Reply To: Another Health/Ubiquitin “Classic”. Will it ever end?

@Reb Eliezer:
“Even if there was fraud, there was not enough to overturn the election.”
I think that there are enough testimonies some of which have been heard by various committees and legislatures that it is reasonable to assume that some fraud is very likely. Obviously, until everything has been properly investigated it would be early to assume that Trump won, or that there was more fraud this year than on average. I remember one of the witnesses stating that the mistreatment of the Republican poll watchers happened during every election.
(It was Dr. Linda Lee Tarver in the Michigan senate committee hearings.)
On the other hand I do not think that anyone at all can confidently state that there was not enough to overturn the elections. How do you know? The nature of fraud is that the perpetrators will lie and try to hide the evidence, so it might take time until the case can be proven. The Russian collusion investigation took years. In general it is quite hard to prove a negative. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
As far as I am aware, the strongest indications we currently have that Trump indeed won are the significant statistical anomalies.
One good article is by The Federalist titled “5 More Ways Joe Biden Magically Outperformed Election Norms”.
There are many more analyses of the data that suggest that Trump should have won, but I think that anyone who reads just these 5 should be convinced that the Republicans have legitimate concerns. Even if you do not consider these statistics exceptional, I think that at least this should allow for some understanding of the Republican position.
I would be really interested if someone with a background in statistics can comment on that article. Is it representing the data fairly? Can you put some rough figure on the chances of Biden winning given those odds?