So, some experts are suggesting that Clinton challenge the election results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania due to some electoral funny business happening in these states. I already covered the concept of the election being suspicious, so here I'm only going to be focusing on the claims made here.
As we know, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania were the states Trump wasn't supposed to win, statistically. This isn't to say that Trump couldn't win these states, but it was pretty unlikely. The results here were...anomalous compared to the trends I predicted. Wisconsin, if I recall, I gave Clinton a 95% chance of winning, and the polls were off by 7.5%. This is arguably a cause for concern. In Michigan, Clinton had an 80% chance of winning or so, and polls were off by 3.7%. In Pennsylvania, Clinton had a much lower 68% chance of winning, putting Trump at almost a 1 out of 3 chance of winning there. Here the polls were off by 3.1%.
This isn't to say Trump couldn't have won legitimately, but I will admit I found the results to be...unexpected, and considering corroborating evidence, even suspicious. Again, this reminds me of what Clinton herself did to Bernie all over again. The cheater got cheated. Either that or we're spending too much time trying to find reasons to be suspicious in making sense of random error. One of the two.
Looking at the actual voting data I reported on last week, let's recap what happened looking at the raw numbers.
In Michigan, democratic turnout decreased by 297,000 votes (rounded), whereas Trump gained 164,000. Gary Johnson went from 8,000 to 193,000 and Stein went from 22,000 to 51,000. While it's possible some of the votes were flipped from Clinton to Trump, the biggest cause for suspicion in this state is the Johnson vote. NO OTHER STATE that I looked at had that much of an increase in the Johnson vote. Either there's a serious libertarian trend going on there as people there reject the two major parties at a much faster rate than anyone else, or there's some flipping there.
In Pennsylvania, Clinton lost 146,000 whereas Trump gained 223,000. There was a clear trend toward Trump here that I did not see as much in other states. Trump gained more than Clinton had lost, which only happened in North Carolina too. Most states showed greater losses for Clinton than there were gains for Trump.
In Wisconsin, I'm not even sure the theory that votes were flipped is really supported at all. Trump gained a measly 1500 votes whereas Clinton lost 239,000. This looks more like either people staying home, or if we want to suspect foul play, voter suppression here.
This isn't to say that this flipping didn't exist though. The suspicion comes from the fact that Clinton won significantly fewer votes from electronic voting machines that were hackable, and if there's evidence of that there, it definitely could be a factor that could influence the results.
Regardless, it seems like Clinton had a tough time across the country even putting aside this exact suspicion. Take Minnesota, for example, a state that Clinton won, and is essentially Wisconsin's neighbor. The results were also far more narrow than expected and Clinton won by 1.5% instead of the 6% expected. The difference wasn't as extreme as Wisconsin, but it was jarring nevertheless and a similar pattern can be found here. Iowa, another neighbor to the rust belt states, was the same way, although that was expected to go to Trump. Trump was supposed to win by 3 points but won by over 9. Clinton also lost way more votes than Trump gained. Ohio, same thing. Clinton was supposed to lose by 3.5%, actually lost by 8.6%. And as we know, Clinton's lost votes in Ohio were EXTREME, over a half a million. In Indiana, where Trump had a virtual lock, he exceeded polling expectations by almost 9 points! As such, based on the general trends alone, perhaps a victory in those three states isn't as implausible as it seems. Clinton consistently underperformed in them in general, even in more clear cut cases where the result was as predicted. This seems to a general trend in the electorate more than anything else, or possibly LOTS of voter suppression on an extreme scale. As such, it's possible that Trump's victory is legitimate even if fraud is found.
Honestly, if I were Clinton and I thought I had a case, I'd definitely be challenging the election, just as I believe that Sanders should have challenged Clinton. Fraud should not be tolerated, be it against a candidate I like or a candidate I don't like. I'm not sure it will make much of a difference as the trends in these states fit the trends in the rest of the rust belt and surrounding area in a large scale, but they have nothing to lose by trying I guess, if they legitimately think that the election was stolen from them.
No comments:
Post a Comment