I will admit the psychological findings are interesting and no doubt have merit. I would have preferred to see a discussion of all such findings and test all of them, not just the ones that turned out to be important. My complaint is the ultimate, dwindling "odds" of a non-fraudulent election is bogus if this isn't done. Cherry-picking tests based on their statistical significance in the data is simply dishonest analysis, regardless of how valid the psychological patterns are.

I should also clarify that I too think it's likely the vote totals are fraudulent based on the evidence you mention, especially disparities in polling data. However, ammunition is given to the other side of the argument if more care in these allegations isn't made.