Recount

[DeaconSig]

You'll have to forgive MM. He's not taking this loss well. I think he's buying into the baseless speculation about the person he doesn't like's child's health.

Making fun of Barron is despicable.

Good thing only the left does that. Its not like people (including the next leader of the free world, mind you) questioned the current President's citizenship, his sexuality, whether his wife was actually a woman, etc.

 

[jhmd2000]

Making fun of Barron is despicable.

Good thing only the left does that. Its not like people (including the next leader of the free world, mind you) questioned the current President's citizenship, his sexuality, whether his wife was actually a woman, etc.

You don't even have to go that far. There was that bit about the reporter's health. As far as looks go, neither DD not DT come off great here.

 

[birdman]

By the way, Trump's tweet about millions of fraudulent voters is in the same category as Stein's statements. It's a claim without any evidence that tends to undermine confidence in the system.

I believe it is in a different category. Stein is latching on to an, admittedly, pretty far out there explanation of anomalies in polling data. The hacked voting machine was proposed as a way to explain huge errors in pre-election polling. There were several battle ground states, and a few toss-ups, according to the polling data, and Trump won all but one of them. That is really, really improbable and so some people (statisticians) are offering explanations as to why/how we had such an improbable outcome. If polling were indicating even odds in MI, FL, PA, WI, and NC, Trump would have a 0.03125 chance of winning all five. But polling indicated that it wasn't even odds, Clinton was ahead in PA, MI, and WI and had been for weeks, so Trump had an even smaller chance of winning all five states. One explanation is that the polls were wrong, and that's fine, maybe there were data collection errors or data analysis errors. Another explanation is that there were some big errors in the vote counting on Election Day. Both of those are, in my opinion until we have data or thorough analyisis , reasonable explanations for a really big ststistical anomaly, and Stein et al. have latched on to one of those explanations.

Trump's comments on the other hand are straight up cocaine fueled hysteria. There was no observed phenomenon or statistical anomaly that needed explanation. It is not like Clinton was projected to lose the popular vote by a couple million but she turned around and won it by 2 million. Trump offered a crazy explanation where one was not required.

 

[BobStackFan4Life]

Is Barron special needs in real life? Or is this is a totally out of line special needs joke

There has been speculation from Rosie O Donnell and others that Barron is autistic. That sort of speculation seems cruel and way out of line to me. Trump is fair game, but leave his son out of it.

 

[RChildress107]

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/802972944532209664

Donald Trump claims millions of people voted illegally...seems like that might warrant a recount and an audit of the election results.

As bad as the "millions of illegal votes" claim is, I don't think it should be overlooked that Trump doesn't know what the word landslide means. He won the EC by ~ 100,000 votes spread across 3 states and his EC margin is the 4th smallest in the last 100 years.

 

[RChildress107]

Is Barron special needs in real life? Or is this is a totally out of line special needs joke

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.

 

[RChildress107]

If polling were indicating even odds in MI, FL, PA, WI, and NC, Trump would have a 0.03125 chance of winning all five. But polling indicated that it wasn't even odds, Clinton was ahead in PA, MI, and WI and had been for weeks, so Trump had an even smaller chance of winning all five states.

If I have to read this one more fucking time...

1. We have no idea what the odds were. Elections aren't purely random events like coin flips. But let's assume for a moment that polls or betting markets can set accurate odds for elections.

2. Statewide presidential elections aren't independent. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania (to a lesser extent) were highly correlated. A 30% chance of winning each would not mean a 2.7% chance of winning all 3. If the states were perfectly correlated it would mean a 30% chance of winning all 3.

This is part of the reason 538 gave Trump a ~35% chance of winning (which is like being a something like a 4 point dog in the NFL). An upset for sure but it's not the Chamimade of elections some are making it out to be.

 

[Wrangor]

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

 

[ThinkingWithMyDeac]

I hope the democrats get on the disinformation train. The Medicaid and Medicaid changes coming, Obamacare, throw out commercials about how old people are left to die behind dumpsters because of Paul Ryan, start spreading that false shit. Phase out really means death, and they are just phasing out seniors and not Medicare.

 

[DeacMan]

Hell that's 2 years rent that the Secret Service could use to PAY Trump to rent 2 floors in Trump Tower, or 6 days of NYC tax payers' money protecting Melania and Barron because they want to stay in NYC not the White House. 6 Mil buys a lot of Secret Service agents' tickets on Trump's 757, which will be PAYED to Trump also btw. I understand every President needs protection and it's tremendously expensive, but most Presidents don't personally benefit financially from that protection.

6 million dollars to check and see if our current electoral process is secure sounds like a bargain.

How we spend money in one area has zero to do with whether we are wasting it in another area.

And spending 6 million dollars on a recount that won't overturn the election is, without question, a waste.

It amazes me how people (you apparently included) never dig below the surface on stories like these. Her premise is essentially that the Russians stepped in and hacked the election. OK. Let's ask one basic question - like whether that is even fucking possible. So this morning I did a tiny bit of digging. It took all of ten minutes. As noted by a University of Wisconsin professor (hardly a bastion of conservatism is Madison) to the Milwaukee paper, Wisconsin voting machines are not connected to any communications network. That makes "hacking" the machines by the Russians very unlikely less you believe the KGB have unfettered physical access to the machines. Again, unless the KGB has agents on the ground across dozens of counties in Wisconsin and dozens and dozens of voting locations, they couldn't "hack" the machines.

Here's the exact quote from the article - UW-Madison's Burden said hacking Wisconsin's voting machines would be extremely difficult because they are not connected to the internet. "They would have to go machine by machine around the state," he said of those who would try to manipulate the results. And here is the article. http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/.../25/recount-would-have-move-quickly/94417686/

We need not go any further. Trump has 306 electoral votes. Even if I were to hand over PA and MI to him on the grounds the Russians could have hacked those states (for which even Stein admits we have no current evidence) he'd still have 270 by holding onto WI where the facts on the ground completely disprove her speculative narrative is even possible.

So what is it, exactly, the recount is really trying to confirm? Nothing. What is the real aim? To throw the electoral college into a frenzy. Even the White House is making statements about how this is stupid. It's stupid and it's a waste of time and money.

 

[birdman]

If I have to read this one more fucking time...

1. We have no idea what the odds were. Elections aren't purely random events like coin flips. But let's assume for a moment that polls or betting markets can set accurate odds for elections.

2. Statewide presidential elections aren't independent. Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania (to a lesser extent) were highly correlated. A 30% chance of winning each would not mean a 2.7% chance of winning all 3. If the states were perfectly correlated it would mean a 30% chance of winning all 3.

This is part of the reason 538 gave Trump a ~35% chance of winning (which is like being a something like a 4 point dog in the NFL). An upset for sure but it's not the Chamimade of elections some are making it out to be.

The first point is simply wrong. We do have an idea what the odds were. That's what polling data is supposed to be for, to estimate the odds. Elections are not purely equal probability coin flips, they are weighted coin flips and polling data are supposed to estimate the weights of each out come.

Your second point is largely correct that states are correlated. But all the pre election polling data indicated that they were correlated In the other direction. I accept the notion that if WI goes one way there is an increased probability that MI will go the same way but they are not one for one correlated and the probability that Trump wins all but one of the battle grounds and toss ups is really unlikely.

I think there are are two reasonable conclusions here, the pre election polling data were very wrong and suffered from significant sampling error (e.g. Improperly estimated the proportion of undecideds, failed to effectively sample rural populations, assumed likely voter probabilities were wrong) or there was a big counting error of the actual votes. The first conclusion is pretty difficult to test, quickly anyway, but a study could be designed to investigate sampling errors or invalid analytical assumptions. the second conclusion would be pretty easy to test quickly and before the EC vote takes place next month by investigating the voting machines or or examine the cast ballots.

 

[DeacMan]

The first point is simply wrong. We do have an idea what the odds were. That's what polling data is supposed to be for, to estimate the odds. Elections are not purely equal probability coin flips, they are weighted coin flips and polling data are supposed to estimate the weights of each out come.

Your second point is largely correct that states are correlated. But all the pre election polling data indicated that they were correlated In the other direction. I accept the notion that if WI goes one way there is an increased probability that MI will go the same way but they are not one for one correlated and the probability that Trump wins all but one of the battle grounds and toss ups is really unlikely.

I think there are are two reasonable conclusions here, the pre election polling data were very wrong and suffered from significant sampling error (e.g. Improperly estimated the proportion of undecideds, failed to effectively sample rural populations, assumed likely voter probabilities were wrong) or there was a big counting error of the actual votes. The first conclusion is pretty difficult to test, quickly anyway, but a study could be designed to investigate sampling errors or invalid analytical assumptions. the second conclusion would be pretty easy to test quickly and before the EC vote takes place next month by investigating the voting machines or or examine the cast ballots.

Do you buy into the logic that the voting machines may have been "hacked"?

 

[DeaconSig]

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

The longer you live in Mississippi, the more simplistic you get.

But feel free to keep espousing horseshit about "the left wing."

 

[RJKarl]

It really is amazing to watch democrats become the know-nothings they claim to despise right before our very eyes.

As opposed to the know-nothing President-Elect who wants make flag-burning a federal crime and thinks the POTUS cannot commit a conflict of interest.

Or as opposed to know-nothing steel workers in PA, OH, WI, MI who voted for a guy who put them out of jobs by buying inferior Chinese steel while promising to bring back their jobs.

Or as opposed to the know-nothing auto workers in PA, OH, WI MI who voted for a guy whose position was to let the US auto industry go BK, fire them and rehire fewer of them at lower wages with few or no benefits. They believed his BS that he supports them.

 

[RChildress107]

The first point is simply wrong. We do have an idea what the odds were. That's what polling data is supposed to be for, to estimate the odds. Elections are not purely equal probability coin flips, they are weighted coin flips and polling data are supposed to estimate the weights of each out come.

Your second point is largely correct that states are correlated. But all the pre election polling data indicated that they were correlated In the other direction. I accept the notion that if WI goes one way there is an increased probability that MI will go the same way but they are not one for one correlated and the probability that Trump wins all but one of the battle grounds and toss ups is really unlikely.

I think there are are two reasonable conclusions here, the pre election polling data were very wrong and suffered from significant sampling error (e.g. Improperly estimated the proportion of undecideds, failed to effectively sample rural populations, assumed likely voter probabilities were wrong) or there was a big counting error of the actual votes. The first conclusion is pretty difficult to test, quickly anyway, but a study could be designed to investigate sampling errors or invalid analytical assumptions. the second conclusion would be pretty easy to test quickly and before the EC vote takes place next month by investigating the voting machines or or examine the cast ballots.

Or the polling data indicated Trump's odds weren't that long, and the polls were wrong in very predictable ways. 538 consistently had Trump at around 35% and repeatedly reported that one of his more likely paths to victory would be winning uneducated white voters in the Midwest by huge margins.

Trump was a relatively slight underdog that executed his "keys to the game" while Hillary did not. You don't need voter fraud to explain this election.

 

[birdman]

Do you buy into the logic that the voting machines may have been "hacked"?

Not really, I think it is far more likely that the preelection polling data were flawed. However, given the stakes of inaugurating the wrong person and the ease of testing the hypothesis that the machines were hacked, I don't see why we would suppress the effort to explore the the improbable hacking hypothesis. Especially given the fact that there is an unprecedented difference in the popular vote and the EC vote.

 

[birdman]

Or the polling data indicated Trump's odds weren't that long, and the polls were wrong in very predictable ways. 538 consistently had Trump at around 35% and repeatedly reported that one of his more likely paths to victory would be winning uneducated white voters in the Midwest by huge margins.

Trump was a relatively slight underdog that executed his "keys to the game" while Hillary did not. You don't need voter fraud to explain this election.

Sure, you don't need voter fraud to explain the election out come. I've laid out two possible explanations, one is more likely than the other, but the less likely one is easier to test before the inauguration, so why not.

 

[FuckmouthedRube]

By the way, Trump's tweet about millions of fraudulent voters is in the same category as Stein's statements. It's a claim without any evidence that tends to undermine confidence in the system.

Agreed, why does he care? Won a solid EC victory which is how the game is played. Why bother marginalizing his own victory? Jill Stein is a clown, no need for Trump to follow her lead with zero evidence. Trump spent last night retweeting stupid shit. Bagging on SNL and Hamilton is petty and ridiculous, but has nothing to do with governing.

 

[DeacMan]

Not really, I think it is far more likely that the preelection polling data were flawed. However, given the stakes of inaugurating the wrong person and the ease of testing the hypothesis that the machines were hacked, I don't see why we would suppress the effort to explore the the improbable hacking hypothesis. Especially given the fact that there is an unprecedented difference in the popular vote and the EC vote.

So what is the hypothesis the machines were hacked? By the Russians?

 

[RChildress107]

How we spend money in one area has zero to do with whether we are wasting it in another area.

And spending 6 million dollars on a recount that won't overturn the election is, without question, a waste.

It amazes me how people (you apparently included) never dig below the surface on stories like these. Her premise is essentially that the Russians stepped in and hacked the election. OK. Let's ask one basic question - like whether that is even fucking possible. So this morning I did a tiny bit of digging. It took all of ten minutes. As noted by a University of Wisconsin professor (hardly a bastion of conservatism is Madison) to the Milwaukee paper, Wisconsin voting machines are not connected to any communications network. That makes "hacking" the machines by the Russians very unlikely less you believe the KGB have unfettered physical access to the machines. Again, unless the KGB has agents on the ground across dozens of counties in Wisconsin and dozens and dozens of voting locations, they couldn't "hack" the machines.

Here's the exact quote from the article - UW-Madison's Burden said hacking Wisconsin's voting machines would be extremely difficult because they are not connected to the internet. "They would have to go machine by machine around the state," he said of those who would try to manipulate the results. And here is the article. http://www.jsonline.com/story/news/.../25/recount-would-have-move-quickly/94417686/

We need not go any further. Trump has 306 electoral votes. Even if I were to hand over PA and MI to him on the grounds the Russians could have hacked those states (for which even Stein admits we have no current evidence) he'd still have 270 by holding onto WI where the facts on the ground completely disprove her speculative narrative is even possible.

So what is it, exactly, the recount is really trying to confirm? Nothing. What is the real aim? To throw the electoral college into a frenzy. Even the White House is making statements about how this is stupid. It's stupid and it's a waste of time and money.

I agree the whole thing is ridiculous, but I will point out that if ISIS can send terrorists across the Mexican border at will then I would guess Russia could pretty easily send operatives across the Canadian border.

I would hope most liberals see this as a publicity stunt with no chance at changing the outcome of the election. To the extent Stein and those supporting the recount are actually hoping to find something, I don't think it is Russian hackers.

I think they are really hoping to find small scale voter fraud or vote tampering by rogue trump supporters at the local level or maybe even something they could tie back to the Trump campaign. It's way easier politically to say you are looking for Russian Hackers than to say you think Trump or his people cheated, though the latter is much more probable.

For the record there is no evidence for either claim and I don't think either one happened (and certainly not on a scale large enough to swing the election), but I do think that's an underlying motive for some people.