general political shit

appalooser wrote:when FD thinks the primary was rigged for hillary

Flammarcos wrote:
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA yeah didn't have anything to do with clinton's husband being bill clinton or connections or superdelegates or the media tarballing bernie and saying he couldn't win before any votes happened

nice changing the subject fagola and oh yeah blatant lies what doesn't appeal to most americans is politics as usual it's all about what he represented not his actual policies people don't actually give a shit about policies as long as you can make it look like you know what you're doing and can do it because "leave it to the experts"

or y'know votebuilder was probably happening as early as nevada's closed caucus and you're repeating e_s_s prattle about the leaked e-mails disregarding the fact they never liked him and never supported him and even planted an antisemitic and anti-agnostic question and talked about it in the e-mails as soon as he launched his campaign

appalooser wrote:

Flammarcos wrote:
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA yeah didn't have anything to do with clinton's husband being bill clinton or connections or superdelegates or the media tarballing bernie and saying he couldn't win before any votes happened

or, or, and this will shock you: it could just be because black people in the south know and like hillary clinton and bill clinton and don't know who the fuck sanders is or know and don't agree with him

nice changing the subject fagola and oh yeah blatant lies what doesn't appeal to most americans is politics as usual it's all about what he represented not his actual policies people don't actually give a shit about policies as long as you can make it look like you know what you're doing and can do it because "leave it to the experts"

if politics as usual didn't appeal to most americans sanders would have won

or y'know votebuilder was probably happening as early as nevada's closed caucus and you're repeating e_s_s prattle about the leaked e-mails disregarding the fact they never liked him and never supported him and even planted an antisemitic and anti-agnostic question and talked about it in the e-mails as soon as he launched his campaign

you still have not proven this point and my point still stands lol

Flammarcos wrote:

appalooser wrote:when FD thinks the primary was rigged for hillary

you can bitch and moan about it all you want but the evidence all points to "yes" there's no way all this adds up to a hillary victory bernie even outspent her

"What has upset me, and what I think is -- I wouldn't use the word 'rigged' because we knew what the rules were -- but what is really dumb, is that you have closed primaries, like in New York State, where three million people who were Democrats or Republicans could not participate," Sanders added. "You have a situation where over 400 super delegates came on board Clinton's campaign before anybody else was in the race, eight months before the first vote was cast. That's not rigged, I think it's just a dumb process which has certainly disadvantaged our campaign."

Sanders fans have claimed that because caucuses have lower turnout the current national caucus and primary vote underrates how well Sanders is doing. In fact, the opposite is true. When we switch all caucuses over to primaries, Sanders actually does worse. Clinton’s lead in the popular vote would grow from 2.9 to 3.3 million votes. Moreover, her edge in elected delegates would expand significantly.7 Instead of her current lead of 272 elected delegates, Clinton would be ahead by 424.8 Some states that were won by Sanders in caucuses, including Colorado and Minnesota, would be won by Clinton in primaries, according to our calculations.

In fact, counting the 537 superdelegates The Associated Press currently gives Clinton, she would likely have 2,384 total delegates if every state had held a primary. That’s one more than necessary to clinch the nomination.

Still, this wouldn’t make all that much difference. Just 11 states9 held closed primaries, so the national vote is mostly reflective of a process open to unaffiliated voters. Indeed, Clinton has won 14 primaries10 open to independent voters, while Sanders has won nine.

In fact, if all states held primaries open to independents — instead of closed primaries, or caucuses of any kind — Clinton might have a larger lead in elected delegates than she does now. The model indicates that Clinton would have a lead of 294 elected delegates, compared with the 272 she holds now. That’s not a huge difference, but it means that Clinton has been hurt at least as much by caucuses as Sanders has been hurt by closed primaries.

Realistically, if you throw everything together, the math suggests that Sanders doesn’t have much to complain about. If the Democratic nomination were open to as many Democrats as possible — through closed primaries — Clinton would be dominating Sanders. And if the nomination were open to as many voters as possible — through open primaries — she’d still be winning.

...none of the factual numbers support the commonly held belief by many Sanders supporters that he would have won had all the states held open primaries. In fact, just looking at the numbers, if you remove Vermont, his average margin of loss in open primaries would have been 29 points — larger than it was in closed primaries. If anything, what these numbers show us thus far is that caucuses (the process in the primary that suppresses voter turnout the most) heavily favor Sanders. That’s probably why we haven’t heard him complain about them all too much. That debunks the belief that a higher voter turnout favors him considering he lost 76 percent of primaries where voter turnout is much higher, but absolutely crushed Clinton when it came to caucuses which have abysmal voter turnouts when compared to primaries.

He lost 90.5 percent of states with an African American population over 10 percent and half the states with a Latino population of 10 percent or greater — but won 70 percent of the states with a white population over 70 percent.

What these numbers tell me is that I could find someone who knows nothing about politics or either candidate, show them a list of states listed “State A, B, C..,” and they would be able to most likely accurately predict around 90-95 percent of the time which candidate would win each non-identified state based on nothing more than knowing the racial demographics and whether or not the state used a primary or a caucus.

So, I’m sorry Sanders supporters, but this election wasn’t rigged — he just couldn’t win the minority vote. Though if you continue to claim that it is, you’re actually suggesting a few things:

* That something the DNC did caused minority voters (especially African Americans) to overwhelmingly support Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. So, if that’s your stance, can you please point to exactly what the DNC did to sway only minority voters in her direction?
* Considering that Sanders overwhelming won the white vote, yet was soundly defeated when it came to African American voters (and even mostly lost the Latino vote, as well), are you suggesting that white voters were more informed and resistant to “DNC rigging” than African American and Latino voters? Because that’s basically what you’re claiming when you say the election was “rigged,” yet the math shows Sanders mainly lost because he couldn’t win the African American and Latino vote. So, why did he win so many mostly white states, yet lose so many more diverse ones? Again, keep in mind that if they only “rigged” certain states, what, specifically, did they do to “rig” the states with larger minority populations that caused those minority voters to support Clinton?

If you want to claim that the “primary was rigged,” then you have to be able to explain not only what the DNC specifically did to “rig” the election — but also explain why African American and Latino voters seemed to be the only two racial groups impacted by this supposed “rigging” of the election.

Otherwise, you are either claiming it was rigged simply because that’s what you want to believe, or you have to recognize the reality: Bernie Sanders ran a magnificent campaign which changed the Democratic party (and the country) forever, but it was his inability to sway African American and Latino voters which ultimately cost him the nomination.

harambe While Sanders has run an excellent campaign and exceeded all expectations, at no point during the Democratic primaries has he been on track to win. Sanders has held a lead in a handful of national polls, but at no time in the past year has his support broken 42 percent in FiveThirtyEight’s weighted polling average. And at no point in the race has Clinton held a lead narrower than 9.7 percentage points in that average. Why would any campaign, no matter how unprincipled, fix a race that it’s been winning from the start?

harambe It certainly wouldn’t have made any sense before voters headed toward the polls. On the eve of the Iowa caucuses, Clinton enjoyed a 20-point lead in the national polls, and FiveThirtyEight gave her a 67 percent chance of winning. Sanders’s blowout win in New Hampshire might have alarmed some Clinton supporters, but she was still up by 17 nationwide, looking strong in Nevada and South Carolina, and then headed toward a Super Tuesday that looked very favorable for her campaign.

And it proved to be. By March 2, Clinton had amassed a 613-423 lead in pledged delegates, and despite the inevitable twists and turns of a primary campaign, at no point since then has Sanders looked likely to overtake her. Even today, with Sanders coming off an impressive streak of seven wins, the Clinton camp still has a lead of 251 pledged delegates, and is ahead by 15 points going into the delegate-rich New York primary.

...Nor did superdelegates decide the nomination for Clinton. They gave her a symbolic early lead and momentum, but Clinton’s pledged delegate lead over Sanders was three times larger than Obama’s margin over Clinton in 2008, under the same rules. I’m in favor of abolishing superdelegates or curtailing their influence, but it’s worth remembering that they’ve followed the pledged-delegate winner in every presidential contest since their creation in 1984.

Secondly, the Clinton campaign did not intentionally try to suppress the votes of Sanders supporters. Some Sanders supporters point to Arizona, where there were five-hour lines in Phoenix’s Maricopa County during the March 22 primary, as a glaring example of malfeasance. But those lines occurred because Republican clerk Helen Purcell cut the number of polling places from 200 in 2012 to just 60 in 2016—a decision made possible by a 5-4 conservative majority on the Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act and ruling that states like Arizona no longer had to approve their voting changes with the federal government.

Clinton strenuously criticized that decision and sued Arizona over the polling place closures, a lawsuit the Sanders campaign joined. Latino voters in Maricopa County, who were most affected by the long lines, strongly supported Clinton and she won the state overall by 15 points. Why would she disenfranchise her own supporters?

Voter-suppression accusations were also rampant after the New York primary. Sanders backers falsely accused Clinton of supporting a controversial purge of 125,000 registered voters in Brooklyn. Of the inactive voters purged in Brooklyn, only 8 percent of whom voted in 2012, 5 percent were 18 to 29 and 61 percent were black and Hispanic. While Sanders won young voters in New York by 30 points, Clinton won black voters by 50 points and Latino voters by 38 points, groups whose numbers were much more likely to be lessened by the purge, and carried Brooklyn by 20 points overall. The purge, to the extent that it mattered, hurt Clinton far more than Sanders. “We are very concerned about it because we believe we probably lost a lot of votes there,” said Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri.

...

harambe The eight states with the lowest voter turnout in 2016 were all caucuses, according to political scientist Michael McDonald of the University of Florida, with an average turnout of 8.4 percent. Turnout was three times lower in caucuses than primaries in 2016. Yet Sanders has refrained from criticizing caucuses because he won 12 out of 18, compared to 28 of 38 primaries for Clinton.

Flammarcos wrote:
yeah that's all true which is precisely why they're always put early on the calendar it's been that way since the 60s for the exact same reason
i never saw or overheard anyone except people who were never going to vote for him in the first place bitch about him being a socialist and i read and eavesdropped on a lot of conversations

nice assumption this is baseless AND pointless so into the trash it goes

i don't need to dude it's all online across various websites and there's no one good source (you'd probably call it fake news anyway like a queer LOL!) look for yourself

appalooser wrote:

Flammarcos wrote:

appalooser wrote:when FD thinks the primary was rigged for hillary

you can bitch and moan about it all you want but the evidence all points to "yes" there's no way all this adds up to a hillary victory bernie even outspent her

except for all of this:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-not-rigged-just-dumb/

"What has upset me, and what I think is -- I wouldn't use the word 'rigged' because we knew what the rules were -- but what is really dumb, is that you have closed primaries, like in New York State, where three million people who were Democrats or Republicans could not participate," Sanders added. "You have a situation where over 400 super delegates came on board Clinton's campaign before anybody else was in the race, eight months before the first vote was cast. That's not rigged, I think it's just a dumb process which has certainly disadvantaged our campaign."

this was before the votebuilder leaks came through he was speaking in the most literal sense he's talked about how the dnc was against him multiple times
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/

Sanders fans have claimed that because caucuses have lower turnout the current national caucus and primary vote underrates how well Sanders is doing. In fact, the opposite is true. When we switch all caucuses over to primaries, Sanders actually does worse. Clinton’s lead in the popular vote would grow from 2.9 to 3.3 million votes. Moreover, her edge in elected delegates would expand significantly.7 Instead of her current lead of 272 elected delegates, Clinton would be ahead by 424.8 Some states that were won by Sanders in caucuses, including Colorado and Minnesota, would be won by Clinton in primaries, according to our calculations.

In fact, counting the 537 superdelegates The Associated Press currently gives Clinton, she would likely have 2,384 total delegates if every state had held a primary. That’s one more than necessary to clinch the nomination.

Still, this wouldn’t make all that much difference. Just 11 states9 held closed primaries, so the national vote is mostly reflective of a process open to unaffiliated voters. Indeed, Clinton has won 14 primaries10 open to independent voters, while Sanders has won nine.

In fact, if all states held primaries open to independents — instead of closed primaries, or caucuses of any kind — Clinton might have a larger lead in elected delegates than she does now. The model indicates that Clinton would have a lead of 294 elected delegates, compared with the 272 she holds now. That’s not a huge difference, but it means that Clinton has been hurt at least as much by caucuses as Sanders has been hurt by closed primaries.

Realistically, if you throw everything together, the math suggests that Sanders doesn’t have much to complain about. If the Democratic nomination were open to as many Democrats as possible — through closed primaries — Clinton would be dominating Sanders. And if the nomination were open to as many voters as possible — through open primaries — she’d still be winning.

literally the exact nate shillver article i've been whining about nice going faggoqueer
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/primary-wasnt-rigged-bernie-sanders-numbers-prove/

...none of the factual numbers support the commonly held belief by many Sanders supporters that he would have won had all the states held open primaries. In fact, just looking at the numbers, if you remove Vermont, his average margin of loss in open primaries would have been 29 points — larger than it was in closed primaries. If anything, what these numbers show us thus far is that caucuses (the process in the primary that suppresses voter turnout the most) heavily favor Sanders. That’s probably why we haven’t heard him complain about them all too much. That debunks the belief that a higher voter turnout favors him considering he lost 76 percent of primaries where voter turnout is much higher, but absolutely crushed Clinton when it came to caucuses which have abysmal voter turnouts when compared to primaries.

more citing bullshit nate shillver math and ignoring most caucuses have absentee voting systems and also oregon
http://www.forwardprogressives.com/for-the-last-time-heres-proof-the-democratic-primary-wasnt-rigged-against-bernie-sanders/

He lost 90.5 percent of states with an African American population over 10 percent and half the states with a Latino population of 10 percent or greater — but won 70 percent of the states with a white population over 70 percent.

What these numbers tell me is that I could find someone who knows nothing about politics or either candidate, show them a list of states listed “State A, B, C..,” and they would be able to most likely accurately predict around 90-95 percent of the time which candidate would win each non-identified state based on nothing more than knowing the racial demographics and whether or not the state used a primary or a caucus.

So, I’m sorry Sanders supporters, but this election wasn’t rigged — he just couldn’t win the minority vote. Though if you continue to claim that it is, you’re actually suggesting a few things:

* That something the DNC did caused minority voters (especially African Americans) to overwhelmingly support Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. So, if that’s your stance, can you please point to exactly what the DNC did to sway only minority voters in her direction?
* Considering that Sanders overwhelming won the white vote, yet was soundly defeated when it came to African American voters (and even mostly lost the Latino vote, as well), are you suggesting that white voters were more informed and resistant to “DNC rigging” than African American and Latino voters? Because that’s basically what you’re claiming when you say the election was “rigged,” yet the math shows Sanders mainly lost because he couldn’t win the African American and Latino vote. So, why did he win so many mostly white states, yet lose so many more diverse ones? Again, keep in mind that if they only “rigged” certain states, what, specifically, did they do to “rig” the states with larger minority populations that caused those minority voters to support Clinton?

If you want to claim that the “primary was rigged,” then you have to be able to explain not only what the DNC specifically did to “rig” the election — but also explain why African American and Latino voters seemed to be the only two racial groups impacted by this supposed “rigging” of the election.

Otherwise, you are either claiming it was rigged simply because that’s what you want to believe, or you have to recognize the reality: Bernie Sanders ran a magnificent campaign which changed the Democratic party (and the country) forever, but it was his inability to sway African American and Latino voters which ultimately cost him the nomination.

lol @ muhnorteez, sanders won every demographic under the age of 45 and no demographic over that age, minorities just have an even bigger age skew than whites
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-conspiracy-theory-that-the-clinton-campaign-stole-votes-makes-no-sense/?nc=1

harambe While Sanders has run an excellent campaign and exceeded all expectations, at no point during the Democratic primaries has he been on track to win. Sanders has held a lead in a handful of national polls, but at no time in the past year has his support broken 42 percent in FiveThirtyEight’s weighted polling average. And at no point in the race has Clinton held a lead narrower than 9.7 percentage points in that average. Why would any campaign, no matter how unprincipled, fix a race that it’s been winning from the start?

harambe It certainly wouldn’t have made any sense before voters headed toward the polls. On the eve of the Iowa caucuses, Clinton enjoyed a 20-point lead in the national polls, and FiveThirtyEight gave her a 67 percent chance of winning. Sanders’s blowout win in New Hampshire might have alarmed some Clinton supporters, but she was still up by 17 nationwide, looking strong in Nevada and South Carolina, and then headed toward a Super Tuesday that looked very favorable for her campaign.

And it proved to be. By March 2, Clinton had amassed a 613-423 lead in pledged delegates, and despite the inevitable twists and turns of a primary campaign, at no point since then has Sanders looked likely to overtake her. Even today, with Sanders coming off an impressive streak of seven wins, the Clinton camp still has a lead of 251 pledged delegates, and is ahead by 15 points going into the delegate-rich New York primary.

"hurr durr look at these polls i'm fucking gay they were right in the general amirite"
https://www.thenation.com/article/the-democratic-primary-wasnt-rigged/

...Nor did superdelegates decide the nomination for Clinton. They gave her a symbolic early lead and momentum, but Clinton’s pledged delegate lead over Sanders was three times larger than Obama’s margin over Clinton in 2008, under the same rules. I’m in favor of abolishing superdelegates or curtailing their influence, but it’s worth remembering that they’ve followed the pledged-delegate winner in every presidential contest since their creation in 1984.

Secondly, the Clinton campaign did not intentionally try to suppress the votes of Sanders supporters. Some Sanders supporters point to Arizona, where there were five-hour lines in Phoenix’s Maricopa County during the March 22 primary, as a glaring example of malfeasance. But those lines occurred because Republican clerk Helen Purcell cut the number of polling places from 200 in 2012 to just 60 in 2016—a decision made possible by a 5-4 conservative majority on the Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act and ruling that states like Arizona no longer had to approve their voting changes with the federal government.

Clinton strenuously criticized that decision and sued Arizona over the polling place closures, a lawsuit the Sanders campaign joined. Latino voters in Maricopa County, who were most affected by the long lines, strongly supported Clinton and she won the state overall by 15 points. Why would she disenfranchise her own supporters?

Voter-suppression accusations were also rampant after the New York primary. Sanders backers falsely accused Clinton of supporting a controversial purge of 125,000 registered voters in Brooklyn. Of the inactive voters purged in Brooklyn, only 8 percent of whom voted in 2012, 5 percent were 18 to 29 and 61 percent were black and Hispanic. While Sanders won young voters in New York by 30 points, Clinton won black voters by 50 points and Latino voters by 38 points, groups whose numbers were much more likely to be lessened by the purge, and carried Brooklyn by 20 points overall. The purge, to the extent that it mattered, hurt Clinton far more than Sanders. “We are very concerned about it because we believe we probably lost a lot of votes there,” said Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri.

...

harambe The eight states with the lowest voter turnout in 2016 were all caucuses, according to political scientist Michael McDonald of the University of Florida, with an average turnout of 8.4 percent. Turnout was three times lower in caucuses than primaries in 2016. Yet Sanders has refrained from criticizing caucuses because he won 12 out of 18, compared to 28 of 38 primaries for Clinton.

appalooser wrote:

Flammarcos wrote:
yeah that's all true which is precisely why they're always put early on the calendar it's been that way since the 60s for the exact same reason
i never saw or overheard anyone except people who were never going to vote for him in the first place bitch about him being a socialist and i read and eavesdropped on a lot of conversations

somehow i doubt the DNC has been in on a conspiracy to fuck over bernie sanders since the 1960s

nice assumption this is baseless AND pointless so into the trash it goes

sanders promised a political revolution, and people rejected it lol

i don't need to dude it's all online across various websites and there's no one good source (you'd probably call it fake news anyway like a queer LOL!) look for yourself

it's your assertion so yes, you need to prove it lol

Congo Jack wrote:more like sanders promised a political revolution and ran off with the money and a new house

he actually has criticized caucuses

to fuck over populist progressives from the north over "moderate" trilateralists from the south

"no" and "go fuck yourself

Flammarcos wrote:it's like you just looked up "im gay and how to prove fd wrong online and democratic primary not rigged and bernie sanders is evil" and copy pasted the first page of google results literally none of those articles had anything substantial

.10 united states dollars have been deposited into your ctr account

appalooser wrote:

he actually has criticized caucuses

prove it

to fuck over populist progressives from the north over "moderate" trilateralists from the south

prove it

"no" and "go fuck yourself

then don't be shocked when i don't buy a word of it. it's not my job to research your assertions bud, burden of proof is on you. i provided evidence that the primary wasn't rigged against sanders, now you get to provide evidence of your claims or i'm going to ignore them

appalooser wrote:

Flammarcos wrote:it's like you just looked up "im gay and how to prove fd wrong online and democratic primary not rigged and bernie sanders is evil" and copy pasted the first page of google results literally none of those articles had anything substantial

.10 united states dollars have been deposited into your ctr account

mfw FD can't disprove any of my sources but he wants to discard them anyways so he pulls out the CTR response

Flammarcos wrote:
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-super-tuesday-showdown-how-the-us-south-won-the-spotlight-2016-2

https://www.reddit.com/r/DNCleaks/comments/52q7z1/how_bernie_lost_the_primary_dncleak/

http://mattforney.com/dnc-leak-voter-fraud/

http://www.caucus99percent.com/content/dan-rolle-nv-leaks

i couldn't find it and maybe i'm wrong but i'm fairly positive that at least the general vibe in statements from the bernie campaign was that open primaries were the way forward, and they pushed for a resolution to make every state an open primary and not an open caucus etc.

yeah i can disprove all of them based on the fact they use shitty math and assumptions and don't look at the whole dataset an ap stats student would disapprove based on very fundamental principles

also LE REDDIT XDDDDDDDDDD TENDIES MAYMAY XDDSDXDXDXDXD

Protestors dressed as members of the Ku Klux Klan interrupted Tuesday's confirmation hearing of Attorney General-designate Jeff Sessions, chiding the Alabama senator for past allegations of racist comments.

The two protestors were dressed in white robes and hoods, holding foam fingers with "KKK" and "Go Jeffie Boy" written on the hands. They chanted sarcastic praise at Sessions, as well as comments like "protect all the whites."

appawewser wrote:

Flammarcos wrote:
http://www.businessinsider.com/r-super-tuesday-showdown-how-the-us-south-won-the-spotlight-2016-2

proves nothing related to your point

https://www.reddit.com/r/DNCleaks/comments/52q7z1/how_bernie_lost_the_primary_dncleak/

proves nothing

http://mattforney.com/dnc-leak-voter-fraud/

aside from being a shitty source, this really proves nothing other than that the DNC has the ability to modify information which isn't shocking because, you know, they sorta need that ability to fucking run their systems and update your information

http://www.caucus99percent.com/content/dan-rolle-nv-leaks

another questionable source, no citations, doesn't prove much of anything and reads like a fucking conspiracy because it basically is

great evidence, bud

i couldn't find it and maybe i'm wrong but i'm fairly positive that at least the general vibe in statements from the bernie campaign was that open primaries were the way forward, and they pushed for a resolution to make every state an open primary and not an open caucus etc.

that's funny, because he didn't criticize them at all during the campaign (because he was winning)

yeah i can disprove all of them based on the fact they use shitty math and assumptions and don't look at the whole dataset an ap stats student would disapprove based on very fundamental principles

also LE REDDIT XDDDDDDDDDD TENDIES MAYMAY XDDSDXDXDXDXD

you couldn't disprove 2+2=5

yes and there's clear evidence based on what happened in the primaries that they used it maliciously dem primary turnout was way low in several states

fd wrote:use shitty math and assumptions

He. wrote:

fd wrote:use shitty math and assumptions

that's what the whole Bernie campaign was built on though

appawewser wrote:

yes and there's clear evidence based on what happened in the primaries that they used it maliciously dem primary turnout was way low in several states

when you still haven't proven that point

He. wrote:

fd wrote:use shitty math and assumptions

that's what the whole Bernie campaign was built on though