|
Ok, so... statistics = awesome. I love statistics.
I've read a number of articles reviewing polling data and turnout rates for both Election Day and the 2016 primary. In fact Thurston has posted a few very straightforward ones on social media.
Based on what I've read, and information gathered from the polling locations I covered on Nov. 8, I think there is sufficient evidence to justify a full scale investigation of the 2016 presidential election results. I don't think anything will come of it, or that any investigation will even take place, but at this point I'm damn near convinced that some tampering took place, particularly in Florida, where Hillary's early voting lead was -- for lack of a better word -- statistically insurmountable. For Trump to have broken even with HRC would (should?) have been a statistical anomaly. For him to beat her? I don't have the actual probability on hand, but ... close to impossible, and certainly would have required an unprecedented Election Day surge from voters in a year where turnouts were low all around. It doesn't add up.
Do I sound nuts here? Is anyone following the (very thin) media coverage of the unprecedented multi-state surge? Even with the Comey incident, Hillary was still overperforming her own projections in early voting while Trump was almost universally underperforming his. The fact that all of this changes just enough to give Trump a lead in virtually every state that "mattered," not to mention the margin by which the states swung (1%, 1%, 1%... that's simply not how data distributes-- if these results were from a college research project, the prof would say "count that shit again") ... it's giving me a nasty pinch in my gut.
Either something is fishy, or I've lost it. Equally likely after the 11 days I've had.
|