Trump: I know a lot about hacking

[fskimospy]

You may want to look at what you posted in post #65.

I'd love to but I didn't write post #65.

So how many voters changed their minds on how they were voting? Specially in the swing states that gave Trump the EC win.

So we're no longer talking about Putin hacking the vote, right? You realize if the result of the hack led to a 1% swing in the vote nationwide that would only change the state result in the closest (swing) states, right? There's no reason to believe that Putin's attempts to influence the election only affected there.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I just love how drumpf deals with these issues like he's some tv host. "I have information, I have the best information, but you'll have to wait until after these messages from our sponsors before I tell you these YUUUGE pieces of information"
what a maroon

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I'd love to but I didn't write post #65.



So we're no longer talking about Putin hacking the vote, right? You realize if the result of the hack led to a 1% swing in the vote nationwide that would only change the state result in the closest (swing) states, right? There's no reason to believe that Putin's attempts to influence the election only affected there.

So let's see the evidence the hacking caused people to vote differently. You people berate people for not having the factual evidence to back up their posts until you can't provide such.

 

[brycejones]

Apparently Trump lied about it being rescheduled and it was always scheduled for Friday. (Shocking, I know)

I don't know what game he's playing but this seems like a great way to alienate the intelligence community for no good reason.

His original claim was he had information that no one else did. Guess that is a lie if he has to wait to get the info.

Cheeto Jesus can't tell the truth ever.

 

[Jhhnn]

So let's see the evidence the hacking caused people to vote differently. You people berate people for not having the factual evidence to back up their posts until you can't provide such.

OrByte linked the process in post #74. It's the Repub noise machine. Relatively innocuous information goes in & virulent propaganda comes out exploiting Brandolini's law to the maximum.

 

[fskimospy]

So let's see the evidence the hacking caused people to vote differently. You people berate people for not having the factual evidence to back up their posts until you can't provide such.

Are you still asking me to provide evidence for and back up a post I didn't write? lol.

Regardless, it's a perfectly reasonable conjecture to say that a steady stream of negative/embarrassing news about the Clinton campaign caused a small number of people to vote differently. Even a 1% difference would have been enough to make her win. Fivethirtyeight did an analysis of it and basically came to the same conclusion. It's likely Putin helped Trump win, but it's hard to isolate that one effect from all the other things going on.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wikileaks-hillary-clinton/

You seem very combative about this for some reason and I don't know why?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

So in other words the Russians hacking the election and helping Trump win is nothing more than talking points as no one can provide any hard evidence to back up the claims. Of course 538 is trying to explain how their polls got it so wrong when it could be people told the pollsters what they wanted to hear rather than how they were going to vote.

 

[fskimospy]

So in other words the Russians hacking the election and helping Trump win is nothing more than talking points as no one can provide any hard evidence to back up the claims.

No, reasonable conjecture based on the available evidence is not a 'talking point'. The fact that you're trying so hard to turn this into a partisan issue is troubling and really shows just how sick partisanship has become in the US. The evidence indicates it is likely that a hostile foreign power intervened in our election and potentially altered the result. Instead of trying to come up with excuses as to why that might not be true maybe you should ask yourself why you are trying so hard to convince yourself it isn't true.

Of course 538 is trying to explain how their polls got it so wrong when it could be people told the pollsters what they wanted to hear rather than how they were going to vote.

I don't think you understand the things you are criticizing.

538 gave Trump a roughly 1 in 3 chance of winning and said there was a significant chance of Trump winning the electoral college while losing the popular vote. 1 in 3 chances happen all the time, so the election result was well within their analysis.

 

[Homerboy]

538 gave Trump a roughly 1 in 3 chance of winning and said there was a significant chance of Trump winning the electoral college while losing the popular vote. 1 in 3 chances happen all the time, so the election result was well within their analysis.

I'd say roughly 33% of the time.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

No, reasonable conjecture based on the available evidence is not a 'talking point'. The fact that you're trying so hard to turn this into a partisan issue is troubling and really shows just how sick partisanship has become in the US. The evidence indicates it is likely that a hostile foreign power intervened in our election and potentially altered the result. Instead of trying to come up with excuses as to why that might not be true maybe you should ask yourself why you are trying so hard to convince yourself it isn't true.



I don't think you understand the things you are criticizing.

538 gave Trump a roughly 1 in 3 chance of winning and said there was a significant chance of Trump winning the electoral college while losing the popular vote. 1 in 3 chances happen all the time, so the election result was well within their analysis.

BS!!! 538 was giving Clinton a 90% chance of winning the day of the election.

 

[brycejones]

BS!!! 538 was giving Clinton a 90% chance of winning the day of the election.

BS!!!!!!!!!!!!

You're both wrong (fskimospy is much closer though)

538 gave Trump a 28% chance on 11/8. The numbers moved around a fair amount the last couple of weeks so you're probably remembering the forecast from before the FBI email bombshell.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

BTW I think 11/8 was the final update for 538. Please provide a link to support your 90% on 11/9 claim.

 

[fskimospy]

BS!!! 538 was giving Clinton a 90% chance of winning the day of the election.

As brycejones showed you're comically wrong. Looks like you swallowed some BS from somewhere else. Where did you get the idea that 538 had her at a 90% chance of winning?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Okay it was still in the mid to upper 80 percentile. 84% chance of winning election and 87% chance of EC win.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ection-can-end-and-3-involve-clinton-winning/

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Are you still asking me to provide evidence for and back up a post I didn't write? lol.

Regardless, it's a perfectly reasonable conjecture to say that a steady stream of negative/embarrassing news about the Clinton campaign caused a small number of people to vote differently. Even a 1% difference would have been enough to make her win. Fivethirtyeight did an analysis of it and basically came to the same conclusion. It's likely Putin helped Trump win, but it's hard to isolate that one effect from all the other things going on.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/wikileaks-hillary-clinton/

You seem very combative about this for some reason and I don't know why?

All this discussion assumes Trumpetists could be convinced by any evidence of anything.

Lets face it, hes caught on camera being a misogynist and a creep (multiple times)and they still don't believe he has a problem with women, so there is in fact no bar to meet.

 

[fskimospy]

Okay it was still in the mid to upper 80 percentile. 84% chance of winning election and 87% chance of EC win.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ection-can-end-and-3-involve-clinton-winning/

False.

Date of the article:

OCT 21, 2016 AT 8:27 PM

That is two and a half weeks before the election (and before the Comey letter), not the day before the election. Here is their final update before the election where they gave her a 71% chance to win:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...of-outcomes-and-most-of-them-come-up-clinton/

The most important part:

So what’s the source of all the uncertainty? And why does the same model that gave Mitt Romney only a 9 percent chance of winning the Electoral College on the eve of the 2012 election put Trump’s chances about three times higher — 28 percent — this year? It basically comes down to three things:

• First, Clinton’s overall lead over Trump — while her gains over the past day or two have helped — is still within the range where a fairly ordinary polling error could eliminate it.
• Second, the number of undecided and third-party voters is much higher than in recent elections, which contributes to uncertainty.
• Third, Clinton’s coalition — which relies increasingly on college-educated whites and Hispanics — is somewhat inefficiently configured for the Electoral College, because these voters are less likely to live in swing states. If the popular vote turns out to be a few percentage points closer than polls project it, Clinton will be an Electoral College underdog.

They nailed it.

I think an admission of error is in order, don't you?

 

[Jhhnn]

The evidence indicates it is likely that a hostile foreign power intervened in our election and potentially altered the result. Instead of trying to come up with excuses as to why that might not be true maybe you should ask yourself why you are trying so hard to convince yourself it isn't true.

That is the question Trumpsters dare not ask themselves.

 

[JD50]

Okay it was still in the mid to upper 80 percentile. 84% chance of winning election and 87% chance of EC win.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ection-can-end-and-3-involve-clinton-winning/

What a gigantic bucket of fail.

1. You didn't read the article you just posted where they caution against a definitive Clinton victory
2. You didn't click the links in the article showing the election forecast scale with the very last predictions
3. You didn't look at the date of the article
4. You aren't even following the conversation

Honestly you should just go back to shitposting and thread crapping.

 

[brycejones]

Okay it was still in the mid to upper 80 percentile. 84% chance of winning election and 87% chance of EC win.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...ection-can-end-and-3-involve-clinton-winning/

Extract your head from your anus please. I have already posted the correct evidence disproving your claim. Man up admit you were mistaken and move on with life.

 

[brycejones]

What a gigantic bucket of fail.

1. You didn't read the article you just posted where they caution against a definitive Clinton victory
2. You didn't click the links in the article showing the election forecast scale with the very last predictions
3. You didn't look at the date of the article
4. You aren't even following the conversation

Honestly you should just go back to shitposting and thread crapping.

Where oh where has Londo run off to?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

It's all good even if I was wrong. Clinton still lost even when the odds were well in her favor.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

It's all good even if I was wrong. Clinton still lost even when the odds were well in her favor.

what a drumpfian acknowledgment of being wrong.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Sorry but I didn't vote for Trump but have enjoyed all the butthurt of the left

 

[alien42]

It's all good even if I was wrong. Clinton still lost even when the odds were well in her favor.

Sorry but I didn't vote for Trump but have enjoyed all the butthurt of the left

you are a very petty and pitiful person.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

you are a very petty and pitiful person.

And you're just another butthurt crybaby. Have a nice 4 years

 

[agent00f]

And you're just another butthurt crybaby. Have a nice 4 years

No mystery why trump had great success with a crowd who relate to him so well.