I predict that tomorrow in Indiana, Hillary will do substantially better ...

[Scuba]

... than the exit polls indicate she should.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

1. .

[Ed Suspicious]

8. self portrait?

[Buzz Clik]

11. -1 for being totally unoriginal and juvenile.

[Fuddnik]

28. Protecting his ass, in case Bernie puts his hand on it.

[Buzz Clik]

10. +1

[SFnomad]

2. So you're already test driving conspiracies on why BS is going to lose tomorrow? n/t

[Scuba]

3. Nope, just a student of history ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511819256

Arkansas: 6.7 in favor of Clinton (official count compared to exit polls)
Alabama: 15.7 in favor of Clinton
Tennessee: 8.8 in favor of Clinton
Virginia: 4.5 in favor of Clinton
Georgia: 12.4 in favor of Clinton
Texas: 9.9 in favor of Clinton
Massachusetts: 7.8 in favor of Clinton
Oklahoma: 6.8 in favor of Sanders
Vermont: 0.9 in favor of Clinton
Mississippi: 10.4 in favor of Clinton
Michigan: 4.8 in favor of Clinton
Ohio: 10.2 in favor of Clinton
Florida: 3.2 in favor of Clinton
North Carolina: 1.8 in favor of Clinton
Illinois: 4.2 in favor of Clinton
Missouri: 4.0 in favor of Clinton
Wisconsin: 13.8 in favor of Clinton
New York: 12.0 in favor of Clinton

[Renew Deal]

17. That's because Hillary's supporters typically vote in the evening after work.

But the polls close in IN at 6PM.

[LiberalFighter]

30. Local time. Indiana has two time zones.

[tabasco]

56. Link for your claim that "Hillary's supporters typically vote in the evening after work.?"

Or are you just making stuff up?

[GusBob]

19. Are those the same numbers that Tim Robbins tried to use?

From some comedian on reddit?

That has been totally debunked

EDIT: yep they are the same made up bullshit. Raw story debunked it

[Scuba]

20. I've never seen any debunking of these numbers. Provide a link or edit or ...

.... some cynic here might think you're just making shit up.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

39. The numbers you used are addressed at this link.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/on-tim-robbins-election-fraud-and-how-nonsense-spreads-around-the-internet/

[Scuba]

40. Interesting that the very first example in this "debunking" links to a CNN poll that does not ...

... support what the article claims it does.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/04/on-tim-robbins-election-fraud-and-how-nonsense-spreads-around-the-internet/

In Massachusetts, for example, CNN reported that exit polls showed Clinton winning by 2 points, which is very close to her 1.4 percent margin in the final results.

Yet the link shows no such thing!!!




That's some debunking!!!




..

[Dr Hobbitstein]

42. The data is there...

You just need to do the math.

[Scuba]

43. No, the data is not there.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

46. It most certainly is.

There were 1,408 respondents. 42% were men, 58% were women.
41% of the men voted for HRC, 1% didn't respond, and 58% for Bernie.
57% of the women voted for HRC, 1% was undecided, and 42% for Bernie.

The data is there. That was all from the first demographic (which, by far, is the easiest one to equate). You just have to do the math.

http://www.cnn.com/election/primaries/polls/ma/Dem

[Scuba]

49. You're looking at adjusted exit polls.

Here's a link showing the exit polls before they were adjusted ...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sGxtIofohrj3POpwq-85Id2_fYKgvgoWbPZacZw0XlY/edit#gid=0

[Dr Hobbitstein]

50. Your "unadjusted exit polls" are debunked in the RawStory article I posted.

Via email, I asked Camp for his source, and he pointed me to a post on Reddit by a user who goes by the handle “turn-trout.” Turn-trout, who didn’t respond to a message seeking comment, claims that these are unadjusted exit polls, and links to a spreadsheet purportedly showing wide discrepancies between the raw data and the final results.

The spreadsheet was created by Richard Charnin, who writes a blog devoted to “JFK conspiracy and systemic election fraud analysis.” Charnin’s spreadsheet appears to be the basis of a broad swath of viral Internet content alleging widespread election theft during the 2016 primaries, including the work of Free Press editors Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis. Charnin seems to think that exit polls can reveal that virtually all our elections have been rigged, writing, “in the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the Democrats won the exit polls by 52-42%; they won the recorded vote by just 48-46%, an 8% discrepancy.”

I know this isn't your first primary. Why do you act like it is?

[Scuba]

51. No, they're not debunked in the rawstory article.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

52. But they are.

Via email, I asked Camp for his source, and he pointed me to a post on Reddit by a user who goes by the handle “turn-trout.” Turn-trout, who didn’t respond to a message seeking comment, claims that these are unadjusted exit polls, and links to a spreadsheet purportedly showing wide discrepancies between the raw data and the final results.

The spreadsheet was created by Richard Charnin, who writes a blog devoted to “JFK conspiracy and systemic election fraud analysis.” Charnin’s spreadsheet appears to be the basis of a broad swath of viral Internet content alleging widespread election theft during the 2016 primaries, including the work of Free Press editors Harvey Wasserman and Bob Fitrakis. Charnin seems to think that exit polls can reveal that virtually all our elections have been rigged, writing, “in the 1988-2008 presidential elections, the Democrats won the exit polls by 52-42%; they won the recorded vote by just 48-46%, an 8% discrepancy.”

[Scuba]

53. That does not begin to debunk the unadjusted totals.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

54. The totals were written by a conspiracy theorist.

That's what that is saying.

[Scuba]

58. Ad hominem.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

59. They are not from a legitimate source is what I'm saying.

And, let's be honest. The dude is a conspiracy theorist.

Your numbers HAVE been debunked. You just refuse to see it. I said it before. I KNOW this isn't your first primary. Why are you acting like it is?

[MissDeeds]

4. Yup

Funny how that works, isn't it?

[onehandle]

5. Amen!

Thank you for your hope for our nominee!

[joshcryer]

6. She will do better due to late minute band wagoning.

People don't want to vote for the loser.

[KingFlorez]

7. I predict that Clinton will win because Indianapolis and Gary will vote heavily in her favor

She wins all the liberal areas and that is key to winning the Democratic primary.

[LiberalFighter]

31. It is exam week in Indiana this week.

[Buzz Clik]

9. I predict that regardless of the outcome, Sanders's people will claim, "Foul!"

I'm not a genius. They do it every time.

[alcibiades_mystery]

27. Sanders has never lost an election

If he loses, the election is not legitimate, and therefore not an election. QED!

QED, I say!

[Buzz Clik]

36. ..

definitely feeling the math.

[JoePhilly]

63. + 1

[Cali_Democrat]

13. Preemptive whining? nt

[Garrett78]

14. "Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls"

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ten-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit/

[VulgarPoet]

29. "One Reason Why You Should Disregard Nate Silver"

Shill, baby, shill.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/04/is-538-in-the-bag-for-hillary/

[Garrett78]

62. Exit polls are historically unreliable for numerous reasons.

That's the issue at hand.

[seabeyond]

15. Ya, Sanders people have gotten ahead of that 8 ball cry foul before it happens instead of

Waiting for their loss. Only in the states they lose, imagine that. Never happens if they win, no. Only when losing!

[Renew Deal]

16. Most of Hillary's vote typically comes in at night after people get out of work.

So the exit polls will probably be close because of no late vote. Also, I have to wonder if the lack of late voting will keep her numbers down. But I think most IN voters already know how to deal with those issues.

[LiberalFighter]

33. Higher than usual early voting in Indiana.

[Kip Humphrey]

18. Oh, that's too easy a prediction to make.

[Nye Bevan]

21. Yep. I understand that DWS had a meeting yesterday with the Koch Brothers and the head of Diebold

to decide what today's vote counts should be in every precinct.

[Scuba]

24. That wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Except for the Diebold part. They're called something else now.

[obamanut2012]

48. lolz

[LexVegas]

22. Don't lose mad...just lose. nt

[madokie]

23. You know it

[Maru Kitteh]

25. Narratives can't write themselves, yes?

Nice work.

[Zynx]

32. It's more the case that the exit polls are out of line with pre-election polling due to our exit

polls being run incompetently and being poorly funded so as not to have proper sampling techniques. Just because one runs an exit poll doesn't mean it's being done well.

[Scuba]

41. No, the problem is exit polls not supporting vote counts.

[Joob]

44. I predict Bernie Winning by a Landslide

Just blew your mind

You're welcome, any one else want some predictions? I used to work at a fortune cookie shop and I miss it I guess.

[Nonhlanhla]

45. I suspect most fortune cookies are more accurate

than your prediction, though!

I love fortune cookie predictions.

[Joob]

47. I usually hold onto them... waiting.

until I tear them up in frustration


And I predicted a WA win by uuh I think it was 86%. So yeah! I'm off a little. This shit is hard, takes years of practice.

[floriduck]

55. Sort of like Chicago and the rest of Illinois? God love those machines. nm

[FlatBaroque]

57. I wonder if there is a worthwhile comment in the 52 missing replies.

[dana_b]

61. doubt it

Including yours I can see 12 of them.

[dana_b]

60. yeah, it's funny how that ALWAYS works now for the more

conservative person. Before we started voting on these un-democratic hackers' dream machines, exit polls were on point. Now we get "exit polls are not the standard and are usually wrong". No, they aren't in places that are truly Democratic - like in Australia, much of Europe. Exit polls are the standard for predicting who will win. And prior to 2000 (or 1996?) when their use became widespread, exit polls were always right in the USA too.