- MBTI
- INTJ
Sanders who gave Clinton as pass on her email handling early on is now singing a different tune.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...hard-look-at-ig-report-on-clinton-emails.html
Huh..just huh....
Huh..just huh....
Bernie Sanders Calls Meeting at His Home in Vermont Sunday to Discuss Campaign’s Future
http://commondreams.org/news/2016/0...-home-vermont-sunday-discuss-campaigns-future
It is too early to dismiss Bernie Sanders in my view. He has got four options:
(1) Cancel his campaign and retire from politics.
(2) Cancel his campaign and start a new movement that aims to remove corruption and money from politics. This movement would be part of the Dems or independent.
(3) Go nuclear at the Democratic National Convention (DNC)
(4) Run an independent campaign.
He will go for 3 or 4, I think. Option 3 allows him to expose all the corruption of the Dems in front of TV cameras. Option 4 would make it a three-candidate race. This is the most interesting scenario because there has never been a presidential election of three fairly equally popular candidates before.
Go Bernie, feel the Bern
The post-introduction portion of the paper began with a comparison of outcomes in "primary states with paper trails and without paper trails," holding that potentially inaccurate results led the researchers to "restrict [our] analysis to a proxy: the percentage of delegates won by Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders." After identifying via the Ballotpedia web site 18 states that use a form of paper verification for votes compared to 13 states without such a "paper trail," they concluded that states without "paper trails" demonstrated a higher rate of support for Hillary Clinton:
The information included in the Appendix didn't explicate exactly what those alternative explanations might be:Analysis: The [data] show a statistically significant difference between the groups. States without paper trails yielded higher support for Secretary Clinton than states with paper trails. As such, the potential for election fraud in voting procedures is strongly related to enhanced electoral outcomes for Secretary Clinton. In the Appendix, we show that this relationship holds even above and beyond alternative explanations, including the prevailing political ideology and the changes in support over time.
The expert whose numbers were utilized for the paper wasn't expressly cited by name, but his moniker appeared on the linked spreadsheet: Richard Charnin. Charnin indeed lists some impressive statistical credentials on his personal blog, but he also appears to expend much of his focus on conspiracy theories related to the JFK assassination (which raises the question of whether his math skills outstrip his ability to apply skeptical reasoning to data).
Although Geijsel cited a number of sources to substantiate the claim that fraud was well-documented in the 2016 primary season, most of those citations involved persons with an interest in the overall dispute (such as groups party to lawsuits). That factor doesn't necessarily cast doubt on the researchers' findings, but it highlights that not much independent and neutral verification of their conclusions has occurred yet.
Looks like the Clinton camp did its best to suppress Sanders. Huh.