Who do you tip to win the US presidential election

[Kidlicious]

Wrong. Even if you consider polls reliable (they aren't), Trump did not have an insignificant chance of winning. Not at all.

What they presented is statistical evidence (which you admit to not believing in despite the fact that you believe in polls) that the chance of Biden having won without fraud is very near zero. If you don't consider that proof then I feel sorry for you.

[Ming]

Then you missed my entire point... I didn't say I believe in the polls...
But what I was claiming that if you looked at the odds of Trump winning prior to the election were not good.
They were based on all the "expert" polls... in other words, people looking at the data and coming to conclusions.
Trump got a lot closer than those predictions would have indicated.
Your claims of "statistical evidence" is not proof... just somebody reviewing the data and making a "claim" what they think it means based on statistical models... That's NOT proof.

[Kidlicious]

Then you missed my entire point... I didn't say I believe in the polls...
But what I was claiming that if you looked at the odds of Trump winning prior to the election were not good.

What are you talking about? Betting odds? Some experts estimated that Biden had a better chance of winning. So what? That's not the samething. No experts claimed that Trump had an insignificant chance of winning. Even if they had it wouldn't be based on anything more that polls.

They were based on all the "expert" polls... in other words, people looking at the data and coming to conclusions.

Wrong. They were simply making predictions. Polls aren't statistical evidence period. Stop presenting it as statistical evidence.

[Ming]

Uh... polls are based on survey data that a statistical model is then applied to determine possible variances.
Statistical evidence is based on what parameters and interpretation of the data that the person doing it uses.
Statistical evidence is a modeled view of what the person who did it estimates it to be.
It is not actual proof of anything. Again, the Statistical work on Polling Data indicated Trumps limited chances, and that's what the book makers based their original odds on. They even milked the Trump supporters because they were ignoring the odds and betting on Trump, and the Bookies made a fortune off of them.

[Ming]

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments.

You can prove ANYTHING with statistics... and sometimes, even from the same data. It all depends how you look at it and then present it.

So I will continue to laugh whenever you say "statistical evidence" and think it actually proves anything.

[Dauphin]

Kid, you have absolutely no comprehension of statistics or what the one in quadrillion statement is based on. Let me educate you, and then have you ignore it:

The figure is obtained by taking the population of votes counted up to time X, and votes counted after time X (the point in time in which Trump was 'winning'). Given that the proportion of votes for each candidate in each counting period were different (earlier votes for Trump, later votes for Biden), the statistical likelihood that they constitute the same pool of voters is one in a quadrillion. This is correct. What is being assumed is that the pool of voters should be the same, when all it is doing is stating an obvious fact. More Republicans voted in person and had votes counted earlier, more Democrats voted by mail and had votes counted later - they are fundamentally different pools of voters. This is not evidence of fraud or even a statistically improbable result. It is an expected statistical occurrence.

In fact, the argument could be equally argued that the probablility of Trump leading in the early counting was evidence of fraud, as there was less than a one in quadrillion likelihood of leading by such an amount given the volume of Biden votes counted later. Such a claim would be based on the same equally absurd assumption.

[Dauphin]

I edited the post and now it is unapproved. .

Reposting:

Kid, you have absolutely no comprehension of statistics or what the one in quadrillion statement is based on. Let me educate you, and then have you ignore it:

The figure is obtained by taking the population of votes counted up to time X, and votes counted after time X (the point in time in which Trump was 'winning'). Given that the proportion of votes for each candidate in each counting period were different (earlier votes for Trump, later votes for Biden), the statistical likelihood that they constitute the same pool of voters is one in a quadrillion. This is correct. What is being assumed is that the pool of voters should be the same, when all it is doing is stating an obvious fact. More Republicans voted in person and had votes counted earlier, more Democrats voted by mail and had votes counted later - they are fundamentally different pools of voters. This is not evidence of fraud or even a statistically improbable result. It is an expected statistical occurrence.

In fact, the argument could be equally argued that the probablility of Trump leading in the early counting was evidence of fraud, as there was less than a one in quadrillion likelihood of leading by such an amount given the volume of Biden votes counted later. Such a claim would be based on the same equally absurd assumption.

[Kidlicious]

"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments.

You can prove ANYTHING with statistics... and sometimes, even from the same data. It all depends how you look at it and then present it.

So I will continue to laugh whenever you say "statistical evidence" and think it actually proves anything.

Don't ever open a casino Ming or you will lose all your money.

The probability is calculated with mathematics. It's like calculating the odds of flipping a coin 100 times and getting heads every time. There's no lying. It's straight up statistics.

So stay out of any kind of business that depends on statistics because you're a math denier.

[Ming]

Don't ever open a casino Ming or you will lose all your money.

The probability is calculated with mathematics. It's like calculating the odds of flipping a coin 100 times and getting heads every time. There's no lying. It's straight up statistics.

So stay out of any kind of business that depends on statistics because you're a math denier.

Do you even understand the concept of probability?


Just because something should happen based on the odds, that doesn't mean it will happen.
Odds, statistics, and other modeling are simply tools to help predict a given event occurring. They are NOT PROOF that something happened.

[Kidlicious]

I edited the post and now it is unapproved. .

Reposting:

Kid, you have absolutely no comprehension of statistics or what the one in quadrillion statement is based on. Let me educate you, and then have you ignore it:

The figure is obtained by taking the population of votes counted up to time X, and votes counted after time X (the point in time in which Trump was 'winning'). Given that the proportion of votes for each candidate in each counting period were different (earlier votes for Trump, later votes for Biden), the statistical likelihood that they constitute the same pool of voters is one in a quadrillion. This is correct. What is being assumed is that the pool of voters should be the same, when all it is doing is stating an obvious fact. More Republicans voted in person and had votes counted earlier, more Democrats voted by mail and had votes counted later - they are fundamentally different pools of voters. This is not evidence of fraud or even a statistically improbable result. It is an expected statistical occurrence.

In fact, the argument could be equally argued that the probablility of Trump leading in the early counting was evidence of fraud, as there was less than a one in quadrillion likelihood of leading by such an amount given the volume of Biden votes counted later. Such a claim would be based on the same equally absurd assumption.

Wrong. Your argument is essential equal to Mings. We have batches of ballots in favor of Biden over 90%. It doesn't matter if those were mail-in ballots or not. It is significantly unlikely that Biden received over 90% of the vote in multiple counties. There was 95% voter turn out in Philadelphia. It's very unlikely that that many people voted. There are many of these anomalies. You claiming that it can be argued that there are anomalies like this for Trump is equivalent to Ming talking about pre-election polls.

[Dauphin]

You do realise that this is not my argument. It is literally what the filing claimed. The filing that you think is your proof.

[Kidlicious]

They aren't claiming that more votes came in for Biden after they stopped counting. That's not a statistical anomaly, and yes it was expected. That's why I'm pointing out that there are no statistical anomalies for Trump even though Trump voters voted more in person. That doesn't cause statistical anomalies. Trump voters voted by mail as well.

[Dauphin]

Votes came in after they stopped counting? WTF are you drivelling on about now? You've gone off on a deranged tangent.

[Kidlicious]

Do you even understand the concept of probability?


Just because something should happen based on the odds, that doesn't mean it will happen.
Odds, statistics, and other modeling are simply tools to help predict a given event occurring. They are NOT PROOF that something happened.

What is does is provide a basis for making a reasonable decision. It is much more likely that Trump won. Therefore your opinion that Biden won is absurd.

Now combine that with the eyewitness accounts of fraud and the unwillingness of officials to allow a proper investigation and that's proof.

[Dauphin]

Kid, I strongly urge you to get an education. It will help you make better life choices.

[Kidlicious]

Kid, I strongly urge you to get an education. It will help you make better life choices.

Stop attacking the person. You're simply lying or something. You made a claim that there are statistical anomalies that show fraud in favor of Trump. Put up or shut up. But stop attacking the person. It doesn't help you.

[Kidlicious]

All statistical anomalies are in Biden's favor. To claim otherwise is baseless. Prove me wrong.




"Statistical anomalies. In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89 percent of the votes counted. For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95 percent margin in every single batch. It is particularly perplexing that all statistical anomalies and tabulation abnormalities were in Biden’s favor. Whether the cause was simple human error or nefarious activity, or a combination, clearly something peculiar

[Ming]

Stop attacking the person.

From the person that thinks calling somebody a Nazi is a valid argument...

Put up or shut up.

Please find actual physical evidence of massive fraud.
Statistics are not proof... Every thinking person knows you can come up with statistics that can indicate whatever you want.
They are NOT PROOF.
So show us some real evidence, something Trump and his minions have still yet to do after months and repeated losses...