Even though many of us simpletons likely don't have the brain capacity to actually understand statistics, maybe you could share some of these impossibilities?
Sure, let me start by showing you the difference in the improbabilities that you just compared.
You just said that Trump's victory in 2016 was "statistically improbable", likely (here, I'm assuming) meaning that the pollsters said Hillary Clinton had a 90% chance of winning.
Meaning Trump had a 10% chance of winning. That is what you are defining as "statistically improbable."
The issues I am referring to are, as has been cited in this very thread, are things like batches of votes counted by various municipalities, where, for example, Pennsylvania posted 570,000+ voters for Biden and 3,200 for Trump.
That's 99.4 percent win for Biden in that batch. (Oh, and there are no such batches for Trump, but we'll ignore that.)
I'll be honest that I really don't want to do the math on that, especially when I can tell very quickly that the chances of getting 99% of a win over any random 500K+ votes
even if the population were 90% for Biden is so miniscule as to make that 10% "improbability" of Trunp's victory in 2016 seem like a certainty.
We're talking several orders of magnitude difference between these "improbabilities."
This is the kind of "improbabilities" you are comparing.