Election Day and Results

[Salt USMC]

Yeah, this shit-show ain't over yet.

Clinton campaign to participate in Wisconsin, other recount efforts

The collective voice of America: "Ugggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"


On a more serious note: How absolutely bananas would it be if a recount changed the EC results enough to give Clinton the 270? I absolutely don't think it will happen, but what better way to cap off this absolutely ridiculous year than essentially having the electoral touchdown be called back because of pass interference?
I would laugh. Then cry. Then drink cheap whiskey.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Does anybody actually believe Jill Stein came up with this on her own?

She raised twice as much money for this idiocy than she did for her campaign.

 

[SpongeBob*24]

Yeah its weird....

 

[Marauder06]

Does anybody actually believe Jill Stein came up with this on her own?

Maybe; it's one of the only ways for her to stay relevant after this election. She's not going to get a seat at the table in the Trump administration, and she's a non-entity as far as most Americans are concerned. The first time I heard of her was when my daughter told me she voted for Stein in their mock Middle School election a couple of months back.

 

[amlove21]

I know, I know, red tag. I'd like to just bring up a counter point.


Wasn't voter fraud and illegal voting a serious, serious issue prior to the election? And now we have someone that wants to look into voter fraud and illegal voting and it's a sham suddenly? If we want to #MAGA, shouldn't we all be inviting this inquiry?

I only bring this up for discussion. PE Trump stated he would have won the popular election if it wasn't for the illegal voting. Jill Stein wants to examine the results and recount certain states where it appears (at least to some) that illegal or improper voting happened. PE Trump echoes the fact that this election contained at least some 2 million illegal votes.

Is the recount helpful? If not, why not?

 

[AWP]

Trump should embrace a recount. This is a chance to prove his claims and silence the "progressives" who are acting like children. "He's not my president"....uh, do you even Constitution, bro?

 

[amlove21]

Trump should embrace a recount. This is a chance to prove his claims and silence the "progressives" who are acting like children. "He's not my president"....uh, do you even Constitution, bro?

100% agree.

I want everyone to be involved and make sure this is done correctly. Not sure why the initial reaction from the right is, "Just accept the loss already!!" if the party leader is still talking about fraud.

 

[DA SWO]

Trump should recount any states Hillary won by a close margin.
The big concern (to me) is paper ballots take forever to recount, so those big states could miss the 19 Dec EC Vote.

 

[amlove21]

Trump should recount any states Hillary won by a close margin.
The big concern (to me) is paper ballots take forever to recount, so those big states could miss the 19 Dec EC Vote.

Agree, as is the legal recourse in the country.

But that's not what's happening.

 

[TLDR20]

PE Trump seems to lack some basic reason...

Donald Trump is making a strong case for a recount of his own 2016 election win

 

[Dame]

Best theory I've heard yet:

This has nothing to do with election results. This is a few $million being laundered.

 

[TLDR20]

Both sides are saying there was some form of impropriety, it should get looked into.

My biggest gripe so far about PE Trump, his apparent conflict of interest.

Editorial from the WSJ:

No More Business as Usual, Mr. Trump

 

[Devildoc]

Trump should embrace a recount. This is a chance to prove his claims and silence the "progressives" who are acting like children. "He's not my president"....uh, do you even Constitution, bro?

I saw a meme of Trump, said "I fully support a recount...and when I win again I won't be as gracious."

 

[Red Flag 1]

The money being raised by the recounters are funds raised by losers.

This is a question that will never be answered, but just how many donating to the recount actually voted in the first place?

ETA: To think we thought this thread would have been concluded by this time. One truth we have learned is that the Clinton concession was also a lie.

 

[Devildoc]

Michigan finally goes to Trump...

Trump wins Michigan's 16 electoral votes, state board says :: WRAL.com

 

[Gunz]

The collective voice of America: "Ugggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh"


On a more serious note: How absolutely bananas would it be if a recount changed the EC results enough to give Clinton the 270? I absolutely don't think it will happen, but what better way to cap off this absolutely ridiculous year than essentially having the electoral touchdown be called back because of pass interference?
I would laugh. Then cry. Then drink cheap whiskey.

Never say never. And never drink cheap whiskey. No matter how crazy things get.

 

[pardus]

This is my valuable contribution to this abortion of a thread.

 

[Devildoc]

A good article about election polls, statistics, and probability:

How to better communicate election forecasts — in one simple chart

 

[Dienekes]

I haven't checked in awhile, but last time I saw, Hillary win the popular vote, and since most polls go by popular vote, any forecast that said Hillary would win by a very slight margin was technically correct. Nearly all polls deal simply in public opinion or popular vote and their number of observations are usually slightly >1000 people. Seriously thinking about probability and margin of error, a successful poll for President this time around would have had to poll all 50 states individually with enough people to create a very high statistical significance in each state. Then, it would have to account for margin of error in every state when accounting for possible results from the Electoral college. Therefore, the stated result for each state would have to be very, very high(>99%) to create a chart solid enough even capable of taking into account the Electoral College and worthy of putting a name behind it. Without a significant amount of money to create a poll that large, it just isn't possible. So all veritable polls putting the candidates within margin of error of each other should be taken with more than just a grain of salt.

 

[Devildoc]

I haven't checked in awhile, but last time I saw, Hillary win the popular vote, and since most polls go by popular vote, any forecast that said Hillary would win by a very slight margin was technically correct. Nearly all polls deal simply in public opinion or popular vote and their number of observations are usually slightly >1000 people. Seriously thinking about probability and margin of error, a successful poll for President this time around would have had to poll all 50 states individually with enough people to create a very high statistical significance in each state. Then, it would have to account for margin of error in every state when accounting for possible results from the Electoral college. Therefore, the stated result for each state would have to be very, very high(>99%) to create a chart solid enough even capable of taking into account the Electoral College and worthy of putting a name behind it. Without a significant amount of money to create a poll that large, it just isn't possible. So all veritable polls putting the candidates within margin of error of each other should be taken with more than just a grain of salt.

You don't need a lot of people for statistical significance, if the model (or poll) is statistically sound. That's how polls, any polls, can be accurate and predictive with a small 'n'.

This whole thing of the popular vote is really statistical sleight of hand. IF one wants to follow the logic of a validity of the popular vote, HRC won the states with the highest population; or at least the cities with the highest population in many states. So of course she would be ahead vote-for-vote. Also, with only about 60% of registered voters actually voting, HRC et al., assumes that if every registered voter voted, the proportion of her being ahead vote-for-vote would hold true; unfortunately, that's false logic. The reality is the actual popular vote is meaningless.