I picture Yosemite Sam writing that.
2 Likes
I dunno, that’s an awful lot of big numbers and no bullets.
I did just find this, in a very interesting twitter thread doing a quick look over the filing and some of the more technical legal issues with it:
3 Likes
5 Likes
And anyone who claims expertise in that many fields is definitely a flim-flam man.
4 Likes
The court’s brief order provided no reasoning, nor did it note any dissenting votes. It was the first request to delay or overturn the results of the presidential election to reach the court, and it appears that Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s latest nominee, took part in the case.
7 Likes
4 Likes
Here, the “expert” tests the “hypothesis that the performance of the two Democratic candidates were statistically similar”
Oooo, that’s a real statistical no-no. You can prove that two sets have mean statistically different means. You can’t prove that they’re statistically similar! All you’d need is noisy data and a small sample size. That’s like statistics 101.
Edited to remove extra word.
5 Likes
I also love how he takes great pains to reject the hypothesis that the later-counted votes were from the same population as the earlier-counted votes.
It should be practically a given that the population of in-person votes would be different from the population of mail-in/early votes, even before you factor in that Trump was loudly proclaiming that Republicans should avoid mail-in voting. After factoring that in… how is this even a question? Why would anyone assume the same distribution and random arrivals for both groups?
(I don’t think I’ve ever taken a statistics class in my life, so I could be off on that, but it just seems an awful lot like stating the obvious and going “ah-hah!”)
4 Likes
If there’s anything more misused than statistics I don’t know about it.
2 Likes
That’s the best description I’ve read of this sort of behavior.
2 Likes
Lies, damn lies, statistics… and claims that all statistics are lies.
5 Likes
There’s a 200% chance that you’re right.
4 Likes
He might as well have said “the odds are 1 in tarnation”.
Speaking of country talk, one of the choice comments on the Twitter thread:
As I have been saying since Bush the Lesser, these Republicans have gotten so bad that they’re lifting the tail to apply lipstick to their pig. Under Trump, they’re getting mad when Dems, former Republicans, and other sane people refuse to kiss it.
8 Likes
It was chances of one in tarnation!
1 Like
I assume the superscript formatting got eaten at some point, but I can also equally believe that the person writing this believes that raising something to the fourth power just means adding a four to the end of it. Either way, it fascinates me that they tried to make the point that the second number is much larger than the first by making the numbers appear basically the same size.
8 Likes
Lol, yes, that one. By the time I noticed and thought about refreshing my memory on how to do a superscript in discourse for an edit, there was already conversation on the post, and I figured the initial link to the source was probably enough. 
Any number over a few hundred thousand or so is probably functionally identical to the Trump-supporting conspiracy crowd, anyways. The cutoff is probably even lower than that, going by how badly Trump usually inflates crowd sizes without any pushback.
4 Likes
Their first experience with divergent results. Cute.
3 Likes
There was a quantum difference.
5 Likes
Maryland’s Attorney General, calling it like he sees it…
(Though it’s funny how the person he’s responding to is claiming that Maryland voters, who decisively voted for Biden, would be disenfranchised.)
6 Likes
Ok, that’s bad enough, BUT…
So… a lawyer who wrote the Texas SC complaint, also (apparently) wrote Trump’s motion to intervene in the complaint, and they took steps to prevent that connection from being obvious.
Dunno whether it means anything legally, but…
5 Likes