2016 Postmortem

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)

53. A caucus vote count does not go by the population, if so the primary states would go by their

Thu May 19, 2016, 09:07 PM

May 2016

Population. Since there are also Republicans in a state counting the population is wrong also. In caucus states it amounts to voter suppression since many seniors are unable to participate, the handicapped and workers who are working during these hours.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

73 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Hillary Is Not Ahead By 3 Million Votes [View all] Meteor Man May 2016 OP

then bernie does not have 9 million. nt msongs May 2016 #1

Nebraska was run as a democratic primary and Hillary won. Renew Deal May 2016 #2

If anything caucuses count double Doctor Jack May 2016 #3

Shaun King quickly gets fact-checked by the Washington Post Frenchye May 2016 #4

Glenn Kessler's Math Meteor Man May 2016 #11

Common sense would tell you King's analysis is nonsensical... it doesn't even pass the eye test. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #18

So you are relying on berniemath? Gothmog May 2016 #57

Sean King gets hack-checked, you mean Uponthegears May 2016 #26

Not so fast... DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #31

Actually I went the right speed Uponthegears May 2016 #48

Densely was a poor choice of words. I should have said populous. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #49

Does not diminish Uponthegears May 2016 #54

Take solace in the fact we will stop Donald Trump, inshallah. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #56

Truth there Uponthegears May 2016 #60

Post removed Post removed May 2016 #32

they are coming out of the woodwork. they must be shaking in their boots. litlbilly May 2016 #45

That has to be it Ned_Devine May 2016 #52

it is intense, total desperation as it implodes before our eyes, they are in total desperado mode amborin May 2016 #65

Did you even read the article? He offers no facts refuting that Bernie got ZERO votes in Washington pdsimdars May 2016 #72

No not 3 it's 3.5 million MattP May 2016 #5

lolz obamanut2012 May 2016 #6

That is patently absurd DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #7

Shaun King is the same guy who said Bernie won Nevada Frenchye May 2016 #9

I am familiar with his work... DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #10

LOL. Starry Messenger May 2016 #68

One More Time Meteor Man May 2016 #12

I don't know about other states but the turnout in Washington was miserable LisaM May 2016 #8

Whatever you read was likely wrong. As a PCO, my precinct and all the others locally set records floriduck May 2016 #37

No, I'm not wrong, and it not as high as 2008 (but it was close) LisaM May 2016 #40

The state may have come up short but not in my area. Just sayin' floriduck May 2016 #42

So your "miserable" comment was a bit exaggerated. Or are you saying Obama's floriduck May 2016 #44

It was high compared to other caucuses, but caucus turnout is miserable in general. LisaM May 2016 #51

For what it's worth, I'd Ike to do away with caucuses too. I'd prefer vote by mail. floriduck May 2016 #62

I like the opportunity to vote by mail, but LisaM May 2016 #66

As long as she has one more delegate she wins. Sorry. nt eastwestdem May 2016 #13

And Democracy Loses Meteor Man May 2016 #34

Way better than a Sanders presidency. nt eastwestdem May 2016 #36

Sanders Presidency is good for the 99% and for democracy amborin May 2016 #64

I might agree with you if he had an actual plans to accomplish his promises. eastwestdem May 2016 #70

Honestly?!? chervilant May 2016 #71

some of the caucuses didn't even have 10,000 people in attendance. upaloopa May 2016 #14

Exactly Meteor Man May 2016 #19

The census is based on mathematical assumptions. Your and his arguments are obscurantist. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #20

Riiiight! Meteor Man May 2016 #24

Yeah, flat earthers deny the validity of inferential and descriptive statistics. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #25

And Krugman Is Always Right Meteor Man May 2016 #29

The Nobel Prize winner has a firmer understanding of economics than the Vermont independent. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #33

How About Stiglitz? Meteor Man May 2016 #38

" See how clear that is? " I think so. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #43

Lol! Meteor Man May 2016 #58

You don't bring glory to yourself my making things up. DemocratSinceBirth May 2016 #61

Did you watch the video? Meteor Man May 2016 #67

Wrong. The votes from caucuses won't change anything. Almost no one votes. CrowCityDem May 2016 #15

I got a video just for you workinclasszero May 2016 #16

Just 7 contests have not reported their populsr vote. hrmjustin May 2016 #17

Alaska? Meteor Man May 2016 #21

.alaska is blank on that list. hrmjustin May 2016 #23

Oh yeah Meteor Man May 2016 #27

No but they do report how many voted. You can do guess work based on results. hrmjustin May 2016 #28

Guess Work Meteor Man May 2016 #30

She can't win! The votes don't count! She's unelectable! randome May 2016 #22

Right. JTFrog May 2016 #35

You R right. Hillary is ahead by 2.9M riversedge May 2016 #39

Yes, Clinton is winning the popular vote — by a wide margin Gothmog May 2016 #41

For The Third Time Meteor Man May 2016 #46

I'll take educated guesswork over hopeful fantasy anytime. randome May 2016 #50

Guess Work Meteor Man May 2016 #59

Why trust you over the fact checker? Gothmog May 2016 #55

Excellent point. CentralMass May 2016 #47

A caucus vote count does not go by the population, if so the primary states would go by their Thinkingabout May 2016 #53

Well, what if the other side subtracted non-Democratic party votes? JCMach1 May 2016 #63

2.9 million bigtree May 2016 #69

This is actually Stupid. Literally, Mathematically stupid.` DWilliamsamh Jun 2016 #73