WOW, computer scientists claim that there is evidence the election was hacked, Urge Clinton
Options
Comments
-
Don't matter, electoral college
-
babelipsss wrote: »Weeks before the election Hillary (and her worshiping media) made such a big deal over whether Trump would accept or challenge the results. She painted herself into a corner. She can't challenge the results without looking like a sore loser that she implied Trump would be.
Also her pity party won't allow it. She gave up. She stopped showering and wearing make-up. -
obnoxiouslyfresh wrote: »It's hopeless at this point. No one would ever see her as the real winner.
But alot of people already saying the "the people chose her" based of the fact that she got 2 mill more popular votes...as far as the recount it wouldnt hurt to do it, hillary isnt the one pushing for it so if the result is the same it wont fall back on her, ? trump supporters would still say it was all her tho -
I haven't seen Democrats this angry since they took their slaves away.
-
the dukester wrote: »I haven't seen Democrats this angry since they took their slaves away.
Those Democrats arent the same ones as today. Of course the parties switched after the Democrats signed civil rights legislation. Thats why the South is red now. They didnt like that from the Democrats. Also I'll say there is an understandable issue when a candidate actually gets more votes, by millions, but still loses. There are real issues. The vote said one candidate won but the rules said the other won...Hacking, who knows but there are just multiple issues that arent going to go away. At some point this winning the popular vote (by millions) and still losing the election thing will need to be dealt with. -
It would be different if Hillary "lost" she actually "won". She got more votes than her opponent...by millions...as long as that happens and you can still "lose" there will be a big issue. The results go against the will of the majority of voters. That alone is a huge issue. It will need to be addressed at some point. its happening continually now.
-
From what I've read since I last posted, it now seems to me that it probably is just demographic factors that explain why in Wisconsin Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots (the former are whiter and less educated than the latter). So this hullabaloo may be all for nothing.
-
Undefeatable wrote: »From what I've read since I last posted, it now seems to me that it probably is just demographic factors that explain why in Wisconsin Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots (the former are whiter and less educated than the latter). So this hullabaloo may be all for nothing.
No ? -
Undefeatable wrote: »From what I've read since I last posted, it now seems to me that it probably is just demographic factors that explain why in Wisconsin Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots (the former are whiter and less educated than the latter). So this hullabaloo may be all for nothing.
No ?
Your point? That is not what you were arguing. You were saying that Trump won the electoral college, which is a totally different argument. -
Undefeatable wrote: »Looks like Jill Stein might ask for a recount in the three states if she can raise the money:
http://ktla.com/2016/11/23/jill-stein-seeks-voting-recount-in-3-battleground-states/
Smh @ the White House discouraging Hillary from requesting a recount.
So I'm all for voting for a third party if you believe that the candidate should truly be the president and I don't think it's throwing your vote away
But straight up Jill Stein should eat a ? , The only reason she's calling for this is because she doesn't want Trump to win, to late ? . If she really wanted him out of the White House she shoulda dropped out and rode for Hilary -
Undefeatable wrote: »From what I've read since I last posted, it now seems to me that it probably is just demographic factors that explain why in Wisconsin Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots (the former are whiter and less educated than the latter). So this hullabaloo may be all for nothing.
This seems backwards, why would you give the electronic machines to the dummies? -
NoCompetition wrote: »It would be different if Hillary "lost" she actually "won". She got more votes than her opponent...by millions...as long as that happens and you can still "lose" there will be a big issue. The results go against the will of the majority of voters. That alone is a huge issue. It will need to be addressed at some point. its happening continually now.
if New York and California voted Republican, you wouldnt be so against the Electoral College. -
title of the thread: "computer scientists claim that there is evidence the election was hacked, Urge Clinton"
quotes from the article:Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000. While it’s 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 — especially in light of the fact that the Obama White House has accused the Russian government of hacking the Democratic National Committee.
also worth noting: when this was in the bag for Clinton, Democrats were not concerned, Democrats didn't want to talk about the election being question. now? mysterious. -
also this:A brief news article published by New York magazine on Tuesday night became a safe harbor in stormy seas for Democrats shocked by the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. In it, the magazine's Gabriel Sherman -- slayer of Roger Ailes -- outlines a conversation between computer security experts and the campaign of Hillary Clinton.
The core of the story was this:
The academics presented findings showing that in Wisconsin, Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots. Based on this statistical analysis, Clinton may have been denied as many as 30,000 votes; she lost Wisconsin by 27,000.
And that combination of "academics," "30,000" and "27,000" was all it took for the story to rocket through social media.
For the past two weeks, Clinton supporters (and Donald Trump opponents) have been grappling with the surprising results of this year's presidential election. The closeness of the race in two states, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, is why Trump will be inaugurated in January; the combined 90,000-vote margin in those two places, out of 126 million cast nationally, tipped the electoral college.
Sherman's story was not the first to question the validity of those results. A small margin in unlikely places is precisely the sort of thing that raises eyebrows, and these small margins did. Coupled with reporting that suggests Russia had a hand in trying to influence the outcome by hacking the emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, the implications were immediate.
There was the woman who worked at the Democratic National Committee and who claimed on Facebook that the departments of Justice and Homeland Security partnered with the loose-knit hacking coalition Anonymous and who saw "a lot of activity during Election Day from the Russians." There was the hashtag #AuditTheVote on Twitter, calling for review of the results in those states, with users often making nebulous allegations of impropriety. Even Dan Rather posted about "the specter of Russian involvement" hanging over the results, suggesting that the results might culminate with congressional hearings.
But it was the report in New York Magazine, relaying third-hand a report from academic experts including J. Alex Halderman of the University of Michigan Center for Computer Security and Society that made the concerns feel concrete. These weren't rumors. This was real evidence (it seemed) of something going awry.
That's not really the case.
Reached by email, Halderman pointed us to a statement he'd written at Medium. It's a lengthy examination of how vote-tallying systems have been rigged or manipulated in the past, but the most important line (for our purposes) is this one:
Were this year’s 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.
Halderman's concern is less about 2016 than it is broadly about the risk to our electoral systems. As it was in August, when he was featured in a Politico article warning of the same risks. (Halderman also notes that Sherman got the numbers wrong.)
Before the election, when Democrats were dismissing the idea of rigging an election when it was raised (repeatedly) by Trump and his allies, we outlined just how difficult such a proposal would be. For one thing, one would need to know in advance where to rig the vote to have the most effect. For example: In 2000, you would have needed to know that the margins in Florida were razor thin, and to have put just enough resources into the state to tip the scales without tipping your hand. That sort of prognostication is far, far easier in retrospect.
That's the thing about Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. The polls in Wisconsin in particular were far from the mark, meaning that ne'er-do-wells looking to affect the results would be less likely to target the state. Why rig the vote in a place where Clinton is up by six points?
As Vox's Andrew Prokop writes, the results across the Midwest were surprising -- but consistent. As it turns out, it would have been weirder for Wisconsin to have gone for Clinton by six points while losing Iowa by 10, tying in Michigan, losing Ohio by eight and winning Minnesota by only a little more than a point. All of those states use different balloting systems, administered locally, making the likelihood of a widespread hack even smaller.
Sherman's article didn't provide robust new evidence that the election was hacked. What it did was provide logical justification for thinking the election was hacked. It gave stressed-out Democrats something concrete at which they could point to say, this, this is why Clinton lost the election.
Clinton lost the election because it was close enough in those Midwestern states for her to lose. Because, as Nate Silver was noting even before Election Day, her firewall in those states was much shakier than it was for Barack Obama. Because her get-out-the-vote operation was not all it was cracked up to be.
She lost, in other words, because she got fewer votes where it counted. That was a surprise, and surprises can be awfully hard to accept. -
Undefeatable wrote: »The NYT has now published a story about this, but from an angle that is misleading and which throws cold water on the idea that a recount could change the results.
-
blackamerica wrote: »She should protest this ? . I always thought this ? was too good to be true w/ Trump winning so easily. I'm 95% sure the Russians rigged this election. Trump knew it too "we're gonna win, and we're gonna win big".
you don't remember the stories about Democrats debating running up the electoral tally because they were SO SURE they were going to win? because i do.
-
Body
Bag! -
Trump's face after meeting Obama seems to say that someone told Trump: "you know we know you rigged the elections. We're just working on a way to throw you in prison and inform the American people without starting war in the streets. Have a good day."
Yeah I'm most likely wrong (considering he's picking out cabinet members and Jill Stein is raising money), but if these recounts do (which I doubt they will) go Hillary's way then.....that face would explain a lot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYkxVbYxy-c
-
The votes should always be audited if for no other reason to allay fear of voter fraud.
-
Hillary is a joke
-
The votes should always be audited if for no other reason to allay fear of voter fraud.
...but now we've spent years either hearing hyperbole about how massive voter fraud is CONSTANTLY happening, or how claims of voter fraud are a cynical, fake tactic. so how do we get to legitimate audits for legitimate reasons? -
kid_khameleon wrote: »Undefeatable wrote: »Looks like Jill Stein might ask for a recount in the three states if she can raise the money:
http://ktla.com/2016/11/23/jill-stein-seeks-voting-recount-in-3-battleground-states/
Smh @ the White House discouraging Hillary from requesting a recount.
So I'm all for voting for a third party if you believe that the candidate should truly be the president and I don't think it's throwing your vote away
But straight up Jill Stein should eat a ? , The only reason she's calling for this is because she doesn't want Trump to win, to late ? . If she really wanted him out of the White House she shoulda dropped out and rode for Hilary
Just a theory but I think....
Jill Stein is trying to tie up Trumps electoral votes to make the number of non contested ones (in places without a recount) go under 270 During the December 19th electoral meeting.
If she ties up the votes then nobody won per the electoral college and congress has to determine the president. -
Man, how the ? y'all claiming to know it was NOT rigged ?
Suddenly it's all this faith in the integrity of the election process ?
Agents up in this ? or what ? -
I take back what i said...
I want a recount...so hillary can take another L
Body bag! -
No proof of hacking? Then there is no proof Russia did it either