It is worth discussing voting machine irregularity, in all states and getting the accurate counts even if she didn't win. For the sake of democracy surely knowing how much she won the popular vote by should be important to note for historical reference.

same reaction as if it were Trump:

I think it's a desperate whiny move, but there's no harm in checking it out. NOT wanting to check it out has very little justification

But even I take this story with a grain of salt. I think Trump did win fairly and he is our President. That being said, any situation involving voter fraud, voter irregularity we should get every vote correct, as voting is the highest form of liberty. if you cant have faith in the computer you voted on being accurate then the system needs to be safeguarded and better defensed.

"voting is the highest form of liberty"

well ... choosing your own destiny/path/... is, but yeah, for a political system, you are correct, or at least very near the correct solution.

But even when I'm being nick-picky about that statement, I think that has been well said, brain.

though 7% underperformance in specific counties isn't considerable considering some 48% swings in other counties. they used a single variable: electronic machines to see a 7% difference.

given county shifts, this by NO MEANS is credible on its own, as i'm sure you could find correlations such as the number of McDonalds in those counties and other random ass variables. The electronics aren't hooked up to wifi or bluebooth, REMEMBER? maybe a secondary transmitter or a bug placed within the device could put out another signal, but you'd still have to predict: voting trends, which counties are in play/ and those were ALL up for grabs. also you'd need physical manipulation of each device, which is a heel of a lot more convoluted than you'd imagine

it'd be such a living HEEL to enact this plan, even Achilles wouldn't touch it

Yea thats why I have always trusted paper ballots only. I just dont like the machines, theres always calibration issues, people in some states were saying they would hit trump and it would register as Hillary too. This is really a problem. Nobody should ever have to have their vote counted as for a candidate who they didnt actually select. Who the fuck would even WANT to win an election that way.

*Trump slowly raises hand*

I really dont think thats true. Mostly because Trump cares a TON about what people think about him. He always has. I think it bothers him bigtime that the popular vote didn't go his way also. So if this story is true, it would be far more likely to be fraud at a state or international level than it would be Trump's doing.

Machines are a lot cheaper though. Counters are, at least in Oklahoma, paid less than minimum wage to work a whole day from the early morning before precincts open til late night when the last ballot is counted a few hours after precincts close.

"any situation involving voter fraud, voter irregularity we should get every vote correct, as voting is the highest form of liberty. if you cant have faith in the computer you voted on being accurate then the system needs to be safeguarded and better defensed."

HOLY SHITBALLS BRAIN, you're not allowed to say that. Hillary won the primary, fair and square. There were no problems!!!!

Oh, you're talking about the general election?

yea, well bo, super delegates arent quite the same. I would be fine with reforming that system as its kinda stupid anyway

Lol, salty ass bernie bro

We broke a voting machine in one of my classes for fun. I haven't read the article yet cause I'm lazy, and odds are it amounts to nothing, but it's certainly not outside of the realm of possibility.

Shut up, bo.

Hey DO, I voted for the same woman you did, but there's no denying that "voter irregularity" and people struggling to "have faith in the computer you voted on being accurate" occurred in the primary.

Brain, superdelegates are stupid but they have little to do with what I'm concerned about. Anyone that runs for the party's primary knows that superdelegates have the ultimate power. Somehow associating the existence of superdelegates with fraud is pretty juvenile.

DO can't vote...

Oh, and Bernie woulda smoked on Drumpf in the general election, by the way. Just a cocky reminder for all you establishmentarians.

Oh, hey, you're right. Well, I voted for Hillary. I did my part. Too bad my part was in Indiana.

and the mental illness just goes on and on....

Hillary was running on moderate versions of Bernie. you really think the country would have gone radical LEFT of even now? the exit polling shows people hated Obamacare, they felt angry, they wanted change.

be honest with yourself and try to present an unbiased argument for why you think Bernie would have presented them with the Change they seek.

I'm Canadian, for now.

I dont think the vast majority of blue collar working class voters swivel on a hinge from socialized medicine and high taxes to pussy groping tax cutter.

If the nation is really that bi-polar in its logic, well, then uhhh maybe there is something to the whole chemtrails, weather mind control stuff

I absolutely think the country would have gone radical LEFT. In fact, one of your favorite go-to poll sites agrees:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html

My favorite screenshot:

https://puu.sh/srzs5/1fe05ca505.png

Bernie won rust belt states. Notice Michigan and Wisconsin?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016

Yes, brain, I do think that the country would have gone radical LEFT of even now.

Seriously, there's only a few single digit polls in there. Maybe you should be the one putting together an unbiased case that Bernie *wouldn't* have blown Drumpf out of the fucking water.

Polls, always so accurate and reliable.

I think you'd be surprised how many people hate paying tax.

I didn't say that Trump wouldn't have gotten any votes, Leon. It would have been closer. It certainly wouldn't have been double digits.

DO, if your argument is to entirely dismiss polls when they're well outside of their margin of error, then try a stats class.

@bo

bitch please, those were ancient

That kind of lead in countless bipartisan polls doesn't just dissipate. If he were up by +1, +2, +3, whatever down there, then yeah, those were ancient, but literally +15 and +20? That's a pretty stupidly safe poll to trust.