Some interesting results for projected "Hillary' counties outside of NYC area

[beedle]

Red notes with arrows point to counties that were projected to be "heavy" Clinton counties.

Yellow numbers in counties are how much Bernie won by in 'leaning Hillary' counties.

Bernie won all the "heavy" and "leaning" Bernie counties, except Onondaga (Syracuse) a 'leaning Bernie' county, which he lost by 6 point. Bernie won all his other 'heavy and leaning Sanders' counties, usually by very large majorities.

The only "heavy" Clinton counties Hillary won were Erie (Buffalo) by 0.8 points, and Monroe (Rochester) by 3.6 points

Hillary lost all her "leaning Clinton" counties, usually by lots

So, now when we move down to the more NYC centered counties, the counties where there was lots of BoE "mistakes' made, all of a sudden Hillary kills it in landslides? Possibly I suppose, but it sure as hell is pretty suspicious.

[peacebird]

1. Smells pretty suspicious.

But then - pretty much what I expect from her.

[nolawarlock]

2. Talk about Monday morning Quarterbacking.

To quote my candidate, "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"

[Land of Enchantment]

7. Your avatars are very offensive. Please find something different. nt

[nolawarlock]

10. Offensive how?

There are plenty of posts from folks all over this site who claim to vehemently dislike one of the two candidates and call them all sorts of horrible names. I don't see why my signature line is a problem. It's just my opinion of who's better. It's not even vulgar in any way.

Oh, and I am assuming you meant my signature, not my avatar. My avatar is actually Hillary's icon for small business owners, which I am. Oh wait, maybe you did mean my avatar? It does seem that many Bernie supporters find even small businesses offensive.

[Land of Enchantment]

17. From an OP posted by a real journalist....about a dog whistle.....

I will not reproduce the images because they are offensive...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1745680


These days we have some users here using this lovely avatar. For the record, this is not a Clinton dirty trick... it is the kind of crap that is being tolerated though, and as a good dog whistle, you are not supposed to hear them if it is not aimed at you, it took me a little white to figure this out.

So here it is


It is such a lovely image.

So let's start decoding this one, m'kay.

It is part of the Marian devotion, and includes the heart of Mary. This is what this devotion is all about

The love which Mary bears us is similar to that manifested towards us by her Divine Son when, while on earth, he sought sinners rather than the just; our condition as sinners, far from opposing an obstacle, is rather a claim upon her. In this point, as in all others, Mary walks faithfully in the footsteps of her Son and model, and if she loves the just with a love of complacency because of their virtues, the love of compassion and mercy which she feels for sinners is still greater, not because they are worthy of it, but because of their greater necessities. Finally the material heart of Mary, by means of which we should raise our thoughts to the spiritual, is ordinarily represented not only with New flames escaping from it, which figure her love, and crowned with flowers, emblems of her virtues, but also pierced with a sword, to call our attention to her sorrows.


http://catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/Immaculate%20Heart%20of%20Mary%20popup.html

Now I am not stretching this when I say that this defacing of a sacred image is anti Catholic, It does not matter whether you do it with Photoshop, or a spray can. In case you wonder, this is part of the Federal HATE CRIME statues as well, for physical crimes. I think we all can agree, that for the moment a photoshop hack job does not rise, YET, to the category of an actual crime.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes

[nolawarlock]

19. That is not a valid comparison ...

That picture of Obama was really a picture of Obama that was taken out of context and used to play to fears of everyday Muslim citizens.

These images on my signature are obvious parodies both of Sanders cozying up to the Vatican and of the way so many of his supporters compare him to Jesus, the pope, saints, and other religious icons. That kind of parody should not only be allowed, it should be encouraged and while I do not think we have anything to fear from everyday Catholics, we certainly have something to fear from an ancient, wealthy, and powerful institution (and foreign nation) meddling in our politics.

[Land of Enchantment]

25. You must be a little on the slow side....let me help you... apparently you did not read

the OP.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1745680

Some here might remember the religious wars that wracked Europe, but this hate of the Catholic and all things catholic is not gone. The purposeful defacing of an image to "make fun of Bernie Sanders supporters," as some of you claim is just cover. This is as vile as it gets. And I admit it, since it was on a RELIGIOUS image my radar for dog whistles was thrown off for a few.

Now you are also engaging in some old fashioned antisemitism. The choice of image points to a heart. Hearts usually pump blood, and blood libel has a very long history. That history goes back to the middle ages and led directly to the death of people.

Now I have tried telling some of the folks (two to be exact) that this is a troublesome image, Just as troublesome as the one of Obama in a Turban that at least I hope you would not defend today, but I am not sure anymore. When this is explained to you, and you keep laughing it off, you either are tone deaf, possible, or like a poster that blew her cover somewhere else, this is what you are. There is no question in my mind that just like anti AA sentiments went though the roof in 2008, and people got a license to engage in them, so is the candidacy of a Jewish man a license for some to engage in dog whistle politics of the worst kind.

You want to disagree with people on policy have at it. That is what primaries are about. Once you cross into using imagery like this, you have crossed into at the very least dirty tricks territory. And now you cannot claim you were just kidding and it was a way to make a joke at Bernie supporters and the beatification of a Jew (more dog whistles by the way) As far as I am concerned, this is quite anti-Semitic, and anti-Catholic and it is far from funny.

Defacing of a sacred image.

WTF are'everyday Muslim citizens' and why do you think that image would 'play on their fears'? What 'fears' specifically? It does not make any sense.

YOU MISS THE POINT. You can make childish parodies of Bernie if that is how you choose to express your rather infantile perceptions of him BUT you are DESCECRATING people's religious symbols and THAT IS NOT OK. Did you miss the part about hate crimes too?

[nolawarlock]

26. Insult me as you will.

I changed it because someone else said so nicely. I don't care you feel. You're rude.

[Land of Enchantment]

39. I asked you nicely the first time. See #7. You came back with a

reply that made no sense so I explained it to you and gave you a link to read that was not rude. See #17. The third time was the charm for me.....I have neither the time nor the patience to try to explain something twice because you did not bother to read the OP I sent to you twice.

Have a nice day and good luck.

[nolawarlock]

55. It's because I don't agree with you.

I still don't agree with you. I see nothing wrong with parody within reason. I think Charlie Hebdo went too far. I think the Obama turban meme went too far because it implied something that wasn't true. My image is making fun of people who treat (and often describe) Bernie in sainted, iconic, religious terms. But the fact is that people would report it constantly who didn't understand it and, if they really don't understand it, they aren't going to get the point anyway and instead will just think I'm making some slam against his religion when that's impossible because he's not even Catholic. After seeing how you (or someone else) reported me for calling you rude after you calling me slow, it reminded me of how often the jury system here is abused and I didn't want to give anyone a red carpet to make me the victim of it. Thankfully, better heads prevailed on that particular jury report.

Either way, I still don't agree with you. It's not because I'm slow. It's because I'm smart.

[Land of Enchantment]

65. You know, you are new here and that's fine because everyone here was 'new' at the

beginning of their membership. I waited, thinking you were reading the link to the OP it and absorbing it and thinking about it it. I apologize if that offended you but you responded in a way way that further exacerbated the request to remove the avatars. That said, it came across as someone who was unwilling to at least read the post that addresses the issue.... I am not a religious person; however, I have respect for others' religious beliefs. Millions of lives have been destroyed over religion and there seems to be no end to it. I can send you some links but I'm not convinced you would read them. It is important to show respect and your initial impression here has struck me as one of having not only no respect for just basic politeness but also to initiate ill will toward those with whom you disagree. If we are to have a forum that encourages thought provoking, well thought out and respectful discussions then we need to start out with respect and in my opinion you have failed to show respect.

No, I did not alert on you. I don't alert on people and don't know if you can even do it on your own thread.

The point of our entire argument is that it is not acceptable to desecrate anyone's religious or non-religious beliefs.
I will not post a photo to tick you off, I will wish you peace,
LoE

[nolawarlock]

67. Well that ship has sailed

Something here is desecrated every ten minutes.

While I understand the offense of the image, part of my point is that, if Corporations aren't off limits (and they should not be) why is the wealthiest and most powerful institution in history not? The fact that they have religion associated with it shouldn't put them out of bounds. Heck, my religion is ridiculed every time someone puts a paper Halloween Witch in the window in October. It doesn't offend me. I get where they're coming from.

I may be new to this site but I was a politics major at one of the most prestigious political universities in America in 1993. I didn't just fall off the tuna truck. I don't think we should be sainting political leaders (unless it's Eva Perón ... just kidding) and I don't think the Vatican should be overly meddling in politics. I also think Bernie knew exactly what he was doing getting involved in that. And I think most people here knew what it was however much they pretended not to as they proclaimed the potential increase in NY Catholic votes out of the corners of their mouths, votes which ironically never came. All of that incensed me enough to actually sign up. Don't sit there and go on about corporate shills when you're essentially handing us to such an organization. Yes, they do a lot for the poor and yes they've been on the right side of a number of issues but they also gave us the inquisition, the crusades, the Witch burnings, increased homophobia and sexism, countless STDs due to their use of God to compel people not to use protection, and countless other atrocities.

The Vatican is an organization far older than our political system so they do not fit our left-right paradigm. I don't want them coronating our president, to use a Bernie supporter term. I just don't. I'd rather have Goldman Sachs do it, and that's saying something because I find that nearly as horrifying.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. Jury Results.

On Thu Apr 21, 2016, 03:19 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

Insult me as you will.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1804462

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Insulting another poster.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Apr 21, 2016, 03:26 PM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Both posts are insulting.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: A mild response to an insult. Not hide-worthy.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Doesn't meet the bar of moderation. Sorry. Post above does lead off with 'you must be a little on the slow side', which IS rude, however you slice it.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[nolawarlock]

54. LOL!

Well at least nobody voted to hide it. I half expected to see the opposite. It seems like I've seen a lot of those situations where someone said something like "you must be a little on the slow side" answered with equal or lesser snark and the reply is hidden. It's nice to see that the jury system sometimes actually works.

[Land of Enchantment]

68. Thanks for posting this--

It disturbs me that someone alerted on him/her. My discourse was about respecting other people's religious or non-religious beliefs.
I too am an atheist but it is not acceptable to use any religion or non religion to insult those who do or do not subscribe to any faith or non faith.

[hedgehog]

21. I also find the use of Catholic images offensive.

[nolawarlock]

23. I disagree with the suppression of parody ...

... but if it's that much of an issue, I'll put something else.

[hedgehog]

27. My thanks to you.

[nolawarlock]

28. You're welcome.

[pkdu]

29. I wouldn't give in to the anti Charlie Hebdo bullshit. Nt

[nolawarlock]

33. Eh, it costs me nothing.

I can be just as snarky without making people cry.

And, frankly, I didn't agree with Charlie Hebdo. I certainly don't support what happened to them but I think they went too far.

[pkdu]

36. I'm a free speecher. Your religious icon is not above criticism.

In fact it's what this country is founded on.

More power to you tho. Respect.

[nolawarlock]

40. There is a difference between free speech and advisable speech.

I am absolutely for the right for Charlie Hebdo to say whatever they want. I also understand that there are times where it might be better to reconsider saying something even though we have the freedom to do so, and that's speaking as someone who has used controversy often to make a point (like with that banner). More than that, I have a sense when my speech might turn my magazine offices into a shootout at the OK Corral. I'm free to walk into a biker bar and say I think they're all wimps. Won't keep me from getting my ass kicked though.

In this case, it was a calculated move. My replacement banner won't win me too many Bernie fans but it won't give them the opportunity to turn every single thing I say into a commentary about my banner.

[nolawarlock]

42. And as a side note ...

I also understand that Free Speech is rooted in our relations to the state. You don't have free speech in my living room, nor do I have free speech in yours and that is as it should be. This website is Skinner's living room. My speech here is no more free than yours. If he or other admins choose to ban me based on something I say, then they have every right to do so. In this case, I chose not to be a martyr, pun very much intended. *grin*

[pkdu]

45. I agree completely. My point was aimed.at you detractors ,not you.

[nolawarlock]

47. Oh I get it. :)

In many ways, so was my response.

[noretreatnosurrender]

52. Agree with you

about Charlie Hebdo.

[bahrbearian]

31. .

[randome]

32. Jesus, don't interject reason and open-mindedness into this!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Treat your body like a machine. Your mind like a castle.[/center][/font][hr]

[nolawarlock]

35. hah! Great reply.

I don't mind taking it down. I won't stop talking about the issue when it comes up though. it is not anti-Catholic to say that a wealthy and powerful foreign nation is not a valid substitute for Goldman Sachs.

[840high]

60. Thank you.

[nolawarlock]

62. There. I made it something you can really appreciate.

And since it's perfectly accurate and provable, I see no reason why you should have any complaints.

[frylock]

57. "What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"

Yeah, can't wait for the GOP to start running ads with that quote. Should go well.

[2pooped2pop]

69. or I got away with it, lets move on, nothing to

To see here. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

[djean111]

3. If it looks like shit and smells like shit, ya know what it is, right?

Tampering.

[TimeToEvolve]

9. see?!?!

supporters of HRC really can't tell shite from shinola!

[AzDar]

4. Fraud, Fraud, FRAUD.

[MFM008]

5. over over over.

[TimeToEvolve]

12. no thanks

believe it or not there is ACTUALLY something better out there than nihilism, its called optimism! and i still have plenty for Bernie, all the way to the convention and no less!!

[Skwmom]

6. Isn't that something...

[oberliner]

8. Those light blue counties in the top map above have very small populations.

Hamilton County had 330 voters, for instance.

Most of the others were a few thousand voters or less.

[beedle]

16. And you point being? nt

[oberliner]

22. Probably not a lot of accurate pre-primary polling out of such small populations

Not sure what the methodology was used to determine what defined a county as "lean Hillary" when there were such a small number of voters. Was there, for instance, a Hamilton County specific pre-primary poll?

[beedle]

24. Oh, I see what you mean

There were probably polling too many ordinary New York citizens who would only be allowed to vote in the GE .. which we know are overwhelmingly Bernie supporters ... the ones the system was rigged to prevent voting ... yeah, you may be right, no need to cheat when the system is rigged anyway.

Or, maybe the polling was right, and the known 'shenanigans' in the city boroughs is actually an issue that needs to be dealt with?

[oberliner]

34. I am not sure what you are saying

The results generally matched pre-elction polls overall.

[Land of Enchantment]

11. The BoE of NY should void the results. We'll see what the audit shows and isn't

it interesting voters whose affiliations were flipped are getting their hands on the SIGNED change forms and the signatures are forgeries....This is far from over.

[ViseGrip]

13. I called them and told them that. Nullify it or even split. Cheaters lose.

[LiberalFighter]

46. That is not a legal option.

[Tarc]

14. "Dirt doesn't vote"

But hey, keep on disrespecting and dismissing urban voters. Let us know how that works for ya...

[beedle]

18. I wasn't the one who disenfranchined whole buildings full of voters.

I wanted them to vote ... many of them, legitimate Democratic Party members were just taken off the roles for no apparent reason.

And for someone who claims others are 'disrespecting urban voters', then please join me in demanding that the vote be redone, and this time give ALL the urban voters a say, not just those who happen to go through the 'rituals' 8 months before they really knew who was running and what the issues would be.

[northernsouthern]

38. They are so horrible here.

We allowed about five people to vote right at the cut off because it was right, and because the Hillary crew wanted it. Well they put their ballots down and they were all for Bernie, you could see the look in the two Clinton supporter's eyes that they just messed up, like they were trying to play a hand to win and busted. They need to stuff this attitude of us not being open. I have been there and done that, f@ck I evenhelped a person cast a vote for Clinton that could not speak English, because that is our f@cking system, we brag we are a democracy, but we are really a party of cheats. God these people are sick and twisted in their mazes of a moral conscious.

[beedle]

63. +1000 nt

[Tarc]

61. We don't do re-votes. This isn't a Middle School student club

If there are New York voters who genuinely lost out, they their provisional ballot will eventually be counted. Follow the preodecures laid out in the state to air grievances.

[beedle]

64. No it's not ... it's suppose to be

a democracy. Supposedly a model for the world?!

A democracy that does all it can to limit voting.

[IamMab]

58. "Southern" and now "urban." Definitely a pattern to the places Sanders supporters shit all over.

How such people call themselves progressive, I will never understand.

[GoneFishin]

15. Its exactly what you would expect from someone intent on cheating. They swing the largest numbers of

votes while involving as few people and precincts as possible so as to minimize the number of possible whistleblowers. Going after voter dense locations makes perfect sense.

[nolawarlock]

30. Done.

[northernsouthern]

41. I love it!

It is so funny because it is making light of how corrupt your candidate is, and that because of the FBI she is about to be a fully cooked goose.

[nolawarlock]

43. Willing to bet on it?

She won't be indicted. I promise you that.

[northernsouthern]

44. No.

You are the one posting on her being corrupt. It wasn't me. I don't bet, playing with money is more of a HRC thing.

[nolawarlock]

48. I don't believe she is corrupt.

I just believe that Bernie is done. :-D

[northernsouthern]

49. Wait?

Why are you posing that she is corrupt? What was the point of the done thing? Do you think the FBI will just find her partially guilty for the email and the money laundering from the financial district? You post was misleading. You were saying you think she is corrupt, but will not get arrested? Now you think she is not, and will get away with her crimes?

[HereSince1628]

37. I don't see fraud in the geograpy I see results for a candidate that does well with urbanites.

Which isn't to say fraud didn't happen or that NY Dem party dropping voters didn't influence the NY outcome

But those results look a lot like what WI results would look like if independents and late-to-turn on to getting registered were excluded.

[msongs]

51. all those independent trees were denied their right to vote...they ignored registrations rules :-)

[bobbobbins01]

53. Larger populations make it easier to commit election fraud.

The big question is, how do we get proof?

[snowy owl]

56. Chicago fraud - Yes! NY - nah. Their limited registration period is all they need.

Everybody has a way to manipulate. Exclusive parties - exclusive clubs. Can't play unless you're a member.

[Zynx]

59. Most of those counties don't have very many people.

All they had to model on was how she did in 2008. This is a very different year.

Sorry, Bernie matched his polling performance in NYC. He lost. Get over it.

[Demsrule86]

66. Seriously?

You people live in lala land. Hillary Clinton won and Bernie Sanders...lost...he will also lose PA and Maryland by double digits.