Keeping up with Trump

[moksha]

Just another clownish publicity stunt.

And that cavalcade of Republican Attorney Generals? Hmm, Utah does have a history with criminal Attorney Generals.

[moksha]

the continued mocking of someone's insecurities and failed abilities to cover them up it still looked upon as shallow and demeaning.

Trump wasn't Algernon. He was the other mouse who got the placebo.

[alas]

And last night on the news, Utah governor stated that ag Reyes did not ask him about Utah joining the lawsuit and that he opposes joining this frivolous lawsuit, and he knows how he would feel if some other state challenged Utah’s handling of their vote. He reminded people that we do not have federal control of the election, but that each state decides what is constitutional in that state.

So, Pennsylvania decided that mail in votes in its state would be legal under the conditions specified and then told it citizens how to vote. That makes this years votes legal under PA law. Now if the new rules go against PA’s constitution, then that needs to go through the PA courts. But it does not nullify this years legal votes. This was the legal opinion of an election lawyer and he specifically said that Texas has no standing. Let me repeat. Texas has no standing in the opinion of one election lawyer.

So, problem #1 Texas got no business sticking its over sized nose into PA business. Problem #2 Trump still has no evidence. Problem #3 the date for court challenges was Dec 8 called the safe harbor day and every state that has certified its election is now settled. The end. Trump lost. We have a new president elect and the delusional republicans who still think Trump knows what he is talking about need to wake up to reality and tell their idiot followers with guns that Trump lost fair and square, because some of them are talking over throw the constitution, declare Marshall law and have a new election. They just don’t get how truly unpopular their beloved wanna be dictator is.

[SaidNobody]

Texas has no standing in the opinion of one election lawyer.

So, problem #1 Texas got no business sticking its over sized nose into PA business. Problem #2 Trump still has no evidence. Problem #3 the date for court challenges was Dec 8 called the safe harbor day and every state that has certified its election is now settled.

A court will decide if Texas has standing, not the other lawyer.

This isn't about PA's business. This about how PA acted as a peer. Imagine you are part of a raffle for the door prize. The person asked to pull the winning ticket starts going through tickets to find their own number. That isn't just "his business" that is everybody's business. There are rules that all of the states follow to make it fair. What if one or two states change the rules in mid-stream and the results are different than expected? Trump was winning PA and several other states when we went to bed. Suddenly, in the morning, he is losing. Somewhere in the night, huge batches of 99.5% for Biden votes came in.

What changed? This is statistically impossible. Trump won 18 of 19 of the Belleweather counties, (counties that have only been wrong one or fewer times in 30 years.) BBC says, "Trump broke the system (worked last time)." But these counties got it wrong because they were racist even though they voted for Obama, but voting for Trump destroyed their reputation.

There are SO MANY statistical impossibilities that a few renowned mathematicians claim there is a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000 chance that he won.

Anyway, in spite of what MSM says, this isn't baseless. I live in PA. Going to bed 11/3, we all thought Trump had it. That at 3am some 600,000 vote for Biden, (3200 for Trump) mysteriously appear is impossible to be fair. This wasn't spread out over dozens of precincts, it came to one. The people there were horrified. They thought they were done. They were supposed to have been done. But hey, got to count every vote.

This was fraud.

[Hagoth]

Dude, this came as a surprise to NO ONE except people who where deluded that Trump couldn't lose. All predictions were that Trump would be in the lead early and that the last-counted mail-in ballots, mostly from larger metropolitan voting districts, that were counted while you were sleeping, would turn the vote to Biden.

You keep saying that it is an obvious fraud and that there is a mountain of evidence but you have been unable to explain how a bunch of guys on the internet know all about this evidence but Trump's legal team can't find it.

a few renowned mathematicians claim there is a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000 chance that he won.

I assume you're talking about Benford's Law, right? Benford's law is this weird occurrence in which 1s show up more frequently than 2s, and 2s more than 3s, etc. If you look at numbers like vote tallies and one candidate's numbers appear to violate Benford's Law then it looks like one of them must be cheating. And you can turn that into astronomically large probabilities. But recently statisticians have found a major flaw in the use of Benford's law for determining irregularities in voting numbers. The problem is that they (I'm assuming the renowned mathematicians to which you refer) were originally looking for nonconformities in the first digit of the numbers. The problem is that voting districts are about the same size so the first digit of the number is a man-made construct that does not reflect the actual reality. But if you look at the second digit in the number, that's where the tell-tale problems should show up. Some very renowned mathematicians scrutinized the 2020 election results and determined that they show no significant unexpected anomalies. Look for the work of Walter Mebane to understand why. But then some other renowned mathematicians say it's all smoke and mirrors

[shrugged]

I live in PA. Going to bed 11/3, we all thought Trump had it. That at 3am some 600,000 vote for Biden, (3200 for Trump) mysteriously appear is impossible to be fair. This wasn't spread out over dozens of precincts, it came to one. The people there were horrified. They thought they were done. They were supposed to have been done. But hey, got to count every vote.

Name the precinct.

Since Philadelphia county is the only county where Biden won more than 600,000 votes, I can only assume the precinct was there. In all of Philadelphia County, Biden received 603,790 total votes. Trump received 132,740.

So you’re telling me that at 2:59am before this mystery batch of 600k (596.8k Biden/3.2k Trump) came in at 3am, Biden had 6,790 votes and Trump had 129,540 votes. In Philadelphia County. For a total of 136,330 votes. In Philadelphia County (heavily blue and population 1.5M). And the counters thought that they were done before that? Nonsense.

Pat’s or Gino’s?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Reuben]

There are SO MANY statistical impossibilities that a few renowned mathematicians claim there is a 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000 chance that he won.

Please don't repeat this. It's wrong on two counts.

1. Charles J. Cicchetti is an economist. Possibly a respected one, but not renowned. His interests lately seem to be on the business side of things.

2. The statistical model he used to compute the probability of a Biden win is bad.

In particular, it assumes the distribution of votes is stationary, which means unchanging over time. But everyone who studies elections knows that's wildly untrue: there's usually a blue shift as mail-in ballots are counted. This shift is probably even bigger this year because of Republican rhetoric about mail-in ballots not being secure.

Qualitatively, you can think of low probabilities in terms of surprise. If you saw a sequence of coin flips and 47/100 were heads, and then in the next hundred you counted 61/100, you would be very surprised (i.e. 61/100 is a very low probability event if the coin is fair). But what if I told you that the coin is always changed after 100 flips? You would be much less surprised.

In this analogy, Cicchetti isn't accounting for the fact that the coin changed. He's not accounting for the blue shift.

FWIW, yes, I'm a statistician.

[Reuben]

Pennsylvania's filing in response to the lawsuit:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/2 ... .FINAL.pdf

What Texas is doing in this proceeding is to ask this
Court to reconsider a mass of baseless claims about
problems with the election that have already been con-
sidered, and rejected, by this Court and other courts. It
attempts to exploit this Court’s sparingly used original
jurisdiction to relitigate those matters. But Texas obvi-
ously lacks standing to bring such claims, which, in any
event, are barred by laches, and are moot, meritless,
and dangerous. Texas has not suffered harm simply be-
cause it dislikes the result of the election, and nothing
in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution
supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in
which four other states run their elections. Nor is that
view grounded in any precedent from this Court. Texas
does not seek to have the Court interpret the Constitu-
tion, so much as disregard it.

Geez. They're not happy with Texas.

The analysis of Cicchetti's models starts at the end of page 6. It accords with my analysis, but they're not as nice, using words like "nonsense" and "worthless."

[moksha]

One last chance SaidNobody, let Trump file a lawsuit claiming Punxsutawney Phil did not have a chance to vote. If Phil sees his shadow when he emerges then we can have twenty more years of Trump. Could you get behind that?

[Hagoth]

Two days ago the Supreme Court rejected the plea from Pennsylvania Republicans to invalidate their own state's presidential tallies. They issued a one sentence ruling and noted zero dissents. The court isn't required to make the individual justice's votes public, but they did. Zero dissents. One sentence. Slap!

How anyone would expect that they would give any credence to this crackpot backdoor maneuver is beyond me.

By the way, wasn't it just a couple of months ago that the Republican party was all about states rights? Now they're ganging up to try bully states into succumbing to the will of other states? I guess states rights is a good thing when it gets you what you want but a bad thing when it doesn't.

[moksha]

[shrugged]

Supreme Court rejects Texas lawsuit.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hagoth]

Supreme Court rejects Texas lawsuit.

Which outrages Trump supporters but surprises NO ONE else in the least.

Trump's long game has always been to create as much chaos surrounding the election as he could by spreading unfounded rumors to get it to the Supreme Court, which he believed he had packed sufficiently to give him his way. He was very transparent about it all along. He was disappointed by the fact that the people he placed had more scruples than himself. At least the Republican politicians didn't let him down. I really hope these attorneys general get the opportunity to face the music at some point.

[moksha]

Conservative radio guy is putting a voice to the national Republican mood: They are tired of democracy and wish to secede from the Union. Not sure whether it was Rudy's flatulence, but it sounded like Trumpistan. Presidential Medal of Freedom to a guy who spouts sedition.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/rush- ... -BB1bQlJh?

[Hagoth]

Conservative radio guy is putting a voice to the national Republican mood: They are tired of democracy and wish to secede from the Union. Not sure whether it was Rudy's flatulence, but it sounded like Trumpistan. Presidential Medal of Freedom to a guy who spouts sedition.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/rush- ... -BB1bQlJh?

So, how would that work? Would all of the Trumpsters take their guns and move into the flood and hurricane zone and cut themselves off from federal aid?

I guess it would be poetic justice if Rush Limbaugh caused the demise of the democracy. If the country were to tear in half he would be largely to blame for starting the misinformation tidal wave that caused so much anger and division. "I may have destroyed my nation but at least I moved a lot of menopause supplements!"

[moksha]

I guess it would be poetic justice if Rush Limbaugh caused the demise of the democracy.

Are Conservatives really ready to give up on America for the sake of Donald Trump? Has Trump truly become their Messiah?

[Hagoth]

Republican Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska offered some perspective on the Supreme Court's ruling:

“Since election night, a lot of people have been confusing voters by spinning Kenyan Birther-type, ‘Chavez rigged the election from the grave’ conspiracy theories... “but every American who cares about the rule of law should take comfort that the Supreme Court — including all three of President Trump’s picks — closed the book on this nonsense.”

I really hope this nation can learn a lesson from this, set aside the nonsense, stop reveling in conspiracy fantasies, take a break from listening to carnival barkers like Limbaugh, and take comfort that our democracy is stronger than the radical voices at either end of the spectrum that are trying to pull out the Jenga pieces.

[alas]

I guess it would be poetic justice if Rush Limbaugh caused the demise of the democracy.

Are Conservatives really ready to give up on America for the sake of Donald Trump? Has Trump truly become their Messiah?

Unfortunately, some are so deep into believing the lies promoted by people like Rush Limbaugh and Trump that they really believe they would be saving America from the evil socialist who conspired to steal the election. They honestly think Trump is telling the truth that he was robbed of the election, so they think they would be righting a grave wrong by overthrowing the exact constitution they claim to want to save. They are THAT deluded.

[alas]

And what is saddest is that we all know and love some of these deluded folk and know that trying to get them to listen to reason is impossible.

[Hagoth]

The former chairman of the Republican National Committee had this to say about this latest shameful attempt to throw away the votes of 20 million Americans: “The act itself by the 126 members of the United States House of Representatives, is an affront to the country. It’s an offense to the Constitution and it leaves an indelible stain that will be hard for these 126 members to wipe off their political skin for a long time to come.”