2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumJust some math: NY primary.
After reading some threads that contend that Bernie lost the NY primary because of voter suppression. I decided to do some investigating. So far there is an active investigation as to why 126,000 Democrats were removed from the rolls in Brooklyn.
The final results of the primary were:
Clinton - 1,054,083
Bernie - 763,469
If you assume that every single one of the 126,000 in Brooklyn were intending to vote for Bernie, the revised result would be:
Clinton - 1,054,083
Bernie - 889,469
Unfortunately, Bernie still loses. However, what if similar voter purges occurred in at least 2 of NYC's other 4 boroughs and just haven't been reported. Then the result would be:
Clinton - 1,054,083
Bernie - 1,141,469
And Bernie wins. I do realize that there is currently no evidence to suggest that there was a similar purge in any other borough but Brooklyn so this is just supposition on my part.
DrDan
(20,411 posts)Squinch
(50,860 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Well maybe...
Depends on the moons, the gravitational pull, the rotation, the speed of revolution.
You know "stuff".
It's easier to just say "It's always high tide".
Squinch
(50,860 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)SFnomad
(3,473 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Walk away
(9,494 posts)It has to be!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Second it is likely most of those 120,000 would voted Clinton. We know this because Brooklyn was solid for Clinton and a large majority of the problems happened in Clinton neighborhoods.
This was no accident.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)I've been interested in precinct level data.
You say that Brooklyn was solid for HRC, then qualify "Clinton neighborhoods". Which are the Clinton neighborhoods, which are Bernie's, and how did you determine that?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)that African Americans neighborhoods were hit the hardest. Hillary won African American neighborhoods by larhe margins here.
No I have no link.but I can tell you where I am from In Brooklyn Sanders won and we didn't have the problems they had in northern, central, and eastern Brooklyn. We didn't have as many affidavit ballots or complaints. I know this because on Election day I was campaigning and thd local dem clubx were monitoring affidavit ballits in the area.
This was done on purpose.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)If you get actual DATA, I'd be interested to see that.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)It takes 9 days till they can open the Absentees and Affidavits.
I will tell you that the courts need to step in and get those affidavits counted.
The BOE is claiming it was an error on their part. No one believes that.
This was done on purpose.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)It's hard to believe otherwise. Who did it, with aim to hurt whom, is still open in my book. But it does stink.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Zynx
(21,328 posts)Wilms
(26,795 posts)Thanks for this.
I'd love to see a map of the purge laid over this one!
Zynx
(21,328 posts)voters on net.
Wilms
(26,795 posts)But if the areas where the millennials are well represented took a big hit....
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)or even largely Sanders votes is so inherently flawed as to be absolutely laughable.
Poll aggregation had Clinton at about 15 points ahead. She won by 16 points. Despite some glitches it looks like things went about as expected.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)just making an assumption.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Never said it was fact.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Would you agree that it's an obviously false assumption?
I'm aware that you presented your post as a hypothetical "if A then B", without any reference to the truth or falsehood of A.
And, as far as that goes, it's a correct syllogism.
But, in general, when we present a syllogism, we're tacitly implying that we think that there is at least some chance that the major premise is correct. In this case, would you agree that that is not the case, and that while the syllogism is technically correct, A and B are both clearly false?
One of the 99
(2,280 posts)Deal with it.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)NY!!!!
Zynx
(21,328 posts)Very very very unlikely. In fact, I bet a fairly considerable amount of money that these voters leaned Hillary on average.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)with those votes is an absurdity. Just reiterating what you stated. I find this bet of story telling totally fascinating.
Dem2
(8,166 posts)That's pretty funny
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)motivation for either campaign to play with the election rolls. It wouldn't have made any difference to the final results.
I have read elsewhere that part of the problem was someone not following established procedure in purging the rolls of people who have moved or died. IMHO, Incompetence beats conspiracy as the cause.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)The problems extended far beyond Brooklyn and NYC, though officials are trying to pretend it is just Brooklyn that needs to be investigated.
So corrupt. Something smells in NY.
George II
(67,782 posts)...crossed off the names of all the people who they perceived as Sanders voters.
Reminder, the previous "purge", which was sensible and lawful, was of about 60,000 voters so this year the purge was only 60,000 over similar and customary "purges".
All of this speculation on the part of people is generally done without looking into exact reasons why voters are "purged" - i.e., people no longer living at their registered addresses, people no longer living, period, people who hadn't voted in a long time - New York isn't the only state where inactive voters are removed from the voting lists, and other very valid and logical reasons.
Tarc
(10,472 posts)"and them I'm going to pretend that what happened there happened everywhere, on the same scale".