Also in agreement with the Trump's views, the study assumes that all fraud and other election irregularities helped Biden. I could well imagine a study from a liberal organization that purports to show that, without the voter suppression that occurred in 2016, Hillary Clinton would have won and Biden would have won by even more in 2020. But this study looks only at the six states that Trump lost by a small percentage - Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. What about those states that Trump won by a small percentage - North Carolina and Florida? Is there any chance that Republicans flipped those states through fraud? The study doesn't even look at those states. I addressed some of these questions in a prior post:
I have looked at too many studies where the data is cherry-picked and/or the analysis is flawed or incomplete. If the author cannot take the time and effort to provide the source data and code to reproduce the conclusions, I usually have no time to hunt for the data and reverse engineer the code. I generally ignore the study and move on to a study that is documented and reproducible.
In addition, the idea that the election was stolen seems to rest on the flawed assumption that, because Trump lost, any "irregularities" must have helped Biden. Lindell never seems to consider the possibility that some of the irregularities that were allegedly found (or other irregularities that they haven't yet found) may have helped Trump. In fact, there are many researchers who follow the shift between the exit polls and the final vote counts. This shift is shown in the following plot:
In the above plot, the x-coordinate of each point is equal to the state's margin in the exit poll. The y-coordinate is equal to its margin in the actual vote MINUS its margin in the exit poll. Hence, the y-coordinate is the SHIFT in the margin from the exit poll to the actual vote. On both axes, the positive direction is defined to be more Democratic. Hence, the plot shows that of the 22 states exit polled, only California was more Democratic in the final vote than in the exit poll. All of the rest became more Republican. This shift to the right has been called the "red shift" as described here.
The dashed line has special significance. It is the line representing y = -x. In this formula, x is equal to Margin1 and y is equal to (Margin2 - Margin1). Taking M to be Margin, the dashed line represents (M2 - M1) = -M1. Adding M1 to both sides gives M2 = 0. Hence, the dashed line basically represents the y-axis of the second race. This means that the points between the solid y-axis and the dashed y-axis are points that, being left of one axis and right of the other, switched sides or "flipped" because of the shift. In the triangle bordered by these y axes and below the x-axis are the two states that flipped, Iowa and North Carolina. The exit polls of both states were Democratic but they shifted so far right as to be Republican in the final vote. The 6 states closest to the right of the dashed line are those states that went for Biden by the smallest percentages. Those 6 states were Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsic (AZ, GA, MI, NV, PA, and WI). The plot and table also show that Florida (FL) was only 0.4% Trump in the exit poll but red-shifted to be 3.4% Trump in the final vote.
Of course, this doesn't prove that these states were all manipulated by Republicans. At least a portion of the red-shift could be due to voter suppression. Also, some portion of it could be due to errors in the exit polls. That is what is always assumed by big media since it would be rather awkward to suggest that some of the error was in the official vote totals. In any case, I saw nothing in the Lindell presentations that provided evidence that the entire election, if done properly, would have gone to Trump. The only rational way to change an election result is to audit and/or recount the vote according to existing election law. The discovery of any other irregularities are only useful in improving the system to avoid errors in future elections. This is what I had hoped that Lindell would do - present a clean proposal to minimize the use of voting machines and then push both the Democrats and Republicans to accept it or work out a compromise. This seemed to have been the chief idea expressed in the discussion between Emerald Robinson and Clint Curtis on Day 1.