jgrimmer.bsky.social
@jgrimmer.bsky.social
I think the original post might have gotten blocked? You can email me at jgrimmer@stanford.edu and we will take a look. I hope you're doing well !
March 31, 2025 at 12:22 AM
I think the original post might have gotten blocked? You can email me at jgrimmer@stanford.edu and we will take a look. I hope you're doing well !
Yes. This is all very similar to the theories election skeptics on the right have been circulating (and continue to circulate!)
December 7, 2024 at 3:24 AM
Yes. This is all very similar to the theories election skeptics on the right have been circulating (and continue to circulate!)
He also breaks out the same discredited research design we saw after the 2020 election. This is not serious data analysis and not evidence of fraud or manipulation.
December 7, 2024 at 1:42 AM
He also breaks out the same discredited research design we saw after the 2020 election. This is not serious data analysis and not evidence of fraud or manipulation.
Oh geez. This is atrocious. Can't assume independence and it is unclear where they are getting their "probability of winning" calculations from.
Correlated results across swing states is the norm, especially in 2016, 2020, and 2024.
Correlated results across swing states is the norm, especially in 2016, 2020, and 2024.
December 7, 2024 at 1:26 AM
Oh geez. This is atrocious. Can't assume independence and it is unclear where they are getting their "probability of winning" calculations from.
Correlated results across swing states is the norm, especially in 2016, 2020, and 2024.
Correlated results across swing states is the norm, especially in 2016, 2020, and 2024.
Interesting! how did you measure attentiveness?
August 9, 2024 at 6:18 PM
Interesting! how did you measure attentiveness?