I'm curious about their communication strategy. Given their current sample size, and how that's well beyond min sample sizes to draw conclusions, they must already know the outcome and the fraud rates by fraud method. They must have had some confidential chats with people from the other states to get them on board to conduct their own audits which makes me think they have some damning proof. I suppose it would also make sense not to prematurely announce the outcome and invite retaliation before they finish...
The other states coming to visit and then immediately jumping on board definitely suggests they are seeing something that has them convinced joining the side of the steal isn’t going to be a good look going forward. Like they don’t even seem to be hesistant about retaliatory drone strikes. Does that mean they are being told something that makes them feel protected?
I'm curious about their communication strategy. Given their current sample size, and how that's well beyond min sample sizes to draw conclusions, they must already know the outcome and the fraud rates by fraud method. They must have had some confidential chats with people from the other states to get them on board to conduct their own audits which makes me think they have some damning proof. I suppose it would also make sense not to prematurely announce the outcome and invite retaliation before they finish...
The other states coming to visit and then immediately jumping on board definitely suggests they are seeing something that has them convinced joining the side of the steal isn’t going to be a good look going forward. Like they don’t even seem to be hesistant about retaliatory drone strikes. Does that mean they are being told something that makes them feel protected?