HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » At least people are tryin...

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:22 PM

At least people are trying to explain away the Bernie rallies. People sense something doesn't add up

I understand the natural instinct is to provide a "reasonable" (and legal) reason for the huge mismatch between Bernie's stadium-sized crowds, and the official vote counts in so many important primaries. The alternative is too horrible to contemplate. But even if we all stated thinking our elections were rigged, would we do anything about it? Probably not, and that realization is even more horrible. Maybe that's why we don't want to open up that can of worms. It would ruin our happy 4th of July celebrations.

113 replies, 3579 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 113 replies Author Time Post
Reply At least people are trying to explain away the Bernie rallies. People sense something doesn't add up (Original post)
reformist2 Jun 2016 OP
bravenak Jun 2016 #1
Metric System Jun 2016 #2
metroins Jun 2016 #22
OilemFirchen Jun 2016 #28
TwilightZone Jun 2016 #31
JoePhilly Jun 2016 #89
MadBadger Jun 2016 #3
BootinUp Jun 2016 #47
ucrdem Jun 2016 #4
JDPriestly Jun 2016 #101
ucrdem Jun 2016 #110
CrowCityDem Jun 2016 #5
underthematrix Jun 2016 #6
oberliner Jun 2016 #42
underthematrix Jun 2016 #48
oberliner Jun 2016 #53
MFM008 Jun 2016 #74
DJ13 Jun 2016 #7
underthematrix Jun 2016 #57
annavictorious Jun 2016 #8
floriduck Jun 2016 #11
TwilightZone Jun 2016 #32
MADem Jun 2016 #49
Lil Missy Jun 2016 #92
kerry-is-my-prez Jun 2016 #99
floriduck Jun 2016 #108
floriduck Jun 2016 #107
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #104
floriduck Jun 2016 #109
brooklynite Jun 2016 #40
brush Jun 2016 #55
oasis Jun 2016 #59
Matt_R Jun 2016 #68
BobbyDrake Jun 2016 #85
Trajan Jun 2016 #9
annavictorious Jun 2016 #12
msongs Jun 2016 #33
brooklynite Jun 2016 #41
geek tragedy Jun 2016 #44
MADem Jun 2016 #50
swhisper1 Jun 2016 #58
NorthCarolina Jun 2016 #86
GulfCoast66 Jun 2016 #87
NorthCarolina Jun 2016 #88
99Forever Jun 2016 #90
Pastiche423 Jun 2016 #112
onecaliberal Jun 2016 #10
ucrdem Jun 2016 #16
annavictorious Jun 2016 #20
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #105
DemonGoddess Jun 2016 #13
PufPuf23 Jun 2016 #14
Adrahil Jun 2016 #52
brush Jun 2016 #56
PufPuf23 Jun 2016 #61
brush Jun 2016 #64
lancer78 Jun 2016 #65
Matt_R Jun 2016 #71
lancer78 Jun 2016 #73
Matt_R Jun 2016 #94
PufPuf23 Jun 2016 #66
brush Jun 2016 #67
Matt_R Jun 2016 #72
GoneFishin Jun 2016 #15
creeksneakers2 Jun 2016 #78
littlebit Jun 2016 #17
Post removed Jun 2016 #18
annavictorious Jun 2016 #26
Juicy_Bellows Jun 2016 #62
creeksneakers2 Jun 2016 #79
glowing Jun 2016 #19
Recursion Jun 2016 #21
rjsquirrel Jun 2016 #23
qdouble Jun 2016 #24
NanceGreggs Jun 2016 #25
tandot Jun 2016 #27
justiceischeap Jun 2016 #29
vdogg Jun 2016 #30
HassleCat Jun 2016 #34
brooklynite Jun 2016 #35
Live and Learn Jun 2016 #36
Lil Missy Jun 2016 #37
jamese777 Jun 2016 #38
PAMod Jun 2016 #39
libdem4life Jun 2016 #43
sarae Jun 2016 #46
MADem Jun 2016 #51
Adrahil Jun 2016 #98
sarae Jun 2016 #45
ButterflyBlood Jun 2016 #93
LineReply .
RandySF Jun 2016 #54
peace13 Jun 2016 #60
All in it together Jun 2016 #63
Peace Patriot Jun 2016 #69
creeksneakers2 Jun 2016 #80
KansDem Jun 2016 #103
AzDar Jun 2016 #70
AgingAmerican Jun 2016 #75
senz Jun 2016 #76
Name removed Jun 2016 #77
Trust Buster Jun 2016 #81
gollygee Jun 2016 #82
Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #83
BobbyDrake Jun 2016 #84
Lil Missy Jun 2016 #91
ButterflyBlood Jun 2016 #95
RBInMaine Jun 2016 #96
ChiciB1 Jun 2016 #97
kadaholo Jun 2016 #100
HassleCat Jun 2016 #102
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #106
tallahasseedem Jun 2016 #111
AtomicKitten Jun 2016 #113

Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:26 PM

1. This CT nonsense is getting ridiculous

 

He lost fair and square.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:28 PM

2. President Ron Paul concurs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Metric System (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:53 PM

22. This.

All we need to do is look at past elections.

We will always have a "Bernie" phenomenon. It's kinda like Neo in the Matrix.

Ron Paul did the same thing, Nader did the same thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Metric System (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:07 PM

28. As does President George Wallace.



Dog love a "populist".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Metric System (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:21 PM

31. Yep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Metric System (Reply #2)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:02 AM

89. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:32 PM

3. Come the fuck on...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadBadger (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:36 PM

47. lol nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:32 PM

4. Bernie did well. He got millions of votes.

By the end of the thing though his campaign was grossly exaggerating his attendance figures and the press was playing along. I witnessed it. Whether that was the case from the get-go I have no way of knowing but at least here in So Cal his crowds were in the hundreds not the thousands reported. So I don't see any disconnect at all. He also benefitted from motor-voter laws that register voters but don't give them much information. So they weren't all exactly dedicated Democrats. Lastly he didn't include any kind of party-building or GOTV message in his stump speech which I also heard with my own ears and saw numerous tidbits of online. How could he? He was basically running against the entire Democratic party. So those motor-voter registrees didn't come away from his rallies which more info than they had before they went. However, he does seem to have convinced a good number of them that Democrats are corrupt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #4)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 01:47 PM

101. I was in a California polling place on election day. There were an awful lot of provisional ballots

given out. The printed voter rolls were not up-to-date.

Bernie did better than the numbers suggest.

Every American citizen should be automatically registered to vote at the age of 18.

If we could have selective service registration, we can have voter registration that is once in a lifetime for the entire lifetime. And we can have that registration coordinated across state lines so that no one votes twice and everyone can vote where they currently reside. Our computer capacity should be able to handle that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #101)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:59 PM

110. No surprise there, but that's why they're taking so long to tally.

All the changes that have been introduced in the last decade or so have had the explicit aim of increasing voter turnout and counting votes accurately. So the machines were decertified in every county for example, motor-voter laws were signed into action, the deadlines were pushed up, and so on. Well, the very small price to pay is that the certification lasts longer than it used to. That's the price of democracy and in my book it's a price well worth paying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:33 PM

5. It's not 'explaining away'. It's pointing out the obvious to people who are invested in conspiracy.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:34 PM

6. Bernie won one of the Dakotas by 253 to 101

Did he hold a rally in the Dakota that he won? If so, was attendance in the thousands? And if so, why didn't they show up to caucus for him in the thousands?

I think primaries are different because they feel more like a GE vote. I think you can like Bernie's ideas and also be pragmatic too. Most people liked Bill Clinton and what he did for the economy. They also like the fact that HRC is better educated, more experienced and better connected than Bernie Sanders. I think his ideas will be incorporated in the DEM platform. Some I may disagree with but as an adult I realize I can get some of what I want, but NOT everything.

All I want is a DEM in the White House, a DEM as Speaker of the House and a DEM Senate Majority Leader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underthematrix (Reply #6)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:09 PM

42. Those numbers do not represent the number of caucus goers.

 

The actual number of people who showed up was in the thousands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #42)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:07 AM

48. Okay i just read up on it and I now understand what ND means by vote totals

I couldn't find any info on the number of peeps who attend caucus which is interesting in itself

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to underthematrix (Reply #48)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:15 AM

53. Yes, they represent "state convention delegates"

 

It's all very confusing. Personally, I think the idea of a caucus is not particularly democratic for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that raw vote totals are not reported.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #42)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:53 AM

74. yes in WA

26 thousand in caucus, he won
HRC nearly a million in primary- she won

caucus needs to be done away with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:35 PM

7. "we don't want to open up that can of worms."


We have to, if for no other reason than it will not stop until those committing these acts believe they might get caught.

I know the Clinton supporters dont want to believe it has happened, but theres a very good chance Hillary could end up on the losing end in November, then how would they feel?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DJ13 (Reply #7)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:31 AM

57. Hillary is not going to lose in November. People of color will not let

that happen. We get what's at stake here

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:35 PM

8. In some cases, the crowd estimates by Sanders's handlers were out of proportion

 

with the numbers of actual attendees. In other cases, the crowds were there for the festival atmosphere and free concerts. Eight thousand white hipsters parachuting in and out of the Bronx doesn't translate into votes from the Bronx

Kids who show up for a free party are not necessarily registered voters who will show up to do their civic duty.
He got big rallies. She got voter turnout.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annavictorious (Reply #8)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:37 PM

11. She got absentee ballot votes. That always concerns me.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Reply #11)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:22 PM

32. You're concerned that she got absentee ballot votes?

Are you for real?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #32)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:07 AM

49. Don't let those old folks vote now!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #32)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:56 AM

92. Of course, absentee ballot votes are always for Bernie.

Basically, if Bernie loses, there must be some cheating going on. Hillary couldn't possibly get any votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #32)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:49 PM

99. That's how most of the people vote in my area in Florida, and not just the elderly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kerry-is-my-prez (Reply #99)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:05 PM

108. I agree in Florida and a few others. I lived in Jacksonville previously.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightZone (Reply #32)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:04 PM

107. A very high percentage. And I AM for real.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to floriduck (Reply #11)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:34 PM

104. Why does that concern you?

Are you arguing that absentee voting shouldn't be allowed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lord Magus (Reply #104)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 05:09 PM

109. No but it has a greater risk of potential problems. And Hillarys number were high for some reason.

 

It's an observation. Those out of the country or I'll and elderly, I have no issue with. But if you're just lazy, it shows a lack of commitment, in my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annavictorious (Reply #8)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:03 PM

40. How many rallies had tables where people were encouraged to apply for an absentee ballot?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annavictorious (Reply #8)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:19 AM

55. Yep! Rallies are not the voting booth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annavictorious (Reply #8)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:43 AM

59. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to annavictorious (Reply #8)


Response to annavictorious (Reply #8)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:29 AM

85. He was aiming for a Bandwagon Effect and it didn't materialize for him.

 

But there's no denying that his rallies were more for the photo opportunity than anything else. It was about the narrative of "big crowds," which was supposed to make people think he had more support than he really did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:35 PM

9. What I believe

 

The DNC defrauded the public and members of it's own party.

They stole it like republicans ....

My opinion ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #9)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:40 PM

12. The candidate with the most votes won.

 

You are not entitled to win. You have to earn it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #9)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:25 PM

33. oh dear you forgot to post any proof of your asserting that a crime was committed nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #9)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:04 PM

41. As with religion, you're free to believe what you want...convincing anyone else requires evidence

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #9)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:12 PM

44. Stuff happened that I do not like, ergo conspiracy. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:09 AM

50. DNC did not run rallies OR state elections. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:38 AM

58. it does smell, I give you that

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:24 AM

86. I think your "belief" is pretty much the truth.

 

Our entire election system is rigged. Free and fair democracy in America is an illusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NorthCarolina (Reply #86)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 09:30 AM

87. Except the states Bernie won

Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GulfCoast66 (Reply #87)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:00 AM

88. If you say so.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:13 AM

90. I agree 100%.

The only response I have seen from the establishment apologists is, "Nuh uh. Who gonna believe? Your own lying eyes or our DWS?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #9)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:35 PM

112. Another in agreement. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:37 PM

10. It's fine so long as it benefits her, when it happens TO her in the GE they will be screaming

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #10)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:41 PM

16. She's got the two best campaigners in the world in her tent: Barack and Bill.

November won't be a problem. And Bill, oh man Bill. Saw him in action last week. Nothing like it. Hope he holds out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #10)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:47 PM

20. Alrighty then...

 

You are not entitled to win by virtue of being a very special snowflake supporting the the greatest man to ever walk the face of the earth. You are not so consequential that your vote counts more than anyone else's, no matter what your parents told you.

It's gone beyond the ridiculous. It's become a parody of the ridiculous.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onecaliberal (Reply #10)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:35 PM

105. What's fine when it benefits her? There was no fraud in the primaries. NONE. -nt-

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:40 PM

13. jesuschristonapogostick!!!

THERE WAS NO VOTER FRAUD or ELECTION THEFT!!!

Do you not think that the CT can stop now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:41 PM

14. It is odd that the Obama crowds in 2008 translated into votes but Sanders rallies in 2016 less so.

That said Sanders did not have the crowds nor enthusiasm of Obama in 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PufPuf23 (Reply #14)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:15 AM

52. What it tells is that crowd sizes are not predictive....

 

Pretty basic analysis.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PufPuf23 (Reply #14)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:26 AM

56. Rally crowd sizes have nothing to do with it. It's voting booth crowds that matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #56)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:46 AM

61. Odd that two posters mis-read my post and felt the need to tell me I was wrong anyway.

I made a comparison between Obama in 2008 and Sanders in 2016 and said nothing about the general relationship between rally attendance and voter turn out (notr Sanders vs Clinton in 2016) rather I pointed out instances where rally attendance translated to votes (Obama 2008) and did not translate into votes (Sanders 2016). I suggested this was because there was more enthusiasm for Obama compared to Sanders.

Voting booths don't matter as much (California where mail ballots are common, I have no choice but mail ballot because of where I reside) or not at all (Oregon).

I went to McCarthy, Humphrey, and Wallace rallies in San Francisco 1968 as a supporter of McCarthy, age 15. I have not been to a political rally of any kind ever since but have not missed voting since 1972.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PufPuf23 (Reply #61)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 01:21 AM

64. Thinking that rally attendance in '08 translated to votes is just a guess.

No one can be sure of that.

Obama didn't rely on rallies as he also invested hugely in the essential campaign staple, the ground game (I was part of it in '08 and '12), which is what really got the votes out for him.

Sanders' campaign did the flashy, expensive rallies but didn't invest as much in the ground game. They should have put more money into door-to-door canvassing, phone banking and voter registration. Voter registration at the huge rallies is a no-brainer. Why was that not a priority?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #64)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 01:32 AM

65. Don't waste your time

 

Sanders supporters are going through the 5 stages of grief. Good news is that there are more posts about what has happened, which is stage 4.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lancer78 (Reply #65)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:14 AM

71. What stage is the FBI investigation, stage 6?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Matt_R (Reply #71)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:33 AM

73. Stage 100

 

As nothing will come of it. This is not watergate or anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lancer78 (Reply #73)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:15 AM

94. Yep not watergate, that was a break in at a hotel...

This is subverting the government, running a shadow pay for play scheme through the Clinton Foundation. Much worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #64)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 01:54 AM

66. Sanders got off to a slow start and then did much better than anyone,

including himself, had forecast.

Sanders just did not have the organization or funds (compared to Obama or Clinton), especially early, for a ground game and was playing catch up from start to end.

Odd that you feel the need for a negative spin ("flashy, expensive rallies" rather than note how remarkable and surprising the quest.

My understanding and what I read here was that voter registration did happen at the Sanders rallies.

Sanders brought out far more new and young voters than Clinton (as did Obama).

One of the other strange things like no other political campaign ever is that I have yet to see a single Clinton bumper sticker or yard sign in 2016, not a one. Granted I live in a rural part of a rural county and go to the populated small cities but once or twice a month; also the primary vote was 68% Sanders, 31% Clinton on last check - This is Humboldt county, CA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PufPuf23 (Reply #66)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 01:59 AM

67. Sorry, but the rallies were expensive arena rental fees, security, clean-up

Can help but think some of that money could have been invested in a ground game.

And maybe you don't know, Sanders raised and spent more money than Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brush (Reply #67)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:17 AM

72. Only if you don't count the SuperPac dollars...

Clinton spent more overall, but we will never know what the total SuperPac dollars spent, just that Clinton is broke now that the "primary is over."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:41 PM

15. You know it doesn't add up. They cheated their asses off and they are already trying to rewrite

history. Thanks to the internet they won't succeed.

It's pretty simple. The huge crowds, millions of donors, and lop-sided skewed exit polls favoring Hillary all point to blatant cheating.

This story about how the larger your rally crowds are the fewer votes you get is a transparently cheesy attempt at damage control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GoneFishin (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:26 AM

78. Reminder: Exit-Poll Conspiracy Theories Are Totally Baseless

http://www.thenation.com/article/reminder-exit-poll-conspiracy-theories-are-totally-baseless/

I think in Iowa Trump got far more people at his rally than he actually got in votes. One does not equate to the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:45 PM

17. Back in 2008

my partner and I went to four different Hillary rallies in SC. We did not vote in the SC primary. We couldn't because we lived in NC. Large crowd do not equal huge voter turnout. Enough with this crap already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)


Response to Post removed (Reply #18)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:01 PM

26. Delusional denial of reality is not proof of anything other than questionable judgement

 

You lost the election. People chose Clinton over Sanders.

In a few days, your theories will be relegated to wing nut websites and conspiracy driven echo chambers. Internationalists who co-opted the Sanders campaign will find something new to exploit and the only people left will be the burnouts, the hipsters, and the damage-driven holdouts like Sarandon who brought us the Bush presidency and the Iraq war.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #18)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:54 AM

62. A lot of her supporters have turned a blind eye to demonstrable proof before.

Take your facts and evidence and stuff 'em! I'm with her!

That's about the general gist of it, no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Juicy_Bellows (Reply #62)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:29 AM

79. What proof?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:45 PM

19. When we accepted 2000, they knew they could do whatever they wanted.

 

They even got a voting bill passed placing unverifiable voting machines from private companies with political ties to the GOP (Bush specifically), and no way to verify the proprietary software. Hence, 2004 was vote flipped to Bush. Roce tried to do it to Obama in 2012, but Obama was on top of everything... His campaign knew about the election fraud. And they kept on top of it in 2008 and 2012... He just never talked about it.

Unfortunately, for Bernie, he and the rest of the country never realized how big of a campaign apparatus he should have gathered or the amount of legal experts and ground game in "suspect" states they would need... Plus this year, there was quite a lot of purging as well. I think if he thought he would make it to CA, he would have also fought harder in the south, he could have made FL more competitive, which would have given him more legitimacy... But FL isn't a cheap campaign state.

Hopefully, progressives are now excited as all hell to get a candidate in place, and build the machine needed to take on the "elite candidate" over the next 4 years. Bernie showed us it's possible and the kids only get older and start paying back those loans that supported him this time... The 45 and under will be 50 and under by then as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:47 PM

21. Can you explain what "doesn't add up"?

A large Sanders rally is 50K people. A medium-sized primary turnout is 500K people.

What's so mysterious about 50,000 people not pushing the needle there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:57 PM

24. Rallies are political theater and social events.

Voting isn't a spectator sport.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:57 PM

25. No one is trying to "explain away" anything.

Bernie attracted crowds - crowds don't equal votes. You have to take into consideration that those "crowds" are comprised of individuals, some of whom can't vote, some of whom won't vote, some of whom come to listen to a candidate, but walk away unimpressed/unconvinced by what they've heard.

It's not unlike companies that give away free samples at festivals, fairs, etc. Everyone will take a free sample - but only a portion of those who do so will actually go out and buy the product after the fact.

The mistake BSers have made is assuming that every single person who attended a Bernie rally was there because they were already sold on what he was selling. As things turned out, many were not. And many who were couldn't be bothered to register/vote after the din of the crowd faded.

Not everyone who shows up for a free concert goes out and buys the album. It's really as simple as that.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:07 PM

27. Agree ... Bieber is the best musician ever

Look at the crowds attending his concerts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:08 PM

29. Your reasoning is utterly ludicrous

and I'll pretty much leave it at that.

I will say I've been to one political rally since I've been of voting age, I didn't vote for Jerry Brown, went with Bill Clinton instead. I've also voted in every election since then.

So, you're making the assumption that every person that went to his rally walked away a supporter and the second assumption is that all rally attendees voted. Those are two very large and misguided assumptions.

It's like assuming that all votes tossed out or not counted belong to Sanders. Your view is so myopic you should be blinded by it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:20 PM

30. Relentless conspiracy theories.

That's all you folks have anymore. It's the Democrat version of Ancient Aliens. This is getting ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:36 PM

34. Voting is routine and expected.

 

Going to a rally requires a special effort. Voting is easy. No real correlation there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:52 PM

35. Nobody felt the need to "explain away" Howard Dean's rallies...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:55 PM

36. I gave up on those long ago. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:56 PM

37. He atrracted younger people who don't also vote and have time to go to rallies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:59 PM

38. Rally vs No Rally

Bernie primary and caucus voters also went to rallies and Hillary voters just voted.
Bernie's new on the national scene, Hillary has been on the national stage since 1992; been there, done that.
Primary and caucus voters are about a third of those who vote in a general election.
Another poster on another thread put it this way: Let's guestimate 20,000 Bernie rally attendees at each of 20 rallies in California equal 400,000 Bernie voters. Bernie got 1.7 million votes in California. Rally goers were a relatively small segment of the people who voted for Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:01 PM

39. I'm a reliable voter - haven't missed a single election

since I turned 18 - and I wouldn't attend a large rally on a bet.

It would not surprise me to learn that most voters fall into the same category -

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PAMod (Reply #39)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:10 PM

43. Me, too. And I'm from a large urban region...never went to a rally.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PAMod (Reply #39)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:24 PM

46. Same

I always vote (for the last 20 years) but I just attended my first rally the other day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PAMod (Reply #39)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:12 AM

51. I am in the same mindset.

Never miss an election; won't attend a mega rally... Too crowded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PAMod (Reply #39)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:29 AM

98. I'm there with you.

 

I can't think of anything I'd rather do less than attenda huge rally to hear a politician say the same thungs I've geard them say. Thousand times. But I vote in every. Single. Election.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 11:22 PM

45. I don't think there's a disconnect.

Sanders' rallies draw between 5,000-20,000 people (up to almost 28,000, from what I've read). Compare that number to the actual number of votes in the CA primary for Clinton (over 2 million) and Sanders (about 1.6 million). Rally attendance is a small percentage, especially when you consider the fact that most Clinton voters don't really go to rallies. Clinton supporters do vote, however, and apparently in larger numbers (and more reliably) than younger people.

Recently, I heard Howard Dean discussing how he used to have huge rallies, like Bernie. Over time, he said he noticed the same people at every rally; they just followed him around, rally to rally.

Huge rallies aren't necessarily an indicator of large voter turnout.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarae (Reply #45)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:15 AM

93. See the problem is you're using math

It's a foreign concept to these die hards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:18 AM

54. .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 12:45 AM

60. Anyone who thinks US elections are not easily hackable is a fool.

 

Ohio showed you that and our SOS told you that many years ago. People stand up and speak out but they are mocked. Just like you do here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to peace13 (Reply #60)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 01:03 AM

63. Yes elections are hacked, during the counting

And messed with in a multitude of ways: Voter purges, closing or moving voting places, Changing voter registrations, threats of prosecution to those trying to vote, machines that F with the vote,
and no paper trail and fewer exit polls to check on the vote that did get placed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:06 AM

69. I haven't had a happy 4th of July since 2004...

...when I realized, after much study and argument here at DU, that these privately controlled 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines, that had been spread like a plague across our land, had been used to re-s/elect Bush-Cheney. The plague of 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines continued and they are now everywhere, in every state, with the southern states (where Hillary got her big advantage) doing NO AUDIT AT ALL (comparison of ballots to machine results) and the rest of the states doing a miserably inadequate audit.

Our system is easily--EASILY!--riggable and has been rigged. The only question in my mind now is who and why. It is not a matter of the peoples' votes any more. It's a matter of who controls the code in these machines and why they are s/electing one candidate over another.

As far as I'm concerned, the privatization of the very counting of our votes was the last nail in the coffin of our democracy, and until we nearly dead citizens somehow push that nail out, and restore vote counting to the PUBLIC VENUE, no other reform is possible. Our democracy has been buried alive and we don't have much time to unbury it before it dies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #69)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:38 AM

80. Then how did Obama win?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Peace Patriot (Reply #69)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:07 PM

103. Then there's this classic...



Published on Nov 16, 2012
Thom Hartmann discusses an article that says the hacker group, Anonymous may have been involved in stopping GOP mastermind Karl Rove from stealing the election in Ohio this year.


2012* changed my mind about democracy as 2008 did for capitalism.

________
*Also 2000, 2004, and 2016.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 02:08 AM

70. K & R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:15 AM

75. "Trying to explain away" = cognitive dissonance

 

When what a person believes contradicts what a person sees, he/she uses pretzel logic or mental gymnastics to reconcile the two.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 03:25 AM

76. When it doesn't add up, people of integrity try to find out why.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:03 AM

81. Sanders' rallies were held exclusively in and around college campuses. When someone tries to

 

tell you that it's not about the money, then trust your instincts, it was about the money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 07:17 AM

82. You seem to be trying to explain away people's votes

He has had a lot of excitement around his campaign, as outsiders often do, so people have been going to his rallies. I'm not surprised by that.

But going to a rally doesn't make your candidate win. Hillary supporters voting for her but not going to rallies doesn't mean she lost.

More people voted for her. It's a simple thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:16 AM

83. Bernie had a terrible ground game

but your mistake is believing that people at all those rallies were able to vote and were Bernie voters...they weren't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 08:25 AM

84. Bands fill stadiums all the time. Doesn't mean I'd make Justin Beiber the President. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 10:54 AM

91. I'm sure it's some kind of conspiracy. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:19 AM

95. Find me a state where Bernie got less votes than rally attendence

If you do the math you'll see that even if 100% of the people at those rallies voted for him, that's still a tiny minority of his voters and rally sizes aren't scientific polls.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:19 AM

96. Large stadium crowds had LITTLE to do with the MILLIONS of people who actually VOTED.

 

The stadium crowds were largely younger "rock fan" type activists who like to whoop it up at big rallies.

MILLIONS of people VOTE but don't necessary attend big rallies. There is simply very little correlation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:24 AM

97. I Agree Completely... I Could Go On And On...

but very few here will truly understand, UNTIL they have to face the consequences! We HAVE tried to sound the alarm!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 01:39 PM

100. Check Out Protecting Our Vote Video Here...


...trustvote.org. Fascinating historial and current analysis of our elections! WOW!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 01:51 PM

102. I have been to many rallies.

 

I was at a rally for Barry Commoner in 1980. It was his nomination convention actually. I think all 5,000 people who were there voted for him, so he got 6,000 votes. Same thing with Bernie. If he has a rally with 10,000 people, he gets 15,000 votes, all the people who went to the rally plus a few more. Clinton supporters, meanwhile, trudge to the polls and vote as they're told to vote. Why would they go to a rally? They feel they have no choice but to follow the same old same old, and they do their duty, but that's it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 04:50 PM

106. There's nothing TO explain away.

Rally sizes have no connection to voting. None at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 06:21 PM

111. John Kerry had huge rallies as well...

and we all know how that turned out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reformist2 (Original post)

Sun Jun 12, 2016, 11:29 PM

113. There's a lawsuit in the works that explains it.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread