In light of today's news please read this

[Botany]

https://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/story/news/2017/01/23/russians-suspected-hacking-local-dems/96965824/

Russia was into Wisconsin at the county level in 2016 and they left their fingerprints their too.

[rzemanfl]

1. They're, their, there. n/t

[BigmanPigman]

2. They are covering this on !SNBC a lot today.

The 2016 local races were also hacked and effected...gee, I wondered why the GOP had fallen in line with him so quickly. They were helped by Putin financially via illegal campaign contributions and with the hacking!

We lost 2016 at every level of govt to the GOP. They all need to be locked up! RESIST!

[Qutzupalotl]

3. Thank you for not letting this go, Botany! Never forget!

From the link:

While no one can prove beyond doubt that Russians also were involved in the local hack job, two hackers left “calling cards” with Russian email addresses on the local websites in an apparent gesture of contempt or braggadocio, Ginnebaugh said. Green Bay police were notified and have forwarded information to the FBI, she said.

The intruders could just as easily have removed all trace of having been there and just backed quietly out, but they chose to leave their names “as if to say ‘we can get in whenever we want,’” Benson said.

[dalton99a]

4. Kick

[uponit7771]

5. But hey, none of the Russians ever touched a vote in any way :rolleyes:

[mythology]

8. Different systems

Also if Russia hacked votes, please explain why hand recounted and machine recounted counties in Wisconsin showed no significant difference?

Evidence matters. All the evidence, including national polls being more accurate than in 2012, says no votes were changed.

[RandomAccess]

6. More

23:00 6/25/2017
PALMER: Rigged election: Donald Trump won every surprise swing state by the same 1% margin
http://www.palmerreport.com/opinion/rigged-election-donald-trump-won-every-surprise-swing-state-by-the-same-1-margin/118/

The most commonly posited explanation of Donald Trump’s shocking election victory was that every professional pollster in the nation – despite each working independently and using differing methodologies – somehow managed to overlook the same pockets of Trump voters in these states. If such pockets did exist, they would have existed in varying sizes in each of the four states, thus resulting in different sized wins in each.

Ask any statistician and they’ll tell you that a reasonable distribution of the results would have been Trump winning one of the states by one percent, won one of them by perhaps three percent, won one of them by two percent, lost one of them by one percent, or something along those lines. But instead the voting tallies looked startlingly different from any natural distribution. In fact they looked startlingly the same.

According to the New York Times, the voting results broke down like this: Trump won Florida by just over one percent of the vote. He also won Pennsylvania by just over one percent. He won Michigan by just under one percent. And he won Wisconsin by precisely one percent. That’s not how numbers tend to work in the real world.

On its own, this kind of suspiciously consistent numerical dispersion across the four states that decided the election would be something that could be written off as a mere fluke. But when you put it within the context of the numerous other ways in which the voting tallies make no mathematical sense, it points to the numbers having been rigged or altered.

[LisaM]

7. Wisconsin was only lost by a few thousand votes.

People use these websites to find out where their polling sites are, to learn which candidates were endorsed, and to find out how to register to vote. Making this information unavailable could definitely affect an election, even if actual votes weren't tampered with.

I wonder if they also made lookalike sites with similar URLs.