In response to the post you responded to from the
Post# of 123415
(Total Views: 189)
Posted On: 11/25/2020 1:21:14 PM
In response to the post you responded to from the snowflake who posts to my moniker from behind ignore, a comment from the same article.
Do you really imagine for one moment that EW understood any of it?
All he does is grab the lead from a story that reinforces what he NEEDS to believe. Case in point that Gateway Pundit article from yesterday that buried the part that contradicted the breathless lead.
https://votepatternanalysis.substack.com/p/vo...alies-2020
Do you really imagine for one moment that EW understood any of it?
All he does is grab the lead from a story that reinforces what he NEEDS to believe. Case in point that Gateway Pundit article from yesterday that buried the part that contradicted the breathless lead.
Quote:
Nobody, but nobody, is claiming that that graph with the jump in Biden votes doesn't look a bit weird at first glance. That's all that the statistics here is demonstrating, that it looks a bit weird.
The only interesting discussion then is why they occurred. There are good explanations for every one if you Google (do your own research!). This article doesn't consider any of them and so adds nothing to the conversation.
https://votepatternanalysis.substack.com/p/vo...alies-2020
Quote:
I'm going to paste an analysis on this that I did for a friend.
I appreciate that they're looking at data, and all the maths checks out. But it proves absolutely nothing by itself, because there are absolutely fine explanations for these anomalies.
* The whole thing about "ratio vs margin" is a demonstration of a basic property of any statistical distribution.
* they correctly identify anomalies, which I'm happy about! They're absolutely correct to say "it's unlikely that these updates were produced by the same process that produced the others". Great work.
* but then they say "therefore fraud" instead of doing some basic googling to consider other reasons that anomalous vote updates would occur.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wisconsin-vote-dump/
* 95% of this article is noise that's using math to appear more truthy. The entire mathematical portion of the article can be replaced by the graph of vote totals over time and the caption "hey doesn't that look weird".
* But then after pointing at the graph and saying "that looks weird" they jump straight to Fraud rather than doing the actual interesting discussion of why that weirdness might occur, ie clerical errors & quirks in reporting methodology. And they're using a barrage of numbers and equations to distract you from noticing that's what they're doing.
Nobody, but nobody, is claiming that that graph with the jump in Biden votes doesn't look a bit weird at first glance. That's all that the statistics here is demonstrating, that it looks a bit weird.
The only interesting discussion then is why they occurred. There are good explanations for every one if you Google (do your own research!). This article doesn't consider any of them and so adds nothing to the conversation.
(0)
(0)Scroll down for more posts ▼