At least people are trying to explain away the Bernie rallies. People sense something doesn't add up

[reformist2]

I understand the natural instinct is to provide a "reasonable" (and legal) reason for the huge mismatch between Bernie's stadium-sized crowds, and the official vote counts in so many important primaries. The alternative is too horrible to contemplate. But even if we all stated thinking our elections were rigged, would we do anything about it? Probably not, and that realization is even more horrible. Maybe that's why we don't want to open up that can of worms. It would ruin our happy 4th of July celebrations.

[bravenak]

1. This CT nonsense is getting ridiculous

He lost fair and square.

[Metric System]

2. President Ron Paul concurs.

[metroins]

22. This.

All we need to do is look at past elections.

We will always have a "Bernie" phenomenon. It's kinda like Neo in the Matrix.

Ron Paul did the same thing, Nader did the same thing.

[OilemFirchen]

28. As does President George Wallace.

Dog love a "populist".

[TwilightZone]

31. Yep.

[JoePhilly]

89. +1

[MadBadger]

3. Come the fuck on...

[BootinUp]

47. lol nt

[ucrdem]

4. Bernie did well. He got millions of votes.

By the end of the thing though his campaign was grossly exaggerating his attendance figures and the press was playing along. I witnessed it. Whether that was the case from the get-go I have no way of knowing but at least here in So Cal his crowds were in the hundreds not the thousands reported. So I don't see any disconnect at all. He also benefitted from motor-voter laws that register voters but don't give them much information. So they weren't all exactly dedicated Democrats. Lastly he didn't include any kind of party-building or GOTV message in his stump speech which I also heard with my own ears and saw numerous tidbits of online. How could he? He was basically running against the entire Democratic party. So those motor-voter registrees didn't come away from his rallies which more info than they had before they went. However, he does seem to have convinced a good number of them that Democrats are corrupt.

[JDPriestly]

101. I was in a California polling place on election day. There were an awful lot of provisional ballots

given out. The printed voter rolls were not up-to-date.

Bernie did better than the numbers suggest.

Every American citizen should be automatically registered to vote at the age of 18.

If we could have selective service registration, we can have voter registration that is once in a lifetime for the entire lifetime. And we can have that registration coordinated across state lines so that no one votes twice and everyone can vote where they currently reside. Our computer capacity should be able to handle that.

[ucrdem]

110. No surprise there, but that's why they're taking so long to tally.

All the changes that have been introduced in the last decade or so have had the explicit aim of increasing voter turnout and counting votes accurately. So the machines were decertified in every county for example, motor-voter laws were signed into action, the deadlines were pushed up, and so on. Well, the very small price to pay is that the certification lasts longer than it used to. That's the price of democracy and in my book it's a price well worth paying.

[CrowCityDem]

5. It's not 'explaining away'. It's pointing out the obvious to people who are invested in conspiracy.

[underthematrix]

6. Bernie won one of the Dakotas by 253 to 101

Did he hold a rally in the Dakota that he won? If so, was attendance in the thousands? And if so, why didn't they show up to caucus for him in the thousands?

I think primaries are different because they feel more like a GE vote. I think you can like Bernie's ideas and also be pragmatic too. Most people liked Bill Clinton and what he did for the economy. They also like the fact that HRC is better educated, more experienced and better connected than Bernie Sanders. I think his ideas will be incorporated in the DEM platform. Some I may disagree with but as an adult I realize I can get some of what I want, but NOT everything.

All I want is a DEM in the White House, a DEM as Speaker of the House and a DEM Senate Majority Leader.

[oberliner]

42. Those numbers do not represent the number of caucus goers.

The actual number of people who showed up was in the thousands.

[underthematrix]

48. Okay i just read up on it and I now understand what ND means by vote totals

I couldn't find any info on the number of peeps who attend caucus which is interesting in itself

[oberliner]

53. Yes, they represent "state convention delegates"

It's all very confusing. Personally, I think the idea of a caucus is not particularly democratic for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that raw vote totals are not reported.

[MFM008]

74. yes in WA

26 thousand in caucus, he won
HRC nearly a million in primary- she won

caucus needs to be done away with.

[DJ13]

7. "we don't want to open up that can of worms."

We have to, if for no other reason than it will not stop until those committing these acts believe they might get caught.

I know the Clinton supporters dont want to believe it has happened, but theres a very good chance Hillary could end up on the losing end in November, then how would they feel?

[underthematrix]

57. Hillary is not going to lose in November. People of color will not let

that happen. We get what's at stake here

[annavictorious]

8. In some cases, the crowd estimates by Sanders's handlers were out of proportion

with the numbers of actual attendees. In other cases, the crowds were there for the festival atmosphere and free concerts. Eight thousand white hipsters parachuting in and out of the Bronx doesn't translate into votes from the Bronx

Kids who show up for a free party are not necessarily registered voters who will show up to do their civic duty.
He got big rallies. She got voter turnout.

[floriduck]

11. She got absentee ballot votes. That always concerns me.

[TwilightZone]

32. You're concerned that she got absentee ballot votes?

Are you for real?

[MADem]

49. Don't let those old folks vote now!!

[Lil Missy]

92. Of course, absentee ballot votes are always for Bernie.

Basically, if Bernie loses, there must be some cheating going on. Hillary couldn't possibly get any votes.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

99. That's how most of the people vote in my area in Florida, and not just the elderly.

[floriduck]

108. I agree in Florida and a few others. I lived in Jacksonville previously.

[floriduck]

107. A very high percentage. And I AM for real.

[Lord Magus]

104. Why does that concern you?

Are you arguing that absentee voting shouldn't be allowed?

[floriduck]

109. No but it has a greater risk of potential problems. And Hillarys number were high for some reason.

It's an observation. Those out of the country or I'll and elderly, I have no issue with. But if you're just lazy, it shows a lack of commitment, in my opinion.

[brooklynite]

40. How many rallies had tables where people were encouraged to apply for an absentee ballot?

[brush]

55. Yep! Rallies are not the voting booth.

[oasis]

59. +1

[BobbyDrake]

85. He was aiming for a Bandwagon Effect and it didn't materialize for him.

But there's no denying that his rallies were more for the photo opportunity than anything else. It was about the narrative of "big crowds," which was supposed to make people think he had more support than he really did.

[Trajan]

9. What I believe

The DNC defrauded the public and members of it's own party.

They stole it like republicans ....

My opinion ...

[annavictorious]

12. The candidate with the most votes won.

You are not entitled to win. You have to earn it.

[msongs]

33. oh dear you forgot to post any proof of your asserting that a crime was committed nt

[brooklynite]

41. As with religion, you're free to believe what you want...convincing anyone else requires evidence

[geek tragedy]

44. Stuff happened that I do not like, ergo conspiracy. nt

[MADem]

50. DNC did not run rallies OR state elections. nt

[swhisper1]

58. it does smell, I give you that

[NorthCarolina]

86. I think your "belief" is pretty much the truth.

Our entire election system is rigged. Free and fair democracy in America is an illusion.

[GulfCoast66]

87. Except the states Bernie won

Right?

[NorthCarolina]

88. If you say so.

[99Forever]

90. I agree 100%.

The only response I have seen from the establishment apologists is, "Nuh uh. Who gonna believe? Your own lying eyes or our DWS?"

[Pastiche423]

112. Another in agreement. n/t

[onecaliberal]

10. It's fine so long as it benefits her, when it happens TO her in the GE they will be screaming

[ucrdem]

16. She's got the two best campaigners in the world in her tent: Barack and Bill.

November won't be a problem. And Bill, oh man Bill. Saw him in action last week. Nothing like it. Hope he holds out.

[annavictorious]

20. Alrighty then...

You are not entitled to win by virtue of being a very special snowflake supporting the the greatest man to ever walk the face of the earth. You are not so consequential that your vote counts more than anyone else's, no matter what your parents told you.

It's gone beyond the ridiculous. It's become a parody of the ridiculous.

[Lord Magus]

105. What's fine when it benefits her? There was no fraud in the primaries. NONE. -nt-

[DemonGoddess]

13. jesuschristonapogostick!!!

THERE WAS NO VOTER FRAUD or ELECTION THEFT!!!

Do you not think that the CT can stop now?

[PufPuf23]

14. It is odd that the Obama crowds in 2008 translated into votes but Sanders rallies in 2016 less so.

That said Sanders did not have the crowds nor enthusiasm of Obama in 2008.

[Adrahil]

52. What it tells is that crowd sizes are not predictive....

Pretty basic analysis.

[brush]

56. Rally crowd sizes have nothing to do with it. It's voting booth crowds that matter.

[PufPuf23]

61. Odd that two posters mis-read my post and felt the need to tell me I was wrong anyway.

I made a comparison between Obama in 2008 and Sanders in 2016 and said nothing about the general relationship between rally attendance and voter turn out (notr Sanders vs Clinton in 2016) rather I pointed out instances where rally attendance translated to votes (Obama 2008) and did not translate into votes (Sanders 2016). I suggested this was because there was more enthusiasm for Obama compared to Sanders.

Voting booths don't matter as much (California where mail ballots are common, I have no choice but mail ballot because of where I reside) or not at all (Oregon).

I went to McCarthy, Humphrey, and Wallace rallies in San Francisco 1968 as a supporter of McCarthy, age 15. I have not been to a political rally of any kind ever since but have not missed voting since 1972.

[brush]

64. Thinking that rally attendance in '08 translated to votes is just a guess.

No one can be sure of that.

Obama didn't rely on rallies as he also invested hugely in the essential campaign staple, the ground game (I was part of it in '08 and '12), which is what really got the votes out for him.

Sanders' campaign did the flashy, expensive rallies but didn't invest as much in the ground game. They should have put more money into door-to-door canvassing, phone banking and voter registration. Voter registration at the huge rallies is a no-brainer. Why was that not a priority?

[lancer78]

65. Don't waste your time

Sanders supporters are going through the 5 stages of grief. Good news is that there are more posts about what has happened, which is stage 4.

[Matt_R]

71. What stage is the FBI investigation, stage 6?

[lancer78]

73. Stage 100

As nothing will come of it. This is not watergate or anything.

[Matt_R]

94. Yep not watergate, that was a break in at a hotel...

This is subverting the government, running a shadow pay for play scheme through the Clinton Foundation. Much worse.

[PufPuf23]

66. Sanders got off to a slow start and then did much better than anyone,

including himself, had forecast.

Sanders just did not have the organization or funds (compared to Obama or Clinton), especially early, for a ground game and was playing catch up from start to end.

Odd that you feel the need for a negative spin ("flashy, expensive rallies&quot rather than note how remarkable and surprising the quest.

My understanding and what I read here was that voter registration did happen at the Sanders rallies.

Sanders brought out far more new and young voters than Clinton (as did Obama).

One of the other strange things like no other political campaign ever is that I have yet to see a single Clinton bumper sticker or yard sign in 2016, not a one. Granted I live in a rural part of a rural county and go to the populated small cities but once or twice a month; also the primary vote was 68% Sanders, 31% Clinton on last check - This is Humboldt county, CA.

[brush]

67. Sorry, but the rallies were expensive — arena rental fees, security, clean-up

Can help but think some of that money could have been invested in a ground game.

And maybe you don't know, Sanders raised and spent more money than Clinton.

[Matt_R]

72. Only if you don't count the SuperPac dollars...

Clinton spent more overall, but we will never know what the total SuperPac dollars spent, just that Clinton is broke now that the "primary is over."

[GoneFishin]

15. You know it doesn't add up. They cheated their asses off and they are already trying to rewrite

history. Thanks to the internet they won't succeed.

It's pretty simple. The huge crowds, millions of donors, and lop-sided skewed exit polls favoring Hillary all point to blatant cheating.

This story about how the larger your rally crowds are the fewer votes you get is a transparently cheesy attempt at damage control.

[creeksneakers2]

78. Reminder: Exit-Poll Conspiracy Theories Are Totally Baseless

http://www.thenation.com/article/reminder-exit-poll-conspiracy-theories-are-totally-baseless/

I think in Iowa Trump got far more people at his rally than he actually got in votes. One does not equate to the other.

[littlebit]

17. Back in 2008

my partner and I went to four different Hillary rallies in SC. We did not vote in the SC primary. We couldn't because we lived in NC. Large crowd do not equal huge voter turnout. Enough with this crap already.

[annavictorious]

26. Delusional denial of reality is not proof of anything other than questionable judgement

You lost the election. People chose Clinton over Sanders.

In a few days, your theories will be relegated to wing nut websites and conspiracy driven echo chambers. Internationalists who co-opted the Sanders campaign will find something new to exploit and the only people left will be the burnouts, the hipsters, and the damage-driven holdouts like Sarandon who brought us the Bush presidency and the Iraq war.

[Juicy_Bellows]

62. A lot of her supporters have turned a blind eye to demonstrable proof before.

Take your facts and evidence and stuff 'em! I'm with her!

That's about the general gist of it, no?

[creeksneakers2]

79. What proof?

[glowing]

19. When we accepted 2000, they knew they could do whatever they wanted.

They even got a voting bill passed placing unverifiable voting machines from private companies with political ties to the GOP (Bush specifically), and no way to verify the proprietary software. Hence, 2004 was vote flipped to Bush. Roce tried to do it to Obama in 2012, but Obama was on top of everything... His campaign knew about the election fraud. And they kept on top of it in 2008 and 2012... He just never talked about it.

Unfortunately, for Bernie, he and the rest of the country never realized how big of a campaign apparatus he should have gathered or the amount of legal experts and ground game in "suspect" states they would need... Plus this year, there was quite a lot of purging as well. I think if he thought he would make it to CA, he would have also fought harder in the south, he could have made FL more competitive, which would have given him more legitimacy... But FL isn't a cheap campaign state.

Hopefully, progressives are now excited as all hell to get a candidate in place, and build the machine needed to take on the "elite candidate" over the next 4 years. Bernie showed us it's possible and the kids only get older and start paying back those loans that supported him this time... The 45 and under will be 50 and under by then as well.

[Recursion]

21. Can you explain what "doesn't add up"?

A large Sanders rally is 50K people. A medium-sized primary turnout is 500K people.

What's so mysterious about 50,000 people not pushing the needle there?

[qdouble]

24. Rallies are political theater and social events.

Voting isn't a spectator sport.

[NanceGreggs]

25. No one is trying to "explain away" anything.

Bernie attracted crowds - crowds don't equal votes. You have to take into consideration that those "crowds" are comprised of individuals, some of whom can't vote, some of whom won't vote, some of whom come to listen to a candidate, but walk away unimpressed/unconvinced by what they've heard.

It's not unlike companies that give away free samples at festivals, fairs, etc. Everyone will take a free sample - but only a portion of those who do so will actually go out and buy the product after the fact.

The mistake BSers have made is assuming that every single person who attended a Bernie rally was there because they were already sold on what he was selling. As things turned out, many were not. And many who were couldn't be bothered to register/vote after the din of the crowd faded.

Not everyone who shows up for a free concert goes out and buys the album. It's really as simple as that.

[tandot]

27. Agree ... Bieber is the best musician ever

Look at the crowds attending his concerts

[justiceischeap]

29. Your reasoning is utterly ludicrous

and I'll pretty much leave it at that.

I will say I've been to one political rally since I've been of voting age, I didn't vote for Jerry Brown, went with Bill Clinton instead. I've also voted in every election since then.

So, you're making the assumption that every person that went to his rally walked away a supporter and the second assumption is that all rally attendees voted. Those are two very large and misguided assumptions.

It's like assuming that all votes tossed out or not counted belong to Sanders. Your view is so myopic you should be blinded by it.

[vdogg]

30. Relentless conspiracy theories.

That's all you folks have anymore. It's the Democrat version of Ancient Aliens. This is getting ridiculous.

[HassleCat]

34. Voting is routine and expected.

Going to a rally requires a special effort. Voting is easy. No real correlation there.

[brooklynite]

35. Nobody felt the need to "explain away" Howard Dean's rallies...

[Live and Learn]

36. I gave up on those long ago. nt

[Lil Missy]

37. He atrracted younger people who don't also vote and have time to go to rallies.

[jamese777]

38. Rally vs No Rally

Bernie primary and caucus voters also went to rallies and Hillary voters just voted.
Bernie's new on the national scene, Hillary has been on the national stage since 1992; been there, done that.
Primary and caucus voters are about a third of those who vote in a general election.
Another poster on another thread put it this way: Let's guestimate 20,000 Bernie rally attendees at each of 20 rallies in California equal 400,000 Bernie voters. Bernie got 1.7 million votes in California. Rally goers were a relatively small segment of the people who voted for Bernie.

[PAMod]

39. I'm a reliable voter - haven't missed a single election

since I turned 18 - and I wouldn't attend a large rally on a bet.

It would not surprise me to learn that most voters fall into the same category -

[libdem4life]

43. Me, too. And I'm from a large urban region...never went to a rally.

[sarae]

46. Same

I always vote (for the last 20 years) but I just attended my first rally the other day.

[MADem]

51. I am in the same mindset.

Never miss an election; won't attend a mega rally... Too crowded.

[Adrahil]

98. I'm there with you.

I can't think of anything I'd rather do less than attenda huge rally to hear a politician say the same thungs I've geard them say. Thousand times. But I vote in every. Single. Election.

[sarae]

45. I don't think there's a disconnect.

Sanders' rallies draw between 5,000-20,000 people (up to almost 28,000, from what I've read). Compare that number to the actual number of votes in the CA primary for Clinton (over 2 million) and Sanders (about 1.6 million). Rally attendance is a small percentage, especially when you consider the fact that most Clinton voters don't really go to rallies. Clinton supporters do vote, however, and apparently in larger numbers (and more reliably) than younger people.

Recently, I heard Howard Dean discussing how he used to have huge rallies, like Bernie. Over time, he said he noticed the same people at every rally; they just followed him around, rally to rally.

Huge rallies aren't necessarily an indicator of large voter turnout.

[ButterflyBlood]

93. See the problem is you're using math

It's a foreign concept to these die hards.

[RandySF]

54. .

[peace13]

60. Anyone who thinks US elections are not easily hackable is a fool.

Ohio showed you that and our SOS told you that many years ago. People stand up and speak out but they are mocked. Just like you do here.

[All in it together]

63. Yes elections are hacked, during the counting

And messed with in a multitude of ways: Voter purges, closing or moving voting places, Changing voter registrations, threats of prosecution to those trying to vote, machines that F with the vote,
and no paper trail and fewer exit polls to check on the vote that did get placed.

[Peace Patriot]

69. I haven't had a happy 4th of July since 2004...

...when I realized, after much study and argument here at DU, that these privately controlled 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines, that had been spread like a plague across our land, had been used to re-s/elect Bush-Cheney. The plague of 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines continued and they are now everywhere, in every state, with the southern states (where Hillary got her big advantage) doing NO AUDIT AT ALL (comparison of ballots to machine results) and the rest of the states doing a miserably inadequate audit.

Our system is easily--EASILY!--riggable and has been rigged. The only question in my mind now is who and why. It is not a matter of the peoples' votes any more. It's a matter of who controls the code in these machines and why they are s/electing one candidate over another.

As far as I'm concerned, the privatization of the very counting of our votes was the last nail in the coffin of our democracy, and until we nearly dead citizens somehow push that nail out, and restore vote counting to the PUBLIC VENUE, no other reform is possible. Our democracy has been buried alive and we don't have much time to unbury it before it dies.

[creeksneakers2]

80. Then how did Obama win?

[KansDem]

103. Then there's this classic...

Published on Nov 16, 2012
Thom Hartmann discusses an article that says the hacker group, Anonymous may have been involved in stopping GOP mastermind Karl Rove from stealing the election in Ohio this year.

2012* changed my mind about democracy as 2008 did for capitalism.

________
*Also 2000, 2004, and 2016.

[AzDar]

70. K & R

[AgingAmerican]

75. "Trying to explain away" = cognitive dissonance

When what a person believes contradicts what a person sees, he/she uses pretzel logic or mental gymnastics to reconcile the two.

[senz]

76. When it doesn't add up, people of integrity try to find out why.

[Trust Buster]

81. Sanders' rallies were held exclusively in and around college campuses. When someone tries to

tell you that it's not about the money, then trust your instincts, it was about the money.

[gollygee]

82. You seem to be trying to explain away people's votes

He has had a lot of excitement around his campaign, as outsiders often do, so people have been going to his rallies. I'm not surprised by that.

But going to a rally doesn't make your candidate win. Hillary supporters voting for her but not going to rallies doesn't mean she lost.

More people voted for her. It's a simple thing.

[Demsrule86]

83. Bernie had a terrible ground game

but your mistake is believing that people at all those rallies were able to vote and were Bernie voters...they weren't.

[BobbyDrake]

84. Bands fill stadiums all the time. Doesn't mean I'd make Justin Beiber the President. nt

[Lil Missy]

91. I'm sure it's some kind of conspiracy. n/t

[ButterflyBlood]

95. Find me a state where Bernie got less votes than rally attendence

If you do the math you'll see that even if 100% of the people at those rallies voted for him, that's still a tiny minority of his voters and rally sizes aren't scientific polls.

[RBInMaine]

96. Large stadium crowds had LITTLE to do with the MILLIONS of people who actually VOTED.

The stadium crowds were largely younger "rock fan" type activists who like to whoop it up at big rallies.

MILLIONS of people VOTE but don't necessary attend big rallies. There is simply very little correlation.

[ChiciB1]

97. I Agree Completely... I Could Go On And On...

but very few here will truly understand, UNTIL they have to face the consequences! We HAVE tried to sound the alarm!

[kadaholo]

100. Check Out Protecting Our Vote Video Here...

...trustvote.org. Fascinating historial and current analysis of our elections! WOW!!!

[HassleCat]

102. I have been to many rallies.

I was at a rally for Barry Commoner in 1980. It was his nomination convention actually. I think all 5,000 people who were there voted for him, so he got 6,000 votes. Same thing with Bernie. If he has a rally with 10,000 people, he gets 15,000 votes, all the people who went to the rally plus a few more. Clinton supporters, meanwhile, trudge to the polls and vote as they're told to vote. Why would they go to a rally? They feel they have no choice but to follow the same old same old, and they do their duty, but that's it.

[Lord Magus]

106. There's nothing TO explain away.

Rally sizes have no connection to voting. None at all.

[tallahasseedem]

111. John Kerry had huge rallies as well...

and we all know how that turned out.

[AtomicKitten]

113. There's a lawsuit in the works that explains it.