2016 Election Thread

[DaveW]

Yes, this is a great move since Stein is already viewed as part of the lunatic fringe, not that she actually is. Clinton and the Democrats have to keep their noses as clean as possible on this to keep any hope of bipartisan unity regarding rigged elections.

Stein is a lunatic though...she appealed to the anti Vaxxer crowd for petes sake!

[nicksaviking]

 

Stein is a lunatic though...she appealed to the anti Vaxxer crowd for petes sake!

 

I agree and that's why I say she's viewed as the lunatic fringe. I can't believe she'd actually buy into that crap though and her comments regarding it were something along the lines of 'we should consider all possibilities'.

 

Pandering to lunatics isn't the same as being a lunatic; politicians from all parties do it all the time. I'll take her pandering to anti-vaxers over Trump's pandering to the David Duke crowd. Even if she is a nut, better her to do something that's going to ignite outrage than Clinton, nuts do stuff that frustrate people all the time, it's the expected operating procedure for them. She already got charged for spray painting a bulldozer at the Dakota Access Pipeline site, agitation is part of her platform anyway, or so the narrative would go if an investigation turns out showing that there was nothing fishy about the election results.

[Badsmerf]

How do I donate to that fund? Do i get my money back if the investigation doesn't happen?

[TheLeviathan]

Get back to me when there is actually evidence for this.  Otherwise it sounds a lot like what Republicans say about voter ID fraud.  And that's a total sham.

[TheLeviathan]

In other news, Betsy DeVos is a horrible choice for Sec. of Education.

 

Ugh....

[TheLeviathan]

Also.....I absolutely adore this editorial.

[PseudoSABR]

 

How do I donate to that fund? Do i get my money back if the investigation doesn't happen?

https://jillstein.nationbuilder.com/recount

[ashbury]

Get back to me when there is actually evidence for this.  Otherwise it sounds a lot like what Republicans say about voter ID fraud.  And that's a total sham.

Indeed. A couple of writers at Nate Silver's site, where statistical chops are de rigueur, advise tempering the expectations. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/demographics-not-hacking-explain-the-election-results/

[Mr. Brooks]

Doing something about it doesn't have to be public and doesn't have to mean armed conflict which is what people will call for if they even half suspect. But that wasn't what I meant, I meant Clinton shouldn't challenge the results even if there was fraud, which absolutely should be thoroughly investigated. Our nation is divided and Trump/GOP supporters would see a Clinton challenge as an affront to how they voted. If fraud happened Trump automatically becomes a Russian puppet and a notorious symbol most Americans, even those that voted for him can rally against. Getting rid of him and putting in Clinton would look like ripping up the constitution to half of our population with Trump becoming a sympathetic figure to plenty of people. Trump can be impeached, he can be ousted but Clinton can't get the job now.

 

Either way, unless we know for sure, yes we absolutely shouldn't encourage mass hysteria in our country. If we did have irrefutable evidence, then I guess I'm on board with considering all options.

No, if Clinton actually won, and it can be proven with data that she did, then she should be president.

I'd argue that you are the one advocating for tearing up the Constitution if you are willing to uphold prove able fraudulent results.

We shouldn't be giving the White House to a person who didn't actually win the election just to appease his potentially rabid supporters.

It's one thing to have a healthy fear of a country like Russia. It's another to let them walk all over you because you are afraid.

Do you really think that Russia wants a war with America?

I can assure you they do not.

Putin is not Kim Jong Un, he's not a delusional psychopath.

He'll push it only as far as he can get away with. He is the last person that wants a war with America.

[nicksaviking]

No, if Clinton actually won, and it can be proven with data that she did, then she should be president.

I'd argue that you are the one advocating for tearing up the Constitution if you are willing to uphold prove able fraudulent results.

We shouldn't be giving the White House to a person who didn't actually win the election just to appease his potentially rabid supporters.

It's one thing to have a healthy fear of a country like Russia. It's another to let them walk all over you because you are afraid.

Do you really think that Russia wants a war with America?

I can assure you they do not.

Putin is not Kim Jong Un, he's not a delusional psychopath.

He'll push it only as far as he can get away with. He is the last person that wants a war with America.

The problem is that even if there was fraud, there almost surely is going to be no way of knowing if Clinton actually had enough votes. Trump supporters will still be able to claim he would have won anyway, Clinton can't be given the job just because fraud was proven.

[Mr. Brooks]

The problem is that even if there was fraud, there almost surely is going to be no way of knowing if Clinton actually had enough votes. Trump supporters will still be able to claim he would have won anyway, Clinton can't be given the job just because fraud was proven.

Yeah of course you still need to show Hillary won. I'm not saying she automatically wins just because there was fraud.

It wouldn't be too tough. You throw out any fraud ballot and recount the results.

[ashbury]

You throw out any fraud ballot and recount the results.

Competent fraud of this type won't likely allow unscrambling of the egg.

[USAFChief]

My advice to the Democratic Party: stop wasting time, energy, and good will on a wild goose chase more worthy of Trump.

 

Instead, start investing in strategies to gain voters. Less politics-by-race, politics-by-gender. More politics by economics, public welfare, education reform and opportunity, health care answers, jobs, personal choice and reponsibility. Focus on local races and get the Republican-led gerrymandering reversed-an ACTUAL form of "rigging" elections that is in place and changing America.

 

In short, become something more want to vote FOR.

[ashbury]

My advice to the Democratic Party: stop wasting time, energy, and good will on a wild goose chase more worthy of Trump.

In addition to the valid points you made, I'm also pretty sure the prize would now be worthless to Clinton even if she were to come away with it.

[TheLeviathan]

 

My advice to the Democratic Party: stop wasting time, energy, and good will on a wild goose chase more worthy of Trump.

Instead, start investing in strategies to gain voters. Less politics-by-race, politics-by-gender. More politics by economics, public welfare, education reform and opportunity, health care answers, jobs, personal choice and reponsibility. Focus on local races and get the Republican-led gerrymandering reversed-an ACTUAL form of "rigging" elections that is in place and changing America.

In short, become something more want to vote FOR.

 

Yeah, there seems to still be a belief that if the Dems just stay the course that the country will just automatically be in their pocket with changing demographics.

 

Conservatism will always offer a sanctuary for those that don't like the way, no pun intended, that liberalism is progressing.  

 

The real key is all that you said Chief, stand for something you can do to make people's lives better and stop getting caught in the weeds of political correct nonsense.  Elements of the left are becoming as scary as the right wing in their beliefs about suppressing other points of view, protest, and the erosion of commonality through identity politics.  Buck those trends and go back to being about helping people.

[stringer bell]

From the Democratic party perspective, I think Levi and Chief are right on the mark. As a believer in our democracy and a follower of elections, I'd like to see some guarantee that the will of the people was carried out. If there is something that demonstrates some fishy results, then take a look at it. It makes no sense to me that votes cannot be verified and if that is the case, something needs to be done to make sure that every vote is counted and counted accurately.

 

I don't want to see this election stolen. The bar is set extremely high to undo the results and I think that is good, but if there is a pattern that shows wrongdoing, let's get to the bottom of it.

[Squirrel]

Wait, I'm confused, I thought it was the Green Party thinking of challenging results in 3 states, has that changed?

[stringer bell]

Greens are saying they will challenge. Some are urging Clinton to join.

[Badsmerf]

This election has been so much fun!

 

On a serious note, the gerrymandering in Wisconsin was ruled unconstitutional and will likely be sent to the supreme court. This will be a vital decision for the democrats. Undoing all the gerrymandering by the gop over the last 5+ years will take a lot of time. If this decision doesn't go their way.... it could get even worse.

[DaveW]

Stein needs to just leave the public eye forever.

 

Challenging the election just makes the liberals look even worse.

 

Just move on, Jesus Christ. Talk about a waste of money.

 

Instead of donating 5 million to jill stein to further this pointless excersize maybe donate that money to a charity that actually HELPS poor people (something the Dems and GOP could care less about)

[Mr. Brooks]

Competent fraud of this type won't likely allow unscrambling of the egg.

I wish I could remember where I read it, but I read a great article from a computer forensic expert, laying out the most likely way the hypothetical tampering could have taken place.

If it did happen as he theorized, a manual recount would work just fine, as the paper ballots themselves would be legit, it would have been the chip installed in the ballot readers that were giving phony counts.

[nicksaviking]

 

My advice to the Democratic Party: stop wasting time, energy, and good will on a wild goose chase more worthy of Trump.

Instead, start investing in strategies to gain voters. Less politics-by-race, politics-by-gender. More politics by economics, public welfare, education reform and opportunity, health care answers, jobs, personal choice and reponsibility. Focus on local races and get the Republican-led gerrymandering reversed-an ACTUAL form of "rigging" elections that is in place and changing America.

In short, become something more want to vote FOR.

 

 

Yeah, there seems to still be a belief that if the Dems just stay the course that the country will just automatically be in their pocket with changing demographics.

 

 

I think the votes will be in the Dems pockets next time around, but on the condition that they actually put effort into right philosophies like the things listed by Chief.

 

I think there is going to be a temptation to sit back and wait for Trump/GOP/Alt-right failures and use them as the main political platform instead of passionately showing what they would do right or would do differently. They're going to have to resist the "See I told you so" crap that permeated through everything this past election even if that's the kind of rhetoric that got Trump elected.

[stringer bell]

It isn't enough to be "not-Trump" and "we're not as crazy as Republicans". The party needs to really stand for something and have policies to back it up. Democrats have led the way on gay rights, reproductive rights, and are leading us towards marijuana legalization, but the economic programs could have been agreed to by Ronald Reagan.

[stringer bell]

I guess they will proceed with a recount in Wisconsin. On balance, I say "good deal". I suppose there is less than a .1% chance that the state will be flipped, but Trump already has defied the odds. Clinton will win the popular vote and yet Trump has comfortably won the Electoral College. IMHO, that is akin to a guy hitting .220, but driving in 100 runs. It could happen, but a lot of things have to align for it to be so. Secondly, polling. I don't believe a single poll had Trump ahead in the three states after the first debate, and most of the leads were comfortable >5%. Thirdly, exit polling. IIRC as the polls closed in each of the states in question, Clinton has a lead in exit polling and yet she lost all three. For all of these things to line up and give Trump a clear victory seems about as unlikely as overturning a 20,000 vote deficit.

 

If there is an outside force that caused this-hacking, some other computer manipulation-I darn sure want it discovered. If something is found in Wisconsin, maybe it occurred in other states.

[nicksaviking]

I also wonder if exit polling was accurate. I have to think there would be a considerable amount of people who voted for Trump that declined to answer on the record.

[PseudoSABR]

Even if Clinton found more than 27,000 votes in Wisconsin and 11,000 in Michigan, she still would not win the electoral college (258 to 280);  additionally, she would need to find 70,000 votes in Pennsylvania (winning 278 to 260).   Very unlikely to find that many votes, even if there was hacking and other kinds of fraud.  If there was a concerted effort to steal the election, there's probably not much of a paper trail.  

[stringer bell]

Even if Clinton found more than 27,000 votes in Wisconsin and 11,000 in Michigan, she still would not win the electoral college (258 to 280);  additionally, she would need to find 70,000 votes in Pennsylvania (winning 278 to 260).   Very unlikely to find that many votes, even if there was hacking and other kinds of fraud.  If there was a concerted effort to steal the election, there's probably not much of a paper trail.  

Agree 100%. It's extremely unlikely (I think I said .1%), but it is pretty unlikely to lose the popular vote by >2M, be consistently behind in all the polling in three states and be behind in the exit polls and win all three states.

 

BTW, routine canvassing reduced Trump's margin by almost 5000 votes. The current difference stands at about 22,000.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Agree 100%. It's extremely unlikely (I think I said .1%), but it is pretty unlikely to lose the popular vote by >2M, be consistently behind in all the polling in three states and be behind in the exit polls and win all three states.

 

BTW, routine canvassing reduced Trump's margin by almost 5000 votes. The current difference stands at about 22,000.

I don't discount what you're saying.  I just don't know what to make of any of it, and I'm not sure that recount is going to give us any clearer picture or allay many's distrust of the results.  

[stringer bell]

 

I don't discount what you're saying.  I just don't know what to make of any of it, and I'm not sure that recount is going to give us any clearer picture or allay many's distrust of the results.  

Basically what I'm saying is the structure of Trump's win is pretty unlikely and a hacked election would look much like this one does. It is remote that the Democrats can find both evidence of misdeeds and the votes to overturn Trump's election. However, a first step would be to uncover something in Wisconsin or Michigan, two states where the official margin was less than one percent.

[PseudoSABR]

 

Basically what I'm saying is the structure of Trump's win is pretty unlikely and a hacked election would look much like this one does. It is remote that the Democrats can find both evidence of misdeeds and the votes to overturn Trump's election. However, a first step would be to uncover something in Wisconsin or Michigan, two states where the official margin was less than one percent.

I worry that whatever the recounts (or other investigations) uncover will be paper-thin and circumstantial--leading to just enough wisps of hope that Democrats misdirect their efforts and resources--but hardly enough to affect the outcome of the election in any meaningful way.   

 

I think it's a mistake for Clinton to 'join' the recount efforts.  A third-party, maybe Russ Feingold,should provide oversight if it's needed.