I would have bet if the D leaders would cheat to throw the results to anyone, they would have given it to Biden. After all, lots of people dislike Sanders because he isn’t a “real” Democrat, and Biden is exactly the kind of old party hack they like because he isn’t too radical.
Except that that would have required too much cheating, and it would have been too obvious.
Did you ever read what I wrote?
They’re refusing to fix obvious math errors, and there’s about one chance in 600 that those errors are random. If you’re going to try to say they didn’t rig it, you need to address those directly, rather than speculating about their motivations.
If you go to a casino, and you see the house win a game the first try, despite ostensible 600 to 1 odds against it, and your reaction is not to assume that the game is rigged, I would like to cordially invite you to come play at my casino next time.
1 Like
I don’t know, 1 in 600 sounds like a lot but it’s probably not that much. If everything were perfectly even it would be 1 in 2. So it 1 in 600 is a little bit like 8 people making a decision to fudge something in Buttigieg’s direction. I know it’s not great, but it’s also something that can easily happen without an organized effort.
Now their decision not to fix it, I admit, feels like pure bullshit. But SDEs aren’t actual delegates from the state there are 1300 SDEs and only 30 delegates, so I don’t think the 4 SDE difference would change the fact that both Buttigieg and Sanders got 11 pledged delegates at the end of the day. That is, it would make no difference to the votes that win the nomination. It may be that they aren’t fixing it because it doesn’t matter. (And I’ll admit that maybe if it were the other way and the difference would allow Buttigieg to claim victory over Sanders maybe they’d be more inclined to fix it, but I still don’t think it’s much of a conspiracy against Sanders)
3 Likes
It’s one in 600. That’s like 9 people erroneously making a call in Buttigieg’s favor, and none making an erroneous call in Sanders’ favor. That is very very unlikely to happen by chance. Specifically, it’s about one chance in 600 for it to happen by chance.
It would change who was declared the winner, and the media narrative surrounding that. That’s why they went to the trouble to rig it, even if it didn’t change the convention delegates.
.
It’s between 8 and 9 since the first 1 in 2 is “free” (requires no tampering). I agreed that means it is likely at least in part the result of people intentionally acting badly in favour of their choice of candidate. Just not a well-organized state-wide conspiracy worth of people.
My understanding is that these were “errors” made out in the caucuses, not in the central counting. A person counting the results centrally could make just the right alterations to turn a slight Sanders win into a slight Buttigieg win. But individuals doing this out in the field with their own local results couldn’t possibly calibrate an alteration so finely. So to me this looks like Buttigieg being the favourite of people who were willing to fudge things in favour of their candidate by a bit, not a fix by the DNC.
If I’m wrong and these were adding errors made by a central office then I think it’s reasonable to guess that office had an official policy of, “If it’s close then we’ll make the minimum possible change to take Sanders out of first place.”
1 Like
No, but if they all just individually decided to work against Sanders l, and the state party refused to correct their mistakes, it could add up to changing the result. That is what I suspect, and that is still rigged.
For perspective, that p-value is 30 times better than what it takes to be published in social science journals, so if you’re not willing to consider that strong evidence, you should probably write off the entire social science corpus, too
That is what I suspect as well. This is good evidence of a systemic bias against Sanders. I don’t think this is good evidence of a conscious conspiracy against Sanders that looks likely to have any effect on the outcome. If this change was orchestrated then it was done so subtly that it makes me think they won’t fudge more than a fraction of a percentage (not that I’m saying that’s acceptable, I’m saying that it looks like - so far - they aren’t willing to really stick their necks out if Sanders wins convincingly, but obviously that might change if they get more desperate at things go on).
1 Like
If you look at the results, it did change the outcome.
The conscious conspiracy cane in when they explicitly refused to fix the mistakes, without denying that they are mistakes, for their final results.
4 Likes
I think that cut off early, but it sounds like their excuse is that the sheets are legal documents. Of course, in other situations where a legal document contains errors, it can be corrected on the document itself with repeat signatures by the responsible parties or by a new form that corrects the errors and is likewise signed off by the responsible parties, which can include the original, erroneous document as an attachment. Throwing up their hands and saying that there is nothing to do about it is pure BS.
3 Likes
like when the sign fell off the podium. comedic gold right there
4 Likes
How did I miss that the first time through? 
I was so focused on what he was saying that it didn’t even register. Like the misdirection theater where they have a guy in a gorilla suit walk across the stage and no one notices…
3 Likes
Aka, lying through their teeth about rigging the vote. Seriously, fuck those guys.
1 Like
That guy is a really bad liar. I’m surprised he made it to state party chair.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
