- This topic has 56 replies, 12 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
ABC News Says “Red Mirage” Will Look Like Big Republican Win, But Vote Count Could Take “Weeks”. Like 2020 when dems stole elections, ABC is telling us that the Democrats will rig the elections again. Already in PA we’re seeing Fetterman suing to have undated ballots counted.
You know what they say
If you can’t beat them, cheat
Exit polls were always unreliable, and even more so now. One should not take the “instant” reports based on exit polls as being proof of anything.
Most pre-election polling suggests a Republican win, and usually the polls “lean” Democratic. However the Republicans seemed to be “surging” at the end, meaning that the mail-in and early voting might have missed the surge.
The lawsuits should largely vanish in non-close elections.
Undated but verified envelopes (meaning the voters name is on the outside can be checked) are unlikely to be forged, especially if they have a postmark. One has to ask as to why one assumes that Democrats are more likely than Republicans to improperly fill out the absentee ballot forms (being a Democrat probably indicates poor economic and political judgement, but doesn’t indicate inability to fill out a form).
This is what happened to the people who claimed that the 2020 elections were rigged :
Some have been sued and are currently in very expensive legal battles to defend themselves from defamation.
Some are under criminal investigations.
Some have been forced to testify in criminal trials of others.
Some have lost their ability to practice law.
Some have had their businesses lose major amounts of revenue.
Some have been ridiculed publicly because of their fantasies and the ease that they believed lies.All of the claims have been investigated and proven to be false.
The Arizona investigation wasted tremendous amounts of money.And some people opened up funds to collect hundreds of millions of dollars from innocent gullible republicans to “prove” that the elections were rigged and then never used the money and are laughing to the bank.
jackk because the Democrats are in power and are running all the federal agencies
I go busur the shittois of FiveThirtyEight which always gives extremely accurate predictions of election results. They are predicting that it’s very likely that Republicans win the House and somewhat likely they will win the Senate. Not a huge upset, but still most probably a big win for Republicans.
People that are still claiming that Trump lost in 2020 because of election fraud are either getting their news from unreliable sources, have ulterior motives for fooling people, or have a tenuous grasp on reality.
FiveThirtyEight messed up on 2016. They spent months clapping Chotosi.
The fact is that during 2020 vote count when the polls were open many states were showing that Trump was winning, but only in the last hours before the polls closed, they went, one by one, almost all for Biden. That is statisticly impossible.
@ujm FiveThirtyEight predicted a 30% chance of a Trump win in 2016 which was far higher than any other media outlet. It was based on predictions of which counties will vote for him. Every single county fell well within the margin of error. They were the only major polling analyst that got it right. They never clopped chotosi, they had to write multiple articles explaining to people that there’s a difference between 70% and 100%.
@philosopher That is factually incorrect. What actually happened was that in several states, Trump had a narrow lead, but when the votes for Blue counties and mail in ballots came in overwhelmingly in Bidens favor, Trumps lead dropped.Yserbius, whether Trump had a narrow lead or not, the fact is that it is statistically impossible for almost all of these states to go to Biden when Trump was ahead. And in rural and suburban counties it is very often Republicans who are preferred candidates, the Democrats usually win in the cities.
1
That counts for only 1 on the list.Philosopher,
There is not a shred of evidence that it is statistically impossible. There are a lot of intelligent people on YWN, including a few with great statistical skills, that would love to see your statistical evidence.Evidence has never impressed you until now, why waste her time?
(Just sayin’)@philosopher If you don’t like what I’m saying, you can do the research and see for yourself. Let me give you one example and we can hopefully put this whole narischkeit to rest.
One of the three or four states that the Trump campaign was claiming it was statistically impossible for Biden to have won was Georgia. Let’s break it down. Towards the end of the day, 4.5 million votes were counted and Trump was winning by a slim margin of 2%. What that means is that if you dump all of those 4.5 million ballots in a pile and pick them at random, 51 out of every 100 will be for Trump. Then they counted the late votes, which included mail-in ballots, and on those Biden was winning by 40%. So if you take all of those and pick at random, only 30 out of every 100 will be for Trump. The GOP team claimed that the likelihood of this happening is extremely small so there must be fraud!
Now here’s the problem with that. Statistics only works like this when the populations are random. Meaning, that if you would take ALL of the ballots, mix them in a pile, count out 4.5 million, tally the results, then take the rest and tally those results, if there was a difference of 38% it would be shocking and clear evidence of something fishy. But that isn’t what happened! The votes are not random, they are split up by district and method. The vast majority of those last 250,000 votes were mail in ballots and Trump (and the GA GOP) spent a good part of 2020 telling their constitutes not to use mail in ballots. Furthermore, So it makes perfect sense that an overwhelming majority of the late votes are for Biden!
538 approach is not bad, but I still suspect some pro-D bias there. It is virtually impossible not to introduce your own preferences in the models after tinkering with them for months. Also, 538 and similar tend to paddle dramatically towards Republicans in the days before election so that their final prediction is closer to the final result. At least, it is my recollection. It would be interesting to test these sites about their early prediction – that is when they affect voters, not their last minute position.
As to this election, they went from 35% R- chance in the Senate to 60% at the end during the last month, so the trend would hit 100% by the time they count the votes 🙂
“So it makes perfect sense that an overwhelming majority of the late votes are for Biden!“
They’re not disputing the quality of the votes they’re disputing the quantity
@Always_Ask_Questions I don’t disagree. Nate Silve of FiveThirtyEight is still very much a progressive intellectual which means he leans heavily liberal Dem. Still, they’ve been consistently very accurate. And yes, they change their numbers as it gets closer to the polls. I wouldn’t trust a pollster who doesn’t. I mean, three months ago John Fetterman was a shoe-in against Mohammed Oz. But once he was forced to have non-scripted public appearances, people realized the truth about his health.
@coffee addict Actually I was quoting those numbers from a lawsuit filed by Charles Chiccetti, a GOP donor involved in the 2020 GOP election fiasco, which was cited by Giuliani and Trumps legal team. So I’m not sure what you mean by “quantity over quality”, but they were very much disputing that Biden won Georgia using bad statistics to make their case.> yes, they change their numbers as it gets closer to the polls. I
the question is – do these changes consistently going from pro-D to competitive and then they analyze their final results as unbiased. I am not saying this is the case, I am saying this is something to check out.
Does anyone here understand statistics?
Because saying an event that did happen is statistically impossible to happen just means your statistician does not know how to do math. This is not something subject to debate as we are talking about objective meaning of terms.
Yserbius,
The narrative that is said is that trump was winning by a certain number, all that needed to be done was to make up a number greater than his lead
Example: trump was winning by 10,000 votes so “find” mail in ballots that will be greater than 10,000 since “most mail in ballots vote for Biden”
@Always_Ask_Questions I haven’t done an in depth analysis of how often they go from “Dems will win” to “Republicans will win”. But I do know that when I check their predictions a week or two before elections, they are almost always spot on.
@emes-nisht-sheker If I won the national lottery four weeks in a row, it doesn’t mean that the statistics are wrong, it means I somehow cheated.
@coffee-addict Trumps legal time tried to use statistics to prove that Biden’s team “found” votes at the last minute. Their statistics were wrong which is what I’ve been trying to explain.I’m sorry but how much do you want to wager that all these races that are “too close to call” are going to called democrat when it’s over
@coffee-addict I’m sorry, but can you please address my comment? Namely, that Trumps team used tricks and bad math to try and prove something they had no proof over?
Yserbius – If you were really interested you could probably go back and read thru pages of threads, or research all the old videos and newsreports online. The short answer is:
1) Based on past conversations with you, you have rarely been open to any information unless you already agreed with it (don’t worry, it’s not just you)
2) The information out there is so unbelievably skewed that I doubt it is possible to have a chat room conversation on the topic and weed out all the lies both sides have injected. It would really take a face to face sit down at a table with a computer, paper and pens.Yserbius,
I wasn’t addressing you, there’s no point of arguing about your “made up statistics” because you believe it to be made up whereas republicans believe otherwise
None of us know how the election counting really work and it’s all speculation on both sides
@coffee-addict Statistics aren’t “made up”, they are facts on the ground. There’s no “belief” involved, there’s what happened, and lies. If you choose to believe the lies, then that’s on you. I was simply pointing out one of the more blatant lies, how it was a lie, and my bafflement at people (like you) who prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and go “LA LA LA LA LA TRUMP REALLY WON!”.
I’m not sure if this will help give you some clarity but everything you described above is exactly how you look and sound to us. The oddity is your inability to process that there is actually the possibility of there being another viewpoint. But then again, you are the guy who made up half the “facts” you argued on covid as well….
Yserbius,
Have you learned statistics?
Statistics only runs with the numbers put in if I want to find out something and I use the numbers favorable to me that makes it faulty (statistics can be skewed mind you that is called “made up”
@syag-lchochma @coffee-addict Then let me ask you two fine folk something. Given the fact that the Trump team tried to discredit the Georgian results in the way in which I’ve stated. And given the issues with that, that multiple statisticians and mathematicians have agreed with. Why are you still so certain that there was evidence of Democrats pretending to “find” votes to flip the election?
(Oh, and I have learned statistics and currently work in a job that uses a ton of statistics and analytics)
Considering how difficult it is for you respond to a comment without altering it,
repeat someone’s comment without distorting it,
tell over something you “know” without gross exaggeration and
stick to your own point without modifications when backed into a corner…
considering all those are true based on previous discussions,
I find it nearly impossible to imagine you having a job in an industry that requires exactitude. How do you manage to house within you such a dichotomy?Great, I’ve learned statistics (don’t use it though) and with statistics there is a margin of error (can be 10% and it’s still acceptable) however 10% (or even 5 or 1) can decide a race
And to answer your first question, when things “go through the night (like the powerball drawing btw) when you can’t have observers from the “losing” side supervise (due to Covid of course) when mail in ballots just pop up, it makes one a big skeptic (would you accept a result if it happened to your side? I don’t really think you would (then again if my side won I would accept it 😉)
סוף כל סוף no one is going to sway the other side
@coffee-addict I don’t really have a “side” in politics, unless there’s a local politician who happens to be pro-Jewish, conservative, and sane (very short supply these days) so I can’t honestly tell you how I’ll react if someone I really wanted to win, lost. Look, I’ve heard the argument that poll watchers weren’t able to see everything everything and it just doesn’t hold water, to be honest. “We weren’t able to see any fraud, therefore there must have been fraud” isn’t evidence, it’s just whining. Especially since that wasn’t the argument Trump’s team was going for in Georgia, they went after the statistics. Mail in ballots “pop-up” in literally every election since they’re the last to be counted. And, like I’ve shown, the statistics were amateurish and wrong on a very fundamental level (confusing total population ratio with partial population ratio).Oh, and there was one individual who is recorded as having asked the governor of Georgia to “find more votes with my name” after the results were in. Can you guess who that is?
@syag-lchochma To be honest, I don’t keep track of usernames on this forum. I think I recall a conversation we had from a while ago, but I’m not sure. I may be thinking of someone else. You seem to hate me though and are unwilling to engage honestly (although you are perfectly willing to engage in childish taunts and insults). So whatever.coffee, these problems are a little harder than what you have in standard statistics. You may think about a problem: given 10 random events, I get 10 same outcomes, this is not likely BUT in this case, the criterion for selecting 10 random events is usually constructed post factum. That is, there are 100 ways to define events you plan to look at: those that were within 1%, or those in the South, or whatever. Then, the chance of having these 10 events having same outcome is subject to selecting these 10 according to some rule.
the way to test this is by dividing your data in (at least) two parts: use 1990s data to analyze and define how you select events, and then check ONCE on the data from 2000s.
Democrats are against voter ID
Republicans are pro-voter IDDemocrats are pro mail in ballots
Republicans/Trump are anti-mail in ballotsThat’s all you need to know which side is cheating and manipulating data
Thank you for making my day!!
I list reasons why it is not worth engaging in an argument* with you, namely your exageration and distortion of comments, and you respond that I hate you! Well done!At least you’re consistent, or a very clever troll.
*as opposed to conversations
“We weren’t able to see any fraud, therefore there must have been fraud”
It wasn’t worded like that and you know it, they wanted to see the counting and was told “no” why couldn’t they make it fair at least and have each side have their own counters that everyone would agree to
Yserbius, I think we need to take into account the issue of moris ayn. Not only elections have to be reasonably fair, they need to be seen so by most of population. And it is a challenge given amount of possible disinformation around. So, I would support reasonable transparency actions – observers, voter ID, etc that help people feel that elections are fair, even if I don’t think amount of possible fraud is not high. As an example, my kid read the rules that the first time voters need to bring an ID and did so – and was surprised that he was not asked for one!
@coffee-addict But that wasn’t what Trump was claiming in Georgia! He claimed that the statistics proved fraud. Statistics that were wrong! And they did watch most of the counting, as evidenced by the testimony of the Trump poll watchers. They were there for 95% of the time. And that 5% they missed did not have any significant changes in the numbers. So Georgian poll watchers were there the entire time the mail-in “bump” happened!
@Always_Ask_Questions The problem is that it’s never enough for some people. And there’s a fine line between “transparency” and “letting idiots run roughshod over a delicate process”.
@syag-lchochma You’ve been posting angry and bitter comments directed at me this entire thread most of which I just ignored. Not sure what I said in the past to make you feel that way about me, but the word sinah certainly comes to mind.If that version works for you, go for it.
@philosopher I think the argument over voter ID laws and mail-in-ballots is a smoke screen. Republicans wanted voter ID laws to convince people that voter fraud was happening. In response the Democrats pulled that old chestnut of saying that voter ID is racist. Truth is, there’s never been any significant fraud around voter IDs. Illegal immigrants aren’t voting en masse, and making people prove they are who they say they are hasn’t made an ounce of a difference in black voter turnout. Same with mail in ballots. There was no significant fraud. Democrats were just pushing for mail ins because of the COVID lockdowns. In response, the GOP claimed that mail in ballots were fraudulent.
It’s just the same stupid sports rivalry where one guy says black and the other will say white just to spite him.
easier voting benefits low education/income voters that are in many case Democrats.
They were there for 95% of the time. And that 5% they missed did not have any significant changes in the numbers. So Georgian poll watchers were there the entire time the mail-in “bump” happened!
There have been numerous threads about this and as I’ve said before there’s no point in arguing anymore
One should also note that Stacey Adams who had really great career prospects as a moderate Democratic politician, wrecked them by insisting that the 2018 election she lost had been stolen, and being a sore loser. In a democracy, if you make a claim that an election was stolen, you need to back it up or face political disgrace.
@coffee-addict Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I really don’t get why you’re so certain that voter fraud happened considering there isn’t a shred of evidence. And no, “they didn’t see if there was fraud” doesn’t constitute evidence. Lemme give you a farinstance. “I didn’t see Ploni on July 7th 2016 so it’s possible he burglarized Moishes house that day. Moishe is pretty sure he isn’t missing any money, but we can’t prove that Ploni didn’t steal the money that may or may not be missing. Therefore Ploni must be a ganif.”. Veiter noch, the evidence that Trumps team tried to push had more invented numbers than Madoff’s accountant.
@lakewhut This happens by every election. The electronic ballots are counted immediately and then verified. That takes hours. If the race isn’t close, they declare a winner and they count the mail in ballots and unclear ballots being counted later. If the race is close, then they don’t declare a winner until all the other ballots are counted and verified.
@akuperma I hate that ever since the Bush-Gore election of 2000, every political loser claims election fraud or voter suppression.Yserbius,
Did you see 20000 mules (I didn’t just heard about it) in order to say that there isn’t “a shred of evidence” now you might not want to believe it but that’s your choice just like I’ve been saying through my constant posts
Yserbius you’re probably the type to blindly trust government shutdowns and vaccine mandates and that there’s nothing to Hunter Biden just because the DNC tells you so.
@coffee-addict Sorry I’m unfamiliar with that term. What is 2000 mules?
@1 I really really dislike the modern political climate, especially in frum communities. If you’re not 100% on board with every bit of zevel that comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth, you’re a liberal anti-Semite.Maybe I’m just a conservative voter disillusioned by the insanity of US politics?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.