|
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. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On March 28 2016 07:32 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2016 05:57 oneofthem wrote:
all the sanders agitprop in caucus states must be a sight to behold. it is a full on revolution with revolutionary use of media, so voter manipulation charges always to craft narrative instead of raising genuine issues of concern.
im just curious about the mental state of people who get so attached to such a terrible candidate and platform. bird seems in the right ballpark revolution needs a vanguard party to avoid this vulgar bird brained populism. Hillary supporters understand and accept this
not sure what you are implying here. the aspect of bernie mania i highlight with the term revolution is at the tactical level. accepting radical and manipulative tactics and embracing the radicalizing effect this has on followers.
|
On March 28 2016 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2016 07:09 Acrofales wrote:On March 28 2016 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 28 2016 04:59 Gorsameth wrote:On March 28 2016 04:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 28 2016 04:37 Gorsameth wrote:On March 28 2016 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 28 2016 04:04 Gorsameth wrote:Just wondering where this 79% AZ votes is coming from? I tried looking for the final results and the Guardian is giving me 99.5% counted www.theguardian.com CNN, MSNBC, Fox News. The 99%+ counts are using "precincts reporting". The big issue is that Maricopa county (home to Phoenix) in their counts suggests only 32k people voted the day of. Lines as long as 5+ hours across the city (still going after midnight local time), suggests otherwise. The media immediately screwed the pooch when they said that they had 71% of the vote in and since has just been trying to hide it. They added 10's of thousands of votes to the totals without changing it and then they just bumped it up to 79% and let it hang. Because I knew people would be skeptical I already showed evidence of it happening. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=3444#68866 Maricopa, 724/724 precincts reported 218,587 votes as per the Guardian. (409k state wide) The reason I'm asking is because I think its likely that wherever CNN, NBC ect got their numbers from just never updated (for whatever reason). Yes it is possible a lot of votes have not been counted yet, and it wouldn't surprise me considering how bad the elections are run in general but I would like to rule out the obvious simple answers first. They did update. They added 62 votes the day after. I'm not sure why you would even think this is a remotely feasible explanation... There is no sensible explanation for giving play by play every time the %-in updates for every other state and ignore that they botched the AZ numbers so badly. As for Maricopa those are almost exclusively mail-ins and based on reports on how many of those there were, that would mean ~32k people voted the day of which is absurd to even suggest. That the media hasn't even touched this story makes it blatantly obvious that it's not a coincidence. 2008 primary had 450k votes. I really see no reason to believe that they are still actually missing 21% of votes. PS. why are you not complaining about Texas which CNN has at 68%? The detailed problems around Texas aren't clear (like long lines not matching suggested counts), I also don't have images that show them acting funny with the numbers, plus they have already moved on to their conventions. I also find that problematic though if you were wondering. It's not just that they may or may not be missing 21% of the vote but you know that already. I'm confused. Instead of blaming CNN for fucking up the numbers, getting their data from a shoddy place, you think there is a conspiracy to withhold the counting... for whatever strange reason. Lets face it, if vote fraud is happening, this seems incredibly incompetent. So let's go with Hanlon's razor here? CNN, and NBC are incompetent. It wasn't just CNN, it was CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, all making precisely the same error and none of them even mentioning the error let alone correcting it. It's been made abundantly clear no one refuting my points on Arizona has even looked into what I'm talking about beyond some superficial single minded queries.
Nobody really understands what you're on about, though. Firstly, it just seems far more likely to be a software or a data glitch. Fox News, CNN and NBC may draw their data from the same source, or have outsourced their primary dashboard system to the same software system (either makes sense), which can be flawed. What points to a software glitch is that if you look at the "per county" info, it is all at 100%.
As for Maricopa, it states 100% reporting at slightly over 200k votes in the Democratric primary, which is the same number the Guardian reports, and it seems unlikely there are 400k statewide mail-in votes, when that was approximately the number of total voters in the Democratic primary in 2008. So, as for this point: it seems extremely unlikely that they are still counting, or are deliberately not counting 24% of the votes, but rather that there is a software glitch.
However, the second point: so bloody what? Lets assume that for some reason, Arizona is still counting the votes, and the delegates are predictions based on 76% of the votes rather than an accurate delegate count after 100% of the votes. 1 delegate might move from Sanders to Hillary or vice versa. So what? How is this evidence of a horrible conspiracy rather than mere incompetence in Arizona, something that has already been demonstrated by the horrid distribution of polling stations? In other words: why does this have your panties in a bundle?
|
On March 28 2016 08:11 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2016 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 28 2016 07:09 Acrofales wrote:On March 28 2016 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 28 2016 04:59 Gorsameth wrote:On March 28 2016 04:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 28 2016 04:37 Gorsameth wrote:On March 28 2016 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 28 2016 04:04 Gorsameth wrote:Just wondering where this 79% AZ votes is coming from? I tried looking for the final results and the Guardian is giving me 99.5% counted www.theguardian.com CNN, MSNBC, Fox News. The 99%+ counts are using "precincts reporting". The big issue is that Maricopa county (home to Phoenix) in their counts suggests only 32k people voted the day of. Lines as long as 5+ hours across the city (still going after midnight local time), suggests otherwise. The media immediately screwed the pooch when they said that they had 71% of the vote in and since has just been trying to hide it. They added 10's of thousands of votes to the totals without changing it and then they just bumped it up to 79% and let it hang. Because I knew people would be skeptical I already showed evidence of it happening. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=3444#68866 Maricopa, 724/724 precincts reported 218,587 votes as per the Guardian. (409k state wide) The reason I'm asking is because I think its likely that wherever CNN, NBC ect got their numbers from just never updated (for whatever reason). Yes it is possible a lot of votes have not been counted yet, and it wouldn't surprise me considering how bad the elections are run in general but I would like to rule out the obvious simple answers first. They did update. They added 62 votes the day after. I'm not sure why you would even think this is a remotely feasible explanation... There is no sensible explanation for giving play by play every time the %-in updates for every other state and ignore that they botched the AZ numbers so badly. As for Maricopa those are almost exclusively mail-ins and based on reports on how many of those there were, that would mean ~32k people voted the day of which is absurd to even suggest. That the media hasn't even touched this story makes it blatantly obvious that it's not a coincidence. 2008 primary had 450k votes. I really see no reason to believe that they are still actually missing 21% of votes. PS. why are you not complaining about Texas which CNN has at 68%? The detailed problems around Texas aren't clear (like long lines not matching suggested counts), I also don't have images that show them acting funny with the numbers, plus they have already moved on to their conventions. I also find that problematic though if you were wondering. It's not just that they may or may not be missing 21% of the vote but you know that already. I'm confused. Instead of blaming CNN for fucking up the numbers, getting their data from a shoddy place, you think there is a conspiracy to withhold the counting... for whatever strange reason. Lets face it, if vote fraud is happening, this seems incredibly incompetent. So let's go with Hanlon's razor here? CNN, and NBC are incompetent. It wasn't just CNN, it was CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, all making precisely the same error and none of them even mentioning the error let alone correcting it. It's been made abundantly clear no one refuting my points on Arizona has even looked into what I'm talking about beyond some superficial single minded queries. Nobody really understands what you're on about, though. Firstly, it just seems far more likely to be a software or a data glitch. Fox News, CNN and NBC may draw their data from the same source, or have outsourced their primary dashboard system to the same software system (either makes sense), which can be flawed. What points to a software glitch is that if you look at the "per county" info, it is all at 100%. As for Maricopa, it states 100% reporting at slightly over 200k votes in the Democratric primary, which is the same number the Guardian reports, and it seems unlikely there are 400k statewide mail-in votes, when that was approximately the number of total voters in the Democratic primary in 2008. So, as for this point: it seems extremely unlikely that they are still counting, or are deliberately not counting 24% of the votes, but rather that there is a software glitch. However, the second point: so bloody what? Lets assume that for some reason, Arizona is still counting the votes, and the delegates are predictions based on 76% of the votes rather than an accurate delegate count after 100% of the votes. 1 delegate might move from Sanders to Hillary or vice versa. So what? How is this evidence of a horrible conspiracy rather than mere incompetence in Arizona, something that has already been demonstrated by the horrid distribution of polling stations? In other words: why does this have your panties in a bundle?
There you go proving my point.
I really don't think there's a point going on if you can't even understand the basic premises of what I'm saying.
|
Arizona’s Primary Problems Go Way Beyond Long Lines
Arizona uses a closed primary system, meaning that a voter must register as a Democrat to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate or as a Republican to vote on the GOP side. Robbins registered as a Democrat on Feb. 18, four days before the primary registration deadline. She received her voter registration card identifying her as a Democrat in the mail.
On Tuesday, Robbins brought her 9-month-old son to a polling site in Avondale, Arizona, and stood in line for two hours, waiting to vote. One she was inside, a poll worker scanned her identification card and said she came up in the system as “party not designated.” The poll worker suggested that Robbins cast a provisional ballot.
Robbins insisted they scan her card again. This time, the system said she was registered as a Republican. She was told she wouldn’t be able to vote a regular ballot, even when she showed her voter registration card.
Robbins says the poll worker told her that her provisional ballot probably wouldn’t count. Arizona discards more provisional ballots than most larger states, so this was probably correct. Robbins says she asked for a number where she could call and complain, and the poll worker refused to give her one.
|
Arizona is getting a lot of attention because of the voting fiasco which has taken place. There were Aerial viewpoints of people standing in enormous lines from multiple local news stations. While the party and candidate preference of those people in line are unknown, the fact that they ventured and endured for so long to be denied in the end seems to be grounds enough for anger.
On March 28 2016 08:25 Soap wrote:Arizona’s Primary Problems Go Way Beyond Long LinesShow nested quote +Arizona uses a closed primary system, meaning that a voter must register as a Democrat to vote for a Democratic presidential candidate or as a Republican to vote on the GOP side. Robbins registered as a Democrat on Feb. 18, four days before the primary registration deadline. She received her voter registration card identifying her as a Democrat in the mail.
On Tuesday, Robbins brought her 9-month-old son to a polling site in Avondale, Arizona, and stood in line for two hours, waiting to vote. One she was inside, a poll worker scanned her identification card and said she came up in the system as “party not designated.” The poll worker suggested that Robbins cast a provisional ballot.
Robbins insisted they scan her card again. This time, the system said she was registered as a Republican. She was told she wouldn’t be able to vote a regular ballot, even when she showed her voter registration card.
Robbins says the poll worker told her that her provisional ballot probably wouldn’t count. Arizona discards more provisional ballots than most larger states, so this was probably correct. Robbins says she asked for a number where she could call and complain, and the poll worker refused to give her one.
While I'm not necessarily keen on Robbins anecdotal example, I still find it rather strange that this phenomenon was happening to a lot of people. If many people followed the same path she did; registering or changing your party roughly 2-4 days prior to the primary; You couldn't really fault the possibly of systematic error.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
Arizona is getting a lot of attention because of the voting fiasco which has taken place. There were Aerial viewpoints of people standing in enormous lines from multiple local news stations.
Are people oblivious to the fact these long lines weren't unique to Arizona or what? Can someone just explain that basic part to me?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
nobody has denied the voter suppression problem. you are just trying to make this into a hillary issue. the hardcore leftists from the sanders cult would be less impacted than minority voters for hillary.
|
They would be much more effective if they stopped intentionally hamstringing thier own economy and posturing potential nationalizations of foriegn investors.
|
On March 28 2016 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +Arizona is getting a lot of attention because of the voting fiasco which has taken place. There were Aerial viewpoints of people standing in enormous lines from multiple local news stations. Are people oblivious to the fact these long lines weren't unique to Arizona or what? Can someone just explain that basic part to me?
The problem is you just discovered something that's known for forever and claim it is as something new and somehow it's Hillary's fault.
|
On March 28 2016 08:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2016 08:11 Acrofales wrote:On March 28 2016 07:38 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 28 2016 07:09 Acrofales wrote:On March 28 2016 05:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 28 2016 04:59 Gorsameth wrote:On March 28 2016 04:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 28 2016 04:37 Gorsameth wrote:On March 28 2016 04:09 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 28 2016 04:04 Gorsameth wrote:Just wondering where this 79% AZ votes is coming from? I tried looking for the final results and the Guardian is giving me 99.5% counted www.theguardian.com CNN, MSNBC, Fox News. The 99%+ counts are using "precincts reporting". The big issue is that Maricopa county (home to Phoenix) in their counts suggests only 32k people voted the day of. Lines as long as 5+ hours across the city (still going after midnight local time), suggests otherwise. The media immediately screwed the pooch when they said that they had 71% of the vote in and since has just been trying to hide it. They added 10's of thousands of votes to the totals without changing it and then they just bumped it up to 79% and let it hang. Because I knew people would be skeptical I already showed evidence of it happening. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/383301-us-politics-mega-thread?page=3444#68866 Maricopa, 724/724 precincts reported 218,587 votes as per the Guardian. (409k state wide) The reason I'm asking is because I think its likely that wherever CNN, NBC ect got their numbers from just never updated (for whatever reason). Yes it is possible a lot of votes have not been counted yet, and it wouldn't surprise me considering how bad the elections are run in general but I would like to rule out the obvious simple answers first. They did update. They added 62 votes the day after. I'm not sure why you would even think this is a remotely feasible explanation... There is no sensible explanation for giving play by play every time the %-in updates for every other state and ignore that they botched the AZ numbers so badly. As for Maricopa those are almost exclusively mail-ins and based on reports on how many of those there were, that would mean ~32k people voted the day of which is absurd to even suggest. That the media hasn't even touched this story makes it blatantly obvious that it's not a coincidence. 2008 primary had 450k votes. I really see no reason to believe that they are still actually missing 21% of votes. PS. why are you not complaining about Texas which CNN has at 68%? The detailed problems around Texas aren't clear (like long lines not matching suggested counts), I also don't have images that show them acting funny with the numbers, plus they have already moved on to their conventions. I also find that problematic though if you were wondering. It's not just that they may or may not be missing 21% of the vote but you know that already. I'm confused. Instead of blaming CNN for fucking up the numbers, getting their data from a shoddy place, you think there is a conspiracy to withhold the counting... for whatever strange reason. Lets face it, if vote fraud is happening, this seems incredibly incompetent. So let's go with Hanlon's razor here? CNN, and NBC are incompetent. It wasn't just CNN, it was CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, all making precisely the same error and none of them even mentioning the error let alone correcting it. It's been made abundantly clear no one refuting my points on Arizona has even looked into what I'm talking about beyond some superficial single minded queries. Nobody really understands what you're on about, though. Firstly, it just seems far more likely to be a software or a data glitch. Fox News, CNN and NBC may draw their data from the same source, or have outsourced their primary dashboard system to the same software system (either makes sense), which can be flawed. What points to a software glitch is that if you look at the "per county" info, it is all at 100%. As for Maricopa, it states 100% reporting at slightly over 200k votes in the Democratric primary, which is the same number the Guardian reports, and it seems unlikely there are 400k statewide mail-in votes, when that was approximately the number of total voters in the Democratic primary in 2008. So, as for this point: it seems extremely unlikely that they are still counting, or are deliberately not counting 24% of the votes, but rather that there is a software glitch. However, the second point: so bloody what? Lets assume that for some reason, Arizona is still counting the votes, and the delegates are predictions based on 76% of the votes rather than an accurate delegate count after 100% of the votes. 1 delegate might move from Sanders to Hillary or vice versa. So what? How is this evidence of a horrible conspiracy rather than mere incompetence in Arizona, something that has already been demonstrated by the horrid distribution of polling stations? In other words: why does this have your panties in a bundle? There you go proving my point. I really don't think there's a point going on if you can't even understand the basic premises of what I'm saying.
Despite this complete non-explanation of yours, I will try to take one last stab at understanding you. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be conflting two completely separate issues:
1. Arizona, and other states' complete incompetence when it comes to voting infrastructure or even methodology.
2. Media reporting an incomplete votecount in Arizona.
Regarding your first point, I agree. It would be great if someone could drag the US into the 21st century where things like caucuses have no place, and hours-long lines to vote are an embarrassment that even Brazil doesn't have (to that extent).
Regarding the second point, see above response, which you completely ignored.
And finally, I fail to see what either of these points have to do with Hillary vs. Sanders. A systemwide failure is not Hillary committing voter fraud. It's imcoetence at state levels.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
|
Not even God knows what GH is on about with regard to voting fraud, and I know because I tried to piece it together.
I also know GH is a fervent Sandernista and I doubt any of his concerns have any other goal than to try to get Sanders more votes.
All of this makes the thread a bit of a bore. If rather respond to the Obama FP article posted by Lord Tolkien but it's drowned out by repetitions of incoherent conspiracy theories.
|
On March 28 2016 09:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +Arizona is getting a lot of attention because of the voting fiasco which has taken place. There were Aerial viewpoints of people standing in enormous lines from multiple local news stations. Are people oblivious to the fact these long lines weren't unique to Arizona or what? Can someone just explain that basic part to me?
Not so much that I'm oblivious to other states, but Arizona is the one that's constantly referenced for this 2016 primary.
Note: Voting has been an issue in the United States for a long time if you really wanna talk about it.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
To be honest, I expect this kind of conspiracy talk from rednecked Trump supporters. The horse shoe theory is more like a circle.
|
United States43568 Posts
On March 28 2016 04:28 Lord Tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2016 04:08 farvacola wrote:
That's an excellent article, Tolkien, thanks for posting it. Don't get me wrong, the foreign policy community remains heavily divided on his legacy, particularly in regards to his (real or perceived) failings in Syria. I am of the former camp (I believe the failure to intervene forcefully early in Syria, or even after "the line" was crossed on chemical weapons, has helped facilitate ISIS, perpetuated the notion of American decline, and fed Middle Eastern instability) and remain convinced that Syria will be remembered as his Somalia or his Vietnam. Nonetheless, I do recognize the political constraints he operated under and the state of our affairs prior to his presidency, our position internationally is no longer eroding rapidly, and he has accomplished quite abit within the constraints, at least in regards to Iran and East Asia (TPP, new agreements with Southeast Asia: I mentioned Vietnam, but the likelihood we'll see US forces stationed there for the first time since the Vietnam War is a nice indicator, though Vietnam has always been rapidly anti-China).
Syria will be remembered as his Vietnam? Vietnam was a hugely expensive waste of American lives that ultimately achieved nothing but to prove the limits of American power, Syria is where America refused to commit more than strong language and air support because fuck getting involved in that mess. As much as Syria turned into a clusterfuck I think it's fair to argue that it didn't turn into America's clusterfuck. Even the refugee crisis predominantly effects the neighbouring nations. Obama will be remembered for not really getting involved in that tar pit and while the survivors won't thank him for his weakness I imagine the American people won't blame him for his prudence.
|
On March 28 2016 10:13 wei2coolman wrote:
To be honest, I expect this kind of conspiracy talk from rednecked Trump supporters. The horse shoe theory is more like a circle.
The attitude surrounding Sanders is far more like the attitude surrounding Ron Paul in 2012 than it is like the attitude surrounding Trump. It also helps that Trump supporters are winning emphatically, which dials down any complaints about potential mistreatment substantially.
|
On March 28 2016 10:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2016 04:28 Lord Tolkien wrote:On March 28 2016 04:08 farvacola wrote:
That's an excellent article, Tolkien, thanks for posting it. Don't get me wrong, the foreign policy community remains heavily divided on his legacy, particularly in regards to his (real or perceived) failings in Syria. I am of the former camp (I believe the failure to intervene forcefully early in Syria, or even after "the line" was crossed on chemical weapons, has helped facilitate ISIS, perpetuated the notion of American decline, and fed Middle Eastern instability) and remain convinced that Syria will be remembered as his Somalia or his Vietnam. Nonetheless, I do recognize the political constraints he operated under and the state of our affairs prior to his presidency, our position internationally is no longer eroding rapidly, and he has accomplished quite abit within the constraints, at least in regards to Iran and East Asia (TPP, new agreements with Southeast Asia: I mentioned Vietnam, but the likelihood we'll see US forces stationed there for the first time since the Vietnam War is a nice indicator, though Vietnam has always been rapidly anti-China). Syria will be remembered as his Vietnam? Vietnam was a hugely expensive waste of American lives that ultimately achieved nothing but to prove the limits of American power, Syria is where America refused to commit more than strong language and air support because fuck getting involved in that mess. As much as Syria turned into a clusterfuck I think it's fair to argue that it didn't turn into America's clusterfuck. Even the refugee crisis predominantly effects the neighbouring nations. Obama will be remembered for not really getting involved in that tar pit and while the survivors won't thank him for his weakness I imagine the American people won't blame him for his prudence.
Yeah, from a purely American perspective, Syria wasn't great but it wasn't exactly terrible either. Nowhere near the expensive war that Bush started.
|
Bernie Sanders scored huge-margin victories Saturday in the caucuses in Washington State, Hawaii and Alaska.
Sanders won with 82 percent in Alaska, 70 percent in Hawaii and 72 percent in Washington. That Washington margin was even bigger than the Sanders campaign expected — and significant, because there are 101 delegates up for grabs there.
AP has not yet allocated all the delegates out of Washington State. More will be tallied in his column over the next several weeks, as the state party releases margins by congressional district. But if Sanders' share holds, when all's said and done, he could net more than 60 delegates out of Saturday.
That's impressive and would cut into Clinton's pledged-delegate lead significantly, by 20 percent.
It doesn't change the math much, but that might not even be the point. Sanders has a narrow path (laid out below in detail), but he is going to win in lots of places over the next two months in similarly sweeping fashion. Regardless of what happens, when people look back on this 2016 Democratic primary, Sanders won't be dismissed as a gadfly or fringe candidate, as he was treated at the beginning of this campaign. He has already had a major impact on the Democratic Party, on Hillary Clinton and how they talk about the issues he's cared about most for the last 40 years — income inequality, regulation of Wall Street banks and power and influence in politics.
Source
|
I think Sanders' effect is vastly overrated. Is it nice to hear about these things during the primary? Yes, completely. However, the nature of the race would be Hillary would most likely be forced to focus on and address whatever issues whatever other primary candidate might have run. She had the major parts of her platform sketched out long ago and on her website, including parts on Wall Street reform, healthcare, education, etc. There is very little daylight between the major issues (the aforementioned ones)-> major agenda items for both candidates-- the difference lies around how each plans to achieve them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
