Wow. Came here after seeing Judge Roland reject you as an expert in defense of John Eastman. I was dubious about the grounds for her ruling, and willing to accept the argument that "data is data" as a basis for at least hearing your testimony, and discounting the need for actual "election data" expertise. Now, after reading this piece in which you defend the absurd analysis by Baris -- based on "exit polling" -- I realize that if Judge Roland read this as well, that would end any chance of accepting your expertise. There is no auditor who would ever accept an argument based on the grounds Baris offers, at bottom. Since you do accept it, it tells a reasonable trier of fact everything they need to know about your bona fides.
I imagine that you are just the first of many people who will try to attack me because I may testify in regard to the Eastman disbarment proceedings. After the case is over, I will have things to say about the trial, and you may not like them. As for the Baris case, you need to read more carefully. I didn't "defend the absurd analysis by Baris..." I said that "I could appreciate a judge finding fault with a particular expert" [including Baris]. "But the judge found fault with statistics, itself. That is sheer ignorance." But, thanks for commenting. It helps my stats!
Wow. Came here after seeing Judge Roland reject you as an expert in defense of John Eastman. I was dubious about the grounds for her ruling, and willing to accept the argument that "data is data" as a basis for at least hearing your testimony, and discounting the need for actual "election data" expertise. Now, after reading this piece in which you defend the absurd analysis by Baris -- based on "exit polling" -- I realize that if Judge Roland read this as well, that would end any chance of accepting your expertise. There is no auditor who would ever accept an argument based on the grounds Baris offers, at bottom. Since you do accept it, it tells a reasonable trier of fact everything they need to know about your bona fides.
Hi Trier of Fact,
I imagine that you are just the first of many people who will try to attack me because I may testify in regard to the Eastman disbarment proceedings. After the case is over, I will have things to say about the trial, and you may not like them. As for the Baris case, you need to read more carefully. I didn't "defend the absurd analysis by Baris..." I said that "I could appreciate a judge finding fault with a particular expert" [including Baris]. "But the judge found fault with statistics, itself. That is sheer ignorance." But, thanks for commenting. It helps my stats!