I told you they flip votes on the ground on election day, so what does this obvious election fraud

[Eliot Rosewater]

mean for November?

You do NOT go from 6 points ahead to a tie.

And it is NOT over yet, some votes are yet to be "counted", who is counting them?

November elections will be stolen or attempted stolen, this CANT be more clear now.

I am not saying this for shock value or whatever, I wanna know how can we stop this?

[Anon-C]

1. I Agree. Nt

[world wide wally]

2. What do you think? Lamb maybe won by 3 or 4 points in reality?

[Maven]

4. I think so. nt

[Eliot Rosewater]

6. Not sure, do we have exit polls? I bet they dont do those anymore. Gee, wonder why.

I am not saying this to debate it, GOP is stealing elections.

We need to figure out how to stop it.

[Hav]

3. Polls rely on models to make a best guess

If the turnout doesn't match the expected model, polls get it wrong.
The last poll even had results for different models.
I have no way of knowing whether fraud happened or not, but no, the discrepancy to the poll result is not an obvious proof for election fraud.

[hueymahl]

5. Both sides make this argument all the time

Not saying it never happens, but without evidence, it is just another conspiracy theory, and an old one at that.

When Dems were in charge, Rethugs loved to make this claim. Still do.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

13. Hell. Trump STILL believes that the PV was "rigged"/fraudulent

:puke"

[Whiskeytide]

23. He doesn't really believe that. He just says it. Hell, he...

... probably doesn't even really understand how it works, and has little interest in figuring it out. It's his celebrity ego that simply wants to give his fans an excuse.

[jodymarie aimee]

7. I have been yelling since Nov 2016

there is no way in hell HRC and Feingold lost in WI...Walker has been cheating here since 2010...successfully...Rs just took it national in 2016.

Myself I will never vote early/absentee in my life again...Rs threw out ballots in Racine, WI. And who knows where else...

[RandomAccess]

8. I agree too

and am DISGUSTED by those who treat the whole thing dismissively, or see worthless "conspiracy theories" behind your comment.

The Republicans have been stealing elections electronically since 2000. Demanding a switch to paper ballots is the best answer. This is also, happily, the best response to Russian interference.

[FakeNoose]

9. We're hopeful in Pennsylvania, for other reasons

We hope we've finally beaten the gerrymandering problem here with the newly redrawn districts, and the map will go into effect in a couple of months. The Connor Lamb victory is breathing new life into other Democratic candidates' chances because now they can see that it's possible to win anywhere. "Deep-red" used to mean "Democrats don't bother trying," but now it's more like "It won't be easy but it's still winnable."

And certainly we're seeing that several/many Dems who voted for Trump in 2016 (or stayed home and didn't vote) are regretting that decision. They're taking a personal stake in bringing more Dems to Congress to get these assholes out of Washington for good. It breaks my heart to say this, but I think PA Dems who voted for Trump, didn't want a woman president or else they didn't like Hillary (for whatever reason.) They realize now that Hillary would have been far better than the orange asshole we have, what does it matter that they didn't "like" her?

If PA Democrats can understand that, then I say it's happening all over, not just here. People will not stay home in November, they're going to vote. It's going to be a Blue Tsunami.

I agree that the electronic voting machines are a major problem, and it needs to be dealt with. But we can't solve it before next November. First things first - get Democrats into Washington.

[Hortensis]

15. +1 from not-in-Pennsylvania, but also with Eliot in that

there is a real danger that this will have proven beyond doubt to our wannabe kleptocrats the need to take the very risky route of vote tampering in a bunch of target districts, beyond and in addition to stepping up the usual voter suppression where possible.

The battle raging for power is far larger than we see, and holding power in 2018 is far more important to the big forces on the right than 2020's presidency.

Their legislative agenda's dead if they lose the house; the courts and likely the presidency if they lose the senate, with disgrace and possibly prison for some and the final collapse of their party; and of course even without that last, it will be a final rout and likely game mostly over for the next decade if they lose both.

[FakeNoose]

19. The vote flipping only works in certain situations

I'm by no means an expert on this! But I have been doing a lot of reading since 2016. I feel that it's a real threat but they can only use it in certain situations and when nobody suspects anything. Right now we all suspect something and there's a huge spotlight on it, so maybe that's all it takes.

It seems that the flipping happens in lower-population areas where it only took a few votes to flip a whole county or precinct. Some rural counties only have a few thousand registered voters, and some might be almost 50/50 in Dems/GOP. Those counties have mainly been voting on paper ballots until the last few years when they've had voting machines installed. The people voting on those machines may not be "computer-literate" so it's possible that their votes could have been flipped through ignorance or inexperience. I don't think it's a case of a human going in and changing vote counts, but the machine is programmed to accept one vote and read it as a different vote. It has to do with how the votes are initially collected and counted. When there's no paper trail there's no way to audit, and that's what the GOP has always wanted - the inability to challenge the outcome or demand a recount.

The programming of the machines is suspect, and it happens at the time of installation. Whether these machines get infected updates or whether they can be hacked by outside operators, that's what should be investigated before next November. I believe it will take longer than that, and they will find infected, hacked machines. Even if the hacked voting machines get used in November it's still possible to show Democratic wins if the difference is great enough. It's only when the race is so close that it's razor thin and could go either way that we have to worry about. That's why a spotlight should be shown on every election, just like it was on the Lamb/Saccone race.

[Hortensis]

22. Interesting summary, thanks. Our Georgia system

was clearly designed to be hacked to produce conservative victories as needed.

That they may feel forced to take more risks this year seems not just possible but probable to me though. The people in congress are practically committing political suicide, acting desperate and taking risks they never would have before. As if they're waiting, hoping, wondering, perhaps expecting someone to somehow save their bacon and make things okay for them.

The ones giving them their orders from their estates and penthouses probably don't share that desperation from positions of presumed safety, and we shouldn't underestimate their ruthlessness or arrogant belief in themselves, or massive corollary contempt for us. Their 4 decades and more of work is just another election away from securing a degree of victory it might take us as many decades to undo. And Charles Koch is in his 80s now, no more long-range plans.

[onenote]

10. If you only look at poll results superficially, you come to the wrong conclusions

Last edited Wed Mar 14, 2018, 01:14 PM - Edit history (1)

Yes, there was a poll right before election day showing Lamb with a five or six point lead over Saccone. But look deeper.

The margin of error in the poll: 5.1 percent
The actual numbers: 51 percent to 45 percent, meaning roughly four percent undecided.
That poll assumed a higher than usual mid-term level of turnout, with a much smaller margin (2 points) if the turnout was lower (which it was).
From the same poll: Trump approval/disapproval: split evenly at 49 percent apiece.

So what does one learn looking at these poll numbers closely? That anyone who thought Lamb was going to win by five points or more was fooling themselves and that the final results are actually pretty much what folks should have been expecting.

If this election was actually being stolen by folks with the sophistication to do so without detection, why did they leave themselves short by a just few hundred votes?

[mythology]

17. Thank you for being informed on the subject

These sort of sky is falling posts are embarrassing especially given how easy it is too look these things up.

[Fred Sanders]

28. +1. Why try to "steal" an election, but come up less than 1K short? Not logical.

[Hortensis]

11. Didn't they start counting with a blue urban area

and finish with mostly red suburbs and rural areas? I'm not saying you're not on to something, or that election theft isn't a very real possibility, but I don't see support for this idea from political experts yet. The order of tallying often has the numbers gyrating from hour to hour.

[Eliot Rosewater]

12. Why did they change their minds at the last minute and I am on NYT reading how they

cant do their job because the last minute decision to report one lump sum at the end by the repubs in that district?

Why were exit polls fairly accurate until 2004?

This isnt DO they steal elections, they do.. This is what do we do about it?

And now the GOP is suing, wonder if they will be able to get some votes thrown out?

I appreciate calmer heads like yours, but LOUD and obnoxious ones like mine are needed now because they are going to steal some elections in November, count on it. Can we prevent it?


OH, and when the GOP is stealing an election, they can never know for sure if they have flipped or miscounted enough votes until AFTER the count is done which is TOO Late for them to steal MORE if they didnt steal enough, basic common sense. I am putting this here so I dont have to respond elsewhere.

[bluestarone]

16. I'm like you!! IF THEY CAN STEAL ELECTIONS THEY WILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can NEVER trust the machine count again!!!! As to what can we do? I truly wish i could answer that one!! ANYBODY out there trust the machines???

[LexVegas]

14. So they flipped enough to get withing a 500 votes and stopped?

[bearsfootball516]

18. Exactly. There's absolutely no proof at all that votes were flipped.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

20. The polls indicated he would win by 2. He won by .02. There is a margin of error.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2018/house/pa/pennsylvania_18th_district_special_election_saccone_vs_lamb-6327.html

[Johnny2X2X]

21. 100% agree!!!

Lamb was ahead 4-6 points, the GOP GOTV effort was not as strong as the Dems.

They flipped many votes, as many as they thought they could get away with, but they miscalculated and Lamb won.

And you watch, how and if they demand a recount will be telling. Either they won't demand one or they'll demand only a selective one. A full recount would reveal they flipped tens of thousands of votes.

[bearsfootball516]

26. Only one poll showed him leading by 6, with a margin of error of 5.

Every other poll had either Lamb/Saccone up by 3 or less, and well within the margin of error.

[Johnny2X2X]

33. Those polls were from 2 weeks ago

And there were other polls not included in the RCP average that had him up 3-6.

[HopeAgain]

24. You sound like Trump, frankly

If they count the more urban votes first, which is likely, you would see a surge as the rural votes come in. I believe in truth, not speculation when it comes to voting, otherwise we sound like Trump.

If there is evidence of fraud, then by all means pursue it. But if your goal is simply to sow seeds of distrust in the American electoral process, count me out.

[GulfCoast66]

25. So with no evidence you are yelling about vote flipping

Even though there were many polls and not all had Lamb up by 5. Plus finish is within the margin of error. So I guess you think the have more votes out there somewhere? Cause if I was gonna cheat I would do enough to win.

And sorry you are tired of those who do not believe you but some of us need better evidence.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

27. Eh, I think if you had that much control you wouldn't flip enough votes to barely lose.

You'd go for a 3-5 point win which is entirely consistent with the district.

[Eliot Rosewater]

29. Yeah but while you are switching vote counts or doing whatever you are doing it you are doing it

on that day, before the counting starts.

So you dont know how many to change or not count and you dont want it to look too suspicious.

I still contend Hillary won the 4 states she was winning in but then all of a sudden lost. I still contend John Kerry won Ohio.

[SoCalMusicLover]

34. Kerry Won & Hillary Likely Did As Well

I also think they tried to steal the 2012 election as well. Remember Rover's ranting and raving after Faux "news" called the election? Something was up, but whatever it was, didn't work. Obama was too popular, so perhaps his lead had something to do with it.

[karynnj]

30. Nonsense

The 6 points was from one poll. Every poll has a confidence interval where the true number will be within the interval some percent - usually 95% of the time. The error range is based only on the fact that a genuine scientific sample of the entire desired population would have.

It does not include anything for the fact that in a poll there will be a significant number of nonreponses for some people sampled. Are you willing to assume that the people who answer are similar to people who fit the same demographic category as those who don't? Additionally, the best you could do is to use registered voters as the population to sample from. However this will miss anyone registered after you got your list. That introduces bias.

However, with election polling, you don't want the prefernce of registered voters, you want to know the preferences of those who actually come out to vote. Unlike the errors due to sampling, there is no mathematical formula that precisely estimates the error of the likely voter model which is used to adjust the prediction you have for registered voters. The polling companies have used past elections and questions that deal with how likely people say they are to vote and even past voting history.

Polls are interesting and they do show how a race is trending, but it is ridiculous to say that because the actual votes do not match the forecast .... that the actuals are wrong. In fact, the polling companies will look back at how correct their model -- especially in forecasting who would come out to vote was.

[Eliot Rosewater]

31. Ever wonder why they dont even bother with exit polls anymore?

Or do they, got any I can look at?

[karynnj]

32. They rarely do exit polls for congressional elections nt

[Demsrule86]

35. I don't think votes were flipped in this case. Some of the polls were at 2% which

is within the margin of error...I think Trump the asshat rallied some of his sorry bases who were not planning to vote before his Nazi rally. This election was too close for that...they would have flipped enough votes to win...and one of the head of the areas that still had absentee votes is a Democrat.

[Eliot Rosewater]

36. Could be right.

[Demsrule86]

37. You could be right too...and we will have to be vigilant going forward.

[mopinko]

38. one step that would help- everyone audit your own polling place.

not sure if this is a rule everywhere, but here in illinois, polling places are required to hang a poll tape in public at the end of the night.
i believe a lot of the monkey business takes place between the polling place and the central counting.
everyone should get the numbers from those tapes and make sure that the numbers are the same in the final tabulation.

[Eliot Rosewater]

39. +1