Crowder said Shivas analysis was bad but I haven’t found where he said why. Any info on that? I tend to think it was a little on the “statisticians tell you what they want when they use the data the right way” because he is a bit on edge, but there is still probably some degree of veracity to it?
This makes sense though. This is an extra electoral college vote for them and there was a point after election day where it was looking like Biden could win with 270 on the dot. And guess where the only county in the state that's blue is
Idk I think he was really one of the first people kind of the bat to prove it. If you watch his videos, you can clearly see that there is algorithm being used. Especially when he plots different counties in Michigan. I just think he probably realized that that Team Trump got this. The amount of evidence that sidney, Lin and Rudy have is breathtaking. And remember its been a holiday weekend. Imagine what is to come in a full week! Everyday the intensity increases.
I can confirm. Prelim data analysis sent to me showed evidence of fraud in NE-2. Victory margin matched Scorecard Tier2 (11% +/- 0.55%). I was told it was forwarded to NE GOP more than a week ago.
Reported margin rounded to 10%, it should be exactly 10.45% for Scorecard Tier2 target algorithm. Melissa Rosales Nov4 reported margin as 10.43%
How to find the switched/missing Trump votes? SEE BELOW
Trump votes likely switched to Biden. Look at the Biden votes vs downballot Dems (House). And then also Dem Senate vs downballot Dems (House). You will see big mismatch compared to Trump vs Repub downballot ( House)
Those are all the stolen votes. In some cases you will see “missing” Trump votes as well where Trump gets less votes than Repub House. These are likely “deleted” Trump votes.
Hand audit of your most Republican county will show the most obvious vote theft. Or compare registered Republicans in county vs actual Trump votes. Ratio of Trump vote/Registered Repub will be waaaaay below 1.0
Downvote me if you want but Dr. Shiva is absolutely useless here. There is a reason he didn’t provide an affadavit to the campaign. He also said the machines were rigged in his statewide primary because he “knew he got more support.”
Considering crowder lost his first two and most loyal employees due to his love of dressing as a woman and forcing them to kiss him i would say I don't trust crowder either. Sven Computer et all we do not forget. He betrays his friends.
Crowder is friends with Benji and the whole DW crew, that should tell you enough about him. Also, naturalized, formerly of Canadia maple leaf land.
I've been watching him for quite a while (before mug club). I remember the whole series of debacles with Sven, Jared, the whole shake stand confrontation, etc. His political leanings are closer to Michael Knowles but he's been dropping more signs of his cucked mindset.
As for Shiva's analysis not being sound, there was an article on patriots4truth/aim4truth that delves into Shiva's ties with Hillary Clinton and Bill Gates as well as throwing doubt into his claim of being the inventor of email.
Spez and his redditards have been smearing Shiva with that particular patriots4truth article to "debunk" all of Shiva's arguments. I think Shiva's argumentation is solid. Also, I disagree with the article as it only outlines the history of the patent itself (patent/copyright laws are bogus) and grants/sponsorships/partnerships can be expected from anyone that conducts research.
true same here...with this news about nebraska 2nd, it seems that cuck ben sasse blowing his horn at GEOTUS to concede lends credence to him being in on the steal!
I don’t think about him at all I just know that to be true from the no. Disclosure he made them both sign after he fired his two best friends I literally don’t care the dudes super gay obviously
Shiva destroyed the mathematician in a rebuttal video.
Then Shiva issued a challenge to the "YouTube expert":
"We had someone write to me and they said, 'You should take down that video. Your math is off...' And this is a guy, when you looked at his math, there are a lot of things wrong with his math. And I feel bad writing to him. But . . . he doesn't understand elections, so he made some very, very fundamental assumptions. And you know who you are. You can give me a call if you want to. But we are not taking down any videos [laughs]. Because your math is wrong. And the reason his math is wrong is he hasn't had his hands dirty looking at election systems."
--Dr. Shiva
https://www.pscp.tv/va_shiva/1mrGmwqQayNxy?t=12m27s (Timestamped)
. . .
"To those mathematicians out there who sent me very complex formulas, you guys need to really listen here... people are doing all this math stuff, but have no idea they're basically assuming there is no election fraud, assuming votes equals voters... [because] . . . [the headline] "No Election Fraud" [is] on the front page of The New York Times."
I think I saw that debunking. I’m not totally convinced it succeeded tho. I understand why subtracting percentages is a statistics faux pas, but in the context shiva used it it was pretty defensible. He was comparing expected rate to observed rate. He also made a clear case for why the expected and observed should theoretically be very closely correlated. The size and weight of each sample is irrelevant when you’re simply looking at a rate within each sample. The debunker also didn’t accurately characterize the precise argument or method when he recapped it in his video, which was fishy to me. I’m not a statistician so I could be wrong, but I would need to see more debunkings to be confident shiva was wrong.
Side note, it actually wasn’t shiva’s work, it was that young black guy on the zoom call who was the phd data scientist. Shiva was just presenting the info. The guy who did the analysis wasn’t a noob who would make an elementary mistake. That’s another reason it was a red flag to me that the debunking guy suggested it was a beginner mistake. The guy who did it was no beginner, plus he is affiliated with a university so he has skin in the game for putting forth bad data.
This. I trust www.blackboxvoting.org. They did the analysis, and the analysis holds up. People attack Shiva the man and not the analysis, and when they do attack the analysis, they ignore the heart of it which is the more red the county the deeper the steal, and that it is a perfect slope.
People can hate on Shivva all day, but I suspect them of being Dem troll operatives tbph.
Unfortunately I believe it's true that Shiva's analysis is bad. The problem is that by putting the % straight ticket on the x-axis, he's forcing the % of non-straight ticket to go down. This pattern occurs for both Trump and Biden, occurs in other areas, and occurs in previous election years. One goes up, the other necessarily goes down. I'm a data scientist and discovered this on my own while trying to replicate his finding.
This guy does a good job of explaining it slightly different to me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aokNwKx7gM8. Ignore his Benford's "debunking" though, it's ridiculous and unfounded.
No, I have not heard anything about Crowder's comments on Shiva's work. I have an MBA in Finance and Accounting from The University of Chicago. Not to say I am a math guru, but I have an analytical bent, and I found his presentation compelling and accurate.
Ok interesting. I thought crowder mentioned something about a PhD in the right putting out a BS analysis, and it seemed like it was Shiva based on what he said and how he described it. I was compelled too.
He used one of the axes to plot the difference between split ballot proportion and straight ticket proportion. It's difficult for most people to understand that, self included, and IMO his contribution suffers for that reason. Keeping it simpler is more persuasive. Should've just plotted the split ballot proportion on one axis and the straight ticket proportion on the other. He made a mess of it by trying to make the data look more neat and tidy on one graph.
Sure they do. He put % of straight Republican ticket on the X axis, and T-% R on the Y. You would expect the cluster to be low and slope slightly down, as you move to the right. But it slopes dramatically. It slopes downward at a sharp angle, meaning as you analyze precincts with a higher percentage of Republicans who vote a straight Republican ticket, you get a lower percentage of Trump votes. This makes no sense! Most everyone who votes straight R will vote for Trump, right? That would give you at the very least, a zero number on his graph (excess Trump votes). But the slope is negative . . . showing the more people voted R down ballot, the less they voted for Trump.
I believe that was before Shiva did an update with the gateway pundit. The whole "analysis was bad" came from some so called youtube statistician trying to throw a wrench in his analysis.
Benford, as in Benford's Law, is a statistical method of detecting the possibility of fraud, not a particular living person performing statistical analysis relevant to this election.
If that is what you came away with from the follow-up then you obviously have no clue what he is talking about. At the very beginning he speaks on pattern analysis not statistics. His initial thesis wasn't wrong, and his follow-up was a better explanation of the initial.
You may want to reevaluate calling someone retarded because you can't understand the material.
Crowder said Shivas analysis was bad but I haven’t found where he said why. Any info on that? I tend to think it was a little on the “statisticians tell you what they want when they use the data the right way” because he is a bit on edge, but there is still probably some degree of veracity to it?
Shiva hasn’t produced an affidavit to my knowledge. I trust the Dr Kia guy and Braynard though
This makes sense though. This is an extra electoral college vote for them and there was a point after election day where it was looking like Biden could win with 270 on the dot. And guess where the only county in the state that's blue is
Dr shiva knows his stuff...and he got cheated on the primary...first hand knowledge on ballot images getting deleted
Idk I think he was really one of the first people kind of the bat to prove it. If you watch his videos, you can clearly see that there is algorithm being used. Especially when he plots different counties in Michigan. I just think he probably realized that that Team Trump got this. The amount of evidence that sidney, Lin and Rudy have is breathtaking. And remember its been a holiday weekend. Imagine what is to come in a full week! Everyday the intensity increases.
I can confirm. Prelim data analysis sent to me showed evidence of fraud in NE-2. Victory margin matched Scorecard Tier2 (11% +/- 0.55%). I was told it was forwarded to NE GOP more than a week ago.
Reported margin rounded to 10%, it should be exactly 10.45% for Scorecard Tier2 target algorithm. Melissa Rosales Nov4 reported margin as 10.43%
Trump votes likely switched to Biden. Look at the Biden votes vs downballot Dems (House). And then also Dem Senate vs downballot Dems (House). You will see big mismatch compared to Trump vs Repub downballot ( House)
Those are all the stolen votes. In some cases you will see “missing” Trump votes as well where Trump gets less votes than Repub House. These are likely “deleted” Trump votes.
Hand audit of your most Republican county will show the most obvious vote theft. Or compare registered Republicans in county vs actual Trump votes. Ratio of Trump vote/Registered Repub will be waaaaay below 1.0
Downvote me if you want but Dr. Shiva is absolutely useless here. There is a reason he didn’t provide an affadavit to the campaign. He also said the machines were rigged in his statewide primary because he “knew he got more support.”
https://twitter.com/va_shiva/status/1332783360855465987?s=20
Considering crowder lost his first two and most loyal employees due to his love of dressing as a woman and forcing them to kiss him i would say I don't trust crowder either. Sven Computer et all we do not forget. He betrays his friends.
It’s on YouTube Sven computer and the other dude idk I never watch him he always seems like a dr Seuss character
Crowder is friends with Benji and the whole DW crew, that should tell you enough about him. Also, naturalized, formerly of Canadia maple leaf land.
I've been watching him for quite a while (before mug club). I remember the whole series of debacles with Sven, Jared, the whole shake stand confrontation, etc. His political leanings are closer to Michael Knowles but he's been dropping more signs of his cucked mindset.
As for Shiva's analysis not being sound, there was an article on patriots4truth/aim4truth that delves into Shiva's ties with Hillary Clinton and Bill Gates as well as throwing doubt into his claim of being the inventor of email.
https://patriots4truth.org/2020/04/29/the-lies-of-dr-shiva/
Spez and his redditards have been smearing Shiva with that particular patriots4truth article to "debunk" all of Shiva's arguments. I think Shiva's argumentation is solid. Also, I disagree with the article as it only outlines the history of the patent itself (patent/copyright laws are bogus) and grants/sponsorships/partnerships can be expected from anyone that conducts research.
true same here...with this news about nebraska 2nd, it seems that cuck ben sasse blowing his horn at GEOTUS to concede lends credence to him being in on the steal!
Ya that’s his name ha I literally don’t even watch crowder just privy to their needless drama
I’m out of the loop on the Crowder drama. Can anyone give me the spark notes?
It’s from like a year ago he has betrayed numerous friends for those shiny shekels
He crosses his legs like a girl has had limp wrists lmao
Receipts or stfu
I don’t think about him at all I just know that to be true from the no. Disclosure he made them both sign after he fired his two best friends I literally don’t care the dudes super gay obviously
Shiva was subtracting percentages with different denominators, there’s a mathematician that debunked it if you want more context
Shiva destroyed the mathematician in a rebuttal video.
Then Shiva issued a challenge to the "YouTube expert":
. . .
https://youtu.be/R8xb6qJKJqU?t=1823 (Timestamped)
I think I saw that debunking. I’m not totally convinced it succeeded tho. I understand why subtracting percentages is a statistics faux pas, but in the context shiva used it it was pretty defensible. He was comparing expected rate to observed rate. He also made a clear case for why the expected and observed should theoretically be very closely correlated. The size and weight of each sample is irrelevant when you’re simply looking at a rate within each sample. The debunker also didn’t accurately characterize the precise argument or method when he recapped it in his video, which was fishy to me. I’m not a statistician so I could be wrong, but I would need to see more debunkings to be confident shiva was wrong.
Side note, it actually wasn’t shiva’s work, it was that young black guy on the zoom call who was the phd data scientist. Shiva was just presenting the info. The guy who did the analysis wasn’t a noob who would make an elementary mistake. That’s another reason it was a red flag to me that the debunking guy suggested it was a beginner mistake. The guy who did it was no beginner, plus he is affiliated with a university so he has skin in the game for putting forth bad data.
Are there other/better debunkings?
This. I trust www.blackboxvoting.org. They did the analysis, and the analysis holds up. People attack Shiva the man and not the analysis, and when they do attack the analysis, they ignore the heart of it which is the more red the county the deeper the steal, and that it is a perfect slope.
People can hate on Shivva all day, but I suspect them of being Dem troll operatives tbph.
Is this the new "shaka when the walls fell" ?
Unfortunately I believe it's true that Shiva's analysis is bad. The problem is that by putting the % straight ticket on the x-axis, he's forcing the % of non-straight ticket to go down. This pattern occurs for both Trump and Biden, occurs in other areas, and occurs in previous election years. One goes up, the other necessarily goes down. I'm a data scientist and discovered this on my own while trying to replicate his finding.
This guy does a good job of explaining it slightly different to me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aokNwKx7gM8. Ignore his Benford's "debunking" though, it's ridiculous and unfounded.
No, I have not heard anything about Crowder's comments on Shiva's work. I have an MBA in Finance and Accounting from The University of Chicago. Not to say I am a math guru, but I have an analytical bent, and I found his presentation compelling and accurate.
Ok interesting. I thought crowder mentioned something about a PhD in the right putting out a BS analysis, and it seemed like it was Shiva based on what he said and how he described it. I was compelled too.
Black scholes!
LOL. Amen bro.
He used one of the axes to plot the difference between split ballot proportion and straight ticket proportion. It's difficult for most people to understand that, self included, and IMO his contribution suffers for that reason. Keeping it simpler is more persuasive. Should've just plotted the split ballot proportion on one axis and the straight ticket proportion on the other. He made a mess of it by trying to make the data look more neat and tidy on one graph.
Sure they do. He put % of straight Republican ticket on the X axis, and T-% R on the Y. You would expect the cluster to be low and slope slightly down, as you move to the right. But it slopes dramatically. It slopes downward at a sharp angle, meaning as you analyze precincts with a higher percentage of Republicans who vote a straight Republican ticket, you get a lower percentage of Trump votes. This makes no sense! Most everyone who votes straight R will vote for Trump, right? That would give you at the very least, a zero number on his graph (excess Trump votes). But the slope is negative . . . showing the more people voted R down ballot, the less they voted for Trump.
also worth noting that his presentation was alongside 2 other people. It was not an individual analysis.
yeah lol the problem with shiva's argument is that few people actually (claim to) understand it.
I believe that was before Shiva did an update with the gateway pundit. The whole "analysis was bad" came from some so called youtube statistician trying to throw a wrench in his analysis.
I wrote up some information on it here: https://thedonald.win/p/11Q8lXhRrO/i-hope-that-the-trump-campaign-h/
Benford, as in Benford's Law, is a statistical method of detecting the possibility of fraud, not a particular living person performing statistical analysis relevant to this election.
If that is what you came away with from the follow-up then you obviously have no clue what he is talking about. At the very beginning he speaks on pattern analysis not statistics. His initial thesis wasn't wrong, and his follow-up was a better explanation of the initial.
You may want to reevaluate calling someone retarded because you can't understand the material.
r/iamverysmart vibes