@gftchris said:

Actually it's the Russians!

"Napoleon sniffed at the air 'Jones has been here!'"

WSS

and one recount - would have cost her 1 million of that....

and she said they couldn't afford and didn't pay it.........................................

WSS

@tour2ma said:

From what I understand, she stands to make a nice chunk of change out of it. I am sure it will all be used for "election reform" and in no way would go to the Green Party.

Hey-oh

Jill's half-crazy... and I'm not sure what I'd call the other half, but she's no "Jillary".

She's said she's not expecting the results to change, but is concerned about the electronic precincts' statistical variances. She's concerned about the integrity of the voting process... at least she says that is her motivation... and I believe her. It's certainly not her love for HRC.

The rub is that there is no effective audit of the electronic machines... you can have them regurgitate their tallies and add them up on a TI calculator or an abacus, but that's about it. If machines recorded votes inaccurately, which was reported of some machines across the nation on election day, and the error was not noticed at the time by the voter, then there is no recourse.

So like I said in the op the number is just unsubstantiated. Good luck with the recount though, Jillary.

@westside-steve said:

He doesn't have an infallible source... He has "math".

In statistics you put forth a hypothesis and test it. In the case of the precincts with electronic machines the hypothesis would likely be something along the lines of:

"The percentage of HRC votes in electronic precincts is not statistically different from that in paper ballot precincts."

Now here's the rub... the test of this hypothesis is not a coin flip situation, i.e., there are not two equally definitive outcomes like heads or tails. The two outcomes of a statistical test are:

• You can statistically reject the hypothesis; or
• You statistically fail to reject the hypothesis.

Put another way... statistically you can state that the hypothesis is false or untrue, but you cannot say that it is true. The best you can do is say it is not provably false. But in any case causality is not assigned/determined...

As for your little poll...

• Absolutely no illegal votes? Nice strawman trap, but nary a turnip truck in sight.
• Sure, illegal votes were cast. But as usual the right's focus is in the wrong place, i.e., in-person voting. Mail-in/absentee voting is so much more ripe for fraud than in-person.
• I'll guess the number of in-person, illegal votes nationwide is <100.

The number of votes suppressed by voter ID laws and purposely indiscriminate purging of voter rolls? I'll go with 300,000+...

@gftchris said:

Just because Fortune says there's no evidence, doesn't make it the case. It might be circumstantial, and there might be nothing to it, but the statistical anomalies are there, and on this scale, statistical anomalies are worth investigating.

So no, it's not the same, however much you close your eyes and hope real hard.

Just because they say there's no evidence certainly does not mean that it's true. So is there? According to your source who I'm sure is infallible?

I don't know if you get the Sunday shows is over there, did you see dr. Stein?

WSS

So no, it's not the same, however much you close your eyes and hope real hard.

Unsubstantiated claims of computer hacking?

WSS

@westside-steve said:

Without a doubt, millions in CA and VA alone.

@westside-steve said:

Respectfully that's not quite the case. The point with those recounts was that there was a statistically significant anomaly - in areas using electronic voting, Hillary polled something like 7% worse than with paper voting between counties in the same state, and that's apparently enough of a 'not coincidence' for people to ask questions. On the other hand, you have Trump making up numbers based on literally nothing.

WSS

I think he may possibly believe it when he says it as some of us who are prone to hyperbole, like myself, do from time to time.

But it always affords the MSM the opportunity to hyperventilate which I think at the end is good for him. The more unhinged they seem in their outrage the better he looks.

WSS

So we're in the situation where you're either in the 'well it may not be exactly right but I bet it's about that' camp or the 'no way, not possible that that could have happened' camp, or, just maybe, the 'there's no evidence for that so we should disregard it for now' camp. But honestly, most people are in their own 'my QB for the browns!' camp.

@gftchris said:

Unsubstantiated is probably the 'politically correct' way of saying it, yes.

As to your question, how many illegal votes? I'm sure plenty of people tried. Of course, it's not possible to get a firm count on those that weren't caught because, well, they weren't caught, so it's a nice little get out clause for Trump, where he can say whatever he wants without any kind of evidence and because it can't be explicitly disproved people are like "well maybe, you don't know".

How is anybody supposed to guess and base it on anything substantive?

No idea Chris. Kind of like the question how many drunk drivers are on the road at any given time? If a guy gets busted it's probably not his first and only time and he's probably only a tiny fraction of everybody else motoring along with a buzz.

If there actually were two and a half million illegal votes I would bet the Lion's Share or for Hillary.

WSS

As to your question, how many illegal votes? I'm sure plenty of people tried. Of course, it's not possible to get a firm count on those that weren't caught because, well, they weren't caught, so it's a nice little get out clause for Trump, where he can say whatever he wants without any kind of evidence and because it can't be explicitly disproved people are like "well maybe, you don't know".

How is anybody supposed to guess and base it on anything substantive?