~*~Unofficial 2016 US Presidential Election Thread~*~

[Willie71]

It's interesting. Exit polls were a 5 point difference, but the results were a 14 point difference. When there is a discrepancy if three points, there is likely election fraud. We know a lot if people were disenfranchised. In any event, whether it was fraud or not, it doesn't matter, since Sanders cannot overcome the deficit, regardless of the cause. Even as the investigation happens, has there ever been a result overturned? I've never seen it. Sad day for democracy, especially in a country that considers itself the world leader in freedom. If it is related to fraud, there is little to prevent the same in future states. It's a done deal.

[GT2211]

lol more conspiracy mongering

[kiore]

If Clinton was truly progressive, no one would refuse to vote for her.

What a Can-yuck-yuck-istanian.

Trump has as many voting supporters as Sanders does, roughly.
You are an idiot suffering terribly from Dunning-Kruger effect.

I am glad you are one of the idiots who is ineligible to vote in my country.
Tom

!

GENERAL MODNOTE Columbus, calling other members "idiots" etc is not the level of discourse we expect here, you are advised not to post this way. Further incidents may result in moderator action. Do not comment on this moderator action in this thread as it may be considered off topic and removed without notice.

[Willie71]

lol more conspiracy mongering

So you say there weren't any problems with the election? The fact that an investigation has been launched suggests otherwise.

[Willie71]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/19/politics/ ... de-blasio/

[GT2211]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/19/politics/new-york-primary-voter-problem-polls-sanders-de-blasio/

You realize this is an unrelated issue right? This has become predictable of whining that every lost election is stolen. So predictable that 538 guys were joking about how long it would take for Berniebros to cite exit polls as proof.

And took you no time at all.

[Willie71]

I guess the standard used worldwide to flag frauds doesn't matter in America?

[GT2211]

I guess the standard used worldwide to flag frauds doesn't matter in America?

No, that's not what I'm saying. The kinds of vote verification polls you are referencing are not the same as media exit polls. Media exit polls aren't meant to predict elections but give us demographic info(thus they are typically adjusted as votes come in).

Media polls are known to not always be that accurate and in particular overstate prone to overstate candidates who have enthusiastic and willing to do the survey

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electio ... _exit_poll

https://mobile.twitter.com/natesilver53 ... 3328419021
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/ne ... e-18439556

[Willie71]

Fair enough, Bernie lost, and short of some catastrophe for Clinton, she won the nomination.

[OlivierK]

It's interesting. Exit polls were a 5 point difference, but the results were a 14 point difference. When there is a discrepancy if three points, there is likely election fraud. We know a lot if people were disenfranchised. In any event, whether it was fraud or not, it doesn't matter, since Sanders cannot overcome the deficit, regardless of the cause. Even as the investigation happens, has there ever been a result overturned? I've never seen it. Sad day for democracy, especially in a country that considers itself the world leader in freedom. If it is related to fraud, there is little to prevent the same in future states. It's a done deal.

The actual results line up well with polls done with better methodology than exit polls.

[crank]

The weird thing about that story is a lot of it appears tailored to go against Bernie, but is overall harmful to Dims generally in the long run. If it was not incompetence, then it was incompetent nonetheless. They're not called Dims for nuthin'.

Hm. Except that I do believe it's the Board of Elections, which is part of the local government and not the political party people who are responsible for maintaining the voter registration rolls, which means that they have responsibility for the maintenance of the voter rolls for BOTH parties, not just for one party or the other. The parties don't maintain their own voter registration lists ... at least not those that are actually used when administrating elections.

It's the weirdness of who the Dims allow to vote, and when cutoffs are etc. I wasn't listening real closely, there was a deadline back in like october I think that you had to be registered as a dim, and a problem that if you took advantage of some relief for problem with your address last vote???, it meant they dropped you from their rolls, and you wouldn't know and if it was past Oct., you couldn't be a dim. That's kinda hazy, but too tired to go find out all the details.

[crank]

It's interesting. Exit polls were a 5 point difference, but the results were a 14 point difference. When there is a discrepancy if three points, there is likely election fraud. We know a lot if people were disenfranchised. In any event, whether it was fraud or not, it doesn't matter, since Sanders cannot overcome the deficit, regardless of the cause. Even as the investigation happens, has there ever been a result overturned? I've never seen it. Sad day for democracy, especially in a country that considers itself the world leader in freedom. If it is related to fraud, there is little to prevent the same in future states. It's a done deal.

Almost every major election,you hear of serous problems, everyone promises to do something about it, like Obama, and nothing ever gets done. Right now, the FEC is useless, it has 3 dims 4 repugs, and no one cares, even the FEC itself says it isn't doing anything any time soon. Even SCOTUS is aiding and abetting voter suppression. The MSM doesn't cover any of it beyond maybe a superficial mention. They won't even go after the repuglicans and their constant fraudulent claims of voter fraud and the voter suppression legislation they pass based on this fraud.

[proudfootz]

It's interesting. Exit polls were a 5 point difference, but the results were a 14 point difference. When there is a discrepancy if three points, there is likely election fraud. We know a lot if people were disenfranchised. In any event, whether it was fraud or not, it doesn't matter, since Sanders cannot overcome the deficit, regardless of the cause. Even as the investigation happens, has there ever been a result overturned? I've never seen it. Sad day for democracy, especially in a country that considers itself the world leader in freedom. If it is related to fraud, there is little to prevent the same in future states. It's a done deal.

Almost every major election,you hear of serous problems, everyone promises to do something about it, like Obama, and nothing ever gets done. Right now, the FEC is useless, it has 3 dims 4 repugs, and no one cares, even the FEC itself says it isn't doing anything any time soon. Even SCOTUS is aiding and abetting voter suppression. The MSM doesn't cover any of it beyond maybe a superficial mention. They won't even go after the repuglicans and their constant fraudulent claims of voter fraud and the voter suppression legislation they pass based on this fraud.

People who owe their positions of power and influence to the system as it is aren't very motivated to change it.

It's just common sense.

[Thommo]

Are more voters suppressed by caucusing, or by this New York incident?

Is it appropriate to react differently in the cases of Nevada, and New York, just because the candidate who benefited differs?

[proudfootz]

It's my opinion the whole system needs an overhaul.

It's a non-partisan issue. Or should be.

[crank]

It's time to get very bearish on guillotine and torch manufacturing companies. And we need peasants, can you euros turn us on to a supply? We just don't breed proper ones here in the US

[OlivierK]

I think the voting system needs an overhaul, with an independent federal authority reponsible for redistricting and conducting elections.

But the primary system can be as fucked as each party wants it to be: it's a private matter for each party, and they can do as they please to select their nominee. There's no need for the public to be involved at all, but clearly the majors believe there's a benefit to allowing it, but they can, and do, add all manner of conditions to that participation, for good reasons (minimising the risk of trolling by supporters of opposing parties) and bad (making the public's participation a veneer for undemocratic processes).

[proudfootz]

I think the voting system needs an overhaul, with an independent federal authority reponsible for redistricting and conducting elections.

But the primary system can be as fucked as each party wants it to be: it's a private matter for each party, and they can do as they please to select their nominee. There's no need for the public to be involved at all, but clearly the majors believe there's a benefit to allowing it, but they can, and do, add all manner of conditions to that participation, for good reasons (minimising the risk of trolling by supporters of opposing parties) and bad (making the public's participation a veneer for undemocratic processes).

Yes, how the Democratic Party selects its nominees is its own affair.

But it's not good PR to have a 'system' which undermines any claims to represent the preferences of its rank and file members, just as it's not good for the actual elections to be conducted in such a way as to undermine the confidence of the electorate.

[crank]

It's interesting. Exit polls were a 5 point difference, but the results were a 14 point difference. When there is a discrepancy if three points, there is likely election fraud. We know a lot if people were disenfranchised. In any event, whether it was fraud or not, it doesn't matter, since Sanders cannot overcome the deficit, regardless of the cause. Even as the investigation happens, has there ever been a result overturned? I've never seen it. Sad day for democracy, especially in a country that considers itself the world leader in freedom. If it is related to fraud, there is little to prevent the same in future states. It's a done deal.

The actual results line up well with polls done with better methodology than exit polls.

I thought exit polls were the most reliable measure. What are the better methodologies? This isn't an argumentative response, I'm curious. Over the years I have seen a number of mentions about exit polls being our best numbers, of course there aren't too many of them around before election day.

[crank]

I think the voting system needs an overhaul, with an independent federal authority reponsible for redistricting and conducting elections.

But the primary system can be as fucked as each party wants it to be: it's a private matter for each party, and they can do as they please to select their nominee. There's no need for the public to be involved at all, but clearly the majors believe there's a benefit to allowing it, but they can, and do, add all manner of conditions to that participation, for good reasons (minimising the risk of trolling by supporters of opposing parties) and bad (making the public's participation a veneer for undemocratic processes).

Yes, how the Democratic Party selects its nominees is its own affair.

But it's not good PR to have a 'system' which undermines any claims to represent the preferences of its rank and file members, just as it's not good for the actual elections to be conducted in such a way as to undermine the confidence of the electorate.

Considering all the bullshit laws aimed at keeping other parties or independents from succeeding at even getting on the ballot, maybe it should be taken out of the parties' hands. Or we need a constitutional amendment to eliminate any legislation or regulations that inhibit participation. The games the Dims played to keep Laurence Lessig off the ballots were pretty reprehensible.