Wed Jun 22, 2016, 04:56 PM
J_J_ (1,213 posts)
California’s lengthy vote count stokes theories that Sanders actually won the primary
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/06/22/californias-lengthy-vote-count-stokes-theories-that-sanders-actually-won-the-primary/
|
61 replies, 13897 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
J_J_ | Jun 2016 | OP |
Peacetrain | Jun 2016 | #1 | |
laserhaas | Jun 2016 | #3 | |
anigbrowl | Jun 2016 | #19 | |
laserhaas | Jun 2016 | #22 | |
Dustlawyer | Jun 2016 | #33 | |
Hortensis | Jun 2016 | #53 | |
MyNameGoesHere | Jun 2016 | #36 | |
J_J_ | Jun 2016 | #4 | |
Agschmid | Jun 2016 | #2 | |
JaneyVee | Jun 2016 | #5 | |
alcibiades_mystery | Jun 2016 | #6 | |
laserhaas | Jun 2016 | #23 | |
Fast Walker 52 | Jun 2016 | #7 | |
NurseJackie | Jun 2016 | #8 | |
TwilightZone | Jun 2016 | #9 | |
Lord Magus | Jun 2016 | #18 | |
NYC Liberal | Jun 2016 | #10 | |
lamp_shade | Jun 2016 | #11 | |
COLGATE4 | Jun 2016 | #28 | |
JoePhilly | Jun 2016 | #50 | |
DemocratSinceBirth | Jun 2016 | #12 | |
BlueMTexpat | Jun 2016 | #37 | |
onenote | Jun 2016 | #13 | |
JoePhilly | Jun 2016 | #14 | |
Downtown Hound | Jun 2016 | #15 | |
Post removed | Jun 2016 | #24 | |
rjsquirrel | Jun 2016 | #29 | |
laserhaas | Jun 2016 | #32 | |
rjsquirrel | Jun 2016 | #35 | |
Downtown Hound | Jun 2016 | #44 | |
laserhaas | Jun 2016 | #57 | |
Downtown Hound | Jun 2016 | #60 | |
BainsBane | Jun 2016 | #16 | |
laserhaas | Jun 2016 | #25 | |
stevenleser | Jun 2016 | #34 | |
cosmicone | Jun 2016 | #17 | |
baldguy | Jun 2016 | #20 | |
FSogol | Jun 2016 | #46 | |
JoePhilly | Jun 2016 | #51 | |
BlueCaliDem | Jun 2016 | #56 | |
democrattotheend | Jun 2016 | #21 | |
laserhaas | Jun 2016 | #26 | |
rjsquirrel | Jun 2016 | #27 | |
stonecutter357 | Jun 2016 | #30 | |
liberal N proud | Jun 2016 | #31 | |
LongtimeAZDem | Jun 2016 | #38 | |
randome | Jun 2016 | #39 | |
thesquanderer | Jun 2016 | #40 | |
Spazito | Jun 2016 | #41 | |
Adrahil | Jun 2016 | #42 | |
yellowcanine | Jun 2016 | #43 | |
Tarc | Jun 2016 | #45 | |
LiberalFighter | Jun 2016 | #47 | |
Tom Rinaldo | Jun 2016 | #48 | |
Post removed | Jun 2016 | #49 | |
still_one | Jun 2016 | #52 | |
zappaman | Jun 2016 | #54 | |
Orsino | Jun 2016 | #55 | |
LongtimeAZDem | Jun 2016 | #58 | |
onenote | Jun 2016 | #59 | |
Dem2 | Jun 2016 | #61 |
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 05:03 PM
Peacetrain (21,489 posts)
1. Just let it go..
Seriously.. just let it go.. breathe.. just let it go
|
Response to Peacetrain (Reply #1)
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 05:07 PM
laserhaas (7,805 posts)
3. Uh..er nope .. l
..
Remain steadfast in the opine Though it is moot..due to the powers that be |
Response to laserhaas (Reply #3)
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:32 PM
anigbrowl (13,889 posts)
19. Zzzz it always takes a long time to count the votes in California
We have crazy long ballots, proportional representation in some districts, and we vote on so many races and ballot propositions. All the time I've lived here the results take several weeks to completely process. There is no story here buddy.
|
Response to laserhaas (Reply #3)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 08:36 AM
laserhaas (7,805 posts)
22. I just dont understan calling for vote gsmes
as being progress.
Im for her...no matter what she's doing or done ...has won. What does that say about U.S.? |
Response to laserhaas (Reply #22)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 09:13 AM
Dustlawyer (10,108 posts)
33. The integrity of our voting system is more than worth a look into how it is performing, whether or
not it would change the outcome. Would you want Trump to win due to computerized election fraud?
|
Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #33)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 01:18 PM
Hortensis (51,675 posts)
53. Hillary's 9% ahead in California, and continued
counting could raise or lower that slightly. What it won't do is change the results.
Bernie knew that when he admitted yesterday that he wasn't going to be the nominee and that he would be one of the speakers at the convention if the organizers wanted him to be and not if they did not, though he believed they would. Sanders is not pinning any hopes or worries on some enormous election fraud theory, and so, absolutely knowing that he'd fight like a lion if it were true, probably his supporters should take a clue from him. |
Response to laserhaas (Reply #22)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 09:27 AM
MyNameGoesHere (6,998 posts)
36. It says we count votes and we
steadfastly support losing causes. Even to the detriment of one's self. Skating my friend, you are skating.
|
Response to Peacetrain (Reply #1)
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 05:08 PM
J_J_ (1,213 posts)
4. The Washington Post thought it interesting enough to write a story about this
If you are not interested, don't read it, and don't respond. Simple. |
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 05:05 PM
Agschmid (28,739 posts)
2. "Theories" and that's about it.
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 05:10 PM
JaneyVee (19,877 posts)
5. Let us know how it turns out.
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 05:11 PM
alcibiades_mystery (36,437 posts)
6. Sane Sanders supporters know he simply lost
Why we report on the paranoids and lunatics is a mystery.
|
Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #6)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 08:38 AM
laserhaas (7,805 posts)
23. Yeah..keep telling yourself that bull
You've gotten what you wished for
But ...don't ever think that's because we Berns were stupid |
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 05:29 PM
Fast Walker 52 (7,723 posts)
7. I'm glad this is being mentioned and they are counting the actual votes
though even if Sanders won, it probably won't be by much and not enough to get the delegates he needs.
|
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 05:52 PM
TwilightZone (21,191 posts)
9. "Sanders had 75 percent of the estimated 20 percent of voters who were disenfranchised"
That's about as nonsensical a claim as I've seen made the entire election cycle.
"Richard Charnin, a freelancer who specializes in "JFK conspiracy and systemic election fraud analysis" Ah, that explains it. |
Response to TwilightZone (Reply #9)
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 09:07 PM
Lord Magus (1,999 posts)
18. If gibberish is put in the form of statisitcs it will seem more credible to some.
"Some" meaning those who are at least somewhat inclined to give credence conspiracy theories, that is.
|
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 05:55 PM
NYC Liberal (19,613 posts)
10. Count all the votes. Hillary still won and by a landslide.
Response to lamp_shade (Reply #11)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 08:46 AM
COLGATE4 (14,731 posts)
28. PERFECT! Thread winner! nt
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 06:04 PM
DemocratSinceBirth (97,700 posts)
12. Here is the official website. It is like watching paint dry.
Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #12)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 09:42 AM
BlueMTexpat (14,985 posts)
37. And Hillary's lead in popular
votes remains .... I was going to post updates, but decided not to as it is too much like revisiting the primary, which is supposed to be against the new rules.
CA's voting/counting process has been like this for awhile. It's just that a LOT of people seem never to have participated in a Dem Presidential primary before - or weren't paying attention when they did. So. They. Just. Won't. Let. It. Go. This little note at the SoS website explains the CA counting process: http://vote.sos.ca.gov/ Semi-Official Election Results
Election results are updated as often as new data is received from county elections offices after the polls close at 8:00 p.m. on Election Day. Many ballots are counted after Election Day. County elections officials have approximately one month to complete their extensive tallying, auditing, and certification work. They must report final certified results to the Secretary of State by July 8, 2016. But ... ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 06:22 PM
onenote (37,112 posts)
13. Math still isn't some folks strong suit
Still looking for an explanation of the reference to "65,500" ballots in Los Angeles and "580,000" ballots statewide and, in particular, how 580,000 ballots out of 8.6 million is one eighth.
The real math: Clinton currently has a lead of around 445,000 over Sanders. There are 710,000 ballots not yet processed (including 199,000 mail in ballots and 481,000 provisional ballots). Let's assume that 75 percent of those 710,000 ballots (532,500) are Democratic presidential primary ballots (even though up until now, Democratic Presidential primary ballots represent only around 60 percent of all of the ballots processed). To overtake Clinton, Sanders would have to get around 488,750 of the 532,500 remaining Democratic Primary ballots. That's 92 percent. (Heck, even if 100 percent of the 710,000 unprocessed ballots are Democratic presidential primary ballots --which is definitely not the case) -- Sanders would have to get 81 percent of them. Not. Going. To. Happen. |
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 06:36 PM
JoePhilly (27,787 posts)
14. Ancient Alien Theorists think Bernie won CA!!!
There, fixed your OP title.
|
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:03 PM
Downtown Hound (12,618 posts)
15. If you believe Sanders won, clap your hands!
Response to Downtown Hound (Reply #15)
Post removed
Response to Post removed (Reply #24)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to rjsquirrel (Reply #29)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 09:12 AM
laserhaas (7,805 posts)
32. No....that's your definition
And it is biased....coming from the side that benefited from the odd events.
Not once...did odd events bode into Bernie's favor But he won our hearts And should have won yours too....IMO |
Response to laserhaas (Reply #32)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to laserhaas (Reply #32)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 11:21 AM
Downtown Hound (12,618 posts)
44. Um, just so you know, I'm a Californian who voted for Bernie
But the man obviously lost. Time to accept reality and move on. The level with which some Bernie supporters are clinging to their delusions is becoming embarrassing.
|
Response to Downtown Hound (Reply #44)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 02:03 PM
laserhaas (7,805 posts)
57. Whats your choice got anything to do with our right to know_
Moving on to the inevitable
has nothing to do with the reconciling the unacceptable! |
Response to laserhaas (Reply #57)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 10:49 PM
Downtown Hound (12,618 posts)
60. Who is denying you the right to know?
Polls showed Clinton ahead and the election bore that out. You can cling to fantasies about your persecution complex all you want, but Sanders lost CA fair and square.
Oh and just so you know, CA always takes a long time to count its votes. It's happened in just about every election we've had here. It called living in a state with nearly 40 million people. Since you are so concerned about election integrity, I would thing you'd appreciate the fact that they actually take the time to get it right. Seriously dude, let it go. Sanders did not win. End of story. Your fantastical clinging to your delusions isn't going to change that, and enough of us out here actually live on planet Earth to where no amount of yelling at the clouds by you is going to make any difference. |
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 07:08 PM
BainsBane (49,683 posts)
16. The law gives the counties a month to count the ballots
And the Secretary of State's office updates the counts. http://vote.sos.ca.gov/unprocessed-ballots-status/
http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/party/democratic/ The CTs require ignoring the information provided by the SoS, as though everything stopped on the night of June 7. |
Response to BainsBane (Reply #16)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 08:44 AM
laserhaas (7,805 posts)
25. Actually...The night before..when AP said it's done
Oops...sorry they made a mistake
But damage done |
Response to laserhaas (Reply #25)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 09:14 AM
stevenleser (32,886 posts)
34. If mistake = understated the margin of Hillary's victory by a few thousand votes, sure. nt
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 08:55 PM
cosmicone (11,014 posts)
17. This is getting tiresome in my opinion
I have moved on ....
|
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 10:16 PM
baldguy (36,649 posts)
20. Trying to undermine the legitimacy of the Democratic nominee is a Republican tactic.
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Wed Jun 22, 2016, 11:49 PM
democrattotheend (11,585 posts)
21. I'm not optimistic that it will change the results
But I do support fighting to count the provisionals because I think it's important to fight for every legit vote (which many provisionals are) to count.
|
Response to democrattotheend (Reply #21)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 08:44 AM
laserhaas (7,805 posts)
26. Good for you
![]() |
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
rjsquirrel This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 09:04 AM
stonecutter357 (12,375 posts)
30. seems legit !
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 09:08 AM
liberal N proud (59,150 posts)
31. I guess at this point, I don't really care.
It's not like it was going to change the nomination
|
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 10:01 AM
LongtimeAZDem (4,450 posts)
38. As of this morning (6/26/16)
Clinton has 2,582,052, Sanders has 2,137,532, and there are an estimated left to count. Sanders needs to get 83% of the remaining votes to win California.
The counting has averaged around 200,000 ballots per day since the election; at that rate, we should have a mathematical resolution by tomorrow evening, possibly tonight. As to the counting of every provisional ballot, that is done anyway, by law. The "direct action" cited by the OP amounts to something like this: ACTIVISTS: "You have to count every provisional ballot!" SECRETARY of STATE: "We do." ACTIVISTS: "Yay! We did it!" |
Response to LongtimeAZDem (Reply #38)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 10:05 AM
randome (34,845 posts)
39. I know. Declaring "Victory" for a completely meaningless gesture.
Aren't they cute?
![]() |
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 10:15 AM
thesquanderer (11,222 posts)
40. Unless Sanders won something like 75 to 25, it wouldn't matter regardless.
The only shot he had was if he walked away from the primary process with the majority of pledged candidates, and about 75% is what he would have needed to accomplish that. Anything short of that, he simply lost. Since there's no way he got anything like 75%, what real benefit is there in continuing to argue about just how much did he lose by?
|
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 10:47 AM
Spazito (43,872 posts)
41. "Few Sanders supporters endorse that theory..."
that's a good thing!
|
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 10:55 AM
Adrahil (13,340 posts)
42. Umm... Sanders has been slightly losing the vote since the election was called.
The margin has narrowed, and will continue to do so, but Sanders has actually LOST a little ground in terms of the vote margin since the election was called.
To win, he'd need to win something like 450,000 of the remaining 680,000 outstanding ballots. Yeah... good luck with that! |
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 11:07 AM
yellowcanine (35,043 posts)
43. Don't understand the reasoning here, Clinton is gaining votes on Sanders
![]() |
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 11:43 AM
Tarc (10,166 posts)
45. "Don't keep fighting the last Democratic presidential primary"
![]() |
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 11:50 AM
LiberalFighter (43,663 posts)
47. What are the odds that the outcome will change?
Even though the outcome won't change the votes still need to be counted.
Election Results on June 12
Clinton : 2,128,194 Sanders: 1,653,416 Others : 36,103 --Total : 3,817,713 Election Results on June 23 Clinton : 2,582,052 (+ 453,858) Sanders: 2,137,532 (+ 484,116) Others: 43,045 --Total: 4,762,629 (Increased 944,916) Unprocessed ballots as of June 13
1,506,952 -- Mail 717,862 -- Provisional 78,825 -- Other 2,303,639 -- Totals Unprocessed ballots as of June 22 176,546 -- Mail 474,233 -- Provisional 29,699 -- Other 680,478 -- Totals Total processed since June 13 1,330,406 -- Mail 243,629 -- Provisional 49,126 -- Other 1,623,161 -- Totals (678,245 not included in Democratic count) June 12
1,741,297 -- Republican [font color="white"]x,x[/font]32,399 -- American Independent [font color="white"]x,x[/font]10,943 -- Green [font color="white"]x,x[/font]22,971 -- Libertarian [font color="white"]x,xx[/font]3,847 -- Peace and Freedom 1,811,457 -- Totals not including Dems June 22 2,119,442 -- Republican [font color="white"]x,x[/font]38,916 -- American Independent [font color="white"]x,x[/font]13,607 -- Green [font color="white"]x,x[/font]28,709 -- Libertarian [font color="white"]x,xx[/font]4,669 -- Peace and Freedom 2,205,343 -- Totals not including Dems 393,886 -- Votes since June 12 not including Dems 284,359 -- Not included Numbers are totals of all 58 counties. Ratio of the 1,623,161 processed votes 58.2% -- Democratic ballots 23.3% -- Republican ballots 00.9% -- Third Party ballots 17.5% -- Not included 60% of the remaining 680,478 unprocessed ballots is 408,286. Rough split of remaining votes without knowing who benefits county by county. Clinton: 329,351 -- Sanders: 351,127 |
Response to LiberalFighter (Reply #47)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 12:07 PM
Tom Rinaldo (22,309 posts)
48. It already has changed the outcome
Sanders has gained additional delegate as the counting proceeds. It is about the division of delegates with proportional distribution systems, and CD based delegate victories, like California uses.
|
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Post removed
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 01:12 PM
still_one (83,634 posts)
52. This is the second OP you have done implying that California does not count provisional ballots
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2214490
I know this may be hard to believe but CALIFORNIA COUNTS ALL THEIR BALLOTS, including provisional ones, regardless of the margin. I am really getting tired of these implications about my state. For anyone who cares to see what the current vote is all they have to do is go to the SOS site to see the most current numbers: http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/party/democratic/ California counts all its ballots, including provisional ones: Q: Are vote-by-mail and provisional ballots always counted – even in "landslide" elections? A: Yes, every valid ballot returned to county elections officials by 8:00 p.m. on election day is counted in every election, regardless of the ballot type or the margin in any particular contest. http://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories/2014-news-releases-and-advisories/db14-090/ http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/provisional-voting/ http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ballot-status/ The provisional ballots would be counted regardless if a candidate concedes or not. I don't know how other states do it, but this is how California does it. Nothing is being hidden from the public. July 9 are when the final results will be completed: http://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories/2016-news-releases-and-advisories/vote-count-update/ "Provisional Ballots In California, provisional ballots serve as a fail-safe method of ensuring all voters who show up to the polls can cast a ballot. All provisional ballots are carefully checked by county elections officials to confirm that the person who voted provisionally is both registered and that they did not cast a ballot by mail or at another polling location on Election Day." |
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 01:29 PM
Orsino (37,428 posts)
55. Theories about who won aren't useful when the ballots haven't all been counted.
I'm not anticipating anything even close to a flip, but counting ballots ought to be the default, and no victory ought to be declared until one winner becomes mathematically inevitable.
|
Response to Orsino (Reply #55)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 04:31 PM
LongtimeAZDem (4,450 posts)
58. You're right about a state primary victory for California
since Sanders could still theoretically win it if he gets 83% of all remaining ballots.
But that's really all moot. It is mathematically impossible to win enough delegates to win the pledged delegate majority, which he will lose by at least 370 delegates. |
Response to Orsino (Reply #55)
Thu Jun 23, 2016, 04:39 PM
onenote (37,112 posts)
59. No victory is officially declared until the votes are counted and certified
that's pretty much standard operating procedure everywhere.
In terms of what the media does -- they will "call" elections for one candidate or another when they have enough information to make that call. While there are rare instances where they get the call wrong, they usually are right and nothing and no one is going to stop the practice. |
Response to J_J_ (Original post)
Fri Jun 24, 2016, 12:16 AM
Dem2 (8,158 posts)
61. 441,355 vote lead for Clinton now
It's virtually unchanged since election day and they're nearing completion.
Not sure why you're obsessing over this still. |