How soon will the Clinton team carcus call for investigation of election results in swing states?

I think that December 7th would be seen as too orchestrated (being such an important anniversary and all), but I do not think like the Clintons…so who knows.

My guess is that the Clintons will choose evening December 4th (the Sunday before the 7th) for maximum impact in the media news cycle beginning Monday morning.

Computer scientists are apparently calling for investigation. <----link to CNN article on the topic.

The Clinton team may or may not have a legitimate case. Podesta and that ilk reportedly had a conference call today. This is a matter of ‘when’ not ‘if’ in my view. Computer scientists usually know their shit, and the Clintons don’t quit if they recognize an opening (as 2008 showed us).

Poll results are public. Feel free to post elaboration on predictions. Poll closes about 2 days from now.

I choose to read the poll title as “Clinton team carcass”. It just feels right (and besides, I can’t figure out what you were trying to say).

Anyways, I can’t think of a better way to persuade Trump to change his mind (again) about appointing a special prosecutor to investigate HRC than this. Frankly, I hope she does call for investigations and recounts.

I wonder what the largest statewide margin a recount ever shifted the results in America. Does anyone know? For background, Trump is leading by 11,612 in Michigan, 27,257 in Wisconsin, and 68,236 in Pennsylvania. Clinton would have to win all three to win the presidency.

Meh… Frankly it just seems like a planted story to try to undermine Trump’s legitimacy in some people’s minds. Seems to happen a lot in close elections. I seem to remember a lot of Kerry folks being quite conspiratorial about the voting machines after they lost Ohio to George W. Heck, the Trump folks were peddling a bunch of stories themselves when they thought election day was going poorly.

I don’t doubt that the Clinton campaign might have engaged some experts to look for voting inconsistencies, but it is quite likely the “source” may be framing the results in a very slanted way. I wouldn’t expect anything to come of this other than to fuel the tin-foil hat types.

Googled this number. Says source is “Breitbart”. Yes?

Actually, no, ran the same Google, this time no Breitbart and reasonably credible news outlets. Wrongness withdrawn and duly noted.

I doubt the story has any legs, but if it does, at least we can get some perverse satisfaction in envisioning HRC being oh so very very tempted to try despite knowing she shouldn’t.

I wish, if solely because it tends to get under the liberals’ skin so much. I actually looked up the numbers on CNN’s website.

Comments in this thread remind me of our First Lady’s words.

I screwed up this thread.

‘Carcass’ rather.

Two poll options are moot being after the scheduled EC vote.

Unlikely as it is, what does happen if it is found Russian hacking swung the election after the EC vote?

It wouldn’t matter. The electors in the EC will have voted, and that’s what counts. They can consider the possibility of Russian influence if they want to when castingtheir votes, but once they vote, that’s it apart from impeachment.

I don’t think this story will come to anything. There is evidence that Russians tried to hack voter databases, but no evidence whatsoever that they hacked voting machines.

The evidence that the vote was hacked is only that counties in the named stars with electronic voting were 7% more in favor or Trump than ones with paper ballots. That’s it. Nothing else.

It’s suggestive, but just barely. Nate Silver says that when you factor in demographics, the numbers are exactly what you’d expect. It won’t be worth the embarrassment and legitimaziation of Trump if the investigation shows nothing happened, so Clinton will never call for one. Unless there is much more solid evidence to back up the charges, challenging the election just makes her look bad.

White nationalism is never okay, except when it gets under the liberals’ skin. Then it’s justified. :wink:

As for asking for a recount, the evidence looks very weak (listen to Nate Silver, everyone!), and this would be a very bad idea barring much better evidence.

I am unconvinced that Breitbart News is full of evil racists. The claims that it is seem to just be more liberals crying wolf, and dumb liberals buying into #FakeNews.

If you want to convince people that Breitbart is comparable Stormfront, you better have better evidence than CNN (thought they) had.

Breitbart is, indeed, better than Stormfront. Psoriasis is better than smallpox.

It’s a lot better than Stormfront, kind of like segregation and Jim Crow were a lot better than slavery. Pushing racist (and fact-free) conspiracy theories like birtherism, calling pundits they disagree with “renegade Jews”, defending open white supremacists like Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer, promoting racist videos and books, etc., isn’t as bad as denying (or justifying) the Holocaust and advocating for violence against black people.


dave, would you be interested in a Cabinet position?

Secretary of Education perhaps?

If there is reason to think that the computerized voting machines were not accurate, then that should certainly be investigated. Politics aside, we need people to be confident in the systems and that confidence needs to be based on evidence.

I’m not sure it should be done as an HRC-requested recount, though. She’d have to win recounts in all three states to change the outcome of the election and the odds of that are unlikely. All it would take is finding out that a couple of counties didn’t have computer problems for her to still be losing the Presidency.

Jill Stein to the rescue.