I would love for a liberal to answer this

Irving S

unread,

Nov 15, 2022, 8:05:28 AM11/15/22

to

Why is it that in almost every case, I mean in almost every case, a Republican is ahead, then there is a delay, or some technical glitch, and when the counting resumes, the Democratic trends up and wins.

THIS IS STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE NUMBER OF CASES WE ARE TALKING. STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!

Alan

unread,

Nov 15, 2022, 12:00:50 PM11/15/22

to

On 2022-11-15 05:05, Irving S wrote:
> Why is it that in almost every case, I mean in almost every case, a Republican is ahead, then there is a delay, or some technical glitch, and when the counting resumes, the Democratic trends up and wins.
>
> THIS IS STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE NUMBER OF CASES WE ARE TALKING. STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!

I'm afraid you're not really qualified to make that determination.

Irving S

unread,

Nov 15, 2022, 1:22:20 PM11/15/22

to

Instead of insulting my qualifcations, how about answering the question.

Would you not agree that what has transpired is STATISTICIALLY IMPOSSIBLE?

And another question. If the shoe was on the other foot, would the Democrats not be crying foul. I say the answer would unequivocally be yes. Would you disagree with that assertion?

Alan

unread,

Nov 15, 2022, 1:34:03 PM11/15/22

to

On 2022-11-15 10:22, Irving S wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 12:00:50 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-11-15 05:05, Irving S wrote:
>>> Why is it that in almost every case, I mean in almost every case, a Republican is ahead, then there is a delay, or some technical glitch, and when the counting resumes, the Democratic trends up and wins.
>>>
>>> THIS IS STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE NUMBER OF CASES WE ARE TALKING. STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!
>> I'm afraid you're not really qualified to make that determination.
>
> Instead of insulting my qualifcations, how about answering the question.
>
> Would you not agree that what has transpired is STATISTICIALLY IMPOSSIBLE?

No. I wouldn't.

>
> And another question. If the shoe was on the other foot, would the Democrats not be crying foul. I say the answer would unequivocally be yes. Would you disagree with that assertion?

Probably some would.

But just as last time, there will be allegations made of irregularities.

And I guarantee you, they're going to get tossed...

...just like they did last time.

Irving S

unread,

Nov 15, 2022, 1:40:12 PM11/15/22

to

Good, at least you answered. Yes, all the allegations will get tossed. It is going no where, we can agree on that. But from a common sense and gut level, it all does not feel right. Something stinks. Both sides have done it for sure, and both sides will continue for sure. Makes you almost not want to even cast a vote again.

Alan

unread,

Nov 15, 2022, 1:41:35 PM11/15/22

to

No, "Irving".

You have no evidence that "both sides have done it for sure".

Literally none.

Irving S

unread,

Nov 15, 2022, 1:53:56 PM11/15/22

to

As long as their have been elections, there has been fraud on all sides. Sad to say that, but it would be naive to think otherwise. Corruption is rampant to the left and right.

From the beginning of time, elections have been rigged. Happens at the local, state, and federal level. You know what Alan, I have an HOA where I live. Each year we have an election for officers. A few years back there were accusations of rigging that got really bitter. I stayed out of it. but yes things might be rigged at the level of an HOA, school board, whatever.

Tommy

unread,

Nov 18, 2022, 7:55:04 PM11/18/22

to

In an unbiased contest there would be a 50% probability that either party were favored.
With the same party winning TWO unbiased races the probability drops to 25%, or 1 in 4.
With the same party winning FOUR unbiased races the probability drops to 6.25%, or 1 in 16.
With the same party winning FIVE unbiased races the probability drops to 3.125%, or 1 in 32.
With the same party winning SIX unbiased races the probability drops to 1.5625%, or 1 in 64.
With the same party winning TEN unbiased races the probability drops to 0.097956%, or 1 in 1024.

At some point one must reach the conclusion that these close contests ARE NOT "unbiased," but something non-random is occurring.

Bigbird

unread,

Nov 19, 2022, 6:31:22 AM11/19/22

to

Tommy wrote:

> In an unbiased contest there would be a 50% probability that either
> party were favored.

What?

Can you put that in language that an intelligent adult might use?

-hh

unread,

Nov 19, 2022, 9:08:30 AM11/19/22

to

I think he’s trying to claim that if it was a statistical coin toss, then the
unlikelihood could factor in. Problem for Tommy is that he doesn’t know
enough about statistics to know how his simplifying assumptions are wrong.

-hh

Bigbird

unread,

Nov 20, 2022, 6:19:58 AM11/20/22

to

The cumulative effect of ignorance.

If he had even a hint of a scientific background he might formulate a
hypothesis then state and test his assumptions.

Tommy

unread,

Nov 22, 2022, 12:22:37 AM11/22/22

to

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

I DID, BirdBrain!!!!!!!!

Tommy

unread,

Nov 22, 2022, 12:23:32 AM11/22/22

to

Of course the Lyin' Asshole DOES NOT explain how the "assumptions" are wrong!!!!!

Bigbird

unread,

Nov 22, 2022, 5:53:22 AM11/22/22

to

You mean you did your best; you fell well short.

-hh

unread,

Nov 22, 2022, 6:21:37 AM11/22/22

to

On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 12:23:32 AM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
> On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 6:08:30 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
> > On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 6:31:22 AM UTC-5, Bigbird wrote:
> > > Tommy wrote:
> > >
> > > > In an unbiased contest there would be a 50% probability that either
> > > > party were favored.
> > >
> > > What?
> > >
> > > Can you put that in language that an intelligent adult might use?
> > I think he’s trying to claim that if it was a statistical coin toss, then the
> > unlikelihood could factor in. Problem for Tommy is that he doesn’t know
> > enough about statistics to know how his simplifying assumptions are wrong.
>

> Of course the Lyin' Asshole DOES NOT explain how the "assumptions" are wrong!!!!!

Since the stats were your claim, you should list what your assumptions were.
From there, it should be easy for you to then figure it out on your own, because
your model didn't match the evidence.

-hh

Tommy

unread,

Nov 23, 2022, 10:11:27 PM11/23/22

to

The "assumption" is that you have a perfectly fair election with a Gaussian distribution of Republican and Democratic votes.

-hh

unread,

Nov 24, 2022, 3:31:47 AM11/24/22

to

On Wednesday, November 23, 2022 at 10:11:27 PM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 3:21:37 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 12:23:32 AM UTC-5, Tommy wrote:
> > > On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 6:08:30 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, November 19, 2022 at 6:31:22 AM UTC-5, Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > Tommy wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In an unbiased contest there would be a 50% probability that either
> > > > > > party were favored.
> > > > >
> > > > > What?
> > > > >
> > > > > Can you put that in language that an intelligent adult might use?
> > > > I think he’s trying to claim that if it was a statistical coin toss, then the
> > > > unlikelihood could factor in. Problem for Tommy is that he doesn’t know
> > > > enough about statistics to know how his simplifying assumptions are wrong.
> > >
> > > Of course the Lyin' Asshole DOES NOT explain how the "assumptions" are wrong!!!!!
> >
> > Since the stats were your claim, you should list what your assumptions were.
> > From there, it should be easy for you to then figure it out on your own, because
> > your model didn't match the evidence.
> >
>

> The "assumption" is that you have a perfectly fair election with a Gaussian distribution of Republican and Democratic votes.

Is that your only required assumption, Tommy?

-hh

Bigbird

unread,

Nov 24, 2022, 5:26:49 AM11/24/22

to

Show that to be a valid assumption; it clearly isn't but I'd like to
see you try.

It is clearly not your only assumption so the truth is you don't even
know what assumptions you have made.

If only you had any sort of mathematical or scientific competence you
would know this...
...but what can we expect from a demented old pervert that you have
proven to be, Betty.

Tommy

unread,

Nov 25, 2022, 1:37:08 AM11/25/22

to

Asked and answered, Asshole.

Alan

unread,

Nov 25, 2022, 11:34:03 AM11/25/22

to

No...

Asked and dodged.

-hh

unread,

Nov 30, 2022, 1:03:51 PM11/30/22

to

Predictably so. Really is a shame how Tommy can’t even bring
himself to answer a direct yes/no question. Gosh, it can’t be
because he knows he’s been caught in yet another lie?

-hh

m syadoz

unread,

Dec 1, 2022, 12:54:56 PM12/1/22

to

On Tuesday, November 15, 2022 at 7:05:28 AM UTC-6, Irving S wrote:
> Why is it that in almost every case, I mean in almost every case, a Republican is ahead, then there is a delay, or some technical glitch, and when the counting resumes, the Democratic trends up and wins.
>
> THIS IS STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE NUMBER OF CASES WE ARE TALKING. STATISTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE!

Lachlan Murdoch probably knows the answers

Fox CEO Lachlan Murdoch to face questioning as part of Dominion Voting’s $1.6 billion lawsuit

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/12/01/fox-ceo-lachlan-murdoch-deposition-dominion-lawsuit.html

Tommy

unread,

Dec 2, 2022, 8:39:56 PM12/2/22

to

Hardly - the question was ASKED and ANSWERED, Lyin' Asshole (and you KNOW why I call you the LYIN' ASSHOLE, don't you?).