BullBuchanan

It was a landslide, and over 120 Trumpists got to watch each ballot be counted. If you're searching for a scandal, you may want to try a different route. What exactly is your claim?

AJ Klein played great, albeit in mostly a pass rusher role. Let's let him keep doing that.

East Coast Elites don't go to jail. He'll pay some fines.

I mean, who cares? It's all for show anyway. Are your really going to argue that the numbers matter now?

Did you even read the article? PA: At issue in the dispute is how far poll watchers are from the tables where officials are working, not whether observers are allowed. The Trump campaign argued observers were too far away, and a judge on the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court ruled Thursday that they must be allowed within 6 feet of all ballot canvassing. MI: Lawrence Garcia, corporation counsel for the city of Detroit and a commissioner on the Detroit Election Commission, told CBS News on Wednesday the city was "not allowing more challengers in because we had gone over the 134 challenger limit for each party." "The count on the book was 250 Democrat to 225 Republican, plus or minus one or two," he said.

Those people don't have a legal right to just waltz in and observe the polls. "Poll Watchers" aren't just joe shmoe off the street. They are selected via a process by the election board and there's an equal number of democrats and republicans to prevent an issue like the one Trump is claiming. The details are different for each state. In PA they were always allowed in, but there was a distance requirement trump was fighting. He got an order to increase it and election officials appealed. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fact-check-trumps-claims-poll-watchers/

Good press secretaries give the "We have to look at the tape" response instead of objectively lying. It's all absolutely spin and BS, but it shouldn't be propaganda.

It's all relative. On Jan 20th we can all start hating them together.

That's the tagline for the entire Trumpism movement.

Really? https://www.the-sun.com/news/1761227/election-violence-fears-proud-boys-stand-by-massachusettes/

The real fight is just beginning. On Jan 20th it's time to set sights on the Democratic party and the same corporate masters they serve at the expense of the rest of us.

Has anyone noticed how nice it's been over here lately? Who wouldv'e guessed that if all you did was take out the garbage, the house wouldn't smell so much like *****?

most of the country is slightly left to center, but then you have 65 million people on the rightmost extreme end of the spectrum who want Christian sharia law enforced by authoritarian rule and international imperialism.

Sorry, You lost me here. I'd lay him 10:1 on checkers.

This could have been an interesting wormhole to go down for a while, but the people propagating it were super lazy - go figure.

I looked into this further, just because. If you actually go to the github where this is posted you can pull down the data set. The problem here, honest or intentionally misleading, is that when Benford's law works best, it's on large naturally occurring numbers. The way US elections occur, when measuring precinct by precinct, is NOT based on naturally occuring numbers. It's quite the opposite. Precincts are tied to population. They MASSIVELY favor registration numbers between 700-900 with 0 precincts having a number in the 100s and only a small amount with 1000. This is from the 2018 primary data set. It's a hoax, and not a particularly elegant one once you stop looking at the graphs and start looking at the data. https://github.com/cjph8914/2020_benfords/blob/main/Chicago_Wards_Precincts_Benfords_Data.ipynb dataset: https://chicagoelections.gov/en/election-results-specifics.asp

Benford's law does not provide evidence of fraud. It provides evidence of statistical anomalies which can be indicators of fraud. Look up "is-a, has-a" relationships. When you cherry pick data sets, you're practicing numerology, not mathematics. This is how conspiracy theories are designed to work. A small part of something that's technically true, applied to an unstable data set, and then judged with extreme prejudice. Furthermore, the data does not even seem to suggest the possibility of fraud. When data is non-compliant with Benford's law, it appears evenly distributed. What's occurring here is that in a small sample size, of data of unknown validity, he has more 3's than 1's. Wow, big scandal.

Yea, it seems folks without a proper understanding of this mathematical principle are applying it to what they would like to be true.

Is this satire?

The same reason I pay for your home / child tax subsidies. It makes the economy stronger.

AZ isn't even the best example, because they elected blue senators. better examples are Maine and GA where Republican senators outpaced Trump. People that voted for Susan Collins voted for Joe "sniffyokids" Biden because Trump is that horrific of a human being.

We can just fastforward if you like. I don't want him to be president now, and neither do most of his voters. America didn't vote for Biden - they voted against Trump. It's all in the data.