[Megathread] Bernie Sanders 2016

[Vynestra]

Oh look, it's election fraud again. This has never been used as an argument against hillary.


One think, word to the wise when you say electability as an argument for sanders.

Let's go back 8 years, when Clinton was polling sky high ahead of Mccain, and Mccain was actually beating obama pretty hard.....

That's totally what happened, our 8 years of President McCain were caused by nominating the "less electable" candidate.


http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp200...aps/May22.html

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp200...aps/May22.html


Just for some reference.

[Gray_Matter]

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.

You are alleging that there was election fraud that benefited Clinton, not that the elections are "fucked". If they were "fucked" then the natural assumption is that both Bernie and Clinton would have lost out.

[Daerio]

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?

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/...d-allegations/

There are in-depth answers to these questions already; just posing them isn't some sort of rebuttal.

More enthusiastic people tend to get picked more often... are Sanders supporters more enthusiastic than Trump supporters? Why don't we see this exit poll phenomena with Trump?

If your argument is exit poling also cannot be trusted, then where is the convincing evidence pointing to the fact that the elections are legitimate, being that the audits don't really exist?

[Gray_Matter]

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.

Here is an article that explains the problem with using exit polls to predict outcomes:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2038617.html

[Deleted]

Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

Of course you did. Because you matter.

In other news, here's some videos for all you Bernie and Cenk/TYT haters:





You won't see Queen Hillary walking on the streets of San Fran among the people, or pulling crowds of tens of thousands of enthusiastic supporters. Nah... She likes her limousine too much, and her interaction with the people is either telling them to shut up or reading some fake ass speech.

Oh yeah, and Hillary just decided to refuse to debate Sanders ahead of California. Despite promising to do that back in May. Oh Hillary, so predictable with your lies.

Well... If she gets the nomination and avoids an indictment, it'll be fun to see Trump rip her a new one in the debates.

[Daerio]

Here is an article that explains the problem with using exit polls to predict outcomes:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2038617.html

But let’s first stipulate that once weighted to match the actual outcome, exit polls are an incredibly valuable resource.

P-hacking: the newest religion. Making data say whatever we want it to say, to confirm what we already knew.

[Nfinitii]

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.

In the 1980s Trump was putting women in executive and Constuction management jobs, which was unheard of at the time. Look at how the nyt hit article went, the women they used as sources came out against nyt saying they misquoted and spun their words to make Trump look bad, and said Trump was a gentleman and helped them a lot.

Hillary who has a history of attacking a belittling women, who blamed a 12yo girl for being raped, attacked all the women who had sex with Bill, pays women 38% less than men while talking about women equality. Look at all the scandals the Clintons have been involved in, where a lot of their donations come from, the companies that pay them 100s of thousands to do speeches, Bill Clinton flying on a convicted pedophile's private jet and ditching the secret service to go off alone with said pedophile. Hillary's constant failures during Bill's presidency and during her time as Secretary of State, the email scandal. Scandal after scandal, u can go on forever, it's amazing they aren't in jail. Benghazi. It blows my mind how anyone can vote for her.

[Vynestra]

Of course you did. Because you matter.

In other news, here's some videos for all you Bernie and Cenk/TYT haters:





You won't see Queen Hillary walking on the streets of San Fran among the people, or pulling crowds of tens of thousands of enthusiastic supporters. Nah... She likes her limousine too much, and her interaction with the people is either telling them to shut up or reading some fake ass speech.

Oh yeah, and Hillary just decided to refuse to debate Sanders ahead of California. Despite promising to do that back in May. Oh Hillary, so predictable with your lies.

Well... If she gets the nomination and avoids an indictment, it'll be fun to see Trump rip her a new one in the debates.

lol trump ripping her a new one in debates.


Trump what is your plan for working middle class? "The middle class will be AMAZING during my presidency, it will be the best middle class we have ever seen in America, we will have such a great economy for them, it will be great."

Clinton: "I want to do x y and z to make it easier for working class families to get paid time off, get higher wages by raising the minimum wage, reduce x y and z loopholes"


yup, that's getting ripped a new one.


Oh and yeah, we won't see Clinton walking down the street with supporters, because she's too busy campaigning in general election states since SHE'S POLLING 18% AHEAD IN CA.

I still think it'll be closer, but dude...you are just disillusioned.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, no one wants a fox debate about benghazi, and her emails...

no one.


except bernie bros.

[Deleted]

Serious question to people who will vote for him.
Do you think that a guy that lets others to interrupt him and literally take his microphone, while looking at the ground, will make America stronger?
Is that the leader you wish for?

[Gray_Matter]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/...d-allegations/

There are in-depth answers to these questions already; just posing them isn't some sort of rebuttal.

More enthusiastic people tend to get picked more often... are Sanders supporters more enthusiastic than Trump supporters? Why don't we see this exit poll phenomena with Trump?

If your argument is exit poling also cannot be trusted, then where is the convincing evidence pointing to the fact that the elections are legitimate, being that the audits don't really exist?

Election audits are performed by election monitors, not exit polls.

On the article above. I am forwarding it on to 538 to ask them for some feedback. The person drawing up the article has no formal training in statistics, he is a paster and film producer. A couple of flaws with the article:

1) The writer makes the assumption that exit polls are 100% accurate but they are subject to selection bias, just as any other poll is, including the Michigan polls that were out by 20%+.
2) There are a number of other correlations that can be drawn, for example, the older voter machines would be in poorer and areas where the majority of people are people of colour. These are areas that generally do better with Clinton and it's likely that any bias in the exit polls would be more apparent. It reminds me of the story of drowning and Ice Cream (http://statistics.about.com/od/Helpa...-Causation.htm).
3) Obama's exit polls were 5% higher than his actual results in 2008 which is identical to the 5.1% that the writer is using to indicate massive fraud.

The most likely answer is that the writer hasn't identified all of the lurking variables. The writer hasn't looked at data over time (historical data) so how can he be sure that he has identified lurking variables. Correlation Does Not Imply Causation yet that's exactly what he is doing.

- - - Updated - - -

P-hacking: the newest religion. Making data say whatever we want it to say, to confirm what we already knew.

Did you even read the article. It's from 2012, BTW, and has nothing to do with Clinton/Bernie. 2008 exit polls were in Obamas favour by 5% (the same as the article you linked) yet you aren't screaming electoral fraud there. The exit polls in Bush - Gore had Gore 6.6% up but Bush actually won. You cannot use exit polls to try and prove election fraud because they are extremely inaccurate just as any other poll can be inaccurate. Hell, a person could lie to you in the exit polls and there is no way you can prove it one way or another. An old person might lie because they have their grand child who is a fervent Bernie supporter standing right next to them.

[Wulfey]

We are talking about a difference of 2.8 million votes or so. There weren't 2.8 million fraudulent votes. Utterly impossible.

[Daerio]

1) The writer makes the assumption that exit polls are 100% accurate but they are subject to selection bias, just as any other poll is, including the Michigan polls that were out by 20%+.

No, the author makes no such claim.

2) There are a number of other correlations that can be drawn, for example, the older voter machines would be in poorer and areas where the majority of people are people of colour. These are areas that generally do better with Clinton and it's likely that any bias in the exit polls would be more apparent. It reminds me of the story of drowning and Ice Cream (http://statistics.about.com/od/Helpa...-Causation.htm).

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/05/...d-allegations/

More importantly, entering the South Carolina primary, the pledged delegate count was 52-51. CNN’s poll two weeks out projected an 18 point Clinton win. Ann Selzer, the best pollster in the United States, projected a 22 point Clinton win. RealClearPolitics’ polling average projected a 27.5% win. FiveThirtyEight was much bolder in projecting a 38.3% Clinton win. The early full exit poll said Clinton had won by 36%, pretty close to FiveThirtyEight’s call. Tellingly, white people in that exit poll went for Sanders 58-42. But the final results said Clinton won by 47.5%, an 11.5% exit polling miss. And the exit polls had to adjust their initial figures to a 53-47 Clinton win with white Democrats in South Carolina.

Three days after South Carolina’s primary, Clinton seriously outperformed her exit polling projections again in a bunch of states on Super Tuesday, including Massachusetts where she went from a projected 6.6% loss to a 1.4% win. Super Tuesday set the narrative that Sanders had no chance of beating Clinton in pledged delegates.

Correlating Exit Polling Misses and Bad Machines

Let’s be clear: yes, correlation does not equal causality.

3) Obama's exit polls were 5% higher than his actual results in 2008 which is identical to the 5.1% that the writer is using to indicate massive fraud.

And where are the sources you're getting these numbers from?

And yes again, just because all indications are that the election is rigged doesn't prove that the election is rigged. It just means that it's beyond America's ability to run a legitimate election.

- - - Updated - - -

Did you even read the article. It's from 2012, BTW, and has nothing to do with Clinton/Bernie. 2008 exit polls were in Obamas favour by 5% (the same as the article you linked) yet you aren't screaming electoral fraud there. The exit polls in Bush - Gore had Gore 6.6% up but Bush actually won. You cannot use exit polls to try and prove election fraud because they are extremely inaccurate just as any other poll can be inaccurate. Hell, a person could lie to you in the exit polls and there is no way you can prove it one way or another. An old person might lie because they have their grand child who is a fervent Bernie supporter standing right next to them.

You cannot use polling numbers weighted against votes cast to ascertain election fraud.

Yet here you are, continually attempting to do so.

[Gray_Matter]

In the 1980s Trump was putting women in executive and Constuction management jobs, which was unheard of at the time. Look at how the nyt hit article went, the women they used as sources came out against nyt saying they misquoted and spun their words to make Trump look bad, and said Trump was a gentleman and helped them a lot.

Hillary who has a history of attacking a belittling women, who blamed a 12yo girl for being raped, attacked all the women who had sex with Bill, pays women 38% less than men while talking about women equality. Look at all the scandals the Clintons have been involved in, where a lot of their donations come from, the companies that pay them 100s of thousands to do speeches, Bill Clinton flying on a convicted pedophile's private jet and ditching the secret service to go off alone with said pedophile. Hillary's constant failures during Bill's presidency and during her time as Secretary of State, the email scandal. Scandal after scandal, u can go on forever, it's amazing they aren't in jail. Benghazi. It blows my mind how anyone can vote for her.

So you are taking a case where she had to defend a client (by law) and using that to generalize and also an unproven accusation. Well, if we are using unproven accusations as the gospel then we might as well call Trump a child molester (http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/20...ape-teen-girl/). Of course, if it's out there it must be true.

If you want to read some more information here is an article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...sment-victims/).

[Daerio]

Since all the shillarites are lurking in this thread anyway.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ernor-virginia

https://www.yahoo.com/news/virginia-...204112202.html

Clinton bag man going down to the pokey for fuzzy financing. Nobody close to the Queen, but the paint has been chipping on the ivory tower for a while now.

[Matchles]

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.

I didn't realize real world experience was a bad thing. Maybe that is why you are prone to believing an activist's agenda over those whose job is to oversee the elections.

Here do yourself a favor. This is how Clinton has more votes. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ote_count.html

Or if you need help from John Oliver. https://youtu.be/_S2G8jhhUHg?t=12m30s

[Gray_Matter]

No, the author makes no such claim.

I was talking about the article that you just linked. I must have visited a few by the guy.

And where are the sources you're getting these numbers from?

I will dig them up for you in a little while when I get a chance. The article I linked gave you an example of them where in one case they overstated Obama by 16% all the way through to 5.5% favouring McCain.

And yes again, just because all indications are that the election is rigged doesn't prove that the election is rigged. It just means that it's beyond America's ability to run a legitimate election.

You cannot use polling numbers weighted against votes cast to ascertain election fraud.

Yet here you are, continually attempting to do so.

No, I am not. You are the one asserting that there is election fraud. I am merely saying that exit polls cannot be used to make that assertion because they are frequently inaccurate.

[Daerio]

No, I am not. You are the one asserting that there is election fraud. I am merely saying that exit polls cannot be used to make that assertion because they are frequently inaccurate.

Yeah. The exit polls, along with the fake audits, along with the proof that the machines can be easily hacked, along with the mass voter registration deletions, along with blatantly violating convention rules whenever it benefits Clinton, etc etc etc...

And again, it isn't on me to prove the fraud is occurring, it's actually on the US government to prove that the elections they hold are legitimate. They have lawful mandates to that extent that are being purposefully subverted. For what purpose? Oh, well, certainly not election fraud, anything but that.

[Blur4stuff]

Hillary supporters claim they want her to be president, but go out of their way to piss off and attack Sander's supporters. I hope they aren't so delusional that they think beating Trump will be easy and they won't need all the help they can get.

[Vash The Stampede]

Serious question to people who will vote for him.
Do you think that a guy that lets others to interrupt him and literally take his microphone, while looking at the ground, will make America stronger?
Is that the leader you wish for?

Hell Yes! Also, what the hell you talking about?

[Gray_Matter]

Yeah. The exit polls, along with the fake audits, along with the proof that the machines can be easily hacked, along with the mass voter registration deletions, along with blatantly violating convention rules whenever it benefits Clinton, etc etc etc...

And again, it isn't on me to prove the fraud is occurring, it's actually on the US government to prove that the elections they hold are legitimate. They have lawful mandates to that extent that are being purposefully subverted. For what purpose? Oh, well, certainly not election fraud, anything but that.

What do you use as your proof to ascertain that there was fraud? In other words, what makes you think that there was widespread fraud. I have seen a couple of isolated reports that would have hindered both candidates. What are you using for your basis to ascertain that there was fraud. I am not ascertaining anything. Unless someone formally complains to the government, they have to assume that the elections are valid.

1. For example, you say "fake audits", etc. What makes you think that they are fake? I have seen a video clip where someone makes that accusation saying that they saw something. That should rightfully be investigated and if there is proof of wrongdoing then the people should be prosecuted. That's a single incident, though.
2. You say "violating convention rules" but if they were violated then Bernie's team would have been able to object to the results. While grossly unfair, a voice vote, where the result is at the discretion of the chair is perfectly legal. The county change in delegates fits into exactly the same boat.
3. You say mass voter registration deletions. Those would have effected Clinton by as much, if not more than Bernie because that was in the heart of her stronghold.
4. The accusation about voter machines is based purely on the assumption that the exit polls are 100% accurate.