Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: I need some debunking help, arguing against math-based claims of voter fraud in PA [View all]mackdaddy
(1,527 posts)64. Faulty "Assumptions" is their main problem.
even when using conservative assumptions about what these distributions should look like.
Assumptions and Should are always big red flag words. How do they know these "should" be the distributions. They are trying to prove some specific thing from data that also is not uniform. More mail in votes are Democratic because Trump told his follower to not use mail in votes. Mail in votes were not allowed by the Republican legislature to be counted until AFTER the main election so yes they would be reported after most of the Republican votes were counted.
On it own these proof of nothing. They could be used to maybe steer a true followup. I they think some county or even block of votes was hinky, then they can do a real sample of those voter registrations. Just pull up any or even all of those voters information and see if they are real people. Google them and call them up. If they really don't exist or they did not register then you have a real potential crime.
Otherwise they are just looking at random noise that they have make believe patterns for, Like looking at the stars and seeing a big dipper.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
66 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
I need some debunking help, arguing against math-based claims of voter fraud in PA [View all]
Bucky
Jan 2021
OP
Brings to mind an aphorism from the office...there's liars, damn liars and statisticians. lol n/t
CincyDem
Jan 2021
#1
It's in the article. They're reporting an unlikely occurrence of DOBs on the 5th, 10th, 15th, & 20th
Bucky
Jan 2021
#8
I don't know of any Snopes or anything..the amount of data here is too much for an amateur
LeftInTX
Jan 2021
#28
I thought of that, but the "default date" computerized registrations use are always the 1st...
Bucky
Jan 2021
#17
The full article does. It's the high frequency of DOBs landing on the 5th, 10th, 15th, 20th, etc
Bucky
Jan 2021
#18
Everything they use to "expose" fraud ends up being 100% horseshit. Don't even play the game.
kysrsoze
Jan 2021
#11
I'm dealing with someone being suckered into their worldview, not the bullshitters themselves
Bucky
Jan 2021
#21
This is good, but I'm good at doing those types of meta arguments. They're not persuasive.
Bucky
Jan 2021
#41
You are most likely wasting your time. These people get angry when presented with
Irish_Dem
Jan 2021
#42