Election could have been hacked in 3 swing states

[Londo_Jowo]

LMAO!!!! This place just cracks me up.

 

[buckshot24]

We KNOW for a fact that the DNC servers were hacked. In fact, the entire election in large parts was about hacked WickiLeaks emails.

Alone from knowing this I can with confidence say that it is not a stretch to assume that maybe also the results were hacked.
Unlike as is the case with many of your Rightwinger fantasy stories, here we have evidence that something did INDEED take place. It's not a conspiracy tale, it's reality. And no, I have not a "problem" with this reality whatsoever.

Podesta got phished and he fell for it. That is entirely different than "hacking" into some computers to change votes.

 

[NostaSeronx]

I think with electronic voting machines w/o a physical ballot printout could have been feasibly hacked by any party that was in the running. While the hacking difficulty of majority of the machines are not impossible, it is mostly about finding information(how to rig) and having resources($$$). All it would take is humint to come and organize, then they got an election. Again, any party could have swung the vote by rigging, but it would be primarily Republican vs Democrat.

imho, War of the Votes. If it is found that voter whatever is found if audits do occur.

The Democrat and Republican parties do have a quasi-religious following. Which means any form of voting manipulation is possible. Regardless, the audits are necessary to have a legitimate voting platform.

 

[Exophase]

Interesting development: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/jill-stein-recount-three-states-election-hacks-231814

I don't think there's any realistic chance of a recount exposing anything, but I do think it wouldn't hurt to actually thoroughly check against the paper records once in a while. Curious about just how close the results would be. Would it be something like 0.0001% off, or more like 0.1% off? While neither would change anything, the former seems like a much bigger deal than the latter.

Pretty shrewd of Stein to make this particular move - one that'd be problematic for Clinton herself. She's already over two thirds of the way there too, meaning she'll probably reach the goal:

https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount

I am however not aware if the states would actually entertain a request (even a paid one) from a third party candidate who isn't anywhere close to being in contention.

 

[norseamd]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cn...esults/index.html?client=ms-android-sprint-us

Hillary Clinton's campaign is being urged by a number of top computer scientists to call for a recount of vote totals in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, according to a source with knowledge of the request.

The computer scientists believe they have found evidence that vote totals in the three states could have been manipulated or hacked and presented their findings to top Clinton aides on a call last Thursday.

Title changed to reflect the information in the article.
admin allisolm

No, recounts arent what are needed or what is being asked for. Vote audits are what are being asked for right now.

 

[cubby1223]

The whole basis of this news story is some computer nerds ran statistic after statistic after statistic until they found a correlation they could throw out to feed their inner rage. And you lefties are eating it up.

Anyone who has ever taken advanced statistics courses knows that if you look at statistics and results in enough different ways, you're more concerned about tampering if you don't see any anomalies anywhere, versus seeing an occasional anomaly.

Forum lefties, please get back to me when there is actual solid evidence. Until then, please do us all a favor and quit yer bitchin'. Your candidate lost. Move on.

 

[compuwiz1]

The way I see it is that the EC protected the rest of the country from a mob of coastal denizens determining the election. They are not the voice of America. I'm all for recounts, for legitimate cause. The Democrats have to know it's risky, especially if audits find that many people who are not eligible to vote, ie., illegal aliens, recent convicts and dead people voted. Might not work out too well for them. Let them have their audits, as I couldn't care less. I'm confident it's not going to change the outcome.

 

[Exophase]

The whole basis of this news story is some computer nerds ran statistic after statistic after statistic until they found a correlation they could throw out to feed their inner rage. And you lefties are eating it up.

Anyone who has ever taken advanced statistics courses knows that if you look at statistics and results in enough different ways, you're more concerned about tampering if you don't see any anomalies anywhere, versus seeing an occasional anomaly.

Forum lefties, please get back to me when there is actual solid evidence. Until then, please do us all a favor and quit yer bitchin'. Your candidate lost. Move on.

The computer scientist pushing for this has been talking about voting machine insecurity for over a decade. He's personally hacked some devices. And he was still calling for more audits and reforms in the months leading up to the election, when the whole rigging narrative was a Trump talking point. While I do think his research and entrenchment in this field has made him very biased and he's probably looking for vindication, I don't think this is just about him wanting Hillary to win.

Here's his current writing on the matter, which was the source for the articles (which like usual don't do a great job representing him):

https://medium.com/@jhalderm/want-t...d-look-at-the-ballots-c61a6113b0ba#.nvmbuzkdd

 

[LegendKiller]

LOL @ Dumbocrats. First its "HE BETTER ACCEPT RESULTS OR HE UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY!" Now it's "WE BETTER NOT ACCEPT ELECTION RESULTS TO UNDERMINE DEMOCRACY!"

Recounting MI? Already done. All paper ballots, so no hacking. He won by 10k. So even if PA *AND* WI flipped, he'd still have enough. Sure, if 6 EC flipped then he'd lose, but then you'd probably have rioting so severe that these "riots" will be nothing. But hey, everything for "democracy".

And when this turns out to be a nothingburger, they'll think of some other idiotic thing to do.

 

[jackstar7]

LOL @ Dumbocrats. First its "HE BETTER ACCEPT RESULTS OR HE UNDERMINES DEMOCRACY!" Now it's "WE BETTER NOT ACCEPT ELECTION RESULTS TO UNDERMINE DEMOCRACY!"

Recounting MI? Already done. All paper ballots, so no hacking. He won by 10k. So even if PA *AND* WI flipped, he'd still have enough. Sure, if 6 EC flipped then he'd lose, but then you'd probably have rioting so severe that these "riots" will be nothing. But hey, everything for "democracy".

And when this turns out to be a nothingburger, they'll think of some other idiotic thing to do.

Keep in mind, he said he wasn't going to accept them unless he won. That's what provoked the opposition to demand that he accept and he basically wouldn't. If he or actors on his behalf screwed with things, then it was set up nicely to make the opposition unable to question the results after. But Stein is going to Stein... so we'll see what shakes out.

I do think this can be a useful experience to discover weaknesses in the process like those Conservatives never shut up about, or demonstrate the integrity of the whole thing, which is also good for putting things to bed.

 

[flexy]

Sure, if 6 EC flipped then he'd lose, but then you'd probably have rioting so severe that these "riots" will be nothing. But hey, everything for "democracy".

Let's just ASSUME that a hypothetical recount would actually make him "lose". So there would be rioting. And? Anything else you want to tell the excited audience?

It's funny how you use the word democracy, but then in the same paragraph reject the (even if just hypothetical) idea that a recount COULD flip the election..."because there would be rioting". <--- this is actually irrelevant. You either believe in democracy or not. Let's say there is a recount and they found that results were manipulated/hacked...then you'd say "Oh yes, but Trump won" and wouldn't accept the new result. And this is supposed to be "democratic"?

Also...STFU complaining...because you know and everyone else knows that if the election would have been in Clinton's favor, he would have never accepted the result, EVER. He'd be the one screaming for recount and "rigged" and openly call for riots.

And if these "computer scientists" indeed found evidence for manipulated results, then they should verify this, there is nothing wrong about this. This has nothing to do with not accepting the election results and grasping at straws. I am not one of these "computer scientists", in fact I have no idea whether their claim has any base to stand on. It may very well be just some idiocy. But it could also well be they found some significant evidence that manipulation happened, then this needs to be looked into.

 

[buckshot24]

I don't want to give it away but...

Apparently I suck at using the spoiler tag.

Trump will be sworn in on January 20th.

 

[buckshot24]

Let's just ASSUME that a hypothetical recount would actually make him "lose". So there would be rioting. And? Anything else you want to tell the excited audience?

It's funny how you use the word democracy, but then in the same paragraph reject the (even if just hypothetical) idea that a recount COULD flip the election..."because there would be rioting". <--- this is actually irrelevant. You either believe in democracy or not. Let's say there is a recount and they found that results were manipulated/hacked...then you'd say "Oh yes, but Trump won" and wouldn't accept the new result. And this is supposed to be "democratic"?

Also...STFU complaining...because you know and everyone else knows that if the election would have been in Clinton's favor, he would have never accepted the result, EVER. He'd be the one screaming for recount and "rigged" and openly call for riots.

And if these "computer scientists" indeed found evidence for manipulated results, then they should verify this, there is nothing wrong about this. This has nothing to do with not accepting the election results and grasping at straws. I am not one of these "computer scientists", in fact I have no idea whether their claim has any base to stand on. It may very well be just some idiocy. But it could also well be they found some significant evidence that manipulation happened, then this needs to be looked into.

No, we do not know that Trump would never accept the results.

 

[LegendKiller]

Let's just ASSUME that a hypothetical recount would actually make him "lose". So there would be rioting. And? Anything else you want to tell the excited audience?

It's funny how you use the word democracy, but then in the same paragraph reject the (even if just hypothetical) idea that a recount COULD flip the election..."because there would be rioting". <--- this is actually irrelevant. You either believe in democracy or not. Let's say there is a recount and they found that results were manipulated/hacked...then you'd say "Oh yes, but Trump won" and wouldn't accept the new result. And this is supposed to be "democratic"?

Also...STFU complaining...because you know and everyone else knows that if the election would have been in Clinton's favor, he would have never accepted the result, EVER. He'd be the one screaming for recount and "rigged" and openly call for riots.

And if these "computer scientists" indeed found evidence for manipulated results, then they should verify this, there is nothing wrong about this. This has nothing to do with not accepting the election results and grasping at straws. I am not one of these "computer scientists", in fact I have no idea whether their claim has any base to stand on. It may very well be just some idiocy. But it could also well be they found some significant evidence that manipulation happened, then this needs to be looked into.

They have no evidence that there is anything different, or anything happened, they have evidence that it *might* have happened.

It's funny, 4 weeks ago you were probably on here saying "HE HAS TO ACCEPT THE RESULTS!", now you think it's okay to toss our country into perpetual recounts and discussion.

I think he should raise $20mm and audit NV and CA, ensuring only legal citizens voted.

You hve no idea if he'd not accept the results. You just say that because it sounds good to you.

 

[LegendKiller]

Keep in mind, he said he wasn't going to accept them unless he won. That's what provoked the opposition to demand that he accept and he basically wouldn't. If he or actors on his behalf screwed with things, then it was set up nicely to make the opposition unable to question the results after. But Stein is going to Stein... so we'll see what shakes out.

I do think this can be a useful experience to discover weaknesses in the process like those Conservatives never shut up about, or demonstrate the integrity of the whole thing, which is also good for putting things to bed.

Ohh geez, you guys don't even know sarcasm/joking.

She has now upped it to 6-7mm. She might even get there. But it's just wasted money. Glad liberals love to toss away their money. They'll just ask for a gov't handout later.

 

[LegendKiller]

This is what happens when you hand out participation prizes to special snowflakes. If they don't get one they are pissed.

 

[Charmonium]

Well, Stein already has enough money to challenge the vote in Wisconsin - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...-recount-fund-michigan-wisconsin-pennsylvania. That deadline is Friday. So that's a done deal. She needs a total of $6-7M for all 3 and she has until Monday to raise the money for PA and Wed. for MI. So you can bet this is going to happen folks.

 

[FIVR]

You can see the trump chumps sweat now that it's obvious their fuhrer wasn't a winner after all, and needed foreign help to steal the election. Too bad for all of us though, they got the king of chumps into office and they won't let any kind of "facts" or "science" tell them otherwise.

 

[jackstar7]

Ohh geez, you guys don't even know sarcasm/joking.

She has now upped it to 6-7mm. She might even get there. But it's just wasted money. Glad liberals love to toss away their money. They'll just ask for a gov't handout later.

Sarcasm/joking is the mask that fascists use to cover their naked awfulness. We've been over this again and again. Saying "I was kidding" is the least honest of post hoc defenses. That you think it is valid tells all we need to know.

 

[Vic]

This is what happens when you hand out participation prizes to special snowflakes. If they don't get one they are pissed.

Even after 8 years of your bitching and whining, your hypocrisy is no less annoying.

 

[Vic]

No, we do not know that Trump would never accept the results.

I watched that debate, and what I took away from it is that Trump would never accept any results that were unfavorable to him. Not in 2016, nor in 2020, or in 2024 for that matter. He would let us know when he approved of our democracy. He was quite clear about that IMO. You may continue to apologize though.

 

[Charmonium]

I did a quick check and the 3 states have 46 electoral votes which if the charts I looked at are correct are enough to swing the election. To get more granular, Hillary would need about 70k votes to flip in PA, about 110k in MI and less than I think 30k in WI. I think in every case that's less than 3% of the vote. That's probably a big ask especially for machines with no paper trail though. If hacking can be shown to a high level of certainty you'd probably be talking something similar to a run-off election.

edit: sorry, actually those numbers are the total difference so you'd only have to flip a little more than half in each case.

 

[Exophase]

I did a quick check and the 3 states have 46 electoral votes which if the charts I looked at are correct are enough to swing the election. To get more granular, Hillary would need about 70k votes to flip in PA, about 110k in MI and less than I think 30k in WI. I think in every case that's less than 3% of the vote. That's probably a big ask especially for machines with no paper trail though. If hacking can be shown to a high level of certainty you'd probably be talking something similar to a run-off election.

Just 10k in Michigan.

 

[LegendKiller]

Just 10k in Michigan.

They have already gone over MI with a fine tooth comb. I doubt there are 10k votes left.

 

[agent00f]

Trump won among college-educated whites. How embarrassing for you.

It's pretty embarrassing Trump lost 10% educated white folks compared to 2012, but you can be proud he picked up 14% of you guys.