|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 25 2016 01:10 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 00:37 Plansix wrote:
“I have a feeling Clinton was behind it” pretty much sums up a lot of the acquisitions of election manipulation leveled against her. Gut feelings. Lets not forget that it’s a GOP controlled state with GOP written voter laws. But lets level the conspiracy theories against Clinton. Early votes, which were predominately older voters, were not hampered with, while the later votes were given a lot of difficulty. And it's known that older voters favor Clinton. A ton of people were still waiting in line near midnight. People waited close to 5 hours in line, where many people had to go home b/c it was just too much, especially without water / food / bathroom. A lot of the video footage shows these places giving provisional ballots for those switching from independent to democrat, which, by statistics, lean toward Bernie. The list goes on and on.
Correlation is not causation.
|
On March 25 2016 01:14 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:On March 25 2016 01:03 jcarlsoniv wrote:On March 25 2016 00:50 oneofthem wrote:
some enlightened and much needed discourse being created by the sanders campaign right here Isn't Mohdoo a Clinton supporter... I would choose Bernie to be my president (I think our political system would filter him into being decent), but I would not choose him to run in the general election. I think the only way Cruz/Trump wins is blasting the word "socialism" on megaphones until November. The worst Trump can do to Sanders is his comment on Cuba / framing him as a socialist, but that's about it.
You are really, really not giving enough credit to how toxic the word socialism is in how many places. A general election can not be won with socialism today. I think in 8 years, maybe after the Sanders movement has matured and more old people have died. Even a lot of democrats (Keep in mind there are democrats over age 40 :p) cringe at socialism. I don't. But the public opinion just isn't there. Virginia and Florida would be lost, no matter what. That's a really big deal. I honestly think Bernie would win if he had, early on, denounced the term socialist and branded himself a democrat. Same message, no socialism.
|
Not sure why anyone would think Hillary could lose to Trump in the general.
He is prone to outbursts and easily manipulated. She knows his pressure points. But on the other hand you all saw what happened when the Republicans B-Team tried to do her under in the Benghazi hearings. With a few snipes in a debate from her, and he will be a rambling incoherent mess with slightly smaller than large sized hands, a no problem dick and the best words.
|
On March 25 2016 01:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 01:10 parkufarku wrote:On March 25 2016 00:37 Plansix wrote:
“I have a feeling Clinton was behind it” pretty much sums up a lot of the acquisitions of election manipulation leveled against her. Gut feelings. Lets not forget that it’s a GOP controlled state with GOP written voter laws. But lets level the conspiracy theories against Clinton. Early votes, which were predominately older voters, were not hampered with, while the later votes were given a lot of difficulty. And it's known that older voters favor Clinton. A ton of people were still waiting in line near midnight. People waited close to 5 hours in line, where many people had to go home b/c it was just too much, especially without water / food / bathroom. A lot of the video footage shows these places giving provisional ballots for those switching from independent to democrat, which, by statistics, lean toward Bernie. The list goes on and on. Correlation is not causation.
No, but when correlation often point toward a certain direction, it often is the case.
Obviously I can't prove it happened, but as they say, 'if it smells like X & looks like X, it probably is X.'
|
On March 25 2016 01:20 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 01:15 Plansix wrote:On March 25 2016 01:10 parkufarku wrote:On March 25 2016 00:37 Plansix wrote:
“I have a feeling Clinton was behind it” pretty much sums up a lot of the acquisitions of election manipulation leveled against her. Gut feelings. Lets not forget that it’s a GOP controlled state with GOP written voter laws. But lets level the conspiracy theories against Clinton. Early votes, which were predominately older voters, were not hampered with, while the later votes were given a lot of difficulty. And it's known that older voters favor Clinton. A ton of people were still waiting in line near midnight. People waited close to 5 hours in line, where many people had to go home b/c it was just too much, especially without water / food / bathroom. A lot of the video footage shows these places giving provisional ballots for those switching from independent to democrat, which, by statistics, lean toward Bernie. The list goes on and on. Correlation is not causation. No, but when correlation often point toward a certain direction, it often is the case. Obviously I can't prove it happened, but as they say, 'if it smells like X & looks like X, it probably is X.'
Translation: I believe the Truth is out there Scully.
|
On March 25 2016 01:17 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 01:14 parkufarku wrote:On March 25 2016 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:On March 25 2016 01:03 jcarlsoniv wrote:On March 25 2016 00:50 oneofthem wrote:
some enlightened and much needed discourse being created by the sanders campaign right here Isn't Mohdoo a Clinton supporter... I would choose Bernie to be my president (I think our political system would filter him into being decent), but I would not choose him to run in the general election. I think the only way Cruz/Trump wins is blasting the word "socialism" on megaphones until November. The worst Trump can do to Sanders is his comment on Cuba / framing him as a socialist, but that's about it. You are really, really not giving enough credit to how toxic the word socialism is in how many places. A general election can not be won with socialism today. I think in 8 years, maybe after the Sanders movement has matured and more old people have died. Even a lot of democrats (Keep in mind there are democrats over age 40 :p) cringe at socialism. I don't. But the public opinion just isn't there. Virginia and Florida would be lost, no matter what. That's a really big deal. I honestly think Bernie would win if he had, early on, denounced the term socialist and branded himself a democrat. Same message, no socialism.
I can somewhat agree with you here, considering how dumb the average voter can be, but you have to keep in mind that it's not game-changing if you consider the fact that he's not actually a socialist. If he really was, he would get chewed out, but he's not. And his campaign would let the populace know that he is not.
|
On March 25 2016 01:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 01:20 parkufarku wrote:On March 25 2016 01:15 Plansix wrote:On March 25 2016 01:10 parkufarku wrote:On March 25 2016 00:37 Plansix wrote:
“I have a feeling Clinton was behind it” pretty much sums up a lot of the acquisitions of election manipulation leveled against her. Gut feelings. Lets not forget that it’s a GOP controlled state with GOP written voter laws. But lets level the conspiracy theories against Clinton. Early votes, which were predominately older voters, were not hampered with, while the later votes were given a lot of difficulty. And it's known that older voters favor Clinton. A ton of people were still waiting in line near midnight. People waited close to 5 hours in line, where many people had to go home b/c it was just too much, especially without water / food / bathroom. A lot of the video footage shows these places giving provisional ballots for those switching from independent to democrat, which, by statistics, lean toward Bernie. The list goes on and on. Correlation is not causation. No, but when correlation often point toward a certain direction, it often is the case. Obviously I can't prove it happened, but as they say, 'if it smells like X & looks like X, it probably is X.' Translation: I believe the Truth is out there Scully.
Let me guess at how your mindset works: Since you can't see air, it doesn't exist. Am I right?
|
On March 25 2016 01:20 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 01:15 Plansix wrote:On March 25 2016 01:10 parkufarku wrote:On March 25 2016 00:37 Plansix wrote:
“I have a feeling Clinton was behind it” pretty much sums up a lot of the acquisitions of election manipulation leveled against her. Gut feelings. Lets not forget that it’s a GOP controlled state with GOP written voter laws. But lets level the conspiracy theories against Clinton. Early votes, which were predominately older voters, were not hampered with, while the later votes were given a lot of difficulty. And it's known that older voters favor Clinton. A ton of people were still waiting in line near midnight. People waited close to 5 hours in line, where many people had to go home b/c it was just too much, especially without water / food / bathroom. A lot of the video footage shows these places giving provisional ballots for those switching from independent to democrat, which, by statistics, lean toward Bernie. The list goes on and on. Correlation is not causation. No, but when correlation often point toward a certain direction, it often is the case. Obviously I can't prove it happened, but as they say, 'if it smells like X & looks like X, it probably is X.'
Your accusation is ridiculous, because we don't have to guess who's responsible, we already know who is, and it's the Republicans in power who took the decisions to reduce the number of voting stations.
|
On March 25 2016 01:20 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 01:15 Plansix wrote:On March 25 2016 01:10 parkufarku wrote:On March 25 2016 00:37 Plansix wrote:
“I have a feeling Clinton was behind it” pretty much sums up a lot of the acquisitions of election manipulation leveled against her. Gut feelings. Lets not forget that it’s a GOP controlled state with GOP written voter laws. But lets level the conspiracy theories against Clinton. Early votes, which were predominately older voters, were not hampered with, while the later votes were given a lot of difficulty. And it's known that older voters favor Clinton. A ton of people were still waiting in line near midnight. People waited close to 5 hours in line, where many people had to go home b/c it was just too much, especially without water / food / bathroom. A lot of the video footage shows these places giving provisional ballots for those switching from independent to democrat, which, by statistics, lean toward Bernie. The list goes on and on. Correlation is not causation. No, but when correlation often point toward a certain direction, it often is the case. Obviously I can't prove it happened, but as they say, 'if it smells like X & looks like X, it probably is X.'
You've been in a new city for 2 months, and every Wednesday when you've woken up, it's been raining. On the 9th Wednesday, you wake up and as you're getting ready you think "it's Wednesday, better grab my umbrella". You've got 100% correlation for your sample, but it's a completely unfounded (logically) causative thought.
|
On March 25 2016 01:20 parkufarku wrote:Obviously I can't prove it happened, but as they say, 'if it smells like X & looks like X, it probably is X.'
Sure, maybe if "X" were a duck. But not when "X" is a massive, Clinton-orchestrated campaign to disenfranchise likely Sanders voters by reducing the number of polling places in a state that Clinton was almost certainly going to win handily.
|
On March 25 2016 01:20 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 01:15 Plansix wrote:On March 25 2016 01:10 parkufarku wrote:On March 25 2016 00:37 Plansix wrote:
“I have a feeling Clinton was behind it” pretty much sums up a lot of the acquisitions of election manipulation leveled against her. Gut feelings. Lets not forget that it’s a GOP controlled state with GOP written voter laws. But lets level the conspiracy theories against Clinton. Early votes, which were predominately older voters, were not hampered with, while the later votes were given a lot of difficulty. And it's known that older voters favor Clinton. A ton of people were still waiting in line near midnight. People waited close to 5 hours in line, where many people had to go home b/c it was just too much, especially without water / food / bathroom. A lot of the video footage shows these places giving provisional ballots for those switching from independent to democrat, which, by statistics, lean toward Bernie. The list goes on and on. Correlation is not causation. No, but when correlation often point toward a certain direction, it often is the case. Obviously I can't prove it happened, but as they say, 'if it smells like X & looks like X, it probably is X.'
Looks like you're dead set on becoming a pirate
|
On March 25 2016 01:03 jcarlsoniv wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 00:50 oneofthem wrote:
some enlightened and much needed discourse being created by the sanders campaign right here Isn't Mohdoo a Clinton supporter... I still maintain that you lot are cherry picking from a vocal minority. The problem, and I see this echoed most everywhere, is that this shit happened at all. It's been pointed out that Republican leaders in AZ have done this purposefully, the Voting Rights Act was gutted, etc etc. Certainly there are some Sanders supporters claiming it was a conspiracy for Clinton - I disagree with them, and I think the vast majority do as well. There is also the matter of how poorly it was and has been handled by the media (which, I believe, is GH's main argument). I wouldn't say it was necessarily orchestrated to directly help Clinton. But it's foolish to suggest that calling a race for one candidate, claiming 71% of votes are in, while 0 precincts have reported and people are still in line isn't oozing with scumminess.
He's argued a few things, so it's a little confusing.
A narrow case can be made that saying 71% of "the vote" was counted was wrong, but it's not an egregious spin scumminess on the part of the media. It was 71% of what they thought the vote was going to be, and then when more numbers came in they adjusted based on that. Maybe they could have dropped the number and just had Clinton 60/Sanders 40 or whatever, but it's bad practice at worst, not some sort of scam.
|
On March 25 2016 01:24 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 01:23 Plansix wrote:On March 25 2016 01:20 parkufarku wrote:On March 25 2016 01:15 Plansix wrote:On March 25 2016 01:10 parkufarku wrote:On March 25 2016 00:37 Plansix wrote:
“I have a feeling Clinton was behind it” pretty much sums up a lot of the acquisitions of election manipulation leveled against her. Gut feelings. Lets not forget that it’s a GOP controlled state with GOP written voter laws. But lets level the conspiracy theories against Clinton. Early votes, which were predominately older voters, were not hampered with, while the later votes were given a lot of difficulty. And it's known that older voters favor Clinton. A ton of people were still waiting in line near midnight. People waited close to 5 hours in line, where many people had to go home b/c it was just too much, especially without water / food / bathroom. A lot of the video footage shows these places giving provisional ballots for those switching from independent to democrat, which, by statistics, lean toward Bernie. The list goes on and on. Correlation is not causation. No, but when correlation often point toward a certain direction, it often is the case. Obviously I can't prove it happened, but as they say, 'if it smells like X & looks like X, it probably is X.' Translation: I believe the Truth is out there Scully. Let me guess at how your mindset works: Since you can't see air, it doesn't exist. Am I right?
There are a lot of ways to prove air exist, and has been for hundreds of years. It's more akin to ask that God exists.
|
On March 25 2016 01:24 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 01:23 Plansix wrote:On March 25 2016 01:20 parkufarku wrote:On March 25 2016 01:15 Plansix wrote:On March 25 2016 01:10 parkufarku wrote:On March 25 2016 00:37 Plansix wrote:
“I have a feeling Clinton was behind it” pretty much sums up a lot of the acquisitions of election manipulation leveled against her. Gut feelings. Lets not forget that it’s a GOP controlled state with GOP written voter laws. But lets level the conspiracy theories against Clinton. Early votes, which were predominately older voters, were not hampered with, while the later votes were given a lot of difficulty. And it's known that older voters favor Clinton. A ton of people were still waiting in line near midnight. People waited close to 5 hours in line, where many people had to go home b/c it was just too much, especially without water / food / bathroom. A lot of the video footage shows these places giving provisional ballots for those switching from independent to democrat, which, by statistics, lean toward Bernie. The list goes on and on. Correlation is not causation. No, but when correlation often point toward a certain direction, it often is the case. Obviously I can't prove it happened, but as they say, 'if it smells like X & looks like X, it probably is X.' Translation: I believe the Truth is out there Scully. Let me guess at how your mindset works: Since you can't see air, it doesn't exist. Am I right?
First off, I can feel air, so no. And second, I blame the people who passed the bills and cut the budget for polling. I occam's razor that shit, that the simplest solution is likely the correct one.
I also don’t assume that everyone who disagrees with me is stupid or has a “flawed mindset”. There are a subset of people that are dumb and disagree with me, but they are normally the minority. You should give it a shot.
On March 25 2016 01:27 ragz_gt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 01:24 parkufarku wrote:On March 25 2016 01:23 Plansix wrote:On March 25 2016 01:20 parkufarku wrote:On March 25 2016 01:15 Plansix wrote:On March 25 2016 01:10 parkufarku wrote:On March 25 2016 00:37 Plansix wrote:
“I have a feeling Clinton was behind it” pretty much sums up a lot of the acquisitions of election manipulation leveled against her. Gut feelings. Lets not forget that it’s a GOP controlled state with GOP written voter laws. But lets level the conspiracy theories against Clinton. Early votes, which were predominately older voters, were not hampered with, while the later votes were given a lot of difficulty. And it's known that older voters favor Clinton. A ton of people were still waiting in line near midnight. People waited close to 5 hours in line, where many people had to go home b/c it was just too much, especially without water / food / bathroom. A lot of the video footage shows these places giving provisional ballots for those switching from independent to democrat, which, by statistics, lean toward Bernie. The list goes on and on. Correlation is not causation. No, but when correlation often point toward a certain direction, it often is the case. Obviously I can't prove it happened, but as they say, 'if it smells like X & looks like X, it probably is X.' Translation: I believe the Truth is out there Scully. Let me guess at how your mindset works: Since you can't see air, it doesn't exist. Am I right? There are a lot of ways to prove air exist, and has been for hundreds of years. It's more akin to ask that God exists.
And as many a philosopher has said "If you are asking someone why they believe God exists, you are asking the wrong question."
|
On March 25 2016 01:26 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 01:03 jcarlsoniv wrote:On March 25 2016 00:50 oneofthem wrote:
some enlightened and much needed discourse being created by the sanders campaign right here Isn't Mohdoo a Clinton supporter... I still maintain that you lot are cherry picking from a vocal minority. The problem, and I see this echoed most everywhere, is that this shit happened at all. It's been pointed out that Republican leaders in AZ have done this purposefully, the Voting Rights Act was gutted, etc etc. Certainly there are some Sanders supporters claiming it was a conspiracy for Clinton - I disagree with them, and I think the vast majority do as well. There is also the matter of how poorly it was and has been handled by the media (which, I believe, is GH's main argument). I wouldn't say it was necessarily orchestrated to directly help Clinton. But it's foolish to suggest that calling a race for one candidate, claiming 71% of votes are in, while 0 precincts have reported and people are still in line isn't oozing with scumminess. He's argued a few things, so it's a little confusing. A narrow case can be made that saying 71% of "the vote" was counted was wrong, but it's not an egregious spin scumminess on the part of the media. It was 71% of what they thought the vote was going to be, and then when more numbers came in they adjusted based on that. Maybe they could have dropped the number and just had Clinton 60/Sanders 40 or whatever, but it's bad practice at worst, not some sort of scam.
Sure, you know and I know that the 71% was based off of projected numbers of voters. But to the less informed?
As someone who works with data on a daily basis and continually has to fight for the maintenance of representative integrity, this does bother me. Numbers can be made to say anything if framed in the right light (as Clinton supporters are so quick to point out regarding Sanders' path to the nomination), and this is an instance where it was egregiously misleading, especially taken in the context of calling the race when 0 precincts have reported. Again, I'm not necessarily saying it was borne of malice, but that doesn't make it any less disconcerting.
|
|
|
Kasich isn't expecting the nomination. Either his strategy is to play spoiler to trump in the Northeast where Cruz has very little hope. OR he's hoping to get to be trumps VP.
Def some incompetence going on with his team making plays in Utah tho.
|
I don't think it was manipulative or dishonest really-- they took the early votes, extrapolated how many outstanding votes there were and used that to say "well we think we've got 71% of total votes". Turned out the 71% was wrong because there were more votes outstanding, and they revised. Typically, the 71% would represent pretty close to the actual vote counted. In this case, it was an estimate-- maybe a bad one, but it does provide some context to 60/40 being the result as of some proportion of votes counted.
You and I understand stats enough to understand that this is bad practice. For those who don't understand stats, that isn't even an issue. Many of the same people complaining are also the ones who are as you say making the numbers say all sorts of ridiculous things to reach conclusions about Bernie actually won, is winning, will win. So it's a little hard to take seriously from that angle.
Everyone's experienced the Windows loading bar, that thing goes up and down and all around. Similar thing.
This is such a tiny piece of the shit that went down in AZ. Given a certain amount of bandwidth, it's not worth the effort to really litigate. Focus on the big issues like the Republicans screwing with the vote.
|
On March 25 2016 01:23 parkufarku wrote:Show nested quote +On March 25 2016 01:17 Mohdoo wrote:On March 25 2016 01:14 parkufarku wrote:On March 25 2016 01:10 Mohdoo wrote:On March 25 2016 01:03 jcarlsoniv wrote:On March 25 2016 00:50 oneofthem wrote:
some enlightened and much needed discourse being created by the sanders campaign right here Isn't Mohdoo a Clinton supporter... I would choose Bernie to be my president (I think our political system would filter him into being decent), but I would not choose him to run in the general election. I think the only way Cruz/Trump wins is blasting the word "socialism" on megaphones until November. The worst Trump can do to Sanders is his comment on Cuba / framing him as a socialist, but that's about it. You are really, really not giving enough credit to how toxic the word socialism is in how many places. A general election can not be won with socialism today. I think in 8 years, maybe after the Sanders movement has matured and more old people have died. Even a lot of democrats (Keep in mind there are democrats over age 40 :p) cringe at socialism. I don't. But the public opinion just isn't there. Virginia and Florida would be lost, no matter what. That's a really big deal. I honestly think Bernie would win if he had, early on, denounced the term socialist and branded himself a democrat. Same message, no socialism. I can somewhat agree with you here, considering how dumb the average voter can be, but you have to keep in mind that it's not game-changing if you consider the fact that he's not actually a socialist. If he really was, he would get chewed out, but he's not. And his campaign would let the populace know that he is not.
He has defended socialism so, so, so many times. Remember the interview where he pretends the word socialism is scary and uses it to scare his interviewer? He truly believes in socialism. He's doing a great thing by trying to redeem the word. But he is kinda sacrificing himself in doing so. I think it's good and that someone had to do it. But I don't think there would be any possible way for Bernie to distance himself from socialism at this point.
|
On March 25 2016 01:51 ticklishmusic wrote:
I don't think it was manipulative or dishonest really-- they took the early votes, extrapolated how many outstanding votes there were and used that to say "well we think we've got 71% of total votes". Turned out the 71% was wrong because there were more votes outstanding, and they revised. Typically, the 71% would represent pretty close to the actual vote counted. In this case, it was an estimate-- maybe a bad one, but it does provide some context to 60/40 being the result as of some proportion of votes counted.
You and I understand stats enough to understand that this is bad practice. For those who don't understand stats, that isn't even an issue. Many of the same people complaining are also the ones who are as you say making the numbers say all sorts of ridiculous things to reach conclusions about Bernie actually won, is winning, will win. So it's a little hard to take seriously from that angle.
Everyone's experienced the Windows loading bar, that thing goes up and down and all around. Similar thing.
This is such a tiny piece of the shit that went down in AZ. Given a certain amount of bandwidth, it's not worth the effort to really litigate. Focus on the big issues like the Republicans screwing with the vote.
It would be far less of an issue if the media wasn't reporting "holy shit, look at these lines!" and then shortly thereafter calling the election when, again, 0 precincts had been reported. So how did this affect the people waiting in line who were undoubtedly browsing their phones cuz what the hell else will they be doing in line? Did Bernie supporters get discouraged and leave? Did Hillary supporters leave because they were content feeling they no longer had to wait in line?
There's almost no situation in which I think Bernie won AZ. I agree with whoever else commented on the link GH posted - I don't agree with the article's conclusion, but I thought some of the minor points were worth some merit. I do think that percentage-wise, it is likely that more Bernie supporters were affected, but it doesn't matter - all candidates' supporters were affected.
I'm not even saying it's worth litigating the media. Legal recourse should be sought against the political structure in AZ, absolutely. But if we don't also at least acknowledge the gross failings of the media, then it will only continue to get worse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
