Friday, November 27, 2020

They aren’t saying ‘no evidence’ anymore They’re saying they don’t like the evidence Note the narrative shift

You know, like normal countries do in their elections! And lo and behold, everyone went to bed thinking Trump had won, and woke up to find out he apparently hadn’t. (4/N) But we want to measure just how weird the outcome of these updates was. The piece does a sophisticated way of measuring this, but the concept is pretty simple. An vote update can either be a) large, or b) unlike what came before, but it is hard to be both at once. (5/N) For instance, suppose I flip a coin 10,000 times. It comes up 5,022 heads. If I flip it only twice more, it’s easy to get an update that is small but unrepresentative – say, 100% heads from 2/2 flips. (6/N) But if I flip it another 1,000 times, it is very strange to also get 100% heads in the new batch. The more flips you have, the smaller the variation in the sample mean becomes. Updates that are large are likely to be more representative. (7/N) Now, with coins, we know for sure that the distribution is the same before and after. With votes, we don’t. Counties differ from each other, and some report in different orders. (8/N) But if each county reports its tallies in small increments at quasi random times as new numbers come in, *it turns out this relationship roughly holds in real world vote counts too*, as the analysis shows. (9/N) It holds in the 2020 election data for most states and most updates. Those with an urban/rural divide. Those who vote Democrat overall and those who vote Republican overall. (10/N)



This graph is complicated, but what’s it saying? The x-axis is the total net votes for Biden, relative to the size of the state total. Think of this as a rough measure of the size of the update. (13/N) Big positive numbers are big total vote increases in a way that favors for Biden. Big negative numbers are big total vote increases for trump. Zero is updates that don’t move the net margin very much. So big positive or negative just means “large”. (14/N)

The y-axis is the relative ratio of support for Biden to Trump in that update. Big positive numbers show updates that are unusually tilted towards Biden, compared with what came before. Big negative numbers are updates that are unusually tilted towards Trump. (15/N)

Now, what does the main mass of blue points show? It basically looks like a cross. This is exactly the point made above. (16/N)

The vertical bit of the cross is updates that are small in total, but show various weird ratios for each candidate. This is when you flip the coin twice. If you’re high OR low on the y-axis (i.e. the batch is unrepresentative), it’s generally near zero (i.e. it’s small). (17/N)

The horizontal axis is when you flip the coin thousands of times. Most such updates are close to the prior mean. If you’re in the left or right of the x-axis (it’s a big update favoring either candidate), you’re generally close to 0 on the y-axis (you’re representative). (18/N)



1.An update in Michigan listed as of 6:31AM Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 141,258 votes for Joe Biden and 5,968 votes for Donald Trump (21/N) 2.An update in Wisconsin listed as 3:42AM Central Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 143,379 votes for Joe Biden and 25,163 votes for Donald Trump (22/N) 3. A vote update in Georgia listed at 1:34AM Eastern Time on November 4th, 2020, which shows 136,155 votes for Joe Biden and 29,115 votes for Donald Trump (23/N)



So this raises a question – why would these states, unlike everywhere else in the data, wait until the middle of the night to release massive, unrepresentative counts from the Democratic strongholds in their state, when no other state does this? (26/N)

Two reasons. First, because most other counties in the state have already reported in. As a consequence, you know how many votes you need to make up. And when you’re large AND reporting in last, it’s very hard for other counties to swing the outcome. (26(27)/N)



Finally, the report does something I haven’t seen anywhere else. It shows that if these updates were just a little more plausible in this joint property, and a little less suspicious, *the total outcome of the election gets flipped*. (30/N)

In other words, it literally matters for the entire Presidency of the United States whether these magnitudes for this handful of updates is excessively implausible, or just highly unlikely. (31/N)



This is a 104-page complaint, a firehose of information and allegations from a very big-time lawyer. Anyone who tells you this is suit nothing or that they've grasped this entire complaint after one night of reading is lying. This is going to take all weekend for most intelligent people to read and grasp, including lawyers. I've not even completed reading it, I'm taking it slow.

It's now blindingly obvious why the Trump campaign disassociated from Powell a few days ago: they wanted this lawsuit to be officially unrelated to the campaign and its finances. Trump and his campaign are not parties she's representing here, she's representing electors in GA. Far from throwing her under the bus, they deliberately made her a completely free radical, unencumbered by campaign rules and regulations and Swamp oversight....she's outside the system....

From comments: Yeah I wondered about paragraph 14 as well. Former MIL intel person, hmmm...

- Former, but now or just very recently working for the NSA? - Does this imply that they (NSA) captured real-time data going to and from the Dominion counting sytems? - Redacted? So there is probably top secret or compartmentalized info from an ongoing or recently completed security operation? Which also implies that the former MIL is still working in some capacity for a government agency capable of detecting this sort of data.

The testimony of this person alone could blow the walls out and bring the roof down.