Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
139 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Trump won every surprise swing state by the same 1% margin. (Original Post) dixiegrrrrl Jun 2017 OP
Coinkydink stinks Hekate Jun 2017 #1
All part of the Plan OhNo-Really Jun 2017 #30
Link here - elehhhhna Jun 2017 #37
Well Trump would say there should be a second amendment remedy. Maraya1969 Jun 2017 #56
I've always thought this was suspicious as hell. octoberlib Jun 2017 #2
We need to repeat, over and over: "ALL elections must be with paper ballots and MUST be audited" JoeOtterbein Jun 2017 #3
Yes. sharedvalues Jun 2017 #11
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2017 #16
just count them by hand/eye the FIRST time around. nt TheFrenchRazor Jun 2017 #19
I, for one, miss Chad.... Fla_Democrat Jun 2017 #80
I hear he's just been hanging. smirkymonkey Jun 2017 #120
And it's very suspicious that republicans are so dead-set against it. gtar100 Jun 2017 #28
Add in purple thumbprints... 3catwoman3 Jun 2017 #46
I second that iluvtennis Jun 2017 #89
They'll just hack the central tabulators where it gets aggregated IronLionZion Jun 2017 #104
I remember a time when we did spreadsheets by hand. We can do it again. JoeOtterbein Jun 2017 #116
Because ballot stuffing, vote buying, disenfranchisement, threats, etc have never swayed a paper AtheistCrusader Jun 2017 #119
Exactly loyalsister Jun 2017 #128
well, if you're concerned about that amount of tampering, then certainly you will be even more TheFrenchRazor Jun 2017 #135
Electronic voting can be made secure. AtheistCrusader Jun 2017 #136
No, you're not sounding old. You're sounding intelligent. planetc Jun 2017 #122
Agree...and you're not "sounding old' whathehell Jun 2017 #127
Statistically Impossible! Chasstev365 Jun 2017 #4
Really? Show the math. Loki Liesmith Jun 2017 #5
OK; an overstatement, but the odds are extremely low that 5 States Chasstev365 Jun 2017 #9
I'm just a stickler for math. Loki Liesmith Jun 2017 #22
Really? The odds are low that 5 swing states Voltaire2 Jun 2017 #91
I suppose we COULD actually calculate it Nevernose Jun 2017 #51
Have to add in somehow that Hillary won the closest state Yupster Jun 2017 #75
Historically, betting markets have been insanely accurate predictors. AtheistCrusader Jun 2017 #132
Old intelligence rule of thumb: once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, 3 times is enemy action. Fozzledick Jun 2017 #6
Auditing rule: There isn't ever just one cockroach. L. Coyote Jun 2017 #25
Oh I just love that phrase! Pacifist Patriot Jun 2017 #40
+1 n/t jaysunb Jun 2017 #82
+1 dalton99a Jun 2017 #87
Defies logic Stinky The Clown Jun 2017 #7
That much coincidence takes planning. NightWatcher Jun 2017 #8
Suppression. Comey said no votes were altered sharedvalues Jun 2017 #10
Seems no one IS focusing on illegal/illegitimate election. dixiegrrrrl Jun 2017 #12
absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. the machines are hackable, end of story. they need t TheFrenchRazor Jun 2017 #21
Paper ballots are hackable. The Electorate is hackable. AtheistCrusader Jun 2017 #137
No evidence of ISN'T no votes altered. YUGE distinction, votes altered leaves no evidence. L. Coyote Jun 2017 #26
There is evidence for suppression sharedvalues Jun 2017 #76
election was hacked. stolen. period. NRaleighLiberal Jun 2017 #13
Yes, and thank you for stating that. hamsterjill Jun 2017 #124
It is either fear of the unknown, or inability to "go there" - it is a crime of inconceivable NRaleighLiberal Jun 2017 #129
Yep. That's it. You're right. hamsterjill Jun 2017 #130
Wrong and wrong. BzaDem Jun 2017 #14
machine "recounts" are meaningless, and hacking could easily be targeted to the paperless precincts, TheFrenchRazor Jun 2017 #23
That's a lot of factually false statements for such a short post. BzaDem Jun 2017 #48
OK. Lets go over it again. Wisconsin went Trump by .8% (post #48) rgbecker Jun 2017 #57
The odds that supposed vote riggers limiting their rigging to 17% of counties that only decided BzaDem Jun 2017 #58
Never disturb a good discussion with facts! TomVilmer Jun 2017 #96
actually, a smart hacker would deliberately target precincts unlikely or unable to be recounted. so TheFrenchRazor Jun 2017 #133
Where the fuck are all these magical super-beard technowizard hackers? AtheistCrusader Jun 2017 #138
#1. a recount never would have happened if Stein hadn't raised $millions in days, so i would say TheFrenchRazor Jun 2017 #134
I believe that it is very likely that the election was basically invalid. nt ladjf Jun 2017 #15
There needs to be Election 2016 forensics....NOW ! nt suston96 Jun 2017 #17
For election 2016 Control-Z Jun 2017 #71
Nov 9th? suston96 Jun 2017 #81
Says a lot about the Russians. I think. The Wielding Truth Jun 2017 #18
ACTION ALERT!! to protest highest level elections officials for nontransparent elections diva77 Jun 2017 #20
Amazing! stephensolomita Jun 2017 #33
Thank you for taking action! The difference btw stuffing ballot box v machines diva77 Jun 2017 #62
You're right, of course stephensolomita Jun 2017 #92
Only 40,000 votes switched and the Electoral college result is switched. L. Coyote Jun 2017 #24
would appreciate a more detailed explanation for my edification - thanks diva77 Jun 2017 #79
40,000 VOTERS. That's the difference between Trump and Clinton winning the electoral college. L. Coyote Jun 2017 #84
Thank you for this. Truth will out. nt LaydeeBug Jun 2017 #27
Suspicious as hell! 50 Shades Of Blue Jun 2017 #29
Pure coincidence. Seriously, I thought by last summer they were gonna hack it. It wasn't the Comey Amaryllis Jun 2017 #31
They stole it n/t malaise Jun 2017 #32
with expert help from 400-lb guys dalton99a Jun 2017 #86
That seems statistically unlikely bitterross Jun 2017 #34
Some details from a Washington Post story from Nov 11. Jim__ Jun 2017 #35
Most of the early evening Clinton was ahead in just about every swing state, some comfortably.... George II Jun 2017 #36
I knew -- pretty much knew anyway -- she had lost when the Kentucky votes came it early. Hoyt Jun 2017 #60
Have you read "Shattered"? Yupster Jun 2017 #77
I knew it was over by 9 PM Awsi Dooger Jun 2017 #90
Sounds like you were getting about the same info that the campaign was getting Yupster Jun 2017 #100
Trump told you the election was to use his word, "RIGGED" bucolic_frolic Jun 2017 #38
And as Trump has shown time and time again... kyburbonkid Jun 2017 #41
Is it possible he said that to throw us off? Pretty good tactic for a moron. flibbitygiblets Jun 2017 #49
No doubt our govt is illegitimate. broadcaster90210 Jun 2017 #39
Strange Visits Too SayItLoud Jun 2017 #42
Well, now. Isn't that interesting? But what good does it do us? What DO we do when ... Honeycombe8 Jun 2017 #43
There was an interesting article in the Palmer Report about it last November mnhtnbb Jun 2017 #44
"Trump won every surprise swing state by the same 1% margin.". That's not true. PoliticAverse Jun 2017 #45
Actually Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were all less than 1%. Jim__ Jun 2017 #47
If I recall correctly, in each state the difference was smaller than the rzemanfl Jun 2017 #53
No doubt in my mind kyburbonkid Jun 2017 #50
I have said repeatedly, the math does not add up. I am a math person...it just doesn't add up. Demsrule86 Jun 2017 #52
Did I miss a link to this news? FailureToCommunicate Jun 2017 #54
Suppose there was a way of stealing elections where the "signature" was an upset by a thin margin. Girard442 Jun 2017 #55
More Palmer Report junk. Hoyt Jun 2017 #59
Not to the Hillary campaign Yupster Jun 2017 #78
Florida 1.8%, Ohio was polled at 1% difference in early November (Trump won by 8%) mythology Jun 2017 #61
+1. You can't fight these beliefs with facts. Oh well. We can gripe about the 2016 election while we Hoyt Jun 2017 #68
Trump was the underdog in all 4 swing states standingtall Jun 2017 #63
By that logic, why bother stealing all four? onenote Jun 2017 #108
If they were going to steal everything they could steal standingtall Jun 2017 #109
So why bother with Wisconsin onenote Jun 2017 #110
Because they didn't not know how many faithless electors or standingtall Jun 2017 #112
Then why not add the four from New Hampshire or the ten from Minnesota? onenote Jun 2017 #114
Minnesota was not a swing state I don't care what the final margin was in that state on election standingtall Jun 2017 #115
yes, I seen that on Twitter...MikeFarb1 is doing research with other data collectors.... bresue Jun 2017 #64
Coincidences, especially that exact.... prairierose Jun 2017 #65
It wasn't that exact. LisaL Jun 2017 #73
And the margin varied in the swing states onenote Jun 2017 #93
Not NH Dem2 Jun 2017 #66
Sounds rational to me. Hoyt Jun 2017 #69
I'm shocked!!!!! blueinredohio Jun 2017 #67
I cilla4progress Jun 2017 #70
Imagine tiptonic Jun 2017 #72
Wow! Good work. Alice11111 Jun 2017 #74
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark! RestoreAmerica2020 Jun 2017 #83
I'm of the belief........ SergeStorms Jun 2017 #85
I vaguely remember some mention joet67 Jun 2017 #88
Very fishy, in fact it stinks. downeastdaniel Jun 2017 #94
Yes I am becoming more and more convinced jimlup Jun 2017 #95
yep cubbies01 Jun 2017 #101
That's what I've been saying all along. I will NEVER believe that 45* won MI. catbyte Jun 2017 #97
This percentage being so uniform definitely seems to indicate some sort of hack. Mrs. Overall Jun 2017 #98
Except, as has been stated here several times, the percentages weren't uniform onenote Jun 2017 #105
Thanks for the clarification. That's what I get for quickly skimming responses. : ) Mrs. Overall Jun 2017 #106
My two cents cubbies01 Jun 2017 #99
Nothing To See Here colsohlibgal Jun 2017 #102
The Elephant in the Room sagesnow Jun 2017 #103
The Detroit Free Press called Michigan for Hillary around 11PM adigal Jun 2017 #107
It's about election fraud and much more. annielion Jun 2017 #111
It's been happening in Wisconsin since the first Walker election. usaf-vet Jun 2017 #113
This thread is the DU version of Infowars hueymahl Jun 2017 #117
I think you're spouting conspiracy theories without evidence. brooklynite Jun 2017 #118
I'm shocked that the party insider doesn't want to rock the boat DefenseLawyer Jun 2017 #121
I see..."Party Insiders" are hiding the fact that elections are being stolen from THEM. brooklynite Jun 2017 #125
I'm not a party insider. I don't think the machines are anywhere near our main problem. AtheistCrusader Jun 2017 #139
K&R... spanone Jun 2017 #123
I found a Steve Schale election night tweet that I referred to earlier in the thread Awsi Dooger Jun 2017 #126
Let me guess! HenryWallace Jun 2017 #131

OhNo-Really

(3,985 posts)
30. All part of the Plan
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 04:52 PM
Jun 2017

All they needed was someone willing to boldface lie to the working men and women, a pruned power hungry opportunist, and a heartless poor hater - Trump, McConnell, and Ryan to lead the way.

Do a google search for

"80 Year Plan" "war on error" dailykos

For some reason DU won't let me paste link

No media has connected all the dots, this article does.

Author has granted permission to copy and publish entire article without citing.

want a good, in-depth presentation with tons of viable references? Enjoy.

Maraya1969

(22,441 posts)
56. Well Trump would say there should be a second amendment remedy.
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 06:49 PM
Jun 2017

I wouldn't say that but Trump would. They would say it if it were Democrats doing this.

JoeOtterbein

(7,698 posts)
3. We need to repeat, over and over: "ALL elections must be with paper ballots and MUST be audited"
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 03:53 PM
Jun 2017

I know I'm sounding old!

Response to JoeOtterbein (Reply #3)

gtar100

(4,192 posts)
28. And it's very suspicious that republicans are so dead-set against it.
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 04:43 PM
Jun 2017

What are they so afraid of that they can't handle verified elections. Obviously they know deep down that their ideology lacks integrity. So they are more than happy to continue with the shoddy system we have in place today because they are the benefactors of the lying, cheating and stealing.

IronLionZion

(45,261 posts)
104. They'll just hack the central tabulators where it gets aggregated
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 11:46 AM
Jun 2017

at some point in the process it will have to become electronic, and that is where they will do it.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
119. Because ballot stuffing, vote buying, disenfranchisement, threats, etc have never swayed a paper
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 02:52 PM
Jun 2017

ballot based election before.


Nihil sub sole novum. At best, electronic voting is simply cheaper to manipulate. Assuming they can manipulate it.

 

TheFrenchRazor

(2,116 posts)
135. well, if you're concerned about that amount of tampering, then certainly you will be even more
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 04:51 PM
Jun 2017

more concerned about the ease and massive scale of tampering possible with machines.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
136. Electronic voting can be made secure.
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 05:16 PM
Jun 2017

I work in a related industry. We build software that withstands attacks, for money, every damn day all day long.

The platform and its attack surface reflects the amount of money invested in it.
I would argue, the old paper ballot system has just as large, if not a larger attack surface. Paper and Electronic voting, as employed in the US, both need additional security and audit mechanisms. Both.

You do not solve this problem by reverting to paper ballots. You just make the problem look different, and maybe more expensive to certain parties.

Chasstev365

(5,191 posts)
9. OK; an overstatement, but the odds are extremely low that 5 States
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 04:00 PM
Jun 2017

all unexpectedly swung to Trump by the same 1% margin, do uou think?

Loki Liesmith

(4,602 posts)
22. I'm just a stickler for math.
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 04:29 PM
Jun 2017

Yes those events are unlikely enough to warrant scrutiny. Possibly not quite as unlikely as they seem but overall concerning.

Voltaire2

(12,626 posts)
91. Really? The odds are low that 5 swing states
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 06:15 AM
Jun 2017

that were all in a statistical dead heat went to trump? Please show the math.

Nevernose

(13,081 posts)
51. I suppose we COULD actually calculate it
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 05:58 PM
Jun 2017

Using SPSS. We'd need previous results from hacked/altered/rigged/"curiously resulted" elections, presumably from Western democracies. It could theoretically be done, though.

I'm a really lousy statistician, though

Yupster

(14,308 posts)
75. Have to add in somehow that Hillary won the closest state
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 11:23 PM
Jun 2017

that being New Hampshire by .3 %

Don't know how you'd do that calculation.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
132. Historically, betting markets have been insanely accurate predictors.
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 04:04 PM
Jun 2017
http://www.uvm.edu/~awoolf/classes/fall2004/election/Historical_Presidential_Betting_Markets.pdf

If this election had massively defied the markets, I'd have though the fix was in too. I consider this better than exit polls.

sharedvalues

(6,916 posts)
10. Suppression. Comey said no votes were altered
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 04:00 PM
Jun 2017

For now we have evidence voters were microtargeted with Facebook ads to suppress votes for Hillary.
We know from BuzzFeed and WaPo that Russians hacked voter rolls, stealing private data that could be used for microtargeting.
We also know from FBI, Comey that Russians hacked DCCC and stole voter targeting data.
We know Russians stole emails and weaponized them.
We know from FBI that Putin ordered this.

That's enough to make the election illegitimate. Let's focus on that.

dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)
12. Seems no one IS focusing on illegal/illegitimate election.
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 04:07 PM
Jun 2017

I have heard nothing about the election results being illegal.
One would think the Dems would be talking about it at least.
All I hear is "meddiling Russia".

 

TheFrenchRazor

(2,116 posts)
21. absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. the machines are hackable, end of story. they need t
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 04:26 PM
Jun 2017

need to go.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
137. Paper ballots are hackable. The Electorate is hackable.
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 05:19 PM
Jun 2017

At what point do we stop throwing out things that can possibly be manipulated by externalities?

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
26. No evidence of ISN'T no votes altered. YUGE distinction, votes altered leaves no evidence.
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 04:39 PM
Jun 2017
Altering votes leaves no evidence is the most important thing to know about election rigging.

sharedvalues

(6,916 posts)
76. There is evidence for suppression
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 11:27 PM
Jun 2017

So it's probably best to focus on suppression for now. Until we have other evidence about 2016.

In the meantime: paper ballots for 2018.

hamsterjill

(15,214 posts)
124. Yes, and thank you for stating that.
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 03:05 PM
Jun 2017

We all know it. We just haven't been able to prove it...yet.

I firmly believe that the election was stolen from Hillary. I think there are people in power (even Dems now) who know this and are afraid of what it would mean for this country if that fact were leaked and proven. There is no precedent for this, no set path forward, etc. Nothing in the constitution that covers a stolen election.

It would produce chaos. But, isn't chaos what we are experiencing now almost anyway?

NRaleighLiberal

(59,940 posts)
129. It is either fear of the unknown, or inability to "go there" - it is a crime of inconceivable
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 03:33 PM
Jun 2017

magnitude.

hamsterjill

(15,214 posts)
130. Yep. That's it. You're right.
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 03:38 PM
Jun 2017

But it did happen. Someone better figure out where we go from here. Because I see chaos on the horizon if there isn't some sense of freedom restored. If we go past the 2018 elections and people still wonder if their vote actually is counted, I don't know what will happen.

Don't get me wrong. Don't put words in my mouth. Please. I am NOT advocating violence.

But the situation where someone does become violent because they have been pushed with their back up against a wall and feel hopeless to change anything is going to become more commonplace than ever before.

My comment is merely acknowledging that I see that type of behavior on the horizon if things are not fixed. And I don't expect things to get fixed.

BzaDem

(11,142 posts)
14. Wrong and wrong.
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 04:08 PM
Jun 2017

The margins of victory were all less than one percent (0.2, 0.7, and 0.8). Furthermore, in Wisconsin (with the margin of 0.8), there was a statewide recount, with a significant portion done by hand, with a negligible shift (towards Trump I believe).

 

TheFrenchRazor

(2,116 posts)
23. machine "recounts" are meaningless, and hacking could easily be targeted to the paperless precincts,
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 04:29 PM
Jun 2017

or areas which due to repug control, are highly unlikely to be recounted by hand. some people are extremely eager to trust the machines blindly, IMO. not me.

BzaDem

(11,142 posts)
48. That's a lot of factually false statements for such a short post.
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 05:39 PM
Jun 2017

There are no paperless machines in Wisconsin. The vast majority of voters manually fill out their ballots, which are scanned with optical scanners. A very small portion use electronic voting machines that leave a paper trail.

Furthermore, in 65% of counties, the recount was done entirely by hand. It was done partially by hand in 18% of counties. Only 17% of counties did their recounts entirely by machine. (And as for your claim that Republican counties are highly unlikely to be recounted by hand, that is obviously false, since 65% of the counties were recounted entirely by hand, and Democrats only won in 17% of the counties.)

rgbecker

(4,806 posts)
57. OK. Lets go over it again. Wisconsin went Trump by .8% (post #48)
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 06:55 PM
Jun 2017

17% of counties did their recounts entirely by machine. (Your post).

We are supposed to accept the machine recount because why?





BzaDem

(11,142 posts)
58. The odds that supposed vote riggers limiting their rigging to 17% of counties that only decided
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 07:22 PM
Jun 2017

after the election how to count, are laughably low. The process of counting votes always involves people of both parties counting, testing any machines used, and observing. So not only would such supposed riggers need to get extroidinarily lucky -- they would need to involve a lot of people from both parties, and get every single one of them to stay quiet. The odds of getting caught would be extremely high (it just takes one leaker), and the odds of success would be miniscule. This is further compounded by the fact that no one knew in advance which states would be decisive or close.

In short, if someone is the type of person that believes we never really landed on the moon, I could totally see them being persuaded that the Wisconsin vote was actually rigged despite the recount. But if someone uses logic and reason to evaluate arguments, they would necessarily laugh such conspiracy theories out of the room.

 

TheFrenchRazor

(2,116 posts)
133. actually, a smart hacker would deliberately target precincts unlikely or unable to be recounted. so
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 04:43 PM
Jun 2017

so the odds of this are quite good, wouldn't you say.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
138. Where the fuck are all these magical super-beard technowizard hackers?
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 05:35 PM
Jun 2017

Seriously. No white hat or blue hat hackers in the crowd? JUST 'bad guys' on the other side of the political fence?

Security reviews by election boards have resulted in updates to these machines, because they are free to pull in outside, independent experts for code and hardware review. There are certainly some problems, but the election board is a great watchdog that is bipartisan, and in a position to ensure the machines are stored, and the removable media sealed, appropriately.

review called out open ports, undocumented/convoluted code modules, etc. I'm actually surprised how decent the machines are.

 

TheFrenchRazor

(2,116 posts)
134. #1. a recount never would have happened if Stein hadn't raised $millions in days, so i would say
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 04:47 PM
Jun 2017

that generally it is hard to get a recount, and #2, it was not a complete hand recount, so you certainly can not say that the true result would not have changed by .8%. nobody knows with computer voting; you are obviously okay with that; i'm not.

suston96

(4,175 posts)
81. Nov 9th?
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 12:31 AM
Jun 2017

Since there doesn't seem to be any detailed or direct remedy for such an abomination committed against the republic the forensics can at the very least establish and record the election fraud.

The people can then demand action by the courts and/or the congress as appropriate.

Or by a constitutional convention.

diva77

(7,606 posts)
20. ACTION ALERT!! to protest highest level elections officials for nontransparent elections
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 04:26 PM
Jun 2017
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029248132

If you can't be in Indianapolis with protest signs on July 7th at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway 5 pm as the secretaries of state meet to have their posh party paid for by voting equipment vendors and other corporate sponsors , then send protest letters demanding elections that are transparent with integrity held with paper ballots hand counted at the precinct level. Roster of SOS's here:

http://www.nass.org/index.php/about-nass/alt-roster-2016/
 

stephensolomita

(91 posts)
33. Amazing!
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 04:54 PM
Jun 2017

Following your lead, I attempted to contact my Secretary of State, Rosanna Rosado. Unfortunately, you can only contact the various agencies in the New York Department of State, not individuals. Myself, I feel the fight for free and fair elections is only beginning. And we should remember that, historically, stuffing ballot boxes was a common practice.

diva77

(7,606 posts)
62. Thank you for taking action! The difference btw stuffing ballot box v machines
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 07:46 PM
Jun 2017

Last edited Sun Jun 25, 2017, 11:39 PM - Edit history (1)

is like the difference between retail and wholesale --
stuffing ballot boxes cannot be accomplished in every precinct with no witnesses as easily as shaving votes can be done in every precinct silently with malicious code where the process is un-observable.

With public oversight, cameras, strict chain of custody, results posted at precinct before ballots leave polling place, etc., ballot box security can be dramatically improved.

With voting machines - including DREs, optical scanners, central tabulators the malicious code can enter the system numerous ways and elections officials have been trained to make recounts impossible

 

stephensolomita

(91 posts)
92. You're right, of course
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 07:50 AM
Jun 2017

For all the reasons you've provided, stuffing ballot boxes died out some time ago, although it should be remembered that Kennedy was elected in 1960 because Mayor Daley in Chicago voted the dead. I only meant, however, that election fraud has a long history in the United States.

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
24. Only 40,000 votes switched and the Electoral college result is switched.
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 04:30 PM
Jun 2017

The great thing about switched voted, they count twice, plus one in column A and minus one in column B. That 80,000 vote margin is only a 40,000 voters difference.

diva77

(7,606 posts)
79. would appreciate a more detailed explanation for my edification - thanks
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 11:41 PM
Jun 2017

just trying to grasp the finer points!

L. Coyote

(51,129 posts)
84. 40,000 VOTERS. That's the difference between Trump and Clinton winning the electoral college.
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 01:26 AM
Jun 2017

If 40,000 voters counted as Trump votes are switched to Clinton, she wins. And, if 40,000 votes for Clinton were switched to Trump, that's all that was needed to alter the election.

Amaryllis

(9,523 posts)
31. Pure coincidence. Seriously, I thought by last summer they were gonna hack it. It wasn't the Comey
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 04:53 PM
Jun 2017

letter than handed him the election; it was a combo of RUssian and repub shenanigans.

 

bitterross

(4,066 posts)
34. That seems statistically unlikely
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 04:56 PM
Jun 2017

I'm not a real statistician, but I did enough stats and quantitative analysis courses in college to be suspicious of that.

Jim__

(14,045 posts)
35. Some details from a Washington Post story from Nov 11.
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 05:00 PM
Jun 2017

Link to the story: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/swing-state-margins/

<excerpt>
?c=866
<Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin>
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
This election was effectively decided by 107,000 people in these three states. Trump won the popular vote there by that combined amount. That amounts to 0.09 percent of all votes cast in this election.
</excerpt>

George II

(67,782 posts)
36. Most of the early evening Clinton was ahead in just about every swing state, some comfortably....
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 05:04 PM
Jun 2017

...then at around 10 PM the "big four" flipped to trump all in a matter of 10-15 minutes. Not a coincidence in my mind.

Yupster

(14,308 posts)
77. Have you read "Shattered"?
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 11:36 PM
Jun 2017

I was surprised how early the campaign and Obama knew it was pretty much over.

We were sitting there at 2 am and they knew it was over hours ahead of that.

Just to summarize, an old Arkansas friend called Bill Clinton early in the night and told him they were in horrible trouble in Florida. That surprised the campaign because they thought the numbers were coming in not great, but good enough to win. The guy said they weren't catching Trump's numbers in the rural districts. He wasn't just winning those, he was dominating, winning small counties by 25,000 votes which Romney won by 3,000.

Each hour Mook did a conference call with the key campaign guys updating the numbers. By 8 pm, everyone knew they were in big trouble, by the 9 pm call it sounded like hope instead of facts.

Mandy Grunwald asked Mook early in the night how things looked. He said it wasn't as good as they exp[ected but the model was holding. Grunwald said it didn't look like the model was holding to her.

Bill's Arkansas friend said he was looking at a particular county in Florida where most of the people came from the Mid-west. They were going heavy for Trump. Then the next question was would that trend also show up in the Mid-west? Once the campaign saw it was, they knew it was over.

It's a pretty interesting read. Pretty much must reading for us geeks.

One surprise was I didn't realize Obama called her campaign twice during the night trying to get her to concede. Also interesting why Hillary didn't speak that night and how Podesta was chosen to go out and speak.

 

Awsi Dooger

(14,565 posts)
90. I knew it was over by 9 PM
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 04:18 AM
Jun 2017

The assertion in a post in this thread that Hillary was leading the key swing states until all of them flipped on cue is utter bullshit.

I was following Florida expert Steve Schale on Twitter. His early tweets were positive enough, indicating that Hillary was faring well in the huge Florida counties. He expected Hillary to carry Florida by 1-2%. Then he added some caution, saying Trump was exceeding expectation in exurban counties and the state would be tighter than his initial estimate.

Then there was a very long pause between tweets. It was something like 20 or 25 minutes. Maybe slightly more. It was during that delay that I got nervous for the first time. It couldn't be good news, considering his prior pace. Sure enough, when he returned there was ominous news and tone. Schale reported that Trump was pulling better percentages in 47 different Florida counties than any Republican nominee from 2000 forth.

At that point I hadn't given up but I was absolutely numb. I knew what it meant. This was not isolated. The angry white males and rural voters were avalanching against Hillary, beyond all projection. At that point the state polls that everyone had relied on meant nothing.

Now Hillary had to sweep the board in the midwest, instead of Trump needing to sweep. I didn't consider Ohio because that state wasn't legitimately in play. There was one website tracking projected results in each state, given current tallies and sophisticated estimates of the outstanding vote. I wish I remembered what site that was. It was being linked on Nate Silver's site by Nate and the guys who were also live tweeting there. Anyway, I took one look at the Michigan projections and it was so disastrous I got sick and basically gave up. This was either slightly before or slightly after 9 PM. I'm not sure which. My neighbor soon knocked on my door with a stunned expression and asked what the hell was going on. I told him it was over. Then another friend started texting me. That was wild because I seldom text. He was likewise stunned and looking for any positive vibe. I told him it was over. I started packing for a trip scheduled for the next morning. That second friend continued to text for another hour. He was watching the networks, who apparently were being cautious. I had the TV off and the computer off. Every time he texted with some hope I told him to forget about it. Finally when the texts stopped at 10 PM or thereabouts I sensed that he finally realized it was over.

I haven't read that Shattered book. Maybe soon but I'm still not ready. This was an unforced error. Anybody who was going to be the nominee of this party had to realize post-2014 that a message was desperately needed toward the simplistic angry white males, designed to hold onto merely a few more percent of them. I'll be forever astonished that we didn't see it coming.

Yupster

(14,308 posts)
100. Sounds like you were getting about the same info that the campaign was getting
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 10:51 AM
Jun 2017

They had the same looks okay, getting closer, oh crap that you had.

kyburbonkid

(251 posts)
41. And as Trump has shown time and time again...
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 05:18 PM
Jun 2017

that he has a propensity to brag about secrets. He's dense enough to tweet that he knows personally that it's rigged... almost certaintly from his close Russian contacts!

flibbitygiblets

(7,220 posts)
49. Is it possible he said that to throw us off? Pretty good tactic for a moron.
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 05:43 PM
Jun 2017

He is a master at manipulation though. I just can't believe it wouldn't have been caught long before now.

broadcaster90210

(333 posts)
39. No doubt our govt is illegitimate.
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 05:13 PM
Jun 2017

Last edited Sun Jun 25, 2017, 08:13 PM - Edit history (1)

All appointments made and laws passed are illegitimate. There is no United States government.

But the question is ....

What do we do about it?

SayItLoud

(1,696 posts)
42. Strange Visits Too
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 05:23 PM
Jun 2017

And remember when he defied ALL strategic wisdom and visited certain states? My take is Bannon got hacked Russian info from his old company, passed it to Kushner who crunched the numbers with his voter data base and voila suddenly a trip to a non starter state that he was predicted to lose BIG time.

Follow the $.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
43. Well, now. Isn't that interesting? But what good does it do us? What DO we do when ...
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 05:24 PM
Jun 2017

What does the country do when there's a Russian infiltrator in the Presidency? He's been "elected" (note that Putin was "elected" repeatedly, always by a YUGE margin).

Normally, we have the checks and balances of the Congress, but we don't because the Republicans are in on it because of greed.

The judiciary is one part of the checks and balances. That requires "the people" to file very costly litigation. And of course, the last stop, the U.S. S.Ct., is now packed with the same party, one even chosen by the infiltrator himself.

There are the Democrats, but they have little power.

Let's hope the Dems pick up a lot of seats in 2018. More than hope. That must happen.

mnhtnbb

(31,319 posts)
44. There was an interesting article in the Palmer Report about it last November
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 05:24 PM
Jun 2017

where all these factors were identified:

In order to believe that the official vote tallies are legitimate, you have to accept that all of the above legitimately happened: African-Americans in the south went from turning out in droves for Hillary Clinton in the primary to not caring if she won the general election. Donald Trump got sixty-something percent of the same-day voting in Florida. The polling averages were wrong for the first time in modern history. Trump beat his poll numbers despite having spent the primary season tending to fall below them. Clinton fell below her poll numbers despite having spent the primary season tending to beat them. In every state where Trump pulled off a shocking upset victory, he just happened to do it with one percent of the vote. And in an election that everyone cared particularly deeply about, no one really turned out to vote at all. I can accept any one of the above things happening as an isolated fluke. I cannot accept all the above happening. And so for once in my evidence-driven career, I’m left to believe that the conspiracy theorists are right: the vote tallies are rigged.


http://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/youre-not-just-imagining-it-the-hillary-clinton-vs-donald-trump-vote-totals-do-look-rigged/104/






PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
45. "Trump won every surprise swing state by the same 1% margin.". That's not true.
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 05:28 PM
Jun 2017

Please show the states and vote totals you are using to support that claim.

"That 1% margin was just low enough to avoid audits." - you don't get recounts if the margin is too big,
you get recounts if it is too small. Your claim should be "was just high enough to avoid audits".

Jim__

(14,045 posts)
47. Actually Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were all less than 1%.
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 05:38 PM
Jun 2017

Wikipedia has the totals by state: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016

The difference in Michigan was 0.23%, Pennsylvania 0.77%, and Wisconsin 0.72%

rzemanfl

(29,540 posts)
53. If I recall correctly, in each state the difference was smaller than the
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 06:11 PM
Jun 2017

Jill Stein vote. Wonder why she was in Moscow with Flynn?

kyburbonkid

(251 posts)
50. No doubt in my mind
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 05:46 PM
Jun 2017

The election was hacked... It was a very coordinated and staged attack. Stage 1, attack Hillary on character and trust issues with the Email hacks... Stage 2, Troll social media, plant fake news etc, AM Radio, media. Stage 3, Grab voter information identify targets and machine types to hack. Stage 4. Hack the state election systems... Plant voter machine attack vectors on election worker systems. Use USB infection techniques (similar to Stuxnet worm). Stage 5 (post election) Game over, evaluate success/failure and cover up tracks.

Demsrule86

(68,352 posts)
52. I have said repeatedly, the math does not add up. I am a math person...it just doesn't add up.
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 06:05 PM
Jun 2017

If you were looking for the easiest least noticeable theft of an election...these would be the numbers to use.

Girard442

(6,059 posts)
55. Suppose there was a way of stealing elections where the "signature" was an upset by a thin margin.
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 06:39 PM
Jun 2017

Seems there's been a hell of a lot of those in the recent past (think Florida 2000). I've puzzled over how this could be done and come up completely dry. Any of you statistics/voting methodology/data processing/communication/hacker geeks got anything?

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
59. More Palmer Report junk.
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 07:35 PM
Jun 2017
http://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/rigged-election-donald-trump-won-every-surprise-swing-state-by-the-same-1-margin/118/


Of course Trump won by a small percent in so-called "SURPRISE" states. It was close in those states, hence winner was going to win by small percentage. To me, states like Ohio were a surprise state. Trump won by over 8%.

Yupster

(14,308 posts)
78. Not to the Hillary campaign
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 11:41 PM
Jun 2017

If you read "Shattered," you'd see that they considered Iowa and Ohio lost a week before the election.

 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
61. Florida 1.8%, Ohio was polled at 1% difference in early November (Trump won by 8%)
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 07:39 PM
Jun 2017

This is another conspiracy theory that ignores the evidence. Coincidence in this case, mostly just seems to mean not including relevant facts to fit the theory.

Also apparently they forget to "steal" New Hampshire.

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
68. +1. You can't fight these beliefs with facts. Oh well. We can gripe about the 2016 election while we
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 09:17 PM
Jun 2017

lose in 2018, 2020, 2022, . . . . . Fact is, we lost and not because of vote tally hacking.

You'd think by now people would realize the Palmer Report is mostly junk.

standingtall

(2,785 posts)
63. Trump was the underdog in all 4 swing states
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 08:30 PM
Jun 2017

of Florida,Michigan,Penn,and Wisconsin. Ohio was not a true swing state by election day anyway. There may have been some polling that showed a 1% race,but generally it polled about 5 points in favor of Trump. New Hampshire is so few electoral votes that it was not even relevant republicans didn't even need to steal that one.

Close or not the odds of Trump sweeping Penn,Wisconsin,Michigan and Florida were extremely long given he was the underdog in all 4 of them.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
108. By that logic, why bother stealing all four?
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 12:07 PM
Jun 2017

Florida (29) plus one of the following - Michigan (16), Wisconsin (10), or Pennsylvania (20) would have put Trump at 270 or better. So why steal Wisconsin (with 10 electoral votes) but not Minnesota (also 10). Why not buffer the margin with New Hampshire (4).

There is a reason these are referred to as swing states. Obama barely won Florida in 2012. With Ohio looking solid for Trump towards the end of the campaign, the fact that other Midwest states could go either way (particularly given the unpredictable factor of third party candidates siphoning off votes) is not surprising

standingtall

(2,785 posts)
109. If they were going to steal everything they could steal
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 12:10 PM
Jun 2017

they could also leave a note for us on the machines they hacked that said hacked machines. Why bother stealing anything extra? How about for an electoral cushion. Trump got 306 electoral votes,but 2 members of the electoral college refused to vote for him giving him only 304 electoral votes. Without Mich and Penn he would lose 36 electoral votes. 304-36=268 not enough to win the Presidency without congress. Also you will never convince me Minn was a swing state in 2016. They could've tampered with the margins in states Clinton won like Virginia and Minnesota to make their cheating look less obvious.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
110. So why bother with Wisconsin
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 12:30 PM
Jun 2017

If the outcome was pre-ordained by theft, even your assumptions about faithless electors doesn't establish the need to steal Wisconsin as well as Michigan and Penn. In fact, merely stealing Pennsylvania and Florida would be more than enough, notwithstanding the faithless electors. (304-26 (WI and Mich) = 278

standingtall

(2,785 posts)
112. Because they didn't not know how many faithless electors or
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 12:33 PM
Jun 2017

if there would be any at all,but they would've wanted a broad cushion.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
114. Then why not add the four from New Hampshire or the ten from Minnesota?
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 12:38 PM
Jun 2017

The idea (suggested in the OP) that all of the swing states were decided by the "same" margin already has been debunked. The notion that there were folks sitting behind some console pressing buttons to determine precisely how many votes went to Trump, to Clinton, to Johnson and to Stein in order to guarantee the outcome if six states is not credible. There were six swing states decided by 1.5 percent or less. Two went to Clinton; four to Trump. Shit happens and it happened in November.

standingtall

(2,785 posts)
115. Minnesota was not a swing state I don't care what the final margin was in that state on election
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 12:50 PM
Jun 2017

night. Republicans should've had no chance of pulling that one off without blatant cheating. Think of it like a basketball game with one team being down by 5 with 2 seconds left. The losing team sinks a 3 at the buzzer making the score a close looking 2 point game,but in reality they had no chance. I don't care the that op said Trump one every surprise swing state by the same 1% margin and one state might have have been 0.7% and another 1.2% that's just nit picking.

bresue

(1,007 posts)
64. yes, I seen that on Twitter...MikeFarb1 is doing research with other data collectors....
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 08:34 PM
Jun 2017

Pretty fascinating to follow!

prairierose

(2,145 posts)
65. Coincidences, especially that exact....
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 08:36 PM
Jun 2017

take a lot of planning. It is not luck, it is not miraculous.....it is planning and hacking of the highest order.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
93. And the margin varied in the swing states
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 08:50 AM
Jun 2017

PA- .7
MI - .23
WI - .77
FL - 1.2
MN - 1.5
NH .3

The last two are states won by Clinton. Also, it's hardly surprising that swing states would have close election results, particularly with third party candidates siphoning away a few percentage points from the main contenders. In 2008, Obama won NC by .3 percent and 2012 he won Florida by only .88. Close elections happen. And I have no idea what the reference to 1 percent and audits in the OP means. The automatic recount thresholds vary in these swing states, but I don't think 1 percent is the threshold in any of them.

Amazing how many DUers simply accepted the premise of the OP (across the board "1 percent" victories in swing states) as true without even checking.

Dem2

(8,166 posts)
66. Not NH
Sun Jun 25, 2017, 08:36 PM
Jun 2017

But he almost won here.

These conspiracy theories make us look like Trump. Sounds like I'm being a jerk, but is it not true without hard evidence?

RestoreAmerica2020

(3,433 posts)
83. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark!
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 01:04 AM
Jun 2017

Last edited Mon Jun 26, 2017, 01:55 AM - Edit history (1)

Something is rotten in the state of Denmark! Is that why the liar-bigot, know-nothing very mal hombre (bad man) is squirming because la verdad, the truth WILL come out and expose him for what he is -- a criminal. On election night we all knew something was amiss. Lock him up! Lock them up!

SergeStorms

(18,903 posts)
85. I'm of the belief........
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 01:50 AM
Jun 2017

that there ARE NO coincidences. It's taken many years and many unbelievable occurrences to burn that thought into my brain.

joet67

(624 posts)
88. I vaguely remember some mention
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 02:49 AM
Jun 2017

of this around election time. Thought it was the RNC using the backdoors they installed under HAVA. Just didn't know they hired it out to Russia.

jimlup

(7,968 posts)
95. Yes I am becoming more and more convinced
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 10:09 AM
Jun 2017

that my intuition that something seriously wrong happened on election night is absolutely correct.

cubbies01

(85 posts)
101. yep
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 10:54 AM
Jun 2017

We all felt it. It was stunning and "what happened". Heck, even Trump and his campaign staff were not prepared for it. They had a little ball room and no victory speech.

catbyte

(34,174 posts)
97. That's what I've been saying all along. I will NEVER believe that 45* won MI.
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 10:21 AM
Jun 2017

He "won" By 10.7K votes out of almost 5M votes cast. The Republican Secretary of State threw almost 188K voters--mainly from urban areas--off the rolls in the months leading up to the election. When they began the recount here, 45* was ahead by 13.7K votes; as the recount went on, he lost almost 1/3 of those votes then Attorney General Bill Schutte (R-Asshole) sued to stop the recount. All hackers would have to do is flip a few votes in critical precincts then nobody's the wiser.

This reeks. I'm convinced we've been a victim of a coup d'etat. I'd be willing to see reliable evidence to the contrary, though.

onenote

(42,383 posts)
105. Except, as has been stated here several times, the percentages weren't uniform
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 11:55 AM
Jun 2017

The claim in the OP is false.

cubbies01

(85 posts)
99. My two cents
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 10:34 AM
Jun 2017

1) Let's not forget, in addition to the interesting magical slim margins that kept breaking Trumps way, she was ahead in almost all polls for MI, WI and PA. Many in Florida and NC too.
2) I think the election was for sure hacked, and we know it. You look at what the Russians were bragging about beforehand, comparing it to the advent of nuclear weapon, and I guarantee you that was not about bots targeting naive Americans on social media. They had figured out and tested and were going to use it to put Trump in place.
3) Makes you wonder if they were helping him in primary too early on, as their testing.
4) The country almost has to hide this, which is why it I being buried. The alternative is too hard to admit. We were cyber attacked by Russia and they changed the votes and outcome of the presidential election would cause significant unrest, chaos and bloodshed.
5) Last week when the BS line that "Trump only won Osoff's district by 1.5%" really has to make you wonder. Because the republican congressional candidate won by 26%. Think about it, this is one of the most Republican districts in the US and a bigly portion did not vote for Trump.
6) They must laugh at how easy it was, the road map was all but given to them the entire election. They just had to target hacking a very small portion of our vulnerable machines and operations in 4-5 swing states and create a small win for Trump in each one.
7) The Federal government has to step in and protect election systems at a National Level. No State can be expected to thwart or even recognize a sophisticate cyber hacking from our biggest enemy
8) Nothing is being done.

colsohlibgal

(5,275 posts)
102. Nothing To See Here
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 11:27 AM
Jun 2017

The media and the vast majority of people are so blasé about how we vote, about our voting procedures. One might think it would be a good idea to have a nationwide foolproof system to ensure reliable results. But no, we have a hodgepodge of arcane procedures ripe for malfeasance.

Why this is is beyond me.

 

adigal

(7,581 posts)
107. The Detroit Free Press called Michigan for Hillary around 11PM
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 12:00 PM
Jun 2017

I remember seeing it come up in my twitter feed.

annielion

(15 posts)
111. It's about election fraud and much more.
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 12:30 PM
Jun 2017

We cannot trust our voting systems. US elections rank last among all Western democracies.

https://www.electoralintegrityproject.com/eip-blogs/2017/1/7/its-even-worse-than-the-news-about-north-carolina-american-elections-rank-last-among-all-western-democracies

Once the results were "official" no one was allowed to recount all the ballots in Wisconsin or Michigan, nor was anyone allowed to look at the voting machines used in Pennsylvania. Exit polls (which are reputed to be accurate in every country but ours!) indicated Hillary won all three states (among others).

usaf-vet

(6,094 posts)
113. It's been happening in Wisconsin since the first Walker election.
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 12:37 PM
Jun 2017

it is nearly impossible to get to the truth because the "decks" are stacked. Republicans have taken the reins of every important batch of government. Which come first the chicken or the egg. Citizen United then stolen (purchased) democracy.

One Trump cohort said on national TV that Walker had rigged 5 election including his recall election.

 

DefenseLawyer

(11,101 posts)
121. I'm shocked that the party insider doesn't want to rock the boat
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 02:55 PM
Jun 2017

I wouldn't have guessed that in a million years.

brooklynite

(93,873 posts)
125. I see..."Party Insiders" are hiding the fact that elections are being stolen from THEM.
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 03:11 PM
Jun 2017

Makes perfect sense.

 

Awsi Dooger

(14,565 posts)
126. I found a Steve Schale election night tweet that I referred to earlier in the thread
Mon Jun 26, 2017, 03:11 PM
Jun 2017

He is the expert on Florida voting trends. Since this site was down I was looking at Schale's twitter and Nate Silver's site, where they had various people tweeting on important trends.

Everything seemed fine until Schale posted this tweet:










Note the comments immediately below, including one from Schale himself. That indeed was the first hint of danger. I still didn't realize how bad it was until Schale took a very long pause before tweeting that Trump was pulling better margins in 47 different Florida counties than any Republican from 2000 forth. At that point I basically knew the election was over. This was not going to be isolated. The reason Nate Silver had Hillary's win likelihood so comparatively low compared to conventional wisdom was his emphasis that if the polls were wrong it would likely impact one swing state after another, and not a single example. He repeated that many times prior to election day.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Trump won every surprise ...