Donk Convention

[JohnStOnge]

Yeah I 'd too.

John, you're gonna need to be a little more specific.

The specifics are at http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/ ... 10&t=45961. Laugh emojis are not rebuttals. It is clear that the Democratic primaries were not rigged. Again: The results were very consistent with expectations based on polling. If you did nothing but look at what polls were projecting prior to each primary you'd conclude that Clinton won the majority of delegates awarded through that process by a comfortable margin. In all but two primaries where polling allowed for prediction the candidate favored according to the polls won. AND in the two cases where that didn't happen SANDERS won when CLINTON was favored by the polls.

It's just absurd paranoia to suggest that the primaries were rigged.

Now, the process is rigged in that they have super delegates so that it's possible that one candidate could win the majority of the delegates awarded through the primaries but not get the nomination because the super delegates vote the other way. But that doesn't mean the primaries were rigged. And it didn't happen. The candidate that won the majority of votes and delegates during the primaries got the nomination.

The irony is that, near the end, Sanders started arguing for having the super delegates overturn the primary results by moving to HIM. So he was actually arguing for taking advantage of the "rigged" part of the process.

[kalm]

Yeah I 'd too.

John, you're gonna need to be a little more specific.

The specifics are at http://www.championshipsubdivision.com/ ... 10&t=45961. Laugh emojis are not rebuttals. It is clear that the Democratic primaries were not rigged. Again: The results were very consistent with expectations based on polling. If you did nothing but look at what polls were projecting prior to each primary you'd conclude that Clinton won the majority of delegates awarded through that process by a comfortable margin. In all but two primaries where polling allowed for prediction the candidate favored according to the polls won. AND in the two cases where that didn't happen SANDERS won when CLINTON was favored by the polls.

It's just absurd paranoia to suggest that the primaries were rigged.

Now, the process is rigged in that they have super delegates so that it's possible that one candidate could win the majority of the delegates awarded through the primaries but not get the nomination because the super delegates vote the other way. But that doesn't mean the primaries were rigged. And it didn't happen. The candidate that won the majority of votes and delegates during the primaries got the nomination.

The irony is that, near the end, Sanders started arguing for having the super delegates overturn the primary results by moving to HIM. So he was actually arguing for taking advantage of the "rigged" part of the process.

And as I pointed out in a n o t h e r thread "prior" to each primary means what?

Elections can't be rigged in advance?

"Prior to this year, Bernie trailed by 70 points. BERNIE must have rigged the elections?

And do you think it was just the Hillary campaign doing the rigging?

The entire process is rigged.

Willful ignorance, low information, or simply masterful trolling. Which one is it JSO?

(I'm still leaning troll)

[JohnStOnge]

And as I pointed out in a n o t h e r thread "prior" to each primary means what?

Elections can't be rigged in advance?

"Prior to this year, Bernie trailed by 70 points. BERNIE must have rigged the elections?

And do you think it was just the Hillary campaign doing the rigging?

The entire process is rigged.

Willful ignorance, low information, or simply masterful trolling. Which one is it JSO?

(I'm still leaning troll)

For PETE"S sake Kalm. What it shows is that people wanted to vote for Clinton. If the primaries were "rigged" you'd expect to see inconsistency between what people wanted according to the polls and what happened. And we didn't see that.

You're not "rigging" the primaries if you convince people to vote for Clinton. The majority of Democratic Primary voters favored Clinton. They ALWAYS favored Clinton. They favored Clinton before the primaries started. They favored Clinton through the primaries. And they favored Clinton afterwords. In that regard, the Fox poll that just came out estimates that right now 56% of Democrats would rather have Clinton as the nominee vs. 41% who would rather have Sanders.

Me, since I want to see Trump trounced, I would rather see Sanders. But the idea that the Democratic primaries were rigged is just completely absurd. What unfolded is completely consistent with the level of support polls indicated that Clinton had throughout. It's just ridiculous to say the primaries were rigged.

[kalm]

And as I pointed out in a n o t h e r thread "prior" to each primary means what?

Elections can't be rigged in advance?

"Prior to this year, Bernie trailed by 70 points. BERNIE must have rigged the elections?

And do you think it was just the Hillary campaign doing the rigging?

The entire process is rigged.

Willful ignorance, low information, or simply masterful trolling. Which one is it JSO?

(I'm still leaning troll)

For PETE"S sake Kalm. What it shows is that people wanted to vote for Clinton. If the primaries were "rigged" you'd expect to see inconsistency between what people wanted according to the polls and what happened. And we didn't see that.

You're not "rigging" the primaries if you convince people to vote for Clinton. The majority of Democratic Primary voters favored Clinton. They ALWAYS favored Clinton. They favored Clinton before the primaries started. They favored Clinton through the primaries. And they favored Clinton afterwords. In that regard, the Fox poll that just came out estimates that right now 56% of Democrats would rather have Clinton as the nominee vs. 41% who would rather have Sanders.

Me, since I want to see Trump trounced, I would rather see Sanders. But the idea that the Democratic primaries were rigged is just completely absurd. What unfolded is completely consistent with the level of support polls indicated that Clinton had throughout. It's just ridiculous to say the primaries were rigged.

Aside from the roll establishment media played, the limiting of polling sites, the early registration deadlines in NY, etc...

Why do you continue to think the poll numbers prove something?

Again, Bernie went from 70 points down to almost even. He must have been rigging the election or something.

[JohnStOnge]

Why do you continue to think the poll numbers prove something?

Because they represent an independent assessment of public sentiment and they were/are consistent with the election results. It's like Obama said in reference to Trump warning of the general election being rigged yesterday. He noted that maybe Trump might have something if he's up like 10 or 15 points in the polls come election time but loses. That's the principle.

Here's a broad view of the situation with the Democratic primaries:

If you go to the RealClearPolitics page at http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -3824.html, you will see that the average of then-recent polls at the end of the Democratic primaries was Clinton 52.8%, Sanders Sanders 41.4% with respect to percentages associated with Democratic primary voter Party nominee preferences. The actual results for all primaries/caucuses combined is Clinton 55.2%, Sanders 43.1%. So an estimated 11.4 percentage point margin according to the polls vs. an actual margin of 12.1%. Nobody expects the polling to be exactly on. That's about as good an independent verification that Democrat primary voter sentiment was consistent with actual results overall as you can reasonably expect to get.

You could say, "Well that was just at the end." But you have all those individual State primary and caucus results that were consistent with what polls indicated just prior to each one EXCEPT in two cases where the discrepancy was in FAVOR of Sanders. Over time, there was never any indication in the independent data on voter preference that things weren't turning out according to that preference EXCEPT that Sanders won Indiana and Michigan when the polls indicated very high probabilities that Clinton would win.

I don't know what else to say if you're just going to refuse to concede the point in spite of the quantitative evidence. Can you REALLY not see the principle here or are you just trying to jerk my chain?