I'll be stronger. The analysis is made of cherry-picking and slanted opinion to make you think there's a controversy when there isn't.

It starts with the implication that the author is revealing something secret that's going to be covered up, which is a great way to lure in the gullible.

But ignore my commentary. Consider:

> Around 3am Wisconsin time, a fresh batch of 169k new absentee ballots arrived. They were supposed to stop accepting new ballots, but eh, whatever I guess.

> By 4am the D to R ratio was all thrown out of whack. That is because these ballots were not sampled from the real Wisconsin voter population, and they were not randomized in the mail sorting system with the other ballots. They inherently have a different D to R signature...

> than the rest of the ballots quite possibly bc additional ballots were added to the batch, either through backdating or ballot manufacturing or software tampering.

Yet it's very easy to find that those 169K ballots came from Milwaukee. According to the presented model, rural areas tend to be more R and counted later, but here's a non-rural area coming in late, and from a place with more Ds. Hence the model is clearly broken and certainly doesn't have the power to say "quite possibly". The model ignores how the Republican-controlled legislature in Wisconsin refused to allow early counting, so many ballots would not be counted until after Nov. 3, rural or otherwise.

The author asserts that "These outlying areas take longer to ship their ballots to the polling centers" but there's no clear explanation why that's the only possible factor to consider.

The author repeats the assertion for Pennsylvania:

> But then as counting continues, the D to R ratio in mail-in ballots inexplicably begin "increasing". Again, this should not happen, and it is observed almost nowhere else in the country, because all of the ballots are randomly shuffled...

Except that there too the Republican-controlled legislature refused to allow early counting.

Ditto for Michigan ... which is another state the author singled out with "both signs of contaminated ballot dumping, and ballot ratios drifting toward dems when they should not be".

So three states where the absentee ballot counting couldn't start until voting, which are the same states the author suggests has fraudulent voting practices because of deviations from the author's model. Now, why we should we assume the model works for those states when the counting procedure is so different?

If we trained our model on PA, MI, and WI could we not assume there was fraudulent voting in the other states?

And why do we assume that "all of the ballots are randomly shuffled"? I sent my absentee ballot to the county. I assume PA is the same. If it takes longer to count the ballots in populated areas than rural ones, then we would expect the votes from Philadelphia county to come later than those from rural counties.

So no, I don't think it's a clear explanation, because it there's no explanation of why the many possible confounding explanations which seem more likely than massive election fraud could be ignored.