Message from @duckherder
Discord ID: 793965931835293726
Litigating to keep rolls dirty in GA = garbage
Trump knew he was losing in his internal polls and they cooked this s*** up a long time ago for some reason it's not to try to win the presidency. And I don't think it has anything to do with raising money either.
Litigating to make signature checks impossible in GA = garbage
It probably has more to do with Trump becoming the head of an alternative party.
That's the real power play
Yeah back in 05 when Carter warned about absentee ballots
Man it's almost like we should have used the 4 years prior to fix these sorts of things.
the Kremlin?
They were litigated this summer
> @Zuluzeit What exactly did you mean when you said that all they had to do was say it out loud regarding these people have never known what a local server is?
@Lorinda They needed only say it, not prove it. It has exactly the same effect on those who are susceptible to claims which fit their construct. That's what confirmation bias is.
**this** summer when their polls weren't doing too well.
I didn't look into the numbers per se but I looked into the process it seems unlikely that someone would be able to conduct fraud at the scale.
This is a law server?
Democrats are the ones that brought the suits. all this stuff was in the name of Corona virus. This was not around 4 years ago.
Organizations don't let people look on the inside without being forced even if they're not doing anything.
The basis for what they claim is false. They asserted that the data feed from Edison Research NEP to NYT showed an accurate, timestamped representation of the votes as they are tabulated. It does not. In fact, the method for Edison gathering election night results is fairly manual. You can see the process that is used here: http://www.edisonresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Web-Entry-Team-Handout-2020.pdf
So, if you read that document, you begin to see that the data feed to the NYT is not intended to be 100% accurate. They are constantly having to consolidate and correct manually entered data throughout the night. So, the interface between NEP and NYT is trying to make these corrections without highlighting the mistakes.
Then, they make a blanket assertion about how rare it is for a batch of votes to be more than 75% for a particular candidate, but do absolutely nothing to account for the unique dynamic of this particular election - the fact that for 6 months before the election, Trump urged his supporters to vote in person and not via mail.
So, a good data scientist would have made an effort to normalize the data across the same election. It would only be statistically relevant if it was anomalous in this context of this election. Meaning, that they should have compared the GA mail-in results to (a) the percentages of the in-person voting in GA; (b) the percentages of mail-in voting in other traditionally red states; and (c) the percentages of in-person voting in red states.
Also, they should analyze the patterns in places like FL and TX where mail-in ballots were counted first and showed massive leads for Biden until the in-person votes were counted and his lead "miraculously" disappeared.
It all comes down to integrity and what was presented today was lacking in that area.
Let's see just take a bunch of ballots from dirty rolls and submit them after removing observers. Easy
Yes... it's just this easy.
Lmao
It's a lot easier to argue that they violated their own state laws. This is totally an unequivocally true.
> The litigation was the hard part. Only a few people have to be compromised
@duckherder Like who, judges?
Also last I remember, it was a republican position to be in favor of state's rights in the federalist system.
Explanations like that are why people rely on experts in nutshell conclusions.
I meant besides the litigation part. Just need someone who can"send" ballots to voters left on the roll
Too many words?
> Also last I remember, it was a republican position to be in favor of state's rights in the federalist system.
@Maw True but that should be everyone's position. It's what we do.
Yes. Federalism means control to state legislatures not machines
Technical for non-technical people not so much. ...people just don't have the audacity to think they can understand things...
Federalism means states can control their own elections, too.
@Maw, you just advanced to level 39!
Including their own voting systems.
Via legislature. That's the electors clause. What happened in PA?
@duckherder, you just advanced to level 5!
Look at the audience...
And they did. PA is a single example, this has nothing to do with the systems of voting.