I get a kick out of people that are getting upset about this whole thing of looking into the election results. It is not as if they are making wild claims and not doing any follow up (vs Trump recent statements/tweets about voter fraud costing him the popular vote). At least they are going through a process to actually check into it. Seems to me that is the way you would want to do it. Not just put out a tweet to make accusations. 
 

Brady Bunch wrote:

I, for one, am not upset the recount.  Although the recount is pretty baseless and the original assertion by Halderman that election results were off by 7% in certain counties based on their projections has proven to be incorrect by analysis completed by Nate Cohn (where he showed when you factored in demographics for those counties the results were almost exactly as you would expect for those counties.

What I find interesting and get a kick out of is all the people who were mocking Trump for saying the election is rigged are now the ones calling for the recount and saying it should be done because of possible hacking (even though no evidence exists).  When Trump was doing it, he was threatening democracy, but now we need to do it to be sure nothing happened, you know, just in case.  Do we really think these same people would be calling for a recount if Hillary won, you know, just in case?  Of course they wouldn't.

Right or wrong at least the current look into it was based on something (Haldeman). All I have seen from the Trump side were assertions (both before and after the election) that never had any pointer to a study or research. Just assertions without substance. Sure, the Clinton side is disappointed especially since it looks like she will have won the popular vote by a substantial margin. 


 

Last edited by tennyson (11/27/2016 9:25 pm)

You have to wonder at The Right's obsession with Paul Krugman. When an essay, in the first sentence, seeks to cheapen a man's Nobel prize, well, you just know that you are in for an unrestrained hit piece.

Krugman, a gifted economist, and a columnist for the NYT, has become some sort of poster child for The Left in the minds of Righties. So, people whose only knowledge of Krugman are carefully selected excerpts in The Federalist rush to both condemn the man, AND to claim that his existence proves some terrible thing about progressives. I, unlike most here have read Krugman on a regular basis for years. I can tell you that the man presented in this bizarre essay is not the man I read. Nor does he represent some damaged psyche on the Left. Poppycock.

And, since the author decided to take the low road, I'll toss this in. What else would you expect from a guy (with 0 Nobel Prizes) who is a frequent guest on the NRA News

Last edited by Goose (11/28/2016 6:56 am)

Just Fred wrote:

This may or may not fit into the discussion, but it's my understanding that exit polling in almost every state was fairly accurate except for the swing states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.  That may have raised an eyebrow or two.  Usually, exit polling mimics the actual voting outcome, but in these states the results were rather surprisingly off.

I can see the requests for a recount justified, but maybe nothing will change the outcome of the election itself.

Fair point. I don't see the recount changing anything.
But, I also don't see a request for one "Illustrating the Damaged psyche of The Left". I think that it's quite defenisble.
Hey, the Orange One is alleging - without any evidence at all - that he actually won the popular vote but that millions of illegal votes were cast against him. There's a psyche worth studying.
 

Last edited by Goose (11/28/2016 8:53 am)