• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What is the problem with this image?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Virge_ said:
Whatever makes you feel better about your self narrative, Fenix.

Ass kicked by a damn near tie suggests you're pretty delusional, so carry on living in that fantasy world of yours.
Click to expand...

A damn near tie? You are simply projecting now, there is only one person in this thread who is living in a fantasy world.
 
Why wouldn't such an announcement also discourage Hilary voters from going to the polls?


Also, are you aware that they voted in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands on Sunday?? Thus, the final delegate needed may have been won when they finished the count there. They didn't just ask the super delegates this weekend - these were ones who said to the AP that they weren't changing their vote. Thus, she hit the number needed on Sunday - the day you allege the image was created.

Or, maybe that image was made months ago. Maybe it's not a conspiracy, but rather, "hey, use this photo when you've counted to the number she needs to clinch the nomination."

You're not one of those guys who, when watching the Superbowl and sees the winning team with "Denver, Superbowl Champions" t-shirts on 30 seconds after the game, declares, "the NFL is a conspiracy! They didn't have time to print all those t-shirts and hats!"
 
Virge_ said:
Why is the image hosted on the Clinton Foundation website if it's "the media"?

How can you fail to make the connection on this?
Click to expand...
In fairness to AP, they might also just be lazy. Or incompetent. Or afraid that the control freak-in-charge would sue them (or have the IRS gang-audit them) if they simply copied that graphic. Or perhaps the Clinton campaign prefers to give them a hotlink (which can be changed at Her Royal Whim) rather than a graphic. Also, hosting the image gives the Hillary campaign the ability to harvest data from all the users who read that story, which can probably be used to target advertising. As far as the timing, that's when it happened, over the weekend. Delaying the announcement could just as easily be seen as favoring Sanders.

Also in fairness to AP, Clinton's apparent victory is no less sure than is Trump's, given that the Democrat establishment is squarely and enthusiastically behind her campaign while the GOP establishment is (at least on paper) still promising to derail Trump's. I don't believe that the GOP establishment is quite so self-destructive as to anger its base by screwing over Trump, but I believe that possibility is greater than the possibility of the Democrat superdelegates abandoning Hillary. The superdelegates are selected based on Party membership and loyalty (the occasional Sanders notwithstanding) and they are never abandoning Clinton short of the catastrophic meltdown that would make her totally unelectable, even in her eyes. And even there, given the Hildabeast is already quite likely the most investigated woman in the nation AND already has low approval rates AND has a very sympathetic media, such a bombshell is vastly more likely to happen with Trump than with Mrs. Clinton. Given all that, prematurely announcing Clinton's victory seems a much safer bet than prematurely announcing Trump's.
 
Last edited:
Who ever said politics was fair, or clean?
This is how they win. Which side out skunks the other side.
Hillary is not the first if there was indeed a stinker pulled here.
And I'm sure Bernie has pulled his share of stinkers as well. Certainly his supporters have pulled some big time dirty tricks on behalf of their leader, candidate Sanders.
If Bernie were the innocent lamb in a pack or wolves, he wouldn't stand a chance up against Donald Trump.
And if Donald Trump laid into Bernie Sanders as Trump does all his other victims, Bernie would be toast if Bernie thought he would win by taking the high road.
If Bernie can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
And besides, Hillary is a woman, she knows her way around a hot kitchen. 😉
 
Bernie got crushed in CA and NJ. Hillary is the undisputed winner.

What's the verdict here then? AP's use of mathematics handed her a 13pt win & 400,000 extra votes? The margin was nearly 2:1 in NJ.
 
Painman said:
Jeebus Feckin'...

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results

As of 9 fucking 55 AM EST

CALIFORNIA

56.0% Clinton 43.1% Sanders with 94% reporting.

Bern-out. And I voted for the guy. I can admit defeat; so should you.

What you do going forward, is entirely up to you.
Click to expand...

Anti Establishment is the only option for even a chance at positive change. I'd be willing to bet good money the majority of Bernie supporters will either abstain or vote Trump, because they absolutely hate Crooked Hillary.

I will likely write in someone not on the ballot. I'm not disillusioned so I know my vote is irrelevant either way.
 
MongGrel said:
Your signature says it all.

The AP has been following this the whole Primary of course, you're just in denial at this point.

https://interactives.ap.org/2016/delegate-tracker/
Click to expand...

It is obvious you did not read anything at the link I provided.

Your attempts at baiting me and changing the subject will be ignored. We won't be having further discussion unless you're willing to actually respond - anything else is a waste of both of our time.
 
Virge_ said:
It is obvious you did not read anything at the link I provided.

Your attempts at baiting me and changing the subject will be ignored. We won't be having further discussion unless you're willing to actually respond - anything else is a waste of both of our time.
Click to expand...

I'm baiting you and changing the subject ?

Good one 😛
 
MongGrel said:
I'm baiting you and changing the subject ?

Good one 😛
Click to expand...

Your response had zero relevance to mine. It started with an insult and proceeded to talk about completely irrelevant AP data after I posted a link showing statistical analysis of the votes suggesting blatant election fraud.

I'm sorry, but if that isn't baiting me to reply to your insult and then changing the subject to a previous topic the entire thread has already moved away from then you're either an idiot or a troll. Either is a waste of time.
 
Virge_ said:
Your response had zero relevance to mine. It started with an insult and proceeded to talk about completely irrelevant AP data after I posted a link showing statistical analysis of the votes suggesting blatant election fraud.

I'm sorry, but if that isn't baiting me to reply to your insult and then changing the subject to a previous topic the entire thread has already moved away from then you're either an idiot or a troll. Either is a waste of time.
Click to expand...

I did not force you to put that in your signature 🙂

Posting the interactive AP poll site that has been tracking all of the primaries since they started seemed appropriate to the topic to me.
 
Last edited:
MongGrel said:
I did not force you to put that in your signature 🙂

Posting the interactive AP poll site that has been tracking all of the primaries since they started seemed appropriate to me.
Click to expand...

First sentence: Pathetic argument for your self narrative. Anyone can read my signature, and people far wiser than you realize what it means. Pointing it out only serves to instigate, saying it's otherwise is just a lie and anyone can see through it. Keep telling yourself whatever you need to, however - this will be my last word on this matter.

Second sentence: Does the data refute or corroborate the data in the post I linked? Oh, you don't know? Makes my point for me, I don't need to elaborate.
 
Virge_ said:
First sentence: Pathetic argument for your self narrative. Anyone can read my signature, and people far wiser than you realize what it means. Pointing it out only serves to instigate, saying it's otherwise is just a lie and anyone can see through it. Keep telling yourself whatever you need to, however - this will be my last word on this matter.

Second sentence: Does the data refute or corroborate the data in the post I linked? Oh, you don't know? Makes my point for me, I don't need to elaborate.
Click to expand...

You've insulted me many times so far, all I did was point out your signature, which you put there.

Self narrative not found.

Keep on raging guy.
 
Last edited:
When party unity is the overriding concern, you have to admit that there is something fundamentally wrong with the media declaring a presumptive nominee based on anonymous polling of superdelegate commitments.

If the AP made the determination on its own, shame on them for the manner in which they did it. If there was collusion with the Clinton campaign, then voter suppression was clearly the intent.
 
Virge_ said:
Allow me to offer you some educational light reading from as non-partisan of a report as I could find. It's simply a statistical impossibility that Hillary has not stolen the majority of her wins.
Click to expand...

Some light reading based off the work of a JFK conspiracy theorist? That's your source?

The whole website your 'light reading' is primarily sourced from is deeply insane, but on a more substantive note he appears to have made a basic error by assuming absentee ballots and early votes would be distributed similarly to Election Day votes despite strong evidence to the contrary. Those votes comprise a large total of the overall vote in a lot of states. In short, this appears to be garbage analysis.
 
Virge_ said:
Anti Establishment is the only option for even a chance at positive change. I'd be willing to bet good money the majority of Bernie supporters will either abstain or vote Trump, because they absolutely hate Crooked Hillary.

I will likely write in someone not on the ballot. I'm not disillusioned so I know my vote is irrelevant either way.
Click to expand...

Look at what state I live in.

My vote is but a cup full of piss in an ocean of Dem Machine piss, so my November vote will go towards strengthening a third party so long as the place seems safe from a Trump upset.

You never know, though. Look up Martha Coakley.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
When party unity is the overriding concern, you have to admit that there is something fundamentally wrong with the media declaring a presumptive nominee based on anonymous polling of superdelegate commitments.

If the AP made the determination on its own, shame on them for the manner in which they did it. If there was collusion with the Clinton campaign, then voter suppression was clearly the intent.
Click to expand...

Why was reporting it in that way wrong? Were they right or wrong? If they were right, then it was newsworthy no matter the day.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
When party unity is the overriding concern, you have to admit that there is something fundamentally wrong with the media declaring a presumptive nominee based on anonymous polling of superdelegate commitments.

If the AP made the determination on its own, shame on them for the manner in which they did it. If there was collusion with the Clinton campaign, then voter suppression was clearly the intent.
Click to expand...

Heh. The notion of collusion between the Clinton campaign & the AP is conspiracy theory of the Benghazi kind.

The only way that Bernie can win at this point is for the superdelegates to deny the will of the voters.

Is that now what his supporters want, or is it just what the concern trolls want?
 
I read some more about this and in some cases exit polls try to account for absentee and early voting by conducting a separate phone survey but in a number places they don't account for it at all. In addition, exit polls have a number of other issues that don't appear to have been accounted for here either.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ten-reasons-why-you-should-ignore-exit/

It doesn't appear that most have been taken into account by the various authors, which makes their analysis kind of worthless.
 
Virge_ said:
Allow me to offer you some educational light reading from as non-partisan of a report as I could find. It's simply a statistical impossibility that Hillary has not stolen the majority of her wins.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, the article is utter bullshit.

When I read this section, I completely realized it was BS.

In fact, in the recent democratic primaries we can observe a noticeable divergence in trends between the Clinton and Sanders votes when the precincts are larger; the larger the size, the higher the percentage of the votes that go in favor of Clinton.
Click to expand...
The article goes on to say it's most evident in MA, NY, MI, for example. And it uses that to call it fraud.

What's interesting is that in the densely populated states, those with larger cities, for instance, when the precincts are larger, the minority vote tends to be larger (more inner city voters that are minorities vs. rural/suburban voters that tend more towards non-minorities. Remember, when the article talks larger precincts, it's talking larger by population, not geographically.)

But I didn't see any correction or even talking about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top