Quote:
Originally Posted by welfare
|
a "data scientist" coming up with that conclusion?
Looking at from perspective of a person who make living looking at data, AKA, a "data scientist", this article is so pathetic at best.
Check number of total ballot cast in 2016 vs 2020 in State of Nevada
2016 - 240,213 (
https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showdocument?id=4310)
2020 - 491,654 (
https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/home/showdocument?id=8686)
more than double number of people voted for 2020 primary than 2016, many of whom never cared to vote in the past because they couldn't care less about shitshow in politics. When there's huge surge in voters whom never previously voted in the past votes for the first time, it's no brainer that there will be spike in number of errors in voter registration. Ignoring reasons behind these number and only pointing out irregularities is not what "data scientists" do. It's what number manipulators do. I can create basically any story with given set of data to support any claim I want if I try to manipulate the data or simply look at it in one angle only. Obviously, this isn't how data science works, and the study produced by such means is nothing more than toxic waste.
On a side note, let say that 13,372 votes were all fraud whom voted all for Biden. Biden won Nevada by 15,911 and it still won't change the outcome.
Data scientist my ass..