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

Time for change

(13,714 posts)
112. The point is that CA poll workers were given instructions to make ALL NPP voters vote by provisional
Sat Jun 11, 2016, 10:50 AM
Jun 2016

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.

Hillary won metroins Jun 2016 #1
Votes don't matter now. the establishment used their propaganda media to NorthCarolina Jun 2016 #91
Conspiracy Theory metroins Jun 2016 #92
Some contests are called right away MFM008 Jun 2016 #2
Yeah, they really kow their business Time for change Jun 2016 #5
Why some cannot see this is baffling. Duval Jun 2016 #11
Some of us live in the reality based world. annavictorious Jun 2016 #58
They didn't "ignore" the fact that SDs won't formally vote until July onenote Jun 2016 #12
They reported that she "clinched" the nomination Time for change Jun 2016 #25
All media outlets were using the word "clinch" well before the bogus announcement. senz Jun 2016 #43
I don't have sympathy for people who only read headlines. onenote Jun 2016 #63
Do you have any sympathy for people who write headlines that contradict the body of the article? Time for change Jun 2016 #115
Forget the superdelegates leftynyc Jun 2016 #17
No, it is NOT over Time for change Jun 2016 #27
Makes no difference to me leftynyc Jun 2016 #31
Really???? Beacool Jun 2016 #53
Yes and things could happen between election day and the first Monday after the second Wednesday i onenote Jun 2016 #64
It is over Demsrule86 Jun 2016 #85
Hope you find somewhere else to discuss it. MFM008 Jun 2016 #106
were they wrong? MFM008 Jun 2016 #34
No they did not. JonLeibowitz Jun 2016 #82
It's so fucking corrupt Ferd Berfel Jun 2016 #66
Clinton's 300,000 Vote Lead Might Have had Something to do with it Stallion Jun 2016 #3
But more likely they're justing counting on the provisional ballots not being counted Time for change Jun 2016 #4
Direct from Secretary of State: Clintons lead bhas Grown to Almost 450,000 Stallion Jun 2016 #6
Well THAT certainly puts leftynyc Jun 2016 #18
It was already almost 450,000 when the race was called Time for change Jun 2016 #20
You can keep track here: bhikkhu Jun 2016 #100
Thank you for the link Time for change Jun 2016 #110
Or more likely, the way the spread played out, Clinton would get just as many votes as Bernie justiceischeap Jun 2016 #7
Of course they "broke" for Clinton Time for change Jun 2016 #8
Yes, I've read the CA voter election laws and bylaws when this story "broke" justiceischeap Jun 2016 #16
Did you read the OP? Time for change Jun 2016 #21
Because I'm a democrat that is fine with Indies having to jump through some hoops justiceischeap Jun 2016 #32
Extraordinary measures? Like "hey, it might be a good idea to read the info packet we sent you"? TwilightZone Jun 2016 #33
No "extraordinary measures" involved in proceeding according to long-established election laws. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #48
Bernie Sanders has protested this "voter suppression", has he? brooklynite Jun 2016 #24
You don't know what's going on behind the scenes. senz Jun 2016 #42
I know what the end result is... brooklynite Jun 2016 #47
Bullshit. Provisional ballots are always counted. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #26
They are only counted if those responsible for the election decide to count them. Time for change Jun 2016 #46
Just wanted to clarify something. Provisional ballots are not always counted. politicaljunkie41910 Jun 2016 #60
True, what I meant is that contrary to some conspiracy theories they're never just thrown out. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #61
You're either hopelessly ignorant or you're just making this up Time for change Jun 2016 #75
In New York, the Board of Elections which was responsible for all the voter purging and changing Time for change Jun 2016 #74
The sandard for which provisional ballots to count in New York was very simple. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #93
This. The Republicans in CA want a Hillary win. scscholar Jun 2016 #59
Please listen to yourself GulfCoast66 Jun 2016 #109
Why would anyone think the provisionals aren't going to be counted? onenote Jun 2016 #79
They counted only about 20% of them in NY Time for change Jun 2016 #95
The story that 1 million provisionals have been discarded is not true. onenote Jun 2016 #96
So how many years do you think it will take for individual voters to challenge all those provisional Time for change Jun 2016 #114
counties have until july 8 to send in certified results. the state does not certify til AFTER that msongs Jun 2016 #9
What does this have to do with anything I wrote? Time for change Jun 2016 #22
Your the one suggesting the provisionals wouldn't be counted onenote Jun 2016 #80
When the certification takes place has little or nothing to do with whether the provisional ballots Time for change Jun 2016 #113
We don't have Election Days. We have Voter Suppression Days now. nt valerief Jun 2016 #10
Wait. It turns out that turnout wasn't suppressed and the votes are being counted onenote Jun 2016 #81
Are you serious? Time for change Jun 2016 #116
Establishment, DNC and media power & money depend on status quo to prop 'em up Triana Jun 2016 #13
Resistance can take many forms. senz Jun 2016 #40
They think by paying off the right people felix_numinous Jun 2016 #14
please post your list of all the paid off people, along with proof of course ;-) nt msongs Jun 2016 #19
Why? Ratings - they all want to be the first Retrograde Jun 2016 #15
If there are substantial doubts about the outcome of an election it shouldn't be called Time for change Jun 2016 #23
There aren't any substantial doubts about the outcome though. -nt- Lord Magus Jun 2016 #28
If Bernie doesn't care, why should you? brooklynite Jun 2016 #30
Comity is not lack of caring. Do not ever try to sow division among Bernie supporters. senz Jun 2016 #41
Show me where I'm wrong. How has Bernie expressed concern with the CA outcome? brooklynite Jun 2016 #45
"the fact that a very large number of them are likely " TwilightZone Jun 2016 #35
I accounted for more than a few incidents myself nadinbrzezinski Jun 2016 #29
Please tell us about them Time for change Jun 2016 #73
They had to because she was going to lose. senz Jun 2016 #36
That's a bunch of wishful thinking nonsense put forth by Bernie supporters. Lord Magus Jun 2016 #50
Oh boy, David Shuster, a guy whose anti-Clinton bias goes back decades onenote Jun 2016 #65
Googe the results of the CA Dem Presidential Primary BernieforPres2016 Jun 2016 #37
I actually thought of having Jimmy Carter to come in to observe it. senz Jun 2016 #38
Whereas the CA Secretary of State's Retrograde Jun 2016 #69
Uninformed voters apcalc Jun 2016 #39
WOW RogerM Jun 2016 #44
No, WE cannot move on Time for change Jun 2016 #70
It must be...duh duh da...A CONSPIRACY!! eastwestdem Jun 2016 #49
Oh, sweet Lord, when will this be over???? Beacool Jun 2016 #51
worst case, not for 8 1/2 years grasswire Jun 2016 #54
Nonsense. Beacool Jun 2016 #55
enjoy your ride, then. grasswire Jun 2016 #57
Me too. It's become boorish. grossproffit Jun 2016 #68
Lawd. sheshe2 Jun 2016 #78
Thanks....... Beacool Jun 2016 #83
;) sheshe2 Jun 2016 #84
and exit polling was discontinued grasswire Jun 2016 #52
It's always one conspiracy theory or another. YouDig Jun 2016 #56
The OP was basically facts, not theories. Time for change Jun 2016 #71
A lot of these analyses are overly simplistic. onenote Jun 2016 #62
I've seen enough of your posts that I wouldn't take your word for anything Time for change Jun 2016 #87
Here you go (I've also updated my post with links): onenote Jun 2016 #90
The link to the 5.286 million unprocessed ballots you refer to appears not to be working Time for change Jun 2016 #98
It is constantly being updated, but it should work onenote Jun 2016 #99
It was widespread. It's even in the training manual Time for change Jun 2016 #117
This happens literally every election. Ace Rothstein Jun 2016 #67
Rather than accepting the status quo... kadaholo Jun 2016 #72
What is broken? Ace Rothstein Jun 2016 #94
Stop being a bunch of whiny oswaldactedalone Jun 2016 #76
Stop being a supporter of and apologist for election fraud Time for change Jun 2016 #88
Thanks for posting, Tfc! RufusTFirefly Jun 2016 #77
Thank you, Rufus Time for change Jun 2016 #89
Voters could change their registration to Democratic up until May 23 oberliner Jun 2016 #86
K & R AzDar Jun 2016 #97
This would not change anything... chillfactor Jun 2016 #101
They'll be over.... LenaBaby61 Jun 2016 #104
No, the vote was called with 100.0% of precincts reporting. ucrdem Jun 2016 #102
Some counties report a precinct as having "reported" the moment it reports its first vote onenote Jun 2016 #108
By the numbers jamese777 Jun 2016 #103
I'm getting so tired of seeing those numbers Time for change Jun 2016 #111
There were states called for Bernie immediately after the polls closed BainsBane Jun 2016 #105
Good post. The CA primary went down exactly as I expected ucrdem Jun 2016 #107
The point is that CA poll workers were given instructions to make ALL NPP voters vote by provisional Time for change Jun 2016 #112
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»California Called for Cli...»Reply #112