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.
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.
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.
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.