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.
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.