Hillary Clinton suggests that 2016 election may not be legitimate

[GeorgiaModerate]

Cute but I doubt American government will fully admit that they were compromised in similar fashion to a third world country. No vote tallies were changed--- people have made misinformed decisions before voting for hundreds of years.

Actually, vote tallies were changed, and the vote tallies were changed from a situation where Hillary Clinton won the Electoral College 334-204 to a situation where Donald Trump won the Electoral College 305-233.

Your source for this?

[TheSaint250]

Cute but I doubt American government will fully admit that they were compromised in similar fashion to a third world country. No vote tallies were changed--- people have made misinformed decisions before voting for hundreds of years.

Actually, vote tallies were changed, and the vote tallies were changed from a situation where Hillary Clinton won the Electoral College 334-204 to a situation where Donald Trump won the Electoral College 305-233.

This didn't happen. At all.

The Russians didn't magically change votes in AZ, FL, NC, WI, PA, MI, and ME-02.  Stop trolling.

[pbrower2a]

If the Russians did fix the Presidential election, then they also fixed the Senate elections.

Would we have to redo the election?

Or must we simply accede to the absolute plutocracy that we will find becoming more complete every day, putting on the smiles like those of people who knew that if they didn't smile enough that they might vanish?

[Pericles]

Cute but I doubt American government will fully admit that they were compromised in similar fashion to a third world country. No vote tallies were changed--- people have made misinformed decisions before voting for hundreds of years.

Actually, vote tallies were changed, and the vote tallies were changed from a situation where Hillary Clinton won the Electoral College 334-204 to a situation where Donald Trump won the Electoral College 305-233.

This didn't happen. At all.

The Russians didn't magically change votes in AZ, FL, NC, WI, PA, MI, and ME-02.  Stop trolling.

Yes. Only minds.

[TheSaint250]

Cute but I doubt American government will fully admit that they were compromised in similar fashion to a third world country. No vote tallies were changed--- people have made misinformed decisions before voting for hundreds of years.

Actually, vote tallies were changed, and the vote tallies were changed from a situation where Hillary Clinton won the Electoral College 334-204 to a situation where Donald Trump won the Electoral College 305-233.

This didn't happen. At all.

The Russians didn't magically change votes in AZ, FL, NC, WI, PA, MI, and ME-02.  Stop trolling.

Yes. Only minds.

I don't think they were responsible for convincing that many voters, either.

[Frodo]

Seems like a logical suggestion -if Special Counsel Robert Mueller finds out that there was indeed Russian interference, and that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians, then (at the very least) the 2016 election should be re-examined.  And that's not even mentioning impeachment hearings...   

[Pericles]

As mentioned prior to Trump's win, the idea that a US election could be rigged is simply ridiculous. Trump won legitimately under the Electoral College system, he got 306(304 accounting for faithless electors) electoral votes because that's what the voters chose. However, it is also clear that Russia did influence the voters and may have led to reduced support for Clinton with the Wikileaks hacks of her campaign.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

It is also oddly suspicious that polling in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (not to mention, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Florida) consistently indicated a Clinton win, and that election day was opposite of the polling data. Sure, things happen and polls are not always accurate.  But every poll?  And every political analyst?  And in three traditionally Democratic states?  States that haven't voted for a Republican in 30 or more years, and showed little chance of doing so in 2016?  I'm not saying I believe individual votes were tampered with (although that could be a possibility, who knows--not I, and not you), I'm just saying that it's odd these three states went to Trump, of all people, and especially when virtually every pollster and analyst had data predicting otherwise. 

Uh, it's clear why the "polling failure" happened:

1. Once it was clear the GE was Hillary v. Trump, the media was overwhelmingly biased in favor of Hillary for obvious reasons. They manipulated poll samples and dramatically underestimated Trump's chance of winning in online models, as a means of trying to make Trump supporters depressed enough to stay home, increasing Hillary's margin of victory and thus her mandate in office. Nate Silver, a neutral figure, released an unbiased model that showed the truth - Trump had about a 33% chance of winning the election, and right now, we're living in the 33%. Nobody wanted to believe Trump had such a high chance in the context of the election because there were very rational reasons to fear a Trump presidency. But he had that 33% chance, and took advantage of it.

2. There was a real "Shy Trump Vote". People lied to pollsters, and to society at large, to avoid the social stigma that came with being a Trump supporter. Instead of admitting their support for Trump, they played it safe by saying they supported Gary Johnson or were undecided. In some cases, they may have even pretended to support Clinton. But in the secrecy of the ballot box, where no one would know, they voted for Trump.

3. Hillary deliberately ignored Wisconsin, and ignored Michigan until the last moment, due to her complete faith in the blue wall. In Pennsylvania, she campaigned only in the biggest cities, allowing Trump to increase republican margins in the T and reduce dems to only a very narrow win in Scranton.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

If Robert Mueller concludes that Russians did interfere with the election, then we should all support Hillary's challenge. Period.

And as I asked earlier in the thread: what form would such a challenge take?  Once the President has been inaugurated, impeachment and conviction by Congress is the only constitutional mechanism to remove him/her.

Technically, according to my professor, the SCOTUS does have power over the election results, a powerful precedent that was granted to them in the 2004 case Bush v. Gore. All that would need to be done is that either Hillary or Mueller... or both, is to challenge the results. That's all she told me. I don't know if they have to start off suing in the individual states where the hacking was most prevalent.

Bush v. Gore is a 2000 case, not 2004, and while I haven't read the decision myself, I remember Rachel Maddow saying on at least one occasion that the decision was written in an unusual manner, such that it was applicable to only that one time in history and set no precedent whatsoever.

----------------

Anyways, Hillary's comments change nothing. The investigations are already happening. If they find out that Trump personally colluded with Russia during the election, it should be resolved by impeaching Trump. Same goes for Pence. If we end up with President Ryan, I trust congress to decide whether Ryan should serve the remainder of Trump's term, or only until a special election can be held. They know far better than I do what the best course of action would be under a President Ryan scenario.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If Robert Mueller concludes that Russians did interfere with the election, then we should all support Hillary's challenge. Period.

And as I asked earlier in the thread: what form would such a challenge take?  Once the President has been inaugurated, impeachment and conviction by Congress is the only constitutional mechanism to remove him/her.

Technically, according to my professor, the SCOTUS does have power over the election results, a powerful precedent that was granted to them in the 2004 case Bush v. Gore. All that would need to be done is that either Hillary or Mueller... or both, is to challenge the results. That's all she told me. I don't know if they have to start off suing in the individual states where the hacking was most prevalent.

Bush v. Gore is a 2000 case, not 2004, and while I haven't read the decision myself, I remember Rachel Maddow saying on at least one occasion that the decision was written in an unusual manner, such that it was applicable to only that one time in history and set no precedent whatsoever.

----------------

Anyways, Hillary's comments change nothing. The investigations are already happening. If they find out that Trump personally colluded with Russia during the election, it should be resolved by impeaching Trump. Same goes for Pence. If we end up with President Ryan, I trust congress to decide whether Ryan should serve the remainder of Trump's term, or only until a special election can be held. They know far better than I do what the best course of action would be under a President Ryan scenario.

They said it wasn't to be used for precedent since they knew it was a steaming pile of sh**t.

[GeorgiaModerate]

No contest, says Clinton:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[twenty42]

Well let's see.

There is no doubt that Russian interference occurred.

There is no doubt that Russia's goal was to elect Donald Trump and to instill uncertainty in our elections and our government.  There is little doubt they had/have the means to influence our election.

There is no doubt that Hillary won the popular vote by about 3 million votes.

It is also oddly suspicious that polling in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin (not to mention, New Hampshire, North Carolina, and Florida) consistently indicated a Clinton win, and that election day was opposite of the polling data. Sure, things happen and polls are not always accurate.  But every poll?  And every political analyst?  And in three traditionally Democratic states?  States that haven't voted for a Republican in 30 or more years, and showed little chance of doing so in 2016?  I'm not saying I believe individual votes were tampered with (although that could be a possibility, who knows--not I, and not you), I'm just saying that it's odd these three states went to Trump, of all people, and especially when virtually every pollster and analyst had data predicting otherwise.  Also, it's important to note that elections can be rigged, voting machines can be hacked, and individual votes can be altered.

Clinton's suggestion is certainly possible; and while the electoral college, without hacking, makes the election legitimate, it does not make Trump's presidency the will of the people--the will of the people was for Hillary to be president.

Let me process this...are you actually saying that it's illegal for a party to win states that it hasn't won in a while? So I guess 1932, 1952, and 1992 were stolen too.

Hillary was not entitled to these states just because she had a D next to her name. But she chose to believe that, and she suffered the consequences. She chose to try to "expand the map" by campaigning in AZ and NC instead of trying to secure her firewall, and Trump took advantage of her poor strategy in that regard. Hillary and Trump won their party's nominations, which means they both had the right to win the election. There never was a "Blue Wall." It isn't Trump's fault that he knew this while Hillary didn't.

And while I'm on the subject, I feel like I should debunk a myth about 2016 that has been going around for a while. This is going to be pretty big, so I suggest sitting down, taking a deep breath, and having a drink of water before you read this. Here goes...

PA, WI, and MI were not polling errors. Trump won the states with late breaking undecideds.

PA polling average: Clinton 46.8 - Trump 44.7 - Undecided 8.5
PA actual: Clinton 47.5 - Trump 48.2 - Other 4.3
Difference of undecided voters: Clinton +0.7, Trump +3.5, Other -4.2

WI polling average: Clinton 46.8 - Trump 40.3 - Undecided 12.9
WI actual: Clinton 46.5 - Trump 47.2 - Other 6.3
DoUV: Clinton -0.3, Trump +6.9, Other -6.6

MI polling average: Clinton 47.0 - Trump 43.4 - Undecided 9.6
MI actual: Clinton 47.0 - Trump 47.3 - Other 5.7
DoUV: Clinton 0.0, Trump +3.9, Other -3.9

These polls were actually very accurate predicting Hillary's final percentages. But polls are NOT responsible for predicting where undecided voters will land on Election Day. As the undecided percentage increases, so does the degree of uncertainty. And as undecided percentage increases, the relevance of the margin decreases. These very rules of thumb were why 538 was giving Trump a 29% chance of winning while other outlets were giving him 1-2%.

To be fair, undecideds broke disproportionately to one side this year, and that is fairly unusual. If the election was simulated 100 times, these three states would probably go to Hillary more often than they would Trump. But elections are singular events and weird stuff can happen, which is exactly why Hillary should have put more effort into protecting her firewall...ESPECIALLY given the uncertainty of the polls.