• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About william.scherk

  • Rank
    William Scott Scherk
  • Birthday 01/24/1958

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    William Scott Scherk
  • Description
    Poet and gadfly, WSS has been: - HR manager of a year-round silviculture company in the great white north - singer. songwriter, frontman - painter - sculptor - reporter - cook - janitor - editor - filmmaker - actor - amateur psychologist - web maven May he be all these things
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
  • Interests
    Fringe beliefs, pseudoscience, pseudophilosophy, fringe psychology, moral panics, cognitive neuroscience, Dusty Springfield, anthropology, evolutionary psychology, satanic ritual abuse/recovered memory therapy controversy, True Believers, cult dynamics, urban planning, 80s music, urban transportation, Grand Guignol, snarkiness . . .

Recent Profile Visitors

17,013 profile views
  1. From another thread ... Peter, What is a legitimate pollster? Michael Here's what I heard, "All polls are wrong." Which means to me that all polls are imperfect samplings of a larger population. Some achieve a 'best in class' by virtue of transparency and accuracy/reliability. There is a letter-graded report card on public polling outfits at the Ogre's Cave. It is useful in kind of indicating things like 'house effects' ... a statistical bias for one party over another in a given House of pollster, if that kind of systematic analysis interests you. It also includes a graphical interactive table to show the 'worst in class' ... fun for wonks... My basic orientation is that most of the 2016 presidential polls right now are not useful except as a snapshot of voter intentions. And even then, we have to take our salt with the numbers. For example, what are we to make of the so-called swing-state voter intentions right now? How accurate are the most recent soundings? This requires taking a dive into its methodology and particular questions of each 'net' of catch. National numbers are not indicative of anything but a general trend crossed with volatility and noise. The most important polls may be the ones we don't see, the 'internals.' For example, Mr Trump hired several pollsters back a month or so. He elevated a quite "legitimate" pollster (Conway) to be his campaign manager. The job of that kind of insider pollster is I hope to bring the least imperfect surveys of voter intention together with strategies to reinforce, change or deepen trends where appropriate. So, I expect Conway to say to Trump, 'Survey says we are "softening" in Utah, sir. We gotta get you to Utah more. We gotta get you to North Carolina a lot more. We need you in Orlando, Miami, Jacksonville, Palm Beach County. We are going to put you where you need to be. Ya gotta trust me on this." Perhaps Mr Trump will spend less time in red states and more time in purpled blue. Maybe he will go to Pennsylvania twice a week along with Florida and Ohio, hammering himself into those TV markets and rousing all 'hiding' Trump voters to register and show up and man the local Get Out The Vote effort. All polls are wrong. But some soundings can perhaps get the gist of a more general temper: this is the kind of 'issues' message 'testing' that samples opinion to sort out winning phrases and angles and topics. This is fed into the campaign as intelligence. It is in everyone's interest that wishful thinking is set outside the executive conference room. Maybe a better question is what makes (a suite of polling) products more or less (legitimate) trustworthy? Do we need discussion here? Do we need a scoreboard or report card? Nah, it's all fixed. Bwahahaha.
  2. Those days are gone, when either British or French or Spanish or Portuguese or Dutch kingdoms controlled the political fate of the 'Muslim World.' If you are not sure of the start dates of Muslim-world colonization, I'd say it might be time to review. If you take a closer look at the near-East and mid-East and north Africa closer in time, since say the end of the first World War, it was a clean sweep for a while. At one point Algeria was part of metropolitan France. At one point Spain was controlling Morocco. At one point France and Britain carved up zones of control in the aftermath of the Ottoman defeat. At one point France ruled in Damascus and in Beirut. At one point Britain was the final authority in Egypt and Sudan and Sinai and what is now Israel and its walled-off neighbours. Muslim India came under the imperial crown of Victoria. If you had an afternoon to review and update historical knowledge, you could add illustrative examples to bring you up to 1950. Then you might have something to argue about on behalf of race-realism and the dire effects of liberalized immigration to the Western World. I find it kind of sad/hilarious that you spend your Objectivish time on the anti-Muslim hate-site that is the present SOLO, and rarely raise and sustain an argument here. I don't know what that sentence means. However, I'll take a guess, starting with some actual places. Thinking about France, Germany, and Holland. Each nation has had a history of immigration from Muslim lands. But the three nations not only 'imported' these folks in different ways, but the places of origin were different. The Dutch in-coming were a mix of peoples over time -- from the East Indies during the Dutch colonial period, from Turkey and Morocco in the latter 20th century. Today the Dutch Muslim population is a varied mix of folks who came at different times and assimilated at different rates. In Germany, the great post-war influx of Turkish migrant workers was accomplished under a Gastarbeiter statute: the incoming were treated as 'guest labourers' ... and not initially offered a path to German citizenship. The 'problem' was that the workers acculturated to Germany, and began to build families. Five decades later ... France of course was a world-straddling empire in its time. During and after empire and massive colonization, there remained always a balance of incoming and outgoing. For example, when the war for Algerian independence was over, there was in effect a population transfer of loyal "French" citizens back to the motherland. In any case, the long-standing relationship of tutelage in Algeria and Tunisia especially, the relationships of trade and commerce, these relations were accompanied by folks moving from the colonies and mandates and protectorates to the Metropole. -- Neil, you worked so hard to critically analyze the world of Jim Valliant. You were meticulous in your critical attention. Here, on the subject of race-realism, I get the impression that you do not apply that same critical lens and blade to race-realist arguments. As for Mark's latest compendium of alt-white butt-ache, I take his point that Brook takes an extreme position on 'open immigration.' The position is stupid on its face, in my eyes, because it relies on a future Objectivist Utopia, a "free world." In this imaginary space, the movement of people will be accomplished with no paperwork. Fwee ... fwee, we will all be fwee! This is purely magical, in my opinion. I do find his talks to veer into the sky, to a Wonderland, and thus I rarely give his arguments more than a head-shake. And on the narrow subject of how does one defend Israel in its asylum policies, its religious test for citizenship, its detention and deportation schemes for non-Jewish Africans, well, I can't do it. The hardline Israel Can Do No Wrong aspect of Brook's magical thinking ... well, this is enclosed in a separate world again, in another universe where the Fweedom America Magic No-Papers Human Movement and Settlement unicorn-verse does not impinge. This is same separate magic kingdoms of justice and fweedom that shows in Blumenthal pere et fils: there are stark differences between Jews on the subject of Israel. It is just the way things are. The Joo does not operate as a unified Thing. But the remainder of Mark's article, and besides the 1997 HTML ugliness of his web-site, it rehashes the same old Perfidious Joo line that is ARI-watch's stock-in-trade. There are 32 mentions of Joo in this article, surprise surprise. Much of this insidious ethnic perfidy is assessed second-hand by the motley white-spackled crew at VDare, in this case, the esteemed race-realist Kevin MacDonald, who really has a bone to pick. Joo! There are only six mentions of White-itude in Mark's confection. I like these ones, in the sense that they show the game rules clearly: Not all Muslims may be violent at heart but per capita far more of them are than whites. How can you support a Jewish Israel and at the same time oppose a white America? Here's a guy who doesn't mention The Joo at all. He is up somewhere in Neil's part of the country. Talking the talk. Making sure shots are fired at the right people.
  3. A new low in OL's anti-Islam programming, Jerry. I got to 4:13 or so before I needed to hurl. I am thinking of some fine people on hiatus from OL, the 'haters,' the biased or mentally deficient. the irrational at best. That you are more of a face of OL, with this video from Jeff Rense, well, it makes me sad, after ten years here in good thoughtful company. It is too bad that you don't get out and talk to some Muslims in your home town, in your real world, rather than spinning yourself in a dark web of Rense. Personally discovering some Muslim humanity might help you get back to your own, help you recover from what ails -- that you have ingested poison, and you don't know it. There is a spreading toxin, Jerry, and fasting on water cannot remove it. Only reason, applied like a balm to your sorrows. Only reason can get you past this fever. Right in your town are hundreds of the newly arrived Syrian refugees. They are in your local media, the older among them hoping perhaps for some extra help learning English in order to earn a living outside of sponsorship. Better they meet you than the video of Jeff Rense, since you would listen to the Other as an individual, unlike Rense. I'd hate to think of you on one side of the zoo glass, watching a family of them on the other side of the glass, unfeeling save for hate or suspicion or dread -- a painful excitement -- in your heart. No hope, only threat. Only vigilance and exclusion, never welcome. This video maybe ought carry a warning -- Ugly Ahead: Muslims are Fiends. Or, perhaps it could get tipped into the Garbage Pile where I think it belongs. In any event, posting this video without comment or disclaimer earns you a place on the bench.
  4. Here is a Tweet-link to a very interesting interactive from Reuters/Ipsos. It lets you rig the November election any way you choose.
  5. I need to win every issue.

  6. Yeahbut:
  7. I took Doktor Giuliani's advice and went on The Internet. I found this. If the candidate has excellent cardio, then why is s/he on Statins and ASA? That is only for preventing thrombosis, stroke and circulatory infarctions, my inner Doktor tells me. Oh noes -- what if Trump has a terrifyingly high cholesterol count! If all the men in his family were ultimately stricken with heart disease or whacked suddenly by stroke! Is he not at risk, the big flabby Taco Bowl? Do we know why he never shows his body outside a suit jacket? He's hiding something. He is in worse shape than Clinton, who has advanced cankles. Do man-boobs cancel out cankles? Does anyone know if he can't run anymore without gasping and sweating and turning orange, I'd ask. Does he go on the elliptical., the rowing machine, the bike? Someone might say he wheezes in his sleep. On a McDonalds diet. Almost sort of stopped breathing in the night. Can't have sex normally. And, most tellingly, doctor X only released the above. Fishy. Maybe rigged. Seriously, if Mrs Clinton makes it to November without NFL-level concussion injury, stroke, seizure, aphasia, gurney, Braille, rails, walkers, semi-fatal step-in bath skull smash -- any looming disaster short of a coffin -- and if Mr Trump makes it to November without getting similarly whacked from contention, then we can breathe. We just have to hold our breath for 78 days or so. Which could shift attention back to fundamentals in the race, as it stands in reality looking ahead to The Big Fix. Lots and gobs and buckets and wallboards-full of challenges, none of which should be called insurmountable on August freaking 22, at least for Mr Trump's groovin' campaign. I will ignore the X Disease Mystery Bog issue until one of the candidates topples over in paroxysmic flailing and gets taken away with sirens screaming. This evasion might help me focus on other variables in play, where real challenges are for each campaign. I will be watching the debates, granted Hillary is not on a ward, for signs of disorders neurological and characterological, but most especially disordered thinking, logic, mood and fuses. Thanks, Korben, for the mental exercise. My own ability to spell out logic is crude. Here is Doktor Trump today, finally and finely diagnosing the awful secret sickness at MSNBC's Morning Joe. He's good. He's really smooth. But I still want a second opinion.
  8. That headline was from Politico's website, written by Rebecca Morin and Nick Gass. The main point the former mayor makes is that there are 'several signs of illness' and that the "media" ignores these signs, and that you have to go 'to the internet' to find out the Truth. I have watched Doktor Katrina Pierson on CNN, with two diagnoses. One was 'aphasia' -- Clinton was aphasic. Her other Dx was 'seizure disorder' non-specified. So, it could be argued that Clinton Mystery Illness has been in Press. The Trump campaign surrogates peddle this on the news nets.. Doktor Katrina is not alone. -- the thing I bear in mind is that there are epistemological questions that need answering. One could be 'is there a difference between rumour and fact, between speculation and sound rational arguments? Is it a fact that Mrs Clinton has a seizure disorder, an 'aphasia' or Parkinsons? Which of the many doktors who have 'examined' her should we take as truth-telling? The media "fails to point out several signs of illness by her; all you gotta do is go online," Giuliani said, before being interrupted by host Shannon Bream, who pointed out that Clinton's campaign has said there is no factual evidence to support those claims. I agree. True or not, it is a 'meme' ... we do not always bother ourselves to seek truth when we remark upon a meme, especially in a campaign this dirty. One can have a 'feeling' for dirt stickiness, I suppose. I think Mr Trump has been more careful than his surrogates in commenting on Mrs Clinton's seeming health. He hints. He suggests she is tired and old and needs a lot of naps and time off. The contrast he hopes to make is between his potency and her level of energy. He doesn't himself make the ridiculous claim that Clinton has Parkinsons. Of course, it could be argued that beyond the dirtiness of a campaign: throwing stuff at the wall to see if it sticks is just politics. Doesn't matter the truth -- doesn't matter if we avoid questions answerable by rational inquiry. In other words, "Does Clinton Really Have Parkinsons?" is besides the point in politics. In this case, those who make the claim are much like Doktor Katrina with her diagnosis. If we do not accept (from specious grounds) that Trump has a mental illness or disorder or Narcissism, then why would we accept a more speciously-grounded neurological claim? If psychiatrists and psychologists have been warned by their august bodies against diagnosing Mr Trump -- if such diagnoses-at-a-distance are wholly unethical -- why would Doktor Katrina's Dxes be anything other than unprofessional? Because she is a surrogate. She is not bound by any journalistic or medical ethics. Better for objective and rational inquiry that we put the Parkinsons meme where the Narcissist meme goes: either in the slot Test or the slot It doesn't make sense. Ultimately this issue will be put to bed. In my opinion no credible evidence shows that Mrs Clinton has Parkinsons, or an aphasia. This "Clinton has Illness X" business is a pit of fudge. It is unmoored from careful thinking. It doesn't survive close examination. I think it would be easier to just say Clinton Is Old. Old, old, old. That is fact enough, I should think, without having to fudge and freak-out over a non-existent mystery. A. It is discouraging that we draw uncritically from deeply flawed sources of information. B. good mental housekeeping allows for spurious sources and stupid claims Those points can't be answered if we are in the grip of a partisan enthusiasm, or a cult of disbelief. "Everyone except Giuliani and the Biggs fuckhead is lying to you. You cannot trust any organ of media. You cannot trust the polls. You cannot trust Google. You can only trust Infowars, Breitbart, FoxNews. And even Fox polls are fixed." That is the paranoid style. It is news that Giuliani urged his Fox viewers to ignore the 'other' media, the Clinton media as he put it. On FoxNews, of course, we are entering the second week of Hillary Is Ill sweeps. So, consider the source (a Trump surrogate), consider the context (the polls, which the former mayor dismissed as as a function of bad media). So, yeah, it is news. Giuliani is asking folks to 'go on the internet' for the truth. That in itself is sad/funny/peculiar. It is a full-on dive into the fever swamps. Rudy Giuliani Told People To Ignore The Media And Google Conspiracy Theories “Go online and put down, ‘Hillary Clinton illness,’ and take a look at the videos yourself.” They sure can. They can fix everything. It is all gonna be fixed -- the polls, Google, Yahoo, the looming November vote, the counting, the machines, everything. And you know what else? Dr. Drew Pinsky is concerned. Clinton leans against stools. She sleeps. She doesn't ride horses or play tennis or volleyball. Only the Fittest Candidate ever can handle the job at the White House.
  9. Maybe, maybe not. You may have left your Trump Goggles on while doing your research on the lady. To put it politely, I believe Bachmann is a lightweight on matters of foreign policy. As a thinker, as a policy-maker or analyst, she is not top rank. Because of that, I think she adds another hundred thirty pounds of lead cargo to the old Steamship Trump. But I expect she was self-aggrandizing. Does she communicate to Trump in writing, policy briefs, suggested reading? Does she call him up or vice versa? As for her privately-held religion, I couldn't care less. But. Evangelizing for her particular faith to be represented in government policy is somewhat different. Search up "Michelle Bachmann" LGBT. Consider she believes gays can be 'fixed' in so-called reparative therapy. Consider her as a leading Family Research Council kind of politician. Consider her crude religiosity on matters that mean something to me, outside Trump Dome. Ah. How about this -- because she has made a Trump connection, Objectivish people or objective-ish folks should be soberly appreciative, attach a halo of mastery to her head -- on matters of foreign policy? Are we able to make an independent examination of her record and her wisdom, bring up her mastery or unintelligence in some aspect of foreign policy? While we do that, nobody laugh please. You know what word you use sometimes -- gobs? Gobs of people? I will plainly state that gobs of people think the former House member is a lightweight. The analogous situation does not map. Did Frank have a reputation as a hard-cored evangelical zealot on gay issues? Did he have a reputation as a lightweight? Did you want to make a Barney Frank joke and need some tips? First idea ... contrast him, a married gay man, with Michelle Bachmann, married to a gay man (rimshot), advising Trump on LGBT issues in Foreign Policy. Michael, some people think Bachman is a joke and do not support her irrational beliefs on human sexuality. They laugh at her pretensions. It's OK to make allusions to that gob here, unless we need to pre-clear a message in this thread. I kid you not. Yah. But Bachman is, for better or worse, is an object of ridicule for her perceived stupidities to some sensibilities, a living stereotype of Dunning-Kruger effects. To offer herself up as evidence of quality in the TrumpVerse 'advisor' room is risible, a giggle, a chortle -- for some. If you don't get the joke, that is all right. Once a joke is explained, it is no longer funny. Except for the gobs. More seriously, you seem to be attempting to patrol a humour thread. That could be funny in itself. Goggles on. Goggles off. Just kidding about Snark Patrol. Thank you for recognizing why people tend to laugh at Michelle Bachmann's pretensions. Glad to take your mind off the troubles on USS Trump. I am going to contest this rule at Humour Court. The set-up is Bachmann's pre-existing condition, her reputation as a nut, almost a kook, Boss. I'll try to do better next time. I don't want to be sent to The Lake.
  10. But wait, there's more!
  11. Thanks for bringing this forward, Geoff. It makes for interesting reading, and sorting out the arguments made. I've taken the time to read some of the dialogues and arguments between the authors and respondents. This is their money quote: The authors of the pre-publication document are Axel Geijsel and Rodolfo Cortes Barragan. There are three main arms of their argument. The overall contention is that election 'irregularities' can be detected -- in examining states with and without 'paper trails' in their voting systems -- by comparing tabulated 'official' results to 'exit polls' taken in that state throughout the day**. The first arm of the argument sorts the primary states in question into two piles. The second arm compares all of the states by two measures: 'exit polls' and 'official' results. The third arm purports to find no similar 'irregularities' in the Obama/Clinton primaries in 2012. The assumption of 'election fraud' risk is in the sorting into two piles. Those states that have a paper ballot, or Direct Recording Electronic machines (DREs] giving a Voter-Verified Paper Audit Trail (VVPAT) -- or both -- are included in the 'safe' pile. The at-risk states have a variety of county systems, which may include paper ballots and electronic 'scanners' and may incude DREs that do not spit out a paper confirmation. The sorting of the two piles can be checked against the VerifiedVoting information. Bear in mind that the authors did not check against VV -- they rely upon a coarser state-by-state reckoning at Ballotpedia. So the piles are somewhat arbitrary. For example, Florida and Pennsylvania are 'mixed' at VerifiedVoting, including some 'paper' counties and others DREs without VVPAT, but judged by the authors as No Paper Trail. In other words, in some of their no-trail states, there are indeed trails in some circumstances Bear in mind foremost that the data going in to the paper are from Democratic primaries this year. The authors' "main take-aways" comprise several checkable premises and conclusions. The main claim is that Clinton 'overperformed the exit polls' only in Ballotpedia states marked No Paper. This is a curiosity. The authors did not control nor 'correct' for African American 'saturation' or hallmarks of voting habits (among which are 'early voting'). They did not correct for any changes in demographics between the 2010 census and the Democratic primary votes. They believe that the 'sample' of exit-polls they used in comparison were the 'real' figures of support, that these exit polls cannot be 'wrong.' Their conjecture was that African American 'effect' could be accounted for with the concept [Not]Non-Hispanic Whites. Why not control for African-American demographic itself? That is a red flag of an unwarranted premiss, and one that critics have noted and responded to. It guts the analysis if we do not properly account for effects, or if we fudge out a variable. One critic put it this way: Back to the authors: I have pasted here below a table of the states taken from the authors' spreadsheet. Readers can do an eyeball of the results. What they cannot do is find the same patterns that the authors claim (without their statistical maneuvers). Examine these states one by one. Look for the pattern. Look at the range of 'Discrepancies' from Maryland to Arizona. Ask yourself about the time of day effects on those who chose to answer an exit pollster. Ask yourself if the exit polls early in the day are as diagnostic as the whole-days exit polling totals. Ask why the underlying exit poll data is exclusively for early, uncorrected 'samples.'** Note that the pattern we should expect to see if the authors are correct is simply not there when you look at their 'raw' numbers. Consider that of the eight worst 'discrepancies' between final results and exit polling, a full five were in Paper Trail states. This suggests to me strongly that reasons for the speculative 'discrepancy' is not found in a voting machine "Black box" skullduggery, but in the unreliability of early, uncorrected exit polls.** State Support for Clinton in Exit Polls Support for Clinton in Results Paper Trail DISCREPANCIES Maryland 65.64 63.03 Paper Trail -2.61 N. Carolina 56.34 54.58 Paper Trail -1.76 Connecticut 51.64 51.8 Paper Trail 0.16 Arkansas 66.02 66.28 No Paper Trail 0.26 Florida 63.96 64.44 No Paper Trail 0.48 Vermont 12.98 13.62 Paper Trail 0.64 Pennsylvania 54.72 55.58 No Paper Trail 0.86 Oklahoma 47.79 49.16 Paper Trail 1.37 Michigan 46.84 48.28 Paper Trail 1.44 Missouri 48.12 49.61 Paper Trail 1.49 Illinois 48.84 50.46 Paper Trail 1.62 Virginia 62.45 64.29 No Paper Trail 1.84 Indiana 44.64 47.5 No Paper Trail 2.86 Tennessee 63.17 66.11 No Paper Trail 2.94 Massachusets 46.73 50.11 Paper Trail 3.38 Texas 61.52 65.21 No Paper Trail 3.69 Mississippi 78.48 82.63 No Paper Trail 4.15 Ohio 51.92 56.5 Paper Trail 4.58 Alabama 73.16 77.84 Paper Trail 4.68 S. Carolina 68.67 73.48 No Paper Trail 4.81 Georgia 65.72 71.33 No Paper Trail 5.61 New York 52 57.99 Paper Trail 5.99 Wisconsin 37 43.11 Paper Trail 6.11 Arizona 37 57.63 Paper Trail 20.63 Back to Geijsel and Barragan: The 'anomaly' or discrepancy or irregularity in Louisiana is not noted in the table above; instead the authors go elsewhere: a Real Clear Politics average (of four polls) which stood at 60.5% of voter intentions for Hillary Clinton against 21.5% for Bernie Sanders. But, but but. But -- the final official tally had Sanders up to 23.5% and Clinton vaulting to 71.1% over the RCP average. A closer look at the data the authors cite: So, the latest poll from Louisiana from Magellan estimated a 47-point-difference between the two candidates. This is an obvious indication that the 'average' was off, not the underlying polls. But the authors fudge this over by assuming the average instead of the trend. Only three polls went into that average. As for their county by county 'analysis' ... it is mired in error because it checks those counties against that same average of the polls. They are hunting for a signal and they find it. Look at the wording of this phrase, "According to polls, Clinton was expected to get around 60%." This is misleading. Now I suspect a greater bias. Back to my now suspect authors. In other words, the 47% Clinton split over Sanders was a state-wide effect. In Louisiana. So, that last pre-election poll accurately called it, while if the 'official' books of returns show that same 47%, in the authors' reasoning this must be assigned to electoral fraud. This is very suspect cherry-picking and special pleading. (It did not occur to the authors to do a little proportional analysis with the other two Louisiana polls (September 2015 and March 2016. It just requires a little cross-multiplication to solve for the actual proportions of the Clinton/Sanders voter intention sampling. Hint: look for the missing (neither/dunno/don't care ... Clinton 71.1 + Sanders 23.2 = 94.4. So in the 'official' [supposedly Clinton-hacked] results from election day we have 95% of the votes for the duo. To the RCP 'average' now: Clinton 60.5 + Sanders 21.5 = 82. So some 18% of the total average is 'missing' or unassigned. To the last, most recent, of the LA polls: we get 'missing' numbers too. In that case a full 25% has not answered Clinton or Sanders. She tops 60, but he gets only 14. The point here is probably one Merlin Jetton would better explain mathematically. But by my figures, the last polling numbers 'map up' to the official count. The proportion between Bernie and Hillary was more or less the same. That link goes to speculative fantasy politics at Madison.com. The key word here is "if" ... What is interesting here is the misdirection, which again deepens my suspicion that the 'hacking' is done by the authors. We are invited by this phrase to dig into several county-level comparisons. What the authors are suggesting is an anomaly. They are speaking of proportions and percentages, in that a given county will have a mix of precinct sizes in actual practice. "Larger" is undefined. And any difference between larger and smaller is unexplored. Here the author veers off into material that has no bearing on the argument presented, the three arms. It is separate and apart, and can be judged apart from the main claims. Bear in mind that in your weird system of primaries, the party is in control of the machinery during the primaries. You don't find a GOP 'watcher' over Democratic primary races and vice versa. In the general election the two parties (and third and fourth parties) are both in the actual procedures. So, whatever implied threat to election integrity suggested by the bad math and wobbly warrants of the authors needs to be checked against the landscape for November's big day. (another thing to look at in the large table above is that of the subset of states that the authors flagged as showing discrepant results between exit polls and official tallies, there are more outliers from Paper states. Indeed, the greatest outliers were in states that the authors would describe as very low risk: Arizona, Ohio, North Carolina, Ohio, New York, Wisconsin and Alabama. That's right. The (more 'perfect' or 'true') uncorrected early exit polls showed Wild Inaccuracies in Paper Trail states too. For example, Arizona showed a full 20 percent gulf between 'exit poll' "predictions" and the final result. So, my preliminary conclusion writes itself: the authors have used statistical mischief to flog an unsupported insinuation. That shouldn't be good enough for an Objectivish person. Verify, then maybe trust.) Geoff, the material support for the "Clintonists Hacked Out Bernie" suggestion is wanting. For me it boils down to: "How was Bernie 'hacked' in exactly the same way in Arizona and the other states on the 'Safe' list?" You say, "The Stanford analysis." In fact, the paper does not carry any 'Stanford' weight -- at the moment it is a self-published (on a Bernie site) monograph at best. More importantly, I have shown in my analysis that the paper's supposedly cogent data is misrepresented in several ways. In any case, their point was not that paper-trails were different from electronic ballots, but that the final totals were ONLY explainable by hackery. I can recommend voting for Trump. The best reason for voting for Trump is to prevent a Clinton victory under 'normal' conditions. I do suggest discounting wild claims of unspecified 'rigging' and investigating other claims that appear more plausible. A final sort of helpful suggestion for those properly vigilant against hanky-panky assumed or imagined or made-up -- keep your Rand Goggles On. Use the epistemological rigor of Rand's Reason Razor to help sort out contradictory information. Always assume that there is going to be a Response or Replies-To any strong allegation. Trump can use help in expanding his voter pool. There are 80 days to sail in the election balloon. I would advise Mr Trump, his supporters and his campaign teams to Get Out The Vote. Volunteer, volunteer, volunteer. "Sacrifice" your time to persuading waverers in your social group that Mr Trump deserves their votes. Griping and speculating about a Big Bad Wolf of fraud is not going to pay any dividends if the get out the vote efforts fall short. In the end, Clinton will be inaugurated if the Trump campaign does not amass enough electoral votes to prevent it. ______________________ ** -- the source of the suspect exit-poll data is from the blog of a semi-famous guy called Richard Charnin, according to citations at the authors' main spreadsheet. Here he is taking the time to explain himself: