READER COMMENTS ON

"So, NOW You're Worried About a Hacked Election?!: 'BradCast' 8/3/2016"

(16 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... Tim Howe said on 8/3/2016 @ 9:14 pm PT...





Everyone at the Daily Kos, America's premiere progressive discussion community, says you are a flaming conspiracy theory spewing asshole: http://www.dailykos.com/...ection-BradCast-8-3-2016 Quite an accomplishemnt, ya weirdo [ED NOTE: See my comment below as to why you have now been banned from The BRAD BLOG. Calling me names IS allowed here, but sock-puppetry is not. Doing so multiple times is a bannable offense, which you have now accomplished! Not easy, but congrats! - BF]

COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... Jim Spriggs said on 8/3/2016 @ 9:15 pm PT...





From that Small Things Considered article you linked to: Larry Norden with the Brennan Center for Justice in New York Says: "Every single machine before it's used should get a thorough test to make sure that there aren't problems, that the machines are recording votes correctly, that nothing is missing, no names are missing from the ballot," he says. What a douche! Talk about missing the point, and missing the point uber alles. Yeah, I see what you mean, Brad. A few years ago when a talk show host finally asked a reporter why the parties don't take issue with election vote "irregularities" and "accidents" waiting to happen, he said, "they are afraid voters will lose confidence in the process." The reporter should have been shot just for relaying that information. I am so pissed.

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... Tim Howe said on 8/3/2016 @ 9:15 pm PT...





Everyone at the Daily Kos, America's premiere progressive discussion community, says you are a flaming conspiracy theory spewing asshole: Quite an accomplishemnt, ya weirdo [ED NOTE: See my comment @5 below as to why you have now been banned from The BRAD BLOG. Calling me names IS allowed here, but sock-puppetry is not. Doing so multiple times is a bannable offense, which you have now accomplished! Not easy, but congrats! - BF]

COMMENT #4 [Permalink]

... Jim Spriggs said on 8/3/2016 @ 9:27 pm PT...





COMMENT #1 @ Tim Howe: Obviously not everyone as you can plainly see courtesy your link. Is this your first time on Daily Kos Tim?

COMMENT #5 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 8/3/2016 @ 9:53 pm PT...





Timmy @1 and @3: You are welcome to call me (though not Commenters) whatever you like, as per our very few rules for commenting here, "Tim". But you are not welcome to use multiple names when commenting (as also per our rules), as you did on your previous silly comment when you called yourself "Charlie Barker", and on the one before it when you called yourself "marsanges". I offered you a gentle warning about your sock-puppetry the last time you did that. But, three strikes and you're out, brave man. Sorry. I had otherwise enjoyed your clueless inanity (and swell representation of the dKos folks)! Bye, sweetie.

COMMENT #6 [Permalink]

... Marvin Jones said on 8/4/2016 @ 6:47 am PT...





We need publicly hand-counted, hand-marked, paper-ballots in this country in order to have real confidence in results.

Ah, hand-counts--the way the Framers did it.

COMMENT #7 [Permalink]

... Marionumber1 said on 8/4/2016 @ 3:21 pm PT...





The exit polls looked at in the EJUSA report are weighted, but this is a legitimate process. It helps account for response bias and the relative number of voters in each precinct polled. What's not legitimate is forcing the poll to meet the official results ("adjusting" it). Since they didn't use the adjusted exit polls, I think you should give more credence to them. EJUSA's report didn't just look at exit polls and say they showed fraud. They looked at several non-fraudulent explanations based on polling error, and found they didn't explain the discrepancies. Unless there's another explanation for polling error that they missed, it's likely that the exit polls were right and they do show fraud.

COMMENT #8 [Permalink]

... Don said on 8/4/2016 @ 7:41 pm PT...





In the feud between Daily Kos and BradBlog, I'm with BRAD. Looks like they've been eating too many Neocon-contaminated psilocybin mushrooms over there. The super-scary hallucinations are materializing into ... ... those damn RUSKIES!!! Looks like a damn Neocon Woodstock over there. "It's a bumma', please."

COMMENT #9 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 8/4/2016 @ 9:44 pm PT...





MarioNumber1 @7 said: What's not legitimate is forcing the poll to meet the official results ("adjusting" it). It's "legitimate" in that that's how the Exit Pollsters have doing it for years. It may be ridiculous, but, in and of itself, it's not evidence of much of anything. I've spoken directly with many Exit Pollsters over the years and they have a belief that the results as reported are "the gold standard" and so everything should match them. I believe that's ridiculous and naive and unhelpful, but that's what they think and that's what they do. Make of that what you will. EJUSA's report didn't just look at exit polls and say they showed fraud. They looked at several non-fraudulent explanations based on polling error, and found they didn't explain the discrepancies. Unless there's another explanation for polling error that they missed, it's likely that the exit polls were right and they do show fraud. Well, there are several other explanations, including that the initial polls could include weighting errors, that the sample sizes (and number of locations) weren't big enough, that the pollsters picked outlier precincts and --- seemingly never discussed when declaring that odd results = "FRAUD!" --- error by the voting systems, which are misprogrammed all the time. Nonetheless, I don't know that I ever said the Exit Polls "don't show fraud". What I have said, and tried to say clearly on the show posted above, is that I don't care if someone's analysis of the Exit Polls find fraud, anymore that I'd care if someone's analysis of the Exit Polls finds that there was ZERO fraud. I care about counting ballots, and I'd want to count the ballots in question whether anyone felt there was fraud or not. Let's just count the ballots. Publicly. With human beings. And then we can stop with all this statistical, analytical conjecture and guesswork. Elections aren't about Exit Polls or statistical analysis. They are about ballots and votes. Count the VOTES please! Hoping that clarifies. Again.

COMMENT #10 [Permalink]

... Larry Bergan said on 8/4/2016 @ 11:26 pm PT...





I don't support Donald Trump, but I totally support Trump saying what Roger Stone told him to say. Until we know the election isn't rigged before it happens, why not say it is? Since none of us were here to see Noah's Arc save two of everything, why not say we know and live the prosperity gospel gravy train? It's in two Corinthians or something. Maybe Hillary could clarify what the Bible said, but I seriously doubt it.

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]

... Larry Bergan said on 8/4/2016 @ 11:41 pm PT...





The sad thing is that it would be totally possible for every American to hand mark a ballot and have it counted this November, and it would be cheap as hell. It's not going to happen because the voting machine corporations will scream, "breach of contract", and the incumbents will back them up.

COMMENT #12 [Permalink]

... Marionumber1 said on 8/5/2016 @ 6:22 pm PT...





> It's "legitimate" in that that's how the Exit Pollsters have doing it for years. It may be ridiculous, but, in and of itself, it's not evidence of much of anything. I've spoken directly with many Exit Pollsters over the years and they have a belief that the results as reported are "the gold standard" and so everything should match them. I believe that's ridiculous and naive and unhelpful, but that's what they think and that's what they do. Make of that what you will. My point is that weighting is a valid statistical method, while forcing the exit poll to match official results isn't. So when you mention the exit polls being weighted as a strike against their accuracy, that seems a bit off to me. > Well, there are several other explanations, including that the initial polls could include weighting errors, that the sample sizes (and number of locations) weren't big enough, that the pollsters picked outlier precincts and --- seemingly never discussed when declaring that odd results = "FRAUD!" --- error by the voting systems, which are misprogrammed all the time. As far as I can tell, the EJUSA report looked at those other polling error explanations too. You do make a good point that it could simply be machine error rather than fraud. However, if all the apparent errors are slanted towards one candidate, that's unlikely. > Nonetheless, I don't know that I ever said the Exit Polls "don't show fraud". What I have said, and tried to say clearly on the show posted above, is that I don't care if someone's analysis of the Exit Polls find fraud, anymore that I'd care if someone's analysis of the Exit Polls finds that there was ZERO fraud. I care about counting ballots, and I'd want to count the ballots in question whether anyone felt there was fraud or not.

>

> Let's just count the ballots. Publicly. With human beings. And then we can stop with all this statistical, analytical conjecture and guesswork. Elections aren't about Exit Polls or statistical analysis. They are about ballots and votes. Count the VOTES please! I understand, and agree that counting the ballots is the best way to settle the issue. (Though for paperless states, you'd need to audit the software on the machines themselves, as you allude to) It's just that I have a problem with some of your criticisms of exit polls.

COMMENT #13 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 8/5/2016 @ 9:40 pm PT...





Larry Bergan @10 and @11: I don't support Donald Trump, but I totally support Trump saying what Roger Stone told him to say. Until we know the election isn't rigged before it happens, why not say it is? Because, for one reason, that makes it even easier to ignore real evidence of actual fraud (rigging) when those of who cover that sort of thing report it! The sad thing is that it would be totally possible for every American to hand mark a ballot and have it counted this November, and it would be cheap as hell. ... It's not going to happen because the voting machine corporations will scream, "breach of contract", and the incumbents will back them up. It's not going to happen (this November, anyway), but not because of corporate "breach of contract" claims. They have no say over whether their systems get used, to my knowledge. As long as they are paid, they are happy. No entity MUST use their systems, to my knowledge.

COMMENT #14 [Permalink]

... Brad Friedman said on 8/5/2016 @ 9:51 pm PT...





MarioNumber1 @ 12: My point is that weighting is a valid statistical method, while forcing the exit poll to match official results isn't. Actually, it is valid. Not as a measure against fraud, but that's not what the Exit Pollsters (and the folks who purchase their services, in general, namely the corporate media) are seeking. They want demographics info, etc. And if that's what they are looking for, then adjusting the polls to match the results is perfectly valid --- though it requires presumption that the results are accurate! (Foolish assumption, in my opinion. But that's a separate issue.) So when you mention the exit polls being weighted as a strike against their accuracy, that seems a bit off to me. I don't mention that as a strike against their accuracy. I mention it because many people have been (mis)representing the early released Exit results as "unadjusted". That's not so. They are adjusted from the very beginning to meet the demographic expectations (guess work) of the pollsters. If we had the RAW DATA to use, that would be different. We could then compare RAW DATA from Precinct A to the reported results from Precinct A. That would offer more disturbing evidence of fraud or error, in my opinion, then the already-adjusted, incomplete information that is currently made available. Still, even if the RAW DATA compared to specific precincts suggested fraud or error, I would STILL want to count ballots at that precinct by hand before declaring anything either fraudulent or in error. However, if all the apparent errors are slanted towards one candidate, that's unlikely. They are not "all" slanted towards one candidate. See Sanders far outperforming Exits in Michigan, for example. Is that an indication that Sanders stole Michigan? Maybe! So, please count the votes in MI too, thanks! I understand, and agree that counting the ballots is the best way to settle the issue. (Though for paperless states, you'd need to audit the software on the machines themselves, as you allude to) Right. Not just "paperless" states, but any states where DRE votes (with or without a so-called "paper trail") outnumber the margin of difference in the election. That said, most states use hand-marked paper ballots. California, for example, uses paper ballots across the vast majority of the state and its a state that EJUSA and others suggest shows evidence of fraud. But any voter in the state, by law, can file for a hand count of any ballots in the state by hand. Why didn't the folks who believe CA was stolen ask for such a hand count?

COMMENT #15 [Permalink]

... Marionumber1 said on 8/6/2016 @ 7:40 am PT...





> Actually, it is valid. Not as a measure against fraud, but that's not what the Exit Pollsters (and the folks who purchase their services, in general, namely the corporate media) are seeking. They want demographics info, etc. And if that's what they are looking for, then adjusting the polls to match the results is perfectly valid --- though it requires presumption that the results are accurate! (Foolish assumption, in my opinion. But that's a separate issue.) Even for the purpose they claim, it still seems strange. There are many things that could have led to the polls being off, even assuming the official results are correct. How do they know their adjustment method is the right one? > I don't mention that as a strike against their accuracy. I mention it because many people have been (mis)representing the early released Exit results as "unadjusted". That's not so. They are adjusted from the very beginning to meet the demographic expectations (guess work) of the pollsters. It's less of a misrepresentation and more about misleading vocabulary. "Adjusting" an exit poll has come to mean forcing it to match official results, not the weighting they do. "Unadjusted" means the forcing isn't done. The demographic weighting they do is downweighting certain groups to account for response bias, not a preset guess of which demographics will turn out. > They are not "all" slanted towards one candidate. See Sanders far outperforming Exits in Michigan, for example. Is that an indication that Sanders stole Michigan? He didn't outperform the exit polls in Michigan. The exits had him winning by about 7%, but the final margin was about 2%. And even when I suspect fraud, I don't like to say that a particular candidate stole the election. There are too many people who could have done it to point the finger at anyone in particular. > But any voter in the state, by law, can file for a hand count of any ballots in the state by hand. Why didn't the folks who believe CA was stolen ask for such a hand count? I'm honestly not sure. How long after the election does that option remain open?

COMMENT #16 [Permalink]

... Larry Bergan said on 8/6/2016 @ 8:01 am PT...

