Unless you set the absentee count to be instantaneous, at some point the votes from Milwaukee and Dane counties will suddenly pop up, giving Biden a big vote advantage. Just as they did on the night of the election. The interactive is inelegant, yes, but it mirrors the actual results in that specific way. The other states had other rules that guided their vote-counting, but similar dynamics were at play. Places with lots of people had lots of mail ballots and those ballots couldn’t be counted until Election Day itself. That meant a slow shift to the vote totals — a shift that was both predictable and predicted. There were about 19,000 mentions of “blue shift” in the month before the election, according to Google, a function of the media explaining that results would shift to benefit Biden given the density of his support among voters planning to vote by mail. The odds were not only 1-in-1 quadrillion that this would happen, they were 1-in-1. Paxton’s lawsuit fails in other ways, such as its insistence that there is utility to the sheafs of affidavits obtained by the Trump campaign, none of which have been proved to show any credible evidence of fraud and a large portion of which have already been rejected by the courts. It’s a dubious effort, though one which will endear him to Trump — a potentially useful alliance for Paxton to build. If this suit is Trump’s last, best hope to eke out a victory from his 2020 defeat — in a tweet, Trump called it “the big one” — it seems clear where this is all headed: To Joe Biden being sworn in as president on Jan. 20, 2021. Update: A reader found the actual analysis cited by Paxton. It’s from a gentleman named Charles J. Cicchetti who lives in California. Here’s how he describes his effort in the document: “I compared and tested the significance of the change in tabulated ballots earlier in the reporting to subsequent tabulations. For both comparisons I determined the likelihood that the samples of the outcomes for the two Democrat candidates and two tabulation periods were similar and randomly drawn from the same population.” He determined, in other words, the likelihood that the votes tallied earlier — day-of votes — were similar to and randomly drawn from the same pool as votes tallied later — mail-in ballots. Looking specifically at Georgia, he notes that “the reported tabulations in the early and subsequent periods could not remotely plausibly be random samples from the same population of all Georgia ballots tabulated.” Yeah. They aren't. At another point, again discussing Georgia, he marvels that “the increase of Biden over Clinton is statistically incredible if the outcomes were based on similar populations of voters supporting the two Democrat candidates.” Well, what if Biden is a more popular candidate than Clinton? What then? Cicchetti’s analysis is based on assumptions that are obviously incorrect and should be treated accordingly.
That's genuinely funny. But what makes it even funnier is that the removing w stunt never actually happened
Hey Trumpers, it wasn't because Joe was more popular than Hillary, it's that Trump got less popular over 4 years. It's OK little camper, Mommy and Daddy are just having a little disagreement.
This is crazy talk. Even hearing any of these cases legitimizes them. They are not legitimate. You best start getting really ****ing satisfied.
Scrolling past that pic reminds me of The Exorcist, when the demon's face flashes on the wall for a second.
I read the motion and it is really bad and comical.... from citations about voter fraud dating to 2005, to an “expert” claiming that there was only a one on a trillion chance Biden would win all for swing dates, all the way down to who signed the motion and represents the people of Texas.
