If 5% of the people that voted straight party ticket voted republican (a positive number of people), and 20% of the people that voted single candidate voted for Trump (a positive number of people), you would get 5%-20% = -15% difference. The -15% is not how many people voted, as that number is still positive, its just the difference in % of the 2 catagories.
He thinks the X axis was republican turnout overall rather than the percentage of republicans that walk in click one button that auto-fills the rest, then yeet the fucker at the counter.
No, I do get that.
So we are looking the difference between straight party vote vs individual candidates.
Let's undue the subtraction to get the percentage for Trump, okay? So we take that 5%, and add it to the -20%. that's -15%. how Does Trump get to -15% of the in individual vote???
I can't tell if you're dense or what because it was explained to you in this thread.
-15% is the margin of expectation to reality, not a total vote count. In a population whith 80% republicans, it may be fair to expect an 80% vote for trump. If 80% are republicans and only 65% voted for trump, you see a -15% margin in the republican base.
It gets interesting when the chart shows that the more republican the area , the more biden is winning. Suggests a big population of hardcore republicans and literally everyone else is a never trumper)
That's a potentially fair assessment.
It's not about any single place. It's that there is that point where once a certain number of straight party republicans turn out, a scaling number of independent never trumpers turn out with increasing numbers, scaled linerarly with the number of republicans. You might explain this by saying the more loud and proud republicans in an area, the more never trumpers would show up to lift a finger. But you're not making that suggestion.
First, it's Individual % minu Straight %, so I think in this example the plotted point would be at X = 5%, Y = 15% (20% - 5%). This would have been above the red line on Shiva's chart.
What this is saying isn't that Trump got 15% of the individual vote (or -15% in the reverse but I believe incorrect reverse calculation). He got 20%. What its showing is how much the Individual Vote % out- or under-performed the Straight Vote %. Shiva's point is that in increasingly Republican precincts, the spread between the Individual Vote and Straight Vote shouldn't be negatively increasing on a constant slope.
The data point we are refering to indicates that 5% (X) of republican straight party voters voted for Trump, while 25% of single candidate voters voted for trump. 5-25 =-20 giving (X=5,Y=-20)
Incorrect. that math is x - individual votes, not individual votes - x.
If 25% of single candidate voters voted for trump, that would be a +20, not a -20.
I don't believe there really is an infraction point. My main point is that the most questionable graph is the one he claims is normal. He is trying to get you to ignore the fraudulent graphs.
I'm an engineer, but I didn't understand much of it. It didn't seem like concrete proof of anything. There were plenty of other anomalies worth checking out.
lmfao this guy and this video posted to an account with no other content. Either here or youtube. Same jackass posted the image last night.
Refused to explain his background, education, how he managed to perform the analysis. Anything that would allow another scientist/engineer to confirm his results.
only a fucking liberal would make a video with the "#1 conclusion" state that some PhD from MIT is dumb or lying.
... without even bothering to dispute the actual critical evidence of the bent line (straight line to 20, then downward).
Random numbers go downward... but doens't post the data or the methods to create the random data.
My God I love watching liberals get angry.
The entire thing is like I generated some data that I say is randomized (believe me) and it doesn't even match the thing the MIT PhD said, but therefore it invalidates what he said.
Not to mention that someone willing to use their real name on both Youtube (1 other 8 year old creeper video) and TD (no other content) yet not link their youtube to their linkedin or any other professional medium. Glowy as all fuck.
an 8 year old video I didn't know I had, that I made of my sister pretending to be me when she was 6 and I was 15, don't judge me for what I did with my Youtube account when I was a child.
come one now. You don't get to come out of nowhere with bold claims, completely misrepresenting the source material, have a sketch history on both platforms and think anyone is going to care.
You should email Dr Shiva and walk through your concerns with him.
I'm not a liberal at all. Did you watch to the end? The Wayne County, which is super far Democratic is the one he says is perfect. Isn't that odd? He is trying to get you to look into Republican districts. He's trying to distract you from the real fraud.
There are precincts in there that legitimately have negative Trump votes, according to his own data. Explain that?
You didn't address the bent line, which is the actual key to his analysis since that is the most artificial aspect of the chart.
You didn't address last night, in this video, or now how you generated the raw random data to begin this method.
You didn't address whether you believe pseudo random data is relevant to a real world population you're modeling. You might have actually just shown that a downward slope is a legitimate artifact of attempting to be random rather than a realistic model of actual human society, furthering Dr. Shiva's point.
You didn't publish your methods, just graphs and conclusions. Amateur as fuck.
Quite frankly the worst of all, you chose to use your #1 conclusion to attack another scientist. You didn't seem to make any attempt to reach Dr Shiva or the other 2 guys before publishing for a comment. Shit at least Fake News NYT emails the guy and 5 minutes later drops a "XXX coulnd't be reached for comment". Destroys the credibility completely right there.
Then you come here to post a video and in the comments you ask me to explain why trump has negative votes. I don't care. If you want to swim in the shit with us, great. If you want to pretend to be an academic, you need to sort that shit out with them.
Also, I think some serious shit went down in Wayne County but it's not explainable by Dr. Shiva's analysis, which is a tool designed for a different purpose. However, this is worth thinking more about.
People shouldn't get so excited by something that appears to go in their favor that they inadvertently fall in traps. Need to be only solid footing with everything.
you have a point that the slope itself can be accounted for by suggesting there are diehard republicans and fuck-trumpers, thats it, thats all that exists.
There is no explanation on why that scenario seems to have an abrupt activation point rather than a curve. OP omitted that very key point in this rebuttal and doesn't seem to understand the point of the graph either.
Wow, not sure why people are making solid critiques and then getting all bent out of shape with ad hominem attacks. He's making a response to Dr. Shiva, which is what we should do. The man can't think? If he's not taking something into account, we should be able to logically challenge that and let the ideas battle it out. The better one will win. Let's all check each other guys, we don't want to go to war on a flimsy theory.
That said, I'm going to watch Dr. Shiva's video again tonight with your analysis in mind, but from what I understood, he was creating two SEPARATE buckets of voters:
(1) people who vote straight ticket (all R's or D's) (call these "Straight Voters"); and
(2) people who vote something less than straight ticket (could be Trump and 5 democrats, Biden and 5 republicans, or some other combination) ( call these "Individual Voters").
My understanding is this: These two buckets are separate, and each can have somewhere between 0 and 100 percentage points. Trump Straight Voters are in a separate bucket from Trump Individual Voeters.
Shiva was calculating what % of Straight Voters vote straight Republican in a county. He was then saying of the Individual Voters, what percentage chose Trump for President. For purposes of his conclusion, he appears to be making the assumption that the more Republican Straight Voters you have in a precinct, you should have the same or more Trump Individual Voters; or, at least, you shouldn't have increasingly less Trump Individual Voters. He doesn't clearly state this assumption, which is one issue I take with the video. But I guess it's reasonable, I need to think about it more.
In any event, he's then subtracting the % of Individual Voter bucket that voted for Trump from the % of Straight Voter bucket that voted for Republicans. That is the "Y as a function of X" you're talking about. He's agreeing with you that negative numbers don't make much sense, but increasingly negative numbers on a precise slope make even less sense. Why would a precinct that votes 90% Straight Party R have its Individual Voters 20% less likely to choose Trump?
I'm not sure you're completely segregating the Straight Voter and Individual Voter buckets here for purposes of calculating % differences. If you do, I think you'll see that's how you get negative numbers: you're talking about two sets each of which consist of 100 percentage points and subtracting the Trump Individual Voter % from the Trump Straight Voter %. Trump Individual Voters are not part of the Trump Straight Voter buckets, and vice versa.
So, if you have 90% Trump Straight Voters and 60% Trump Individual Voters, you get -30% on Shiva's chart. He's saying that doesn't make sense, and the fact that it occurs on a precise negative slope is an artifact of an algorithm. I think.
Would love to know if people interpreted it differently.
OP may have actually just provided more evidence of fraud in that a downward slope can be created by using a random number generator (not even a sophisticated algorithm). These people weren't smart, they just triggered a dice roll when a given population appeared when that data model was unsuitable for the target population.
Thanks, agreed. And I made one mistake at the end: Shiva is subtracting Trump Straight Voter % from Trump Individual Voter %, not the other way around.
If Republicans get 100% of the vote, and Trump gets 100% of the vote, the maximum possible, they can only get to 0. 100% - 100% = 0. If there is a single individual ballot that goes for Biden, in the precinct, it will be negative. The Line always slopes down. Upward Slope is impossible. it can only be straight or downward.
It's only impossible in your example. What if Republicans get 40% on Straight Tickets and Trump gets 60% from Individual Voters? Then the plotted point goes above the red line. The point would be 40% on the x-axis, and +20% on the y-axis. In that case, the data would be telling us Trump is performing better among Individual Voters than Straight Voters. That's what the data all the way to the left of Shiva's chart was showing: that in places where people rarely voted Straight Republican, they were choosing Trump at a greater rate among Individual Voters. Then the line starts to slope down at ~20% Republican Straight Votes.
You're correct that if Republicans got 100% Straight Vote and Trump got 100% Individual Vote, it would be squarely on the red line as r_u_srs says below, and that if Biden got one vote, it would be slightly below the red line. But that would not be an anomaly, as Shiva clearly says. Now if Republicans got 100% on the Straight Votes and Trump got 70% on the Individual Votes, you'd have a plotted point all the way to the right, and -30% down. That would be surprising. It would be even more surprising if that point is at the tail end of a perfectly downward slope, which it is. That's the point.
I'm aware that it can be above the line. As I show, there is an upper bound and a lower bound. my point is, at the far right, Trump cannot get a positive value. at the far left, Trump cannot get a negative value. at Republicans getting 60%, Trump cannot be more than +40%, and cannot be less than -60%. at 70%, Trump cannot be more than +30%, and cannot be less than -70%. at 80%, Trump cannot be be higher than +20, and cannot be lower than -80%. at 90% Trump cannot be higher than +10%, and cannot be lower than -90%. at 100%, Trump cannot be higher than +0%, and cannot be lower than -100%.
There are numbers that are impossible in that graph. Republicans got 5% of the vote. that means that the highest Trump can get is +95%. the lowest Trump can get is -5%, because that would be 0%. But he has -20%. that means his % of the individual ballots is -15%.
The normal graph has the most fraudulent shit on it.
I agree with you that the -15% is impossible, and it looks like you have that in Wayne County. That needs to be explained. To the extent you're saying you disagree with Shiva's conclusion that "no cheating" occurred in Wayne County, I agree with you. It may have just been a different kind of cheating from what Shiva is positing took place here, and perhaps what you are noticing is a hint. But in any event, it should be explained, and it's unfortunate Shiva either didn't notice or didn't feel like going into it on the video. Or maybe I missed his explanation, I'll watch closely next time.
On the second point, I disagree it would be +30. It would be -30 because it would be Individual - Straight (60-90). Trump underperformed amongst individual voters compared to straight party voters.
When you're saying 90% Trump Straight Part votes, that means the people voted Trump along with every other republican on the ballot. He can't "outperform" the party there; but he can out or underperform them when comparing % straight ticket voters against Trump individual voters.
don't agree with that. -15% is an artifact of OP not understanding what he's looking at.
There is no metric or absolute value of straight ticket voters. "Straight ticket voters" is a conceptual analysis benchmark meant to serve as an "expected" baseline value based on the real metric of number of registered republicans that voted, it's not a real thing.
OP is treating it like a real thing and that's why he's confused.
The only real data available is a complete list of who voted and their party affiliation as well as the reported vote count. No further breakdown.
The red line on the chart is nothing more than a bar that shows in a population where 10% of the actual voters are registered republican, 0% margin means Trump got 10% of the vote. Blue dots above that line mean dems and independents voted for trump more than republicans voted for someone else.
As it turns out, the more registered republicans that voted, the worse trump ended up doing (meaning in heavily republican areas, voters disliked trump). There's actual explination for that behavior (RINOS). Nothing wrong with that.
The issue is that it seems to have an activation threshold and that the heavier the more republican the precinct, the more RINOs it appeard to have. That's weird, but nowhere near as weird as the activation threshold (bend in the line)
Thanks, I’ll rewatch the Dr. Shiva again tonight with this in mind about the straight ticket voters being a conceptual benchmark rather than an actual
numbers such that the negative points at the left of the chart would make sense.
In your example, the lowest that point could be is -5%. That would be if Trump got 5% of straight party votes and 0% of individual votes.
As you say, look at Wayne County. You have a point at x = 4%, y = -20%. To your point, that makes no sense. The lowest that point could be on the y-axis is -4% if Trump got 0% of the individual voters.
So you think that there is more fraud in Oakland County than in Wayne County? You think there is no obvious fraud in the Wayne county graph, compared to the other counties?
Guy is also claiming Trump got negative votes around 4 minutes, he clearly doesn't understand the graph he's looking at.
If Republicans get 5% of the vote, and Trump underperforms them by 20%, how many Votes did Trump get?
If 5% of the people that voted straight party ticket voted republican (a positive number of people), and 20% of the people that voted single candidate voted for Trump (a positive number of people), you would get 5%-20% = -15% difference. The -15% is not how many people voted, as that number is still positive, its just the difference in % of the 2 catagories.
yea, this guy doesn't get it.
He thinks the X axis was republican turnout overall rather than the percentage of republicans that walk in click one button that auto-fills the rest, then yeet the fucker at the counter.
No, I do get that. So we are looking the difference between straight party vote vs individual candidates.
Let's undue the subtraction to get the percentage for Trump, okay? So we take that 5%, and add it to the -20%. that's -15%. how Does Trump get to -15% of the in individual vote???
I can't tell if you're dense or what because it was explained to you in this thread.
-15% is the margin of expectation to reality, not a total vote count. In a population whith 80% republicans, it may be fair to expect an 80% vote for trump. If 80% are republicans and only 65% voted for trump, you see a -15% margin in the republican base.
It gets interesting when the chart shows that the more republican the area , the more biden is winning. Suggests a big population of hardcore republicans and literally everyone else is a never trumper)
That's a potentially fair assessment.
It's not about any single place. It's that there is that point where once a certain number of straight party republicans turn out, a scaling number of independent never trumpers turn out with increasing numbers, scaled linerarly with the number of republicans. You might explain this by saying the more loud and proud republicans in an area, the more never trumpers would show up to lift a finger. But you're not making that suggestion.
First, it's Individual % minu Straight %, so I think in this example the plotted point would be at X = 5%, Y = 15% (20% - 5%). This would have been above the red line on Shiva's chart.
What this is saying isn't that Trump got 15% of the individual vote (or -15% in the reverse but I believe incorrect reverse calculation). He got 20%. What its showing is how much the Individual Vote % out- or under-performed the Straight Vote %. Shiva's point is that in increasingly Republican precincts, the spread between the Individual Vote and Straight Vote shouldn't be negatively increasing on a constant slope.
The data point we are refering to indicates that 5% (X) of republican straight party voters voted for Trump, while 25% of single candidate voters voted for trump. 5-25 =-20 giving (X=5,Y=-20)
Incorrect. that math is x - individual votes, not individual votes - x. If 25% of single candidate voters voted for trump, that would be a +20, not a -20.
well either way its not negative votes
His analysis has issues but this is not what he graphed
Yeah, you're missing the infraction point that was identified, where this kicked in.
I don't believe there really is an infraction point. My main point is that the most questionable graph is the one he claims is normal. He is trying to get you to ignore the fraudulent graphs.
dude, seriously, you don't think the bend in the average is an infraction point?
the slope of the average abruptly changes by a large amount at an explainable cutoff. That's the point.
The point I got was a graph that was normal, normal, normal, then at a certain % an algorithm kicked in.
How old are you, 12?
What? This has been DEBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONKED!
I'm an engineer, but I didn't understand much of it. It didn't seem like concrete proof of anything. There were plenty of other anomalies worth checking out.
lmfao this guy and this video posted to an account with no other content. Either here or youtube. Same jackass posted the image last night.
Refused to explain his background, education, how he managed to perform the analysis. Anything that would allow another scientist/engineer to confirm his results.
only a fucking liberal would make a video with the "#1 conclusion" state that some PhD from MIT is dumb or lying.
... without even bothering to dispute the actual critical evidence of the bent line (straight line to 20, then downward).
Random numbers go downward... but doens't post the data or the methods to create the random data.
My God I love watching liberals get angry.
The entire thing is like I generated some data that I say is randomized (believe me) and it doesn't even match the thing the MIT PhD said, but therefore it invalidates what he said.
Not to mention that someone willing to use their real name on both Youtube (1 other 8 year old creeper video) and TD (no other content) yet not link their youtube to their linkedin or any other professional medium. Glowy as all fuck.
an 8 year old video I didn't know I had, that I made of my sister pretending to be me when she was 6 and I was 15, don't judge me for what I did with my Youtube account when I was a child.
come one now. You don't get to come out of nowhere with bold claims, completely misrepresenting the source material, have a sketch history on both platforms and think anyone is going to care.
You should email Dr Shiva and walk through your concerns with him.
I'm not a liberal at all. Did you watch to the end? The Wayne County, which is super far Democratic is the one he says is perfect. Isn't that odd? He is trying to get you to look into Republican districts. He's trying to distract you from the real fraud.
There are precincts in there that legitimately have negative Trump votes, according to his own data. Explain that?
You didn't address the bent line, which is the actual key to his analysis since that is the most artificial aspect of the chart.
You didn't address last night, in this video, or now how you generated the raw random data to begin this method.
You didn't address whether you believe pseudo random data is relevant to a real world population you're modeling. You might have actually just shown that a downward slope is a legitimate artifact of attempting to be random rather than a realistic model of actual human society, furthering Dr. Shiva's point.
You didn't publish your methods, just graphs and conclusions. Amateur as fuck.
Quite frankly the worst of all, you chose to use your #1 conclusion to attack another scientist. You didn't seem to make any attempt to reach Dr Shiva or the other 2 guys before publishing for a comment. Shit at least Fake News NYT emails the guy and 5 minutes later drops a "XXX coulnd't be reached for comment". Destroys the credibility completely right there.
Then you come here to post a video and in the comments you ask me to explain why trump has negative votes. I don't care. If you want to swim in the shit with us, great. If you want to pretend to be an academic, you need to sort that shit out with them.
Also, I think some serious shit went down in Wayne County but it's not explainable by Dr. Shiva's analysis, which is a tool designed for a different purpose. However, this is worth thinking more about.
People shouldn't get so excited by something that appears to go in their favor that they inadvertently fall in traps. Need to be only solid footing with everything.
you have a point that the slope itself can be accounted for by suggesting there are diehard republicans and fuck-trumpers, thats it, thats all that exists.
There is no explanation on why that scenario seems to have an abrupt activation point rather than a curve. OP omitted that very key point in this rebuttal and doesn't seem to understand the point of the graph either.
Wow, not sure why people are making solid critiques and then getting all bent out of shape with ad hominem attacks. He's making a response to Dr. Shiva, which is what we should do. The man can't think? If he's not taking something into account, we should be able to logically challenge that and let the ideas battle it out. The better one will win. Let's all check each other guys, we don't want to go to war on a flimsy theory.
That said, I'm going to watch Dr. Shiva's video again tonight with your analysis in mind, but from what I understood, he was creating two SEPARATE buckets of voters:
(1) people who vote straight ticket (all R's or D's) (call these "Straight Voters"); and
(2) people who vote something less than straight ticket (could be Trump and 5 democrats, Biden and 5 republicans, or some other combination) ( call these "Individual Voters").
My understanding is this: These two buckets are separate, and each can have somewhere between 0 and 100 percentage points. Trump Straight Voters are in a separate bucket from Trump Individual Voeters.
Shiva was calculating what % of Straight Voters vote straight Republican in a county. He was then saying of the Individual Voters, what percentage chose Trump for President. For purposes of his conclusion, he appears to be making the assumption that the more Republican Straight Voters you have in a precinct, you should have the same or more Trump Individual Voters; or, at least, you shouldn't have increasingly less Trump Individual Voters. He doesn't clearly state this assumption, which is one issue I take with the video. But I guess it's reasonable, I need to think about it more.
In any event, he's then subtracting the % of Individual Voter bucket that voted for Trump from the % of Straight Voter bucket that voted for Republicans. That is the "Y as a function of X" you're talking about. He's agreeing with you that negative numbers don't make much sense, but increasingly negative numbers on a precise slope make even less sense. Why would a precinct that votes 90% Straight Party R have its Individual Voters 20% less likely to choose Trump?
I'm not sure you're completely segregating the Straight Voter and Individual Voter buckets here for purposes of calculating % differences. If you do, I think you'll see that's how you get negative numbers: you're talking about two sets each of which consist of 100 percentage points and subtracting the Trump Individual Voter % from the Trump Straight Voter %. Trump Individual Voters are not part of the Trump Straight Voter buckets, and vice versa.
So, if you have 90% Trump Straight Voters and 60% Trump Individual Voters, you get -30% on Shiva's chart. He's saying that doesn't make sense, and the fact that it occurs on a precise negative slope is an artifact of an algorithm. I think.
Would love to know if people interpreted it differently.
you interpreted correct, OP didn't understand.
OP may have actually just provided more evidence of fraud in that a downward slope can be created by using a random number generator (not even a sophisticated algorithm). These people weren't smart, they just triggered a dice roll when a given population appeared when that data model was unsuitable for the target population.
Thanks, agreed. And I made one mistake at the end: Shiva is subtracting Trump Straight Voter % from Trump Individual Voter %, not the other way around.
If Republicans get 100% of the vote, and Trump gets 100% of the vote, the maximum possible, they can only get to 0. 100% - 100% = 0. If there is a single individual ballot that goes for Biden, in the precinct, it will be negative. The Line always slopes down. Upward Slope is impossible. it can only be straight or downward.
if the voting records indicate 60% of the vote was registered republicans
if trump wins 65%, thats a +5% margin (ind or dems voted trump too)
if trump only won 55%, that's a -5% margin (reps didn't vote trump)
if trump wins 60%, that's a 0% margin (on the red line dems/reps/ind traded votes if anything)
It's only impossible in your example. What if Republicans get 40% on Straight Tickets and Trump gets 60% from Individual Voters? Then the plotted point goes above the red line. The point would be 40% on the x-axis, and +20% on the y-axis. In that case, the data would be telling us Trump is performing better among Individual Voters than Straight Voters. That's what the data all the way to the left of Shiva's chart was showing: that in places where people rarely voted Straight Republican, they were choosing Trump at a greater rate among Individual Voters. Then the line starts to slope down at ~20% Republican Straight Votes.
You're correct that if Republicans got 100% Straight Vote and Trump got 100% Individual Vote, it would be squarely on the red line as r_u_srs says below, and that if Biden got one vote, it would be slightly below the red line. But that would not be an anomaly, as Shiva clearly says. Now if Republicans got 100% on the Straight Votes and Trump got 70% on the Individual Votes, you'd have a plotted point all the way to the right, and -30% down. That would be surprising. It would be even more surprising if that point is at the tail end of a perfectly downward slope, which it is. That's the point.
I'm aware that it can be above the line. As I show, there is an upper bound and a lower bound. my point is, at the far right, Trump cannot get a positive value. at the far left, Trump cannot get a negative value. at Republicans getting 60%, Trump cannot be more than +40%, and cannot be less than -60%. at 70%, Trump cannot be more than +30%, and cannot be less than -70%. at 80%, Trump cannot be be higher than +20, and cannot be lower than -80%. at 90% Trump cannot be higher than +10%, and cannot be lower than -90%. at 100%, Trump cannot be higher than +0%, and cannot be lower than -100%.
There are numbers that are impossible in that graph. Republicans got 5% of the vote. that means that the highest Trump can get is +95%. the lowest Trump can get is -5%, because that would be 0%. But he has -20%. that means his % of the individual ballots is -15%.
The normal graph has the most fraudulent shit on it.
Okay: so to make it clearer:
% of Individual votes for Trump goes from 0-100. % of Straight party votes for Republicans goes from 0-100.
the x-axis = % of Straight party votes for Republicans the y-axis = % of Individual votes for Trump minus % of Straight party votes for Republicans
So if the x-axis = 5%, and the y-axis = -20%, to get the %of Individual Votes for Trump is -15%, which is impossible.
If you have 90% Trump Straight Voters, and 60% Trump Individual voters, that is a +30, not a -30, because Trump outperformed the party.
I agree with you that the -15% is impossible, and it looks like you have that in Wayne County. That needs to be explained. To the extent you're saying you disagree with Shiva's conclusion that "no cheating" occurred in Wayne County, I agree with you. It may have just been a different kind of cheating from what Shiva is positing took place here, and perhaps what you are noticing is a hint. But in any event, it should be explained, and it's unfortunate Shiva either didn't notice or didn't feel like going into it on the video. Or maybe I missed his explanation, I'll watch closely next time.
On the second point, I disagree it would be +30. It would be -30 because it would be Individual - Straight (60-90). Trump underperformed amongst individual voters compared to straight party voters.
When you're saying 90% Trump Straight Part votes, that means the people voted Trump along with every other republican on the ballot. He can't "outperform" the party there; but he can out or underperform them when comparing % straight ticket voters against Trump individual voters.
don't agree with that. -15% is an artifact of OP not understanding what he's looking at.
There is no metric or absolute value of straight ticket voters. "Straight ticket voters" is a conceptual analysis benchmark meant to serve as an "expected" baseline value based on the real metric of number of registered republicans that voted, it's not a real thing.
OP is treating it like a real thing and that's why he's confused.
The only real data available is a complete list of who voted and their party affiliation as well as the reported vote count. No further breakdown.
The red line on the chart is nothing more than a bar that shows in a population where 10% of the actual voters are registered republican, 0% margin means Trump got 10% of the vote. Blue dots above that line mean dems and independents voted for trump more than republicans voted for someone else.
As it turns out, the more registered republicans that voted, the worse trump ended up doing (meaning in heavily republican areas, voters disliked trump). There's actual explination for that behavior (RINOS). Nothing wrong with that.
The issue is that it seems to have an activation threshold and that the heavier the more republican the precinct, the more RINOs it appeard to have. That's weird, but nowhere near as weird as the activation threshold (bend in the line)
Thanks, I’ll rewatch the Dr. Shiva again tonight with this in mind about the straight ticket voters being a conceptual benchmark rather than an actual numbers such that the negative points at the left of the chart would make sense.
In your example, the lowest that point could be is -5%. That would be if Trump got 5% of straight party votes and 0% of individual votes.
As you say, look at Wayne County. You have a point at x = 4%, y = -20%. To your point, that makes no sense. The lowest that point could be on the y-axis is -4% if Trump got 0% of the individual voters.
man you are really stuck on this completely invalid understanding of Dr Shiva's work
So you think that there is more fraud in Oakland County than in Wayne County? You think there is no obvious fraud in the Wayne county graph, compared to the other counties?
Don't care
fraud is fraud. Sufficient evidence of it.
Recount and audit the whole thing and follow the law this time around. The miscarriage of justice is breaking the law, not which candidate won.