http://www.inquisitr.com/2944765/bernie-sanders-dropped-from-d-c-ballot-due-to-democratic-party-error/
This is ridiculous! The DNC and Hillary need to play fair. Let the voters speak, and stop stacking the deck against Bernie.
You’re late. The Clinton campaign says he should be on the ballot and the DC council is working to make it happen.
Could you go ahead and lay down the specific facts of which other election was stolen, though?
Hillary couldn’t take advantage of that situation without looking really bad.
Quite a trick to single out Sanders supporters as there’s nowhere to indicate who you’re voting for when you register.
Cite the voter was working for the Clinton campaign?
Or did the Sanders campaign screw up by not filing a challenge?
Clinton Campaign Chief: Put Sanders on Ballot
AP: Bernie Sanders to appear on DC ballot.
MfM: Next topic?
Here are the other elections that were stolen:
Massachussetts, where Bill Clinton’s illegal campaigning pushed the primary in his wife’s favor.
New Hampshire, where despite winning 60% to Hillary’s 40%, she ended up with more delegates.
Arizona, where polling places were drastically reduced. Rather conveniently for Hillary, the demographics of absentee voters were the same demographics that support her.
Oh, ferchrissakes. None of these were “stolen elections.” In MA, Bill’s campaigning was probably not illegal, and with mathematical certainty did not change the outcome of the election. In New Hampshire, everything proceeded according to the rules; the fact that superdelegates went Clinton’s way is how it’s set up and has nothing to do with a stolen election. And in Arizona, there were absolutely real problems, but the idea that the Democratic machine is nefariously controlling Arizona politics (have you MET Arizona?) is ludicrous.
Really, it amazes me the lengths people will go to justify their positions. Let me guess…
boffking=Bernhead?
http://www.oneworldofnations.com/2016/02/1602227.html
Hillary supporters also didn’t need to bother registering before voting in Nevada.
Boffking, very serious question. Imagine a perfectly neutral reader who supports neither Clinton nor Sanders. They follow your link to One World of Nations, ignore the bad computer-generated Crusader knight logo (is that from a game?) on the banner, go down to read the article about how the “Pro-everything awful and establishment blowhard Hillary Clinton” stole the election, because one caucus worker is on film allowing Clinton supporters to violate a rule.
Here’s the question: do you genuinely believe a neutral reader would be persuaded to your case by that cite?
I support Sanders, have done so very vocally on this board. Your posts in this thread won’t make me stop supporting Sanders, but that’s because I have my emotions in check. They make me WANT to go out and put a Clinton sticker on my car.
Do you have any idea how many more votes Clinton had than Sanders in MA? Quick, take a guess.
…
You probably think it was about 100, which would seem to be about the max a single person, EVEN A CLINTON, could push to change their vote, or to keep from voting, or, or, or.
It wasn’t 100. Care to guess again?
…
Try 17,000. Yes, Hillary Clinton won the state by enough people to fill a hockey arena, give or take. You want a close election? An election that could be stolen by a few underhanded techniques? An election that could be swayed by a former President shaking hands in or near a polling place? Something like Florida in 2000 (538 votes)? Something like Al Franken in MN in 2010 (382 votes)?
Well. This ain’t it.
The MA primary was not a particularly close election. It’s ludicrous to say that standing in the doorway of a few polling places could have had any impact on the outcome at all. Pay attention to the numbers. They’re your friend.
They’re not his friend now. They aren’t really anyone’s friend. But they’re the truth, and if you don’t pay attention to numbers, that won’t make you immune to their effects.
I’ve long counseled activists to learn to play chess. Realizing that your opponent also makes moves is key. Now I want to counsel them to watch sports, where when you lose, there’s very clear reasons for it.
So it would seem. Does anyone have a plausible cheating scenario? (Minorities are more likely to vote Hillary; is it the case that Hispanic-surname voters were not de-registered?)
I see at RCP that Sanders polls stronger than Hillary, and Cruz stronger than Trump. Hillary barely beats Cruz according to those polls, whereas Sanders trounces him. Let’s not screw up what may well be the most important election of a generation.
Right, and polls are the be-all, end-all expression of the will of the people. 400 people are always representative of the voting population at large.
Sampling is a well defined science, so it’s not especially smart to throw that out there. The problem with polls is that we don’t know who is really going to be voting, and that we don’t elect the president by popular vote.
It happens to be true. If it were a science, all you’d have to do is plug the numbers into your calculator and BAM! Instant nominee. Unfortunately, polls get their forecasts right just about as often as weathermen do.
In his defense rarely does he ever return to a thread he’s started so he probably doesn’t know.
Yes. That was part of the point. Sometimes you can’t even lead the horse to water. 
At least the OP didn’t include Iowa, where “obviously Sanders won in terms of the number of people who supported him, as otherwise why would the Clinton campaign strongarm the state party into not releasing those numbers, but only the ‘massaged’ ‘state delegate equivalents’ that make it look like she won.”
IMO, it’s getting more and more to the point where the Sanders followers are trying everything they can think of to get him nominated, including threatening to primary out any sitting Representatives in states where the Congressional primary is after the convention (e.g. Washington state) who refuse to vote for Sanders at the convention. Not that Clinton’s campaign didn’t try similar things in 2008, mind you, when it threatened to take the “Michigan compromise” to the convention floor.