He said add 30% to biden vote, and subtract that number of votes from trump. EG:
100 votes for Biden
150 for DJT
+30 for Biden, -30 for DJT:
130 votes for Biden
120 votes for DJT
The point was more that the time series supports a hypothesis of shaving or swapping occurring to reach a particular goal, like Biden winning by 1%. That's more or less what it would look like if you fiddled with batches, had a rough idea of a total, and used something like a reduced gradient regression that targeted equilibrium at say 80% of the total so you'd have some wiggle room to get to 1% with the remaining 20%.
This is why I am persuaded by the argument. The cheaters at this point have two goals, the first is to direct the outcome that they desire... but they cannot over do it. If the results of the fraud had Biden winning 90-10 then nobody would possibly believe such an outcome. Investigation then reveals the fraud, rendering the whole scheme a huge liability.
So they have to make a guess as too how much they must bake in, and then correct as they get a better understanding of the actual totals.
This is not what it means. Lets say Biden got 100% of the registered democrat votes. He also got a certain amount of independent votes which equals 30% of the democrat votes. Now the number of votes he has is equal to 130% of the democrat votes. It is impossible for Biden to have 130% of the democrat votes and for all of those votes to have been cast by democrats. Its illogical. Because Biden got 130% of the democrat votes then Trump logically got -30% of the democrat vote. The problem is that those +30% democrat votes for Biden were not democrat votes, they were independents.
If you looked at all the votes together (democrat, ind., repub) then it would make perfect sense. Biden would have 100% of the democrat vote (just as an example, this doesn't have to be true for the argument to hold up), 50% of the independent vote and 0% of the repub vote. The Dr. is falsely attributing the independent votes that Biden received to democrats.
That's not what it says. "Another possibility is if Biden's actual votes were multiplied by 1.3 (130%) meaning each single vote Biden actually received became 1.3 reported votes, AND President Trump's Votes are reduced by the 0.3 or 30% gained by Mr. Biden, Simply Put, Vote Swapping."
But what about this particular data indicates that happened?
Okay, so we see Biden got 130 votes and DJT got 120. Maybe that's real, or maybe Trump got 150 and 30 were stolen. Maybe Biden got 130 votes, Trump got 200, and 80 Trump votes were simply thrown out. There are lots of ways to end up at a pair of numbers. The numbers themselves don't tell us.
If I'm understanding these numbers, then they just say "Independents went for Biden," and then the claim is made is that that margin is some percentage of the democratic vote share. Which is tautologically true, because every number is some percentage of any other number. That's not suspicious. I can't put that in the "Uncanny coincidences for Biden" Book.
Unless of course there's something I'm missing. If everywhere you look, the independent margin is exactly equal to an even 30% of the Democrat vote total at that time, with statistically ridiculous consistency, then sure that's weird. But is that even the claim here? I can't even tell. It just says that there's a number that's 30% of the Democrat vote total.
Basically the curves are implausibly smooth and fit a thesis of swapping about 30% of Biden's votes from Trump to Biden, but as I noted elsewhere the chart is embellishing and cherry-picking a bit.
He said add 30% to biden vote, and subtract that number of votes from trump. EG:
100 votes for Biden 150 for DJT
+30 for Biden, -30 for DJT:
130 votes for Biden 120 votes for DJT
The point was more that the time series supports a hypothesis of shaving or swapping occurring to reach a particular goal, like Biden winning by 1%. That's more or less what it would look like if you fiddled with batches, had a rough idea of a total, and used something like a reduced gradient regression that targeted equilibrium at say 80% of the total so you'd have some wiggle room to get to 1% with the remaining 20%.
This is why I am persuaded by the argument. The cheaters at this point have two goals, the first is to direct the outcome that they desire... but they cannot over do it. If the results of the fraud had Biden winning 90-10 then nobody would possibly believe such an outcome. Investigation then reveals the fraud, rendering the whole scheme a huge liability.
So they have to make a guess as too how much they must bake in, and then correct as they get a better understanding of the actual totals.
This seems to explain the actions observed.
This is not what it means. Lets say Biden got 100% of the registered democrat votes. He also got a certain amount of independent votes which equals 30% of the democrat votes. Now the number of votes he has is equal to 130% of the democrat votes. It is impossible for Biden to have 130% of the democrat votes and for all of those votes to have been cast by democrats. Its illogical. Because Biden got 130% of the democrat votes then Trump logically got -30% of the democrat vote. The problem is that those +30% democrat votes for Biden were not democrat votes, they were independents.
If you looked at all the votes together (democrat, ind., repub) then it would make perfect sense. Biden would have 100% of the democrat vote (just as an example, this doesn't have to be true for the argument to hold up), 50% of the independent vote and 0% of the repub vote. The Dr. is falsely attributing the independent votes that Biden received to democrats.
That's not what it says. "Another possibility is if Biden's actual votes were multiplied by 1.3 (130%) meaning each single vote Biden actually received became 1.3 reported votes, AND President Trump's Votes are reduced by the 0.3 or 30% gained by Mr. Biden, Simply Put, Vote Swapping."
The "simply put" suffices.
It doesn’t explain anything. Biden got 130% of the democrat vote. That doesn’t mean 130% Democrats voted.
But what about this particular data indicates that happened?
Okay, so we see Biden got 130 votes and DJT got 120. Maybe that's real, or maybe Trump got 150 and 30 were stolen. Maybe Biden got 130 votes, Trump got 200, and 80 Trump votes were simply thrown out. There are lots of ways to end up at a pair of numbers. The numbers themselves don't tell us.
If I'm understanding these numbers, then they just say "Independents went for Biden," and then the claim is made is that that margin is some percentage of the democratic vote share. Which is tautologically true, because every number is some percentage of any other number. That's not suspicious. I can't put that in the "Uncanny coincidences for Biden" Book.
Unless of course there's something I'm missing. If everywhere you look, the independent margin is exactly equal to an even 30% of the Democrat vote total at that time, with statistically ridiculous consistency, then sure that's weird. But is that even the claim here? I can't even tell. It just says that there's a number that's 30% of the Democrat vote total.
Basically the curves are implausibly smooth and fit a thesis of swapping about 30% of Biden's votes from Trump to Biden, but as I noted elsewhere the chart is embellishing and cherry-picking a bit.