2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum1.69% voted less than 2%...in PR
Less than 2% were able to vote, they closed voting places that they knew the voters were more in favor of Bernie. To give HRC and unfair advantage, just like they have been doing here in the US as well.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1623712037947729&set=p.1623712037947729&type=3&theater
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)Time to give it up.
Cal33
(7,018 posts)Election Time, the Republicans will be doing to the Clinton people what the Clinton people are now
doing to the Sanders people? My guess is that you be will fight back, an eye for an eye, a tooth
for a tooth -- but there are more Republican states than Democratic ones. Still, fighting back will be helpful.
MariaThinks
(2,495 posts)Bernie's people asked for fewer polling stations due to a lack of volunteers. Given his poor results, this is plausible.
Anecdotally, Bernie is a protest candidate - never a democrat before he ran. Hillary had an approval rating 60+ before the gop admittedly made stuff up to bring her ratings down. I think Bernie has done better than he was expected to, so the chances of fraud in his favor are greater than fraud helping Hillary.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)I've come to the conclusion they did not complain because they wanted to employee the same methods at some point down the road.
But you know what? Republicans are the masters of election fraud and when they fuck over Hillary and Donald takes office, I bet you a dozen donuts that the wailing and gnashing of teeth that will occur here will be enough to drive a pack of dogs insane.
Response to tonyt53 (Reply #1)
Cal33 This message was self-deleted by its author.
firebrand80
(2,760 posts)and I was ready to be totally convinced by a Facebook graphic
brooklynite
(94,950 posts)Compelling evidence indeed...maybe the CLINTON CAMPAIGN took it down!
scscholar
(2,902 posts)then people will be afraid to vote. It's all part of the plan.
onenote
(42,829 posts)bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)Beacool
(30,254 posts)If there had been 3,000 voting locations, Hillary would have still won big. PR is Clinton country.
MinnesotaRob
(53 posts)No point in opening any polls if she was going to win big either way.
Beacool
(30,254 posts)My point is that regardless of how many voting locations were available, Hillary would have handily won PR.
MinnesotaRob
(53 posts)and I don't even know that I disagree with you, but without fair elections to verify what we think or believe we only have a faith-based election system where we can only believe the results, we cannot ever know the results.
RandySF
(59,695 posts)bkkyosemite
(5,792 posts)longer show the totals on the Green Papers page down at the bottom.
ContinentalOp
(5,356 posts)You shouldn't include children, etc. in that number, only eligible voters or registered voters. It's not surprising that turnout is low, considering that their votes don't actually count in the GE.
edit: never mind, you're right. it's quite low. Looks like the number of registered voters is something like 2.8 million, and the turnout in the 2008 primaries was in the hundreds of thousands.
tritsofme
(17,435 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)While a complete lack of thought can often present itself as being creative, creative it is not.
Tarc
(10,478 posts)Response to bkkyosemite (Original post)
Post removed
Dem2
(8,168 posts)OK, I'm calling it - y'all are not on the same team.
Ace Rothstein
(3,199 posts)Renew Deal
(81,897 posts)Dem2
(8,168 posts)Stop it! I'm trying to get some work done!
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Fresh_Start
(11,330 posts)that includes both Sanders and Clinton voters
since Clinton is winning in every voting district...its difficult to see how the result would be different
we don't know if the spread would increase or decrease since we don't know exactly where voters gave up attempting to vote