Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The table below shows the results of Democratic Primaries and Caucuses as well as final (just prior to voting) 538 projections. If you see "NA" that means 538 didn't have enough polls to put the projection in terms of percent chance of winning. The yellow highlights show cases in which candidates projected to win in the polls lost.

There were only two cases where that happened. In both cases, Sanders won. We don't have projections for 17 States. But Sanders won 14 of those 17 so it's kind of hard to say there's any evidence that anything was rigged against him in those.

One more thing that's not shown in the table. There were two States that had both primaries where voters could show their preference but no delegates were selected as well as caucuses where the delegates were actually selected. In both cases Clinton won the primaries but Sanders won the caucuses and so got the majorities of the delegates. That is exactly the opposite of what you would expect to happen if something was "rigged" against Sanders.

If there was some evidence that Sanders enjoyed more popular support but Clinton won anyway there would be a case for saying things were rigged. But there isn't. All of the available data indicate that Clinton just enjoyed more popular support. In fact if one were to suspect anything fishy went on at all one would think it was associated with Sanders winning Indiana and Michigan. Me, I think the Democrats would be better off right now in terms of chances of winning the general if they'd voted for Sanders. But they didn't. And they didn't because most of them just flat favored Clinton.

The DNC admits that the fix was in, John. You can statisticate until it runs down your chin and it won't change the truth.

houndawg wrote:The DNC admits that the fix was in, John. You can statisticate until it runs down your chin and it won't change the truth.

I've been out of the loop for a week but....source?

Ibanez wrote:

houndawg wrote:The DNC admits that the fix was in, John. You can statisticate until it runs down your chin and it won't change the truth.

I've been out of the loop for a week but....source?

various shady internet sources of dubious accuracy... here's an even better on - prior to taking over the FBI, our boy Comey was a board member of HSBC bank while they were at their peak money laundering operation.

Bronco wrote:

A new Norm Coleman talking point?

There is no question that the Democrats have a system which allows them to overturn the "will of the People" during the primaries via the super delegates. But it only comes into play if the "favored" candidate isn't also favored by the majority of Democratic Primary voters. And Clinton was favored by the majority of Democratic primary voters.

You have the actual results of the primaries and you have independent validation of that via the poll results.

It really is RIDICULOUS, given the data. to say that the Democratic Party primaries were rigged.

JohnStOnge wrote:There is no question that the Democrats have a system which allows them to overturn the "will of the People" during the primaries via the super delegates. But it only comes into play if the "favored" candidate isn't also favored by the majority of Democratic Primary voters. And Clinton was favored by the majority of Democratic primary voters.

You have the actual results of the primaries and you have independent validation of that via the poll results.

It really is RIDICULOUS, given the data. to say that the Democratic Party primaries were rigged.

No more rigged than the entire process is rigged in the favor of the party establishments.

'Hey look...the Democrats and Republicans must be super popular...everyone keeps voting for them.'

kalm wrote: 'Hey look...the Democrats and Republicans must be super popular...everyone keeps voting for them.'
-gannonfan

FTFY.

It's very rude to not credit your quote.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

kalm wrote: 'Hey look...the Democrats and Republicans must be super popular...everyone keeps voting for them.'
-gannonfan

FTFY.

It's very rude to not credit your quote.

Bronco wrote:

This one never gets old.

kalm wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:

FTFY.

It's very rude to not credit your quote.

Nah, but it helps to feed your fantasy that there could be that ever elusive third party if the system wasn't "rigged" to stop it. Face it, the umbrellas for the GOP and the Dems are pretty big, heck, kalm has credibly indicated on multiple threads that he's both a Democrat and a Republican. If he can credibly be in both parties why would we need a third party?

Kalm's position on third party is very consistent with his view of Wall Street. It is 100% the fault of the institution.

89Hen wrote:Kalm's position on third party is very consistent with his view of Wall Street. It is 100% the fault of the institution.

Yes, because people aren't sheep, or susceptible to marketing, and always think for themselves.

Depends on meaning of the terms. Was it rigged, no. Was it set up for Hillary to win, yes.

I don't think the DNC sending emails or plotting against Bernie gave Hillary the win. But I do believe significant pressures on other stronger democratic contenders to stay out of the race did. Yes. Do I have proof, no. Do I know politicians and their almighty egos would have put them in the race if party leaders hadn't squashed their hopes, yes.

OL FU wrote:Depends on meaning of the terms. Was it rigged, no. Was it set up for Hillary to win, yes.

I don't think the DNC sending emails or plotting against Bernie gave Hillary the win. But I do believe significant pressures on other stronger democratic contenders to stay out of the race did. Yes. Do I have proof, no. Do I know politicians and their almighty egos would have put them in the race if party leaders hadn't squashed their hopes, yes.

kalm wrote:

89Hen wrote:Kalm's position on third party is very consistent with his view of Wall Street. It is 100% the fault of the institution.

Yes, because people aren't sheep, or susceptible to marketing, and always think for themselves.

So you want things to be more democratic (i.e. have people/voters make the decisions) but you don't trust people/voters to make the right (i.e. what you want) decisions so you want to decide for them? Yeah, sure, sounds awesome.

SDHornet wrote:

OL FU wrote:Depends on meaning of the terms. Was it rigged, no. Was it set up for Hillary to win, yes.

I don't think the DNC sending emails or plotting against Bernie gave Hillary the win. But I do believe significant pressures on other stronger democratic contenders to stay out of the race did. Yes. Do I have proof, no. Do I know politicians and their almighty egos would have put them in the race if party leaders hadn't squashed their hopes, yes.

I agree, that's a pretty fine line to be drawing there, sounds pretty much the same to me.

SDHornet wrote:

OL FU wrote:Depends on meaning of the terms. Was it rigged, no. Was it set up for Hillary to win, yes.

I don't think the DNC sending emails or plotting against Bernie gave Hillary the win. But I do believe significant pressures on other stronger democratic contenders to stay out of the race did. Yes. Do I have proof, no. Do I know politicians and their almighty egos would have put them in the race if party leaders hadn't squashed their hopes, yes.

Yeah I know.

GannonFan wrote:

SDHornet wrote:

I agree, that's a pretty fine line to be drawing there, sounds pretty much the same to me.

That's what happens when you spend a lot of time with Attorneys


Except for Ivy, he would never do that

OL FU wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
I agree, that's a pretty fine line to be drawing there, sounds pretty much the same to me.

That's what happens when you spend a lot of time with Attorneys


Except for Ivy, he would never do that

SDHornet wrote:

OL FU wrote:Depends on meaning of the terms. Was it rigged, no. Was it set up for Hillary to win, yes.

I don't think the DNC sending emails or plotting against Bernie gave Hillary the win. But I do believe significant pressures on other stronger democratic contenders to stay out of the race did. Yes. Do I have proof, no. Do I know politicians and their almighty egos would have put them in the race if party leaders hadn't squashed their hopes, yes.

It's clear from the DNC emails that they were carefully planning everything Hilldog did down to which pantsuit she wore and getting her on TV, but they didn't do that for Bernie. The DNC was basically doubling as an arm of Hilldog's campaign, and they shouldn't be doing that.

Pwns wrote:

SDHornet wrote:

It's clear from the DNC emails that they were carefully planning everything Hilldog did down to which pantsuit she wore and getting her on TV, but they didn't do that for Bernie. The DNC was basically doubling as an arm of Hilldog's campaign, and they shouldn't be doing that.

Sure they shouldn't
But who's not going to do what she says to do..?

She's running that damned show

and I was watching some Olympic highlights and a Hilary ad ran...
I just about laughed my ass off the sofa

It is quite literally a "Tax the 1%" ad

Thought you gave away your TV years ago?