Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

LWolf

(46,179 posts)
1. It's another poll showing Sanders beating Clinton.
Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:02 PM
Feb 2016

Unlike so many, I'm not real obsessive about polls. I hope the last minute hate blitz doesn't cut into Sander's lead, because I want as many delegates for him as possible.

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
2. I am not either, but the lack of any info drove me to take a look this morning
Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:04 PM
Feb 2016

You might really like Nate Silver's prediction. I just edited this thread and posted that.

Sam

Erich Bloodaxe BSN

(14,733 posts)
3. I'm always curious about the 'other' vote.
Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:09 PM
Feb 2016

Are there really 3% or more of New Hampshire Dems who don't plan to vote for either candidate?

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
4. You never know about those voters
Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:12 PM
Feb 2016

meaning, the "don't knows." I guess we will find out soon. Maybe some people will not support either????

Sam

Jarqui

(10,181 posts)
5. Obama was way ahead +8 and it finished Clinton +2
Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:12 PM
Feb 2016

"keep your eyes on the road, your hand upon the wheel"

Watch out for some funny stuff with those Diebold machines and the ballots. It smelled pretty bad in 2008.

I won't believe the results until I see them. If Clinton wins, I'll never believe the results.

In spite of the polls, if I had to bet on it, the narrative if she doesn't steal it will be "she got a lot closer than the polls showed".

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
6. I too am very apprehensive about the vote counting
Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:15 PM
Feb 2016

so I am just quietly watching. I figured all along, if Sanders pulled slightly ahead in Iowa during the "reconsideration" period of time, that information would not be made public until after the NH primary.

Sanders did a beautiful thing by keeping his supporters reporting their totals directly to his campaign. He is nobody's fool.

Sam

Zorra

(27,670 posts)
7. It's way too close. Bernie will need to get at least 70% of the vote
Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:16 PM
Feb 2016

in order to ensure a victory over the Dem Establishment opposition.

amborin

(16,631 posts)
8. if there is a concern,
Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:21 PM
Feb 2016

it's that apparently 40% of indies are still undecided and could break for or against Trump, taking their vote
away from Bernie; wishing this weren't so, it makes me nervous

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
10. I don't think this will happen because very early on I read Bernie was attracting 51% of Indies
Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:28 PM
Feb 2016

This was nationally, and I do not have a link. I think there is more of a chance of some disaffected Republicans coming over to the Sanders waters rather than Independents moving from Sanders over to Trump. Sanders traditionally gets about 25 percent of the Republican vote in Vermont when he runs....

But one never knows, does one....

Sam

 

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)
9. It is not clear if they are counting only registered Dems...
Mon Feb 8, 2016, 01:26 PM
Feb 2016

Or are including Independants likely to vote in the Dem primary. It is an open primary.
If they are only polling registered Dems, then Sanders margin will be much greater than indicated. Independants favor Sanders over Clinton by nearly a 2:1 margin.

Samantha

(9,314 posts)
12. The second link above is from Nate Silvers site giving Sanders a 90% chance of winning
Mon Feb 8, 2016, 03:30 PM
Feb 2016

I think things are looking very good, but I hesitate to even say that because these unpredictable things seems to come flying out of nowhere at the last minute, and not necessarily by accident.

I believe Bernie has the numbers; let's see if they all get counted properly....

Sam

Peace Patriot

(24,010 posts)
13. If the 1% steal this one in NH, and Bernie & staff catch them at it,
Mon Feb 8, 2016, 03:49 PM
Feb 2016

they will be doing all of us the biggest favor ever. Cuz these machines were MADE TO ORDER for stealing elections, and it's my suspicion that THIS is the situation they were designed and installed to "remedy": a political revolution against 1%-er rule.

The trouble is they've made it very difficult to catch them at it. The only thing that might alert Bernie & staff to a steal--i.e., with some evidence--is their internal exit polling. (And I sure hope they are doing that. One of the bars against discovering electronic fraud is that the 'mainstream' exit pollsters now ADJUST their exit polls, as results come in, TO the electronic tabulation machines' results. We lost honest exit polls in 2004.)

Anybody know details of NH's system? Some systems are REALLY bad--those that are all electronic, with no check at all of actual ballots against e-results. (Last I looked, SC was like this.) I think most systems now have some kind of check, but generally only 1% (ironic percentage, no?). That is, 99% of the ballots are NEVER CHECKED against machine results.

I can't check NH now. Will do in the next few days. We may be doing a whole lot of this in the next 6 months--screaming and yelling about our votes being tabulated using 'TRADE SECRET' programming code, owned and controlled by a few rightwing-connected corporations, with virtually no audit all over the country.

MineralMan

(146,613 posts)
14. Oh, Sanders will win NH.
Mon Feb 8, 2016, 03:52 PM
Feb 2016

They'll divide up the small contingent of delegates.

There's much more to come...still 48 states to go.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»For what it is worth, Rea...