The Trump Presidency

[Tiassa]

[3/6]​

It is important to note a question: "While some commentators provided relatively partisan analysis, others merely expressed surprise at the near-vertical leaps in some of these vote updates," the Substack analysis↱ observes in its characteristically credulous way, the authors go on to ask: "Is it likely this phenomenon would arise organically?" The answer is actually, yes.

Nonetheless, having justified their pretense of further scrutiny, the rickety setup teeters into its explanation of Concept, Intuition, and Measurement. The section opens with a nearly benign paragraph:

Data analysis relies on recognizing and evaluating patterns in data. When we find anomalous data, that is often an indication of underlying differences. This is why in this report we focus on these four vote updates.​

The first two sentences aren't absolutely horrible, but in the larger context of concern about vote integrity, what is the relationship between the underlying differences and the purpose of investigation? So far, it's a matter of everything wrong with the setup. The underlying differences are often apparent; the challenge is understanding how to formulate them compared to vagary, ambiguity, and a mysterious and unexpressed idyll.

For instance, something about their sense of intuition comes off as far too simplistic:

There are also a number of general intuitions upon which we draw to direct our research. In general, the larger the sample size, the smaller we expect the deviation from the population average to be. While anomalous vote ratios may occur, the statistical chance of anomalous margins goes down as the size of the sample (or vote update) goes up.

The basic intuition is: big margins are one thing, and so are super-skewed results, but it's weird to have them both at the same time, as they generally become inversely related as either value increases.​

And we're right back to the wordplay about what is surprising. Still, look at how the logic works: "In general, the larger the sample size, the smaller we expect the deviation from the population average to be." This requires some particular consistency within the sample range that is not necessarily in effect. Check that basic intuition, "as they generally become inversely related". Yes, generally. But think of Milwaukee and environs; we already expected, from voter reg and mail-in request data, an overwhelming Biden trend in those ballots. We already had an idea what those sums would look like, and the idea that those numbers posted about when we expected they would is not surprising. As analytical practice goes, the prospect of insisting on generalization in lieu of data known to indicate otherwise is unsound.

Inasmuch as the report seeks to "demonstrate … that four key vote updates … cut against this intuition", the question of general and particular persists. Given what the sample range actually represents, and acknowledging that four, or even seven, out of over eighty-five hundred, is unusual or uncommon, the question remains whether we should be surprised at the fact of deviation from so general an intuition, or to what degree a lack of deviation from so general a "mathematical property" is a realistic expectation.

Thus, if the authors purport to "show the existence of a very strong inverse relationship within vote updates, across all states and times, between the difference of votes for Joe Biden and Donald Trump … and the the ratio of Joe Biden's votes to Donald Trump's votes", what actually stands out is the range of all states and times. Yes, this is what the data from 8,954 updates shows, but, again, we consider the general and particular. "At any geographical level," the authors explain, "we can test the assumption of an inverse relationship between vote update size and the extremity of the ratio between the candidates' votes, and, as we will see here, the relationship is extremely strong." Again, note the generality, i.e., "any geographical level". Because, while, "Across states red and blue, where turnout is high and low, there is an obvious inverse relationship between the two", an abiding question remains: So what?

Any geographical level. All states and times. Now, then: What do we expect of the mere fact that deviations occur? Is the idea of a statistical outlier according to generalized expectation really so surprising?

The paragraphs spent explaining their metrics are shot through with wondering, "So what?" or, "And?"

Here, think of it this way:

Let us now attempt to quantify the nature of the inverse relationship in the context of a particular state. First we take our data set of running vote totals for each state, and, for each state, calculate the vote differential for each candidate between updates. This produces a sequence of vote differences, the sum of which, within any given state, is the total.​

Something about what happens in Milwaukee and environs compared to the rest of Wisconsin, or Detroit compared to the rest of Michigan, or Atlanta compared to the rest of Georgia, seems grossly understated in the basic intuition and mathematical property the analysis describes and requires. There is a reason this argument to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election depends on abstraction in lieu of substance.

The math is set up so that—

given X for Biden and Y for Trump, either metric will produce a score which is the opposite of what it would produce if the update instead had Y votes for Biden and X for Trump. This property is extremely useful, and will come in handy during the statistical analysis.​

—the question becomes whether it is applicable: One can formulate mathematics to do nearly anything they want; it's just a matter of convincing other people. To wit, such as it is—

Readers might ask: Why are you measuring the ratio? Why not measure the difference between the vote proportions (or, equivalently, their percentages). The answer to this lies in what we are looking for, i.e. evidence of fraud or foul play which manifests in extremely unusual outcomes. In particular, ratios are almost never used in expressing vote counts (one typically hears of percentages or, when a race is close, numbers) and so anyone committing fraud and looking to "cover their tracks" is more likely to be "gaming" the metrics they're used to, and much more likely to leave tells in metrics they're not considering.​

—they have gone to where circumstance indicates expectation of deviation from arbitrary statistic and complained that a deviant outcome has occurred. The obvious counterpoint remains that the outcome is not deviant unto itself; per prior information, we could expect a Biden flood in those votes, and, per law and circumstance, yes, the overnight reports were the likely time those votes would start to post.

Here is a question of application:

1. Ratios demonstrate an important property: the farther ahead a candidate is, the harder it is to move the next 1 percent ahead. They reflect the relative difficulty of each marginal vote as the pool of remaining votes decreases.As a candidate approaches 0% or 100% of the vote, the rates at which the ratio of that candidate’s votes to the other candidate’s votes converge to zero or infinity are very different.

2. Ratios allow us to spot a potential sign of fraud: unusually low ratios between the losing (major) candidate and other, less well-known candidates. Because those who watch and participate in elections tend not to think in these terms, if there is fraud, they’re much less likely to have covered their tracks in this respect. A tin-pot-dictator style election where the favored candidate gets 99% of the vote is obviously suspect, but less attention is often paid to details like whether the ratio between the most popular losing candidate and long-shot third-party candidates actually makes sense. Looking at metrics which are less popular in practical use will be tremendously helpful here, as we will see.​

These are the "critical differences" between the ratio described in their "mathematical property" and the difference between vote percentages. As true as the essence of the first is, its applicability remains a question. The second is of dubious value to Biden-Trump. But what follows are two pained examples of dubious applicability, intended to illustrate the first of these. And if the second of those differences includes self-gratification, so does the bit about San Francisco:

which, despite being one of the bluest cities in America numerically and culturally, is one where Democratic Presidential candidates consistently get about 90% of the vote but never seem to crack 95%. There are Republicans in San Francisco, however few of them, and converting half of them is a tall order. This makes ratios a useful tool in our arsenal for answering questions of the form “how much is too much”?. This allows us to assess the data in a way which we believe is qualitatively different — and qualitatively superior — to the common forms of assessment used by average individuals and the news media.​

But it really is a strange appeal to behavior, because consideration of behavioral economy is what the analysis lacks. Everything about the setup relies on generalization and abstraction.

[(cont.)]​

 

[Tiassa]

[4/6]​

The degree to which the Substack analysis↱ analysis relies on a context of ceteris paribus that is not in effect is affecting, to say the least. Here are three sentences that don't hold up to scrutiny:

This election represents an extraordinary and unique opportunity for election integrity analysts and the application of statistical fraud detection research, as it is likely the first national election in American history, at the very least, where the general public has had access to time-series election data. Even well-respected academic papers which study election fraud in other countries seem to mostly study after-the-fact information about final tallies; analysis is done on statistics about voter turnout, digit frequencies, and other information which is available in after-the-fact official numbers. After all, if reports of widespread fraud and corruption ordered from the top in elections in, e.g., Russia, Uganda, Ukraine, Iran, etc., are to be believed, then those governments, which tend to have much more control over what can and cannot be published than our government, are unlikely to want to increase the number of dimensions along which their claim to legitimacy can be audited.​

The first asserts a context that, if true, is validated in an utterly meaningless context. They're looking at 8,954 updates recorded by the New York Times, so what they seem to mean is that the Gray Lady managed to make it easy, compared to media reporting from past cycles, to see the update information. The second might be an accurate observation, but leaves a question of, So what? on the table. Perhaps the third is intended to give the prior two sentences some sort of usefully applied meaning, but it remains unanchored with no relative significance. And that's how their discussion of "measuring this relationship between the candidate's margin and their ratio" closes.

And as the analysis moves into its look at Michigan, the question of generalization persists: While two plus two equals four, does that result actually apply to anything? Or: Is two plus two really the right question?

We can extract the argument from the analysis of Michigan.

[An update] arrived at 6:31am ET on November 4th … representing both the largest vote margin for Biden … while also representing, by a factor of more than 2, the largest Biden:Trump ratio. As we will see when comparing with other states, by our metric this is the single most anomalous point in the nation .... For such a large batch of votes to be counted while also showing such an exceptionally poor performance of Trump relative to the non-two-party vote is clearly very surprising.​

The result, say the authors, becomes prima facie implausible to any honest observer.

Remember the statewide numbers, and the word game about what is surprising; compared to the infrequency with which such updates will occur, the question of surprise overlooks particular details. To reiterate: They have gone to where circumstance indicates expectation of deviation from an arbitrary statistic and complained that a deviant outcome has occurred. The obvious counterpoint remains that the outcome is not deviant unto itself; per prior information, we could expect a Biden flood in those votes, and, per law and circumstance, yes, the overnight reports were the likely time those votes would start to post.

The report observes a statistical commonality, declares it a mathematical property, and declares its failure some manner of cause for concern requiring further scrutiny. What that scrutiny reveals is that the mathematical property is overstated at the very least, and becomes a general principle required in lieu of information we already know.

Compared to a general statewide trend, Detroit Metro, for instance, would go heavily for Biden; moreover, this Democratic-sympathizing distillation is further rarefied by partisan regard for mail-in voting. The mail ballots in question were not included in earlier reports because the law required delays in processing them; that they did not wait until later reports in smaller batches reflects the capacity and capability of larger vote-counting operations. Or, to recall italicized concern about a five-hour window, we're talking about an update during a period during when large and dramatic blocs of votes in the running reports are not unusual, and even expected compared to the laws and circumstances in effect this cycle.

To be clear: An expected occurrence is not surprising. Deviation from broad generalization is not unexpected. Particular circumstance describes a reasonable probability of large vote blocs reporting dramatic favor.

Thus, no, a large vote-count update "showing such an exceptionally poor performance of Trump relative to the non-two-party vote" is actually not surprising. It might be statistically unusual compared to the other 8,953 behaviorally-dependent samples in the range, but observable and comprehensible circumstance says it is not surprising, but, rather, expected.

Or, to be blunt—

Absent a compelling explanation of why this particular update -- at such a crucial time, in a crucial state, which improved Biden's standing in the state so dramatically -- also had non-two-party votes performing so unusually relative to Trump votes, it seems unlikely that this vote update reflects an honest accounting of the legitimate votes.​

—this analysis is excremental. Absent a compelling explanation?

• crucial time — The timing is not unexpected. The idea of a "crucial" time is extraneous.

• crucial state — The importance of the state is what it is. But remember the standard described in the analysis, "one would need to believe that the one or two most possible pro-Biden areas of the state were somehow each counted their ballots entirely in one or two vote updates" In other words, one only needs believe that an expected rarefied Biden vote from urban-county mail ballots could be counted in time to be included in the overnight reports. The suggestion that this is somehow unbelievable seems to require a strange pretense of ignorance. But the thing about a crucial state like Michigan is the prospect of leaving it at that without attending the demographic realities.

• improved Biden's standing in the state so dramatically — Between voter reg and mail-in request data, and given the capabilities of urban-county tally operations, not only is that effect not unexpected, people kind of knew it was coming.

• non-two-party votes performing so unusually relative to Trump votes — Compared to what? This is Donald Trump, not a generic Republican on a telephone survey ballot. Here's the argument:

One effective way of achieving the desired goal of decreasing Donald Trump's lead at this point would have been to suppress the Trump vote while artificially inflating the non-two-party vote in an attempt to disguise just how Biden-favoring this update actually was .... In particular, because the non-two-party candidates received far less media attention than in the 2016 Presidential election, and the Green Party candidate was even successfully sued off of the ballot in one or more states, it is hard to believe that this vote update only favored Trump over the non-two-party vote by less than a factor of 2.5, when the statewide ratio was over 31.​

Consider the idea that 2,546 non-two-party votes out of 149,772 is somehow in itself suspicious. Moreover, one might expect artificial inflation of third-party votes in order to "disguise just how Biden-favoring this update actually was" would be more than a handful of hundredths of a percent.​

Sometimes it is hard to know what part an argument is skipping out on. The analysis doesn't seem to understand the election laws, or how votes are counted. It also seems clueless about the dynamics or even mere prospect of urban-rural political divisions. Indeed, the analysis of Wisconsin compares an update of under six-thousand votes total that happened to favor Trump to the previously discussed Milwaukee update incuding over 168,000 votes.

The analysis of Georgia is incoherent:

This one seems only slightly more anomalous than other such graphs, but, as we will see, actually contains two of the nine most anomalous vote updates in our combined distribution of 8.954 vote updates. In particular, the point at (136,155, 1.543), representing a vote update which arrived at 1:34am EST on November 4th, is the update with the largest margin of all of the updates in Georgia — it also has the 10th largest Biden:Trump ratio. There are a few smaller updates with more extreme ratios, but, as we will detail later in this report, this point is in fact unusual.​

That later argument boils down to extrapolating a standardized constant: "In other words, if we hold the ratio constant, and this vote update were only at the 99th percentile of co-extremity, the margin in this vote update would have been 85,892 votes fewer." As with Michigan, it seems the urban vote should be tempered to conform more to a rural disposition, or something approximately like that, e.g., "the numerical margin which corresponds in Georgia" is a statewide, while the update in question was not of votes proportionately distributed around the state.

[(cont.)]​

 

[Tiassa]

[5/6]​

The Substack analysis↱ spends a modicum of effort presenting graphs depicting updates from other states, to "help … establish an initial baseline of what these distributions should look like within any state". Certain phrases stand out. Pennsylvania: "a couple [data points] (much farther) off to the right, representing a high Biden-Trump margin, but which are not particularly extreme in terms of their Biden:Trump ratio". Minnesota: "While there is an update which is more extreme in terms of how large the Trump:Biden ratio is, and several updates with extremely large Trump-Biden margins, we see the basic shape remains the same." New York: "while the few updates which have exceptionally large margins for either candidate have ratios which are not nearly as extreme as those of many other updates".

So as the authors open their section on "Consolidating, Comparing, and Measuring", we cannot rule out the question of whether they have chosen a metric specifically because it will break down under certain demographic circumstances:

Out of these 8,954 vote updates across the country, we can see how overwhelming the pattern is. In particular, we see that — with a few notable exceptions — as one value grows more extreme in any direction, the other tends to become less extreme.​

Their consolidated graph holds shape, as expected, and there will always be a farthest outlier. Or, as the authors express, "This brings us to the visually identifiable exceptions." That is, they have constructed graphs to show something, which brings them to what they want to show, "i.e. those which have the most extreme Biden-Trump margin with respect to their state". They have shown that deviations from their broad generalization exist: "The visual discrepancy," the authors observe, "between that update and the overwhelming pattern followed by the other updates is glaring."

Such as it is, the argument seems to run that we should never mind what we already know about the expected voter profiles compared to the Milwaukee update, just look at where the green dot is on the graph. And also those red dots from Michigan. Because the authors—

While both of these points would be unusual on their own, it is exceptionally unlikely that both of them would have come from the same state, critical to the election, less than three hours apart during an overnight counting process — a process subject to great controversy and where there remain, nearly three weeks from election day, many unknowns. Together, these two vote updates provided Joe Biden with the votes required to deliver him the lead in the state.​

—reiterate their need that dramatic results in overnight reporting after Election Day should be somehow inherently suspicious. Compared to a constant sample demonstrating constant and consistent behavior, certainly they can pretend suspicion, but those are inappropriate criteria. The section spent Quantifying the Extremity relies on this artifice.

But this is also the time to note a correction appended to the analysis, that a math error grossly undercalculated that 0.99% figure—

It is worth noting here that roughly 15% of the vote updates in the data set of 8,954 were from these three states. If we assumed it equally likely that any particular state should end up at any of these extreme points, there would be about a 1.2% chance that three states are represented in three out of the top four or four out of the top seven spots, and about a 0.99% chance that these three states would occupy five out of the top seven spots. It is thus very surprising to see the states in question be so disproportionately represented in the top 0.11% of the distribution of co-extremity.​

—but the devil in this detail is why they would have "assumed it equally likely that any particular state should end up at any of these extreme points". This would seem to require some generalization about states and voters not in evidence, and in some cases in defiance of observation; it is not "equally likely that any particular state should end up at any of these extreme points".

But as the analysis tries to predict what should have happened, we find the authors relying on conspiracism:

We can now determine what each of these updates might have looked like if they were only at the 99th (or other) percentile of co-extremity. In deciding how to do that, we must consider — what makes more sense? Holding the margin constant and seeing what the ratio would look like, or holding the ratio constant and seeing what the margin would look like? The latter makes far more sense in this scenario, since the former suggests an equal number of ballots for both candidates may have been held back improperly, while the latter likely suggests that an excess number of ballots for the winning candidate were produced. We are interested in testing for the latter scenario.​

And as the authors reverse the axes of their graph, or transform their figures to absolute values, it's not just a matter of trying to dazzle with pictures; to wit, they nearly confess: "The pattern becomes somewhat more clear when we simply look at absolute values, as our subsequent examinations rely on metrics which treat pro-Biden and pro-Trump vote updates symmetrically."

At the point we might joke about describing a graph instead of plotting it ("Graphically, this would involve …"), we might wonder if maybe the problem is that they don't actually know how. And along the way, we find this sentence: "Since we bring no a priori assumption about what these updates should [look] like, it is worth considering what they would look like if these ratios are accurate and they merely represented the 99th percentile of co-extremity." The entire analysis is derived from a priori assumption about what the updates should look like.

"If these results seem unrealistic or implausible," the authors explain, "this is a result of how bizarre these vote updates are with respect to the rest of the distribution." The strangeness is compared to apparent unrealistic assumptions. That something is unusual is a statistical assessment; that an unusual comparative result exists is not necessarily surprising, and whether or not it is bizarre depends on a different context than the difference between one sample or another from the range.

The authors argue: "At the very least, it is possible to definitively say that Joe Biden's victory in all three of these states relied on four of the seven most co-extreme vote updates in the entire data set of 8,954 vote updates." The difference between being able to describe the turning point in the tally and how we are to define the verb, "relied" is an interesting question. We can reasonably wonder what goes into the word such that victory relies on particular partial tally reports.

Which brings us back around to the late section on Important Considerations. In between, we have considered according to accepting some value of what a statement means. The authors advise, "one would need to believe that the one or two most possible pro-Biden areas of the state were somehow each counted their ballots entirely in one or two vote updates", and it is easy enough to observe, No, not "entirely".

But if we have sought some value of what their statement means beyond that, the authors actually do seem to be invested in that word, "entirely":

In particular, to accept the results as seen in Michigan as legitimate, one would need to believe that the one or two most possible pro-Biden areas of the state were somehow each counted their ballots entirely in one or two vote updates ....

.... Indeed, if it is subsequently discovered that these did not comprise the entire count (for either mail-in votes or all votes) in these areas, then these results should be regarded with extreme suspicion. If it can be shown by those with access to time-series county-level (or precinct-level) data that, for whichever counties or precincts reported in this update, that there were other updates (or other updates with mail-in ballots), then these results become almost impossible to believe. This is to say, the believability of these updates relies on the premise that the one or two most Biden-favoring parts of the state (perhaps by ballot type) were counted entirely in these two batches ....

.... One would also need to believe that mail-in ballots, which have generally been understood to be more pro-Biden, sometimes substantially so, were counted in their entirety in these regions.

(Boldface in original)​

They include Wisconsin, too:

It would be extremely surprising if all mail-in ballots in the two most favoring Biden counties in the state, Dane and Milwaukee County, were entirely contained in this batch, and so it raises the question as to why we didn’t see even more pro-Biden updates in smaller, higher-variance vote updates in these heavily Democratic areas.​

The ignorance is palpable; check their standard, on this one:

If it can be shown by those with access to time-series county-level (or precinct-level) data that, for whichever counties or precincts reported in this update, that there were other updates (or other updates with mail-in ballots), then these results become almost impossible to believe.​

[(cont.)]​

 

[Tiassa]

[6/6]​

At this point, the Substack analysis↱ includes the complaint that there isn't enough pro-Biden skewing:

While this data set does not provide breakdowns of how many votes in each update came from different types of votes, it is extremely surprising that we do not see smaller vote updates with mail-in votes which favor Biden more heavily ....

.... It would be extremely surprising if all mail-in ballots in the two most favoring Biden counties in the state, Dane and Milwaukee County, were entirely contained in this batch, and so it raises the question as to why we didn't see even more pro-Biden updates in smaller, higher-variance vote updates in these heavily Democratic areas.​

Considering, as well, what the analysis lacks—

• "If it can be shown by those with access to time-series county-level (or precinct-level) data"

• "While this data set does not provide breakdowns of how many votes in each update came from different types of votes"

• "Looking at a map of final results by county, it is highly likely that .... which were almost certainly"​

—perhaps the greatest mystery in this vote analysis is the apparent ignorance the authors show history, law, and circumstance. What is not surprising, as such, is their insistence on wordplay:

All of this is especially surprising when viewed in contrast to the prevailing analysis of the election, i.e. that Joe Biden's victory was the result of improved performance in suburban areas. Looking at a map of final results by county, it is highly likely that these vote updates came from more densely-populated urban counties where Biden's ratios were much higher. The findings here call that into question, however, as we can see that he relied heavily on four extremely aberrant vote updates which were almost certainly in heavily pro-Biden urban areas to provide a much-needed boost in the early hours of November 4th.​

And, again, we encounter their dubious usage of the word, "relied". But, still, all the pictures and pretense are not unfamiliar. The question of aberrance is particularly defined, and not necessarily appropriately applied. It's almost as if the authors have meticulously tried to invent a mystery so they can be astonished by the normal or even expected: Yes, pro-Biden urban areas came through; this is not surprising. Numbers from mail-in ballots processed and tabulated in populous and urban counties posted in the late overnight, which was to be expected in certain states according to law and circumstance.

What we have, then, is four of seven of eighty-nine hundred fifty-four, convenient ignorance of law, history, and circumstance, and a mash of generalizations and distorted expectations operating in a word-game framework.

… this analysis does not require that we regard the final vote totals in any of these states (or counties thereof) as suspicious, nor, critically, does it require that we accept that the observed data should follow any particular distribution a priori. We merely show that the data, adjusted appropriately to remove differences in size and political leaning between states, does follow a certain pattern, and that four key vote updates deviate profoundly from that pattern.​

The thing is that removing differences in size and political leaning is a version of asking the wrong question: Political leaning actually affected circumstances on the ground, according to law, such as in Wisconsin and Michigan, where election officials were obliged to wait to start counting mail ballots. That ought to be a separate discussion entirely, but this crackpottery, intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election, makes it relevant at least in meta-analysis of the underlying politics of the report; it's an oddball irony.

The idea that a deviation is unusual for its infrequency does not make it inherently suspicious or, as the analysis has it, surprising. The authors show that the data, adjusted appropriately according to their needs, follows a certain general pattern, and that four "key vote updates" "deviate profoundly".

There is political leaning evident in the authors' language, but setting aside easy doubts about their dubious usage of words—("surprising", "relied on", "key vote updates")—the combination of generalization and apparent ignorance about process and circumstance, as well as voter behavior and demographics, describes crackpottery.

The analysis isn't just a wreck, it's a spectacle of flaming excrement. If we follow this discussion back to—

My point is not that the elections have been stolen, in fact I don't care much, but how that election looks like to the outside world (means, the world outside the Western media bubble). It looks like stolen by the Dems.

—then this report—

See an analysis of these strange jumps: [link]

—only reinforces (Q)'s point↑. You are misinformed, to say the least.

†​

A more general observation has to do with conspiracist sloth: We do not wonder that one would put so little↑ effort↑ into promoting such a distraction. The report, called, "Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020", is posted by Vote Integrity, as part of the vote_pattern_analysis Substack. A subtitle describes, "A Quantitative Analysis of Decisive Vote Updates in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia on and after Election Night". This usage of the word, "decisive", is as dubious as some of the other language in the report. We can attend a different sort of word game in what passses for a defense↑ of the analysis, this having to do with a question of timing as a matter of concern↑ or not especially↑. It's particularly lazy as any manner of defense. The quantitative analysis, such as it pretends to be, is embarrassingly poorly executed crackpottery. And, sure, gullibility is as gullibility does, but this one was a low bar.
____________________

Notes:

BeMiller, Haley. "Fact check: No, Wisconsin did not take a break from counting election results". USA Today. 4 November 2020. USAToday.com. 1 December 2020. https://bit.ly/2KXr1W5

Schanz, Jenn. "Here's how absentee ballots are counted in Michigan". WXYZ. 3 November 2020. WXYZ.com. 1 December 2020. https://bit.ly/36s5A7W

Schouten, Fredreka. "Why mail-in ballots in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania were counted so late". CNN. 4 November 2020. CNN.com. 1 December 2020. https://cnn.it/3oqo2UH

Vote Integrity. "Anomalies in Vote Counts and Their Effects on Election 2020". vote_pattern_analysis. 24 November 2020. VotePatternAnalysis.Substack.com. 2 December 2020. https://bit.ly/3qfTG8V

[―fin―]​

 

[James R]

Think about what the world (except Western propaganda sheeple) believes if Trump claims that mail-in votes can be easily manipulated.

Nice try, but no cigar.

It does not follow that anybody who doubts your propaganda is a victim of false "Western propaganda". In fact, since you are clearly trying far too hard, it makes your motives (or those of your political masters/employers) that much more transparent.

It would have been easy for the Western propaganda to prove that this is a fake claim, by describing in detail all the already existing measures which would make a falsification of such votes impossible.

As you know, you're trying to put the onus of proof on the wrong side. What you need to do, if you think Trump is right (and I'm sure you know he isn't), is to prove that he is right. It is not up to anybody to prove that falsification of votes is impossible. You seemingly have the much easier task of showing that it actually happened. Why aren't you doing that, then?

But the only reaction I have seen in the Western press was "Trump is lying as usual", without providing evidence for this.

Clearly they don't let you read enough of the Western press.

Of course, all those not believing the Western propaganda are anyway in that basket of deplorables.

Not all. Some - those who spend their time on internet forums spreading misinformation and trying to sow division, for instance - might just be anti-Western activists with certain political aspirations, or simply foreign agents trying to undermine western democracy for the long-term benefit of the leadership of an autocratic regime.

As if would matter what those inside the Western propaganda bubble think about them - deplorables, Untermenschen, who cares. They know you want to rule and exploit them, and they don't want to be ruled and exploited by the US.

Don't let that mask slip too far! You'll give yourself away again.

The US deep state can afford nothing but such cheap personal attacks?

You think it takes one to know one, eh? No, Schmelzer. You just have to be aware of the world around you and understand people and their motivations.

Western propaganda was much better during the Cold War.

Pining for the old days when the pay was better?

Everything seems in decline in the West actually, even the propaganda.

I think you're projecting. Do you get depressed, having to put on the same act all the time? Surely there must be more honourable things you could do with your life. I realise it's probably not entirely your fault. Maybe you're stuck and can't see a way out. I almost feel sorry for you.

 

[iceaura]

What matters is that at the evening of the election day Trump looked like the winner. And, as a consequence, he can plausibly claim that the elections have been stolen.

Not "plausibly" - only a minority of Americans are that easily suckered.

Like I said above - the entire bullshit "argument" rests on the timing of those updates, and that was manipulated by the Republican Party. It was an item in the long list of Republican Party fraud attempts. You linked to a prime example.

The fact that Trump looked to the ignorant and gullible like he was winning at first is evidence of Republican, not Democratic, election fraud. When Trump and the Republican media feed moved right in with prepared accusations, that evidence was confirmed and by now approaches "proof".

It would have been easy for the Western propaganda to prove that this is a fake claim, by describing in detail all the already existing measures which would make a falsification of such votes impossible.

It isn't possible to "prove" anything to those dependent of the Republican media feed - like you, they have only the one source. To everyone else it was proved long ago - this isn't a new issue.

Think about what the world (except Western propaganda sheeple) believes if Trump claims that mail-in votes can be easily manipulated.

I have a higher opinion of the people of the world than to think they all believe what Trump says.

Blame yourself for this PR disaster. It would have been easy enough to regulate voter registration in such a way that this would have been impossible in principle.

The sensible analyst blames the propagandists for the propaganda - especially the outright lies, and the apparently intentional deceptions like that link you suckered for.
Meanwhile: I know honest and careful voter registration is possible - I live in a State that has it.
The Republican Party blocked many such efforts nationally and in States with Republican governance, but the others (and some of the Republican ones) generally have working systems with little fraud at that level.

Given the uncertain context, many American observers and commentators were immediately uncomfortable or skeptical of these trends.

To cut it off shorter: there weren't any "trends". The votes had all been cast, the event had happened.
The allegation that there were "trends" rests on the assumption that the timing of the updates was informative, raised legitimate doubts. That is bs, as Schmelzer's link showed (inadvertently, apparently - the linked expert seemed unaware of the existence of gerrymandering, even, let alone the Republican efforts to prevent, delay, and obstruct the counting of votes from probable Democratic voters).

 

[iceaura]

So you have information distributed around the world about how easy it would be to fake mail-in votes in the US, and only ad hominem against Trump from the other side. So the people will believe those who claim that it is easy to fake mail-in votes in the US. Such is life. The only exception are those believing everything told by Western propaganda.

You described how non-Americans could be fooled by Republican media feed deceptions (deceptive claims of how easy it would be to commit vote fraud using mail in votes, etc), and then you appear to assert that those not so easily deceived are the ones who believe "everything told by Western propaganda".

You are contradicting yourself, apparently in confusion. You seem to think the Republican media feed is not "Western propaganda" - if it isn't, what is?

 

[pjdude1219]

Think about what the world (except Western propaganda sheeple) believes if Trump claims that mail-in votes can be easily manipulated. It would have been easy for the Western propaganda to prove that this is a fake claim, by describing in detail all the already existing measures which would make a falsification of such votes impossible. But the only reaction I have seen in the Western press was "Trump is lying as usual", without providing evidence for this. The same level of argumentation which is typical for iceaura's 'you don't know'. (Which probably explains that iceaura's strategy may be successful for the sheeple here, given that iceaura gives all the same "arguments" they are used to get from the propaganda in their bubble too, so that he looks like "quality press" or so.) So, those with information sources outside the Western bubble will assume Trump is right, given that the straightforward reaction is missing. Instead, the Trump supporters provide at least some evidence, explaining how easy it is to throw away votes of Trump supporters, or people receiving by mail a lot of documents for mail-in voting for people not living at that address. And, of course, all the anti-American media around the world distribute this. So you have information distributed around the world about how easy it would be to fake mail-in votes in the US, and only ad hominem against Trump from the other side. So the people will believe those who claim that it is easy to fake mail-in votes in the US. Such is life. The only exception are those believing everything told by Western propaganda.

Of course, all those not believing the Western propaganda are anyway in that basket of deplorables. As if would matter what those inside the Western propaganda bubble think about them - deplorables, Untermenschen, who cares. They know you want to rule and exploit them, and they don't want to be ruled and exploited by the US.


My feelings are better named "fremdschämen" (external shame). The US deep state can afford nothing but such cheap personal attacks? Western propaganda was much better during the Cold War. Everything seems in decline in the West actually, even the propaganda.

is there a real response in this rambling of a madman? again no one thinks trump is right. most people are smarter than you. perhaps you shouldn't throw your fealty to thugs

 

[Schmelzer]

First of all, good work by Tiassa. The difference to iceaura cheap attacks is immense and impressive: Many many arguments really about the content of the arguments in the link. A rough look has shown me that some of the points made by Tiassa are quite plausible. I'm not sure if I find the time to answer these objections, this would require a lot of time. One thing is for sure: If I will use the link to https://votepatternanalysis.substack.com/p/voting-anomalies-2020 somewhere else, I will also add a link to http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-trump-presidency.158659/page-246#post-3656760 for counterarguments.

It does not follow that anybody who doubts your propaganda is a victim of false "Western propaganda". In fact, since you are clearly trying far too hard, it makes your motives (or those of your political masters/employers) that much more transparent.

"Far too hard" for what? I have never pretended to be some sort of objective neutral observer. I think the US is the most dangerous criminal organization in this world, and have never hidden this.

As you know, you're trying to put the onus of proof on the wrong side. What you need to do, if you think Trump is right (and I'm sure you know he isn't), is to prove that he is right. It is not up to anybody to prove that falsification of votes is impossible. You seemingly have the much easier task of showing that it actually happened. Why aren't you doing that, then?

Sorry, no. If I think the election has been stolen, this may be my personal opinion. Personal opinions don't require any proof. (And, as long as they are not supported by arguments, they are simply uninteresting personal opinions.) You may think the elections have been fair, that's your opinion, and you are not obliged to prove this too. (And it is also quite uninteresting.)

What I have seen as evidence I have presented. The aim was to look at the reaction here. The reaction before Tiassa's arguments was clearly in favor of the evidence (no reasonable counterarguments). Now Tiassa has changed this, and presented a lot of counterarguments. And my first impression from a rough reading is that this evidence seems less decisive than I thought. That's fine, it would be nice if this would happen much more often.

Clearly they don't let you read enough of the Western press.

LOL, there is nobody who decides about what I read except myself. I have to admit that I don't read very much of it. Let's note here the large qualitative difference between Tiassa and you: You could have proven your point by a single link to some Western paper where the impossibility of fraud with mail-in votes would have been shown in some detail. This should have been easy, given that the claims made by Trump have been widely discussed.

Don't let that mask slip too far! You'll give yourself away again.

Which mask? I don't hide my political ideas. The US is the most dangerous entity on this planet.

Pining for the old days when the pay was better?

LOL. The income I have made this year simply by not touching my bitcoins is many times of what I have spent this year. (Which I observed accidentally two days ago by looking at the actual bitcoin price. I don't care about this - this is simply a long-term investment.) If I write on my website that I'm independent I mean it.
Compare this situation with working as a scientist in an institute of the GDR Academy of science, as I did. In a communist state where "intelligentsia" were second class people in comparison with "working class" (which included those with jobs in army and party). Enough to live, but no luxury at all, family with two children living on 50 or so \(m^2\).

Surely there must be more honourable things you could do with your life. I realise it's probably not entirely your fault. Maybe you're stuck and can't see a way out. I almost feel sorry for you.

Fighting evil empires has always been a very honorable thing. So I'm proud that I have participated in the fight against communism 1989. And I'm proud now to participate in the fight against the US empire.

I see iceaura has answered. Nothing worth to answer, simply an illustration of the point made above about the comparison with Tiassa.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Sorry, no. If I think the election has been stolen, this may be my personal opinion. Personal opinions don't require any proof. (And, as long as they are not supported by arguments, they are simply uninteresting personal opinions.) You may think the elections have been fair, that's your opinion, and you are not obliged to prove this too. (And it is also quite uninteresting.)

believing something with out reason is in fact a definition of insanity...
The election would have to have been the most scrutinized in world history, so if there was any "systemic" voter fraud they would have found it...and they haven't as so many of trumps approaches to the Republican courts has proved.
The fact that even Republicans can not find the alleged fraud should tell you something...


Your intense fear of "power" drives you to claim all sorts of outrageous conspiracies...

So scared, you are little more than an irritating "mouse" (reference from the TV series Van Helsing)

 

[pjdude1219]

Fighting evil empires has always been a very honorable thing. So I'm proud that I have participated in the fight against communism 1989. And I'm proud now to participate in the fight against the US empire.

which is why you support a country that has illegally invaded its neighbors and illegally annexed their territory?

lets be real. based on your persona you are little more than nutjob with delusions of granduer. the us is far from perfect and has done many terrible things but to say its above say china or russia as dangerous enitities is laughable.

 

[LazarusLong]

Tiassa is completely on point with that assessment.

trump is 1-41 in lawsuits.

Their star witness in yesterday’s sham of a hearing was some drunk woman who couldn’t explain how she concluded that poll books she apparently looked at were off by “a hunnerd thousandt”... Another person they brought out said that he couldn’t tell the difference between Chinese people, so how could you prove they were legal? This should be pretty embarrassing for everyone involved.. I think Rudy must get paid triple time for “hearings”...

 

[Quantum Quack]

First of all, good work by Tiassa. The difference to iceaura cheap attacks is immense and impressive: Many many arguments really about the content of the arguments in the link. A rough look has shown me that some of the points made by Tiassa are quite plausible. I'm not sure if I find the time to answer these objections, this would require a lot of time. One thing is for sure: If I will use the link to https://votepatternanalysis.substack.com/p/voting-anomalies-2020 somewhere else, I will also add a link to http://www.sciforums.com/threads/the-trump-presidency.158659/page-246#post-3656760 for counterarguments.


"Far too hard" for what? I have never pretended to be some sort of objective neutral observer. I think the US is the most dangerous criminal organization in this world, and have never hidden this.

Sorry, no. If I think the election has been stolen, this may be my personal opinion. Personal opinions don't require any proof. (And, as long as they are not supported by arguments, they are simply uninteresting personal opinions.) You may think the elections have been fair, that's your opinion, and you are not obliged to prove this too. (And it is also quite uninteresting.)

What I have seen as evidence I have presented. The aim was to look at the reaction here. The reaction before Tiassa's arguments was clearly in favor of the evidence (no reasonable counterarguments). Now Tiassa has changed this, and presented a lot of counterarguments. And my first impression from a rough reading is that this evidence seems less decisive than I thought. That's fine, it would be nice if this would happen much more often.

LOL, there is nobody who decides about what I read except myself. I have to admit that I don't read very much of it. Let's note here the large qualitative difference between Tiassa and you: You could have proven your point by a single link to some Western paper where the impossibility of fraud with mail-in votes would have been shown in some detail. This should have been easy, given that the claims made by Trump have been widely discussed.

Which mask? I don't hide my political ideas. The US is the most dangerous entity on this planet.

LOL. The income I have made this year simply by not touching my bitcoins is many times of what I have spent this year. (Which I observed accidentally two days ago by looking at the actual bitcoin price. I don't care about this - this is simply a long-term investment.) If I write on my website that I'm independent I mean it.
Compare this situation with working as a scientist in an institute of the GDR Academy of science, as I did. In a communist state where "intelligentsia" were second class people in comparison with "working class" (which included those with jobs in army and party). Enough to live, but no luxury at all, family with two children living on 50 or so \(m^2\).

Fighting evil empires has always been a very honorable thing. So I'm proud that I have participated in the fight against communism 1989. And I'm proud now to participate in the fight against the US empire.

I see iceaura has answered. Nothing worth to answer, simply an illustration of the point made above about the comparison with Tiassa.

Used the word "I" 26 times in one post... what is wrong? That's less than you normally do?

 

[LazarusLong]

which is why you support a country that has illegally invaded its neighbors and illegally annexed their territory?

lets be real. based on your persona you are little more than nutjob with delusions of granduer. the us is far from perfect and has done many terrible things but to say its above say china or russia as dangerous enitities is laughable.

It seems to me that the US is far more dangerous if this deranged, narcissistic lunatic is successful in his coup attempt. The US with an authoritarian leader with no checks and balances is very dangerous.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Tiassa is completely on point with that assessment.

trump is 1-41 in lawsuits.

Their star witness in yesterday’s sham of a hearing was some drunk woman who couldn’t explain how she concluded that poll books she apparently looked at were off by “a hunnerd thousandt”... Another person they brought out said that he couldn’t tell the difference between Chinese people, so how could you prove they were legal? This should be pretty embarrassing for everyone involved.. I think Rudy must get paid triple time for “hearings”...

What I am having trouble understanding is that when a citizen makes a false allegation to law enforcement they normally get charged with False reporting... but Trump can report falsely as much as he likes with out penalty. What penalty should trump endure for bringing the election in to disrepute with out a shred of evidence to support it?
Victoria Au.
with punishments of up to a year in prison or a fine of 120 penalty units (what are penalty units?). That's a big fine. You may also be required to pay for expenses that the government has had to cover as a result of your lies.
Note for Schmelzer: I only used the "I" word once...

 

[Quantum Quack]

The US with an authoritarian leader with no checks and balances is very dangerous.

which is why Schmelzer 's desire to see the USA become a totalitarian regime doesn't make sense. He is actually hoping that the USA will become considerably more dangerous on the world stage than it already is...which frankly is totally crazy...

 

[Schmelzer]

believing something with out reason is in fact a definition of insanity...
The election would have to have been the most scrutinized in world history, so if there was any "systemic" voter fraud they would have found it...and they haven't as so many of trumps approaches to the Republican courts has proved.
The fact that even Republicans can not find the alleged fraud should tell you something...

Sorry,but it is one think to see that some election has been faked and a quite different to prove this in court. I don't think Trump will win in the courts, independent of the question if the election was stolen or not.

Your intense fear of "power" drives you to claim all sorts of outrageous conspiracies...

As usual, if you speculate about me you are completely off. "Fear of power", LOL. I have participated in demonstrations against the Honecker regime at. 7. october 1989 and seen a water cannon in action. Because there have never been such demonstrations, nobody has even known that the communist police has such water cannons.

... which is why Schmelzer 's desire to see the USA become a totalitarian regime doesn't make sense. He is actually hoping that the USA will become considerably more dangerous on the world stage than it already is...which frankly is totally crazy...

On the international scene, the US with Biden is much closer to war than with Trump. Biden was part of a team which has started several civil wars by supporting local terrorists. Trump has not done such things. Trump's actions dangerous for world peace (bombing two time empty airports in agreement with Russia in Syria, murdering Suleimani, and the attempts to overthrow Maduro have been an important escalation level below what has been done by the Obama gang in Libya, Syria and Ukraine. And all this with the worst of the Rep hawks, Now the same hawks who have started those wars will be in power again.

Inside the US, I also think that the totalitarian danger is much greater under the left. The SJW are totalitarian, and they have strong enough support among the Dems, AOC and so on. Which part of the right could be named totalitarian? The alt-right? They seem to be not much more than but a social media reaction to the SJW (iceaura will, of course, say that I know nothing about them), and have not shown any political power after Bannon has been fired.

Would be a totalitarian US more dangerous? I doubt. The situation is already on the level where the only thing which prevents the US to start wars is sufficient military deterrence on the other side. Once this is given, a totalitarian rule may be even safer - it will attack only if it can win, while democracies may start wars for internal reasons like creating popular support for the actual government. Totalitarians already have secured the "popular support", no need to start wars to gain it.

The other point is that a move toward totalitarism will do some useful things. First, it will not be that easy to establish totalitarian rule, given that the US population is armed. So, to establish it will need some time, time full of internal conflict. Internal conflict weakens the US externally. Then, once established, a totalitarian regime will harm the US economically. This will weaken also the US military power.

Used the word "I" 26 times in one post... what is wrong?

Nothing. Usually the posts I answer are full of personal attacks, and to correct them, I have to describe my real position. Your counting my use of "I" is an example - in the answer I have to explain why I use "I", thus, the answer contains a lot of "I". Other people would prefer to answer personal attacks with own personal attacks. This would not require the use of "I".

Then I prefer to distinguish my personal estimates from facts using "I think" or so, something you don't. So you need less "I".

 

[Schmelzer]

which is why you support a country that has illegally invaded its neighbors and illegally annexed their territory?

No. The usual trivial error of thinking I believe Western propaganda.

lets be real. based on your persona you are little more than nutjob with delusions of granduer. the us is far from perfect and has done many terrible things but to say its above say china or russia as dangerous enitities is laughable.

The US aim is world rule. Neither Russia nor China want world rule. The US starts wars on a regular basis, Trump being the exception of a president who has not started a war. Neither Russia nor China have started wars during the last decades.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Sorry,but it is one think to see that some election has been faked and a quite different to prove this in court. I don't think Trump will win in the courts, independent of the question if the election was stolen or not.

people are entitled to believe in pink flying elephants too... sooo?

As usual, if you speculate about me you are completely off. "Fear of power", LOL. I have participated in demonstrations against the Honecker regime at. 7. october 1989 and seen a water cannon in action. Because there have never been such demonstrations, nobody has even known that the communist police has such water cannons.

oh there is no doubt that you are a true believer in the phrase "power corrupts". The very fundamental of a conspiracy theorist mind set.. yes? Born of severe oppression by corrupt powers such as the USSR etc...
The nature of post cold war trauma is not to be underestimated. ** ( on both sides )
Never knowing when there is going to be a home invasion by men wearing balaclavas and black gear...must be terrifying...

On the international scene, the US with Biden is much closer to war than with Trump. Biden was part of a team which has started several civil wars by supporting local terrorists. Trump has not done such things. Trump's actions dangerous for world peace (bombing two time empty airports in agreement with Russia in Syria, murdering Suleimani, and the attempts to overthrow Maduro have been an important escalation level below what has been done by the Obama gang in Libya, Syria and Ukraine. And all this with the worst of the Rep hawks, Now the same hawks who have started those wars will be in power again.

again there is that fear of power shining through... paranoid speculation as such...

Inside the US, I also think that the totalitarian danger is much greater under the left.

but you believe in pink flying elephants so why would I take your beliefs seriously?

Would be a totalitarian US more dangerous? I doubt.

seriously?... uh ok..

Nothing. Usually the posts I answer are full of personal attacks, and to correct them, I have to describe my real position. Your counting my use of "I" is an example - in the answer I have to explain why I use "I", thus, the answer contains a lot of "I". Other people would prefer to answer personal attacks with own personal attacks. This would not require the use of "I".

Then I prefer to distinguish my personal estimates from facts using "I think" or so, something you don't. So you need less "I".

If you are so self focused as you demonstrate, of course using the "I" all the time makes sense... "I believe....." and just fill in the blanks..
Maybe you could learn to seek other opinions because surely you already know your own...

** there is much to discuss about just this issue of post oppression trauma IMO.
I have many friends here that are from Eastern Europe that have suffered terribly during the Soviet and allied regimes. Romanian, Hungarian, Former republic of Yugoslavia and so on...My own father escaped the Soviets in 1952 and suffered PTSD ever since...
Fortunately Australia was very cathartic for him...

 

[Quantum Quack]

The US aim is world rule. Neither Russia nor China want world rule.

total nonsense.. and I can prove it... just by looking around were I live...not a yank in sight, no guns, no oppression...just good 'ole Australian freedom..