You showed us 3 out of 1775 precincts and two didn't match.
Please provide us with the remaining 1772.
What didn't match? Do you mean the one where you ignored the precinct name, assumed that the name of the school where the caucus was held was the city name, and pulled some line out of something other than the official results and declared victory, and continue to do so even after I pointed out that the precinct actually is there in the data set you were using (as well as the official results), so long as you aren't looking at the wrong city?
Here's the point again, slowly.
You claim that there was flipping in Iowa at the central tabulator.
But the votes were counted manually, and with witnesses, and in many locations these results were posted on youtube, facebook, twitter, blogs, local newspapers, etc., and others were collected by watchthevote2012.
In spite of a lot of people looking for discrepancies, the only one that turned up was the one reported by Edward True. It wasn't a flipper, but the count was wrong (22 for Romney instead of 2) and the GOP had to admit it. Of all the independent reports of the manual, public counts, only one turned out to differ from the central tabulator numbers. So if a significant number of precincts were flipped, how did the flipping algorithm manage to avoid flipping the precincts that had independent reporting of the manual count via youtube, facebook, twitter, blogs, local newspapers, etc?
One possibility was that there was no flipping at the central tabulator. There was one precinct where Romney's 2 became a 22, perhaps deliberately, but otherwise the independent reports and the certified numbers out of the tabulator agreed because ... well because it's hard to have massive fraud when the votes are counted manually, in public, and the numbers are reported at the precinct level.
I'm not taking very seriously the suggestion that nobody checked. Contrary to a recent claim, the results were reported at the precinct level so no calculators were needed to untangle aggregated numbers. And there were very deliberate efforts to collect data to do precinct-level verification, so it's not very credible to suggest that they collected the data then didn't bother checking it. Moreover when Edward True's affidavit came out, there were a LOT of motivated people reviewing those results to find other discrepancies.
I think your best move here is the theory that the virus that does the flipping is a sentient AI that monitors facebook and twitter and youtube and so on, and that hacked into the watchthevote email account and into cell phones used to record counts and so on, so that it could flip just the precincts where there was no independent report of the public, manual count. That would explain why only that one discrepancy was found, one that turned out not to be flipping anyway. It would let you continue to believe that you understand the math and that graphs that don't flatline prove fraud.
EDIT:
And, I hate that I have to say this again, but you're the one making the ridiculous claims. YOU are the one who needs to provide evidence for the remaining 1772 precincts.
Um, my "ridiculous claim" is that the independent reports of the public, manual counts at numerous precincts, via youtube, facebook, twitter, blogs, local papers, etc., agree (except for the E. True case where a 2 became a 22) with the central tabulator numbers because the central tabulator wasn't manipulating the vote. It's hard to have massive fraud when the votes are counted at each precinct manually, in public, and reported in the official results with precinct-level data.
You're the one claiming that there was flipping at the central tabulator *in spite of the fact* that not a single discrepancy turned up to support this theory. If you estimate the number of precincts that had to be flipped to make the graph look the way it looks (given your idea of what the math says), and look at the number of precincts that had the manual, public count reported independently, you could calculate the odds that not a single one of those independent reports would turn out to have been made from one of the flipped precincts. Then, since that would look like a debunk of the central tabulator flipper theory, you'd have to come up with an explanation for how the central tabulator flipper managed to flip enough precincts to make the graph look the way it does *without* having a single one of those precincts turn out to be one with independent reporting.
Which of those is the "ridiculous" view?
I wonder if she ever posts here in this grassroots thread?
