Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
They are not intentionally lying Algernon Moncrieff Jun 2016 #1
Yeah well a news bomb stomped on turnout in California so that changed the situaton Cheese Sandwich Jun 2016 #24
And yet Clinton wins primaries that have much higher turnouts than caucuses mythology Jun 2016 #30
And yet polling clearly showed that high turnout in California would benefit Sanders Cheese Sandwich Jun 2016 #34
Bernie had a slight lead if those who SAID THEY WOULD NOT VOTE were included in the poll. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #47
They also needed a cover story to explain why Bernie's 10% expected win turned into a 12% reported GoneFishin Jun 2016 #70
GoneFishing, a couple of political scientists Hortensis Jun 2016 #72
Yes, that's how they do it. Helga Scow Stern Jun 2016 #113
the question is why did Bernie's enthusiastic supporters let him down onenote Jun 2016 #35
The question is who coordinated the movement of 20+ superdelegates on the night before the Cheese Sandwich Jun 2016 #37
Again. Imagine the scenario in which there were a dozen or more SDs ready to jump on Sanders' side onenote Jun 2016 #39
Surveying has been for the past year. Cheese Sandwich Jun 2016 #40
You didn't answer my question. onenote Jun 2016 #43
You're raising a good point Cheese Sandwich Jun 2016 #46
You know what happened before Monday that convinced more supers to announce for Hillary? Lord Magus Jun 2016 #48
So, why did the Bernie fans in CA not vote?? riversedge Jun 2016 #57
Maybe they thought the election was over since that message was blaring from every MSM news? Cheese Sandwich Jun 2016 #65
haha. riversedge Jun 2016 #80
Well, Sanders preyed upon their gullibility. If you are right, that gullibility cost him California Hoyt Jun 2016 #103
How does it change the polls? Corporate666 Jun 2016 #73
How about "it rains on both sides"? Algernon Moncrieff Jun 2016 #75
Has there been a study? Corporate666 Jun 2016 #79
ENSURED AS DESCRIBED BY GREG PALAST ANALYSIS! CorporatistNation Jun 2016 #94
this is just for California Bill USA Jun 2016 #56
Thanks!! Algernon Moncrieff Jun 2016 #93
People are on polls overload. polls now about November aren't worth the time to look at. tonyt53 Jun 2016 #2
News flash from the Associated Press: vote suppression works virtualobserver Jun 2016 #3
oh - so you think Romney didn't lose? MariaThinks Jun 2016 #5
The AP didn't call an election in 2012 virtualobserver Jun 2016 #10
It stinks to lose, doesn't it? KingFlorez Jun 2016 #8
No, vote suppression stinks. virtualobserver Jun 2016 #11
Calling this vote suppresion is insulting to the victims of real vote suppression. onenote Jun 2016 #41
there are many forms of vote suppression... virtualobserver Jun 2016 #55
It really is. onenote Jun 2016 #64
you are just making excuses for this kind of manipulation virtualobserver Jun 2016 #66
No you are making excuses for people who get a sad and decide they don't want to vote onenote Jun 2016 #78
Well this is a very well known effect, among experts nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #81
Reporter gets reliable tip day before NY primary that Clinton is going to be indicted onenote Jun 2016 #83
Reporter has to run up the flag to editor and make sure nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #84
two more examples onenote Jun 2016 #88
Not report and the AP is getting it from ethics folks. nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #89
Personally, I think the idea of the press taking direction from a political party onenote Jun 2016 #90
I find advocacy unethical nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #92
Of course they're not. Which is why Clinton is the presumptive nominee onenote Jun 2016 #95
Which is why the party told press NOT TO COUNT THEM nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #96
Yes you are a journalist. But your views on journalism are not the only views onenote Jun 2016 #97
Of course, nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #100
I'm quite familiar with FAIR. And while I like some of what they do onenote Jun 2016 #105
And by doing that likely affected the election nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #106
Yes, the reporting of facts can impact an election onenote Jun 2016 #114
The AP did not report in this case nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #117
it wasn't "bad news".....they were told that the Presidential race was over virtualobserver Jun 2016 #91
Jesus nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #74
Thank you ... I'm tired of saying it. 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2016 #63
It won't stink to LOSE the Hillary conspiracies at DU. Sometimes losing oasis Jun 2016 #13
It's the press 'horse race' mentality... Blanks Jun 2016 #4
There weren't any polls showing Bernie 10% ahead. TwilightZone Jun 2016 #6
exactly. Most recent polls had a two point spread. It was the survey USA and one other one I don't still_one Jun 2016 #27
I would be real careful about bragging about a CA win, entire blocks were not on rosters, larkrake Jun 2016 #7
Sounds... MrWendel Jun 2016 #9
amazing isn't it. Regardless of the margin of victory, regardless of the 2008 support levels, MariaThinks Jun 2016 #15
Yep. The great conspirators allowed Sanders to win in MN and WI just to throw folks off the scent onenote Jun 2016 #44
Cruel were the "powers that be" to allow Bernie's Michigan win. oasis Jun 2016 #99
no, we already know the truth, some people just invent elaborate conspiracy theories geek tragedy Jun 2016 #14
Hell of a suppression technique that keeps 80% of the registered Dems from voting fleabiscuit Jun 2016 #23
And not a shred of evidence to support any of those assertions. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #50
i don't remember any polls with him ahead. at best he was a couple points behind JI7 Jun 2016 #12
Hmm conicidence nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #16
Your county registrar was just guessing. And s/he wasn't that far off. n/t pnwmom Jun 2016 #18
10 points is way off nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #21
"Barely 50" and 55 is pretty close. Good guess. pnwmom Jun 2016 #22
60 percent, 55-60, that is what Michael Vu spoke about nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #26
Post removed Post removed Jun 2016 #31
But voter suppression is easy d_legendary1 Jun 2016 #38
They do not wnat to admit it nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #42
If people choose not to vote it shouldn't be called vote suppression onenote Jun 2016 #49
This is a well known tecnnique nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #58
Because it clearly was not voter suppression. -nt- Lord Magus Jun 2016 #52
Experts in the field do not agree with you. nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #59
So the media should avoid reporting facts because they might impact an election? Lord Magus Jun 2016 #61
Actually there have been proposals on this nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #68
Sorry pal, we've got the 1st Amendment here. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #69
Not if you can prove harm nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #71
But there were all kinds of other races on the ballot LisaM Jun 2016 #32
This is an effect that has been known for decades nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #36
It throws it off a bit TheFarseer Jun 2016 #17
They told that to all the Hillary people, too. pnwmom Jun 2016 #19
They told them TheFarseer Jun 2016 #82
Bernie's campaign spent too much money on large rallies (which are very expensive) pnwmom Jun 2016 #85
You're not wrong TheFarseer Jun 2016 #86
Polling organizations live and die by the accuracy of their polling predictions. kstewart33 Jun 2016 #20
They also probably did not account for the provisional ballots that were foisted on unwary voters. JDPriestly Jun 2016 #29
What smells bad is the >30% reduced voter turnout due to the corporate media. The election results JudyM Jun 2016 #25
Comparing any primary to 2008 is bogus onenote Jun 2016 #45
Seems it was reported that there were more new registrations in CA for this election... JudyM Jun 2016 #51
Correct. And the calculations I gave you took that into account onenote Jun 2016 #62
That is not the final tally. The provisional votes (and based on my experience, there were lots of JDPriestly Jun 2016 #28
This serves as a perfect example of why these potential presidential matchup polls that some Trust Buster Jun 2016 #33
Clinton is far more likely to get hit with a "November surprise" than Sanders is. (nt) w4rma Jun 2016 #60
Sure she is because she's the nominee and Sanders isn't. ???????? Trust Buster Jun 2016 #104
No. Because there are a million FBI investigations surrounding her private server. w4rma Jun 2016 #115
that's a big margin! those predicting bernie by 10 were off 22%age points! Bill USA Jun 2016 #53
There weren't any polls putting Bernie that far ahead. The best he's done was 1 pt. Zynx Jun 2016 #54
Pretty handy that there were none of those pesky exit polls which prove that Bernie should GoneFishin Jun 2016 #67
exit polls cost money and Hillary was a shoe in to win the nomination regardless of who won qdouble Jun 2016 #108
It should have been a 20 point win. HassleCat Jun 2016 #76
Stolen. AzDar Jun 2016 #77
Stolen from Bernie bhikkhu Jun 2016 #87
What did the "Citizens' Exit Poll" determine? brooklynite Jun 2016 #98
500,000 votes still uncounted in CA.. grasswire Jun 2016 #101
If you need to believe that AP's announcement did nothing, then sure, pollsters lied. merrily Jun 2016 #102
It doesn't matter. Even if for some miracle Bernie won by a few percentage points, Hillary would qdouble Jun 2016 #109
Irrelevant to my post and also untrue. merrily Jun 2016 #110
The AP announced it because your candidate lost. News organizations have been counting qdouble Jun 2016 #111
False and still irrelevant to my post. merrily Jun 2016 #112
"the polls that showed Romney would beat us" ? Are you sure about that? JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #107
Romney 49%, Obama 48% in Gallup's Final Election Survey MariaThinks Jun 2016 #119
I just read that there are still approximately 3 million votes not counted. ThinkCritically Jun 2016 #116
and if they all are for Bernie, he wins California! MariaThinks Jun 2016 #120
Those polls showing Bernie ahead were not of likely voters. applegrove Jun 2016 #118
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»12.8%. That's the margin ...»Reply #94