Sun Apr 24, 2016, 11:27 AM
Yallow (1,926 posts)
Were Electronic Voting Machines Hacked? - Did Hillary Actually Win All Those States?Last edited Sun Apr 24, 2016, 06:22 PM - Edit history (1)
I read a few reports about certain machines not surviving an audit used for primary voting in Illinois.
Then there's this... http://hotair.com/archives/2015/09/17/the-big-2016-danger-may-be-electronic-voting-machines/ The (primary) votes were counted by "The Party" and reported. What could go wrong there? It is amazing where there were caucuses, and voting was open to inspection, Bernie won overwhelmingly. Maybe there is no cheating. From what I have seen in the past (Don Siegelman) I don't trust "The Party" to do anything fair in the coronation of their chosen queen. I would bet everything I own that the votes "reported" were not what was cast. Conspiracy? Maybe, but from what I've seen, election fraud is to be expected. You vote, and the counters tell you who won with their secret, non open source, easily hacked garbage software. Sounds perfectly fair right? Zero verification in many areas. We're so screwed.
|
149 replies, 13464 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
Yallow | Apr 2016 | OP |
dchill | Apr 2016 | #1 | |
tikka | Apr 2016 | #2 | |
stopbush | Apr 2016 | #3 | |
RoccoR5955 | Apr 2016 | #8 | |
stopbush | Apr 2016 | #10 | |
greymouse | Apr 2016 | #56 | |
Chicago1980 | Apr 2016 | #71 | |
pnwmom | Apr 2016 | #97 | |
pnwmom | Apr 2016 | #96 | |
questionseverything | Apr 2016 | #128 | |
pnwmom | Apr 2016 | #141 | |
questionseverything | Apr 2016 | #142 | |
pnwmom | Apr 2016 | #143 | |
questionseverything | Apr 2016 | #145 | |
Wibly | Apr 2016 | #69 | |
Old Crow | Apr 2016 | #9 | |
HeartoftheMidwest | Apr 2016 | #24 | |
Old Crow | Apr 2016 | #25 | |
HeartoftheMidwest | Apr 2016 | #31 | |
sorechasm | Apr 2016 | #90 | |
HeartoftheMidwest | Apr 2016 | #98 | |
Ghost Dog | Apr 2016 | #103 | |
rhett o rick | Apr 2016 | #125 | |
Major Hogwash | Apr 2016 | #88 | |
Enthusiast | Apr 2016 | #29 | |
Old Crow | Apr 2016 | #36 | |
Enthusiast | Apr 2016 | #42 | |
berniepdx420 | Apr 2016 | #60 | |
dlwickham | Apr 2016 | #65 | |
aggiesal | Apr 2016 | #67 | |
Old Crow | Apr 2016 | #78 | |
aggiesal | Apr 2016 | #124 | |
berniepdx420 | Apr 2016 | #59 | |
RoccoR5955 | Apr 2016 | #4 | |
Old Crow | Apr 2016 | #11 | |
Kip Humphrey | Apr 2016 | #18 | |
Fiendish Thingy | Apr 2016 | #13 | |
SusanCalvin | Apr 2016 | #45 | |
All in it together | Apr 2016 | #111 | |
felix_numinous | Apr 2016 | #5 | |
RoccoR5955 | Apr 2016 | #12 | |
felix_numinous | Apr 2016 | #14 | |
bbgrunt | Apr 2016 | #16 | |
cstanleytech | Apr 2016 | #17 | |
Old Crow | Apr 2016 | #22 | |
felix_numinous | Apr 2016 | #44 | |
jwirr | Apr 2016 | #38 | |
cstanleytech | Apr 2016 | #85 | |
jwirr | Apr 2016 | #95 | |
Enthusiast | Apr 2016 | #30 | |
felix_numinous | Apr 2016 | #34 | |
Dr Hobbitstein | Apr 2016 | #6 | |
Orrex | Apr 2016 | #15 | |
Old Crow | Apr 2016 | #7 | |
stillwaiting | Apr 2016 | #19 | |
zeemike | Apr 2016 | #58 | |
stillwaiting | Apr 2016 | #73 | |
zeemike | Apr 2016 | #84 | |
stillwaiting | Apr 2016 | #86 | |
Yallow | Apr 2016 | #20 | |
Yallow | Apr 2016 | #21 | |
Enthusiast | Apr 2016 | #32 | |
SusanCalvin | Apr 2016 | #46 | |
saidsimplesimon | Apr 2016 | #23 | |
lostnfound | Apr 2016 | #62 | |
LiberalArkie | Apr 2016 | #101 | |
All in it together | Apr 2016 | #118 | |
questionseverything | Apr 2016 | #127 | |
LiberalArkie | Apr 2016 | #129 | |
questionseverything | Apr 2016 | #130 | |
LiberalArkie | Apr 2016 | #132 | |
questionseverything | Apr 2016 | #139 | |
Gman | Apr 2016 | #26 | |
Yallow | Apr 2016 | #35 | |
Gman | Apr 2016 | #119 | |
SmittynMo | Apr 2016 | #27 | |
libodem | Apr 2016 | #28 | |
kpola12 | Apr 2016 | #33 | |
jwirr | Apr 2016 | #43 | |
Dragonfli | Apr 2016 | #114 | |
Yallow | Apr 2016 | #37 | |
OhZone | Apr 2016 | #39 | |
Merryland | Apr 2016 | #40 | |
Cryptoad | Apr 2016 | #41 | |
Yallow | Apr 2016 | #48 | |
Peace Patriot | Apr 2016 | #47 | |
SusanCalvin | Apr 2016 | #50 | |
Yallow | Apr 2016 | #51 | |
SusanCalvin | Apr 2016 | #49 | |
RoccoR5955 | Apr 2016 | #89 | |
Yallow | Apr 2016 | #52 | |
KansDem | Apr 2016 | #53 | |
liberal N proud | Apr 2016 | #54 | |
AlbertCat | Apr 2016 | #68 | |
RandySF | Apr 2016 | #55 | |
Yallow | Apr 2016 | #57 | |
Yallow | Apr 2016 | #61 | |
beastie boy | Apr 2016 | #63 | |
AlbertCat | Apr 2016 | #70 | |
beastie boy | Apr 2016 | #74 | |
AlbertCat | Apr 2016 | #75 | |
beastie boy | Apr 2016 | #80 | |
RoccoR5955 | Apr 2016 | #93 | |
beastie boy | Apr 2016 | #99 | |
RoccoR5955 | Apr 2016 | #100 | |
beastie boy | Apr 2016 | #102 | |
Yallow | Apr 2016 | #104 | |
beastie boy | Apr 2016 | #108 | |
RoccoR5955 | Apr 2016 | #109 | |
beastie boy | Apr 2016 | #112 | |
Yallow | Apr 2016 | #113 | |
beastie boy | Apr 2016 | #115 | |
Yallow | Apr 2016 | #116 | |
beastie boy | Apr 2016 | #117 | |
dreamnightwind | Apr 2016 | #133 | |
beastie boy | Apr 2016 | #135 | |
dreamnightwind | Apr 2016 | #136 | |
beastie boy | Apr 2016 | #140 | |
dreamnightwind | Apr 2016 | #146 | |
beastie boy | Apr 2016 | #148 | |
Scootaloo | Apr 2016 | #79 | |
beastie boy | Apr 2016 | #81 | |
Scootaloo | Apr 2016 | #82 | |
beastie boy | Apr 2016 | #83 | |
passy | Apr 2016 | #64 | |
valerief | Apr 2016 | #66 | |
SansACause | Apr 2016 | #72 | |
MFM008 | Apr 2016 | #76 | |
Jackilope | Apr 2016 | #77 | |
Vote2016 | Apr 2016 | #87 | |
randr | Apr 2016 | #91 | |
jpmonk91 | Apr 2016 | #92 | |
Thespian2 | Apr 2016 | #94 | |
ish of the hammer | Apr 2016 | #105 | |
sulphurdunn | Apr 2016 | #106 | |
questionseverything | Apr 2016 | #110 | |
WhiteTara | Apr 2016 | #107 | |
eridani | Apr 2016 | #120 | |
Scuba | Apr 2016 | #121 | |
colsohlibgal | Apr 2016 | #122 | |
FlatBaroque | Apr 2016 | #123 | |
ViseGrip | Apr 2016 | #126 | |
SmittynMo | Apr 2016 | #131 | |
dreamnightwind | Apr 2016 | #134 | |
SmittynMo | Apr 2016 | #137 | |
dreamnightwind | Apr 2016 | #138 | |
questionseverything | Apr 2016 | #144 | |
dreamnightwind | Apr 2016 | #147 | |
clarkkentvotes | Sep 2016 | #149 |
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 11:29 AM
dchill (26,953 posts)
1. "What could go wrong there?"
You're looking at it.
|
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 12:00 PM
tikka (541 posts)
2. The electronic voting system has been abused from the start
W won his second term by manipulation in Ohio. The claims of proprietary software keeps the public from really asserting the validity of elections. This article at the link shows how any attempt to check the system will be stonewalled. This should be of national concern, but gets minimal attention.
[link:http://boingboing.net/2015/08/10/kansas-officials-stonewall-mat.html| |
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 12:01 PM
stopbush (23,575 posts)
3. The results have reflected the polls leading into the contests.
The only surprise was MI. If you want to look for irregularities, start with the outlier that didn't confirm the projections.
This is the DU member formerly known as stopbush.
|
Response to stopbush (Reply #3)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 12:02 PM
RoccoR5955 (12,471 posts)
8. What about the purging in Brooklyn.
Oh, I guess that doesn't count, because Hillliary won.
|
Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #8)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 12:14 PM
stopbush (23,575 posts)
10. Well, those problems in Brooklyn affected Hillary, not Sanders.
And she still won.
This is the DU member formerly known as stopbush.
|
Response to stopbush (Reply #10)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:43 PM
greymouse (872 posts)
56. really?
Voters blocked in Bernie's home territory, and it affected Hillary, sure. Well, it did affect her, she got more of a percentage.
|
Response to greymouse (Reply #56)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 02:32 PM
Chicago1980 (1,676 posts)
71. Bernie's "home" territory whee he hasn't lived in how many decades?
Response to Chicago1980 (Reply #71)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 05:43 PM
pnwmom (104,100 posts)
97. Isn't that a joke? He turned his back on Brooklyn in his twenties and made his home in VT.
Hillary, meanwhile, left Illinois to go to college and never looked back. She followed her husband to Arkansas and D.C. And when it was finally her turn, she CHOSE N.Y. as the place she wanted to be.
It's much more her home than his. |
Response to greymouse (Reply #56)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 05:41 PM
pnwmom (104,100 posts)
96. Hillary was the strongest in all 5 boroughs. Brooklyn was in for Hillary, not Bernie.
He hadn't made Brooklyn his home for 50 years. Other than a few so-called "hipster" neighborhoods, most of Brooklyn voted for Hillary, who had her campaign headquarters there and had spent MUCH more time in Brooklyn and everywhere else in NY over the last number of years.
Bernie thought he could drop in with his accent, run lots of TV ads, and change everyone's minds. He couldn't. |
Response to pnwmom (Reply #96)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 10:01 AM
questionseverything (6,825 posts)
128. so said the blackboxes
this op shows even when audits show votes are not reported accurately the local election officials cover it up
your retort that says, but hc is ahead is meaningless |
Response to questionseverything (Reply #128)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 02:30 PM
pnwmom (104,100 posts)
141. The OP doesn't apply to NY because NY doesn't use electronic voting machines--only verifiable paper.
This is true since November 2010.
http://www.timesnewsweekly.com/news/2010-10-28/Local_News/Using_The_New_Optical_Scan____Paper_Ballot_On_Elec.html This Election Day, Tuesday, Nov. 2, voters across New York State will go to the polls and use an optical scan voting system in which participants cast their votes on a paper ballot which are then fed through a scanner. As noted by the New York City Board of Elections, the scanner tabulates the votes after polls close on Election Day. The new polling system provides a verifiable paper record and allows all voters—including those with disabilities—to vote privately and independently at their polling place. The new way to vote is simple. Fill in the ovals next to the names of the candidates of your choice on a paper ballot using a pen or a ballot marking device. Once you have made your choices, insert the ballot into the scanner to cast your vote. Instead of using a pen, a ballot marking device (BMD) is available to assist any voter in marking a paper ballot. SNIP |
Response to pnwmom (Reply #141)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 02:37 PM
questionseverything (6,825 posts)
142. they count the paper ballots with optical scanners that are electronic
that are easily manipulated
|
Response to questionseverything (Reply #142)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 02:38 PM
pnwmom (104,100 posts)
143. The paper ballots remain and can be easily verified. nt
Response to pnwmom (Reply #143)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 02:50 PM
questionseverything (6,825 posts)
145. except they aren't verified
in the video of the chicago boe meeting the activists testify that the lawyer for the boe refused to enter the ballots face up so the activists could do a hand count
this stuff has gone on forever and people pretend (like you are) that the average citizen has any oversight or control there is a group in az that sued for years to get transparency...all they wanted was for ballots to be scanned and those files made public so anyone could count the votes for themselves if they chose..it was patterned after the humbolt county project (where activists found that entire blocks of votes were dropped) the repubs and the dems teamed up to defeat them http://fatallyflawedelections.blogspot.com/ http://www.sweetremedy.tv/fatallyflawed/media/RTA_Fraud_Flyer_3_7_12.pdf democracy is built on checks and balances, we the people have every right to oversee our own elections the ptb work overtime to be sure we are not allowed to do that |
Response to stopbush (Reply #10)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 02:31 PM
Wibly (482 posts)
69. How so?
How exactly did the purges impact Clinton? Please provide some sort of evidence in your reply.
|
Response to stopbush (Reply #3)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 12:11 PM
Old Crow (2,137 posts)
9. Exit polls are the way to verify the integrity of elections.
It's how elections have been monitored internationally for decades. And when you check the exit polls against the results in this Democratic primary, 18 of 19 states have swung in Hillary Clinton's favor, many of them way past the margin of error. The likelihood that 18 of 19 would swing in one direction is 25,000 to 1.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4g3x5h/investigative_journalism_why_bernie_may_have/ |
Response to Old Crow (Reply #9)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 12:53 PM
HeartoftheMidwest (309 posts)
24. And Bernie won MA:
MA Primary: Unadjusted Exit poll Indicates Bernie won
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/ma-primary-unadjusted-exit-poll-indicates-bernie-won/ |
Response to HeartoftheMidwest (Reply #24)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 12:57 PM
Old Crow (2,137 posts)
25. Interesting piece. Thanks for directing me to it! (N/T)
Response to Old Crow (Reply #25)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:09 PM
HeartoftheMidwest (309 posts)
31. You're welcome.
Seems the Repub and the Dem Oligarchs use the same playbook now:
1) STRIP-N-FLIP. Strip the voter rolls of all who might vote against your candidate. Purge, purge, purge. After all, disenfranchised voters can submit a paper ballot to be counted later ( dumpster, here it comes! )...then, FLIP the vote electronically when the tallies for each candidate are nearly equal. Be sure to keep all processes out of the public eye. 2) SCREAM over and over that you've won. Helps to have the mainstream media in your back pocket. 3) REWARD all the party apparatchiks who helped you "secure" the victory. Pay them well, so they have no incentive to rat you out. 4) Make sure voting and election reform is squelched. Why fix what works so well for the Elite? |
Response to HeartoftheMidwest (Reply #31)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 05:08 PM
sorechasm (631 posts)
90. 5) Accuse all criticism of obvious election anomalies as the product of conspiracy theory whiners.
6) Claim shock after the election. Scapegoat some lowly government worker.
7) Forget the whole process until the next election when it's too late once again to react. 8) Rinse and repeat. This has been the pattern by both parties since the 2000 Selection. |
Response to sorechasm (Reply #90)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 05:50 PM
HeartoftheMidwest (309 posts)
98. Well done!!
You nailed it.
|
Response to sorechasm (Reply #90)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 06:12 PM
Ghost Dog (16,681 posts)
103. As international observer here since 2003 I concur,
and also observe some half-cooked frogs thrashing in the hot water, a little, not much. It will soon all be over.
|
Response to sorechasm (Reply #90)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 09:48 AM
rhett o rick (55,981 posts)
125. Well said. The reason nothing gets done to fix the election process is that we expect something
from the process that is not reasonable. Many of us still believe that the enemy of voting process is the Republicons. That Democrats are the good guys. But why didn't the Democratic Party (the leaders) do anything about the obvious election fraud we've seen in the past? The answer is that the Party elite don't care. They don't want a honest process because they work for the Oligarchy. The enemy of our free and fair election process is the Oligarchy not the Republicons. The Oligarchy wants Clinton in the WH.
The only solution is to regain power of our government from the Oligarchs. If we can't do that, all else is lost. |
Response to HeartoftheMidwest (Reply #24)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 05:01 PM
Major Hogwash (17,656 posts)
88. And the hits just keep coming.
I'm so glad that she's the one.
*sigh* ![]() ![]() |
Response to Old Crow (Reply #9)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:05 PM
Enthusiast (50,983 posts)
29. Disturbing.
We had one president that relied of election fraud to put him in office. We don't want another.
|
Response to Enthusiast (Reply #29)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:14 PM
Old Crow (2,137 posts)
36. That was my reaction also: "Disturbing."
The mathematical odds are inarguable, but it's hard to accept. People prefer to ignore information like this or discount it because the ramifications are profound and upsetting.
For decades, the United States has policed elections in other countries all over the world, relying on the allied sciences of statistics and exit polling. Yet here at home, when those same methodologies are indicating that our elections reek to high heaven, no one wants to talk about it. |
Response to Old Crow (Reply #36)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:24 PM
Enthusiast (50,983 posts)
42. Precisely.
Response to Old Crow (Reply #9)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:48 PM
berniepdx420 (1,784 posts)
60. + infinity
Response to Old Crow (Reply #9)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 02:05 PM
dlwickham (3,316 posts)
65. Because people always answer truthfully
Right?
|
Response to Old Crow (Reply #9)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 02:18 PM
aggiesal (5,774 posts)
67. The way to verify the integrity of an election ...
J Sqs
is to hand count the ballots before sending them through the machine. Then both should match, period. When I was doing election integrity in San Diego, the long time poll workers would tell me that they had all ballots in their precinct counted by 11pm. None of the wait till 6am to complete counting the ballots. |
Response to aggiesal (Reply #67)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 03:52 PM
Old Crow (2,137 posts)
78. If ballots can be hand-counted, yes.
The problem is that many votes are now cast on electronic voting machines where hand-counting paper ballots isn't possible.
|
Response to Old Crow (Reply #78)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 09:46 AM
aggiesal (5,774 posts)
124. I agree ...
Everyone should be pressuring their Registrar of Voters or whatever title your local head election official uses,
to start using a paper ballot. We use a paper ballot in San Diego County, then feed them through the scanner to count the ballots. There are approximately 2000 precincts in all of San Diego County. But we only have around 200 scanners. In the past, when the polls closed, the precinct workers would hand count the ballots, and every ballot was counted by 11pm., midnight in the larger precinct. Then the form with all the tallied numbers along with the ballots were sent to the ROV to record. But since we only have 10% of the scanning machines to the number of precincts, it becomes a huge hassle to make sure all the ballots are counted. There is huge conveyor system of workers trying to count the ballots, and they don't finish until about 6am. Then scanners and the hand count should match, otherwise hand-counting only the election that did not match should occur. |
Response to stopbush (Reply #3)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:47 PM
berniepdx420 (1,784 posts)
59. And I am 100% sure the polls and pollsters could never be bought and sold....
![]() |
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 12:01 PM
RoccoR5955 (12,471 posts)
4. Technically, it's not election fraud
it's voter suppression.
Election fraud would be if voters actually voted fraudulently, and their votes were counted. Who knows, this could have been done too. |
Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #4)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 12:14 PM
Old Crow (2,137 posts)
11. Not exactly.
Voter fraud is when a voter votes fraudulently ("Vote early and often"
![]() Election fraud is when legitimate votes have been tampered with ("It's not the people who vote that count; it's the people who count the votes" ![]() |
Response to Old Crow (Reply #11)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 12:38 PM
Kip Humphrey (4,753 posts)
18. this is correct.
Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #4)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 12:19 PM
Fiendish Thingy (6,472 posts)
13. No that would be voter fraud
Election Fraud, or more accurately, electoral fraud, is when votes are legitimately cast, but then deliberately switched or miscounted to change the outcome.
Voter suppression is when those who should be able to vote are denied that right, or the path to exercising that right is made so onerous (lines, registration deadlines, purges, too few machines, ID barriers,) that voters give up or are otherwise prevented from voting. |
Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #4)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:31 PM
SusanCalvin (6,592 posts)
45. No, what you describe is voter fraud.
But I'm just glad it's being discussed.
|
Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #4)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 08:14 PM
All in it together (275 posts)
111. Voter fraud is what you said was election fraud, voter fraud is pretty rare.
Election fraud is when there are shenanigans with the voting machines or counters which has been shown to be quite easy and messes with our democracy. It invalidates the election returns possibly entirely.
|
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 12:02 PM
felix_numinous (5,198 posts)
5. We cannot have another stolen election
no matter who is responsible. Though it is disturbing and revealing to have one side eager to declare themselves a winner and to rush through the election process even though it is obviously been tampered with.
We cannot allow these bullies to mock the democratic process and attempt to give us the bums rush while we count all the votes! |
Response to felix_numinous (Reply #5)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 12:16 PM
RoccoR5955 (12,471 posts)
12. The primaries have already been stolen,
so like it or not, the election has already been stolen.
|
Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #12)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 12:23 PM
felix_numinous (5,198 posts)
14. I agree
it is hard for people to face, because it needs a response from us. We have to demand our votes be counted, and maybe do some elections over. We are at a crossroads.
|
Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #12)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 12:28 PM
bbgrunt (5,274 posts)
16. ...and given the positions of the "frontrunners", which party wins may not make a big difference.
Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #12)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 12:38 PM
cstanleytech (22,228 posts)
17. Not getting enough voters to vote for your preferred choice does
not = stolen elections.
Yes, I realize that you and alot of Sanders supporters are upset but claiming it's been stolen without any proof just sounds of sour grapes and I speak as someone who honestly believes either Hillary and Bernie would be good Presidents in their own way. |
Response to cstanleytech (Reply #17)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 12:45 PM
Old Crow (2,137 posts)
22. If you are able to view the situation objectively...
... which is rare around here, but I believe your assertion, please take a look at the following. Thanks.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4g3x5h/investigative_journalism_why_bernie_may_have/ |
Response to Old Crow (Reply #22)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:26 PM
felix_numinous (5,198 posts)
44. Nice
From your link:
After all votes are tabulated, exit polls are “adjusted” to match recorded results. According to NPR, for this election cycle, a firm called Edison Research conducts the polling used by major networks. Exit polling has not been conducted for every contest thus far. Here are the unadjusted exit polls against the final results (significant discrepancy | state flip; data source): State Sanders Margin of Victory, Actual Results Sanders Margin of Victory, Exit Polls ---------> Difference (in Clinton’s favor) <------------ Arkansas -38.1 ,-31.4, 6.7 Alabama -60.4 ,-44.7, 15.7 Tennessee -34.2 ,-25.4, 8.8 Virginia -29.3 ,-24.8, 4.5 Georgia -43.4, -31.0, 12.4 Texas -32.6, -22, 9.9 Mass- 1.4, 6.4, 7.8 Oklahoma 11.1, 4. , -6.8 Vermont 72.7, 73.6, 0.9 Mississippi -66.8, -56.4, 10.4 Michigan 1.7, 6., 4.5 North C -14.5, -12.7, 1.8 Florida -31.9 , -27.9 , 4.0 Missouri -0.2, 3.8, 4.0 Ohio -13.9, -3.8, 10.1 Illinois -1.8, 2.3, 4.1 Arizona* -8.2, 25.0, 33.2 Wisconsin 13.4, 27.2, 13.8 New York -16.0, -4.0, 12.0 |
Response to cstanleytech (Reply #17)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:20 PM
jwirr (39,215 posts)
38. When the same problems show up in state after state there
is reason to wonder. And that is what we are doing - wondering.
Also given the 33 state democratic party deal with the DNC and the Hillary Victory Fund made long before any debates or even voting there is reason to believe the state parties can be bought. You are expecting us to just sweep these things under the rug? Why are they having an investigation in NY, NV, IA, ILL if there is nothing to suggest that there might have been a problem? |
Response to jwirr (Reply #38)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 04:42 PM
cstanleytech (22,228 posts)
85. No, I am not expecting you to sweep anything under the rug I am just pointing out that
Bernie losing isnt proof because candidates do lose elections.
|
Response to cstanleytech (Reply #85)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 05:40 PM
jwirr (39,215 posts)
95. As far as I know no one has suggested that.
Response to felix_numinous (Reply #5)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:06 PM
Enthusiast (50,983 posts)
30. Too late. It has already happened.
Response to Enthusiast (Reply #30)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:14 PM
felix_numinous (5,198 posts)
34. It has
I am parsing my words because it is hard to face, but face it we must.
|
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 12:02 PM
Dr Hobbitstein (6,568 posts)
6. Do you often visit Ed Morrissey's website for news on Democrats?
I find it's usually a bad idea to go to asshole conservatives like Morrissey when you want an opinion on Democrats.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Air https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Morrissey Any port in a fucking storm. |
Response to Dr Hobbitstein (Reply #6)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 12:25 PM
Orrex (59,618 posts)
15. The More You Ignore Him, The Closer He Gets
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 12:02 PM
Old Crow (2,137 posts)
7. The best analysis of the exit poll discrepancies I've seen...
... where 18 of the 19 discrepancies swung in Hillary Clinton's favor, including four states that were flipped from Sanders wins to Clinton wins, puts the odds of that happening at 25,000 to 1.
https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4g3x5h/investigative_journalism_why_bernie_may_have/ |
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 12:40 PM
stillwaiting (3,795 posts)
19. I said this would happen before primary voting began.
I.e. Bernie would beat corporate polling in caucus states, and HRC would beat corporate polling and exit polling in states that vote on computers.
To me, this was entirely and easily predictable. Why would they not do this when it is so easy to do and there is so very much money at stake? Regardless, maybe now we'll organize and demand changes. Bernie delegates will have enough power to demand this at the convention no matter who wins. I hope they organize to demand systemic election and voting changes. Super delegates be gone. Instant runoff voting implemented. This could be done entirely within the Democratic Party, and it would make it much more democratic. |
Response to stillwaiting (Reply #19)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:44 PM
zeemike (18,998 posts)
58. And you are not the only one.
When big money is involved the outcome is predictable...the game is rigged.
But they have the perfect foil for anyone who might notice...the Conspiracy Theory. Something they can drag out to dismiss anyone who speaks up or complains. And I have my doubts that anything will ever be done about it...once the nomination is secured you will hear nothing of it again in any media or even here at DU. |
Response to zeemike (Reply #58)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 03:06 PM
stillwaiting (3,795 posts)
73. Enough of us are mobilized with Bernie to make this an issue at the Convention.
I hope we wouldn't have to wait for Bernie to advocate for specific and clearly needed changes to our election and voting systems. The sheer strength of Bernie's campaign could provide enough visibility to demand the elimination of super delegates and the installation of instant runoff voting within the Democratic Party. Bernie delegates need to make some noise and flex a little bit of muscle here and now. It's the perfect time to do it.
This political revolution must BEGIN by reforming election and voting systems or we are going to stay on the neo-liberal Reagan Express for a very, very long time. |
Response to stillwaiting (Reply #73)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 04:24 PM
zeemike (18,998 posts)
84. We can't expect Bernie to lead this.
If he did all the media and the Third Way would do is drag out the sore loser meme and marginalize it.
It must come from the grass roots. But I am a pessimist and think that if they get away with it this time there will be no chance to change anything. At least in my lifetime. I regret being such a downer. |
Response to zeemike (Reply #84)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 04:44 PM
stillwaiting (3,795 posts)
86. I agree we can't expect Bernie to lead us.
Bernie delegates can still force the issue at the Convention though, and it is what I am hoping happens.
|
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 12:40 PM
Yallow (1,926 posts)
20. Did This Crap Happen In The Primaries?
Siegalman Screwed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/flap-over-alabama-statehouse-race/ "Siegelman demanded a recount Thursday. He pointed in particular to Baldwin County, where elections officials reduced his tally by about 7,000 votes late Tuesday - enough to give Riley the victory." They "reduced his tally". Get it? That, and this unverified crap is beyond stink. This isn't conspiracy. The election was stolen, and it is a fact. But for complaining, Siegelman got 10 years in prison. We're so screwed. |
Response to Yallow (Reply #20)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 12:42 PM
Yallow (1,926 posts)
21. A Nice Even Number
Just enough for the Republican to declare victory.
|
Response to Yallow (Reply #20)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:09 PM
Enthusiast (50,983 posts)
32. Actually it was a conspiracy. It was a conspiracy to engage in election fraud.
Response to Yallow (Reply #20)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:32 PM
SusanCalvin (6,592 posts)
46. Yep. That too. nt
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 12:46 PM
saidsimplesimon (7,688 posts)
23. Yallow, for a paper record
All 50 states need a method to verify any electronic voting. I'm all for a back to the future approach, paper ballots along with the less resource intense vote by mail option.
This is the DU member formerly known as saidsimplesimon.
|
Response to saidsimplesimon (Reply #23)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 02:00 PM
lostnfound (14,765 posts)
62. The Chicago election board audit is particularly frustrating because even audit of paper records...
May get ignored.
|
Response to saidsimplesimon (Reply #23)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 06:05 PM
LiberalArkie (14,093 posts)
101. Paper ballots have always been easy to screw with.
Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #101)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 10:29 PM
All in it together (275 posts)
118. Paper ballots are re-countable, but there's no paper trail on voting machines.
Verifiable openly counted paper ballots are the way to go.
|
Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #101)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 09:58 AM
questionseverything (6,825 posts)
127. paper ballots counted openly,live streamed on the net, with multiple observers would be difficult to
manipulate
with blackbox voting a few clicks and thousands of votes can be changed |
Response to questionseverything (Reply #127)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 10:11 AM
LiberalArkie (14,093 posts)
129. It used to be that people made out their paper ballot and stuffed them into the ballot box at the
school or church or wherever the precinct voting was taking place. Then the ballot box was transported by a deputy to the court house.
On route the ballot box was opened destuffed with "proper ballots" and resealed and delivered to the court house. You can count those ballots for eternity and the vote will always be the same. Or you can let Kim Davis go to each precinct and count the ballots there. Or you can bring in all the media and verify all the counting like was done in 2000 in Florida. |
Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #129)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 10:15 AM
questionseverything (6,825 posts)
130. hand counted paper ballots at the precinct is the answer
![]() |
Response to questionseverything (Reply #130)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 10:41 AM
LiberalArkie (14,093 posts)
132. It would take a while since the county clerk has watch the counting so that the county
clerk can certify the totals. This would have to happen at each voting location.
As long as each party trusts the county clerks and the deputy clerks it works out. |
Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #132)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 01:02 PM
questionseverything (6,825 posts)
139. no the county clerk does not have to watch the counting
each precinct has several election judges that verify that they all agree the report they sign are the accurate numbers
election should not come down to TRUSTING ANYONE, we need a system we can trust and oversee with our own eyes |
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:01 PM
Gman (24,780 posts)
26. HotAir is a right wing nut website.
Response to Gman (Reply #26)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:14 PM
Yallow (1,926 posts)
35. It Was Just The First Google Search Result
Electronic voting machines, and their tabulators have been, and are currently being hacked, and their totals manipulated.
If you don't believe this, I have a bridge to sell you. |
Response to Yallow (Reply #35)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 11:13 PM
Gman (24,780 posts)
119. It's still a right wing website
I don't know if the info is accurate or not in the article. More reliable sources have better info.
|
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:02 PM
SmittynMo (3,544 posts)
27. Welcome to the digital age
Where there is no audit trail, and numbers are easily manipulated.
Yep, We're soooooooooooo screwed. |
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:03 PM
libodem (19,288 posts)
28. It's the inevitability
That has bugged me for the last 8 years, and for the last 18 months, specifically.
At least there is an appearance of a contest. Inevitability and Democracy are not compatable. |
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:12 PM
kpola12 (78 posts)
33. When peaceful revolution becomes impossible violent revolution becomes inevitable.
Response to kpola12 (Reply #33)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:26 PM
jwirr (39,215 posts)
43. And those were JFK's words for anyone who is interested.
Response to kpola12 (Reply #33)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 09:42 PM
Dragonfli (10,622 posts)
114. yes, as we were warned...
![]() |
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:17 PM
Yallow (1,926 posts)
37. Election Fraud Found In Illinois, But Who Cares Right
Nothing on CNN, or MSNBC.
"Election Fraud Proven at Audit by Chicago BOE - flipped precinct by 18pts from Bernie to Hillary" http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/21/1518460/-Election-Fraud-Proven-at-Audit-by-Chicago-BOE-flipped-precinct-by-18pts-from-Bernie-to-Hillary I wonder if ALL of the results are being tampered with. Secret machines, secret tallying, secret code, secret fraud in my opinion. |
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:21 PM
OhZone (2,743 posts)
39. No and yes. nt
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:23 PM
Merryland (1,134 posts)
40. We'll have paper ballots as well as electronic in Maryland
if anybody needs to do a recount - which should have been going on in all those states where fraud was suspected.
|
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:24 PM
Cryptoad (8,039 posts)
41. Welll u went to the right source,,,,,,,
"Hot Air",,,,,,,, that RW tower of knowledge and Rumor! LMAO
|
Response to Cryptoad (Reply #41)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:33 PM
Yallow (1,926 posts)
48. Went Right To The Google
Here's another one.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1091&pid=1800 "Election Fraud Proven at Audit by Chicago BOE - flipped precinct by 18pts from Bernie to Hillary" http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/21/1518460/-Election-Fraud-Proven-at-Audit-by-Chicago-BOE-flipped-precinct-by-18pts-from-Bernie-to-Hillary |
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:33 PM
Peace Patriot (24,010 posts)
47. The very counting of our votes was PRIVATIZED during the 2002 to 2004 period,
with 'TRADE SECRET' code introduced to every voting system in the country, thus also creating many entry points for election fraud in several forms, whether by direct rigging of the voting results or stripping of voters from the voting rolls or other crimes.
This is the truth and I hope that we, as a people, realize it, at long last, and rise up and DO something about it. Time to have a REAL "Boston Tea Party," eh? |
Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #47)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:35 PM
SusanCalvin (6,592 posts)
50. ^THIS^
Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #47)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:36 PM
Yallow (1,926 posts)
51. You Can't Say Tea Party
You might get real patriots mixed up with Teabagger Republicans who want to destroy our entire government.
|
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:34 PM
SusanCalvin (6,592 posts)
49. HAVA was a big scam. And poor ol' Rush Holt got taken in. nt
Response to SusanCalvin (Reply #49)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 05:02 PM
RoccoR5955 (12,471 posts)
89. HAVA=Hinder Americans from Voting Act!
I know that Dubya called it something different, but this is what it is. Just as so much legislation these days. The titles are the exact opposite of what the legislation proposes.
|
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:38 PM
Yallow (1,926 posts)
52. HAVA = Electronic Voting Machines = Oligarchs Get More Control
Do the math.....
|
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:39 PM
KansDem (28,498 posts)
53. Yes and no. nt
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:39 PM
liberal N proud (58,801 posts)
54. LOL
Response to liberal N proud (Reply #54)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 02:26 PM
AlbertCat (17,505 posts)
68. LOL... again
Why do Hillary and her supporters laugh off serious concerns by others?.... us "little insignificant people".
and where's the "YAWN"? |
Response to RandySF (Reply #55)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:43 PM
Yallow (1,926 posts)
57. Chicago Board Of Elections = Tin Foil Hats Too?
Election Fraud Proven at Audit by Chicago BOE - flipped precinct by 18pts from Bernie to Hillary
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/4/21/1518460/-Election-Fraud-Proven-at-Audit-by-Chicago-BOE-flipped-precinct-by-18pts-from-Bernie-to-Hillary You are obviously posting from a different universe/dimension than the one in which we never know if our votes are actually counted, and tallied correctly, and the actual winner is declared. Zero verification. Easily hacked machines, and tabulation. |
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:48 PM
Yallow (1,926 posts)
61. How To Hack A Voting Machine
And to think our democracy relies on this crap.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+to+hack+a+voting+machine And the future of our entire planet, and race too. Might as well vote on toilet paper ballots. |
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 02:02 PM
beastie boy (2,888 posts)
63. Were electonic voting machines hacked? Did Bernie actually win all those states?
How is Bernie's relationship to the allegedly possibly maybe hacked machines any different from that of Hillary?
This is the DU member formerly known as beastie boy.
|
Response to beastie boy (Reply #63)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 02:31 PM
AlbertCat (17,505 posts)
70. any different from that of Hillary?
Well, she has the whole Third Way political machine behind her.
She is determined not to lose a primary.... again. She's been voted more "untrustworthy" She and her cronies have already fooled around with electronic data in an effort to make Sanders look bad. More questionable discrepancies are positive for Hillary, not Sanders. etc etc |
Response to AlbertCat (Reply #70)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 03:06 PM
beastie boy (2,888 posts)
74. That's your proof that the voting machines were not "hacked" in Brnie's favor?
How's this for proof: Hillary has an advantage of 2+ million in popular vote and 240+ pledged delegates over Bernie!
Do discrepancies get any more questionable or positive for Hillary than this? A clear sign that voting has been rigged in her favor! This is the DU member formerly known as beastie boy.
|
Response to beastie boy (Reply #74)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 03:40 PM
AlbertCat (17,505 posts)
75. That's your proof that the voting machines were not "hacked" in Brnie's favor?
No. That's not what we're talking about. My post has nothing to do with this new subject you have included. My answer was merely about: "How is Bernie's relationship to the allegedly possibly maybe hacked machines any different from that of Hillary? Try to stay on subject. |
Response to AlbertCat (Reply #75)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 04:06 PM
beastie boy (2,888 posts)
80. I am on subject. That was only half of my post.
You replied to the entirety of my post. And if you choose to reply to the part you quoted, the below doesn't answer my question.
She is determined not to lose a primary.... again.
She's been voted more "untrustworthy" She and her cronies have already fooled around with electronic data in an effort to make Sanders look bad. More questionable discrepancies are positive for Hillary, not Sanders. Is Bernie not determined to win a primary? Does a vote of "untrustworthy" hack the machines in Hillary's favor? What is your proof that it was Hillary's cronies and not Bernie's who hacked the machines in order to make Hillary look bad? While discrepancies may be more positive for Hillary, how does it prove hacking? This is the DU member formerly known as beastie boy.
|
Response to beastie boy (Reply #74)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 05:18 PM
RoccoR5955 (12,471 posts)
93. You folks and your vote popular votes.
They do not include caucuses, which bring out far fewer people, due to their nature, and makes the point moot.
Give it up already! I can show you how to hack today's voting machines in a NY minute! Here's an article from Popular Science for you that will show you how to hack one of the models: http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2012-11/how-i-hacked-electronic-voting-machine Another article from The Guardian tells us that passwords are quite simple: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/15/virginia-hacking-voting-machines-security |
Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #93)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 05:55 PM
beastie boy (2,888 posts)
99. Hmmm... a Bernie supporter who knows how to hack a voting machine...
Should I infer something from this and start making wild speculations? You make it very tempting!
And if you don't want to count popular vote, you can always go with delegates. But you seem to have a problem with this too, dontcha? So what do you suggest, a coin flip? This is the DU member formerly known as beastie boy.
|
Response to beastie boy (Reply #99)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 05:57 PM
RoccoR5955 (12,471 posts)
100. A coin flip with the double headed coin and you calling it, I presume. n/t
Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #100)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 06:11 PM
beastie boy (2,888 posts)
102. You are not accepting popular vote and/or delegate count as a measure of election outcome.
And now you are rejecting a coin flip because... you presume it to be rigged?
What then, a staring contest? Now tell me how THAT is going to be rigged against Bernie! This is the DU member formerly known as beastie boy.
|
Response to beastie boy (Reply #102)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 06:25 PM
Yallow (1,926 posts)
104. Actually Watching MSNBC Show Delegate Math Counting Super Delegate Totals
And Bernie starting hundreds of delegates behind before the first primary vote is cast stinks to high heaven.
It's rigged. A blind man who has been dead 20 years could see that. |
Response to Yallow (Reply #104)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 06:39 PM
beastie boy (2,888 posts)
108. So a staring contest is OK by you to determine the winner?
We already know a coin flip will be rigged against Bernie...
This is the DU member formerly known as beastie boy.
|
Response to beastie boy (Reply #102)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 07:01 PM
RoccoR5955 (12,471 posts)
109. Oh, good
another troll. Good luck, you have made it to my iggy list!
You paid trolls have to understand that we are on to you. Active since april of this year. Nice try. |
Response to RoccoR5955 (Reply #109)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 08:41 PM
beastie boy (2,888 posts)
112. You seem to be fresh out of suggestions for how to determine a winner of the primaries.
It's not the popular vote, which is rigged against Bernie. It is not the delegate count which is rigged against Bernie. It is not a coin toss which is easily rigged against Bernie, and it is not a staring contest which you don't even comment on but I am sure is somehow rigged against Bernie...
So what's not rigged against Bernie?... I know, "You are a paid troll!" is not rigged against Bernie! Brilliant! Works every time! OK, since you know so much about me, tell me how much do I get paid, and where do I collect? Or am I rigging this too much against Bernie? This is the DU member formerly known as beastie boy.
|
Response to beastie boy (Reply #112)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 09:17 PM
Yallow (1,926 posts)
113. You Forgot Campaign Contributions Being Illegally Washed Through The DNC
And a few other things.
Like the media being part of the HRC campaign. |
Response to Yallow (Reply #113)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 09:46 PM
beastie boy (2,888 posts)
115. Ah, good thing you remember the things that don't exist!
Otherwise, no one would have paid attention to them.
BTW, Bernie is outspending Hillary on media by a margin of 2 to 1. If media is part of HRC campaign, does it mean that media is two parts of Bernie's campaign? This is the DU member formerly known as beastie boy.
|
Response to beastie boy (Reply #115)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 09:51 PM
Yallow (1,926 posts)
116. I Watched The MSNBC Crew Trash Bernie Non Stop
Lying, and twisting everything to make Hillary look good, and undermine Bernie.
Bernie did outspend Hillary in New York. Doesn't make up for the in your face bias, and discounting of his message by the ptb owned media scum. |
Response to Yallow (Reply #116)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 10:08 PM
beastie boy (2,888 posts)
117. Bernie outspent Hillary in the US
2 to 1. All those tens of millions went to the ptb media scum. Comforting to know, isn't it?
And I watched Thom Hartman and the TYT crew and the Reddit crew undermine Hillary. What of it? This is the DU member formerly known as beastie boy.
|
Response to beastie boy (Reply #115)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 11:34 AM
dreamnightwind (4,775 posts)
133. That's only hard money to the campaign, Hillary gets much of hers through other organizations
that aren't included in those figures. But you knew that.
|
Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #133)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 11:50 AM
beastie boy (2,888 posts)
135. You want me to include PAC money? OK.
When all the money is counted, Bernie is still outspending Hillary.
http://fec.gov/disclosurep/pnational.do But you knew that. This is the DU member formerly known as beastie boy.
|
Response to beastie boy (Reply #135)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 12:09 PM
dreamnightwind (4,775 posts)
136. SuperPACs
And don't try that one about they aren't actually part of a campaign, I'm aware of the legal distance they must keep, but in Hillary's case they have stretched the definition and coordinate with Brock's people over the internet, as Brock freely admits.
The overall money situation isn't even close. Not to mention all the establishment hit-jobs her surrogates get to launch for free in the corporate media. |
Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #136)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 01:07 PM
beastie boy (2,888 posts)
140. Couldn't find data on super pac spending, but here's what they raised:
https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/outsidegroups.php
Hillary's super pacs outraised Bernie's by about 3 million. Even if they spent half of it exclusively on their respective candidates, an extra $1.5 million added to Hillary's spending still makes Bernie the bigger spender. This is the DU member formerly known as beastie boy.
|
Response to beastie boy (Reply #140)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 04:18 PM
dreamnightwind (4,775 posts)
146. You just keep deflecting
First you were accused of troling, and your defense was to make light about having been called a paid troll (you weren't called that, the paid part of the accusation was all yours).
Then you took a statement that "the media" had been in the tank for Hillary as opposed to Bernie (undeniable IMHO) and you immediately deflect to argue about Bernie's media buys, when the poster said "the media", another misdirection. Then you made claims about Bernie's money raising that were selective and only included portions of the money you wanted to include, which you twice had to reconsider because of that being pointed out to you. You know a certain percentage of this money is dark money and as such there is no record of how much was given. I'm done with this whole thing. |
Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #146)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 04:32 PM
beastie boy (2,888 posts)
148. I accept your surrender. Hard as you may, you can't argue with the numbers.
This is the DU member formerly known as beastie boy.
|
Response to beastie boy (Reply #63)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 03:56 PM
Scootaloo (25,699 posts)
79. It's a fair question. So. You're in favor of a full audit?
Each state. Just to be sure.
|
Response to Scootaloo (Reply #79)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 04:12 PM
beastie boy (2,888 posts)
81. Absolutely!
If for no other reason than to stop all those batshit crazy conspiracy theories!
Of course, there are better reasons than this, but I am really tired of everyone throwing accusations and innuendo around without a single grain of proof to back them up, and demanding that I draw conclusions on that basis. This is the DU member formerly known as beastie boy.
|
Response to beastie boy (Reply #81)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 04:12 PM
Scootaloo (25,699 posts)
82. Cool. I look forward to your OP calling for it.
![]() |
Response to Scootaloo (Reply #82)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 04:24 PM
beastie boy (2,888 posts)
83. And I look forward to your OP advocating for gun control
or cute puppies, or world peace.
When I favor something, I favor it. When I want to say something, I say it. But I never get gratuitous with my speech. This is the DU member formerly known as beastie boy.
|
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 02:02 PM
passy (853 posts)
64. I posted earlier about some of there strange results in New York
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 02:15 PM
valerief (53,235 posts)
66. Democracy is a lip service item only. nt
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 02:36 PM
SansACause (516 posts)
72. Did Bernie actually win those states?
No, he did not. And he's going to lose big again on Tuesday. Check Huffpollster or fivethirtyeight. Unskew those however you want. Goodbye, Bernie.
|
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 03:45 PM
MFM008 (18,926 posts)
76. Darn
I guess I didnt really vote for HRC, with my own hands....
So many people jumping the shark, its looks like the set of Sharknado in here. ![]() |
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 03:49 PM
Jackilope (819 posts)
77. How can we fix this? I do not trust either party.
It is really sad, but with Third Way at the head of Democratic Party, I at the point of realizing we need full on revolt and wondering if that can only be accomplished by a third party.
|
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 04:46 PM
Vote2016 (1,198 posts)
87. There is a shameful lack of transparency.
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 05:14 PM
randr (11,157 posts)
91. The question of voteing manipulation is serious
We are always assured the the system we have is in place to safeguard our votes.
I propose that the system we have is in place so our votes can be manipulated. For proof I offer the fact that we spend countless billions of dollars in every conceivable manner each and every day. The computerized electronic banking is not prone to mistakes. In fact over the course of my life they have never misplaced a red cent or credited my account mistakenly. If we have the capability to count each and every cent spent each and every day we certainly have the technical expertise to accurately count our votes once every two years. The fact that we do not use as trusted a system as the financial industry uses leads me to believe that the only reason we don't is so the antiquated system we do use can be misused. |
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 05:15 PM
jpmonk91 (290 posts)
92. The electronic voting scares me
I don't trust the system at the moment. That could explain what happened in New York for sure. That's why I don't do electronic voting.
|
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 05:24 PM
Thespian2 (2,741 posts)
94. As long as private money
controls elections, no results can be fully trusted. Until private money is out of politics, fraud will always be a possibility...
Vote on paper ballots...count the votes by hand...one person from each party counting...Other than this method, be prepared for fraud... |
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 06:30 PM
ish of the hammer (444 posts)
105. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." -
- Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili
|
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 06:37 PM
sulphurdunn (6,891 posts)
106. Nothing could be sillier
than to accept the evidence that our political system is rigged to benefit moneyed interests and then assume that our elections are not.
![]() |
Response to sulphurdunn (Reply #106)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 08:07 PM
questionseverything (6,825 posts)
110. exactly...look at everything the ptb do right in front of us
it is foolish to think when the 1%ers machines count the votes that those counts would not be corrupted
![]() |
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 06:37 PM
WhiteTara (27,018 posts)
107. The only real win is
when Bernie does. All else is illegitimate.
|
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Sun Apr 24, 2016, 11:48 PM
eridani (51,903 posts)
120. The thing about touchscreen voting is that you never know for sure what happened
With scanners, you can do hand count audits, but this is not done nearly as much as it needs to be done.
|
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 05:40 AM
Scuba (53,475 posts)
121. In 2009, Democrats in DC had an opportunity to protect our elections and voting rights.
They passed.
Kinda like Florida 2000 never happened. Kinda like Ohio 2004 never happened. |
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 08:37 AM
colsohlibgal (4,626 posts)
122. I Sure Don't Trust Them
I am as sure as I can be that the 2004 Bush win over Kerry was a flip....and I am fairly sure of others, like the recent pot vote in Ohio. The pot vote was like the recent Governor race in Kentucky...all polls showed both to be close races and they came out as routs.
Thinking this is no tinfoil hat thing, there is really no audit trail, and the flip always seems in favor of the more conservative candidate or issue. Always. |
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 09:13 AM
FlatBaroque (3,160 posts)
123. I am 100% certain that the fraud that has been
Committed has been monumental. I believe that unless a whistleblower comes forth, we will never know how fraudulent this primary has been. And yet, with every possible advantage the Queen is unable to ascend to her throne.
|
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 09:51 AM
ViseGrip (3,133 posts)
126. NO...she did not.
Response to Yallow (Original post)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 10:19 AM
SmittynMo (3,544 posts)
131. Old VS New? Proposed?
Old - Paper ballots, kept for verification, counted singly. Time and resource consuming.
New - Electronic, digital method, no audit trail, counted within seconds. Easily manipulated. Not trustworthy. Proposed. Believe it or not, in today's age of lightning results, this is one area that will require an accurate audit trail. Paper ballots will be required, with signature. Ballots should be counted twice by two separate parties. Verification would be a third count. If it takes days, then so be it. It would be done right the first time. FUCK MSM. They can wait. |
Response to SmittynMo (Reply #131)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 11:37 AM
dreamnightwind (4,775 posts)
134. Exactly, I have never understood the "takes too long" argument
Takes too long for what? This country isn't going anywhere, we have time to count all of the ballots by hand, and need to do so, with cameras recording the whole process.
|
Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #134)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 12:13 PM
SmittynMo (3,544 posts)
137. So why hasn't "The establishment" fixed this?
Hmmm. Possible/potential corruption again? Which leads us back to another reason to vote Bernie.
|
Response to SmittynMo (Reply #137)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 12:29 PM
dreamnightwind (4,775 posts)
138. I assume both major parties benefit from it
Obama named Chuck Hagel as his Secretary of Defense. Are we really supposed to think he was the most qualified? I'm pretty sure his lack of qualifications led to him doing a poor job at Defense and to his eventual ouster.
From Hage's wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Hagel He also served as a Chairman and was CEO of American Information Systems Inc. (AIS), later known as Election Systems & Software, a computerized voting machine manufacturer jointly owned by McCarthy Group, LLC and the Omaha World-Herald company.[27][29] On March 15, 1995, Hagel resigned from the board of AIS as he intended to run for office.[30] Michael McCarthy, the parent company's founder, was Hagel's campaign treasurer.[31] Until at least 2003, he retained between $1 million and $5 million in stock in Election Systems & Software's parent company, the McCarthy Group.[32]
My belief is the establishment of both parties uses the proprietary unaccountable electronic voting systems as a defense against candidates who aren't "with the program", much the same way the Democratic Party uses super-delegates in their primary. If voting changed anything, it would be illegal. Time to change that, if we have enough numbers and resolve to address this issue, the people's vote must be what determines who runs this nation. |
Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #134)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 02:40 PM
questionseverything (6,825 posts)
144. hand counted ballots at the precinct while being live streamed would be transparent
![]() |
Response to questionseverything (Reply #144)
Mon Apr 25, 2016, 04:19 PM
dreamnightwind (4,775 posts)
147. Yes
![]() ![]() ![]() |
Response to dreamnightwind (Reply #147)
Sun Sep 25, 2016, 10:36 PM
clarkkentvotes (23 posts)
149. if that is what it takes - make it so
if that is what it takes - make it so
|