Indeed, Daria and indeed quite unproductive. On this column we name our sources if we quote others and if we want to prove something we provide the evidence and not just hypebole and opinion.
Glad to hear it Stuart Attewell, and now you can be the very first one around here to engage with the evidence that Biden stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders. I'm waiting...
I am astonished at what you say. Exit polls have a phenomenal record for accuracy, and they are a standard tool for double-checking election integrity. Theodore Soares discusses that on his website. Did you even look?
I am astonished at what you say. Exit polls have a phenomenal record for accuracy, and they are a standard tool for double-checking election integrity. Theodore Soares discusses that on his website. Did you even look?
Replying to Pam Peterson and Melinda Quivik, I am astonished at what you say. Exit polls have a phenomenal record for accuracy, and they are a standard tool for double-checking election integrity. Theodore Soares discusses that on his website. Did you even look?
Judith Swink, Theodore Soares documented a statistically all-but-impossible consistent set of discrepancies throughout the Democratic primaries away from Bernie in Biden's favor. The most egregious was in Massachusetts.
So let's get this straight, your whole schtick is really all about Bernie not getting the Democratic nomination? No one is going to play the Bernie game with you.
No, it's about what appears to be the endemic corruption of our election process through computerized vote fraud. If that is indeed the case, then we don't live in a democracy, but rather a techno-fascist plutocracy.
Proof. You need to provide proof from reliable sources. It is easy to make claims of election fraud, vote tampering etc., but you have failed to provide compelling facts to prove your claim. I agree that technology has been used to corrupt countless facets of our lives but there is very little substantiated evidence to support your claim of endemic computerized voter fraud. You are riding on the coat tails of conspiracy theorists whose allegations have been debunked and thrown out of court (by many a Republican appointed judge, I might add). And what is the point? If you really are interested in free and fair elections advocate for them by relying on facts. Don't stir the pot with more hysteria manufactured by right wing agitators to keep the paranoid, right wing base engaged.
Daria, I have provided EVIDENCE: a pattern of discrepancies from the exit polls both in Massachusetts and throughout the Democratic primaries. Proof comes from reason applied to evidence.
Your sources do not support your conclusion. The final one on your list has the most weight, in my view, and it uses the same source (Theodore Soares) that I relied on for my conclusion that Biden stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders. Generally, one would expect a margin of discrepancy within one percent.
However, in any state with widespread mail-in voting, the exit poll results become unreliable. Was this the case in any of the four states that the article focuses on? In three of the four, the margin of discrepancy is significantly greater than the margin of victory, strongly suggesting that Hillary actually won them. In Florida, the margin of discrepancy is just over one percent bigger than Trump's margin of victory, but the other three states together would have given the national victory to Hillary.
And finally in New York, which Hillary won big, there was a big discrepancy in Hillary's favor, but not close to enough to swing the election.
Theodore Soares documented a similar shift -- in the opposite direction -- in the Alabama Senate race, where the Republicans (according to the exit poll discrepancy) padded their already-comfortable margin of victory.
And once again, the exit polls showed a consistent pattern of discrepancies in Biden's favor throughout the 2020 primaries, with Massachusetts being by far the most egregious example, followed by Michigan (where the closing data was suppressed, according to Soares).
I already gave it. In the wake of the 2000 "Bush v. Gore" debacle, there was an on-line community devoted to rooting out and exposing computerized vote fraud (does anybody remember Black Box Voting?). They joked morbidly about computers crashing and coming back around midnight, with inexplicable number changes in the election returns.
And then I saw it happen right before my eyes, on election day for the 2008 North Carolina primary. For a couple days there was a buzz about if Hillary was going to challenge the results, which would mean that she had to talk to the Attorney General (Roy Cooper), who appears to have been part of the fix.
There are tactics and there is philosophy/ethics and тАЬOi donтАЩt know much about art, but Oi know what Oi loike,тАЭ (python fans of the world UNITE) so shuttin down your highfalutin rabbit hole and gonna go clean a toilet now, cause a manтАЩs work is fro sun to sun but a womanтАЩs work is never done.
But Pres TrumpтАЩs effective use of name-calling rhetoric helped him demonize opponents and if nothing else control the discourse through earned media. If youтАЩre too good to call names or get in a bar brawl, good on you but how about stepping back and letting those of us with no fancy manners fight the good fight with you?
Then perhaps Professor HCR can weigh in on the amazing discrepancies in the Massachusetts primary (identical 4% shaved from BOTH Bernie's and Elizabeth Warren's totals in Biden's favor), togethercwith the consistent discrepancies throughout the Democratic primaries in Biden's favor.
I see that the cyber-goon squad has arrived, with trademark sneer while refusing to engage with the evidence
:-(
Name calling is a very ugly trait.
Indeed, Daria and indeed quite unproductive. On this column we name our sources if we quote others and if we want to prove something we provide the evidence and not just hypebole and opinion.
We donтАЩt win the next election in the rarefied chambers of Professor HCRтАЩs comments sections, we win it in the streets.
Glad to hear it Stuart Attewell, and now you can be the very first one around here to engage with the evidence that Biden stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders. I'm waiting...
If you have evidence, show it.
тАЬHe said it, therefore it isтАЭ
Apologies to both Descartes and Kant, I always forget which
Um, I did provide two links, which you pretend to ignore.
I already showed my evidence, with a link to the exit poll data
I looked at the article you posted. Comparing exit poll data with votes is specious. Proves nothing.
I am astonished at what you say. Exit polls have a phenomenal record for accuracy, and they are a standard tool for double-checking election integrity. Theodore Soares discusses that on his website. Did you even look?
Exit poll data? We know exit polls are very often wrong.
I am astonished at what you say. Exit polls have a phenomenal record for accuracy, and they are a standard tool for double-checking election integrity. Theodore Soares discusses that on his website. Did you even look?
Replying to Pam Peterson and Melinda Quivik, I am astonished at what you say. Exit polls have a phenomenal record for accuracy, and they are a standard tool for double-checking election integrity. Theodore Soares discusses that on his website. Did you even look?
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/election-exit-polls-accuracy-common-complaint/
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/exit-polls-can-be-misleading-especially-this-year/
https://www.vox.com/21552679/exit-poll-accuracy
https://www.forbes.com/2008/11/01/exit-polls-election-oped-cx_kb_1103bowman.html?sh=70e63bf85e45
Judith Swink, Theodore Soares documented a statistically all-but-impossible consistent set of discrepancies throughout the Democratic primaries away from Bernie in Biden's favor. The most egregious was in Massachusetts.
So let's get this straight, your whole schtick is really all about Bernie not getting the Democratic nomination? No one is going to play the Bernie game with you.
No, it's about what appears to be the endemic corruption of our election process through computerized vote fraud. If that is indeed the case, then we don't live in a democracy, but rather a techno-fascist plutocracy.
Proof. You need to provide proof from reliable sources. It is easy to make claims of election fraud, vote tampering etc., but you have failed to provide compelling facts to prove your claim. I agree that technology has been used to corrupt countless facets of our lives but there is very little substantiated evidence to support your claim of endemic computerized voter fraud. You are riding on the coat tails of conspiracy theorists whose allegations have been debunked and thrown out of court (by many a Republican appointed judge, I might add). And what is the point? If you really are interested in free and fair elections advocate for them by relying on facts. Don't stir the pot with more hysteria manufactured by right wing agitators to keep the paranoid, right wing base engaged.
Daria, I have provided EVIDENCE: a pattern of discrepancies from the exit polls both in Massachusetts and throughout the Democratic primaries. Proof comes from reason applied to evidence.
Edit polls are not at all an accurate indicator of election fraud. Period.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-pre-election-polls-were-wrong-the-exit-polls-are-worse/
https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000177-6046-de2d-a57f-7a6e8c950000
https://www.newsweek.com/how-they-will-suggest-election-was-stolen-517965
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/20/citizens-for-donald-trump-exit-poll-roger-stone-rigged-election-claim
https://heavy.com/news/2016/11/2016-exit-polls-did-hillaty-clinton-win-presidential-election-voter-fraud-donald-trump-lose-rigged/
Your sources do not support your conclusion. The final one on your list has the most weight, in my view, and it uses the same source (Theodore Soares) that I relied on for my conclusion that Biden stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders. Generally, one would expect a margin of discrepancy within one percent.
However, in any state with widespread mail-in voting, the exit poll results become unreliable. Was this the case in any of the four states that the article focuses on? In three of the four, the margin of discrepancy is significantly greater than the margin of victory, strongly suggesting that Hillary actually won them. In Florida, the margin of discrepancy is just over one percent bigger than Trump's margin of victory, but the other three states together would have given the national victory to Hillary.
And finally in New York, which Hillary won big, there was a big discrepancy in Hillary's favor, but not close to enough to swing the election.
Theodore Soares documented a similar shift -- in the opposite direction -- in the Alabama Senate race, where the Republicans (according to the exit poll discrepancy) padded their already-comfortable margin of victory.
And once again, the exit polls showed a consistent pattern of discrepancies in Biden's favor throughout the 2020 primaries, with Massachusetts being by far the most egregious example, followed by Michigan (where the closing data was suppressed, according to Soares).
He is loving the troll game, seems to me
Yeah. He is.
So where is your evidence the the Carolinas primaries were falsified?
I already gave it. In the wake of the 2000 "Bush v. Gore" debacle, there was an on-line community devoted to rooting out and exposing computerized vote fraud (does anybody remember Black Box Voting?). They joked morbidly about computers crashing and coming back around midnight, with inexplicable number changes in the election returns.
And then I saw it happen right before my eyes, on election day for the 2008 North Carolina primary. For a couple days there was a buzz about if Hillary was going to challenge the results, which would mean that she had to talk to the Attorney General (Roy Cooper), who appears to have been part of the fix.
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence
And this has what relevance to your theories about Dem primaries in 2019? Not much i fear.
When name-calling is all one has, that's what one uses.
Actually, lotsa arrows in the quiver wins that kind of fight
To what end though? Are you about to argue that winning is more important than the principles for which one is fighting?
There are tactics and there is philosophy/ethics and тАЬOi donтАЩt know much about art, but Oi know what Oi loike,тАЭ (python fans of the world UNITE) so shuttin down your highfalutin rabbit hole and gonna go clean a toilet now, cause a manтАЩs work is fro sun to sun but a womanтАЩs work is never done.
But Pres TrumpтАЩs effective use of name-calling rhetoric helped him demonize opponents and if nothing else control the discourse through earned media. If youтАЩre too good to call names or get in a bar brawl, good on you but how about stepping back and letting those of us with no fancy manners fight the good fight with you?
So is finger pointing
time to stop feeding the troll
Yep, David. Troll is at the bridge collecting toll coins from subscribers.
let's just move on as we were... ignore them.
Is that a sneer, or just the dirty S@ncz from kissing fascist @ss ЁЯШВЁЯШВЁЯШВЁЯШВЁЯШВЁЯШВ
Um, I presented evidence, both in my initial post and in three quick follow-up posts, and you don't seem to want to talk about it.
Um, um, pay attention to meeeeee. Really?!? Bugger right off with that, IтАЩm not teaching this thing, Professor HCR is
Then perhaps Professor HCR can weigh in on the amazing discrepancies in the Massachusetts primary (identical 4% shaved from BOTH Bernie's and Elizabeth Warren's totals in Biden's favor), togethercwith the consistent discrepancies throughout the Democratic primaries in Biden's favor.