[Thanos]

Trump's going to lose by over a hundred electoral votes so a repeat of the Florida 2000 scenario isn't just unlikely. Even if Florida essentially splits evenly again Trump's losses elsewhere will probably make the Florida result redundant. So gawd bless New York and the Left Coast for putting the worst of the boots to his sorry crooked evil ass to begin with.

[DrCaleb]

Thanos Thanos:

Trump's going to lose by over a hundred electoral votes so a repeat of the Florida 2000 scenario isn't just unlikely. Even if Florida essentially splits evenly again Trump's losses elsewhere will probably make the Florida result redundant. So gawd bless New York and the Left Coast for putting the worst of the boots to his sorry crooked evil ass to begin with.

That's the problem though. Trump is espousing the message that the election has already been rigged. So if he loses, and loses big, his supporters won't give their consent that he lost even if the vote was 100% legit.

That sets up the scenario that Bart has been hinting at - the roiling seething sense that people are willing to 'spill the blood of patriots and tyrants'.

[peck420]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

That sets up the scenario that Bart has been hinting at - the roiling seething sense that people are willing to 'spill the blood of patriots and tyrants'.

I can't help but think that this thinking is accurate, regardless of the winner.

Extremely saddening knowing that we will be watching the Canadiana version in about 8 years, give or take and election cycle.

[Thanos]

Going by how easily Vietnam and the Iraq war were waltzed into it won't be the first time they started spilling blood on behalf of a lie. It'll just be each other they're killing this time as opposed to demonic foreigners. Having that kind of inexhaustible gullibility and a deep susceptibility to demagoguery has to result in people getting killed eventually.

[BartSimpson]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

He's not a "sore loser" for having contested an election in which he was at first declared the winner...

...by the media. The official results by the Florida Secretary of State had Bush winning the election by ~1700 votes. And the official count never had Gore ahead of Bush. Not in any version of the official counts that were legally conducted before the legal deadline.

Had there been any reason to suspect manipulation of the result then the sitting President, Bill Clinton, could have ordered the Department of Justice's Civil Rights division to investigate.

He did not.

But feel free to keep arguing the outcome of a sixteen-year old election because you're just setting the stage for the Trumpers to contest a loss if that's the way it turns out for them.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

That's the problem though. Trump is espousing the message that the election has already been rigged. So if he loses, and loses big, his supporters won't give their consent that he lost even if the vote was 100% legit.

That sets up the scenario that Bart has been hinting at - the roiling seething sense that people are willing to 'spill the blood of patriots and tyrants'.

The only way clear for Hillary here is if Trump loses big and if the exit polls more or less resemble the voting populace in each precinct.

Meaning that if a 65% Republican district goes 75% to Hillary while the exit polls show 63% going to Trump we're going to have problems.

The other problem complicating this race has been the bias of the polls during the primaries where both Trump and Sanders were painted as losers in one race after another but then they'd win their elections handily.

People are not trusting the pollsters.

And now the Project Veritas videos and the Wikileaks PROVE vote fraud is real and the Democrats are doing it and if Trump loses by less than 5% to 8% of the vote then there are going to be legitimate and valid concerns about the outcome.

Because the Democrats have been CAUGHT running a massive vote fraud scheme.

If the scrutiny stops their criminal actions and we have a fair (enough) vote then things might be touchy with a Hillary win but they'll settle down.

If Hillary wins in places she just should not win (rural Pennsylvania and Ohio, for instance) then it's going to get bad as people examine the voter rolls and start canvassing the vote.

It'll also get dicey if Hillary's numbers are unusual in areas with electronic balloting and markedly different in areas without it.

I suppose we'll see.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The only way clear for Hillary here is if Trump loses big and if the exit polls more or less resemble the voting populace in each precinct.

Meaning that if a 65% Republican district goes 75% to Hillary while the exit polls show 63% going to Trump we're going to have problems.

Then, there will be problems. I noticed something the other day, is that some places seem to be taking a bunch of polls, and averaging the results together.

The statistician in me cringed! You can't take polls from ABC, NBC, NYT, FOX and average them together! The result is nonsense.

If ABC is 30% HRC, and 28% Trump; with NBC being 32% HRC and 30% Trump - those don't 'average' 31% HRC and 29% Trump!

You have two completely different populations, with two different error factors, with two different questions asked! Averaging them is just a mistake, and not a reflection of reality. Using that number as a basis for changing politics would be a bigger mistake.

[andyt]

I heard that most of the swing districts (ie ones that might change sides) are under Republican control. So if there's any cheating here, it's more likely to come from the Republican side. Also, why aren't the foamers on about all the gerrymandering the Repubs have done?

[BartSimpson]

andyt andyt:

I heard that most of the swing districts (ie ones that might change sides) are under Republican control. So if there's any cheating here, it's more likely to come from the Republican side. Also, why aren't the foamers on about all the gerrymandering the Repubs have done?

Citations?

[andyt]

$1:

The GOP rigged the House: Even a massive Donald Trump defeat wouldn’t give Democrats control
GOP redistricting post-2010 was built to withstand even a landslide loss. The week's hot political story is fantasy

http://www.salon.com/2016/04/01/no_demo ... s_fantasy/

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Hillary's poll numbers are rigged. She's trying the same stunt she got caught pulling in 2008. Her campaign has been double and triple dipping accounts of people who made one time contributions of less than $100. The amounts are always less than $100 so as not to alert the anti-fraud system whenever an amount of more than $100 is automatically withdrawn. Poll numbers are also based on actual contributions made to a candidate. Those extra withdrawals are designed to make it look like she has more support than she actually does. In legal terms, it's called wire fraud.

[BartSimpson]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Hillary's poll numbers are rigged. She's trying the same stunt she got caught pulling in 2008. Her campaign has been double and triple dipping accounts of people who made one time contributions of less than $100. The amounts are always less than $100 so as not to alert the anti-fraud system whenever an amount of more than $100 is automatically withdrawn. Poll numbers are also based on actual contributions made to a candidate. Those extra withdrawals are designed to make it look like she has more support than she actually does. In legal terms, it's called wire fraud.

The Obama Administration doesn't give a shit when Hildecunt rips off the peons.

[Public_Domain]

I really don't get this fear that the losers won't "consent".

Did the Republican voters consent to Obama? Democrats to Bush?

No!

Who the hell cares? The election is fucked, absolutely disgusting and repugnant. We already don't consent!

[BeaverFever]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

I really don't get this fear that the losers won't "consent".

Did the Republican voters consent to Obama? Democrats to Bush?

No!

You misunderstand. In this case, conswnt simply means you accept that the opponent won a free and fair election and is the legitimate president. It doesn't mean you agree with them or like them.

Even the birthers only argued that Obama was ineligible to run for president, not that he was elected by a "rigged" system, and the GOP kept the birthers at arms length, at least publicly. Both McCain and Romney conceded gracefully, both publicly disavowed birther theories.

Similarly Democrats despised Bush but aside from ridicule, none ever claimed that the election was rigged. Gore only ever demanded a recount given the vote was so close and when he took that as far as he could, he conceded acknowledged Bush as the legitimate president, and urged hi supporters to do the same, which they did begrudgingly.

[Public_Domain]

No one ever claimed the 2000 election was rigged?

Are you kidding? I grew up being told that election was fucking rigged. I can name soooo many liberals who still talked about it being rigged for years after: Michael moore, Jon Stewart, John Oliver, pribavly Bill Mayer, fucking any leftist, I don't know how you can pretend no one says that election was rigged.

As for Obama, I see no difference between claiming the election is rigged and the candidate is a fraud obtaining the position by lying. The result is the same: the "losers" rejecting the results as fraud.

And I couldn't care less. There is no democracy in America. The sooner the Americans realize their oligarchs are punking them, the better. Their system deserves absolutely no respect or endorsement from the people.