We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Good news! I can believe my eyes.

I’m not one to stay up late watching an election count – let alone stay up even later to watch a US one (and I discourage the habit in my nearest and dearest). I always tell myself (wrongly, as you shall see) that the result will look just the same in the morning whether I follow it overnight or not. So a month ago on Wednesday 4th, by the time we were up, had breakfast and started looking at how it was going across the pond, it was past 8 o’clock in my (Greenwich) time zone (much the same time of day as it was when the household first learnt we’d won the Brexit referendum four years earlier).

At that moment, Trump was the bookies’ clear favourite to win. Browsing the election map for five or ten minutes, I saw why they were giving him such strong odds. The cumulative vote total graphs for each candidate in the swing states were curving over towards flatness and the gaps below Trump’s lines, above Biden’s, were sufficient. I started to get on with the day’s business, still glancing at the electoral map at times.

Then I saw the one of the four anomalous data points analysed in this article*. That is, I looked away from my computer screen momentarily, drank some more tea, looked back – and wondered if my (rather good!) memory for figures had abruptly failed me. What it said simply didn’t fit what I remembered when I’d started sipping my still-very-hot cup of tea.

It was an astonishing thing to see.

That was in Wisconsin. While I was still trying to check my memory, Michigan did the same, as another of the paper’s four anomalies hit. By 9 o’clock UK time, the bookies were rethinking things – and so was I. I did some work, then went out for a walk and got back around half-past eleven, just in time to see the last anomaly take effect in Michigan.

The linked analysis of these four events is very easy to read – or so say I, but for five years my work was researching aspects of statistical anomalies, so here is my summary for anyone who feels differently.

Batches of counted votes can be very unbalanced towards either candidate or they can be large, but there is a strong inverse relationship between the two. The paper analyses a lot of data to show the improbability of both very unbalanced and very large. This is a good test because it tends to get past fraudsters, who are focussed on the raw margin of votes more than the ratio or the batch size.

A secondary tell – and this one is already well-known in fraud detection in third-world countries – is improbable ratios of the losing candidate to minor candidates, e.g. Trump getting little more than twice as many votes as the minor candidates in the second Michigan anomaly when the state’s average (calculated including that data point) was 31 to 1. The paper finds this combination of grossly-violated size-margin ratio and grossly-violated Trump-to-third-party ratio particularly suspicious (as do I). It also computes what happens if you pull these four data points in towards merely the 99th percentile of the size-margin relationship – leaving them still anomalous but not so wildly implausible. (Biden loses his alleged lead in all three states.) It also notes some related statistical oddities.

My guess is that the idea of the US waking up to what I’d woken up to – Trump the heavy odds-on favourite – terrified his enemies. Their pre-election narrative was that Trump would at first ‘appear’ to win, after which ‘days and weeks of counting’ (Zuckerberg) would show he had lost. But while Zuckerberg promised to ‘educate’ America to believe in that, I think someone in the early hours of the 4th panicked that if the US electorate woke up to a bookies-call-it-for-Trump breakfast on Wednesday morning, that would never be erasable from the US mind, no matter how many votes they then ‘found’. So they made sure that didn’t happen. (You never know: it might yet be that what they did to prevent that becomes equally hard to remove from America’s consciousness. You don’t have to be a statistician to think a sudden step function in a smooth graph looks odd.)

So the good news is that my memory for numbers is working fine. The bad news is that I may lose a night’s sleep next election. The very first of the four anomalous points went into the Georgia vote totals soon after 6:30 AM my time – half-an-hour after the normal rising time of Donald Trump and Margaret Thatcher, I am told. (I guess the reason I’m not PM or president is that I’m usually asleep then.) When I first glanced at the results, I thought Georgia was surprisingly close given e.g. the Florida result, but if I’d missed the other three oddities as completely as Georgia’s, I’d have been far less cautious in reviewing the outcome.

*FYI: the linked paper was easy to access this morning in the UK, but sometime before 9 o’clock eastern US time, it became hard to reach via the link above. (Massive interest overwhelming server, DoS attack, both, …? – Your guess is as good as mine.) You can try here. Another summary of it is here. (I’ll arrange a robust link if the problem does not clear.)

49 comments to Good news! I can believe my eyes.

  • Exasperated

    I wish I had an explanation as to why Trump drove the Entrenched Bureaucracy/Globalists to such extreme lengths and frankly rather obvious cheating. Wouldn’t it have been cheaper and easier to co-opt Trump? Is to ask the question, to answer it? The 1% were still making money under Trump, but the working and poor were making gains, too. Is that the problem, is that what was anathema?

  • APL

    Exasperated: “I wish I had an explanation as to why Trump drove the Entrenched Bureaucracy/Globalists to such extreme lengths and frankly rather obvious cheating.”

    This time they were determined that Trump wouldn’t win, as he was not supposed to win last time. But even ‘they’ underestimated the vote that Trump was to receive, and both their COVID postal vote and, ‘the no corpse will be disenfranchised’, tactics failed to overcome Trumps lead. It was necessary to gerrymander the vote in a more gratuitous manner.

    The NWO had all the polling establishment on their side, prepping the ground for a Biden win, just as they had for a Clinton win. They were sure, probably because they had the same mechanisms at their disposal in 2016 as 2020.

    Exasperated: “Wouldn’t it have been cheaper and easier to co-opt Trump?”

    Trump simply didn’t figure in their little ‘bugging s turn’ scheme. He took them utterly by surprise. Then offered the proles policies they had wanted for years but the political class had denied them.

    Solution? Elect a Chinese agent and grifter to the office of President of the United States of America.

    Obvious, Doh!

  • There may be an analogy here to the Earl of Strafford. I’m basing my thoughts on Mike Duncan’s “Revolutions” podcast series on the English Civil War. As I understand it, there were members of Parliament who had conspired to raise a Scottish army against King Charles, and who thought Strafford had evidence to convict them of treason. They passed a Bill of Attainder against Strafford and had him killed in order to avoid prosecution.

    I apologize if I have the history wildly wrong here.

  • Peter A. Taylor (December 1, 2020 at 7:46 pm), you are mixing two events two years apart, I think. (Apologies for off-topic comment. I invite further commenters to get back on the topic of my post.)

    1) In 1640, Pym, Cromwell and Hampden planned to convict Strafford and condemn him in court, not by attainder. They wanted to do so because he was the king’s most efficient – and therefore dangerous to their cause – minister, and because they had never forgiven him, their former colleague in the parliamentary resistance to Charles in the 1620s, for breaking with them (he decided to pursue the path of persuading Charles to resume parliaments, holding them in his viceroy area of Ireland to teach the king about them, but they saw him as a traitor – ‘the satan of the apostasy’).

    Because Strafford had tried to govern Ireland fairly between Catholics and Protestants, they easily found some extreme Protestants to provide evidence against him. Because they knew nothing about Ireland, they never realised this evidence would fall to pieces even in their own somewhat biased court. Strafford knew this, so lured them forward to the disastrous trial – whose collapse threatened them not with their conviction but Strafford’s acquittal. They pursued attainder out of desperation when they had to abandon ther trial. Think the Democrats after the Muller report fell apart – or, closer still, a Supreme Court trial on evidence so poor that even liberal judges were too honest to convict, followed by an impeachment where the Dems had the votes in the Senate to convict.

    2) Two years later (start of 1642), Charles looked set to regain control of Parliament when the slower-returning Royalist members rejoined. Pym, Cromwell and Hampden then feared they would indeed be served as Strafford had been. To hold down the king, they had done several things that were certainly technically crimes (how much actually so can be debated). Given their courage on the field of battle, one can argue their cause weighed as much as their lives to them, but they were looking to lose both within a fortnight when their wafer-thin majority ceased. So, using a double-agent to misinform Charles that they (and two moderate leaders they slyly added to the report) planned to attaint the Queen, they procured a civil war.

    And that will have to be a halting point for me as regards this somewhat OT history, interesting though it is.

  • llamas

    Exasperated wrote:

    ‘I wish I had an explanation as to why Trump drove the Entrenched Bureaucracy/Globalists to such extreme lengths and frankly rather obvious cheating.’

    I think it would be unwise to discount the ‘FYTW’ factor. The tendency to brazen, in-your-face, what-are-you-going-to-do-about-it lyin’ and cheatin’ is very strong in the entrenched elites, especially on the left. It was a common, approved, encouraged tactic in the old Soviet bloc – deliberately telling the proles huge, obvious, and sometimes pointless lies, and make them accept them, simply to show that they could do so without consequences.

    If they can ram this result through, and make it stick, in spite of the hundreds of thousands of obviously-questionable votes, that’s all they care about. They won, enough that they get the power, and the fact that likely more than half the population thinks that they cheated to do so – doesn’t matter. They don’t care about legitimacy, or democracy, or the rule of law. They care about power. FYTW.

    I note that PIHMO Biden took a tumble this weekend, and broke some bones in his foot. Quelle fromage. But for me, the big tell was the phrase ‘from an abundance of caution’, in regard to his treatment. Remember Hillary Clinton’s obvious seizures, passed off as ‘the flu’? Biden’s already had two brain aneurysms that he’s admitted to, as well as a-fib and various other circulatory issues. How long before that ‘abundance of caution’ walks him right out office, would you say?

    llater,

    llamas

  • Snorri Godhi

    The data visualization leaves much to be desired.

  • Sam Duncan

    Although this mirrors my own experience on the night, my first thought is, “Can we eliminate confirmation bias?“. Are there any states in which Trump saw a similar “anomalous” bump? I haven’t heard of any, but I’ve mostly been following pro-Republican commentators. If there are none, the argument becomes *much* more convincing.

  • staghounds

    What co-opting? What did President Trump really DO? Aside from- maybe- a couple of decent Supreme Court nominations, what are his accomplishments? Immigration, the swamp, national bankruptcy all remain unchanged or worse.

    He did make all the right people angry, I’ll give him that. But I can’t fathom why that makes him so popular here, or among his faithful.

    Maybe they just love the performance.

  • Exasperated

    He did make all the right people angry, I’ll give him that. But I can’t fathom why that makes him so popular here, or among his faithful.

    It’s been four years and you haven’t figured out that it’s not about Trump; it was never about Trump. It’s Working America’s rejection of the Prog world view; China appeasing globalism, the perverse, creepy SJWs, and the malevolent cancel culture. Regular Americans don’t want to give up their heritage and rights, they don’t want a top down government and economy run by unaccountable bureaucrats, they don’t want to be the world’s piggy bank, they don’t want to make the world safe for multinationals, in short, they they don’t want America to be China’s bitch. This has been building ever since the multinationals and the uniparty sold out Working America. Trump didn’t bring it about; he’s just the only national figure to push back.

  • Exasperated

    In response to the topic at hand, we are in limbo with maybe a preponderance of suspicion or a preponderance of anomalies. It isn’t just the middle of the night spikes, but among other things, the election looked, for all the world, like a Red wave. In addition the bell weather counties didn’t go with the winner for the first time in 60 years. Trump had coattails and Biden didn’t. I’m just scratching the surface here, I’m sure you have read of many more oddities. The evidence is held by the election officials and they have not been as forth coming as usual. A purpose of the lawsuits is to establish a pretext for discovery.
    FWIW: I get my information from two Youtube channels: People’s Pundit Daily (Richard Baris, public pollster) and a Canadian lawyer with the YouTube channel, Viva Frei, which features several attorneys, including the election law attorney, Robert Barnes. Barnes gives pretty down to earth information. He’s been working with the Georgia SOS, he is particularly interested in expert review of voter signature verification. He had been reassured on five different occasions by the Georgia SOS office that he would be give access to the full digitized voting record until about one week ago when the door slammed shut. On paper, Georgia would appear to have a very secure system, except it is only secure to the extent that the procedures are followed, hence Barnes’ focus on signature verification. At this point, he is speculating that the SOS started looking into the signatures and discovered some serious problems hence the stonewalling. It’s easy to accuse the Georgia governor and SOS of being NeverTrumpers, but I’d guess, it’s more a CYA thing. There’s much more about phony PO boxes and granny harvesting, but to much to cover here.

  • Nicholas (Unlicensed Joker) Gray

    Staghounds, Trump was right about China, and Israel, and the need for America’s allies to do more for their own defense. Also, his deregulation enabled the economy to reach new low unemployment figures. As for why he was/is disliked, his arrogant tone, and constant need to insult people, would alienate people.

  • Snorri Godhi

    Although this mirrors my own experience on the night, my first thought is, “Can we eliminate confirmation bias?“. Are there any states in which Trump saw a similar “anomalous” bump? I haven’t heard of any, but I’ve mostly been following pro-Republican commentators. If there are none, the argument becomes *much* more convincing.

    +1

    This is more or less what i thought as i skimmed through the article. In particular, the article says:

    of the 8,954 vote updates used in the analysis, these four decisive updates were the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 7th most anomalous updates in the entire data set.

    But we are not given a full list of the 7 or 10 most anomalous updates. If they were all for Biden, then the suspicion of fraud is reinforced. If the other 3 of the top 7 favored Trump, then the argument is weakened, but cannot be dismissed.

  • Snorri Godhi

    As for why he was/is disliked, his arrogant tone, and constant need to insult people, would alienate people.

    But he only hits fellow members of the ruling class. There is no reason why the common people should dislike him for that, in fact lots of common folk (including myself) like him for that.

    The problem is that the news are written by the ruling class, and they don’t like being insulted. Also, they don’t like it that the wealth gap between the top 10% and the rest has been reduced for the first time in a decade.

  • Eric

    What did President Trump really DO? Aside from- maybe- a couple of decent Supreme Court nominations, what are his accomplishments? Immigration, the swamp, national bankruptcy all remain unchanged or worse.

    He did shut down the social justice struggle sessions for government workers and contractors. That kind of culture war stuff will matter in the long run.

  • Roué le Jour

    Even if the election was unquestionable there is still the issue that the only “news” voters see is Democrat propaganda.

  • staghounds

    “He did shut down the social justice struggle sessions for government workers and contractors.”

    If only.

  • APL

    Eric: “He did shut down the social justice struggle sessions for government workers and contractors.”

    staghounds: “If only.”

    Just suggests to me that the Presidency now more reflects the British Monarchy. The Queen can ask that a thing gets done, but outside the immediate Royal household, no one pays the slightest bit of attention.

    As with the PotUS. The deep state just goes on its merry way, regardless of what its chief executive says. Problem really is the sheer size of the beast.

  • He did make all the right people angry, I’ll give him that. But I can’t fathom why that makes him so popular here, or among his faithful. (staghounds, December 2, 2020 at 1:55 am)

    1) How popular need a man be to be more popular than Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden? Are you sure you are evaluating supporters of Trump correctly, unaffected by their mere refusing of deference to the negative torrent we all see and hear in the background?

    2) My New York Times Quote of yesteryear addresses why an admirer of English understatement (the ‘If I may say so’ lady at the ice rink is a fine example) may be obliged to see American boosterism as a virtue in a certain time and place.

  • Paul Marks

    Yes the American election was rigged – and on a massive, industrial, scale.

    But the COVER UP is more interesting. Both establishment leftists and establishment “Republicans” (“National Review” type people) just continually chant “there is no evidence” – so they are shown evidence (sworn statements of many witnesses, each of which carries a five year prison sentence if falsely sworn – and much other evidence) and they respond by CONTINUING to chant “there is no evidence”.

    This indicates that they, the government bureaucracy and the Corporations, are so certain of their power that they are not even trying to argue a case – they are just chanting “there is no evidence – OBEY, OBEY, OBEY”.

    In 1989 we “on the right” (for want of a better term) thought we had won – that Collectivism was on the retreat, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and so on. And that is when we took our eyes off the ball.

    The reaction to the end of the Cold War was not to reduce taxes and government – the reaction was to put them UP.

    Mrs Thatcher was deposed (in a squalid coup) in 1990 and replaced by John “we have spent more money than Labour even promised to spend” Major, and in the United States Mr George Herbert Walker Bush became President – the classic “RINO” (Republican in name only) – who increased taxes and agreed to ever more regulations (“Americans With Disabilities Act” being only part of it).

    International “governance” became the norm – with Mr Major approving yet more powers for the European Union and both he and President Bush (“Bush 41”) agreeing to “Agenda 21” of the international establishment – although I doubt either of them even looked at what they were agreeing to.

    “It is not legally binding Prime Minister – it is just a bit of fluffy language to please the U.N.” – that is how British officials would have “explained” it to Prime Minister Major.

    But the endless laws that have been passed since then (not just in Britain – but in many countries) about “Diversity” (Frankfurt School Marxism) and “Sustainable Development” (Green ism) are only too real.

    Of course it did not start in 1992 – it goes back long before this, the Collectivist “agenda” in all areas (including Cultural life).

    President Trump?

    He just happens to be in the way – most likely without even understand what he is in the way of. And so he is removed – by massive (and more importantly) BLATENT Election Fraud.

    The government officials, “mainstream” media people, and Corporate Managers have a message for us all – “we can rig elections, we can do it in an obvious (blatant) way – and THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT”.

    And I suspect they are correct. Due to so many decades of “education” almost every institution is controlled by the followers of “Social Justice” totalitarianism now – how would one even start fighting back?

    Those Americans handing over evidence of Election Fraud to the FBI make me smile (even as I weep) – their view of the FBI is stuck in the 1950s.

    They do not understand the FBI and the “Justice” Department are very much ON THE OTHER SIDE now.

  • Lee Moore

    The lefty response to all this is – what do you expect ? Some parts of Michigan are unlike others. Ditto Pennsylvania, ditto Wisconsin, ditto Georgia. Basically these are overwhelmingly small town Republican states, with an effing great overwhelmingly Democrat city in them. These cities deliver the bulk of the Dem vote, so when they – or chunks of them – report in, they deliver huge chunks of votes, hugely skewed to the Dems.

    So to show these vote dumps are anomalously wicked, you need to compare them with something comparable – eg the vote dumps in previous elections from the same places.

    I might add that the lefties go on to say that it’s obvious that there was no cheating because when you look at the numbers in the big Democratic cities, Trump actually did better there, in 2020 v 2016, relative to other places. I don’t think this is a slam dunk, though. It may simply show that the cheating in Democratic cities wasn’t significantly bigger than last time.

  • SteveD

    If the other 3 of the top 7 favored Trump, then the argument is weakened, but cannot be dismissed.

    Then the conclusion might be that they both cheated which wouldn’t surprise me in the least. 🙂

    It depends on the details of the Trump anomalous updates. I think one of the key arguments is when and where the Biden anomalous updates occurred. However, the strongest argument in my opinion has nothing to do with Biden. It is the ratio of Trump to third party votes in the analogous updates vs. all other similar updates.

    The most obvious red flag, the one that made me immediately suspicious were those states which stopped counting/recording votes in the middle of the night. So far as I can tell, there is no good explanation for that other than fraud.

    One question I do have is about the list of top 7 anomalous Biden updates. The author focuses on four but if I remember correctly #3 and two others were not analyzed. Is the conclusion that they may have cheated in these cases as well, but because the result in that state was out of reach, it didn’t matter?

  • APL

    Oh! Well, if/when Biden is sworn in, how long after that does the civil war in Syria resume?

  • Jacob

    The sudden, anomalous jump in Biden votes can be easily explained: first the in-person (normal) ballots were counted – in those Trump led state-wide. After their count was completed (probably mostly by machine) the mail ballots were counted (manually). These probably came mainly from the big cities (like Philadelphia) were Biden had a big lead also in the in-person votes. [all this is my guess, I was not present there).
    So, it clearly was the mail-ballots that gave Biden the victory.
    First I would like to hear from the election board if this analysis is correct – if it was the mail ballots that put Biden over the top. Seems they are in no hurry to refer to this question… for example: how many votes each candidate got from in-person votes vs. mail votes. (Mail votes were overall between 35% and 47% of all votes).
    Now, it is possible (though maybe not certain, or not plausible) that the mail-ballots were legitimate according to the election rules. The different proportion of Biden-Trump votes in mail ballots might be due to better field work of Biden’s community organizers.

    So, was the election stolen? Possibly. But proof is lacking. No proof – no fun. This statistical plausibility test is no proof, and possibly even not correct.

  • Jacob

    This NYTimes article says Biden won the absentee ballots 78% to 21%, vs. the total vote which was approx. 50-50. (in Pennsylvania).
    In total – of the 6.8 million votes, about 2.5 million were mail ballots.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    Semi-on topic, but I hope the powers that be here will allow this comment.

    https://americanmind.org/features/a-house-dividing/the-separation/

    Anyone who would like to understand what is going on in America right now, I strongly recommend reading this article. It elucidates what is happening in USA in a very effective, succinct, and descriptive manner, and includes data to illustrate the irreconcilable divide. Superb and important article, which deserves to be spread far and wide.

  • APL

    Jacob: “So, was the election stolen? Possibly. But proof is lacking. No proof – no fun.”

    If as you say it may hang on the mail in ballots, then it should not be too difficult to prove. Were the mail in ballots accompanied by a validly signed counterfoil?

    Were the people who purportedly sent the mail in ballots, alive during the period of ‘early voting’? I’ve seen reports that in one state, there are up to ten thousand people perhaps more, who (1) are dead for some time, yet recorded to have requested a mail in ballot. (2) As a result, obviously could not have signed the ballot counterfoil, thus the ballot should have failed at the first hurdle, Signature inspection. Or (3) the signature on the counterfoil was blank, thus could not have matched the signature of the voter on record.

    The whole idea of ‘curing’ the ballot, seems to be another fraud opportunity, too.

  • Jacob

    The rule requiring signature verification was adopted when there were few mail ballots. But this year they changed the rules and determined that anyone could vote by mail. Verifying 2.5 million signatures isn’t possible in the given time. Still, they claim they did it. You cannot prove they didn’t. So, how many of the mail-ballots had invalid signature? Is that reason enough to change the election result? It will not happen.

  • Snorri Godhi

    The sudden, anomalous jump in Biden votes can be easily explained: first the in-person (normal) ballots were counted – in those Trump led state-wide. After their count was completed (probably mostly by machine) the mail ballots were counted (manually). These probably came mainly from the big cities (like Philadelphia) were Biden had a big lead also in the in-person votes.

    Sorry, Jacob, but you are bullshitting.
    You have not read the article, or if you have, you have completely missed the point.

  • APL

    Jacob: “You cannot prove they didn’t.”

    Not so sure about that.

    1. Maintaining the electoral records is a legal requirement. The envelopes ( or counterfoils ) ought still be in existence. You could immediately discount all envelopes/counterfoils that had no signature, invalid signature, dead voters etc. Doing so might give you an idea of the size of the problem. Are we talking about a couple of hundred votes, or ten thousand invalid votes that may have been wrongly counted?

    2. If they’ve destroyed the counterfoils, then that implies guilt, and an attempt to cover up. But is an illegal act of itself, bringing the electoral process into disrepute.

    3. I think the State ( can’t remember which one ) that relaxed the signature requirement, acted outside the power of the State constitution. And the State Supreme court that endorsed that policy, also acted in contravention of the State Constitution, because, I think, that authority sits with the legislature, not the state executive nor the State supreme court.

    Jacob: “verifying 2.5 million signatures isn’t possible in the given time.”

    It may not have been possible overnight on Election night. But we’re a month after the election. If they’d done it properly, we may have had a delayed result but probably not be in this condition, now.

  • Snorri Godhi

    You don’t have to be a Trump supporter to get it.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/522987-the-partisan-marriage-gap-is-bigger-than-ever

    “When Gallup asked in 1958, “If you had a daughter of marriageable age, would you prefer she marry a Democrat or Republican, all other things being equal?” 18 percent of Americans said they would prefer their daughter to marry a Democrat, 10 percent preferred a Republican and the majority didn’t care. But in 2016, 28 percent of respondents said they preferred their child to marry a Democrat and 27 percent a Republican, and the share who didn’t care had shrunk significantly.”

    https://americanmind.org/features/a-house-dividing/the-separation/

    “Experts say partisanship can be healthy, but “hyperpartisanship” poisonous. In 1960, 5% of Republicans and 4% of Democrats did not want their children to marry across party lines. Today, a majority of both hold this view.”

  • Shlomo Maistre

    https://qz.com/1410962/political-partisanship-in-the-us-is-now-deciding-love-and-marriage/

    “America’s steady descent into rank partisanship is permeating every aspect of our lives. The latest installment in the saga is “The Home as a Political Fortress” (pdf) published this September in the peer-reviewed Journal of Politics. The paper’s analysis of 50 years of survey data shows that men and women are increasingly picking their spouses based on their politics, and raising families with views to match.

    Couples have never disagreed much about politics. What is new is the intensity of partisan animosity and the extremes to which spouses’ attitudes now converge, argues Tobias Konitzer, the chief science officer of PredictWise, which helps progressive groups utilize public-opinion data. In 1965, spouses’ political views were aligned about 74% of the time. By 2016, alignment was up to 82%. Political disagreement among spouses fell from 13% to 5.8% over the same period.”

  • Sorry, Jacob, but you are bullshitting. You have not read the article, or if you have, you have completely missed the point. (Snorri Godhi, December 2, 2020 at 10:34 pm)

    Amongst others, the article’s particular points of the co-anomaly (2:1 versus inclusive 31:1 second-third party ratio) and the size of each anomaly (merely dragging each inward to the 99th percentile boundary reverses the alleged result). To establish anomaly, it analyses the whole data set. I do not think these three states are unique in having both large cities and rural hinterlands.

  • Sam Duncan

    You don’t have to be a Trump supporter to get it.

    Aye, there’s the rub. Plenty of Democrats believe their party nobbled its own primaries. Twice. By all accounts, about a third of them agree that the general election was compromised too.

    As I said in a comment at Instapundit a few days ago, the people in the media, news and “social”, currently assuring us that there’s nothing to see here and everything was fair and above board know full well that just six weeks ago they were running around like wet hens worrying that the shenanigans the Trump campaign alleges might be used against the Democrats. The allegations may or may not be true, but they know, from experience, that they’re not as unthinkable as they now like to claim.

    Also, heh: “This column does not accuse the Biden campaign or the Democratic Party of cheating in the 2020 election. Got it? That said if they were going to cheat… here’s what they would have done.

  • The Pedant-General

    Re OP: this is exactly what I thought. I was watching the results come in and actually did the sums late on the 3rd to show that Biden would have to take >80% of the remaining votes in each of the 4 key swing states which was just completely implausible, even given the skew R/D on in person vs mail-in.

    But it wasn’t just that. It was ALL the other monstrous red flags that we saw even just on the day of the election itself, nicely documented here:
    https://monsterhunternation.com/2020/11/05/the-2020-election-fuckery-is-afoot/

    Then there is Shiva’s analysis of the vote swapping (I know this has been “debunked” by Matt Parker – I can and will detail how disingenuous that debunking is – which is itself another red flag – mail me if you want my takedown) here:
    https://youtu.be/Ztu5Y5obWPk

    Then there is the analysis of the ludicrously impossible distribution of absentee ballot voter birthdays:
    https://www.revolver.news/2020/12/pennsylvania-election-fraud-exposed-by-suspicious-birthdays/

    What I cannot understand is why Trump keeps losing in court. This entire election is manifestly, laughably unsafe and WE KNEW THIS ON THE 3RD.

  • The Pedant-General

    ? My comment zapped.

  • Snorri Godhi

    I could perhaps add links to more red flags than those listed by the Pedant General, but i’ll just mention 2 that i noticed myself.

    –First (and i mentioned it elsewhere) i know of lots of people that voters listen to, who moved to Trump’s side between 2016 and 2020. That includes, if i am not mistaken, Senators Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Lindsey Graham; as well as Glenn Reynolds, whose blog i visit every day; and at least Paul Marks over here.

    How is it that lots of voters moved the other way?

    –Second, afaik, every time the media and Trump had a disagreement on the facts, Trump turned out to be correct. (Give me a counter-example if you think that i am wrong.)

    What are we to conclude from the above, about the latest disagreement on the facts?

  • JohnK

    Pedant-General:

    I assume the reason Trump’s lawsuits are failing is that they are at the state level. The judges there may nominally be Republicans, but that counts for nothing. It would take some stones for a judge who lives in a state to declare that his state is utterly corrupt. Apart from anything else, the Antifa/BLM thugs would be playing on his mind.

    For this reason, the state judges come up with bullshit reasons to dismiss the Trump lawsuits, such as the fact that Republican vote observers were in the counting room, but not allowed within 30 ft of the actual count, is just fine. No normal person could see the logic in that, but it gets the problem off the judge’s desk, and his house won’t be firebombed tonight.

    Thus, the only way this will play out is in the Supreme Court, which is what I have thought from the start. It is all kabuki theatre until we get there. Obviously, if the Supreme Court Justices turn out to be cowards and squishes, then it is all over, and by that I mean the republic, not just the election.

  • Exasperated

    It’s hard for a normal person to make heads or tails about the post election challenges. Many of the lawsuits have been conflated by the MSM. The MSM naturally focus on the crazy ones, but, be aware that third parties, who are not associated with Team Trump, have filed in various states too. If you want straight talk on the status of various filings, there are no short cuts. I urge you to watch Viva Frei or People’s Pundit Daily (YouTube), when Robert Barnes appears. He is providing the Trump Team templates, that are being submitted in the key states. Forget about Lin Wood et al; they have gone rogue. If memory serves, Wood is the only one that has submitted to the Federal Courts. Per, Robert Barnes, the place to start is the state courts, because it’s the state courts that can offer remedy/relief and it does not preclude appeals to the USSC. Note that it is the state and local election officials that are sitting on the evidence and a forensic vote audit is key.

    It would take some stones for a judge who lives in a state to declare that his state is utterly corrupt.

    Yes, Team Trump has to be rigorous in order to advance.

  • Flubber

    This isn’t just an issue for the US.

    Anyone think the globalist puppets Arden and Trudeau got elected on legit votes?

  • Jon Eds

    Shlomo, that article was decent but the solution of increased federalism is naive. The Democrats do not want the red states to go about their lives in peace, they want to dominate them.

    Furthermore, increased federalism doesn’t deal with the most contentious issue of the day; immigration and nationality. Maybe other areas could be delegated to the states while the US meaningfully remained a nation, but again, I see no appetite for it.

  • APL

    Interesting CCTV footage appearing to show ballots being processed in an ‘unconventional’ manner.

  • The Wobbly Guy

    The sheer amount of stonewalling and obstruction is in itself a sign of guilt – what do they have to hide? If there really is no fraud and no chicanery going on, they can just open everything up and say, “Go ahead and have a look, you’ll find nothing.”

    If they can apply that reasoning to the surveillance state, then it should bloody well apply to them too.

    But we all know they can’t do that, because they’re guilty as sin.

  • Shlomo Maistre

    Jon Eds – which article are you referring to? I linked to multiple.

  • Paul Marks

    I repeat – the Democrat Election Fraud was on a vast (industrial) scale.

    For example.

    Around 800 thousand (the best part of a million) votes in Pennsylvania were not even checked by Republican poll watchers – it is ILLEGAL to prevent the checking of mail-in ballots by representatives of the candidates, they must be checked by representatives of the candidates to be legally valid and they-were-not.

    Stop talking bovine excrement (no apologises for bad language) about “whether” the Democrats rigged the election – OF COURSE THEY RIGGED THE ELECTION.

    I have been involved in elections for 40 years (yes – forty years) and if there was ONE unchecked postal ballot in Kettering I would go nuts, in Penn alone there were around 800,000.

    What is interesting is not the election fraud – but the REACTION to the election fraud.

    The Republican State Legislatures (for example the one in Penn) could overturn the FAKE results (they have the Constitutional power in a Presidential election) – but they do not, this is because they also want President Trump OUT (they just do not want to admit it – for fear of the ordinary Republican voters).

    A lot of Republicans are either scared of the Corporate Media, or bought by the Corporations – they are also “Build Back Better”, Agenda 21 – Agenda 2030, totalitarians – NOT just the Democrats.

    The West is dying. Soon freedom will just be a memory, indeed we may not be allowed to even remember freedom.

  • Paul Marks

    “Was there election fraud?” – yes, and on a massive scale.

    “Was it on both sides?” – no, because President Trump does not control the people counting the votes in the key places, the DEMOCRATS do.

    “What can be done about it?” – Republican State Legislatures could set aside the FAKE results, but they will not do so because they are a mixture of cowards and traitors.

    Tyranny is coming – Agenda 21 – Agenda 2030 “Build Back Better” is not a “Conspiracy Theory”, it is real. Horribly real.

  • JohnK

    Paul:

    You are right.

    If the Trump team cannot overturn this in the Supreme Court, then the USA will enter a twilight zone. Everyone, and I mean everyone, will know that Biden is president, but that he was not duly elected. Republicans will know it, so will Democrats. He will never be the true president, but the establishment and the media will pretend he is. Democrats may go along with it, Republicans will not. Has there aver been a situation where half (if not more) of the electorate KNOW they have been cheated? I doubt it, and that cannot bode well for democracy.

    The only good thing is that the already low opinion in which the MSM is held will fall through the floor. Everything Trump ever said about fake news will be shown to have been true, and everyone will know it. The US media will have the same respect that the Soviet media did. They may not realise it in their left wing echo chambers, but they will have destroyed themselves. But that is a small consolation, because the republic itself will have been destroyed too.

  • […] only to to “the bizarre turn-out percentages alone prove fraud”. The statistics of ratios and co-anomalies are just as telling as before. The machine did indeed go thus far and much […]

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>