Statistician in Texas Lawsuit Against Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin Says Probability of Biden Winning Election Was One in a Quadrillion!
A new lawsuit filed today, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block four battleground states – Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, from casting “unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes” in the Electoral College.
In the brief submitted to the Supreme Court, Texas includes a declaration from Pacific Economics Group member and USC economics professor, Charles J. Cicchetti, Ph.D.
Dr. Cicchetti is the former Deputy Director at the Energy and Environmental Policy Center at Harvard University’s John Kennedy School of Government and received his Ph.D. in economics from Rutgers University.
According to Dr. Cicchetti, his calculations show the probability of Joe Biden winning the popular vote in the four states independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion.
Dr. Cicchetti’s analysis calculates that for Joe Biden to win all four states collectively, the odds of that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power (1 in 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,0004).
My math isn't too good, but I think that means, like, not probable.
What a joke America has become.
There are a lot of very smart people out there doing a lot of math I can not and they are all saying the same things of the various divisions of data they are working with.ReplyDelete
In laymen's terms... "Didn't f-ing happen"
Right on Devilman, but remember, Sidney Powell is the one who's unhinged....Delete
Just call me Eeyore.ReplyDelete
I hope I am wrong.
what are the odds of the proverbial roomful of monkeys typing randomly and coming up with the Bible? Isn't that something like this?ReplyDelete
Democrat monkeys are capable of anything.Delete
Helen Keller had a better chance of hitting a Nolan Ryan fastball.ReplyDelete
So funny, had me giggling.Delete
so I have a better chance of winning Powerball multiple times or lining my pocket with someone who's either a powerful Wall Street bigshot or a Democrat politician.ReplyDelete
"So you're telling me there's a chance..." Lloyd Christmas, 'Dumb and DumberReplyDelete
In biz we use some pretty typical ops science statistical measurements to predict anomalies in code, output, etc. It is surprisingly sound. It results in standard deviations and how far away from the mean is a "sigma". It takes awhile to go over the math but its not difficult in the end - what you do is if you have inputted all your data (and its highly accurate with a large body of numbers) you are trying to see if a particular anomaly was just a natural outlier or caused by something that interjected on the system. Within 3 sigmas or standard deviations in either direction of the mean, it can be said that, although increasingly unlikely, it is probably naturally occurring. If it is beyond 3 sigmas in either direction, one of two things happened: either you didn't have enough data or missed something obvious... or it is a true defect in the system because it is deemed sufficiently impossible to have occurred naturally and it should be fixed.ReplyDelete
Okay so thats a long winded lead up to many of the statistical analyses that have been run on various aspects of this election. So the question of how likely it would be that one precinct would have really high voter participation, thats an easy one to measure and yes, it happens every once in awhile. a state or county, again, easy. Another thing you can measure would be how many president-only ballots you would expect in a large system versus a specific state or city or even precinct. of course which candidate its for is important measurement. Measure the rejection rate of mail in ballots. and so on. there are so many things to check.
Its when you start to measure the odds that things occurred in certain places uniformly and not at all uniform in all otehr palces where it might not have been needed, or the uniform nature of the direction... and so on. Suffice it to say that every measurement I have seen, when the sleuths actualyl publish their results, are coming in anywhere from 17-20 standard deviations from the mean. EVERY. ONE.
It didn't happen. No court will accept statistical evidence alone as proof to throw out ballots, unfortunately, but its just not possible that so many hundreds of extreme coincidences happened all at once toward the exact same end.
DID NOT HAPPEN. So whats that they say? "believe the science." Based on the science, every citizen must, in good conscience, refuse to consent to any government formed under these pretenses.
I believe. Who do they think they're kidding. Not Trump.Delete
I think the statistical evidence should be grounds to allow discovery. A few ruling here and there are being allowed, but so much is getting shut down under the pretense that statistics are not absolute proof. But they are smoke that warrants investigation to determine if there is fire.Delete
They aren't shutting things down so much as desperately trying to get to January 20th without allowing Trump a recourse, as if that will ensure order. As if magically, on January 21st , everyone will just stop paying attention to the fact that the rule of law is dead. The nifty little procedural tricks they are afforded the opportunity to play from their lofty judicial perches was afforded them by so many honorable men and women who went before to establish and uphold the rule of law they are grinding down to powder. What small and contemptible figures!Delete
(1 in 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,0004).ReplyDelete
maybe: ... 1,000,000,000,000,000)^4
which yields 1x10^56Delete
Speaking of jokes, when I read that Biden was wanted by Ukraine court for bribery/corruption charges, I didn't know if it was true.ReplyDelete
Now I see J Dyer commenting, to the effect that because US has no extradition treaty with Ukraine, nothing to be done. Leads me to believe it's probably true.
What a joke - the wannabe president of US is wanted by a foreign country... actually, what a disgrace.
For me, I knew it was fraud in Pennsylvania when I looked at Biden's win rate in the absentee ballots counted. I wrote as much at Althouse in several comments back on November 4th and 5th. I pointed out that the rate at which Biden was winning the absentee vote meant that he won 100% of the Democrats who returned an absentee ballot, 100% of third party/independents who returned an absentee ballot, and he was winning about 15% of the Republicans who returned an absentee ballot. A Twitterer named Gummi Bear noticed the same thing several weeks later when Pennsylvania published the final update to the absent vote rates in PA. Here is what he found using the numbers in the tweet from the PA SoS site:ReplyDelete
"ABs in PA - even if Biden received:
-95% of returned Democrat votes
-21% of returned Republican votes
-80% of returned Independent votes"
This is only different from what I calculated because Biden's win rate dropped almost immediately after he took the lead from Trump in PA- falling from 80% to 76% over the next two weeks. Even these numbers Gummi Bear worked with are ridiculous- Biden would never win more than 95% of the Democrats or more than 10% of the Republicans, nor would he win even win more than 60-70% of the third part/independents. You can play with various percentages, but the numbers suggest to me that there is about 150,000 fraudulent ballots in Biden's absentee vote totals, and possibly 250,000.
Yes, not sure if it was you or someone you got your data from, but that was one I saw where the standard deviation of that result was at 12 or 15 sigmas I think, statewide. Even for the city of Philadelphia, the sigma was 5 or 6 of achieving that result. Again, that means possible, but its something like a .001% chance (depending on the spread of that data set). Considerably better than quadrillion, but highly unlikely nonetheless.Delete
The interesting thing about this type of measurement is that, if you assume that a place like Philly is always doing some level of corrupt voting, and you simply throw those results in as well (which I completely believe and you wouldn't be able to separate it out anyway) - the measurement will treat those outcomes as "naturally occurring" also by falling within 3 sigmas +/- from mean.
Whatever happened was significantly beyond their usual hanky panky.
Reading Gummi Bear's thread from yesterday- he is of the same opinion I am- it is up to the state legislatures to force the audits and investigations- the courts, especially those under the level of SCOTUS, are not going to give the discovery necessary to find the evidence of the fraud- on the legislatures can do this.ReplyDelete
Yes, and IMO a best case scenario, about all that SC is likely to do is provide some air cover and time for those state legislatures to conduct such and refuse cert until they do. Not sure what form that air cover would come in.Delete
That said, I still believe they will do very little to change the outcome, frankly.
Once again, though, this is why I think if people want a peaceful outcome to this, they should be HEAVILY PRESSURING their state legislators, not sitting around waiting for courts. And by heavy I mean a lot more than just dropping by the park on Saturday or sending an email to your congressman. It needs to get really uncomfortable for them, but at this late hour it appears obvious that our side has no idea what it means to protest and resist.
Bobby Piton has the goods and needs help