Free Republic

“CRINGE WORTHY”

That was the exact term that I used to describe this. Her words describing Biden was actually terrific. Particularly, when describing the rapes of the woman she spoke with. Very powerful. Problem was the tone disconnected with reality. It seemed phony. This is what made it cringe worthy.

Even worse, there was a tremendous opportunity missed. With the brutal setup of Biden, I was hoping for a pivot to Trump (and Republicans - linking them together) for contrast by highlighting his past successes to the problems she articulated in her stories and giving hope to the future. She tried to contrast to hopeful but the attempt was flat and ineffective.

“CRINGE WORTHY”

That was the exact term that I used to describe this. Her words describing Biden was actually terrific. Particularly, when describing the rapes of the woman she spoke with. Very powerful. Problem was the tone disconnected with reality. It seemed phony. This is what made it cringe worthy.

Even worse, there was a tremendous opportunity missed. With the brutal setup of Biden, I was hoping for a pivot to Trump (and Republicans - linking them together) for contrast by highlighting his past successes to the problems she articulated in her stories and giving hope to the future. She tried to contrast to hopeful but the attempt was flat and ineffective.

I am an actuary (FSA 1982) who retired almost 5 years ago who has worked in the field for 43 years. I would have gotten this question easily at the time that I took the test which would have been the Probability and Statistics (Test Number 2) which I passed in Nov 1973. In all of my work I have not needed to perform this type of calculation. Ao not having seen this for 48 years, I did not attempt to solve it. I am sure that I would have been able to do this if I had referenced my Part 2 Book. So I asked my son who is a post-doc PhD, intending on becoming a professor. He was able to come up with the formula in his head and he then put the formula in something that calculates a formula with e (also noted as exp as per DoodleBob) to get the correct answer.

For Mr.Unique and Captain Walker-There are a set of Math Phds such as my son who are committed to math and are involved in math that I would have had no clue about, even in my prime.

So you and DoodleBob did get the correct answer. The mathematical explanation is as follows: “An exponential random variable with mean 2 has a probabilty density function given by (1/2)*e^(-x/2). Therefore, the probabilty that the printer lasts less than 1 year is the integral of this function from 0 to 1 which is 1-e^(-1/2). By self similarity of the eexponential random variable, the probabilty that a printer lasts between 1 and 2 years is the same value multiplied by e^(-1/2). Hence, our answer because we sell 100 printers is
100*{200*(1-e^(-1/2))+100*(e^(-1/2)-e^(-1))}
For those inclined to check e= 2.718281828459... and * means multiplication and ^means exponent (i.e 2^3 is 2 cubed or 8)

Some other thoughts on comments made on this thread (who I did not specifically tag in the names in my reply). The actuarial is a great profession and has provided me with a fine career. In fact, the Actuarial profession is rated among the top professions. There was a time when it was rated as the number 1 profession. When I first started my career, most people were not familiar with the actuarial profession but it has come in prominence particularly with regard to Social Security and Health Care. The Actuarial career has set me up for my greatest position which is retirement. I do not miss the working world one bit as my time is largely my own and I am never bored. I wish you luck and much happiness in your career as an actuary.

One last comment, I appreciate your tag line - particularly from an actuary.

On fraud and Dr. Frank’s conclusions - I believe we are in agreement. Specifically, you pointed out that the high correlation is not unexpected.

A few things that I want to clarify.
First is the qualifications issue. The perspective of viewing physicists as expert mathematicians is scoffed at by my expert PhD who is a serious student of theoretical mathematics. My point is that Dr. Frank’s background as stated in itself does not necessarily make him qualified as an expert in this project. This linkage is what I suspect has people believing him. It is why I make this point.

The reverse logic that you need a PhD in math to be qualified is not at all implied by my comment. Your personal example is a perfect case in point. Having a PhD by itself does not mean everything and in many cases might mean little. Additionally someone who is a serious learned person (such as yourself ) might be very qualified - far more than most PhDs.

Second is my statement “I suspect these aberrations would be most prevalent in a few key counties.” is counter to Dr. Franks conclusion is that the same pattern of predictability based on the 2010 census moved forward for mortality is prevalent in every county is countered by your example. In other words, the statement is meant to point out that some counties would stick out like a sore thumb rather than result in incredulous high correlation. Dr. Frank uses this high correlation which he says does not happen in real life for his conclusion. My expert noted (consistent with your comment) that his approach produces the high correlation. That is where Dr. Frank’s conclusion is misguided.

We are not far away from each other on voter fraud and the deep state players with vested interest that are threatened by Trump cutting off their money supply are complicit. The D's have strongly used voting fraud for many years. The influx of illegal alien is an intentional play to get power by allowing them in and giving them citizenship and voting. For this election, they have prepared the field taking advantage of Covid. Soros funded Secretary of States, D governors changing the rules. R governors who are compromised. Trump was such a threat to the deep state that any means necessary was employed. My frustration has been our horrific attempts to get a cohesive strategy to bring things to light that are understandable.

Let me get to your comments.
Teaching K-12 (even advanced classes for gifted students) is a far cry from PhD level math. This background does not in any shape make him a qualified expert for this project. Dr. Frank's method is dubious and his conclusions are not sound. That was clearly demonstrated to me. Specifically, the statements that the high correlation factors don't happen are not correct when using his approach. His methodology makes a high correlation an expected result.

I am interested in what you are trying to compare the 2008 election numbers with the 2020 election numbers. You mentioned that I would see patterns that make my hair blow back. (if I had hair - at 69 I am happy to say that while I may have detected a little thinning, my hair is still flowing.) I look forward to seeing your Ohio analysis. My sense is that there will be some big aberrations as a number of events occurred. Dr. Franks conclusions suggest there is one explanation (based upon high predictability of every county - using 6 degree polynomials) This means that various aberrations such as multiple processing of ballots or infusion of fake ballots at the last minute would not be detected. I suspect these aberrations would be most prevalent in a few key counties. I believe the vote fraud issue is the most important issue that we have and we will lose our country if this is not solved. I felt George Bush missed the boat by not having this as his number one priority. I agree that voter fraud was very much in tune in 2020. Why don't we have a reasonable approach to demonstrating the voter fraud? The hysterical pushback to audits is a key red flag. Jan 6 is what I call the Reichstag event that has been used to stifle uncovering of the fraud.

Your analysis agrees with my expert’s analysis.

I wanted to share some thoughts that should resonate with everyone. I am a retired actuary who was a math major. However there are a number of theoretical things that I am not well versed in. I listened to Dr. Frank’s presentation and was compelled by it and I wanted to share it with my expert PhD in math who I am close with. (He contends strongly that that there is no vote fraud and he has done a credible research into a number of reporting. He is strongly fact based and would be willing to be proved wrong if the facts bear it out.) His approach was impressive as he downloaded the Ohio and Colorado data which is readily available. He demonstrated to me that the approach described by Dr. Frank is likely to produce a high correlation. This is consistent with your conclusion.

Here are some takeaways.
First as far as a physicist being an excellent mathematician (From a PhD in theoretical math) is highly questionable. His approach and conclusions has flaws. If this were put to the $5 million reward test, it would be easy for him to earn it. (I suspect that it might be easy for you.) I will assume that Dr. Frank has a pure heart and is not a fraud. I just think that his math analysis is poor. Also I think there is a big case of confirmation bias that he believed there is so much fraud that this approach lead to a solution that seemed to solve how the fraud is done. In fact, his explanation for moms that all counties in Ohio had 10% blond haired people. And that each state had a different percentage in all counties. Obviously everyone can agree that this is a ridiculous conclusion. It is an easy explanation to show that there is something wrong. Here is the problem - his approach doesn’t not correctly translate into this analogy. It is flawed mathematically. As you pointed out, the high correlation is expected. Using a 6 degree polynomial smooths this further.

Second. I was taken in in that I accepted some things that seemed plausible and was willing to accept the mathematical ability. My confirmation bias was very high in that I wanted proof to something that I still feel strongly about is that the election was stolen. It is easy to see Mike Lindell embracing this analysis because of the same confirmation bias. I will accept the good faith of Dr. Frank but his approach is faulty.

Let me look at this a different way. Assume that Dr. Frank’s approach and conclusions were correct. What would that mean. I think 2 things. One is that there is a vast conspiracy that permeates in every state. That is so vast that goes undetected? Also why use it in every state? That increases the risk of being discovered significantly. You only need to manipulate a handful of states. The other thing is that this rules out other frauds that is more prevalent in some places and counties such as unreviewed absentee ballots, switched votes, mail dumps, multiple scans, etc. These would produce a spike that would influence the data. It would show up in the results. The fact that I did not immediately think about that confirms my confirmation bias of desperately wanting proof (with perhaps some overturning of the election).

Lastly, I am frustrated as hell. I still am convinced of large scale voter fraud. The 2020 results do not make sense. The approach to uncover this has been abysmal.
Starting with Trump’s approach with Rudy Guiliani that devolved into the Lin Wood and Sydney Powell (releasing the Kracken) fiasco. It made it easy for the press to ridicule the approach. The Jan 6 rally was manipulated into the the modern version of the Reichstag thereby poisoning the well. Trump publicly chastising Pence was horrible. He should have presented proof to Pence privately and then incorporated the Republican leaders to privately show them to get them on board would have been better. If they did not have complete proof at least develop the case for requirement of audits.

Then Mike Lindell (a patriot that I admire) has a great heart and means well but is not an effective messenger. HE was manhandled on Jimmy Kimmel and his bravado was not backed up. His announcement of something earth shattering at 7 PM CST was a bust. (What’s with our side always telegraphing momentous events that turnout to be less than a whimper - eg Hannity numerous times.)

I am referring to the R senators who were in a position to challenge the results. While many fought against him and were not on his side, Trump’s approach on the election fraud emboldened them to stand up to them.

Also it allowed the press to marginalize the election fraud issue and along with the tech companies suppress discussion of such. That has lessened some support as well - particularly in people who do not follow events closely.

Trump is the most popular candidate in the R party and no one will be able to defeat him from the nomination. (Notwithstanding adverse events). Also we have uncovered the RINO faction and perhaps a decreasing this faction in the primaries will have the R party more in lockstep with the goals.

Thanks for your reply. I recognize that time has not been on our side and perhaps it was not possible to get this done on time. We are now in a far worse position.

1. The power of the presidency and no branch Congress in R hands has been lost. So there the forces in power including executive appointments are aligned against us and ready to be weaponized.
2. Social media suppression and the bias press have been emboldened.
3. SCOTUS refused to act when confronted with violations of the Constitution through usurping the powers of the state legislature. What makes you think they will act now?
4. Trump's approach of communicating to the public about election fraud and the ineffective actions of Giuliani and his team and the lunacy of the Lin Wood and Sidney Powell faction and the infighting with the Giuliani team allowed the press to portray this in the same manner as the birther issue and enabled mass suppression. Finally, Jan 6 was as effectively used as the Reichstag in 1933 Germany. All of this is now synonymous with election fraud in many people's minds.

Your last sentence is so true and bears repeating and I will end with it. (I think that the If is a more likely occurrence than not.)

“If SCOTUS refuses to grant the writ, the Republic is truly dead, and we fall back to the unspoken option of last resort.”

I add my amen to Lindell being a true patriot. He is not an effective politician and by that I mean his ability to carry out meaningful change through his influence.

Accepting the premise, that Trump had it all on election day, how do you reconcile the ineffective methods in overturning the fake election results in a timely manner? (See my post 64 where I call this process abysmal). Uncovering and proving foreign influence would have given him license to perform transparent audits using military or other assets. The key is true transparency. Trump could have accomplished this better when he had power and effectively called in the R senators and Pence to show them the goods. Instead his approach alienated many in his own party and emboldened his non supporters in his own party. This further enabled the opposition and suppression from the tech companies was allowed to run rampant.

Now are in an Orwellian world with our enemies emboldened and cancel culture in full swing. (Our foreign enemies are also emboldened.) We are on the precipice of no return. (Enacting the filibuster and passing HR1 along with making the illegal immigrant citizens would put us there. Topping it off with exorbitant spending will ruin our country.)

How does this make for a better environment for action for Trump than before the election?

I am truly interested in your take on this.

“The strategy is a petition for a writ of quo warranto.”

I have seen discussions of this and appreciate your comments. While I am not versed on this at all, it appears you have good knowledge which appears to be a relatively simple solution. I suspect that there are a number of knowledgeable people who are well versed in what you are suggesting. The question that jumps out at me is why the hell has this not been done? There is no way Lindell is taking this approach. He is trying to get this disseminated to the people instead of using his influence to go through this procedure. He noted that he has been aware of this on Jan 6 (and perhaps earlier). Doesn’t give me any confidence that Lindell will make anything happen. (I would so love to be wrong about this.)

Unfortunately, we are too complacent. It is unlikely that we will at until things are too far gone and then it will be too late.

The SC does not have to pay attention to the public.

What is needed is a strong influential leader(s) with targeted simple strategies that can be implemented. The first step would be an effective and powerful alternate press with high journalistic standards that is committed to presenting the truth and not committed to being a vehicle to attain wealth as that compromises its mission. There would be a number of outlets owned by people who would not cow tow to outside pressure. (There would have to be multiple outlets as if there was 1 then the probability of violent threats to them becomes too real.) News outlets include TV stations whose ownership should be in the hands of such people. That would get the most following.

I am very much for the peaceful but determined approach. Unfortunately, I fear that peaceful methods may not be possible.

“What exactly was Trump supposed to do?”

While you do make some good points that would be happening if Trump continued in the same manner. Here’s what he could have done if he had the goods:

He could have met privately with Pence and other R leaders to show the evidence and then coordinate a unified strategy to bring this to the public. Instead he called out Pence in public and alienated many Rs with the process that unfolded (even before Jan 6) that at best seemed haphazard.

It is evident that the election was stolen. The results do not make sense in that there are major inconsistencies such as bell weather counties with high historical degree of correlation of the winner of these counties winning the election, the fact that there were miniscule R House incumbents losing (perhaps none), and of course millions of ballots that were mailed to non voters with no chain of command and removal of signature verification and historically low rejection rates.

I have little confidence of this yielding any success. While I note that some have expressed concern about the accuracy in this video, to ring out the points I want to emphasize, I will assume that the data is as it is reported to be. The following are my major concerns:

The political strategy of our side was (and still is) abysmal. Part 1 - Mile Lindell
a. While I respect (and praise) Mike Lindell for his efforts, he has not demonstrated any effective political instincts. His assertion that the Supreme Court will have to rule 9-0 on this proves my assertion. The SC refused to address this issue when they clearly had grounds to do so (i.e. states courts, SOS, and governors overturning state legislatures). No way in hell will they address this now.
b. What the hell is the strategy to get the SC to hear this? Lindell says to send this to everyone. Under our cancel culture and social media suppression, no way this gets traction. The only way to get traction is massive action with an influential coordinate to get people to act.

The political strategy of our side was (and still is) abysmal. Part 2 - Donald Trump
While I think that Trump’s achievements have been outstanding and historic and he could be a savior to this country, the voting fiasco was handled as poorly as possible. For that I place the blame squarely on him - so much so that he earned his losing the presidency. (Let me be clear, I am in favor of almost anything that will accomplish his replacing of Biden and assuming his rightful place as President based on overturning the fraud.) I do want to illustrate his blame.
a. Making poor choices in appointments. With regard to the election, I will call out the Justice Dept (of which the FBI is part of). There was no pursuing of election fraud. IN fact, Wray and Barr (particularly with his comments) undermined this effort.
b. The pre election battle was lost. Trump correctly told us about obvious election fraud but we were outgunned big time by the Ds. There was no excuse for not being prepared.
c. The performance of contesting the election results was totally non effective. Patrick Byrne was present at his folly and wrote about the problems. Even if his account was not accurate, the ineffective ness of the effort along with the bizarre rantings from Lin Wood and the lack of coordination and avert in fighting with Sidney Powell showed no cohesion and undermined the whole issue for Trump as it made it easier for the press to mock the issue.
d. Trump’s public feud with Pence and the lack of coordination and buy in from the R senators was inexcusable. Why did he not sit them down and show them smoking gun evidence? If there was none then why not target key areas and force a transparent audit (with military if necessary)?
e. In the video, Lindell makes the point that the data was captured in real time. If so, why was not Trump made aware and if he was aware, why the hell was nothing done about it at the time?
f. Lastly, the Jan 6 fiasco had no possibility of success. It drowned out and neutralized any election challenges that were going to be made. The real question is what role that Pelosi had in creating a Reichstag moment.

Hopefully the audits of Maricopa county and others will shed some light but the telling of the story will likely be suppressed and misrepresented. The preparation from our side has not been effective. There should have been a coordinated strategy of public relations (via Trump) and ensuring a true transparent audit done by firms of the highest reputation with the mantra being consistently repeated that we want transparent results and questioning any opposition. In fact Lindell on the Kimmel show did not raise this question to Kimmel. Another instance where his lack of political skills was evident.

One important fact that is lost is the timing of Zero's announcement of the “birth certificate”. As the article notes it was on Wed April 27. Why then after so much money was and time was spent by Obama on this issue? The answer is clear that it was not random. What was happening at that time that was sure to drive any questioning out of the news? It was the planned raid on Osama Bin Laden whose killing was announced on Sun May 1.
Bin Laden became the only story effectively neutralizing any birther story. I always thought that the timing was suspect - bit it worked.

What you had was a complicit press in bed with corrupt players - Perkins Coie (I had no idea at the time about this firm). I wonder how much involvement of foreign adversaries (via payoffs involving lots of money) or threats played a picture. That includes corruption by buying off of what should be adversaries. This has been perfected to an art form that is present today where even questioning anything by the corrupt players leads to censorship, condemnation and ridicule (which is the most brazen weapon to manipulate the people). Further, fostering phony charges to protect the uncovering of far worse things that were perpetrated by their side (Russia hoax to neutralize Trump and bury the failed Clinton e-mail investigation and spying by Obama administration, the 1st impeachment to bury the Ukrainian corruptions and try to pin corruption on Trump to name just a few - there are many more) is part of the playbook. Just whitewashing what should be devastating career ending scandals - Biden team being compromised by China with evidence that demands investigation (e.g. Hunter's laptop). I am afraid that things are much worse today. We are close to losing our country. Normally, things go back and forth and are self correcting. I am afraid that this may become impossible. I suspect that if things continue as they are, things will get so bad that people will get fed up but it will be too late to do anything. We are not there yet - but we are frightening close. The destruction of the true press and election fraud must be overcome. We cannot be complacent.

The Speaker is not required to be a sitting Congressman. A better idea would be to elect Trump speaker after the Republican’s take over the House. If you wanted the same marketing effect as Trump running for Congress, you could get people to run on supporting Trump. That would take care of removing RHINOS from the primaries. This could be best accomplished by raising the trial balloon as to the intentions and then have Trump being coy and hinting about liking the idea without commitment. If Speker, then Trump could run the House with even a greater iron fist than Pelosi.

The Speaker is not required to be a sitting Congressman. A better idea would be to elect Trump speaker after the Republican’s take over the House. If you wanted the same marketing effect as Trump running for Congress, you could get people to run on supporting Trump. That would take care of removing RHINOS from the primaries. This could be best accomplished by raising the trial balloon as to the intentions and then have Trump being coy and hinting about liking the idea without commitment. If Speker, then Trump could run the House with even a greater iron fist than Pelosi.

Good discussions but I think to me the solution is clear.

First I start with the constitution and I am an originalist. As Yo-Yo pointed out in post 41, there are 2 elements to this. First is Article II Section 1 where it designates the number of electors for each state. This affirms the electoral college rather than the popular vote. To change that you need to change the constitution.

The 12th Amendment (1804) notes the formality of the electors reporting to Congress and I agree is silent on how they are appointed and who they must vote for. This appears murky however, the contextual basis for the this amendment was to remedy the problems with the 1800 election - and concerns clarification about voting for president and vice president. While it mentions electors (IMO as a tool - I think it was logistics of communication as it was known then) there are no special rights for them. Consider the timeframe where only persons of privilege could vote, to endow electors with privilege to overrule the votes of the people who voted for president seems unconstitutional based on subsequent amendments.

As an originalist, I am totally comfortable with a ruling that negates electors and substitutes electoral votes and do not consider it a rewrite of the constitution. It affirms the states powers in the count per Article II Section 1. It does not practically affect the 12th amendment.

What is the purpose of having electors rather than electoral votes? Electors are not how people vote when they vote for president.(What percent of people know the elector they are voting for 5 minutes after they vote - even if the name of the elector is noted on the ballot? Almost none.)

As I pointed out, the possibility of mischief in the electoral count is huge. No one has effectively countered my risk to the system by the examples that I gave which I will reiterate.

Consider a 270-268 outcome but 2 electors are either (or both) threatened or given large sums of money - say $25 million to change their vote. What is the rationale for allowing this possibility? It is insane. While the risk exists on both sides (which is equally wrong), I contend that the risk is greater for the Rs. Consider 2020. Assume Trump wins 270-268 and the D wins the popular vote (as voter fraud is rampant). What do you think will happen if Soros pays off 2 electors in some secret bank account and the votes are changed? What would the media do? You know the spin that would be created - impeached president, popular vote so the end result is fair. Would there be investigations in the new administration on these electors - not a chance? Would we violently recreate- I doubt it - perhaps some but it would be temporary and further tempered by MSM and worse by RINO squishes.

I ask the question - why allow the possibility for this to happen?

“I don’t see a great risk of a court ruling affirming the right of an Elector voting his will.”

I strongly disagree. The probability of faithless electors is huge. Consider an election with a 270 - 268 outcome. Clearly the person with 270 votes was elected as the winner based on electoral votes. There are 2 risks that are more prevalent today. One is the money involved in campaigns and the other is information available to the public about electors that could put them in danger.

Consider the money aspect, with over $1 billion spent on campaigns (not to mention the possible corruption of deep state internal and foreign influence and the value of power), why not give 2 electors $25 million each to switch their votes. (Done in a way that could be hidden. Also the party in power would decline to investigate too strongly.) I believe some faithless electors got a $1,000 fine.

In addition to the money or separately, consider the fact of threats to electors and their families.

I contend that with power the risk is too great.

Faithless electors is my number one peeve of our system. I was thrilled to see that the Supreme Court is looking into this. I strongly support the electoral college. I am fine with the Nebraska and Maine rules as well as winner takes all. The point is that the electoral votes reflect the will of the people. (This assumes an honest count - which is my second peeve. We have to make significant improvements/reforms to get and insure an honest count.) It is absurd to have a small group of people with undeserved enhanced power to substitute their will and negate the vote.

I would hope the ruling from the supreme court mandates the electors votes as per the results of the actual and validated votes. (There is a formal process for validating votes in the states - needs much improvement.) This eliminates the risk as I outlined from faithless electors.

Note that I did not give a 269-269 example as only 1 vote change would affect the outcome. There are multiple reasons for this but the one I want to stress as that it does not necessarily turn a loser into a winner. (I realize it is possible to know which way a tie is going to be resolved depending upon the House election but it could be more complicated in that there could be some tainted house results that could come into play.)

“MORE OSWEDA AKA WICTOR” (I corrected the name by removing the L)

I recently came to the same conclusion based on the content (particularly nuances of weapon systems and their impact) and the frequent retweets from Brian Cates who I know was an avid Wictor reader as I was until he left twitter.

Do you have any further confirmation of this? Regardless, I will be putting Carlos Osweda on my daily read list.

Why have the Rs been so tepid about this? They should have jumped on this immediately and orchestrated a response of outrage. First in a news conference and publicize a letter that should have been sent to Barr to open up an investigation on this abuse of power. They should have also noted that they will be considering a lawsuit.

Impeachment is not a relevant excuse. I believe that I saw that the request was made on Sept 30 before the impeachment inquiry was voted on and passed.