[Tumeni]

Another post-election Republican petition denied, this time by Georgia 11th district court, case No. 20-14741-RR

[J-Man]

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1340362336390004737

Fight for TRUMP

[Tom Bishop]

Glad we're still ignoring all the PhDs that laughed at the analysis in the filings, as well as avoiding the issue of what was wrong with the stand up mathematicians arguments...

"His approach was described as "ludicrous", "comical" and "statistical incompetence" by several academics.[10] Kenneth Mayer, professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said the analysis "is going to be used in undergraduate statistics classes as a canonical example of how not to do statistics."[7] David Post, a law professor at the Beasley School of Law, wrote that "Cicchetti's analysis—for which, I assume, he was paid handsomely—is merely silly, irrelevant, and a total waste of time."[11] PolitiFact rated Cicchetti's claims "Pants on Fire."[7]"

Which PhD do you find to have more value on the topic of mathematical questions, the political science professor or the law professor?

[Iceman]

How about this,

"“We knew there would be a ‘blue shift’ when [vote-by-mail] ballots were tabulated because Trump discouraged his supporters from voting by mail, resulting in a larger fraction of the VBM ballots having votes for Biden,” Philip B. Stark, professor and associate dean of mathematical and physical sciences at the University of California Berkeley, said in an email"

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/12/false-claim-about-bidens-win-probability/

[Rushy]

Here's how Trump can still win

[stack]

Glad we're still ignoring all the PhDs that laughed at the analysis in the filings, as well as avoiding the issue of what was wrong with the stand up mathematicians arguments...

"His approach was described as "ludicrous", "comical" and "statistical incompetence" by several academics.[10] Kenneth Mayer, professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, said the analysis "is going to be used in undergraduate statistics classes as a canonical example of how not to do statistics."[7] David Post, a law professor at the Beasley School of Law, wrote that "Cicchetti's analysis—for which, I assume, he was paid handsomely—is merely silly, irrelevant, and a total waste of time."[11] PolitiFact rated Cicchetti's claims "Pants on Fire."[7]"

Which PhD do you find to have more value on the topic of mathematical questions, the political science professor or the law professor?

I'd have to go with the Poly-Sci guy. As already pointed out by folks here, your guy's "statistical analysis" already got tossed because his going in premise was ridiculously flawed. So it's a moot issue anyway.

What's more interesting is what FOX News did. Smartmatic sent FOX legal notices regarding their “false and defamatory claims” in a “disinformation campaign”. Basically in response, FOX created a segment which was an interview with an elections expert and aired it on Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo, and Jeanine Pirro shows over the weekend which totally refuted what those 3 knuckleheads have been peddling for weeks. Super funny.
Here's an article describing FOX's efforts to walk all of their crap back:

Fox News retracts Smartmatic voting machine fraud claim in staged video
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2020/dec/20/fox-news-retracts-voting-machine-fraud-claim-smartmatic

And from Business Insider:

Fox News is debunking election fraud claims made by its own anchors in response to a legal threat
https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-debunking-election-fraud-claims-made-by-its-anchors-2020-12

And here's that segment on Dobbs' show:


From Giuliani, to Kraken, to a day-drinking witness, a Cyber Security Expert who turns out to actually be a motorpool mechanic instead, and on and on, and now this, this whole thing has been nothing but pure comedy. Aren't you the least bit embarrassed by all of the fumbling your folks have been doing since Nov 3rd? I mean you couldn't make this stuff up if you wanted to.

[Tom Bishop]

How about this,

"“We knew there would be a ‘blue shift’ when [vote-by-mail] ballots were tabulated because Trump discouraged his supporters from voting by mail, resulting in a larger fraction of the VBM ballots having votes for Biden,” Philip B. Stark, professor and associate dean of mathematical and physical sciences at the University of California Berkeley, said in an email"

https://www.factcheck.org/2020/12/false-claim-about-bidens-win-probability/

Did you notice that that link you posted is defending Cicchetti's work and is pointing out that someone's specific interpretation about it may be incorrect?

“For President Trump To Be Ahead As Far As He Was At 3am In Mich,Penn,Wisconsin,And Georgia, And For The Vote To Swing As Much As It Did In Biden’s Favor, The Mathmatical Probability Of That Happening In Just ‘One’ State Alone Is, 1 And 1 Quadrillion!!,” one of those posts reads. “And The Probability Of That Happening In 4 States Simultaneously is: 1,000,000,000,000,000 To The 4Th Power. So,The ‘False’ And ‘Baseless’ Election Fraud You Blindly Scream About Is 100% True!!”

Minus the typos, that’s nearly identical to a claim made in a lawsuit Ken Paxton, the Republican attorney general of Texas, filed in the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 7.

The court filing says: “The probability of former Vice President Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States — Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin — independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000. For former Vice President Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power.”

White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany promoted the claim on social media and repeated it on Sean Hannity’s Fox News show.

The court filing says the claim is based on an expert declaration written by economist Charles J. Cicchetti. But that’s not exactly what Cicchetti wrote in his analysis of election results in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

Instead, Cicchetti said he tested whether the ballots counted in those states until 3 a.m. on Nov. 4 were from a similarly random pool of voters as the ballots counted in the hours and days after. He also tested whether Biden’s performance in those states was statistically similar to Clinton’s in 2016.

In both cases, his analysis, not surprisingly, showed they were not. We know that Biden outperformed Clinton. And we know ballots states counted on and after Election Day weren’t from a random pool of voters: Some states counted mail-in ballots before Nov. 3, while others were still counting them days later. Democrats were more likely to vote by mail.

“I reject the hypothesis that the Biden and Clinton votes are similar with great confidence many times greater than one in a quadrillion in all four states,” Cicchetti wrote. “The degree of confidence is even greater for rejecting the hypothesis that the early morning after election tabulations and the subsequent tabulations were drawn from the same population of all voters.”

His declaration does argue that had Biden’s support been similar to Clinton’s, and had ballots counted before and after 3 a.m. on Nov. 4 come from similar populations of Biden and Trump voters, then Biden’s win would be highly improbable. But that doesn’t actually show Biden had a “one in a quadrillion” chance of victory in those states.

“I think the Texas [attorney general] intentionally misrepresented what Cicchetti said,” Justin Ryan Grimmer, a Stanford University professor of political science, told us in a phone interview. “The Texas AG took the Cicchetti analysis to a conclusion that I don’t think Cicchetti says at all in his analysis.”

[Iceman]

So then we all agree that it's completely unsurprising that the mail-in votes counted late were inevitably going to be predominantly Democrat votes  ...making the arguments in the court filing that the likelihood of the vote result shifts being "one in a quadrillion" ludicrous. Great, we can stop talking about this, and we'll add it to the list.

[Snupes]

I would say I'm utterly baffled at what the point of contesting all these different refutations was if you agreed that the hypothetical number wasn't analogous all along...but that's the advantage of never making claims and, instead, posting links with little context and vaguely sorta-kinda challenging others' claims. What would've otherwise been having to admit falsity can be spun into something like "I wasn't claiming anything, I'm just pointing out that it's important to check peoples' credentials".

It's almost like it's all being made up along the way to fit the narrative.

[Tom Bishop]

If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

If you are going to DebOOnK an expert then you actually have to DebOOnK that person and not something someone else said or interpreted from  it.

If the expert is not DebOOnkeD, and only what someone else thought about a single sentence from the work, then any other points or conclusions in that expert's work still stands.

[Snupes]

If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

If you are going to DebOOnK an expert then you actually have to DebOOnK that person and not something someone else said or interpreted from  it.

If the expert is not DebOOnkeD, and only what someone else thought about a single sentence from the work, then any other points or conclusions in that expert's work still stands.

Any questions?

No questions here, I think that's an excellent illustration.

[stack]

If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

If you are going to DebOOnK an expert then you actually have to DebOOnK that person and not something someone else said or interpreted from  it.

If the expert is not DebOOnkeD, and only what someone else thought about a single sentence from the work, then any other points or conclusions in that expert's work still stands.

I call your Economist Phd Cicchetti and raise you my Professor and associate dean of mathematical and physical sciences at the University of California Berkeley, Dr. Philip B. Stark - From the same FactCheck.org link you referenced:

As of around 8 a.m on Nov. 4, Trump still had a lead in Georgia of roughly 117,000 votes. But about 200,000 absentee and mail-in ballots had yet to be counted, according to the state’s Republican secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger. The majority of those outstanding ballots were from Fulton, DeKalb and Cobb counties, and Biden ended up winning all three counties with nearly 73%, 83% and 56% of the vote, respectively.

The fact that Trump lost his lead as more ballots were counted was not unexpected.

“We knew there would be a ‘blue shift’ when [vote-by-mail] ballots were tabulated because Trump discouraged his supporters from voting by mail, resulting in a larger fraction of the VBM ballots having votes for Biden,” Philip B. Stark, professor and associate dean of mathematical and physical sciences at the University of California Berkeley, said in an email. “We knew that would happen. Cicchetti tests whether the in-person votes are like the VBM votes. They are not, but that’s not surprising and not a sign of fraud. People who voted in person are not a random sample of voters. They are disproportionately Trump supporters. People who voted by mail are not a random sample of voters. They are disproportionately Biden voters. All this is what was expected.”

From Dr. Starks CV:

Professional Societies
American Statistical Association: Fellow and Accredited Professional Statistician
Association of Foragers
Bernoulli Society for Mathematical Statistics and Probability
Institute of Mathematical Statistics
Institute of Physics: Fellow and Chartered Physicist
International Statistical Institute
Royal Astronomical Society: Fellow
https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~stark/bio.htm#Q1-1-13

He seems pretty qualified in Statistical Analysis to call the Economists bluff, especially when Cicchetti's "random sampling" premise was wildly incorrect given the in-person v VBM lots and when they were counted. But please, do carry on.

[Lord Dave]

If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance. Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

If you are going to DebOOnK an expert then you actually have to DebOOnK that person and not something someone else said or interpreted from  it.

If the expert is not DebOOnkeD, and only what someone else thought about a single sentence from the work, then any other points or conclusions in that expert's work still stands.

Oh my... This appeal to authority is delicious.  I'm gonna sig this.

[AATW]

If you are going to DebOOonK an expert then you have to at least provide a source with credentials of equal or greater relevance.

Says the man who thinks that Rowbotham, a medical doctor, has DebOOonKed centuries of the finest minds in scientific history.
What "credentials of equal or greater relevance" does he have exactly?
I refer you back to my handy graph. The amount you care about someone's qualifications depends entirely on whether what they're saying fits your world view.

Even then, it merely shows that some experts disagree with each other.

Right. So we have one "expert" saying "THE CHANCES OF BIDEN WINNING WERE A BAJILLION TO ONE!!!11!!1!"
And we have another mathematician patiently explaining why that analysis is bogus.
Quite a few actually, multiple sources have now been provided to you. I just thought the video was a good one because he explains it all so clearly.

If you can't be bothered engaging with the actual argument - and your continued failure to do so is noted - then the headlines are the original analysis is based on two premises

1) The voter split in 2020 would be the same as in 2016
2) The "population" of in person voters is the same as mail in voters.

Neither of these is true.

The first one - of course the voter split won't be the same in 2 different elections. That is literally why you have elections every few years because over time people change their minds about things.

The second one - it was known before the election that the on the day in person votes would be skewed towards Trump - because he was telling his supporters to vote in person. And the mail in votes were going to be skewed towards Biden because he was telling his supporters to vote that way.
So saying "Hey! That's odd, what are the chances that the split in vote between Biden and Trump would be different in those two populations, they're people from the same State!" is idiotic.

Of course the split is different because the two parties were encouraging their supporters to vote in different ways.
This was known before the election.

Your inability to understand or engage with the actual argument is not doing you any favours.

[Rama Set]

Newsmax is abandoning ship:

https://www.newsmax.com/us/smartmatic-dominion-voting-systems-software-election/2020/12/19/id/1002355/

No evidence has been offered that Dominion or Smartmatic used software or reprogrammed software that manipulated votes in the 2020 election.

[Lord Dave]

Newsmax is abandoning ship:

https://www.newsmax.com/us/smartmatic-dominion-voting-systems-software-election/2020/12/19/id/1002355/

No evidence has been offered that Dominion or Smartmatic used software or reprogrammed software that manipulated votes in the 2020 election.

What ever will Tom do now?

[Rama Set]

Make up an excuse that this is somehow great for Trump?

[Lord Dave]

Make up an excuse that this is somehow great for Trump?

But how will he know what to do without being told?

[Snupes]

Does the author of that article have a PhD?

[stack]

I guess that Smartmatic threat of a defamation lawsuit really rattled their cages. I mean (From the Newsmax article):

"Newsmax would like to clarify its news coverage and note it has not reported as true certain claims made about these companies."
"No evidence has been offered that Dominion or Smartmatic used software or reprogrammed software that manipulated votes in the 2020 election."
"Neither Dominion nor Smartmatic has any relationship with George Soros."
"Smartmatic is a U.S. company and not owned by the Venezuelan government, Hugo Chavez or any foreign official or entity."

They basically walked back the entire moth of their reporting in one fell swoop. Can't wait for the Bishop Constant on this one.