All of those attendees at Sanders rallies probably

[MineralMan]

did vote in their primaries for him. It just wasn't enough. Most people never attend rallies or campaign functions, but they vote, too. Most Sanders rallies that turned out people in the low to mid four figures were in major population centers, and made up a small percentage of voters there. Enthusiasm is wonderful, but numbers are more important in elections.

We have the vote counts for most states. They tell the real story. Rally-goers DID vote for Sanders, but there simply weren't enough of them to outnumber other voters.

[CrowCityDem]

1. I kept saying; Justin Bieber draws big crowds too. It's never meant he's everyone's favorite.

[MineralMan]

5. Something like that, yes.

Sanders drew crowds, but so do bands and even ineffective rallies. In a large city, it's not too hard to get thousands of cheering people at a venue, even with huge ticket prices. Still, those crowds are a small fraction of the population. So it is with campaigns. Most people who vote never attend campaign events, but the do vote.

[roguevalley]

9. I disagree, Mineralman. There was massive fraud this time around. There are 2.5 million

uncounted votes in California alone.

[MineralMan]

16. Those CA votes will be counted.

The percentages probably won't change much, though. Fraud? I don't know. There are claims of it, but little real evidence. I doubt there is much fraud really, and not enough to change the results.

[Hortensis]

42. Yes, over 22 million in the LA-San Diego megalopolis

alone. Delays in completing the count are normal, and workably accurate estimates of the final outcomes also normal.

MM, it is genuinely good to hear that those who have been newly inspired by Sanders, the young people especially, did mostly vote. They stuck and turned out on election day, a hopeful sign for the future. Thanks for posting this.

Roguevalley, it might be helpful to remember that among Bernie's supporters are some people from the far left, and likely the far right too. Both the far left and the far right have a lot of people who are prone to seeing conspiracies where there are none. That includes far left writers. And certainly we have seen how conspiracy theories have sprung up to explain every single state Bernie did not take a majority of the vote in. Just something to consider when reading.

Although this article refers to a 2015 study, there are actually many other ones with the same sort of findings. The belief system at play in the 2016 primary, of course, is that the "system" is corrupt and thus has organized and united in a giant conspiracy to defeat their white-hatted enemy, Bernie Sanders.

Those were the findings of a recent study published in the journal Social Psychological & Personality Science. Researchers from the Netherlands’ VU University found that those who fall on the far right or far left of political ideology are more likely to “adhere to their belief system in a rigid fashion, leading them to perceive their political ideas as the simple and only solution to societal problems,” the team wrote, according to Pacific Standard.

People with these strong political mindsets also have strong tunnel vision, which makes it hard for them to make sense of worldwide events when they don’t align with their point of views. To wrap their heads around it, they craft or subscribe to elaborate conspiracies — no matter how far-fetched the conspiracy may seem, it makes a complex situation simple. These behaviors are then reinforced with conspiracy theorists’ tendencies to avoid news and other sources that refute their beliefs.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/conspiracy-theories-mostly-believed-people-far-left-right-political-spectrum-318502

[Dustlawyer]

17. Same here. Bernie's road was made a lot tougher by the media and the DNC.

Add to that all of the other problems and it was definetely all uphill. Yet it wasn't a blow out, Bernie was a serious candidate who who went from three present to winning over twenty states. It was never just about the race. Bernie jump started a movement that should continue to grow as more and more people hear about what is really going on in Washington.

Add to that the movement is working towards national campaign fundraising for a whole slate of House candidates for 2018 who shouldn't have to worry much about fundraising. We will work towards replacing enough of them to start making a difference. Every election is more transparently corrupt than the one before. We will work to change that!

[wallyworld2]

22. Here's some interesting information

6-10-16 Nicole Sandler Show – Election Integrity – Fact or Fraud with Fitrakis

There’s something fishy in California, where there are still somewhere in the neighborhood of 2.5 million outstanding votes not yet counted, and there were many millions more who complained that they were either purged from the voter roles, their ballots had no presidential choices or encountered other issues and were given provisional ballots, not knowing when or even if their votes will be counted.

Welcome to the voting system in “the greatest nation in the world™”!

On March 27, two election integrity activist attorneys from Ohio participated in an event with the Institute for American Democracy and Election Integrity.

Lori Grace, on behalf of the Institute for American Democracy and Election Integrity (www.trustvote.org), presented Bob Fitrakis, PhD, JD, and Cliff Arnebeck, JD, two election lawyers she has worked with since 2004. They talked about past challenges to election integrity in our presidential elections, the challenges we face in the current presidential election, and the opportunities we have as voters to create a more honest election.

Follow the link to watch the full presentation (runs approximately 2. 5 hours). If you need some enticement, check out this excerpt, explaining the lawsuit Fitrakis and Arnebeck are filing.

http://radioornot.com/blog/6-1...

http://trustvote.org/

2.5 Million Untallied Votes in CA, Mass Voter Purge in OH, and Other Stuff That Still Matters: 'BradCast' 6/10/2016
http://bradblog.com/?p=11719

[MFM008]

28. oh my

good point.

[AgingAmerican]

2. Another Hillary supporter cognitive dissonance OP

[MineralMan]

7. I see. Well, there are the numbers, aren't there?

There's no cognitive flaw in my math skills. No dissonance, either in my post. Sorry.

[AgingAmerican]

25. Cognitive dissonance is when your beliefs don't jibe with your observations

Thus mental gymnastics and pretzel logic are necessary to bridge the gap.

Have seen it a LOT from Hillary supporters trying to explain away Sanders massive crowds.

[Juicy_Bellows]

33. Yep!

[Atticus]

49. Bull. Shit. nt

[Thinkingabout]

3. The results are the results, she has the votes and the delegates, more than half of

The pledged delegate count of 2026 and she has more than half of the super delegates.

[pangaia]

13. She does? really?

Glad you pointed that out.
Now back to the ball game.

[MrMickeysMom]

40. Your math reflects something that hasn't been counted in TWO ways...

1) 2 million votes that recently (CA) weren't counted

2) July 25th vote


How many times must it be pointed out?

[athena]

4. Good point.

Sadly, it's unlikely that many people will understand it. Innumeracy is a huge problem in this country.

[MineralMan]

10. Well, I don't fault people for not doing calculations.

I'm a numbers guy. I calculate percentages all the time. In elections, they are all that matter really.

[athena]

43. They don't have to do calculations.

They just have to understand things like fractions, percentages, and most importantly, probability.

When you see people online make statements like, "If just 1% of Muslims are Terrorists, ..." (which I've seen multiple times on the NYT comments pages), you know that they have never studied either probability or statistics and don't understand that 1% is not always a small number.

I blame the education system.

[MineralMan]

44. The education system tries.

Not all students do, though. Sadly, that has always been true, for one reason or another.

We used to have Civics classes. Most of the students in mine paid virtually no attention in them. Same with math.

A few of us did, even though we didn't know, either, what use the knowledge would be to us in our lives. We learned the stuff, though, and discovered later why it had been taught.

I don't necessarily blame the education system. It tries to teach, but it's difficult to teach the unwilling to learn.

[athena]

45. I just think it should be better funded.

I didn't mean to come across as blaming teachers. I know that they work extremely hard at a thankless job that gets them little money and even less respect.

[MineralMan]

46. Sure, better funded, better led, and better implemented.

There are many problems to solve, I'm afraid. Motivating students to learn, though, is a problem that may have no solution.

[libdem4life]

6. Thank you for this acknowledgment.

[MineralMan]

8. Well, I assume those enthusiastic supporters voted.

It just makes sense that they would to me.

[libdem4life]

12. It does make sense, I agree. If one is willing to take a day off work to

stand in a line to get in a massive venue to look at a huge video screen, as many were, it would stand to reason they would have enough energy and momentum to dash down to the nearest polling station before or after work or on lunch.

[MineralMan]

15. I would, for sure. But I vote anyhow.

I used to go to political rallies. I no longer do, but I used to. I voted then, too.

[Bluenorthwest]

11. In Oregon he had maybe 40,000 total at rallies and got 320,000 votes in our closed primary.

Which he won by 12%.

[MineralMan]

14. Yes. He did win in some states. No question.

He won in the Minnesota caucuses, too. Nationally, though, he did not win. Hillary did. I imagine that Oregon and Minnesota will both go for Hillary in November, too.

[jamese777]

18. By the numbers

Hillary Clinton: 16,168,693 (55.6%)
Bernie Sanders: 12,413,430 (42.7%)

Clinton over Sanders by 3,756,263 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

[wallyworld2]

24. That should read

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

Super Delegates are appointed, unelected and have no loyalty other than to themselves.

And until they vote they aren't counted

That's why she's has to go to the convention to get the nomination.

No matter what the AP or M$NBC-linton says

[MFM008]

29. Here in WA

he won caucus. 230 thousand, voted he got 72%
Primary- SHE won by almost 75% out of 1.3 million
She also won both the delegates and super-delegates,
just because there is no formal vote until July
doesn't mean ONE of them will switch those positions.

[wallyworld2]

37. I just can't find

where she won the super delegates?

Did I miss their actual votes?

[lancer78]

32. She has to go

to the convention to get the nomination even if she had gotten 100% of the pledged delegates.

[MrMickeysMom]

41. That doesn't quite fit in to some people's math...

You know... the "numbers" people...

[wallyworld2]

47. it's the inevitability

and the smug condensations that just kills me

another savior establishment president,

that has more to do with projected qualities, than actual qualities.

Senator Sanders is the real deal and he would have worked hard for working people and all citizens no matter what

[cui bono]

19. Or they weren't enough to make up for the flipped voter registrations, or the purged voters,

or the lost votes due to the inability to vote because of closed polling places, or to overcome oddly consistent coin tosses, or to overcome arbitrary rule changes that favor the other candidate that were made in an undemocratic manner, or to overcome the suspected vote flipping that seems probably due to huge disparities in exit polling and results, or to overcome the feeling of uselessness in voting when a media outlet calls a primary race based on polling and secrecy.

And that's only half of it.

.

[Lord Magus]

23. Flipping the vote counts? Where do you come up with this nonsense?

And rally sizes are irrelevant. Many millions more people vote than show up at rallies.

[GoneFishin]

21. It's pretty amazing that so many continue the "what election fraud?" ruse in the face of such

blatant wide-spread and multifaceted cheating.

I would never, ever be involved in such dishonesty. But if somehow I were then I couldn't keep play acting after being caught red-handed like they have been.

It's pathetic and sad to watch.

[MattP]

26. the only thing pathetic and sad is not accepting your candidate lost by a huge margin

[cui bono]

27. Huge margin? What are you smoking?

And winning with all the above mentioned factors plus all the additional ones like burying the debates by scheduling them at times when viewership would be low, media blackout and everything else does not equal winning at all. It equals a rigged election that had the establishments thumb on the scale big time.

And you think you won? What did you win? You won a corporate candidate. You won one of the two most disliked and distrusted presidential candidates in history. Good job.

You think you won but the people lost. Big time. But don't worry, we will keep fighting on your behalf even though you are working against it.

.

[rjsquirrel]

31. Lol

U still so mad bro.

[cui bono]

48. You don't get it and you are incredibly immature in your post.

When you grow up maybe you'll see the big picture.

.

[B Calm]

34. +1

[Juicy_Bellows]

35. It really is.

No questioning or reflection allowed. Lock step, blind allegiance for team Blue.

[Sancho]

36. The fact that crowds do not equal votes is an old story...

Geraldine Ferrero used to draw large, enthusiastic crowds. So did Sarah Palin! Social scientists have written about the fact that "non-ignorable, non-respondents" make polls inaccurate and crowd size a poor predictor.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/1164602?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents (Eelworms, Bullet Holes, and Geraldine Ferraro: Some Problems with Statistical Adjustment and Some Solutions).

It has nothing to do with the latest "myth" of "election fraud". BTW, there have cases of miscounting votes for many years too, but that's a different issue. The truth is that young people don't vote at a very high proportion. That's another fact that hasn't changed much lately.




Even though elections in the US probably need a better system to assure voting integrity, the majority of abuse has likely been DRE hacking by the GOP, not undercounting votes in primaries.

[Orsino]

38. Rally attendance is not a substitute for voting.

It's an indicator of interest, not necessarily intent.

[Ash_F]

39. The television reaches into a lot of people's homes.

[ancianita]

50. You're probably right. Now they have to decide to find a way to engage politics for the long term.

It could be through their movement work, or they could wait and see about Clinton's tendencies as president and decide to work within two-party politics, or they could use some better funded, better media covered progressive candidate in a third party run.

They do have some idea of their numbers, and if they care about learning from this campaign -- about optics, media, tech, ground game, fundraising, PR -- they'll marshall the numbers because they do have them.