[Snupes]

Still waiting on a legitimate explanation to this other than 'anomalies are possible'.

Wait, is the argument really "states voted really different than before this time"? Would evidence of this happening all the time throughout elections be satisfactory for you?

Also, those don't honestly look all that anomalous so much as indicative of a general rightward shift over the last few elections. You'll notice that, in both cases, starting after Bush (though the second graph leaves him out for some reason), the Republicans start tending to win more counties. Obama v McCain was 53 Obama, 46 McCain. Then 38 Obama, 61 Romney. Then 93 Trump, 6 Hillary. So, yeah, 90 Trump, 9 Biden isn't that wild of a shift. Iowa just didn't move much this election.

Similar for Wisconsin. 59 Obama, 13 McCain. Then 35 Obama, 37 McCain. Then 59 Trump, 13 Hillary, then 58 Trump, 14 Biden. And Trump just barely eked out a victory against Hillary there, so Biden winning a larger city is more than enough to make up for that ~30,000 vote difference. Bonus points: I live here, so I've borne witness to Wisconsin's rightward shift over my lifetime.

I simply don't see how this is any different than SexWarrior's "no president with a mole on the upper-right half of his temple has ever won before" post. Every single trend is going to be broken at some point.

[stack]

That's your entire argument then, that the statistics you found on the internet go back longer than mine?  Using 30 years is nothing but 40... that's proof!

So mine are made up and easily dismissed but yours are PROOF of Biden stealing the election simply because I used less years?  That's a huge stretch and you know it.  Again this is conformation bias.. my numbers are wrong but yours are right.

The point is that there are statistical arguments for Trump's win, while you have provided nothing for Biden.

Define a "statistical argument"? What exactly do you mean by that? Are you disputing the exact number of votes a candidate received? Are you advocating for Presidential elections to be determined based upon "statistical arguments" rather than votes?
What other things can you personally statistically predict? Got any stock tips based upon your statistical arguments? What's the statistical argument for GME closing at $325 a share today? If you actually had a statistical argument, whatever that may be, wouldn't you be able to accurately predict the outcome of everything?

[Lord Dave]

A fraudulent election is a pretty big deal.

No shit, and if the bill limited powers to overturning fraudulent results, it would be better than the current bill, which is just carte blanche for a simple majority to overturn an election for any or no reason.

Maybe the Dems in the senate should mirror it.  Pass the same bill federally.  Dems could remain in power forever!

[JSS]

That's your entire argument then, that the statistics you found on the internet go back longer than mine?  Using 30 years is nothing but 40... that's proof!

So mine are made up and easily dismissed but yours are PROOF of Biden stealing the election simply because I used less years?  That's a huge stretch and you know it.  Again this is conformation bias.. my numbers are wrong but yours are right.

The point is that there are statistical arguments for Trump's win, while you have provided nothing for Biden.

The point is statistical evidence isn't evidence of anything. You have proved nothing at all, and I showed that by finding the exact came kind of evidence you did.

Biden won because he got more votes than Trump.  We know this because we counted them.  These are simple facts, proven far beyond a shadow of a doubt.

As for me not showing any data supporting Biden

Good to know that you have no data supporting Biden.

I have plenty of data showing Biden won.  80 million data points in fact.  Actual data in counted votes, not made up statistics.

that's only because I can't find the data for 2020 with paying for it.  I offered before, and will offer again. If someone wants to buy me access to all the historical and current data, I'll happily produce charts and graphs showing matching anomalies for whoever you want.

lol @ "The counties and areas who voted for Biden are a total paywalled MYSTERY"

Please provide me with a link to a free downloadable dataset showing the votes for every county in the US from 2020 all the way back to 1960.  If you think this is easy, show me where it is.

You can laugh all you want, after you find the data for me.  Prove me wrong here, show me where I can download a csv of this information. Or better yet, upload it here so everyone can look at it. You say statistics will prove Trump won, go find it and show us.

Once you actually put some work into trying to back up your own theories and ideas you might understand what the rest of us do, it's not always easy to find and combine all the data required. It's a lot harder than copy-pasting gifs you find on the internet.

The simple fact is Trump did things than made a lot of people angry at him and they voted him out of office. This is simply what happens when you screw up badly. You get fired.

If more people voted against Trump this election then it would make more sense that Biden won the presidency with a lot of counties. Not a few. Kindly explain and show supporting evidence for the low number of county discrepancies pointed out.

It would make more sense that Biden won the presidency with a lot of votes. Not a few. 

There are no discrepancies. Cities overwhelmingly voted for Biden, rural farmland overwhelmingly voted for Trump. So of course Trump won more counties. But that's not even a real argument.

People vote, Tom. Not counties. Not houses, not families, not districts or townships or states or regions even the country. People vote, that's who we count.

And 80 million people voted for Biden.  We counted them.  If you think this is a lie, show us the fake votes.  Find ten million people who had their votes switched.

[AATW]

The point is that there are statistical arguments for Trump's win, while you have provided nothing for Biden.

The point is you don't really understand statistics.
This explains a lot of the "statistical anomalies" you're getting excited about

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/31/fact-check-5-election-statistics-do-not-discredit-joe-bidens-victory/4086497001/

Ultimately the statistic that shows Biden win is he won the Electoral College and is currently living in the White House.

[Tom Bishop]

You were shown you can win the popular  vote with <150 counties. You were shown the number you would need to win the EC. It was lower than the number Biden won.

You made an argument that it was 'possible' to win with only a few counties. This isn't positive evidence that Biden won. You are arguing that ridiculous anomalies are 'possible'. It was not explained how it occured in that argument, let alone supporting evidence for such.

It's nice that ridiculous anomalies are possible and all, but when you have only ridiculous anomalies to justify and no strong positive correlation it is not good evidence that Joe Biden was legitimately elected.

The point is that there are statistical arguments for Trump's win, while you have provided nothing for Biden.

The point is you don't really understand statistics.
This explains a lot of the "statistical anomalies" you're getting excited about

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/12/31/fact-check-5-election-statistics-do-not-discredit-joe-bidens-victory/4086497001/

Nope. Attempting to justify the numerous negative anomalies against Joe Biden isn't positive evidence that he won. It's evidence that you are very desperate and have no good evidence.

Biden won because he got more votes than Trump.

Yes, you already told us that you had no supporting evidence for your hero Joe Biden.

[Iceman]

"Ridiculous anomalies" to you

"Normal election data" to the rest of us.

[Tom Bishop]

"Ridiculous anomalies" to you

"Normal election data" to the rest of us.

It was admitted that these are anomalies. How are anomalies normal? That's not the definition of normal.

[JSS]

"Ridiculous anomalies" to you

"Normal election data" to the rest of us.

It was admitted that these are anomalies. How are anomalies normal? That's not the definition of normal.

Nothing about the 2020 election cycle was normal.  We were in the middle of a pandemic for starters, and nothing about Trump is in any way normal!  His hair is a massive anomaly. So no, nothing about it was normal.

You however can't just make the jump from not normal to completely faked and fraudulent.

Not without evidence, which does not exist. Saying it's not normal isn't evidence.

The vote counts and returns which showed Biden winning by 7 million votes? That's evidence that he won. We count votes. Not abnormalities.

[JSS]

Biden won because he got more votes than Trump.

Yes, you already told us that you had no supporting evidence for your hero Joe Biden.

You keep forgetting the 81 million votes worth of evidence.  That's quite a lot of evidence that you keep ignoring.  It supports his win by showing that... he got more votes.

If you want statistics...

Statistically, unpopular people loose election.

Statistically, people who get more votes win elections.

Statistically, people who get more electoral votes win elections.

Statistically, more presidents have names that start with J than D.

So there is your supporting evidence.

Hero?  Yeah, he is my hero. He defeated Trump, which is pretty damn heroic.  Saved the country from another 4 years of that clown.  So yeah... hero... I like the sound of that.

Are you going to get me that data you seem to think is so easy to get? I'm still waiting for a link to download the csv or database of county results for the past 50 years or more.

[stack]

You were shown you can win the popular  vote with <150 counties. You were shown the number you would need to win the EC. It was lower than the number Biden won.

You made an argument that it was 'possible' to win with only a few counties. This isn't positive evidence that Biden won. You are arguing that ridiculous anomalies are 'possible'. It was not explained how it occured in that argument, let alone supporting evidence for such.

It's nice that ridiculous anomalies are possible and all, but when you have only ridiculous anomalies to justify and no strong positive correlation it is not good evidence that Joe Biden was legitimately elected.

You're joking, right? Positive evidence that Biden won is that he got 306 electoral votes based upon total votes: Biden - 81.2 million, Trump - 74.2 million. You with this whole new "positive evidence" thing is just silly. How is you "statistical argument" more "positive evidence" than the actual votes?

Do you want elections to be based upon "Statistical Arguments" instead of voting?

[AATW]

"Ridiculous anomalies" to you

"Normal election data" to the rest of us.

It was admitted that these are anomalies. How are anomalies normal? That's not the definition of normal.

sigh.

They are neither “normal” nor are they irrefutable evidence of fraud.

Any election produces lots of data. In that amount of data you’re going to find some “anomalies”. But they’re not really anomalies in the way you’re using the word. They are, at most, interesting statistical quirks. It’s not hard to find them if you look at enough data - especially if you have an agenda and you’re trying to “prove” a point.

If I flip a coin 10 times and get heads every time then you’d have cause to think that I was using a biased coin. If I flip a coin 10,000 times and then look at all the data then if you ended up with 9,000 heads and 1,000 tails then, again, that would be highly suspicious. But if in that sequence of 10,000 flips you saw a run of 10 heads in a row then that wouldn’t be a smoking gun of anything. In a sequence that long it’s not unreasonable. I actually saw a magician (Derren Brown, check him out, he does some interesting stuff) flip 10 heads in a row in one of his TV specials in one continuous take. At the end of the program they showed how he did it - he literally stood there all day until he did it! He was making the point that “statistical anomalies” are only viewed as such from a certain point of view. If you see the bigger picture then you see they’re not really “anomalies” at all.

You are very much leading the witness here. How do you explain these “ridiculous anomalies”. Well, we don’t accept they are ridiculous anomalies. If anything, the fact that small counties have voted for the eventual winner IS the anomaly. At some point you’d expect that run - like a long run of heads in a coin flip - to end.

You are the one who needs to provide proof of fraud. Trump and his cohorts failed to do that in 60 court cases. Recounts and signature audits reaffirmed the original results. Every state certified the results. The electoral college voted for Biden. He’s in the White House.

[Iceman]

This year the data were as normal as any other year if you ignore all the factors swirling around. What election data is 'normal'?

2020 saw a record number of votes and mail-in voting during a global pandemic, and was perhaps the most nasty race I've seen? But the voting data itself isnt all that weird.

I'd claim that Trump's 2016 win created a stranger data set. Winning the EC while losing the popular vote is a bigger 'anomaly' than any of the frivolous arguments TB et al. have put forward here. And he did it while stealing huge swaths of typically Dem votes by convincing Cuban ex-pats that Hillary wanted to establish communism, aided by external actors.

The 2020 election was the furthest from normal we've ever seen.  But is the data that came out of it any more irregular than a typical year?

[AATW]

This year the data were as normal as any other year if you ignore all the factors swirling around. What election data is 'normal'?

Right. My point is in any large data set you can find data which if you have an agenda you can call an anomaly.

So in 2016 Trump got a bigger electoral college majority than anyone in history who lost the popular vote. Every other winning President either won the popular vote or had a narrow electoral college win despite losing the popular vote

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote

1888 was the only other time in history someone won a big majority in the electoral college without winning the popular vote.

So explain that. Trump can’t possibly have won in 2016. He lost the popular vote and yet won the election by a landslide. Never happened in history. In fact since 1888 there has only been one US election before Trump where the winner lost the popular vote and that was Bush vs Gore which was on a knife edge.

Ergo, there’s no way Trump could have won. Do you expect me to believe he could have got 306 electoral college votes without even winning the popular vote? It’s never happened...

[Lord Dave]

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/01/962246187/spurred-by-the-capitol-riot-thousands-of-republicans-drop-their-party
Positive Evidence Republicans have had enough of their own party's shit.

I hope they make their own party.  A better party for better conservatives.

[JSS]

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/01/962246187/spurred-by-the-capitol-riot-thousands-of-republicans-drop-their-party
Positive Evidence Republicans have had enough of their own party's shit.

I hope they make their own party.  A better party for better conservatives.

With blackjack and hookers?

[Lord Dave]

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/01/962246187/spurred-by-the-capitol-riot-thousands-of-republicans-drop-their-party
Positive Evidence Republicans have had enough of their own party's shit.

I hope they make their own party.  A better party for better conservatives.

With blackjack and hookers?

No, the Trump Party is in Florida.

[Tom Bishop]

This year the data were as normal as any other year if you ignore all the factors swirling around. What election data is 'normal'?

Right. My point is in any large data set you can find data which if you have an agenda you can call an anomaly.

So in 2016 Trump got a bigger electoral college majority than anyone in history who lost the popular vote. Every other winning President either won the popular vote or had a narrow electoral college win despite losing the popular vote

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote

1888 was the only other time in history someone won a big majority in the electoral college without winning the popular vote.

So explain that. Trump can’t possibly have won in 2016. He lost the popular vote and yet won the election by a landslide. Never happened in history. In fact since 1888 there has only been one US election before Trump where the winner lost the popular vote and that was Bush vs Gore which was on a knife edge.

Ergo, there’s no way Trump could have won. Do you expect me to believe he could have got 306 electoral college votes without even winning the popular vote? It’s never happened...

This is a fallacy. Plenty of people did think that there was a lot of illegal voting in the 2016 election, and that Clinton was receiving illegal votes.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/ - Trump Is Right — Millions Of Illegals Probably Did Vote In 2016

But there is evidence to back Trump's claims. A 2014 study in the online Electoral Studies Journal shows that in the 2008 and 2010 elections, illegal immigrant votes were in fact quite high.

"We find that some noncitizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and congressional elections," wrote Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, both of Old Dominion University, and David C. Earnest of George Mason University.

Pointing at an anomaly in another election does nothing to support Joe Biden's anomalies, however, and just makes more assumptions.

You're still trying to justify the possibility of anomalies rather than simply showing strong correlation that Joe Biden was legitimately elected. Again, you have presented zero positive evidence, only excuses.

This year the data were as normal as any other year if you ignore all the factors swirling around. What election data is 'normal'?

2020 saw a record number of votes and mail-in voting during a global pandemic, and was perhaps the most nasty race I've seen? But the voting data itself isnt all that weird.

I'd claim that Trump's 2016 win created a stranger data set. Winning the EC while losing the popular vote is a bigger 'anomaly' than any of the frivolous arguments TB et al. have put forward here. And he did it while stealing huge swaths of typically Dem votes by convincing Cuban ex-pats that Hillary wanted to establish communism, aided by external actors.

The 2020 election was the furthest from normal we've ever seen.  But is the data that came out of it any more irregular than a typical year?

I asked for strong positive correlation showing that Joe Biden was legitimately elected, not more excuses that ridiculous anomalies are possible.

And in order to point at anomalies in the 2016 election you would first need to prove that the election was untainted. You have not. Fallacy.

[JSS]

Why don't we hear what Trumps own re-election team is saying.  A report released in December by Trump chief pollster Tony Fabrizio.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/01/trump-campaign-autopsy-paints-damning-picture-of-defeat-464636

"The report zeroes in on an array of demographics where Trump suffered decisive reversals in 2020, including among white seniors, the same group that helped to propel him to the White House. The autopsy says that Trump saw the “greatest erosion with white voters, particularly white men,” and that he “lost ground with almost every age group.” In the five states that flipped to Biden, Trump’s biggest drop-off was among voters aged 18-29 and 65 and older."

"Trump’s response to the pandemic was also critical. The autopsy says that coronavirus registered as the top issue among voters, and that Biden won those voters by a nearly 3-to-1 margin. A majority registered disapproval of Trump’s handling of the virus."

"The report also indirectly raises questions about the reelection campaign’s decision to pause advertising on TV over the summer and save resources until the fall. According to the findings, nearly 9-in-10 voters had made up their minds about whom to support by the final month of the race."

Perhaps Tom should be arguing with Trump's own people. They seem to think he lost because, well, he was unpopular, made mistakes and screwed up with the pandemic response.

Or perhaps Tony is just unaware of all the meaningless cherry picked 'statistical evidence' that was made up after the fact.  I'm sure he would be very interested in hearing Tom's theories. Make sure to include some secret messages from Q using the gematrix.org site or use some dead pigeons if that's no longer secure enough. 

Maybe I should send him my 'statistical evidence' of 73 bellwether counties that broke for Hillary in 2016 that prove Trump cheated too.

[Action80]

This year the data were as normal as any other year if you ignore all the factors swirling around. What election data is 'normal'?

Right. My point is in any large data set you can find data which if you have an agenda you can call an anomaly.

So in 2016 Trump got a bigger electoral college majority than anyone in history who lost the popular vote. Every other winning President either won the popular vote or had a narrow electoral college win despite losing the popular vote

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote

1888 was the only other time in history someone won a big majority in the electoral college without winning the popular vote.

So explain that. Trump can’t possibly have won in 2016. He lost the popular vote and yet won the election by a landslide. Never happened in history. In fact since 1888 there has only been one US election before Trump where the winner lost the popular vote and that was Bush vs Gore which was on a knife edge.

Ergo, there’s no way Trump could have won. Do you expect me to believe he could have got 306 electoral college votes without even winning the popular vote? It’s never happened...

This is a fallacy. Plenty of people did think that there was a lot of illegal voting in the 2016 election, and that Clinton was receiving illegal votes.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/ - Trump Is Right — Millions Of Illegals Probably Did Vote In 2016

But there is evidence to back Trump's claims. A 2014 study in the online Electoral Studies Journal shows that in the 2008 and 2010 elections, illegal immigrant votes were in fact quite high.

"We find that some noncitizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and congressional elections," wrote Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, both of Old Dominion University, and David C. Earnest of George Mason University.

Pointing at an anomaly in another election does nothing to support Joe Biden's anomalies, however, and just makes more assumptions.

You're still trying to justify the possibility of anomalies rather than simply showing strong correlation that Joe Biden was legitimately elected. Again, you have presented zero positive evidence, only excuses.

This year the data were as normal as any other year if you ignore all the factors swirling around. What election data is 'normal'?

2020 saw a record number of votes and mail-in voting during a global pandemic, and was perhaps the most nasty race I've seen? But the voting data itself isnt all that weird.

I'd claim that Trump's 2016 win created a stranger data set. Winning the EC while losing the popular vote is a bigger 'anomaly' than any of the frivolous arguments TB et al. have put forward here. And he did it while stealing huge swaths of typically Dem votes by convincing Cuban ex-pats that Hillary wanted to establish communism, aided by external actors.

The 2020 election was the furthest from normal we've ever seen.  But is the data that came out of it any more irregular than a typical year?

I asked for strong positive correlation showing that Joe Biden was legitimately elected, not more excuses that ridiculous anomalies are possible. That is a pretty weak line of reasoning.

And in order to point at anomalies in the 2016 election you would first need to prove that the election was untainted. You have not. Fallacy.

Everyone knows that shitbag HRC didn't win the popular vote.

That is another lie foisted upon the public by MSM.

They have ceased all pretense of sanity and sound analysis.