2016 Postmortem

okasha

(11,573 posts)

25. We've never had an election before

Reply to FBaggins (Original post)

Mon Nov 28, 2016, 12:43 AM

Nov 2016

that might have been directly tampered with by an unfriendly if not hostile power.

Precedents do not apply here.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

50 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

(538) Recounts Rarely Reverse Election Results [View all] FBaggins Nov 2016 OP

there is nothing usual about this one treestar Nov 2016 #1

Unusual in impact... but not as unusual as some think FBaggins Nov 2016 #3

This is an unprecedented year! Madam45for2923 Nov 2016 #2

Dear 538, kindly fuck off. onecaliberal Nov 2016 #4

Thank you. MFM008 Nov 2016 #5

1000 liquid diamond Nov 2016 #8

This!!! DemonGoddess Nov 2016 #9

So there are facts here that are wrong or that you disagree with? philosslayer Nov 2016 #20

Why? Because they wrote an article based on facts? Ace Rothstein Nov 2016 #24

538 saying something factual is troubling to you? brooklynite Nov 2016 #26

It would be factual is the Russia ... factor .... was included, its not... they're assholes for uponit7771 Nov 2016 #41

The article is about recounts, not the broader issue of campaign dirty tricks brooklynite Nov 2016 #44

Nate you ain't the golden boy anymore jodymarie aimee Nov 2016 #6

People keep telling him that... FBaggins Nov 2016 #7

Franken's recount was epic, but he won it. ucrdem Nov 2016 #10

That was initially a 225 vote margin FBaggins Nov 2016 #12

well, the russians probably didn't care that much about a minn senate race. nt TheFrenchRazor Nov 2016 #31

He's one of the guys who said the "suspicious" data the computer scientist came up with jmg257 Nov 2016 #11

Sorry... that post reads as though he had been proven wrong FBaggins Nov 2016 #13

He is likely right, as the computer guy himself said, likely not hacking involved. jmg257 Nov 2016 #18

If there were hacking, how would recount show otherwise? LisaL Nov 2016 #28

beats me - figure they have to be recounting for some reason (other then "threatening democracy"). n jmg257 Nov 2016 #34

Perhaps Mordor is too powerful. bigmonkey Nov 2016 #14

Love it! FBaggins Nov 2016 #15

Really? bigmonkey Nov 2016 #16

Certainly FBaggins Nov 2016 #19

Thank you SickOfTheOnePct Nov 2016 #22

I don't know that PA will be recounted FBaggins Nov 2016 #23

It's no public service to throw cold water on attempts to improve the situation. bigmonkey Nov 2016 #50

Why can't we rec message replies??????? JHan Nov 2016 #27

Does Debbie Downer have a brother? TheBlackAdder Nov 2016 #17

Don't care. tavernier Nov 2016 #21

We've never had an election before okasha Nov 2016 #25

I could care less what they think anymore. wisteria Nov 2016 #29

He is only telling the truth. LisaL Nov 2016 #30

don't care; machines are hackable; i don't trust 'em. lemme see the paper. nt TheFrenchRazor Nov 2016 #32

What paper? Paper isn't going to magically appear during LisaL Nov 2016 #35

He's telling a half truth, there's little mention of Russia uponit7771 Nov 2016 #42

"Rarely" does not equal "never." DFW Nov 2016 #33

Just to be clear forthemiddle Nov 2016 #36

It's odd, in that case, that this was not widely reported until the end of last week DFW Nov 2016 #37

I live in one of the districts forthemiddle Nov 2016 #38

It certainly mattered this time more than in other elections eom DFW Nov 2016 #39

yes forthemiddle Nov 2016 #43

538 IS WRONG ON ITS FACE because its leaving out the Russian factor at best uponit7771 Nov 2016 #40

How will knowing about Russia roll change the outcome? brooklynite Nov 2016 #45

THAT, Russian played a part is the variance here... 538 ignored that seeing no one knows uponit7771 Nov 2016 #46

...no, Russia's roll has no impact on the recount brooklynite Nov 2016 #48

Maybe is horrible and 538 should factor that in instead of ignoring it and yes its possible uponit7771 Nov 2016 #49

So? Who cares. That doesn't mean you never do them. kcr Nov 2016 #47