I've thought her high numbers were a result of fraud ever since the outcome of the election. Of course, I have no hard proof of this. What we do have is many suspect reported instances of the voting machines changing votes, deceased persons voting, double voting, etc. I'm not sure that the high populations in blue areas can really account for so many votes. I smell bullshit.

Hillary has conceded and I hope that it will be left to rest. I think the Trump support was unprecedented and washed out any attempts at fraud. I'm not sure if there's anything left to do for the Soros/DNC bastards but to try and subvert the Trump adminstration as much as possible

We have proof them cheating the debates

We have proof of them collaborating with organizations to bus fraudulent voters in

That's proof of election fraud

There's also an abundance of proof that they cheated to win the primary

It's just that it's fucking impossible to get the anyone to acknowledge that as fraud. It's not "proof enough" for people, I guess.

This is what I've been thinking. If the electoral vote had only been separated by a few votes they might had been able to pull some shenanigans. But he won in such an overwhelming way if they tried to do something now to change it, it would just be too Obvious. The "faithless voter" who changes there electoral vote after the election has basically never happened and if they changed that many votes to Hillary I would be scared for what would happen to the country. You think the Hillary voters out there protesting now is bad imagine what would happen if they stole it away from trump after he's already clearly and decisively won, see what the trump supporters go out there and do.

If they really are trying to incite civil/race war like everyone is saying they are, then maybe that's exactly what the plan is.

The high populations in blue areas absolutely account for the votes. Look at the populations and look at the numbers? They aren't surprising. Many dense urban areas are well over 80% Democratic supporters among people who vote, and and views of Trump for Democrats in those areas range from "not qualified" to "completely unacceptable, and legitimately disgusting as a candidate."

Clinton won California (12% of U.S. population) by a 28% margin, New York (6% of U.S. population) by a 20% margin, and Illinois (4% of U.S. population) by a 16% margin. She only lost Texas (9% of population) by a 9% margin, and ran within 2% in Florida and Pennsylvania (the two remaining most-populous states, totalling 10% of U.S. population between them).

Together these 6 states account for 40% of U.S. population and Clinton runs up an advantage of millions of votes across just those. And there are plenty more deep blue states with high Clinton margins that also add to her total.

Trump only won high margins in low-population states. A recipe for electoral victory, but not for popular vote victory (because EVs are not awarded in very good correspondence with population at this point).

"I question whether the places where the most people live really have that many people"

Interesting analysis, thanks! I ran the numbers and got the same results. I'm thinking maybe the slight difference possibly has do with 3 being the minimum number of electors a state can have; since the number is based off of respresentation in Congress. In other words, since there are several states (Wyoming and Alaska come to mind) that HAVE to have three electors despite their populations not necessarily aloting to them 3 mathematically. Therefore, the overall number isnt necessarily 538

Here's (in another subthread) my answer as to why 50/50, specifically, is not a likely outcome.

Strange things happened in Virginia as the vote count reached 90%, I would look into there first. He was winning by a comfortable margin and all of a sudden they're was a 500,000 vote swing.

Edit: also Minnesota, they already counted the Minneapolis /St. Paul area which is realible blue and it was neck and neck and somehow of wasn't close at about 80% of the vote count.

It seemed like they were getting results from the more populous counties last. More votes for Hillary with huge population densities longer to count. Plus media could be slowing that part of the picture for the suspense and ratings factor.

According to Bev Harris at blackboxvoting.com, delaying urban vote tallies is a traditional DNC election fraud tactic.

NoVa had long lines, delaying them from closing on time. So the large population centers of Dem voters would come in like that.

They stole Virginia, Minnesota, Colorado, Nevada, New Hampshire, and Maine.

I live in Virginia and although not in NOVA the Trump signs outnumbered the HRC ones by a 5:1 margin.

There are many Virginia counties in which the margin was close to that (and when you are a Hillary supporter in a 70% Trump county, you are much more unlikely to want to display a sign - I also know plenty of Trump supporters in New York city who do not want anyone to know, because Manhattan was 90% Hillary).

But not in NOVA, as you indicate, where the vote is almost completely reversed. As it is in most diverse, dense, highly populated urban areas of the country.

Perhaps. I don't know that we can be certain that that would be true in significant numbers.

Northern VA is just outside DC, which votes 92% Democrat. When you visit DC, see how many Republican voters you can find on the streets, away from Capitol Hill. It will not be many. NOVA is not that far Democrat, but 60%D-40%R in VA cities and DC suburbs (65-35 in Fairfax) is real. And that, plus small leads in some other counties and close votes in a few more, is enough to more than offset 70R-30D and 80R-20D margins in some of VA's smaller counties (where you probably live).

I'm saying we can't assume sig. numbers of people were afraid to display signs.

If you're in an 80:20 county, that's 4:1 right there. If your 5:1 number is exactly right, then all it takes is 20% of Democrat supporters being too intimidated to put up signs in order to get there (-> 80R signs:16D signs:4 No signs).

And for that matter there are VA counties where the Trump : Hillary was already 5:1 without anyone being afraid - for example, the extreme example of Scott county: 82%R - 16%D - 2% other.

This 'yard sign' metric just depends where you live.

Holy shit- that's impressive. My 2nd point was we can't be sure who was afraid to put up their signs and who wasn't.

This is what happens when urban area votes are counted last (and it's not surprising that they are - urban polling stations usually have many more votes to count).

What was strange to me was the delay with Broward county in Florida. We already knew something was up with them before, but the delay was telling.

They delay to see how many votes they need to win if they are trailing. But they can only find so many fraudulent votes before they start creeping up on the population of the damn county. When they saw how huge the turnout was for Trump they finally had to give it up.

Seems pretty obvious there was fraud favoring Hillary. What are the chances that the split would end up so close to 50/50? Also, I was monitoring Twitter from quite a few sources and saw more than a few cases of fraud, again favoring the Dems.

The chances that the split would end up "this close to 50/50" are not especially low, based on polling. Trump outperformed polls, else the vote would have been farther in Clinton's favor. Also, counting is not over yet. California is only about 70% counted.

By the time all counting has been done, Clinton will likely lead by over a million votes.

For perspective, if the Democrats had flipped 1 out of every 100 votes in Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania, then they would have won all 4 of those states. Yet, that didn't happen in any of those states.

Al Gore won the national popular vote by only 500,000 in 2000 when he lost to G. W. Bush. Hillary's margin will (in all probability) be at least twice that by the end of counting.

Clinton's popular vote win is because of relatively thin margins of victory for Trump in the red states with the highest populations, and wide margins of victory for Clinton in deep blue states. There is no electoral incentive to rig elections or try to get fraudulent votes in either of those types of states (unless you think New York or California were really, actually close to Trump majority, in which case I'd contend that you are delusional).

Moreover, 23 state governments are 100% Republican-controlled. Only 7 are 100% Democrat-controlled. The 100%-Republican states include Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, and New Hampshire.

Elections are state-run. It is much more plausible that any election fraud in these states favored Trump, not Clinton. (Note: I am absolutely not claiming that any such election fraud happened on any large scale)

I should be more clear as to why, IMO, a 50/50 split is unlikely. If you take an event with two possible outcomes, where the outcomes are equally likely to happen, e.g. flipping a coin, you'd see this kind of split given a high enough number of flips. With this election, the candidates had wildly different platforms and character so the probability that, taking a random sampling of the electorate, you'd find them equally split on these two choices is pretty low. Any other split is more believable, both in favor or against Trump.

Of course 50/50 is possible too, in a non-rigged scenario, but with the differences I mentioned, quite unlikely. It seems a lot more plausible that it's the limit to which votes could be stolen in this election, given the popular support for Trump, without making it glaringly obvious things are rigged. If it's still not clear what I'm saying, it's that 50/50 is too "tidy" a split.

First, your intuition about coin flips is not exactly correct. You are right that in a large number of flips of a fair coin, you should usually expect very close to 50/50 results. In fact, you should usually expect much closer to 50/50 than we got in this election.

The margin in Clinton's popular vote victory currently sits at roughly 400,000 out of 120,000,000 votes (as I said above, by the end, it'll probably be more like 1M-1.5M). The probability of that 400,000 discrepancy, or any larger discrepancy, occurring in 120,000,000 fair random coin flips (a margin of +>=400,000 or ->=400,000) is less than 0.00000001%. Well over 99.9% of the time, the margin would be less than 100,000 coin flips in this scenario.

A discrepancy of 400,000 or more is actually incredibly unlikely if you were to flip 120 million fair coins (even if it "looks close" to 50/50).

All of that is basically irrelevant to the election anyway. Clinton is winning popular vote mostly because she won high-population deep blue states (California, Illinois, New York, Massachusetts) with gigantic margins compared to Trump's in the highest-population red states. Trump won by high margins in many states, but they all have small populations. This is just the structure of the U.S. right now. The "huge popular support" that you perceive for Trump is purely a matter of geography - this is what people mean when they call the country divided. Clinton's supporters aren't imaginary, they're everywhere in most of the U.S.' urban areas and in many deep blue states, and it's very obvious (it's hard to find Trump supporters!)

There'd be motivation for both parties to try to manipulate elections in swing states, but not in deep red or blue states. But, even in swing states, the speculation you're presenting has serious problems - starting with the fact that most of them have Republican governors and Republican legislatures, and states run the election independently.

Lastly, there are compelling reasons founded in psychology and economics for why the popular vote is likely to often (but not always) be "close" to 50/50 in a two-party system and a divided country. Briefly:

-When candidates are viewed as clearly different and there are only two viable candidates, you get stark splits along conservative/liberal lines (and perhaps particular campaign interests). Since the U.S. has a primary system, both parties' candidates are usually acceptable to many supporters on their side of the spectrum.

-In any particular election, one party may connect with the majority of people much more than the other, and may get many more votes. However, this causes a reaction in the opposing party, toward attracting more of those votes in the next election.

-Just like a financial market, the parties are competitors. However, the incumbent system causes frequent swings in perception. Incumbent Presidents have already established public perception and policy paradigms. Midterm elections give the opposing party a long time to tailor their next message to combat the sitting President's weaknesses with a new, different candidate (and usually, there's some part of the population which has been disenfranchised by the sitting President, because it's very hard to keep everyone, or even a majority, happy). And the next incumbent party candidate after a 2-term President often carries political baggage of the last President even though it's a different person, which his or her opposition can use too.

So, you get a tug of war, and support is often close to halfway. Sometimes (often enough) a mistake by one party or the other changes that.

But in this election, we had two very different and broadly unfavorable candidates, and the split went right down the middle of the electorate, with echo chambers in deep red and blue states amplifying effects there. The deep blue states just plain have more people in them (but, good for Trump, they also have fewer Electoral College votes per capita).

Evidence?

What I do have first-hand evidence of is voter suppression of minorities.

I, personally, know multiple people of colour (in my case, highly educated people of colour) in Missouri and in Kansas who either did not receive absentee ballots they requested or whose names were taken off voter rolls for clearly fabricated reasons (including things like there being felons in other states with the same name - despite obvious discrepancies in other things, like dates of birth). And my contacts, who experienced this, each personally know MANY more people to whom this happened throughout the American south.

This is much more likely. The people who actually run elections are Secretaries of State, the majority of whom are Republican. That includes Florida, Nevada, Ohio, and Arizona.

If there is favoritism in the process in these places it sure wasn't going to be pro-Clinton.

I, personally, know multiple people of colour (in my case, highly educated people of colour) in Missouri and in Kansas who either did not receive absentee ballots they requested or whose names were taken off voter rolls for clearly fabricated reasons (including things like there being felons in other states with the same name - despite obvious discrepancies in other things, like dates of birth). And my contacts, who experienced this, each personally know MANY more people to whom this happened throughout the American south.

To borrow a phrase...

"Evidence?"

Personal friends who did not receive ballots and who experienced this at polling stations?

I have made no claims about how widespread this problem is or that it affected the result of the election. It almost certainly would not have in Missouri or Kansas.

My personal friends were still able to vote, they just had to go to a lot more trouble in order to do it. But it's still very wrong (and for people with less education or less economic flexibility, it would have indeed denied votes in many cases).

It's important to note this is absolutely happening too, if you're going to speculate wildly about "election fraud" in other states (which were actually won by Republicans.... and which, in many cases, have Republican state governments too, by the way).

Well they just called AZ for him.

Funny how the USG didn't shut off George Soros' internet for interfering with the election.

Where can I get precinct level election data for Cumulative Vote Share Analysis? I tried with county level data for my state, but the resolution is too poor to be meaningful, all I show is that counties with more people have a higher Clinton vote, which is obviously because those counties have the large cities. I need the precinct level data so I can better randomize the data and get more reliable.

And they want us to believe over 4 million fewer people voted this time in CA than in 2012?? C'mon. Votes were surely "disappeared".

Saw it mentioned in another thread somewhere, maybe The_Donald. Normal voter turnout in CA is about 33 percent of the population. This time it was only 22 percent.

Looking a little further into this I see that they're still not done counting CA. My apologies. Looks like they still have about 4 million to count.

shocker!

How many electors total will Soros have to buy? How will he do this? What if someone talks beforehand?

This is so incresibly unlikely.

If she had even a small chance of winning, why did she go home & send all her supporters home? Who believes that her campaign management doesn't know how to do math?

Keep telling yourself that. My god you'll say anything to justify your worship of Cheeto.

Yup, I'm with you. But Hillary won the popular vote over trump.

No she didn't. Just like she didn't win it over Bernie.

I'd say there was a lot of trump voters that wee caught double voting and the Russians have a very vested interest in pushing the election towards trump.

The real conspiracy is Russia hacking the machines for Trump.

Was there any evidence of these claims? Clinton News Network reports stuff like this

Just the CIA, nsa, Russian diplomats, bank transactions...

so, no reputable sources?

People here say whatever they want with no evidence and the hive mind self affirmation people hop right around.

Clinton didn't get the popular vote, there was election fraud.

Trump didn't win, hackers from Russia altered the votes.

Leprechauns altered the votes. They wanted a pro rainbow pot of gold president in power.

I heard the machines were Soros owned and that's enough reason to think there might be something to the fraud thing if that's true.

Russia seemed like a stupid thing to blame.

Iunno.

I try to source claims bc of this recent thing of disreputable info

You heard wrong. I'll give you some more buzzwords to look up: soros, smartmatic, 2016.

You'll find that no smartmatic machines were used or planned to be deployed in the U.S.

This will ultimately become, "that's liberal lies, that's conservative lies, liberal media, conservative media, liberal satisfies and data..."

People will say anything to keep their self-affirmations strong.

I've gotten in the habit of looking up most things but I ask for sources to save myself some time, since I don't want to look up everything. I'd be here all day if I did.

Ya let me listen to the cia and nsa, good guys good guys if you have any links for the bank transactions and Russian diplomats saying so I'll gladly look

I've gotten in the habit of looking up most things but I ask for sources to save myself some time, since I don't want to look up everything. I'd be here all day if I did.

If you're in an 80:20 county, that's 4:1 right there. If your 5:1 number is exactly right, then all it takes is 20% of Democrat supporters being too intimidated to put up signs in order to get there (-> 80R signs:16D signs:4 No signs).

And for that matter there are VA counties where the Trump : Hillary was already 5:1 without anyone being afraid - for example, the extreme example of Scott county: 82%R - 16%D - 2% other.

This 'yard sign' metric just depends where you live.