Trumps campaign director thinks Romney is a poor choice for a cabinet post because he didn't support the Donald, and that some voters might get angry if he's selected. She added "and how do we know Romney even voted for trump?"
Because that's how it works.
Sunday, November 27, 2016
Saturday, November 26, 2016
Thursday, November 24, 2016
Fundraising for recount
Greens Demand Recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania
The Stein/Baraka Green Party Campaign is launching an effort to ensure the integrity of our elections. We are raising money to demand recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania-- three states where the data suggests a significant need to verify machine-counted vote totals. Please donate to this initiative today.
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
Rigged election: Hillary Clinton's early-voting lead in Florida was mathematically insurmountable - Palmer Report
Right after the election results were known, I was shaking my head. I realize there's an inherent problem with predicting outcomes using polls, but it seems like the predictors were so wrong, and so far offbase that I find myself scratching my head over how it got to be *so* wrong.
Was the donalds campaign that savvy? Were secret voters a thing? Or was there some kind of irregularity going on? It was just so...peculiar. And spectacularly so.
I look at Florida. Clinton was ahead by a wide margin, so far in polling that he shouldn't have been able to make it up....in the first week-ish of early voting, voter turnout was near 30%. Then the news broke about nothing, and the polling changed considerably, and it became a near toss up. But with 30% already in the books, how did the polls change so dramatically? Was there a polling problem? Did voters change their minds?
I did some calculations when I saw it, and the math suggested that even so, with 30% or so of votes cast, it should work out to a range of her winning by as much as 100k votes, down to her losing by a narrow margin, about 10k votes. I could have had some fundamental errors or my own bias, but I still don't see how he could have won by nearly 120k votes. That just doesn't make sense.
I've been tracking the analysis, and someone else came to a similar conclusion. The analysis is a bit incomplete, but it aligns with what I was saying. http://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/rigged-election-hillary-clintons-early-voting-lead-florida-mathematically-insurmountable/114/
It's weird.
Was the donalds campaign that savvy? Were secret voters a thing? Or was there some kind of irregularity going on? It was just so...peculiar. And spectacularly so.
I look at Florida. Clinton was ahead by a wide margin, so far in polling that he shouldn't have been able to make it up....in the first week-ish of early voting, voter turnout was near 30%. Then the news broke about nothing, and the polling changed considerably, and it became a near toss up. But with 30% already in the books, how did the polls change so dramatically? Was there a polling problem? Did voters change their minds?
I did some calculations when I saw it, and the math suggested that even so, with 30% or so of votes cast, it should work out to a range of her winning by as much as 100k votes, down to her losing by a narrow margin, about 10k votes. I could have had some fundamental errors or my own bias, but I still don't see how he could have won by nearly 120k votes. That just doesn't make sense.
I've been tracking the analysis, and someone else came to a similar conclusion. The analysis is a bit incomplete, but it aligns with what I was saying. http://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/rigged-election-hillary-clintons-early-voting-lead-florida-mathematically-insurmountable/114/
It's weird.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)