Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Perspectives. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Reid blames Sanders supporters for disruptions at Nev. convention; Why do Democrats fear democracy?
Topic Started: May 17 2016, 11:36 AM (1,415 Views)
Harambe4Trump
Member Avatar

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/280109-reid-blames-sanders-supporters-for-disruptions-at-nev

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday blamed Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’s supporters for the chaos that ensued at Nevada’s Democratic Convention this past weekend.
Skipping leg day is the equivalent of a woman having an abortion. You're ashamed of it, and it was probably unnecessary.
#MAGA
#wallsnotwars
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mysysail
Member Avatar
Global_Hick
Possibly, because Reid endorsed Hillary in Spring already.
He may also be worried about his Senate Seat.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
14Veritas
Member Avatar

This and many other problems created by the use of delegates, and in the general election with the use of the Electoral College.
Many Voters see this as a manipulation and corruption of the election process that they think should be one person one vote.
But that would not then be a representative democracy, which is what we now have.
Maybe it's time for a change. It would have made a huge difference for Al Gore, in the 2000 election and for the 5,000 men and
women who gave their lives in the Iraq War!
If there is nothing to hide then why all the lies?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BuckFan

Clinton won the vote in Nevada. The Bernie supporters were doing what they have decried in the past, stacking the convention to try and steal Clinton delegates. It didn't work and they are not complaining it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Two a.m.
Member Avatar

The only Democrats who seem to fear democracy at this point are Sanders supporters.
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-kall/debunking-hillarys-specio_b_9972312.html
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Two a.m.
Member Avatar

ringotuna
May 17 2016, 05:57 PM
This is laughably horrible math on two levels.

First, the poster gives whole population figures for states like 7.2 million for Washington which assumes (A) 100 percent of voters turnout, (B) the entire population turns out including non-registered voters, resident aliens, children, babies, etc. all cast ballots ("Okay, little Jimmy, as soon as I change your diaper, I'll take you out to vote for Bernie."), and (C) every single voter (and apparently non-voter plus some of the smarter domestic housepets) are all Democrats. So if you believe that Washington State has zero Republicans, 100 percent voter turnout and a heavy registration base of politically interested toddlers crawling to the polls in pajamas, then yes, this makes perfect sense. By this standard, Georgia, which Hillary Clinton won by a landslide, should be credited with more than 10 million votes even though less than one million actual voters showed up in the Democratic primary. Indeed, if you magnify states Bernie won by ten times their actual electorate then they would make his totals look pretty good.

The second really hilarious fail is assuming that primary and caucus results turn out the same. Guess what? They don't. Caucuses attract more committed voters. It isn't random chance that Bernie won almost all of them and most by lopsided margins. Had they been primaries where more Hillary supporters would have come out, those margins would have been far different. Caucuses don't work like primaries and their results can't be random translated on a 1-1 basis.

Hillary won the popular vote. This isn't a media myth. It's math. Do we know what the exact popular vote would have been if all states had held primaries? No, of course not. Nor can we ever know that. But there is no indication that the handful of states which hold caucuses could have realistically produced anywhere near enough votes to overcome Hillary's margin. They certainly wouldn't have produced the more than 34 million votes listed which is a figure well beyond ludicrous.

All in all, this is one of the delusionally sillier things I've read in awhile - even by Sanders supporter standards.
Edited by Two a.m., May 17 2016, 07:08 PM.
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

Two a.m.
May 17 2016, 07:04 PM
ringotuna
May 17 2016, 05:57 PM
This is laughably horrible math on two levels.

First, the poster gives whole population figures for states like 7.2 million for Washington which assumes (A) 100 percent of voters turnout, (B) the entire population turns out including non-registered voters, resident aliens, children, babies, etc. all cast ballots ("Okay, little Jimmy, as soon as I change your diaper, I'll take you out to vote for Bernie."), and (C) every single voter (and apparently non-voter plus some of the smarter domestic housepets) are all Democrats. So if you believe that Washington State has zero Republicans, 100 percent voter turnout and a heavy registration base of politically interested toddlers crawling to the polls in pajamas, then yes, this makes perfect sense. By this standard, Georgia, which Hillary Clinton won by a landslide, should be credited with more than 10 million votes even though less than one million actual voters showed up in the Democratic primary. Indeed, if you magnify states Bernie won by ten times their actual electorate then they would make his totals look pretty good.

The second really hilarious fail is assuming that primary and caucus results turn out the same. Guess what? They don't. Caucuses attract more committed voters. It isn't random chance that Bernie won almost all of them and most by lopsided margins. Had they been primaries where more Hillary supporters would have come out, those margins would have been far different. Caucuses don't work like primaries and their results can't be random translated on a 1-1 basis.

Hillary won the popular vote. This isn't a media myth. It's math. Do we know what the exact popular vote would have been if all states had held primaries? No, of course not. Nor can we ever know that. But there is no indication that the handful of states which hold caucuses could have realistically produced anywhere near enough votes to overcome Hillary's margin. They certainly wouldn't have produced the more than 34 million votes listed which is a figure well beyond ludicrous.

All in all, this is one of the delusionally sillier things I've read in awhile - even by Sanders supporter standards.
Explain then the results in Washington, Maine, Alaska & Nevada.
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Two a.m.
Member Avatar

ringotuna
May 18 2016, 04:07 AM
Two a.m.
May 17 2016, 07:04 PM
ringotuna
May 17 2016, 05:57 PM
This is laughably horrible math on two levels.

First, the poster gives whole population figures for states like 7.2 million for Washington which assumes (A) 100 percent of voters turnout, (B) the entire population turns out including non-registered voters, resident aliens, children, babies, etc. all cast ballots ("Okay, little Jimmy, as soon as I change your diaper, I'll take you out to vote for Bernie."), and (C) every single voter (and apparently non-voter plus some of the smarter domestic housepets) are all Democrats. So if you believe that Washington State has zero Republicans, 100 percent voter turnout and a heavy registration base of politically interested toddlers crawling to the polls in pajamas, then yes, this makes perfect sense. By this standard, Georgia, which Hillary Clinton won by a landslide, should be credited with more than 10 million votes even though less than one million actual voters showed up in the Democratic primary. Indeed, if you magnify states Bernie won by ten times their actual electorate then they would make his totals look pretty good.

The second really hilarious fail is assuming that primary and caucus results turn out the same. Guess what? They don't. Caucuses attract more committed voters. It isn't random chance that Bernie won almost all of them and most by lopsided margins. Had they been primaries where more Hillary supporters would have come out, those margins would have been far different. Caucuses don't work like primaries and their results can't be random translated on a 1-1 basis.

Hillary won the popular vote. This isn't a media myth. It's math. Do we know what the exact popular vote would have been if all states had held primaries? No, of course not. Nor can we ever know that. But there is no indication that the handful of states which hold caucuses could have realistically produced anywhere near enough votes to overcome Hillary's margin. They certainly wouldn't have produced the more than 34 million votes listed which is a figure well beyond ludicrous.

All in all, this is one of the delusionally sillier things I've read in awhile - even by Sanders supporter standards.
Explain then the results in Washington, Maine, Alaska & Nevada.

In what respect?
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

Two a.m.
May 18 2016, 04:19 AM
ringotuna
May 18 2016, 04:07 AM
Two a.m.
May 17 2016, 07:04 PM
Explain then the results in Washington, Maine, Alaska & Nevada.

In what respect?
How in Washington, Sanders earned 72% of the vote yet RCP credits him with none.
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Two a.m.
Member Avatar

ringotuna
May 18 2016, 04:21 AM
Two a.m.
May 18 2016, 04:19 AM
ringotuna
May 18 2016, 04:07 AM

In what respect?
How in Washington, Sanders earned 72% of the vote yet RCP credits him with none.
That's probably because some caucus states don't report vote totals. They simply report percentage. I believe Iowa works that way as well if I recall.
Edited by Two a.m., May 18 2016, 04:25 AM.
"The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them." - George Orwell, 1984
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

ringotuna
May 18 2016, 04:21 AM
Two a.m.
May 18 2016, 04:19 AM
ringotuna
May 18 2016, 04:07 AM

In what respect?
How in Washington, Sanders earned 72% of the vote yet RCP credits him with none.
Obviously an anti-74-year-old-Jew conspiracy :rollseyes:

Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

Two a.m.
May 18 2016, 04:25 AM
ringotuna
May 18 2016, 04:21 AM
Two a.m.
May 18 2016, 04:19 AM
How in Washington, Sanders earned 72% of the vote yet RCP credits him with none.
That's probably because some caucus states don't report vote totals. They simply report percentage. I believe Iowa works that way as well if I recall.
Hillary's claim of a 3 million vote lead over Sanders....It all seems rather dubious to me given that caucus states don't report vote totals...How can she make that claim?
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

wilmywood8455
May 18 2016, 04:39 AM
ringotuna
May 18 2016, 04:21 AM
Two a.m.
May 18 2016, 04:19 AM
How in Washington, Sanders earned 72% of the vote yet RCP credits him with none.
Obviously an anti-74-year-old-Jew conspiracy :rollseyes:

I'm tryin to figure out how these caucuses work.
Edited by ringotuna, May 18 2016, 04:45 AM.
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CautionaryTales
Member Avatar

ringotuna
May 18 2016, 04:43 AM
wilmywood8455
May 18 2016, 04:39 AM
ringotuna
May 18 2016, 04:21 AM
Obviously an anti-74-year-old-Jew conspiracy :rollseyes:

I'm tryin to figure out how these caucuses work.
The one thing they have in common is that it's a several hour or all day commitment by the participants.
They huddle and try to pick off other milling about caucus members until a final count, or sometimes estimated count is made. Then a winner is declared.

This process tips in the favor of the candidate with the most dedicated followers.
Sanders has a more dedicated base than Clinton has. Dedication doesn't give anyone more value to their vote however.

Without a ballot box where a voter can come to the poll, vote and leave there isn't any accurate way to count votes that might have been cast for specific candidates.

Sanders supporters will stand in the rain for days to be counted.
Clinton supporters (typically) will not.

However... There are more Clinton supporters. They are not so willing to do more than cast their vote for her.
In those caucus states where Sanders has done well Clinton may very well have more casual support than Sanders, but since they would be expected to go through many hours of caucus nonsense they don't show up as much.

At the end of the day, Clinton has three million more votes than Sanders.


Have you paid your internet taxes?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

CautionaryTales
May 18 2016, 05:55 AM
ringotuna
May 18 2016, 04:43 AM
wilmywood8455
May 18 2016, 04:39 AM
I'm tryin to figure out how these caucuses work.
The one thing they have in common is that it's a several hour or all day commitment by the participants.
They huddle and try to pick off other milling about caucus members until a final count, or sometimes estimated count is made. Then a winner is declared.

This process tips in the favor of the candidate with the most dedicated followers.
Sanders has a more dedicated base than Clinton has. Dedication doesn't give anyone more value to their vote however.

Without a ballot box where a voter can come to the poll, vote and leave there isn't any accurate way to count votes that might have been cast for specific candidates.

Sanders supporters will stand in the rain for days to be counted.
Clinton supporters (typically) will not.

However... There are more Clinton supporters. They are not so willing to do more than cast their vote for her.
In those caucus states where Sanders has done well Clinton may very well have more casual support than Sanders, but since they would be expected to go through many hours of caucus nonsense they don't show up as much.

At the end of the day, Clinton has three million more votes than Sanders.
Ok, without a ballot box, by what measure do they presume that there are more "casual" Hillary supporters? Seems the system is quite ripe for manipulation unless there is some quantifiable measure that goes beyond assumptions.
Edited by ringotuna, May 18 2016, 06:13 AM.
Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CautionaryTales
Member Avatar

ringotuna
May 18 2016, 06:11 AM
CautionaryTales
May 18 2016, 05:55 AM
ringotuna
May 18 2016, 04:43 AM
The one thing they have in common is that it's a several hour or all day commitment by the participants.
They huddle and try to pick off other milling about caucus members until a final count, or sometimes estimated count is made. Then a winner is declared.

This process tips in the favor of the candidate with the most dedicated followers.
Sanders has a more dedicated base than Clinton has. Dedication doesn't give anyone more value to their vote however.

Without a ballot box where a voter can come to the poll, vote and leave there isn't any accurate way to count votes that might have been cast for specific candidates.

Sanders supporters will stand in the rain for days to be counted.
Clinton supporters (typically) will not.

However... There are more Clinton supporters. They are not so willing to do more than cast their vote for her.
In those caucus states where Sanders has done well Clinton may very well have more casual support than Sanders, but since they would be expected to go through many hours of caucus nonsense they don't show up as much.

At the end of the day, Clinton has three million more votes than Sanders.
Ok, without a ballot box, by what measure do they presume that there are more "casual" Hillary supporters? Seems the system is quite ripe for manipulation unless there is some quantifiable measure that goes beyond assumptions.
The quantifiable factor would be the votes that were cast in the non caucus states.
Other than that it's pure guessing on both sides. There is plenty of room for yabbutts.

But it still remains that Clinton has received three million more votes than Sanders.


Have you paid your internet taxes?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CautionaryTales
Member Avatar

You do raise a good question though... What is the thing about a caucus that favors Sanders?

I think it is the need to be dedicated to caucus.


Have you paid your internet taxes?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ringotuna
Member Avatar

CautionaryTales
May 18 2016, 06:15 AM
ringotuna
May 18 2016, 06:11 AM
CautionaryTales
May 18 2016, 05:55 AM
Ok, without a ballot box, by what measure do they presume that there are more "casual" Hillary supporters? Seems the system is quite ripe for manipulation unless there is some quantifiable measure that goes beyond assumptions.
The quantifiable factor would be the votes that were cast in the non caucus states.
Other than that it's pure guessing on both sides. There is plenty of room for yabbutts.

But it still remains that Clinton has received three million more votes than Sanders.
You're saying that the estimate of percent supporters in a caucus state is determined by the primary results from a different state?


Ringoism: Never underestimate the advantages of being underestimated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
CautionaryTales
Member Avatar

ringotuna
May 18 2016, 06:20 AM
CautionaryTales
May 18 2016, 06:15 AM
ringotuna
May 18 2016, 06:11 AM
The quantifiable factor would be the votes that were cast in the non caucus states.
Other than that it's pure guessing on both sides. There is plenty of room for yabbutts.

But it still remains that Clinton has received three million more votes than Sanders.
You're saying that the estimate of percent supporters in a caucus state is determined by the primary results from a different state?


Not at all.
I'm saying that the caucus format is advantageous to a candidate with the more dedicated support.
That is Sanders.



Have you paid your internet taxes?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · UnitedStates.com DOMESTIC U.S. news · Next Topic »
Add Reply