2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumDO IT NOW HILLARY WI DEADLINE IS FRIDAY
Thank God this is getting REAL attention. Just now from the Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/hillary-clinton-election-vote-recount-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin?utm_source=esp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=GU+Today+USA+-+morning+briefing+2016&utm_term=201120&subid=17536001&CMP=ema_a-morning-briefing_b-morning-briefing_c-US_d-1
madaboutharry
(40,224 posts)The democrats will behave like their usually compliant selves and roll over. She wouldn't get the support she needs for the fight.
LisaL
(44,974 posts)She already conceded the election.
Although with margins so close in three states, I am pretty sure she could have officially requested a recount.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)because there's nothing there.
DURHAM D
(32,611 posts)proving it is a whole other matter.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)While he does say that a recount should be done in order to validate the numbers, he also says:
You may have read at NYMag that Ive been in discussions with the Clinton campaign about whether it might wish to seek recounts in critical states. That article, which includes somebody elses description of my views, incorrectly describes the reasons manually checking ballots is an essential security safeguard (and includes some incorrect numbers, to boot). Let me set the record straight about what I and other leading election security experts have actually been saying to the campaign and everyone else whos willing to listen.
Someone took what he said, misrepresented and used bogus numbers to boot? Shocker!
*snip*
Were this years deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked. But I dont believe that either one of these seemingly unlikely explanations is overwhelmingly more likely than the other. The only way to know whether a cyberattack changed the result is to closely examine the available physical evidence paper ballots and voting equipment in critical states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, nobody is ever going to examine that evidence unless candidates in those states act now, in the next several days, to petition for recounts.
The entire article is a very good read, and really makes the case for paper ballots or electronic ballots with voter-verifiable paper receipt.
Bob41213
(491 posts)Say it isn't so? I'm shocked. I'd be even more shocked if it didn't happen every election.
dragonlady
(3,577 posts)Democratic senator Jennifer Shilling ended up with only 56 votes more than her opponent out of over 87,000 cast. He has filed for a recount. Even if a full recount of the state doesn't happen, this would be a golden opportunity to have Democratic witnesses observe the votes for president while recounting the senate race. This district is in the LaCrosse area in western Wisconsin.
Buckeye_Democrat
(14,858 posts)If fraud that could turn the electoral college is proven, it will happen too late.
Michael Moore can make a movie about it, however, and liberal arts majors can sip lattes as they discuss the film and the ignorant working class in flyover states... so there's that.
triron
(22,023 posts)election was stolen
jmg257
(11,996 posts)saying it isn't likely, but Hillary should go ahead before its too late.
"While its important to note the group has not found proof of hacking or manipulation, they are arguing to the campaign that the suspicious pattern merits an independent review...".
"Some data scientists and political statisticians, including FiveThirtyEights Nate Silver and The New York Times Nate Cohn, cast doubt on the claims, which compared voting in counties that used paper ballots with those that used electronic machines. Silver and Cohn said the suspicious results disappear when controlling for demographic factors like race and education"
"Were this years deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked."
Alex Halderman
Hurry!
triron
(22,023 posts)to exercise caution about insinuations. I know being a retired scientist myself. Don't try to read to much into how they guard what they say. They are essentially notifying the Clinton camp that something looks fishy. Up to the campaign to initiate anything. I think they should.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)contrary to their laws actually mean something...politically and financially.
Better be damn more sure then "Probably not".
triron
(22,023 posts)If you mean what I think you do. Only an audit (or recount in some cases) can accomplish this.
UCmeNdc
(9,601 posts)But it seems she is not a fighter.