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.
![](https://i.ibb.co/Nr6FWb7/Bom-Tishop.jpg)
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!