Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)

[SilentPony]

No, they looked at all the vote updates (reports over time) in the reporting and found that four updates in particular were extremely anomalous in a couple of important ways.

I'm willing to bet they didn't, and either they're lying, they're ignorant or they're stupid. Which given that Trump legal defense and Voter observation teams have been caught lying, stupid and ignorant, as well as criminal for a full connect-four, is more likely than...well fuck it, anything you think is gonna happen, unless you think they're gonna be proven to be liars, stupid, ignorant, and/or criminals, in which case congratulations. You get a gold star.

 

[Houseman]

I'm willing to bet they didn't, and either they're lying, they're ignorant or they're stupid

You... could just read the analysis for yourself. All the info is right there.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

You... could just read the analysis for yourself. All the info is right there.

Indeed, and the authors have very thoroughly broken down how the mail in votes affected the election. Which is to say, congrats, they figured out something most people figured out before the election even happened. This is only anomalous to the terminally dim.

 

[Trunkage]

Confused MI for MA...MA for TX...and TX for AZ...and he's supposed to be the one blowing open a huge conspiracy...?

View attachment 1716

Wait... didn't people already point this out on Friday? Maybe even Thursday? Why are we still listening to this guy? Has he brought new info?

 

[Houseman]

Wait... didn't people already point this out on Friday? Maybe even Thursday? Why are we still listening to this guy? Has he brought new info?

No, The President just retweeted someone else giving it a boost.

Indeed, and the authors have very thoroughly broken down how the mail in votes affected the election. Which is to say, congrats, they figured out something most people figured out before the election even happened. This is only anomalous to the terminally dim.

Is it weird how we don't see any other big, anomalous leaps of "mail-in ballots" that are overwhelmingly for Biden in any other states but the crucial ones?

 

[Trunkage]

No, The President just retweeted someone else giving it a boost.

Oh, Trump's behind. That makes more sense

 

[Trunkage]

Indeed, and the authors have very thoroughly broken down how the mail in votes affected the election. Which is to say, congrats, they figured out something most people figured out before the election even happened. This is only anomalous to the terminally dim.

Im pretty sure a lot of places were predicting this sort of graph. You could tell what was going to happen based on the laws states passed

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Im pretty sure a lot of places were predicting this sort of graph. You could tell what was going to happen based on the laws states passed

The worst part is they even put in a snippet of the "anomalous" data source they had been using that includes other states that Trump won and you can see similar "anomalies". But we don't talk about those, the only important one are these four that may have cost Trump the election. They found the intersection between inner city democrat bastions and mail in voting.

 

[Cheetodust]

The worst part is they even put in a snippet of the "anomalous" data source they had been using that includes other states that Trump won and you can see similar "anomalies". But we don't talk about those, the only important one are these four that may have cost Trump the election. They found the intersection between inner city democrat bastions and mail in voting.

Wait the party that said mail in voting is bad got less mail in votes? Madness.

 

[Agema]

Statistical analysis:

Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020

A Quantitative Analysis of Decisive Vote Updates in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia on and after Election Night

votepatternanalysis.substack.com

Sorry, but that is bullshit. I am not a statistician, but I am a scientist with decades of experience of data analysis.

One might look at the aims and introduction, which clearly indicate bias. To add to this methodology, which essentially says to anyone who knows what they're looking for "We selected this method of analysis to maximise the impact of what we wanted to find". Er, okay. At minimum, I would have expected alternative analyses to seek balance.

A central hypothesis here is that there are bizarre outliers (or "anomaly" as they call it; in my field, we would not use this term as the connotations of something being wrong is prejudicing the raw data) where updates came in where a lot of votes arrived where Biden had a big lead in certain states. However, they basically destroy that hypothesis when they present the national national results: in fact, when we see the total national distribution, it turns out they aren't bizarre outliers or at all. Not that they address this. There are equivalent "anomalies" benefitting Trump - these go unmentioned. "We picked out four anomalies of the top ten". Why? Why the 7th biggest anomaly and not the 6th biggest? Do we not stop to think how irrational this actually is?

Secondly, there are actually completely reasonable explanations for these so-called anomalies, which the authors simply do not seek to explain. The conclusions are thus an absolute failure. You couldn't publish this. It's borderline pseudoscience: garbage put in the form of analysis to sucker people who don't really know how proper analysis is presented and works.

 

[Agema]

His conclusion:
He cannot tell who legitimately won the election. There are too many doubts. Even if he had all the resources and time, he doesn't think he could tell.

NEWS JUST IN!

Trump staffer and activist paid to support Trump's attempt to cast doubt on the election claims the election was not safe.

 

[Silvanus]

THE MADMAN ACTUALLY DID IT! @Silvanus


Cliff notes:
Unreturned absentee analysis:
- They found hundreds of thousands of unreturned absentee ballots (they requested them, but they're not marked as having voted)
- Of the people they were able to call and reach, they found that significant percentages of people never requested a ballot
- also a significant percentage say they returned a ballot, but they're still marked as unreturned, so their vote wasn't counted.

So, nothing that points to those ballots actually being fraudulently cast, and something that could be as simple as administrative error, in a dataset we cannot look at.

Low Activity: people who never voted, or didn't vote for a long time. Also very recent registrations.
- found a significant number of these people who denied casting these votes

NCOA (no longer live at address where they're registered)
- significant percentages in Nevada and Georgia.
- Then there's a Fox News segment about Nahshon Garrett who never requested an AZ ballot, but there's proof on the AZ website that a ballot was cast in his name and a claim that his signature was verified. He had actually voted in Tennessee.

Well, found trace numbers, as Braynard himself says. Braynard has converted the number who denied voting into a percentage of the number of people they reached, coming to some pretty significant numbers (2%+ in some places).

....But Braynard says a lot of the calls resulted in voicemails. And I notice in the video, the woman leaving the voicemail says, "if [you] did not cast this ballot, call us back". So if they did cast the ballot, then no call-back is requested, and they're not included in the "number of people reached"... which then inflates the percentage of those who denied voting.

If that's the process, that is really shoddy statistical analysis, and doesn't imbue me with confidence.

Residency Analysis (Voters who requested change of address)
- numbers in hundreds and thousands of people who illegally voted twice (or had ballots illegally cast in their names)
- numbers for these need a DOB which was hard to come by in their data, so they expect the real numbers to be "significantly significantly higher"

No, the double-voting numbers are in the hundreds, which he himself says is just evidence of individual bad actors (and even so, is just based on matching names and DOB, which is hardly an exhaustive proof of criminal activity).

Wisconsin
- there's a way you can vote early absentee, without an ID, by claiming "indefinitely confined"
- covid is not an excuse to claim "indefinitely confined"
- in prior years, the numbers are in the tens of thousands
- In 2020 the number spiked to over a million

Big whoop, trends occur.

[Continued below]

 

[Silvanus]

[Continued from Above]

Fake Addresses
- It's illegal to put a UPS or FedEx store as your address
- People tried to conceal it by putting "apt" and stuff
- Found numbers in the thousands, almost all voted by mail
- Just found in PA and GA so far.

Yeah, I'm gonna wait until I see the actual data set to discuss this one. In short, I don't think he's pursued due diligence. I looked up a couple of the addresses from his sample, and found buildings that contained post offices, but also covered other space: other businesses, empty space etc. Which seems to be permissible for the homeless to use.

NYT stories
- NYT claims "voting by mail is safe and secure!" - 2020
- NYT claims "voting by mail fraud is vastly more prevalent, flaws raise questions, it's problematic!" - 2016

An irrelevance. Besides which, the processes have reportedly been much strengthened for the 2020 election, precisely in anticipation of the spike in mail-in voting.

His conclusion:
He cannot tell who legitimately won the election. There are too many doubts. Even if he had all the resources and time, he doesn't think he could tell.


All of this information has been given to lawyers

I guarantee you, this will come to very little. I'll eat my hat if most of this amateurish sleuthing stands up in a court.

 

[Agema]

Yeah, I'm gonna wait until I see the actual data set to discuss this one. In short, I don't think he's pursued due diligence. I looked up a couple of the addresses from his sample, and found buildings that contained post offices, but also covered other space: other businesses, empty space etc. Which seems to be permissible for the homeless to use.

I think a key point here that really needs consideration is whether the ballot was fraudulent in the sense of cast by someone not legitimately allowed to vote or who voted multiple times (etc.) and someone who voted once but merely failed to carry out a bureaucratic task in a precisely defined manner, because they are two very different orders of problem.

The latter is not good, because it is surely designed as anti-fraud measure, and if it is not being checked properly then it is toothless and that needs to be remedied. But it does not, per se, indicate that people who aren't allowed to vote are voting.

 

[Houseman]

Big whoop, trends occur.

Pictured: the "trend"



Surely this has been the safest and most secure election in history, and everyone who doesn't believe that is a conspiracy theorist - Brought to you by the "Epstein totally killed himself, believe us" gang.

 

[Agema]

Pictured: the "trend"

Surely this has been the safest and most secure election in history, and everyone who doesn't believe that is a conspiracy theorist - Brought to you by the "Epstein totally killed himself, believe us" gang.

So again, are we actually talking about people who voted when they shouldn't, or people who voted as they were allowed except that they failed to tick the correct box on a form?

It just seems to me you're giving us more evidence that Trump supporters favour administrative disenfranchisement.

 

[Houseman]

So again, are we actually talking about people who voted when they shouldn't, or people who voted as they were allowed except that they failed to tick the correct box on a form?

If you commit fraud, you disenfranchise yourself. If you don't fill out the form correctly, you disenfranchise yourself.

 

[SilentPony]

Pictured: the "trend"

View attachment 1720

Surely this has been the safest and most secure election in history, and everyone who doesn't believe that is a conspiracy theorist - Brought to you by the "Epstein totally killed himself, believe us" gang.

*Gasp* A black graph?! With no data or sources to prove it?! Fuck me running, you've been right this entire time! ITS A CONSPIRACY BY RADICAL LESBIAN FIDEL CASTROS TO FORCE CHRISTMAS TO HAVE AN ABORTION IN A SANTUARY CITY WITH UNWED TEENAGE MUSLIMS!
I take back everything I ever said about you, this graph is proof positive Trump is Lord and Emperor of America, his penis isn't weird, and he's really only 240lbs and he carries it well.

Oh great and smart Houseman, please read to me from Trump's Twitter so that I may bask in his greatness!

 

[Houseman]

Oh great and smart Houseman, please read to me from Trump's Twitter so that I may bask in his greatness!

Okay:

 

[Avnger]

Pictured: the "trend"

View attachment 1720

Surely this has been the safest and most secure election in history, and everyone who doesn't believe that is a conspiracy theorist - Brought to you by the "Epstein totally killed himself, believe us" gang.

Maybe if you didn't start off with objectively false information, you wouldn't come to such ridiculous conclusions.

Here are the guidelines for "Indefinitely Confined" in Wisconsin:

• Indefinitely confined voters, if a voter has a hard time getting to the polls on Election Day due to age, illness, infirmity, or disability they can request a ballot be sent to them. Indefinitely confined voters do not need to show a Photo ID when voting by absentee ballot. If they vote in person, they must present a Photo ID.

1. Designation of indefinitely confined status is for each individual voter to make based upon their current circumstance. It does not require permanent or total inability to travel outside of the residence. The designation is appropriate for electors who are indefinitely confined because of age, physical illness or infirmity or are disabled for an indefinite period.

2. Indefinitely confined status shall not be used by electors simply as a means to avoid the photo ID requirement without regard to whether they are indefinitely confined because of age, physical illness, infirmity or disability.

The Republican-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court this spring ruled that it is up to individual voters to determine whether they are indefinitely confined, in line with guidance from the bipartisan Wisconsin Elections Commission.

You'll notice that nowhere is COVID shown as an "invalid reason" to declare oneself indefinitely confined, and the Wisconsin state canvassing board explicitly refuted the argument.

The canvassing board voted 2-1 to count those ballots, with the Republican opposed.