Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)
- Thread starter Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)
- Start date
- Status
Yes, but I think crucially, they aren't an official result. Leaks (or "leaks") about an official result are much more powerful since they aren't a prediction about what is likely to happen but are ostensibly a report of what already has happened. The results of a Reuters/Ipsos poll still have to be tested against the actual election result where turnout can swing it one way or another. This may be less important if there exists mandatory voting, but in the United States that's not the case.
I love
Disagree I have a political science lecturer who knew his shit on drones and works for the Pentagon. You can easily be a communicator with just the facts if you understand them.Me too, because our entire field is bad at what we do.
So who are you to lecture us about software? What is your profession?
---
And now the news:
More evidence of fraud that you can ignore, and then turn around and say "there's no evidence!"
A CLOSE LOOK AT THE DATA - ARIZONA
Data science experts scrutinize the vote tallies and data from election night across the state of Arizona. Included is the raw data feed for this state, should you like to follow along and review forrumble.com
Data science experts scrutinize the vote tallies and data from election night across the state of Arizona. Included is the raw data feed for this state, should you like to follow along and review for yourself.
Define "stolen" and how that compares to what we see now. The only person who whined about fraud in 2016 was Donald Trump himself because his ego couldn't accept that he lost the popular vote. I can remember that Democrats complained about Russia campaigning for Trump, progressives complaining chosing Hillary as nominee got Trump elected and so forth. But none of these discredited the electoral process and actual vote count. Most people accepted Trump won, they were angry about it but they accepted it.
And while some people may have suggested Clinton to sue, did she do it? Because I know someone who IS suing abusively right now.
And the people who had those fears about Obama should indeed have been considered Loonies because Obama never said or did anything to suggest he might do that. In contrast Trump pre-disputed the election results once the polls showed he was severely trailing behind and said he wouldn't consider a loss legitimate. That's a sign someone doesn't want to hand over the torch isn't it? We could also mention what Michael Flynn proposed, a man Trump had in his administration, pardonned and continuously praised the last couple of months.
You can't compare 100% baseless assumptions with assumptions based on worrying events. Sure I wouldn't expect Trump to be able to pull off a coup and I know everything he says is just to preserve his pathetic ego, but his words are the ones of a President who would want to pull off a coup (and probably would if it were in a Third world country with a blindly obedient and corrupt military). There is a reason why you don't see this kind of shit in stable democracies...
Last edited:
You must surely see how meaningless these are. Self-description and a numerical graph with no indication of how it's measured?
It's a legal & constitutional principle in the US that voting should be reasonably accessible, not just a logistical issue for legislators to work out. And as such, ease-of-voting questions have always been open to judicial input.
The pandemic changed what constitutes easily-accessible voting. Thus the judiciary can pass judgement to say whether or not processes are still consistent with the state's legal obligation. This is perfectly in line with their established role.
And Republicans were allowed poll-watchers. It's always been a crock that they weren't.
No, it's basically true, as you demonstrate with your graph. The complication is more that the distinction of "conservative" and "liberal" is necessarily a gross simplification in terms of the Supreme Court: there are principles of jurisprudence which don't necessarily fit conventional political boxes. Also, of course, dependending on what those authors define as "conservative" and "liberal", because there's going to be a lot of devil in that detail.
As a lesson in graph reading, your graph shows that he is conservative - just "less conservative" than the others. But isn't that my point?
Of course. But there's a difference between a handful of cranks and talking heads punting theoretical long shots, and an official, concerted strategy to overthrow the election backed by the president himself, many state and national legislators, and even the weight of whole states (even if their suits lack standing). When you say "What isn't normal is this overblown reaction", that overblown reaction is nothing less than a formal, officially sanctioned attempt to declare fraud without evidence and scrap the election. That's a whole, massive new level of WTF?
Because the above. This isn't just a few calls in the wilderness. Large tracts of the Republican Party have, as a systematic strategy, decided to officially endorse the notion that the election was fraudulent (but only in selected key states), attempted to scrap the election in those states and hand over the decision to a partisan legislature.
Are we talking about Pennsylvania here? With its Republican-dominated House and Republican-dominated Senate, that formulated the rules "as a giant middle finger to Republicans"?
No, he's just been ramming as many conservative judges into office as he can wherever there's a vacancy due to death and retirement, appointing by ideology ahead of competence.
I don't think Trump's base needed the help of anti Trump news, antifa or BLM to give everyone that impression.
Fine. Enjoy. All the statistics behind that graph. I'm sure since you were so hardworking in figuring out the graph the first time, you'll be keen to read those papers.
Not in PA. Not a crock at all. They opened "satellite election offices" in Philadelphia where you could show up, register, receive a ballot in person, fill it out, and immediately hand it in. Which is to say, they made early voting places. Then they denied the Trump campaign poll watchers under the argument that they weren't polling places.
Pa. judge tosses Trump complaint over polling place restrictions
The president's lawsuit connected to his now-famous "Bad things happen in Philadelphia" quote has been rejected.
whyy.org
I believe a responsible outlook would be "given the circumstances, these additional voting options will help people vote more safely, and we should allow them to exist with all the same transparency requirements we put on normal voting methods. But instead, they allowed things, and then said "neener, neener, neener, you can't see what we're doing", and amassed a pile a votes without oversight, which is exactly the pile of votes that flipped PA from very red to slightly blue overnight. I don't think those votes were inappropriate or fraudulent, but there'd be a hell of a lot less reason to think they were if Democrat judges weren't jerking off to themselves pissing off Trump.
No, it isn't. That isn't your point. Your point was that he's a real conservative, and other Republicans are wacko. Unless you're demanding someone land exactly on the razor's edge at 0 to be considered effectively "independent", the graph isn't supporting you. And frankly, I don't think you believe what you're saying anyway. I think you're just running with anything that lets you further piss on Trump people, as is tradition.
The voting laws determined by the PA legislature were tossed aside. The courts made all the determinations. This is just ignorance on your part.
Forgive me, but where was I meant to start? The link denoted in the graph itself leads to a 404. And unless I'm missing something, neither of those links you provided actually contain the graph.
Right, so you're talking specifically about in-person absentee voting. Those votes aren't actually tabulated or counted until election day. Poll-watchers are supposed to be present to view the tabulation and counting process, so... that's perfectly consistent.Not in PA. Not a crock at all. They opened "satellite election offices" in Philadelphia where you could show up, register, receive a ballot in person, fill it out, and immediately hand it in. Which is to say, they made early voting places. Then they denied the Trump campaign poll watchers under the argument that they weren't polling places.
Pa. judge tosses Trump complaint over polling place restrictions
The president's lawsuit connected to his now-famous "Bad things happen in Philadelphia" quote has been rejected.
I believe a responsible outlook would be "given the circumstances, these additional voting options will help people vote more safely, and we should allow them to exist with all the same transparency requirements we put on normal voting methods. But instead, they allowed things, and then said "neener, neener, neener, you can't see what we're doing", and amassed a pile a votes without oversight, which is exactly the pile of votes that flipped PA from very red to slightly blue overnight. I don't think those votes were inappropriate or fraudulent, but there'd be a hell of a lot less reason to think they were if Democrat judges weren't jerking off to themselves pissing off Trump.
If you wanted poll-watchers to be allowed to stay where those votes are stored before they're counted, then there's absolutely no way that should be allowed. Partisan, party-affiliated actors shouldn't have unfettered, unmonitored access to stored ballots.
1) If you actually want to check the methodolgy, they are comparing the justice's rulings partly against contemporary political debate. In essence, on their chart, a justice would become more "liberal" not because their views and rulings change, but because conservative politics becomes more extreme. (With respect to this, it's quite interesting that all the other justices become "more liberal" about the same time.)
2) I'm guessing you cherry picked that graph off Wikipedia because it was convenient. I wonder why you didn't pick the one below it composed by another group.
3) A substantial chunk of the Trump Republicans are "wacko", as they are busy demonstrating.
It's not my problem or fault that the PA legislature could not get their arses in gear to make laws that passed muster.
The one below it doesn't disagree, it just ends 7 years sooner before most of that giant swing towards center.
It's your fault for not understanding the complaint. When the complaint is "the PA courts were abusing their power and disregarding the legislature to give Trump the middle finger" and your comeback is "well, the Republican led legislature wrote the rules", your comeback sucks.
And "you need your actual signature on the envelope" is not a law that doesn't pass muster. It passes just fine.
Typically, if you mean to enter an argument, you might want to start with an actual counterpoint. At this moment, I don't even know if you actually disagree with me, you're just claiming my presentation of information was insufficient.
Oh, spare me. Criticism of a specious source is a perfectly valid point to raise.
I disagree with the late characterisation of traditional conservatives as "liberals" or "RINOs" for their refusal to go along with the utter clown-show that Trump has set up.
How kind of the traitors to keep outing themselves.
Wait isn't she a Qanon freak as well? Yikes. Opposed to democracy and believing her opponents rape and eat children. Talk about a piece of work.
I was responding a post that was just text of someone's opinion with no source or data. The vast majority of this board is posts with no source or data. It's not a specious source because you don't know where it came from. That's not what specious means. That's nearly the opposite of what specious means. You thought it looked wrong but actually it's backed by serious study. That's the opposite of specious.
Don't forget they also believe opponents harvest the children's adrenochome to then drink and/or inject into their blood to prolong youth.
Your entire party's official strategy is to cast doubt on the reliability of the election, yet another unverifiable opinion can be thrown in the dustbin with the rest of them that Houseman's been unflaggingly hawking.
So you're saying the election was so poorly run that whether or not there was fraud can't be verified?
- Status