Okay, you got me.. I watched more. I'm a sucker for this sort of stuff.
So, considering i have no idea who he is.. him constantly saying 'that's what i think based on what I'm seeing'.. doesn't fill me with confidence. Unless he is some internationally renowned statistician. And even then, opinions don't mean much. I need evidence.
But at 1:36:00 he forces us to sit through 2 minutes of him silently re-sizing graphs, before claiming that his eye-balling of the graph suggests that the distributions of votes aren't correct. His argument is that he's expecting a consistent vote across precinct between mail in and election day votes.
And sure.. you'd expect the same average vote percentages between the two on any normal election. This wasn't a normal election. One party was vehemently anti-lockdown/anti-mail in/anti-early vote, and his 'pre-investigation' modelling suggested that party did less mail-in voting.
The other party was very covid conscious, pro-mail in, pro-early vote.. and surprisingly, they weighed their votes heavier in that category.
I'm still not sure on what point he is trying to prove. But having an issue with voter preference during a pandemic being suggestive of a nationwide election fraud.. I mean, different strokes for different folks, good for him streaming for 12 hours for his huge viewer base.
