Professor: Probability of Biden winning given Trump’s early lead is ‘less than one in a quadrillion’

December 8, 2020 11:02 AM ET

In a new lawsuit filed today, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to block four battleground states – Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, from casting “unlawful and constitutionally tainted votes” in the Electoral College.

In the brief submitted to the Supreme Court, Texas includes a declaration from Pacific Economics Group member and USC economics professor, Charles J. Cicchetti, Ph.D.

Dr. Cicchetti is the former Deputy Director at the Energy and Environmental Policy Center at Harvard University’s John Kennedy School of Government and received his Ph.D. in economics from Rutgers University.

According to Dr. Cicchetti, his calculations show the probability of Joe Biden winning the popular vote in the four states independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion.

Dr. Cicchetti’s analysis calculates that for Joe Biden to win all four states collectively, the odds of that event happening decrease to less than one in a quadrillion to the fourth power (1 in 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,0004).

Stop and think about that.

Given President Trump’s massive early lead on election night, the odds — according to Dr. Cicchetti — that Biden came from behind and beat Trump in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are so unlikely that it’s next to impossible.

The odds of becoming a lightning victim in the U.S. in any one year is 1 in 700,000.

Dr. Cicchett’s work raises serious suspicions. How did Biden pull off this extraordinarily improbable win?

Given the overwhelming amounts of irregularities now surfacing, the answer is clear: it wasn’t luck that propelled Biden to victory. It was fraud.


Categories: Election

Tagged as: ,

56 replies »


    USA Election FRAUD Similar to Venezuelan Election FAUD 1999 With Smartmatic, says senior former CIA official !

  2. The Cicchetti analysis is referenced in the linked filing but it is described as an appendix, which is not included in the filing.

    Have you had any luck tracking down the actual appendix? I have not. Presumably the Supreme Court has it. Is it on their docket?

  3. His conclusion must hinge upon the word “given”. As in: ‘the odds of a Biden win, given Trump’s 3 a.m. lead’.

    If his analysis assumes the vote ratio prior to 3 AM (when I’ll bet you the mail-in votes began showing up in the tabulations) should also apply to the incoming mail-in votes, too, then he should be stripped of his license to practice statistics.

    He would be asserting the characteristics of the in-person vote was also representative of the mail-in vote. They’re not.

  4. You’re absolutely right. 99.9% of the fraudulent ballots in PA were marked as votes for Biden.

  5. so what you’re telling me is that i can flip a quarter and have it land not on heads or tails, but on its SIDE, 20 thousand times IN A ROW, (1 in 400 trillion) before Biden wins the electoral college. Where did this number come from. You can support whoever you want. But dont go around spewing bullshit statistics like this you make yourself look dumb.

  6. You must be assuming that there is no preexisting statistical base for mail in ballots, which I believe there already was. All of a sudden, a huge batch of ballots is dumped in, overwhelmingly different than the other mail in ballots. Then the rest of the mail-in ballots fall back to the preexisting pattern.

  7. Seems as if a lot of liberals are upset with the factual validity of these statistics. Since there’s so many complainers why don’t you cucks show us exactly how Biden won, you know, since it was fair and square and all LOL

  8. Looks to me like we have a couple of bozos who, wanting to appear to be smarter than this Professor have decided to enter their puny assessment so as to make the remaining commenters appear as stupid as he truly is!

  9. No, have you ever thought that the statistical analysis was as phony as a $3 bill? It assumes votes coming in later will have the same odds of being Trump votes as those that are already in the bank. But those votes being counted were mail-in votes and votes from urban areas. They were heavily Democratic votes. You can’t use the same odds as the early, more rural votes that heavily favored Trump. It’s analysis that wouldn’t get a “C” in a statistics class.

  10. So far every liberal that has posted a link or comment here trying to debate the statistical evidence is merely just leaving an “opinion”. That’s not what I asked for. This professor proved his claim with math and science. Why can’t any of you losers disprove it with the same numbers and sense given? Posting “mail in votes break heavy for democrats” is NOT disproving the evidence that Biden’s win was statistically impossible. You people are also forgetting literally ALL the vote dumps that came in after Trump was ahead after 3am in all these states were for Biden. Again, statistical impossibility. Try harder. I know you know Trump won.

    • The other day I was counting coins. I had 10 rolls which I opened one at a time. After the first 9, the coins were divided 33 percent nickels, 33 percent dimes, and 33 percent quarters. I opened the next roll and discovered it contained 100 percent pennies. A statistical impossibility!

  11. Well, Mr Cicchetti was embarassingly wrong. He got the probability theory completely wrong. But even if it were right, his numbers are wrong by a factor of 10^12052. 12052 orders of magnitude. Even between the Planck length and the diameter of the observable universe there are only 60 orders of magnitude. This is probably the most epic math fail I have ever seen.

Tell the Wiz what you think!