aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Back to Fox. Fox Decision Desk did not know how many ballots were outstanding. Did they claim they did? I don't think so. No, I think their model spit out Biden, it either automatically updated graphics or triggered an intern to, overseen by Mishkin, and then if I recall the Fox personalities see it change live and are a bit perplexed.

---

According to Rupert Murdoch in his call to Kushner later that night, they did. Biden won and "it wasn't even close."

Call Kushner and Murdoch liars but that Time magazine article that admitted to stealing the election put too much emphasis on the Fox Arizona call for Biden. That was the stand down call for them. Planned riots were called off because of it. They knew the steal was successful. Or in their twisted terms "fortified" election.

---

The bold is interesting. Since the regressives often riot even when they win something, it was kind of interesting that none of that was starting. That call coming from a supposedly right leaning station was very strange and suspicious - -but that gives its a purpose. (Of course Chris Wallace had given the game away on Sep 29, something never let go). It might also explain having a Dem strategist calling it in the first place. By contrast, despite usual complains, CNN's King did an almost 20th C style job of just covering the damned thing. If he does the next one will watch again.

agcrock2005 said:

---

It scares the **** out of me that you're retired FBI and either won't look at real data that hawg has produced over and over again showing legitimate fraud. Investigating is supposed to be what you guys are good at, but apparently that's only if you're on the right.

Do you think the FBI should investigated Biden and his family for everything they found on the laptop? Try answering without saying the word "Trump".

---

True story time. I was in an uncomfortable position wherein I needed to call the FBI and presented the Special Agent with evidence of IRS, embezzlement, bank loan and bankruptcy fraud. Checks issued from the (then) former CEO.

Never even occurred to me but there was a check wherein the person wrote a check for reimbursement for a large political contribution. He spotted it right away and commented about it. Because defrauding FDIC insured banks, IRS and bankruptcy fraud wasn't enough, LOL.

Turns out he remembered me from law school even though he was behind me in class years. Guess I was hot back then. I dressed way more carefully at A&M. Law school? Not so much. No makeup, jeans shirt or sweater depending on season.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Back to Fox. Fox Decision Desk did not know how many ballots were outstanding. Did they claim they did? I don't think so. No, I think their model spit out Biden, it either automatically updated graphics or triggered an intern to, overseen by Mishkin, and then if I recall the Fox personalities see it change live and are a bit perplexed.

---

According to Rupert Murdoch in his call to Kushner later that night, they did. Biden won and "it wasn't even close."

Call Kushner and Murdoch liars but that Time magazine article that admitted to stealing the election put too much emphasis on the Fox Arizona call for Biden. That was the stand down call for them. Planned riots were called off because of it. They knew the steal was successful. Or in their twisted terms "fortified" election.

---

Not sure what you are implying with this line of thought. I'm not calling either of those two liars ... In fact, those calls between the two had no bearing on my above analysis where I'm focused on distinguishing between ballot tabulation versus media election projections. In any event, my understanding is Murdoch's call(s) with Kushner took place after the Fox desk called Arizona. Again, I don't think Fox and Murdoch secretly had access to the raw Arizona ballot count. But maybe? I think Fox called Arizona because Fox's projection called Arizona.

But regardless, I see now this comes from Kushner's book released today where, according to Kushner, Murdoch says:

Quote:

---

"Sorry, Jared, there is nothing I can do," Kushner quoted Murdoch as saying. "The Fox News data authority says the numbers are ironclad he says it won't be close."

---

By him, I'm guessing Kushner is referring to Mishkin.

Another "tell all" book says that Murdoch actually greenlit the Arizona call himself:

Quote:

---

Rupert Murdoch gave final approval to Fox News's decision to call Arizona for Joe Biden during the 2020 presidential election, according to Michael Wolff's new book about former President Donald Trump.

---

Murdoch however, via Fox News Media statement, denied that version, stating:

Quote:

---

Fox News Media denied Wolff's reporting in a statement to Insider after this story was published.

"This account is completely false," the statement said. "Arnon Mishkin who leads the FOX News Decision Desk made the Arizona call on election night and FOX News Media President Jay Wallace was then called in the control room. Any other version of the story is wildly inaccurate."

---

Personally, I think the "decision" was made by Mishkin and/or automated by Fox's/AP's projection. Murdoch probably found out when the rest of us did.

Re: Time Magazine. Who is they and them? Time's Molly Ball, the author? Mike Podhorzer and the progressive groups discussed? I've read the article (not recently), but I only see one mention of the Arizona Fox call (pasted below)--where Ball states Podhorzer and progressive professional protesters were surprised by (but presumably elated by) the Fox call--in the depiction of liberal protesters on election night facing difficulty with a decision to show restraint.

What does that have to do with Fox knowing or not knowing the ballot count before Arizona election officials?

Quote:

---

While he was talking, Fox News surprised everyone by calling Arizona for Biden. The public-awareness campaign had worked: TV anchors were bending over backward to counsel caution and frame the vote count accurately. The question then became what to do next.

The conversation that followed was a difficult one, led by the activists charged with the protest strategy. "We wanted to be mindful of when was the right time to call for moving masses of people into the street," Peoples says. As much as they were eager to mount a show of strength, mobilizing immediately could backfire and put people at risk. Protests that devolved into violent clashes would give Trump a pretext to send in federal agents or troops as he had over the summer. And rather than elevate Trump's complaints by continuing to fight him, the alliance wanted to send the message that the people had spoken.

---

They beginning to condition people to think the race is going to be tight so when they steal it it's not such a shock to all the people expecting a huge red wave?

Democrats hold slight edge over GOP, abortion more important to voters than inflation, poll shows

yes

it's already been proven that there will be no consequences for cheating. anyone who questions it will be ignored if not vilified.

agcrock2005 said:

---

They beginning to condition people to think the race is going to be tight so when they steal it it's not such a shock to all the people expecting a huge red wave?

Democrats hold slight edge over GOP, abortion more important to voters than inflation, poll shows

---

My assessment as well. In the run up to 2020, with Trump having massive rallies, car and boat parades, and Biden barely getting a dozen people to his campaign events, the mantra was that the enthusiasm for Trump meant absolutely nothing and would not translate into actual votes.

When the Dems did their post mortem on why Trump won certain states in 2016, they discovered that he had targeted and convinced disaffected voters in smaller cities and rural areas in blue states to return to the polls for him. That their vote would count this time despite having massive urban areas that usually outweighed their votes. Like Philly, Atlanta, Detroit, Milwaukee. etc.

So that gave Plouffe, Zuckerberg and CTCL the plan to artificially boost those urban numbers in those states, flipping them back to Biden.

I don't recall any hoopla or enthusiasm over the record turnouts and the excitement over the very impressive victory for Biden. Trump sets a record with his vote count, yet Biden whooped him good.

Hmmmm.

Was really hoping you would not agree with me.

agcrock2005 said:

---

Was really hoping you would not agree with me.

---

Sorry but I call 'em like I see 'em. The Colorado primaries were a joke. (Dominion.) And the upcoming Arizona primaries will be too, I fear. Again Dominion.

There's also some weird things happening in Michigan with local news stations putting election returns by name of candidate and vote totals on their websites for a primary that hasn't occurred yet. Those stations have said they are just running some tests in conjunction with the AP to be ready but it keeps happening and at different stations..

And Georgia is still a mess even after voter integrity passed.

Barak Obama, 2008 rally, Portland OR:


69 million votes


Donald Trump, 2020 rally, Orlando FL:


75 million votes

Joe Biden, 2020 rally, Detroit MI:


81 million votes


optics certainly weren't good, but "pandemic", and "suburban women" so there. talking points. therefore; DEBUNKED!!!!!! DO NOT ASK QUESTIONS. DO NOT AUDIT. VOTER ID IS RACIST YOU BIGOTS!

Every member of the MSM may buy that, but it is very unlikely that history after the final fall will. It will be seen with more ridicule than any of Nero's antics.

There has been a natural progression on two fronts that have now combined.

First, it was voter rolls and voter registration. Remember when Maxine Waters was boasting about the outreach tactics of the Obama campaign before the 2012 election? The efforts made to register people who had never voted in the past, just to have them on the rolls. Coupled with efforts to prevent states from being able to clean those rolls up between national elections.

Then they needed the ability to take those voter rolls with phantom voters, give them to electronic voting machine companies to develop algos to exploit them. DOJ creates Dominion's immediate market share through an antitrust consent decree forcing ES&S to divest 33% of its business (when it acquired the old Diebold business for just 5 million dollars and give it to Dominion in 2010. Overnight, Dominion went from a small company to controlling over 40% of the electronic voting machine business in the US.

They can take those mostly inner city phantom voters and generate ballots for them as needed.

Quote:

---

First, it was voter rolls and voter registration. Remember when Maxine Waters was boasting about the outreach tactics of the Obama campaign before the 2012 election? The efforts made to register people who had never voted in the past, just to have them on the rolls. Coupled with efforts to prevent states from being able to clean those rolls up between national elections.

---

Whistle Pig said:

---

Holy Kraken, you cracked the case!

They admitted their secret conspiracy to ensure a free and fair election in TIME magazine.

Quote:

---

The handshake between business and labor was just one component of a vast, cross-partisan campaign to protect the electionan extraordinary shadow effort dedicated not to winning the vote but to ensuring it would be free and fair, credible and uncorrupted.

---

Quote:

---

Before the election, Trump plotted to block a legitimate vote count. And he spent the months following Nov. 3 trying to steal the election he'd lostwith lawsuits and conspiracy theories, pressure on state and local officials, and finally summoning his army of supporters to the Jan. 6 rally that ended in deadly violence at the Capitol.

---

Quote:

---

Wamp, the former GOP Congressman, worked through the nonpartisan reform group Issue One to rally Republicans to the effort. "We thought we should bring some bipartisan element of unity around what constitutes a free and fair election," Wamp says. The 22 Democrats and 22 Republicans on the National Council on Election Integrity met on Zoom at least once a week. They ran ads in six states, made statements, wrote articles and alerted local officials to potential problems. "We had rabid Trump supporters who agreed to serve on the council based on the idea that this is honest," Wamp says. This is going to be just as important, he told them, to convince the liberals when Trump wins. "Whichever way it cuts, we're going to stick together."

---

Quote:

---

A second odd thing happened amid Trump's attempts to reverse the result: corporate America turned on him. Hundreds of major business leaders, many of whom had backed Trump's candidacy and supported his policies, called on him to concede.

---

Just because we don't chase every conspiracy theory in Gateway Pundit or Qanon Watkins/CodemonkeyZ tweet doesn't mean we don't want fair elections.

---

It took two years but the left finally has talking points to counter the obvious and undemocratic events described in the Time article.

Anyone who reads that article should be shocked by the blatant manipulation of information and coordination between government and private companies to dictate the outcome of an election.

The cabal described in that article is an insult to those who have fought and sacrificed to defend liberty throughout our country's history.

Quote:

---

It took two years but the left finally has talking points to counter the obvious and undemocratic events described in the Time article.

Anyone who reads that article should be shocked by the blatant manipulation of information and coordination between government and private companies to dictate the outcome of an election.

The cabal described in that article is an insult to those who have fought and sacrificed to defend liberty throughout our country's history.

---

The admission that they had violent riot squads ready to be deployed, until Fox called Arizona for Biden and that was the stand down order? My jaw hit the floor on that one.

aggiehawg said:

---

I'm tired of people like yourself who never cared about election integrity ever,

Read that article and then come back and tell me you have zero questions.

Link

You may not know me as a poster here but I don't suffer those that have taken zero efforts to educate themselves, very seriously.

---

Goodness! May I kindly remind you these are topics which you introduced (Maricopa, Fox's early AZ call, Mishkin/Murdoch/Kushner). And questions that you asked?

Like many Americans, you are skeptical of Fox's data on Election Night and the super early call (my commentary of this I've now moved to the end of this post). Believe it or not, I thought you presented very interesting questions. For example, you asked how Fox News could have known the raw ballot count for Maricopa on election night? "How could that be?" That got me curious to revisit how Fox News called AZ, and remembering Fox/Mishkin and the AP broke away from using exit polls in their projections. And a few days ago you asked why Maricopa was counting its early ballots for the current primary, "Counted? Why have they been counted? By whom?". And I agreed with some of your reactions to Fox's AZ call, it was "very questionable just from a logic standpoint." I wanted to revisit the Fox AZ call, I did not immediately remember the data they used. But I had a hunch it was not raw ballots that triggered their call for Biden.

I assumed each of these related questions you raised were genuine. I then took a greater than zero effort to gather information and references related to your questions. Your past suffering when interacting with other forum posters was never a concern of mine when engaging on your posts.

When you ask these questions on this forum, are you not then curious about their possible answers? Did you ever care about your own questions raised on the last pages? Or were they meant to be rhetorical? And you then lazily accuse me of a lie and post the Times article as a reading assignment which gave me a good laugh. Thank you.
--

The purpose of the Fox Decision Desk model is to predict the winner. Predict largely based on 1) secondary data inputs (e.g. surveys/interviews) but not exit polls, and 2) with enough statistical confidence to "call it". The exact confidence threshold for this "call it" function to trigger in the model, we do not know. Fox's model triggered that threshold way early for Arizona in the context of the bigger picture. But nevertheless the model prediction in the end matched the actual outcome.

Clearly though, the Fox model did not accurately project the exact underlying final results for AZ at a granular level. Once the final margin in AZ ended up being so close when it was all said and done, one can conclude retroactively the data feeding the model was not 100% accurate if its purpose were to project the final vote count margin. But again, that's not their purpose. Their model which called AZ for Biden so early relied on pre-election surveys and interviews. It could never do that.

If someone stated, anytime on Election Night, that AZ "won't be close" ... then they were wrong, as we know. It was very close. 10,000 votes is certainly not a landslide. In your post you highlight how Murdoch told Kushner "The Fox News data authority says the numbers are ironclad he says it won't be close." Again, obviously they weren't ironclad, whoever said this was wrong even if they got the final answer "correct".

Your line of thinking seems to suggest, or at least posit, that the Fox News Desk calling AZ for Biden very early is an indicator that Fox News had some type of contact with AZ election officials and/or AZ raw ballot counts before anyone else. You again here make mention of "ballots just kept arriving ten days after" in Maricopa. I've presented facts previously why this is not out of the norm for Maricopa, which you claim to be aware of. And in my prior posts I've revisited why that is (and I don't think it relates to the Fox call, personally). My view is, again, that Fox's model (along with AP's similar model) triggered the "call it" function for Arizona when a certain metric was met (with impartial and secondary data). And that then auto-triggers graphics etc. in the newsroom. But who knows, maybe Fox has a deeper, more secret data set they were using, not for projections but for actual ballot counting. Thought I just don't see it.

Quote:

---

But nevertheless the model prediction in the end matched the actual outcome.

---

No it did not.

Maricopa County cannot verify those results. Neither can Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb counties in Georgia.

If those results are not fully auditable because of software "problems" and incredibly stupid declarations...wait...do you actually believe that routers are data storage devices?

Bet you do.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

But nevertheless the model prediction in the end matched the actual outcome.

---

No it did not.

Maricopa County cannot verify those results. Neither can Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb counties in Georgia.

If those results are not fully auditable because of software "problems" and incredibly stupid declarations...wait...do you actually believe that routers are data storage devices?

Bet you do.

---

Goodness. I said clearly said model prediction.

Fox's model prediction has one output: "X will win AZ".
Actual outcome output also: "X wins AZ".

Those two systems use very very different methods to arrive at the same output. I've outlined the former, and said nothing about the later. They were independent of one another. You continue to conflate the two.

So yes, the Fox model prediction, despite its clear deficiencies or incapability that I think we agree on, matched the election outcome in Arizona. That is a fact.

I have a question for you then. Why would Fox News go to great lengths early on during its Election Night Broadcast to prep its viewership not to be fooled by early Trump leads? Are you suggesting their models accounted for the "prediction"?

Retired FBI Agent said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

But nevertheless the model prediction in the end matched the actual outcome.

---

No it did not.

Maricopa County cannot verify those results. Neither can Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb counties in Georgia.

If those results are not fully auditable because of software "problems" and incredibly stupid declarations...wait...do you actually believe that routers are data storage devices?

Bet you do.

---

Goodness. I said clearly said model prediction.

Fox's model prediction has one output: "X will win AZ".
Actual outcome output also: "X wins AZ".

Those two systems use very very different methods to arrive at the same output. I've outlined the former, and said nothing about the later. They were independent of one another. You continue to conflate the two.

So yes, the Fox model prediction, despite its clear deficiencies or incapability that I think we agree on, matched the election outcome in Arizona. That is a fact.

---

Okay, explain how thousands and thousands and thousands of ballots arrived overnights for over ten days after the election? And they all came from Runbeck, not the Postal Service? And Runbeck had the entire state voter rolls and sent out ballots with distinct barcodes unique to each voter?

And if any of what I just posted is somehow new info to you then you know nothing about the election.

The Secretary of State, Katie Hobbs, signed off on the Pinal County ballots that did not have municipal offices on them. This is unacceptable behavior and performance. pic.twitter.com/bfhYjLLscu

— Mark Finchem (@RealMarkFinchem) July 9, 2022

Quote:

---

Winn told RSBN's Liz Willis that Arizona's Secretary of State Katie Hobbs wanted to fix the issue by sending out supplemental ballots. However, Winn insisted that Hobbs' solution would create "confusion" for voters, which led her to file a lawsuit against the county.

A day after the lawsuit, the Pinal County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a plan allowing voters who received a flawed ballot to fill out a second ballot containing the municipal races, as reported by AZ Family.

---

Quote:

---

"At this point, while it is not a perfect solution, we believe this to be the best solution," Pinal County Attorney Kent Volkmer said. "That solution is to send out to all permanent early voters who requested an early ballot to be mailed a new ballot exclusively containing municipal races in the seven affected jurisdictions."

In his post, Phillips maintained that Pinal County "screwed up by not being prepared." Then they "followed up" the "screw up with the injection of the new ballots."

---

Sigh.

Link

Seriously, how hard could this possibly be? At this point, it better be corruption otherwise the level of incompetence / stupidity is off the charts. I mean, asphyxiating because you forgot how to breathe level stupid.

We fixed the keg said:

---

Seriously, how hard could this possibly be? At this point, it better be corruption otherwise the level of incompetence / stupidity is off the charts. I mean, asphyxiating because you forgot how to breathe level stupid.

---

The evils of outsourcing everything to private companies with no quality control.

Can't remember her name now but the retired systems analyst that was at the Maricopa counting facility after the election for ten days was just flabbergasted at how unorganized and haphazard their procedures were. To the point they did not even know how many ballots were sent out in Maricopa County and thus no idea how many were still outstanding.

I'm sure they could take a looksie at the invoices from Runbeck and figure out how many they printed, no?

neil88 said:

---

I have a question for you then. Why would Fox News go to great lengths early on during its Election Night Broadcast to prep its viewership not to be fooled by early Trump leads? Are you suggesting their models accounted for the "prediction"?

---

Look at the alignment and background of who they had calling the Election.

THAT is the choice to explain. Everything else is downhill from that. But it was consistent with letting Chris Wallace shill for Biden and sandbag Trump in the first debate on Sept 29th.

CNN's King surprisingly enough gave a better example of how to cover an election night. If he does the mid-terms will watch that one.

titan said:

---

neil88 said:

---

I have a question for you then. Why would Fox News go to great lengths early on during its Election Night Broadcast to prep its viewership not to be fooled by early Trump leads? Are you suggesting their models accounted for the "prediction"?

---

Look at the alignment and background of who they had calling the Election.

THAT is the choice to explain. Everything else is downhill from that. But it was consistent with letting Chris Wallace shill for Biden and sandbag Trump in the first debate on Sept 29th.

CNN's King surprisingly enough gave a better example of how to cover an election night. If he does the mid-terms will watch that one.

---

Chris Stirewalt is an arrogant and openly biased POS. I have no doubt he was part of the cabal manipulating the election. Since it was Fox call for Arizona that was a pivotal event.

Retired FBI Agent said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

But nevertheless the model prediction in the end matched the actual outcome.

---

No it did not.

Maricopa County cannot verify those results. Neither can Fulton, DeKalb, Cobb counties in Georgia.

If those results are not fully auditable because of software "problems" and incredibly stupid declarations...wait...do you actually believe that routers are data storage devices?

Bet you do.

---

Goodness. I said clearly said model prediction.

Fox's model prediction has one output: "X will win AZ".
Actual outcome output also: "X wins AZ".

Those two systems use very very different methods to arrive at the same output. I've outlined the former, and said nothing about the later. They were independent of one another. You continue to conflate the two.

So yes, the Fox model prediction, despite its clear deficiencies or incapability that I think we agree on, matched the election outcome in Arizona. That is a fact.

---

That is the main issue here. Mainstream media declared the winner before votes were even remotely done being counted. Do you understand how dangerous this is? It isn't conflating anything either. In the modern age, the model from the media should be to report the news, not predict based on the media's models. I will always watch CNN on election night. The guy that runs their reporting system is fantastic.

If you are implying that we just need to go on the media's version of the story/election, maybe you really were a retired FBI agent.

Quote:

---

That is the main issue here. Mainstream media declared the winner before votes were even remotely done being counted. Do you understand how dangerous this is? It isn't conflating anything either. In the modern age, the model from the media should be to report the news, not predict based on the media's models. I will always watch CNN on election night. The guy that runs their reporting system is fantastic.

---

THIS.

Exhibit A: The Mainstream Media, more than anything else, is responsible for the disastrous division of 2000 onward by calling that election prematurely in just the way you describe. It really should be forbidden to have any coverage until the last polls close. The country managed in the days before TV.

The CNN guy is John King, and yes, has a refreshing late 20th C presentation manner.

Quote:

---

THIS.

Exhibit A: The Mainstream Media, more than anything else, is responsible for the disastrous division of 2000 onward by calling that election prematurely in just the way you describe. It really should be forbidden to have any coverage until the last polls close. The country managed in the days before TV.

---

And then they did it again with the exit polling taking over the narrative in 2004. No less than Karl Rove was having kittens over the exit polling data indicating a very strong turnout for Kerry.

To me, exit polling is completely worthless for predictive purposes. Should not even be a factor Decision Desks should use in modern days. Already know the party predilections down to county and precinct levels. Gross numbers on turnout in those areas has more predictive value than asking random people leaving a voting site who they voted for.

The Atlantic is already talking about over-turning ("fortifying") the 2024 election

According to The Atlantic, the 2024 election has already been won by the Democrats (seemingly because they 'won' in 2020 and trends never change?). It's already been won, and it's already being 'overturned' https://t.co/PSUrB2yOYl

— Quite Frankly (@PoliticalOrgy) July 29, 2022