. Including state and local elections. All the voter fraud in 38 years spread across several billion legal votes. Wouldn't even be enough to swing once state in this election.

[Anonymous No.12327062]

>>12326998
This. The fact that the only "evidence" is these retarded statistical massaging techniques tells me that there's almost certainly no fraud

[Anonymous No.12327063]

>>12320134
>>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.12327069]

>>12326998
Pretty good, anon. That's why all of these threads are pretty ridiculous.
Yes, fraud happens, but at the scale that's being suggested is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to get away with.

[Anonymous No.12327233]

>>12321307
Post nose

[Anonymous No.12327301]

>>12326998
>Each step leaves a paper trail a mile long and requires the cooperation and complete silence of dozens of people.
It is indeed impossible. It would require cities to be under the rule of the same party since forever and that every single important higher-up people to be a member of the very same party.

[Anonymous No.12327581]

>>12327301
I wish democrats could be so coordinated and motivated.

[Anonymous No.12327729]

>>12326234
>They possibly did, but not in any meaningful way that it mattered.
Holy shit you actually just did the Trump meme thing of
>no i didnt
>maybe I did
>if i did it doesnt matter

[Anonymous No.12327776]

>>12327301
>if you belong to red team you are a mindless sycophant by default
If this is true then your country should just burn it down because its a plague on the earth.

[Anonymous No.12328329]

>>12326998
Not really. In US history, even living history, it's easy to find elections that were just bought. Legit ballots, legit voters, they just got something for their vote.

[Anonymous No.12328463]

>>12327023
That just tells me they suck or there's no good way to measure it

[Anonymous No.12329064]

>>12318560
a new variable was added to the equation
notably, a pandemic, whether or not you believe it to be real or fake