Read it. Understand the data plots. And tell me it doesn't leave a bad taste in your mouth. If it doesn't leave a bad taste in your mouth, tell me why.

Takes vote dumps in each state & plots ratios of Biden votes to Trump. Then draws three lines showing that if a data plot is above the line then it is in either the 95th percentile, 99th percentile, or 99.5th percentile. IOW, only one out of every two-hundred points are above it.
The study takes into account that large ballot dumps which heavily favor a candidate make sense, if there are also smaller ones which favor the candidate more. Seems logical. Larger data dumps should be smoother than smaller data dumps.
All states except MI/WI/GA are blue. Notice anything? Notice how the controversial and much needed dumps for Biden that happened in the wee hours of the morning in crucial states are the most unlikely of all data dumps?
Might say these were mail in ballots that were expected to heavily favor Biden. Why don't we see this in other states that weren't absolutely crucial to Biden's victory coming down the stretch? Why are these three states the most extreme? Why not heavy blue areas like NYC or SF?
"Four of the seven most extreme vote dumps decided the election for Joe Biden. This alone is bizarre and fundamentally cuts against his narrative of moderate increases in suburban and exurban areas."
"Moreover, the distribution is “heavy-tailed” and these vote dumps are vastly more “co-extreme” than even the points around the 99.5th percentile (the dotted black line in the graph above)."
"These four vote dumps were quantifiably far more extreme than virtually every other vote dump, with only a few others as extreme in their aberration from the inverse pattern observed elsewhere."
"The odds of these three states (GA, WI, MI) being so well-represented at the top of the distribution is just over 1%."
"And when you factor in that a vote dump in GA is the 9th most extreme point, the odds that these three states have five of the top ten most extreme vote dumps drop to less than 1%."
"There's no evidence."

More from Politics

You May Also Like

Great article from @AsheSchow. I lived thru the 'Satanic Panic' of the 1980's/early 1990's asking myself "Has eveyrbody lost their GODDAMN MINDS?!"


The 3 big things that made the 1980's/early 1990's surreal for me.

1) Satanic Panic - satanism in the day cares ahhhh!

2) "Repressed memory" syndrome

3) Facilitated Communication [FC]

All 3 led to massive abuse.

"Therapists" -and I use the term to describe these quacks loosely - would hypnotize people & convince they they were 'reliving' past memories of Mom & Dad killing babies in Satanic rituals in the basement while they were growing up.

Other 'therapists' would badger kids until they invented stories about watching alligators eat babies dropped into a lake from a hot air balloon. Kids would deny anything happened for hours until the therapist 'broke through' and 'found' the 'truth'.

FC was a movement that started with the claim severely handicapped individuals were able to 'type' legible sentences & communicate if a 'helper' guided their hands over a keyboard.
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?