Win uses cookies necessary for site functionality, as well as for personalization. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies as described in our Privacy Policy.
There are others who have looked in detail, and found much higher rates hidden by moving the cheating from precinct to precinct, and performing it for short periods of time.
The contribution by this former debunker is to verify that the net effect is significant. I welcome that contribution.
Right. He also controlled for other variables so the effect is strictly from Dominion, took a more conservative value of 1.5% instead of 1.55% or 1.65%, and had a p value less than 1%.
This guy was careful, thorough, and mathematically conservative. It's very likely the effects were higher in other areas.
Add to this he was originally trying to dismiss the claims, and his results should speak volumes.
It's pretty clear that he believed there was no cheating, but he didn't consider it the result, then looked for data to fit what he wanted. He treated it as the hypothesis, and sought data to analyze that would allow him to determine whether that was true or not. He correctly used the Scientific Method.
You work for Dominion, too! I didn't see you at the recent company hide and seek games. It's amazing that a billion people can fit into such a small space like that. At least my paycheck is still okay.
Who people vote for is more than just a flip of a dang coin. We all know city populations tend blue, and country red. It's likely they are all good "cross-section" counties, with average spreads of political party, race, wealth background et cetera, which comfortably mirror national percentages. THAT'S how they have "long streaks of being right".
You argue that it's a statistical fluke what, decades in the running? I argue it's a statistical near-impossibility that all of these bellwether counties save one, and both states would suddenly, in this one election, be wrong. Not 16 counties, not 10, not 7, but one. You wish to not call it evidence all by itself, fine. But with other evidence backing it up, it becomes a pattern of evidence, and that's what courts are meant to look for.
Of course it's "possible", any roll of a set of dice is technically possible. But what you're doing is looking at the overall odds, of them all being right 80-90% of the time, instead of splitting the 17, figuring out their separate, individual chances, and calculating the probability of them as a series of multiple events. It's far more complex than the flat 80% chance that you're trying to say.
What is the statistical chance that all but one of the 17, taken as a group, would suddenly flip like this? Like I said, calculate the odds for each county separately, and then calculate the serial possibility by that. Apparently 12 of the bellwether states have been right 100% of the time from 1984 to 2016, so that's 0/9 times incorrect. But just to be generous to you, we'll say they have a 1/9 chance in being incorrect separately. The remaining five bellwether have been incorrect only one time each, so again, 1/9 chance of being incorrect. And we'll enter the one that DID say "Biden" in as an 8/9 chance. Just for grins.
So, 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 x 8/9 equals....
0.000000000000048%.
Yes, who votes for who is far more complex than pure mathematics. But you're the one trying to argue FOR pure mathematics, and you're not even doing it right.
Edit: And yes I know my math is very likely off by some degree, because I should be calculating the probability of having a set where one actually was "correct", but honestly statistics aren't my forte, and that's a lot of extra math. I just know that multiple events need to be calculated. I almost went for only calculating the 16 that said Trump, but even that wouldn't be a perfectly calculated model, and the result was super similar anyway, basically like giving the Biden county 9/9 chance instead of 8/9. I ain't got time to do more studying lol, this was just to show the basic point.
I agree. They're screwed either way. Audit will show the fraud. If they change the data, it won't match the final results that were blasted to the world. If they delete it, they broke the law and further support the fraud story.
Here are some quotes from his website. This is the right approach to take: test the data, see where it leads you, check for possible fraud with audits.
Transparency is the key to solving this. Although there will always be a fringe group that will never believe the results of such an audit, why not prove them wrong? They are already alleging fraud and doing it in such a way that a significant portion of society already knows about it.
I do not wish to be a part of any sort of misinformation, which is why I am being fully transparent in showing my data sources, methods, and identity. I wish to have cordial dialogue with those who disagree. Please note, I have a FAQ page to respond to questions about this analysis. It is always possible for statistical models to show something different than what one thinks they are showing, and I can readily admit that. If my analysis and/or data have issues, I want to know about it and I want to correct this post.
I decided I should substantiate or disprove what I was hearing. My goal was to write an article either showing “nothing to see here” or explaining why more auditing/investigation should occur.
I recommend we audit the machines. (emphasis original)
He hasn’t verified the amount of shift Sidney is seeing, but he does unequivocally state it would be enough to flip several states and the election.
Dominion is key bc it was used in so many counties in the swing states. Look at his graphic here, especially note the change in GA from 2016 to 2020.
https://fraudspotters.com/statistics-about-dominion-election-fraud/
There are others who have looked in detail, and found much higher rates hidden by moving the cheating from precinct to precinct, and performing it for short periods of time.
The contribution by this former debunker is to verify that the net effect is significant. I welcome that contribution.
Right. He also controlled for other variables so the effect is strictly from Dominion, took a more conservative value of 1.5% instead of 1.55% or 1.65%, and had a p value less than 1%.
This guy was careful, thorough, and mathematically conservative. It's very likely the effects were higher in other areas.
Add to this he was originally trying to dismiss the claims, and his results should speak volumes.
One thing to note about "disproving the claims".
It's pretty clear that he believed there was no cheating, but he didn't consider it the result, then looked for data to fit what he wanted. He treated it as the hypothesis, and sought data to analyze that would allow him to determine whether that was true or not. He correctly used the Scientific Method.
Textbook example. Good for him.
It says 1.5% higher for Biden, AND 1.5% lower for Trump. Looks a lot like our friend, Scorcard's, 3% shift, does it not?
This is the point. 3 point total swing.
Thats 1,500 votes for every 100,000 cast for those who are calculator illiterate. Way more than enough to flip several states back where they belong!
I'm not calculator-illiterate. I just identify as mathematically-challenged. It's as easy as 2+2=5!
2+2=19 votes for Biden
You work for Dominion, too! I didn't see you at the recent company hide and seek games. It's amazing that a billion people can fit into such a small space like that. At least my paycheck is still okay.
As if the 16 of 17 bellweathers wasn't obvious enough for most citizens.
Most citizens dont jump on the Donald or infowars.
Normal people only see the news, they are busy living their life expecting that Democrats wouldn't turn evil... They did...
I think it was 18/19
Who people vote for is more than just a flip of a dang coin. We all know city populations tend blue, and country red. It's likely they are all good "cross-section" counties, with average spreads of political party, race, wealth background et cetera, which comfortably mirror national percentages. THAT'S how they have "long streaks of being right".
You argue that it's a statistical fluke what, decades in the running? I argue it's a statistical near-impossibility that all of these bellwether counties save one, and both states would suddenly, in this one election, be wrong. Not 16 counties, not 10, not 7, but one. You wish to not call it evidence all by itself, fine. But with other evidence backing it up, it becomes a pattern of evidence, and that's what courts are meant to look for.
Of course it's "possible", any roll of a set of dice is technically possible. But what you're doing is looking at the overall odds, of them all being right 80-90% of the time, instead of splitting the 17, figuring out their separate, individual chances, and calculating the probability of them as a series of multiple events. It's far more complex than the flat 80% chance that you're trying to say.
What is the statistical chance that all but one of the 17, taken as a group, would suddenly flip like this? Like I said, calculate the odds for each county separately, and then calculate the serial possibility by that. Apparently 12 of the bellwether states have been right 100% of the time from 1984 to 2016, so that's 0/9 times incorrect. But just to be generous to you, we'll say they have a 1/9 chance in being incorrect separately. The remaining five bellwether have been incorrect only one time each, so again, 1/9 chance of being incorrect. And we'll enter the one that DID say "Biden" in as an 8/9 chance. Just for grins. So, 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 x 1/9 x 8/9 equals....
0.000000000000048%.
Yes, who votes for who is far more complex than pure mathematics. But you're the one trying to argue FOR pure mathematics, and you're not even doing it right.
Edit: And yes I know my math is very likely off by some degree, because I should be calculating the probability of having a set where one actually was "correct", but honestly statistics aren't my forte, and that's a lot of extra math. I just know that multiple events need to be calculated. I almost went for only calculating the 16 that said Trump, but even that wouldn't be a perfectly calculated model, and the result was super similar anyway, basically like giving the Biden county 9/9 chance instead of 8/9. I ain't got time to do more studying lol, this was just to show the basic point.
Yes.
*Before they are wiped and reset.
It’s illegal to do so for another 23 months or so.... doing so should have the result thrown out IMO
I agree. They're screwed either way. Audit will show the fraud. If they change the data, it won't match the final results that were blasted to the world. If they delete it, they broke the law and further support the fraud story.
what, with like a cloth?
Yes, and bleach
Save face is a funny way to save their ass? Agree.
was there ever any doubt?
No but it's always good when the normies figure it out.
I love when people see error of ways, it gives hope that better things may come.
Here are some quotes from his website. This is the right approach to take: test the data, see where it leads you, check for possible fraud with audits.
3% vote effect, whereas dominion was 1.5%
We need more DEBOOOONKERSS IN HERE!
Yea but our great US Supreme Court will tell us it is not enough of proof!
This is the most dangerous of all paths. To leave doubt lingering instead of just ripping the bandaid off.
2 car accidents to the back of the head.
https://fraudspotters.com/statistics-about-dominion-election-fraud/
Here's the vote count of each state arranged by wining percentage for each candidate and color coded to show where Dominion was present. Note the Trump states where Trump won convincingly have No Dominion voting Systems.
Looks like we got ourselves REBOONKED!
RED PILLS! RED PILLS! GET YOUR RED PILLS HERE!
This was excellent analysis he looked at raw data because he expected to disprove the allegations.
Debunker Debunking is Deboonked!
Damn right this is HUGE. And it should be front page news in all the newspapers and scrolling on the chyrons on every news network - but I digress.
The magic 3% again
Good for him. It takes a big person to admit they're wrong. The easy move would have been to simply be quiet and hope people forget.
The deboonkening has begun