> 6:11 I don't find this particularly strange. I think they'd make a much stronger argument if they showed the drop-off vote for 2020. I found it strange that they only picked 2012 and 2016

It would have been nice to have 2020 there too, but they may not have had access to the data

> 10:10 Another claim of irregularity that doesn't quite support their conclusion. It seems they're indicating that both plots seem irregular, which I agree, but there thesis of fraud doesn't completely address 2020's case. They could say republican cheated in 2020 as well, but then they'd have to explain why this election went any different.

A possible explanation as to why 2020 cheating failed and 2024 did not could be that the cheating was not able to overcome how unpopular he was for his handling of Covid and other issues. For the cheating to work, it cannot be obvious and therefore must be limited. Conversely, Kamala was not as popular in 2024 as Biden was in 2020, so the cheating was successful.

Alternatively, in Trump's own words, Elon made the difference in 2024: "He knows those computers better than anybody. All those computers. Those vote-counting computers," Trump told the crowd. "And we ended up winning Pennsylvania like in a landslide." https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-elon-musk-voting-machi...

It could be that whoever was doing the cheating did not have the resources to enact it as successfully without Elon's support (Starlink, Shaotran, etc).

> 11:36 Here they're trying to support the irregularity of the data with anecdote.
> 13:28 Voting against one's registered party also doesn't seem crazy to me

Right, anecdotal evidence and the irregularity of voting against your registered party are not conclusive evidence, but do add to the consensus that a more systematic analysis needs to be done.

> 15:05 If someone was rigging the election in what way? Any security model being claimed as breached needs to define what constitutes a break and how the attack could create that break in security.

That is exactly one of the next steps that should be taken. Figure out how it could have been done, now that there is evidence that points to irregularities. The possibility does not prove it happened, but it would then help go towards the further step of trying to find evidence that it did (once we know where to look and what for).

> 16:30 I don't understand why a '2014 Wisonsin Gov. Race' (the title of the graph) is applicable here. Maybe she just used it as a lead-in for the next part?

She is showing the percentage of the cumulative summation of votes. She has data for the 2014 Wisconsin race that is categorized based on the type of the voting machines. The green line and purple line are relatively flat, showing that the percentage of votes did not change significantly based on the number of cumulative votes. The red lines are suspicious because the percentage grows significantly after a few thousand votes. I'm not sure why they used a line graph instead of a scatterplot, but presumably they fit a line to the data for each machine.

> 18:37 Why is she bringing up the random distribution of inadvertent errors?

She's bringing it up to point out that it could not be caused by random errors (i.e., human errors caused by the election workers, etc), because random errors would be randomly distributed and produce roughly a flat line. The red lines aren't flat, so they are not contributing to the gain in votes.

Look at the graphs at 19:00 and 20:00 for Clark County, NV 2024 early voting. They both show increases in the percentage rate for Trump after around 300 votes for each machine. As one of the speakers says,

"If we're stuffing a bunch of tabulators at 60% for Trump, then we're going to get an asymptote at 60%," which is visible in the data for Clark County, NV in 2024

Thank you for bringing up your points, because after watching the video and with your criticism in mind, addressing them made me more confident that we need a comprehensive investigation to follow this lead. If their claim is correct, it is unlikely that we will see that investigation led by the Federal government, but citizens and states can take the lead.