KL Dubey wrote:
Surprised that BRF is falling for this type of BS. These large upticks are very common in urban areas where Dems routinely bring in 3:1 to 5:1 vote ratios over Reps. In some localities it is much more...you cannot find anyone who is voting Rep. The Dem vote tends to be very concentrated.
Traditionally, Rep voters are spread out in rural and suburban areas and they win elections by picking up small numbers of votes everywhere. You will not see these big upticks for Reps.
Ji, I accept, in fact I started saying the same things in my post. Yes, you're right, the uptick in the blue line hides the little rise in the red line, so it is not that all those votes went Dem. But I did think it was suspicious that the uptick in the blue line dwarfed the one in the red line. If as you say, it is routine that there are 3:1 or 5:1 ratios, then that also makes sense, so thank you.
I was pointing out that there were similar upticks earlier in the day also for MI, both for blue and for red.
Also, look at the graph. It seems doctored (added later: or the graphics software has some issue)...the Rep graph just below the Dem graph seems to have been erased out, although you can still see a trace of it. Trump also got votes, but much lower than Biden. The final margin is still razor thin, the two graphs are neck to neck.
Not really a software issue, more like the guys using it don't know how to use it. Lines getting hidden will happen in any graphics software if they are both the same thickness, with just a different color. So the usual practice is to make the earlier lines have markers, with the later lines being lines, or make the later lines dashed instead of solid, so the earlier line still shows through even if it's right behind. My guess is that the g(uy)(al) doing the plots simply picked two different colors and thought (s)he was done.
