https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1325592112428163072.html

I Hope the campaign has this type of data.

Nice! It looks like these patterns are forming a noose...

A noose that will hang the Socialist party for injecting millions of false votes into the system!

Nice! It looks like these patterns are forming a noose...

A noose that will hang the Socialist party for injecting millions of false votes into the system!

i want to believe, but apparently I am too dumb to understand the ah ha moment

Neat data analysis, love looking at the different ways people visualize the data

Follow the math

I didn't understand the last point. Can anyone explain?

Well this is nice and everything and shows blatant evildoers involvement with the vote counting BUT data crunching can be abused like a climate stepchild.

This data should however be concluded science with the Green New Deal nuts.

I suspect that the "analyses" above are meaningless.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the smaller counties can finish their counts quicker than the large counties. If the smaller counties are more Republican and the larger counties are more Democrat, then it is natural to see a change in the percentages of Republican and Democratic ballots after the smaller counties finish.

In addition, within large cities, there can be difference between areas. If they are counting the ballots from a precinct that is mostly one party and start on ballots from another precinct that is mostly the other part, it would be expected that the ratio of ballots would change.

Love that they are bringing saber metrics like statistics to the table.

helps narrow down the window of potential fraud so it can be investigated fully.

falls in line with all the 4 am sudden shifts.

This corroborates Benford's Law and is yet another method of looking at data that proves something very strange happened that only appears in states where fraud was claimed. It's very obvious the DNC likely cheated. All of these statistical anomalies keep adding up.

eric76 said:

---

I suspect that the "analyses" above are meaningless.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the smaller counties can finish their counts quicker than the large counties. If the smaller counties are more Republican and the larger counties are more Democrat, then it is natural to see a change in the percentages of Republican and Democratic ballots after the smaller counties finish.

In addition, within large cities, there can be difference between areas. If they are counting the ballots from a precinct that is mostly one party and start on ballots from another precinct that is mostly the other part, it would be expected that the ratio of ballots would change.

---

Explain why LA, NYC, Houston, Dallas, Miami, etc. had zero issues like this then? Oh wait, you can't. You're speculating and trying to excuse what happened.

His last point is speculating that the further you away you are from the cities where counting occurs (rural) the more red you are likely to lean, whereas the closer you are (urban) the more blue you are likely to lean. Thusly, the ballets coming from farther away should trend trump.

The fallacy of this argument is that it's just as likely that they are counted in the opposite order in which they are received as the last ballot received would be on the top of the stack and the first on the bottom.

His other observations seem much less dependent on assumptions and appear to be genuinely significant anomalies. Depending of course on the quality of the raw input data.

eric76 said:

---

I suspect that the "analyses" above are meaningless.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the smaller counties can finish their counts quicker than the large counties. If the smaller counties are more Republican and the larger counties are more Democrat, then it is natural to see a change in the percentages of Republican and Democratic ballots after the smaller counties finish.

In addition, within large cities, there can be difference between areas. If they are counting the ballots from a precinct that is mostly one party and start on ballots from another precinct that is mostly the other part, it would be expected that the ratio of ballots would change.

---

a ballots counted in each county or are they sent into a central headquarter? If central then county to county count shouldn't exist as all of the ballots become commingled.

This was the basis for his explanation/conclusion that I left out.

HalifaxAg said:

---

Follow the math

---

Is math a subset of science??? Asking for a friend!

As I read it they are sent regionally randomized then collected in centralized storage facilities/warehouses and either randomized again or then sorted.

It's a reasonable argument based on how our mailing system works currently, you drop mail at your mailbox. Or post office. It's collected and sent to the main distribution centers then distributed.

You would have to think the results wouldn't be massive in chunks as the ballots arrive roughly the same time as other mail picked up the same time and days

We support truths over facts

eric76 said:

---

I suspect that the "analyses" above are meaningless.

---

Shocker

Man some of this analysis is just wild.

law-apt-3g said:

---

Well this is nice and everything and shows blatant evildoers involvement with the vote counting BUT data crunching can be abused like a climate stepchild.

This data should however be concluded science with the Green New Deal nuts.

---

Uhhh, science doesn't work that way, what's your undergrad degree??

I sadly have a potential explanation for the ballots trending D.

It depends on how they were being processed once hitting the tabulation area...

FIFO or FILO?

So all these swing states at 4am after Election Day had this abrupt change in votes? But no other states? Just isolated to swing states and all at 4am. That doesn't strike anyone as odd. I recall the media mentioning the up coming switch with mail in ballots being heavy dem. For some reason I just don't trust the people of Philadelphia, Atlanta and Detroit.

ApachePilot said:

---

So all these swing states at 4am after Election Day had this abrupt change in votes? But no other states? Just isolated to swing states and all at 4am. That doesn't strike anyone as odd. I recall the media mentioning the up coming switch with mail in ballots being heavy dem. For some reason I just don't trust the people of Philadelphia, Atlanta and Detroit.

---

You mean because they're incredible ****holes?

Conservative Ag said:

---

ApachePilot said:

---

So all these swing states at 4am after Election Day had this abrupt change in votes? But no other states? Just isolated to swing states and all at 4am. That doesn't strike anyone as odd. I recall the media mentioning the up coming switch with mail in ballots being heavy dem. For some reason I just don't trust the people of Philadelphia, Atlanta and Detroit.

---

You mean because they're incredible ****holes?

---

Well that might be it

Tick tock. Tick tock.

Be prepared for the unexpected.

SLAM said:

---

eric76 said:

---

I suspect that the "analyses" above are meaningless.

It shouldn't be a surprise that the smaller counties can finish their counts quicker than the large counties. If the smaller counties are more Republican and the larger counties are more Democrat, then it is natural to see a change in the percentages of Republican and Democratic ballots after the smaller counties finish.

In addition, within large cities, there can be difference between areas. If they are counting the ballots from a precinct that is mostly one party and start on ballots from another precinct that is mostly the other part, it would be expected that the ratio of ballots would change.

---

Explain why LA, NYC, Houston, Dallas, Miami, etc. had zero issues like this then? Oh wait, you can't. You're speculating and trying to excuse what happened.

---

L: Where the proof?
C: Here ya go, lots of statistical evidence there was fraud.
L: Probably meaningless.

Rinse and repeat.

MrsFlyingSquirrel95 said:

---

Based on proprietary data that conveniently nobody else has access to in order to check the results, sounds scientific.

---

These guys should "normalize" their data, then exchange some e-mails that say they will delete the raw data before turning it over on a FOIA.

Then it would be as "settled" as climate change.

Do you doubt climate science as much as this data?

JB99 said:

---

I didn't understand the last point. Can anyone explain?

---

The USPS shuffles the mail. A randomizer. So you would expect highly consistent results on a % of R vs D. It's unlikely when you truly shuffle a deck of cards to start pulling flushes.

eric76 said:

---

I suspect that the "analyses" above are meaningless.

---

of course, you are going to share the charts and math supporting your "suspicion", we will need you to show your work on all math as well.

You can do that right?

MrsFlyingSquirrel95 said:

---

Based on proprietary data that conveniently nobody else has access to in order to check the results, sounds scientific.

---

we can base it on a dossier if that would make you more comfortable. Noone will have access to that data or source information either, but we just want you to be comfortable, that is the only goal here.

BTW, if squirrel's comfort level is the primary goal, I am uncomfortable with some things, do my squirrel feelings matter?