🚨The Panda Tribune 🚨

ROUND 1 Ansolabehere claims that @MattBraynard's report never mentions what fields (other than ‘date of birth’) he used in his matching methodology… Ansolabehere is either lying or illiterate, because Braynard explicitly states (several times) the specific fields he usedpic.twitter.com/MXr92TNTWU

ROUND 2 Ansolabehere then uses a "straw man" by selecting an incomparable methodology (“Crosscheck”) in order to “discredit” @MattBraynard's methodology... "Crosscheck" DOESN'T match addresses Braynard’s methodology DOES (w/ the NCOA database from the US Postal Service)pic.twitter.com/gyAgU65KvG

ROUND 2 Continued In fact... the report Ansolabehere cites as a supporting source for his claim... actually RECOMMENDS using nationally available lists, and even specifically mentions the U.S. Postal Service database (NCOA), which @MattBraynard used, as an example!pic.twitter.com/gJYs3yOSi5

BONUS ROUND We did some digging & it turns out that 5 years ago, the Election Law Journal published a paper AUTHORED BY Ansolabehere, in which he ADVOCATES using NCOA (list that @MattBraynard uses) & he even cites a study that used NCOA to CORRECT voter registration lists!pic.twitter.com/IJPkS1f1Be

Extra Bonus... In ANOTHER published paper authored by Stephen Ansolabehere he writes: "Even just two pieces—either Name & Date of Birth or Name & Address—identifies nearly all individuals in a database uniquely. 99.6% are unique w/ DoB & Name, 99% are unique w/ Name & Address"pic.twitter.com/NkPQg0xRgD