Ahead of recount, Wisconsin has already wiped out 5,000 imaginary Donald Trump votes

[Snarkoleptic]

This is going to get ugly, esp since the SCOTUS is 4-4.

http://www.palmerreport.com/news/ahead-of-recount-wisconsin-has-already-wiped-out-5000-phony-votes-for-donald-trump/234/

Earlier today we reported that three precincts in the Wisconsin county of Outagamie had revised their vote totals downward for Donald Trump by more than a thousand votes combined, with local officials insisting to their local ABC News affiliate that it was a mere arithmetic error. But as more revisions come in throughout the state, a total of nearly five thousand Trump votes in Wisconsin have now been taken off the official board because they apparently never existed to begin with.

At the end of election night the New York Times reported that Donald Trump had won the state of Wisconsin with a total of 1,409,467 votes, giving him a winning margin of 27,257 votes over Hillary Clinton’s total of 1,382,210. These numbers were based on what the individual counties and precincts were reporting that night. But now seventeen days later, based on various Wisconsin precincts revising their own totals, Dave Wasserman of the respected Cook Political Report has updated the totals. Donald Trump now has 1,404,536 total votes in Wisconsin, while Hillary Clinton now has 1,382,011 total votes.

Two things immediately jump out, as first spotted by music critic Dave Greenwald. The first is that, even ahead of the forthcoming recount in Wisconsin, Donald Trump’s lead has already shrunk to just 22,525 votes. That means 18% of his “lead” has already vanished, based on precincts catching some of their own incorrect numbers, and internet gawkers catching others. But the second thing that jumps out is that the revisions have served to erase thousands of votes from Trump, while affirming that Clinton’s vote total was essentially correct to begin with.

Some have questioned the credibility of Palmer Report, so please note the data was provided by respected and non-partisan Cook Political Report
Link to the data (see Wisconsin at the bottom of the 'Swing State' list)-
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?sle=true#gid=19

[HassleCat]

1. Explains why I'm not good with numbers

Born and raised in Wisconsin. Must be some weird mold spores in the soil or something.

[AgadorSparticus]

2. It will be interesting to see what happens when the dust settles.

I just want to know the truth.....

[Snarkoleptic]

3. Indeed, it's all fun and games until the truth is revealed

and we find out who has their thumb on the scale.

[AgadorSparticus]

7. Exactly!! It was mentioned somewhere else how we are blatently ignoring this

Little tidbit. But when we have the FBI in play, who knows what the hell the cat dragged in.

[keithbvadu2]

63. The Republican FBI

[AgadorSparticus]

103. So outrageous.

[NWCorona]

12. Same here.

[spooky3]

4. does anyone know how much credibility Bill Palmer has?

The links do not go to strong sources. Not saying he is untrustworthy. I just don't know anything about him.

[oberliner]

9. He posted here in April

In case you are interested:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511639395#post13

[spooky3]

19. Thank you.

[womanofthehills]

10. Here are some people who like him and info he posts about himself - sounds good to me

I like that he says - he has links to verification of what he reports.

Hi, I’m Bill Palmer. I’m the creator of Palmer Report. I’m a political journalist who spent the past eighteen months reporting on the 2016 election cycle from start to finish for the independent news outlet Daily News Bin, a site which received a great deal of respect from those in knowledgable political circles as well as the usual random barbs from internet trolls. As the publisher of an independent news site, I can promise you all of the following: Every one of our articles includes supporting source links for independent verification. If you’re not familiar with Palmer Report, you can use those links to confirm the accuracy of our reporting for yourself.

and the last paragraph of article:

Thank you to former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm for encouraging her constituents to read a Palmer Report article. Thank you to NBC News legal analyst Lisa Bloom and Pulitzer price winner Joyce Carol Oates, Mississippi State Representative Jeramy Anderson, Rosie O’Donnell, Wil Wheaton, and Debra Messing for doing the same. I don’t consider such things to be an endorsement of my site, but it’s much appreciated.

https://www.palmerreport.com/about/

[benld74]

5. Bill Palmer??

Need alot more than a link

[oberliner]

6. This is a BS clickbait website - not an actual news source

Be advised.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

8. Isn't Palmer the one

who came up with the imaginary "insurmountable early voting lead" in FL?

Yeah these "imaginary votes" were the result of the errors that always occur with unofficial results...which is why it takes so long to get official results, because of the double and triple checking and reconciliation of tally sheets, voter rolls, voting cards, spoiled ballots, etc.

[radius777]

27. Palmer is credible. These "errors" all just happened to be in favor of Trump

which just isn't statistically normal.

Many people, including Steve Schale (a Florida elections expert) felt strongly based on early voting Hillary's lead was insurmountable. All major prediction models showed her winning the state.

All of these "unforseen narrow wins" by Trump in swing states are just too strange - nothing breaks that "perfectly".

[SickOfTheOnePct]

35. Palmer's math certainly isn't credible

It's based on an outlier poll, conducted via telephone and internet in such a manner that the pollster couldn't even calculate a margin of error, using data for 3.6 million people that is then extrapolated out for an additional 3 million people.

And Steve Schale, whom I think is one of, if not the best, Democratic politico in Florida, felt that while Clinton's lead was good coming out of early voting, knew that a heavy and loyal Republican turnout in rural Florida could sink her. So while he was shocked that she lost the election overall, he wasn't necessarily shocked that she lost Florida.

Finally, to the math errors on election, you can't make base any kind of statistical analysis on data gathered that is gathered with a built in bias, as this data was.

[rusty fender]

73. So here you are again taking the other Party's side

Thanks a lot

I'd call you "Russian troll" if the'd let me...

[Bobbie Jo]

74. Does seem to be the pattern.

You noticed it too?

[rusty fender]

75. Yes

I hope that i post this reply to you before I get booted from this thread--thanks

[SickOfTheOnePct]

87. Yes

I have a pattern of not falling for every conspiracy theory that comes down the pike. I actually do research and read information from reputable news sources, rather than clinging to whatever fits the biased conspiracy-based narrative that happens to be taking hold that day.

I prefer data and facts over pixie dust and unicorn farts. YMMV.

[Squinch]

91. LOL! You have so overplayed your hand.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

95. Still waiting

Make your accusation.

[Squinch]

98. Here you go: You have overplayed your hand in a comical way.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

100. Still nothing I see

Overplayed what hand?

What's stopping your from just making your accusation, whatever it might be?

[Bobbie Jo]

94. Good for you!

And smug to boot, meh.

Just making an observation, not necessarily isolated to this particular issue. The post-election activity has been interesting to watch around here.

But yeah, go you!

[SickOfTheOnePct]

96. LOL n/t

[SickOfTheOnePct]

76. How am I taking the other party's side? n/t

[FBaggins]

80. It's getting a little old...

... to keep hearing that anything less than AlexJones-ian conspiracy theory is "the other part's side".

Particularly when it comes from people who obviously don't have the first clue how running an election works.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

89. Yep

The counties need to just stop putting up the unofficial results - just let the state do the statewide results until an official result is determined.

I'm guess that another change will be that states start looking at their criteria for requesting a recount.

But along with that, an audit of a random sampling of precincts needs to occur after every election, which many states already do.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

86. Here is Steve Schale's article

If you would care to see for yourself what he said.

http://steveschale.com/

[Squinch]

90. LOL! Gosh, look who's here trying to dissuade people from doing a recount! What a surprise.

As I have said before and I'm sure you'll give me opportunity to say again:

You are being waaaaaaayy too obvious.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

93. Not trying to dissuade anyone from doing a recount

In fact, I've given the link to Stein's fundraising site a couple of times today both here and elsewhere when they asked for it.

The fact is, she can't do a recount in Florida, because the returns are already certified.

And you really need to come out and make your accusations, whatever they are, instead of trying to be so coy. If you have something to say, say it.

[Squinch]

97. Sure you aren't. That's why you go into every thread and try to dissuade people from supporting

a recount.

I'm not being coy. I am directly saying that you have overplayed your hand and are being way too obvious.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

99. I haven't tried to dissuade anyone

I think it's a huge waste of time and money, but it's neither my time nor my money, so have at it.

Come out and say what you want to say - I've overplayed what hand? I'm being way too obvious in what way?

What's stopping you?

[Squinch]

101. Sure you haven't tried to dissuade anyone. Except for all the times in every thread on the subject

of the recounts where you have tried to dissuade anyone who supported the idea.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

102. Thinking something is a waste of time

is in now way trying to dissuade anyone else. Are we not all adults here, capable of making our own decisions?

If someone who believes in something is dissuaded from acting on it because a faceless, nameless entity on the internet thinks it's a waste of time, that's their problem, not mine.

[Squinch]

104. You are so insistent, and so ever present in all these threads, dissuading people from

supporting the recounts. Especially for a guy who doesn't care about it and think's it's someone else's problem.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

105. Do you even know what the word dissuade means?

Or are you just intentionally misusing it?

[Squinch]

107. Lol! Tell us again how we shouldn't support the recounts, though you don't really care

about them at all, as you show up all over every thread about them and try to dissuade people from supporting them.

And then tell us how sincere you are.

[Texin]

53. So why are the Party leaders remaining silent and not pursuing recounts (until Stein prevailed?)

I am baffled that President Obama on down the line have zipped their lips publicly about any challenge to the vote count, whether in the counting, the tabulation methods, security, registration irregularities, etc.? This has alarmed me and made me wonder just what the fuck is going here.

There was all that bullshit spewing out of the orange monstrosity's pie hole in the month or so before the election (at least most vehemently then), and then the reassurances, demurrals by the Dems that "there's no vote rigging going on here, folks", and now utter silence in the aftermath of the most perplexing so-called "results" in anyone's recent memory. We've heard the deafening roar of crickets amidst the silence by the Democratic Party except for the jockeying by key Senate and Congressional leaders for leadership positions. What the actual fuck is going on? I feel as if I've been launch into another, parallel universe or something. I mean, it's not like we didn't hear for several months ahead of the actual voting that Russia had been tampering with websites, etc. with the aim, according to the intelligence community, of having a thumb on the voting. I would have though, I DO think at this very second, that that alone would have been enough to have had the vote results scrutinized and pored over with a fine tooth comb by every intelligence outlet in the USA, official or otherwise, and those of all concerned American allies abroad.

I feel as if the other shoe is about to be dropped at any moment. Why in the hell would tRump want to be saddled with this fucking job? So he can bloviate and spew his verbal vomit for the next four years? It's clear he couldn't be bothered with the actual real dirty day to day mechanics and micromanagement decisions that a real POTUS has got to deal with 24/7, 365 days a year. Is this joke of a human being going to just announce at noon a few days before the coronation that, "Whoops! Changed my mind! Mikey can be the Res, I'm going back to NY City. Bye, and good luck!"

[radius777]

54. because Democrats have no stones,

especially in the era of Obama (who I love). It isn't about centrism vs progressivism. Bill Clinton was a brawler who didn't take shit from anyone. Everyone before (Carter, Mondale, Dukakis) and after him - Gore, Kerry, Obama and even Hillary to a lesser extent - was/is overly wimpy and scrupulous, not wanting to be seen as rocking the boat and causing trouble.

[That Guy 888]

70. Like when they fought the Florida election fraud?

The Democrats have been laying down on the job since Bill became President, maybe since the start of the Southern Strategy. The Democratic leadership since the 80's has tried (and failed) to match Republicans, not realizing that it just helps the GOP "Strong and Wrong" loud talkers look like they might be right.

Bill Clinton was only stopped from giving away Social Security by the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Hardly a brawler, more of a "hippy puncher".

[ificandream]

67. Palmer was in another thread here and getting pretty well drubbed

He's not credible.

[radius777]

108. Palmer is pro-Hillary/Obama and dislikes the alt-left/berniebots,

so to the extent that he does get drubbed by those people, makes him a hero in my book.

I've read his articles for the past six months or so, and there is nothing factually untrue in his articles, which are click-baity, but that is normal (even for establishment publications) in this day and age.

[ificandream]

109. But ...

... I've seen him claim it's libelous to suggest he's not a legitimate news source.

[forthemiddle]

55. Exactly

That is what canvassing the vote is for!
There will always be data entry, and transposing errors the first night, that is why they don't certify the vote until after the canvassing is done.
If people wanted to wait three days to see who actually wins a state, or the exact totals this wouldn't happen, but because of the 24 hour news, and instant gratification culture we live in, you will have errors. That doesn't necessarily mean there will be fraud.
Don't get me wrong, I look forward to the recount in Wisconsin, its a great thing to audit all parts of the country in my opinion, but I don't use these data figures as automatic proof of fraud.
They were ALL corrected before the final results were sent to the state.

[babylonsister]

13. Thank you. nt

[Snarkoleptic]

15. The data he links to is from Cook Political Report, which is credible.

But now seventeen days later, based on various Wisconsin precincts revising their own totals, Dave Wasserman of the respected Cook Political Report has updated the totals. Donald Trump now has 1,404,536 total votes in Wisconsin, while Hillary Clinton now has 1,382,011 total votes

Link to their data/spreadsheet-
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?sle=true#gid=19

This means that the Drumpf lead of 27,257 is down to 22,525.
So 17% of his lead has evaporated, even before the recount begins.
To me this looks like rats leaving a sinking ship.

[ucrdem]

14. If the overvotes all favor Trump, that's a problem.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

16. They weren't overvotes

Overvotes are when a voter votes for two candidates in a single race. They were math mistakes made during the first hours after the polls closed. It's a fairly frequent occurrence, and why all returns remain "unofficial" until canvassing and reconciliation occurs.

[ucrdem]

20. Yes I'm sure it was all just a big misunderstanding. nt

[SickOfTheOnePct]

22. Yes I'm sure you've never been an election official

Otherwise you would have at least a cursory understanding about what goes on in a precinct once the last voter has left and the country is demanding the first round of returns.

You should volunteer next time - it would be an eye opener for you.

[radius777]

28. Is this the new meme by the anti-Clinton/Obama alt-left,

that the election system is perfect, there is no voter suppression, Comey is just a good guy doing his job, the FBI is a neutral and upstanding organization, Putin played no role in the election, Assange is a truth teller (and not a biased alt-left/right puppet), Trump is a misunderstood man of the people who won simply due to economics (and not his appeals to bigotry), all of these swing states (many predicted to go for Hillary) just magically all went narrowly to Trump who lost the popular vote by a wide margin and was predicted to lose the election by most reputable analysts.

[uponit7771]

31. 1

[SickOfTheOnePct]

36. Nope

In fact, when the full history of this election is written, I believe that voter suppression will be shown to be what defeated Clinton. And yes, I believe that Comey's letter 11 days before the election also had a negative impact.

Did Putin play a role in the election? Via the hacking of emails, sure. Via hacking the vote? No, I don't believe so.

And not buying into the "oh no, the election was stolen!" fantasy doesn't make one anti-Clinton or anti-Obama.

[chknltl]

50. Wow! Thank you.

I look forward to anything further you may have to report on this topic. It is brave of you to say (around here) that you don't think Putin had anything to do with the election. Much of the intelligentsia of the world agrees with you, as do I.

Well that's my 2 cents worth.

[Squinch]

92. Yep.

[Cheviteau]

39. Please.

Try to contribute something other than a pissy comment. As you can see I've taken claim to that job.

[kacekwl]

48. Why is it these mistakes

always seem to favor republicans ?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

49. They don't always favor Republicans

There was a mistake in the Sauk County, Wisconsin unofficial returns that favored Hillary, until corrected.

I've worked a number of elections in two states, and there wasn't a single election where some type of mistake wasn't made on election night...either bad math, transposing of numbers from tally sheets, transposing of numbers when written down at county election HQ, etc.

The key is that when canvassing begins the next day, when there isn't a big rush to submit numbers every 30 or 45 minutes, these errors are found. When the number of ballots cast, the number of ballots counted and the number of voters from the poll books have to be reconciled, issues like this are found.

[demmiblue]

34. Ah, the Daily News Bin dude...

clickbait indeed.

This election year has been littered with these types of sites being pushed here and elsewhere.

[Cheviteau]

37. Be Advised?

By whom? You? And your authority is...?

[oberliner]

38. Just letting people know about the site

For folks who might not be familiar with it.

[Cheviteau]

40. Thanks.

I'd never heard of that site but will start following it to find out for myself if it's worth my time or not; as I'm not one who takes advice from strangers on the internet.

[oberliner]

43. Sounds good

Personally, I think one of the best things about message boards like DU is getting advice from strangers on the internet about things - but that's just me!

[ucrdem]

11. It looks like some of the overvotes observed earlier had been added to Trump's totals

and then subtracted to bring the totals in line with the numbers of ballots:

https://twitter.com/dansolomon/status/801120460763082752

[Tactical Peek]

17. Snopes has the current margin at 22,177 votes, after...ah..corrections.

And the WI original totals show the margin the OP indicated.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/25/wisconsin-to-recount-ballots-after-claims-of-irregularities/

http://wisconsinvote.org/election-results


That's a lot of errors that all seem to help one candidate and not the other.

Might be accidental, but it sure smells to high heaven.

[ailsagirl]

23. Sure does

[2naSalit]

44. Thanks!

I am sure that this will be the case when as many audits as will be conducted have completed. There will probably be far more let's say "invisible/invalid" votes that favor the cheato and none that favor Clinton... in every state that conducts an audit.

And We, the People need to be loud and clear that we have the right to question and audit/recount this and any election which has so much irregularity and overt attempts to manipulate it. It's our right, as the majority of participating voters, to demand audits/recounts and they should be paid for from the general fund not by whomever can raise the funds. We're being played and we're acting like it's just time to "just move on, sorry about your luck... nothing to see here". Reminds me of some idiot, a few years back, who crashed into an 800lbs bear and only stopped to check things out after his vehicle stopped running a mile down the road.

[womanofthehills]

18. Wisconsin and past voting irregularities -

From Daily Kos 2011 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/4/11/965994/-

(updated) Waukesha voting irregularities go back to 2004...

Waukesha 2004, Bush v. Kerry.

"Apparently in 2004 the polls in Waukesha were teeming with voters as the Waukesha County Clerk's office showed a 97.63% turn out. No, that's not a typo. 97.63%"

[ucrdem]

24. This time it was only 85.36%

I guess the Russians hated Kerry more than Clinton.

[womanofthehills]

52. Australia has compulsory voting and their turnout is 95%

[forthemiddle]

57. This is not an anomaly

What was an anomaly was the smaller turnout this year (I think it was about 85%), and that is mainly because these are HARD CORE Republicans that didn't like Donald Trump.
It is one of the reddest areas of the whole country, and they take pride in their extremely high turnout. This is generally the part of the state (part of what is referred to as the WOW counties) that brings home the win for Republicans in a State wide race. They are usually outnumbered by Madison and Milwaukee, but not by much.
The difference this year was the huge turnout it Green Bay and Appleton, along with other rural areas of the state that came out for Trump.
Waukesha is smack dab in the middle of the Charlie Sykes listening area, and he has been deemed the Anti Trump conservative in the Country. He now is a regular on MSNBC for his Anti Trump views. The funniest part is that Charlies ex wife (who he is still very close too) was one of the top contenders on Trumps SCOTUS list.

[Hekate]

25. Kick

[RandySF]

26. 22,000 is a big hump to get over in a recount.

[Cheviteau]

42. Yeah?

Well a lot of people told Lindberg that the Atlantic Ocean was a big ocean to cross in a single flight. Statewide, 22,000 votes is not at all impossible to overcome.

[DFW]

45. Only if the tally is now without further "irregularities" are our prospects dim

Trump's margin is now at 0.8% of the votes now reported to have been cast. Close enough to warrant scrutiny, especially considering that the "errors" so far discovered were practically all (surprised?) in Trump's favor.

[radius777]

51. the larger point is about election fraud

if recounts can expose fraud/vote stuffing on the part of the right/trumpers - that would be a huge story and point to similar fraud in other states.

i'm not a conspiracy theorist by any measure, but hard facts (Comey, Rudy, Wiki, big polling leads and prediction models in H's favor that magically evaporated, Trump's psychological projection ie talk of a rigged election) tell any thinking person that this election was outright stolen.

it isn't just about Hillary/Dems, but about democracy, which people have to believe in for it to work.

"It's not who votes that counts, but who counts the votes." - Josef Stalin

[davidn3600]

60. Recounts typically do find errors

Mistakes happen. And recounts find them. But unless the election is close enough for the result to be overturned, states don't spend the money to do the recount. Usually we are talking about a few hundred votes or a few thousand votes. When they did the Ohio recount in 2004, the total only changed by like 200-some votes.

That's true with every state.

So yeah they will find a few issues here or there and the total will change.... But that doesn't prove there was fraud. It's inevitable that the total is going to change. But the chances of magically finding 25,000 or so votes is incredibly small.....let along try to find 13,000 votes in Michigan and 70,000 votes in PA.

This is a Herculean effort.

[anamandujano]

79. 1,000,000 and then some!

[anamandujano]

78. 5K before beginning is extraordinary. 5 will get you 10 there are thousands more.

[DallasNE]

29. Arithmetic Error?

Don't they have computers in Wisconsin?

That might have worked 50-60 years ago, but give me a break in this day and age. And even if they entered 5331 votes instead of 3531 votes the cross-tabulation check should have generated an error report and alerted people to double-check what they input because votes counted exceeds voters who voted. In this era of computers you simply cannot have an "arithmetic error" so who are they trying to kid.

[demtenjeep]

30. need a miracle

https://www.gofundme.com/pamelas-crohns-disease-relief

[Hugin]

32. KnR

Heartening.

[TheFrenchRazor]

33. i'm shocked... not. nt

[Action]

41. Yes, but

Will it even matter? Has any election ever been overturned after it was called? I'd give anything if the outcome would change to Hillary.

[PinkFloyd]

58. If this election has taught us anything it's that...

There's a first time for everything. I've got my fingers and my toes crossed as this is but a glimmer of hope that we won't have to live with Crooked Trump and his cabinet of horrors for at least four years.

One thing's for sure, if they do reverse it and Trump gets WI taken away, it's going to get really ugly as the GOP will do everything they can to keep Trump. It will be a rough fight but definitely one that is worth fighting.

[alfredo]

62. Remember, Trump supporters have guns and have threatened to use them if they don't win.

[JonLP24]

85. Franken vs Coleman

Washington Governors race

There are others

[Ligyron]

46. Failure or not it will be successful in bringing attention and for that alone

I was happy to donate $5.

I don't even care if Stein spends $2 of it on weed to smoke with her hippie friends for that matter.

Somebody, and I hope it Dems, needs to fight this disaster and the GOP RW takeover of our government every.single.step.of.the.way.

Every day and every hour of it full time.

[Snarkoleptic]

47. Indeed, I chipped in a few dollars as well.

The total is now over $5.7MM on a goal of $7MM.

[red dog 1]

56. K&R...Thanks for posting

[Beartracks]

59. God Himself could announce Trump's shrinking lead...

... and Republicans would then question His credibility.

==============

[bucolic_frolic]

61. The voters in 2017 should decide the next president

just delay the new president until then

like Mitch McConnell did for the Supreme Court Justice

[oasis]

64. K and R. Strike a blow for Democracy in America.

[ffr]

65. REC #100

Gladly.

[ificandream]

66. Not a good source

Never heard of Cook Political Report, but let's wait and see if the NYT, LA Times or Wash Post comes up with this stuff.

[FBaggins]

77. The Cook Political Report is an exceptional source

Unfortunately for the OP... they are in no sense the source. Their only connection to the story is that they updated their totals (like every other news source will) when the canvassing provided the official count.

[barbtries]

68. who's rigging who?

aargh

[Snarkoleptic]

69. This may help sort that out...

[ificandream]

71. Gotta stop using that fake news crap...

Just sayin'.

[Snarkoleptic]

88. Who appointed you arbiter of 'fake news' crap'?

Cook Political Report is a solid source, or do you have some wisdom you care to share? Please back up your challenge to my post and the info therein.

Fitrakas has credibility and has done a lot of work on election integrity. Again, if you have something solid to indicate he's a flake, please share.

Not everything that's not worked it's way into the corporate media is 'fake news crap'.

Just sayin'.

[ificandream]

110. My wisdom ...

I went to journalism school and worked at a major daily newspaper for 37 years as both a writer and editor. And I never said Cook was fake. I said I hadn't heard of them.

A lot of "news" sites have sprung up in the past few years. Most of them aren't worth a dollar. As for your statement that "Not everything that's not worked it's way into the corporate media is 'fake news crap'" is exactly the reason to be cautious. Personally, I'll take the NYT, Wash Post and CNN before anything else, though the media sure fell down badly this time around. The bad news sites far outnumber the good, unfortunately.

[Snarkoleptic]

111. So as a journo, your skill set may be employed by backing up your claims.

In this case your 'wisdom' seems to be more of a gut reaction, as you still haven't backed up your 'fake news crap' comment.

[ificandream]

112. Not at all...

You have a ton of websites that sprung up out of the blue during the campaign, some engineered by Trump from overseas. They should not be looked at seriously.

And I'll say, again, that I'm not familiar with Cook. Looking over the credentials on their site, only Cook is listed with any kind of journalism credentials. That should worry you.

[barbtries]

72. thank you.

my question was rhetorical but it's good to have my worst beliefs confirmed. well i mean you know, not good. but now what?
who with the power can bring this information in front of the people. where is the will to make it right.

you know what gets me is we can buy everything online, we can bank electronically, do and pay our taxes online, get an education over the internet, on and on, but voting still has to be this way?! Clearly that is only because someone somewhere is directing the victory to where they want it. there logically can be no other reason.

[anamandujano]

81. Well stated.

[Snarkoleptic]

83. Yep, I can't take 60 out of an ATM without rock solid accounting

yet we can't seem to get the vote to be solid.
It's almost like the PTB don't want us to have a say in the direction of our nation....hmmm.

I say we need paper ballots, scanners (if used) and tabulators must be government owned and running open source software.
Public financing of elections would also go a long way to restoring our confidence.

[triron]

82. Using Dr. Fitrakis data

I did a back of the envelope calculation:


I assumed a binary value for exit poll vs actual result (e'g. heads if favor Clinton, tails if favor Trump --or vice versa--doesn't matter). In 24 out of 28 states where exit polling was done results favor Trump (some by significant percentage points --e.g. Ohio (+8.5)). Assuming a simple binary model the probablility is 28!/(24!4!)/(2 to power of 28)
or about 7.67E-5 (less than 1 chance in 10,000) --that Trump won with his ev margin, based on exit polling

Pretty much impossible

[JonLP24]

84. This is completely normal

Happens all the time.