The General Election

[zoogs]

I undoubtedly think that should be the goal: to untether Trump supporters from a man they should not define themselves by.

 

You can be a Democrat who doesn't like things they are doing. You can be an Obama voter who doesn't like everything he did. You can be a Trump voter who doesn't try to excuse him at every turn, if things like sexual assault or demeaning others are not things you personally support.

[QMany]

 

I feel like starting #LockHimUp.

[knapplc]

Hillary was corrupt, though.

[zoogs]

The fallout from that wake-up moment is going to be interesting

To this comment: I don't think there is going to be a wake-up moment. At least, it won't be brought upon by Trump himself saying something that finally crosses the line. People are quite good at moving that line around to suit them.

 

To get there will take a lot of active work, to drive a wedge between Trump and his supporters. Believing themselves to be decent people who love America should be more important to most than a whole-hearted endorsement of Trump. The latter will be hard to maintain sans a full-blown subscription to Breitbart and the alt-right.

[knapplc]

 

The fallout from that wake-up moment is going to be interesting

To this comment: I don't think there is going to be a wake-up moment. At least, it won't be brought upon by Trump himself saying something that finally crosses the line. People are quite good at moving that line around to suit them.

 

To get there will take a lot of active work, to drive a wedge between Trump and his supporters. Believing themselves to be decent people who love America should be more important to most than a whole-hearted endorsement of Trump. The latter will be hard to maintain sans a full-blown subscription to Breitbart and the alt-right.

 

They are a people who believe that they believe in right & wrong, truth over lies, honor, etc, etc. At some point Trump is going to step over a line for them. Maybe it'll be an epiphany moment, maybe it'll be a gradual thing. But once they start looking at him without a filter, they're going to hate what they see.

[zoogs]

If they believe in truth over lies, and right over wrong, and Trump hasn't crossed either of those lines yet, then it must be that right and truth are whatever Trump says is right and truth.

 

But, yeah: if that filter can be removed...

[knapplc]

They have to realize/believe that he is no longer on their team. Breaking these campaign promises they held so dear is a step in that direction. We'll see how many more steps he takes.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

The fallout from that wake-up moment is going to be interesting

To this comment: I don't think there is going to be a wake-up moment. At least, it won't be brought upon by Trump himself saying something that finally crosses the line. People are quite good at moving that line around to suit them.

 

To get there will take a lot of active work, to drive a wedge between Trump and his supporters. Believing themselves to be decent people who love America should be more important to most than a whole-hearted endorsement of Trump. The latter will be hard to maintain sans a full-blown subscription to Breitbart and the alt-right.

 

They are a people who believe that they believe in right & wrong, truth over lies, honor, etc, etc. At some point Trump is going to step over a line for them. Maybe it'll be an epiphany moment, maybe it'll be a gradual thing. But once they start looking at him without a filter, they're going to hate what they see.

 

I think it's going to take something drastic. This can't be a gradual thing. It's like the old saying about the boiling a frog.

 

Most will always revert back to......"But he was still better than that crook Hillary....you know what??? She should be locked up."

[QMany]

I mean this is not surprising, just alarming:

 

[Fru]

I mean this is not surprising, just alarming:

 

 

These are the results you get from years of one party promoting anti-intellectualism and being anti education/science.

[BigRedBuster]

"I love the uneducated".

[NM11046]

"I love the uneducated". ~ Donald J. Trump, November 8, 2016

FIFY

[Moiraine]

I've been hesitant to post any articles related to this because I know some of the responses it will get but I just had this thought. What if they wait until after Trump is sworn in to investigate this? After more statisticians/scientists look at the data and verify that something weird went on? At the very least we need to know if these hacks are possible.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/hillary-clinton-challenge-results/index.html

 

 

The way I understand this (on a basic level without seeing any of the data) is something like this:

 

County A: Clinton was expected to win 1,000 votes to 500

County B: Clinton was expected to win 1,000 votes to 500

 

County A ballots were written and Clinton won 950 - 550

County B ballots were electronic and Clinton won 800 - 700

 

It's my understanding that they found this tendency in enough counties to make it significant.

 

If the expected number of votes for all the counties was calculated using the same method, there should not be significant differences between the expected vote count and the actual vote count between counties

 

i.e. If Trump trended up vs expected votes he should have trended up by the same % in most counties. If he was supposed to win Douglas county 52-48% and Sarpy 60-40%, if the actual votes were 55-45 and 63-37 that's normal. But if, when looking at lots of counties, the electric vote counties are a lot different from expected as compared to hand ballots, it's suspicious.

 

 

Now that's said, they can't challenge this. They'd look like sore losers for doing this. If they somehow won, there would be bad, bad consequences.

[zoogs]

I've skimmed two pieces on this topic, one by Vox dismissing the claims as spurious and one by one of the scientists saying their argument was too simplistically represented.

 

I haven't considered it in depth, and of course, it's hardly up to me to decide how legitimate a case they have or not.

 

I understand that a priori the results are hard to believe. But it seems like they were looking for something. And that makes the "science" part of this problematic.

[Moiraine]

I've skimmed two pieces on this topic, one by Vox dismissing the claims as spurious and one by one of the scientists saying their argument was too simplistically represented.

 

I haven't considered it in depth, and of course, it's hardly up to me to decide how legitimate a case they have or not.

 

But it seems like they're looking for something. And that makes the "science" part of this very problematic.

That's why I think the data needs to be looked at independently. Computer scientists (generally) don't have as much knowledge on the type of analysis they're doing as a statistician. They would just understand the possibilities of hacking better. Not the analysis of the vote counts.

 

IF they know what they're doing they can just use the numbers regardless of their bias.

 

 

Anyhow, it's quite possible that it's easier to get accurate expected votes in counties that use written ballots. That CNN article I linked was oversimplified too though. They've added another story on it. From the linked article it sounds like all they're saying is "counties with electronic voting voted more for Trump" but what they actually did was compared the votes to the expected votes, and that's better.