2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumCNN Exit Poll: Mass: Sanders 52-46 Finally Clinton 50-49 = Election fraud
Bill Clinton was noticeably in Massachusetts, interfering with polling locations.
Exit polls are only 'wrong' when there is election fraud.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)I'm not saying that there was outright fraud tho
InAbLuEsTaTe
(25,518 posts)
randr
(12,648 posts)the 2000 election where Republican poll watchers started raising hell over polling procedures and process was shut down mid vote.
Then they threw the baby out with the bath water causing speculation of exit poll results which allowed the possibility of voter fraud and/or voting machine manipulation to take place right under our noses.
There once was a national organization who performed the polls and now we only get the network results.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)were favoring Bernie that 'exit polls don't count, the are notoriously wrong'. So which is it, they are right when they FAVOR your candidate and WRONG when they don't?
I'm so confused.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Just as with all polls
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)it makes no sense.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I was here on DU btw, when exit polling was thoroughly debunked because it was discovered that the major polling orgs were deliberating manipulating them in favor of Bush/Cheney. A lot of research was done at the time and since then, people who were there at the time and saw how some of those polls were being manipulated, how corrupted our election system had become pay little attention anymore to Establishment Pollsters.
But maybe you were not around at that time.
jsmirman
(4,507 posts)you seem to have this precisely backwards in this thread.
merrily
(45,251 posts)
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)otherwise, we'll just assume it's the latest narrative you're pushing.
also, thank you for all your posts roundly criticizing Vladimir Putin. you really tore him a new one.
alfredo
(60,301 posts)Exit polls do count, but shouldn't be seen as the gospel
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ten-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit/
Keep focused on the race ahead, don't let real or perceived slights derail you.
I think Change.org did a disservice to Sanders supporters when they when ballistic over the Clinton visit before there was a legal opinion.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/02/more-than-45k-sign-petition-to-arrest-bill-clinton.html
How much time has been spent on this issue when the focus should be on Bernie's campaign?
Focus
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)learn about Bernie. Friends in NC, in Ca, and Arizona, NY NJ and elsewhere are learning about him from just me one person and I have not yet heard one of them say 'he can't win' once they listen to him. Tens of thousands of other supporters are doing the same thing.
The despicable Corporate Media is desperately trying undermine his campaign with innuendo and lies, and pushing Hillary on the Dem side, and we know that some of them are actually working for her campiagn without disclosing this.
So yes, it is and has been an uphill battle for him to overcome the huge forces that are aligned against him and yet, he is overcoming them to the point of being a real challenge not just to Hillary, but to the Repubs who he beats in every poll.
However, election fraud IS a huge issue that must be addressed and if this campaign puts some focus on that issue, I thought we Dems all agreed on this btw, that will be another plus for Bernie
He has not yet conceded Iowa eg, due to the demand for Raw Data as a result of the many reports of shady business in that state.
And his attorneys have released their phone contact number so that the public can report any irregularities they witness during this election.
So I do think he IS going to, FINALLY, dems don't seem interested, place a lot of focus on Election Fraud, voter suppressiion, such as Bill's Bullhorn campaigning inside AND outside two polling stations and try to clean up our disgraceful election policies.
Meantime as a supporter I could not be more thrilled with where we are this point.
alfredo
(60,301 posts)Take your cues from the leaders of the campaign, not an outside org that is not affiliated with the campaign. Message discipline is important. If there was no crime, and no marching orders from his campaign, let it slide.
Others will say or do things that will knock you off your game, intentional or not. Don't be influenced by other's agenda.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)on important issues? Bernie's ATTORNEYS have released their phone number so that CITIZENS can report all irregularities they observe during this election.
Bernie doesn't knee jerk react, he relies on EVIDENCE before eg, calling an oponent a 'racist' or a 'sexist'.
The release of the contact number is to get the necessary information before jumping the gun and making claims WITHOUT evidence.
So we as citizens now have a way to report irregularities, such as Bill Clinton's clear violations of election law. And many CITIZENS are now producing videos and eye witness reports on just how disruptive to VOTERS Clinton's behavior was.
I have seen so far, video of Clinton INSIDE voting locations while crowds of voters were being prevented from voting held back at the doors while Clinton campaigned for his wife INSIDE where voters were supposed to be voting.
This is the kind of evidence that will be needed before the Sanders campaign starts any request for an investigation and we the people, especially Democrats for whom election fraud has ALWAYS been such a big issue, will be helping to gather that information.
I don't 'follow leaders'. I don't consider Politicians to be MY leaders. They work for US. It's a bit disturbing frankly to see this kind of devotion to people who work for US not the other way around.
And if Bernie's wife ever goes to a voting station with a Bullhorn and prevents voters from exercising their right to vote for over two hours, I will be the first to condemn that.
I actually CARE that our elections are protected from this kind of disruption and violation of the law.
alfredo
(60,301 posts)Message discipline is not surrendering to an authority figure, it is about maintaining an efficient campaign.
McCain got whupped in part due to Sarah not sticking to the script, she went rogue. Message discipline broke down.
When a corp is pushing "Tastes great, less filling", you don't want someone on your team saying "It's bland and will bloat you like a dead skunk belly up on a hot summer day."
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)want,, they want to CONTROL 'the message'.
I'm fine with Bernie's message so no 'discipline' required thankfully. I don't need a 'script' telling me what I must 'agree with'. I AGREE WITH HIS MESSAGE, again no 'script' or 'dsicipline' required.
I am not following any 'message discipline' or 'script' when it comes to stating my opinions on major issues like VOTER FRAUD. That is the DUTY of citizens, clearly one those who would like to 'control the message' would like to suppress.
Whatever happened to the 'Left', who not so long ago viewed Election Fraud in all its forms a real threat to this democracy?
When did WE need to be 'disciplined' (ugh the very word sends chills through me) by unknown entities with an agenda or accept THEIR 'script' wrt to what we are ALLOWED to talk about?
I see now why we are encountering so much anger from elements in our party.
The have a 'script' and a 'message' they want to force on voters and voters are not following their directives? Yes, that does explain it.
Well too bad, no citizen can be forced to follow any script created by authoritarians who have their own vested interest in silencing voters.
Bernie has issued no 'script' to his supporters that I am aware of nor have I noticed his campaign requesting any 'message discipline' thankfully.
alfredo
(60,301 posts)You still have freedom to think, act, or speak as you wish, but your candidate has a message that he/she wants spread by his supporters. You've probably heard someone say something about being on the same page.
I'm an old salesman and I see the same techniques used in political campaigns. You never give out too much, opting for a clear, simple message.
Has Bernie complained about Bill committing election fraud? Do you think he would hold his tongue if there was fraud? Do you think the Republican poll workers let Clinton break election laws without saying a word?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I don't DO 'talking points' nor does any other ordinary voter I now. They come from expensive Think Tanks are generally intended to manipulate elections.
I speak like a person, who isn't programmed with someone else's 'script' and so does MY candidate. He speaks the way I want a candidate to speak ON THE ISSUES so no 'script' is required for him or for his supporters because what he and we talk about comes from dedication to what is right for the people.
Of course politicians need 'talking points', they flip flop so often on issues being insincere as to where they stand, they need to be controlled so they don't say they wrong thing in a campaign.
Honest people don't need that. Shameful really that most of our politicians and their operatives are reading from expensive scripts and memos. Not one of them speaks from the heart.
alfredo
(60,301 posts)Talking points are not evil, they help promote the candidate. You are not compelled to use them, they are just helpful tools to convey the message.
"Don't Think of an Elephant", of George Lakoff is a useful tool.
I have some photos to edit. See ya later.
roguevalley
(40,656 posts)
I cannot for the life of me find one good reason to support either of them.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)is called "electioneering," and is not permitted. He should be in jail.
alfredo
(60,301 posts)If you are a popular ex president, would you expect to be ignored by the public? Both Republican and Democrats were present as poll workers and voters.
I'm a precinct judge.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)swaying undecided voters by his mere presence. This is not his election district, therefore he should not be there.
I have NEVER seen a person running for office, or his/her spouse outside/inside a polling place, schmoozing it up like Billy Ray Joe Bob Clinton has just done. Officials must have been paid off.
alfredo
(60,301 posts)The precinct sheriff would order him to quit, if he doesn't he is escorted out the door, and an incident report would be filed.
BTW, there is a margin of error in exit polls. It is skewed by who is willing to talk , the veracity of the respondent, location of the precinct, and who the canvasser chooses. I've worked the polls at least thirteen years. I have never seen a politician electioneer at our precinct, or ever heard of it at any of the 290 precincts in our county.
It appears he was in a common area, surrounded by a lot of people. I'm sure he is not stupid enough to knowingly break election laws out in the open with media all around.
Put your energy toward working for your candidate, such issues wastes your time and saps your energy. Let the county clerk handle this. If he or she feels a law has been broken, we'd hear from the office.
Focus on helping Bernie, don't be sidelined by real or imagined offenses. Bernie and Hillary split the delegates in Mass, so a close loss isn't as bad as it will be down the road. He's got to win big in the winner takes all states.
Refocus and hit the ground running.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)was slipped a Benjamin!
alfredo
(60,301 posts)Both parties are present in the precinct.
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)Clinton could afford to slip every officer there a Benjamin, and it would be no skin off of his back!
alfredo
(60,301 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)behind the cameras, if there were any, or he would have advance folks take care of it.
Don't you know how the payola game works?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)except for Bernie. How is this lashing out at everyone working out for you guys?
RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)I have never been on the take. I was made offers, but I turned them down. Years ago.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)alfredo
(60,301 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)seems tied into hatred. I guess it is a great motivator for some.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)Oh, yea,. Some local dufus is about to tell a former president to move on.
Right..
Sure... absolutely.
Yup!!
alfredo
(60,301 posts)So would I, just a retired musician.
alfredo
(60,301 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)RoccoR5955
(12,471 posts)it is for electioneering!
alfredo
(60,301 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)His face is an election ad.
alfredo
(60,301 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)polling area. If he got closer than that, in my opinion, he violated the law.
150 feet is about the length of three of the lots that borders on the street in my neighborhood.
About three lots long. Each lot in my neighborhood measures about 50 feet at the font that is parallel to the street.
alfredo
(60,301 posts)He shook hands with the poll workers as can be seen in the photos and probably thanked them for their service.
Working the polls is a civic duty, but it is also a social event. Meeting an ex president is just another perk to the job.
Clinton couldn't affect any change in the outcome with a short visit to a precinct.
BTW, primaries are boring for the workers. They might go a half hour without a voter. One primary only produced 78 voters at our precinct. Most came at opening, lunch, and closing.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Create a tempest in a teapot that, in the press, looks and sounds a lot like a more serious shenanigan they are pulling behind the scenes - such as stealing 20K+ votes.
alfredo
(60,301 posts)She also has a shit load of pledged super delegates. As much as I like Bernie, I realize that it has always been an uphill battle.
BTW, by the time our primary comes around, the race us usually decided. Because of that, I don't get involved in primary politics.
Unifying the party after the primaries is so important. The words and actions of the losing candidate is so important for party unity. If your candidate loses, he or she will endorse the winner and pledge support. Us in the trenches have to swallow our pride, and unify behind the candidate of our party.
I supported Hillary, but then seeing the skill of Obama and his campaign, I switched to him. He's the most skilled candidate of my lifetime. Too conservative for me, but I didn't want another Republican in the Oval Office.
If we can win this election, the demographics will shift even further in our direction. Time is on our side, we just need to do what is necessary to win. We have to rally behind our candidate.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)alfredo
(60,301 posts)You may not like the pace of change, but it is important to keep the pressure on and not give in to anger and frustration.
Americans don't like change, so any change has to be done with care.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)In a democracy justice is established with my vote.
I'm not wasting it.
alfredo
(60,301 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)He deprived the country of a leader we vitally needed who was seeking to bring about the same kind of change that Bernie is leading us toward today. The intervening 50 years have not been a win by any measure that works in reality.
The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s economic message was fiery and radical. To our society’s great shame, it has also proved timeless.
As we celebrate King’s great achievement and sacrifice, it is wrong to round off the sharp edges of his legacy. He saw inequality as a fundamental and tragic flaw in this society, and he made clear in the weeks leading up to his assassination that economic issues were becoming the central focus of his advocacy.
Nearly five decades later, King’s words on the subject still ring true. On March 10, 1968, just weeks before his death, he spoke to a union group in New York about what he called “the other America.” He was preparing to launch a Poor People’s Campaign whose premise was that issues of jobs and issues of justice were inextricably intertwined.
“One America is flowing with the milk of prosperity and the honey of equality,” King said. “That America is the habitat of millions of people who have food and material necessities for their bodies, culture and education for their minds, freedom and human dignity for their spirits. . . . But as we assemble here tonight, I’m sure that each of us is painfully aware of the fact that there is another America, and that other America has a daily ugliness about it that transforms the buoyancy of hope into the fatigue of despair.”
Those who lived in the other America, King said, were plagued by “inadequate, substandard and often dilapidated housing conditions,” by “substandard, inferior, quality-less schools,” by having to choose between unemployment and low-wage jobs that didn’t even pay enough to put food on the table....
Perhaps you'd enjoy familiarizing yourself more closely with Dr. King's opinions and analysis. Here is one place to start.
The SCLC calls for an economic and social bill of rights to demand the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for African Americans. It would include the right of every employable citizen to a decent job, the right of every citizen to a minimum income, the right to a decent house in a neighborhood of choice, the right to an adequate education, the right to health care, and the right to full participation in decision-making.
http://www.thekingcenter.org/archive/document/economic-and-social-bill-rights
How have Bill and Hillary been doing on delivering the world Dr. King sought?
alfredo
(60,301 posts)He became a martyr, and his death refocused his human rights efforts. The civil rights movement didn't die with him.
Any revolution has a churning at the top. One gets killed, someone else steps up. It was a horrible loss, but his dream hasn't died.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Leaders matter. Pablum doesn't.
alfredo
(60,301 posts)incremental change is happening. It is frustratingly slow.
MLK's work is still going on. I see it in my town.
It is easier to change laws than hearts. That's why I said it takes generations.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Look, we obviously have nothing in common on this topic. In my view you are satisfied with the status quo and your views amount to token support for actually realizing the dream of a more equal society.
We're done.
Democracy in an age of anxiety
The Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index provides a snapshot of the state of democracy worldwide for 165 independent states and two territories—this covers almost the entire population of the world and the vast majority of the world’s states (micro-states are excluded). The Democracy Index is based on five categories: electoral process and pluralism; civil liberties; the functioning of government; political participation; and political culture. Based on their scores on a range of indicators within these categories, each country is then itself categorised as one of four types of regime: “full democracies”; “flawed democracies”; “hybrid regimes”; and “authoritarian regimes”.
This is the eighth edition of the Democracy Index. It reflects the situation in 2015, a year in which democracy was tested in the face of war, terrorism, mass migration and other crises, and, in some cases, suffered serious setbacks. The title of this year’s report reflects the threat to democracy emanating from the fearful mood of our times, which informs the reactions of ordinary people and political elites alike. An increased sense of personal and societal anxiety and insecurity in the face of diverse perceived risks and threats—economic, political, social and security—is undermining democracy, which depends on a steadfast commitment to upholding enlightenment values (liberty, equality, fraternity, reason, tolerance and free expression) and fostering democratic institutions and a democratic political culture.
In many democracies, political elites worry about their inability to relate to the electorate and fear the challenge that populist parties pose. In some cases, established parties have colluded to exclude or marginalise the populists. In the face of terrorist threats, democratic governments have reacted in anti-democratic ways, calling into question freedom of speech or adopting draconian laws. In non-democratic countries, authoritarian political elites fear the threat from the masses and seek to bolster their rule by imprisoning opponents, restricting the media, limiting popular freedoms and repressing protest. Meanwhile, electorates are ever more anxious—about economic insecurity, about their personal safety, about the consequences of immigration, about the threat of terrorism—and angry that their concerns are not being represented by the established parties. This mood of fear and insecurity represents one of the main threats to democracy today.
Almost one-half of the world’s countries can be considered to be democracies, but, in our index, the number of “full democracies” is low, at only 20 countries; 59 countries are rated as "flawed democracies”. Of the remaining 88 countries in our index, 51 are “authoritarian” and 37 are considered to be “hybrid regimes”. As could be expected, the developed OECD countries dominate among “full democracies”; there are two Asian countries, one Latin American country (Uruguay) and one African country (Mauritius), which suggests that level of development is not a binding constraint, but is a constraint, nevertheless. Slightly less than one-half (48.4%) of the world’s population lives in a democracy of some sort, although only 8.9% reside in “full democracies”. Around 2.6bn people, more than one-third of the world’s population, still live under authoritarian rule (with a large share being, of course, in China).
“Flawed democracies” are concentrated in Latin America, eastern Europe and Asia...
http://64.37.52.189/~parsifal/EIU2015.pdf
They rank the US 20th out of 20 in their set of "full democracy" nations.
Laser102
(816 posts)alfredo
(60,301 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)alfredo
(60,301 posts)That protected him, and it isolated him from the voters. How long did he stay, one minute, thirty seconds, or forty minutes? If there were long lines of voters held up, you'd have a point. In my decade plus experience as a poll worker, long lines don't happen during primaries.
Stick to helping Bernie, don't get hung up on such matters. Politics is a blood-sport. If you let your emotions get out of hand you lose focus. You need to refocus your efforts toward winning the winner take all states. That's where Hillary can be stopped.
My neighbors and I used to box in a homemade boxing ring. One kid had it out for me. He held his own until I made him mad. All defense was jettisoned, and he would windmill, flailing around exposing his body and head. I wasn't a good boxer, but I was good at the mind games.
Stay focused on winning states.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Do you think he would put himself in legal jeopardy and hurt Hillary's campaign for so little gain? He's not that stupid, or corrupt.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/02/more-than-45k-sign-petition-to-arrest-bill-clinton.html
More than 45,000 people have signed a petition calling for the arrest and prosecution of former President Bill Clinton for what they alleged were violations of Massachusetts election laws — even though state officials have said he acted legally.
More than 45,000 people have signed a petition calling for the arrest and prosecution of former President Bill Clinton for what they alleged were violations of Massachusetts election laws — even though state officials have said he acted legally.
Leading up to his wife's victory over U.S. Sen Bernie Sanders of Vermont in the Massachusetts primary on Tuesday, the former president went inside a polling station in Boston, according to multiple reports. Hillary Clinton, a former secretary of state and senator, won by about 17,000 votes, according to NBC News.
He also entered a polling station in Newton and attended an event outside of a polling location in New Bedford, according to the Globe.
In lieu of commenting on the criticism, a spokesman for Bill Clinton directed CNBC to a report from Boston's WCVB, citing a spokesman for Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin. That report said Clinton's actions were legal because no one was prevented from voting, and he never handed out any materials supporting his wife while inside the legal boundaries of a polling location.
Put your energy and focus campaigning for Bernie. Don't get sidetracked.
Change.org should have waited for the legal opinion before inflaming Bernie's follower.
Every minute you obsess over what turns out was not a violation of the law, is a minute stolen from Bernie's campaign. Refocus on winning the winner take all states. Elections are emotionally draining. Don't wear yourself out on something Change.org said that turns out not to be true.
https://www.google.com/search?q=bill+clinton+polling+place+new+bedford+boston&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
BTW, your comments on my obsessing and focusing are silly and transparent. Stop.
alfredo
(60,301 posts)The article posted in no way pointed to him committing a crime. It might have been posted before the SOS cleared him. BTW, he has the right to enter the polling place to shake hands with the workers and praise them for their work.
There is no evidence his presence influenced any voters. We didn't call the sheriff for every violation of the rules, we remind the person their actions are against the rules. Only if they persist do we move.
If Bernie didn't raise a stink, neither should his followers. Message discipline is so important. If he wanted you to make an issue of this, you would have gotten talking points from his campaign, not Change.org
merrily
(45,251 posts)
NYC Liberal
(20,453 posts)Here is the statute: http://www.mass.gov/courts/docs/lawlib/900-999cmr/950cmr53.pdf
(d) Activities at Polling Place. Within 150 feet of a polling place as defined in 950 CMR 53.03(18)(c), no person shall solicit votes for or against, or otherwise promote or oppose, any person or political party or position on a ballot question, to be voted on at the current election.
There is no penalty for "electioneering" (nevermind that's not what was happening). Not jail, not even a fine. The most that would happen is that the person would be told to move along.
It's funny how revolutions almost always involve calls for jailing opponents. The Sanders "Revolution" seems to be no exception.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)delegates to the Sander Campaign and very stiff fine donated to a local food bank????
NYC Liberal
(20,453 posts)Let's see:
- No laws were broken.
- The relevant law, even if violated, provides no penalties.
But we should go ahead and disenfranchise an entire state anyway on the basis of a minor occurrence at a single polling station.
How about: fucking no.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)please.............
JudyM
(29,785 posts)I bet she wouldn't pledge it. And I bet she has more shenanigans up her sleeve.
I hope she is brought to heel for this in the next debate.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)He visited 4 precincts that polled high for Bernie, and he shut down their ability to vote for two hours at each appearance. That is the epitome of voting fraud. We will never know how many people didn't have two hours to kill so Bill could rally for Hillary behind roped off precincts that were unobtainable to the voters. How many people didn't get to vote?
For example:
arcane1
(38,613 posts)
alfredo
(60,301 posts)Fox news inflames people over non issues, and now that the Sec of State gave the opinion, it is a non issue.
Refocus on the task at hand: winning the winner take all states.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)alfredo
(60,301 posts)Change.org really did Bernie a disservice for not fact checking and waiting for a legal opinion. Now people are running around with their hair on fire.
Refocus on the task at hand.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Exit polls are often wrong.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Built by private corporations...
SCantiGOP
(14,719 posts)And I will scream and stomp my feet until you agree.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Hillary was still only ahead by 22,000 votes.
So from 0 to 20% Hillary jumped ahead by 22,000 votes. Then for the next 1 million votes they were split almost perfectly 50/50.
A step function, followed by a long ass flat line.
It seems very odd to me.
Colorado, on the other, had Bernie ahead by 6000 votes, then 7000, 8000, 9000, etc.. Essentially a straight line ramp all the way to his 20,000 vote lead at 100%.
questionseverything
(11,836 posts)Registered Voters 382946 - Cards Cast 147692 38.57% Num. Report Precinct 255 - Num. Reporting 255 100.00%
PRESIDENTIAL PREFERENCE DEM
Total
Number of Precincts 255
Precincts Reporting 255 100.0%
Vote For 1
Total Votes 124441
Number of Uncast Votes 453
HILLARY CLINTON 71422 57.39%
BERNIE SANDERS 51524 41.40%
NO PREF 580 0.47%
MARTIN O'MALLEY 519 0.42%
ROQUE DE LA FUENTE 129 0.10%
Write-in Votes 267 0.21%
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
according to this city of boston had 23,251 undervote....people who went to vote yesterday in the presidential primary and did not vote for a candidate
the state doesn't have anything up yet that i can find
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)questionseverything
(11,836 posts)=unvote
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)I was just channeling your user name!
Now, this is becoming very interesting. Thanks for the info you provided.
questionseverything
(11,836 posts)Correction: March 1, 2016
Because of a reporting error by The Associated Press, an earlier version of this page showed the incorrect winner for the Democratic primary in Massachusetts. The winner was Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders.
Source: Election results from The Associated Press
By Wilson Andrews, Matthew Bloch, Jeremy Bowers and Tom Giratikanon
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/massachusetts
questionseverything
(11,836 posts)thought you might wanna see this
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280132764
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)...including the link you provided. ( I had to leave the TV connected to the typewriter for most of the afternoon).
But I thought more about your post on the undervote in Boston. 20k +votes were
probably Sanders votes and that would have allowed Sanders to win Mass.
There is no way that there were 20K+ undervotes unless it was compromised.
I hope somebody questions Boston's vote...
sorechasm
(631 posts)Thank you questionseverything for living up to your tag.
Please keep us posted.
ISUGRADIA
(2,571 posts)Scroll down and see the numbers for them, that's part of the 147,692
questionseverything
(11,836 posts)does not change the fact that optical scanners can be rigged
http://www.sweetremedy.tv/fatallyflawed/media/RTA_Fraud_Flyer_3_7_12.pdf
^^^^
best documented election fraud
SCantiGOP
(14,719 posts)I have seen races where one candidate led almost 2 to 1 with close to half the vote in, only to lose once all the votes are in. This is because there is often a significant difference in the votes for the fast counted (usually urban boxes) as opposed to the rural precincts. That does not necessarily indicate any type of fraud.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)If they're done right, the final count should conform.
iandhr
(6,852 posts)TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)A recount would be nice since the 'results' are 50-49. That
should automatically trigger a recount (as is done in other states).
iandhr
(6,852 posts)If they thought there were some shenanigans they would request the recount. They are apparently convinced of the accuracy of the results. I'll take their word for the word of people complaining on the Internet
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Voting machines, like other machines, are normally built by "private corporations." Unless you'd rather they be built by the government, or by a couple of guys in a garage.
PyaarRevolution
(814 posts)I don't care if it's Bernie OR Hillary who wins in that regards. We know those machines are easily hacked so how do we know the Hillary campaign or Republicans wouldn't do it for a Hillary win or the Republicans do it for a Bernie win.
Now if a Caucus says Hillary or Bernie won I have a lot less doubt. All of us should demand those machines be scrapped, period. Ireland couldn't even SELL their electronic voting machines when they realized they were unreliable. They had to sell them for scrap.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)As in recounts of well recorded votes with tallies that are verifiable?
Or are you going by the disparities that have emerged so often when questionable voting technologies have been used?
As far as I know voting monitors around the world still consider the exit poll to be the most reliable way to uncover election fraud.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)But here is a good paper on the difficulties with exit polling, and efforts to improve it.
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/publications/papers/discussion_papers/d42_sproul.pdf
The idea that the failures in exit polling is due to election fraud is appealing to those on the short end of the stick, but remember that the failures do not seem to follow a specific pattern. They affect the same candidate positively and negatively in the same election, and often in the same state!
And remember that exit polling generally produces a lower quality sample than any other kind of polling, save a self-select "poll" (which is not actually a poll).
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Historically, exit polls have also provided deep and reliable analysis of election results. Academics depend on the data to understand the changing American electorate. Political stakeholders use the data as they develop strategies and policies, attempting to understand public opinion. Exit polls help journalists frame the meaning of election results as early as the night of the election.
While winning and losing campaigns offer their preferred explanation of the cause of their victory or defeat, journalists use exit poll analysis to explain who voted for whom and why. In this way, the “election mandate” discussion begins not with self-serving politicians, but with non-partisan analysts characterizing results based on the large data sample provided by exit polls. The value of the timeliness of the exit poll information, particularly in the speeded-up news cycle, cannot be under-estimated. Americans form opinions about the “why” of a given election very quickly, and these first impressions are apt to last a long time.
5
There are other studies done of issues of importance to voters, but it is the size of the sample, the timeliness factor, and the fact that those interviewed just finished voting that makes exit poll data so highly valued. Plus, the exit polls present data gathered in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, every national Election Day, providing highly specific regional breakdowns of voting trends over time.
The 2000 Election
Things started going badly for exit polling in the 2000 election. In such a close presidential race, with Florida being a decisive state, VNS made a bad call. Even before all the polls had closed in the state, VNS called Florida for Al Gore at 7:52 p.m. The networks and the AP made the same call, all at about the same time. Some two hours later, the call was withdrawn. At approximately 2:00 a.m., the networks (but not VNS and AP) called Florida for George Bush, and that call was withdrawn within another two hours. The election was simply too close to call.
I've read the paper and my conclusion is that in 2000 there began a systematic effort to discredit - with no basis in historical precedent - the results of exit polling. My interpretation is linked in large part to 3 factors: 1) the demographic shift which is steadily decreasing the established base of electoral power supporting the economic elite; and 2) increased media consolidation and corporate control of the "news" function within broadcast media; and 3) the adoption of unverifiable methods of electronic voting and the reluctance of both parties to address that gaping hole in voting security.
I don't believe you've proven your point.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Exit polls have some inherent difficulties. This paper talks about them. But that doesn't mean they are useless. I mean, we don't see cases (at least in the U.S.) where the exit polls are off by 10%+. What we see is errors in the range or 4-5%. That's a reasonable MOE, but it CAN lead to cases where relatively narrow victory turns into a relatively narrow defeat, as happened in MA.
I mean EVERY poll has an MOE associated with it. Surely you'd agree with that?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)alfredo
(60,301 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)Last edited Wed Mar 2, 2016, 04:33 PM - Edit history (1)
Leads to this paper:"The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy," by Steven Freeman
Conclusion:
Summary and Implications
In this paper, I have tried to demonstrate that:
• exit poll data are fundamentally sound,
• the deviations between exit poll predictions and vote tallies in the three critical battleground states could not have occurred strictly by chance or random error, and that
• no explanations of the discrepancy have yet been provided.
The unexplained discrepancy leaves us with two broad categories of hypotheses: the exit poll data are wrong or misleading in ways that have not yet been adequately explained, or the count is wrong. It’s important that we review exit poll data and methodology and soon while the evidence is fresh, but such analyses require NEP’s raw data.31 Particularly useful statistical analyses would compare the “shift” in states, counties and precincts where safeguards are strong vs. those where they are suspect. Even more important, however, are investigation into the multitude of allegations and concerns about the count itself.
Mass media lack of interest in these concerns has been truly mystifying.32 I sat down to write this paper on November 7, after waiting five days for the press to offer an even plausible explanation. On November 10th, I circulated to colleagues a very early draft with big bold letters on every page, saying
Despite the warning, it was circulated all over, and I released a paper with the qualifier that it was a VERY early draft, and to let me know if it is posted or cited. (My thinking was that I would at least then know where to send revisions). For the past 10 days I’ve been receiving email from all across the country – 1500 emails and counting – most of them extending thanks for documenting this discrepancy, drawing the conclusions, and asking the (obvious) questions that the media and everyone else with a public voice had been ignoring. But many have been allegations of mistabulation and worse. Three precinct workers from the Appalachian section of Ohio, for example, wrote:
360 people signed the book and 33 absentee ballots were cast for a total of 393 votes The Board of Election is reporting 489 votes cast in that one precinct
WE HAVE A COPY OF THE ENTIRE POLL BOOK for this precinct.
(other totals were hand checked)
They went to the FBI, who referred them to the Secretary of State’s office, despite the fact that the precinct workers believe that the Secretary of State’s office is culpable. (Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell served as the state's Bush-Cheney campaign chairman this year.33)
My purpose in this paper, however, has not been to allege that Bush did not legitimately win the election, let alone explain how it could have happened. I’m frankly suspicious of these charges (what ever happened to those 20,000 Democratic lawyers?), but I would investigate it if I could. Unfortunately, I cannot even look at but a small fractions of the emails I’ve received (sorry to those who have written), and have had to get a new email account so that my students can reach me. The question is why isn’t the media asking questions? Because no one has provided solid explanations to the public, and no one seems to be investigating, suspicion of mistabulation, fraud, and even election theft is running rampant and unchecked.
Widespread assumption of misplay undermines not only the legitimacy of the President, but faith in the foundations of the democracy. That the President did not legitimately win the election is a very premature conclusion, but the election’s unexplained exit poll discrepancies make it an unavoidable hypothesis. In this paper, I have tried to make the case that the media, academia, polling agencies, and law enforcement agencies should investigate it with a much greater sense of urgency and responsibility than they have thus far shown.
28 It’s ironic that the same news organizations that have unquestioningly accepted that the exit polls “screwed up” in predictions on the Presidential election, have nevertheless drawn from those same exit polls such far reaching conclusions about moral values, the Democratic party’s disconnect with the Heartland, etc ...
29 I’m sure I’m hopelessly behind in keeping up with these, but I happened to see these three: “Glitch gave Bush extra votes in Ohio” cnn.com 11/05/04. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/05/voting.problems.ap/ . There were
segments on Indiana and North Carolina errors on MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann Countdown program:
http://home.comcast.net/~karl.kaufman/countdown_on_voting_irregs_Nov12.wmv
30 Erica Solvig, “Warren's [Warren County, Ohio] vote tally walled off” Cincinnati Enquirer Friday, November 5, 2004 v00m
31 I contacted Warren Mitofsky, asking for access to NEP raw exit poll data; he seemed sympathetic to my request and said he would take it up with the NEP members; more recently, however, Joe Lenski wrote, “All of the exit poll data will be archived at the Roper Center at the University of Connecticut some time in early 2005. You will be able to access of the exit poll data at that point.”
32 Lack of interest has been interrupted only by belittling dismissal: Manuel Roig-Franzia and Dan Keating, “Latest Conspiracy Theory -- Kerry Won -- Hits the Ether” Washington Post, November 11, 2004 and Tom Zeller, Jr. "Vote Fraud Theories, Spread by Blogs, Are Quickly Buried" New York Times November 12, 2004 (Front page)
http://www.yuricareport.com/ElectionAftermath04/StevenFreemanUnexplainedExitPoll_v00m.pdf
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)between the number of ballots cast and the number counted?
Is one of those numbers a typo?
Or were over 23,000 votes not counted?
Or what is the explanation?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)I'm intrigued by the findings and tried to find the directions for filling out that template, or even just definitions of the categories, but no luck.
I'm not letting it go.
zappaman
(20,627 posts)
FSogol
(47,623 posts) kristopher
(29,798 posts)What universe to you live in?
FSogol
(47,623 posts) TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)You are asserting that any disagreement between exit polling and the reported results indicate election fraud.
Based on what, exactly?
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)...by using exit polls...
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Show me the numbers. Exit polls have an margin of error associated with them. I mean, in this case, the exit polls were off by about 4% points. That is comfortable within the typical margin of error for an exit poll, which is usually in the +/- 5% range.
The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy
Steven F. Freeman, PhD
http://www.yuricareport.com/ElectionAftermath04/StevenFreemanUnexplainedExitPoll_v00m.pdf
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)The author's argument basically boils down to him not buying the statistical inaccuracies as an explanation since there are examples are very accurate exit polls, but, well, DUH. Not all polls are created equal. Some pollsters are better than others. In the case of exit polling, the success of an exit poll depends on a ton of things, like polling the correct sites (few pollsters poll every polling location), being able to poll consistently throughout the day (if not done, quiet times are over-sampled, and busy time under-sampled).... stuff like that. The author gives examples of sub 1% accuracies, but surely he is aware that these are unusual, and not reflective of typical performance. MOEs in the region of 4-5% are common. and even then, those MOEs are only with about a 90% confidence (meaning that 10% of the time, the error will be greater than the MOE).
Anytime you sample a population, there is chance to get it wrong. it's just that simple.
It would be interesting to see examples of races where exit polls were conducted by different pollsters, but I haven't been able to find an example of this. My guess is that you would see differences, and that the if you aggregated them, average accuracy would generally go up.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)You are engaging in an overt exercise in rationalization designed to eliminate cognitive dissonance. If you admit that the election results have been tampered with (where are those 20K votes in Boston?) then the commitment you've made is challenged.
The reason you can't find evidence is that since 2000 the power structure outline in Justice Powell's memo has been consolidating its position - including coopting the sources we've traditionally relied upon to keep things honest.
In public policy studies one of the early things you learn are samples of the methods businesses doing this. For example, while this isn't topical, it does go to demonstrate the method, motive and opportunity that underpin efforts to subvert all aspects of the system. Let's say you are an environmentalist trying to do something about illegal and destructive logging of hardwoods in developing countries. You work for years and finally get a quasi-governmental agency set up that validates sourcing of hardwoods destined for US markets. The voluntary certification is a selling point that catches the attention of builders and he effort is very successful: illegal logging declines dramatically and the consequent environmental damage in critical habitats seems on it's way to being a thing of the past.
Three years on, a new certification agency appears making the same claims and providing marketers of hardwoods with a very similar-looking seal to market with their product. However, these claims of sustainable harvesting are based not on actual investigation of logging practices at the source of the lumber, but on affidavits provided by the importers stating that best practices are being used.
How do you know what to buy?
If you think money doesn't seek - by any means necessary and possible - to preserve itself, you are IMO blissfully naive. I don't mean that in a harsh way either. My life before studying policy was far less complicated than it is today and I often wonder if the knowledge is worth the worry.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Some polls are inaccurate We know this. For example, one poll right before the Super Tuesday put Clinton up 9 points in OK. How'd that work out?
But now you are making an argument of motivation. Not even the paper you linked buys that.
You want to convince me? Show me evidence, not merely suspicion.
This is an amazing case of confirmation bias... I don't like the result.... FRAUD!!!!!
kristopher
(29,798 posts)It was only after the election theft in 2000 that they were cast into doubt. In fact, those exit polls correctly predicted the vote winner in that case and all the contemporaneous writings that claimed they were wrong were themselves proven false.
You are now changing the goalpost to accomplish the same kind of false reasoning they used back then - conflating exit polling (which has a 100% valid sample of voters) and random election polling about intentions. The two are night and day. The exit polls aren't automatically perfect and they require a professional to do them right, but as polling goes they are some of the most reliable in the world.
That is why the issue of motive and the manufactured change in perception on their validity after Bush V Gore is both relevant and important.
Have you ever heard of the Powell Memo?
I posted it in full here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511052587
Together with a readable look at it by Bill Moyers:
http://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to-arms-for-corporations/
And are you aware of how low we rank on evaluations like this?
Democracy Index 2015
Democracy in an age of anxiety
http://64.37.52.189/~parsifal/EIU2015.pdf
We are 20th out of 20 on the list of "Full Democracies" the next step down is "Flawed Democracies".
Perhaps the facts on the ground suggest that a little bit of paranoia might be healthy?
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Hardly a cause for all this angst.
This is ridiculous.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511394546#post109
This uncertainty is a fixture of our election system.
It isn't necessary but those responsible for the problems will not fix them.
Why?
AmBlue
(3,460 posts)They will not allow it because, I believe, TPTB like having a means of control. And one that conveniently gives them cover.
AmBlue
(3,460 posts)Candidates for statewide office may obtain recounts by filing a petition with the Secretary of the Commonwealth by 5:00 p.m. on the tenth day following the election. The petition may specify whether the candidate wants a hand recount. In statewide elections, a recount may be done only if the margin of victory is less than 0.5% percent.[1] There are no statutory requirements for payments by petitioners of the cost of recounts.
https://ballotpedia.org/Recount_laws_in_Massachusetts
kristopher
(29,798 posts)It could be a simple lack of understanding on our part.
AmBlue
(3,460 posts)If they recount the election, they haul the ballots out and do the recount by rescanning them through the machines or by doing a hand recount. I didn't see which type of recount Massachusetts does. If they do machine recounts, they should also audit the ballots because they would have to actually compare the ballots to the digital results. Common sense, right? Some states don't audit. Even in recounts. 
kristopher
(29,798 posts)It seems to say there are 20K+ missing votes. What do we know about the definitions of those entries? Every bureaucracy has a manual that defines forms like this and the individual line items, right? What does the City of Boston's manual say about these items. That is the first thing we need to know. I looked for almost 2 hours late last night, but couldn't find anything.
AmBlue
(3,460 posts)I've never heard of a law in ANY state that says you can't choose not to vote a race. Although it is highly unlikely that many people would choose not to vote a presidential primary race.
Does anyone know if the presidential primary race in Boston was the only thing on the ballot or were there other state or local races?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)FSogol
(47,623 posts)
Do you actually believe that an exit poll will always match actual results? Do you think a poll not equaling actual results is fraud?
* ∞
Sorry to laugh, but the next month is going to be really tough. Stay well.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)I've always voted on the same kind of machine here in Oklahoma since I was 22. They're the ones where you fill in the square and the scanner reads it when you put it in. I think it's called an optical scan machine.
FSogol
(47,623 posts)My Mom worked at the polls and I played with Major Matt Mason off in the corner.
randr
(12,648 posts)The organizations that conducted exit polls had been one of the most trusted of processes for many years. The problem occurred during the first Bush theft of office and has never been set straight.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)My birthday came too late for me to vote when I was 18.
I won't say I closely followed politics then, but I kept up. I got by bachelor's degree in History / Government in 1995, so I was, by necessity, following pretty closely then.
randr
(12,648 posts)Throughout the 60's, 70's, and 80's there was no question as to the accuracy of voting results. Prior to the use of computerized machines we knew the people who were doing the counting and all rules of voter etiquette were gracefully followed.
Things have changed.
Response to randr (Reply #88)
randr This message was self-deleted by its author.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Especially in a close race. False values an result from something as simple as the time of day a precinct is polled.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)They are often wrong.
Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)I can't find it
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)Here's CNNs MA exit polls, but I don't see the total numbers that the OP reports
www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/ma/Dem
liberal from boston
(856 posts)Last night I remember on DU reading CNN Breaking News that exit polls show Bernie winning Oklahoma & MA. About 30 minutes or so later Bernie won Oklahoma. Exit polls in Oklahoma were right but MA exit polls were wrong?????
demwing
(16,916 posts)Let's say people are not honest about how they voted, or that the sample polled was not random, or just not large enough, and therefore not truly reflective of the whole. Either possibility would return inaccurate results.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Exit polls are often very wrong at closing time and they are also adjusted throughout the night to reflect more of the vote. Crying fraud just makes you look ridiculous.
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)Open your naive eyes.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts) azurnoir
(45,850 posts)that Bernie is the candidate of White men 
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)There are legitimate reasons for this (correcting sampling error) and very possibly illegitimate reasons for this.
Raw exit poll totals are not the last word on anything, but it should be more widely disclosed and known that the exit poll results are adjusted to match the recorded vote when the election ends.
They assume election integrity and provide the exit polls for the purpose of things such as demographic analysis.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)You are trying to refute the claim that exit polls can help determine election fraud.
To do that, you admit that the exit polls often show discrepancies, but by "adjusting (them) throughout the night to reflect more of the vote" they are made to match the results.
How does that prove the exit polls were the part of the picture that was inaccurate? It's the kind of logic that is used to justify a police shooting by asking the officer involved whether they felt justified (threatened) in their action and then accepting that response as proof of the validity of the shooting.
It's called begging the question, I believe.
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Exit polls are used by the media to provide viewer with statistics and to call races if possible. The interviews conducted ask a serious of questions, including who the voter selected. Earlier exit interviews can show different information than later interviews, which is why exit polls change throughout the night. It's the same thing with regular polling of elections, which is done over more than one day to get more accurate results. Polls are based on more than one set of data in a time period.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)I'm afraid you are inaccurate in you underlying view of the validity of exit polls compared to pre-election polling, however.
Pre-election polling relies on people's intentions, not on actions that were just performed. As such, properly conducted exit polls (and it isn't that hard to do it properly for a professional) are virtually always going to be the best polling possible - bar none.
There are two possibilities to explain the data discrepancies we see on a regular basis since 2000 Bush V Gore raised the cry that exit polls are not a valid tool even though they have a track record of nearly 40 years of complete success and acceptance.
1) Suddenly everyone decided to lie to the pollsters.
2) There is an actual conspiracy to rig the election system and the best tool for revealing that effort needed to be eliminated as a confounding factor.
I vote for 2).
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1397799
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511396750
Your mileage may vary.
GusBob
(8,249 posts)That whole wonkette fiasco was a disaster.
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Evey time I think they can't sink any lower...
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Sanders & his team outdo them by mile.
It is disgusting, also.
I mean c'mon. When you knowingly grab another candidates voter data & profit from it ???
Low Low Low YUK!
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)And there is still the very real chance that actually the Clinton campaign did it too, with Debbie's blessing. Before she tried to shut the Sanders campaign out of their data at a critical time.
And now Bill Clinton is breaking election laws, aided and abetted by his 'above-the-law' status and a few friendly elite politicians in Massachusetts. Great.
Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #81)
Name removed Message auto-removed
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)They did it.
Plenty of disgusting stuff to go aroung. On all sides.
Enough of that.
liberal from boston
(856 posts)Really--why did DWS back down when Senators Sanders got a Federal Judge to hear the case that very day ???? Also Bernie was repeatedly asking for an independent thorough investigation (it had happened before) --Hillary agreed. Where are those results??? Senator Sanders is so gracious in defending Hillary in the debates regarding emails, Benghazi.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)..rather than the 24/7 Gowdy feeding frenzy.
He was demanding his spot in the press rather than Hillary's email dominance.
There was a reason why he shouted "enough"
Zen Democrat
(5,901 posts)There's no way my name and email should have been in Hillary's database. I've supported Barack Obama from the beginning in 2008 and Bernie Sanders since he announced last year. I suspect that during the DWS debacle that Hillary's team grabbed my info. This whole thing goes to the stinky feet of DWS, the Queen of Payday Lenders.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)What's your point again?
It all stinks up the place. And its all disgusting.
Later
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)I wrote back and told them I never wanted to hear from them again. Naturally, I heard from them again, this time thankfully with a link to opt out.
JudyM
(29,785 posts)
kstewart33
(6,552 posts)Clinton's winning margin was about 17,000 votes. I don't think Bill Clinton standing in front of a few polling places made the difference here.
Stop looking for a few needles in the haystack. Think forward - what does Bernie have to do to win? He's got Nebraska and Kansas coming up this weekend. He might take these states because they are caucuses which favor getting fewer people to the sites than in a primary election. Louisiana is also up Saturday but it's a primary with a sizeable minority population.
How can he expand his base? That's the key question here.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)The petulance of the Bernie supporters today is fucking embarrassing. Exit polls are wrong ALL THE TIME and those are so close as to be completely irrelevant. Just stop it already.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)telling you the same exact thing (even Bernie supporters) - they're very often WRONG. But if you want to continue to embarrass yourself, knock yourself out.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Science tells us differently...
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)are propaganda. Keep it up, you're very amusing.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)unreliable. Either you're mistaking them for the polls done BEFORE the election or you're just spreading bullshit. I've stopped caring which one. Toodles.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)It's pretty reliable when reported accurately.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Get your scientifically gathered evidence that fraud was committed and get it to the authorities. What are you waiting for?
dsc
(53,396 posts)exit polls have a MOE just like any other poll. They are more accurate than other polls due to the things not measured by MOE such as did our model match the population. But exit polls are no more accurate in terms of MOE than anyother poll
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Election fraud did not cause Bernie's loss in Mass.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Soooooooooo close I would say...
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)But again his loss was not due to fraud.
wildeyed
(11,243 posts)voting for him. But oh well..... #berniemath
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
TheBlackAdder
(29,981 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)
Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)It was a clear violation and then he won both those spots where there was obvious electioneering going on.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)And what the Clintons are all about...
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)Been busy today, maybe I missed this one
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)
Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #163)
Name removed Message auto-removed
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Yes, I'm a partisan. I'll grant that.
But I don't believe for one second that poster is unaware of the complaint.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)There's been a few complaints
I just asked the poster to clarify.
Which one?
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)and I believe there was fraud in Iowa and Nevada as well. The 1 tenth of 1% will not be denied.
comradebillyboy
(10,955 posts)actual evidence to support your stated beliefs? To me it just looks like you are engaged in outright slander by making false accusations.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Bernie only won the White man vote while Hillary won everything else would be a better use of your time than this bullshit.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
randys1
(16,286 posts)I have no idea about MA and this election, not speaking to that.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The survey was conducted for The Associated Press and television networks by Edison Research as voters left their polling places at 25 randomly selected sites in Massachusetts. Preliminary results include interviews with 846 Democratic primary voters and 469 Republican primary voters. The results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 5 percentage points for Democratic primary voters and plus or minus 7 percentage points for Republican primary voters.
Kip Humphrey
(4,753 posts)Sloppy use of language or too cheap to conduct a real exit poll. Truthfully, not atypical for a primary.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)or if Bill's possibly illegal shenanigans played a role...
but the discrepancy appears to be significant enough to warrant further investigation
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)I want Bernie to win, and Clinton was out of line, but exit polls are *notoriously* unreliable. Declaring they are only wrong when there's election fraud is insane. And I very very much doubt anything Clinton did at one or 2 polling places swung the vote several percent statewide.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)They only became 'unreliable' with the use of privately owned electronic voting machines that have
been proven to be hackable...
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)It's not exit polls that are reliable, it's the scientific polls BEFORE the race that are reliable. You know, the ones that had Hillary winning by pretty much the margin she won. You're continuing to embarrass yourself proclaiming otherwise.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)You should know better.... And quit with the personal attacks please...
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)and if you want to participate in GD-P, I suggest a thicker skin.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)And we go through this every damn time there's a vote.
1. Polls close.
2. Exciteable impatient people breathlessly gasp: "Exit polls say....!!!!!"
3. People with memory of last 100 times we've gone through this: "Meaningless, wait for actual results to come in".
4. Actual results come in. Excitable impatient people: "But, but, this looks not exactly the same as the exit polls?!?!?"
5. People with attention spans. "Yeah, ever so shocking."
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)But they are kept, so a recount is entirely possible.
Start a petition if you feel so strongly... https://www.change.org
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)A petition has no legal standing, unfortunately...
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)I'm confident that the result overall would not change significantly.
There wasn't fraud, and the assertion that there was is ridiculous.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)There was not fraud, that's the end of it from me.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)There is literally no evidence of fraud.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)There is literally evidence of fraud.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Exit polls have a margin of error as does every poll, a change in result from exit polls to actual votes is not necessarily indicative of fraud.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)There is of course a margin of error, but not flipping winners...
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)So statewide polling had Clinton ahead starting the week before, two state polls I believe.
Then exit polls show a radically different response.
The the actual votes align with what the statewide polling predicted.
And you see fraud?
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Exit polls are used to validate the election because they grab people
right after they vote.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Just because your candidate missed his own expectations of winning the state, does not mean there was fraud.
That's the end of it for me on this subthread.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)kracer20
(199 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)and alway have/had been, until electronic voting machines came
on the scene in the US.
It was only THEN ^ that the M$M manufactured the "exit polls are
not reliable" meme which stuck in many people's minds, apparently
including yours.
The MOE argument may have some validity in some cases, including
this one, but still .. please don't buy into the meme that exit polls
are totally unreliable.
demwing
(16,916 posts)In a place like MA where almost 1.2 million people voted, could easily represent an actual 49/50 result.
Doesn't mean that exit polls are inherently inaccurate, just that there will be an MOE, as is the case with ANY other poll.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)You decide.
DarthDem
(5,462 posts). . . to take glee in trashing threads like this, right?
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)By a significant degree.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Godhumor
(6,437 posts)Exit polling doesn't work the way implied in the OP.
LexVegas
(6,959 posts)
wyldwolf
(43,891 posts)... if the claim fraud every time they lose.
jcgoldie
(12,046 posts)In the 538 blog yesterday he said when exit polls and pre-election polls are in conflict, often its the exit polling thats wrong.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Exit polls are almost 100% accurate when not using electronic voting machines...
onenote
(46,140 posts)However, I will note that as it turns out, the CNN exit poll (the final one, not whatever preliminary one you're relying on), basically got it close to on the nose: a roughly 1.5 percent victory for Clinton.
jcgoldie
(12,046 posts)You must be right... after all what the hell does Nate Silver know about polling?
NATE SILVER 9:03 PM
Sometimes when exit polls and pre-election polls disagree, it’s the pre-election polls that had it right. Pre-election polls in Massachusetts had Clinton pulling ahead in the last week of the campaign, while exit polls earlier tonight had Sanders up. Clinton leads by 5 percentage points with 11 percent of the vote in so far, however. Obviously, there are still a lot of votes out, although The Upshot’s models have Clinton narrowly favored based on the vote reported so far.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/super-tuesday-primaries-presidential-election-2016/
Response to jcgoldie (Reply #120)
Name removed Message auto-removed
merrily
(45,251 posts)
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)If not, you could be guilty of obstruction of justice and perhaps treason!
BreakfastClub
(765 posts)Response to TheProgressive (Original post)
GoneFishin This message was self-deleted by its author.
kennetha
(3,666 posts)
BooScout
(10,410 posts) 
Blue_Adept
(6,499 posts)TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)I did not mention the other states have I...
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Sid
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)what are the odds of a swing that big? i don't have an answer and i'm not pinning it on Bill, but it seems fishy to me.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)You've used to say Bernie should fold?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)That swing is nothing and looks to be well within a margin of error of any decent poll but you can continue to pretend otherwise if it lessens the hurt from last night.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)you supplied none.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)other than your fervent hope the results were different. Go ahead and PROVE to me and everyone else that exit polls are so reliable that a swing THAT SMALL must be the result of shenanigans and that the scientific polls BEFORE the race are so very wrong.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)that is all.
did you swallow whole the "exit polls are inaccurate" meme started by rove in 2000?
do you think think Beth Clarkson is a quack?
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)Exit polls are never static. Ever. They're continuously adjusted through the night, first as they interview more poll respondents (Classified as "waves" and then by tweaking the weights to ensure proportions are met that closely match final outcomes. Initial exit polls, as was the one quoted in the OP, are almost never dead on and very rarely even close--for instance the initial Nevada exit poll was conducted in only 25 precincts and was off on several major areas--including who was winning and the breakout of Latino support.
Having an outcome like yesterday is not indicative of fraud but of an initial exit poll that was too narrow in scope or in assumptions.
tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)Godhumor
(6,437 posts)Any statistical analyst worth a hill of beans can recognize when numbers don't add up. Initial exit polling results triggered outrage from exactly zero of them.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)that does put some facts into the discussion
is that the poll cited? CNN was citing the CBS poll?
riversedge
(80,809 posts)pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)Because they were so accurate.
But when those "voting machines" came in, geez, somehow they no longer seemed to match the exit polls.
Wonder which was at fault? Hmmmmm. Not hard to guess.
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)His else do you think they call contests when polls close?
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)It was changes in work and voting patterns.
Different demos used to vote in reliable predictable patterns, so it was relatively easy for the pollsters to build corrective models that resulted in accurate results.
But modern voting and work patterns have made that very hard, and the accuracy of exit polls have gone down. For example, early and absentee voting is not represented in exit polling at all.
randr
(12,648 posts)election results to call into question exit polling. A once trusted process brought down in the last few decades had opened the door for wild speculation of fraud.
If you think the exit polling is questionable than get off your asses and work to fix it.
It is the canary in the coal mine and without it the loss of trust in our governing process will truly destroy our Nation.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)Computer voting is easily and provably not secure.
The number of times the more conservative candidate gets a larger share of the vote (whether it's Republicans over Democrats OR Conservadems over Progressives) than polling and Exit Polls would indicate is quite stunning.
There are plenty of people that have been trying to get us to wake up to this reality over the past decade. Recently, the Kansas Mathematician (whose name I forget) has compiled quite a bit of evidence of this occurrence.
Why WOULDN'T corrupt interests steal votes if they could? There is no transparency in far too many places throughout this country.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)You are claiming election fraud using corporate medias exit polls matched with real numbers when they are that close?
"Exit polls are only 'wrong' when there is election fraud."
Could be one of the funniest lines I have ever read here.
Skwmom
(12,685 posts)
smiley
(1,432 posts) Jester Messiah
(4,711 posts)smiley
(1,432 posts)something was strange in Mass last night.
I was watching real time results on google when they posted Sander as winning Mass. As far as I know google isn't in the prediction business. What they were posting were real-time results, so information was supplied to them that told them Sander won. That lasted for about a minute before it changed to Clinton. Unfortunately I didn't get a screenshot, which I'm kicking myself for now.
I can see AP or NYT jumping the gun and getting the call wrong, but google posts real time results. Not predictions.
I'd love to get some insight into this, but I'm not seeing a whole lot posted here on DU concerning this anomaly.
questionseverything
(11,836 posts)Correction: March 1, 2016
Because of a reporting error by The Associated Press, an earlier version of this page showed the incorrect winner for the Democratic primary in Massachusetts. The winner was Hillary Clinton, not Bernie Sanders.
Source: Election results from The Associated Press
By Wilson Andrews, Matthew Bloch, Jeremy Bowers and Tom Giratikanon
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/massachusetts
smiley
(1,432 posts)Newspapers make errors all the time in their predictions, but it doesn't really explain why google posted Sanders as the winner in their real-time results of all the states. Unless of course google uses the AP to get their numbers. But that doesn't really make sense to me either.
kgnu_fan
(3,021 posts)highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)erlewyne
(1,115 posts)I'll save ya brother!!!
Old democrat here watching a ship sink,
But we'll save their candy asses.
We have a lot of young men and women that want freedom
and jobs. That's where Bernie comes in!
On the Ides of March I am voting for BERNIE SANDERS !!!
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)The numbers had to be created.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(135,697 posts)
AmBlue
(3,460 posts)As of 1:20pm today. All the numbers from the election are here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1280131750
mhatrw
(10,786 posts)In Massachusetts, another LHS state like New Hampshire, the shift was a whopping 15.5%, turning a projected narrow Obama victory into a 15% Clinton rout.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)mhatrw
(10,786 posts)that the results recorded on them matches the results that were reported before we can safely reject the idea that the exit polls just may have been correct and reported voting totals just may have been manipulated.
I would love to see a breakdown of yesterday's MA results by voting machine used. Do you have any idea if that data is available?
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)captainarizona
(363 posts)Every time the clintonistas steal an election bernie says nothing. He is only interested in getting his socialist message out. I was going to vote for bernie but now I wonder if he is tough enough. Black voters see this lack of toughness too!
Dem2
(8,178 posts)Sorry.
Herman4747
(1,825 posts)...tell the pollster that they voted for Hillary.
I can understand that.
Jopin Klobe
(779 posts)... it reminds me of zee old days ...
... back in 1999 ...
Beacool
(30,517 posts)If Sanders hadn't been from nearby VT, she would have ran away with that primary like she did in 2008. She won the state in 2008 by almost 10%, despite Kerry, Kennedy and Patrick endorsing Obama.
Loki
(3,830 posts)of Karl Rove. This is just sore loser, this was a close race and I've seen them go either way. Need to grow up and realize politics is not for people who can't accept losing.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)I could care less about childish personal attacks - it's a reflection of the attacker.
If you care to have an intelligent debate, please feel free to participate.
Loki
(3,830 posts)Florida??? When you scream "election fraud" every time you lose, you begin to lose credibility. Karl Rove lost his a long time ago. But with threats, like "I don't alert, but if I did," what do you think that does to intelligent discourse? Reality is starting to creep in and instead of focusing on the real issue at hand like the waiting white supremacists just chomping at the bit so they can kill someone at a Trump rally, we are arguing over percentage points in an election. I'm not worried about Bernie Sanders, I'm not worried about Hillary Clinton, but I am fucking scared shitless if the crazies in the republican party take over this country. No joke, plan and simple TheProgressive, and if you aren't worried, you sure as hell should be. I fear for the sanity of this country and what it would mean to the people that these sick minds would gladly start a race war with.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
On Wed Mar 2, 2016, 12:31 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
You are beginning to sound like a very bad imitation
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1396669
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Karl Rove? Jeesh
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Mar 2, 2016, 12:39 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I might have let this go for any other comparison than Karl Rove. That's just plain nasty.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Duke it out in the thread.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Can't vote to hide just for someone being pissy but there's hope dear alerter, you can offer a counter comment. Use caution, there are hungry bears lurking in the forest.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
chillfactor
(7,694 posts)you are really reaching for an excuse that Sanders should have won....exit polls are not always accurate...voters can say one thing but vote the opposite...it is the vote totals that count...not the exit polls and Hillary won the votes...period!
iandhr
(6,852 posts)You can't loose the largest city in MA by 17 points and expect to win statewide.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)http://usuncut.com/politics/bill-clinton-may-have-violated-massachusetts-election-laws/
In Massachusetts, it’s illegal to campaign for any candidate more than 150 feet from a polling place while voting is taking place. But Bill Clinton not only campaigned for his wife outside polling locations within that legal requirement, he also stepped inside the polling location itself, which some thought would unduly influence voters even if he did follow the letter of the law.
The National Association of Secretaries of State compiled a state-by-state list of electioneering laws at polling places. The Massachusetts law explicitly states:
Within 150 feet of a polling place…no person shall solicit votes for or against, or otherwise promote or oppose, any person or political party or position on a ballot question, to be voted on at the current election. No campaign material intended to influence the vote of a voter in the ongoing election, including campaign literature, buttons, signs, and ballot stickers, may be posted, exhibited, circulated, or distributed in the polling place, in the building where it is located, on the building walls, on the premises where the building stands, or within 150 feet of an entrance door to the building.
The 42nd President of the United States was warned of the rules by local election officials before he toured at four different locations today.
He was also told that he couldn’t urge voters to support Hillary Clinton in the gymnasium of the Holy Name Church in West Roxbury, where he went inside and shook hands with voters — which is technically not a violation of the law, as long as he did not approach voters or actively solicit votes or campaign inside the building. Clinton also went inside the Newton Free Library in Newton, MA with Boston mayor Marty Walsh in tow. Both are prominent, well-known Hillary Clinton supporters.
https://twitter.com/NewtonFreeLib/status/704715854731149312/photo/1
“Even a president can’t go inside and work a polling place,” Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin told the New York Times. “He can go in, but he can’t approach voters… We just took the extra precaution of telling them because this is not a usual occurrence.
“You don’t usually get a president doing this,” he noted.
<snip>
Here is video of Bill Clinton campaigning outside the Buttonwood Park Warming House, a polling location in New Bedford, MA, clearly within the 150 feet limit:
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)recount.
Merryland
(1,134 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)aware of what we are aware of as we watched the results in Mass last night. I hope his campaign does ask for a recount. The closeness of the results call for it especially after the blocking of voters in two places by Bill Clinton and so many voters upset that they WERE delayed while he campaigned, it has placed a huge pall over the results.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Wow I didn't know... That's odd.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
stellanoir
(14,881 posts)MA Primary: Another Stolen Election
Lust like in the MA 2014 Governor race, the primary was likely stolen.
The exit poll, AS ALWAYS, was adjusted to match the recorded vote
Clinton won the RECORDED (bogus) vote by 50.3-48.7%
In the exit poll of 1297 respondents, Sanders led at 8:01 pm by 52.3-45.7%
The probability that Sanders won: 99% (given the 2.72% Margin of Error)
Win prob= 99.2% = normdist (.534,.5, Moe/1.96,true)
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=0
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,453 posts)TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)Or is this just a silly post...?
NYC Liberal
(20,453 posts)The original link no longer works, but it is linked to and referenced here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026429676
NASA crashed a spent rocket into the moon, fueling a very long thread in which a couple of DUers expressed serious concern about the moon being "damaged" or "blown up". Then there were other threads expressing similar nutty concerns, like this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6723794
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)"The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do."
Joseph Stalin
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/joseph_stalin.html
NYC Liberal
(20,453 posts)And if it did, then where is Sanders? If he cares so much about democracy then why is he not fighting?
The answer is that even Sanders knows better than to scream "FRAUD" every time he loses. He might want to let his fans know, though.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)When exit polls are not similar to tabulated results, that is election fraud.
And that's just it: Sanders does care about our democracy and is fighting to resurrect it and
preserve it. Sanders is the only true democrat running for the presidency. All others are are either
fascists, idiots, or like Clinton, a third-way corporatist oligarch.
Real Americans, real democrats, real patriots fight election fraud as honest and accurate elections is the cornerstone of our democracy.
Where do you stand on this?
book_worm
(15,951 posts)
Blue Owl
(59,099 posts) wildeyed
(11,243 posts)about exit polls. But I have explained this to you before.
[URL=
.html][IMG]
[/IMG][/URL]
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)to change their votes.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)xloadiex
(628 posts)in a few areas so nobody noticed what they were doing in other areas.
Once a cheater, always a cheater.
A winner never cheats, and a cheater never wins.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)"A winner never cheats, and a cheater never wins."
I had a driving trip today and actually thought about exactly the statement you wrote right now.
And, in this case, cheaters do win and there is nothing we can do about it within the current system.
But, I am a firm believer in karma...hopefully it prevails...
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)they felt they would win! I seriously doubt Hillary DID win! This is why Hillary has such high negatives, people who've been around for long enough KNOW how The Clintons work!
alfredo
(60,301 posts)They've caused a lot of mental anguish for no good reason.
silenttigersong
(957 posts)Of desperation,and arrogance.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Exit polls are notoriously wrong. I think at some point you just have to face the fact that more people prefer Clinton. I don't know why that is a surprise to anyone. She has been leading in the polls all along.