It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: LookingAtMars
We DENY Climate Change , They DENY Voter Fraud ...........A Push .
originally posted by: LookingAtMars
originally posted by: olaru12
Perhaps it should be extended. The recount in Wisconsin that trump demanded increased Bidens margin.
I don't think trump can rig the EC this time.
in.reuters.com...
Just like in GA, recounting fake ballots will not expose the fraud.
originally posted by: carewemust
originally posted by: LookingAtMars
originally posted by: olaru12
Perhaps it should be extended. The recount in Wisconsin that trump demanded increased Bidens margin.
I don't think trump can rig the EC this time.
in.reuters.com...
Just like in GA, recounting fake ballots will not expose the fraud.
Those who keep using the word "recount" to justify Biden winning, also refuse to look at how incredible it was for him to defy so many odds on election night, considering he couldn't attract 100 people to a rally.
Only rational/normal people will understand this information: redstate.com...
Every one of the contested states shows a larger predicted vote share for Trump than what he actually received. This is surprising, because in any set of observations, random chance might expect some predictions to favor Biden, but none do. In Georgia and Arizona, the model does not predict a narrow race, but a decisive Trump victory; the size of the anomaly is (much) larger than the reported margin of victory.
The model also performs well in battleground states that have not been contested, and thus where the election was presumably clean. Every one of these is correctly predicted, including both battleground states that voted for Trump (e.g. Ohio, Florida) and those that voted for Biden (e.g. New Hampshire)
originally posted by: 111DPKING111
Statistical analysis looking back at the last 5 elections per county.
Every one of the contested states shows a larger predicted vote share for Trump than what he actually received. This is surprising, because in any set of observations, random chance might expect some predictions to favor Biden, but none do. In Georgia and Arizona, the model does not predict a narrow race, but a decisive Trump victory; the size of the anomaly is (much) larger than the reported margin of victory.
The model also performs well in battleground states that have not been contested, and thus where the election was presumably clean. Every one of these is correctly predicted, including both battleground states that voted for Trump (e.g. Ohio, Florida) and those that voted for Biden (e.g. New Hampshire)