That's not really the point. The thing he is graphing is of this form: Y=I-X where I is the percentage of individual votes that go to Trump. He is assuming that I-X should be independent of X. To the degree that I is independent of X, rather than I-X being independent of X, you would expect a very strong downward slope (even if there is no cheating). The downward slope, which he attributes purely to fraud, it just a consequence of him choosing to graph I-X instead of I on the vertical axis.
But part of me feels like its too good to be true.
It is too good to be true. He's assuming the line should be horizontal when any reasonable model would have it sloping downward even if there was no cheating. Pushing this analysis is going to end up in embarrassment, unfortunately.
That number comes from a bad assumption that the line should be horizontal. It's totally wrong.
Unfortunately, his analysis seems to be flawed:
If we have to rely on the legislature to fix this, the system is fundamentally broken. What if the legislature was controlled by Democrats? Would they then be able to push junk votes through and illegally destroy records that would aid in auditing with no penalty at all?
Do they use Dominion in Georgia? Will we finally find out whether the software is reporting fake counts?
No receipt for the personal that actually voted.
I just want to point out that if such a receipt were provided, it would greatly facilitate (illegally) paying someone to vote for a particular candidate since they could actually prove that they did what they were being paying to do.
I think this is it (haven't watched yet): https://twitter.com/va_shiva/status/1326220987608621056
It would be more interesting to see this sort of analysis for every state. Is this something that only happened in swing states? If not, maybe independents just didn't want to vote for Trump (but wanted a Senator to be a check on Biden).
Come on, man! Only 200 million people died from covid (according to Biden).
I don't know if this guy is credible, but seems interesting...
According to the editor's note at the top of the article, it was published at 3:09pm on Nov 4 (yesterday), and updated at 3:57 on Nov 5 (today). I assume those times are in the central timezone. That puts the update at about 2.5 hours ago, which is shortly before I saw it.
This is fake news. The screenshot is from the NOQReport, which in turn is based on an early version of the Milwaukee City Wire article, which has since been updated to make no such dramatic claims. It now claims:
Five City of Milwaukee voting wards reported more than 89% turnout in the 2020 U.S. Presidential election
When you look at the new version of the article, the table near the end shows that one ward had 125% turnout (5 people voted when there should have been 4) and the rest are all below 100%. No smoking gun here (except that 1 extra person that voted in that one ward).
Funny, but inaccurate. Any money paid to Sandman would have reduced earnings (assuming they didn't have insurance to cover it), not revenue.
Weren't all those Hollywood people threatening to move to Canada if Trump was elected? This makes me want to see them do it even more.
Almost a good joke, but it's not a 99.696% chance of not getting it, but rather of not dying from it.
I was wondering what they were chanting -- sounded like "Quid Pro Joe" to me, but my bias is showing.
I really hope those emails have DKIM info in the headers and that Rudy releases them in their entirety (full email header with meta data). That would put an end to this bullshit immediately (would show that sender/recipient/date/content was unmodified since sent)..
After reading "Bartenders don't usually talk about politics" I expected the remainder to be a punchline about AOC ;)
More subtle: "I'm with the Biden campaign, and I just want to make sure you aren't being swayed by the claims about Joe selling influence to China, Ukraine, and Russia, or the claims of him turning a blind eye to his son's drug use while passing a crime bill to lock up thousands of black men for similar crimes. Can we count on your vote?"
Exactly. This is a reprint, not an original article. Do they even make a decision about what to post from the National Review, or do they just pump it all out (under a licensing agreement)?
While vitamin D deficiency is high, it is higher among those hospitalized for COVID-19. From the article:
The researchers found that 82 per cent of the hospitalized COVID-19 patients (who were not taking supplements) were vitamin D deficient, while 47 per cent of the control group had the same deficiency.
This is a challenge were....
I usually don't nitpick about grammar, but this was written by the principal of a school?
To put it a little differently, the two most extreme (but somewhat reasonable) modeling assumptions you could make are:
The slope of the lines in his graphs imply that reality is somewhere in between those two extremes (somewhat closer to (2) than to (1)). He uses assumption (1) and concludes that all deviation from that must be fraud, and calculates 69,000 votes stolen from Trump based on that assumption. If you applied the same thinking with assumption (2), you would conclude that tens of thousands of votes were stolen from Biden. To make such a strong claim based on such an extreme and unjustified assumption is just crazy.