2020 General Election

[JohnStOnge]

Here is the problem: People see claims made such as the one that the only places where they had massively disproportionate vote totals where Biden overwhelmingly had the advantage were in swing states and they just believe it without checking on it. It's not true. But it's like that with a lot of Trump associated stuff. Somebody makes an assertion. People just believe it's true without checking on it.

[SDHornet]

Here is the problem: People see claims made such as the one that the only places where they had massively disproportionate vote totals where Biden overwhelmingly had the advantage were in swing states and they just believe it without checking on it. It's not true. But it's like that with a lot of Trump associated stuff. Somebody makes an assertion. People just believe it's true without checking on it.

The ballot dumps were statistical anomalies in that their ratio of Biden to Trump greatly...like 7 standard deviations greatly if I recall correctly from the WI dump (you can do your own homework, I posted this not long after the election)....varied than what was being seen elsewhere in similar D leaning precincts/districts in the state.

I also recall calling out the data folks on this board to see any kind of a rebuttal could be made. I don't recall seeing any reasonable responses.

Mass mail in ballots made the election easier to rig in addition to all the other law changes and shenanigans the "elitist cabal" did to rig it. All this with forensic audits being held off. But yeah free and fair elections with transparency or something.

[SeattleGriz]

They were predicted, but not in the ratios that came in. That is the issue. You can't use the whole, " it was a highly democratic area" because those sort of ratios only happened in the specific areas under question and nowhere else in the US with similar highly democratic demographics.

Not true. On what basis do you say they were not predicted in the ratios that came in? I was monitoring media reports before and after and such things were indeed predicted beforehand. I was watching media reports, for example, saying that Trump led in Pennsylvania but it was likely that he would lose the lead as mail in ballots were counted.

With respect to overwhelmingly Democrat jurisdictions: You can easily check on an example of such by looking at Washington DC. Biden beat Trump in Washington DC by 317,323 to 18,586.

Again: Just stop. Do you not think that the FBI and Homeland Security are aware of any argument you can put up with respect to this sort of thing? Trump did not lose because of voter fraud. He lost because he lost. And it was not unexpected. He is the only President in the history of Gallup polling who never reached 50% approval. He was NEVER favored by the majority of the People. Never.

Are you talking about the same FBI that lied and made 17 errors in obtaining ONE FISA warrant so they could use the two hop rule and surveil Trump illegally? Or are we talking about a different FBI?

Or maybe you are talking about the FBI in which the deputy director git caught lying three times to their own investigators in regards to Russia/Trump, but was let off without any punishment?

Or maybe it was the FBI that knew Carter Page was an informant FOR the FBI, but still lied to get the above FISA warrant.

Yeah, they are great.

No wait! I got it. It's the same FBI that is still sitting on the Russia documents and won't release them after Trump declassified them before he left.

[SeattleGriz]

Here is the problem: People see claims made such as the one that the only places where they had massively disproportionate vote totals where Biden overwhelmingly had the advantage were in swing states and they just believe it without checking on it. It's not true. But it's like that with a lot of Trump associated stuff. Somebody makes an assertion. People just believe it's true without checking on it.

The ballot dumps were statistical anomalies in that their ratio of Biden to Trump greatly...like 7 standard deviations greatly if I recall correctly from the WI dump (you can do your own homework, I posted this not long after the election)....varied than what was being seen elsewhere in similar D leaning precincts/districts in the state.

I also recall calling out the data folks on this board to see any kind of a rebuttal could be made. I don't recall seeing any reasonable responses.

Mass mail in ballots made the election easier to rig in addition to all the other law changes and shenanigans the "elitist cabal" did to rig it. All this with forensic audits being held off. But yeah free and fair elections with transparency or something.

StOnge has been totally mum on the video in which the Fulton county official is on record saying 106k out of 113k ballots at that point had to be adjudicated. Was gonna debunk me.

Nevermind the new video released for the TCF center in Detroit that allegedly shows ballots arriving eight hours last the deadline. The same time Biden got one if his big bumps in Michigan.

[JohnStOnge]

Here is the problem: People see claims made such as the one that the only places where they had massively disproportionate vote totals where Biden overwhelmingly had the advantage were in swing states and they just believe it without checking on it. It's not true. But it's like that with a lot of Trump associated stuff. Somebody makes an assertion. People just believe it's true without checking on it.

The ballot dumps were statistical anomalies in that their ratio of Biden to Trump greatly...like 7 standard deviations greatly if I recall correctly from the WI dump (you can do your own homework, I posted this not long after the election)....varied than what was being seen elsewhere in similar D leaning precincts/districts in the state.

I also recall calling out the data folks on this board to see any kind of a rebuttal could be made. I don't recall seeing any reasonable responses.

I don't recall seeing you call out "data folks" but there was nothing unusual. Everything that happened was anticipated before hand. There were not "statistical anomalies." It's like I said though: So much shit is being thrown at the wall in that regard that it takes forever to identify each glob of shit and rebut it.

In that regard, I'll state the reason I just came to post. It's the idea that metro areas going way overwhelmingly for the Democrat in swing States this time was unusual. If you go to the article at https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/ ... /95570866/ and scroll to the bottom, you will see that Hillary Clinton beat Trump by 95% to 3% in Detroit in 2016.

Yes, the article says there were some problems in Detroit in 2016 with vote counting. But the discrepancies were small in terms of numbers. The bottom line is that it is clear that seeing the Republican lose by such an overwhelming margin in Detroit is not unusual.

[JohnStOnge]

StOnge has been totally mum on the video in which the Fulton county official is on record saying 106k out of 113k ballots at that point had to be adjudicated. Was gonna debunk me.

I haven't been totally silent on that. I said I think it was unlikely that's true and I think someone else asked you for a reference to document the assertion.

Again: This is all completely ridiculous anyway. Biden clearly won the election and there clearly wasn't fraud sufficient to change the outcome. All kinds of governmental enforcement entities and courts have confirmed that. At this point if you are continuing to believe that there was fraud sufficient to change the outcome you are like somebody that believes in Bigfoot. No matter what anybody tells you you are going to just continue to believe it even though it is false.

[JohnStOnge]

Not true. On what basis do you say they were not predicted in the ratios that came in? I was monitoring media reports before and after and such things were indeed predicted beforehand. I was watching media reports, for example, saying that Trump led in Pennsylvania but it was likely that he would lose the lead as mail in ballots were counted.

With respect to overwhelmingly Democrat jurisdictions: You can easily check on an example of such by looking at Washington DC. Biden beat Trump in Washington DC by 317,323 to 18,586.

Again: Just stop. Do you not think that the FBI and Homeland Security are aware of any argument you can put up with respect to this sort of thing? Trump did not lose because of voter fraud. He lost because he lost. And it was not unexpected. He is the only President in the history of Gallup polling who never reached 50% approval. He was NEVER favored by the majority of the People. Never.

Are you talking about the same FBI that lied and made 17 errors in obtaining ONE FISA warrant so they could use the two hop rule and surveil Trump illegally? Or are we talking about a different FBI?

Or maybe you are talking about the FBI in which the deputy director git caught lying three times to their own investigators in regards to Russia/Trump, but was let off without any punishment?

Or maybe it was the FBI that knew Carter Page was an informant FOR the FBI, but still lied to get the above FISA warrant.

Yeah, they are great.

No wait! I got it. It's the same FBI that is still sitting on the Russia documents and won't release them after Trump declassified them before he left.

That diatribe is an example of the kind of damage Trump has done to this country. The big picture is that the FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible cooperation between people in the Trump campaign and Russia was justified.

The fact that McCabe was not prosecuted should tell you something. It should tell you that there wasn't really sufficient evidence that he lied.

The FBI as an institution is a whole lot more trustworthy than Trump is and also a whole lot more trustworthy than the people claiming election fraud are. Also a whole lot more competent at actually assessing evidence for election fraud.

[UNI88]

Whose day of the week is it to read JSO's diatribes and give a heads up if there's anything new in them or if he's still just ...

[SeattleGriz]

Whose day of the week is it to read JSO's diatribes and give a heads up if there's anything new in them or if he's still just ...

In fairness, I'm beating my dead horse too, albeit with 1,000 less words.

[JohnStOnge]

Whose day of the week is it to read JSO's diatribes and give a heads up if there's anything new in them or if he's still just ...

Try reading about how Detroit went for Clinton over Trump by 95% to 3% in 2016 so there is obviously nothing unusual about a jurisdiction like that going for Biden over Trump by 94% to 5% in 2020. Try reading about how you can readily see that the District of Columbia went for Biden over Trump by 92% to 5% so it's clear that Biden winning by overwhelming margins like that was not limited to metro areas in the swing states as has been falsely stated. Also, BTW, Clinton beat Trump by 93% to 4% in the District of Columbia in 2016 so what happened there this year isn't unusual either in terms of comparing it to what has happened in the past.

The election wasn't stolen. The only attempt at stealing the election that has gone on over the past few months was on the part of Trump and his supporters.

[JohnStOnge]

Here's another one for you guys on the issue of whether Biden's big metro area margins were limited to the swing states:

Biden beat Trump in Philadelphia by 81% to 18%. Biden beat Trump in Orleans Parish, Louisiana...which is essentially the city of New Orleans...by 83% to 15%. Again: Trump people are just saying shit that isn't true. They're saying things are unusual, unexpected, statistical anomalies, etc., when they are not.

[JohnStOnge]

I think I've posted this before but, what the heck, it's worth posting again:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac ... 877743001/

It's a complete debunking of one of the "statistical anomaly" claims. And, believe me, every time I've had time to check on one of the "statistical anomaly" claims this is the kind of thing that happens. That or it turns out that the numbers presented are just false (like saying jurisdictions had higher turnout rates than they actually did or that turnout increased a whole bunch more than it actually did).

Again: Just stop. If you are continuing to believe this crap you are in the kook club. Snap out of it.

[SeattleGriz]

I think I've posted this before but, what the heck, it's worth posting again:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac ... 877743001/

It's a complete debunking of one of the "statistical anomaly" claims. And, believe me, every time I've had time to check on one of the "statistical anomaly" claims this is the kind of thing that happens. That or it turns out that the numbers presented are just false (like saying jurisdictions had higher turnout rates than they actually did or that turnout increased a whole bunch more than it actually did).

Again: Just stop. If you are continuing to believe this crap you are in the kook club. Snap out of it.

Let's see. You've got a generic journalist vs a PhD in Economics. Tough choice on who is better at statistics.

USA today needs to stick to lying about Russia. They were much better at that.

[SDHornet]

The ballot dumps were statistical anomalies in that their ratio of Biden to Trump greatly...like 7 standard deviations greatly if I recall correctly from the WI dump (you can do your own homework, I posted this not long after the election)....varied than what was being seen elsewhere in similar D leaning precincts/districts in the state.

I also recall calling out the data folks on this board to see any kind of a rebuttal could be made. I don't recall seeing any reasonable responses.

I don't recall seeing you call out "data folks" but there was nothing unusual. Everything that happened was anticipated before hand. There were not "statistical anomalies." It's like I said though: So much shit is being thrown at the wall in that regard that it takes forever to identify each glob of shit and rebut it.

In that regard, I'll state the reason I just came to post. It's the idea that metro areas going way overwhelmingly for the Democrat in swing States this time was unusual. If you go to the article at https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/ ... /95570866/ and scroll to the bottom, you will see that Hillary Clinton beat Trump by 95% to 3% in Detroit in 2016.

Yes, the article says there were some problems in Detroit in 2016 with vote counting. But the discrepancies were small in terms of numbers. The bottom line is that it is clear that seeing the Republican lose by such an overwhelming margin in Detroit is not unusual.

[SeattleGriz]

No wonder everyone is fighting so hard to prevent access to ballots. If these Dominion machines are adding 300 votes every 4500 votes.

A Democrat asked for a recount and got one, but it uncovered fraud that helped him.

https://granitegrok.com/mg_windham/2020 ... -300-votes

That is very strange. That is a large number, large enough that a Republican who lost by 100 to 300 votes would not ask for a recount. Of course, no Republican asked for a recount. It was a Democrat looking for lost votes (24 of them) to perhaps flip one seat in that local election.

And look at what they found. Something, unexpected. Something we were not supposed to see?

St Laurent (d) lost 100 votes, and their Republican opponents all gained 300, plus or minus three votes.

The only other time I'm aware in which any access to paper ballots or the machines has been provided was in Antrim county Michigan where the found an error rate of 68% and the machines logs were wiped clean of 2020 election data, even though previous election were still there.

As a side note, that 68% is misleading. It doesn't mean 68% of the ballots were incorrect, but that the error log entries showed errors that often, but that rate is WAY higher than allowable.

I keep hearing, "show me the proof" but access to provide that proof has been stymied, and when access is granted, this is what happens.

[AZGrizFan]

Whose day of the week is it to read JSO's diatribes and give a heads up if there's anything new in them or if he's still just ...

Try reading about how Detroit went for Clinton over Trump by 95% to 3% in 2016 so there is obviously nothing unusual about a jurisdiction like that going for Biden over Trump by 94% to 5% in 2020. Try reading about how you can readily see that the District of Columbia went for Biden over Trump by 92% to 5% so it's clear that Biden winning by overwhelming margins like that was not limited to metro areas in the swing states as has been falsely stated. Also, BTW, Clinton beat Trump by 93% to 4% in the District of Columbia in 2016 so what happened there this year isn't unusual either in terms of comparing it to what has happened in the past.

The election wasn't stolen. The only attempt at stealing the election that has gone on over the past few months was on the part of Trump and his supporters.

Ever notice that all those places that go Dem 95/5 or something like that are ALWAYS absolute shitholes?

[SeattleGriz]

I live how The Lincoln Project fell for the John McCain treatment. They were awesome when attacking Trump, but as soon as he is gone, all of a sudden Dems care about their morals.

https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump ... d4141394cb

Led by several prominent former Republican consultants, its slickly produced ads attacking President Donald Trump made it perhaps the best known of the so-called Never Trump organizations. The group tried to claim a higher moral ground in an effort to purge Trump from the GOP. Money flowed in by the tens of millions of dollars from donors eager to help.

But within the organization, a crisis was brewing.

[AZGrizFan]

Man. I'm in the wrong business.

[JohnStOnge]

I think I've posted this before but, what the heck, it's worth posting again:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/fac ... 877743001/

It's a complete debunking of one of the "statistical anomaly" claims. And, believe me, every time I've had time to check on one of the "statistical anomaly" claims this is the kind of thing that happens. That or it turns out that the numbers presented are just false (like saying jurisdictions had higher turnout rates than they actually did or that turnout increased a whole bunch more than it actually did).

Again: Just stop. If you are continuing to believe this crap you are in the kook club. Snap out of it.

Let's see. You've got a generic journalist vs a PhD in Economics. Tough choice on who is better at statistics.

USA today needs to stick to lying about Russia. They were much better at that.

First of all, the author of the piece consulted an expert. Here's the language:

Kenneth Mayer, professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin Madison, said Cicchetti’s approach is “ludicrous.”

“The analysis assumes that votes are all independently and randomly distributed,” he said in an email. “This is going to be used in undergraduate statistics classes as a canonical example of how not to do statistics.”

So it's PhD in political science vs. PhD in economics on a political science question.

Secondly, you can make your own judgement based on this statement:

“The Georgia reversal in the outcome raises questions because the votes tabulated in the two time periods could not be random samples from the same population of votes cast,” Cicchetti says.

We know that neither of the sets of votes were random samples of the population votes cast. The proportion of votes that were mail votes were dramatically different between the two sets. The jurisdictions involved are also a factor. If the first set included relatively low proportions of votes cast in large urban areas while the second set included higher proportions of votes cast in such jurisdictions, for example, that makes a huge difference. Yes, we can say that there was very little chance that the two sets are not random samples of the same population. But we already knew that. There was no reason to BELIEVE they were random samples of the same population to begin with. Setting things up as though we should assume they were random samples of the same population was setting up a false premise..

And this is the kind of thing I see over and over again. Like I said: At first I was trying to chase all of this nonsense down. But it's just too much. There are just too many nonsensical claims being made for one person to keep up with.

[SeattleGriz]

Let's see. You've got a generic journalist vs a PhD in Economics. Tough choice on who is better at statistics.

USA today needs to stick to lying about Russia. They were much better at that.

First of all, the author of the piece consulted an expert. Here's the language:

Kenneth Mayer, professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin Madison, said Cicchetti’s approach is “ludicrous.”

“The analysis assumes that votes are all independently and randomly distributed,” he said in an email. “This is going to be used in undergraduate statistics classes as a canonical example of how not to do statistics.”

So it's PhD in political science vs. PhD in economics on a political science question.

Secondly, you can make your own judgement based on this statement:

“The Georgia reversal in the outcome raises questions because the votes tabulated in the two time periods could not be random samples from the same population of votes cast,” Cicchetti says.

We know that neither of the sets of votes were random samples of the population votes cast. The proportion of votes that were mail votes were dramatically different between the two sets. The jurisdictions involved are also a factor. If the first set included relatively low proportions of votes cast in large urban areas while the second set included higher proportions of votes cast in such jurisdictions, for example, that makes a huge difference. Yes, we can say that there was very little chance that the two sets are not random samples of the same population. But we already knew that. There was no reason to BELIEVE they were random samples of the same population to begin with. Setting things up as though we should assume they were random samples of the same population was setting up a false premise..

And this is the kind of thing I see over and over again. Like I said: At first I was trying to chase all of this nonsense down. But it's just too much. There are just too many nonsensical claims being made for one person to keep up with.

Political science is now the same as statistics?

You should really check out your guys bio. He's got Trump Derangement Syndrome as bad as you and therefore cannot be trusted. He's a quack and a joke.

[JohnStOnge]

No wonder everyone is fighting so hard to prevent access to ballots. If these Dominion machines are adding 300 votes every 4500 votes.

A Democrat asked for a recount and got one, but it uncovered fraud that helped him.

https://granitegrok.com/mg_windham/2020 ... -300-votes

That is very strange. That is a large number, large enough that a Republican who lost by 100 to 300 votes would not ask for a recount. Of course, no Republican asked for a recount. It was a Democrat looking for lost votes (24 of them) to perhaps flip one seat in that local election.

And look at what they found. Something, unexpected. Something we were not supposed to see?

St Laurent (d) lost 100 votes, and their Republican opponents all gained 300, plus or minus three votes.

The only other time I'm aware in which any access to paper ballots or the machines has been provided was in Antrim county Michigan where the found an error rate of 68% and the machines logs were wiped clean of 2020 election data, even though previous election were still there.

As a side note, that 68% is misleading. It doesn't mean 68% of the ballots were incorrect, but that the error log entries showed errors that often, but that rate is WAY higher than allowable.

I keep hearing, "show me the proof" but access to provide that proof has been stymied, and when access is granted, this is what happens.

I Googled around regarding this situation. Some articles are at https://patch.com/new-hampshire/windham ... ns-unknown , https://www.unionleader.com/news/politi ... 72ec6.html and https://patch.com/new-hampshire/windham ... am-recount.

There were 16 recounts in New Hampshire and I see no indication that any of the other 15 showed evidence of any significant problem. They all use the same vote counting machines. No indication of a widespread problem.

[JohnStOnge]

First of all, the author of the piece consulted an expert. Here's the language:



So it's PhD in political science vs. PhD in economics on a political science question.

Secondly, you can make your own judgement based on this statement:



We know that neither of the sets of votes were random samples of the population votes cast. The proportion of votes that were mail votes were dramatically different between the two sets. The jurisdictions involved are also a factor. If the first set included relatively low proportions of votes cast in large urban areas while the second set included higher proportions of votes cast in such jurisdictions, for example, that makes a huge difference. Yes, we can say that there was very little chance that the two sets are not random samples of the same population. But we already knew that. There was no reason to BELIEVE they were random samples of the same population to begin with. Setting things up as though we should assume they were random samples of the same population was setting up a false premise..

And this is the kind of thing I see over and over again. Like I said: At first I was trying to chase all of this nonsense down. But it's just too much. There are just too many nonsensical claims being made for one person to keep up with.

Political science is now the same as statistics?

You should really check out your guys bio. He's got Trump Derangement Syndrome as bad as you and therefore cannot be trusted. He's a quack and a joke.

Political science involves statistics just as economics does. Also, you can tell for yourself. I actually went through the trouble of looking up the lawsuit to make sure what the guy said is not misrepresented. I found this quote in Cicchetti's "Declaration" (in the document at https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/ ... 0FINAL.pdf):

The Georgia reversal in outcome raises questions because the votes tabulated in the two time periods could not be random samples of the same population of all votes cast.

The two time periods are before and after 3:10 am on November 4. Here is the problem: The set of votes tabulated before 3:10 am on November 4 and the set of votes tabulated after that are OBVIOUSLY not random samples of the same population and you don't need to do a statistical analysis to know that.

Later in his Declaration he says the same kind of thing happened with respect to Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Again: NONE those comparisons involved comparing two random samples from the same population.

When I Googled "Charles Cicchetti" the first hit I got was a Wikipedia article that opens with:

Charles J. Cicchetti is an American economist. After Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton used an erroneous analysis by Cicchetti as the basis for his appeal to the United States Supreme Court to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election results.

Yes, I know that's Wikipedia but you'll see a bunch of other hits saying the same thing about his analysis. That's the guy's legacy now. He embarrassed himself.

[JohnStOnge]

Here is some discussion among statisticians on the American Statistical Association message board:

https://community.amstat.org/communitie ... gestviewer

They are not particularly kind to him. Here is one quote:

Not only are the conclusions not communicated well, but the analysis is also just plain wrong. A z-test with a binomial approximation is not appropriate since there isn't a constant proportion, votes aren't independent, and the election results are a population and not a sample.

Though I actually will say that the before and after sets of votes can indeed be thought of as samples of the population of all votes combined. They are two samples that, when combined, comprise the entire population. But each on their own is a sample. They are NOT, however, RANDOM samples. The two sets weren't created by randomly assigning all the votes to two different groups. Making a statement that a difference like that observed is so improbable as to be practically impossible if two random samples of the same population were taken is pointless because that was obviously not the situation.

[BDKJMU]

Here is some discussion among statisticians on the American Statistical Association message board:

https://community.amstat.org/communitie ... gestviewer

They are not particularly kind to him. Here is one quote:

Not only are the conclusions not communicated well, but the analysis is also just plain wrong. A z-test with a binomial approximation is not appropriate since there isn't a constant proportion, votes aren't independent, and the election results are a population and not a sample.

Though I actually will say that the before and after sets of votes can indeed be thought of as samples of the population of all votes combined. They are two samples that, when combined, comprise the entire population. But each on their own is a sample. They are NOT, however, RANDOM samples. The two sets weren't created by randomly assigning all the votes to two different groups. Making a statement that a difference like that observed is so improbable as to be practically impossible if two random samples of the same population were taken is pointless because that was obviously not the situation.

[SeattleGriz]

No wonder everyone is fighting so hard to prevent access to ballots. If these Dominion machines are adding 300 votes every 4500 votes.

A Democrat asked for a recount and got one, but it uncovered fraud that helped him.

https://granitegrok.com/mg_windham/2020 ... -300-votes



The only other time I'm aware in which any access to paper ballots or the machines has been provided was in Antrim county Michigan where the found an error rate of 68% and the machines logs were wiped clean of 2020 election data, even though previous election were still there.

As a side note, that 68% is misleading. It doesn't mean 68% of the ballots were incorrect, but that the error log entries showed errors that often, but that rate is WAY higher than allowable.

I keep hearing, "show me the proof" but access to provide that proof has been stymied, and when access is granted, this is what happens.

I Googled around regarding this situation. Some articles are at https://patch.com/new-hampshire/windham ... ns-unknown , https://www.unionleader.com/news/politi ... 72ec6.html and https://patch.com/new-hampshire/windham ... am-recount.

There were 16 recounts in New Hampshire and I see no indication that any of the other 15 showed evidence of any significant problem. They all use the same vote counting machines. No indication of a widespread problem.

First things first. There is no such thing as a glitch. A computer program does not rewrite it's code to give a different result. Something had to interfere.

Secondly, scanning over the articles, I can't tell if all 16 counties had hand recounts. If you are simply looking at digital images, you are going to come up with the exact same total the machines gave you in the first place.

Election fraud. Cannot believe you would try to brush it aside.