[tetrometal]

> Another side told people that their country was being stolen from them and only they could stop it before telling them to go to the capital.

Was it or wasn't it being stolen? Do you have a debunking of Matt Braynard's argument? [1]

I presume not, since one hasn't been presented, because the evidence hasn't been examined or litigated, which is why hundreds of thousands of people went to the capital.

What should the American voter do if they believe there's a chance that their election was unfair? Sit it out? Would you?

Stop spreading the "very fine people" misinformation.

[1] https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/matt_braynards_...

[2] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/21/trump_...

[lumost]

I invested the time to read the link.

To save others the effort, it's a plea for money to support a vague voter data cross referencing effort. Unsurprisingly no evidence is put forward.

[mullingitover]

It's grifters all the way down.

[tetrometal]

It's attitudes represented by this blithe dismissal of a compelling argument that will continue to divide the nation. I guess you think you're going to get something out of it, but this is a scenario that nobody wins.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[lumost]

In the spirit of healthy debate, you could share the evidence you find so compelling. The article linked did not include any evidence or argument that I could find (even after watching the video)

[tetrometal]

I owe you an apology. I was sure I had posted the article referencing his conclusions video, but I did not, and I ended up wasting your time and compounding my error with an unfounded accusation. That was pretty egregious and rude, and I'm sorry about that.

If you're still inclined, here's his conclusion video. The summary includes links to various sections within the admittedly lengthy video, if it helps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH9ihoLi1NA

[lumost]

I watched the video, and I'll share some context.

I worked in the marketing and ad-tech industries for the better part of a decade. The data linking tools that Matt Braynard used to "enhance" the data available from states are intended for marketing purposes where even a 30% accuracy is sufficient for call, mail, and digital campaigns. They are not suitable for "auditing" an election, as you'll inevitably introduce bad data. Further, linking individuals from different databases is highly error prone - there are more than 500 thousand people in the US with my first and last name. Individuals may choose different writings of their name at different times such as including or excluding Sr./Jr. or including or excluding a middle initial.

The above limitations become apparent in the below hearing on Michael's evidence in the Georgia state legislature. Individuals were clearly misslinked by name, and inferred birthday - simple errors due to removing Sr/Jr. are also present.

https://youtu.be/1U8CuyfcnLs

These linking errors are inevitable in this analysis as the state does not publicly disclose sufficient information to uniquely identify individuals for privacy reasons.