>>>re: the hacking issue, there is zero evidence that any outside force tampered with votes. Even the President acknowledged that yesterday. As far as the election goes that's all that matters.
>
>There's plenty of conspiracy theories but AFAIK the only actual test of whether hacking affected the result, was in Wisconsin. If you recall, scientists claimed there was "persuasive evidence" of vote hacking in Wisconsin because HRC received 7% fewer votes on electronic machines compared to paper. This was used to justify a recount. According to election officials, the finding of the recount was:
>
>"There is no evidence that the numbers reported had anything to do with a hack of our technology."
>
>Until and unless some other state does a recount, that's the sum total of actual evidence about hacking. There was no hacking and the credentials of the "scientists" need to be reviewed, because their persuasive evidence is a just another example of what HRC described as appalling behavior that undermines democracy.

My 2 cents, the scientists (led by Alex Halderman) probably never intended for their analysis to get as much attention as it (briefly) did.

But regardless, Nate Squared (Cohen and Silver) slammed the 7% report on several mathematical grounds, including that it didn't adjust for independent variables

Now, Silver is in favor of an election audit, which would be different than the silly recount that Stein wanted.
https://thevotingnews.com/why-i-support-an-election-audit-even-though-its-unlikely-to-change-the-outcome-nate-silverfivethirtyeight/