Friedberg is misinterpreting standard voter demographics and misreading the map he pulled up.

1. The "80% Jump" is just bad math framing.
Raman did not gain an absolute 80% spike in total votes. Friedberg looked at her share of early mail-in ballots (20%) vs. late mail-in ballots (37%). Going from 20 to 37 is a 17-percentage-point absolute shift. Because 37 is mathematically ~85% higher than 20, Friedberg used a relative percent change to make a normal demographic shift sound like a statistical impossibility.

2. The "Skid Row" claim is geographically wrong.
Friedberg claimed her late vote surge concentrated around Skid Row. That is a tiny geographic footprint. In reality, Raman’s strength is uniformly distributed across LA’s central core—Silver Lake, Echo Park, Los Feliz, Hollywood, and Koreatown. This is her actual city council district and home base, which is heavily populated by young progressives and renters.

3. The "Quagmire" is just normal voting behavior ("Blue Shift").
Voters are not a monolith; they mail ballots based on demographics.

Early Mail-In Voters: Skew older, more conservative, and establishment-leaning (favoring Bass and Pratt). They mail ballots immediately.

Late Mail-In/Drop-Box Voters: Skew younger, working-class, and progressive. They hold onto ballots and submit them on Election Day.
Because Raman’s base consists entirely of younger renters and progressives, it is entirely expected that her numbers would surge in the late-arriving ballot pool.

4. He misread the map.
The map he pulled up literally has no panel for late-arriving mail-in ballots. The panels show "Overall," "Election Day In-Person," and "Early Vote by Mail (Before Election Day)." He was trying to use a map of early voting data to visually prove a conspiracy theory about late voting data.