These were the same people, after all, who sneered at the idea of an avowed socialist from one of the tiniest states in America running a competitive presidential campaign.
He ran a competitive primary campaign. Very different.
There's no evidence that he could
These were the same people, after all, who sneered at the idea of an avowed socialist from one of the tiniest states in America running a competitive presidential campaign. He ran a competitive primary campaign. Very different. -- Drew |
|
Did he really?
Was he ever in the lead in actual delegates even ignoring "supers"? I don't recall that he was. 538 from May 26, 2016: What would happen if the primary system conformed to each candidate’s best-case scenario? (All closed primaries for Clinton and all caucuses open to independent voters for Sanders.) If every state held a closed primary, Clinton would beat Sanders by 19 percentage points and have a 654 elected delegate advantage, we estimate. If, however, each state held an open caucus, Sanders would beat Clinton by 22 percentage points nationwide and have a 496 elected delegate lead. Of course, neither of those scenarios would happen. Funny that, huh. Cheers, Scott. |
|
Jesus Christ on a pogo stick.
Fuck Hillary Clinton. The cunt couldn't beat Donald Trump and you're *STILL* defending her as a "better candidate." Bullshit. The fact of the matter is that Bernie COULD NOT HAVE BEEN WORSE THAN HER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. She lost to Donald Trump for Christ's sake. When will you STOP defending her? Bernie did run a competitive campaign. You're not seriously suggesting that any of the Establishment Democrats thought he'd do as well as he did are you? A very good argument can be made that the DNC's influence on the primary was as much help to Hillary as the Russians were to Trump in the general. She was a CRAP, Goldwater Girl turned Wall Street Handmaiden candidate with overtly hawkish credentials (remember the girlish, giggling glee as she watched a video Ghadaffi raped with a sword and chuckled, "We came. We saw. He's died."? She's a damned privileged 1 percenter class ghoul). If we Democrats keep running candidates of her ilk we'll continue to lose. And we'll deserve it. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again. |
|
I'll just leave this here...
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/06/08/trump-is-making-the-case-that-hes-putins-puppet/ She got millions more votes than he did. She beat Bernie fair-and-square. Even if you give Bernie the benefit of a slanted playing field, she would have won (as that 538 piece that you missed the point of, said). Why should someone who still won't say he's a Democrat decide what the Democratic Party stands for?? Why didn't Sanders release his tax returns? Do you ever ask yourself that?? She lost because of Comey, and Vlad's bots, and a political press more interested in chasing 20 year old memes and clicks than informing the public, and help from a GOP that was more interested in grabbing power than in protecting the Constitution and the country. But Hillary is history's greatest monster, or something, because she gave some speeches and was a competent Senator and was a competent Secretary of State. But OMG she said "super-predator" once in a speech 2 generations ago, and laughed at a bad joke once, and - oh yeah - supposedly didn't leave a tip once. OMG! Of course she had to "lose"!!11 Yeah. Whatever. (groucho-roll-eyes.gif) The woman lived her life under a microscope for decades, endured all kinds of senseless attacks (baking cookies, murdering her friend and colleague, etc., etc.), attacks that never had any substance, and through all that she still wanted to serve her country and lift up our government. Yeah, she's horrible!!11 I trust you'll be recycling all your criticisms when K. Gillibrand or K. Harris is running against T. Cruz or L. Graham in 2020 or 2024. Amirite? (sigh) Have a good weekend. Cheers, Scott. |
|
Just a couple things and a question.
Hillary absolutely beat Bernie in the primary legitimately. She was helped by the DNC. For instance, she benefited by the DNC scheduling a limited number of debates on dates when viewership would be lower. There are other examples, but she won. I cannot say whether the DNC’s obvious preference for her was decisive and you can’t defend a claim that it was immaterial. You’ve asked several times why someone who is not a Democrat should influence the Democratic Party. While I have posted many times an indirect answer to that question, I don’t recall ever directly answering that question. Here goes. Because it has already happened. We had a self described “Eisenhower Republican” win a Democratic primary over a genuine Democrat in 1992, also with the assistance of the DNC. The result of that was a massive swing of the party to the right. You seem to be fine with that, but won’t tolerate another outsider undoing the damage caused by the first. That puzzles me. Just to be clear, I don’t know why Bernie only released his most recent tax return. But it never has bothered me because the policies he was running for were the bedrock Democratic policies that were abandoned by the New Democrats in 1992. Now, my turn for a question. You and a lot of Clinton supporters like to make the claim that Bernie would have lost to Trump, too. I’d ask you to consider something. How many people who voted for Hillary do you would not have voted for Bernie? While that number might be non-zero, it sure wouldn’t be a big number. However, I am in Trump country and I can tell you for certain a sizeable number of people who voted for Trump would have voted for Bernie and these are the people in the region of the country where she lost the election. Saying Bernie would have done as bad or worse than her in the General is a baseless, inane thing to say. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again. |
|
Re: Just a couple things and a question.
Thanks for the reply. Hillary absolutely beat Bernie in the primary legitimately. She was helped by the DNC. For instance, she benefited by the DNC scheduling a limited number of debates on dates when viewership would be lower. There are other examples, but she won. Scheduling was mostly determined by the networks, IIRC. I'm too busy to look that up though. Of course the DNC preferred her over Bernie. What has Bernie done for the Democratic Party? What Democratic candidates did Bernie help elect prior to 2016? How much money did he help raise for Democratic candidates and the Party? The DNC is not a top-down organization. It is a creature of the state parties. And it's main job is to run the Convention. I cannot say whether the DNC’s obvious preference for her was decisive and you can’t defend a claim that it was immaterial. See above. You’ve asked several times why someone who is not a Democrat should influence the Democratic Party. While I have posted many times an indirect answer to that question, I don’t recall ever directly answering that question. Here goes. Because it has already happened. We had a self described “Eisenhower Republican” win a Democratic primary over a genuine Democrat in 1992, also with the assistance of the DNC. The result of that was a massive swing of the party to the right. You seem to be fine with that, but won’t tolerate another outsider undoing the damage caused by the first. That puzzles me. This is a "no true Scotsman" argument and is not persuasive. Bernie isn't trying to "influence" the Democratic party. He demanded that his position on super delegates and several other issues become the Democratic party position. After losing the nomination. Bernie Isn't A Democrat. He tried to take over the Democratic Party machinery to raise lots and lots of money (and to maybe be elected President). He did almost nothing to help the Party - instead he continuously attacked it as Corrupt™. He did almost to elect Democratic candidates. If he wants to set the direction and policies of the Democratic Party, he needs to join the party and convince others of the righteousness of his positions - you know, that skill that Bernie apparently never learned - how to persuade colleagues. Just to be clear, I don’t know why Bernie only released his most recent tax return. But it never has bothered me because the policies he was running for were the bedrock Democratic policies that were abandoned by the New Democrats in 1992. Yeah, Bernie talks a good game, sometimes. But he's special and doesn't have to follow the rules like just about every major Presidential candidate since HST. What has he done in the Senate to actually pass anything? Why can't he get co-sponsors for his legislation? All he does is talk and attack Democrats who have the temerity to disagree with him. Now, my turn for a question. You and a lot of Clinton supporters like to make the claim that Bernie would have lost to Trump, too. Comey wouldn't have had his multiple e-mail server tantrums about Bernie's server as Secretary of State, because he wasn't SoS. So that would have helped him. Vlad and his bots were quite happy to push Bernie over Hillary in the primaries. So that would have helped him. But we know that the GOP smear machine would have pounded Bernie every hour of the day as soon as he had 2382 delegates. You don't seriously doubt that, do you? 24/7 of Bernie's trip to the USSR, his "erotic/rape" story for a newspaper, his wife's problems with the college she ran into the ground, and they would make up all kinds of crap based on truthiness stories from his history, also too. About 80% (Not Intended to be a Factual Statement™) of Bernie's appeal with too many white men was that she was "not Hillary". Once she was out of the picture, he would be much, much less appealing (buyers' remorse and all that). Bernie also had little to no popularity with the bedrock base of the Democratic party - namely African Americans. So, yes, Bernie would have lost to Trump - but he would have lost to anyone on the GOP side. Remember, the modest advancement in passing Obamacare was blown up by the media and the GOP as some sort of Un-American Socialist Dystopia. And it contributed to big losses in the 2010 election (but lack of progress on the economy contributed more, IMO). All the evidence says that big changes like those Bernie was pointing and shouting about (with absolutely no idea of how to actually implement them because, among other things, in many respects they were internally contradictory) would have been demagogued from here to Saturn. I’d ask you to consider something. How many people who voted for Hillary do you would not have voted for Bernie? While that number might be non-zero, it sure wouldn’t be a big number. You don't seem to understand that Bernie alienated lots of minorities and women, especially AA women. They may have turned out to vote - knowing the existential danger posed by Trump - but lots of them wouldn't. However, I am in Trump country and I can tell you for certain a sizeable number of people who voted for Trump would have voted for Bernie and these are the people in the region of the country where she lost the election. Saying Bernie would have done as bad or worse than her in the General is a baseless, inane thing to say. See above. But we've been through lots of this before. I'm more interested in forgetting about Bernie, not using pumped up rhetoric that the DNC is some sort of all powerful machine, and working to find ways to defeat Trump's minions in November. tl;dr - The way to move the Democratic party left and implement more progressive policies is to elect more Democrats. (Bernie Isn't a Democrat™.) Not to somehow destroy the only institution capable of mounting an effective opposition to Trump and his minions. FWIW. Cheers, Scott. |
|
I would have thought you were close enough to my age to remember Real Democrats.
I stand corrected. Nice dodge on how the Eisenhower Republican takeover of the Party in the early 1990's didn't mean an abandonment of Democratic principles. I would highly recommend this book to you. About 80% (Not Intended to be a Factual Statement™) of Bernie's appeal with too many white men was that she was "not Hillary". ... If you're going to continue to quote Clinton Campaign Bernie alienated people of color? Do you have any other Clinton propagandists to quote than the one you provided? From your link, "The framing is strange—Sanders juxtaposes “ordinary Americans” against women, Latinx and black people and the LGBTQ community as if they were different groups." That kind of "analysis" is the sort regularly featured on Fox News. There is absolutely no fair reading of the quote within that article that would lead anyone with an IQ larger than his shoe size to that conclusion. It is the bias of the author (and, frankly, your bias by citing that to support your false claim) that is present in the analysis. of the quote, not the quote itself. It is the author and you who are claiming that Blacks, Hispanics and LBGTQ members are not ordinary Americans. Comey didn't cost Hillary the election. Putin didn't cost Hillary the election. What cost Hillary the election was the massive turn Right the Democratic Party has been on since her husband was elected. The bank deregulation, union abandonment, end of welfare as we know it, codifying private profit in our healthcare delivery system, public money to for-profit diploma mills, secret meetings with Wall Street robber barons, 40% income tax cuts for the 1%, NAFTA, etc. chickens finally came home to roost. No decent candidate could have ever lost to Trump even with limitless outside influence on his behalf. The formerly middle class blue collar workers got together and said, "Fine. Republican Lite doesn't help us anymore than Republicans. Let's blow it up." That they came to that conclusion isn't really a mystery. The mystery is why it took them so long. He did almost to elect Democratic candidates. If he wants to set the direction and policies of the Democratic Party, he needs to join the party and convince others of the righteousness of his positions - you know, that skill that Bernie apparently never learned - how to persuade colleagues. I actually got a chuckle out that one. See below from a source you'd like because it contains more pearl clutching about one of the planks in Bernie's 2016 platform. To Sanders and Harris you can add Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker and Chris Murphy as those who have made explicit statements in support of some form of single payer, even if none has a specific plan in mind. What you don’t see is anyone thinking of running for president as a Democrat who opposes the idea; the worst you’ll get from any one of them is some dodging of the question. That tells you that this is on its way to being a position that anyone who wants their party’s nomination will have to hold. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2017/08/31/single-payer-is-becoming-democratic-party-consensus-heres-the-danger-to-avoid/ bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again. |
|
Re: I would have thought you were close enough to my age to remember Real Democrats.
What cost Hillary the election was the massive turn Right the Democratic Party has been on since her husband was elected. I guess I was just hallucinating when Obama was elected twice, huh. ;-p Yes, it was mainly Comey. Putin and all the rest made it close enough for Comey to throw it to the GOP. HTH. Cheers, Scott. |
|
Not hallucinating, maybe. But you might want to think about getting your eyes checked. ;0)
I mean, if you mistook Obama for a Genuine Democrat, well, you definitely need something checked. (Gitmo's still open, Romney's Healthcare plan taken national, assassinations [even Americans!] by drone, etc.) In the final analysis, Comey shouldn't have mattered. I mean for heaven's sake, we're talking about Donald Trump. It should have never been close. And it wouldn't have been, if the New Democratic Party was the same (or even close to the same) as the old one. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again. |
|
Agreed. In an ideal world, Comey wouldn't have mattered. But he did.
You're still doing the "No True Scotsman" stuff. She won the popular vote. She wasn't blown out of the water the way McGovern was, and that's the bottom line reason why your argument is so misguided. Neither Zombie Eugene McCarthy nor Zombie Adlai Stevenson nor Zombie Bobbie Kennedy were the candidates. A Democrat is someone who is willing to put a (D) behind their name and support the party platform and caucus with them. That is all. There is no universal, unchanging, genetic set of policy positions for Democrats. Was Jefferson a Democrat? What about Jackson? Should the Democratic Party still support slavery and Manifest Destiny and all the rest? While you're continuing to blame Clinton(s) for so much, Trump and his minions are trying to actually destroy the things that you hold dear. My $0.02. Cheers, Scott. |
|
But she was blown out of the water in rural areas.
And like it or not, rural voters still matter when it comes to electing a President. To be sure, well educated folks will always vote for Democrats. But they're a minority. You can't get the reachable lesser educated back by continuously courting Wall Street and the educated class to the exclusion of them. She obviously knows who they are but didn't even attempt to reach them. In fact, she did everything should could to further alienate them. I'll give you that Comey and Vlad were decisive if and only if you give me that she was such a deplorable candidate that she created the environment in which Comey and Vlad could be decisive. Deal? I don't think either of us wants to see the POTUS re-elected. But I'm telling you, if we Democrats nominate yet another tool of the monied class, I wouldn't take any bets against it. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again. |
|
(sigh)
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/ Too many people were interested in yelling about e-mail servers than paying attention to the substance of what she was saying. Cheers, Scott. |
|
I heard her plenty.
Bernie saying we shouldn't be alone in the industrialized world, that we should have a single payer, universal health care system was "pie in the sky." Tuition free college? More pie in the sky (despite the fact that I *actually had that* in the 1970's - note that was pre-Clinton revolution). This is truly baffling to me. I seriously don't see what's so hard about admitting that a candidate horrible enough to lose to Donald Trump was a horrible candidate? I really don't understand that. What worries me is that if enough Democrats actually believe she would have won if not for Comey and Vlad they'll look to nominate another just like her. If that happens, Trump will win re-election. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again. |
|
There are plenty of industrial countries that don't have "single payer".
Universal coverage, even "free healthcare" doesn't automatically mean single payer. Take Switzerland, for example. Bernie (and you) getting stuck on the purity of your jargon causes you to miss real-world constraints. Similarly with "free college". Martin works for one of the California public college systems: 229 I don't agree with everything he says (my dad, too, spent very little for his college education, and got his masters through his company going to school at night). But he's right that there are huge implications in taking financial aid out of the picture by making college "free". Back in the 1970s (and before), states paid a huge portion of the education spending for things like college. Now, they hardly pay anything in many cases - take Virginia for example. Clinton's plan ("debt-free college") made sense. She lead the race the whole time, until Comey stuck his big fat head in it. FWIW. Cheers, Scott. |
|
“a candidate horrible enough to lose to Donald Trump”
Yeah, by three million more votes. It wasn’t a candidate problem, it was a structural problem. Here’s hoping that two years from now the Democrats nominate Johnny Unbeatable! cordially, |
|
In that vein..
When I first heard of her use of (and assignment-as-sobriquet!) deplorable(s) ... never mind the noun-eation of another-fucking-adjective/adverb ... My mind began adding-visuals-to n-subjects a'hearin: This Bitch be talkin' 'bout me-me-me! And no.. I didn't grok to fullness that this GAFFE-alone, would ensure! the election of so-obvious a deranged, historically nasty, odious perpetually-bankrupt hooligan {sigh} (What I did, was: expect that this lone idiotic name-calling would Lose her the "election".) Did so while buffering-out what the merely logical effect was: [The Orange Mofo prolly Will win.] Bad. moi :-/ Speaking of synchronicity/again: Just this a.m. glanced at a yellowed paperback by Philip K. Dick, Radio Free Albemuth. Was gonna get around-tuit anon, (had no hearsay re this title) then read the blurb: Was published posthumously by the heirs, back-cover goes on to say..
Plus one part of Frontispiece/intro: FERRIS FREEMONT: Nixon/McCarthy-like weirdo with an unspeakable secret, President of a nightmarishly normal alternate-history America I. Mean. "prescience" may be over-used ..just as it becomes ubiquitous. Our future is clear, is it not? Mindless destruction / senseless violence? in whatever order or likely all-intermixed. Muricans have earned nothing |
|
Piss gasoline on rural voters and set ’em on fire
You think Sanders could have reached those knuckle-dragging inbred fuckwits in any significant numbers? After Russian and Republican ratfucking had got through with him? Mein Gott, mmoffitt, you are deluded. less cordially, |
|
The view from the Bay Area is a lot different than the view from the Mid West.
bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again. |
|
I’m right and you’re wrong.
|
|
rofl. :-)
|
|
Just like 2016.
bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again. |
|
Fuck the midwestern voters
They’re lost. Irredeemable. Economic populism à la the Sage of Burlington ain’t gonna trump “fuck the niggers and meskins, and hands off my AK-47.” These knuckle-dragging fuckwits are figuratively part of the landscape now, and we need to work around them until they become literally part of the landscape. And to that end, the Purity Ponies ain’t helping. cordially, |
|
great idea for a movie there
Rand gets on a small jet provided by Soros to go to a meeting in new york to discuss disenfranchising the midwest. A roiling thunderstorm forces the jet down down in southern Indiana. The locals who live there surround the plane and when they are discussing whether to lynch him or sodomize him and then lynch him he is rescued by a black gay redneck in a ford 150. Using heroics and battling small town whitebred shitheels determined to have their way they arrive in Chicago when the f150 is shot out from under them. Using public transportation to go thru the southside of Chicago he makes it to the airport. After thanking his rescuer Rand boards a jet to fly back to oakland and swears to never travel again. then the clinton foundation calls. "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman |
|
Resigned to never win the White House again are you?
We tried it your way in 2016. Your way doesn't work. If you want to have another President elected in 2020 who also did not win the popular vote, keep on keepin' on. Racism ain't just a Southern/Mid Western thing, ya know? Ever heard of this popular guy in Arizona with a last name of Arpaio? As for knuckle-draggers, how about Rohrabacher? Do you know him? Devin Nunes? Kevin McCarthy? Darrell Issa? And let's not ever forget which state gave us his holiness Saint Ronald Rayguns. I can't say I disagree with the assertion that about half of the US populace (at least half of those who vote in our elections) are irredeemable. But where you err bigly is in the assumption that we don't need the assistance of the handful of semi-reasonable people in the deplorable states to win elections. You have to at least give those people some measure of hope. Campaigning on telling them that they'll never have it as well as their parents or grandparents, that they are all deplorable and irredeemable, or just never coming to talk to them at all (a.k.a. Wisconsin) is not a winning strategy. At least that much should have been gleaned from 2016. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again. |
|
IOW, keep ignoring the people disenfranchised to chase the WWC??
|
|
Not at all.
But you cannot completely ignore the concerns of the WWC and expect to win the Electoral College as this table indicates. Sadly, 2016 suggests that when it comes to courting White voters, appealing to their rampant sexism and racism is highly effective. I'm not for a single nanosecond suggesting we do that. But we can support Progressive causes that would appeal to them. Here's a fer instance. You claim "affordable college" is superior to "free tuition" because there are a lot of people with student debt. How about just erasing it for all the people that attended State Colleges and Universities? If you owe a bunch of money to a private college (the Ivys, Vandy, etc.) we use Hillary's plan. If you owe UCLA, IU, Purdue, etc. you owe nothing because just as we did with the banks, we'll print the money to pay the universities off. If you were unfortunate enough to go to DeVry, UoP, Grand Canyon or any of the other diploma mills and you owe them, you're debt free and they can close (they'll get paid back what their "degrees" were worth, IOW). You say all that during the campaign and it will fall upon receptive ears in the MidWest (and the coasts for that matter). Even if you can't pull all of it off, at least potential WWC voters will know you are trying to help them. Why campaign on "It's all pie in the sky (even though your parents had it). I'm going to take your mining jobs away. If you want Universal Health Coverage, you can get it but not until you're 65."? bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again. |
|
I wonder why the GOP is trying to keep people from voting.
Maybe they know that if people are not thrown off the voting rolls, or prevented from registering by arbitrary voter ID rules, etc., etc., then they won't win? Maybe Donnie won because the table was tilted by representatives of your beloved heartland? SCOTUSBlog: The Supreme Court today rejected a challenge to one of the practices used by Ohio to remove voters from the state’s voter rolls. By a vote of 5-4, the justices agreed that the practice under question – which cancels the registration of voters who do not go to the polls and who then fail to respond to a notice – does not violate federal laws governing voter registration. The decision could mean that more states will adopt similar laws to trim their voter rolls, particularly when (as the majority observed today) roughly one in eight voter registrations is “either invalid or significantly inaccurate.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the ruling in her dissent today, predicting that it could have a disproportionate effect on the poor, the elderly and minorities. They're throwing people off the rolls, requiring arbitrary IDs, trying to twist the census to not count immigrants, not supplying enough voting machines, cutting voting hours, restricting absentee voting, etc., etc., etc., because it is the only way they can maintain power. Stop yelling at the Democratic Party over things that happened decades ago and do what you can to help now. Support LWV and VoteRiders and the ACLU and NDRC and everyone else who is trying to fight Donnie's minions. Cheers, Scott. |
|
thats called use it or lose it
there needs to be a method to clean up voter rolls so the dead will quit voting and the abuse of absentee ballots. I am sure he was able to sign up and vote in the next election. "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman |
|
Do you lose your right to free speech if you don't write your governor?
It's hard to think of a more fundamental right than the right to vote. It's a stupid way to "clean up" the voting rolls, and If they want to clean the rolls, they can do it by ways other than sending people mail that can get lost or never read. (Checking death certificates, etc.). In-person voter fraud happens vanishingly rarely in the USA. Cheers, Scott. |
|
right to vote sure, but that ends on death or moving, voting is extremely local
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman |
|
Does that happen?
Where's the evidence of large-scale in-person voter fraud? Unless the numbers are higher than the number of eligible people scrubbed for technicalities, it's swatting a fly with a sledgehammer. -- Drew |
|
detroit, more votes counted than on the rolls
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman |
|
How many?
According to this there were somewhere over 652 "extra" votes and 264 "missing" votes in Wayne County, so the total discrepancy seems to be in the neighborhood of 400-1000 extra votes in a county of ~750k. Trump won Michigan by 10.7k out of 4.5M. Ballots could be overcounted if they jammed and the voter pulled it out and tried again and no poll worker noticed and adjusted the count. Which sounds like the kind of thing that would happen in a precinct with long lines because they weren't assigned enough voting machines. I'm not seeing your clear story of voter fraud. Want to try again? -- Drew |
|
how many peope in ohio were took off of the rolls that should not have been? Is there a hard number?
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman |
|
You can Google as well as me.
I'm sure. ;-) TheAtlantic: Here’s how the Ohio system works. If a voter misses a federal election, the voter is flagged as possibly having moved. The state then sends a postcard asking the voter to return it if he or she is still eligible at the old address. If the voter returns the card, that’s it. But if not, the name stays flagged—and if the voter then does not vote in either of the next two federal elections, the voter’s name is purged. Several are suggesting that Sotomayor is telling people how to get the Ohio rule struck down again. HTH. Cheers, Scott. |
|
so a number of one, as cited by earlier post.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman |
|
Eh?
CincinnatiEnquirer: Depending on where you live, county election officials might diligently remove thousands of voter registrations each year, documented by detailed records. Or they might insist they haven't followed through with the state-ordered process in some years, or apologize for tossing those files years ago, according to an Enquirer / USA Today Network investigation, in which Ohio reporters contacted all 88 county board of elections. They've sent out 4.6 million post cards to remove one guy? You believe that? Let's see, 4.6E6 x $0.39 = $1,794,000 for post cards. To remove one guy. Sure. Cheers, Scott. |
|
get me a number of actual living voters that were denied voting rights
all the handwaving, statistics and probabilities is the same argument you use against voter fraud. "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman |
|
Read the links.
|
|
Just like you demand for me to prove voter fraud by producing actual cases I am requesting the same
Courtesy. There according to your suppositions thousands of them. Produce the actual list. "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman |
|
...
I provided you many links. Including ones showing that in-person voter fraud is a negligible problem. Saying that you're "sure [Harmon] was able to sign up and vote in the next election" doesn't change the fact that he was thrown off the rolls for no good reason (he wasn't dead and didn't move). It's an unsupported supposition on your part. NPR: One of the most notorious purges took place in Florida in 2000, when the state used a faulty list of felons to remove more than 1,000 legitimate voters from the rolls. But that's OK with boxley, apparently. Have a nice day. Cheers, Scott. |
|
Meh.
You should know better than this. Snopes: [...] FWIW. Cheers, Scott. |
|
He does
-- Drew |
|
a circumstance that suggested errors on the part of machines and/or human workers rather than fraud
sure it is "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman |
|
Glad you finally agree.
|
|
But I am trying to help.
I'm trying to point out that when we came to the fork in the road in 1992 we took the wrong road and it led us to losing to Donald Trump. You know what my current nightmare scenario is? Kirsten Gillibrand is the Democratic nominee in 2020 and she's sure acting like she's running. If she does and wins the nomination, buckle up, it's going to be Trump for another term. At this point, I think Gavin Newsom could be the nominee if he decides to run. But if that happens, he'll play hell winning the general. To be clear, I do not have any serious issues with either of them. I'm just trying to help by pointing out that neither of them are highly sellable in the flyover region. I'm not sure any woman could win any of the flyover states unless it was a woman like Anne Richards - and I don't see any of them around anymore. Again, I'm not saying that's right. I'm saying that's the way it is and people on the coasts had better start factoring in how to give the lesser Muricans a little hope or they'll do something stupid beyond measure again. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again. |
|
You didn't address the question in the linked article
If you disagree that Comey was decisive, you need to account for two things. First, if the problem was something intrinsic to Clinton or her campaign, why was she so far ahead of Trump for the entire race? Second, if Comey wasn’t at fault, what plausibly accounts for Clinton’s huge and sudden change in fortune starting precisely on October 28? -- Drew |
|
He disqualified his reasoning himself.
Yeah, the polls I'm citing to make my point turned out to be wrong in the end, but they are valid for the point I'm trying to make. GMAFB. bcnu, Mikem It's mourning in America again. |
|
Re: Jesus Christ on a pogo stick.
The dick couldn't beat Hillary Clinton and you're *STILL* defending him as a "better candidate." Bullshit. He lost to Hillary Clinton for Christ's sake. When will you STOP defending him? -- Drew |