Biden Takes Georgia; Violence on Horizon

[canpakes]

What are these “proven statistical anomalies” to which you refer?

Here are a few examples of anomalies that you may be inclined to dismiss via speculation but such deviations merit legitimate investigation:
:: supposed ‘irregularities’ follow ::

Both of those were already discussed in the link that Doc provided, which pretty much proves his point about you being unable to either read or process information.

But, hey - I like your claim of, “more people voted this election than last, therefore, fraud”. It’s adorable.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

They have successfully applied flat Earth logic to all aspects of their lives. It was never about the fraud. Any amount of evidence won't be accepted. You could have a judge sit them down and explain it and they'd just call the judge a neverTrumper and go on believing in the narrative. You could have a Republican Senator sit them down and explain it and they'd call him a liberal turncoat and go on believing in the narrative. They prefer their worldview regardless of information or evidence. It's always been about upholding the status quo of keeping some in society held down so that they, themselves, aren't relegated to the bottom of the pecking order. It's how every conservative or Republican platform is eventually overrun with neo-nazis, cryptofascists, white nationalists and conspiracy theorists. There’s no way the idiot reads this paragraph. It's all the same ideology under different names when you dig down into it. Western pride. America first. White lives matter. All dogwhistles to call out the fascists. Always have been. Same with masks. People keep falsely assuming the conversation is, "Are masks effective?" That has never mattered. Just a distraction. Thanks to Trump's politicisation of masks we have inadvertently chosen our uniforms, shirts or skins, in the coming war for our Democracy against an oncoming populist fascist movement that will attempt to reorganize our Democracy into a nationalistic dictatorship and eventually a white ethnostate who controls the largest military on Earth.

- Doc

[Res Ipsa]

Before I spend any time on your list, Subs, how much time have you spent verifying that these are real statistical anomalies. Or are you taking some guy on the internet at face value?

This is why I rarely bother to respond to your wild, fact-free claims. You just copy crap off the internet without spending even minimal effort to do any sort of fact checking:

Taking your "proven statistical anomalies" in order:

Turnout in Milwaukee was way, way above historical norms.
In 2016, statewide turnout in Wisconsin was 67.34 percent.
In 2020, voting wards all over the city were reporting turnout levels greater than 80 percent.
Of the city’s 327 voting wards, 90 reported turnout of greater than 90 percent; 201 reported turnout higher than 80 percent.
In 2016, city voter turnout was 75 percent.
nearby city of similar demographic (Cleveland) was no where near such deviations.

This isn't a "proven statistical anomaly" -- its bad math. There were bunch of claims that Wisconsin's turnout was an anomaly. But there was not anomaly. Wisconsin has same day voter registration. When it reports past voter turnout percentages, it includes people who registered same day. The geniuses that pushed this conspiracy theory didn't include the same-day registration totals for the 2020 election. The "geniuses" included Uday and Kusay. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac ... 176028002/

In fact, the total votes cast in Milwaukee in 2020 was about the same as in 2016, despite record turnout in the state. https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/pol ... 188097002/ So, no proven statistical anomaly. In fact, using Sub's logic, the fact that Milwaukee's vote total is out of line with the rest of the state "proves" election fraud by Republicans.

Both of these articles were in the first few entries of a google search.

This was proven NOT to be a statistical anomaly six days ago. Sub posted anyway.

Strike One.

Your beloved 538 tweeted:
"Two more batches of Pennsylvania vote were reported:
-23,277 votes in Philadelphia, all for Biden
-about 5,300 votes in Luzerne County, nearly 4,000 of which were for Biden" (emphasis mine)
23k votes appear and not a single vote for "not-Biden"?

This was proven NOT to be a statistical anomaly on election night, over a week ago. I know, because I was reading the 538 live blog. They also posted a followup as the first response to the tweet itself: https://Twitter.com/FiveThirtyEight/sta ... 76/photo/1

If you're not into clicking, sometimes election desks update candidate totals separately instead of together. Trump's corresponding totals were included in the next update, where his percentage was anomalously high.

Easily found by googling "fivethirtyeight 23,277" Proven NOT to be an anomaly over a week ago. Sub posted it anyway.

Strike Two.

Likewise, peculiar trends on the absence of down-ticket voting that dramatically diverge from historical trends...yet only in areas that were critical to the election (a.k.a. not widespread through nation). Too many numbers for here, but I assume you can google.

No evidence. No source. Ball one.

Mail in votes have a rejection rate of at least 2% even in well run elections - The rejection rate for this election is 0.1%

No evidence. No source. Also false.

The rejection rate for the 2016 election was less than 1% and the rate in 2018 was 1.4%. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/750000- ... d=73645323 We've had an all mail ballot system in Washington since the mid 2000s, and our rejection rate has always been 1.1-1.2%. The 2% figure is pure BS.

But what about 2020? Was the rate really 0.1%? Sub gives no source, and the only ones I've found were estimates taken during the count. The only official figure I could locate was Kentucky, with a rejection rate of .4%. https://www.courier-journal.com/story/n ... 161749002/ Hmm, maybe this is more statistical proof that Republicans are cheating.

If you use the Google, what you'll find is that, after some high rejection rates in the primaries, states undertook education campaigns, enacted "cure" processes, and redesigned instructions to reduce confusion. Many states published lists of rejected ballots online, and the campaigns were aggressive in contacting those voters and urging them to take the steps needed to correct whatever error was made. So, there isn't really a benchmark to compare this election to because of the unique circumstances.

Strike 3.

But I'll give Sub one last pitch:



This is a partial image of a tweet sent out on election night. It was proven NOT to be a statistical anomaly within hours. https://www.factcheck.org/2020/11/cleri ... n-results/

The GOP operative that originally tweeted the image acknowledged that this was a simple clerical error and deleted the original tweet. He did that eight days ago, but Sub still posted it tonight.

Strike 4.

I glanced through the other links. It's more of the same, only involving more mathturbation. Not worth my time.

None of what Sub posted is a "proven statistical anomaly." Any lawyer who tried to introduce them in court would be risking Rule 11 sanctions.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Super cut of Trumplicans complaining about Dems not accepting election results:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=you ... pOnt1cByT4

Ironic.

- Doc

[Jersey Girl]

Super cut of Trumplicans complaining about Dems not accepting election results:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=you ... pOnt1cByT4

Ironic.

- Doc

I saw that yesterday I believe it was. So. There was a discussion today where I mentioned it. Didn't go over well. Also mentioned that if Dems had rigged the election they would have rigged the Senate as well. Both items are on the same ballots so apparently some folks voted for say, McConnell but voted out DJT. That also didn't go over well. This is why I avoid political discussions with family. When I say didn't go over well, I'm talking silence. You know, the crickets kind of thing.

[Gadianton]

None of what Sub posted is a "proven statistical anomaly." Any lawyer who tried to introduce them in court would be risking Rule 11 sanctions.

I watched the legal eagle summary of the lawsuits (i skipped around a bit) and if there was one key point to take away, it's that as reason would predict, what's being argued in the courtroom is totally different from what is presented online. It looks like these high-paid lawyers don't want to risk their careers over telling a subgenius level of obvious lie in court.

[Philo Sofee]

Before I spend any time on your list, Subs, how much time have you spent verifying that these are real statistical anomalies. Or are you taking some guy on the internet at face value?

And anomalies don't mean fraud anyway. This is a historically different kind of year. There are anomalies in every election, but not fraud. There is no evidence of any kind of widespread fraud, just a few anomalies. That is normal. It's why judges are throwing out the claims. They are stupidly misguided

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Law firm Porter Wright withdraws from representing Trump in Pennsylvania case.

- Doc

[Icarus]

Thorough ass whooping... this is the part where subs disappears.

[Res Ipsa]

Before I spend any time on your list, Subs, how much time have you spent verifying that these are real statistical anomalies. Or are you taking some guy on the internet at face value?

And anomalies don't mean fraud anyway. This is a historically different kind of year. There are anomalies in every election, but not fraud. There is no evidence of any kind of widespread fraud, just a few anomalies. That is normal. It's why judges are throwing out the claims. They are stupidly misguided

I don't agree with the way you are using the term anomaly. By definition, something that is expected is not an anomaly. Here's the first definition I found: "something that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected" In an election that involves counting 150 million votes and accumulating those totals in a non-uniform process that involves lots of data entry by hand, data entry errors are expected, not anomalous. In fact, they are so expected that the system has processes for double or triple checking the numbers to catch clerical errors. But the checks don't happen instantly -- they are part of an overall process. The problem is, the media takes unofficial, unchecked, and unverified numbers and transmits them almost instantaneously to the public. As a result, it broadcasts errors before the checking takes place.

Sub's last example, if you actually understand how the process works, is normal and expected. The problem is that people who don't bother to educate themselves on how the process works and who are primed to expect fraud turn normal and expected events into false accusations of fraud. In the first example, the fraud claims is based on an assumption, not supported by evidence, that candidates' vote totals are always updated simultaneously. That assumption is false. So, again, if you understand how the system works, with vote totals reported instantly by the media, the events in the first example are perfectly normal and expected.

Something that looks odd to an ignorant observer is not an anomaly. Nearly all of the crazy claims being made about election fraud on the internets are based on the ignorance of the people making the claims. When you see something that looks odd to you, the first thing you should do is not call SHENANIGANS at the top of your lungs. The first thing to do is educate yourself to rule out the possibility that it only looks odd to you because you don't understand the process or context. If you have ruled out your own misunderstanding as the reason the thing looked odd, then apply Hanlon's razor: ""never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Humans make mistakes. Lots and lots of mistakes. Do enough investigation to rule out human error as the source of of the oddity. Only at that point should you conclude that you may have an anomaly that is evidence of shenanigans.