its another racist article. has nothing to do with race and everything to do with a lot less minorities living outside the reach of the democrat political machine of influence.

also a lot more minorities being christians.

lazy journalism strikes again.

6/12/2016 11:02:01 AM

Good thing you're here to let us know the real reason is minorities are too enthralled with Jesus and the Democratic machine to see that Bernie knows best.

6/12/2016 1:13:12 PM

if it was just minorities, bernie would be winning

[Edited on June 12, 2016 at 2:33 PM. Reason : nice spin though. youd make an excellent clinton jounralist]

6/12/2016 2:32:32 PM

Quote :

"Obama is the only person I can think of where the blacks and the liberal left supported the same guy."

Black voters have been much less in favor of some progressive issues, including abortion and gay marriage. It's why the high black voter turnout in California in 2008 both went hugely for Obama and for Prop 8.

6/12/2016 3:42:47 PM

And Latinos are very Catholic...

6/12/2016 9:47:30 PM

http://www.wkyt.com/content/news/Grand-jury-indicts-Pike-County-man-on-election-fraud-382978021.html

Quote :

"FRANKFORT, Ky. (WKYT) - A Pike County man has been indicted on multiple charges of election fraud in connection with the recent statewide primary. Attorney General Andy Beshear announced Tuesday that a Franklin County grand jury has charged Keith Justice, 50, of Pikeville with four counts of intimidating an election officer and one count of interfering with an election involving a precinct in Pike County on May 17, 2016. The investigation began after a complaint was filed by the Pike County Clerk's office. “The Attorney General is responsible for investigating and prosecuting election law violations,” Beshear said. “We take seriously our duty to ensure honest and fair elections for all Kentuckians.” Justice is facing up to five years in prison for each felony charge."

This is the county where 4000 Bernie votes disappeared at once.

[Edited on June 14, 2016 at 3:01 PM. Reason : .]

6/14/2016 2:58:15 PM

I haven't seen any real media coverage and if this has been mentioned before I apologize, but it looks like the Bernie challenge in CA is flipping some counties.

6/14/2016 4:24:26 PM

So I guess the DNC's servers are just as secure as Hillary's

6/14/2016 8:08:19 PM

I mean, I saw something on twitter the other day from what looked like a bit of a sanders wing nutty site claiming that there were MILLIONS of uncounted ballots in CA.

It does seem, well frankly unbelievable that 6-7 million fewer votes were cast in this primary than in the 2008 democratic primary.

[Edited on June 14, 2016 at 8:21 PM. Reason : typo]

6/14/2016 8:21:05 PM

its not nutty, its true and not fraudulent or anything, they just haven't been reviewed and counted yet

if a ton of them get thrown out, then maybe its fraudulent

6/14/2016 8:26:02 PM

there are something like 2.5M ballots left to count in california. ~1/3 of those are expected to be republican primary votes. so bernie would need around 3 out of every 4 votes to swing cali his way at this point.

and a few hundred thousand will probably be thrown out, but that's pretty standard in california's mail-in voting.

clinton will win DC tonight and get more pledged delegates out of the district than Bernie did from any win outside of VT. that puts her winning 8 of the last 11, getting endorsements from warren and obama, and just today she polled +12 to trump in the bloomberg. she's ahead in kansas and even in utah in their latest polls.

[Edited on June 14, 2016 at 9:21 PM. Reason : .]

6/14/2016 9:20:43 PM

Widespread Fraud is ok as long as it looks like it wouldnt have changed the outcome

6/14/2016 10:07:28 PM

you've become a caricature of yourself

6/14/2016 10:12:42 PM

nothing new

6/14/2016 10:57:45 PM

6/16/2016 10:32:40 PM

aka the non-battleground states

6/16/2016 10:34:12 PM

Jesus. Let it go. Clinton beat Bernie by around 14%+ in Ohio, NC, VA, and Pennsylvania. 30+% in Florida. 40% in Georgia. Those were all primary states, not caucus states too.

Bernie had a good run, but the way the democrats run their primaries (ie- no winner take all states), this was effectively over on Super Tuesday. It happens, every 4 years.

[Edited on June 16, 2016 at 11:21 PM. Reason : .]

6/16/2016 11:19:35 PM

it was effectively over before people started voting when the superdelegates gave clinton an insurmountable lead.

i let it go long ago. im not even a democrat lol.

[Edited on June 16, 2016 at 11:22 PM. Reason : k]

6/16/2016 11:21:44 PM

Virginia
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Wisconsin
Florida
Georgia
North Carolina
Nevada
Arizona
New Mexico
Iowa

All not battleground states

lol @ you

6/16/2016 11:38:24 PM

but why are you posting graphics of meaningless popular vote margin after its long over?

6/17/2016 12:32:59 AM

I'm sorry, are you trying to change the subject from how wrong you are about battleground states?

I posted it to show how dominating a victory it was for clinton in light of Bernie's address last night.

don't ever let anyone tell you it was close.

6/17/2016 11:12:15 AM

where will goalielox go to be butthurt after TWW dies?

6/17/2016 11:38:37 AM

taking a victory lap with Clinton?

BTW, I think goalielox is the weakest variant of my name to date. GoalieExlax and goldielax are both far superior. yours just sounds like delicious nova scotian salmon and makes me want a bagel

also lol @ butthurt coming from the guy who spent a month trying to get at me with r/thedonald. you had a good run on TWW, but this election exposed the shit out of you

anyway

maybe the south wasn't because black folks don't know how to vote for what's good for them. maybe it's just because bernie's supposed mobilization of young voters didn't happen on a the scale necessary to have an impact



[Edited on June 17, 2016 at 12:19 PM. Reason : .]

6/17/2016 12:09:43 PM

you're right. theres a lot of reasons too. one being that people who liked bernie were afraid to vote for him because of trump.

6/17/2016 12:26:35 PM

lolwut

6/17/2016 12:36:34 PM

Haha, I thought your name was goalielox. When I've made fun of it I said goldielox.

Lax bro explains literally everything though

6/17/2016 12:37:26 PM

It sounds stupid because it is

6/17/2016 1:38:18 PM

I can't tell you how special it is that all the two of you have left are ad hominem attacks. after all the indignation you showed over my perceived Moral turpitude back in the spring has melted away and your true selves are on display for all

well, i mean we always knew earl was a shitposter

but you, dtownral - it's so fucking beautiful

also, laxbro didn't exist the last time I played, back in the early 90's on a high school club team in NC. but good job, good effort. one of these days, you might actually stumble upon something that lands. I doubt it, but don't give up hope!

[Edited on June 20, 2016 at 3:19 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2016 3:14:59 PM

calls out ad hominem

proceeds to use yet another ad hominem

6/20/2016 3:19:07 PM

lol - i bet you also think people who aren't respectful of the opinions of bigots are bigots themselves

6/20/2016 3:19:44 PM

they are when they label people as bigots on an ad hominem basis. its the kinda thing that strengthens the type of arguments used by people like jce. he feels like the left labels anyone who disagrees with sjws as a racist. i've refrained from calling him a racist or stupid and use extra caution just to avoid validating that type of assertion but so few people on this site actually debate substance if there is a principle or fundamental disagreement. you're fine debating nuance but you really freak out if someones opinion flips your world upside down.

[Edited on June 20, 2016 at 3:25 PM. Reason : k]

6/20/2016 3:23:08 PM

uh, lax bro wasn't an insult, it's saying that learning that you play lacrosse explains literally everything that anyone needs to know about you, you fit the type perfectly

why are you embarassed about playing lacrosse? a lot of other people wore puka shell necklaces too, it's not your fault

6/20/2016 3:39:45 PM

as flaccid a pair of responses as I could have predicted

6/20/2016 3:47:40 PM

sweet photo:

6/20/2016 3:56:43 PM

lol why are you so angry

6/20/2016 10:48:55 PM

I'm pretty relaxed, you can clearly see that in my photo

6/20/2016 10:50:13 PM

if you really wanna lax bro out, you gotta add in the extra x's. so you'd be relaxxxed. the more you know....

6/21/2016 4:45:19 PM

upon further review of the laxbro bible (aka my advance copy of next year's Vineyard Vines catalog), I believe the proper term would be "chillaxxed"

6/21/2016 11:01:13 PM

^^ tool

^ same

6/24/2016 5:54:20 PM

settle down e-dog

6/25/2016 9:37:45 PM

OKAY!

6/25/2016 9:56:56 PM

I'm taking a look back at how the primary votes in 2016 reflected on the general election that year. Hillary ran up the score in states which were never going to vote for any Democrat over any Republican.



Here are the states ranked by highest % of the primary vote won by Hillary:
1) Mississippi (87%)
2) Alabama (78%)
3) South Carolina (73%)
4) Georgia (71%)
5) Louisiana (71%)
6) Tennessee (66%)
7) Arkansas (66%)
8) Texas (65%)
9) Florida (64%)
10) Virginia (64%)
11) New Jersey (63%)

That's how far down the list you have to get to find a state above the Mason-Dixon line. 8 of those states had all voted by March 8, and Florida was soon after on March 15). By that point, Bernie had been labeled as "unelectable" based on how conservative states put Hillary so far ahead. And then the top 9 states to support her in the primary did not support her in the general.

1/3/2019 3:58:37 PM

Quote :

"And then the top 9 states to support her in the primary did not support her in the general."

The primary electorate is not the same as the general electorate.

Should the primary votes of Mississippi Democrats not count as much as the primary votes of Vermont Democrats?

1/3/2019 4:29:38 PM

timing and locations are things the media should take into account before deciding a winner and counting superdelegates

it's both short-sighted and disingenuous to place as much weight on an early primary in a non-competitive state as a late primary in a competitive or swing state

1/3/2019 4:34:58 PM

So, votes in non-competitive states shouldn't count as much.

Got it.

1/3/2019 4:39:34 PM

when a party is trying to decide who to pick to run in a general election - yes

1/3/2019 4:41:47 PM

Henceforth, votes in non-competitive states shall be counted as 3/5 of one vote from a competitive or swing state.

1/3/2019 4:45:34 PM

Quote :

"Should the primary votes of Mississippi Democrats not count as much as the primary votes of Vermont Democrats?"

Quote :

"So, votes in non-competitive states shouldn't count as much"

So let's compare Mississippi to a competitive state like Michigan, which was super close in both the primary and the general (and neither time in Hillary's favor):

In 2016 democratic primary:
Mississippi had 41 delegates representing 227,164 voters = 1 delegate per 5,540 voters
Michigan had 147 delegates representing 1,205,552 voters = 1 delegate per 8,201 voters

Why should a Mississippi voter get that much more voting power than a Michigan voter?

[Edited on January 3, 2019 at 5:08 PM. Reason : -]

1/3/2019 5:06:06 PM

DNC delegate allocations are based on a state's electoral votes and contribution to the Democratic popular vote. Each consideration is weighed equally.

The first reflects a state's influence on the Electoral College. The Electoral College has its problems (i.e., the House has too few Representatives), but it's certainly a reasonable starting point when allocating delegates since winning the Electoral College is how you win elections. This factor favors smaller states (like Mississippi).

The second factor is based on the state's percentage of the Democratic popular vote. This factor distributes delegates fairly evenly based on population, with variations depending on the state party's get out the vote operations. This factor favors larger states (like Michigan) and those with effective an effective state party (not Mississippi).

There are additional delegates based on when primaries are held, and the superdelegates (which again favors large states and those with effective state parties).

It may not be perfect, but it's certainly an earnest attempt to balance the interests of the minority voter (Democratic voters from low population states) against the majority (Democratic voters from high population states). In the case of Michigan vs. Mississippi, Michigan Democrats have larger influence in the nominating process than in the Electoral College (though less than if delegates were a straight popular vote). Mississippi is in the opposite situation--voters have more influence in the Electoral College and less at the convention (though more than if delegates were a straight popular vote). Michigan still has the overall numbers.

I'd love to hear it if you've got a better plan. Grouping primaries would certainly be nice (and ballot allocation rewards that) and increasing the number of Representatives would be fantastic (lots of positive downstream effects). But I don't think telling Mississippi Democrats to fuck off because they happen to live in a red state is the right answer.

1/4/2019 1:17:33 AM

set em up -------------->

2/5/2019 10:45:40 PM