>>12321949>The whole reason why we ever had the backdating claim was because of suspiciously late arriving ballots.And this can still be true, but not necessarily the one example on twitter. And even without backdating, the anon was flouting the manufacturing claim too. In effect, I'd say that backdating should invalidate a ballot, but it doesn't make the ballot itself fraudulent (someone voted at least, and the same is true for curing, unless it's one sided). Manufacturing however would be the real fraud, and it's the only thing that can potentially explain the statistical anomalies (if said anomalies are indeed based on actual data).
>Universal applicability of Benford's law is a lieI doubt that, but I bet the mainstream narrative will be this. There were critics of the method, we know it shows correlation, not causation, but the 'law' is still a tool for detecting anomalies. Same is true for the above analyses: there might an alternative explanation to fraud, but we certainly shouldn't exclude the possibility of fraud either.
>Pollsters knew about the possibility of early skew towards Trump and then back to Biden beforeTrue, the only question was whether the swing will be enough. But pollsters also projected a +10 national lead for B, and +17 lead in WI, and both were bs.
>had bigger democratic skew in several statesAgain, this was obvious, but 'by how much' is the question. The anomalies also show that the skew, apparently, only affected the last few essential swing states, in only a few big cities. Various other indicators eg requested ballot ratios are also strange, since D never had that much of a lead on R that could possibly explain such a huge post-ED skew, let alone an incremental one. How come it didn't skew randomly toward B?
