Bernie Lives! A thread for those who never tire of Sanders.

[Thommo]

In my definition of rigging is influencing the process or result to get a desired result rather than a "free and fair election." In my mind this is bigger than typical campaign politics of exaggerating your strengths or exaggerating your opponents weaknesses.

Mine too, but there are certain criteria that apply, that the influence has to be significant and it has to be by means of affecting the mechanisms and procedures of the election.

If we apply the word indiscriminately then we lose all ability to distinguish between a couple of dodgy emails out of tens of millions and North Korea where you get shot if you talk about voting for someone else.

Voter fraud, misreporting, ballot stuffing, all these things are typical examples of voter fraud. And the (dubious) paper you linked would have been very much along these lines. If what they alleged were true, then yes, the election would be rigged.

Clinton could slam sanders for example, but if the DNC did it, then that shows a favouritism.

Yes, favouritism. A reasonable choice of word. If they admitted favouritism, or it could be shown that would be a perfectly fair, justifiable and substantive criticism.

The money re-routing in favour of Clinton was another example. They worked with the Clinton campaign to get a desired result. The DNC was feeding negative stories re sanders and controlled or limited the negative press for Clinton.

And if this is true, and to what extent would matter.

The group that generated the report is non partisan. They have criticized both parties and the processes. The RNC actually worked against trump in the primaries, but republican states worked against Clinton (for trump) in the general. The largest precincts showed the same statistical pattern I referenced. Additionally, the machines that had the audit function turned off showed the highest anomalies. The anomalies were in one direction, rather than random in either direction. That's pretty hard to explain away.

It's easily done in two words: Data mining.

As noted, demographics don't explain the trends. It could be a random phenomenon, but the statistical improbability is pretty low. I don't remember the exact calculation, but it's like flipping heads 100 times in a row. Not likely.

The thing is that flipping a coin is a random process. The analysis in that paper isn't. They didn't take random samples and test for a hypothesis.

[The_Piper]

In case anyone didn't see this yet, Bernie slams Trump (again). He's at the beginning of the video.

[Briton]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP5xavI0d_o&t=2202s

Has the way you inbed Youtube videos been changed?

[Thommo]

Take the "s" out of the https, and any suffices directing to a time index:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP5xavI0d_o&t=2202s

Has the way you inbed Youtube videos been changed?

Code: Select all

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP5xavI0d_o[/youtube]

[Briton]

Thanks Thommo.

[Thommo]

Welcome!

ETA: Since the time code is removed the video will play from the beginning if you do that, which means you usually have to direct people to a time code in plain text instead. In this case Briton's time stamp takes us to 36m42s into the interview, if anyone wants to see the bit he was linking in the window in the thread.

[OlivierK]

The group that generated the report is non partisan. They have criticized both parties and the processes. The RNC actually worked against trump in the primaries, but republican states worked against Clinton (for trump) in the general. The largest precincts showed the same statistical pattern I referenced. Additionally, the machines that had the audit function turned off showed the highest anomalies. The anomalies were in one direction, rather than random in either direction. That's pretty hard to explain away.

It's easily done in two words: Data mining.

As noted, demographics don't explain the trends. It could be a random phenomenon, but the statistical improbability is pretty low. I don't remember the exact calculation, but it's like flipping heads 100 times in a row. Not likely.

The thing is that flipping a coin is a random process. The analysis in that paper isn't. They didn't take random samples and test for a hypothesis.

Yeah, that report is junk, and I say that as a Sanders supporter. What they claim as anomalies are in fact normal statistical artefacts, and the data they claim moves away from the mean in fact moves towards it. It's unrigorous in pretty much most ways you could imagine, presenting cherry-picked examples that don't even show what's being claimed of them.

To take a specific example, their claim that in some districts the Clinton vote increased with booth size is illustrated with a graph showing that if you order booths by size and do a running total, then as larger booths were added, Clinton's cumulative vote share increased, which is exactly what you'd expect if the small booths they've tallied first were non-representative of the overall mean vote. Their graphs show cumulative data tending towards the mean, and claim they show the very opposite, despite the fact that that's an innumerate thing to claim, as all cumulative graphs will end at the mean when the whole sample is included, by definition. That report can safely go in the bin.

[Acetone]

The group that generated the report is non partisan. They have criticized both parties and the processes. The RNC actually worked against trump in the primaries, but republican states worked against Clinton (for trump) in the general. The largest precincts showed the same statistical pattern I referenced. Additionally, the machines that had the audit function turned off showed the highest anomalies. The anomalies were in one direction, rather than random in either direction. That's pretty hard to explain away.

It's easily done in two words: Data mining.

As noted, demographics don't explain the trends. It could be a random phenomenon, but the statistical improbability is pretty low. I don't remember the exact calculation, but it's like flipping heads 100 times in a row. Not likely.

The thing is that flipping a coin is a random process. The analysis in that paper isn't. They didn't take random samples and test for a hypothesis.

Yeah, that report is junk, and I say that as a Sanders supporter. What they claim as anomalies are in fact normal statistical artefacts, and the data they claim moves away from the mean in fact moves towards it. It's unrigorous in pretty much most ways you could imagine, presenting cherry-picked examples that don't even show what's being claimed of them.

To take a specific example, their claim that in some districts the Clinton vote increased with booth size is illustrated with a graph showing that if you order booths by size and do a running total, then as larger booths were added, Clinton's cumulative vote share increased, which is exactly what you'd expect if the small booths they've tallied first were non-representative of the overall mean vote. Their graphs show cumulative data tending towards the mean, and claim they show the very opposite, despite the fact that that's an innumerate thing to claim, as all cumulative graphs will end at the mean when the whole sample is included, by definition. That report can safely go in the bin.

Wow. I never even noticed that about the booths.

Hahahahaha Hahaha.

Nice one.

[Willie71]

The group that generated the report is non partisan. They have criticized both parties and the processes. The RNC actually worked against trump in the primaries, but republican states worked against Clinton (for trump) in the general. The largest precincts showed the same statistical pattern I referenced. Additionally, the machines that had the audit function turned off showed the highest anomalies. The anomalies were in one direction, rather than random in either direction. That's pretty hard to explain away.

It's easily done in two words: Data mining.

As noted, demographics don't explain the trends. It could be a random phenomenon, but the statistical improbability is pretty low. I don't remember the exact calculation, but it's like flipping heads 100 times in a row. Not likely.

The thing is that flipping a coin is a random process. The analysis in that paper isn't. They didn't take random samples and test for a hypothesis.

Yeah, that report is junk, and I say that as a Sanders supporter. What they claim as anomalies are in fact normal statistical artefacts, and the data they claim moves away from the mean in fact moves towards it. It's unrigorous in pretty much most ways you could imagine, presenting cherry-picked examples that don't even show what's being claimed of them.

To take a specific example, their claim that in some districts the Clinton vote increased with booth size is illustrated with a graph showing that if you order booths by size and do a running total, then as larger booths were added, Clinton's cumulative vote share increased, which is exactly what you'd expect if the small booths they've tallied first were non-representative of the overall mean vote. Their graphs show cumulative data tending towards the mean, and claim they show the very opposite, despite the fact that that's an innumerate thing to claim, as all cumulative graphs will end at the mean when the whole sample is included, by definition. That report can safely go in the bin.

Ok, that settles that, then.

[WayOfTheDodo]

It would have been exciting to see what he could have achieved as President, with the backing of a Democratic majority in senate and congress.

Sadly, I fear that the many Establishment (AKA Repugnican Light) Democrats there would fuck him over.

[WayOfTheDodo]

I've no reason to believe, based on the available evidence, that Bernie would have won the Presidency.

What about the polls showing that Sanders beat Trump by a wide margin when people were asked which of the two they would vote for?

Clinton only just barely won the same polls.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -5565.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -5491.html

[WayOfTheDodo]

You also seem to ignore the Dems admitting they rigged it.

Exactly what was admitted by whom?

Why did Debbie Wasserman Schultz resign as DNC chair?

[WayOfTheDodo]

Well, fuck.

I read in the "how will Trump's presidency end" thread about how Trump's mother and father were very old when they died. 88 and 94 or something like that.

I tried to look up Sanders' parents, and his father died at 57, while his mother died at 46.

Sanders is well beyond that by now, so maybe he'll hold on for even longer. Trump, on the other hand, is most likely going to stick around for a very long time.

[The_Piper]

On the bright side, it's possible Donnie has a cocaine problem.

[The_Piper]

Bernie hasn't slowed down with his fair evaluation of Trump. Today he called Trump a pathological liar , which isn't the first or third time he's done that. Can't say I disagree.


And whatdya know, Trump is lying about Bernie today! He tweeted that Bernie called CNN fake news and then they cut him off.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/830751875578355713

While on FAKE NEWS @CNN, Bernie Sanders was cut off for using the term fake news to describe the network. They said technical difficulties!

This is the clip Trump is referring to