sycasey said:
PAC-10-BEAR said:
sycasey said:
PAC-10-BEAR said:
sycasey said:
PAC-10-BEAR said:
sycasey said:
PAC-10-BEAR said:
sycasey said:
Honestly, this isn't hard. LA is like 80/20 Democratic. Bass is unpopular but voters won't go for a Republican candidate if they can help it. A lot of Democratic voters were also waiting to see how the polling in the Governor's race would shake out before completing their ballots (wanting to support someone who actually had a chance of winning). So you got a lot of folks voting Raman because they don't like Bass but also don't like Republicans and those strategic ballots came in late. Pratt's share wound up about where the polling predicted it would.
Do you think there's a possibility that TENS OF THOUSANDS of homeless people in Los Angeles might be responsible for the last-minute Raman surge over Pratt?
Whatever helps you sleep at night, my friend.
Since voter ID isn't required, do you think the votes came in from illegal aliens and non-citizens who overwhelmingly preferred Raman over Bass?
That's probably it, you stay on the case.
You stated that Bass is unpopular, yet she led every poll. If I was on the Bass campaign, I would be concerned how Raman's numbers surged disproportionately to Bass's five days after the election.
I think Bass will have a lot more trouble trying to beat Raman in a runoff than she would have with Pratt, because Raman is not a Republican like Pratt is. Bass wanted to face Pratt, which is part of why your conspiracy theories are dumb.
It's not a conspiracy theory to say that it's suspicious that it took a week to count votes for a city election and that the third- place candidate surged to second place while the leading vote-getter from the same party didn't receive a similar boost.
Except this thing happens a lot in California elections because the younger, more left-wing voters tend to vote later and vote by mail while the older Republican voters get their ballots in earlier. And it always takes a long time to count votes in this state, regardless of who wins. I agree that last part is a problem, but none of it is unique to this election.
It also makes a lot of sense here in that the Democrats who still like Bass just cast their votes for Bass. No need to worry about anyone else. Similarly, the Republicans who don't like Bass just voted for Pratt, also pretty easy for them. The Democrats who don't like Bass but also don't want to vote Republican had more reason to wait, because they wanted to see who among the rest of the field could garner the most support. Hence why they voted late and voted for Raman. It's actually quite easy to explain why this happened and not evidence of fraud at all.
Anything can be explained without numbers. But what if the numbers show what happened was statistically impossible?
What is the statistical likelihood that 40% of votes from a "new batch" of 40,000 ballots go to a candidate who received 24% of votes from all other batches that represented 95% of counted electorate?
If the 40,000-ballot batch were drawn from the same population that produced 24% support in the other 95% of votes, then seeing 40% support in that batch would be far beyond "one in a billion" or "one in a trillion."
75 standard deviations is in an entirely different universe.
That's a number with roughly 1,220 zeros after the 1.
