*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[OngBonga]

So apparently Trump just lost with the most votes for a sitting President in US history.

This tweet is disputed blah blah. Twitter are literally censoring some of Trump's tweets, which you can view if you take a link but replies are turned off. Twitter really should not be doing that. How can Twitter know if voter fraud happened or not? They should be completely impartial, and these tweets form an important public record. We all want to see evidence rather than tweets, but if anyone is qualified to make this claim then it's Trump. He can take the legal consequences of making libelous comments, Twitter are not responsible for his comments, so they should let it play out without meddling.

I can believe that voter turnout was as high as it was because Trump is hugely polarising, and people felt compelled to either get him out or keep him in. I'm struggling to believe that he lost a lead of 300k+ in PA, and if the claims he's making that tractors blocked doorways and windows were covered up can be backed up with video evidence, then I might start to believe this election was rigged. And if it was, the question then begs, do they left prefer a rigged election if it means Trump is finished? This might be where we're going.

[Poopadoop]

I'm struggling to believe that he lost a lead of 300k+ in PA,

They counted the rural votes first, followed by urban, followed by mail-ins. Most of his support is rural and/or illiterate. That explains it.

and if the claims he's making that tractors blocked doorways and windows were covered up can be backed up with video evidence

Yeah, I'm sure he's just waiting for the right moment to reveal that smoking gun video evidence lol.

Seriously, not one elected R is backing his claims. So either they hate him too or he's really got nothing. Either way, he's a loser.

[OngBonga]

Yeah, I'm sure he's just waiting for the right moment to reveal that smoking gun video evidence lol.

Well it could be a legal tactic to ensure it is first heard in court and not the media, so as to not allow the defence to prepare. idk, I can't find any evidence of fraud and can only find what other people find to be irregularities. I've seen what Trump himself has tweeted. I would have thought if he had serious evidence, then we'd know about it, at least in the sense he'd be talking up his chances of legal success. They claim to have witnesses, but I'm not going to believe anything anyone on either side has to say.

My default is that if they can't prove fraud, then it didn't happen, or the fraud is flawless in its execution and giving a fuck about it isn't going to help me in any way. But being the cynic I am, I definitely suspect foul play.

[Poopadoop]

Well it could be a legal tactic to ensure it is first heard in court and not the media, so as to not allow the defence to prepare.

You've been watching too many TV shows. You can't just pop into a courtroom with surprise evidence, you have to disclose it ahead of time to the other side.

[OngBonga]

They counted the rural votes first, followed by urban, followed by mail-ins. Most of his support is rural and/or illiterate. That explains it.

Aren't you super brainy when it comes to statistical analysis? What the probability of this kind of swing happening due to these factors?

[Poopadoop]

Aren't you super brainy when it comes to statistical analysis? What the probability of this kind of swing happening due to these factors?

It happened in pretty much every state. The early votes favoured Trump more (rural) and the later ones favoured Biden more (urban and mail-in). The reason it looks suspicious is just the order they counted them in.

If they counted them all at the same time it would have looked similar to how it looks now all along.

If they counted the mail-ins first, then the urban then the rural, Biden's lead would have started out large then shrunk over time.

I mean obviously I can't see everything so for all I know they just made up several million votes for Biden. Or maybe they made up several million for Trump. Or for both. But there ought to be a way to catch them if that's what happened. They can also have recounts so that's another check on the system. Not foolproof, but obviously you can't just call an election you lose rigged without evidence.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Funny thing is that it's the rural people who are generally the nicest people who will pull over to help you change a flat tire on the side of the road no matter what. Whereas the urban people are generally dicks and barely have the time to give you good directions.

Funny that.

Funny how it's the urban people all excited about human rights and the rural people who just want to outlaw gay marriage and close borders.

[boost]

Aren't you super brainy when it comes to statistical analysis? What the probability of this kind of swing happening due to these factors?

Where do you suspect the probability is introduced to the equation?

Facts:

Rural counties, having smaller operations, were able to report their votes quicker.
Urban counties, having much more unwieldy operations, took longer to count and report their votes.
Mail in ballots were counted last.
Mail in ballots post marked by, but received after 11/3 have been segregated pending the outcome of pending legal disputes.

The first group skews Trump.
The latter groups skews Biden.

Where do you see probability coming into this?

[OngBonga]

Where do you suspect the probability is introduced to the equation?

Facts:

Rural counties, having smaller operations, were able to report their votes quicker.
Urban counties, having much more unwieldy operations, took longer to count and report their votes.
Mail in ballots were counted last.
Mail in ballots post marked by, but received after 11/3 have been segregated pending the outcome of pending legal disputes.

The first group skews Trump.
The latter groups skews Biden.

Where do you see probability coming into this?

The question is how much these factors can cause a swing like we're seeing. 300k is a fuckton of votes to claw back. Even if Biden is outperforming Trump in the cities, Trump still gets votes. Even if mail ballots favour Biden, they can't all be for him. And we're not seeing these kind of swings across the country, just in these contentious states.

I'm not kidding when I say I'm basing my opinion off the odds fluctuating. That's the least biased source I'm aware of. It's an aggregate of the betting public's opinion. And if Trump's odds are getting shorter, then I'm led to believe that some people think he has a solid case. I don't know what that case is, but I'm not going to question those putting their money where their mouth is. I'll just grab the popcorn.

[boost]

The question is how much these factors can cause a swing like we're seeing. 300k is a fuckton of votes to claw back. Even if Biden is outperforming Trump in the cities, Trump still gets votes. Even if mail ballots favour Biden, they can't all be for him. And we're not seeing these kind of swings across the country, just in these contentious states.

I'm not kidding when I say I'm basing my opinion off the odds fluctuating. That's the least biased source I'm aware of. It's an aggregate of the betting public's opinion. And if Trump's odds are getting shorter, then I'm led to believe that some people think he has a solid case. I don't know what that case is, but I'm not going to question those putting their money where their mouth is. I'll just grab the popcorn.

There was no "claw back". The votes were not cast in response to previous cast votes. The votes were cast and then different batches of them were counted at different times. I suppose there is a bit of randomness in that each batch of votes reported from a specific county could be more or less representative of the actual vote. But from what I understand there were no weird swings in the vote breakdown in individual counties. And slow counting consistently correlates with large populations, meaning it was not a roll of the dice that saw Trump "come out ahead" at the start, it was a function of the non linear logistic burden of tallying a greater number of ballots.

It just isn't a probabilistic question.

An illustation:

If we had 100 tokens, 49 gold and 51 silver-- if we blindly pick one at a time from a hat, the probability of picking all 49 gold before picking a silver is very low. And I think that's how you're thinking about this. But what actually happened is that there were several hats, and they all had various predetermined distributions of tokens. The later hats to be emptied had and were expected to have a greater number of silver tokens. So the place probability comes in is whether or not the drawings from the hats were within a reasonable level of variance throughout their individual draw downs, and if not, that would be a sign of irregularities.