Lichtman's post-election rhetoric
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-11-2016, 08:24 AM
Video Lichtman's post-election rhetoric
So I just watched this video:





And I noticed a couple of things of interest. The US electoral system is woefully bad, and he does mention towards the end of the interview that the electoral colleges are an out of date system.

Now I agree in principle with Lichtman prediction method. In principle that is - that US presidential elections are primarily a referendum on the party holding office. However, notice he says that "Hillary was not to blame for her loss because she was dealt bad cards". Hmm. Really? What about key number 12 of his own system:

12 Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.

His system gave Trump a narrow win, if key 12 was True then his system would have given the incumbent candidate a victory. Or in other words, his system would have predicted a win if Sanders was the Democratic party candidate - or if Hillary was a more charismatic character. So I do not understand how he can possibly say that the loss is not Hillary's fault, when this Key was wholly determined by her character as a candidate.

Then later he says that he was appalled by "Russia's meddling" in their election. Now this is concerning for two reasons - firstly, Assange has stated that Russia is not the source:




(at 3:20)

What concerns me is there isn't clear evidence. It seems they have (at best) evidence that someone in Russia hacked the email server. But so what? This was an unencrypted email server that would have been a target for hacking, and it was probably hacked by more than one person. What that means is even if Russia hacked the email server, someone may also have done so, and therefore we would need evidence that Russia were the ones to supply the hacked emails to Wikileaks - without that there isn't any evidence that they were the source. I've said this before - if Russia wanted to influence the US election with the emails they hacked they would have given the emails to the mainstream media, not to Wikileaks.

Secondly, since when is releasing information "meddling with the election"? Even if we can establish that Russia is the source, we can also say that the publication of the emails is in the public interest, and it was not "meddling".

Lichtman was pretty damning about the usefulness of polls, calling Nate Silver's analysis "worthless". I think polls do have their value. The problem in America is they have an electoral system that does not represent the true will of the people. To put it in perspective about 52% of eligible to vote actually voted (it might be a little higher, the final numbers haven't been confirmed). In practice it means that whole demographics are under-represented, and others over-represented. It also means that the result is won by the candidate that has the greater percentage of their supporters that votes. The polls indicate that if there were universal voter turnout that Hillary would have won in a landslide, and that's what would have happened under a system like ours. However she lost because more of her voters didn't bother to vote compared to Trump voters.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aractus's post
24-11-2016, 01:21 PM
RE: Lichtman's post-election rhetoric
We need to "fix" our Aussie preferential voting system too. It's just as bad at the US's as far as getting the rank (and deservingly so) outsiders to a win. One word... Hanson. Unsure

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-11-2016, 05:37 PM
RE: Lichtman's post-election rhetoric
To further illustrate the Russian Government probably isn't the source of the hacks, here is what the Datacentre itself has had to say:

RT Wrote:King Servers, was identified by American cybersecurity company ThreatConnect as the platform for the attack on emails of the Democratic National Committee. Six out of the eight IP addresses used by the hackers were hosted on King Servers, ThreatConnect claimed in September.

Source: RT article.

Vladimir Fomenko, owner of King Servers had this to say (as quoted in the RT article):
  • “If the FBI asks, we are ready to supply the IP addresses, the logs.”
  • “Nobody is asking… It’s like nobody wants to sort this out.”
  • “Thinking that the criminals must likewise also be from Russia is just absurd.”
  • “As soon as we learnt our servers were involved, we disconnected the perpetrators from our equipment. And conducted our own investigation. We have learnt certain things and are ready to share it with special services at their first call.”
  • “We are ready to assist in probing this crime and consulting the FBI or other services on such issues. Hackers are a common threat and we must fight it together.”
So much for the hackers being Russian. The datacentre has essentially acknowledged that their servers were involved, while maintaining that it does not implicate the Russian Government.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aractus's post
24-11-2016, 06:03 PM
RE: Lichtman's post-election rhetoric
(24-11-2016 01:21 PM)SYZ Wrote:  We need to "fix" our Aussie preferential voting system too. It's just as bad at the US's as far as getting the rank (and deservingly so) outsiders to a win. One word... Hanson. Unsure

There's nothing wrong with the system. There was under party tickets, but with those eliminated it has made it much fairer. Pauline got her Senate seat purely on first-preferences. In Queensland they got 9% of the primary vote in the Senate - and there are 12 seats - so maths alone tells you they deserved 8% of the available seats, which is essentially what they got.

In 2013 David Leyonhjelm got in with just 0.6% of the primary vote, and he got in because of the now abolished "party tickets". The party tickets were terrible and horribly anti-democratic, preferences belong in the hands of the voters not in the hands of the parties. Under the old system this year's election would more than likely have produced more ON Senators as preferences from all minor parties (besides Greens) would have eventually flowed to them.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aractus's post
24-11-2016, 09:17 PM
RE: Lichtman's post-election rhetoric
(24-11-2016 08:24 AM)Aractus Wrote:  Secondly, since when is releasing information "meddling with the election"?

When it's misinformation.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
25-11-2016, 12:38 AM
RE: Lichtman's post-election rhetoric
(24-11-2016 09:17 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(24-11-2016 08:24 AM)Aractus Wrote:  Secondly, since when is releasing information "meddling with the election"?

When it's misinformation.

I mean, he deliberately timed his releases to cause mayhem during the election lead up. How the fuck is that not meddling?

Next question: how do we establish the veracity of wikileaks information? What guarantee do we have that it's not tampered with? Julian Assange's pinky swear?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2016, 02:25 AM
RE: Lichtman's post-election rhetoric
(25-11-2016 12:38 AM)morondog Wrote:  I mean, he deliberately timed his releases to cause mayhem during the election lead up. How the fuck is that not meddling?

Because it's called publishing. If you, or someone else, had leaked Trump's emails they would have published them as well.

Quote:Next question: how do we establish the veracity of wikileaks information? What guarantee do we have that it's not tampered with? Julian Assange's pinky swear?

Well for a start, no one involved - not Clinton, not Podesta, nor anyone in the DNC claimed they were fake.

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2016, 03:49 AM
RE: Lichtman's post-election rhetoric
(25-11-2016 02:25 AM)Aractus Wrote:  
(25-11-2016 12:38 AM)morondog Wrote:  I mean, he deliberately timed his releases to cause mayhem during the election lead up. How the fuck is that not meddling?

Because it's called publishing. If you, or someone else, had leaked Trump's emails they would have published them as well.

And spent a whole lotta time boasting about how "Wednesday's release will SINK Hillary"? The wikileaks shit was slated to have a huge effect on the election, why the hell should some random little twat from who the fuck knows where have such leverage, to decide where and when to release things that might even affect national security?

Quote:
Quote:Next question: how do we establish the veracity of wikileaks information? What guarantee do we have that it's not tampered with? Julian Assange's pinky swear?

Well for a start, no one involved - not Clinton, not Podesta, nor anyone in the DNC claimed they were fake.

... Well I guess that means they're 100% gold plated truth then.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2016, 05:03 AM
RE: Lichtman's post-election rhetoric
(25-11-2016 03:49 AM)morondog Wrote:  And spent a whole lotta time boasting about how "Wednesday's release will SINK Hillary"?

Right, that's not true. Assange/Wikileaks never said anything of the sort. Sloppy reporting from other news agencies is where you got those sensationalised claims from.

Quote:The wikileaks shit was slated to have a huge effect on the election, why the hell should some random little twat from who the fuck knows where have such leverage, to decide where and when to release things that might even affect national security?

How the fuck is "national security" related to information about foreign political parties?!

Quote:... Well I guess that means they're 100% gold plated truth then.

Well they were genuine emails, are you suggesting otherwise?

My Blog
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-11-2016, 05:06 AM
RE: Lichtman's post-election rhetoric
(25-11-2016 05:03 AM)Aractus Wrote:  Well they were genuine emails, are you suggesting otherwise?

I'm suggesting that not a lot of people seem to question who or what the hell Wikileaks are. Taking their word for it seems a bit naive. Even using circumstantial stuff like that Hillary hasn't repudiated the emails seems dodgy. If she did would you trust her?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: