Misdeal – Shit like this makes me want to publish.

Link here.

Like Steig, publishing against the establishment is an absolutely fruitless endeavor, but that never stopped me before.

This entire paper is biased beyond reason and uses numerous communication tactics to marginalize the blatant proof of fraud. However, I still like to have fun.

President Donald Trump claimed that the 2020 US presidential election was stolen; millions of Americans apparently believed him. We assess the most prominent statistical claims offered by Trump and his allies as evidence of election fraud, including claims about Dominion voting machines switching votes from Trump to Biden, suspiciously high turnout in Democratic strongholds, and the supposedly inexplicable failure of Biden to win “bellwether counties.” We use a combination of statistical reasoning and original data analysis to assess these claims. We hope our analysis contributes to public discussion about the integrity of the 2020 election and broader challenges of election security and election administration.

First, their analysis only contributes to disinformation. They use total margin as an “independent” variable to prove that Biden should have won, using the indisputable statistical term “unsurprising”.

The 19 bellwether counties are highlighted in red. Visual inspection suggests that, like other counties, they voted in 2020 roughly as they did in 2016; given this (and given that many of these counties went solidly for Trump in 2016), it is unsurprising that Biden won only one of them.

This is the art of the mis-deal. Don’t play poker with these bastards, they are cheaters.

Paxton claims that the expert, Charles Cicchetti, calculated a one- in-a-quadrillion chance of Biden winning; Cicchetti concludes his report by arguing that “In my opinion, the outcome of Biden winning …is so statistically improbable, that it is not possible to dismiss fraud and biased changes in the ways ballots were processed, validated, and tabulated” (p. 9a).

Cicchetti’s assertion that Biden’s victory was “statistically improbable” is based on a deeply misguided application of null hypothesis significance testing. Cicchetti never actually computes the probability of Biden winning. Instead, he tests the null hypothesis that Joe Biden in 2020 and Hillary Clinton in 2016 had the same expected number of votes in particular states.^‖ But if the objective is to assess whether Biden won legitimately, then it is beside the point whether Biden and Clinton enjoyed the same expected support. Support can differ across candidates for any number of reasons, and it is absurd to think that any such difference constitutes evidence of election fraud.

The reason this paper got me fired up is the fact that it attacks several flawed analyses using pre-selected data based on the dumbest of the vote fraud claims and it uses those flawed analyses as proof that fraud did not exist. The paper is pathetic. Literally loser, flat stupid, turn in your smart-card, pathetic. I did better work in a few hours on this:

You cannot have ratios that far off the bell curve. They do not exist outside of vote fraud. You folks don’t know, and maybe I will do some more work on it, but the fact that they happen repeatedly IS NOT EVIDENCE that they are not real fraud.

This is actual proof of large-scale widespread vote fraud – for multiple elections – that nobody has been able to refute. They won’t be able to either, because that is what proof means. I love physics.

All voting distribution articles I’ve found, use the normal distribution for voting data. This is important because the best critiques I’ve been given are that I used a normal distribution. Which literally matters ZERO when you are that many standard deviations off the curve.

Instead of attacking the real statistical problems of the election, these authors chose to go after the goldfish and step on them with their heel. Many of you chicken brains will fall for it because it’s ‘smear reviewed’.

The 2020 election was remarkable in many ways (e.g., unusually high levels of mail-in voting and turnout), and election administration may well have been imperfect. But we see nothing in these statistical tests that supports Trump’s claim of a stolen election.

Liars or morons, they have their choice. Correct is not one of them.