Fidel Castro just died. I wonder if that had happened earlier it might have taken the wind out of the more right-wing Cuban floridians.
Castro likely hadn't been an influential figure for many years.
Honestly, I figure by the time people get to the age we're talking about their political leanings are half article of faith anyways. For something like the whole Cuba situation especially.
So a recount will probably confirm the results we already have.
What exactly is the problem with recounting?
The reinforced message of authority given to Trump. This is political capital being wheel barrowed over to him.
is it though
isn't the worst-case scenario "trump did indeed win the election, as we all thought"
jill stein might forfeit some credibility? but no-one was taking her seriously to begin with
Well, I mean the worst case scenario is, "We've discovered widespread infiltration of our voting systems. The whole thing is fucked, GG," because that will lead to a shitshow of unprecedented proportions.
The next worse case is, yes, that the system re-confirms Trump's victory. Which is just bad. It isn't 'OH MY GOD SO TERRIBLE!', but it's still purely bad optics for those looking for the recount & positive optics for Trump. It is a terrible idea.
The more evidence of fraud/miscounting that is found, the more divided the country will become.
If a state flips, it'll be mass chaos. Doesn't matter that it wouldn't change the result, absolutely no one will trust the results of the election or any other going forward. There will be riots.
If all is well, then great, but if he won via cheating in a single state then regardless of how much chaos it might cause we have to know. Otherwise the same will occur next time, and then we'll have much worse than riots.
The only state he could won the whole election in if it was fraudulent is Texas. Has to be all three of MI/WI/PA.
I'm saying if he won the Electoral votes of a single state via cheating or corruption then we must know. I agree the chances of coordinated cheating across three states are slim at best. But winning one state by cheating? That would be disastrous enough by itself to be worth 5 million dollars.
And you know what? Our resources verge on the infinite. 5 million dollars is nothing other than for he fact we seem unwilling to deploy them.
1. The electors are mostly partisans, activists selected by state parties and assigned to the winning candidate. In other words, these aren't independent folks moved by "conscience," they are there to lock in the vote for the person who won. Yes, there have been so-called "faithless electors," and there very well may be again. But there wouldn't likely be close to enough to change the outcome in key states.
It's hard to say her campaign was that bad when she's winning by two million votes. Just overconfidence in her numbers in traditionally blue states. I imagine we'll see more conservative (heh) campaigns for quite some time instead of trying to flip southern states for some bullshit mandate.
It's hard to say her campaign was that bad when she's winning by two million votes. Just overconfidence in her numbers in traditionally blue states. I imagine we'll see more conservative (heh) campaigns for quite some time instead of trying to flip southern states for some bullshit mandate.
She's winning by millions of votes in deeply blue states. Which is awesome, but still lost her the election.
We've heard how Wisconsion was underfunded. They could have done more for those states.
It's hard to say her campaign was that bad when she's winning by two million votes. Just overconfidence in her numbers in traditionally blue states. I imagine we'll see more conservative (heh) campaigns for quite some time instead of trying to flip southern states for some bullshit mandate.
She's winning by millions of votes in deeply blue states. Which is awesome, but still lost her the election.
We've heard how Wisconsion was underfunded. They could have done more for those states.
I saw this article today which seemed interesting.
Apparently a party chairman in Ohio warned her campaign about what she needed to focus her message on there and the campaign never responded or listened to the advice in any meaningful way.
In an election where Russia was very intentionally trying to interfere, and with America's obsession with ridiculous electronic voting machines (hint: any system not based on paper and pen is liable for automated corruption), pouring some scrutiny on your system just seems like a good idea.
It's hard to say her campaign was that bad when she's winning by two million votes. Just overconfidence in her numbers in traditionally blue states. I imagine we'll see more conservative (heh) campaigns for quite some time instead of trying to flip southern states for some bullshit mandate.
She's winning by millions of votes in deeply blue states. Which is awesome, but still lost her the election.
We've heard how Wisconsion was underfunded. They could have done more for those states.
I think that unfortunately they gambled that say, 1/100 Republicans might be turned off by voting for a idiotic bigot and that this was their chance to truly obliterate the Republicans. Then they fell victim to a brutal series of partisan lies designed to hurt them over nothing in the fading weeks (fbi director should be in jail ) and it all fell apart.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
+21
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
It's hard to say her campaign was that bad when she's winning by two million votes. Just overconfidence in her numbers in traditionally blue states. I imagine we'll see more conservative (heh) campaigns for quite some time instead of trying to flip southern states for some bullshit mandate.
She's winning by millions of votes in deeply blue states. Which is awesome, but still lost her the election.
We've heard how Wisconsion was underfunded. They could have done more for those states.
I think that unfortunately they gambled that say, 1/100 Republicans might be turned off by voting for a idiotic bigot and that this was their chance to truly obliterate the Republicans. Then they fell victim to a brutal series of partisan lies designed to hurt them over nothing in the fading weeks (fbi director should be in jail ) and it all fell apart.
let's not forget that there was apparently a, I'll call them a group, of FBI agents who were very anti-Hillary as well. It wasn't just Comey, there were people in the lower rungs of the ladder pushing for something to be done.
Now it shouldn't matter, it really shouldn't matter but boyhowdy the FBI has already proven it can't keep it's nose out of the fucking election. What's not to say that they -didn't- help rig the election? I know it's basically a conspiracy theory but it's 2016 and damn if there already isn't a hint of shit about this entire election.
The only possible concern I have is that we're going to learn that five people got their votes counted twice, and that will be used to kick start more voter ID laws.
But I do think the downsides here are pretty minor.
Though, to be fair, so are the upsides.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
It's hard to say her campaign was that bad when she's winning by two million votes. Just overconfidence in her numbers in traditionally blue states. I imagine we'll see more conservative (heh) campaigns for quite some time instead of trying to flip southern states for some bullshit mandate.
She's winning by millions of votes in deeply blue states. Which is awesome, but still lost her the election.
We've heard how Wisconsion was underfunded. They could have done more for those states.
I think that unfortunately they gambled that say, 1/100 Republicans might be turned off by voting for a idiotic bigot and that this was their chance to truly obliterate the Republicans. Then they fell victim to a brutal series of partisan lies designed to hurt them over nothing in the fading weeks (fbi director should be in jail ) and it all fell apart.
let's not forget that there was apparently a, I'll call them a group, of FBI agents who were very anti-Hillary as well. It wasn't just Comey, there were people in the lower rungs of the ladder pushing for something to be done.
Now it shouldn't matter, it really shouldn't matter but boyhowdy the FBI has already proven it can't keep it's nose out of the fucking election. What's not to say that they -didn't- help rig the election? I know it's basically a conspiracy theory but it's 2016 and damn if there already isn't a hint of shit about this entire election.
All of this is true, but at the same point, this shouldn't be used to deflect from the fact that Clinton and her team apparently completely ignored large swaths of the country, despite evidence to the contrary. But that's a whole other argument. It's just too frequently (valid) criticism of the media and other aspects of the campaign are used to shield and deflect equally valid criticism of Clinton, which doesn't help anyone in the future.
The only possible concern I have is that we're going to learn that five people got their votes counted twice, and that will be used to kick start more voter ID laws.
But I do think the downsides here are pretty minor.
Though, to be fair, so are the upsides.
Yep, it's mostly just a waste of money that thankfully is being done by fringe Jill Stein so the democrats can totally absolve themselves of it.
1. What I am about to describe will not happen.
2. What I am about to describe WILL. NOT. HAPPEN.
That being said, I am curious about one thing (and I realize the answer will probably be "we're in uncharted territories, so who the fuck knows?" Let's say that evidence of tampering with electronic voting machines is found in, say, Wisconsin. Enough to flip to Clinton, so there's a lot of attention paid to it. Warrants are issued for the company who manufactured them, and in an audit, evidence is found linking members of the voting machine company to "donations" from the Koch brothers, and it goes back further than just this election - say, back to Scott Walker's initial election as Governor (or the recount, or pick your favorite other previous election.) Enough that there is evidence that there was tampering, but we don't know how much, nor if it made any difference in the outcome.
Obviously, a recall should be immediate, but what of legislation which was passed/people who were appointed under the administration of individuals who were found to be elected under corrupt/cheating circumstances? Would any appointees immediately be removed from office? Would the laws be stricken from the books or need to be challenged in court (and would they stand if challenged?) Like, this is a completely ridiculous hill of beans, and like I said, it WILL. NOT. HAPPEN. The thought just occurred, and I wonder what the FUCK the actual appropriate outcome would be?
In a similar vein at the national scale, let's say that the evidence for overturning one or more states is found, but after the electors vote. The electoral vote will have occurred - will it stand? What if the evidence is found after inauguration. Would it stand?
I think the biggest question I have is what if one state was subject to large scale voter fraud tied to the republican party; it's not enough to flip the EC math for hillary but is a clear indictment of the republican party...
What happens then?
0
Options
TraceGNU Terry Pratchett; GNU Gus; GNU Carrie Fisher; GNU Adam WeRegistered Userregular
It's hard to say her campaign was that bad when she's winning by two million votes. Just overconfidence in her numbers in traditionally blue states. I imagine we'll see more conservative (heh) campaigns for quite some time instead of trying to flip southern states for some bullshit mandate.
She's winning by millions of votes in deeply blue states. Which is awesome, but still lost her the election.
We've heard how Wisconsion was underfunded. They could have done more for those states.
I think that unfortunately they gambled that say, 1/100 Republicans might be turned off by voting for a idiotic bigot and that this was their chance to truly obliterate the Republicans. Then they fell victim to a brutal series of partisan lies designed to hurt them over nothing in the fading weeks (fbi director should be in jail ) and it all fell apart.
let's not forget that there was apparently a, I'll call them a group, of FBI agents who were very anti-Hillary as well. It wasn't just Comey, there were people in the lower rungs of the ladder pushing for something to be done.
Now it shouldn't matter, it really shouldn't matter but boyhowdy the FBI has already proven it can't keep it's nose out of the fucking election. What's not to say that they -didn't- help rig the election? I know it's basically a conspiracy theory but it's 2016 and damn if there already isn't a hint of shit about this entire election.
All of this is true, but at the same point, this shouldn't be used to deflect from the fact that Clinton and her team apparently completely ignored large swaths of the country, despite evidence to the contrary. But that's a whole other argument. It's just too frequently (valid) criticism of the media and other aspects of the campaign are used to shield and deflect equally valid criticism of Clinton, which doesn't help anyone in the future.
I think in that case, the rule of law breaks down and we're in riots-in-the-streets territory. That would basically invalidate large swaths of our government; there's not really a contingency for "nevermind the last half decade of governance."
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think the biggest question I have is what if one state was subject to large scale voter fraud tied to the republican party; it's not enough to flip the EC math for hillary but is a clear indictment of the republican party...
What happens then?
The state flips, different electors go, people shit on the Republican Party, and Republicans line up to vote for them in the midterms. Just like every other election, regardless of who they put forward.
I think the biggest question I have is what if one state was subject to large scale voter fraud tied to the republican party; it's not enough to flip the EC math for hillary but is a clear indictment of the republican party...
What happens then?
Nothing. Fox doesn't report on it so GOP supporters never find out.
Based on the fact Jill stein seemed to be part of the little super billion group of Putin Julian Asange and stein...
I expect Jill to raise enough money to recount Michigan and Wisconsin but not Pa.
Then both those states will flip after a manual recount exposes tampering by a likely foreign agent. leaving trump the presidency but everyone knowing PA likely is tampered too, causing America to tear itself apart and Putin to buy a bouncy castle to celebrate his ultimate victory over the West
Based on the fact Jill stein seemed to be part of the little super billion group of Putin Julian Asange and stein...
I expect Jill to raise enough money to recount Michigan and Wisconsin but not Pa.
Then both those states will flip after a manual recount exposes tampering by a likely foreign agent. leaving trump the presidency but everyone knowing PA likely is tampered too, causing America to tear itself apart and Putin to buy a bouncy castle to celebrate his ultimate victory over the West
Just going to throw this out there - if any state flips with evidence of tampering, fuck deadlines, every state in the union should have a recount. Every. One.
Cost doesn't matter. Integrity of the vote matters, and that will have been lost. The only way to restore it is to ensure the count. Everywhere.
Reminder that ballot stuffing is exceedingly rare, and the GOP's preferred way to rig elections is via suppression. And that's way harder to prove.
I imagine Clinton is glad Stein is stepping up to the plate here, because other she'd be doing what we all got on Trump's case for back in October.
I doubt Clinton would bother.
There's some anomalies, but they're not unexplainable. I imagine Clinton's people would have seen that.
Though I have much less faith in Clinton's people now.
God, remember when everyone was gushing about her unparalleled ground game? I feel lied to on some level.
I'm trying to separate myself from these threads, but I do have to post in response to this.
We can't know the effect of the ground game because there was an enormous shift in the race in the last 2 weeks due to Comey ratfucking the election. There are reports that Clinton lost 3-4 points of support in the last 3 days after Comey cleared her. She probably would have recovered most of these had it not been literally 3 days before the election, but it's not an accident that 2 states thought to be relatively safe democrat wins and ended up surprising close losses in MI and PA have no early vote.
Based on the fact Jill stein seemed to be part of the little super billion group of Putin Julian Asange and stein...
I expect Jill to raise enough money to recount Michigan and Wisconsin but not Pa.
Then both those states will flip after a manual recount exposes tampering by a likely foreign agent. leaving trump the presidency but everyone knowing PA likely is tampered too, causing America to tear itself apart and Putin to buy a bouncy castle to celebrate his ultimate victory over the West
Just going to throw this out there - if any state flips with evidence of tampering, fuck deadlines, every state in the union should have a recount. Every. One.
Cost doesn't matter. Integrity of the vote matters, and that will have been lost. The only way to restore it is to ensure the count. Everywhere.
Agreed. And frankly the cost isn't THAT big of a deal if it's federal funded.
Let's be honest, the federal government has a budget measured in trillions. The cost to do a full recount is a rounding error on that scale.
Reminder that ballot stuffing is exceedingly rare, and the GOP's preferred way to rig elections is via suppression. And that's way harder to prove.
I imagine Clinton is glad Stein is stepping up to the plate here, because other she'd be doing what we all got on Trump's case for back in October.
I doubt Clinton would bother.
There's some anomalies, but they're not unexplainable. I imagine Clinton's people would have seen that.
Though I have much less faith in Clinton's people now.
God, remember when everyone was gushing about her unparalleled ground game? I feel lied to on some level.
yeah what happened with all that stuff
was it just like, not true
It wasn't true at all, and this is the problem with liberals in general: When someone they trust feeds them a line of bullshit they gobble it up quickly and believe it in their hearts. It's like they are incapable of believing anyone on the left would lie to them. Clinton is no one you should trust.
I know my party lies all the time and spouts a bunch of bullshit, but at least I don't go believing any of it or cheerleading everything they stand for without doing my due diligence.
Democrats need to accept the possibility there may never be a viable Democratic President as good and as clean as Barack Obama ever again.
Upside to a recount, if tampering is found with the voting machines, it makes it much easier pass laws preventing people from using the shitty things; especially, since fucking slots machines have more security the shitty voting machines. Fuck the GOP for making those a thing, when everything points to them being a fucking terrible idea, even when one doesn't have their head up their ass on computer security.
I'd also would think if foreign tampering to be prevalent to the point that it altered results. We might see some of the GOP loyalty break down. I imagine some of the old cold war hawks and possible new ones, if they exist, will not stand to have Trump in the white house at that point. I mean if foreign involvement is found, I think everyone is going to agree that Russia is involved. Maybe we'll also find time to place even more crippling sanctions on Russia.
Reminder that ballot stuffing is exceedingly rare, and the GOP's preferred way to rig elections is via suppression. And that's way harder to prove.
I imagine Clinton is glad Stein is stepping up to the plate here, because other she'd be doing what we all got on Trump's case for back in October.
I doubt Clinton would bother.
There's some anomalies, but they're not unexplainable. I imagine Clinton's people would have seen that.
Though I have much less faith in Clinton's people now.
God, remember when everyone was gushing about her unparalleled ground game? I feel lied to on some level.
yeah what happened with all that stuff
was it just like, not true
It was true, but the problem was the ground-game was misdirected as far anyone can tell - i.e. the stories that what they failed at was turning out their own vote, because they were targeting "light R" Republicans to try and flip their votes - whereas the post election data shows you almost never convert them, but you do get them to show up and vote R anyway.
Could a recount realistically find evidence of foreign tampering? Are they going to do any forensic analysis of the machines?
Assuming we are talking electronic voting machines, and there is a physical log of votes as well (Note: in many cases, this is not actually the case. There's only the electronic copy, and no real way to recount it other than looking "yep, this is the number the machine has" :V). If there is a discrepancy between the machine count number and the actual number, there needs to be a reason why. There could be a couple reasons, many of them benign. Consider a scantron machine - maybe the reader was misaligned, so on some of the ballots, certain circles weren't getting counted, or were being attributed to the wrong person. Perhaps someone accidentally has a wrong kind of pen/pencil provided in a precinct, so certain ballots weren't read correctly. There's plenty of reasons that could be attributed to machine or human error without being malicious. However, if those can be ruled out and it's a machine which is isolated from the Internet, there's two ways tampering could have been done - at the source code level (numbers were getting thrown out or padded), in which case the code would have to be reviewed, as would the chain of custody of the machines - or via some direct access to the machine, in which case there SHOULD be some sort of history of any editing which might have occurred at the machine level, and only a limited number of people would have had access to the machine, so the police could do their jobs. If it's an Internet-connected machine, tracing it to a specific culprit/party would be more difficult, but evidence of the machine having been contacted from the outside should be present on, for example, the ISP's servers, the routers on the path, etc.
Reminder that ballot stuffing is exceedingly rare, and the GOP's preferred way to rig elections is via suppression. And that's way harder to prove.
I imagine Clinton is glad Stein is stepping up to the plate here, because other she'd be doing what we all got on Trump's case for back in October.
I doubt Clinton would bother.
There's some anomalies, but they're not unexplainable. I imagine Clinton's people would have seen that.
Though I have much less faith in Clinton's people now.
God, remember when everyone was gushing about her unparalleled ground game? I feel lied to on some level.
yeah what happened with all that stuff
was it just like, not true
It wasn't true at all, and this is the problem with liberals in general: When someone they trust feeds them a line of bullshit they gobble it up quickly and believe it in their hearts. It's like they are incapable of believing anyone on the left would lie to them. Clinton is no one you should trust.
She is very flawed as a politician, but one thing I've learned is she isn't as bad as we thought she was, the media and GOP has fucked her over hard for decades so much that the left brought it to easily (it wasn't that long ago I was where you're standing right now), she managed to go left to a degree never before seen in her campaigning and she almost won with that tactic and who else do you want as president? Trump?
I know my party lies all the time and spouts a bunch of bullshit, but at least I don't go believing any of it or cheerleading everything they stand for without doing my due diligence.
Not seeing this as a problem here.
Democrats need to accept the possibility there may never be a viable Democratic President as good and as clean as Barack Obama ever again.
Well yeah, because Obama is a special candidate - no party has a bunch of Obamas in their ranks. He's an exception, not the rule in the Democrats.
So the question is - how are the Dems going to get back the presidency and the congress (which was another problem even with Obama) without an Obama?
I think the "ground game" issue demonstrated that it's not as big a factor as it may have been hyped as, but it's not clear whether the effect was small or nonexistent.
I expected the ground game to turn a modest win for Clinton into a trouncing. You had what was, by all accounts, a pretty sophisticated effort played against basically no ground game at all. Conventional wisdom suggested it would give Clinton at least a few percentage points.
So we have one side with a great effort and one side with no effort, BUT maybe Clinton was accidentally turning out the wrong people, BUT also there was a huge group of undecideds, and in the end, it's impossible to say how all these factors played against each other. There's also a pet theory I floated prior to the election that ground game is more important for Dems than Pubs - maybe Pubs don't need it, because they turn our more reliably, but Dems are less motivated or have a harder time getting to the polls, so ground game matters for them.
I suspect that this won't affect the effort that gets made for ground game in the future much at all. Really, if you're running a campaign, are you going to use this election as proof that you definitely don't need to get bodies to the polls? Fuck no.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Reminder that ballot stuffing is exceedingly rare, and the GOP's preferred way to rig elections is via suppression. And that's way harder to prove.
I imagine Clinton is glad Stein is stepping up to the plate here, because other she'd be doing what we all got on Trump's case for back in October.
I doubt Clinton would bother.
There's some anomalies, but they're not unexplainable. I imagine Clinton's people would have seen that.
Though I have much less faith in Clinton's people now.
God, remember when everyone was gushing about her unparalleled ground game? I feel lied to on some level.
yeah what happened with all that stuff
was it just like, not true
It wasn't true at all, and this is the problem with liberals in general: When someone they trust feeds them a line of bullshit they gobble it up quickly and believe it in their hearts. It's like they are incapable of believing anyone on the left would lie to them. Clinton is no one you should trust.
She is very flawed as a politician, but one thing I've learned is she isn't as bad as we thought she was, the media and GOP has fucked her over hard for decades so much that the left brought it to easily (it wasn't that long ago I was where you're standing right now), she managed to go left to a degree never before seen in her campaigning and she almost won with that tactic and who else do you want as president? Trump?
I know my party lies all the time and spouts a bunch of bullshit, but at least I don't go believing any of it or cheerleading everything they stand for without doing my due diligence.
Not seeing this as a problem here.
Democrats need to accept the possibility there may never be a viable Democratic President as good and as clean as Barack Obama ever again.
Well yeah, because Obama is a special candidate - no party has a bunch of Obamas in their ranks. He's an exception, not the rule in the Democrats.
So the question is - how are the Dems going to get back the presidency and the congress (which was another problem even with Obama) without an Obama?
It won't be easy, but it's not impossible. We don't need an Obama, after all; we nearly won with one of the least liked candidates in history. We just need somebody with a decent amount of charisma (Dems have had trouble with that lately; Gore and Kerry were pretty stiff. Bill, who had plenty of charisma, got us the white house twice) and not weighed down by a 20 year smear campaign. After that we'll need to adjust our message so rural whites don't feel like we're leaving them behind while we pursue equality for others.
The real trick is getting this shit to work downballot. I'm really not sure what to do there, frankly.
Thankfully Obama isn't going to vanish into the mountains. He can still be someone we can rally around while we get our shit back together.
Reminder that ballot stuffing is exceedingly rare, and the GOP's preferred way to rig elections is via suppression. And that's way harder to prove.
I imagine Clinton is glad Stein is stepping up to the plate here, because other she'd be doing what we all got on Trump's case for back in October.
I doubt Clinton would bother.
There's some anomalies, but they're not unexplainable. I imagine Clinton's people would have seen that.
Though I have much less faith in Clinton's people now.
God, remember when everyone was gushing about her unparalleled ground game? I feel lied to on some level.
yeah what happened with all that stuff
was it just like, not true
It wasn't true at all, and this is the problem with liberals in general: When someone they trust feeds them a line of bullshit they gobble it up quickly and believe it in their hearts. It's like they are incapable of believing anyone on the left would lie to them. Clinton is no one you should trust.
I know my party lies all the time and spouts a bunch of bullshit, but at least I don't go believing any of it or cheerleading everything they stand for without doing my due diligence.
Democrats need to accept the possibility there may never be a viable Democratic President as good and as clean as Barack Obama ever again.
tbh i feel like if we were more credulous we would be turning out in greater numbers to vote for clinton, and would therefore be winning elections
like, the willingness of the republican base to believe that a millionaire with a golden elevator is a champion of the working class is not a testament to the power of critical thinking
Reminder that ballot stuffing is exceedingly rare, and the GOP's preferred way to rig elections is via suppression. And that's way harder to prove.
I imagine Clinton is glad Stein is stepping up to the plate here, because other she'd be doing what we all got on Trump's case for back in October.
I doubt Clinton would bother.
There's some anomalies, but they're not unexplainable. I imagine Clinton's people would have seen that.
Though I have much less faith in Clinton's people now.
God, remember when everyone was gushing about her unparalleled ground game? I feel lied to on some level.
I'm trying to separate myself from these threads, but I do have to post in response to this.
We can't know the effect of the ground game because there was an enormous shift in the race in the last 2 weeks due to Comey ratfucking the election. There are reports that Clinton lost 3-4 points of support in the last 3 days after Comey cleared her. She probably would have recovered most of these had it not been literally 3 days before the election, but it's not an accident that 2 states thought to be relatively safe democrat wins and ended up surprising close losses in MI and PA have no early vote.
Eh, it's just as likely that the swing in the last few days was less to do with Comey and more with Republicans basically admitting "Yeah, nothing is disqualifying, I'll vote Trump" and know-nothings breaking Trump because "change", all at the last minute.
I'm sure Comey hurt Democratic turnout some but what I remember reading right afterwords is the GOP was suddenly seeing a huge swell in the last few days of the campaign.
Reminder that ballot stuffing is exceedingly rare, and the GOP's preferred way to rig elections is via suppression. And that's way harder to prove.
I imagine Clinton is glad Stein is stepping up to the plate here, because other she'd be doing what we all got on Trump's case for back in October.
I doubt Clinton would bother.
There's some anomalies, but they're not unexplainable. I imagine Clinton's people would have seen that.
Though I have much less faith in Clinton's people now.
God, remember when everyone was gushing about her unparalleled ground game? I feel lied to on some level.
I'm trying to separate myself from these threads, but I do have to post in response to this.
We can't know the effect of the ground game because there was an enormous shift in the race in the last 2 weeks due to Comey ratfucking the election. There are reports that Clinton lost 3-4 points of support in the last 3 days after Comey cleared her. She probably would have recovered most of these had it not been literally 3 days before the election, but it's not an accident that 2 states thought to be relatively safe democrat wins and ended up surprising close losses in MI and PA have no early vote.
Eh, it's just as likely that the swing in the last few days was less to do with Comey and more with Republicans basically admitting "Yeah, nothing is disqualifying, I'll vote Trump" and know-nothings breaking Trump because "change", all at the last minute.
I'm sure Comey hurt Democratic turnout some but what I remember reading right afterwords is the GOP was suddenly seeing a huge swell in the last few days of the campaign.
Yeah, a lot of Johnson supporters jumped ship to Trump towards the end.
So a recount will probably confirm the results we already have.
What exactly is the problem with recounting?
The reinforced message of authority given to Trump. This is political capital being wheel barrowed over to him.
Nah, dude lost by 2 million votes, this just confirms that he won the locations required for him to steal the election because of the bull shit way our electoral college works.
Like, for real, never let anyone forget that. This dude lost the vote by 2 fucking million. The majority of people in this country do not want him to be the president. That is a fact that must be continually hammered home every day of the next 4 years to every outlet that can hear it so that we can ensure that people don't think he has any kind of mandate.
Nope. Sell that shit somewhere else. She got a plurality of the people who voted. That's nowhere near half the country. Despite our best efforts she lost and Trump won. They knew the rules, they made their pitch, and he won. Period. One of the things that makes America so remarkable is our history of playing by the rules of the game, even when the outcome is abhorrent. Now more than ever we need to hold onto the idea that our institutions and norms are worth defending and protecting. The best way to do that is to make sure Trump et al only get 2 years with their teeny little hands on the tiller.
Posts
Honestly, I figure by the time people get to the age we're talking about their political leanings are half article of faith anyways. For something like the whole Cuba situation especially.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I'm saying if he won the Electoral votes of a single state via cheating or corruption then we must know. I agree the chances of coordinated cheating across three states are slim at best. But winning one state by cheating? That would be disastrous enough by itself to be worth 5 million dollars.
And you know what? Our resources verge on the infinite. 5 million dollars is nothing other than for he fact we seem unwilling to deploy them.
The recounts likely will not be completed by the 19th.
I imagine Clinton is glad Stein is stepping up to the plate here, because other she'd be doing what we all got on Trump's case for back in October.
I doubt Clinton would bother.
There's some anomalies, but they're not unexplainable. I imagine Clinton's people would have seen that.
Though I have much less faith in Clinton's people now.
God, remember when everyone was gushing about her unparalleled ground game? I feel lied to on some level.
You really shouldn't be holding your breathe for faithless electors.
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/25/503374202/clintons-popular-vote-lead-is-now-over-2-million-but-dont-expect-big-changes
yeah what happened with all that stuff
was it just like, not true
She's winning by millions of votes in deeply blue states. Which is awesome, but still lost her the election.
We've heard how Wisconsion was underfunded. They could have done more for those states.
I saw this article today which seemed interesting.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-democrats-bluecollar-idUSKBN13K12X
Apparently a party chairman in Ohio warned her campaign about what she needed to focus her message on there and the campaign never responded or listened to the advice in any meaningful way.
I think that unfortunately they gambled that say, 1/100 Republicans might be turned off by voting for a idiotic bigot and that this was their chance to truly obliterate the Republicans. Then they fell victim to a brutal series of partisan lies designed to hurt them over nothing in the fading weeks (fbi director should be in jail ) and it all fell apart.
let's not forget that there was apparently a, I'll call them a group, of FBI agents who were very anti-Hillary as well. It wasn't just Comey, there were people in the lower rungs of the ladder pushing for something to be done.
Now it shouldn't matter, it really shouldn't matter but boyhowdy the FBI has already proven it can't keep it's nose out of the fucking election. What's not to say that they -didn't- help rig the election? I know it's basically a conspiracy theory but it's 2016 and damn if there already isn't a hint of shit about this entire election.
But I do think the downsides here are pretty minor.
Though, to be fair, so are the upsides.
All of this is true, but at the same point, this shouldn't be used to deflect from the fact that Clinton and her team apparently completely ignored large swaths of the country, despite evidence to the contrary. But that's a whole other argument. It's just too frequently (valid) criticism of the media and other aspects of the campaign are used to shield and deflect equally valid criticism of Clinton, which doesn't help anyone in the future.
Yep, it's mostly just a waste of money that thankfully is being done by fringe Jill Stein so the democrats can totally absolve themselves of it.
1. What I am about to describe will not happen.
2. What I am about to describe WILL. NOT. HAPPEN.
That being said, I am curious about one thing (and I realize the answer will probably be "we're in uncharted territories, so who the fuck knows?" Let's say that evidence of tampering with electronic voting machines is found in, say, Wisconsin. Enough to flip to Clinton, so there's a lot of attention paid to it. Warrants are issued for the company who manufactured them, and in an audit, evidence is found linking members of the voting machine company to "donations" from the Koch brothers, and it goes back further than just this election - say, back to Scott Walker's initial election as Governor (or the recount, or pick your favorite other previous election.) Enough that there is evidence that there was tampering, but we don't know how much, nor if it made any difference in the outcome.
Obviously, a recall should be immediate, but what of legislation which was passed/people who were appointed under the administration of individuals who were found to be elected under corrupt/cheating circumstances? Would any appointees immediately be removed from office? Would the laws be stricken from the books or need to be challenged in court (and would they stand if challenged?) Like, this is a completely ridiculous hill of beans, and like I said, it WILL. NOT. HAPPEN. The thought just occurred, and I wonder what the FUCK the actual appropriate outcome would be?
In a similar vein at the national scale, let's say that the evidence for overturning one or more states is found, but after the electors vote. The electoral vote will have occurred - will it stand? What if the evidence is found after inauguration. Would it stand?
What happens then?
Yeah I don't disagree. Clinton got cocky.
The state flips, different electors go, people shit on the Republican Party, and Republicans line up to vote for them in the midterms. Just like every other election, regardless of who they put forward.
Nothing. Fox doesn't report on it so GOP supporters never find out.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I expect Jill to raise enough money to recount Michigan and Wisconsin but not Pa.
Then both those states will flip after a manual recount exposes tampering by a likely foreign agent. leaving trump the presidency but everyone knowing PA likely is tampered too, causing America to tear itself apart and Putin to buy a bouncy castle to celebrate his ultimate victory over the West
Just going to throw this out there - if any state flips with evidence of tampering, fuck deadlines, every state in the union should have a recount. Every. One.
Cost doesn't matter. Integrity of the vote matters, and that will have been lost. The only way to restore it is to ensure the count. Everywhere.
I'm trying to separate myself from these threads, but I do have to post in response to this.
We can't know the effect of the ground game because there was an enormous shift in the race in the last 2 weeks due to Comey ratfucking the election. There are reports that Clinton lost 3-4 points of support in the last 3 days after Comey cleared her. She probably would have recovered most of these had it not been literally 3 days before the election, but it's not an accident that 2 states thought to be relatively safe democrat wins and ended up surprising close losses in MI and PA have no early vote.
Agreed. And frankly the cost isn't THAT big of a deal if it's federal funded.
Let's be honest, the federal government has a budget measured in trillions. The cost to do a full recount is a rounding error on that scale.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
It wasn't true at all, and this is the problem with liberals in general: When someone they trust feeds them a line of bullshit they gobble it up quickly and believe it in their hearts. It's like they are incapable of believing anyone on the left would lie to them. Clinton is no one you should trust.
I know my party lies all the time and spouts a bunch of bullshit, but at least I don't go believing any of it or cheerleading everything they stand for without doing my due diligence.
Democrats need to accept the possibility there may never be a viable Democratic President as good and as clean as Barack Obama ever again.
I'd also would think if foreign tampering to be prevalent to the point that it altered results. We might see some of the GOP loyalty break down. I imagine some of the old cold war hawks and possible new ones, if they exist, will not stand to have Trump in the white house at that point. I mean if foreign involvement is found, I think everyone is going to agree that Russia is involved. Maybe we'll also find time to place even more crippling sanctions on Russia.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
It was true, but the problem was the ground-game was misdirected as far anyone can tell - i.e. the stories that what they failed at was turning out their own vote, because they were targeting "light R" Republicans to try and flip their votes - whereas the post election data shows you almost never convert them, but you do get them to show up and vote R anyway.
Assuming we are talking electronic voting machines, and there is a physical log of votes as well (Note: in many cases, this is not actually the case. There's only the electronic copy, and no real way to recount it other than looking "yep, this is the number the machine has" :V). If there is a discrepancy between the machine count number and the actual number, there needs to be a reason why. There could be a couple reasons, many of them benign. Consider a scantron machine - maybe the reader was misaligned, so on some of the ballots, certain circles weren't getting counted, or were being attributed to the wrong person. Perhaps someone accidentally has a wrong kind of pen/pencil provided in a precinct, so certain ballots weren't read correctly. There's plenty of reasons that could be attributed to machine or human error without being malicious. However, if those can be ruled out and it's a machine which is isolated from the Internet, there's two ways tampering could have been done - at the source code level (numbers were getting thrown out or padded), in which case the code would have to be reviewed, as would the chain of custody of the machines - or via some direct access to the machine, in which case there SHOULD be some sort of history of any editing which might have occurred at the machine level, and only a limited number of people would have had access to the machine, so the police could do their jobs. If it's an Internet-connected machine, tracing it to a specific culprit/party would be more difficult, but evidence of the machine having been contacted from the outside should be present on, for example, the ISP's servers, the routers on the path, etc.
She is very flawed as a politician, but one thing I've learned is she isn't as bad as we thought she was, the media and GOP has fucked her over hard for decades so much that the left brought it to easily (it wasn't that long ago I was where you're standing right now), she managed to go left to a degree never before seen in her campaigning and she almost won with that tactic and who else do you want as president? Trump?
Not seeing this as a problem here.
Well yeah, because Obama is a special candidate - no party has a bunch of Obamas in their ranks. He's an exception, not the rule in the Democrats.
So the question is - how are the Dems going to get back the presidency and the congress (which was another problem even with Obama) without an Obama?
I expected the ground game to turn a modest win for Clinton into a trouncing. You had what was, by all accounts, a pretty sophisticated effort played against basically no ground game at all. Conventional wisdom suggested it would give Clinton at least a few percentage points.
So we have one side with a great effort and one side with no effort, BUT maybe Clinton was accidentally turning out the wrong people, BUT also there was a huge group of undecideds, and in the end, it's impossible to say how all these factors played against each other. There's also a pet theory I floated prior to the election that ground game is more important for Dems than Pubs - maybe Pubs don't need it, because they turn our more reliably, but Dems are less motivated or have a harder time getting to the polls, so ground game matters for them.
I suspect that this won't affect the effort that gets made for ground game in the future much at all. Really, if you're running a campaign, are you going to use this election as proof that you definitely don't need to get bodies to the polls? Fuck no.
It won't be easy, but it's not impossible. We don't need an Obama, after all; we nearly won with one of the least liked candidates in history. We just need somebody with a decent amount of charisma (Dems have had trouble with that lately; Gore and Kerry were pretty stiff. Bill, who had plenty of charisma, got us the white house twice) and not weighed down by a 20 year smear campaign. After that we'll need to adjust our message so rural whites don't feel like we're leaving them behind while we pursue equality for others.
The real trick is getting this shit to work downballot. I'm really not sure what to do there, frankly.
Thankfully Obama isn't going to vanish into the mountains. He can still be someone we can rally around while we get our shit back together.
tbh i feel like if we were more credulous we would be turning out in greater numbers to vote for clinton, and would therefore be winning elections
like, the willingness of the republican base to believe that a millionaire with a golden elevator is a champion of the working class is not a testament to the power of critical thinking
Eh, it's just as likely that the swing in the last few days was less to do with Comey and more with Republicans basically admitting "Yeah, nothing is disqualifying, I'll vote Trump" and know-nothings breaking Trump because "change", all at the last minute.
I'm sure Comey hurt Democratic turnout some but what I remember reading right afterwords is the GOP was suddenly seeing a huge swell in the last few days of the campaign.
Yeah, a lot of Johnson supporters jumped ship to Trump towards the end.
Nope. Sell that shit somewhere else. She got a plurality of the people who voted. That's nowhere near half the country. Despite our best efforts she lost and Trump won. They knew the rules, they made their pitch, and he won. Period. One of the things that makes America so remarkable is our history of playing by the rules of the game, even when the outcome is abhorrent. Now more than ever we need to hold onto the idea that our institutions and norms are worth defending and protecting. The best way to do that is to make sure Trump et al only get 2 years with their teeny little hands on the tiller.