Democratic Primaries

Uncle Joe

(65,895 posts)

30. The chart only uses 100% in the case that 20 odd percent of members voted for Warren. If

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 01:51 PM

Sep 2019

you keep following the graph, that bar descends as increased numbers of members are used in the tabulation in order to get the end result published amount of 60.9 percent of the weighted total going for Elizabeth.

It also states in the article that in total 80% of members voted for Bernie or Elizabeth so the chart begins at 20% and tops out at 80.

There is of course only way to know for certain as to who built this pyramid, and that would be for the WFP to publish the total % breakdown of votes; members and leaders.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sanders supporters cry foul over Working Families endorsement of Warren [View all] brooklynite Sep 2019 OP

Her center-piece is working families. She is all about working families. He's like Revolution, dude. emmaverybo Sep 2019 #1

Weighted equally means Eric J in MN Sep 2019 #2

No way to tell from the OP what exactly "weighed equually" means beastie boy Sep 2019 #7

Here is an article stating how it could happen. Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #9

Actually, the chart is incorrect. It assumes that 100% of WFP leadership voted for either Warren or beastie boy Sep 2019 #29

The chart only uses 100% in the case that 20 odd percent of members voted for Warren. If Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #30

It's not the numbers ON the chart I am questioning. It's the assumption that the chart is beastie boy Sep 2019 #31

The assumption is based on at least the minimum, full transparency for democratic processes Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #33

I just agreed with you on transparency of democratic process. I don't know what else you expect. beastie boy Sep 2019 #34

Another true title - Sanders supporters errupt with calls of foul play because their guy lost. lark Sep 2019 #3

Did they feel ENTITLED to the endorsement? NurseJackie Sep 2019 #12

Sanders Supporters: "I'll Respect The Outcome Of The Vote If We Win" smb Sep 2019 #27

Pre-cisely, lark! Cha Sep 2019 #38

They should probably just release the vote breakdown... TCJ70 Sep 2019 #4

Guess it's not so meaningless after all. TwilightZone Sep 2019 #5

Release the Full Vote WFP ritapria Sep 2019 #6

It is proof that the "establishment" rigged the election BlueMississippi Sep 2019 #20

"Dues Paying"? brooklynite Sep 2019 #22

The WFP doesn't require dues. TwilightZone Sep 2019 #36

I wonder if all those complaining today remember last year when the WFP endorsed and RAN... George II Sep 2019 #8

Not exactly what happened brooklynite Sep 2019 #16

Aw. NurseJackie Sep 2019 #10

Yes, lack of transparency is sad. Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #11

The sense of entitlement is even sadder. NurseJackie Sep 2019 #13

"Entitlement" to transparency is sad? How curious. Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #14

Ha! NurseJackie Sep 2019 #15

Supporters are complaining but not the campaign itself. LiberalFighter Sep 2019 #17

Figures. NurseJackie Sep 2019 #18

Rigged by the "establishment" BlueMississippi Sep 2019 #19

This is disqualifying. BannonsLiver Sep 2019 #21

Nobody is entitled to an endorsement Otto Lidenbrock Sep 2019 #23

:) On schedule, even tho the WFP normally endorses a Democrat or Republican. Hortensis Sep 2019 #24

weren't they saying this endorsement makes no difference ? JI7 Sep 2019 #25

Here's the link to the WFP rules SharonClark Sep 2019 #26

April 22, 2015 Working Families met with Elizabeth to 'Draft Warren' crazytown Sep 2019 #28

Sanders supporters cry foul over [fill in the blank]. honest.abe Sep 2019 #32

Surprise! Sanders declined to meet with WFP leadership...unlike Warren brooklynite Sep 2019 #35

Apparently, "crying foul" involves racism, sexism and threats. TwilightZone Sep 2019 #37