I was asking doc Blaze his thoughts on TCC and their approach because he’s an expert and they don’t support the lawsuit route in maga states. They have some interesting ideas. I regret doing that because you people are something else. I should have left well enough alone.

I’m going with what I see on the website and the lawsuit. His paper is there and these counties were up to something. They have an email from a clerk, she found ballots in a back room and theyre over the total number because they reproduced all ballots and she can’t reconcile them. lol Crazy.

Dr. Mebane’s conclusion:
A meaningful share of the fraudulent votes “likely stems from malevolent distortions,” not elector strategy. (p. 11)

Selective reading and confirmation bias don’t change what the paper says. And now you know why we blocked him.

This is not a “false positive” narrative.
Dr. Mebane is a cautiously showing:
– strategic behavior exists
– and fraud signals exist
– and the fraud component cannot be explained away by strategy

Meanwhile, the paper repeatedly states:
“very likely produced from malevolent distortions”, “a signal… likely malevolent distortions”, “still exceeds the vote margin”, “not negligible”, and even under the conservative model, malevolent votes exceed 25,000.

He never concludes that the fraud signals are all false positives.

DB Main’s interpretation cherry-picks one methodological caution (“possibly ambiguous”) and incorrectly applies it to:
– manufactured votes
– extreme fraud
– county-level signals
– fraud totals vs margins

He is very clear about what is ambiguous:
– some incremental stolen votes
– in some counties
– because PA voters behaved strategically in a high-mobilization environment

But he explicitly says:
“Probably some of the incremental stolen votes stem from malevolent distortions.”
(p. 11, PA2024)

“The total number of eforensics-fraudulent votes still exceeds the difference of 120,266 votes.” (p. 7, PA2024) If all of this were just “false positives,” the estimate would fall below the margin when controls were added. It doesn’t.

Then he adds that Philadelphia and Huntingdon show signals that likely come—at least in part—from malevolent distortions, not strategy. He then reruns the model with stricter controls (county fixed effects).

Pennsylvania is different.
On the same page, he writes that Philadelphia is the only county with a non-negative fraud-magnitude coefficient (p. 8, PA2024). That alone breaks the German pattern.

Turgid and overly academic. What a trip. Fwd- Dr. Mebane uses the German election as a baseline because Germany is widely understood to have clean elections. In Germany, when all incremental fraud coefficients are uniformly negative, the signals reflect strategic voter behavior, not fraud.

ETA, Cambria County.

“I declined to endorse aspects of their arguments they asked me about when I spoke with them,” ETA said he wouldn’t say it was stolen and they weren’t saying that either. They said there is cause to audit. Now they’re suing because a county “reproduced” ALL of their ballots. That is crazy.

ETA said the author misquoted him and TWH said he never reached out. I may not know much about data but I can sure spot an agenda. The question was for Dr. Blaze because he’s an expert and TCC has experts that have ideas to get us out of this mess. I regret asking. You people are something else.

ETA says that’s not true that they misquoted him. I don’t know man. Seems if you’re an author you should reach out to the people you’re writing about and he didn’t contact TWH at all. The data is on the doc’s website and the numbers are right there. If he doesn’t support them why is it there?

One of them said they were challenging the article or whatever it’s called because he didn’t contact them before printing it. Maybe Atlantic took it down.