Did Elon steal the 2024 election for Trump? Part 2 on page 3

You must have forgotten who decided that judicial appointments should not be subject to the filibuster. It wasn't Mitch McConnell. In fact it wasn't any Republican. It also didn't happen when Trump was President. No, it was Harry Reid, senator from Nevada, that wanted to get Obamas appointments confirmed without dealing with the Republican minority. That's why people say things like don't get rid of the filibuster, if you do, you won't be able to use it when the other side is in power.

 

Why in the world does Trump keep saying, ‘We don’t need the votes’?
https://www.google.com/search?q=Tru...msung-gj-rev1&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8

 

This seemed like a really poor analysis to me, but I've only taken a couple stats courses 35 years ago, so I found this on Reddit:

The 1/2 ^ 88 figure, even under the asinine and factually wrong assumptions of independence and each state being an even coin flip, does not at all represent the odds (as improperly presented) that Donald Trump won the election legitimately. It represents the odds that trump won in the exact specific way that he did, which is an extremely important distinction. This is the same conceptual difference between the odds of you winning the lottery, and the aggregate odds of someone winning the lottery. If we conflate these two ideas, then it's impossible that anything ever has happened because we have to compute the joint probabilities of uncountably many variables taking precise values in a continuous sample space. And for any continuous random variable X, the probability of X taking any pointwise value in a set of measure zero is precisely zero. You even partially identified this point, but didn't make it clear how drastically that changes things.

All this to say, the proper way to make this calculation, even assuming all those dumbass premises from the article, would be to use a binomial cumulative distribution function, not to take a pointwise probability. Give me a break. This thread has me shaken by the level of mathematical illiteracy.

For the record, I hate Donald Trump and all his associates with every fiber of my being. This isn't bias speaking, it's just cold, objective mathematics revealing the inevitable truth that the article is a whole big load of bullshit, from which we can draw zero useful conclusions. Ragebait and nothing else.
​

 

That article only makes sense if the votes are determined completely randomly between Harris and Trump. In the real world, people choose who they vote for. Could you imagine them writing the same article about Reagan winning 49 states? Their minds would explode. Did Elon fire his space lasers back in time to 1984?

 

It's funny that I just had the same thought and did the math.

Let's be very generous and assume Reagan had a 90% chance to win each state. 0.9 ^ 49 = .0057
Hmmm. Reagan had less than 1% chance of winning 49 states. This is very fishy, the election must have been rigged.

Like the first article where they don't know tech and make bogus connections, in this article they don't know stats and draw poor conclusions. This is just not a case where you can multiply a series of individual event to get a probability. They are mathing wrong.

 

Ho away. You're absurd. A weight loss program would prove the truth

 

Maybe you 2 can be on the buddy system in your new facility?

 

While that is certainly concerning, the results wouldn't change at all.