1) Biden outperformed Clinton. That's not possible if the populations who voted for them are the same. Therefore, shenanigans!
2) The ballots counted last were more pro-Biden than the overall ballots. That can't be random. Shenanigans!
I am not joking.
I wish I was joking.
I am not.
Here's his intro: "I was asked to determine whether Clinton and Biden's outcomes were similar and random." And, also, whether the two ballot-counting periods (early count, late count) were similar and randomly drawn from the same population.
Seriously. His first "statistical opinion" is that Biden outperforming Clinton is evidence of fraud
His second is "there's no way the late counted ballots were randomly selected from the overall pool of voters" oh, really, you don't say? Amazing that only everyone in the world already knew that would happen in advance of election day.
He also - from his deep well of expertise in <checks notes> voter behavior, a subject in which he has no education or experience - opines that there would likely be a higher error rate in mail in ballots in 2020 and that GA must have had fewer signature rejections b/c shenanigans
Note: GA has repeatedly said that the signature rejection rate in 2020 was virtually identical to the signature rejection rate in 2016
He also adopts - without discussion or analysis, which isn't a thing experts get to do - the Wayne County canvassers claim that Wayne was unusually out of balance
Note: There were 357 out-of-balance votes in Wayne County.
Here, the "expert" tests the "hypothesis that the performance of the two Democratic candidates were statistically similar" and reports his results
Motherfucker, we know they weren't statistically similar. Biden got a much higher percentage. You're "testing" to see whether my bank account and Patrick Mahomes' are statistically similar: they aren't.
Also, "other things being the same they would have an equal number of votes" is the stupidest fucking hypothesis in the history of hypotheses - and I have kids in elementary and high school science classes - because literally nothing relevant is the same
The candidates are different. A pandemic. Trump is an incumbent President with a record rather than a dice-roll. There's 4 years of additional history and experience and 4 years worth of teenage voters who aged into eligibility and past voters dying. What is wrong with you??
After investigation, Texas's expert can confidently "reject the hypothesis that the percentages of the votes Clinton and Biden achieved in the respective elections are similar"
I ... I'm speechless
Texas submitted an expert report to say "Biden got a higher percentage of the votes than Clinton", a subject which obviously requires expert testimony, z-scores, and circles and arrows and 8x10 glossy photographs and not just, you know, functioning eyes
"OK, sure, there are lots of different reasons people might vote for candidates but if the same exact people voted for Biden and Clinton then I can't explain the different results" said the actual human apotheosis of 1,000,000 brain genius memes
Now, how about those ballot periods? It turns out there were a lot more Biden voters in the late counted ballots than the overall population.
Brain genius's conclusion from this? The late counted ballots could NOT have been randomly selected
No, seriously. He spends a paragraph explaining that sure, he knows that people expected that, because they were coming from heavily Dem precincts and the heavily Dem absentee ballots, but he is not *personally* aware of that. This means an investigation must be done
He also did the same analysis for other states. Shockingly, he also concluded that: (1) Biden outperformed Clinton; and (2) the latest counted ballots favored Biden.
Obviously, this cries out for investigation
Especially since this involves Black peo-
Excuse me. Sorry. "Urban" people
"Look, if votes in battleground states come in at random, like flipping a true coin, it's impossible that Biden won all of these states, unlike Trump winning them in 2016, because ... wait, let's take that Trump reference out of the declaration, it doesn't work"
This "expert" report is the biggest steaming pile of crap I have ever seen, and I've seen many terrible expert reports in my career.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Goddamn it, Texas, I don't have time for this today.
Fine. Fine. A brief thread. (Yesterday I said I'd do a brief thread on the Michigan decision and finished an hour and a half later. Can't let this be that, today).
OK. Texas filed a motion for leave to file a complaint against PA, GA, MI and WI in the Supreme Court. Someone else can lawsplain to you how that works, or you can google the highlighted rules, but briefly, this is a thing they can theoretically do
There is a MASSIVE contradiction at the heart of this complaint, and its doomed for other reasons, too (standing, laches, abstention)
@BambuDB He's wrong. Flatly and stupidly. For multiple reasons
@BambuDB 1) SCOTUS cannot reverse a state supreme court on an issue of state law. The argument is that under PA state law, laches can't bar consideration of a constitutional challenge under the PA constitution. That's a pure question of state law. SCOTUS has no say
@BambuDB 2) Separately from that, he's wrong about what the precedent was. Even under Stilip, laches wouldn't bar a challenge to applying the law *going forward* but it absolutely would bar a challenge to election results from elections *already held* under the challenged law.
So, quick rundown of the latest #Squidigation decision: It's very thorough; 36 pages of Judge Parker explaining that Powell and her merry band of fuckups lose for every conceivable reason
First: 11th Amendment Immunity. Basically, states (and their officials) have sovereign immunity; you can't sue them in Federal Court except to the extent that they agree to be sued there. Quick thumbnail of the doctrine here
There are only 3 exceptions to this: 1) Congress says "you can sue your state for this"; 2) the state agrees to be sued; 3) Younger, a case that said "you can sue your state if you are just seeking an order saying 'stop violating my rights'"
This, btw, is the affidavit of yet another "Military Intelligence" 'expert' in "vote analysis" and "political trends" whose expert opinion is - and I shit you not - "Come on, a Democrat can't win Georgia"
Y'all, I've gotten the filings to date in the #Squidigation appeal in Georgia. Don't have time for a true thread today, but a couple of points of clownery are worth highlighting. You can find the full docs here dropbox.com/sh/uvkqcnvq2on…
First, you may remember that the Eleventh Circuit had some ... concerns ... about whether Team Kraken could actually appeal the Court's order, and directed all parties to address those concerns by December 3
Well, here's the docket entries for those filings. Note the problem?
OK, #Squidigation fans, I think we need to talk about the new Wisconsin suit Donald Trump filed - personally - in Federal Court last night. The suit is (as usual) meritless. But it's meritless in new and disturbing ways. This thread will be long
I apologize in advance to my wife, who would very much prefer I be billing time (today's a light day, though) and to my assistant, to whom I owe some administrative stuff this will likely keep me from 😃
First, some background. Trump's suit essentially tries to Federalize the Wisconsin Supreme Court complaint his campaign filed, which we discussed here.