Trump led.
Then there were, apparently, some massive dumps of votes which tallied mostly, if not entirely, for Biden, and then for multiple hours, all votes when 50.051 for Bident, and 49.949 for Trump.
How does it happen that group after group of ballots come in with exactly the same numbers for hours on end?
The answer is, it doesn't.
As Sidney Powell has said, this is as if one flipped a coin and for hours on end it came up as heads, and only heads, 10's of thousands of times.
That does not happen in the real world.
This appears to be hard proof that there was cheating in Georgia.
The only question I have is, how do I know that some operative on the Trump side didn't make these numbers up?
What we would need is some way to source where this evidence came from.
Get it? That's how evidence works.
Now, here's another video purporting to show the Vote Dump that went 98% for Biden, putting Biden in the lead. This video also shows you the source of the information, which is the New York Times, via Edison Research, which is the company that brings the raw voting data from precincts to the media.
A friend of mine, who has a Phd in Mathematics from Berkeley, writes:
Just for the record I am sure there was ballot-box stuffing and other shenanigans. But, I think that happens every election. It's also very plausible to me that there was more this election, because (D)s took advantage of the lax mail-in rules.
Sure, I can totally believe this. It might even have had the effect of stealing the election. It's possible. I don't say it's impossible. So, I am not saying that I think this election was all on the up-and-up. But, I just don't see this sort of thing as proving fraud. Even if a number like this seems weird and anomalous, it would never achieve anything in a court, to reverse an election or anything like that.
So, I worry that righties are getting their hopes up, when the reality is, this is over. It's not gonna be reversed. Nothing's gonna happen. Biden will be sworn in. That's just how I see things overall.
Regarding your first post on Powell, I have to agree that she either has a bombshell or is doing some kind of fraud, or act. Unfortunately it looks like the latter. If she has 'evidence' (why would this random lawyer have evidence by the way? where did she get it? who's giving it to her?) she needs to put it to a court. Like, yesterday.
Not go on TV and give interviews hinting at it.
Yet all these efforts in courts have basically been swatted down, and they haven't even really included any of the sort of evidence or claims that are swirling around on righty social-media anyway.
So this whole thing just looks to me like WWF fakery; she goes on TV and tells righties (who Want To Believe) that she has a bunch of secret evidence, is going to 'release the Kraken', etc., but then in actual courts they make really lame and weak claims that just annoy judges. Unless she really *does* have a Kraken, I find this all kind of despicable.
Re: your second post, the guy in the video does a fine job of showing that a batch of votes that came in during a numbers-update was evidently around 98% for Biden. Sure, that's an anomaly and can make a person curious. But I don't see how that proves anything. Maybe it's just a batch that all came from one very dense inner-city area's collection box. Downtown Atlanta or whatever. Who's to say that wouldn't be 98% for Biden?
Investigate that batch, sure, I suppose. But you can't just toss out a batch of votes merely because there's 'too many' for one candidate. I'm sure there are rural places that were overwhelmingly for Trump too. This is cherry-picking. Unless actual ballot tampering or fakery is found and established, it just leads nowhere. That second post also has an image of a spreadsheet that's a little fuzzy to read, but I think this talking-point turning it into a fraud-proof is based on a simple error. The 'suspicious' thing it's supposed to show is, I think, that sequence of batch updates came in which all had an identical Biden-Trump vote ratio (50.051-49.949).
But, I don't think that's really the case. It's hard to know for sure without seeing the spreadsheet itself but it looks like those 50.051/49.949 columns are calculated columns which 'back out' the 'implied' vote ratios based on the updates of vote totals and vote-shares.
It just happens that during all these updates, the reported overall vote-shares in the updates, columns 3 and 4, stayed the same (.494 to .493) - at least, *to three digits*. That in turn leads this spreadsheet's calculated columns to create 'suspiciously equal' vote-shares for all the updates.
Note also the sheet's 'incremental vote' columns aren't even integers, you see numbers like "1471.41" (in yellow). That's not an actual *number of votes*, it's clearly a number calculated by the spreadsheet.
So I believe this whole thing is just an artifact of the rounding to 3 digits in the data they had to work with (which is the same reason the guy in the video can only say he knows the range of Biden's vote-share was like 98-130%, instead of knowing it exactly).
I presume that if more digits had been available, these 'suspiciously equal' vote-shares in the updates would no longer be equal, but bounce around a little. So, whereas the 98% thing was at least suspicious, I'm afraid this one isn't even anything.
Here's an analogy to explain why the "50.051-49.949" thing isn't anything.
Say there's a baseball player whose batting average is .300 late in the season. He has 150 hits in 500 at-bats. Next few games he has some bad games, some good; he goes: 1 for 4, 1 for 2, 1 for 4.. What is his new batting average after each game?
The same. Still .300.
Because we round batting averages to 3 digits. 1 for 4 wasn't bad enough to make it .299.
1 for 2 wasn't good enough to make it .301.
Etc.
But what if you didn't know how many hits he got each game, just the at-bats. In game 1 you know he had 4 at-bats and his batting average 'stayed the same'. You might make a spreadsheet that tells you:
After 504 at-bats, his batting average was .300, so he must now have 151.2 hits. He must have gotten 1.2 hits in game 1! He went 1.2-for-4. 1.2 divided by 4 is 0.3.
His batting average in game 1 was exactly .300!
How suspicious.
Then you do the same for game 2. He now has 506 at-bats, his batting average is .300, so he must now have 151.8 hits, after having 151.2 the day before. He must have gone 0.6-for-2 in game 2. Also a batting average of exactly .300. Etc.
Your spreadsheet will keep doing this for each day, and create 'suspiciously identical' per-game batting averages each new day that the guy's overall batting average didn't budge from ".300".
But that's clearly wrong, you can't get partial hits, this is all just an artifact of rounding to 3 digits.
Same thing happened in that spreadsheet.
No comments:
Post a Comment