It matters that the kinds of Americans that truly believe Trump won are not exercising rational thought. It also matters that those who pretend to believe that Trump won are willing to accept victory through cheating. All of these people should be living in Russia or North Korea to have a true taste of what they are supporting, because t…
It matters that the kinds of Americans that truly believe Trump won are not exercising rational thought. It also matters that those who pretend to believe that Trump won are willing to accept victory through cheating. All of these people should be living in Russia or North Korea to have a true taste of what they are supporting, because this is how Putin and other autocrats come to power, and this would have immediately made us no longer a democracy. That this action set us up to be partners with other autocrats like Putin, Kim Jong-un and Xi Jinping, Bashar al Assad is quite frightening. What is most concerning is that people who support Trump seem to have read or traveled little, or have little imagination, or imagine that they will always be the benefactors of an autocracy. There is only one benefactor of an autocracy and that is the person at the top. Everyone else's position is precarious at best. Even they do not benefit, because they destroy the country they run.
Read your link to the Free Press. Fact: Exit Poll respondents 1,394; votes counted 1,327,374. The exit poll respondents equal .0010501 of the votes counted. Might you include this is a rather small number? Also, exit polls, by their nature, only account for those present at the polls. Our Covid induced election of 2020 had the highest number and percentage of absentee ballots in history. Mind you, I'm sure demographics played heavily in the Free Press' numbers. Especially for us older folks, who were more than comfortable to vote absentee. Do you have facts supporting a comparative analysis of exit polls, absentee ballots, and demographics of the Massachusetts Democratic Primary of 2020? If not, please do not cherry pick from a very large sundae.
I trust Bernie Sanders, who I do admire in many ways, would not have eventually supported Joe Biden if he, or his staff, thought the Democratic nomination was stolen from him. Might you agree?
He begrudgingly supported Clinton's nomination after the shenanigans of the Democratic National Committee in 2016, as he understood the danger of Trump. Considering this past history, I believe if there was a sniff of impropriety in the 2020 Democratic Primaries, he and his staff would have raised hell.
Going down this road is an unnecessary and baseless distraction. The real issue is for Trump, and the long list of his co-conspirators, to be brought to justice for their actions clearly noted by Heather.
I am astonished at what you say about exit polls. 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?
It seems silly to me to validate a covid-time exit poll by pointing to a record of accuracy of exit polls in previous elections when mail-in ballots were no more than a footnote. There were huge discrepancies between the mail-in and in-person tallies; why would you expect exit polls of the latter voters to match the overall results, unless you have already bought in to the notion, without evidence, that the entire election apparatus is (or should I say was already) crooked.
I am not talking about the general election (with mail-in ballots in six toss-up states). I am talking about the Democratic primaries, where Theodore Soares documented a consistent shift away from Bernie (and Tulsi) in favor of Biden.
Oh, and what are you on about re TULSI, ffs? Apart from the other problems with that, de Macedo Soares's chart shows her share of the vote nearly *doubling* from poll to vote count . . .
I stand corrected: that early primary was indeed before covid started affecting many people's behavior. So the mail-in vs. in-person votes do not explain the discrepancy. Although I agree that the corporatists and donor-ass-lickers of the DNC did their level best to "steal" the nomination from BSanders both in '16 and in '20, and was a Bernie primary voter on each occasion (and unlike in '16 where I harbored some enthusiasm for my second choice Obama, Warren would have been my second choice in '20 if we had had the opportunity to make one), I can't accept the disparity between exit poll results and final computerized tally as proof that the fix was in on the latter. You say exit polling has been very accurate in the past; really? I seem to remember some that were way off (I'm old enough to remember the "Bradley effect" and subsequent recurrences). Can you show me exit polls' good record in 9-candidate primaries in which the top 3 were closely bunched? Does it not matter that many voters supported, and reported to exit pollsters that they'd voted for, Sanders or Warren, rather than admit that when in the booth they'd chickened out and acceded to the "mainstream" argument that only "moderate" Dupont Joe could win?
According to Theodore Soares, in the 2016 Massachusetts Republican primary, with a big field, the exit polls fit the declared results within 1 percent.
Beyond that is the pattern of discrepancies in Biden's favor throughout the 2020 primaries, with one single exception: Tennessee.
I can predict the roll of an honest die, and one time in six I'll be *precisely right* -- and *half* the time I'll be off by no more than one. In any event, the Soares reference is not very convincing; his web site recounts as his "Qualifications" that he worked with someone crunching election numbers and thereafter took some "classes in higher mathematics" and *poof!* he was in business as an election data analyst. Those and his peculiar analysis of the Mass Dem Primary in 2020 are not enough to convince me that the Dem establishment's methods of "stealing" the nomination for The Present Guy included cooking the vote totals via computer. And as I remember it, it was not a slim margin of victory in Mass (whose electoral votes were going to go to the D whoever he turned out to be), but the resounding votes of the Black women of SoCar (who were no way going to deliver any electoral votes), that were made to require that good ol' work-across-the-aisle Joe must be the nominee.
Playing wackamole with accusations is pretty funny. When someone quashes the last lie you throw out there, and, you are defeated with facts, then, you propose another lie.
Very interesting approach. Spare time today? Not much going on? Unemployed?
Ooooh I didn’t know that could be a job!! Looking for a summer gig (on the right side of course) and it might beat scooping ice cream-how would one apply to bait Fuckher Carlson followers on that thing’s social?
Fuckher Carlson wouldn’t approve well-spoken, nuanced comments explicating comparative fascism. Pick on someone else. Linda spoke well and no one comes here for a chumpchange pocketsize “like” section
No. It matters a damn lot and still really chaps my ass. But that is not the crux of how do we contain Jan 6 participants and keep power in the hands of -if not the people, at least the people who pretend a little harder that it’s for the people not the 1% until we can relax from fascist grabs for authoritarian nation and organize more effectively for true reform.
Ah. There it is. Bernie Sanders has the same fomenting followers as Trump. He has never once explained how he would ¨make¨ the 1 % pay more in taxes. Or actually fund all of the things that Progressives clamor for instantaneously without any seeming knowledge of the slow process to move to a Democratic Socialist country. I voted for President Biden.
John, An exit poll does not a vote count make. When you have evidence of vote recounting that is inconsistent, or some other concrete difference, then you have evidence. Otherwise, this is just supposition and perhaps wishful thinking. What it is not, is evidence that Biden, stole the Democratic nomination. In fact, the reference to two different elections with a discrepancy, one in which Biden was not participating in, would further support the idea that Biden himself has nothing to do with this. So, this is just slander on your part.
Not at all. The pattern of discrepancies in Biden's favor throughout the Democratic primaries will never again be observed if Biden's election reform bill institutionalized mail-in balloting.
Proof takes place within the minds of individuals, applying reason, unless there is "smoking gun" evidence (which is a convenient shortcut). I think that the discrepancies from the exit polls, throughout the Democratic primaries and especially in Massachusetts, constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Your standard of proof is too low. You are confusing correlation with causation. That is not proof. What reasonable doubt is to you is a low bar. I have reasonable doubt that you understand what reasonable is.
It matters that the kinds of Americans that truly believe Trump won are not exercising rational thought. It also matters that those who pretend to believe that Trump won are willing to accept victory through cheating. All of these people should be living in Russia or North Korea to have a true taste of what they are supporting, because this is how Putin and other autocrats come to power, and this would have immediately made us no longer a democracy. That this action set us up to be partners with other autocrats like Putin, Kim Jong-un and Xi Jinping, Bashar al Assad is quite frightening. What is most concerning is that people who support Trump seem to have read or traveled little, or have little imagination, or imagine that they will always be the benefactors of an autocracy. There is only one benefactor of an autocracy and that is the person at the top. Everyone else's position is precarious at best. Even they do not benefit, because they destroy the country they run.
So you prefer to ignore the evidence that Biden stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders?
Read your link to the Free Press. Fact: Exit Poll respondents 1,394; votes counted 1,327,374. The exit poll respondents equal .0010501 of the votes counted. Might you include this is a rather small number? Also, exit polls, by their nature, only account for those present at the polls. Our Covid induced election of 2020 had the highest number and percentage of absentee ballots in history. Mind you, I'm sure demographics played heavily in the Free Press' numbers. Especially for us older folks, who were more than comfortable to vote absentee. Do you have facts supporting a comparative analysis of exit polls, absentee ballots, and demographics of the Massachusetts Democratic Primary of 2020? If not, please do not cherry pick from a very large sundae.
I trust Bernie Sanders, who I do admire in many ways, would not have eventually supported Joe Biden if he, or his staff, thought the Democratic nomination was stolen from him. Might you agree?
He begrudgingly supported Clinton's nomination after the shenanigans of the Democratic National Committee in 2016, as he understood the danger of Trump. Considering this past history, I believe if there was a sniff of impropriety in the 2020 Democratic Primaries, he and his staff would have raised hell.
Going down this road is an unnecessary and baseless distraction. The real issue is for Trump, and the long list of his co-conspirators, to be brought to justice for their actions clearly noted by Heather.
I
Brad, thank you for your logical, well-documented response. What a breath of fresh air!
I am astonished at what you say about exit polls. 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?
It seems silly to me to validate a covid-time exit poll by pointing to a record of accuracy of exit polls in previous elections when mail-in ballots were no more than a footnote. There were huge discrepancies between the mail-in and in-person tallies; why would you expect exit polls of the latter voters to match the overall results, unless you have already bought in to the notion, without evidence, that the entire election apparatus is (or should I say was already) crooked.
I am not talking about the general election (with mail-in ballots in six toss-up states). I am talking about the Democratic primaries, where Theodore Soares documented a consistent shift away from Bernie (and Tulsi) in favor of Biden.
Oh, and what are you on about re TULSI, ffs? Apart from the other problems with that, de Macedo Soares's chart shows her share of the vote nearly *doubling* from poll to vote count . . .
I stand corrected: that early primary was indeed before covid started affecting many people's behavior. So the mail-in vs. in-person votes do not explain the discrepancy. Although I agree that the corporatists and donor-ass-lickers of the DNC did their level best to "steal" the nomination from BSanders both in '16 and in '20, and was a Bernie primary voter on each occasion (and unlike in '16 where I harbored some enthusiasm for my second choice Obama, Warren would have been my second choice in '20 if we had had the opportunity to make one), I can't accept the disparity between exit poll results and final computerized tally as proof that the fix was in on the latter. You say exit polling has been very accurate in the past; really? I seem to remember some that were way off (I'm old enough to remember the "Bradley effect" and subsequent recurrences). Can you show me exit polls' good record in 9-candidate primaries in which the top 3 were closely bunched? Does it not matter that many voters supported, and reported to exit pollsters that they'd voted for, Sanders or Warren, rather than admit that when in the booth they'd chickened out and acceded to the "mainstream" argument that only "moderate" Dupont Joe could win?
According to Theodore Soares, in the 2016 Massachusetts Republican primary, with a big field, the exit polls fit the declared results within 1 percent.
Beyond that is the pattern of discrepancies in Biden's favor throughout the 2020 primaries, with one single exception: Tennessee.
I can predict the roll of an honest die, and one time in six I'll be *precisely right* -- and *half* the time I'll be off by no more than one. In any event, the Soares reference is not very convincing; his web site recounts as his "Qualifications" that he worked with someone crunching election numbers and thereafter took some "classes in higher mathematics" and *poof!* he was in business as an election data analyst. Those and his peculiar analysis of the Mass Dem Primary in 2020 are not enough to convince me that the Dem establishment's methods of "stealing" the nomination for The Present Guy included cooking the vote totals via computer. And as I remember it, it was not a slim margin of victory in Mass (whose electoral votes were going to go to the D whoever he turned out to be), but the resounding votes of the Black women of SoCar (who were no way going to deliver any electoral votes), that were made to require that good ol' work-across-the-aisle Joe must be the nominee.
Nice spin.
John,
Playing wackamole with accusations is pretty funny. When someone quashes the last lie you throw out there, and, you are defeated with facts, then, you propose another lie.
Very interesting approach. Spare time today? Not much going on? Unemployed?
Or you are a paid disrupter?
Door #3 for 50000, Monte
Ooooh I didn’t know that could be a job!! Looking for a summer gig (on the right side of course) and it might beat scooping ice cream-how would one apply to bait Fuckher Carlson followers on that thing’s social?
Maybe the latter
Why do you choose to ignore the evidence that Biden stole the Democratic nomination from Bernie Sanders? Instead, you mock and sneer
:-(
Look at all the attention you get. Tucker approved
Fuckher Carlson wouldn’t approve well-spoken, nuanced comments explicating comparative fascism. Pick on someone else. Linda spoke well and no one comes here for a chumpchange pocketsize “like” section
I cannot ignore that which I do not have.
And which does not exist.
No. It matters a damn lot and still really chaps my ass. But that is not the crux of how do we contain Jan 6 participants and keep power in the hands of -if not the people, at least the people who pretend a little harder that it’s for the people not the 1% until we can relax from fascist grabs for authoritarian nation and organize more effectively for true reform.
Ah. There it is. Bernie Sanders has the same fomenting followers as Trump. He has never once explained how he would ¨make¨ the 1 % pay more in taxes. Or actually fund all of the things that Progressives clamor for instantaneously without any seeming knowledge of the slow process to move to a Democratic Socialist country. I voted for President Biden.
The weak points in Bernie's policy platform have nothing to do with the evidence that Biden stole the Democratic nomination from him.
Please present the evidence.
I already did, with links: Theodore Soares documented a consistent shift away from Bernie (and Tulsi) in favor of Biden.
John, An exit poll does not a vote count make. When you have evidence of vote recounting that is inconsistent, or some other concrete difference, then you have evidence. Otherwise, this is just supposition and perhaps wishful thinking. What it is not, is evidence that Biden, stole the Democratic nomination. In fact, the reference to two different elections with a discrepancy, one in which Biden was not participating in, would further support the idea that Biden himself has nothing to do with this. So, this is just slander on your part.
Not at all. The pattern of discrepancies in Biden's favor throughout the Democratic primaries will never again be observed if Biden's election reform bill institutionalized mail-in balloting.
I stand by what I say. Without proof, this is slander.
Proof takes place within the minds of individuals, applying reason, unless there is "smoking gun" evidence (which is a convenient shortcut). I think that the discrepancies from the exit polls, throughout the Democratic primaries and especially in Massachusetts, constitutes proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Your standard of proof is too low. You are confusing correlation with causation. That is not proof. What reasonable doubt is to you is a low bar. I have reasonable doubt that you understand what reasonable is.
Trump would be re-elected if Bernie was the Democratic nominee. The cross-over votes wouldn’t go to Bernie—those voters just wouldn’t have voted.
My take on it
that was the DNC in 2016 and in 2020
What does that have to do with this evidence from Eastman?