Polk County Benford

[Anonymous No.12319838]

Someone is shopping around bad graphs on Polk County Benford's Law analysis

Please see the real analysis attached

Biden's line fits almost perfectly, Trumps' does not .... HOWEVER please see Detroit in the next post

[Anonymous No.12319845]

>>12319838
The RSS to Benford's in Detroit is 50 times worse for both candidates

This time though, Biden's RSS is 10 times worse than Trump's while in Polk Trump's RSS is 10 times worse than Biden's

But why is Detroits RSS values for both candidates 50 times worse than both candidates in Polk county

[Anonymous No.12319939]

The distribution of votes by precinct in Polk also appears to follow a normal distribution pattern

So Polk is a good test for Benford's - as is Fulton
Fulton has very very similar vote-by-precinct data to Polk

[Anonymous No.12319956]

>>12319838
Are you working with actual data?

[Anonymous No.12319959]

>>12319956
Official I mean

[Anonymous No.12319965]

>>12319956
>>12319959
https://enr.electionsfl.org/POL/Summary/2547/
- for Polk
https://results.enr.clarityelections.com/GA/Fulton/105430/web.264614/#/summary
- for Fulton
https://detroitmi.gov/webapp/election-results
- For Detroit

[Anonymous No.12319981]

>>12319965
Noice.
I would help but I have exams

[Anonymous No.12319999]

>>12319838
>>12319845
>>12319939
>>12319956
>>12319959
>>12319965
>>12319981
YOU LOST!!! Ahahhhahahaahahahah! Holy fuck, how hard can you cope!?

[Anonymous No.12320020]

>>12319999
Lol, now the shills know the maths checks out and you can't hide the fraud
Better switch tactics to "you lost and there's nothing you can do about it", ey?

[Anonymous No.12320021]

>>12319999
Nothing wrong with doing some analysis.
There's nothing you can do. We're committed to keeping democracy alive

[Anonymous No.12320022]

>>12319999
>YOU LOST!!!
But maybe not. That's the point.

[Anonymous No.12320027]

This is Fulton County GAs distribution of votes by precinct

[Anonymous No.12320029]

I like how the people most interested in finding fraud are probably not even us citizens

[Anonymous No.12320032]

>>12320027
this is fulton county GA's Benford's analysis

[Anonymous No.12320035]

>>12320027
2s seem popular there

[Anonymous No.12320036]

>>12320027
I don't really understand this graph...do some precincts have 0 votes?

[Anonymous No.12320041]

>>12320032
This is Fulton County GA's Senate rate Benford's analysis

Looks markedly different from the presidential race...

>>12320035
yes, but the distribution is approximately normal and covers 4 orders of magnitude
>>12320036
3 have zero votes, yes

[Anonymous No.12320046]

>>12320041
How is it possible that a precinct has 0 votes???

[Anonymous No.12320047]

>>12320041
What does it being ND tell us about the results?
Should election data be ND?

[Anonymous No.12320049]

Isn't pic related a better method of analysing this, with one dot per precinct, voter turnout calculated correctly as total votes / eligible populace?

Also, pic related and similar I could find masses on duckduckgo, today the image search is spammed with nonsense and my IP range got banned from /pol/.

[Anonymous No.12320057]

What I wanted to say is that Benford's is a dead-end as the transactions follow patterns in the physical world (organising - and self-organising by poll workers - of in what masses the transactions are done).
One anon suggested 2nd-digit Benford's, could be valid.

[Anonymous No.12320063]

>>12320049
This could work. I might help us to correlate this with benfords.
Issue Is getting accurate turn out datas

[Anonymous No.12320068]

>>12320057
You're welcome to run it.
My plan is to do some major comparisons to previous elections and look at how much variance between those elections there really are.

[Anonymous No.12320069]

>>12320068
This is what's lacking in every analysis. How does this stuff compare to 2016? 2012? Does this hold for any US election?

[Anonymous No.12320074]

Here's an article explaining the analysis in detail
https://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16469.full

[Anonymous No.12320080]

>>12320069
I don't know but I have to wait until after exams and by then I hope it's not too late

[Anonymous No.12320084]

>>12320049
only detroit is showing turnout by precinct at the moment

[Anonymous No.12320086]

>>12320068
>>12320063
I haven't been explained how to interpret election data, I have some open questions but couldn't post them anymore.
It's to do with the fields of a file from a pastebin, called nyt_ts.csv if somebody knows. I would prefer a field-by-field explanation anyway.

Also, where does one get "eligible voting populace" per precinct as of Nov 2020?

[Anonymous No.12320101]

>>12320084
So this seems legit then, right? If we assume the trend indicates anything of course.

[Anonymous No.12320108]

>>12320086
In Australia, you. are required by law to vote and it's nearly impossible to defraud our voting system.
So voter turn out there should be legit as you can get.
Might be useful to compare against.

[Anonymous No.12320120]

>>12320084
>dat filename
Thanks.

The link I just posted about the method is now archived:
https://archive.is/wip/LIqS6
This is the dataset I didn't see before, but might be useful (joint_results.csv):
>dataset: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=07748811191129901124

I was off track so many hours that I don't know where to get what data anymore. There were guys doing webscraping of results etc.

Important is the DIY turnout rate. There MUST be a way to get real eligible populace per precinct.

[Anonymous No.12320126]

>>12320101
What do you mean legit?
Do you see the mass votes on the left hand side, at 0% turnout? they are absentee votes

There's exactly 167,001 absentee votes, 95% of which went to Biden
Of the actual precinct votes, 90% went to Biden

[Anonymous No.12320132]

>>12319999
Maybe they're just based stats autists that like to do this kinda analysis for fun. Why would that bother you?

[Anonymous No.12320138]

>>12320120
You could filter out by a specific time for the mail votes in states that were counted afterwards?
After about 11:30pm in eastern time.

[Anonymous No.12320146]

I'll restate my instructions. I know my way around data and produce tons of reliable results with disclaimers about what can't be told as my profession, but I admit I do that as a craft and am no statistician.

This varies - but it must be palpable.
As follows - based on the graphs posted, I propose:
Two graphs be drawn, two for Trump, two for Biden.
One for each candidate each does analyse mail-in ballots, the other in-person votes.
Y axis of each graph is the maximum percentage of votes the candidate has. This is flexible. If not possible, make it 0 to 100%.
X axis is TRUE % voter turnout per type of vote, here it gets tricky. Many anons did votes/registered voters, which is strictly wrong.
It MUST be total votes of one type cast/populace eligible for voting.

At the end, there can be a consolidated graph, showing only one for Trump/one for Biden or even Trump red and Biden blue in one graph.

I'm not as fresh as I was yesterday, so that's that.

Interpretation? The pictures above give ample direction.

[Anonymous No.12320150]

Forgot to mention: for every precinct the numbers must be plotted as one dot on the graph.

[Anonymous No.12320156]

As I can't post on the NSFW board due to an IP range ban, someone needs to get Brazilbro and Spananon for the work, and Webscraperanon for the census data.

[Anonymous No.12320157]

>>12320146
How do we separate in-person vs mail?
That's what I was thinking.
If we do separate the mail votes and they deviate much further from benfords law than the combined, we can confirm there's something suspicious.

[Anonymous No.12320158]

>>12320126
I mean there isn't that top right smear indicative of fraud in, say, Russia. Right?

[Anonymous No.12320160]

>>12320156
Involving /pol/ will shit my the thread imo this and bring more shills.

[Anonymous No.12320163]

>>12320158
the theory is that the fraud is through absentee ballots - which don't have a 'turnout' assigned
So the smear is on the other side

[Anonymous No.12320168]

>>12320146
What website were they scraping?

[Anonymous No.12320169]

>>12320163
Well that kind of makes the trend useless in that case, no? We need both turnout and vote choice data to make conclusions....that smear could just as easily fall in the middle of the blob. We need the turnout data.

[Anonymous No.12320171]

>>12320157
>How do we separate in-person vs mail?
You give me insight into joint_results.csv or nyt_ts.csv and perhaps the answer comes by itself. I'm not touching anything I don't understand.
>>12320160
And relying on me will mean I have to start from scratch where others have partial results already.

Unfortunately, I think they calculated the turnout wrong and were spammed into oblivion by the Benford's deadenders.

[Anonymous No.12320172]

>>12320163
>>12320158
>>12320169
250,219 ballots were cast in Detroit precincts
167,001 were absentee ballots

I guess I need full Wayne County precinct data to make a better analysis. Wayne county data will probably have the absentee ballots assigned to the proper precinct but you can't be sure of that

[Anonymous No.12320175]

The data comes fresh with every new /vfg/ thread.

[Anonymous No.12320177]

>>12320172
Yeah we definitely need turnout data. Just voter data by itself is useless.

(This is all assuming that the trend even makes sense, of course).

[Anonymous No.12320178]

>>12320168
Gotta ask over on /pol/, I completely lost track about a full day ago. Some webscraper guy did something, but then other .gov sources were available, I think that's settled. Except for turnout...

[Anonymous No.12320179]

>>12320041
>>12320032
>>12320027
If anyone was wondering, Fulton County's total votes by precinct follow Benford's law

[Anonymous No.12320180]

>>12320171
can you post a screen cap of the contents of the csv file first please

[Anonymous No.12320182]

>>12320179
Now that you post this anon, I think it's worthwhile to point out that these graphs without any accompanying stats are useless. What does "follow" mean in this case?

[Anonymous No.12320187]

>>12320046
Fulton is large county that includes many industrial areas. A precinct with zero votes might be one that used to have residents but the population became so low, they moved the few houses in it into an adjacent precinct. The zero population precinct legally still exists but no polling place is set up because the population is zero. The airport, the world's busiest, has on multiple occasions bought out entire neighborhoods during expansions of runways or changes in flight paths. Precincts that covered those neighborhood might also still exist legally but have zero population.

[Anonymous No.12320191]

>>12320182
Benford's line and then the vote line. The vote line approximately follows Benford's.

[Anonymous No.12320194]

>>12320191
Right, but when does it not "follow" Benford's? Obviously it will never follow it exactly, but how close does it have to be to "follow" this law? Is there a statistical test you could perform?

[Anonymous No.12320195]

>>12320177
IMPORTANT is that for every precinct a correct turnout can be calculated. If it turns out that turnout is >100%, such results can be collected in a list for imminent fraud suspicion.

The data will make sense. Isolated areas on the graph with high turnout/high candidate votes will:
a. if not prove fraud, at least narrow down precincts for investigation (from the results used to plot)
b. be sufficient to indicate that vote-padding could have happened at that precinct.

Every state, county, precinct can't be controlled by a fraudulent actor - he has to concentrate on little hotspot, and that's the analysis' strongpoint.

Even thinking of Benford's when this available!!! But it's OK, four eyes see more than two.

[Anonymous No.12320196]

>>12320182
The RSS is half that of Biden's line compared with Benford's. Biden's is 2073

Trump's is half that again at 574

[Anonymous No.12320200]

>>12320194
>>12320196
Residual Sum of Squares from Benford's predicted line to observed result

I've broken the RSS down by vote for candidate here >>12320032

The higher the RSS the worse the fit

[Anonymous No.12320202]

>>12320195
>on little hotspot
on little hotspots
>when this available!!!
when this is available!!!

[Anonymous No.12320204]

>>12320196
>The RSS is half that of Biden's line compared with Benford's
What do you mean exactly? So is Biden's RSS 963 or 2073?

[Anonymous No.12320208]

From /pol/, fresh:

>>nationwide county level outcomes:
* contains county level vote counts for every county, along with a ton of metadata. both presidential and senate (where applicable) outcomes are included
>>288456438
>>288433704
script: https://pastebin.com/ttVrP84V
dataset: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=53784536668884512822

>>precinct level data for georgia:
* contains 1 row for each candidate, vote_type, precinct, and count of votes
>>288469137
data: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=05519499335694648580

>>precinct level data for PA, FL, MI:
data:http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=31726190215850590771
script: https://pastebin.com/ewgt1FPA


>>precinct level data with vote types for PA, FL, MI:
data: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=15821690987348124499
script: https://pastebin.com/ewgt1FPA

>>state-level outcome reporting timeseries:
* contains 1 row for each update of state-level reports for each data, tracks vote evolution over time.
>>288449214
script: https://pastebin.com/bSMht6da
data: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=14566999163598825215

[Anonymous No.12320209]

>>12320194
You set some tolerance for variance.
I don't know if OP has some value set or not. But currently I'm just eye balling it.
Usually you can tell if it deviates a lot.
I agree we do need some defined range that's based on something. Another reason to look into previous elections to establish this.

[Anonymous No.12320212]

>>12320209
>I agree we do need some defined range that's based on something
Yeah because graphs can be very misleading depending on the scale

[Anonymous No.12320213]

I don't want to spam, but this is needed for all states!!!


>>precinct level data with vote types for PA, FL, MI:
data: http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=15821690987348124499
script: https://pastebin.com/ewgt1FPA

[Anonymous No.12320219]

>>12320204
The RSS of the total votes to Benford's expected line is 963
The RSS of Biden votes to Benford's is 2073
The RSS of Trump votes to Benford's is 574

In other words, it looks like Biden's votes have made the fit of total votes to Benford's worse that the Trump votes (because Biden votes are part of the Trump votes)

[Anonymous No.12320222]

>>12320208
>From /pol/
Take it back please.

[Anonymous No.12320227]

>>12320204
>The RSS of the total votes to Benford's expected line is 963
>The RSS of Biden votes to Benford's is 2073
>The RSS of Trump votes to Benford's is 574
>In other words, it looks like Biden's votes have made the fit of total votes to Benford's worse than the Trump votes (because Biden votes are part of the total votes)
So Biden's votes don't fit Benford's expected line and is dragging the whole total vote line away from Benford's

[Anonymous No.12320228]

>>12320208
btw if the scraping violates the terms of use for the nytimes we have illegal data that cannot be used in any cases.

[Anonymous No.12320233]

>>12320222
You want source data, here it is. There have been people working their asses off for this. Time isn't on your side - I couldn't care less if dried up retard #1 or #2 governs you for the next 4 years. I just find it dangerous that a superpower can't manage its integrity and this must be resolved.

[Anonymous No.12320235]

>>12320208
don't fuck this up by stealing data.
You really need to check the terms of use for that data otherwise /pol/ has completely fucked this.

[Anonymous No.12320241]

>>12320228
Why not hone the method against that data, then move on to a source that can be brought to court as evidence?
Better still, with that data you save time by knowing where to look closer.

[Anonymous No.12320247]

>>12320235
What I just said. >>12320241

[Anonymous No.12320254]

>>12320241
I hope you're right. I just know that news websites have very tight restrictions on what you can and can't scrape.

[Anonymous No.12320256]

>>12320254
I say: use it now, see if you're on to something, throw the data away, get it officially sourced. No harm done and you save yourself a few precincts to look at.

[Anonymous No.12320281]

>>12320256
the csv data is sort of gross.
Probably going to have to change the scrape tool to be more friendly.
Going to use Python as it gives me more flexibility to do shit.

[Anonymous No.12320293]

>>12320281
The nyt_precinct.csv is nicer. It contains PA, MI, FL.

One thing: voter turnout. It can be total votes in precinct against:
a. eligible populace for vote (absolutely perfect)
b. populace of voting age (probably the same except felons)
c. populace regardless
As long as this is consistent for all calculations, does it matter much? The choice must be documented, that's all.

>Going to use Python as it gives me more flexibility to do shit.
You're doing the Lord's work. Don't let the anti-Python copypasta demoralise you. Choose the tools you deem fit.

[Anonymous No.12320297]

>>12320228
Facts such as lists of phone numbers, populations of cities, and election results cannot be copyrighted. A particular presentation of the facts can be copyrighted but because you're using the scraped version, the presentation is gone and you're left with public domain facts. The act of scaping those facts might be a ToS violation but that doesn't make the facts any less public domain and usable by anyone. The New York Times could file a civil suit against the scraper and sue for damages, which would be the CPU cycles involved and the bandwidth for the transfer, so they'd get something like a tenth of a penny if successful.
td;dr: don't worry about scraping data as long as you're not doing it constantly using automation.

[Anonymous No.12320300]

>>12320293
To be clear, I repeat:
NOT AN OPTION is to calculate turnout as total votes/registered voters.

BUT generally, as a side quest, looking into registered voters versus eligible populace could yield some very interesting finds.

[Anonymous No.12320307]

>>12320293
b would not only exclude felons but also foreign nationals, here legally or not. In some areas the difference could be significant.

[Anonymous No.12320312]

>>12320297
Thanks. Your words are heard.

The world can't afford losing a superpower of the West to the league of banana republics. That vacuum would instantly filled by the CCP.
The US of A must prove they can heal their electoral system themselves. For that healing process, a diagnosis and then, a therapy are necessary.

[Anonymous No.12320316]

>>12320307
Yes. This is grasping at straws, but any padding attempt should still be made obvious, regardless of the census data applied.

[Anonymous No.12320323]

>>12319838
>Biden's line fits almost perfectly, Trumps' does not
Because you're using some shitty polynomial fit that creating Runge's phenomenon. Unironically a linear spline between points would have been better than that.

[Anonymous No.12320330]

>>12319999
>how hard can you cope!?
Have a look in this mirror

[Anonymous No.12320352]

>>12320316
Census data available now is a decade old. The data from the 2020 census will be given to Congress by the end of the year but it won't be much more than state totals. Census block level data won't be available until around spring time, which will be far too late for this use.

[Anonymous No.12320500]

>>12320323
>Doesn't know what RSS (Residual Sum of Squares) measures
>Tries to be arrogant

It's literally measuring the distance between the actual data points - the drawn line is for visual appeal only

[Anonymous No.12320513]

>>12320047
People keep saying that you can't use a Benfords Law with election data because precincts are of a standard size
The normal distribution of votes by precinct - with vote totals covering multiple orders of magnitude - show that the underlying data is perfectly acceptable for a Benfords Law analysis

[Anonymous No.12321191]

>>12319838
People investigate this neaow!

[Anonymous No.12321345]

>>12319838
>>12319845
Precinct sizes are different. In Polk, there were 471241 votes cast over 167 precincts for an average of 2821 votes per precinct. Detroit (Wayne county) there are 867409 votes cast over 1115 precincts for 778 average votes cast per precinct.

Detroit had a 68% turnout for Biden for an average of 526 votes per precinct. Trump got 30.5% of the vote for an average of 236 votes per precinct.

Polk - 56.6% Trump for an average of 1,163 votes per precinct. Biden 42% for an average of 867 votes per precinct.

So wouldn't that mean that Trump AND Biden in Polk would fit Benford's because ~50% of the vote gets you in the 1,000 range while 70/30 split of the Detroit vote gets you more 4's, 5's, and 6's as leading numbers while giving your opponent more 1's and 2's?

[Anonymous No.12321526]

>>12320084
wasn't michigan reporting historic turnout in the 60-70% range? why is the percentage so low?

[Anonymous No.12321552]

here is a link to json data for all 50 states from the NYT API. from what i ascertained in another thread, this contains the time series data over the course of election night. so rather than looking at total votes after the fact, it could be analyzed to find anomalous bumps in votes during the process.
http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=23738807926383614534

[Anonymous No.12321623]

[Anonymous No.12321837]

>>12319838
>>12319939
>>12319965
>>12320513
No actual scientists will believe that your plot in >>12319939 shows any sensible relationship between the Polk election data and a normal distribution. I don't understand why you would post that, except maybe to fool gullible people.
I got my hands on the data you presumably used (https://enr.electionsfl.org/POL/Summary/2547/)), plotted histograms and computed the chi-square factor.
The distribution may look (if you squint your eyes) a bit like a Gaussian curve, but the test shows that a normal distribution is subpar at describing the data (abysmal p-value).

Most importantly, you also claimed that Benford's law applies well to data following a normal law spread across several orders. You have yet to prove that it is the case. And it will be hard, because it's not.
I suspect that you got that belief from wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law
>Like other general principles about natural data—for example the fact that many data sets are well approximated by a normal distribution—there are illustrative examples and explanations that cover many of the cases where Benford's law applies
But if you actually read the article further than the first introductory section, you would have learned that
>Unlike multiplicative fluctuations, additive fluctuations do not lead to Benford's law: They lead instead to normal probability distributions (again by the central limit theorem), which do not satisfy Benford's law.

I made a test program that shows that normally distributed data do not follow Benford's law.
I'll post it if need be.

I don't want to take side in this clown fiesta of an American election, but I can't help but feel upset at the influx of retards with no background in statistics reading two lines of wikipedia, travestying mathematical formulas and strutting around like they proved anything.
I'm also appalled no one in this thread called you out on this bullshit, but maybe that's because no one cares.

[Anonymous No.12322590]

>>12321837
>I don't want to take side in this clown fiesta of an American election, but I can't help but feel upset at the influx of retards with no background in statistics reading two lines of wikipedia, travestying mathematical formulas and strutting around like they proved anything.
>I'm also appalled no one in this thread called you out on this bullshit, but maybe that's because no one cares.
You're goddamn right. Benford's is a dead end that will make all of /pol/ and /sci/ look like idiots.
But what about the voter turnout vs. candidate votes x/y spot graph?

[Anonymous No.12322598]

I did a Benford analysis of Miami-Dade county data. Both candidates skew quite a lot from the Benford curve, however Trump's does more. Source for those interested:

https://www.miamidade.gov/global/service.page?Mduid_service=ser1518638765310782

[Anonymous No.12322608]

>>12320027
>>12320032
>>12320179
but the absentee votes from De Kalb GA dont

[Anonymous No.12322617]

>>12322608
this is Cobb GA

[Anonymous No.12322630]

>>12322617
this is gewitt GA

[Anonymous No.12322632]

>>12322598
>>12322608
>>12322617

Time to accept you're running into a dead-end. Why did you not listen and took care of the turnout vs. votes plot?
>>12321837

[Anonymous No.12322640]

>>12322632
I'm only doing this to shut up the conspiracy theorists. I found a few counties where Trump's curve was off but Biden's wasn't. Showing this to the conspiracy tards gets them either riled buttmad and go into an endless loop, or they shut up.

[Anonymous No.12322649]

>>12322632
the vote difference between senate and president is more informative imho

[Anonymous No.12322654]

benford from the labeled precincts from here >>12322649

[Anonymous No.12322665]

How do we know voting is even real and not just faked by the jews and the board of reptilians?
Those long lines of "voters"? Crisis actors most likely.

[Anonymous No.12322714]

>>12322640
>I'm only doing this to shut up the conspiracy theorists. I found a few counties where Trump's curve was off but Biden's wasn't.
You made me see the light, shine on. I get it, but be warned you're putting lots of work into that.

[Anonymous No.12322735]

>>12322714
I've made a spreadsheet where I can just plug in data and parse it pretty fast, depending on how it's formatted. I'll take requests.

[Anonymous No.12322759]

>>12322649
>the vote difference between senate and president is more informative imho
Nice, wouldn't have thought of that. Mind though that it is very possible that in some precincts/areas people decided for president after media propaganda and for senate according to their local flavour.

I said previously that voter turnout must be true turnout. This seems impossible, as no new census data is available. What are the options? In no particular, no weighted order:
a. calculate turnout with old census data
b. use "votes 2012" and "votes 2016" and "votes" (2020) to calculate and identify conspicuous delta-votes (I like my own idea somehow)
c. calculate turnout for 2012 using the 2010(?) census data for eligible populace. Calculate delta-populace out of the 2016 votes. Predict 2020 populace, check for turnout oddities in the 2020 election. Is it safe to assume population just doesn't explode in 4/8 years in one spot? Important question to ask yourself.
c.

[Anonymous No.12322769]

>>12322735
Are you familiar with what is necessary to produce turnout/votes for candidate graphs?
We're really running late with exactly this. 2 days anons proclaimed how they agree it's useful, 2 days everything's been spammed with people insisting Benford's is the solution. I literally spammed the voter fraud generals with insults and instructions.

[Anonymous No.12322798]

Also, is there a nyc_....csv file now with all precinct-level data per vote type (absentee/person) available somewhere?
I just tried to get the most recent one out of /pol/ just to find it merely contains 2503 lines and no details.

[Anonymous No.12322799]

>>12322769
That's just another graph, but I haven't made one. Is there a reason to? I made a Benford one because that's what was being shilled so hard, just to give counterexamples to silence the conspiracy tards.

[Anonymous No.12322807]

>>12322799
Christ, where have you been all the time?
>>12320146
If I had half the tools on my PC than I have at work I'd do it myself.

[Anonymous No.12322818]

>>12322799
>Christ, where have you been all the time?
Let me reformulate this. Benford's has been recognised as being a dead end by smart guys all over the world, but every new thread on /pol/ regurgitated the shit they just read about how cool Benford's is and how amazingly distributed greasy pages in logarithmic tables are.
Voter turnout/votes for candidate are a tool that has been successfully and conclusively applied to make out suspected cases of ballot stuffing.
Again, >>12320146 is the way to go in my opinion. I can't hear Benford's no more.

[Anonymous No.12322997]

>>12322649
>>12322759
I think the key here >>12322649 is the difference between election day voting (which has more controls) and absentee (which is free for all, only control is "signature check")

[Anonymous No.12323012]

>>12320157
GA data is separated by Election Day votes, Advanced votes, Absentee votes, Provisional and total of each candidate

https://results.enr.clarityelections.com/GA/105369/web.264614/#/reporting

[Anonymous No.12323031]

>>12322997
That's why I keep insisting on separate graphs of turnout/candidate votes, one for in-person, one for absentee!

[Anonymous No.12323043]

>>12323012
What are "Advanced" votes - early in-person votes?

[Anonymous No.12323046]

>>12322818
Sorry but you do not get to speak for all of the "smart guys all over the world" nor do you get to decide who qualifies to be part of that group. Your Appeal to Authority has failed.

[Anonymous No.12323074]

>>12320146
>Y axis of each graph is the maximum percentage of votes the candidate has. This is flexible. If not possible, make it 0 to 100%.
lets check with a example:

so if in election day
in a precinct with 2000 registered votes
Trump gets 100 votes and Biden gets 900
the y(trump)=100/1000 y(biden)=900/1000

and in the mail
Trump gets 50 votes and Biden gets 500
y(Trump)=50/1000 and y(biden)=500/1000

correct?

[Anonymous No.12323082]

>>12320146
>>12320146
>Y axis of each graph is the maximum percentage of votes the candidate has. This is flexible. If not possible, make it 0 to 100%.
lets check with a example:

so if in election day
in a precinct with 2000 registered votes
Trump gets 100 votes and Biden gets 900
the y(trump)=100/1000 y(biden)=900/1000

and in the mail
Trump gets 50 votes and Biden gets 500
y(Trump)=50/550 and y(biden)=500/550

correct?

[Anonymous No.12323089]

>>12323043
I think yes
https://www.cobbcounty.org/elections/voting/advance-voting

[Anonymous No.12323090]

>>12323074
Do it, but make it 100% of total votes (in your examples 1000 total) instead of votes in numbers.

I suggested even stretching max y(candidate) to the maximum result in % the candidate achieved.
Why? To make it easier to see irregularities. But it also is prone to mislead.

[Anonymous No.12323100]

>>12323074
>>12323082
Meant to reply to the one of the two that didn't get deleted.
>>12323090

[Anonymous No.12323103]

>>12323090
post an example with the X and Y
it'll be easier

[Anonymous No.12323111]

>>12323046
>Sorry but you do not get to speak for all of the "smart guys all over the world" nor do you get to decide who qualifies to be part of that group. Your Appeal to Authority has failed.
I'm sorry that you're pissed off that your /pol/ spamming with Bedford's curves didn't turn everyone off from participating and bringing other ideas into play.
Also, my hyperbolic appeal still stands since it cost you more of your attention obviously than an interesting and working other method to detect voter fraud exists right in front of your eyes.

[Anonymous No.12323126]

>>12323103
He >>12323082 is on the exactly right track in my opinion as spokesman of the world's smartest guys.
The suggestion by me makes no sense, it's basically what he said.

What I would suggest though: do a linear y axis too, with fixed 0% to 100% votes.
If this yields readable results, it is the preferred graph - less attack surface for shills.

[Anonymous No.12323163]

>>12323126
so in this example >>12323082

the x would be
x(T)=(100+900)/2000
x(B)=(100+900)/2000

x(T)=(50+500)/2000
x(B)=(50+500)/2000

[Anonymous No.12323168]

>>12323163
Yes, but "registered voters" is really a last straw. Registered eligible populace would be the golden fleece. Or even just populace of voting age.

[Anonymous No.12323250]

>>12319838
suppose some set of precincts have an average of 500 voters each

suppose in those precincts biden gets ~80% and trump gets ~20% of those votes
then trump's vote tallies will start will start with more 1's, thus the only way to satisfy the benford retardation and be safe from poltard accusations is to get shellacked in all those precincts

the right can't math

[Anonymous No.12323297]

>>12323250
>/pol/ can't math
FTFY
Benford's law is weak to be applied here, and you are just another guy who's pointing out a flaw.

[Anonymous No.12323303]

>>12323168
I dun get it

[Anonymous No.12323308]

>>12323303

[Anonymous No.12323327]

>>12323308
>>12323303
Off to a very good start, my man.
Make x/y a percentage scale, both 0-100%

Again, registered voteRs (fix that text please) are a last straw, of course we'd need eligible populace, but where take it?

[Anonymous No.12323330]

>>12322665
The fact that voters in the USA are a real thing is itself bad.

[Anonymous No.12323353]

>>12323327
I dont get what you expect to see here, man

[Anonymous No.12323357]

>>12323353

[Anonymous No.12323396]

>>12323353
>>12323357
Man, you're saving the integrity of a superpower.
I'd suggest trying two things:
1. do both graphs, but use TOTAL turnout for x-axis in both
2. combine the graphs (add absentee and in-person for y-axis) and as well do total turnout in x-axis.

[Anonymous No.12323460]

>>12323303
>Absemntee

[Anonymous No.12323472]

>>12323353
>>12323357
Also, 100% Biden votes are pretty sus already.

[Anonymous No.12323505]

>>12323472
those are very low turnout precincts
5 or 10 votes max

[Anonymous No.12323507]

>>12323353
>>12323357
What file are you using for this analysis?

[Anonymous No.12323532]

/pol/ is in full retard mode with all the Benford's Law graphs. I've yet to see one that says anything significant about the 2020 election.

[Anonymous No.12323550]

>>12323505
No I know why the graphs >>12320049 >>12320057
have coloured spots - that's the sum of votes occuring at the coordinate.
Do you understand what I mean?

[Anonymous No.12323571]

>>12323507
https://results.enr.clarityelections.com/GA/105369/web.264614/#/reporting
sorry, couldnt find gayer colors

[Anonymous No.12323591]

>>12319838

[Anonymous No.12323612]

>>12323571
Stupid questions: do you by chance have tons of records that have >100% voter turnout? If yes, extend the scale, would be nice to see!

[Anonymous No.12323625]

We need someone to compile precinct-level census data for Georgia that we can rely on. Registered voters to calculate turnout might be a bitter dead-end.

[Anonymous No.12323626]

>>12319838
stop spreading disinfo

[Anonymous No.12323639]

>>12323612
>Stupid questions: do you by chance have tons of records that have >100% voter turnout? If yes, extend the scale, would be nice to see!
no, I had an outlier

that's it for today m8s

[Anonymous No.12323645]

>>12323639
without the Fulton county data, I still cant see it

[Anonymous No.12323668]

[Anonymous No.12323672]

>>12323639
Can you share the files with us??? See you then, bro.

[Anonymous No.12323678]

>>12323625
I have the data of the 10 largest counties taken from here the sunday
https://results.enr.clarityelections.com/GA/105369/web.264614/#/reporting


have fun with my csv
https://ufile.io/ex1fsip7

[Anonymous No.12323681]

>>12323639
If you have any normalised data (.csv?), please leave it here!

[Anonymous No.12323684]

>>12323672
>>12323681
here >>12323678

knock yourselves chuds

[Anonymous No.12323692]

>>12323678
Thanks. Godspeed, anon.

[Anonymous No.12323787]

>>12323111
translation: I was only acting retarded.
All you've managed to do is keep bumping this thread, giving it more attention and showing your desperation for this analysis to not be conducted. Keep on trolling though. It only results in more people seeing the analysis.

[Anonymous No.12323835]

>>12323787
>your desperation for this analysis to not be conducted.
It's not my personal comfort that's at stake, it's literally about the USA managing to heal itself, stumble into a civil war or becoming a banana republic running on Saudi and Chinese money. Focusing on Benford's Law and disregarding other forms of applicable analysis is retarded. You want to analyse an election, how is it watertight without checks?
Both types analysis in this thread need to be consequently done. My personal hypothesis is that the transactions of vote counts do not follow Benford's law in any way. Except you did it nationwide on a precinct level, the amount of data could be sufficient then.

[Anonymous No.12323953]

>>12323678
>have fun with my csv
>https://ufile.io/ex1fsip7
How is it possible that for every precinct, the sum of choice votes minus the sum of provisional votes is greater than the sum of registered voters?

[Anonymous No.12324171]

I don't know how to graph in Open Office, I'm too pampered by M$.

The crux lies in the absence of data. Registered voter numbers are missing in the
>https://ufile.io/ex1fsip7
file.

[Anonymous No.12324192]

you guys shouldn't just be doing tests of benford's rule , you should be doing last-two digits analysis. all the last two digits of submissions of vote talleys should be equally likely to occur
whereas for made-up numbers often you find that numbers ending in 0 or 5 are more likely, and numbers ending in double digits are less likely (because the person making up the numbers thinks they'll look suspicious or unusual) . same with 69.

also, you need to look at the lowest resolution submissions you can. if you just look at state and county totals then fraud at a lower level might be covered up once it's added up with real counts.

[Anonymous No.12324212]

ズゥゥゥゥ

[Anonymous No.12324321]

>>12323835
Thank you for continuing to bump the thread and keeping the topic alive. We appreciate your support for detecting the fraud in this election by ensuring this thread stays alive.

[Anonymous No.12324364]

>>12324321
Do a histogram analysis of voter turnout vs. votes for winner if you "support detecting the fraud in this election". Your condescending attitude makes it seem like you've run out of arguments yourself.
If there's no detectable ballot stuffing, the plot would be just another thing making Trumptards seethe.

[Anonymous No.12325536]

>>12323953
wat
check your columns
have you noticed that some counties do not give the registered votes info?

[Anonymous No.12325648]

>>12322649

Since the graphs are "too busy" I decided to focus on a single county. Here are the Cherokee county results.

Bubble size is the number of registered voters in the precinct.

This is a Bland Altmann plot of the President-Senate votes for the same party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bland%E2%80%93Altman_plot

This is Election Day.

Notice that the y-axis never goes above 20

[Anonymous No.12325653]

>>12325648
and this is Absentee Vote.
We know that absentee is the most insecure method of voting

data from here:
https://results.enr.clarityelections.com/GA/105369/web.264614/#/reporting

and my csv here
https://ufile.io/ex1fsip7

[Anonymous No.12325667]

>>12325648
fuck me wrong title
ignore this image

[Anonymous No.12325670]

>>12325667
note for me: check your titles three times

[Anonymous No.12325674]

>>12325670
and this is advanced

[Anonymous No.12325694]

should I use consistent y axis for all three graphics?

it makes comparisons easier but it makes the labels unreadable

[Anonymous No.12325702]

/sci/ has shown itself to be much smarter than /pol/ which should not come as a surprise. Hopefully the shills don't come here though. Good luck lads. Whoever you supported this election, truth is worth investigation.

[Anonymous No.12325738]

>>12325702
Yes. MAGA 2020. LEEEEEEEETTTTTT'SSSSSSSS GGGGGGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.12325767]

>>12319999
Incredible waste of digits
>lmao xd trumptards btfo!1!!
Further evidence that Biden supporters are immature brainlets.

[Anonymous No.12325773]

>>12325702
>/sci/ has shown itself to be much smarter than /pol/
>boards are people
Memes aside, do you have any evidence to support your claim? I'm curious how you are able to scientifically identify the exact intellectual capabilities of anonymous posters you know nothing about.
It's far more likely that you view yourself as cognitively superior solely because you think politics is beneath your incredible intellect.

[Anonymous No.12325777]

>>12325536
I've noticed that - but I did another mistake which is solved now.

[Anonymous No.12325786]

>>12325773
Are people on this board really like this? wtf

[Anonymous No.12325807]

>>12325786
>do people on a science board request data to backup ridiculous claims from arrogant pseuds
You have to go back.
>>>/plebbit/

[Anonymous No.12325864]

>>12319838
remove these curved splines right now

[Anonymous No.12325868]

>>12325702
>/sci/ has shown itself to be much smarter than /pol/
not really, it depends

[Anonymous No.12325870]

>>12325786
fuck off back to plebbit

[Anonymous No.12325874]

>>12325653
>>12325670
>>12325674
>>12325694
corrected version, bubble size by presidential candidate votes at each category

take notice that since Im comparing means and differences of presidential and senate elections within the same party, there shouldnt be any biases between election day and mail vote.

[Anonymous No.12325884]

>>12322598
that cant be. trump is the good guy.

[Anonymous No.12325903]

>>12325874
How far do you think you can go with the bottom graph making a statement?

[Anonymous No.12325926]

>>12319838
holy shit you retard, benfords law doesn't apply in every case. you should take stat 201 before you post here again.

[Anonymous No.12325944]

>>12325903
honestly, no idea

I thought "maybe there is a general dislike for Trump across all dem data and maybe absentee and advanced correlate with precinct size"

So I made a quick check looking for correlation between the democrat y-axis and size of the electoral precinct

Got something like 0,01 for election day vote, 0,3 for advanced and 0,4 for mail. Maybe it partially explains it, maybe there is something more...

Now that I think of it, fraud should also correlate with precinct size, shouldnt it?

tl;dr Honestly no idea. I just found that voting pattern very weird.

[Anonymous No.12325948]

>>12325944
and again this kind of pattern appears all over the state >>12322649

[Anonymous No.12325950]

>>12325868
Yeah, I'm taking back my statement after >>12325773 >>12325807 >>12325870, jesus christ.

[Anonymous No.12326028]

>>12325874
following wikipedia suggestion, I tried an MA plot (log Bland Altmann) It didnt improve much.

I guess the main question here is:
what is driving the difference here? Dislike for Trump or fraud? And why it appears much more in the mail vote?

[Anonymous No.12326064]

>>12326028
>Dislike for Trump or fraud?
Dislike for Trump is already factored into the 'vote blue no matter who' crowd. Trump had 95% GOP approval which is kinda like practical upper limit. He also had cross-voters (increased his minority support) and independents in usual split. The mail-in vote explanation is still more likely as in 'it released untapped anti-Trump potential in their liberal-leaning voter base' or something. Looking at the turnout diff delta however, I don't find that convincing either.

[Anonymous No.12326088]

>>12326064
but maybe there is a third type of voter who dont care about politics and just hates Trump.

Im not saying it's the main explanation here, if it were it should be a much hgher correlation across precinct sizes. But this election is gonna be decided by a few thousand votes so I cant really be sure.

The fucking difference between voting mthods is the one I cant fucking explain. Maybe fraud.

[Anonymous No.12326124]

>>12326088
>but maybe there is a third type of voter who dont care about politics and just hates Trump.
That's a huge if imho... politics are so divisive nowadays that this is very much unlikely. It's not only unsubstantiated by previous polls, but it is exactly the opposite (see: Pew stating more people vote straight-ticket than before).
>But this election is gonna be decided by a few thousand votes so I cant really be sure.
As was the last one, yes. But here we're mostly surprised by the discrepancies and suspicious behavior etc... Trump eg won all swing states which wasn't suspicious at all, since most of those states tend to 'flip together' at any given election year. Here we have a curious mix.
>Maybe fraud
I'm not saying it's 100% fraud. But I'd be surprised if it wasn't, at least in part. People tend to do things, because they can. The dems had the adv. by controlling large pop.centers and having the mail-in scheme working for them this year. I also doubt that they'd shy away from anything at this point (Pelosi even stated that 'trump is leaving the office, whether he likes it or not''). But in the end, nothing really matters, I doubt the end results will change even if there were fraud, and even if it was proven. The court will not risk a constitutional crises.

[Anonymous No.12326130]

>>12326088
Maybe libertarians in the area had a preference for mail-in and voted Biden/Nothing or even some Biden/Republican
Should compare Johnson in 2016 to Jorgenson in 2020

[Anonymous No.12326645]

>>12319999
based quads
>>12320020
>>12320021
>>12320022
>>12320132
>>12320330
>>12325767
COPE

[Anonymous No.12326682]

>>12325874
made another one for a Dem county

[Anonymous No.12326699]

>>12326130
I dont get that feeling, the differences tend to be much bigger than the number of Lib votes

[Anonymous No.12326708]

>>12326699
Cherokee county had 6% third party voters in 2016

[Anonymous No.12326722]

>>12326130
also possible the "never trump republicans" that democrats spent millions of dollars jerking off actually exist

[Anonymous No.12326748]

>>12326722
Yes, that's the 5% of Republicans who don't approve of Trump. The other 95% do. The neocons already openly switched their allegiances to the left.
For your theory to be correct, there would have to be a large number of people who openly support Trump but secretly hate him, which goes against everything that we've seen in reality. If there's one thing Trump haters have no difficultly in doing, it's proclaiming their hatred for him loudly and on every platform they can access.

[Anonymous No.12326755]

>>12326682
Cobb GA

[Anonymous No.12326756]

>>12326748
Many Republican or Democrat-leaning voters aren't registered as such. Probably the more moderate ones on average.

[Anonymous No.12326778]

>>12326682
Cobb GA

[Anonymous No.12326791]

>>12326722
maybe there are 150 of them in Mt Bethel

[Anonymous No.12326833]

>>12326791
Forsyth GA

[Anonymous No.12326896]

>>12319999
>This after four years of "MUH RUSSIA"

[Anonymous No.12326930]

>>12326791
>>12326833
Have similar analyses been done for Philadelphia or Las Vegas yet?

Can the difference in mail-in ballots be attributed to a difference in voting population? These should've skewed more D and less informed on election issues.

[Anonymous No.12326954]

>>12326930
>Have similar analyses been done for Philadelphia or Las Vegas yet?
dunno I only have data from GA

>Can the difference in mail-in ballots be attributed to a difference in voting population?
maybe, but looks very weird to me

[Anonymous No.12326956]

>>12320049
Yes. Check shpilkin on this topic

[Anonymous No.12326959]

>>12326930
again >>12326028
>I guess the main question here is:
>what is driving the difference here? Dislike for Trump or fraud? And why it appears much more in the mail vote?

[Anonymous No.12327007]

>>12326956
Thanks, will do that.

[Anonymous No.12327066]

>>12325653
Is the data in this form available for PA, MI, others somehow?
clarityelections.com redirects to https://scytl.us/ if you try to call it without the GA/ subdirectory.

[Anonymous No.12327110]

>>12326748
5% is pretty close to being enough to swing the election, your figure also assumes polling is accurate which is the one thing the last two elections taught us is an absolute joke.

[Anonymous No.12327116]

>>12326959
it doesn't take a genius to figure out why mail ballots heavily favor biden

[Anonymous No.12327155]

>>12327116
oh, of course its fraud
but saying so will not hold up in a court of law
we need a clear and undeniable lock to shut this abomination of an election down

[Anonymous No.12327167]

>>12327066
https://data.pa.gov/Government-Efficiency-Citizen-Engagement/2020-General-Election-Mail-Ballot-Requests-Departm/mcba-yywm

maybe this idk

[Anonymous No.12327243]

>>12327167
at first glance the PA data looks nothing like the GA one

will look up more tomorrow

[Anonymous No.12327261]

>>12327243
also
not much change between election day and absentee vote
in PA, the Reps are ones with much more variability

[Anonymous No.12327264]

>>12327167
Thanks, but unfortunately it's only county-level data. For a histogram turnout vs. winner votes only precinct-level makes sense, otherwise the data starts to look like a good distribution even if stuffing happened.

[Anonymous No.12327268]

https://www.pscp.tv/va_shiva/1BdGYYjgkgQGX

[Anonymous No.12327269]

>>12327155
lmao, how about trump claiming mail ballots were evil and fraudulent and unAmerican for months leading up to the election? No shit most of the people who voted for him also listen to him.

[Anonymous No.12327271]

>>12327243
>>12327261
Sorry, but what files is the PA data from that you are using? I found only county-level numbers.

[Anonymous No.12327284]

>>12327269
That's provably false by the party affiliation poll for mail ins, with Michigan having more republicans go for mail ins than democrats

[Anonymous No.12327291]

>>12327271
found allegheny county PA
https://results.enr.clarityelections.com/PA/Allegheny/106267/web.264614/#/reporting

[Anonymous No.12327326]

>>12320084
>Turnout 0.00%
>Percent Vote for Biden 85-100%
What's going on here?

[Anonymous No.12327339]

>>12327326
Apparently these are absentee ballots, which don't have turnout stats associated with them for some reason

[Anonymous No.12327348]

>>12327284
Biden only won Michigan because of Detroit though. The rest of the state is heavily republican. What does the proportion of mail ins look like for Detroit?

[Anonymous No.12327349]

>>12327339
Wouldn't it make sense to look at all votes in a precinct, absentee plus e-day? Even if you're absentee, you still vote in a specific precinct.

[Anonymous No.12327352]

>>12327349
Yeah idk why there isn't data attached. Not my graph.

[Anonymous No.12327366]

>>12327284
What exactly is the source for party breakdown of mail-in requests? The entire leadup to the election I read that Democrats were requesting absentees at far higher rates than Republicans.

[Anonymous No.12327419]

>>12327291
Thanks. The directory structure of that website is rather intransparent.

[Anonymous No.12327442]

>>12323532
>>12322654
>>12322630
>>12322617
>>12322608
>>12322598
It's because votes appear to be stolen from Trump in republican precincts as well

As per Dr Shiva Ayyadurai there is a clear linear clustering with structural breaks that show the more republican a precinct is the greater the deviation from 'Trump vote' vs 'Party Vote'

So Benford's should fail in a number of republican districts as well, because Trump underperformed in Republican districts

[Anonymous No.12327450]

>>12327442
Are those in areas with Dominion voting machines?
as those have been proven on several occasions now to have "glitched" and turned Trump votes into Biden votes, but completely ignoring the down ballot races

[Anonymous No.12327456]

>>12327442
Here's Wayne County as a comparison of what to expect, showing no clear tight linear pattern and no structural break

I'm copying this explanation of the issue from someone else:

>it suggests there was software algorithm that found places where trump was way ahead of biden and gave trump votes to biden. And it scaled linearly based on the differential so that the further trump was ahead, the more votes they took.
>that would be a good way to do it because you grab trump votes without ever flipping a district from trump to biden. Or put another way, take the most votes from the most republican areas because what is the difference between winning by 75% or 78%? Once people see high differential they'll just move along. Stay away from dem and close districts because those are the places where people would look for fraud. This algorithm suggests that the areas to look for fraud would be the very districts trump ran up the numbers.
Why would anyone care if Trump got 75% vs 78%? They wouldn't, so steal 3% of votes from the heavy Trump districts

Benford's law being violated in heavy Trump districts is to be expected as well with this fraud

[Anonymous No.12327471]

>>12327450
It's Michigan, so yes
This is a graph of the issue for every county

Note that on the far right, Trump well underperforms relative to the senate and is the only party/candidate to do so

[Anonymous No.12327502]

>>12327456
Benford's law being violated in any district is to be expected, vote counts will not follow Benford's law because precinct vote counts don't span several orders of magnitude.

[Anonymous No.12327517]

>>12327502
nice ignoring of this chart here >>12327442
highlighting Trump votes being linearly taken away from Trump as a function of the precincts Republican vote percentage and only occurring in heavy Rep areas
Explain the structural break at 20% and low-dispersion trend line in Oakland county and why it doesn't occur in Wayne county?

[Anonymous No.12327567]

>>12327517
I'm starting to suspect its one of the paid shills from /pol/
Either that, or its a straight up amoral commie

[Anonymous No.12327583]

>>12327567
Ad hom. Great job getting assblasted. You really pulled through in the end there by just biting the pillow.

[Anonymous No.12327596]

>>12327517
Best to just ignore him and continue the work
I would recommend flinging what we have at the fraud reporting line Trump setup
it may prove of great use to the investigation and court proceedings

[Anonymous No.12327657]

>>12327596
>>12327583
>>12327567
I'm the guy that started the whole thread. I'm off Benfords generally now, is it only provides an indication. Like a sniffer dogs. It's not proof

I'm saying, do your analysis but in Republican precincts as well, not just heavy Dem districts
It looks like that's where fraud is most likely, based on Dr Shiva Ayyadurai
His analysis, which is more similar to your analysis, is very solid.

Keep going with your turnout/vote type analysis
But look at Republican districts

[Anonymous No.12327674]

>>12327657
iirc that's all benfords ever was, an alarm bell for potential fuckery
it was never meant nor able to prove fraud itself

[El Arcón No.12327737]

>>12319838
I think the Benford line is comparable to the best fit curve of the data but that it is not meant to be compared to the data's spline.

[El Arcón No.12327743]

>>12327737
Which I mention because it looks like the best fit curve would fit Benford's pretty well.

[Anonymous No.12327748]

>>12327657
>Keep going with your turnout/vote type analysis
>But look at Republican districts
Yes and: why only Republican? Why not both? Or is that what you mean?

[Anonymous No.12327797]

>>12327748
Look at both, but especially R counties, as based on these:
>>12327456
>>12327442
>>12327471
It appears that the Dominion system likely took votes from Trump where Trump was winning, so it didn't look suspicious

[Anonymous No.12327806]

>>12327797
Yeah, I get you now. Voter turnout vs. Winner votes show such things nicely.
But it's hard for me - I just can't seem to get any data that's as nice as Georgia with mail type split and single precinct resolution.
Even this isn't perfect without true "eligible populace" rather than "registered voters" to calculate turnout.

[Anonymous No.12327818]

>>12327797
Also, /pol/ suspected that Dominion system precincts should not be singled out, there's likely something afoul with ES&S(?) precincts as well.
Plus, there are many ways to stuff or negatively stuff ballots - all it takes is unobserved enthusiastic partisan poll workers in a high-tension polarised election.

[Anonymous No.12327821]

>>12327806
Try looking at differences in Senate vs Presidential votes by precinct as as a function of the percentage vote for the county winner is that precinct

It's similar to the idea of percentage vote for winning by voter turnout by precinct
There's enough data for this
I'll start looking at a county level across all swing states to highlight counties to focus on

[Anonymous No.12327830]

>push vaccines for population control
>end up creating a huge amount of autists
>means you can't fraud an election anymore since autists love to look at number and do repetitive tasks for days on end
ouch that blowback m80s

[Anonymous No.12327841]

>>12327830
I have yet to produce the evidence, but my hypothesis is that your medication just flew over my house.

[Anonymous No.12327850]

>>12327806
Eligible population is unknowable at this time. You can get somewhat of an idea once the 2020 census data comes out but the Democrats sued to prohibit the census from asking about citizenship status, so there's no way to know how many people in a given census block is eligible.
Felons also might a bit of a wrinkle. You might be able to get a count of felons on probation in an area but once they've completed probation, the state no longer tracks them unless they're sex offenders. In Georgia they're eligible to have voting rights restored so if there is a list of who has gone through that process, those addresses could be used but would quickly get outdated.
There are too many edge cases to get an accurate eligible population count. The best you can do is get somewhat close but given that some areas have significant numbers of foreign nationals, here legally or not, there can be a large variance between precincts across the country or even a county.

[Anonymous No.12327853]

>>12327850
Going with the registered voters then, but for a sensible turnout you have to ignore provisional votes, right?

[Anonymous No.12327867]

I have only 10 counties for GA, how do I get all 159?

[Anonymous No.12327902]

>>12327867

https://results.enr.clarityelections.com/GA/105369/web.264614/#/reporting

[Anonymous No.12327925]

>>12327902
Thanks. Where do I get the number of registered voters?

[Anonymous No.12327977]

This is Fulton County GA, heavy Dem, showing the more a precinct is republican the MORE they voted Trump, not less

So why in the heavy Rep counties was it that the more a precinct went R the less they voted Trump? I'll do Polk next to confirm

[Anonymous No.12328035]

>>12327977
uhhh why'd this get deleted?

[Anonymous No.12328053]

>>12328035
Better version attached, had the wrong numbers on the X-axis
Same deal, flat line

[Anonymous No.12328055]

>>12328035
So you could samefag about it. We know the mods don't delete posts that quickly. Try again on a board that isn't aware of their ability to delete their own posts.

[Anonymous No.12328071]

>>12328055
lol, I deleted my own post to update the graph, as per the post above yours >>12328053

Now here's the same graph (made sure to check the axes this time) for Polk County FL

[Anonymous No.12328097]

>>12328055
Uhh I'm the (You) that you're referring to, not the person posting these graphs.

[Anonymous No.12328338]

>>12328097
Interesting looking graph for Fulton in comparison with Georgia as a whole...

[Anonymous No.12328382]

>>12328338
DeKalb County GA, a weird graph again

[Anonymous No.12328389]

>>12328338
Is there a way to know which precinct is at 2.5 in the Fulton County graph?

[Anonymous No.12328404]

>>12328389
08N1, JoJo 15, L-Senate 6
08N2, JoJo 11, L-Senate 22
08P, JoJo 16, L-Senate 31

[Anonymous No.12328448]

I am a retard, does this all point to fraud or not?

[Anonymous No.12328460]

>>12328448
It points to really weird voting patterns
Whether that is an indication of fraud is another thing

[Anonymous No.12328662]

Benford Law cannot and will not ever be used to detect election fraud. There are dozens of papers on this.

[Anonymous No.12328727]

>>12328662
Summer is coming early.

[Anonymous No.12328760]

>>12328662
scientifically speaking you will never be a woman.

[Anonymous No.12329042]

Why Benford's can't be used for checking elections
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etx0k1nLn78

The problem is that we make our voting districts nearly equal in size so Benford's law is not a good test for checking for election fraud. It's primary use is checking for accounting fraud.

[Anonymous No.12329131]

>>12328404
08N1 and 08N2 are in Buckhead, which is an upper class neighborhood. 08P is upper middle class. They're both urban neighborhoods, which typically is not the type of place that votes heavily libertarian. If this was Cherokee or Forsyth counties, those results might be somewhat more believable, though the discrepancy between president and senate would still be weird.

[Anonymous No.12329279]

>>12327268
To everyone in this thread, the video linked here

https://www.pscp.tv/va_shiva/1BdGYYjgkgQGX

is a big brain talking about data analysis they did for the votes in Michigan, which apparently documents votes being transferred from Trump to Biden as a linear function of how conservative the area is. Of course, these results are up to interpretation. But I just wanted to bring it to your attention. It might be interesting to reproduce his plots in other states, and prior elections.

[Anonymous No.12329284]

>>12319838
Did they bring that Benford I never heard of nor do I believe in it to ignore normal distributions?

[Anonymous No.12329299]

>>12329279
Nevermind, I see you guys are already talking about it. Anyways, that's the link to the video.

[Anonymous No.12329526]

>>12327902
Anyone has a csv with all the georgia data?

[Anonymous No.12329537]

>>12329131
Those outliers are irrelevant
You should be looking at the clustering at 90% precinct vote for Biden where JoJo loses a lot of votes relative to her Senate candidate

[Anonymous No.12329550]

>>12319838
Fucking retarded.

It's totally fine that people are interested in analyzing the statistics of the election, but everyone are only interested in that because of Trump's populism - zero fucking political critical thinking.

[Anonymous No.12329790]

>>12328053
>>12328071
fraud should be "easier" to do by adding votes?
or by changing votes?

a pro-Biden fraud would be easier to see in a Biden chart for the first case, and in the Trump chart for the second case, isnt it?
then, a pro-Trump fraud would be easier to see in a Trump chart etc etc

[Anonymous No.12329796]

>>12327442
>>12327456
the curve fitting part sounds schizo desu, specially in that dataset
but the inverted slope for the Trump/Republican data in that county is genuinely strange

[Anonymous No.12330109]

>>12328760
Good, why would I want to be lesser?

[Anonymous No.12330415]

>>12329790
Changing votes would be easier, cause just adding votes runs the risk of having too high turnout in your corrupted polling stations compared to the norm, blowing your cover
This is how we caught them to begin with, the ballot fairy wasn't subtle enough

[Anonymous No.12330451]

Bumping your thread for from what I can see, applicable use case. Privately archived your thread as it's nice to see an attempt to find truth to the allegations of fraud, regardless of results. Something all to uncommon of modern times.

[Anonymous No.12330464]

A few hours ago, anon paid ~$25,000 for the complete WI voter database, then dumped it all over /pol/ and thedonald. Thought you guys might like some new toys:

https://gofile.io/d/XwcWGo (5GB text file database)

I'll let one of you create a new thread if merited; not gonna shit up a board that I don't call home.

t. your friendly neighborhood Hermes

[Anonymous No.12330472]

>>12330464
I downloaded the PA data from the same dead thread, but there is no readme file or headers

Cant know what each field means

[Anonymous No.12330574]

>>12330464
>anon paid ~$25,000 for the complete WI voter database
holy fuck

[Anonymous No.12330609]

>>12330574
I honestly hope Trump's team is in those threads
that guy needs to be found and given a medal once all this is over

[Anonymous No.12330801]

There hasn't been widespread fraud in the US in ... ever. Trump lost 10 lawsuits in the last week already for lack of evidence. So what exactly are you guys hoping to accomplish? Your guy lost an election, get over it.

[Anonymous No.12330842]

Those comparing Trump to senate candidates: Have you considered that the characteristics of those senate candidates might themselves impact electoral performance? In my state, TX, Cruz underperformed Trump in both 2016 and 2020 during the 2018 election, and it strains the mind to think of an explanation that doesn't involve him. Given how polarizing i.e. Ossoff vs Perdue are or that in Michigan the Democratic senator is incumbent, there are many factors for why these do not correlate from place to state to state even if there is some correlation from county to county

[Anonymous No.12330883]

>>12330842
Trump's votes and the rep down ballots near perfectly mirror each other
its only biden that has tens of thousands of president only ballots

[Anonymous No.12330923]

>>12330883
>Trump's votes and the rep down ballots near perfectly mirror each other
Gonna need a source on that. I can't find the numbers myself but last I checked nobody's perfectly mirrored each other.

Biden's -WAS- higher, but even if the difference is major that's not inconsistent with polls showing most Biden voters were really just voting against Trump (vs Trump voters mostly voting FOR Trump, by a 1:3 and 2:3 margin, if memory serves me right) nor with Rs gaining house seats despite Trump losing. Also wonder how consistent the theory of fraud is with letting the senate and house candidates that lost hang out to dry when the fraud and fake ballots would have been the same

[Anonymous No.12330981]

>>12330923
Georgia
the discrepancy between Trump and the Rs is ~800
whereas the discrepancy between biden and the Ds is 95k

[Anonymous No.12330993]

Pic is the makeup of Georgia's legislature. Doesn't seem like the type of place that would vote for a Democrat.

[Anonymous No.12331052]

>>12329042
Underrated post. Good video.

[Anonymous No.12331083]

>>12330981
Looks to be almost entirely made up of Jorgensen underperforming relative to her senate counterpart rather than Perdue overperforming relative to Trump. In the swing states which -also- have a senate election, like Texas (125k JoJo vs 220k Libertarian senate candidate) and NC (47K JoJo vs 168K Libertarian senate candidate). It's also not a stretch at all to think people this year, even libertarians, have much stronger feelings about the Presidential race (nationally JoJo also underperformed Gary in 2016) than the senate races, which makes them more likely to cast a strategic vote against Trump if they feel so inclined. I'm sure this doesn't account for the WHOLE difference and there are other explanations as well (people who want Biden as president but think it's so likely dems will have control of both chambers of congress and thus cast an R vote to check on his powers) that account for some of it and all sound more plausible as alternative hypotheses than mass fraud. But hand recounts are ongoing right now and we will tell whether your alternative hypothesis is true by November 20.

>>12330993
Maine has a democratic state legislature and voted for a republican senate candidate by a huge margin. There are obviously candidate-specific factors at play that looking at the relative performance of candidates doesn't capture

[Anonymous No.12331087]

>>12330923
> most Biden voters were really just voting against Trump
> letting the house and senate hang out to dry

So they hated Trump so much they didn't care to give the House/Senate to Republicans?

This just doesn't pass my sniff test (which is worth nothing, save for a justification of why I'm interested). It seems illogical that there would be a massive fear based voter turnout, but those voters would be compassionate towards other Republicans (inasmuch as they weren't even willing to vote straight ticket D). It's just not been a reality that is demonstrable in my experience.

>Working Theory
Multiple types of manipulations in play here: An algorithm based tabulation manipulation whose progress was monitored all election night. When it was clear that the formula wasn't weighted enough based on ridiculously high turnout (midnight to 4 am), a last minute "failsafe" was executed in the form of newly filled out dumped ballots. Of course this would imply an enormous Trump landslide would've occurred barring these interventions- which does fit with the narrative of the shy Trump support, his Obama beating numbers regardless of "loss", as well as his repeated claims since election night.

The question I'm working through is - how might that manifest statistically?

[Anonymous No.12331154]

>>12331083
>strategic vote against Trump
Who would these people be? Dems vote straight-ticket and only very few people vote pres. only
>people who want Biden as president
That's even harder to believe. Who would want him, seriously? Even Pew showed that about one-third of his party 'supports' him, while vastly more D hated Trump. I could understand voting Yang, Gabbard, etc... but voting FOR Biden??
>than mass fraud
One of the possible logical presumption pointing to fraud is the fact how wrong the polls were. Instead of Biden receiving like 13 ppts more than T, T received record number of votes. Fraud is plausible if they had to make up for their loss last minute cause they understimated/undersampled T voters yet again. Ofc, the 'exotic voting pattern' explanation is also possible but if you'd ask me if there's anything Team D not capable of doing after watching the past 4 years... then my answer would be a big 'NO'...

[Anonymous No.12331166]

>>12331087
>So they hated Trump so much they didn't care to give the House/Senate to Republicans?
It's what I'm saying didn't happen. They disliked Trump but didn't dislike their downballot candidates as much

> It seems illogical that there would be a massive fear based voter turnout, but those voters would be compassionate towards other Republicans
Not if the target of that overwhelming fear is Trump himself and not every R. As someone in Texas it makes good sense to me
>When it was clear that the formula wasn't weighted enough based on ridiculously high turnout (midnight to 4 am), a last minute "failsafe" was executed in the form of newly filled out dumped ballots.
A lot of assumptions here. 10,000s dumped ballots late at night and nobody took a picture and what we have is anonymous witnesses?

>which does fit with the narrative of the shy Trump support
a shy trump support much higher than before

>as well as his repeated claims since election night.
Maybe they fit the fact he's claiumed electoral fraud in rep primaries, 2016 elections, etc etc etc

[Anonymous No.12331177]

>>12331087
>how might that manifest statistically?
If numbers are true on pic related, I would certainly check the 'only Biden votes' distribution. Should they be significantly higher in big D-controlled cities, then I'd say it's fishy. Common sense dictates that IF indeed many people voted only against Trump, then naturally this should detectable in every county in the final tallies. Even if we presume that deep blue cities are more anti-Trump than rural places, the difference between their % and rural % shouldn't be all that much apart. Especially if we are comparing this to the previous %s of pres.cand. only votes.

[Anonymous No.12331208]

>>12319999
Checked. MAGAtards seething.

[Anonymous No.12331263]

>>12331154
>Who would these people be?

>Dems vote straight-ticket
Which would lower people who defect to the republican while voting Biden, consistent with observation

>and only very few people vote pres. only
Not true. Thousands do every year and in an election with record turnout (and we KNOW there was record turnout from even before votes were tallies, see states like Texas where early IN PERSON voting was breaking records, and this cannot be easily falsified and fits with my observations)
>That's even harder to believe. Who would want him, seriously? Even Pew showed that about one-third of his party 'supports' him, while vastly more D hated Trump. I could understand voting Yang, Gabbard, etc... but voting FOR Biden??
Pew also showed about 2/3 of Biden voters voting AGAINST Trump. Biden would have had a good chance of losing in a good economy with a traditional non-polarizing republican but such a man wasn't on the Pres ticket (even if many were in downballots)

>One of the possible logical presumption pointing to fraud is the fact how wrong the polls were. Instead of Biden receiving like 13 ppts more than T, T received record number of votes. Fraud is plausible if they had to make up for their loss last minute cause they understimated/undersampled T voters yet again.
That the polls were --on average-- not a lot more wrong than in 2016 (which is to say quite wrong) and Biden still prevailed because the margins were so much greater points rather to a clean Biden win

>Ofc, the 'exotic voting pattern' explanation is also possible but if you'd ask me if there's anything Team D not capable of doing after watching the past 4 years... then my answer would be a big 'NO'...
I feel the exact same way about team R. How many already debunked explanations for fraud have we seen? How many pushed by team R?

[Anonymous No.12331284]

>>12331166

>It's what I'm saying didn't happen. They disliked Trump but didn't dislike their downballot candidates as much
Which leaves one of three options:
>Voted Biden, voted Republican rest of the ticket
Trump had 93+% R approval rating going into election. No justification for this claim that I see immediately.
>Voted Biden, left the rest of the field blank
And this is where my personal experience makes me doubt that would ever happen. I know people that were fearful of Trump (which supposedly drove the high turnout); not one was complacent about the levers of power being in Republican hands. Anecdotal to be sure, but it's only meant to justify my interest.
>Voted Biden, mixed result down ballot
This is where Shiva's analysis really gets me. You would EXPECT that people voting Biden would be more likely to vote other Democrats in down ballot, and that's almost exactly the opposite of what appears to be true.

>A lot of assumptions here.
Correct. "Working Theory" simply to explain the evidence. Just a place to start.

>A shy trump support much higher than before
Agreed, this would need to be adequately explained.

>he's claimed electoral fraud in primaries, 2016...
To be fair everyone has. I remember Russia, and I damn well saw what they did to Bernie.


Appreciate the thoughtful response. Gets the juices moving.

[Anonymous No.12331289]

>>12331177
Remember that Atlanta is where one of the largest standardized testing scandals occurred.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_Public_Schools_cheating_scandal
> An investigation by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) released in July 2011 indicated that 44 out of 56 schools cheated on the 2009 CRCT. One hundred and seventy-eight educators were implicated in correcting answers entered by students.
They held parties where the teachers and administrators got together, had food and drink (including alcohol), paid for by the school system, while they changed the answers on student tests so they wouldn't losing funding or their jobs due to the No Child Left Behind law.
The funny part is in some cases, the student had the correct answer and the teacher changed it to the wrong answer because they didn't actually know the answer.

[Anonymous No.12331291]

>>12331177
>If numbers are true on pic related, I would certainly check the 'only Biden votes' distribution. Should they be significantly higher in big D-controlled cities, then I'd say it's fishy. Common sense dictates that IF indeed many people voted only against Trump, then naturally this should detectable in every county in the final tallies. Even if we presume that deep blue cities are more anti-Trump than rural places, the difference between their % and rural % shouldn't be all that much apart. Especially if we are comparing this to the previous %s of pres.cand. only votes.
Unless inner city people who are low propensity voters at baseline and don't pay attention to non-presidential races, and who have been consuming mainstream media sources have heard enough smearing about Trump to vote against him and not enough of the opposite with Biden. It's no secret rurals normally have higher turnout

[Anonymous No.12331306]

>>12331284
well all this contemplating is going to meet its end soon, cause he's laying it all out on the table
if he's a hack, it will be found and declared as such
and if he's right, the result will be the spiciest event of 2020

[Anonymous No.12331330]

>>12331263
>Not true. Thousands do every year
Thousands out of... 100-140m? That's not a 'lot'. I was referring to %s nonetheless, if there's x% people doing that every year then the turnout increase will ofc end up resulting on more votes... but by how much, and how evenly distr. among counties/cities?
>in a good economy with a traditional non-polarizing republican
T was the pro-economy cand. while B is the pro-lockdown cand. When people tell you the 'economy matters' it doesn't mean what you think it means. The e. down the shitter is solely due to lockdowns, which was supposedly due to covid. None of these are T's fault, and provided voters are thinking beings, they realize that. The e. was also objectively great pre-pandemic. Gallup found 56% of people are living better DESPITE the covid and all that compared to 4 years ago.
>not a lot more wrong than in 2016
False, they WERE a lot more wrong on avg than in 2016. This isn't even disputed by media, why claim otherwise?
>I feel the exact same way about team R
Yes, both parties are corrupt and bad... but one party has the upper hand in pretty much everything that matters (media, bigtech, big cities, etc). The way things played out, are also pretty damning to Ds (who wanted mail-ins in the first place? who hates voter IDs?). My claim also based on practicality rather than partisanship: I believe Ds did it because they can. Rs couldn't do such a feat even if they wanted to (and they certainly want to).

[Anonymous No.12331353]

>>12331289
Corruption at it's best, nice...

>>12331291
>have been consuming mainstream media sources have heard enough smearing about Trump to vote against him
If we check the amount of people actually trusting msm, we can find the lowest %s in any poll ever. Nobody trusts the media, only the most partisan voters (vbnmw). So I doubt that this, combined with T turnout this year is a good expl. If anything, msm made T more popular all things/data considered. I also remember significant bumps in his approval rating post-Mueller report and post-impeachment fiasco. All of that confirmed to me that the 'people' became more convinced that T is the underdog and the media is the 'bad cop'.

[Anonymous No.12331358]

>>12331306
Reality, as always, is very complex. I believe Dr Shiva is a retard and most certainly a hack. That said, a broken clock is right twice a day so maybe he did find something anomalous which he can explain and present to relevant people. Then again, I doubt that it'll be enough to change anything, unless we are about to see an even bigger fiasco than the 2000 pres.election was. It would be better if someone else tried to present their findings instead of the most ridiculous clowns such as Shiva and Rudy...

[Anonymous No.12331443]

>>12321623

>All mail-in votes MUST follow a constant D/R ratio over time because they get completely shuffled
>Except they should lean slightly R over time because those votes have to "travel farther"

>Ignores that some states weren't allowed to start opening mail-in ballots until election day, meaning they just had ballots piling up, meaning 'travel time' is meaningless
>Assumes that all states must count mail-in ballots completely randomly, that there's no chance they might be counted in different batches based on various criteria (e.g. location) or that certain regions would take longer to count due to having more votes or a higher population

Conservatives literally have no evidence of fraud, so they pull the Anita Sarkeesian method of research (not that she started it by any means, but she's a notorious example that they'd hate being compared to) by starting with a conclusion first and then trying to find any evidence they can to support it. Generally speaking, no matter what your conclusion is, if you fiddle around with any arbitrary dataset long enough, you'll eventually find evidence supporting it. For another example, there are those people who become convinced that [insert pop star here] worships the devil or whatever; pore over their songs long enough, and you'll find countless examples of either the number of letters, number of beats, number of words, etc. in a given song being related to 666, or at least three metrics being related to 6 (completing 666 in an even more hidden way), and so on. It's just P-hacking in a broader context. It proves nothing.

It's just hilarious that, all of a sudden, every single person on /pol/ is an expert statistician and knows exactly what each of the voting graphs ought to look like. The reality is that they're just grasping at straws.

[Anonymous No.12331461]

>>12331443
Both sides are doing this at the moment, the left is just being lazier. Any discrepancy in mail-in results is met with
>Trump told his supporters not to mail in so of course more mail-in ballots would be for Biden
Any discrepancy with downballot results is met with
>All those people just wanted Trump out of office

[Anonymous No.12331479]

>>12331461
Because those are not discrepancies, those are just results of the election. The only reason why those shouldn't happen is someone's intuition.

[Anonymous No.12331495]

>>12331443
My hypothesis is that you're likely to fail transition.

https://www.wtma.com/news/trey-trainor-to-newsmax-tv-voter-fraud-is-taking-place/

[Anonymous No.12331542]

>>12331443
It's only been a week since the election. Statistical anomalies have been identified and a smattering of election workers have come forward claiming they witnessed election fraud. Instead of there being an investigation to determine the validity of these claims, you insist that the outcome of the investigation must already exist before the investigation can be allowed to start. Not sure if you're mind numbingly stupid or you think everyone else is but you cannot demand proof of something while also demanding there be no investigation that can produce such proof.

[Anonymous No.12331543]

>>12331479
Haha that's even worse
>these results are weird
>no they're not they're just results

[Anonymous No.12331569]

>>12331543
>weird
isn't scientific, quantifiable term. Especially sine most of that isn't even that mind boggling
>2.644m votes for Trump in Michigan
>2.639m votes for Senate's Republican there
>2.790m votes for Biden
>2.721m votes for Democrat
>84k votes for various other Presidential options
>103k votes for various other senatorial options

Quick explanation is that some small percent of people, even independent, didn't have a strong opinion on the Senate but threw some votes against Trump.

[Anonymous No.12331597]

>>12331284
>Trump had 93+% R approval rating going into election. No justification for this claim that I see immediately.
By the same polls that showed Biden handily winning. Might there be among republicans in republican communities a shy Biden voter as well? I see someone being shy about their Biden vote if everyone around them talks about the Biden crime family and the pedophiles and whatnot
>>12331330
>Thousands out of... 100-140m?
No, thousands out of each state with more than five million people

>And this is where my personal experience makes me doubt that would ever happen. I know people that were fearful of Trump (which supposedly drove the high turnout); not one was complacent about the levers of power being in Republican hands
I know people who voted Trump in 2016 and were voting against him now but still voting for Cornyn (my state's senator). What's your point?
(1/3)

[Anonymous No.12331600]

>>12331597

>This is where Shiva's analysis really gets me. You would EXPECT that people voting Biden would be more likely to vote other Democrats in down ballot, and that's almost exactly the opposite of what appears to be true.
Want to preface by pointing out Shiva claims there was fraud in the primary that he won because his district is full of RINOs, and also claims he invented the email. I don't wanna outright call him a hack or imply that makes him wrong but it makes him a guy whose claims I don't immediately trust.
He ( >>12327442 ) should do the same regression for Biden votes and straight democratic votes. He might find given a constant % of ticket splitters for a party, a higher % of republican voters will cause a higher overall trump underperformance relative to the straight party vote.
For example, if 10% of R votes and 10% of D votes split in a county with 200 R and 800 D that vote for their party's congressional candidate consistently, Rs get 260 votes and Ds get 740. R presidential candidate overperforms his ticket by 60 votes. Now flip it and say 10% of R votes and 10% of D votes flip in a county with 800 R voters and 200 D voters and you get the exact opposite result. A negative slope makes sense, and the "negative control" of wayne county with something like 10 data points above the 20% R distribution doesn't negate that.

(2/3)

[Anonymous No.12331606]

>>12331600


>T was the pro-economy cand. while B is the pro-lockdown cand.
And we are nonetheless in a bad economy, not to mention a pandemic. You can tell me why you agree that Trump is the best for the economy or COVID but that's not necessarily representative of what people think and what motivates unlikely voters to turn up at the polls

>False, they WERE a lot more wrong on avg than in 2016. This isn't even disputed by media, why claim otherwise?
Don't know who "the media" is, but the 538 forecast was off by 3.3 when averaging by state ( https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/1325918376569528321 ) - not significantly more off than 16. Smug political pundits saying "this is so bad!" don't lend credibility to anything

>Yes, both parties are corrupt and bad... but one party has the upper hand in pretty much everything that matters (media, bigtech, big cities, etc).
Of the things you mentioned only "big cities" stands as a possible cause of election fraud.

>The way things played out, are also pretty damning to Ds (who wanted mail-ins in the first place? who hates voter IDs?)
Anti-voter ID has been the position of the democratic party since Dixiecrats stopped voting for them. Have they fraudulently won elections in 1992, 1996, 2008, 2012?
Mail in ballots were previously expected to lean heavily democratic given the partisan split on them. That they turned out to be exactly that is not damning of anything

(3/3)

[Anonymous No.12331619]

>>12331461

I'm just going with Occam's Razor, or whatever it is. Let's look at the two possible explanations.

First:
>Biden won the election legitimately
>The most voted-on presidential election in history has at least SOME unusual patterns given its context
>People fiddling with graphs aren't going to overcome the fact that no state in the nation can find a single shred of evidence supporting widespread voter fraud

Second:
>Liberals managed to pull off a multi-state conspiracy to win the presidential election and leave literally no evidence behind
>These same all-powerful liberals also let themselves lose House seats and are leaving control of the Senate to elections in Georgia three months from now (which they'll then ALSO have to rig or else they'll risk not having control in the Senate) even though it'd've been substantially better for them to also have gained control of the Senate in the same move
>(Whether these all-powerful liberals lost those elections deliberately out of some unfathomably complicated galaxy brain scheme, or whether they lost them due to neglectfulness brought on by incompetence/hubris, is left as an exercise for the reader. Really, anyone smart and powerful enough to rig a presidential election ought to know that going through the risk of rigging ANOTHER election just to make it seem less likely that the first election was rigged would NOT be worth it.)
>These simultaneously all-powerful and asininely careless liberals are having their schemes blown wide open by random people on the internet staring at graphs REALLY hard

The first one seems more plausible by an indescribably massive degree. Besides, Trump said, BEFORE the election, that he was going to charge in with lawyers and go to the Supreme Court and whatnot. He claimed that the 2016 election, which he fucking WON, was rigged. Him screaming that this election must be fraudulent is nothing but typical. It's predictable. In a way, it's just boring. It's hard not to roll my eyes.

[Anonymous No.12331626]

>>12331597
>shy biden effect
Tell me more about how trump supporters engage in ad hoc reasoning

[Anonymous No.12331658]

>>12331619
What kind of evidence would have been left behind?
Also the "why didn't they rig ALL the races" argument is dumb. The point wasn't dem dominance, it was to get rid of fascist Trump. It's weirder for the presidential and congressional races to go differently than for them to align. You also seem to be arguing that the conspiracy was simultaneously too large and too small

[Anonymous No.12331671]

>>12331626
Plenty of ad hoc reasoning on this thread. But when the head of the party insults RINOs and calls them traitors it's no surprise the christian conservatives who still feel uncomfortable about one of the least christian presidents with what must be the meanest character don't want to come out in front of their communities. If ONLY shy Trump voters exist how come Collins in Maine outperformed Trump by 7 points in Maine? Like maybe there ARE republicans who won't vote for him

[Anonymous No.12331675]

>>12331619
Your second possible explanation narrows down the margin as antithesis to the first possibility so much that you don't account for any other chances, such as
>single precincts being interesting for their conduct
>ES&S or Dominion software "problems", especially the last-minute updates
>low-rank fraud, stuffing Biden or removing Trump ballots with different methods
The last isn't even implausible given the sides are so polarised and the left has been whipped into a psychosis where many see themselves as virtuous resistance fighters in a fascist dictatorship.

[Anonymous No.12331695]

>>12331597
>I know people who voted Trump in 2016 and were voting against him now
Anecdotal evidence, and I find it hard to believe. I'd believe sooner that all the actual racists and antisemites (far-right /pol/sters) jumped ship and voted Biden than many 'normal' people. Maybe the young white urban liberals and some of the elderly who fell for the coofocalypse. Then again, there were Walk Away people who may have off-set this.
>>12331606
>we are nonetheless in a bad economy
Yes, but once again: lockdown=bad e. Open-up vs lockdown candidate. Even Jake Tapper would admit which is the obvious choice IF all you care about is your pocket.
>why you agree that Trump is the best for the economy
That was the obvious case, see Moody's models. COVID only matters in so far that people found B better on that area. However, interesting to note that most people cared less about C. than about most pressing matters.
>Don't know who "the media"
Please anon...
>Anti-voter ID
What a sneaky way for you to dismiss the obvious ulterior motives of a party. Btw, I find it possible that they have been cheating at least since 1960 in big cities.

[Anonymous No.12331720]

>>12331658

>What kind of evidence would have been left behind?
I don't know, I'm not an expert. I suspect an election official would call foul. Or one of the election observers would call foul. We've never had a presidential election be rigged; there are multiple checks to make sure ballots are counted as accurately as possible, and they've caught nothing suspicious. Because they've caught nothing, conservatives are making wild accusations based solely on how they don't like the results.

>the "why didn't they rig ALL the races" argument is dumb. The point wasn't dem dominance, it was to get rid of fascist Trump.
Yes, because you're a mind-reader who knows exactly how people capable of rigging the presidential election across multiple states think. I find it hard to believe that if there was a group with enough power and control to rig a presidential election, their sole motivation would be 'fuck Trump' and they'd do literally nothing else.

>It's weirder for the presidential and congressional races to go differently than for them to align.
You're only saying that because they don't align. If Democrats were elected across the board, you'd instead be using THAT as proof of foul play. There is no amount of Democrats winning elections that people couldn't rationalize an excuse to find as fraudulent, unless the Democrats won literally nothing or something.

>You also seem to be arguing that the conspiracy was simultaneously too large and too small
Because that's the inherent flaw of conspiracy theories in general. The people labeled as the bad guys in conspiracy theories are simultaneously brilliant and stupid, all-powerful and careless. The idea the liberals rigged the presidential election and ONLY the presidential election is both too grand and too shortsighted to be believable.

[Anonymous No.12331721]

>>12331671
Of course there are some republicans who didn't vote trump, there are also democrats who didn't vote for kamala acab harris

[Anonymous No.12331734]

Ok some of what you said was in response to me, some to someone else. Not that it matters, but I'll speak to your responses to me.

>>12331597
>Same polls said Trump had 93% that said Biden was far ahead
You're talking about the difference between a set of only R's being polled on Presidential support instead of some mixture of R's/D's (which we don't know the methodology of, nor even specific questions asked - likely to vote for, if you were to, etc.). Not exactly apples to apples.
>Might there be a shy Biden vote
There might be, but it just hasn't come up until this moment, so it smacks of rationalizing after the fact. Honestly it never even occurred to me, as there aren't a whole lot of stories of Biden signs being stolen, Biden shirts getting children kicked out of school and/or assaulted, Biden supporting employees being harangued at work, etc. Not saying those didn't happen, but given the typical presentation of mainstream political media, I would've expected to hear more if it did.
>What's your point?
My point was in the next line that you left out of your green text.
>He should do the same regression for Biden
Agreed. And the numbers you posit certainly show how it could happen, but not that it did. I am interested in the theory, but not married to it.
I'm not particularly interested in using any "razors" to attempt to persuade anyone; I find them to be woefully subjective (garbage in, garbage out). However if there are any credible witnesses alleging any chance that there could be election tampering, it is in ALL of our best interests to leave no stone unturned in our investigation of it. This isn't about the next 4 years, it's about the country henceforth. I don't think I need to explain to you about how the pendulum swings back and forth.

[Anonymous No.12331746]

>>>>12331695

>Anecdotal evidence, and I find it hard to believe
Literally the same as what you gave me. But I can show suburbs just about everywhere, which include more educated people than inner cities, voted more Democratic than in 2016, even in red states and red cities. Attached is Houston but you can see the same pattern in Dallas suburbs (even republican-governed ones!), Philly, Atlanta, etc etc etc. If you want to tell me clerks in all of these suburbs, even majority white, historically republican ones conspired to cheat you better have good substance to that claim

>Yes, but once again: lockdown=bad e. Open-up vs lockdown candidate. Even Jake Tapper would admit which is the obvious choice IF all you care about is your pocket.
>Moody's models
You can keep pretending the millions of recently unemployed voters are looking at complex macroeconomic numbers to decide their vote or you can come to terms with reality

>COVID only matters because.... most people cared less about C
Simply not true and especially not true of self-ascribed independents and people who vote democratic. Even a significant portion of republicans find it to be very important, and you can bet that percentage is higher in the flyover states currently battling large scale covid outbreaks for the first time
(1/2)

[Anonymous No.12331753]

>>12331746
(2/2)

>Please anon...
No, simultaneously thinking the media is some psychotic delusional democratic party voice and that they can properly analyze election results relative to polling is disingenuous. And I just gave you numbers, find it convenient you chose to ignore them.

>What a sneaky way to dismiss the obvious ulterior motives
I'm not doing any such thing, just dismissing your disingenuous claim that being against voter ID laws was some new anti-Trump scheme, and relate it to the point below

>I find it possible that they have been cheating at least since 1960 in big cities.
If you think for 60 years they have been manufacturing tens of thousands of votes and nobody, not even groups explicitly bent on finding voter fraud (even the Heritage foundation, which the WH uses as evidence of fraud), has caught them, then you and I live in a different reality
Be back 1 h and will respond to outstanding comments

[Anonymous No.12331770]

>>12331720
>I don't know, I'm not an expert.
Indeed.
>I suspect an election official would call foul.
I guess you'd suspect them to be non-partisan too, alas...
>Or one of the election observers would call foul
If they had been allowed to monitor, and if the fraud would have taken place before their eyes. But they weren't always, and it possible that it wasn't.
>We've never had a presidential election be rigged
That claim is ridiculous since both parties had alleged fraud multiple times in the history of the US. Maybe it hasn't been proven, but that doesn't mean they had never actually taken place before.
>their sole motivation would be 'fuck Trump' and they'd do literally nothing else
Where were you in the past 4 years?
>unless the Democrats won literally nothing
Personally, had Ds not pushed for mail-in then I wouldn't be suspicious all. Had this been a normal turnout election, with standard patterns and no irregularities, I wouldn't be suspicious, and even then, fraud/massive fraud would ofc be a possibility as always.

[Anonymous No.12331771]

>>12331597
considering several Trump supporters have been outright executed for being such, while biden has been hailed by the media as the second coming of christ, I have sincere doubts of any shy biden voters existing

[Anonymous No.12331812]

>>12331746
They wouldn't have had to cheat everywhere, it's enough if they do it in 1 city/state. Your exit poll from MC (kek) only shows the distribution of 'very important' factors, my reference was a Pew (far more reliable) and it was a ranked choice poll, not a choice 'salad'.
>terms with reality
So voters are stupid?
>republicans find it to be very important
On avg yes, but not more imp. than the e. in a ranked choice survey.
>psychotic delusional democratic party voice
They pretty much are.
>they can properly analyze election results
They can't, not really. Most 'polls' were exactly as delusional as msm was. Except for certain elite nonpartisan ones eg Gallup, Pew, etc...
>being against voter ID laws was some new anti-Trump scheme
I didn't imply that, all I said is the fact that Ds are certainly NOT the party of increased voting security. Unless u think NOT wanting voter ID is somehow a-okay.
>If you think for 60 years
I don't 'think', but it is certainly a possibility. The claim of the 1960 pres. election and even before that, LBJ's senate race was in 48'. Either all prior claims are 100% false, OR at least some of them had some tiny truth to them. Which is more likely, knowing there had been proven cases of fraud in the past? And don't say 'tens of thousands' since the claim from 48' eg was just about 202 ballots. Sometimes 'just enough' is well... enough.

[Anonymous No.12331814]

>>12331675

You're trying so hard to find ways that Biden's win might be illegitimate that your stance is "well, if it wasn't a big conspiracy, maybe it was a bunch of little conspiracies combined!" which is just fucking stupid.

>you don't account for any other chances, such as
Because every single one of these 'chances' ALWAYS ends up false. There was the lawsuit that Republicans weren't allowed to observe the elections the same way the Democrats were (which wasn't true); the 'Sharpie-gate' thing where people claimed that election officials, knowing Sharpies would make their ballots invalid, gave a bunch of Trump supporters Sharpies to mark their ballots with (marking your ballots with Sharpies is fine); the video of someone burning Trump ballots (they weren't official ballots and would never count regardless); the fucking COUNTLESS claims that votes for Democrats were coming from dead people (false every time); the error where someone accidentally added a zero to the Biden votes (it was quickly fixed, and none of the major news sites ever actually used that overinflated number); and so on and so on. Of COURSE I'm going to be casually dismissive of each of those additional theories; every single one so far has had zero merit. It honestly just seems like people are throwing out a whole bunch of false claims in order to sway people to think that "well, even if no wrongdoing has been found so far, the fact that there are so many claims of fraud makes the election results seem pretty suspicious!" which strikes me as dishonest and immoral.

[Anonymous No.12331851]

>>12331814
Why is a bunch of little conspiracies dumber than one big one?

[Anonymous No.12331932]

>>12331770

>>I suspect an election official would call foul.
>I guess you'd suspect them to be non-partisan too, alas...
Georgia's Secretary of State is a Republican, and he's reported no wrongdoing. The result has been other Republicans calling for him to resign.

>>Or one of the election observers would call foul
>If they had been allowed to monitor
They were.

>>We've never had a presidential election be rigged
>both parties had alleged fraud multiple times in the history of the US.
When was the last time anyone has alleged fraud to this degree, filing multiple lawsuits across multiple states and refusing to concede?
>Maybe it hasn't been proven, but that doesn't mean they had never actually taken place before.
We haven't found evidence of widespread voter fraud in the past (or today), just like how we haven't found a link between vaccines and autism. You're just running into the issue that it's impossible to prove a negative. No one can claim with LITERAL 100% certainty that there is literally zero fraud, but acting like fraud has definitely taken place until we've exhaustively disproved literally every single conspiracy theory literally anyone can think of is stupid. We have election observers, we have security checks, and so on. Until there's credible evidence of wrongdoing, acting like Biden hasn't legitimately won the election is just taking a "guilty until proven innocent" approach, which is wrong.

>>their sole motivation would be 'fuck Trump' and they'd do literally nothing else
>Where were you in the past 4 years?
A huge portion of the population just has the attitude 'fuck Trump' and cares little else for politics, yeah. Thinking that (hypothetical) people with the knowledge, power, and involvement to tackle the unprecedented undertaking of rigging a presidential election would be doing so with such petty reasoning? No way.

(1/2)

[Anonymous No.12331985]

>>12331770
>>12331932

(2/2)
>Personally, had Ds not pushed for mail-in then I wouldn't be suspicious all.
We've had mail-in ballots for decades, and some states that have everyone voting by mail by default. There have been no significant issues. With the pandemic, even if you think it's not as deadly as experts say it is, pushing for mail-in ballots is just common sense. It's secure, and a way to limit exposure. The only irregularity/anomaly is Trump's constant assertions without any evidence (oh gee, deja vu!) that mail-in ballots are fraudulent and horrible.

>Had this been a normal turnout election, with standard patterns and no irregularities, I wouldn't be suspicious
Yet you don't seem bothered by Trump's vote count, which are the highest of any candidate ever (other than Biden).

[Anonymous No.12331991]

>>12331932
It's not a petty "fuck trump" though, there are powerful people who think trump is an existential threat to democracy if not humanity.

[Anonymous No.12332009]

>>12331991
>who think trump is an existential threat to democracy
Well they were right

[Anonymous No.12332026]

>>12332009
I regularly wish he was a quarter the dictator you leftists insist he is, just to make a point

[Anonymous No.12332033]

>>12332009
Zing! So you agree with my post? After all you think he's dangerous, and not only do these people live in that same democracy, it provides their career

[Anonymous No.12332034]

>>12331851
Because there's no end to it; you'll be chasing at shadows. Every single election official has stated there's no evidence for widespread voter fraud, and every claim of fraud that's been looked into so far has ended up being false. At what point will you accept the election results as legitimate? Is there a number of claims of fraud that need to be proven false, or do you need to disprove every single claim? Because, with the reverence Trump's supporters have for him, and the fact that his extreme narcissism will NEVER let him accept the results as legitimate, I can say with good confidence that there will always be more claims of fraud that pop up no matter how many end up being false.

[Anonymous No.12332046]

>>12332026
Open your eyes. Trump threw a lawsuits all over the country without any proof just because he lost some states. He won't concede and blocked any effort to shift power to new administration, something Obama did right after Trump won. You can pretend he is within his right to call the vote a fraud, but he is also undermining the democratic proceeding and he himself knows he is lying.
>>12332033
No

[Anonymous No.12332065]

>>12332046
What do you disagree with? You don't think there are politically powerful people who see trump as unprecedentedly dangerous?

[Anonymous No.12332071]

>>12332033

The person you just replied to isn't me (the person who wrote those much longer earlier replies), by the way.

I still hard disagree. If people with all that power and control were that specifically motivated to be anti-Trump, then they'd know that Trump is just a figurehead. Making someone other than Trump president wouldn't get rid of what Trump stands for and what Trump's supporters believe in. To really enact change, especially after the Senate helped Trump install as many conservative judges as possible, then you'd need control of the Senate as well so Biden could actually get things done. To NOT do that would mean they were specifically against Trump, the individual, which is just shortsighted and petty like I said before.

[Anonymous No.12332074]

>>12332065
I disagree with the whole message and how you're overplaying how politically powerful Democrats holding minority of country's power are compared to Republicans, and how that immediately makes them guilty of whatever you want.

[Anonymous No.12332107]

>>12332046
>he himself knows he is lying.
I don't think so. One of Trump's strongest qualities, something that contributes to the powerful "charisma" his supporters claim he has, is his complete inability to see himself as at fault for anything. That's why he frames every single attack against him as illegitimate and underhanded, as clearly he has no faults that could be actually criticized. That's why he invented phantoms like the dreaded "Deep State", as clearly it's impossible that other people in government would simply not like him or would not want to do everything he wants them to do. That's why he always rates everything he's ever done as A+.

I think he firmly believes, even in his heart of hearts, that he won the election by a landslide, and that it's only due to fraud and other trickery that anyone would believe otherwise.

[Anonymous No.12332128]

>>12332074
Democrats hold fewer elected seats. People who dislike trump have a near-monopoly on power in general.

[Anonymous No.12332137]

>>12332107
Trump didn't invent the concept of deep state, and the deep state absolutely exists, it exists in every government and it exists real deep in the us.

[Anonymous No.12332172]

>>12332071
Of course people with power and control are anti-trump, the last four years haven't been a constant stream of blatant anti-trump messaging by accident. You can find endless articles and media pieces on how dangerous trump is, or how this the most important election of all time

[Anonymous No.12332200]

>>12332137

Not in the way Trump says it does, where it's a conspiracy that people within the government are underhandedly working against him in an organized manner in order to harm his administration.

From what I've read, the "deep state" typically just refers to people who are in long careers in government but weren't elected, who tend to stay constant between administrations. Trump uses the term like it's a conspiracy by the Democrats to undermine him and lie about him or whatever. It's a 'phantom' because there's no organized movement like that, unless you include Democrats in Congress who are simply doing their job.

Like, who's the leader of the "Deep State"? What were they doing before Trump was elected? What are their goals, other than, according to Trump, fighting (underhandedly) against him? How many people are in the "Deep State"? How do they coordinate their efforts? How did they originally form? Do we know even a single confirmed member? What will they be doing once Trump is out of office?

The "Deep State" is just boogeymen Trump invented.

[Anonymous No.12332217]

>>12332172

Stay focused, man. I wasn't referring to everyone who had 'power and control', I was referring specifically to the hypothetical people who had THE 'power and control' to rig a presidential election across multiple states and leave no evidence behind.

[Anonymous No.12332219]

>>12332034
You are either blatantly lying or only hearing about the debunked ones - the latter is true of almost all normies and probably a lot of /sci/entists too. You might remark that the media blackout sounds like a really big conspiracy, but since those are apparently more plausible than little conspiracies, they can happen

[Anonymous No.12332230]

>>12332217
Who are those people and what kind of evidence?

[Anonymous No.12332263]

>>12332200
Your remarks about how they are unorganized and leaderless is true of 'white supremacists' and 'the alt right' yet that doesn't stop those boogieboys from existing.
I don't know what their goals are or whoever the leaders are. I don't recall trump ever saying there is a leader. Their goals are probably collectively aligned with whatever shitty thing 'america' is up to somewhere in the world those days. I grew up hearing about us doing shitty weird stuff since post-wwii. Obviously there's no such thing as confirmed membership, they're not the masons. After trump they'll still mostly be in their career government jobs as always

[Anonymous No.12332399]

>>12331721
>Of course there are some republicans who didn't vote trump, there are also democrats who didn't vote for kamala acab harris
Okay, what democratic senate candidates outperformed Biden by a margin anywhere near Collins'?

>>12331734
>You're talking about the difference between a set of only R's being polled on Presidential support instead of some mixture of R's/D's (which we don't know the methodology of, nor even specific questions asked - likely to vote for, if you were to, etc.). Not exactly apples to apples.
You're just pretending there is uncertainty after citing 93% approval of Trump among republicans. What tells you republicans answering polls are representative of ALL republicans if the average person answering polls is not representative of ALL people? Be consistent or withdraw your claim

>There might be, but it just hasn't come up until this moment, so it smacks of rationalizing after the fact.
Except for all the places where Trump underperformed and Biden overperformed senate and house ballots

> Honestly it never even occurred to me, as... [I cut to meet character limit, please see cited post]
Wasn't the popular explanation for why Biden wouldn't win (and the reason you said you don't believe people would vote for him, I presume) that Biden voters weren't putting up as many yard signs, weren't cheering for their candidate as much, weren't as vocal about their inclinations?

[Anonymous No.12332409]

>>12332399

>My point was in the next line that you left out of your green text.
Quote yourself, because I quoted a bunch of "this is my anecdotal evidence" hot garbage and you don't get to criticize anecdotal evidence without presenting it.

>Agreed. And the numbers you posit certainly show how it could happen, but not that it did. I am interested in the theory, but not married to it.
Your subjective attachment to the numbers doesn't mean anything. It shows that the claim more republican votes are being stolen in more republican precincts is wrong unless you assume more republican precincts have less split ticket voting and failing solid evidence of that the whole argument has no water. It should also tell you something about his skill that a guy with a PhD makes such a bad analysis of data.

>I'm not particularly interested in using any "razors"...[cut4characters]
>if there are any credible witnesses alleging any chance that there could be election tampering, it is in ALL of our best interests to leave no stone unturned in our investigation of it.
I didn't use any "razors" and this is just a transparent political posture and something straight out of conspiracy theories. "If there are any credible witnesses that say the moon landing was faked/the earth is flat and 6000 years old/the CIA killed JFK I just want to hear them!" is the kind of hot garbage that Infowars gets away with because its audience is morons without any analytical sense. I've seen at least 10 fraud claims made so far debunked, most notably "sharpies", the blind lady from Nevada, the Veritas whistleblower whose post office only transported 3 ballots after election day, claims of Benford distribution, and so on. How many claims do YOU think should be debunked before we can assume that the people making those claims are not seeking an honest discussion but to advance a belief?

[Anonymous No.12332414]

>>12332409
PART 3


>>12331771
>considering several Trump supporters have been outright executed...
This is where I remind you more deaths in the last 4 years can be attributed to right wingers, including Trump supporters, than to any left-wing organization.
>But it's only a few
Yes, it's only a few on both sides. Stop posturing.


>while biden has been hailed by the media as the second coming of christ, I have sincere doubts of any shy biden voters existing
Believe it or not there are communities out there in America whose most popular news source is FOX, where he has decisively not been treated as the second coming of anyone except Stalin

>>12331812
>They wouldn't have had to cheat everywhere, it's enough if they do it in 1 city/state. Your exit poll from MC (kek) only shows the distribution of 'very important' factors, my reference was a Pew (far more reliable) and it was a ranked choice poll, not a choice 'salad'.
>On avg yes, but not more imp. than the e. in a ranked choice survey.
This one, you mean? [annexed next post]

>So voters are stupid?
Don't put words in my mouth. Voters aren't choosing based on indexes because that's not how they perceive the economy

>They can't, not really. Most 'polls' were exactly as delusional as msm was
I just showed you data showing my point that you refuse to look at. They weren't significantly more off than in 2016 in state averages. Trump simply needed a larger error than in 2016 given those averages and he didn't get one. If you just wanna posture then I won't keep responding to you


>I didn't imply that, all I said is the fact that Ds are certainly NOT the party of increased voting security. Unless u think NOT wanting voter ID is somehow a-okay.
Dems are the party of high voter turnout. To pretend it's JUST voting security or JUST voting turnout is stupid posturing and punditry, it's always been a balance between the two and both parties materially benefit from their position. Spare me the posturing, I said.

[Anonymous No.12332420]

>>12332414
AND LAST PART


>I don't 'think', but it is certainly a possibility. The claim of the 1960 pres. election and even before that, LBJ's senate race was in 48'. Either all prior claims are 100% false, OR at least some of them had some tiny truth to them. Which is more likely, knowing there had been proven cases of fraud in the past? And don't say 'tens of thousands' since the claim from 48' eg was just about 202 ballots. Sometimes 'just enough' is well... enough.
I never made the claim there has NEVER been ANY fraud ANYWHERE. Absolutely nobody makes that claim and it's an easy strawman for someone to fall back on because if a crime is possible then some people will always commit it. Heritage analyzed cases of fraud since the 1980s and found 2000 cases https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/docs/pacei-voterfraudcases.pdf - if all of these cases had happened in this election and all were perpetrated by democrats it still wouldn't change who won. You're arguing that these "machines" orchestrated something three or four orders of magnitude as big you better have something other than guesswork to back it up


P.S. I have yet to hear any rebuttal of >>12331600 by all the people parroting the "inventor of the email"s argument. Waiting


Boy that was exhausting to type