Recount

[ThinkingWithMyDeac]

You guys don't know shit it's all cloud based, the votes are in the cloud and nobody understands it but one person. So If you have any questions about the cloud please direct them to RJ or you are just posting factless bullshit.

 

[DeacMan]

Maybe you've already posted it, but can you provide a link? This seems to refute what the professor in Michigan is saying, but maybe that is a difference among states and voting machine protocols.

Not only is there a difference between states, but even between different counties and different polling stations. For instance in Minneapolis I submit a bubble ballot that is then scanned by a machine. In some places the ballots are still done by hand. In others they have other somewhat mechanized methods. I did link the article. Further, I listened this morning to a long report on Minnesota Public Radio about voting in Wisconsin and it reiterated the very point the article I linked several pages ago made - you have to access to individual machines in Wisconsin if you want to hack them. Physical access. It makes the entire Stein narrative pointless.

 

[DeaconSig]

Hackerism is the new birtherism.

As much as you would like it to be so, no, it is not.

And again, this is coming from someone who thinks the recount is stupid.

 

[DeaconSig]

lol Sig are you really upset? This is message board relax buddy.

I know you think it is an easy out to deal with your ignorance of most topics on this board by playing the "you mad bro" card, but it is fairly lame.

Of course I am not mad. As you said, this is a message board. But then again, I am not the one repeatedly calling someone a dick or bitching about how folks don't know me well enough to talk about me, either.

 

[Deacs89]

I know you think it is an easy out to deal with your ignorance of most topics on this board by playing the "you mad bro" card, but it is fairly lame.

Of course I am not mad. As you said, this is a message board. But then again, I am not the one repeatedly calling someone a dick or bitching about how folks don't know me well enough to talk about me, either.

OK sig.

 

[Deacfreak07]

the article I saw didn't say i was right. It said its possible but highly unlikely to get the time to do it and go unnoticed.

I just wish you guys were this open to tampering and the infinite possibilities when Trump suggested the election being rigged. Its nice to have such vigilante people in a bipartisan effort.

We're vigilantes now! I call Batman!

 

[PhDeac]

Hackerism is the new birtherism.

You'll have a point if Jill Stein becomes President.

 

[MysteryMen]

We can't have anonymous people making a joke out of people with disabilities on a message board with maybe hundreds of readers. This will not stand.

I mean yeah. Nobody should be making a joke about disabilities ever. Just because Trump does it doesn't mean it's right for you to do it about his kid.

 

[MysteryMen]

The Left wing of the tunnels shift to use Trump logic is one of the more surprising developments of this election. If you can't beat em, join em I guess.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't generalize. A few people are and the rest are calling them out for it.

 

[MysteryMen]

Dems, take the tinfoil hats off.

That said, completely outside of the result, I would be in favor of recounts/audits of elections more generally (even when results aren't close) because they would probably produce useful data about our election system and potential flaws in it. While the Jill Stein effort probably won't change the result, it might discover info that could be used to make a better system going forward.

If routine audits/recounts had been done in the years leading up to 2000, maybe the butterfly ballot/hanging chad issues would have been discovered before they made a difference

 

[RChildress107]

If Clinton had achieved an improbable come from behind victory that few or no projection models had predicted.

Please stop, this gives Trump way too much credit. Betting markets and reputable poll aggregators gave Trump a fairly decent chance going into Election Day.

This was a shocking result because of who Donald J Trump is, not because it was completely unexpected.

 

[RChildress107]

The analogy I'm going for is:

Birtherism was an attempt to discredit Obama (and even overturn the election) based on flimsy evidence of his alleged foreign birth in the same way that hackerism is an attempt to discredit Trump (and even overturn the election) based on flimsy evidence of alleged hacking.

So that analogy will fit when Jill Stein refuses to accept that the 2016 election wasn't hacked while she is running for president in 2024.

 

[birdman]

Please stop, this gives Trump way too much credit. Betting markets and reputable poll aggregators gave Trump a fairly decent chance going into Election Day.

This was a shocking result because of who Donald J Trump is, not because it was completely unexpected.

I am not sure I understand this. Please explain.

The way I see it, even if states are correlated, there was still a small chance that he wins all five of MI,WI, PA, FL, and NC according to pre-election polling. Here is my math: 538 gave him .44 chance of winning FL and lets assume that NC and FL are pretty highly correlated and WI and MI are very highly correlated and PA is slightly less so but those northern states are not correlated with the southern states. The probability of Trump winning all 5 is something like P(FL)*P(NC|FL)*P(MI)*P(WI|MI)*P(PA|MI,WI). On Nov 7th 538 gave trump a 0.44 win probability in FL and a 0.21 win probability in MI. Let's say if FL goes Trump then NC had a 0.8 probably of also going Trump (independent probability was .44 on Nov 7th) and lets say that if MI goes Trump WI has a .9 probability (independently 0.16 on Nov 7) and PA has a .7 probability of going Trump (was 0.23 on Nov 7th) that comes out to 0.44*.8*.21*.9*.7 for a total of 0.0465 probability that he wins all 5. Slightly high then a simple even chance in each state and lots higher if take probabilities of each state on the day before the election and multiply them out. How would you do the math differently? If he'd won the EC by taking three of the five it would not seem like a big anomaly to me, but all five is improbable.

 

[WFU71]

I am not sure I understand this. Please explain.

The way I see it, even if states are correlated, there was still a small chance that he wins all five of MI,WI, PA, FL, and NC according to pre-election polling. Here is my math: 538 gave him .44 chance of winning FL and lets assume that NC and FL are pretty highly correlated and WI and MI are very highly correlated and PA is slightly less so but those northern states are not correlated with the southern states. The probability of Trump winning all 5 is something like P(FL)*P(NC|FL)*P(MI)*P(WI|MI)*P(PA|MI,WI). On Nov 7th 538 gave trump a 0.44 win probability in FL and a 0.21 win probability in MI. Let's say if FL goes Trump then NC had a 0.8 probably of also going Trump (independent probability was .44 on Nov 7th) and lets say that if MI goes Trump WI has a .9 probability (independently 0.16 on Nov 7) and PA has a .7 probability of going Trump (was 0.23 on Nov 7th) that comes out to 0.44*.8*.21*.9*.7 for a total of 0.0465 probability that he wins all 5. Slightly high then a simple even chance in each state and lots higher if take probabilities of each state on the day before the election and multiply them out. How would you do the math differently? If he'd won the EC by taking three of the five it would not seem like a big anomaly to me, but all five is improbable.

Gee, I wish I had sat next to someone like you in Stats.

 

[jhmd2000]

I mean yeah. Nobody should be making a joke about disabilities ever. Just because Trump does it doesn't mean it's right for you to do it about his kid.

Good for you, MM. Respect.

 

[myDeaconmyhand]

I'm against the recount, but Trump isn't helping his case by claiming that there were millions of illegal votes. If that is true then we should definitely have a recount.

 

[Coach O]

Gee, I wish I had sat next to someone like you in Stats.

Seriously. Where was bird man when I was failing Physics 113?

 

[birdman]

Seriously. Where was bird man when I was failing Physics 113?

I think I took that class in spring of '98, maybe '97 though.

 

[WFFaithful]

LIBERAL GEORGE SOROS provides the voting machines for all these swing states! We can never be sure what is happening here.

We have to fight against voter fraud and the possiblity that the left is going to try and steal this election for Hillary. We know what she and her DNC cronies did to Bernie.

George Soros, the shadowy billionaire who personally funds much of the far-left, has sent a crony out to rig this election. His tentacles are all over Hillary and the Democrats. Nothing in that sphere happens without him personally controlling it or knowing about it.

Here is the proof that Hillary and Soros are out to control and manipulate the election for their own benefit:

InSmartmatic, the troubled Venezuelan-linked voting company recent partnered up (late 2014) with a firm called SGO. SGO is headed up by one Lord Mark Malloch-Brown. Brown, as it turns out, is a rather curious and troubling figure. Brown, you should know, has close ties to George Soros and rents a Soros owned house in New York. Brown gets a sweetheart deal at only $10,000 a month. He also serves as the VP of Soros’ hedge fund the Quantum Fund. In
the US, Smartmatic has offered technology and support services to the Electoral Commissions of 307 counties in 16 States:
Arizona California Colorado District of Columbia Florida Illinois Louisiana Michigan Missouri New Jersey Nevada Oregon Pennsylvania Virginia Washington Wisconsin
Those are key states. Soros and his lackies can’t be allowed to steal our democracy from under us! We have to stand together and say enough!



Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/george-soros-hillary-clinton-voter-fraud/#ixzz4RSIifOQ0

 

[RChildress107]

I am not sure I understand this. Please explain.

The way I see it, even if states are correlated, there was still a small chance that he wins all five of MI,WI, PA, FL, and NC according to pre-election polling. Here is my math: 538 gave him .44 chance of winning FL and lets assume that NC and FL are pretty highly correlated and WI and MI are very highly correlated and PA is slightly less so but those northern states are not correlated with the southern states. The probability of Trump winning all 5 is something like P(FL)*P(NC|FL)*P(MI)*P(WI|MI)*P(PA|MI,WI). On Nov 7th 538 gave trump a 0.44 win probability in FL and a 0.21 win probability in MI. Let's say if FL goes Trump then NC had a 0.8 probably of also going Trump (independent probability was .44 on Nov 7th) and lets say that if MI goes Trump WI has a .9 probability (independently 0.16 on Nov 7) and PA has a .7 probability of going Trump (was 0.23 on Nov 7th) that comes out to 0.44*.8*.21*.9*.7 for a total of 0.0465 probability that he wins all 5. Slightly high then a simple even chance in each state and lots higher if take probabilities of each state on the day before the election and multiply them out. How would you do the math differently? If he'd won the EC by taking three of the five it would not seem like a big anomaly to me, but all five is improbable.

Why don't we just go with the professional statisticians you got your numbers from in the first place and agree that it all comes out to trump having a 1-in-3 chance heading into election night.