Clinton potentially recieved 35,000 - 800,000 illegal votes according to study - Polidicks

[IMG]http://twt-thumbs.washtimes.com/media/image/2017/01/26/1_262017_ap-163438519877028201_c0-0-4810-2804_s885x516.jpg?60b78ea38fe9c5da48be88658bb93e2979456a6e[/IMG] [quote]Hillary Clinton garnered more than 800,000 votes from noncitizens on Nov. 8, an approximation far short of President Trump’s estimate of up to 5 million illegal voters but supportive of his charges of fraud. Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting, and this week he posted a blog in response to Mr. Trump’s assertion. Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump. Mr. Richman calculated that Mrs. Clinton would have collected 81 percent of noncitizen votes. “Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clinton’s margin? Yes,” Mr. Richman wrote. “Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.”[/quote] [URL]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinton-received-800000-votes-from-nonciti/[/URL]

Even taking that into consideration she won by 2+ million votes

Source is trash, find another one please.

How does that even work? Is it really that easy to get fake voter IDs in the US?

This is complete BS. That amount of fraud is impossible to sneak through such a complicated system. Just another attempt to demonize non Americans.

[url]https://www.wired.com/2017/01/author-trumps-favorite-voter-fraud-study-says-everyones-wrong/[/url] Author of the study (who [I]didn't[/I], as far as I can tell, say anything about how many noncitizens voted in [I]this[/I] election - and coincidentally, the 6.4 percent cited in the article is the same as the 6.4 percent in 2008) preemptively responds to this article. His study points to the fact that voter fraud isn't as uncommon as you might think, that's for sure. Whether that changes anything about Trump's claims is a whole other story.

[QUOTE=Splarg!;51734682]Source is trash, find another one please.[/QUOTE] Seconded, the current one mentions a "study" several times but one is never linked, and any people mentioned just link back to the website itself. [QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51734692][url]https://www.wired.com/2017/01/author-trumps-favorite-voter-fraud-study-says-everyones-wrong/[/url] Author of the study (who [I]didn't[/I], as far as I can tell, say anything about how many noncitizens voted in [I]this[/I] election - and coincidentally, the 6.4 percent cited in the article is the same as the 6.4 percent in 2008) preemptively responds to this article.[/QUOTE] And people say liberals are the ones trying to fit things into a narrative. :rolleyes:

I'm little skeptical of how they arrived at that conclusion through polling and such Can someone who stastic real good explain it?

[QUOTE=Splarg!;51734682]Source is trash, find another one please.[/QUOTE] Agreed, it froze my window, crashed, and left a pop-under for some reason I thought the Washington Times was a good paper but a brief google dispelled that.

[QUOTE=Saxon;51734694]I'm little skeptical of how they arrived at that conclusion through polling and such Can someone who stastic real good explain it?[/QUOTE] I can't find any actual methods, everything in the article is extremely vague. Also from the article [quote]“Is it plausible that non-citizen votes added to Clinton’s margin? Yes,” Mr. Richman wrote. “Is it plausible that non-citizen votes account for the entire nation-wide popular vote margin held by Clinton? Not at all.”[/quote] [quote]Using other measuring tools, they said, the actual number of noncitizen voters could be as low as 38,000 and as high as 2.8 million.[/quote] I inherently don't trust margins that big and to me, they are a sign of an inefficient method. Also tired of the "We took a poll that 10,000 people did and applying it to the entire country." I wan't to know what their "Further research" and "extrapolation" really was.

[QUOTE=Saxon;51734694]I'm little skeptical of how they arrived at that conclusion through polling and such Can someone who stastic real good explain it?[/QUOTE] The author actually talks about his study in this article: [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/24/could-non-citizens-decide-the-november-election/?utm_term=.fe077d79ce98[/url] It also links to a few rebuttals, though one is behind a paywall.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;51734677]Even taking that into consideration she won by 2+ million votes[/QUOTE] Moving the goalpost, classic. [QUOTE=Splarg!;51734682]Source is trash, find another one please.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Coyoteze;51734693]Seconded, the current one mentions a "study" several times but one is never linked, and any people mentioned just link back to the website itself.[/quote] [url]https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman/2016/11/28/is-it-plausible-that-non-citizen-votes-account-for-the-entire-margin-of-trumps-popular-vote-loss-to-clinton/[/url]

[QUOTE=Adrian Veidt;51734725]Moving the goal post, classic. [url]https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman/2016/11/28/is-it-plausible-that-non-citizen-votes-account-for-the-entire-margin-of-trumps-popular-vote-loss-to-clinton/[/url][/QUOTE] How is that moving the goal post? The goal post has stayed in the same position, she still won the popular vote if it's true. Also the professor is mostly using assumptions and estimates, he actually has no concrete proof how many non-citizens voted he's simply making a point that it's actually impossible for Trump and his Press Secretary's statements about Millions of illegitimate votes to be impossible.

It seems that no matter what, the actual number has [I]a lot[/I] of uncertainty: [QUOTE]The limitations are, in fact, numerous, and not limited to those that Richman and Earnest enumerate. Their estimates rely on a key question from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study: “Are you registered to vote?” Notably, this is not the same question as “Are you registered to vote in the United States?” In principle, non-citizens could be registered to vote only in their home country and respond affirmatively, and truthfully, to the question on the survey.(Respondents are asked for the Zip code at which they are registered to vote, but this could be interpreted as the Zip code at which non-citizens receive absentee ballots from abroad. Mexico, for example, has allowed absentee voting by mail from abroad since 2005.) If this sounds outlandish, consider that 20 percent (15 out of 75) of those non-citizens claiming to be registered in 2008 were in fact verified as not being registered to vote in the United States. Another 61 percent (46 of 75) could not be matched to either a commercial or voter database. That leaves only 14 out of 75 non-citizen respondents claiming to be registered in 2008 who were in fact confirmed as registered to vote in the United States. This raises a more general point: The Cooperative Congressional Election Study, which focuses on the behavior of citizens, is ill-suited to examine the behavior of non-citizens, who make up about one percent of the sample. One consequence of this is that the number of respondents who report that they are not citizens yet vote or are registered to vote is quite small in absolute terms: in 2010, for example, only 13 respondents — not 13 percent, but 13 out of 55,400 respondents — reported that they were not citizens, yet had voted. Given the ever-present possibility of respondent or coder error, it takes a bit of hubris to draw strong conclusions about the behavior of non-citizens from such small numbers.[/QUOTE] [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/10/28/what-can-we-learn-about-the-electoral-behavior-of-non-citizens-from-a-survey-designed-to-learn-about-citizens/[/url]

[QUOTE=Adrian Veidt;51734725]Moving the goalpost, classic. [url]https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman/2016/11/28/is-it-plausible-that-non-citizen-votes-account-for-the-entire-margin-of-trumps-popular-vote-loss-to-clinton/[/url][/QUOTE] Gee whiz, look at this: [quote]December 1st Update Like so much on this issue, this posting has taken on something of a life of its own, and I want to emphasize and clarify some points that seem to be generating confusion as echo chambers pick this up and re-post it. This post is not intended to make a specific claim on my part concerning how many non-citizens voted in 2016. It has a much narrower aim. My goal was to show that an extrapolation from my coauthored work on the 2008 election to the 2016 election did not support the arguments some seemed to be making that the entire popular vote margin for Clinton was due to illegal votes by non-citizens. In this post I do my own calculation of that extrapolation for the purpose of demonstrating that this extrapolation would not support that claim. There are a number of reasons why one should be cautious about extrapolating from the 2008 CCES data to 2016. Many things can and have changed over the course of eight years. For example, a number of states have made efforts to use matching of records to remove non-citizen registrants from voter rolls. For example, on this blog I have recently highlighted data from Virginia and North Carolina concerning such matching efforts. These non-citizens are no longer on voter rolls. There are other states that have been even more aggressive about the issue of attempting to verify that registered voters are citizens. Furthermore, although the evidence from our 2014 paper suggests that it is only partially effective, many states have moved to adopt tighter identification requirements. The 2008 estimate is inherently uncertain. It depends upon a number of assumptions including assumptions about the validity of the survey data. Our critics have made a variety of arguments and I encourage readers to evaluate those arguments along with our responses to them. In the absence of other data, arguably an extrapolation from the earlier (2008) numbers is the best one can do. But one should recognize that this is an extrapolation fraught with a great deal of uncertainty.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Adrian Veidt;51734725]Moving the goalpost, classic.[/quote] And that invalidates the argument how exactly?

[QUOTE=Adrian Veidt;51734725]Moving the goalpost, classic. [url]https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman/2016/11/28/is-it-plausible-that-non-citizen-votes-account-for-the-entire-margin-of-trumps-popular-vote-loss-to-clinton/[/url][/QUOTE] Adrian, you've just proved that the source is bull and your headline is sensationalist trash. The good doctor says right in the article that the 6.4% is a hypothetical number used to demonstrate a point, if exactly the same percentage of non-citizens voted in the 2016 elections as the one from 2008. He doesn't have any actual data. Mods, kindly change the title to be less of a lie, or close this thread.

[QUOTE=SelfishDragon;51734730]How is that moving the goal post? The goal post has stayed in the same position, she still won the popular vote if it's true.[/QUOTE] I think it's irrelevant. If there's been 800,000 illegal votes (which I doubt) it's kind of a big deal regardless of the result.

[QUOTE=Kljunas;51734746]I think it's irrelevant. If there's been 800,000 illegal votes (which I doubt) it's kind of a big deal regardless of the result.[/QUOTE] Good thing the study in question doesn't assert anything of the sort then.

[QUOTE=archangel125;51734741]Adrian, you've just proved that the source is bull and your headline is sensationalist trash. The good doctor says right in the article that the 6.4% is a hypothetical number used to demonstrate a point, if exactly the same percentage of non-citizens voted in the 2016 elections as the one from 2008. He doesn't have any actual data. Mods, kindly change the title to be less of a lie, or close this thread.[/QUOTE] I'm actually surprised he linked something that directly proved his original source was being intentionally misleading and then outright accused someone of moving goalposts like they were avoiding Trump being right. In simple terms, professor says mathematically the maximum amount of illegal votes is not even close to two million, therefore Trump can't be right. The article twists this by instead by headlining the maximum number as the amount of illegals who voted. [QUOTE=Kljunas;51734746]I think it's irrelevant. If there's been 800,000 illegal votes (which I doubt) it's kind of a big deal regardless of the result.[/QUOTE] True, it still wouldn't invalidate the argument that she won the popular vote however, which is the original goalpost.

[QUOTE=Adrian Veidt;51734725]Moving the goalpost, classic.[/QUOTE] The goalpost of 'the popular vote' is still 'the popular vote'. This thread was more interesting before I knew you were merely using it to reinforce your world view. Unfortunately it looks like the margin of error here is too wide for the study to really tell us anything?

[QUOTE=SeamanStains;51734764]The goalpost of 'the popular vote' is still 'the popular vote'. This thread was more interesting before I knew you were merely using it to reinforce your world view. Unfortunately it looks like the margin of error here is too wide for the study to really tell us anything?[/QUOTE] There is no study. Merely a mathematical hypothetical using data from the 2008 election. This entire thread is bogus, don't be fooled.

[QUOTE=Kljunas;51734746]I think it's irrelevant. If there's been 800,000 illegal votes (which I doubt) it's kind of a big deal regardless of the result.[/QUOTE] I think some degree of ambivalence is required. You will always have cheaters and sneaks. You need to ensure the system can account for and mitigate against it. The US system does this with sheer volume of legitimate votes making the impact of illegitimate votes negligible. [sp]Incidentally this is, in my mind, the best arguement for capitalism. It allows for failure. An entrepreneur or company can fail and its not an issue because 5 others are willing to step up and take their place where as if everything was controlled centrally by the state failure would bait uproar, anger and leave people without the service/product they need[/sp] In the ideal world you'd be able to stop it entirely but realistically how much would it cost to put that in place? Millions. Those millions would be better used elsewhere, fixing problems which actually have an effect. If it got so bad that it changed an election then sure do something about it but the number isn't 800000 and it didn't have any significant effect on the election. I put it to you that the source is misusing the upper limit of an estimate to create a misleading article, the aim at which is to deceive with the intent of pushing a agenda or make an article which will appeal to trumpeters so they share it and the website makes loadsamonie (fake news websites identified and exploited the trend that conservatives are more likely to believe and share their stories)

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51734780]I put it to you that the source is misusing the upper limit of an estimate to create a misleading article, the aim at which is to deceive with the intent of pushing a agenda or make an article which will appeal to trumpeters so they share it and the website makes loadsamonie (fake news websites identified and exploited the trend that conservatives are more likely to believe and share their stories)[/QUOTE] Got a source on that anywhere? Out of interest.

[QUOTE=_Axel;51734752]Good thing the study in question doesn't assert anything of the sort then.[/QUOTE] It asserts that hundreds of thousands of ineligible people voted in the 2008 election. It is not unreasonable to conclude that the same thing probably happened this election and is worth investigating, even if it didn't actually change the outcome of the election. Liberals have been saying for months that there is no fraud in the electoral system, and point to the handful of prosecutions over the last two decades as proof that it's a non-issue. But even if this article isn't making any specific claims about 2016, the fact that there's statistical evidence of rampant voter fraud in 2008 should be serious cause for concern in light of reduced confidence in our electoral process. And while it may not have made a difference in this election, plenty of our elections have been close enough that somewhere up to a [I]million[/I] extra votes for one party could swing the result. It absolutely is moving the goalposts to go from 'voter fraud isn't real' to 'well it didn't make a difference anyways' to 'well the paper was about 2008 so who knows what happened in 2016', even if OP's headline is bullshit. If there's evidence that the 2008 election involved a significant number of ineligible voters, that's reason enough to investigate voting procedures. [QUOTE=simkas;51734683]How does that even work? Is it really that easy to get fake voter IDs in the US?[/QUOTE] While it's not relevant to the kind of fraud alleged here, it's worth pointing out that we don't [I]have[/I] voter IDs. In most states, to vote you don't need [I]any[/I] ID, and the idea of requiring any sort of identification to vote is considered politically contentious. Our entire electoral system is very low-tech and not particularly secure, and there are numerous steps along the way where fraud can occur. Ignoring that reality is putting partisan politics before integrity.

[QUOTE=Adrian Veidt;51734725]Moving the goalpost, classic. [url]https://fs.wp.odu.edu/jrichman/2016/11/28/is-it-plausible-that-non-citizen-votes-account-for-the-entire-margin-of-trumps-popular-vote-loss-to-clinton/[/url][/QUOTE] Man this is comedy gold right here.

And 62.8 million non-humans voted for Trump, so I suppose we're even. :v:

[QUOTE=SeamanStains;51734868]Got a source on that anywhere? Out of interest.[/QUOTE] Interview with fake news creator [url]http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2016/11/23/503146770/npr-finds-the-head-of-a-covert-fake-news-operation-in-the-suburbs[/url] [quote=article]The sites include NationalReport.net, USAToday.com.co, WashingtonPost.com.co. All the addresses linked to a single rented server inside Amazon Web Services. That meant they were all very likely owned by the same company. Jansen found an email address on one of those sites and was able to link that address to a name: Jestin Coler. ... "The whole idea from the start was to build a site that could kind of infiltrate the echo chambers of the alt-right, publish blatantly or fictional stories and then be able to publicly denounce those stories and point out the fact that they were fiction," Coler says. ... "What that turned into was a state representative in the House in Colorado proposing actual legislation to prevent people from using their food stamps to buy marijuana based on something that had just never happened," Coler says.[/quote] (lol this goes deep) [quote] [b]Coler says his writers have tried to write fake news for liberals — but they just never take the bait.[/b] ... At any given time, Coler says, he has between 20 and 25 writers. And it was one of them who wrote the story in the "Denver Guardian" that an FBI agent who leaked Clinton emails was killed. Coler says that over 10 days the site got 1.6 million views. He says stories like this work because they fit into existing right-wing conspiracy theories. ... And as the stories spread, Coler makes money from the ads on his websites. He wouldn't give exact figures, but he says stories about other fake-news proprietors making between $10,000 and $30,000 a month apply to him. Coler fits into a pattern of other faux news sites that make good money, especially by targeting Trump supporters. [/quote] [quote] Q : When did you notice that fake news does best with Trump supporters? A : Well, this isn't just a Trump-supporter problem. [b]This is a right-wing issue[/b]. Sarah Palin's famous blasting of the lamestream media is kind of record and testament to the rise of these kinds of people. The post-fact era is what I would refer to it as. This isn't something that started with Trump. This is something that's been in the works for a while. His whole campaign was this thing of discrediting mainstream media sources, which is one of those dog whistles to his supporters. When we were coming up with headlines it's always kind of about the red meat. Trump really got into the red meat. He knew who his base was. He knew how to feed them a constant diet of this red meat. We've tried to do similar things to liberals. It just has never worked, it never takes off. You'll get debunked within the first two comments and then the whole thing just kind of fizzles out.[/quote] So thats 1 example. Second example is the guys from macedonia, putting this second incase people get frothy about buzzfeed - if you don't like buzzfeed focus on the first source instead. [url]https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a-global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo?utm_term=.mfz0nDXpL#.soL7eEKb0[/url] [quote] BuzzFeed News also identified another 40 US politics domains registered by people in Veles that are no longer active. (An April report from the Macedonian website Meta.mk identified six pro-Trump sites being run from Veles. A Guardian report identified 150 politics sites.) ... Their reasons for launching these sites are purely financial, according to the Macedonians with whom BuzzFeed News spoke. “I started the site for a easy way to make money,” said a 17-year-old who runs a site with four other people. ... Most of the posts on these sites are aggregated, or completely plagiarized, from fringe and right-wing sites in the US. The Macedonians see a story elsewhere, write a sensationalized headline, and quickly post it to their site. Then they share it on Facebook to try and generate traffic. The more people who click through from Facebook, the more money they earn from ads on their website. ... [b]Earlier in the year, some in Veles experimented with left-leaning or pro–Bernie Sanders content, but nothing performed as well on Facebook as Trump content.[/b] “People in America prefer to read news about Trump,” said a Macedonian 16-year-old who operates BVANews.com. BuzzFeed News’ research also found that the most successful stories from these sites were nearly all false or misleading. For example, the most successful post BuzzFeed News found from a Macedonian site is based on a story from a fake news website. The headline on the story from ConservativeState.com was “Hillary Clinton In 2013: ‘I Would Like To See People Like Donald Trump Run For Office; They’re Honest And Can’t Be Bought.’” The post is a week old and has racked up an astounding 480,000 shares, reactions, and comments on Facebook. (To put that into perspective, the New York Times’ exclusive story that revealed Donald Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns generated a little more than 175,000 Facebook interactions in a month.) The viral Clinton story was sourced from TheRightists.com, a site that admits it publishes both real and fake content Four of the five most successful posts from the Macedonian sites BuzzFeed News identified are false. [b]They include the false claim that the pope endorsed Trump[/b], and the false claim that Mike Pence said Michelle Obama is the “most vulgar first lady we’ve ever had.” Those four posts together generated more than 1 million shares, reactions, and comments on Facebook. That resulted in huge traffic and significant ad revenue for the owners of these sites, with many people being misinformed along the way. The Macedonians BuzzFeed News spoke to said the explosion in pro-Trump sites in Veles means the market has now become crowded, making it harder to earn money. The people who launched their sites early in 2016 are making the most money, according to the university student. He said a friend of his earns $5,000 per month, “or even $3,000 per day” when he gets a hit on Facebook. [/quote] So they (the fake news people) do it for money. They realised that conservatives, especially trump supporters are more likely to share their bs, they tried to target fake news stories at liberals but has less success. Though the first guy seemed to have some partisan motive behind spread his shit (to spread fake shit then point and laugh when idiots believe it) Must admit its not without a sense of smug self gratification that I post this.

The fact there is such a huge statistical range - from 35,000 to 800,000 - has me very concerned about how the figures were found and calculated. I was also under the impression - from what I've read and watched elsewhere - that voter fraud is simply very difficult to do in the States and that it's statistically unimportant. If the figures given above are accurate however, that does mean that it is worth investigating. But I also have concerns over the fact this is specifically mentioning Clinton. While it's likely he wouldn't get as much voter fraud for obvious reasons, surely it's possible that Trump would also have quite a number of people fraudulently voting for him?

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51734780] I put it to you that the source is misusing the upper limit of an estimate to create a misleading article, the aim at which is to deceive with the intent of pushing a agenda or make an article which will appeal to trumpeters so they share it and the website makes loadsamonie (fake news websites identified and exploited the trend that conservatives are more likely to believe and share their stories)[/QUOTE] Remind me again, who raised millions of dollars on the back of "Russia hacked the votes"?