lol

hey at least he didn't do what that other journalist did on zoom

It shows a lack of professionalism

And man ted cruz, I swear he sat back and watched all the old game footage, he has flipped and reinvented strategy.
https://youtu.be/oAerHGzog4E

https://youtu.be/hZRuiXEc_c0

^ thats live and I cannot vouch for this news group. I just found it myself.

Honestly....I feel bad for Hunter, hes got serious demons and his dad is just using and abuing that to keep him around as a middleman and patsy

> Happens every election cycle where you vote for the candidate and nothing else
@Elzam
That's not what is being discussed. It's the rate at which it happens by how Republican the county is.

Michigan is suppressed compared to other similar states. Why?

https://youtu.be/1ald3w9FBmA

Gah

He does it again

67 counties

He somehow thinks that the fact that there are 7 million _people_ means that it should be accurate

it annoys me that the comments just congratulate him

everyone's like "share this!" and they are so convinced

:smh:

I haven't come to a good conclusion on this issue.

Let me a grab a few videos

In this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etx0k1nLn78 he says you can't use the law on a smallish set of data like counties or precincts in Chicago. He then references work from an author who wrote all about Benson's law named Mark Nigrini. Mark Nigrini then does the Benford's law analysis on Maricopa County data here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrJui5d7BrI and finds no problems with this method of analysis.

@realz What is your argument?

67 samples is way too little to use benford's law on

his last one was Georgia with 159 counties

and _that_ is way too small as well

you can easily test this out, which I did

https://discord.com/channels/760945067107680286/771201221145919499/775540500865351762

I did see someone do it on some 700 precincts or something

that at least has enough samples, though the orders-of-magnitude issue might be a problem there

@RobertGrulerEsq Stand up maths (humble pi) isn't just talking about number of samples

he makes an argument about the distribution of the numbers as well

i.e if they don't span several orders of magnitude, then it isn't really that useful as proof

it isn't impossible to split up the data to get a large number of samples (I think I saw 700+ samples from one jurisdiction, might have been Nigrini)

Right but then he references Mark Nigrini as an authority in this stuff who then in his own video uses the exact method of analysis.

but 69 samples is egregiously small

I see what you mean.

I noticed Mark seems to validate the data before the benford's analysis by doing the end digits distribution analysis first before looking at the first digits.

mmm

I can rerun my experiment with 69 samples, it will be quite wild

And I was thinking there must be a lower limit on the sample size.

And maybe the order of magnitude applies within the samples? i.e., some precincts or counties with dozens, hundreds, thousands, ten-thousands, etc. but all those numbers being lumped into the single analysis.

I don't speak math very well not sure if I'm communicating that well.