thedddd
Well-Known Member
I equate these fraud claims to evangelicals using "gods way" as a "scientific" answer to anything.
To give the benefit of the doubt, I actually read the paper. Something I'm sure Trump's supporters won't actually do. At best it has some clear holes and the evidence is not laid out in a cohesive way that a reader could review the actual data. At worst it's pretty laughable. It makes some highly speculative deductions based on how voters voted in different counties and alleges those difference are all due to counting issues (again, mentions percentages and votes changed but does not make clear the math to get there). On it's face, this is a little ridiculous because different counties would have a NUMBER of reasons their voting patterns might vary. From there we reach a conclusion about the vote total differences. So we are now basing an unknown factor (who people voted for) on top of that speculative assessment. Then it just blanket applies that same percentage to another county because... reasons. Herego, Trump covered the gap he was behind in Georgia, conveniently by just barely enough.
This is overlooking the fact that many of the complaints about fraud basically rely on qualitative evidence that has largely been debunked in courtrooms across the country.
Per Wiki on John Lott...
"In 2000, Lott argued, using a regression analysis, that George W. Bush lost at least 10,000 votes in Florida after the media incorrectly called the state for Al Gore while voting was still on-going in the more conservative parts of the state.[45] Lott's argument is used in the influential social science methodology textbook Rethinking Social Inquiry (edited by Henry Brady and David Collier) as an example of poor methodology, and showed how the number of lost Bush votes ranged from 28 to 56."
Shocking.
The really funny part is the number Trump quoted in his Tweet would still NOT win him Georgia.