[Winstonm]

jogs, on 2017-January-25, 09:00, said:

DOW 20K

The progressive left said the stock markets would crash if Trump won the presidency. Wrong by about 5,000 points.

What a thought. Businessmen are better at running the country than career politicians.

By your Dow gauge, Obama must have been the greatest president ever as he started office with Dow at 7,949.09 and ended his final term with Dow over 19,000.

[barmar]

Winstonm, on 2017-January-25, 15:40, said:

By your Dow gauge, Obama must have been the greatest president ever as he started office with Dow at 7,949.09 and ended his final term with Dow over 19,000.

But it dropped 20% in Obama's first 2 months of office, while it just hit a new record in Trump's first week. Trump is obviously "winning".

[mikeh]

ldrews, on 2017-January-25, 13:47, said:

Do we actually have any facts/evidence in this area? Has anyone credible investigated? I have read that the Detroit precincts are pretty messed up with significantly more votes recorded that actual votes in the ballot box.

There have been lengthy, bipartisan investigations of federal electoral problems many times, including under George W Bush and Obama.

There have never been any (reputable, data-based) studies that concluded that there was any evidence of fraud.

There has been a major study that showed that voter registration rolls were out of date: many names appeared despite the fact that the people involved were dead or had moved. However, that is not at all the same as finding evidence that ballots were marked in these names. Indeed, it is simply stupid or malicious to suggest that one implies the other. We still once in a while get mail at our home addressed to the former owner, even after 15 years (I think we got one last year). That doesn't imply that we impersonate that former owner. My wife got mail addressed to her father for two years after his passing, including from organizations who had been promptly advised of his passing. That doesn't mean that my wife impersonated her father.

The real problem here is that Trump's paranoid, insecurity-based fantasies fit in all too well with the dominant GOP electoral strategy over the past 20+ years: voter suppression.

I very much doubt that trump has any intention of creating a bi-partisan inquiry, and nobody should be naïve enough to think that the republicans in Congress will insist that he do. So we are going to get a carefully selected group with well-understood, but never publicly voiced, instructions to ensure that they find evidence that requires stricter, federal voter-id laws.

Right now, some federal judges have been able to stave off some of the effects of GOP voter suppression, but their ability to do so is based on conflicts between state-imposed laws, targeting blacks and low-income people, and federal law. We can expect, before the next presidential election and possibly before the mid-terms, changes designed to ensure that the minority party continues to hold the majority power in Congress.

The US has never been the beacon of democracy it claims to be, but the illusion is about to become even sickenly obvious.

[barmar]

mikeh, on 2017-January-25, 15:49, said:

The US has never been the beacon of democracy it claims to be, but the illusion is about to become even sickenly obvious.

Yeah, I always love the hypocracy that when fledgeling democracies want their elections monitored, we step in.

[ldrews]

Quote

There have been a number of studies done - none has discovered rampant voter fraud.

Did you just move the goalposts? What level of fraud would you designate as "rampant" fraud? The popular vote difference was, what, 2-3%? Would that be rampant?

Quote

Trump is claiming deliberate voter fraud, with millions of illegal votes (he says it's responsible for him losing the popular vote), not voting machine errors like these (it's not clear why these errors would be biased towards any particular candidate).

Are you serious? 37% of the precincts showing more votes than voters! That is not some random machine error.

[PassedOut]

ldrews, on 2017-January-25, 16:39, said:

Did you just move the goalposts? What level of fraud would you designate as "rampant" fraud? The popular vote difference was, what, 2-3%? Would that be rampant?
Are you serious? 37% of the precincts showing more votes than voters! That is not some random machine error.

I live in Michigan and have worked elections here.

Voters come in, fill out paper slips, and show their identification. Poll workers look them up on a computer printout, issue a numbered ballot, and mark a poll book to show that the voter has been issued that ballot. There are procedures for issuing a substitute ballot if one is spoiled (usually because of an overvote detected by the scanner), and also for a provisional ballot in case the voter believes the computer printout is incorrect in not showing that voter as registered and eligible.

Often things can get very hectic, much of the process is manual, and it is not uncommon for slight mismatches between the optical scan count and the counts of the manual entries made by the poll workers. There is an end-of-day reconciliation process to account for that. Poll workers always include both democrats and republicans.

I looked up the results for Wayne County for the 2016 election:

270 precincts  no mismatch
 77 precincts  +1 vote
 62 precincts  +2 votes
 37 precincts  +3 votes
 20 precincts  +4 votes
 52 precincts  +5 or more votes
 81 precincts  -1 vote
 29 precincts  -2 votes
 19 precincts  -3 votes
  7 precincts  -4 votes
  8 precincts  -5 or more votes

In no precinct were there more votes than registered voters.

As I said earlier, I'm not a democrat, but facts are facts. These figures don't reflect well on some of the poll workers (and it's not easy to get highly qualified people to work elections), but I just don't understand how you or anyone else has looked at these numbers and portrayed them as "rampant voter fraud."

What's your angle in doing so?

[mikeh]

ldrews, on 2017-January-25, 16:39, said:

Did you just move the goalposts? What level of fraud would you designate as "rampant" fraud? The popular vote difference was, what, 2-3%? Would that be rampant?

2-3% would indeed be rampant....it would be millions of votes....millions of fraudsters, so...yes....that would be rampant.

Any degree of fraud that has any reasonable likelihood of changing the result of an election would maybe not be 'rampant' as such but would be significant, and there was no evidence....none...that any presidential election since 1960 was determined by fraud. 1960 was still a time of 'machine' politics in many big cities, and there was certainly some doubt as to how legitimate the voting in Chicago was, at the time. Nixon might not have won anyway, but having Chicago in the bag can't have hurt JFK. add in suspicions about Texas, where Lyndon Johnson was an 'old-style' politician, and there were claims that fraud had swung the election. Had Nixon won both Illinois and Texas he would have won 270 electoral votes and won by the narrowest of margins.

Btw, California is home to 3MM illegals, a very significant percentage of those in the country. Texas is next, at 1.5MM. Assume that there were 4-5% fraudulent votes, all for Clinton, in those two states....this would be a huge percentage of trump's fevered numbers of fraudulent votes, and surely plausible....if it were illegals, then surely most would be were there were the most illegals?

What difference would that make? In Texas, trump won by 8%. In California, HRC won by 30%. Trump is a lunatic, a paranoid narcissistic bully with deep insecurities. What's your excuse for these fantasies?

Quote

Are you serious? 37% of the precincts showing more votes than voters! That is not some random machine error.

I can't comment on whether the errors were 'random machine errors'. What I can say, having found media articles about the Michigan recount when it happened, and the discrepancies were discovered, is that the discrepancies were indeed because of machine errors.

As I understand it, in those precincts where machines were in use, a ballot would be completed and then scanned through a machine. Unfortunately as many as half the machines in any one precinct (tho on average fewer) would jam or break, resulting in the machines not capturing all of the ballots.

There is, from the information I was able to find, no suggestion of any deliberate jamming or wrecking of the machines. My own suspicion is that this is what you get from machines that are infrequently used, usually operated by people with only cursory knowledge or training, and in conditions of heavy use. While the articles I reviewed suggested machine error, there were apparently problems due to overloading the machines, suggestive to me, at least, of some degree of human error as well.

Edit: I thank PassedOut for finding actual data aas opposed to media stories: apparently the machine breakdowns didn't have much impact anyway (end edit)

You know, it is so very difficult to have discussions with most (all?) of the right wing contributors here, since so little of the points they make seem based in reality. Did you, for instance, make any effort to look behind the headline that there were more ballots caast than machine-counted, or did you stop with yout intellectual curiosity as soon as you found a headline that appeared to justify your distorted suggestion that this was evidence of fraud?

I would truly enjoy a debate with an informed, honest conservative. I am sure such a person exists somewhere, but nobody meeting that description ever seems to post here, or (for that matter) feature in real world politics. No wonder it is widely believed in many circles that reality has a liberal bias In fact, it is, or so it appears, that liberals have a reality-bias, while conservatives have sound-bites, lies, and ignorance.

Surprise me: make an evidence-based argument.

[jogs]

The Obama's net worth is $24 to $40 million. They have never had jobs that pay that well. Why is the progressive left not asking how the Obamas accumulated that wealth?

[jogs]

Winstonm, on 2017-January-25, 15:40, said:

By your Dow gauge, Obama must have been the greatest president ever as he started office with Dow at 7,949.09 and ended his final term with Dow over 19,000.

No. The Obama rally was due solely to easy money. It created this vast income inequality.

[jogs]

PassedOut, on 2017-January-25, 17:49, said:

270 precincts  no mismatch
 77 precincts  +1 vote
 62 precincts  +2 votes
 37 precincts  +3 votes
 20 precincts  +4 votes
 52 precincts  +5 or more votes
 81 precincts  -1 vote
 29 precincts  -2 votes
 19 precincts  -3 votes
  7 precincts  -4 votes
  8 precincts  -5 or more votes

In no precinct were there more votes than registered voters.

As I said earlier, I'm not a democrat, but facts are facts. These figures don't reflect well on some of the poll workers (and it's not easy to get highly qualified people to work elections), but I just don't understand how you or anyone else has looked at these numbers and portrayed them as "rampant voter fraud."

What's your angle in doing so?

Your numbers prove voter fraud. In the U.S. voter turnout is typically under 55%.

[mikeh]

jogs, on 2017-January-25, 18:17, said:

The Obama's net worth is $24 to $40 million. They have never had jobs that pay that well. Why is the progressive left not asking how the Obamas accumulated that wealth?

They both had jobs at a large, prestigious law firm, I assure you that they made good money. Then Obama wrote a couple of best selling books (and several other books as well. I suspect he did ok there.

Then he has made a reasonable income the last 8 years with, I imagine, relatively few direct living expenses

You know, this is exactly the problem I have been bemoaning: right wingers appear to lack any ability to look behind the little headlines that resonate with them. Thinking critically about the stuff they write seems beyond them.

btw, you have continued to prove your lack of intellect. Passed Out's figures were the differences between hand counted ballots (issued ballots) and machine counted ballots, which was in response to your fellow right wing poster's dishonest claim that there was widespread voter fraud in Wayne County

[ldrews]

Quote

I looked up the results for Wayne County for the 2016 election:

270 precincts no mismatch
77 precincts +1 vote
62 precincts +2 votes
37 precincts +3 votes
20 precincts +4 votes
52 precincts +5 or more votes
81 precincts -1 vote
29 precincts -2 votes
19 precincts -3 votes
7 precincts -4 votes
8 precincts -5 or more votes

Yes, thank you PassedOut. I had not seen this data. It did take me a little while to find it myself even with your trailblazing. The data does refute any suggestion of bias. It is amazing that Detroit had so many problems. Clearly the Detroit/Michigan voting methodology can stand improvement.

If similar evidence can be made available for the assertion of "illegals" voting in California and other similar states then it could be shown that Trump is indeed delusional regarding the popular vote. Since he is now our President for the next 4 years, I sincerely hope that that is the extent of his delusions.

[PassedOut]

jogs, on 2017-January-25, 18:27, said:

Your numbers prove voter fraud. In the U.S. voter turnout is typically under 55%.

I didn't give turnout percentages, but they vary by location and election. My county, which is quite conservative, had a turnout of almost 64% last November. Wayne County had a turnout of 58.6%, down considerably from 2012.

[Winstonm]

ldrews, on 2017-January-25, 16:39, said:

Did you just move the goalposts? What level of fraud would you designate as "rampant" fraud? The popular vote difference was, what, 2-3%? Would that be rampant?

3=5 million votes would be rampant.

[kenberg]

Now that the President of the United States has asserted that there is massive election fraud, we have to deal with it. How this is dealt with will tell us a lot. I am sure it would be possible to find people who are well respected for ability and for having an open mind, known for impartiality and integrity, to conduct this investigation. We will see if that is what we get.

In my view, we should try hard not to have this be a total waste of time and money. In this age of hacking, some serious suggestions from knowledgeable people regarding cybersecurity of voting would be welcome.


Some thoughts:
When I moved from Minnesota to Maryland, I registered to vote in Maryland. I never made any effort to cancel my registration in Minnesota. I came here in 1967, I voted here in 1968. It never crossed my mind to fly back to Minnesota and vote again.
I am guessing, I confess that I don't know, that a properly conducted investigation will demonstrate to all but the most determined that voter fraud is not widespread. The reward would not at all be worth the risk for individual voters, and a massive organized effort would seem to be difficult to carry out without detection. The risk of cyber tampering seems like a more likely future threat, and I hope that a serious committee would take a look at how best to deal with this. One suggestion might be to stop wasting money on stupid investigations and spend it instead on state of the art cyber-protection.

For whatever it is worth, here is a story from the old days, 1958 I think. In college I worked regularly but I also picked up odd jobs, sort of one night stands. One was "delivering ballots". After the polls closed on election day, I would drive to the polling place, pick up boxes of ballots, as yet uncounted as far as I know, and delver them to a central location for counting. Voting age was 21 so I was not even old enough to vote. I suppose I could have tampered. I didn't. And, reflecting on my above thoughts, why would I? I was doing this for the money I was being paid, not for the chance to influence a Senate race. If I wanted a payoff from some Dem or Rep for tampering, I would have had no idea ho to do this and surely would have been arrested while trying. This is not something I considered and rejected, I just did as I was told and go paid.

Anyway, we will see who is appointed to do this investigation and how it is conducted. If the charge is serious then the investigation must be serious. You can probably tell that I am very skeptical of the whole enterprise, but we shall see.

[cloa513]

kenberg, on 2017-January-25, 21:02, said:

Now that the President of the United States has asserted that there is massive election fraud, we have to deal with it. How this is dealt with will tell us a lot. I am sure it would be possible to find people who are well respected for ability and for having an open mind, known for impartiality and integrity, to conduct this investigation. We will see if that is what we get.

In my view, we should try hard not to have this be a total waste of time and money. In this age of hacking, some serious suggestions from knowledgeable people regarding cybersecurity of voting would be welcome.


Some thoughts:
When I moved from Minnesota to Maryland, I registered to vote in Maryland. I never made any effort to cancel my registration in Minnesota. I came here in 1967, I voted here in 1968. It never crossed my mind to fly back to Minnesota and vote again.
I am guessing, I confess that I don't know, that a properly conducted investigation will demonstrate to all but the most determined that voter fraud is not widespread. The reward would not at all be worth the risk for individual voters, and a massive organized effort would seem to be difficult to carry out without detection. The risk of cyber tampering seems like a more likely future threat, and I hope that a serious committee would take a look at how best to deal with this. One suggestion might be to stop wasting money on stupid investigations and spend it instead on state of the art cyber-protection.

For whatever it is worth, here is a story from the old days, 1958 I think. In college I worked regularly but I also picked up odd jobs, sort of one night stands. One was "delivering ballots". After the polls closed on election day, I would drive to the polling place, pick up boxes of ballots, as yet uncounted as far as I know, and delver them to a central location for counting. Voting age was 21 so I was not even old enough to vote. I suppose I could have tampered. I didn't. And, reflecting on my above thoughts, why would I? I was doing this for the money I was being paid, not for the chance to influence a Senate race. If I wanted a payoff from some Dem or Rep for tampering, I would have had no idea ho to do this and surely would have been arrested while trying. This is not something I considered and rejected, I just did as I was told and go paid.

Anyway, we will see who is appointed to do this investigation and how it is conducted. If the charge is serious then the investigation must be serious. You can probably tell that I am very skeptical of the whole enterprise, but we shall see.

You have to remember there is a how bucreacracy that doesn't what to see any problems- just look at the recent statement by federal electoral official- we don't see any credible issues- so there are really are problem but they don't see it as that.
Your case just demonstrates how easy to commit fraud. Its doesn't take a big conspiracy to commit electoral fraud- one guy in few key electorates who votes hundreds of times using - paid from a slush fund set up in way for deniability- paid for electoral services. Democratic Party associates admitted on Veritas camera that they would anything to win and detailed some of illegal ways they'd do it.

[mike777]

Poster after poster after poster shows how the President is a liar
dont look at my posts ...look at their posts


I lost count over how many crimes and misdemeanors they quote...


Where is impeachment...even if it fails....


At some point posters come across as just wanting to show how righteous they are
at some point these posts become more about posters


-------------------

I need to make sure my posts are not so selfish
---------------------------


at some point I need to make sure my anti trump bias is a bit more open to he may not be a racist fascist antijew pig

[Zelandakh]

mikeh, on 2017-January-25, 18:00, said:

As I understand it, in those precincts where machines were in use, a ballot would be completed and then scanned through a machine. Unfortunately as many as half the machines in any one precinct (tho on average fewer) would jam or break, resulting in the machines not capturing all of the ballots.

There is, from the information I was able to find, no suggestion of any deliberate jamming or wrecking of the machines. My own suspicion is that this is what you get from machines that are infrequently used, usually operated by people with only cursory knowledge or training, and in conditions of heavy use.

It seems to me that having faulty machines placed in poor districts is an excellent way of creating even longer queues and ultimately in reducing the turnout there. In other words, I can easily imagine that there is an incentive for some districts to have these problems. If we want to get into voter a discussion of voter fraud, I would have thought that such voter suppression tactics would be an area with much higher numbers and a far greater impact on this election. For local elections, gerrymandering is also an obvious candidate and is in some cases as extreme in America as any country in the world.

I suspect this is really the point though. Think back a little while and you will remember that the discussion over the election was centered on Russian involvement. Now we are talking about voter fraud. Trump has successfully controlled the agenda. This is what all good politicians try to do - a few lies thrown in to achieve that end is just par for the course.

[kenberg]

cloa513, on 2017-January-26, 00:25, said:

You have to remember there is a how bucreacracy that doesn't what to see any problems- just look at the recent statement by federal electoral official- we don't see any credible issues- so there are really are problem but they don't see it as that.
Your case just demonstrates how easy to commit fraud. Its doesn't take a big conspiracy to commit electoral fraud- one guy in few key electorates who votes hundreds of times using - paid from a slush fund set up in way for deniability- paid for electoral services. Democratic Party associates admitted on Veritas camera that they would anything to win and detailed some of illegal ways they'd do it.

I agree that it could happen. "Vote early and often" is an old joke. and like many jokes perhaps is based on some reality. I strongly doubt that there is much there there, but the president asserts that there is, and now we will investigate.

It was cleverly said after the election that Trump's opponents took him literally but not seriously, his supporters took him seriously but not literally. Now he is president. I expect to take a president, any president, both seriously and literally. I am finding this difficult to do, but I think it would be a disaster to ever get to the point where what the president says is simply written off as another 2 am tweet, no need to take it either seriously or literally.

I don't really care how many people came in to see the inauguration. I live in the area and it was rainy and chilly, not a great day. I can let that pass. But he has also said that NATO is obsolete, that he doesn't care what happens with the EU, and that our elections are plagued by massive fraud. The guy is president. This means people will be listening to what he says and acting on it. The correct action for a serious charge of voter fraud is a thorough investigation led by people of unquestioned integrity.

I don't care about the size of Trump's hands, but he has a very big mouth. . In the past I could avoid this by not tuning in The Apprentice. We no longer can ignore what he says, so let's get the investigation up and going. In this country we have had serious investigations looking into serious problems, and we have had witch hunts. We shall see how this investigation goes. Who is chosen to lead it will be crucial.

And the final report of thie blue-ribbon committee must be released directly to the people, unfiltered by any political body.

[Vampyr]

Trump had said if he lost it would be due voter fraud, and now he has won but is claiming it is due to fraud the that he (seemingly!) lost the popular vote.

When is he going to claim that it was voter fraud that stopped him from winning the 95% margins that dictators in one-party states achieve?

One thing is pretty important -- those of you who live in states with onerous voter-registration laws have to start or join organisations that will assist people getting registered.