[Megathread] Bernie Sanders 2016

[Wulfey]

"Machines only break for Berners"
"Disappearing registrations only hurt Berners"
"Election fraud"

These allegations of election fraud would require active collusion of pretty much every board in every state that HRC won. Berners need a reality check here. At least California is going to finally provide that with a double digit, real elections win for HRC.

[dd614]

Bernie needs to put on a MAGA hat and get on the Trump train.

[Daerio]

These allegations of election fraud would require active collusion of pretty much every board in every state that HRC won. Berners need a reality check here. At least California is going to finally provide that with a double digit, real elections win for HRC.

Only in your mind. In reality, the system is set up in such a way that one guy can hack the vote from his basement, and there's no way to keep track of it.

Well, I mean, you could audit the votes by hand counting them and see how much they're off by. But when we do that, the numbers are scary, so we choose to believe otherwise.

[Matchles]

"Is this your first election? Election fraud happens every year. Why should this year be different? But you can't prove it happens. And if it does happen, it doesn't change the outcome."

You continue with your tap-dance of nonsense. Proof is in the pudding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSNTauWPkTc

I'll go ahead and link to the Chicago Elections Board meeting again, posted by the Chicago Election Board, in case somebody gets confused and believes your load of bullshit about sources.

I'll take that as a "yes".

Did you even watch the video? Do you have any idea who she is? She wasn't an auditor. She was a Sanders hack from some citizen's group. You are taking her word versus everyone else. She has an agenda. She has no training in election procedure or anything else. She doesn't know what is going on. The guy on the board pretty adequately addresses the issues. So everyone by all means everyone watch the video. The "evidence" of fraud is one woman with an agenda claiming someone in her group saw something.

It is kind of hilarious the lengths you are going to believe this. Every auditor and the board has to be lying because this one woman must be telling the truth.


Edit: Here is the same woman. She is a busybody.

Here she is complaining about election fraud in 2004. http://freepress.org/article/public-...13-please-pass

Here is her other group Illinois Coalition for a Moratorium on Fracking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3XGGShgkpk

I won't link her facebook profile but it is clear she is a Sanders supporter. Bernie on her profile picture, Bernie on her background picture, Every article that is public has some statement about cheering on Sanders.

Here is another video of her. Apparently now heading up a group called Frack-Free Illinois. https://chicagonewsroom.org/2014/12/04/cn-nov-27-2014/

[Vynestra]

Hillary leads polls in CA by about 18% right now.

inb4 people say "MICHIGAN SHE LED BY 20, POLLS HAVE BEEN WRONG BEFORE!"

Let's just remember that even if it is wrong like Michigan -- a 50/50 split is a win for hillary clinton in CA.

Oh let's see, how will Clinton rig this one, we should spin the wheel of "bernie bro's excuses for clinton wins"

Fraud?

Bill Clinton getting too close to polling areas and intimidating voters to vote for hillary?


Hmm how about we blame the media for shutting him out?

No? Okay umm yeah let's go with voter fraud, she rigged the election!


That's all you'll see in the bernie sanders reddit when he loses CA by stupid margins. Holy crap if she gets a 60-40 split or anything close, that would bring her to her highest amount of delegates -ever- in the campaign.

lol this is over.

[BrerBear]

Only in your mind. In reality, the system is set up in such a way that one guy can hack the vote from his basement, and there's no way to keep track of it.

If were set up so that one guy could hack it from his basement, Bernie would be winning by a landslide.
Perhaps you could point your tin-foil hat antennae over in the direction of all those rigged online polls that declared Bernie the 90% popularity winner. Back when "nobody had even heard of Bernie", of course.

[Daerio]

I'll take that as a "yes".

Did you even watch the video? Do you have any idea who she is? She wasn't an auditor. She was a Sanders hack from some citizen's group. You are taking her word versus everyone else. She has an agenda. She has no training in election procedure or anything else. She doesn't know what is going on. The guy on the board pretty adequately addresses the issues. So everyone by all means everyone watch the video. The "evidence" of fraud is one woman with an agenda claiming someone in her group saw something.

It is kind of hilarious the lengths you are going to believe this. Every auditor and the board has to be lying because this one woman must be telling the truth.

I'll be waiting for you back here in reality, whenever you choose to join the rest of us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nTVjLJ__uM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSNTauWPkTc

Chicago board of Elections audit process:

Give each auditor the final election results before they count the votes in front of them. Hand count the ballots. If your count doesn't match the final results the machines came up with, erase your number and write the correct one. Audit completed!

Forgive me for being too stupid to see things your way, but I see a few glaring problems with that process. Granted, I'm not a paid professional auditor, or whatever. I probably wouldn't have the chops for it, since I would want the hand counts to actually match the machine counts a little. That's probably something you learn from 4 years in government auditor school.

[hrugner]

Hillary leads polls in CA by about 18% right now.

Oh cool, the new ones are in? I'd heard that we weren't going to see anything new out of CA till the results.

[Matchles]

I'll be waiting for you back here in reality, whenever you choose to join the rest of us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nTVjLJ__uM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSNTauWPkTc

Chicago board of Elections audit process:

Give each auditor the final election results before they count the votes in front of them. Hand count the ballots. If your count doesn't match the final results the machines came up with, erase your number and write the correct one. Audit completed!

Forgive me for being too stupid to see things your way, but I see a few glaring problems with that process. Granted, I'm not a paid professional auditor, or whatever. I probably wouldn't have the chops for it, since I would want the hand counts to actually match the machine counts a little. That's probably something you learn from 4 years in government auditor school.

You are forgiven. Not all of us are capable of overcoming confirmation bias.

[Daerio]

You are forgiven. Not all of us are capable of overcoming confirmation bias.

I'm sure I'd see things your way if I "used to work with legislators and lawyers" and whatnot.

AKA, if I was a paid shill too. Or a temporarily embarrassed millionaire like Skroe.

Then I'd be able to see why 2+2=5 and how Hillary actually did get more votes.

[Gray_Matter]

Don't worry shillarites, I wasn't expecting you to address the vast pool of evidence regarding election fraud.

Just keep linking those blog posts and MSM stories about business as usual. I'm sure it's nice to have somebody else interpreting reality for you, so you don't have to worry about the little things.

I mean, when you can't argue against the evidence directly, it's better to just pretend it doesn't exist, right?

Are you trying to say that widespread organized election fraud across a number of different states controlled by both GOP and Democrats to benefit Clinton is more likely than a bias in exit polls which just happened to be performed by a single company?

[Sargerasraider]

I'm sure I'd see things your way if I "used to work with legislators and lawyers" and whatnot.

AKA, if I was a paid shill too. Or a temporarily embarrassed millionaire like Skroe.

Then I'd be able to see why 2+2=5 and how Hillary actually did get more votes.

Hillary is ahead by 3 million cast ballots: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ote_count.html

Oh wait, crap, sorry, forgot that everyone is in on this conspiracy against Bernie. My mistake.

[Daerio]

Are you trying to say that widespread organized election fraud across a number of different states controlled by both GOP and Democrats to benefit Clinton is more likely than a bias in exit polls which just happened to be performed by a single company?

Point me in the direction of the audits certifying these elections, that were actually done correctly. The burden of proof actually is on the government here, by law. It's not on me as a citizen to prove the elections are fraudulent, even though they obviously are and already have been proven to be.

Or tell me how an audit where you change your count to match the number you had before you started accomplishes what it was designed to do. I'm very interested in listening to your thought process for this.

[Gray_Matter]

Doesnt matter what u do, one side or the other will be upset. And Trump has been better to women than Hillary ever has or will be.

Best to focus on who's better for the country and we knew from Hillary's "experience" she has been one disaster after another and the Clintons r as corrupt as they come.

I am sure that the authorities would be interested in your evidence of corruption or is that just conjecture on your part?

Oh, and to say that Trump has been better to woman is absurd. He judges woman solely on their looks, he insults them and he belittles them.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, it's a blog post written by a known Republican-turned-Democrat establishment liberal, who is most likely deep up Hillary's ass just like so many others. It's just yet another propaganda post. Nothing new to see here.

So you immediately rule out the article without discussing it's merits because you think the person "is most likely deep up Hillary's ass". One could say the same thing then for every single TYT clip and all of the liberals site. Rule them out without discussing the merits of what they are saying because they are "most likely deep up Bernie's ass". That's an interesting way to do things. You want people to look at your video clips but completely rule out any clips that are from anyone but the liberal media.

[Sargerasraider]

Point me in the direction of the audits certifying these elections, that were actually done correctly. The burden of proof actually is on the government here, by law. It's not on me as a citizen to prove the elections are fraudulent, even though they obviously are and already have been proven to be.

Or tell me how an audit where you change your count to match the number you had before you started accomplishes what it was designed to do. I'm very interested in listening to your thought process for this.

Hillary has led in basically all polls and leads massively in number of votes cast.

You realize how incredible the degree of collusion would have to be to engineer such a feat, right? It would be a conspiracy between most election boards plus most media outlets, all of whom have really not had anyone break ranks and expose the process. The alternative is that Hillary is (surprise) actually winning. Occam's razor.

[Daerio]

Hillary has led in basically all polls and leads massively in number of votes cast.

Polls are "weighted." What does weighted mean? Well, it means they alter the data they have to make it meaningful. How do they measure whether or not it's meaningful? Well, they measure it against the votes.

And now the problem emerges. If you're assuming the votes are correct, and you're measuring them against the polls which are weighted against the votes... you aren't really measuring shit. You're just a fucking echo chamber.

[Gray_Matter]

Point me in the direction of the audits certifying these elections, that were actually done correctly. The burden of proof actually is on the government here, by law. It's not on me as a citizen to prove the elections are fraudulent, even though they obviously are and already have been proven to be.

Or tell me how an audit where you change your count to match the number you had before you started accomplishes what it was designed to do. I'm very interested in listening to your thought process for this.

You are alleging that there is a conspiracy by Clinton to commit voter fraud. That's a very serious accusation. The fact that some of that so called voter fraud occurred in a GOP controlled state just further indicates how absurd it is. The thing that people are using to allege this fraud are exit polls which are notoriously biased and have also been performed by the same company.

If there was any evidence of election fraud implicating Clinton, don't you think that Bernie (who is the only person who can make the accusation) would have lodged a formal complaint?

[Zeth Hawkins]

Are you trying to say that widespread organized election fraud across a number of different states controlled by both GOP and Democrats to benefit Clinton is more likely than a bias in exit polls which just happened to be performed by a single company?

We compare exit polls to election outcomes in other countries as a way to determine corruption. If any other country had as much deviation as this Democratic primary, it would be grounds for a major investigation. Note as well, that this is only happening on the Democratic side. The Republican primary has very low (re: expected levels of) deviation.

[Daerio]

You are alleging that there is a conspiracy by Clinton to commit voter fraud.

No, this is a strawman you guys just keep attacking so that you can demand some ridiculous burden proof that Clinton is personally responsible for everything.

Instead of actually addressing the fact that our elections are clearly fucked.

[Gray_Matter]

Polls are "weighted." What does weighted mean? Well, it means they alter the data they have to make it meaningful. How do they measure whether or not it's meaningful? Well, they measure it against the votes.

And now the problem emerges. If you're assuming the votes are correct, and you're measuring them against the polls which are weighted against the votes... you aren't really measuring shit. You're just a fucking echo chamber.

Exit polls are not meant to measure anything. They are a tool to give people some more information on various demographics and how they voted. The problem is that they are performed by people who are very likely to make mistakes. They don't poll everyone, only a sampling and there is a natural bias in that sampling. They pick who they want to ask. More enthusiastic people tend to get picked more often. Those people also happen to be Bernie's voter base and considering that the people doing the exit polls are youngsters, you have a lot of potential for them to be out. The exit polls could tell you that 80% of young people are voting for Bernie but what they don't tell you is how many of the voters are young people. The same with people of colour. Latinos have been very evasive towards the exit polls this election so you aren't getting much meaningful information there. Let me give you an example:

Exit polls say that Bernie wins 55% to 45%. Exit polls have a voter breakdown of 60% young people and 40% older people. Networks have a look and the exit poll and adjust them to fit the demographics better. So if there were, in fact, 60% old people and 40% young people then they would adjust the overall to match those demographcis. They would still have Bernie leading the young voters by 80% to 20% and Clinton winning the older voters by 75% to 25%. What they change is the number of older and younger voters to match the actual demographics.

For example, Obama's exit polls were out by an average of 5% in 2012, if I am not mistaken. Does that mean that there was widespread fraud in 2012?