Yeah, to be honest I doubt that McSally would even WANT to fight it. She's got Jeb-level energy, and finds less and less in common with the new MAGA breed.

An absolute disgrace.

Oh, I'm sure there were shenanigans. My point was that McSally put us into a fight with one hand tied behind our back and two strikes against us.

Don't want to get into a reply war, but the whole purpose of the video is not to convince you or me - it's to hopefully build a legal argument that your enemy can't refute. A little more fleshing out of the analysis would greatly help that, because you know the other side will certainly exploit any weaknesses.

Also, the Rep share of the straight party vote was the x-axis - it was used to define how "Republican" a precinct was, which is central to his argument. So if 80% of straight party votes in a precinct were Republican (making it "heavily Republican"), but only a handful of total votes were straight party, then how "heavily Republican" is that district really?

I'm not saying his conclusion aren't accurate, but again, we really want it to be true. He'd need to be able to defend it against those who really, really don't.

We're on the same side. Please reply if you like, but I won't continue it any further. Thanks for responding.

Not trying to be a buzzkill, but I'm personally being cautious about gaining any "court-ready" ammunition from the Edison data. It's not the analysis that concerns me (it's obviously quite impressive) -- it's the raw data.

Qualifier: I've done a fair bit of automated data collection, i.e. pulling information from a variety of external sources to a central location in my career (engineer 30+ years), but I am NOT a coder. I've performed lots and lots of data analyses using a variety of tools.

Just a couple of points:

1. As far as I've seen, we only have the votes for each candidate as a percent of the total votes, and only to three significant digits. We don't have exact vote counts for each candidate. That's a bunch of lost analysis resolution, and actually gives the enemy lots more places to hide small manipulations. We've been focusing on the really big ones.

2. Each source Edison pulled from may have a mix of auto-generated and hand-entered data. People make data entry mistakes, esp if they're inadequately trained, working under severe time constraints, etc. People can intentionally mis-enter data (gee, you think?). Did they do the entries when they were supposed to? What happens if there's a data entry error or missing data field? Etc. Fraud and genuine mistakes can get all jumbled together.

Believe me, I'd love for all my concerns to be unfounded, all the allegations of fraud to be provably true, and crush the left into oblivion. I'm just advising some caution. The raw data are just, how do I say it.... quirky.

That was my first response. I've unfortunately been in the hospital a few times during the pandemic, and it's always been the medical staff's resp to protect themselves. I wasn't required to wear a mask - they were. And I even spent some time in a covid isolation room waiting on test results (negative).

Dr. Shiva's "slope" video IMHO could've been made much more powerful 1) by including more non-sloped "control group" examples for contrast and 2) giving more detail on what share of voters IN TOTAL for each precinct chose "straight party" (he only showed the % of all straight party voters who voted Republican).

So how many people in total vote straight party? 5%? 40%? 80%? Knowing that would certainly affect my confidence in the analysis.

He picked an example with a well-recognized deficiency - i.e. the spread in the data was too narrow. It was precinct-level data, and precincts are designed to be around the same population. So yes, the resulting Benford analysis was faulty. He could have easily contrasted that with a "good" example, but didn't.

So unfortunately, Benford can't be used in unlimited zoom mode. But it's very useful e.g. looking at county-level results across the swing states. Plenty of samples, and plenty of spread in the data. But the answer won't be "precinct 413 in Chicago has fraud" or even "Chicago has fraud" - it'll be "there's definitely something fishy going on in the swing states for Biden compared to the rest of the country."

Here's a good recent video:
Applying Benford's law to the US 2020 presidential race: Analysing elections with maths!

To be honest, we should be a little upset with whomever originally posted those poor precinct-level examples. It gave the opposition the ability to brand it "another wacky conspiracy theory" and discredited the technique. I know we're all enthusiastic and trying to help out, but we should try to temper that with not wanting to give ammo to the enemy.

Checked the historical turnout site for AZ as a whole (Maricopa County is over 60% of AZ population so it's prob not much different):

Since 2000, presidential election year turnout has averaged 75%, all in the 74-77% range.

However, the website is owned by Katie Hobbs' office, so who the fuck knows...

McSally's going to go down as one of the worst Senate candidates ever. She's dull and dry. Kelly is a friggin' astronaut and quite genial. Even after she got appointed you rarely heard from her. Sinema was always tweeting about stuff she was doing, and most of it was actually fairly non-partisan. She was one of the few Dems that applauded Trump during the SOU address. But on the other hand, she voted to impeach...

Anyway... I'm not saying this to promote Dem Senators - it's just that by comparison McSally looked awful.

Hobbs is quickly becoming famous. Don Jr retweeted her, and she was a lead topic during recent Dave Rubin and Styx videos. I was going to reply to her new tweets with an image of that "neo-Nazi" 2017 tweet, but when I got there I saw that many, many others had beat me to it. She's getting ratioed pretty hard.

But Dick Morris said that the existing AZ recount law is actually that stupid. Whatever your opinion of morris, he does have a pretty encyclopedic knowledge of election related stuff.

I'm happy it works for you, really I am. As an engineer, I was naturally drawn to his rather analytical approach to cooking. But then he gets carried away and ends up making things so complicated. Eventually I just said "nah - not doing it that way."

Again, I'm really glad your kid(s) love your french toast. Mine takes about five minutes and the kids (well, grandkids now) beg for more. So I guess we're both doing okay.

Me too.

I'm not sure I'm understanding this. Are we suggesting that if she attended the certification, she would have somehow detected some manner of fraud and shouted "ah hah! caught you!"? I'm pretty sure to the casual observer it would behave as expected.

I'm not excusing her for abrogating her responsibility to attend, just questioning what her attendance would have ultimately accomplished.

And no cooking above medium low during the winter.

Yeah, I spent some time playing w that Edison data set, but the vote share for each candidate only uses three significant digits -- when you're talking about millions of accumulated votes! It significantly limits the resolution of any analysis, unless you're looking for REALLY big changes.

And why would we assume the switches happen in large batches? Wouldn't it make more sense to have the switches happen incrementally in real time as they're counted?

Honest question: The red wave was obviously smaller in 2016, so why didn't these algorithms work then? Were Hillary and company just that arrogant that they were never enabled? Why no "Uh, we have to stop counting for a few hours. someone has an untied shoelace."?

You know he's gonna screech like a little girl when he's cuffed.

And a lot of people did, but it didn't get traction (kinda makes you wonder why in hindsight). Perhaps people were just getting so jazzed about this new-fangled world wide web thingy that any new use of computer tech was a cool thing.

"Poll of prison inmates finds vast majority are innocent of their alleged crimes"

I've been playing w the data in Excel and that's the big limitation I'm finding - using only three significant digits for vote share. If you have a million accumulated votes, manipulations of a thousand votes could be undetectable. You also have to allow for rounding errors +/- 0.001 in the vote share data when triggering a flag, so there's some more lost visibility.

Granted, this can still show HUGE manipulations, but even that capability diminishes as the accumulated vote count rises.

Guys, we’re getting a little extrapolation-happy. This is the kind of stuff we rail at the climate alarmists about. Obviously further investigation is needed. Heck, it may end up being even worse that what’s proposed. But we’ll have plenty of actual verifiable evidence as this plays out.

If you were sent a mail in ballot but instead voted in person, early or on Election Day, your portal will show TWO ballots. The one tied to the mail in ballot will show as CANCELLED but the other should show as ACCEPTED.

not sure If that’s the case here, but just so everyone’s aware.

Funny, I don’t see black Trump supporters seeking or even caring about her forgiveness.

Why are we assuming that all registered Dems will vote for Biden? There will be a bigger share of Dems voting for Trump than Reps for Biden.

I wish I had more upvotes for this.