If any words described Trump and his cultists it would be these. But good luck ever getting them to realize it.
Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
- Status
What makes you think the graph I posted is fraudulent?
It's from official state data, it's just put into a different form
Michigan: Georgia:
Cross-reference that with the official state data available on their own sites or on politico.com and see that it matches up (plus or minus a few, the sites are still being updated daily)
It's verifiable. Just verify it.
I have no idea what tweet the AP article is talking about, and that tweet isn't the basis for my source.
Last edited:
Actually your original point is exactly what the AP article is talking about, the claim being made that people voted for Biden and nobody else. That data isn't released. We can't know that. However there's been a lot of disinformation released pertaining to that, like the table you posted earlier.
Yes, it's possible that someone could vote for the Democrat Senator, but not vote for Biden.
But unlikely.
This is an assumption made that a vote for Biden would also be a vote for the Democrat Senator.
Based on this assumption we can subtract one from the other and come up with a difference.
We can also do the same for Trump, and for other years, and see a trend.
Whether or not these assumptions are true, can see a clear irregularity in one direction, for this year. Biden has an irregular amount of votes compared to the Democrat Senator vs other years, and also vs Republicans vs other years.
The AP article is just quibbling over technicalities
Last edited:
That's a massively fallacious assumption which is borne out in the data. Namely the data you provided contradicts the official numbers when making this assumption. Something that was also shown pages ago but you skipped over.
Oh man of the past for whom shapes are a new invention, fear not. We have to use a phrase you haven't heard yet, "come full circle"
You once said "In fact, they've had a higher percentage of "single-mark ballots", where "people" only voted for the presidency, and for nothing else, than any other year."
To which reality replied:
No evidence over 95,000 ballots in Georgia were only marked for Biden
As votes were being counted in the presidential election, false posts swirled on social media suggesting voting irregularities around how ballots were marked in Georgia’s tight presidential race.
apnews.com
To which you replied yay huh, this graph from thedonald.win proves it!
After which people pointed out the graph(or table if you prefer) was fraudulent, using incorrect data, numbers and reached a faulty conclusion.
You then said no, that can't be look at these numbers!
Those numbers being random numbers, claimed to be of voter data that isn't released to be public, that also claims to be state official, posted on PastBin by a Guest, all of which is simply unverified numbers(And I'm guessing its from thedonald.win too, same thread of fools who think they have something).
And then when confronted with the fact the very AP article that you recoiled from in the first place disproves the very numbers you claim are proof, you then fall back upon...irregular numbers of Biden only ballots.
Those same irregular numbers of which you once said "In fact, they've had a higher percentage of "single-mark ballots", where "people" only voted for the presidency, and for nothing else, than any other year."
To which reality replied:
No evidence over 95,000 ballots in Georgia were only marked for Biden
As votes were being counted in the presidential election, false posts swirled on social media suggesting voting irregularities around how ballots were marked in Georgia’s tight presidential race.
apnews.com
We call this coming full circle. You started at a place of being wrong, continued to be wrong, and have arrived at your starting point of being wrong only to find that you're still wrong. But worry not man of the past for one day you shall learn basic shapes.
But this is all just total votes cast in each race. The writer is making the leap of assumption from that to the conclusion that 99,000 people only voted for Biden and marked no other races. That's an assumption, and cannot be verified; the data is not publicly available.
But that assumption doesn't hold.
There were people who're small-c conservative, would would happily vote for a Republican senator, but cannot abide Trump. There are also people on both the Democratic and Republican sides who vote one way in the Presidential race and the opposite way in the Congressional races because they believe the two branches should be at odds (it's a stance I find rather alien, but it's a stance which exists in America).
There are also people, of course, who don't have any particular attachment to the Democratic Party, but despise Trump and so voted against him specifically.
There are plenty of explanations. The writer has jumped to fraud because they cannot comprehend people feeling differently to them; that's the long and short of it. Incomprehension.
Power to you. I won't judge.
I'm not making an argument, I'm using a dictionary to settle it.
You're not looking at the data, you're just parroting what the AP "fact-checking" article says. I don't know how many times I need to say that the twitter source that the AP article are looking at is not my source.
Whether or not the assumption is an accurate way to find out the number of people who voted down-ballot is irrelevant. The relevant bit is that, when applying this assumption equally, we can see a clear irregularity.
It's like if wanted to cross-reference alcohol sales with domestic violence in a county. I might find that counties with higher alcohol sales also have higher rates of domestic violence. If someone wants to "fact-check" that and say "this is false, moderate alcohol usage shows no correlation with domestic violence", then they're the ones being misleading.
Yes, that's what people claimed, but nobody has ever been able to muster a single scrap of evidence for those claims. They just say "but the article!" and I keep saying "what the article and I are talking about are two different things".
Yes, we're all in agreement that this is an assumption. That doesn't change anything.
However, the numbers do not lie.
Votes for the Dem President - votes for Dem Senator = X
Compare this with the same ratio from 2016 and you get Y.
Compare that with Republican Presidents and Senators in 2020 and 2016 and you get P and Q.
Compare those and you can see an irregularity on the Democrat side. This irregularity is the point.
Even if the assumption is faulty, it should be equally faulty, and we shouldn't expect to see this irregularity only on one side.
I compared the table you posted to doing the math myself based on the vote totals. They're different numbers. You'd know this if you read what other people posted.
Then show your math.
And also, you're aware that these sites and their totals are still being updated, and that the pastebin isn't, right?
The direct me to the post where you showed your math.
Perhaps I just missed it.
Why should we? I provided several possible thought-processes that voters may have used which do not apply equally to both candidates.
You quoted it to mumble something about tables vs graphs. I'm not helping you, this is why people aren't taking you seriously.
Numbers lie all the time dude, if they didn’t we all wouldn’t be having this conversation
Okay, I think you're talking about post #3,396
I have no idea why you took the difference between Perdue and Ossoff. Nobody cares about the difference between those two totals. That was never part of anyone's math. You completely missed the point of the calculation and therefore ended up with the wrong number.
Here, I'll break it down for you:
2473633 (Votes for Biden as per AP, today)
-
2374519 (Votes for Dem Senator as per AP, today)
=
99114 (oh wow doesn't that number look similar to something we've seen before?)
So no, you haven't proven anything to be "fraudulent", you just subtracted two different, unrelated, numbers and thought that you found a flaw, when you really didn't.
All the AP article says is that "you can't just assume that this is the number of people who only voted for Biden and left the rest of the ballot blank!" which is fair, but also irrelevant.
That "dem senator" is Ossoff. For your assumption to hold true, that 99114 has to hold true through the overall difference between the presidential total and senate total, and it doesn't. So you can't logically say that a vote for Biden should translate as a vote to Ossoff (dem senator). It's patently obvious there was a large number of people who voted for Biden, but then voted for Perdue. There were probably people who voted for Trump and then voted for Ossoff (I have no idea why, but I'm sure there's a non-zero number of people who did), and there are presumably people who voted for Trump and for no senators just like there's at least some people who voted for Biden and then for no senators.
That's what my math shows and why your numbers are at best deceptive, and don't show what you think they show.
Again, you're missing the point and doing irrelevant calculations
It's not important that "these ballots ONLY have one mark on them, and that one mark was Biden!"
You don't win any points for disproving that.
The important part is "this percentage is irregular when compared to the same percentage from previous years, and the same percentage from the Republicans"
- Status