2016 Postmortem

FBaggins

(27,738 posts)

12. That was initially a 225 vote margin

Reply to ucrdem (Reply #10)

Sun Nov 27, 2016, 09:10 PM

Nov 2016

It's understatement in the extreme to say "this one probably isn't going to be any easier"

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

50 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

(538) Recounts Rarely Reverse Election Results [View all] FBaggins Nov 2016 OP

there is nothing usual about this one treestar Nov 2016 #1

Unusual in impact... but not as unusual as some think FBaggins Nov 2016 #3

This is an unprecedented year! Madam45for2923 Nov 2016 #2

Dear 538, kindly fuck off. onecaliberal Nov 2016 #4

Thank you. MFM008 Nov 2016 #5

1000 liquid diamond Nov 2016 #8

This!!! DemonGoddess Nov 2016 #9

So there are facts here that are wrong or that you disagree with? philosslayer Nov 2016 #20

Why? Because they wrote an article based on facts? Ace Rothstein Nov 2016 #24

538 saying something factual is troubling to you? brooklynite Nov 2016 #26

It would be factual is the Russia ... factor .... was included, its not... they're assholes for uponit7771 Nov 2016 #41

The article is about recounts, not the broader issue of campaign dirty tricks brooklynite Nov 2016 #44

Nate you ain't the golden boy anymore jodymarie aimee Nov 2016 #6

People keep telling him that... FBaggins Nov 2016 #7

Franken's recount was epic, but he won it. ucrdem Nov 2016 #10

That was initially a 225 vote margin FBaggins Nov 2016 #12

well, the russians probably didn't care that much about a minn senate race. nt TheFrenchRazor Nov 2016 #31

He's one of the guys who said the "suspicious" data the computer scientist came up with jmg257 Nov 2016 #11

Sorry... that post reads as though he had been proven wrong FBaggins Nov 2016 #13

He is likely right, as the computer guy himself said, likely not hacking involved. jmg257 Nov 2016 #18

If there were hacking, how would recount show otherwise? LisaL Nov 2016 #28

beats me - figure they have to be recounting for some reason (other then "threatening democracy"). n jmg257 Nov 2016 #34

Perhaps Mordor is too powerful. bigmonkey Nov 2016 #14

Love it! FBaggins Nov 2016 #15

Really? bigmonkey Nov 2016 #16

Certainly FBaggins Nov 2016 #19

Thank you SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2016 #22

I don't know that PA will be recounted FBaggins Nov 2016 #23

It's no public service to throw cold water on attempts to improve the situation. bigmonkey Nov 2016 #50

Why can't we rec message replies??????? JHan Nov 2016 #27

Does Debbie Downer have a brother? TheBlackAdder Nov 2016 #17

Don't care. tavernier Nov 2016 #21

We've never had an election before okasha Nov 2016 #25

I could care less what they think anymore. wisteria Nov 2016 #29

He is only telling the truth. LisaL Nov 2016 #30

don't care; machines are hackable; i don't trust 'em. lemme see the paper. nt TheFrenchRazor Nov 2016 #32

What paper? Paper isn't going to magically appear during LisaL Nov 2016 #35

He's telling a half truth, there's little mention of Russia uponit7771 Nov 2016 #42

"Rarely" does not equal "never." DFW Nov 2016 #33

Just to be clear forthemiddle Nov 2016 #36

It's odd, in that case, that this was not widely reported until the end of last week DFW Nov 2016 #37

I live in one of the districts forthemiddle Nov 2016 #38

It certainly mattered this time more than in other elections eom DFW Nov 2016 #39

yes forthemiddle Nov 2016 #43

538 IS WRONG ON ITS FACE because its leaving out the Russian factor at best uponit7771 Nov 2016 #40

How will knowing about Russia roll change the outcome? brooklynite Nov 2016 #45

THAT, Russian played a part is the variance here... 538 ignored that seeing no one knows uponit7771 Nov 2016 #46

...no, Russia's roll has no impact on the recount brooklynite Nov 2016 #48

Maybe is horrible and 538 should factor that in instead of ignoring it and yes its possible uponit7771 Nov 2016 #49

So? Who cares. That doesn't mean you never do them. kcr Nov 2016 #47