If We Play By The Old Rules: We Will Lose The New Battles

If We Play By The Old Rules: We Will Lose The New Battles

This post concerns the old rules used in politics.  In 2024, the democrat party played by the old rules and lost.  They did not lose by much.  They just lost the swing states of Arizona, Nevada, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Georgia and North Carolina.  The Democrats lost the new battle because they were playing by the old rules.  The democrats have not realized there are new game rules.  Just like in other sports the rules change.  In Professional football, the kick off lines use to be different.  Now they line up differently due to rule changes.

You Need a new strategy, when the old ones don’t work

For example, in the 2025 super bowl.  The Chiefs were “hot to trot to do their three repeat”. They walked around for the two weeks before the game like a bunch of horny roosters in the barn yard.  The sports news like athlonsports.com covered their ”Idiosyncratic’ Practice Behaviors”.  Clearly, they expected to win with no problem.  Well Travis Kelce is 35.  A bit old for a tight end.  Most are gone at age 30 either due to injury or they don’t have the fast twitch muscle fibers needed to beat the younger and faster defensive back field crew.  Biden, had the same issue.  He needed to say one and done.  He did a good job of recovering the United States after a do nothing President before him.  However, he needed to realize he needed like LBJ to step out and let other younger candidates have their chances in the primaries.

Going rogue with hackers

However, a rogue super billionaire realized after the debate he could push Von ShitzInPantz over the finish line.  Thus “Rogie Van Billionaire”, realized he could pull a fast one on the American public.  He dumped money and possible a crew of hackers in the 2024 elections.  His goal remove government oversight of his businesses.  He already had taken over a main source of social media.  So that helped.  He also paid a good bit of money to get other media billionaires to play along.  Tax breaks – when is enough not enough?

How many people have been killed in Tesla’s?  How many rocket tests failed and caused danger to the environment?  Rogie Van Billionaire needed to protect his faltering empire.  So he changed the rules.  He dumped money into into Von ShitzInPantz campaign cause he knew he could control the demented blithering old fool.  Now he was faced with a problem.  It was called the Swing States.  Rogie Van Billionaire just needed to give Von ShitzInPantz enough votes in these states to avoid a recount.  This got me interested in looking at the numbers.

Election Analysis using the Newcomb-Benford Law

So I went and found the official numbers.  Then did some math.  Here are the results:

Chart #1

Per the Newcomb-Benford Law, we would expect the average percent to be > 50%.  Thus we can assume the votes in these states was hacked.  Most states have a recount margin between candidates is less than or equal to 0.5%.  Most young hackers and cheats don’t know about this number rule.

Uses for Newcomb-Benford’s Law

Newcomb-Benford’s law is an intriguing, counterintuitive distribution, but can you use it for practical purposes? Analysts have used it extensively to look for fraud and manipulation in financial records, tax returns, applications, and decision-making documents. They compare the distribution of leading digits in these datasets to Newcomb-Benford’s law. When the leading digits don’t follow the distribution, it’s a red flag for fraud in some datasets.

The idea behind why this works is straightforward. When people manipulate numbers, they don’t track the frequencies of their fake leading digits, producing an unnatural distribution of leading digits. In some cases, they might systematically adjust the leading digits to be below a particular threshold value. For example, if there is a $100,000 limit on a transaction type, fraudsters might start many numbers with a 9 for $99,000.

Summary

I used several methods to analyze the swing state data.  I used the standard deviations and average.  This is where I noticed the Newcomb-Benford’s law for fraud would apply.  So I redid the numbers and came up with chart #1 above.  The chart #2 below shows a similar result with an average of 6.95% following the Newcomb-Benford’s law.

Chart #2 taken from the vote differences from average.  It had a 6.95% Newcomb-Benford average which also is skewed to the fraud side.  It is not random which one would expect based on the vote population of these states.  My source was final vote tallies for the swing states.  I computed the difference between Trump votes – Harris votes = Difference.  Then computed the average and subtracted each set of votes from the Average.   This in statistics this throws the bell shaped curve.  We would expect to see more numbers closer to 1, 2 & 3.

Now the question for the old guard democrats, will they have the Mojo to step up and investigate.  This exercise in math took me about 3 hours this morning to get the numbers and do an analysis.  Will they see the rule change and make adjustments?