For all 3 different precincts to report exactly 132 total votes, exactly at 7:20pm, at an IDENTICAL votes-to-trump ratio, with trump getting exactly 8 votes... that alone is statistically impossible.
There are a few things that make it much less anomalous. First and foremost, the exact time is irrelevant here: these are actually the final totals for these precincts, from the night of November 5. [Edit:] See my correction below.
Further, precinct sizes themselves (and hence the number of voters in them) aren't random. If you look at the total number of votes for each precinct in the data — I made a totally random selection here — there's not a very wide range at all. Looking at all the vote totals, I'm guessing that many if not most Detroit precincts have between 300 and 400 people; and then take maybe 40-50% of that in terms of the average percentage that actually turned out to vote.
In fact, I just took the first 15 vote totals listed in that screenshot I posted (153 + 280 + 87 + 145 + 172 + 131 + 132 + 74 + 173 + 165 + 107 + 124 + 198 + 42 + 6) to see what the average was, and it came out to 132.5.
[Edit:] Correction: actually, on second thought, I don't think these represent the final tally. Compare, for example, the total number of voters in the same precincts in 2016. (2016 Clinton votes on the left there in the screenshot, and 2020 Biden votes on the right.)
But this doesn't change the fact that the data-set in question still doesn't offer much of a range in terms of vote totals — and that the average here lands somewhere near the 130s. (From the second image I posted, it looks like it may represent roughly 1/3 or 1/2 of the total.)
Remember, not only did these duplications appear in a number of locations, they all happened at the exactly same time.
From what I can tell, OP has now clarified that this time wasn't just a random one, but represented the final tally, when vote counts were no longer updated after it: https://thedonald.win/p/11QRtXCcfU/x/c/4DpK9E3c1JL
(Which I suppose might have been obvious anyways, from the description saying it was from November 5 at 7 pm.)
[Edit:] Correction: actually, on second thought, I don't think these represent the final tally. Compare, for example, the total number of voters in the same precincts in 2016. (2016 Clinton votes on the left there in the screenshot, and 2020 Biden votes on the right.)
But as I pointed out in another comment, this doesn't change the fact that the data-set in question still doesn't offer much of a range in terms of precinct vote totals — and that the average vote total from the data-set that OP's using is somewhere near the 130s. (From the second image I posted, it looks like it may represent roughly 1/3 or 1/2 of the total.)
So to summarize, the time isn't "random," really, but represents a snapshot when most of the vote totals were all within a fairly narrow range.
Dumb question, but (as someone who doesn't work with Excel or anything) how exactly can we get this data in spreadsheet form like that?
For the record, this only happens at 7:20PM on 11-05.
I'm assuming that at this point, these were the final totals for these precincts?
But it wasn't when the big ballot dumps were happening.
Wouldn't this have been after the big ballot dumps?
(Well, okay, the actual snapshot of the data here is from after the ballot dumps; but if these were the final totals for these precincts, I suppose these could have been reached early on, and then just captured in this late snapshot.)
The title says this was on the evening of November 5, soo not really early on in the big scheme of things.
I see there are links to the raw data; but can we also get it already compiled into charts/documents like in the screenshot?
But the exit polls show 30% of blacks went for Trump, double that of 2016.
Where’d you see that? I haven’t looked at it in a while, but the exit polling I saw showed not much more than 10%.
has anyone on the left been able to provide an even semi-plausible excuse for why this isn't evidence of fraud? What's the default NPC line when confronted with this?
u/roytheboy makes an important point that this isn’t really the “raw” ballot data in quite the way we might think of it. We don’t really know the process by which this information is parsed and updated for these feeds (something that it’d be nice to have greater transparency about).
From another angle, though: I played devil’s advocate at least about a similar batch from Michigan (probably Detroit in particular) recently, too.
The main idea there was that it’s not necessarily the case that these batch updates are county-wide, or evenly represent the various cities and towns in a county, but can be from a specific city or even specific geographical areas/precincts within a city.
And it’s hard to overstate just how D-heavy certain urban cities are. Detroit as a whole has voted over 95% D for the past 3 or 4 elections, for example. (A common reply to this has been “how do we know that’s not fraudulent?”; but that’s honestly getting into a much wider issue, if we’re just trying to get at “is it hypothetically possible?” for now.)
As for this GA batch: we can see a map of how various Atlanta precincts voted in the previous election here. I’m out, so I haven’t had a chance to take a super close look at this yet, but I think theoretically it’s possible that if you had a clustered batch of votes representing a certain radius in inner-city Atlanta, this could give you a 20,000 vote batch that went over 95 D%. (98% is a pretty tall order, though.)
[Edit:] Just for fun, I actually went through the link above and picked out random precincts in the same area of inner-city Atlanta, comparing the Clinton and Trump totals.
Precinct 01J = 1,150 Clinton | 40 Trump
04S = 1,111 | 23
11K = 1,077 | 27
04V = 1,185 | 20
12K = 1,280 | 63
04K = 1,126 | 34
04T = 540 | 9
03C = 733 | 14
03A = 757 | 21
03E = 878 | 39
04A = 491 | 11
04D = 710 | 17
04X1 = 911 | 28
04L = 721 | 27
12N = 359 | 8
01F = 436 | 16
12S = 904 | 19
01S = 793 | 25
01P = 573 | 17
01T = 692 | 49
03T = 707 | 32
1,150 + 1,111 + 1,077 + 1,185 + 1,280 + 1,126 + 540 + 733 + 757 + 878 + 491 + 710 + 911 + 721 + 359 + 436 + 904 + 793 + 573 + 692 + 707 = 17,134
40 + 23 + 27 + 63 + 34 + 9 + 14 + 21 + 39 + 11 + 17 + 28 + 27 + 8 + 16 + 19 + 25 + 17 + 49 + 32 = 519
519 / 17,134 = .03
Total = 97% Clinton, 3% Trump
Now we're just entirely off track — you didn't so much as even mention Detroit in your entire reply. It's basically one huge ad hominem.
Why is it so hard for some people to actually focus on the data and for the arguments to center around this? (Even if you think the data is fraudulent, you still have to discuss this data and explain your reasoning.)
right, so you're backing your claims against the probability of corrupt data with the data that everyone is questioning as corrupt??
I'm saying that if people think the data is fraudulent for pretty much every election (in Detroit or whatever) that we have records of, then arguments about corruption are actually fundamentally circular. In that case, there's nothing to disprove it's fraudulent; but at the same time, if you don't even grant the concept of there being legitimate, non-fraudulent elections — ones that that would give us a basis for comparison (between the corrupt and non-corrupt elections) — it's basically impossible to prove it, too.
Exhibits: "I don't see ..."; "I'm honestly not sure ..."; "I don't think it's at all unlikely ..."; "..., I was actually suggesting ..."; "Maybe it includes ..."; "So we have good numerical grounds for speculating ...". ... Again I say bravo, bravo; encore, encore! You really nailed it!!
It's called intellectual humility. I don't have all the answers; and I think it's important for people to be careful with their language, instead of just saying "this is how it is, and you're a moron if you think otherwise." And honestly I'm getting a lot of "this is how it is, and you're a moron if you think otherwise" vibes from you — at the same time that you seem to be judiciously avoiding engaging with any sort of substance on the data, etc.
I'm really not that smart at all. I also don't see what intelligence has to do with the topic/issues at all. This is just about looking at data/stats — which anyone can access.
If Sidney says it exists and they have it, then take that to the bank that it exists and they have it and will provide more information as it helps our cause.
It almost seems like you're treating them as infallible. Yeah, obviously, no one wants to be wrong, or to put trust in someone who turns to be wrong.
But it's a fact that a good deal of Powell's information about the alleged servers has come from untrustworthy sources. She touted the "we looked at the server data and it shows Trump got 410 electoral votes" thing, which turned out to be totally fake. She's also relied heavily on sources like Dennis Montgomery and Thomas McInerney, who are about the sketchiest people you can think of, with awful track records.
When it isn't just random tweets, I think Powell's relying on word of mouth from some really sketchy sources. Even Louie Gohmert later admitted that among the main evidence he was relying on was a random German tweet, which also turned out to be unreliable.
Moreover and for example, your retorts seem to imply that all other factors surrounding your argument about Detroit are comparably similar relative to other places in question ... but are they? Why would you or anyone assume that the voter turnout in Detroit would be just as high or higher than it is in the suburbs or in other cities/counties around the rest of MI rather than, say, being lower?
Honestly, I don't see how Detroit turnout is particularly relevant here. (More on turnout in a sec.)
There were entire states, like PA, where Biden got 75% of the total mail-in vote. I'm honestly not sure how the numbers/percentages measure up in terms of specific counties across the U.S; but I don't think it's at all unlikely that some of these counties whose epicenters are big liberal cities with large black populations, etc., could see a mail-in percentage that gets up there to 90%.
In any case, I was actually suggesting that that huge early morning batch of votes in MI represented a chunk of Detroit in particular. Maybe it includes votes from the broader Wayne County, or the 13th congressional district, too. But in either case, re: turnout, I know for a fact that both the total number of votes in Detroit itself, along with the number of mail-in ballots in the 13th congressional district (which includes parts of Detroit, but other surrounding areas too), each individually surpass the number of votes in that batch update. So we have good numerical grounds for speculating that that vote batch can be largely accounted for by the huge 95%+ D-leaningness of Detroit.
It's easy for you and others like a Ben Shapiro to cry for evidence all the time, but you have to remember that it doesn't mean that much when you finally get some ... how much is enough? how big? how blatant? how pure and believable?
I hope you realize that I'm trying to concentrate on a single claim here. Further, you may be forgetting that the comment of mine that you're responding to was specifically about the Detroit vote count being fraudulent across numerous elections.
If people want to claim that this current Detroit result is fraudulent because of [so and so reasons], that's perfectly fine. I'm happy to look at any and all arguments and evidence here — though, again, "it's probably fraudulent because it's uncharacteristic of the historical trend" is precisely the type of argument that doesn't work. Alternatively, though, if someone wants to say "the 2020 Detroit election is probably fraudulent because past Detroit Presidential elections have been fraudulent," this is literally circular, if there hasn't been any evidence offered about these other elections.
That's where the significance of evidence when talking about individual single claims is.
African-Americans having been voting 90% Democrat nationally for decades now (and that percentage probably isn't evenly distributed by region and socioeconomic status, etc., either).
If Detroit is 83% black — and it also has one of the highest poverty rates in the U.S. — just based on that alone, we'd overwhelmingly expect an ultra-D vote in Detroit.
Detroit's demographics are insane. It has the highest black population (by percentage) in the U.S., at 83%. Only 3% of Detroit voted for Trump in 2016, and only 2% for Romney.
Assuming a 90% proportion, and assuming the true Biden probability is 75%, the probability of 90% of those 150k votes going to Biden remains vanishingly small (as in monkeys typing Hamlet small).
I think it'd be a mistake to think that all batch updates are county-wide, though — or that they represent an even distribution from any particular county.
There's good evidence that the bulk of this big batch comes from Detroit in particular; and even the higher 96% number here would be perfectly in line with the historical trend in the Detroit vote.
If Rudy has evidence of massive voter fraud in Detroit in 2016, 2012, 2008, 2004... too, I assume he’ll present it.
Similarly, if anyone here has any good evidence for voter fraud in these elections — fraud that produces the consistent results we see here (in a city with a 83% black population and one of the highest poverty levels in the U.S.) — I’d be perfectly willing to take a look at it and examine it impartially. But assertion without evidence is literally useless.
This has nothing to do with socio economic anything
Detroit literally has the highest percentage of black population in the entire U.S. — a staggering 83%. And it's been this way for decades. (Add to that its extremely high poverty rate, too, and it paints a very clear picture.)
Even nationally, Trump has only gotten 8-10% of the black vote.
Not only was the total number of votes in Detroit very similar to the total in 2016 and 2012, but so was the ratio of D to R votes (except for an increase of a couple percentage points for Trump, representing increased enthusiasm), too.
One of the ways we can detect potential fraud is if there are very unusual statistical irregularities. This election was obviously already unusual due to mail-in ballots; but the end-result in Detroit is still totally par-for-the-course when compared to the results over the past couple of decades in Detroit.
Re: when the batch/update came in: we can find plenty of commentators noting (in previous elections) that Detroit numbers always come in late.
Around about midnight on November 8, 2016, Detroit had only posted numbers for ~173,000 votes. More complete numbers came in throughout the early morning; and by the time they all came in, it'd post 60,000 more votes, and end up with 235,000 total.
I don't think people who are eager to call "fraud" for every outcome they don't like here (when they've probably never even considered these stats for earlier elections before) really understand the demographic situation in cities like Detroit and Philadelphia, etc.. That's not to say it's not possible that there's some minor amount of fraud here; and that should obviously be a serious concern. But overall, this is a simple sociological/socioeconomic/whatever phenomenon that's been unfolding for decades.
Also, claims like this are established (or not) by evidence, not mere assertion or wishful thinking. That's why the Trump campaign actually files lawsuits instead of just sitting around on Twitter. If you have some evidence that suggests every single election in Detroit over the past few decades has been incredibly fraudulent, by all means produce it. But if you think everyone should make that assumption simply because it makes Rs look better or Ds look shittier, then you're literally doing the same thing as Democrats.
"it was from a heavily Democratic area so maybe they just got 150k ballots where 96% were Biden instead of 80%". When you run them through the math on how that's literally impossible, they start over.
If it's from Detroit, 96% would actually be totally expected — its D/R split is insane.
Trump only got 3% of 242,553 total votes in Detroit in 2016, and Romney got 2% of 287,762 in 2012.
Trump getting between 9,000-12,000 in that batch update compared to Biden's 135,000 would still be somewhere in the range of ~6-10% of that batch. An early tally of this year's election on the official MI site lists 240,220 total votes in Detroit, with Trump getting 5.3% total. Either way, these are both an improvement over his 2016 numbers in Detroit; and certainly over Romney's — so fairly expected numbers.
When we're trying to make a determination about the relative likelihood of fraud, we have to balance anomalies (or perceived anomalies) with just actual known demographic trends. We can keep going back and looking at earlier elections in Detroit; and really, the situation never changes much.
"The Democrats cheated in all those" may seem sexier and more appealing; but if we're after the most well-supported, evidence-based, parsimonious explanation, it's much weaker.
I challenge the shills to find us an example of any prior "free and fair" election where a single batch of votes went in favor to one candidate at 96%.
Not a shill; and to be fair, 134,886 is 90% of 149,772 votes (leaving 14,886 votes for Trump), not 96%. But...
Out of curiosity I just looked up the vote difference in Detroit, in 2012 and 2016, and... holy crap. If I'm reading it correctly, in 2012, Obama got 281,743 votes to Romney's 6,019 (or just 2% or the vote); and in 2016, Clinton got 234,871 votes, to Trump's 7,682 (3%).
If this batch of votes represents a big chunk of Detroit, it looks like that's pretty standard in terms of the recent historical trend.
A few of the main elements OP pointed to aren't random, though; in fact they're highly standardized/non-random.
Above all, the data is from a time when most of the vote totals were within a fairly narrow range, within the 100s and 200s; and so vastly increasing the likelihood that we'd see any individual vote total near, say, 130 or 150 or whatever. (To add to this, in relation to OP's specific screenshot: 5 votes out of 132 is 3.8%, and 5 out of 100 is 5%; and these are both in line with the total ~5% that's being reporting for Trump as a whole in Detroit.)
(A bit more specific on a couple of these things here.)