I know everyone was enamored with his presentation, but I'm not certain everyone understands the magnitude of his discovery, which is that they've added fake voters every year over the last one to two decades.
Since 2000, population has gone up 40% in Arizona. In the same time, the # of voters went up 300%.
For those that missed it, he specifically identifies the Undisclosed gender voters.
In Arizona, there were 463,660 undisclosed gender voters. He found 94%+ correlation in how they vote over time....compared to ~60% for men and women.
Type 1 voters were hard-line republican. Type 3 are swing. Type 5 are hard-line democrats. The bell-curve there is telling, considering it seems logical that most people who would choose undisclosed gender instead of male/female would be left-leaning. But according to the data, it's distributed equally among every type of voter. Makes no sense.
A little further....when he unpacked that data by age, he looked at the maximum # of U votes in any given precinct in AZ and he correlated that to the average # of votes per age group took place....the result was > 97% correlation. He's essentially saying that the number of Undisclosed gender voters in each precinct is almost the EXACT SAME percentage across nearly all precincts.
He's suggesting that they've injected fake people across all precincts and they've been doing it for years, if not decades.
Well a bell curve is expected with a normal distribution, but it doesn't make much sense when it comes to who chooses Undisclosed gender. Maybe he and I are reading too much into that, but who is more likely to choose undisclosed gender? A hard-line republican or a hard-line democrat? Why is the distribution so perfectly a bell curve among all 5 type of voters?
Furthermore, who choose undisclosed gender? Do we really expect most of them to be swing voters and not left-leaning?
An additional theory that I'm suggesting, and one of the other point's he might be implying is that democrats and republicans alike have a gentleman's agreement about who gets to win, about who gets to use these votes....so it makes sense that most of them would be swing voters.
Good readback of what Bobby found. You could tell in in presentation that he's super passionate about this and willing to follow the data wherever it leads.
Now that we are doing that math lets go over the entire race!
Bring back Bobby Piton because he nailed it: https://www.youtube.com/embed/VDf1j4IQz28
I know everyone was enamored with his presentation, but I'm not certain everyone understands the magnitude of his discovery, which is that they've added fake voters every year over the last one to two decades.
Since 2000, population has gone up 40% in Arizona. In the same time, the # of voters went up 300%.
For those that missed it, he specifically identifies the Undisclosed gender voters.
In Arizona, there were 463,660 undisclosed gender voters. He found 94%+ correlation in how they vote over time....compared to ~60% for men and women.
Type 1 voters were hard-line republican. Type 3 are swing. Type 5 are hard-line democrats. The bell-curve there is telling, considering it seems logical that most people who would choose undisclosed gender instead of male/female would be left-leaning. But according to the data, it's distributed equally among every type of voter. Makes no sense.
A little further....when he unpacked that data by age, he looked at the maximum # of U votes in any given precinct in AZ and he correlated that to the average # of votes per age group took place....the result was > 97% correlation. He's essentially saying that the number of Undisclosed gender voters in each precinct is almost the EXACT SAME percentage across nearly all precincts.
He's suggesting that they've injected fake people across all precincts and they've been doing it for years, if not decades.
Thanks for writing all that down. That was my takeaway - the "Blue Creep" into red states was fraud.
Well a bell curve is expected with a normal distribution, but it doesn't make much sense when it comes to who chooses Undisclosed gender. Maybe he and I are reading too much into that, but who is more likely to choose undisclosed gender? A hard-line republican or a hard-line democrat? Why is the distribution so perfectly a bell curve among all 5 type of voters?
Furthermore, who choose undisclosed gender? Do we really expect most of them to be swing voters and not left-leaning?
An additional theory that I'm suggesting, and one of the other point's he might be implying is that democrats and republicans alike have a gentleman's agreement about who gets to win, about who gets to use these votes....so it makes sense that most of them would be swing voters.
And just another quick follow-up! I just checked Georgia's voter registrations, and I can see only 15,935 undisclosed gender voters.
How the hell does Arizona have 463,660?
Good readback of what Bobby found. You could tell in in presentation that he's super passionate about this and willing to follow the data wherever it leads.