[AATW]

Pretty good explanation here of why that “one in a quadrillion” number cited in the SCOTUS case was nonsense



The headline in is based on false assumptions and thus draws false conclusions.

He mischievously gives another “statistical impossibility” at the end of the video which is bogus. He doesn’t explain why m but it’s pretty obvious why and it’s clearly a bit of a troll from him.

[Tom Bishop]

Does he have a PhD like the person in the original paper?

He describes himself as a stand-up comedian who makes math jokes lol, nice source - http://standupmaths.com/

[Rama Set]

Does he have a PhD like the person in the original paper?

Do you have a substantive disagreement or you just don't like the conclusions?

He describes himself as a stand-up comedian lol, nice source - http://standupmaths.com/

The lawsuit was a joke, so it seems appropriate.

[Lord Dave]

Does he have a PhD like the person in the original paper?

He describes himself as a stand-up comedian who makes math jokes. Nice source - http://standupmaths.com/

Ha!
Hahahahhaha...

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

 PDh in economics so not statistical analysis of demographs or political science. 

Also, didn't say that in his report.

TLDR: If this was 2016 and Biden was Clinton, it would be improbable for him to win those state. It isn't and he isn't.
He also assumed that a random sampling of ballots pre 3am and post 3am were from the same pool.  They were not.  One was inperson voting primarily, one was mail in ballots primarily.  Thus, not a random sampling.

[Iceman]

Does he have a PhD like the person in the original paper?

He describes himself as a stand-up comedian who makes math jokes lol, nice source - http://standupmaths.com/

He describes himself as a stand-up mathematician, which is clearly different.

And the video does a thorough job explaining the absurdities in trying to use basic statistical analyses on data sets from distinct populations - theres a big difference between correct math and relevant math when it comes to election data. His video on Benford's Law was similarly well done.

[stack]

Does he have a PhD like the person in the original paper?

He describes himself as a stand-up comedian who makes math jokes lol, nice source - http://standupmaths.com/

Your guy, Charles Cicchetti, Phd in Econ. I'm not sure when or if he specialized in election statistical analysis. In any case, from wikipedia some other learned folks with varying focuses on the matter had this to say about his efforts:

"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]"

[Lord Dave]

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-golf-mar-a-lago-taxpayers_n_5e4712b9c5b64d860fcab86c

Golfer-in-Chief.

Overspending and escaping work while America circles the drain.  He is literally everything he said Obama was.
Wonder if his Birth Certificate is legit...

[AATW]

Does he have a PhD like the person in the original paper?

Dude. You're doing that thing again...
It's interesting how much weight you give to someone's qualifications depending on whether what they're saying backs up your world view or not.



I don't think he has a Ph.D, but you don't need one to understand how woolly headed the analysis is.
I understand it, I'm sure you would too if you took off your MAGA hat and bothered to try and engage with the argument.

Have you actually watched the video? If so then what in it do you disagree with?
Basically the original analysis says "Hey, Trump was ahead by <this amount> then a load more votes were counted. What are the chances that those votes would be different in the Trump/Biden split than the original votes? It's a bajillion to one!"

...Except it isn't a bajillion to one. It was known before the election that the Republicans were encouraging their voters to vote on the day and the Democrats were encouraging their voters to do postal votes. So of course in States where the on the day votes were counted first the initial results would skew in favour of the Republicans. Only when the postal votes were counted would the true picture be known.

The original analysis assumes the split would be the same in those two populations which is false.
You start with a faulty assumption and you're going to draw a faulty conclusion.

Have you figured out why the Democrats stole the presidential election but completely forgot to steal the Senate one which was on the same ballots? Whoopsie!

[Tom Bishop]

It's interesting how much weight you give to someone's qualifications depending on whether what they're saying backs up your world view or not.

I don't think he has a Ph.D

So you can't cite any relevant qualifications then and think that anything you find online must be true if you haven't heard otherwise. Ok.

what in it do you disagree with?

I disagree with citing sources as authorities which have no stated qualifications.

If you are going to DeboOOnK you should at least have to have a suitable source, and should try not get into a situation where you are special pleading about the lack of credentials for a stand up comedian who you are trying to pass off as an authority.

[AATW]

Your definition of “suitable source” is “someone I agree with”

Two direct questions for you:

1) What in the video do you disagree with or dispute?

2) Why would the Democrats “steal” the Presidential election and not steal the Senate one which were on the same ballots

[Iceman]

It's interesting how much weight you give to someone's qualifications depending on whether what they're saying backs up your world view or not.

I don't think he has a Ph.D

So you can't cite any relevant qualifications then and think that anything you find online must be true if you haven't heard otherwise. Ok.

what in it do you disagree with?

I disagree with citing sources as authorities which have no stated qualifications.

If you are going to DeboOOnK you should at least have to have a suitable source, and should try not get into a situation where you are special pleading about the lack of credentials for a stand up comedian who you are trying to pass off as an authority.

Hes a stand up mathematician. Former math teacher. Author.

One of the other members posted quotes from numerous academics (with PhDs) who found the statistical analysis in the court filing to be absurd. Strange how you've ignored all those and focused solely on a guy with a math background who also tells jokes and makes videos to promote himself.

[Tom Bishop]

Also a math teacher

[Iceman]

Right. Same thing. Because elementary teachers generally just try to market themselves all as math teachers.

 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...

[Rama Set]

Also a math teacher

I guess we will have to wait for you to rebut his actual claims. His criticism of the assumptions behind the statistical analysis is solid and no amount of petty Ad Hominems will change that.

[Rama Set]

Right. Same thing. Because elementary teachers generally just try to market themselves all as math teachers.

 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...

Tom is just counting the days until his facial overlords declare martial law so all opposition the god emperor can be officially silenced and order is restored in the heavens.

[Lord Dave]

Also a math teacher

Actually.... Probably not.  Given its a stock photo.

https://www.gettyimages.no/search/stack/641644775?assettype=image&family=creative&uiloc=view_all_same_series_adp

Geeze, you are finding all the fake news, aren't you?

[AATW]

Also a math teacher

Your continued inability to engage with the argument put forward in that video - and the other articles from people explaining why the statistical analysis is bogus - is noted.
As is your inability to explain why only the Presidential election was "stolen" and not the Senate one which was on the same ballots.

[honk]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/19/politics/trump-oval-office-meeting-special-counsel-martial-law/index.html

At this rate, it's only a matter of time before Trump openly embraces QAnon.

[Lord Dave]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/19/politics/trump-oval-office-meeting-special-counsel-martial-law/index.html

At this rate, it's only a matter of time before Trump openly embraces QAnon.

I mean, he's probably doing it privately and only his handlers are keeping him from tweeting about it excessively.

[Iceman]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/19/politics/trump-oval-office-meeting-special-counsel-martial-law/index.html

At this rate, it's only a matter of time before Trump openly embraces QAnon.

Glad to see that Trunp's legal team is putting Republican donors' money to good use - preparing staff for inevitable lawsuits against Sidney Powell brought forward by Dominion.

I dont know whether I'll laugh or cry if the house reps dont get around to a vote on their emergency relief package today. Laughable display of government being 'for the people'...