Who is John Podesta?

[tapitsbo]

I didn't quite catch what "except one" meant.

Off the top of my head I can think of a whole series of democratic elections in a wide variety of countries that were as close or closer than this one.

[OP ED]

That's not the relevant bit. Closeness is relative. The oddness is in the discrepancy between how people report that they voted and how the magician announces that the counts tallied. Whenever we have a strange, statistically relevant and unexpected shift it's always in the same direction, which is itself possessing truly astronomical odds of happening, even if it only happened once. But it happens more and more often. With no audits and no paper trail, we're bereft of the tools to examine the oddities which are generally ignored by major media. They're going to spend months wondering how it could have been so wrong without any examination of the most obvious explanation.

[JackRiddler]

That's not the relevant bit. Closeness is relative. The oddness is in the discrepancy between how people report that they voted and how the magician announces that the counts tallied. Whenever we have a strange, statistically relevant and unexpected shift it's always in the same direction, which is itself possessing truly astronomical odds of happening, even if it only happened once. But it happens more and more often. With no audits and no paper trail, we're bereft of the tools to examine the oddities which are generally ignored by major media. They're going to spend months wondering how it could have been so wrong without any examination of the most obvious explanation.

You'd have had me until 2008, maybe 2012. In the meantime I believe we've crossed a threshold wherein it's totally credible to believe Trump voters are likelier to blow off the exit pollsters, or just lie to them. Which is only to say, I don't know.

[OP ED]

You'd still need to account for this phenomena only happening in strategically useful places. Texas and New York don't show the discrepancy.

[JackRiddler]

You'd still need to account for this phenomena only happening in strategically useful places. Texas and New York don't show the discrepancy.

I can't find this table of all states that I did examine, but on it I noticed it happening also in some states that are considered safe and not problematized as controversial, including shifts from exit poll to vote count in Clinton's favor independently of "who" controls the state (and who can say who really "controls" or only thinks they control it). It's a shitshow and the only healthy response rather than claiming findings can be derived is to demand uniform rules and unhackable or open-source software, paper ballots and automatic counts of the paper. Or just the damn paper. If this place (US not RI) were not hysterical, why would matter if a result took 4 days to properly tabulate in a transparent, auditable, mutually-overseen fashion? But it's hysterical, so you gotta have the optiscan or the touchscreen for instant results, because it's an earth-level crisis if no one's conceding the next morning.

.

[slomo]

You'd still need to account for this phenomena only happening in strategically useful places. Texas and New York don't show the discrepancy.

I can't find this table of all states that I did examine, but on it I noticed it happening also in some states that are considered safe and not problematized as controversial, including shifts from exit poll to vote count in Clinton's favor independently of "who" controls the state (and who can say who really "controls" or only thinks they control it). It's a shitshow and the only healthy response rather than claiming findings can be derived is to demand uniform rules and unhackable or open-source software, paper ballots and automatic counts of the paper. Or just the damn paper. If this place (US not RI) were not hysterical, why would matter if a result took 4 days to properly tabulate in a transparent, auditable, mutually-overseen fashion? But it's hysterical, so you gotta have the optiscan or the touchscreen for instant results, because it's an earth-level crisis if no one's conceding the next morning.

Now you're just pissed off at the infantile, self-defeating, technophilic impatience of the American public.

[OP ED]

Quite so.

It's a dead horse, even if it seems obvious to some of us.

(If I were "them" it would be easy and safer for me to steal what I wanted. For me, opportunity alone implies that they must be doing this, because I would, and so would brekin, etc etc)

But the horse is dead. There is basically no.movement for elections reforming, even from its more obvious (and powerful) victims.

[JackRiddler]

(If I were "them" it would be easy and safer for me to steal what I wanted. For me, opportunity alone implies that they must be doing this, because I would, and so would brekin, etc etc)

Opportunity comes with risk. No, it really does because "they" can fuck up if they cross a different "them" who can nail them. What I'm saying on this is that there is no one "them." The whole field behind the part where you insert the ballot (or press return on the touchscreen) is opaque, the rules and machines are different everywhere, the ways of faking are different everywhere, so that a single coordinated they running this (except at points of tabulation, implying state secretaries of state) is hard to model. Again, how do you explain pro-Clinton swings from exit polling in "red" states? Not that I'm arguing FOR the system on the basis that, not being a rationalized monoculture with open source workings, it all works out in the end since there is such a wealth of different access points for stealing in so many different ways by so many different actors, so it must balance out in the end. Ha! to that. Shitshow. Shitshow.

.

[KUAN]

What does a nice person like you know jackriddler?
What your good mind lacks is the dirty grease that lubricates that world, the ‘I know where you live’ or ‘you scratch my back’ dynamic?
Just possibly - what do I know

[KUAN]

and exposure is hardly a threat eh

[OP ED]

It worked on Epstein and all of his friends. Er. Um. Yeah.

[KUAN]

The devil has all the cards - but they mean fuck all ha ha

[JackRiddler]

What does a nice person like you know jackriddler?
What your good mind lacks is the dirty grease that lubricates that world, the ‘I know where you live’ or ‘you scratch my back’ dynamic?
Just possibly - what do I know

I don't know, what does a nice person like you know? Any inside information? Did you at least read well-done investigative journalism on these matters? If not, then you have to make a model based on the visible, and reasonable inference, and experience of how things are, and knowledge of past and analogous cases, and within that a few guesses that you can delineate within ranges, or just declare guessed on the basis of your special daemon's information whispered into your ear. I don't see you doing that, nice person. Back-scratching and dirty grease don't overcome all interest conflicts or produce consensuses you cannot see, but are justified in assuming. You have to do more work. So I see you assuming a position of unearned superiority on the basis that your default claim is of a singular and unseen unified cabal directing everything. If things go one way, this unspecified "they" did that. If things go the other way, "they" did that too. They must have. Anyone who doesn't get it, naive.

.

[KUAN]

a model based on the visible, and reasonable inference

not like that - I think

it's an RI thing

[KUAN]

And to be fair, this is my every other day to have a wine