Ok some of what you said was in response to me, some to someone else. Not that it matters, but I'll speak to your responses to me.
>>12331597>Same polls said Trump had 93% that said Biden was far aheadYou're talking about the difference between a set of only R's being polled on Presidential support instead of some mixture of R's/D's (which we don't know the methodology of, nor even specific questions asked - likely to vote for, if you were to, etc.). Not exactly apples to apples.
>Might there be a shy Biden voteThere might be, but it just hasn't come up until this moment, so it smacks of rationalizing after the fact. Honestly it never even occurred to me, as there aren't a whole lot of stories of Biden signs being stolen, Biden shirts getting children kicked out of school and/or assaulted, Biden supporting employees being harangued at work, etc. Not saying those didn't happen, but given the typical presentation of mainstream political media, I would've expected to hear more if it did.
>What's your point?My point was in the next line that you left out of your green text.
>He should do the same regression for BidenAgreed. And the numbers you posit certainly show how it could happen, but not that it did. I am interested in the theory, but not married to it.
I'm not particularly interested in using any "razors" to attempt to persuade anyone; I find them to be woefully subjective (garbage in, garbage out). However if there are any credible witnesses alleging any chance that there could be election tampering, it is in ALL of our best interests to leave no stone unturned in our investigation of it. This isn't about the next 4 years, it's about the country henceforth. I don't think I need to explain to you about how the pendulum swings back and forth.
