rigorousintuition.ca

Luther Blissett » Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:30 pm wrote:First at fault are Trump and his supporters.
Second at fault is the media.
Third at fault are non-voters.
Fourth at fault are those who supported neoliberal imperialism in the Democratic primaries.
Fifth at fault are the DNC and Clinton.
Sixth at fault are liberal kapos who ignored / denied / explained away / wished away the rise of the fascist threat and did nothing to stop them or stood in the way of anti-fascists.

Notice who is conspicuously absent.

brekin » Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:00 pm wrote:Ridiculous. The Greens threw the election to Trump and now they want to exonerate themselves.
They are looking for a redemptive cospiracy theory for the holidays.
The Greens are dead, drowned in the gravy of their own self righteous blathering.
They want to know how the Grinch stole the election?
They didn't vote for his opponent!!
That is how you hack an election.

OP ED » Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:52 pm wrote:Ask Gore

It's Starting: Green Party Launches Fundraising Drive for Presidential Recounts in WI, PA and MI
Green Party says it needs to raise $5-6 million with filing deadlines days away.

Professor cited in report says election results 'probably not' hacked

By Madeline Conway

11/23/16 10:26 AM EST

A computer science professor at the University of Michigan confirmed on Wednesday that he has been spoken with the Clinton campaign about seeking a recount in several key states — but he clarified that he thinks the election results were “probably not” the result of a cyberattack.

New York magazine reported on Tuesday that experts were urging the Clinton camp to contest the election results in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania after finding “persuasive evidence” that they may have been “manipulated or hacked.”

Trump was declared the winner of Pennsylvania and Wisconsin on election night, but Michigan remains too close to call, with Trump's lead now under 10,000 votes. The Michigan secretary of state is expected to certify the results later this month.

The New York magazine story cited a source briefed on a conference call between the experts and Clinton campaign officials to report that they had found that “Clinton received 7 percent fewer votes in counties that relied on electronic-voting machines compared with counties that used optical scanners and paper ballots” in Wisconsin.

Election statistics gurus Nate Silver and Nate Cohn, who run the data analysis sites FiveThirtyEight and The New York Times’ Upshot, respectively, were quick to push back on the report on Twitter. Among other points, Silver wrote that the effect described in the New York magazine story “completely disappears” after controlling for race and education.

“Maybe a more complicated analysis would reveal something, but usually bad news when a finding can't survive a basic sanity check like this,” Silver tweeted.

J. Alex Halderman, the Michigan professor in the report, addressed the fervor on social media in a Medium post on Wednesday morning. He wrote that the story included “some incorrect numbers” and “incorrectly describes the reasons manually checking ballots is an essential security safeguard,” but acknowledged speaking to the Clinton campaign.

Halderman wrote that he does not think it’s likely that the election results, which deviated from pre-election polls in those swing states in particular, were the result of a foreign hack. But he argued that there is enough uncertainty, especially in light of recent hacks on groups such as the Democratic National Committee and evidence that the Russian government had attempted to influence the election, to call for a recount in those states and confirm the results.

“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 wrote. “But I don’t believe that either one of these seemingly unlikely explanations is overwhelmingly more likely than the other.”

“The only way to know whether a cyberattack changed the result is to closely examine the available physical evidence — paper ballots and voting equipment in critical states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania,” he added.

In his post, Halderman also pointed out what he says are security flaws in American voting machines in general and urged their replacement.

“States still using paperless voting machines should replace them with optical scan systems, and all states should update their audit and recount procedures,” he wrote.

It's still not clear what the Clinton camp's response to the call was. Aides did not respond to questions about it on Wednesday.

Rick Hasen, a professor at the University of California Irvine who specialized in election law, responded to the New York magazine report by describing Halderman as "very credible." Still, he said the fact that the Clinton campaign has not acted on the concerns — the meeting was last Thursday, he noted — "should give you pause."

Nordic » Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:08 pm wrote:I ever thought that in my life time I would ever experience more contempt for any group of people than I do for Republican voters, but Hillary voters are by far the nastiest, most contemptible and most pretentiously pompously entitled pieces of scum I've ever seen in my 54 years on earth.

Oh wait. It's because they fuckihng ARE Republucan voters. That witch was the worst Republican to come down the pike since Nixon.

Ok I guess this is what whiny miserable spoiled Nixon voters would have sounded like if their beloved crook lost.

And anyone who thinks they can analyze Green voters from within the fog of their own hatred need to know they're have no fucking idea what motivates Green voters. That is abundantly clear. Because the haters don't understand that we voted for something we wanted, not against something we hated. That's why we're pretty free of hate now and the Clinton people are literally drowning in it.

Enjoy your hate as it chokes your soul. You can't escape it.

Nordic » Wed Nov 23, 2016 6:20 pm wrote:Funny how Hillary and her people just don't seem to be enthused about this.

You realize, don't you, Hillbots, that this could quite possibly uncover her own theft of votes. From Green Party voters.

seemslikeadream » 24 Nov 2016 11:07 wrote:

OP ED » Wed Nov 23, 2016 7:52 pm wrote:Ask Gore

well wouldn't that be interesting ...now that there are only 8 judges right now?


and then Obama could make a recess appointment right away

Nordic » Wed Nov 23, 2016 8:08 pm wrote:I ever thought that in my life time I would ever experience more contempt for any group of people than I do for Republican voters, but Hillary voters are by far the nastiest, most contemptible and most pretentiously pompously entitled pieces of scum I've ever seen in my 54 years on earth.
Oh wait. It's because they fuckihng ARE Republucan voters. That witch was the worst Republican to come down the pike since Nixon.
Ok I guess this is what whiny miserable spoiled Nixon voters would have sounded like if their beloved crook lost.
And anyone who thinks they can analyze Green voters from within the fog of their own hatred need to know they're have no fucking idea what motivates Green voters. That is abundantly clear. Because the haters don't understand that we voted for something we wanted, not against something we hated. That's why we're pretty free of hate now and the Clinton people are literally drowning in it.
Enjoy your hate as it chokes your soul. You can't escape it.

Nordic » 24 Nov 2016 11:20 wrote:Funny how Hillary and her people just don't seem to be enthused about this.

You realize, don't you, Hillbots, that this could quite possibly uncover her own theft of votes. From Green Party voters.

OP ED » 24 Nov 2016 12:09 wrote:The compass puts me significantly to the left of Green. They're just the closest thing I can find. Plus they seem to actually give a shit about people. Democrat is the same as Republican to me. My whole lifetime, lies and wars and crimes and censorship. Most of the policies that truly matter, that are life and death, they're exactly the same in practice. Sometimes the Democrats are even worse, trying to out tough the Republicans on crime and war.