Welcome to DU!
    The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
    Join the community:
    Create a free account
    Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
    Become a Star Member
    Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
    All Forums
        Issue Forums
        Culture Forums
        Alliance Forums
        Region Forums
        Support Forums
        Help & Search
    
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: (538) Recounts Rarely Reverse Election Results [View all]FBaggins
(28,543 posts)3. Unusual in impact... but not as unusual as some think
        Remember that the polls just before the 2000 election showed Bush ahead by about the same 3-4 points that Clinton was ahead this time. Only a single poll (Zogby) showed Gore getting the 48% that he ended up getting. His average was 44%. There were actually people talking about Gore's only chance being to narrowly win the electoral college while losing the popular vote.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
  Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
						
							50 replies
							
								 = new reply since forum marked as read
							
						
      
      
					
						Highlight:
						NoneDon't highlight anything
						5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
						RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
 = new reply since forum marked as read
							
						
      
      
					
						Highlight:
						NoneDon't highlight anything
						5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
						RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
					
                    
					
                     = new reply since forum marked as read
							
						
      
      
					
						Highlight:
						NoneDon't highlight anything
						5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
						RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
 = new reply since forum marked as read
							
						
      
      
					
						Highlight:
						NoneDon't highlight anything
						5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
						RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
					
                    
					
        
        It would be factual is the Russia ... factor .... was included, its not... they're assholes for
        uponit7771
        Nov 2016
        #41
      
        
        The article is about recounts, not the broader issue of campaign dirty tricks
        brooklynite
        Nov 2016
        #44
      
        
        well, the russians probably didn't care that much about a minn senate race.  nt
        TheFrenchRazor
        Nov 2016
        #31
      
        
        He's one of the guys who said the "suspicious" data the computer scientist came up with
        jmg257
        Nov 2016
        #11
      
        
        He is likely right, as the computer guy himself said, likely not hacking involved.
        jmg257
        Nov 2016
        #18
      
        
        beats me - figure they have to be recounting for some reason (other then "threatening democracy"). n
        jmg257
        Nov 2016
        #34
      
        
        It's no public service to throw cold water on attempts to improve the situation.
        bigmonkey
        Nov 2016
        #50
      
        
        don't care; machines are hackable; i don't trust 'em. lemme see the paper.  nt
        TheFrenchRazor
        Nov 2016
        #32
      
        
        It's odd, in that case, that this was not widely reported until the end of last week
        DFW
        Nov 2016
        #37
      
        
        THAT, Russian played a part is the variance here... 538 ignored that seeing no one knows
        uponit7771
        Nov 2016
        #46
      
        
        Maybe is horrible and 538 should factor that in instead of ignoring it and yes its possible
        uponit7771
        Nov 2016
        #49
      
  