Nipate

Forum => Kenya Discussion => Topic started by: veritas on December 11, 2016, 06:04:30 PM

Title: US Election statistical anomalies
Post by: veritas on December 11, 2016, 06:04:30 PM
Keep coming.

1) Democrat numbers are inconsistently low even when taking into account those who didn't vote.

2) Incredulous & illogical that mainstream Republicans voted for Trump. Even more absurd wayward Democrats voted Trump given his inflammatory remarks during the campaign.
Title: Re: US Election statistical anomalies
Post by: yulemsee on December 11, 2016, 07:44:32 PM
You will need to attach evidence or else this will be taken as the deranged murmurings of babu
Title: Re: US Election statistical anomalies
Post by: Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants on December 11, 2016, 07:56:17 PM
veritas,

What is known apart from the fact that the winner lost the popular vote, is that Democrats have been consistently under-represented.  It became even worse after the 2010 elections when congressional redistricting happened under Republicans watch, in most states.

Gerrymandering tends to look like this.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/How_to_Steal_an_Election_-_Gerrymandering.svg/300px-How_to_Steal_an_Election_-_Gerrymandering.svg.png)
Title: Re: US Election statistical anomalies
Post by: Globalcitizen12 on December 12, 2016, 04:52:32 PM
let me tell you there is no way to fix america by winning Executive.. the way to fix America is to get the fundamentals right.. GOP needs to helped to rescue its camp from tea party anarchists. they are a nationals security threat and should be treated as enemy of state and all tools deployed to destroy them. Drump is a symptom the cancer is the house of representatives. As matter of fact I am going to enlist and work with GOP to try and fight tea party.

Gerry manderring was made by GOP elite thinking it can be used against democracts but it has now been used to destroy GOP elites and may end up destroying US as superpower.. The insurgency in congress is just too dangerous to be left alone
Title: Re: US Election statistical anomalies
Post by: veritas on December 12, 2016, 06:36:54 PM
veritas,

What is known apart from the fact that the winner lost the popular vote, is that Democrats have been consistently under-represented.  It became even worse after the 2010 elections when congressional redistricting happened under Republicans watch, in most states.

Gerrymandering tends to look like this.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/How_to_Steal_an_Election_-_Gerrymandering.svg/300px-How_to_Steal_an_Election_-_Gerrymandering.svg.png)

v. interesting.... thanks.
Title: Re: US Election statistical anomalies
Post by: Ole on December 16, 2016, 07:58:40 AM
Democrats overpopulated the east and west coast. Hillary led in carlifornia by more than 4 million votes. In order for the electoral college to be fair New York and California should get more electoral college votes. But democrats also need to do a good job appealing to moderate whites and build the party from the ground up. Republicans are winning statewide races in stays that usually lean democratic because they chose to compete.
Title: Re: US Election statistical anomalies
Post by: Omollo on December 16, 2016, 10:35:59 AM
Ole

Trump stole the elections with the help of the Russians. In Detroit, Michigan we have a Thaka Nithi situation with more ballots than registered voters.
Title: Re: US Election statistical anomalies
Post by: Ole on December 16, 2016, 11:26:38 PM
Ole

Trump stole the elections with the help of the Russians. In Detroit, Michigan we have a Thaka Nithi situation with more ballots than registered voters.
Omollo,
Russia might have had son influence on the election such as planting fake news and hacking into DNC and podesta emails but Hillary Clinton was a lousy candidate that utterly underestimated trump. Hillary never campaign in Wisconsin, pulled ads out of PA and campaigned in Michigan only on the last week of the campaigned. She spent most of her time in nC and Florida states that she did not have a good chance of winning. Had she won the theee states she could have been president. Trump was a tirees campaigner. I supported Hillary but I found her to be a lazy and complacent campaigner.
Title: Re: US Election statistical anomalies
Post by: Empedocles on December 16, 2016, 11:30:38 PM
Ole

Trump stole the elections with the help of the Russians. In Detroit, Michigan we have a Thaka Nithi situation with more ballots than registered voters.
Omollo,
Russia might have had son influence on the election such as planting fake news and hacking into DNC and podesta emails but Hillary Clinton was a lousy candidate that utterly underestimated trump. Hillary never campaign in Wisconsin, pulled ads out of PA and campaigned in Michigan only on the last week of the campaigned. She spent most of her time in nC and Florida states that she did not have a good chance of winning. Had she won the theee states she could have been president. Trump was a tirees campaigner. I supported Hillary but I found her to be a lazy and complacent campaigner.

She thought she had it in the bag and didn't do anything to win. I mistakenly thought she would win but upon reflection, it was obvious she was losing:


What worries me now is what, if anything, Putin has on Trump personally.
Title: Re: US Election statistical anomalies
Post by: Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants on December 17, 2016, 10:42:59 PM
Ole

Trump stole the elections with the help of the Russians. In Detroit, Michigan we have a Thaka Nithi situation with more ballots than registered voters.
Omollo,
Russia might have had son influence on the election such as planting fake news and hacking into DNC and podesta emails but Hillary Clinton was a lousy candidate that utterly underestimated trump. Hillary never campaign in Wisconsin, pulled ads out of PA and campaigned in Michigan only on the last week of the campaigned. She spent most of her time in nC and Florida states that she did not have a good chance of winning. Had she won the theee states she could have been president. Trump was a tirees campaigner. I supported Hillary but I found her to be a lazy and complacent campaigner.

She thought she had it in the bag and didn't do anything to win. I mistakenly thought she would win but upon reflection, it was obvious she was losing:


What worries me now is what, if anything, Putin has on Trump personally.

She was banking on the Obama coalition.  They didn't show up for her.  But she ought to have known that.  Hillary was a tough sell all along.  I only started tolerating Hillary when it became clear she was the only alternative to Trump.