2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part X

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
ClglsQCVEAMrsBn.jpg


Oopsie dasies
 
This study from some people at Stanford is starting to make the rounds. In state after state where there was no paper trail, Clinton crushed Sanders beyond what mathematical analysis of the given state would expect and the results were far off from the exit polling.

Stanford Study Proves Election Fraud through Exit Poll Discrepancies : snopes.com

Nobody has really taken issue with the data or conclusions yet, but it's agreed that there needs to be a lot more peer review.
 
This study weak paper from some people one undergrad student at Stanford and one from the Netherlands is starting to make the rounds on Twitter. And the results were off from the exit polling which we know is very flawed given the past several elections.

Fixed that for you.

It's becoming laughable what you consider a source, do you not read them yourselves beyond the headline?
 
I read the entire thing like I always do. You're the one calling it a "weak" paper. The study itself pointed out the problems with exit polling but then went on to say that the difference in the exit polling and the actual results puts a highly likelihood on their being other factors at play.

There's undeniably a mathematical shift in expected support for Clinton whenever there's no paper trail left behind. Could very well be coincidence, but why isn't this something worth looking into?
 
I don't really understand the furor over Hillary's supposed ties to Wall Street. Wall Street isn't inherently evil; I think it's fairly obvious that a strong financial sector is a cornerstone of any modern economy. The key is it has to be well-regulated; if not, it will run amok just like any other industry. If Hillary does have allies in the high levels of the financial sector, that could end up being a good thing in terms mitigating the moral hazard that so often plagues finance.
 
I read the entire thing like I always do. You're the one calling it a "weak" paper. The study itself pointed out the problems with exit polling but then went on to say that the difference in the exit polling and the actual results puts a highly likelihood on their being other factors at play.

There's undeniably a mathematical shift in expected support for Clinton whenever there's no paper trail left behind. Could very well be coincidence, but why isn't this something worth looking into?

The link you posted stated from the beginning that it's indeed not a study and from only one student from Stanford, so I wasn't sure how far you got.

Well it could be coincidence, OR it could be that non paper states are less liberal and diverse, they have no control on exit polls regarding these states, who's more likely to take an exit poll, etc, etc... You know real aspects of a study.
 
Well it could be coincidence, OR it could be that non paper states are less liberal and diverse, they have no control on exit polls regarding these states, who's more likely to take an exit poll, etc, etc... You know real aspects of a study.

Well, for one, you're off on the "non paper states are less liberal and diverse" as the states without a paper trail had results that were far off from where you would expect them based on the makeup of voters in those states. So, no, there clearly is a major mathematical discrepancy going on.

However, I will contend that the infographic everybody is posting is rather pointless as Clinton winning such states by a 65-35 margin is absolutely meaningless if they just happen to be the same states where Sanders performed poorly. It's misleading and doesn't get to the underlying problem at all.

But they did mention the idea of Sanders voters being more likely to take the exit poll, but then pretty much threw that idea out. It would have to mean that Sanders supporters are multiple times more likely to stop and answer the questions than others. Not an impossibility though.
 
I don't really understand the furor over Hillary's supposed ties to Wall Street. Wall Street isn't inherently evil;

The key is it has to be well-regulated; if not, it will run amok just like any other industry. If Hillary does have allies in the high levels of the financial sector, that could end up being a good thing in terms mitigating the moral hazard that so often plagues finance.


The first part of your post that I quoted really comes down to one's thoughts on Capitalism. Those of us on the far left feel there's basically nothing that can stop profit motive from taking precedence over everything else and therefore Wall Street is inherently greedy. Doesn't mean the individuals themselves are awful people, mind you, but pretty much every corporation in existence will justify or ignore any wrongdoing in order to be more profitable.

Sure, Wall Street being more and more well-regulated is exactly what needs to happen in order to level the playing field and ensure that major mistakes like the last financial crisis never happen again. But why on earth would Clinton being chummy with these people make it a good thing? You're right now witnessing how NRA/gun lobby money is literally preventing Republicans from stopping thousands of people from dying every year. Why would Clinton not do what her financial backers want as well, especially when her husband cozied up to Wall Street with free trade deals and basically no pro-union help over his eight years?

Time and again, no matter the politician, we see them unable to ignore the interests of their biggest financial backers, hence the worry over Clinton. If you were a big player on Wall Street, would you really donate money to someone you thought would lead to tighter regulations on your industry, and thus, lower profit margins?
 
Well, for one, you're off on the "non paper states are less liberal and diverse" as the states without a paper trail had results that were far off from where you would expect them based on the makeup of voters in those states. So, no, there clearly is a major mathematical discrepancy going on.



However, I will contend that the infographic everybody is posting is rather pointless as Clinton winning such states by a 65-35 margin is absolutely meaningless if they just happen to be the same states where Sanders performed poorly. It's misleading and doesn't get to the underlying problem at all.



But they did mention the idea of Sanders voters being more likely to take the exit poll, but then pretty much threw that idea out. It would have to mean that Sanders supporters are multiple times more likely to stop and answer the questions than others. Not an impossibility though.


Aren't the majority of paperless states in the south?

But absolutely Sanders voters are more than likely to do an exit poll; they're younger, many are first time voters, and as many of us have stated they're more excited about their vote.




Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Sure, Wall Street being more and more well-regulated is exactly what needs to happen in order to level the playing field and ensure that major mistakes like the last financial crisis never happen again. But why on earth would Clinton being chummy with these people make it a good thing?

Because more regulation is in everyone's best interests in the long run. I think this is a different situation than under Bill, where it was looking like deregulation would result in perpetual growth. Call me an optimist, but I think some lessons from the 2008 crash have been learned, and someone like Hillary with some inside connections is in a better place to negotiate those reforms, however minor they may be, than a firebrand like Sanders.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom