*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[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.