HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » California Called for Cli...

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:20 PM

California Called for Clinton While 800,000-3,000,000 Ballots Remain Uncounted

Greg Palast warned us that this would likely happen. Palast is the investigative reporter who more than anyone else documented how George W. Bush stole the Florida 2000 Presidential election that gave Bush the final electoral votes he needed to win the election. On June 1st 2016 Palast wrote of the coming Democratic primary in California that some poll workers have been told to give No Party Preference (NPP) voters provisional ballots rather than regular ballots. He urged voters to demand a regular Democratic ballot because, as many of us know, provisional ballots are usually not counted.

I did phone banking for Bernie. My job was to contact NPP voters and tell them that they had to ask for a Democratic ballot (or a Democratic “crossover” ballot) when they go to the polls, or if they’ve already been sent a “non-partisan” ballot (which doesn’t give them the opportunity to vote for President) they have to bring it to the polls to exchange for a Democratic ballot. The goal was to provide these instructions to all NPP voters in the state. But so many calls go unanswered – what percentage of NPP voters actually get the correct information?

The importance of this to the Sanders campaign was huge. Record breaking new voter registrations in California resulted in 4.2 million registered NPP voters by Election Day. Polls show that these voters vote for Sanders by a margin of approximately 40%.

But when California was called for Clinton on Wednesday morning, a bare minimum of 800 thousand ballots remained uncounted – including provisional ballots and late mail-in ballots. The 800 K number was arrived at by 11 California counties that reported solid numbers of uncounted ballots. But there are 58 counties in California. Nobody knows at this time the total number of uncounted ballots. Estimates of uncounted ballots range from 1 million to 3 million. And these estimates don’t even include the many eligible voters who were turned away from the polls on Election Day without even being given a chance to vote provisionally.

The official vote count had Clinton ahead by about 440 thousand votes. How can they call the election with so many votes uncounted, especially when most of them are disproportionately likely to be for the candidate who’s losing?


Election Day, June 7 in California

The reality of Election Day in California turned out to be far worse than even Palast was warning of. Investigations show an aggressive attempt to disenfranchise Sanders voters. Palast wrote on Election Day, June 7:

In some counties like Los Angeles, it's not easy for an NPP to claim their right to vote in the Democratic primary – and in other counties, nearly impossible. Example: In Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, if you don’t say the magic words, “I want a Democratic crossover ballot,” you are automatically given a ballot without the presidential race. And ready for this, if an NPP voter asks the poll worker, “How do I get to vote in the Democratic party primary”, they are instructed to say, “NPP voters can’t get Democratic ballots.” They are ordered not to breathe a word that the voter can get a “crossover” ballot that includes the presidential race. I’m not kidding. This is from the official Election Officer Training Manual page 49:
"A No Party Preference voter will need to request a crossover ballot from the Roster Index Officer. (Do not offer them a crossover ballot if they do not ask)."…

If an NPP voter doesn’t say they are “surrendering” their NPP ballot, the clerk can take it and count it blank instead of giving the voter a new one… Election Justice USA filed still more declarations with the courts of poll workers being told to give NPP voters “provisional” ballots even if they say the magic words, “I want a crossover Democratic ballot.”


Poll worker Jeff Lewis, who was abhorred by the training he received, filed a description of the training in an official declaration to a federal court:

Someone raised their hand and asked a follow-up question: ‘So, what if someone gets a nonpartisan ballot, notices it doesn't have the presidential candidates on it, and asks you where they are?’ The answer poll workers are instructed to give: ‘Sorry, NPP ballots don't have presidential candidates on them.’


Another California poll worker, Ashley Beck, complained:

I was told that all NPP voters are to be given provisional ballots. I was bothered by that, because I was always told that NPP voters in California can vote for Democrats and their vote would be counted…. We all know what happens most of the time with provisional ballots. They are not being counted.”


The Los Angeles Times announced hundreds of reports of additional problems in an article titled: ‘It was just chaos’: Broken machines, incomplete voter rolls leave some wondering whether their ballots will be counted. As if the impediments to obtaining a Democratic “crossover” ballot weren’t bad enough, some counties ran out of them, thus ensuring that NPP voters wouldn’t be able to vote on a regular ballot. Other counties demanded that first time voters (likely Sanders voters) show official voter ID, even though California law doesn’t require it. And as we’ve seen all through this primary season, many would-be voters are complaining that their voter registration was purged or changed to Republican (which prohibits them from voting in the Democratic primary) without their knowledge, and most of these would-be voters are Sanders would-be voters.


So why did they call the election with so many votes uncounted

The reason the election was called with so many votes uncounted is not hard to understand. It is exactly the same reason why our corporate “news” media timed their false announcement of Clinton “clinching” the Democratic nomination for the day before the California and five other Democratic primaries. It is the same reason why all of the powerful establishment forces within and outside of the Democratic Party have done everything they can since day one to prevent the nomination of Bernie Sanders. Their status, power, and wealth are vested in the status quo. The Sanders campaign is all about disrupting the status quo – leveling the playing field and giving the American people more control over their lives. It’s that simple.

Efforts are currently underway to force a counting of the uncounted California ballots prior to certification of Tuesday’s election. We will see what happens. If they are not counted, this should come up at the July Democratic National Convention.

117 replies, 5458 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 117 replies Author Time Post
Reply California Called for Clinton While 800,000-3,000,000 Ballots Remain Uncounted (Original post)
Time for change Jun 2016 OP
metroins Jun 2016 #1
NorthCarolina Jun 2016 #91
metroins Jun 2016 #92
MFM008 Jun 2016 #2
Time for change Jun 2016 #5
Duval Jun 2016 #11
annavictorious Jun 2016 #58
onenote Jun 2016 #12
Time for change Jun 2016 #25
senz Jun 2016 #43
onenote Jun 2016 #63
Time for change Jun 2016 #115
leftynyc Jun 2016 #17
Time for change Jun 2016 #27
leftynyc Jun 2016 #31
Beacool Jun 2016 #53
onenote Jun 2016 #64
Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #85
MFM008 Jun 2016 #106
MFM008 Jun 2016 #34
JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #82
Ferd Berfel Jun 2016 #66
Stallion Jun 2016 #3
Time for change Jun 2016 #4
Stallion Jun 2016 #6
leftynyc Jun 2016 #18
Time for change Jun 2016 #20
bhikkhu Jun 2016 #100
Time for change Jun 2016 #110
justiceischeap Jun 2016 #7
Time for change Jun 2016 #8
justiceischeap Jun 2016 #16
Time for change Jun 2016 #21
justiceischeap Jun 2016 #32
TwilightZone Jun 2016 #33
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #48
brooklynite Jun 2016 #24
senz Jun 2016 #42
brooklynite Jun 2016 #47
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #26
Time for change Jun 2016 #46
politicaljunkie41910 Jun 2016 #60
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #61
Time for change Jun 2016 #75
Time for change Jun 2016 #74
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #93
scscholar Jun 2016 #59
GulfCoast66 Jun 2016 #109
onenote Jun 2016 #79
Time for change Jun 2016 #95
onenote Jun 2016 #96
Time for change Jun 2016 #114
msongs Jun 2016 #9
Time for change Jun 2016 #22
onenote Jun 2016 #80
Time for change Jun 2016 #113
valerief Jun 2016 #10
onenote Jun 2016 #81
Time for change Jun 2016 #116
Triana Jun 2016 #13
senz Jun 2016 #40
felix_numinous Jun 2016 #14
msongs Jun 2016 #19
Retrograde Jun 2016 #15
Time for change Jun 2016 #23
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #28
brooklynite Jun 2016 #30
senz Jun 2016 #41
brooklynite Jun 2016 #45
TwilightZone Jun 2016 #35
nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #29
Time for change Jun 2016 #73
senz Jun 2016 #36
Lord Magus Jun 2016 #50
onenote Jun 2016 #65
BernieforPres2016 Jun 2016 #37
senz Jun 2016 #38
Retrograde Jun 2016 #69
apcalc Jun 2016 #39
RogerM Jun 2016 #44
Time for change Jun 2016 #70
eastwestdem Jun 2016 #49
Beacool Jun 2016 #51
grasswire Jun 2016 #54
Beacool Jun 2016 #55
grasswire Jun 2016 #57
grossproffit Jun 2016 #68
sheshe2 Jun 2016 #78
Beacool Jun 2016 #83
sheshe2 Jun 2016 #84
grasswire Jun 2016 #52
YouDig Jun 2016 #56
Time for change Jun 2016 #71
onenote Jun 2016 #62
Time for change Jun 2016 #87
onenote Jun 2016 #90
Time for change Jun 2016 #98
onenote Jun 2016 #99
Time for change Jun 2016 #117
Ace Rothstein Jun 2016 #67
kadaholo Jun 2016 #72
Ace Rothstein Jun 2016 #94
oswaldactedalone Jun 2016 #76
Time for change Jun 2016 #88
RufusTFirefly Jun 2016 #77
Time for change Jun 2016 #89
oberliner Jun 2016 #86
AzDar Jun 2016 #97
chillfactor Jun 2016 #101
LenaBaby61 Jun 2016 #104
ucrdem Jun 2016 #102
onenote Jun 2016 #108
jamese777 Jun 2016 #103
Time for change Jun 2016 #111
BainsBane Jun 2016 #105
ucrdem Jun 2016 #107
Time for change Jun 2016 #112

Response to Time for change (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:22 PM

1. Hillary won

She won in March. She did not need California, give it to Sanders in your mind if you want.

We should all focus our energy on the future, beating Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to metroins (Reply #1)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 11:19 AM

91. Votes don't matter now. the establishment used their propaganda media to

 

settle the race before they lost the only remaining candidate they had in the race. Jeb losing to Trump was a huge wakeup call for the establishment. They were not about to lose the Clinton half of their theater presentation and be left with nothing but a defunct script with no bit players.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NorthCarolina (Reply #91)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 11:22 AM

92. Conspiracy Theory

You do know, votes actually matter and that's how candidates are elected.

The poll worker counting votes in a podunk town isn't taking marching orders from some grand conspiracy.

People mail-in and hand-in real votes, then a normal person counts them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:23 PM

2. Some contests are called right away

Based on exit polling and mail in ballots. They called one state for Sanders with 1% of the vote in. These guys know their buisness. Only ONE state has ever been called back.
Florida. 2000.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #2)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:30 PM

5. Yeah, they really kow their business

That's why they called the whole nomination for Hillary right before the California primary, ignoring the fact that the Superdelegates needed to clinch the nomination for her won't vote until July.

They know their business. Their business is to prevent a Sanders nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:45 PM

11. Why some cannot see this is baffling.

 

Sigh!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Duval (Reply #11)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 04:20 PM

58. Some of us live in the reality based world.

 

Others don't. {{sigh}}

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:45 PM

12. They didn't "ignore" the fact that SDs won't formally vote until July

They reported that she was the presumptive nominee based on commitments from SDs who said that they unequivocally were voting for Clinton in July.

It's an argument that's been made before, and its still true: does the news media not report who is elected president on election night even though the electoral college votes needed to be elected aren't cast until a month later: the Monday following the second Wednesday of December. And even though electors can and occasionally do go "rogue" and vote for someone other than the candidate that won their state.



I haven't heard Sanders' supporters complaining when states he won were "called" even though all the votes weren't counted yet.

And I haven't heard the Sanders campaign speak up about the fact California was called.

Why do you think that is?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #12)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:34 PM

25. They reported that she "clinched" the nomination

That goes far beyond "presumptive"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #25)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:51 PM

43. All media outlets were using the word "clinch" well before the bogus announcement.

 

HQ must have gotten the word out early.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #25)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 04:52 PM

63. I don't have sympathy for people who only read headlines.

Here's the AP story: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/4c9c850385c84b12ad5b85fda49743f9/after-weekend-wins-clinton-cusp-democratic-nomination

"Clinton's rise to presumptive nominee arrived nearly eight years to the day after she conceded her first White House campaign to Barack Obama."

"Sanders plans to make the case to superdelegates that he is better positioned to beat Trump in November. While superdelegates can change their minds, those counted in Clinton's tally have unequivocally told the AP they will support her at the party's summer convention. Since the start of the AP's survey in late 2015, no superdelegates have switched from supporting Clinton to backing Sanders."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #63)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:02 PM

115. Do you have any sympathy for people who write headlines that contradict the body of the article?

Why do you think they do that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:06 PM

17. Forget the superdelegates

 

She has the majority of pledged delegates. She has the most popular votes. If it makes you feel better to think Bernie won CA, knock yourself out. She still wins. Its' over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftynyc (Reply #17)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:35 PM

27. No, it is NOT over

Superdelegates don't vote until the Convention in July. Anything could happen between now and then to influence them to change their minds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #27)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:36 PM

31. Makes no difference to me

 

if you want to delude yourself. It's over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #27)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 04:11 PM

53. Really????

At some point it would behoove you to face reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #27)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 04:59 PM

64. Yes and things could happen between election day and the first Monday after the second Wednesday i

in December, which is when electoral college members cast the votes that actually determine who becomes president.

But does anyone ever claim that the person who won the states with a majority of electoral votes isn't the president elect until the EV votes are cast? No. Why? Because it never has happened that enough electoral voters have refused to follow their state's decision to change the outcome, even though "anything could happen".

Same thing with the nominating process. Yes, anything could happen, which is why someone is Clinton's position is deemed the presumptive nominee. How strong is the presumption? Pretty damn strong when the votes you're relying on are saying they're unequivocal in their support and when not a single delegate has jumped from Clinton to Sanders in the nine months since the first stories about Clinton having secured SD support came out.

If and when "something" happens to call into question whether SDs who've committed for Clinton will stay with her, then the presumption weakens and could eventually fail to be valid. But for now, its completely valid. And getting stronger and the number of SDs grows, particularly when you're talking about influential SDs like Obama, Biden, Warren and Pelosi. Could something happen to make them reverse course? Yes, But it hasn't yet and there is no evidence that it will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #27)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 08:19 AM

85. It is over

Obama signalled that it is over by endorsing Clinton as did Biden ET AL...No supers will vote for Bernie now. By guess is that Pres. Obama did not like Bernie's defiant attitude so he moved right after the meeting to send a message to supers and to Bernie. Bernie would be humiliated if he put his name in nomination or wrote letters to supers pleading for their support when he has no legitimate argument...he lost by all measures...time to move on. Hillary is the nominee...and I don't care how many times Sanders says at useless rallies...'when I am president', he will never be president. He won't even have any influence if he does not concede and endorse soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #27)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 03:39 AM

106. Hope you find somewhere else to discuss it.

you have 5 days in here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:38 PM

34. were they wrong?

They still called Michigan for Sanders at 1% of vote in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #34)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 01:01 AM

82. No they did not.

I believe they waited until the 90+% point to call it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 05:05 PM

66. It's so fucking corrupt

really

America is so screwed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:24 PM

3. Clinton's 300,000 Vote Lead Might Have had Something to do with it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stallion (Reply #3)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:27 PM

4. But more likely they're justing counting on the provisional ballots not being counted

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #4)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:30 PM

6. Direct from Secretary of State: Clintons lead bhas Grown to Almost 450,000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stallion (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:07 PM

18. Well THAT certainly puts

 

a crimp in their argument. It's like they think every provisional ballot will go to Bernie. The delusion is strong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stallion (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:26 PM

20. It was already almost 450,000 when the race was called

Sounds like no votes at all have been counted since then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #20)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:46 AM

100. You can keep track here:

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/party/democratic/

They still have a long time left to certify the final results, but it looks like they are updating the numbers as they go along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bhikkhu (Reply #100)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:39 AM

110. Thank you for the link

I will indeed keep track of it.

Evidence is coming out every day on this primary. Some poll workers are saying that results at their precincts were flipped compared to what was originally posted there. Exit polls are expected to be out soon, and they should be very interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #4)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:32 PM

7. Or more likely, the way the spread played out, Clinton would get just as many votes as Bernie

and retain her lead. You must understand that counties that Bernie thought were his broke for Clinton--BIGLY--as trump would say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justiceischeap (Reply #7)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:38 PM

8. Of course they "broke" for Clinton

With such massive voter suppression how could we expect otherwise?

The good majority of uncounted ballots are NPP voters, who go for Bernie by a 40% margin. That's exactly why they were suppressed.

Did you read to OP? Are you aware of the extent that they went to in order to ensure that NPP voters wouldn't get to vote on a regular ballot?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #8)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:04 PM

16. Yes, I've read the CA voter election laws and bylaws when this story "broke"

Independent voters must take some responsibility for their own votes... fraud, I say, fraud! They actually have to signal their intent on which party they're going to vote for...gasp.

I also know that people can be lazy, I also know that people can be subdued in their support of candidates. I think the biggest issue is people thought because Clinton wasn't having these huge rallies, that people didn't really support her. Instead, we were volunteering and canvassing and shoring up the vote--and we did so without fanfare. In fact, from things I've been reading recently, many Clinton supporters didn't feel SAFE publicly acknowledging their support for Secy. Clinton., so they kept quiet about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to justiceischeap (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:29 PM

21. Did you read the OP?

Did you note the extraordinary measures that were taken to prevent NPP voters from voting?

You really believe that those kind of measures are justified?

If so, why aren't you a Republican?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #21)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:37 PM

32. Because I'm a democrat that is fine with Indies having to jump through some hoops

to vote in party primaries.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #21)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:38 PM

33. Extraordinary measures? Like "hey, it might be a good idea to read the info packet we sent you"?

And follow instructions?

Hilarious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #21)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 04:02 PM

48. No "extraordinary measures" involved in proceeding according to long-established election laws.

NPP voters have to specifically request a Democratic ballot in order to vote in the Democratic primary. That's about as low a hurdle as it gets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #8)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:34 PM

24. Bernie Sanders has protested this "voter suppression", has he?

Challenged the results?

Demanded a recount?

Refused to concede?

(well, I guess one out of three...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #24)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:49 PM

42. You don't know what's going on behind the scenes.

 

You always say you do, but you don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #42)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:58 PM

47. I know what the end result is...

...the ONLY challenge Bernie has filed was JOINING the DNC lawsuit against the ARIZONA Republican Government (hint: I know the Democratic Party Chair).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #4)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:35 PM

26. Bullshit. Provisional ballots are always counted.

Regardless of what types like Greg Palast claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lord Magus (Reply #26)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:57 PM

46. They are only counted if those responsible for the election decide to count them.

In the New York Dem primary this year there were huge numbers of provisional ballots, and only about 20% of them were counted. Those responsible for deciding which ones to count would not allow any public observers to observe the process by which they decided which ones to count.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lord Magus (Reply #26)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 04:33 PM

60. Just wanted to clarify something. Provisional ballots are not always counted.

Provisional ballots are given to voters who for one reason or another their name may not show up on the voter rolls. They will allow you to vote via a provisional ballot and your name and voter registration will be checked later once it is verified. If you vote via a provisional ballot and it's later determined that there is no record of your ever having been registered to vote in the state or at the address you claim, your vote may not be counted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to politicaljunkie41910 (Reply #60)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 04:36 PM

61. True, what I meant is that contrary to some conspiracy theories they're never just thrown out.

Anybody claiming that a provisional ballot is just a fake ballot, or a "placebo ballot" as has been circulated on some of the tinfoil hat sites, is lying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lord Magus (Reply #61)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 12:16 AM

75. You're either hopelessly ignorant or you're just making this up

You actually believe that provisional ballots are never just thrown out? Were you living in 2004, when Ohio was stolen for George W. Bush to re-elect him president, and there were nearly a couple hundred thousand provisional ballots that were never counted, with no good reason ever given to the American public?

Do you actually believe that Kenneth Blackwell, the Ohio SOS, would have made a conscientious effort to count them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to politicaljunkie41910 (Reply #60)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:37 PM

74. In New York, the Board of Elections which was responsible for all the voter purging and changing

registrations without voter's consent would not allow any public observers to view the process of how they decided on which ones to count. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house, this is ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #74)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 12:34 PM

93. The sandard for which provisional ballots to count in New York was very simple.

Was the voter a registered Democrat at the time of the registration deadline? If so, their provisional ballot was counted. If not, it wasn't. That's how a closed primary works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #4)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 04:27 PM

59. This. The Republicans in CA want a Hillary win.

 

Bernie has been polling too well against Trump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to scscholar (Reply #59)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:23 AM

109. Please listen to yourself

You are now spouting a CT about the Republican Party conspiring with the Clinton campaign to screw Bernie.

Hopefully you forgot to add the sarcasm thingy. Because if you are serious then you are truly deluding yourself and making yourself look silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #4)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 12:43 AM

79. Why would anyone think the provisionals aren't going to be counted?

Anything to support that supposition?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #79)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:49 PM

95. They counted only about 20% of them in NY

I've heard that a million provisional ballots in CA have already been discarded. Don't know if it's true or not.

We'll see before too long how many are counted. No point in arguing about it now. But historically, most are not counted, and good reasons with evidence are rarely if ever offered for not counting them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #95)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 03:53 PM

96. The story that 1 million provisionals have been discarded is not true.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=2171619

And the provisional ballots (around 91,000 out of 121,000 or 75 percent) in New York were denied but they haven't been discarded and individual voters can challenge the rejection of their provisional ballots if they want to).

https://indypendent.org/2016/05/07/elections-board-certifies-primary-vote-rejects-91000-provisional-ballots

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #96)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:01 PM

114. So how many years do you think it will take for individual voters to challenge all those provisional

ballots, enough to make a difference?

Do you really think that ordinary people have the resources to do that?

Do you really think that we can have any confidence that the rejected ballots were legitimately rejected, when they were rejected by the same people responsible for the fiasco in NY, and when the rejection process was done in secret, despite pleas to have it publicly observed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:43 PM

9. counties have until july 8 to send in certified results. the state does not certify til AFTER that

happens. this fraud cheat rigged crowd does not even know the law and process

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msongs (Reply #9)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:30 PM

22. What does this have to do with anything I wrote?

Maybe you should READ posts before making unrelated and ignorant comments about them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #22)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 12:45 AM

80. Your the one suggesting the provisionals wouldn't be counted

So it seems it has a lot to do with something you wrote. Something with no basis in fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #80)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:56 PM

113. When the certification takes place has little or nothing to do with whether the provisional ballots

will be counted.

I hope to God they are counted. We will see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:43 PM

10. We don't have Election Days. We have Voter Suppression Days now. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to valerief (Reply #10)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 12:48 AM

81. Wait. It turns out that turnout wasn't suppressed and the votes are being counted

according to a publicly announced timetable.

How is that voter suppression? And have you ever spoken to someone who has been the victim of actual voter suppression -- y'know, someone who was prevented from voting by threats of violence and physical intimidation, who was prevented from voting by unconstitutional literacy tests and poll taxes, someone who is being prevented from voting by voter ID laws?

Shame on you for equating the process in California with voter suppression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #81)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:06 PM

116. Are you serious?

You think it requires threats of violence to constitute voter suppression? All it takes is poll workers trained to tell voters that they can't vote or have to vote by provisional ballot, followed by rejection of the provisional ballots IN SECRET at a later time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:47 PM

13. Establishment, DNC and media power & money depend on status quo to prop 'em up

 

They were against Sanders from the minute he announced.

If people EVER stop being stupid, they could turn the goddamned establishment/media/DNC gilded boat upside down and garner themselves real, actual representation in their own gov't.

But America is chock full of stupid and once again voted against its own best interests.

Nothing we can do about it except bend over and wait to be screwed by the establishment some more.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Triana (Reply #13)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:45 PM

40. Resistance can take many forms.

 

We don't have to let them screw us. Like lady spiders, we can chew off their limbs while they do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 02:48 PM

14. They think by paying off the right people

they can censor the truth and take over this election, but they are mistaken.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to felix_numinous (Reply #14)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:19 PM

19. please post your list of all the paid off people, along with proof of course ;-) nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:02 PM

15. Why? Ratings - they all want to be the first

It's not the first time the media jumped the gun (remember Florida in 2000? Called for Bush - by one of his relatives, no less - before the polls in the western panhandle closed). People are curious to know who's ahead, and IMHO newscasters think it makes them look like they have inside knowledge.

The CA results aren't official until the Secretary of State certifies them on July 15, after all the counties roll up their official results on July 8. Why take so long? Mail-in ballots postmarked by June 7 are still valid and still coming in, provisional ballots have to be examined one by one, close races may need to be recounted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Retrograde (Reply #15)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:32 PM

23. If there are substantial doubts about the outcome of an election it shouldn't be called

Given the huge number of uncounted ballots and the fact that a very large number of them are likely to go to the losing candidate, a call on this election should have been postponed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #23)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:35 PM

28. There aren't any substantial doubts about the outcome though. -nt-

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #23)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:36 PM

30. If Bernie doesn't care, why should you?

"And tonight, I had a very gracious call from Secretary Clinton and congratulated her on her victories tonight."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #30)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:47 PM

41. Comity is not lack of caring. Do not ever try to sow division among Bernie supporters.

 

You'd better back off that track.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #41)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:57 PM

45. Show me where I'm wrong. How has Bernie expressed concern with the CA outcome?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #23)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:39 PM

35. "the fact that a very large number of them are likely "

"Likely" and "fact" don't go together in the same sentence.

Either they are or they aren't. That would be a fact. "Likely" is an opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:36 PM

29. I accounted for more than a few incidents myself

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #29)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:34 PM

73. Please tell us about them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:40 PM

36. They had to because she was going to lose.

 

June 4th, three days before the Calif. primary:

This is no longer a hypothetical argument, either. David Shuster reported this week that many superdelegates are already preparing to leave Hillary Clinton and move to Sanders if he wins in California. So far, none have changed to the Sanders camp, but if there is growing concern among superdelegates, it could just take a handful changing sides to give others on the fence the justification they need to leave the troubled frontrunner.


http://www.inquisitr.com/3166572/bernie-sanders-erased-hillary-clintons-15-point-lead-in-california-and-could-be-headed-to-a-bigger-coup-there-is-evidence-that-clintons-nervous-superdelegates-are-ready-to-jump-ship/

She went from "troubled frontrunner" to "presumptive nominee" before the primary was held.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #36)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 04:06 PM

50. That's a bunch of wishful thinking nonsense put forth by Bernie supporters.

Hillary was never a "troubled frontrunner" and there was no fact-based reason for anybody to have expected Bernie to win CA. It turns out that the polls showing a close race were just wrong, and the ones showing Hillary still having a double-digit lead were right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to senz (Reply #36)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 05:03 PM

65. Oh boy, David Shuster, a guy whose anti-Clinton bias goes back decades

Yeah, the Clinton superd's are revealing secrets to him. |
Now come over here and buy this bridge I've got to sell you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:40 PM

37. Googe the results of the CA Dem Presidential Primary

And AP shows 100% of votes reported.

Could we get the UN to start monitoring Democratic primary elections?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BernieforPres2016 (Reply #37)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:42 PM

38. I actually thought of having Jimmy Carter to come in to observe it.

 

Oh lord do we need investigations into what the Clinton campaign has done in this primary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BernieforPres2016 (Reply #37)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 05:09 PM

69. Whereas the CA Secretary of State's

website shows "100% of all precincts partially reporting", and since he's the guy who makes the official call, I go with that.

Nuance and in-depth analysis are not news agencies strong points: they go for the short, sharp headline, and then on to the next story. It's already been posted several times that valid mail ballots are still coming in, and that all the provisional ballots have to be examined and counted when appropriate.

And remember that we had other races on the ballot. California has a newish system whereby the top two finishers in state and local races go on to the general election, and while it looks like the first place finishers are clear in several races the race for that #2 slot is tight.

The AP can declare it's done all it wants - and I doubt the number one finishers are going to change in any race - but it's not officially over until the Secretary of State says it is - in mid July.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:44 PM

39. Uninformed voters

I have no sympathy for any Independent who doesn't learn what to do.
I was a registered Independent in Pa and went LAST summer and switched to Democrat.
I knew there was a presidential primary election coming up in 9 months. DUH

It was easy. Anyone can do it.
Voting is a right AND a responsibility.

Be responsible. Find out what to do.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 03:51 PM

44. WOW

Can we move on. Even if all the 800K votes are for Sanders he still lost. He is done. Deal with it. Time to fkin move on to GE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RogerM (Reply #44)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:31 PM

70. No, WE cannot move on

I happen to think that election fraud is a big deal.

Silly me. I think that a country where election fraud is perpetrated on this scale is not a democracy. But that's what I believe so no, I will not move on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 04:03 PM

49. It must be...duh duh da...A CONSPIRACY!!

 

Cue ominous music...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 04:09 PM

51. Oh, sweet Lord, when will this be over????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #51)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 04:12 PM

54. worst case, not for 8 1/2 years

You oughta know that.

We Bernie supporters are trying to spare the country of all this Clinton drama. You have no idea how your life is going to get dramatically worse if she should win the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grasswire (Reply #54)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 04:15 PM

55. Nonsense.

I'm beyond tired of the doom and gloom predictions of a group of people who think that Sanders would have been able to enact even 1/3 of his agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #55)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 04:18 PM

57. enjoy your ride, then.

It's on you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #55)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 05:07 PM

68. Me too. It's become boorish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #51)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 12:27 AM

78. Lawd.

Luv ya!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sheshe2 (Reply #78)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 01:11 AM

83. Thanks.......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Beacool (Reply #83)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 01:29 AM

84. ;)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 04:11 PM

52. and exit polling was discontinued

If they are not counted, Bernie should challenge California's vote at the convention.

Never give in to corruption!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 04:16 PM

56. It's always one conspiracy theory or another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #56)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:33 PM

71. The OP was basically facts, not theories.

If those facts don't bother you, I'm guessing that you don't give a damn about fair elections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 04:45 PM

62. A lot of these analyses are overly simplistic.

Last edited Fri Jun 10, 2016, 10:35 AM - Edit history (2)

For example, according to the OP, it is significant that there were 4.2 million registered NPP voters in California on election day, apparently as a result of a big surge in registrations.

While it is true that there were 4.2 million NPP voters, understanding that number in historical perspective suggests that its a bit more complicated.

The reality is that registrations fluctuate. A lot. The State of California does a very good job of disclosing data about registration. Thus, anyone who wants to can easily look up historical registration data. And if you did, here's something you would find that might surprise you:

Total Registered Voters:




Thus, while there was a surge in registration the first part of this year, it followed a pretty steep decline during 2015, with the result being a pretty small net increase over the past couple of years total.

Registered Democratslinks same as above)

May 2014: 7.69 million
February 2015: 7.645 million
January 2016: 7.438 million
May 2016: 8.029 million
(Note that in the May 2014 report, the SOS only gave percentage of total registration for party registrations, so you have to do the math to get to an actual number).

Again, the numbers fell, before rising, making what looks at first blush to be a 500,000 increase to be more of a net 380,000 increase

NPP Registration: (links same as above)

May 2014: 3.75 million
February 2015: 4.175 million
January 2016: 4.141 million
May 2016: 4.177 million
As you can see, it looks like a big jump if you compare May 2014 to May 2016. Not so big if you compare January 2016 to May 2016 and essentially no change if you compare February 2015 to May 2016.

Republican registration (links same as above)

May 2014: 5.037 million
February 2015 4.958 million
January 2016: 4.767 million
May 2016: 4.888 million
As you can see, from January 2016 to May 2016 repub registration grew by 120,000 voters (compared to an increase of only 35,000 in NPP registrations during that period and increase of over 500,000 in Democratic party registrations.

The point is that the registrations jump all over the place and the total change in registrations can be due to folks who fell off the rolls getting back on as well as "new" voters and the changes in party registration could reflect new voters or voters shifting allegiances. Trying to extrapolate from changes over the past few months is a risky business without more information.



edited to delete duplicative data and add links

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #62)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 09:38 AM

87. I've seen enough of your posts that I wouldn't take your word for anything

Give us links if you want anyone to believe this.

Here's one for you:
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-essential-politics-california-new-voters-voter-registration-primary-htmlstory.html

"California's voter registration hits record high", from the LA Times.

Anyhow, the exact number of NPP voters or how much they've increased recently is not the main point of the OP -- and I only devoted one sentence to it. The main point is how they were handled. Anyone who can excuse that kind of process should be a Republican because Republicans rely on voter suppression to win elections. This is the first time I've seen it in a Democratic primary, and it is sickening. Anyone who offers excuses for it, including many on this thread, should be ashamed of themselves and should join the Republican Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #87)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 11:16 AM

90. Here you go (I've also updated my post with links):


May 2014 registration data: http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ror/ror-pages/15day-primary-2014/hist-reg-stats.pdf
February 2015 registration data: http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ror/ror-pages/ror-odd-year-2015/hist-reg-stats.pdf
January 2016 registration data: http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov//ror/ror-pages/154day-presprim-16/historical-reg-stats.pdf
May 2016 registration data: http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ror/15day-presprim-2016/hist-reg-stats.pdf

If you search around the SOS election website you can easily find data for other periods of time as well. I just selected a sampling to show the change in the first part of 2016 and to compare current numbers to numbers from two years ago and from 15 months ago (the only 2015 data available).


Here's another page you might find interesting (and might want to add to your post as an update):
The current report of the number of "unprocessed" ballots in California.
http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2016-primary/unprocessed-ballots-report.pdf

Notably, it shows that there are 2.586 million unprocessed ballots, the largest segment of which (1.8 million or approx. 70 percent) are mail-in ballots. Provisionals make up only between 27 and 28 percent (705,489). Keep in mind that these include ballots that may have been cast in the repub primary or one of the third party primaries or in statewide contests by NPP voters who did not ask for a presidential primary ballot or by voters who, while eligible to vote in one of the presidential primaries, elected not to do so. In all likelihood, however, the lion's share of the unprocessed ballots are ballots cast in the Democratic primary.

Another useful link is the SOS elections FAQs page, which explains in some detail the timetable by which votes are reported. It also contains links to explanations regarding provisional ballots and how voters can check on the status of their provisional ballots. http://vote.sos.ca.gov/frequently-asked-questions/#website

Now if I could ask a favor of you: if you believe that any of my posts in the past have reported factually inaccurate information, please point me to those posts so I can update them with the correct information. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #90)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 07:28 PM

98. The link to the 5.286 million unprocessed ballots you refer to appears not to be working

And it is at odds with other information that I have read. But I will keep an open mind about it.

Regarding my statement that I wouldn't believe anything you have to say, it was a general impression I have, and I don't have any specific posts in mind. I could do some research on the subject to try to find one, but I don't think that would be a good use of my time.

But I do appreciate your attempt to obtain information on this.

Now I'll ask you a favor. Are you aware that poll workers in CA were trained to give provisional ballots to all NPP voters? Many of them are very upset about this and have spoken up about it. It is unclear to me at this time whether ALL poll workers received such instructions, but it appears to me that they did. Can you tell me if you feel that is in any way appropriate, as many on this thread appear to believe?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Reply #98)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 12:06 AM

99. It is constantly being updated, but it should work

As of midnight it was showing that the number of unprocessed mail in votes was 1,632,530. the number of unprocessed provisional votes was 718,869, and the number of other unprocessed votes was

The updated total unprocessed 2,423,607

And yes, I'm aware of at least one report of a poll worker giving inaccurate information about provisional. I have seen nothing that indicates whether this was an isolated event or something more widespread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #99)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:07 PM

117. It was widespread. It's even in the training manual

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 05:06 PM

67. This happens literally every election.

Especially in the more populated states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ace Rothstein (Reply #67)

Thu Jun 9, 2016, 10:34 PM

72. Rather than accepting the status quo...

Rather than accepting the status quo, it's time to change the broken system!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kadaholo (Reply #72)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 12:42 PM

94. What is broken?

They are counting all the votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 12:23 AM

76. Stop being a bunch of whiny

bitches and accept the fact that Hillary will be the nominee and she won it fair and square. I voted for Bernie but I damn sure don't want Trump to win.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oswaldactedalone (Reply #76)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 09:40 AM

88. Stop being a supporter of and apologist for election fraud

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 12:24 AM

77. Thanks for posting, Tfc!

Your posts are always thoughtful, well documented, and fascinating.

Sorry about the bullshit, but I expect you're used to it by now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RufusTFirefly (Reply #77)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 09:43 AM

89. Thank you, Rufus

Yes, I'm used to it but I have never in my life seen a thread of mine (or written by anyone) on a Democratic website so infested with apologists for election fraud -- people actually making excuses for the kind of behavior described in the OP. No doubt many of them are paid "Correct The Record" shills. Others are just plain in denial or feel that election fraud is ok if done on behalf of their candidate. It is depressing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 08:39 AM

86. Voters could change their registration to Democratic up until May 23

 

With the primary being so late in the process, there was ample opportunity for anyone wanting to participate in the California Democratic primary to register as a a Democrat (Bernie's website provided a link to do so).

If someone wanted to participate in the Democratic primary but did not want to register as a Democrat, they could register as No Party Preference and still participate in the Democratic primary. All they had to do (as noted in the OP) is ask for a Democratic crossover ballot.

These two very simple options are laid out clearly and succinctly on Bernie's website - and have been since January.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Fri Jun 10, 2016, 05:22 PM

97. K & R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 01:53 AM

101. This would not change anything...

For pete's sake...give it up already. I am so sick of these kind of posts!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chillfactor (Reply #101)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 03:12 AM

104. They'll be over....

On June 16th correct?

A mere few days away

You know, there are still some Bernie supporters who continue to say that Hillary stole almost every primary state she won. Unfortunately, it will never be over. Tin foil for life I guess .

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 02:00 AM

102. No, the vote was called with 100.0% of precincts reporting.

It showed up on AP and LA Times trackers, along with numbers of voters and percentages. If the numbers change slightly as the mail-in and provisional ballots are tabulated, and there are tons of them, then the amended numbers will be published before they're certified. That's the way democracy works in a big state with lots of parties making lots of rules, mostly good, many new, like motor-voter which brought a lot of new NPPs into the mix.

And I don't think Palast reported a tenth of the bs that went down in 2004, and now here he is sniffing out non-existent corruption in Democratic California. Sorry, no sale.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ucrdem (Reply #102)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 09:15 AM

108. Some counties report a precinct as having "reported" the moment it reports its first vote

http://vote.sos.ca.gov/frequently-asked-questions/#website

On election night: Why do some contests show a high percentage of precincts reporting, yet the number of total votes continues to change?

Some counties will show an entire precinct as having reported even if only one ballot from that precinct has been counted. This is why the website specifically notes the data is from precincts "partially reporting." Once a county submits its final ballot-count report for election night a final election night update (“FENU”) will be noted in the Report Type column on the County Reporting Status page. Election results will change throughout the 30-day canvass period (28 days for presidential delegates and 30 days for all other contests) as vote-by-mail ballots, provisional ballots, and other ballots are tallied.

I'm not suggesting that the election was called prematurely, just explaining the "precincts reporting" measurement. When 100 percent of precincts have reported it doesn't mean that 100 percent of the votes in those precincts have been counted -- not even 100 percent of the election night votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 02:04 AM

103. By the numbers

Total Democratc Primaries Votes as of June 10, 2016
Hillary Clinton: 16,168,693 (55.6%)
Bernie Sanders: 12,413,430 (42.7%)

Clinton over Sanders by 3,755,263 votes.

Hillary Clinton: 2,202 pledged delegates
Bernie Sanders: 1,829 pledged delegates

Hillary Clinton: 539 Unpledged delegates
Bernie Sanders: 47 Unpledged delegates

Hillary Clinton: 2,741 total delegates
Bernie Sanders: 1,876 total delegates

Clinton: 33 primaries & caucuses won
Sanders: 23 primaries & caucuses won

Clinton has 358 more delegates than needed
Sanders still needs 507 delegates.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jamese777 (Reply #103)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:42 AM

111. I'm getting so tired of seeing those numbers

I will repeat again, the superdelegates don't vote until July. By that time it may be evident that Hillary has no chance in the GE. What will they do then?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Time for change (Original post)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 03:39 AM

105. There were states called for Bernie immediately after the polls closed

Last edited Sat Jun 11, 2016, 04:24 AM - Edit history (1)

as there were for Clinton. They didn't call the race for Clinton until the wee hours of the morning.

You all act like you've never seen an election before in your life. It's ridiculous. You've seen states called before 99-100 percent of ballots were counted.

Making everything into a conspiracy theory is disingenuous, particularly when there are countless states where they same thing was done, only in Bernie's favor, and you didn't complain. WA was called for Bernie immediately, as was Idaho. In Idaho there were mile long lines, and Bernie supporters justified it, insisted it didn't matter, while pretending the lines in Latino areas of Arizona would have meant a greater percentage of votes for Bernie, when the fact is those neighborhoods favored Clinton tremendously. The claimed the same thing for precincts in Brooklyn that were Clinton strongholds. We had people here furious that the elderly and disabled were able to participate by absentee provision in the Wyoming caucuses and complaints that the Clinton campaign informed voters of same day registration rules in Nevada. We had a number of threads insisting the votes of Southern states shouldn't count. The concerns about voting rights have been infinitely flexible, showing the only concern was for Bernie voters and people all to happy to see all of the primary elections overturned to install Bernie as nominee against the will of the majority of the electorate.
After seeing those ever shifting arguments, it is impossible to believe there is concern about anything but Bernie's career and the determination of his supporters to impose their wishes over the majority.

You know who tends to vote by mail, older people. And they favor Clinton. Those votes ARE being counted. California has a number of important races on the ballot. As much as Bernie supporters are convinced he is the one reason to vote, that isn't the case. It's not like the results in California were exactly close.

Then there is the fact that NONE of this affects the outcome of the election. The Politico article published earlier this week reported that many key Sanders campaign staff knew he wasn't going to win two months ago. He was behind 300 pledged delegates in a primary based on proportional representation. It was clear to anyone looking dispassionately at the situation. It was clear to me early on in 2008 that Clinton wasn't going to win, and she never trailed Obama by anything close to the number of delegates than Bernie trailed her in this primary.

Even if every single one of those 800,000 ballots were for Bernie--while obviously is not the case--it wouldn't change the nomination because he lost by very wide margin.

Give it up already. Deal with reality. Respect the fact that the majority of your fellow citizens voted for someone else. This helps nothing. It doesn't help any of you cope with reality, and it certainly doesn't speak well of the intellectual integrity of those engaging in these arguments.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #105)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 03:50 AM

107. Good post. The CA primary went down exactly as I expected

except that a) Hillary has a 12+ and not a 10 point lead, and b) the Clintons did more of the last-minute heavy lifting than I thought they'd need to. I was expecting Cali's top Dems to hit the hustings but after what Boxer went through in NV I guess they were less inclined to pitch in so Bill and Hill both came out here and campaigned their asses off. It was a thing of beauty and I'm glad I got to hear both of them and shake hands with Bill. But no one can say they didn't earn every vote they got here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #105)

Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:50 AM

112. The point is that CA poll workers were given instructions to make ALL NPP voters vote by provisional

ballot, if they were allowed to vote at all. Therefore, there are huge amounts of NPP votes on provisional ballots that have not yet been counted yet. I doubt very much whether the call on California considered this point, in part because it is so unusual.

I'm not a lawyer, but I have to believe that the instructions to poll workers to make NPP voters vote by provisional ballot was illegal. There is no statewide policy or law that requires that.

Why don't YOU deal with reality. Election fraud in our country is real, it is not a theory. Clearly, you don't give a damn, but I do. I don't believe for a second that the majority of voters voted for Hillary in these primaries. The exit polls alone suggest huge amounts of election fraud, which apparently you are unaware of. So don't tell me to deal with reality. YOU deal with reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread