Justine Bateman’s Twitter bio indicates she has a bachelor’s degree in computer science from UCLA, so she’d know not to question a computer scientist, right?
https://twitter.com/JustineBateman/status/801217528856879106
What’s real? Proof that hackers tampered with the election results to ensure Donald Trump’s victory, that’s what. Check out this piece in New York magazine in which a group of prominent computer scientists urge the Clinton campaign to challenge the vote count in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Okay, whoa. When you get Halderman saying something might have happened, I start paying attention. https://t.co/15Dxukjcjl pic.twitter.com/vMrun8wpaE
— Eric Geller (@ericgeller) November 22, 2016
OK, whoa. That’s crazy. But what exactly happened to all of the news stories published in the weeks before the election debunking Donald Trump’s claim that the election was rigged? It was impossible, right? And yet, after Trump surprised everyone by winning the election, those claims of infallibility don’t seem so certain anymore.
I'm old enough to remember when liberals freaked out about people calling election results into question based on unsubstantiated claims
— Brendan Nyhan (@BrendanNyhan) November 23, 2016
Paul Krugman certainly had his interest piqued.
OK, this is terrifying 1/ https://t.co/qnh6jd4Mom
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) November 23, 2016
The worst is that given the role of Russian hackers in the campaign, it's all too plausible. That doesn't mean it's true. 2/
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) November 23, 2016
But now that it's out there, I'd say that an independent investigation is called for. Not sour grapes — we *need* to clear this shadow 3/
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) November 23, 2016
Um, what? It might not be true, but because there’s doubt, “we” need to address it? Has Harry Reid’s friend been seen around the New York Times offices?
Honestly, I think I'd prefer to give election a clean bill of health, even though overturning would give it to the popular vote winner 4/
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) November 23, 2016
But as I said, it's out there. Without an investigation, the suspicion of a hacked election will never go away 5/
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) November 23, 2016
So, whatever is put “out there” needs to be investigated to satisfy the suspicious? Here’s a news flash: the suspicious will always be suspicious, and those who don’t believe Trump won fair and square will never believe it — and even if they did, they’ve pledged not to accept it.
So hey here's Paul Krugman peddling conspiracy theories & fake news. So media is going to stand up to this now right? https://t.co/bPKRZjmDH9
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) November 23, 2016
https://twitter.com/MangyLover/status/801242221571952641
Banner night for @gabrielsherman and @paulkrugman and the future of fake news.
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) November 23, 2016
Suspicion @paulkrugman is a pederast is out there. Without an investigation, suspicion of him engaging in child buggery will never go away. https://t.co/a7akmjcqve
— ē'-lō ē'-lō kă-nō' ن (@IloiloKano) November 23, 2016
hahahahahahahaha
"top computer scientists"
hahahahahahahahaFacebook really needs to ban this fake news site.https://t.co/n8Xvlc13LF
— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) November 23, 2016
Before the “I’m With Her” die-hards short out their keyboards forwarding that article to everyone they know, they might consider looking at these tweets from Nate Cohn and Nate Silver.
These guys might know about computer security, but they probably don't know anything about elections https://t.co/5khbcVDyhr pic.twitter.com/i42duBpnw0
— Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) November 22, 2016
It's hard to stress how weak this is. https://t.co/H3xSvrHT8y
— Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) November 22, 2016
Metro Wisconsin, where Clinton did well, uses paper; rural Wisc, where she collapsed like everywhere, is electronic. https://t.co/4aF9ooOnWe
— Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) November 23, 2016
Look, maybe these researchers have a lot more than what's in the article. But there's a *very* easy explanation for the pattern in article
— Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) November 23, 2016
Effect of paper ballots in Wisconsin goes from 7 pts, like NY article, to 0 if you control for race education, density (true w&w/o weights,) pic.twitter.com/3ZVfDa44Zn
— Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) November 23, 2016
Two states that use paper ballots: Iowa and Minnesota, where the results look exactly like those in Wisconsin
— Nate Cohn (@Nate_Cohn) November 23, 2016
To follow: some *very* quick analysis which suggests the claim here of rigged results in Wisconsin is probably BS: https://t.co/SYlE76bnmQ
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 23, 2016
Run a regression on Wisc. counties with >=50K people, and you find that Clinton improved more in counties with only paper ballots. HOWEVER: pic.twitter.com/4swuU70NaY
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 23, 2016
…the effect COMPLETELY DISAPPEARS once you control for race and education levels, the key factors in predicting vote shifts this year. pic.twitter.com/NYOINx9lEz
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 23, 2016
Maybe a more complicated analysis would reveal something, but usually bad news when a finding can't survive a basic sanity check like this.
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 23, 2016
Nothing in Pennsylvania, either, whether or not you control for demographics. pic.twitter.com/25moBhv3Zm
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 23, 2016
And Michigan has paper ballots everywhere, so not even sure what claim is being made there. pic.twitter.com/4YKrZEhTJl
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 23, 2016
Good chance there'll be a whole cottage industry of "STATISTICS PROFESSOR PROVES ELECTION RIGGED" posts at HuffPost, etc., though.
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 23, 2016
There’s a very good chance of that, although Krugman seems to have settled down a bit.
Maybe a false alarm? But needs to be aired. https://t.co/JzgAf1TCJY
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) November 23, 2016
What is this “needs” word that Krugman keeps talking about? What the whole #AuditTheVote camp “needs” is to get a grip and accept that their candidate lost. It happens.
Again, I hope there's nothing there. And maybe it will all be cleared up very soon. But not silly to ask, given everything we've seen!
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) November 23, 2016
I'll call it a night in a min. What u need to ask is how we deal with the mere possibility. Dismissing out of hand is wrong 1/
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) November 23, 2016
Someday it will happen somewhere. So needs to be flagged and addressed.
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) November 23, 2016
Why won’t he stop!
Nate Cohn is very reassuring. That's good — and it's evidence-based, which is the right way to go, not rejection a priori. Feeling better.
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) November 23, 2016
OK, one last word: I tweeted about this because I didn't want it just ignored and allowed to fester 1/
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) November 23, 2016
The response from Nate was exactly what we needed. I personally wanted real reasons to dismiss this scare, *not* "don't be silly" 2/
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) November 23, 2016
First, stop saying “we.” Just stop it. And second, realize that this is nothing new whatsoever: float fake news, watch as the public freaks out over fake news, and finally, correct the record if necessary long after everyone has stopped caring. The only thing that has changed is the trajectory of the misdirection, due to the surprise result of the election.
It now looks as if we're on much more solid ground, and can move on to the real issues 3/
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) November 23, 2016
Ah, at last, the real issues.
Truly last word: conspiracies do happen. You're only a "conspiracy theorist" if — like voting fraud types — u won't take no for an answer.
— Paul Krugman (@paulkrugman) November 23, 2016
https://twitter.com/OrwellForks/status/801258971642417152
Where are those fields full of corn? Where are all those bees? Why can't the X Files come to a godamned conclusion??
— Paddy O’Dhonnabhain (@ODhonnabhain) November 23, 2016
Liberals freaked out about people sharing dubious news coverage & unsubstantiated claims of election rigging. Just days later here we are. https://t.co/IkCdqLXkkI
— Brendan Nyhan (@BrendanNyhan) November 23, 2016
I think @paulkrugman might want to stick to his area of expertise, which is ________.
— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) November 23, 2016
Join the conversation as a VIP Member