IMO, the Fix is in

This is one of the big things that's in the Texas lawsuit. This is exactly what I've been saying about the statheads and their view on this election. This election is 100% garbage. Follow the science, people. Just looking at his stuff he doesn't look to be a conservative either.


"Dr. Cicchetti is the former Deputy Director as the Energy and Environmental Policy Center at Harvard University’s John Kennedy School of Government and received his Ph.D.. in economics from Rutgers University.

According to Dr. Cicchetti, his calculations show the probability of Joe Biden winning the popular vote in the four states independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion.

Dr. Cicchetti’s analysis calculates that for Joe Biden to win the four states collectively, the odds of that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power.:"
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
If an appellate court reverses a dismissal, it remands the case back to the trial court for further proceedings in light of the appellate court's opinion.
Click to expand...

So it sends the case BACK to the trial court, not on up the chain correct? That makes these theories about losing and trying to get to SCOTUS quickly rather farcical. Would you agree?
 
Garmel said:
This is one of the big things that's in the Texas lawsuit. This is exactly what I've been saying about the statheads and their view on this election. This election is 100% garbage. Follow the science, people. Just looking at his stuff he doesn't look to be a conservative either.


"Dr. Cicchetti is the former Deputy Director as the Energy and Environmental Policy Center at Harvard University’s John Kennedy School of Government and received his Ph.D.. in economics from Rutgers University.

According to Dr. Cicchetti, his calculations show the probability of Joe Biden winning the popular vote in the four states independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion.

Dr. Cicchetti’s analysis calculates that for Joe Biden to win the four states collectively, the odds of that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power.:"
Click to expand...

Can you share a link to his analysis?
 
Seattle Husker said:
So it sends the case BACK to the trial court, not on up the chain correct? That makes these theories about losing and trying to get to SCOTUS quickly rather farcical. Would you agree?
Click to expand...

If we're only talking about reversals based on the credibility of an affiant or witness, then yes, it's farcical. If issues like that get to SCOTUS (which they may), the normal procedure would be to reverse and remand. However, full disclosure - I haven't had the time to read the briefs of the parties to these lawsuits, so I don't know how the issues are getting framed before the courts. Either way, I don't really see an obvious question of law that would get presented to SCOTUS that could result in actually overturning the electoral votes of any states and therefore swing the election.

Ultimately, our system isn't built for this sort of thing. There are about six weeks of time after the election but before the electoral college votes to haggle over this stuff and have it actually make a difference in the election. Apparently, the Texas case is intended to buy more time by asking the SCOTUS to delay the electoral college vote, but how much time would SCOTUS even consider giving them? A few days? A few weeks? Even a month? But will that matter? (Texas is suing PA, MI, and WI, and lawsuits between states are one of the few types of cases in which SCOTUS has original jurisdiction, meaning cases are filed there rather than in lower courts and appealed there.)

You can't do a serious fraud investigation and have it adjudicated that fast. Furthermore, there is no remedy available if fraud is found at a later time. Suppose Trump totally proved his case in PA, GA, AZ, and MI (which would be enough to overturn the election) and got it done by June 2021 (which would be lightening speed). Then what? Biden is the President. You can impeach him if you can actually pin the fraud on him (which wouldn't be a foregone conclusion), but even if you do that, it doesn't overturn the election. It puts Kamala Harris in the White House. How many Republicans are up for that? I may not be a "Sleepy Joe" fan, but I wouldn't dump him for Willie Brown's ex-mistress, who's undoubtedly much further left than he is.

Trump's legal team knows this, which is why I think the real strategy is political - undermine the integrity of the election enough to get the state legislatures to act by either deciding to choose their own electors or getting them to toss out the election results (choosing no electors) and sending the election to the House, where Trump would win. It's a massive long shot, but the window is closing fast on everything else, and that window will close very soon.
 
This was the Kelly case in PA where the State Senator was claiming the legislature passed an unconstitutional law in '19 thus the election should be thrown out.


This is the complete SCOTUS response...1 sentence.
Kelly case.png
 
Another loss for the Trump and supporter team. At this point the Trump and supporter legal teams have become the Washington Generals.
 
Garmel said:
This is one of the big things that's in the Texas lawsuit. This is exactly what I've been saying about the statheads and their view on this election. This election is 100% garbage. Follow the science, people. Just looking at his stuff he doesn't look to be a conservative either.


"Dr. Cicchetti is the former Deputy Director as the Energy and Environmental Policy Center at Harvard University’s John Kennedy School of Government and received his Ph.D.. in economics from Rutgers University.

According to Dr. Cicchetti, his calculations show the probability of Joe Biden winning the popular vote in the four states independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion.

Dr. Cicchetti’s analysis calculates that for Joe Biden to win the four states collectively, the odds of that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power.:"
Click to expand...

I had to drop in on HornFans to see whether anyone was talking about Dr. C's analysis. Sure enough...

When I first saw that this lawsuit had been filed, I assumed it would be based on cleverly disguised sophistry. Nope. There is nothing clever disguising the sophistry.

This link is to the brief Texas filed with SCOTUS. The 1st 20 pages or so are the brief itself, then the page numbers restart at 1a, which is Dr. Cicchetti’s declaration.

He starts with a comparison between Georgia’s presidential election results in 2016 and 2020 (pages 3a-4a). His analysis is premised on the idea that a certain fraction of voters support Republican candidates and a certain fraction of voters support Democratic candidates. He then compares the 2016 election results to the 2020 election results and analyzes how likely or unlikely it is that votes taken from that static voter pool, randomly distributed, would come out so drastically different. In his words, he determined “the likelihood that the samples of the outcomes for the two Democratic candidates and two tabulations periods were similar and randomly drawn from the same population.” His answer – “less than one in a quadrillion” -- is undoubtedly correct, but it is irrelevant. It would matter if the pool of voters remained unchanged, voters held static opinions, and the candidates were indistinguishable. But we would all agree that 2020 was a very different year from 2016, and that changes in voter opinions can be explained in any number of ways. The entire analysis falls under the weight of such banal considerations as “did more Georgians hate Clinton than hated Biden?” or “was 4 years of Trump enough to turn off a few percent of Georgia voters?”.

Dr. Cicchetti then moves to an analysis of the blue shift in Georgia (pages 4a-5a). He tests the possibility that votes before and after 3:10 a.m. on November 4 could be so different despite being drawn from the same pool. This analysis hinges on an assumption that the voter pool for the “before” period and the “after” period were indistinguishable. His conclusion is that “the Georgia reversal raises questions because the votes tabulated in the two time periods could not be random samples from the same population of all votes cast.” No ****, Sherlock. They weren’t random samples from the same population of all votes cast, because the later-counted votes were the mail-in ballots, which skewed Democratic for predictable and defensible reasons.

Next, Dr. Cicchetti turns to similar analyses in MI, PA, and WI (pages 5a-7a). I didn’t read these as carefully, but the analysis seems to be exactly the same as for GA.

I stopped reading at this point because this guy has no credibility. If there is anything in the rest of it that isn't as obviously refuted, I'll wait for the courts to say so. I expect the Supreme Court to toss this very quickly, 9-0. There is absolutely nothing for them to sink their teeth into.
 
NJlonghorn said:
I had to drop in on HornFans to see whether anyone was talking about Dr. C's analysis. Sure enough...

When I first saw that this lawsuit had been filed, I assumed it would be based on cleverly disguised sophistry. Nope. There is nothing clever disguising the sophistry.

This link is to the brief Texas filed with SCOTUS. The 1st 20 pages or so are the brief itself, then the page numbers restart at 1a, which is Dr. Cicchetti’s declaration.

He starts with a comparison between Georgia’s presidential election results in 2016 and 2020 (pages 3a-4a). His analysis is premised on the idea that a certain fraction of voters support Republican candidates and a certain fraction of voters support Democratic candidates. He then compares the 2016 election results to the 2020 election results and analyzes how likely or unlikely it is that votes taken from that static voter pool, randomly distributed, would come out so drastically different. In his words, he determined “the likelihood that the samples of the outcomes for the two Democratic candidates and two tabulations periods were similar and randomly drawn from the same population.” His answer – “less than one in a quadrillion” -- is undoubtedly correct, but it is irrelevant. It would matter if the pool of voters remained unchanged, voters held static opinions, and the candidates were indistinguishable. But we would all agree that 2020 was a very different year from 2016, and that changes in voter opinions can be explained in any number of ways. The entire analysis falls under the weight of such banal considerations as “did more Georgians hate Clinton than hated Biden?” or “was 4 years of Trump enough to turn off a few percent of Georgia voters?”.

Dr. Cicchetti then moves to an analysis of the blue shift in Georgia (pages 4a-5a). He tests the possibility that votes before and after 3:10 a.m. on November 4 could be so different despite being drawn from the same pool. This analysis hinges on an assumption that the voter pool for the “before” period and the “after” period were indistinguishable. His conclusion is that “the Georgia reversal raises questions because the votes tabulated in the two time periods could not be random samples from the same population of all votes cast.” No ****, Sherlock. They weren’t random samples from the same population of all votes cast, because the later-counted votes were the mail-in ballots, which skewed Democratic for predictable and defensible reasons.

Next, Dr. Cicchetti turns to similar analyses in MI, PA, and WI (pages 5a-7a). I didn’t read these as carefully, but the analysis seems to be exactly the same as for GA.

I stopped reading at this point because this guy has no credibility. If there is anything in the rest of it that isn't as obviously refuted, I'll wait for the courts to say so. I expect the Supreme Court to toss this very quickly, 9-0. There is absolutely nothing for them to sink their teeth into.
Click to expand...

He has no credibility only because he's saying something you don't want to hear. The fact is you're the one talking out of his ***, not him. You can go back into hiding now.

You and Husker think that you understand stats better than the guys who have a doctorates degree so just quit embarrassing yourself. Seriously.
 
Last edited:
Garmel said:
He has no credibility only because he's saying something you don't want to hear. The fact is you're the one talking out of his ***, not him. You can go back into hiding now.

You and Husker think you understand stats better than the guys who have a doctorates degree so just quit embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...
Keep in mind, they have no bias.
 
NJlonghorn said:
I stopped reading at this point because this guy has no credibility.
Click to expand...

Good analysis, @NJlonghorn. I didn't have time to read the TX motion but a quick Google search found a 2014 version of Charles Chichetti's resume. His Harvard experience was 30 years ago but most telling was the 24 pages of legal and legislative testimony. He's a expert witness for hire. Clearly, at age 77 his logic skills aren't as strong as I imagine they once were.
 
Garmel said:
He has no credibility only because he's saying something you don't want to hear. The fact is you're the one talking out of his ***, not him. You can go back into hiding now.

You and Husker think that you understand stats better than the guys who have a doctorates degree so just quit embarrassing yourself. Seriously.
Click to expand...

For ONCE maybe you can address the argument? NJLonghorn went to the trouble of actually evaluating Dr. Chichetti's analysis and found significant gaps in his model that resulted in his pretty extreme outcome. Do you agree with Chichetti's analysis that the demographic sample before 3am matches the exact breakdown afterwards? That everyone who voted for/against Trump/HRC would do the exact same thing 4yrs later? That the 2016 model can be applied even though GA saw a voter turnout increase by nearly 25%?
 
Last edited:
NJlonghorn said:
I had to drop in on HornFans to see whether anyone was talking about Dr. C's analysis. Sure enough...

When I first saw that this lawsuit had been filed, I assumed it would be based on cleverly disguised sophistry. Nope. There is nothing clever disguising the sophistry.

This link is to the brief Texas filed with SCOTUS. The 1st 20 pages or so are the brief itself, then the page numbers restart at 1a, which is Dr. Cicchetti’s declaration.

He starts with a comparison between Georgia’s presidential election results in 2016 and 2020 (pages 3a-4a). His analysis is premised on the idea that a certain fraction of voters support Republican candidates and a certain fraction of voters support Democratic candidates. He then compares the 2016 election results to the 2020 election results and analyzes how likely or unlikely it is that votes taken from that static voter pool, randomly distributed, would come out so drastically different. In his words, he determined “the likelihood that the samples of the outcomes for the two Democratic candidates and two tabulations periods were similar and randomly drawn from the same population.” His answer – “less than one in a quadrillion” -- is undoubtedly correct, but it is irrelevant. It would matter if the pool of voters remained unchanged, voters held static opinions, and the candidates were indistinguishable. But we would all agree that 2020 was a very different year from 2016, and that changes in voter opinions can be explained in any number of ways. The entire analysis falls under the weight of such banal considerations as “did more Georgians hate Clinton than hated Biden?” or “was 4 years of Trump enough to turn off a few percent of Georgia voters?”.

Dr. Cicchetti then moves to an analysis of the blue shift in Georgia (pages 4a-5a). He tests the possibility that votes before and after 3:10 a.m. on November 4 could be so different despite being drawn from the same pool. This analysis hinges on an assumption that the voter pool for the “before” period and the “after” period were indistinguishable. His conclusion is that “the Georgia reversal raises questions because the votes tabulated in the two time periods could not be random samples from the same population of all votes cast.” No ****, Sherlock. They weren’t random samples from the same population of all votes cast, because the later-counted votes were the mail-in ballots, which skewed Democratic for predictable and defensible reasons.

Next, Dr. Cicchetti turns to similar analyses in MI, PA, and WI (pages 5a-7a). I didn’t read these as carefully, but the analysis seems to be exactly the same as for GA.

I stopped reading at this point because this guy has no credibility. If there is anything in the rest of it that isn't as obviously refuted, I'll wait for the courts to say so. I expect the Supreme Court to toss this very quickly, 9-0. There is absolutely nothing for them to sink their teeth into.
Click to expand...

I took a brief look at the pages you mentioned. Because Dr. Chichetti relies heavily on 2016 voter demographic breakdown, I don't see where he accounts for the fact that GA had nearly a 25% increase in voter turnout in 2020 with 968,420 more ballots counted than in 2016. Did I miss it?
 
Seattle Husker said:
For ONCE maybe you can address the argument? NJLonghorn went to the trouble of actually evaluating Dr. Chichetti's analysis and found significant gaps in his model that resulted in his pretty extreme outcome. Do you agree with Chichetti's analysis that the demographic sample before 3am matches the exact breakdown afterwards? That everyone who voted for/against Trump/HRC would do the exact same thing 4yrs later? That the 2016 model can be applied even though GA saw a voter turnout increase by nearly 25%?
Click to expand...

I'm sure the good doctor did not release every single thing in his analysis so finding holes is worthless. It's what, 10 pages long? I'm sure the full paper is much longer than that so is this armchair quarterbacking is ridiculous. Seriously, some of the best statisticians are saying this election is wonky and you guys keep acting like Christian fundamentalists that can't handle the fact that a scientist is telling you that evolution is real and Adam and Eve is a myth.
 
Last edited:
Garmel said:
I'm sure the good doctor did not release every single thing in his analysis so finding holes is worthless. It's what, 10 pages long? I'm sure the full paper is much longer than that so this armchair quarterbacking is ridiculous. Seriously, some of the best statisticians are saying this election is wonky and you guys keep acting like Christian fundamentalists that can't handle the fact that a scientist is telling you that evolution is real and Adam and Eve is a myth.
Click to expand...

"No I won't respond to logical arguments." - Garmel

That would have been much simpler, sir. Did you read the declaration? If you can't discern a logical argument form it then how is a judge supposed to. This is why Trump and allies are 1-51 in court.
 
Seattle Husker said:
"No I won't respond to logical arguments." - Garmel

That would have been much simpler, sir. Did you read the declaration? If you can't discern a logical argument form it then how is a judge supposed to. This is why Trump and allies are 1-51 in court.
Click to expand...

Really? I'm the one embracing science, you're the one holding your Bible with a death grip.
 
Last edited:
Let's see, some of the most renowned statisticians are wrong and little old deluded Husker is the one that is right. :lmao:
 
Garmel said:
Let's see, some of the most renowned statisticians are wrong and little old deluded Husker is the one that is right. :lmao:
Click to expand...

Asking you to read their declarations and defend them is too much? If you want to stand behind their resumes surely you'd want to comprehend their argument too. Come on...I have confidence in your reading skills.
 
NJlonghorn said:
I had to drop in on HornFans to see whether anyone was talking about Dr. C's analysis. Sure enough...

When I first saw that this lawsuit had been filed, I assumed it would be based on cleverly disguised sophistry. Nope. There is nothing clever disguising the sophistry.

This link is to the brief Texas filed with SCOTUS. The 1st 20 pages or so are the brief itself, then the page numbers restart at 1a, which is Dr. Cicchetti’s declaration.

He starts with a comparison between Georgia’s presidential election results in 2016 and 2020 (pages 3a-4a). His analysis is premised on the idea that a certain fraction of voters support Republican candidates and a certain fraction of voters support Democratic candidates. He then compares the 2016 election results to the 2020 election results and analyzes how likely or unlikely it is that votes taken from that static voter pool, randomly distributed, would come out so drastically different. In his words, he determined “the likelihood that the samples of the outcomes for the two Democratic candidates and two tabulations periods were similar and randomly drawn from the same population.” His answer – “less than one in a quadrillion” -- is undoubtedly correct, but it is irrelevant. It would matter if the pool of voters remained unchanged, voters held static opinions, and the candidates were indistinguishable. But we would all agree that 2020 was a very different year from 2016, and that changes in voter opinions can be explained in any number of ways. The entire analysis falls under the weight of such banal considerations as “did more Georgians hate Clinton than hated Biden?” or “was 4 years of Trump enough to turn off a few percent of Georgia voters?”.

Dr. Cicchetti then moves to an analysis of the blue shift in Georgia (pages 4a-5a). He tests the possibility that votes before and after 3:10 a.m. on November 4 could be so different despite being drawn from the same pool. This analysis hinges on an assumption that the voter pool for the “before” period and the “after” period were indistinguishable. His conclusion is that “the Georgia reversal raises questions because the votes tabulated in the two time periods could not be random samples from the same population of all votes cast.” No ****, Sherlock. They weren’t random samples from the same population of all votes cast, because the later-counted votes were the mail-in ballots, which skewed Democratic for predictable and defensible reasons.

Next, Dr. Cicchetti turns to similar analyses in MI, PA, and WI (pages 5a-7a). I didn’t read these as carefully, but the analysis seems to be exactly the same as for GA.

I stopped reading at this point because this guy has no credibility. If there is anything in the rest of it that isn't as obviously refuted, I'll wait for the courts to say so. I expect the Supreme Court to toss this very quickly, 9-0. There is absolutely nothing for them to sink their teeth into.
Click to expand...
Reasonable analysis went somewhere other than here. Maybe it’s at the Ritz Carlton car detail waiting room.
 
Having a reasonable analysis and drawing conclusions over a chopped up 10 page summary is futile. If he releases the full paper then you can criticize what's in there. Otherwise, you're just talking out of your *** because you don't have the full story.
 
Last edited:
The Kraken, Sydney Powell, filed her appeal for her Michigan case in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals that handles patent law appeals. Fortunately, it's doubtful her chances of winning this case were worsened by filing in the wrong court. The show must go on...

 
The Trump lemmings remind me of the southern soldiers in the last campaigns in the west. Atlanta is burned, they are eating parched corn, are shoeless, their weapons are falling apart, they lack powder and caps, are led by the equivalent of John Bell Hood and yet they soldier on from defeat to defeat. I pitch my cap in salute to their steadfast devotion to a lost cause and their courage, blind though it might be.
Give ‘em hell, boys, but it is over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top