Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

mythology

(9,527 posts)
9. Your title doesn't match the article
Thu Feb 2, 2017, 02:11 PM
Feb 2017

It clearly explains that those 161,000 ballots includes those who double voted or voted for an invalid candidate.

Pretending that it's only people who didn't vote for President and thus is proof something was amiss is sketchy at best.

Complaining the number to previous elections doesn't really work considering how unpopular both candidates were and the presence of Sanders being perceived by some of his supporters as the only true Democrat and Clinton as no better than Trump. Obviously overall that was a small percentage of Sanders' supporters, but it's another factor that makes a straight comparison to previous elections an incorrect comparison.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Wait, 70,000 mostly black...»Reply #9