Decision 2016

[Dad_Scaper]

The recounts are being pursued by Jill Stein, the especially unimpressive Green Party candidate. I don't think they will change anything, and I think many will be inclined to think that that effort is something it is not. I am hopeful that people are paying enough attention to realize that it is not Clinton who is seeking them. In a close election it's not a big deal, regardless. If Clinton had won I would say the same. Here's an article about Stein's fundraising and demand for a recount.

What interests me the most is that Trump even cares. He won, right? So shut up and let them count again. Let them count 20 times; it won't change the outcome. Even Clinton's people aren't fighting it. So, Mr. President Elect, take this time you're spending on phony and/or pointless outrage, and devote it to something important. Like, say, an intelligence briefing.

But, Swamper, what were your thoughts on Russia being the source of pro-Trump fake news? Is a recount really more interesting to you?

[Swamper]

I've been following the Russia - Trump bromance. I don't like it at all. I think Russia is a real threat, and that's part of the reason why I hope Romney gets the Secretary of State position. I think he realizes that Russia is a real threat.

When I'm asking questions in here, I'm really just looking for a different viewpoint. Yall are more liberal than me, and I like hearing what yall think (even though I disagree a lot of the time).

[Dysole]

Don't like how it was reported initially and how it will likely be seen by those with only a cursory glance at what's going on. Think it's a good practice to get into as a nation. If it changes anything, I will be VERY surprised.

~Dysole, who notes that the Clinton campaign has gotten involved now, but Clinton's statement about the whole process basically boils down to "Now that Stein's involved, we don't see any reason to cooperate and ensure that a fair and honest vote happened and we really don't expect it to change anything"

[Dad_Scaper]

Clinton's involvement, it seems to me, is to have some lawyers involved in making sure it's done right. I would be stunned if Trump's campaign is not doing the same.

[Dad_Scaper]

Only one candidate has actually asserted there was vote fraud. Bet you can't guess which! Narcissists will not accept second place in anything, even when they get the blue ribbon. Won the election but not the popular vote? Not good enough, there must have been fraud.

It's not enough that he won, he must also make unsupported accusations of cheating because he lost the popular vote. I am sure in some circles what is happening now will be spun as Clinton refusing to accept the results, but the truth is, only one of the two major candidates is actually complaining about the outcome of the election. And he's doing it with accusations of corruption, which are as serious as they are baseless. The recount was triggered by Jill Stein, and considering the vote was close and there is no (rational) reason to think there was fraud, a recount is not a big deal.

The only candidate alleging fraud, and refusing to accept the integrity of the election, is the guy who won it.

[dok]

I read that audits of randomly selected precincts are part of the standard post-election procedure in at least some of these states, which is a very good thing. Given that, I'm not sure I see the value of additional recount work (in those states, at least).

Either way, it's a terrible idea to use voting systems that don't involve a complete, user-generated paper record. Paper records are the ultimate fallback and the ultimate security against computer hacking (and other forms of fraud, for that matter). TBH it's pretty hard to improve on the optical scan ballot. It gives you rapid tabulation and a verifiable physical record.

[Ranior]

I agree Dok. From what I've read almost every state and almost every election in the US already involves a few audits of at least a few areas to detect for any fraud. There's just no evidence that it has been happening.

Which of course is partially because we generally do take strong care to make sure these systems are accurate through the use of thoughtful security measures and routine audits. I'm always quick glad when I go vote in WI and fill in some bubbles on a ballot and submit it into the machine. As you said, it's the perfect balance of quick and accurate tabulation of votes with a verifiable user generated paper record.

Sometimes it's nice to see things actually working well.

[Dad_Scaper]

. . . which is (I suspect) a significant part of the Clinton camp's statement that it did not suspect fraud. Quoth the Clinton rep:

"Because we had not uncovered any actionable evidence of hacking or outside attempts to alter the voting technology, we had not planned to exercise this option ourselves, but now that a recount has been initiated in Wisconsin, we intend to participate in order to ensure the process proceeds in a manner that is fair to all sides," Elias wrote on Medium Saturday. "We feel it is important, on principle, to ensure our campaign is legally represented in any court proceedings and represented on the ground in order to monitor the recount process."

LINK. Like I said above, I would be stunned if the Trump campaign was not similarly "represented on the ground in order to monitor the recount process." Would it be legal malpractice to advise Trump *not* to have itself represented in the field? Possibly. Not because there is reason to suspect fraud, but just because something surprising is there, you want boots on the ground.

Spoiler Alert!

Nate Silver's response: https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/802914250318643200

[Agent Minivann]

Nothing really to add to the discussion, but I saw this on the Facebook and had to share here:

[Rich10]

Instead of Jill Stein asking for a recount, she should consider how much the Green party contributed to a Trump victory.
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...ler?yptr=yahoo
Stein votes/Trump margin:
MI: 51,463/10,704
PA: 49,678/46,765
WI: 31,006/22,177
Admittedly, the race in deciding states wasn't as close as it was with Bush-Gore, but it played a part.

On another matter, any thoughts on Trump's influence on Carrier with respect to moving jobs offshore?

[Dad_Scaper]

As I understand it, Carrier's parent company is also a defense contractor. Defense contractors have deep and delicate relationships with the executive branch of the government. I'm not really interested in one deal as the delivery, or failure to deliver, on a campaign promise.

Trump is inheriting 8 years of rising employment, wages, and stock markets. I'm open to being impressed - I really am - but this deal doesn't mean anything to me. Show me trends, in time.

[Rich10]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

I'm not really interested in one deal as the delivery, or failure to deliver, on a campaign promise.

One-off deals won't contribute significantly to jobs (outside of the 800 or so jobs saved). But, is Trump going to push an agenda of keeping jobs in the US? What would that mean? If this means a protectionist agenda, can he get the Republicans to go along with him? What would be the potential negative ramifications of this? Reduced trade, higher costs for products, etc.