j reacts to the wisconsin results (and analyses moving forwards) (pt 3)

it's hard to predict an unfair election, man. cut me some slack. you've gotta try and guess where they're going to cheat, and by how much. wisconsin seems to mostly be clean, but how do you guess that. and, if you just go by the numbers, you get called out when they cheat. i've at least been clear about this the whole time.

but by not cheating in wisconsin, they've given me a prop to use. the new york times has a great little graph in it's coverage called "how the vote came in". graphs are great for people that don't think in math. so, let's take a look at them.

please check the following states:

- ohio (http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/ohio)
- missouri (http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/missouri)
- illinois (http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/illinois)

you will see something curious in these states: she starts off with huge leads and then watches it drop over the night - by 20% in ohio & missouri.

that's a very, very suspicious signal. in fact, it's the classic signal for stuffing ballots.

now, let's look at wisconsin (http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/wisconsin). there is some fluctuation, but only mildly. a few percentage points. this is more reflective of what you expect to see in a fair election.

i would argue that these graphs are enough, on their own, to demonstrate that the election is unfair. and, once you establish as much, trying to figure out what's going to happen gets super complicated....

the tactic we've seen is that she tends to rig the big cities. so, i would have expected her to "win" by about 50,000 votes in milwaukee. then, you expect them to "run out of ballots" and other such things in the counties, which works as voter suppression.

but, that just didn't happen in wisconsin. again: could it be the polling? i don't know. but, it might have been. so, keep doing it!