Election could have been hacked in 3 swing states

[Exophase]

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

I can't find a reference for recounts having taken place in MI, do you have one? From what I can find, automatic recounts are only triggered if the margin is under 2k votes.

 

[norseamd]

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

Oh thats funny, I bet youve been a hysterical whining pissing shit shrieking "libs are rigging the vote from decent muricans" for months by now.

 

[agent00f]

Oh thats funny, I bet youve been a hysterical whining pissing shit shrieking "libs are rigging the vote from decent muricans" for months by now.

Pretty sure nobody, not even LegendKiller, is taking up that bet given his archived post history here.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Nope, no evidence that this happened. Nate Silver tested this and when you control for race and education (as you should) the effect of paper vs. electronic ballots totally disappears (p value of .992 = absolutely nothing)

Two things. First, the strategy of the Great Lie. You take a head start with the birther frenzy and repeat over and over again, make one distortion after another, announce candidacy and continue a higher-pitched appeal to human frustration and perhaps some darker psychologies mixed in. So you attack the other side continuously for being a Liar.

So I might have initial suspicion that the machines were hacked, just as I had a suspicion that mere days leading up to major debates or town hall events were punctuated with school-district terror hoaxes in the major cities closer to two of our terror attacks since 911. And I might have suspected TP or Trumpie origins, still holding open the idea that it was a bunch of adolescents following Goebbels playbook out of curiosity.

In the investigation of any crime, you start with some initial basis of suspicion as you collect information. In most criminal investigations, you actually know that a crime has been committed: a robbery, a murder, a mugging, rape, molestation, anything you might think of from the news or even L&O. In these cases of our attention here, we only suspect a possibility of fraud.

But it is so important when our politics has taken a dump to the level of the WWWF Smackdowns or that ridiculous reality-TV show. This has been the dirtiest, most deceitful, dishonorable campaign season -- really three years of it -- to my 69-year-old memory which still remembers Harry Truman.

So I think they're right to press the case. Once there's any indication that demographics, race and other factors explains away the discrepancy, you would terminate the "investigation."

Suppose you picked one state of the three at random? And suppose you collected stratified samples from various counties and precincts? If the samples proved the suspicion, you would continue to add the entire population of that state to a recount.

And you could extend your inquiries to the remaining states.

Whether or not a positive finding occurred now or later, the public has the right to know the Truth.

And the Truth has been murdered and shredded in this campaign.

If they had followed this investigative logic with the Benghazi-to-e-mail witch-hunt, they would've set up a bipartisan commission instead of turning it into the longest waste of time and taxpayer dollars for anything like it except the previous Clinton impeachment. The only way it paid off was in the election result.

Nothing about "sore loser" about it. Everybody has a right to the Truth.

 

[pcgeek11]

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 nothing in accordance with their very article:

" Their group told Podesta and Elias that while they had not found any evidence of hacking, the pattern needs to be looked at by an independent review."

 

[pcgeek11]

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.

What facts and science. They got nothing, they said so themselves:

Their group told Podesta and Elias that while they had not found any evidence of hacking, the pattern needs to be looked at by an independent review.

 

[cubby1223]

Nothing about "sore loser" about it. Everybody has a right to the Truth.

No, it's everything about "sore loser". To be fair and seek the Truth, we also will need to add states Clinton won into the mix and see if there was any tampering there done in Hillary's favor.

There are well over 100k polling places each Presidential election. With that sample size, there will be anomalies that are normal. But, let's spend the next 4 years running all sorts of statistical analysis on the 100+k polling places and investigate each and every anomaly. And investigate them all, whether they swing toward Trump or swing toward Clinton. Can't just run a fair investigation when only one side is the target. When one side is the target, that is the very definition of "sore loser".

If they had followed this investigative logic with the Benghazi-to-e-mail witch-hunt, they would've set up a bipartisan commission instead of turning it into the longest waste of time and taxpayer dollars for anything like it except the previous Clinton impeachment. The only way it paid off was in the election result.

So, you would trust the Truth of this election to a bipartisan commission - knowing that half of the bipartisan commission is partisan Republican? If you truly believe it is a good idea to form a bipartisan commission to investigate the whole of this election which will allow half the commission to pursue investigations against anomalies that favored Clinton...


In the end this is all a gigantic stall tactic where soft lefties still cannot grasp the realization that what they believed were the Truths of this world, were wrong. It's a learning process, and it will be slow.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

You think it's preppy liberal arts graduates going around shooting up heroin in record numbers? lol. The recent heroin epidemic is more linked to FDA regulations making it difficult for people to keep opiate prescriptions. When they start to go into withdrawal and really want their dope, they turn to the black market. iirc, legal opiate and heroin deaths are most prevalent in middle-aged white people, not 25 year old baristas.

EDIT:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/30/us/31heroin-deaths.html

There are some quick numbers, I know there's a more thorough study out there that looks into socioeconomic factors, and it's largely lower-skilled, less-educated, older whites that are suffering the worst from the heroin epidemic.

Thanks for proving my point?

Now, nearly 90 percent of the people who tried heroin for the first time in the past decade were white. And a growing number are middle-class or wealthy.

 

[jackstar7]

No, it's everything about "sore loser". To be fair and seek the Truth, we also will need to add states Clinton won into the mix and see if there was any tampering there done in Hillary's favor.

Let's absolutely do this. Audit2016 in its entirety.

Find all the issues and root them out to restore integrity to the system. And as a bonus we get to find out who won the election.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

What facts and science. They got nothing, they said so themselves:

Their group told Podesta and Elias that while they had not found any evidence of hacking, the pattern needs to be looked at by an independent review.

Apparently you are clueless as to how news works today.

You see, what you do is read the headline - and then make whatever presumption you are looking for and assume that is contained within the article text.

Don't you know anything?

 

[cbrunny]

I can't find a reference for recounts having taken place in MI, do you have one? From what I can find, automatic recounts are only triggered if the margin is under 2k votes.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jill-stein-election-recount_us_5835e45be4b09b6055fffc64

 

[jackstar7]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jill-stein-election-recount_us_5835e45be4b09b6055fffc64

Nothing here about MI already having been examined with a "fine tooth comb"...

 

[cbrunny]

Nothing here about MI already having been examined with a "fine tooth comb"...

correct. sounds like it may come though.

 

[Charmonium]

Nobody is stopping Trump for asking for as many recounts and audits as he's willing to pay for. I think we're forgetting that this isn't some kind of govt charity being given to Stein. She's raising the money to pay for these audits. If someone else wants to pay for audits in state's where Hillary won, go for it. No one is arguing that you shouldn't, that it would be wrong, immoral, shocking, perverse or anything else.

 

[norseamd]

Let's absolutely do this. Audit2016 in its entirety.

Find all the issues and root them out to restore integrity to the system. And as a bonus we get to find out who won the election.

I wouldnt have a fucking single problem with it. Many of the conservatives here however would, as you can see in their very posts in this very thread.

 

[jman19]

Meh don't have a problem with a recount or audit or whatever, but really slim chance it goes anywhere. If there is something bizarre about the results, though, it would be a fitting chapter in the shit show that was the 2016 election cycle.

 

[buckshot24]

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.

That was a ridiculous interpretation plus he later said of course he would accept a clear result.

 

[buckshot24]

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

First time my candidate carried my state in my voting lifetime.

 

[Charmonium]

Here's and article that I think makes a good case for the audit. Not too familiar with the source but they seem to have the facts.

http://www.inquisitr.com/3742358/20...th-elections-results-in-light-of-recount2016/

Basically, in most of the states involved you have what they call a red-shift from the exit polls that is way beyond the margin of error. So for examle if the the moe is say 3%, exit polls are revealing a red-shift of 6% or more. Unless there was some reason for exit polls to be 100% more unreliable than they usually are, that's pretty suspicious.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Here's and article that I think makes a good case for the audit. Not too familiar with the source but they seem to have the facts.

http://www.inquisitr.com/3742358/20...th-elections-results-in-light-of-recount2016/

Basically, in most of the states involved you have what they call a red-shift from the exit polls that is way beyond the margin of error. So for examle if the the moe is say 3%, exit polls are revealing a red-shift of 6% or more. Unless there was some reason for exit polls to be 100% more unreliable than they usually are, that's pretty suspicious.

Couldn't have anything to do with people not wanting pollsters knowing they voted for Trump........

Can't wait until the audit and recount results validates the vote counts in the questioned states

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I wonder how many people will also want to look into similar discrepancies in Clinton's favor against Sanders during the primaries.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I wonder how many people will also want to look into similar discrepancies in Clinton's favor against Sanders during the primaries.

What discrepancies are you referring to?

 

[BonzaiDuck]

No, it's everything about "sore loser". To be fair and seek the Truth, we also will need to add states Clinton won into the mix and see if there was any tampering there done in Hillary's favor.

There are well over 100k polling places each Presidential election. With that sample size, there will be anomalies that are normal. But, let's spend the next 4 years running all sorts of statistical analysis on the 100+k polling places and investigate each and every anomaly. And investigate them all, whether they swing toward Trump or swing toward Clinton. Can't just run a fair investigation when only one side is the target. When one side is the target, that is the very definition of "sore loser".


So, you would trust the Truth of this election to a bipartisan commission - knowing that half of the bipartisan commission is partisan Republican? If you truly believe it is a good idea to form a bipartisan commission to investigate the whole of this election which will allow half the commission to pursue investigations against anomalies that favored Clinton...


In the end this is all a gigantic stall tactic where soft lefties still cannot grasp the realization that what they believed were the Truths of this world, were wrong. It's a learning process, and it will be slow.

No, I vehemently deny your opening remark -- again.

With you folks, it's "all about Belief." You're the ones who think stuff is "free:" otherwise we would've paid for Bush's war by now. You want more tax cuts when taxes are now at the lowest level ever since the post-WWII 50's.

This is about common sense. And the writing on the wall: you worship some guy who had everything handed to him -- a $100 million business -- by the age of 24. He doesn't care about you; he doesn't care about me. It's all about him. He was a disgusting prick when he was on his TV show; he was a disgusting prick throughout the campaign; and he's a disgusting blight now.

So for that, sure, go ahead. Do a recount in all the blue states. There were other reasons to suspect tampering on behalf of the Trumpies, though. Everything from the Russian hack of the State Department and the DNC to a general worry about electronic voting machines. And the way "your" side murdered the Truth in this election, who wouldn't expect you or your partisan equivalents to use every dirty trick in the book to win?

 

[HamburgerBoy]

What discrepancies are you referring to?

Basically the exact same story that's running now, just different states and people. First Google link:

http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/

Clinton wins counties apparently without paper trails, Sanders narrowly wins counties with paper trails, a couple random dudes did a quick report and make a public claim about the possibility of fraud from the Clinton camp. In both this case and the story in the OP I would be inclined to believe that exit polls shouldn't be taken as gospel, but people like to believe stories that tell them what they want to hear.

 

[buckshot24]

No, I vehemently deny your opening remark -- again.

With you folks, it's "all about Belief." You're the ones who think stuff is "free:" otherwise we would've paid for Bush's war by now. You want more tax cuts when taxes are now at the lowest level ever since the post-WWII 50's.

This is about common sense. And the writing on the wall: you worship some guy who had everything handed to him -- a $100 million business -- by the age of 24. He doesn't care about you; he doesn't care about me. It's all about him. He was a disgusting prick when he was on his TV show; he was a disgusting prick throughout the campaign; and he's a disgusting blight now.

So for that, sure, go ahead. Do a recount in all the blue states. There were other reasons to suspect tampering on behalf of the Trumpies, though. Everything from the Russian hack of the State Department and the DNC to a general worry about electronic voting machines. And the way "your" side murdered the Truth in this election, who wouldn't expect you or your partisan equivalents to use every dirty trick in the book to win?

You deny his opening remark then prove that he is right with the rest of your post. Haha.