Did you even read the article? You guys always bitch about “facts and data”. When presented with some, you do the Colonel Klink act.
Kiss the baby, lock the barn it is over. The faster y’all realize it, the better. Cut your losses now and find a decent, non-racist candidate to run in 2024. Krebs says that 95% of the electronic ballots had paper backups. It is over and Biden will be sworn January 20.
www.businessinsider.com
It probably is over but that doesn’t mean that there were some extreme anomalies in key swing states.Kiss the baby, lock the barn it is over. The faster y’all realize it, the better. Cut your losses now and find a decent, non-racist candidate to run in 2024. Krebs says that 95% of the electronic ballots had paper backups. It is over and Biden will be sworn January 20.
Former top US cybersecurity official ousted by Trump said there was 'no manipulation of the vote on the machine-count side'
"The proof is in the ballots," Chris Krebs said. "If there was an algorithm that was flipping votes or changing votes, it didn't work."
I don't know about those so called anomalies and "data dumps". How do we know THAT source is credible?
So there were large dumps of mail in ballots late at night from large cities because they couldn't be counted before election day by state law? Can we apply historical mathematical standards to an election with record turnout and record numbers of votes by mail?
The mail in ballots, in question, weren't delivered until after the polls closed and in some cases days after the election.
Where do you get your information that you can be so completely wrong all of the time?
OK ladies since when were ballots allowed after the polls closed on election day?
This will get you started.
www.governor.pa.gov
2000: "Bush is a racist!"Kiss the baby, lock the barn it is over. The faster y’all realize it, the better. Cut your losses now and find a decent, non-racist candidate to run in 2024. Krebs says that 95% of the electronic ballots had paper backups. It is over and Biden will be sworn January 20.
Former top US cybersecurity official ousted by Trump said there was 'no manipulation of the vote on the machine-count side'
"The proof is in the ballots," Chris Krebs said. "If there was an algorithm that was flipping votes or changing votes, it didn't work."
And that law is what is being brought into question by some of the lawsuits that have been filed. The legislature is alleged to have violated the state constitution by passing this law without first amending the state constitution. There is specific language in the Pennsylvania constitution that appears to prohibit some of the changes that were made via act 77. Will be interesting to see what happens if it reaches the Supreme Court. But I can’t imagine any lower courts will touch this with a 10ft pole due to how highly partisan and controversial this has become.This will get you started.
Governor Wolf Signs Election Reform Bill Including New Mail-in Voting
Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with...
And the time to have challenged it was BEFORE the vote. Not AFTER. That's what the courts have said on at least two occasions.
Considering the law was changed a year ago (by a Republican-controlled legislature) and used for another election previous to this one, it seems strange to bring this suit now. No one seemed to have a problem with it in the PA primary, but now that mail ballots made the difference in a Trump loss, all of a sudden it's unconstitutional.
I'm not going to say that I can't type in each of those names and "racist" and not get at least a dozen links each that say that so-and-so was a racist, but only Trump really got reamed by the media as being racist. You will get a few that will say something like "Bush's policies in response to Katrina were unproportionally better for whites than blacks and therefore racist" from some of the opinion mudslingers, but only Trump really got the "He is a racist" declaration from the CNN's of the world.
What part of it violates the state constitution do you not understand? To top things off, they started the amendment process but then abandoned it before just passing Act 77.
You guys always get snippy when you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Get this info to Rudy G ASAP! This could be the foundation to those really bestest cases still coming down the pike that boilermaker03 is wet dreamin about
Yeah, got it Colonel Klink. You know nothing, you see nothing, you hear nothing.
Your entire life and philosophy of life is based on faulty stereotypes and memes. You actually believe in identity politics. Idiotic.
lots of unnecessary and silly mathematics in a silly attempt to give validity to nonsense. An explanation of voting margins that relies solely on supposedly anomalous mathematical patterns without attempting to reconcile it to actual fundamentals is dead on arrival.
the idiot who wrote the article didn't even attempt to check out the most plausible explanation and rule it out before wasting time and money adding unnecessary and unneeded mathematical complexity. I guess it's to make it sound scientific. You test and rule out or control for plausible hypothesis before leaping to cheating. what an idiot.
So in your mind, there are no very strange outliers/anomalies in the data, and they happen to all be in key swing states?
no. if there are seeming anomalous patterns, look for plausible explanations, is the next step. The most plausible one here is that there are urban areas who overwhelmingly vote democrat. The responsible thing to do as a data analyst here is to chase that theory down and test it out. He should have chased down the how likely it is that multiple such places reported together which could have produced that pattern. If after doing that all, you can still show any such is very unlikely, then perhaps you have an anomaly worth investigating. But this lazy quack did neither, tested no plausible hypothesis, instead chose to add superflous, and absolutely unnecessary math as if to add scientific legitimacy to his rubbish analysis. None of that log- nonsense he was doing was needed or necessary to point out an anomaly.
On that basis, you wouldn't have hired him in the first place if he was stupid enough to agree to work for you.
You live in a land of complete delusion. You are among the most partisan on this board. The left thrives on identity politics, not the right BTW. Doesn’t seem like you even understand the meaning of the term.
