 
     |
| Statistical stupidity in Texas AG Ken Paxton's SCOTUS-rejected lawsuit re Trump Biden (Page 1/3) |
|
rinselberg
|
DEC 19, 04:37 PM
|
|
There was more to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton's lawsuit, but part of it was an assertion--a "statistical" analysis--that upon closer examination, makes absolutely no sense.
If anyone needs to refresh their memory about the lawsuit, here's a brief refresher.
| quote | Eighteen [other] states have filed briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court supporting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s lawsuit against the states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, alleging they violated the U.S. Constitution in their administration of the 2020 Election.
The lawsuits seeks to dismiss election results in the four states, all of which went for presumptive President-elect Joe Biden. |
|
Bethany Blankley for the Center Square; December 10, 2020.
https://www.thecentersquare...ef-4fb175e0581e.html
Earlier today, another forum member talked about it like this:
| quote | | Yes, the GOP takes all those house seats and state seats and somehow, magically, Pee Pads and Knee Pads —> Odds of Biden winning all four contested states [Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin] [were] less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power’. Kind of makes you wonder how that happened. |
|
A week before, I "mused" upon it myself:
http://www.fiero.nl/forum/F.../125759-13.html#p485
It wasn't hard to Google my way to some online reports on this topic. I will start with a brief column from Peter Coy in Bloomberg Businessweek from December 11.
"Understanding That ‘One-in-a-Quadrillion’ Claim About the Election"
| quote | | This will be talked about in statistics classes for years to come. |
|
Here's some of the text:
| quote | The statistical aspect also seems to befuddle people. The statistical consultant who did the analysis cited in the lawsuit, an independent contractor named Charles Cicchetti, investigated the following question: What’s the chance Biden would have won the four states if a) the preferences of the 2020 electorate were just like those of the 2016 electorate and b) the voters whose votes were counted late were just like those whose votes were counted early, when Trump seemed to be ahead. You can see his analysis in the appendix of the lawsuit starting on page 20.
Now, let’s take this slowly. Cicchetti concludes that if both those things were true, there’s almost no chance that Biden would have won. That is correct, given the premise. But those two things were not true. Polls showed that Biden in 2020 had more support from voters than Hillary Clinton got in 2016. And the people who mailed in their ballots [which were the ballots that were counted late, towards the end of the ballot counting process for the most part, in the various states] were disproportionately Democrats. In short, both assumptions on which Cicchetti “quadrillion” statistic rests are false. . . .
Again, though, that’s assuming voter preferences were the same in 2020 as in 2016—which, to repeat, they weren’t. “If my grandmother had wheels she’d be a bicycle” is true, given the premise. But my grandmother does not have wheels. Garbage in, garbage out. |
|
https://www.bloomberg.com/n...m-about-the-election
Here's part of an entry that was blogged on December 8 at "Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science" which is affiliated with New York's prestigious Columbia University. Posted by "andrew" and attributed to "Ethan Steinberg."
"The p-value is 4.76×10^−264 1 in a quadrillion"
| quote | It might be useful for you to cover the hilariously bad use of statistics used in the latest Texas election lawsuit.
Here is the raw source, with the statistics starting on page 22 under the heading “Z-Scores For Georgia”. . . .
The main thing about this analysis that’s so funny is that the question itself is so pointless. Of course Hillary’s vote count is different from Joe’s vote count! They were different candidates! Testing the null hypothesis is really pointless and it’s expected that you would get such extreme z-scores. I think this provides a good example of how statistics can be misused and it’s funny to see this level of bad analysis in a high level legal filing. . . . |
|
https://statmodeling.stat.c...-1-in-a-quadrillion/
The "read option" (NFL reference) is the essence of "rinselberg" and so, I'm not stopping here. Here's one from FactCheck(.org) which is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center.
"False Claim About Biden’s Win Probability"
D'Angelo Gore for FactCheck(.org); December 14, 2020.
| quote | | Facebook posts have repeated a false claim about a “one in a quadrillion” chance that President-elect Joe Biden received more votes than President Donald Trump in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Experts told us the claim misuses a questionable statistical analysis that made implausible assumptions about the 2020 election. |
|
https://www.factcheck.org/2...ens-win-probability/
The aptly named David Post joined the chorus on December 9 with column in the Volokh Conspiracy, at Reason(.com).
"More on Statistical Stupidity at SCOTUS"
| quote | | Yes, the nonsense in Texas AG Paxton's lawsuit is as bad as it first appeared |
|
| quote | | Wow! Man bites dog!! Who would have believed it!! If the 2020 voting population had the same Repub/Dem split as it had in 2016, Trump must have won!! If mail-in voters had the same preferences as in-person voters, Trump must have won!! And if my aunt had four wheels, she'd be a motorcar!! |
|
https://reason.com/volokh/2...stupidity-at-scotus/
I think what David Post had in mind was "Dog bites man." Not "Man bites dog."
Finally, for a broader discussion of the Texas AG's ill-fated lawsuit and related matters:
"The Rabid Illiberalism of Trump’s Desperate Election Deniers"
| quote | | The president’s raggedy gang of dead-enders are still pressing for the election to be overturned in increasingly extravagant ways. |
|
Matt Ford for The New Republic; December 9, 2020.
https://newrepublic.com/art...mp-election-overturn
"Court is now adjourned."
|
|
|
|
Hudini
|
DEC 19, 08:09 PM
|
|
|
After government hack, media mum on ex-cybersecurity chief highlighted for contradicting Trump's fraud claims
|
|
|
|
sourmash
|
DEC 19, 08:19 PM
|
|
Ronald, creating topics that offer no relevant purposeful information indicates you're deriving some self esteem if you can provoke someone to respond.
MSNBC isn't relevant in any real world.
|
|
|
blackrams
|
DEC 19, 08:27 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by sourmash:
Ronald, creating topics that offer no relevant purposeful information indicates you're deriving some self esteem if you can provoke someone to respond.
MSNBC isn't relevant in any real world. |
|
Some folks just like seeing their names lit up. 
Rams
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
DEC 19, 08:27 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Hudini:
After government hack, media mum on ex-cybersecurity chief highlighted for contradicting Trump's fraud claims. |
|
So you are asserting or hinting at a connection between this newly reported far-ranging cyberattack involving Solar Winds and that SecState Pompeo just said is the "Russians" or "probably, the Russians", and the Presidential election?
I just want to be clear on your statement here.
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
DEC 19, 08:34 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by sourmash:
Ronald, creating topics that offer no relevant purposeful information indicates you're deriving some self esteem if you can provoke someone to respond. MSNBC isn't relevant in any real world. |
|
| quote | Originally posted by blackrams:
Some folks just like seeing their names lit up. |
|
I'm not sure whether to read these messages as "Posting anything here that is less than praiseworthy of the Trump presidency is not pleasing to us" or "Why are you repeating what we already know about the "statistical" nonsense that was part of the Texas AG's failed election-related lawsuit?"
 [This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-19-2020).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
DEC 19, 08:36 PM
|
|
|
Oh, by the way, sourmash, not one of the sources that I used for this New Topic origination came from MSNBC.
|
|
|
|
sourmash
|
DEC 19, 08:41 PM
|
|
Ronald, copying and pasting from sites created to attract the MSNBC crowd is a pretty skinny tree to hide behind.
Nowhere did I say it came from there. That was an addition about all the topics you're dragging in here.[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 12-19-2020).]
|
|
|
|
rinselberg
|
DEC 19, 09:11 PM
|
|
GFY.
But more officially, why do you create messages here? Are your motivations fundamentally any different than my motivations? This is a recreation for me. I expect no strictly tangible benefits from it. I think it does help maintain my self-esteem, but I think the same can be said for anyone who has any kind of recreation, from collecting stamps or coins to woodworking projects in their basements or garages, or DIY'ing their Fieros or other vehicles. Or any other thing that they do that is recreational or partly recreational.
Or is it just that you're "right" and I'm "wrong"..?
The people that I get along with in this space seldom (if ever) address me as "Ronald." I prefer "rinselberg" because I think it better suits the ambience of an open-to-all kind of forum like this.
I have on occasion used the personal names that are known to me for other forum members, but I don't make a habit of it.[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 12-19-2020).]
|
|
|
|
sourmash
|
DEC 19, 10:07 PM
|
|
You just said to me GFY which is a problem of violating the rules of the forum.
Ok, rinselberg then.
Aren't there some Lawrence O'Donnell videos you could be watching for entertainment? Because you're just solidifying opposing opinions with this approach.
| quote | Originally posted by rinselberg:
GFY.
But more officially, why do you create messages here? Are your motivations fundamentally any different than my motivations? This is a recreation for me. I expect no strictly tangible benefits from it. I think it does help maintain my self-esteem, but I think the same can be said for anyone who has any kind of recreation, from collecting stamps or coins to woodworking projects in their basements or garages, or DIY'ing their Fieros or other vehicles. Or any other thing that they do that is recreational or partly recreational.
Or is it just that you're "right" and I'm "wrong"..?
The people that I get along with in this space seldom (if ever) address me as "Ronald." I prefer "rinselberg" because I think it better suits the ambience of an open-to-all kind of forum like this.
I have on occasion used the personal names that are known to me for other forum members, but I don't make a habit of it.
|
|
[This message has been edited by sourmash (edited 12-19-2020).]
|
|
|
|