2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum5 Primaries: Exit Poll Discrepancies and Win Probabilities
"This is a summary exit poll analysis of the March 15 Democratic exit polls. Clinton won the recorded vote in the five elections.
The exit polls indicate that Sanders won MO (80% probability) and IL (74%).
There was a 10% discrepancy in the OH exit poll from the recorded vote. The probability that the discrepancy was due to chance is 1 in 976."
https://richardcharnin.wordpress.com/2016/03/16/five-democratic-primaries-exit-poll-discrepancies-and-win-probabilities/
here's some levity. . .
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)but yes, the nation mostly is. I accepted a long time ago that we have pretend elections with pretend democracy... so I am good with that... but yes, you are correct, but not for the reasons you think.
Once the crisis is over, we might be able to fix it... and it will be painful...but hey... whatever.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)because every democracy is profoundly flawed
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)and we have way too many indications of stolen elections.
As I said, I made my peace with it a long time ago.
Now back to reading Trump speeches... MSM will not do that...but I need to put together an ideology. And as I said, the MSM will NOT do it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)You're funny.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)raw exit polls are not terribly reliable, as anyone who's been paying attention over the past few decades knows.
but, if it helps you rationalize why your candidate got his ass kicked in Ohio, go ahead.
Aren't you feeling betrayed that Bernie isn't contesting the fraud in Ohio, IL, and MO?
Maybe because this fraud theory is from fringe Internet kooks rather than having a basis in reality.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I miss all the fun.
But, the only thing the OP says is what exit polls said. Why all the bitterness?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and ended when the Berners started attacking Dolores Huerta--a real revolutionary and activist--and accusing her of bribery--showing that this talk of revolution and sweeping change was pretty much fraudulent.
Having the right voting record doesn't qualify one to be president.
merrily
(45,251 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Bernie fans are the only people I know who wanted to reject people as not good enough to support Bernie. Quite a mentality.
Of course, the DU Bernie faction are the ones who vote Nader/Green Party in the general elections, so I never fit in with that crowd.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Some people are just much more transparent then others. Transparency is a good thing!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4334518
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)You all just can't fathom that people can disagree with you on anything without being corrupt and stupid.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I have never had a problem with honest disagreement.
Poseurs, yes, honest disagreement, no.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)to the man after whom it was named.
He was not prone to calling the Democratic base (i.e. the ones voting for Hillary) pieces of dogshit and referring to her as a "bitch."
he was not a foaming at the mouth hater, but rather a genuinely thoughtful progressive, unlike the angry hate mob you've assembled over there.
Very nasty people over there, not terribly different in tone from Trump supporters. Very nasty.
Bernie's campaign will end within 3 months. Then what will you do?
merrily
(45,251 posts)Painful
"He was not prone to calling the Democratic base (i.e. the ones voting for Hillary) pieces of dogshit and referring to her as a "bitch."
Unless you have a link to a post of mine that does that, you should understand that replying to me with your gripes about humanity in general or 900+ posters who are not me is both inappropriate and pointless.
Since you seem to love reading at what you call hate sites, though, maybe you should go to hillarysupporters.com and jackassradicals, though why a site would self identify as jackasses is beyond me.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)since he was inaugurated now hating Hillary Clinton.
And I will also note that it is your fellow travelers who pollute DU with links to rightwing propaganda outfits like The Federalist, World Nuts Daily, Infowars, Daily Caller, etc.
As well as promoting Donald Trump's health care plan as better than the ACA and Hillary's suggested improvements.
merrily
(45,251 posts)As previously stated, replying to me about things that other people do is both inappropriate and pointless.
Poor geek.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)Chichiri
(4,667 posts)I think most of them came to terms with it days or weeks ago -- we just have some late bloomers is all.
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)a topsy turvy fit.
MaggieD
(7,393 posts)I was a Hillary supporters in 2008 that happily voted for Obama. And never once smeared him.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)I seriously don't know. Maybe there were several. I didn't see any personally. Did you?
Or did Clinton supporters simply accept that they had lost that election? It takes a bit of grace, I grant you. But it is doable. Sometimes you lose an election and it...wasn't even stolen GASP! I know, right? Cuh-razzy.
obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)Baffling.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)starmaker
(541 posts)If one does not believe the political machines do not tamper with the vote counts they are in denial
bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)standing by my opinion.
obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)brooklynite
(94,502 posts)Point to any complaint he's filed about the final vote count.
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)I always love whackadoodles with access to Excel.
On Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:29 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Oh good, I was wondering when this embarrassment as an analyst would show up again
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1508320
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Calling a long time DU contributor an "embarrassment as an analyst" is rude and against the rules against calling out a DU'er. UNACCEPTABLE!
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Thu Mar 17, 2016, 01:38 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I am worried if I allow this post to remain it may be looked upon as allowing an attack to remain in view so I vote to hide.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't see anything over the top about this. This is a bad alert.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)Well then.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Godhumor
(6,437 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Not sure what your point is.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)RandySF
(58,768 posts)Supporters for one candidate may sometimes be more likely to respond to interviewers than others. Also, interviewers can be biased in whom they choose.
CalvinballPro
(1,019 posts)RandySF
(58,768 posts)voters in key precincts are randomly selected after they walk out of the polling place and offered the opportunity to fill out a questionnaire.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Never have been. Never will be.
All exit polls ever do is allow the networks to call races early if trends from exit polls are close to what is reported.
It allows the networks to call a race the second the polls close in races that are a blowout.
Otherwise, it's too close to call as both MO and IL were until nearly every vote was counted.
stellanoir
(14,881 posts)Exit polls are considered a tried & true safeguard on elections.
We don't even allow UN election observers on our elections.
Exit polls here are often adjusted by the networks to match the vote tallies.
Networks have disparaged exit polls since results have had all sorts of anomalies.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Exit polls never have been and never will be an accurate predicter of an election. UN Election watchers only use the when things turn out wildly off and they are still not enough of a predicter without further evidence.
After 2000 an industry grew up to bilk people out of their money over "black box voting". The entire movement developed into nothing more than a greedy money snatching scam.
stellanoir
(14,881 posts)were ushered in hastily with HAVA after the '00 debacle.
Those were immediately deemed insecure & unreliable by plenty of IT geeks & wizards. The manufacturers pretty much said that the machines had an approximate 9 year shelf life. We're several elections past their expiration dates.
So the highly hackable, insecure machines are now degraded even further.
Sure there are a few grifters in any movement. Many, many more people did copious amount of research, sacrificing time, energy, & money for no financial gain whatsoever.
Plenty of people were convinced that Kerry won in '04, and votes were shaved off totals in many states, but it was blatantly obvious in Ohio.
So if you really think this is a functioning democracy and our elections are completely secure, then fine.
Given the advances in encryption & security over the last decade, just think we're in dire need of a long overdue upgrade.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Half-Century Man
(5,279 posts)Common sense regulation and the means to confirm compliance mean nothing. Just ask the short term lending industry.
SalviaBlue
(2,916 posts)How soon they forget. Reality is being rewritten.
Lucinda
(31,170 posts)have spoken out by now.
RandySF
(58,768 posts)Renew Deal
(81,855 posts)AZ Progressive
(3,411 posts)Dunno about Missouri though.
msongs
(67,395 posts)highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)tritsofme
(17,376 posts)Tarc
(10,476 posts)We don't determine elections by exit polls, we determine them by counting the votes. If there is an identifiable problem(*) with the vote-counting, ten the Sanders campaign is well within their legal right to investigate that.
(*) "The vote didn't go the way I wanted/hoped" is not a valid concern.
stellanoir
(14,881 posts)His info from his site :
"After graduating from Queens College (NY) in 1965 with a BA in Mathematics, I was hired as a numerical control engineer/programmer for Grumman Aerospace Corporation. GAC was a major defense/aerospace manufacturer which built the Lunar Module, Navy fighter jets and commercial aircraft.
I obtained an MS in Applied Mathematics from Adelphi University in 1969 and an MS in Operations Research from Polytechnic Institute of NY in 1973.
In 1976, I moved on to Wall Street as manager/developer of corporate finance quantitative applications for White Weld & Co, an old-line investment bank that was acquired by Merrill Lynch in 1978. When personal computers first became available in 1982, I converted many of the mainframe FORTRAN application programs to Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheets and years later to Excel.
As an independent software consultant, I specialized in quantitative applications development for major domestic and foreign financial institutions, investment firms and industrial corporations.
I never imagined that years later I would be posting election analyses on the Internet. After the 2000 fiasco, I was motivated to develop a robust forecast model. In July 2004 I began posting weekly election projections based on state and national pre-election polls.
The corporate media and politicians avoid the subject of systemic election fraud like the plague. But unadjusted state and national exit polls have been confirmed by the True Vote Model. The Democratic true share has consistently exceeded the official recorded share. I have written two books proving systemic election fraud. . ."
more on his site
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)And both the IL and MO showed close races and they were.
stellanoir
(14,881 posts)see : MOE
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Ohio actual vote
Clinton - 57% Sanders 43%
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=ohio+democratic+primary
Ohio exit poll
Clinton 55% - Sanders 45%
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/15/us/elections/ohio-democrat-poll.html?_r=0
Well with the two percent theoretical margin of error.
WI_DEM
(33,497 posts)especially given the narrowness (particularly in Missouri) of those two victories
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Those aren't far off from the actual vote.
*from memory
obamanut2012
(26,068 posts)FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)it needs to be near 65-70%. The CLinton FOundation has paid off a lot of people; they have a lot of favors they can call in. Just like the mafia.
NowSam
(1,252 posts)Because between coin flipping, ace holding and diebold, this sure seems like the fix is in.
jalan48
(13,859 posts)The public is tricked into believing a Republican billionaire is a populist and a conservative Wall Street Democrat is a liberal. Enjoy the show America.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)This is as stupid as saying Bernie wins all the online polls...therefore he should be President!
stellanoir
(14,881 posts)nor is anyone thinking that online polls could possibly mirror voting totals.
see post # 18