2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

LuckyLloyd

Honestly, poll shifts ahead of September 26th don't matter hugely imo. That first debate and its aftermath is really going to offer a clear view of the end result.

ancapailldorcha

Suryavarman wrote: »

Texas, Georgia and Arizona all have large minority populations. The only reason Republicans can win in Texas, Arizona and Nevada is because Latinos have terrible turnout rates.

It'll be interesting to see if the Trump wall is enough motivation to get them to the voting stations.

Brian?

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Honestly, poll shifts ahead of September 26th don't matter hugely imo. That first debate and its aftermath is really going to offer a clear view of the end result.

Agreed. Nate Silver is still predicting Clinton, buts is narrowed to 72% likely. Don't ever bet against Nate.

Overheal

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

It'll be interesting to see if the Trump wall is enough motivation to get them to the voting stations.

I'd say the reason more latinos don't vote in border states is, well........... :rolleyes:

LuckyLloyd

Brian? wrote: »

Agreed. Nate Silver is still predicting Clinton, buts is narrowed to 72% likely. Don't ever bet against Nate.

Well he dirtied his bib on downplaying Trump once already this cycle. His track record in the General election for 2008 and 2012 was extraordinary, but this is pretty different territory.

phila91

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Honestly, poll shifts ahead of September 26th don't matter hugely imo. That first debate and its aftermath is really going to offer a clear view of the end result.

First debate in NY, home field for Hillary. Be interesting to see the approach Trump takes, will he go at her from the off?

Zubeneschamali

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

His track record in the General election for 2008 and 2012 was extraordinary, but this is pretty different territory.

No, it is statistical analysis of polling data - the very same territory.

RobertKK

The trip to Mexico by Trump helped him as the media said he looked 'Presidential'.
He had a clam tone to his voice, compared to the bellowing when he gave his immigration speech.

It is too early to call the election, at the moment if you had to put money on it, one would say Clinton, but a lot will happen between now and election day.

Polls among independent voters show:
Trump 49%
Clinton 29%


Trump could win the popular vote, but lose the electoral vote.
All either side needed was a person the public liked...and neither could manage that.

B0jangles

The CNN/ORC poll that has Trump up by 2 points does not include voters in the 18-34 age group



http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/images/09/05/rel13a.-.2016.post-labor.day.pdf

(see page 22 of the linked pdf)

LuckyLloyd

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it is statistical analysis of polling data - the very same territory.

Well, his statistical analysis of polling for the Republican Primary was...lacking. The polls thus far indicate a different battle ground and potential influences from third party candidates that weren't there the previous two election cycles. I think it's overly simplistic to say it's the same as 2008 / 12. We'll see how he fares.

Zubeneschamali

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Well, his statistical analysis of polling for the Republican Primary was...lacking.

Yes, and he put his hand up:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/

K-9

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Well, his statistical analysis of polling for the Republican Primary was...lacking. The polls thus far indicate a different battle ground and potential influences from third party candidates that weren't there the previous two election cycles. I think it's overly simplistic to say it's the same as 2008 / 12. We'll see how he fares.

Nate admitted that himself in one of the podcasts I listened to. Basically he presumed Trump would fall away after a few primaries because well, an early front runner dropping off is what usually happens. But he did say the polling data was there, once bitten, twice shy and all that!

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Breitbart? The outlet that ran such stories as "Would you rather your child had feminism or cancer?" or "Climate expert: Marxist, global warming extremists control Vatican.

And of course the very recent: "No Debates, No Open Press Events, Declining Fox News: Paul Ryan Running Scared in Final Days Ahead of Primary Election". Which was so far off the mark, it made them even more of a laughing stock than they already were.

TLDR: No, I didn't read the Breitbart link and never will. I have some self respect.

Did Crown Prince Salman of Bahrain fail to get a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by going through normal channels?

Afterwards did his kingdom donate up to $150,000 directly to the Foundation, plus another $32 million to the Clinton Global Initiative?

Did he then secure a meeting with the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton?

After the meeting did Clinton approve some highly controversial arms sales to Bahrain by significantly increasing arms export authorizations to the country s autocratic government as that nation moved to crush pro-democracy protests?

Did the emails which Clinton s lawyers deleted without turning them over to the State Department, that exposed these Clinton practices come from the Judicial Watch s Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, and not our vaunted mainstream media and its investigative reporters?

Seems like excellent Journalism. I haven t seen anything in the article that is factually incorrect.

I read many articles that come from left leaning media sources. I like to get information from all sides and varying sources. I would never refuse to read something just because their views or style of reporting counters my political viewpoints.

But that s just me. I respect the truth, no matter where it comes from.

If I were a Trump fan would avoid getting into talking about having a history of dealing with very shady characters, and having shady/secretive relations with those characters.

The bottom line is also somewhat inconsistent to be kind...

Amerika wrote: »

I don't know a single person on either of your lists... Do you?

Now my list, I gather you would know almost all of them. They are all celebrities, are influential, and have large followings. Even you must agree comparison between the two are an apples and oranges thing.

But I would be more than happy if we kick out the people on my list Trump wins, and we can round up and kick out the ones on your list since Obama won. What say you? :P

Billy86

Black Swan wrote: »

conditioned games wrote: »

Hillary would need a miracle to win it now. With the debates still to come and Hillary's health problems...

What health problems? Hillary Clinton has a letter from her MD, just like Donald Trump has a letter from his MD, both saying their health qualifies them for the Oval Office. All other opinions about Clinton's or Trump's health qualifications for office are just partisan-biased spin of no factual merit.

Do you think it is illegal that Donald Trump has gone bankrupt so many times?

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

K-9 wrote: »

I'm not really seeing the political impact Assange is on about tbh. If it wasn't the emails there would be another issue the political anoraks on both sides would dig their teeth into.

On the polls, it just seems to be Trump climbing back to where he should be. He's still losing key demographics, or even more unpopular than Republicans normally are among Latinos or African Americans.

He's losing the college graduate vote which the Republicans always win.

The problem is the Democrats on their biggest week of the election - their convention had the Wikileaks release the information that got their now former chairperson Debbie Wasserman Schultz into a position where she was no longer tenable as chairperson and she had to resign.
That was a major impact by Assange, it also reinforced the views that it was not a level playing field in the Democratic Party.

Lets for the sake of things go along with the Russia behind the hacking, Trump has seemed more open to better relations with Russia than Clinton, and Clinton and the Russians have gone head to head over Ukraine and Syria.
Next month we see if there is any more dirty laundry that will be unwantingly aired in public.
I am inclined to think there will be, the convention was a good time to show the bias in the party towards Clinton, it got it's desired results as it created some turmoil.
Maybe just before the final debate on the 19th October for any big revelation that might be just there waiting to be released?

It can't be though, is that Clinton received the expected bump that candidates typically do get from from the DNC and unlike Trump, she sustained said bump in the weeks after.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Guys, please take the discussion of bias at Universities to a new thread.

Brian?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Mod: Guys, please take the discussion of bias at Universities to a new thread.

Sound. Any chance you could copy the last few pages to a new thread so we don't need to start fresh?

ancapailldorcha

Brian? wrote: »

Sound. Any chance you could copy the last few pages to a new thread so we don't need to start fresh?

Sure.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Sure.

Mod: Done. Please continue the discussion of University bias in the new thread.

Billy86

conditioned games wrote: »

Latest CNN/ORC Poll has Trump 2percent ahead of Clinton which follows on from other national pools this week like Rasmussen and Reuters/Ipsos which also shows Trump ahead yet RTE news were saying yesterday Clinton was pulling ahead in the recent polls. You'd have to wonder about some of the reporting on this election. Trump should run away with it from here on, with his advertising war chest now opened and the debates to come we could be looking at a total landslide if this continues. Hillary Clinton is a walking disaster at this stage, couldn't even give a speech in Ohio yesterday due to another one of her fits of coughs.

Poor wording on their part, but she does have a clear lead - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html#polls

CNN & Ipsos are reliable pollsters, but Rasmussen is seen as a bit of a joke due to being the 6th most biased polling company in the entire US - http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/ .

Have you seen Trump's multiple fraud or child rape cases brought up much in the media? Because for all the talk about Clinton's email and a "biased media" I really have not come across much of it at all on mainstream outlets. Certainly not compared to the emails. This despite the fact that Trump has from the start wanted to rile news stations and media outlets to get attention, because it's his thing. 538 were the latest to call him out on it for attempting to misrepresent not only their data, but what they actually do - http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/despite-donald-trumps-tweets-fivethirtyeight-isnt-a-pollster/










Honest question to Trump supporters: would you prefer if the media rarely mentioned him and he as a result never got the nomination in the first place?

Overheal

Billy86 wrote: »

Do you think it is illegal that Donald Trump has gone bankrupt so many times?

Perfectly legal, but simply astounding that some people think it speaks positively to his business acumen as "strategic bankruptcy" :rolleyes:

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Perfectly legal, but simply astounding that some people think it speaks positively to his business acumen as "strategic bankruptcy" :rolleyes:

Do you think bankruptcy is a bad thing, or only when it happened to Trump? And if you think it's bad, should Detroit, MI, San Bernardino, CA, Jefferson County, AL, Hillview, KY, and a host of others not have been allowed to file for a strategic bankruptcy and should have just been put out of their misery?

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Do you think bankruptcy is a bad thing, or only when it happened to Trump? And if you think it's bad, should Detroit, MI, San Bernardino, CA, Jefferson County, AL, Hillview, KY, and a host of others not have been allowed to file for a strategic bankruptcy and should have just been put out of their misery?

I think if the Mayors of Detroit, San Bernardino, Hillview, the Chairperson of Jefferson County, or others who filed for bankruptcy due in part to their involvement in those works, and they then decide to run for president, yes, it should be help up against them.

marienbad

Amerika wrote: »

Do you think bankruptcy is a bad thing, or only when it happened to Trump? And if you think it's bad, should Detroit, MI, San Bernardino, CA, Jefferson County, AL, Hillview, KY, and a host of others not have been allowed to file for a strategic bankruptcy and should have just been put out of their misery?

I don't know how it is in the US but in Europe it is not something to boast about .

That is not to say the idea is not a good one , but for a self proclaimed business genius it is a bit much to have so many.

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

Overheal wrote: »

Perfectly legal, but simply astounding that some people think it speaks positively to his business acumen as "strategic bankruptcy" :rolleyes:

Do you think bankruptcy is a bad thing, or only when it happened to Trump? And if you think it's bad, should Detroit, MI, San Bernardino, CA, Jefferson County, AL, Hillview, KY, and a host of others not have been allowed to file for a strategic bankruptcy and should have just been put out of their misery?

Think of how many of those other poor communities of thousands could have been improved if not for one multi millionaire robbing from the tax payer to line his own pockets.

gosplan

Amazing that Trump can run this crooked Hillary line and then be found making payments to DAs who have to consider cases against him.

It won't stick though. People either buy the show or see through it.

RobertKK

I was watching The Five on Fox News earlier.
They were saying there is just something over 5% who say they are undecided, as Greg Gutfield said the rest have decided who they hate the most.

RobertKK

gosplan wrote: »

Amazing that Trump can run this crooked Hillary line and then be found making payments to DAs who have to consider cases against him.

It won't stick though. People either buy the show or see through it.

Then Hillary Clinton when after a FBI subpoena deleted emails.
Two phones were destroyed with a hammer.

They can each run the line that the other is crooked and more than likely are correct.

RobertKK

Remember our expensive and dodgy voting machines?

Well an investigation is underway in the US that Russia may be trying to influence the election through electronic voting machines.

LuckyLloyd

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, and he put his hand up:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/

Aye he did. My opinion is that the expansion of his site into other areas and his public commitment have likely dulled his focus somewhat. I would suggest he's not the authority he once was, but his future performance will prove that out either way.

RobertKK

Julian Assange speaking to Sean Hannity said he has a significant amount of significant information relating to Hillary Clinton and it will be released in several batches, with some teasers coming in the next week or two before the first batch of information is released.
If it is significant, one would think the most significant might be released closer to the election date, though early voting has started in some places.

Julian Assange has it in for Hillary Clinton, he said the rule of law has broken down under Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration as they have gone after more journalists and journalistic sources using the espionage act more than all previous presidents and administrations combined.

Assange produced a document signed by Clinton which had a (C) for classified/confidential, and said they have thousands of documents where Clinton herself used the (C) so for her to argue she didn't know what it meant is not the truth.
She received 22,000 cables with the (C).
He said it is strange the FBI dumped information about Clinton on a Friday evening before the long Labor weekend holiday, and that the FBI accepted she couldn't remember/didn't know what the (C) stood for.

Please don't shoot the messenger.

Dohnjoe

At this stage Assange clearly has it in for the "establishment", a personal crusade. Pursuing his own agenda, which doesn't help the situation.

Wikileaks has also lost quite a bit of credibility. Reading through some docs recently I saw that in some cases people had input their own narratives (inserted their own "editor's note" so to speak) which changed the context of the entire document toward an intended direction.

The information shouldn't be touched up, sensationalized, changed, distorted or dispersed irresponsibly

Politicians, officials, intelligence, etc all communicate candidly in private when not in the public eye, whether damaging or not, it's easy to misconstrue that information and paint a certain picture

RobertKK

Hillary Clinton will only have to worry about Assange if she did anything dodgy.
He had enough significant information to destroy Debbie Wasserman Schultz before the convention, to make her resign as chairperson of the party.
At the moment, the unknown unknowns are hanging over Clinton and what will be released.
It is not a conventional election.
Maybe the Russians are behind it, Clinton and Putin did lock horns, if the Russians are behind it, maybe Putin is hoping to inflict the fatal blow to Clinton via Wikileaks.

Amerika

RobertKK wrote: »

Julian Assange speaking to Sean Hannity said he has a significant amount of significant information relating to Hillary Clinton and it will be released in several batches, with some teasers coming in the next week or two before the first batch of information is released.
If it is significant, one would think the most significant might be released closer to the election date, though early voting has started in some places.

Julian Assange has it in for Hillary Clinton, he said the rule of law has broken down under Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration as they have gone after more journalists and journalistic sources using the espionage act more than all previous presidents and administrations combined.

Assange produced a document signed by Clinton which had a (C) for classified/confidential, and said they have thousands of documents where Clinton herself used the (C) so for her to argue she didn't know what it meant is not the truth.

She received 22,000 cables with the (C).
He said it is strange the FBI dumped information about Clinton on a Friday evening before the long Labor weekend holiday, and that the FBI accepted she couldn't remember/didn't know what the (C) stood for.

Please don't shoot the messenger.

I think the Democrats are shaking in their boots over what Assange is about to expose.

Now Nancy Pelosi sends a letter to Paul Ryan asking that the GOP promise not to use any Russian hacked material against them in the campaign?

Make sense on Pelosi’s part to do some preemptive damage control on what could be a game changer. And she’s trying to shape public opinion ahead of the disaster so any partisan attacks based on those leaks will be seen as unpatriotic in the eyes of the people. And it would be prudent for Ryan to agree to her request if it can be proved that the Russian’s did it. You got to be patriotic. Problem is there is nothing proving Russia had anything to do with it, and even Assange stated they weren’t involved.

Even if the GOP agrees to her request I think it will have little effect. The leaks will still be broadcast all over the internet anyway. And some journalists won’t be able to avoid reporting on them out of fear refusing to report on revelations that could potentially affect the election will solidify the perception by the general public that they’re in the tank for Clinton.

http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/pelosi-sends-letter-to-speaker-ryan-calling-for-united-front-against-russian-cyber-attacks/

RobertKK

Amerika wrote: »

I think the Democrats are shaking in their boots over what Assange is about to expose.

Now Nancy Pelosi sends a letter to Paul Ryan asking that the GOP promise not to use any Russian hacked material against them in the campaign?

Make sense on Pelosi’s part to do some preemptive damage control on what could be a game changer. And she’s trying to shape public opinion ahead of the disaster so any partisan attacks based on those leaks will be seen as unpatriotic in the eyes of the people. And it would be prudent for Ryan to agree to her request if it can be proved that the Russian’s did it. You got to be patriotic. Problem is there is nothing proving Russia had anything to do with it, and even Assange stated they weren’t involved.

Even if the GOP agrees to her request I think it will have little effect. The leaks will still be broadcast all over the internet anyway. And some journalists won’t be able to avoid reporting on them out of fear refusing to report on revelations that could potentially affect the election will solidify the perception by the general public that they’re in the tank for Clinton.

http://www.democraticleader.gov/newsroom/pelosi-sends-letter-to-speaker-ryan-calling-for-united-front-against-russian-cyber-attacks/

I was watching CNN (whats new says you :pac: ) and they were discussing who was behind the leaks. They said it would take months to trace who hacked the files, and the election would be well over before it was found out for definite.
We all know it doesn't matter if Paul Ryan says yes, no or maybe. Trump will use it anyway.
But it does look bad with Nancy Pelosi very worried to the point she is asking for it not to be used. Harry Reid also expressed a lot of concern of what could be revealed.
It looks like these people are not in the 35% who think Hillary Clinton is honest and trustworthy.
Whatever the case, this could be like New Orleans before Katrina and the waves hit.

Suryavarman

Dallas Morning News has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. This is the first time that paper has endorsed a Democrat for president in over 75 years.

Amerika

Suryavarman wrote: »

Dallas Morning News has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. This is the first time that paper has endorsed a Democrat for president in over 75 years.

The loss of Tony Romo to injury seems to be having profound affects on their judgement.

eire4

RobertKK wrote: »

Remember our expensive and dodgy voting machines?

Well an investigation is underway in the US that Russia may be trying to influence the election through electronic voting machines.

Well to be fair during the primaries in Chicago earlier on the Democratic side during the mandated audit the numbers from the machines did not tally and yet nothing was done at all. The fact that the Illinois primary has so close makes this election fraud even more horrific.

Chicago Election Official Admits “Numbers Didn’t Match”: Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders Election Fraud Allegations

by Doug Johnson Hatlem










Email

.


Jim Allen, Communications Director for the Chicago Board of Elections (BoE), acknowledges that “the numbers didn’t match” initially in the legally mandated 5% audit of voting and tabulating machines after the recent Illinois Democratic primary between former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Allen, however, insists that this is simply a “perception issue” and that absolutely no election fraud took place.

Allen was responding by phone to my questions regarding allegations from citizen vote monitoring groups Who’s Counting? – Chicago and the Illinois Ballot Integrity Project (IBIP). Dr. Lora Chamberlain is a leader of Who’s Counting, which works with IBIP to credential election day monitors and joined them this year to audit the audit. IBIP was started in Illinois in the aftermath of the 2000 Al Gore versus George Bush Debacle. A total of six members of the two groups gave affidavit-based testimony at the April 5, 2016 Chicago Board of Elections meeting.

The testimony is, simply put, beyond stunning.

It can be viewed in its entirety on the official Chicago Elections YouTube channel. Beginning around the 24 minute mark will launch you into a most profoundly bizarre and troubling hour of bureaucratic bore and can-this-be-for-anything-like-real nonsense-mongering.



Chicago BoE Legal Counsel James Scanlon says early on that “[t]he 5% audit or tabulation cannot be used to change the results of the election. It’s only a means of testing the voting equipment.” Multiple times BoE members suggest that citizens testifying aren’t really credible to talk about an audit because they aren’t professional auditors. As Andrew Galipeau notes by way of comment over at YouTube, the entirety of the citizen monitoring discussion takes place after the BoE has already pulled a fast one to certify the election results without allowing time for objections from those who showed up to do just that:


0:00 Meeting opens and introductions
0:30 1st item of business (accept the results)
0:45 From the audience “Can we object?” – “No, not yet”
1:01 “Any discussion? Does not let audience know this is the time to object/discuss
1:14 Motion passes and they accept the results.
1:38 Meeting is adjourned.
1:48 You can see her visibly exhale in relief, as they have just certified the results and the public has not realized Special meeting is started (but they have already accepted the results). The entire rest of the video is essentially meaningless and just putting on a show for the public to air grievances with no legal recourse available. Really wish we could fix it, bureaucracy is bull****. It’s all certified legally official before 2 minutes into the video.

I followed up with an interview of Dr. Chamberlain and spoke by phone with Jim Allen twice. Between one direct comment on the video and my interviews with Allen, the Chicago BoE never denies the counting irregularities. When pushed, they simply state, as Allen did in a follow up email to our conversations,


The numbers did match. There were questions about the process of taking the first tabulation sheet back and finding and correcting the errors on that tabulation sheet. The numbers did match. Again, no votes were added or removed.

Allen used an analogy with me about balancing your personal checkbook: “If you are going through your checkbook and the first time is mismatched, you don’t immediately yell ‘the bank is ripping me off’.”

What isn’t clear, on this analogy, is whether the checkbook figures were ever actually balanced or whether the bottom line was simply fudged to accept that the bank is always right.

Four of the people who gave testimony described unbelievable irregularities in detail without a single word of rebuttal about the specifics of how the audit tabulation occurred from the Board. In sharp contrast to a more orderly audit in Rensselaer County, New York, Chamberlain, Michelle Suzanne Gale, Rebecca Kerlin, and William Shipley stated that problems included erasure of tally sheet votes when they didn’t match (then adding some to get to the correct, pre-determined number), attempts to hide the work that was being done or to block the view of monitoring citizens, rapid adding of tallies to tally sheets near the end of the day to make things work, inconsistencies in the way names were read leading employees tallying the results to say “wait, I’m confused” without real redress, most stations having a single person to tally results for particular machines rather than two tally-ers, tally-ers falling asleep or absenting themselves to the bathroom while the results continued to be read-out, double reading of votes that had already been tallied, and multiple methods for cheating or fudging the results when they didn’t match, which was apparently quite often.

Shipley says in his testimony that he took photographic evidence, which I have not yet seen, of the erasure of tally marks.

Allen was willing to cop to some of the troubles, especially with tallying. He attributed it to counters not having enough space on their tally sheets. “The tally sheets did not change in size,” Allen told me, when they moved from the election day machines to the early voting machines. Early voting included substantially more votes as it took place over a fifteen day window before election day. The citizens groups emphasized as well that it was the early voting machines with the most troubles. This led, according to Allen, to “writing on the backs of sheets” when “instead of keeping the first tally sheet and handing the preparers of the hand count a new blank sheet to start over” they just used the same, smaller-sized sheet. “So you were correct, the numbers didn’t match” the first time around. But, Allen added, “there’s no proof or evidence we are aware of that any votes were added or erased. That’s a pretty inflammatory allegation.”

That “inflammatory allegation,” however, is precisely what multiple affidavits and witnesses insist happened. Most troubling, in my viewing of the video and follow-up discussions and emails, there is only one suggestion ever of a recount when, as both sides agree, the tallies didn’t match. BoE members never come close to describing any procedure required in terms of starting over when things do not match. Shipley instead reports around the 1:21 mark that when one brave auditor in a single instance spoke up against what appeared to be pressure from the top to make things just match, they were reluctantly told to recount. The individual tally-er did so and said again that it did not match. A third time, then, they were asked to recount, and it still did not match. At this point, according to Shipley, other counters were brought in to bring the audit results in line with the reported vote total.

Since Chamberlain in particular reported that the mismatches would have meant substantially more votes for Bernie Sanders in a very specific case, I followed up with her to ask if all or most of the mismatches were similarly suggestive of a miscount favoring Clinton. Chamberlain responded, “It appears to us that the inaccuracies were mostly in favor of Hillary,” but she added, “we are not going to say that in a court of law because we didn’t have every table covered every day” and “there was a lot of blocking behavior” by BoE employees throughout the process.

Allen, for his part, is most upset about the timing of the affidavit reports. For citizen monitors, it makes perfect sense. The audit ended at the beginning of the last week in March and they showed up to the next meeting the first full week in April. For Allen, this was much too late as “things were sealed” as of the certification which they were legally required to do by that date. For Allen, the two groups “waited until after the board was required to make a legal declaration” before raising objections. Chamberlain and IBIP, however, reasonably believed that they were showing up to make objections at precisely the right meeting.

Allen insists that the machines are perfectly good, even though they were first certified in 2002 and put into use in 2006. They’ve survived more intense recounts, by Allen’s reckoning, with candidates from two sides present and without showing a single missing vote.

And this appears to be the real rub.

Allen and the Chicago Board of Elections have an overweening trust in the machines that tabulated the early votes. For Allen, the citizen groups’ objections are mystifying; he thinks they mean that the entire Board and its employees and volunteers were “in the hop for Clinton.” Near the end of my initial conversation with him, I double checked to make sure that Verified Voting information is correct about the type of machines used for early balloting in Chicago.

By this point in my research I had realized strongly that it isn’t enough to simply state that electronic machines are stealing votes. There are dozens of different types of voting and vote tabulation machines in use across various states and counties. They are not all equally vulnerable to hacking of votes. Some are quite old; some were newly bought and put into use for this election cycle. Some are networked to other voting machines or tabulators in a particular county; some are not. Some have paper trails while, sixteen years after Bush v. Gore, some still do not. Some have been very provably hacked, while others have passed “Red Team” vulnerability tests. (And some of the ones that have been hacked are particularly vulnerable because they are networked, hacking has proven viral, and hiding the corruption, even from a paper trail, is easily accomplished.)

On Monday my final report in this series, Part 6, will look at a handful of machines among the worst of the worst as they are present in various counties throughout various states. Do those worst of the worst machines match up with where exit polling is most terrible or not?

Allen responded to my question to confirm that Chicago early voting machines are the AVC Edge II Plus or EIIP. Over the final ninety seconds as we closed that initial phone conversation, I quickly Googled the AVC Edge. Other than having a paper trail, it is in fact among the worst of the worst. It would not take Allen’s entire crew to be corrupted, just a lazy audit process. In 2008 a team of scientists from the University of California Santa Barbara showed that a single person could hack the Edge without breaking the security seals. Furthermore, the hack could be accomplished in such a way that the bad code would easily spread to all other machines in a particular county.

Eight years later, those easily hackable AVC Edge machines are still counting votes in a wide variety of states and counties, including in the third largest city in the United States. And one of the only processes by which to test the security of these machines in Chicago is nothing less than a tremendous joke.

Billy86

Speaking of the NFL, a well known mixed race quarterback called Colin Kaepernick (black & Hispanic, if I recall) for the San Fransisco 49ers has caused a stir by refusing to stand for the national anthem that they perform before every game because of police treatment of minorities. Now the Santa Clara PD, who police the 49ers home games, have said they will flat out refuse to provide security for home games unless the 49ers as an entire organisation take action against one of their players for exercising their right to free speech.

Not all too relevant, except that it would be highly interesting to see who Trump and his fans would back on the matter.

EDIT: Actually did a quick search out of interest and to the surprise of, I am going to assume nobody at all, Mr 'Politically Incorrect' thinks Kaepernick should be politically correct. No doubt the 'free speech when it comes to blacks, women, Mexicans and Muslims' brigade will follow suit if they haven't already...

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/aug/29/donald-trump-colin-kaepernick-national-anthem-protest

. I think it s a terrible thing, and you know, maybe he should find a country that works better for him. Let him try it won t happen.

eire4

Billy86 wrote: »

Speaking of the NFL, a well known mixed race quarterback called Colin Kaepernick (black & Hispanic, if I recall) for the San Fransisco 49ers has caused a stir by refusing to stand for the national anthem that they perform before every game because of police treatment of minorities. Now the Santa Clara PD, who police the 49ers home games, have said they will flat out refuse to provide security for home games unless the 49ers as an entire organisation take action against one of their players for exercising their right to free speech.

Not all too relevant, except that it would be highly interesting to see who Trump and his fans would back on the matter.

EDIT: Actually did a quick search out of interest and to the surprise of, I am going to assume nobody at all, Mr 'Politically Incorrect' thinks Kaepernick should be politically correct. No doubt the 'free speech when it comes to blacks, women, Mexicans and Muslims' brigade will follow suit if they haven't already...

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/aug/29/donald-trump-colin-kaepernick-national-anthem-protest

There was a similar situation earlier this summer when in the womens NBA some Minnesota players wore t shirts protesting police violence and some off duty police who were doing security at the game walked off the job.

Personally given how the police have become militarized and the levels of police violence and killings the classic comment that it is just a few bad apples just does not wash for me. Then when you see police turn around and act this way in response to people highlighting what is going wrong with policing it just shows you how bad the situation is as the police themselves simply refuse to acknowledge there is a serious problem.

K-9

Yep, Trump's response was what you'd expect. Bit like Vietnam "lump it or go". What was Trump at during Vietnam?

ancapailldorcha

K-9 wrote: »

Yep, Trump's response was what you'd expect. Bit like Vietnam "lump it or go". What was Trump at during Vietnam?

He avoided the draft. I wouldn't fault him for that though.

K-9

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

He avoided the draft. I wouldn't fault him for that though.

Indeed, just makes him hypocritical in this case.

oscarBravo

Billy86 wrote: »

Speaking of the NFL, a well known mixed race quarterback called Colin Kaepernick (black & Hispanic, if I recall) for the San Fransisco 49ers has caused a stir by refusing to stand for the national anthem that they perform before every game because of police treatment of minorities. Now the Santa Clara PD, who police the 49ers home games, have said they will flat out refuse to provide security for home games unless the 49ers as an entire organisation take action against one of their players for exercising their right to free speech.

Not all too relevant, except that it would be highly interesting to see who Trump and his fans would back on the matter.

EDIT: Actually did a quick search out of interest and to the surprise of, I am going to assume nobody at all, Mr 'Politically Incorrect' thinks Kaepernick should be politically correct. No doubt the 'free speech when it comes to blacks, women, Mexicans and Muslims' brigade will follow suit if they haven't already...

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/aug/29/donald-trump-colin-kaepernick-national-anthem-protest

K-9

Although it was an issue for Bill Clinton IIRC, but amnesia is common in politics!

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

Interesting how Kaepernick’s protest against the National Anthem is getting so much attention, but his denigrating and truly disrespectful practice socks, which depicts police as pigs, is getting almost no attention.

Amerika

K-9 wrote: »

Although it was an issue for Bill Clinton IIRC, but amnesia is common in politics!

Trump received 4 deferments for college and afterward a medical 1-Y medical deferment for bone spurs in his heals. I can attest bone spurs do exempt you from military service. I was turned down by the US Navy because of a bone spur, although mine was in my neck (C-4) and growing into my spinal cord.

Clinton’s also received 4 deferments for college, but his draft experience afterwards when he became 1-A eligible for induction was quite different.

http://www.1stcavmedic.com/bill-clinton-draft.htm

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

Interesting how Kaepernick’s protest against the National Anthem is getting so much attention, but his denigrating and truly disrespectful practice socks, which depicts police as pigs, is getting almost no attention.

So what you are saying is, you would rather he be more politically correct and censored in his criticism of the police?

Pro Hoc Vice

Billy86 wrote: »

So what you are saying is, you would rather he be more politically correct and censored in his criticism of the police?

But but but, censorship only for people they disagree with. Great article by Beck in the New York Times yesterday.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/07/opinion/glenn-beck-empathy-for-black-lives-matter.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.ie/

Brian?

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

But but but, censorship only for people they disagree with. Great article by Beck in the New York Times yesterday.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/07/opinion/glenn-beck-empathy-for-black-lives-matter.html?_r=0&referer=https://www.google.ie/

It's feels strange to no be replused by Glenn Beck.