XPost: alt.politics.trump, alt.politics.elections, alt.politics.republicans XPost: alt.politics.democrats

## Executive Summary

In https://jmp.sh/PfVNSLPo, we analyze national and state voter count
for novelty, focusing on mid-mandate years, 2004CE and 2020CE,
of the turbulent mandates (2000CE-2008CE, or Bush-I and Bush-II; and 2016CE-2024CE, or Trump-I and Biden).
We define turbulent mandates using national voter count vs. census data.
We define novelty as a symmetric second difference operator over
time-series data. Negative values imply excessive votes, while positive
values suggest disinterested voters.

For 2004CE and 2020CE we find time-series (TS) national novelty as
-4M(illions) and -13M. We find their census-corrected (C) values as -5M
and -11M, respectively.
The ratio C-to-TS can be used as a scale factor S for estimates below,
where for 2004CE S=5/4=1.2, and for 2020CE S=11/13=0.84.

The novelty analysis of the 2004CE election suggests two criteria for identifying outliers, a threshold 0.3M,
and the novelty has to flip the state election vote.
In 2004CE we identify two states as outliers: Ohio and Florida, which
accounted for -0.9M novelty votes.
We refer to this behavior as anti-novelty: If novelty were subtracted
from the republican state winner vote count,
the democrat candidate would have won the state.

The novelty analysis of the 2020CE election using the same outlier
threshold, identifies 13 outlier states.
We show we can categorize them into three groups: 1., the *battleground*
states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania),
which have a total novelty of -1.4M; 2., the *apparently republican*
states (Florida, North Carolina, and Texas),
which have a total novelty of -2.4M; and 3., the *single-majority*
states (R: Ohio; D: California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Washington), which have a total novelty of -5.6M. To the first group we refer to as
novelty (if novelty were subtracted from the democrat state winner
vote count, the republican candidate would have won the state). The
second group demonstrates anti-novelty.
The states in the third group exhibit diffuse novelty, meaning that the
novelty is insufficient to change the outcome of the state election;
rather, this novelty only affects the popular vote count.


## Interpretation

We interpret our findings using correlation between the outlier-states
and the politics of the day.
We remark, were these random fluctuations in voter numbers and preferences, such a correlation would have been unremarkable in magnitude or in
political orientation.

**2004CE**: We surmise that if there had been actual voter injection by republicans, in its absence the Democrat challenger, Kerry,
would have won the presidential election against the incumbent
Republican, Bush.
We recall, at that time Bush needed election victory to continue and
expand the war effort against Iraq.
In addition, during that time the governor of Florida was Bush's
brother, and Ohio was not yet single-majority republican
as it later turned out to be.

**2020CE**: We surmise that in the 2020CE elections, the republicans
injected votes in both, *apparently republican* and *battleground*,
group of states. In the former, it was done to affirm increasingly
right-wing leaders, DeSantis in Florida and Abbott in Texas.
In the latter, the goal was to secure those states for Trump, but they ultimately failed.
Without republican interference in the 2020CE elections Trump would have
been soundly defeated with a vote tally of 150 to 388 in
favor of Biden. This outcome would have effectively removed Trump from politics. Instead, the actions of republicans played out as
a damage control in the *apparently republican* states, while in the *battleground* states they evolved into legal and illegal
attacks on national level on victorious democrat challenger, Biden,
accusing him and the democrats of election fraud.
All these actions paved the way for Trump's reprisal in 2024CE.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)