K&r

It all makes sense now.

I’m needing to look up things from the earlier parts and it’s hard to find

For instance, where are they getting these numbers ( a doubter was asking down thread), I thought everything was from sos sites but I can’t find that citation in this article

Greg Palast Was A Conspiracy Theorist!

(best democracy money can buy)!

Thom Hartman...........

of the Not-See Nation of The United States unfolding in front of our eyes...
and no one wants to do anything about it. Oh but free and fair elections everybody!!
Just keep believing...

Merely saying unpopular candidates don't account for the increase in undervotes doesn't actually prove the contention. For example what was percentage of people who disliked both Obama and McCain or Obama and Romney compared to Trump and Clinton? Because Clinton's final unfavorable rating was 52% and Trump's was 61%. Those were the two highest unfavorable ratings for candidates in history. It's far more reasonable to assume that would in fact have an impact on voting for that office. Romney's unfavorable rating in 2012 was 43%, Obama 37%. In 2008, both Obama and McCain had unfavorable ratings of 35%. These aren't numbers that should just be glossed over because you don't like them.

Also there's nothing to suggest that 70% of the undervotes would have gone to the Clinton or Harris other than the author says so.

This is still turtles all the way down that doesn't start from a firm foundation but builds theories based on ephemeral suppositions that don't hold up to scrutiny.

Because you were told so by the people who sell the machines

Going from 0.5% to 1.5% seems like a small change. It's not. Tripling a norm is cause for further examination.

Again, I don't know the actual numbers and if this is true or not. But if they are real, it is significant. I'd be interested to learn more.

It's past time to move on, IMO. We lost. And there is no need to promote conspiracy theories like trumpsters. It's not helping.

Biden got 50.4% vs 48.7% for Trump in 2020 In Rockland County, NY.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=20387400

I guess we'll still be promoting 2024 conspiracy theories 5 years from now like trump and his supporters.

I had read she got no votes in Rockland County. Not in a precinct - I’ll assume Hassidic?

Thanks for your polite response 😊

Which is kind of the whole problem with this stuff. They conflate and confound all kinds of numbers to give a false impression to the reader that things are "not quite right" and very suspicious.

But when I got to the "it's a bajillion odds!" paragraph, I actually laughed out loud.

I cannot believe anyone believes this. I can forgive not knowing the numbers offhand - I just spent no minor amount of time combing news articles and Michigan databases in order to understand what the real numbers were.

But the "totally bajillions of odds!" part is so ridiculous on the surface, it should be disqualifying by itself to a rational reader.

This is getting more and more interesting. I'm looking forward to the lawsuit hearing/challenge (its continuance ok'd by a NY Supreme Court Judge) in September filed by election integrity advocate, Smart Legislation/Smart Elections.

If this lawsuit truly has legs, we can expect a Super Nova in the future.

I've also bookmarked this section.

Full disclosure: I've never believed in Trump's legitimacy in either election.

exactly how they bypassed thousands of independently reported precinct numbers is not explained. We just don't have a centralized voting system where it would be easy to manipulate, but with so many precincts, just can't fathom how this can technically be accomplished without obvious manipulation.

It truly is. The article isn't even written well with just some of the dumbest bits of logic imaginable.

"How could the most unpopular candidates in history end up with historic levels of undervote?! It doesn't make sense!"

Just . . . L.O.L.

It's. so. dumb. And the breathless writing and assertions proved solely by virtue of previous assertions is like every discount conspiracy YouTube video ever created. "I've already proved this thing that I absolutely did not prove, so I'm going to rest a whole other pile of nonsense on top of that."

Classic conspiracy theory tactics.

And they don't even have basic facts correct. Here are the undervotes in Michigan for presidential elections previous to 2016.

2016: 1.55%
2012: 1.04%
2008: 0.74%
2004: 0.75%
2000: 1.09%

But that's statewide. The author then narrows it down to Flint and Detroit. I legitimately cannot figure out where they get that 75k number for Flint and Detroit. The entire state had roughly 75k undervotes. Every number I've found doesn't come remotely close to it for Detroit. Here's an article from Detroit News putting that number at 1,400 for Detroit.

And to whit, Genessee County voted for Clinton at 52% - hardly the crazy super Clinton supporting area advertised by the author. There are roughly 80,000 African Americans living in Genessee County, Michigan. Given the Detroit number, did someone throw out practically all of the Black votes in an entire county and literally no one noticed? (Until this clever substack author arrived!)

And then I realized this number is getting traced to Greg Palast. Who also never cites where he pulls these numbers from. Which is kind of weird when you're trying to make arguments based on data. Palast is literally saying practically all the undervotes in Michigan were solely in Flint and Detroit.

Based on the data, how likely does that seem? To anyone? With rudimentary math and statistical skills?

Does that look like the "statistical siren" author claims that they're basing this "It's a crazy statistical anomaly with a gigajillion odds!" argument on for historically unpopular candidates?

And do you notice how the author very intentionally avoids giving extensive historical data? When it comes to statistics, the larger the data set, the better the chances of getting significant results. But the author sidesteps this throughout.

Again, this stuff is just embarrassing. It's a terrible look for us. It's a full embrace of election denialism that MAGA is rightly mocked for. It's not magically ok when people on our side do it.

This stuff is truly kooky and should be considered such. It's pure mathematical illiteracy designed to trick willing believers into sending cash along.

Or, as the George Harrisong sang, "Be here now."