Corrupt US

Written By: - Date published: 8:21 pm, March 10th, 2020 - 60 comments
Categories: campaigning, corruption, democracy under attack, elections, International, us politics - Tags: , , , , ,

In a few hours from now (if I’m getting my time zones right), Americans will hit the polling booths in another six primary states. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I reckon Bernie Sanders is fucked.

If you’re an outsider running for high office, then it’s possible to overcome a Party establishment. And sure, a Bernie Sanders could also overcome the concerted efforts of various corporate actors out to thwart him. He could also quite conceivably overcome wall to wall, 24/7 mainstream media coverage that’s largely only looking to hang negative memes from his campaign and/or compile a list of “gotcha!”s.

Bernie could maybe even get away with throwing in a bit of self sabotage – insist Biden, a man who epitomises the very thing he claims to represent an existential threat to, is his friend and a decent guy. He could throw surrogates under the bus if they point to Biden’s obvious corruption. And when asked whether Biden can defeat Trump, he could even be so stupid as to say “yes” and still win at the ballot box.

Or at least, he could if the votes being cast at the ballot box (for those citizens who can actually get to a ballot box) corresponded with election results (those that were actually counted). But they don’t.

When California was called for Bernie Sanders with barely 1% of the vote counted, I admit I was a bit puzzled as to how the likes of CNN could call it at such an early point in the process. Well, it turns out that CNN gets the results of exit polling conducted by Edison Research. Those polls gave Sanders a 15% winning margin in California. Yet according to TDMS research…

The unobservable computer counts cut his lead by half (to 7.3%). In the total delegate count to date, substituting the estimated California and Texas exit poll delegate apportionments for the apportionments derived from the computer counts, results in candidate Sanders currently leading candidate Biden by 42 delegates instead of trailing by 45. (my emphasis)

See. No-one can beat that kind of fuckery.

And the pattern, with discrepancies always advantageous to the favoured “establishment” candidate, repeats across Vermont (+26% for Biden), Massachusetts( +16% for Biden) South Carolina (+8.5% for Biden) and New Hampshire (+12% for Buttigeig)…

Interestingly, TDMS  had previously looked at the exit poll results in 2016 and stacked them against published results. Guess what? While almost all of the Republican Primary results from that year fell within established margins of error for such polling, the Democratic Primary results were all out of whack.

Anyway. Here’s what the The United States Agency of International Development (USAID), has to say about such exit polls –

Detecting fraud: Exit polls provide data that is generally indicative of how people voted. A discrepancy between the aggregated choices reported by voters and the official results may suggest, but not prove, that results have been tampered with.

So yeah. I guess people will argue what they will argue or dismiss based on their preferred candidate, while some will just casually reckon to “fuck election integrity”.

Meanwhile, CODEPINK and The Grayzone are calling on the Organisation of American States (OAS) to provide emergency international election observers. Laughable, right? I mean, what in God’s name would the self proclaimed “home of democracy” be needing with election observers?

Certainly, by November, no observers will be required when, in the words of Chris Hedges, the voters are to vote for – 

The consolidation of oligarchic power under Donald Trump or the consolidation of oligarchic power under Joe Biden.

60 comments on “Corrupt US ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. lprent 1
    10 March 2020 at 9:11 pm

    Welcome to the joys of advance voting.

    As I remember the news articles that I read in advance of Super Tuesday (digs around) but after South Carolina (digs some more), indicated that there was a high turnout in California in advance voting. Which is where much of the exit polling would have been looking at…

    Try this one… https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2020-03-02/klobuchar-buttigieg-california-primary

    The population of advance voters is not the same as those voting on the day. Early voters are usually the ones who are more committed and more likely to vote closely to their ideological beliefs than to news media.

    The on-the-day voters are also changing opinions due to events over the previous 3 weeks. In particular to events like a win elsewhere or to candidates dropping out.

    Indeed, all the research tends to indicate that on-the-day voters effectively are the now voters – the ones who are more likely to make a decision at the polling booth – which leads to name recognition voting. Like winning South Carolina or getting endorsements from people, that they recognise.

    Plus that there was a largish drop out from advance votes for candidates who dropped out (changes the percentages in a one-on-one comparison) and their on-the-day voters shifting to someone else – usually unequally.

    Not to mention that at least in California, there were some significiant changes in how the election was being run this time. Although even though the count probably won’t be finished until April 3rd (FFS), that doesn’t seem to have affected turnout. https://abc7news.com/5986202/

    Basically you should look at the numbers more closely rather than counting on eating carrots before they’re harvested – beetles are always ready to eat the vote carrots.

    • Bill 1.1
      10 March 2020 at 9:23 pm

      This is an answer about polling those early votes/postal votes in the thread below the South Carolina post from the TDMS site.

      From the President of Edison Research:
      Edison has two methods of reaching people who voted early or by mail. They conduct a regular telephone survey in the week or two leading up to the election to reach those who have already voted by mail, specifically geared toward states where bigger groups of the population vote by mail (like Arizona, Washington, Colorado and more).

      They also place interviewers at early voting locations in states where majorities vote before election day (like Tennessee, North Carolina and Texas)

      • lprent 1.1.1
        11 March 2020 at 6:52 am

        That is what I pointed out. The estimates for the 'exit voting' on advance voting only reflect how the advance voters voted. They don't bind

        If there was a 15% lead in advance voting up to 3 weeks before polling day, but if (say) only a third or a half had voted using that technique – then you can't assume (as you have) that the same proportions will apply for the other half or 2/3rds in the polling booth on election day. They usually don't.

        Events happen, opinion shifts, and the statistical group who pre-voted are unlikely to fully reflect the group who voted on the day.

        I used to see it all of the time when I was looking at the drawn out process of the postal votes in Auckland local body elections. Here the people who voted early weren't the ones that we wanted to see voting – they were far more likely to have voted for National in drag (Citizens and Ratepayers).

        • Nic the NZer 1.1.1.1
          11 March 2020 at 8:17 am

          Pretty amazing that these results could be used in early reporting. If they are exit polls of only the postal part of the ballot this should be stated clearly reported when cited.

          • Bill 1.1.1.1.1
            11 March 2020 at 10:38 am

            They aren't polls of postal votes. Postal votes appear to be factored in, but essentially the exit polls are polling of people as they leave the polling station.

        • bill 1.1.1.2
          11 March 2020 at 9:57 am

          The exit polling conducted by Edison is by way of polling voters who have just left the voting booth.

          As per my comment above, it seems they collect some data on postal data and presumably feed that into their stated and varied margins of error that apply to different candidates in each set of results they publish.

          But picking up on what you say about people shifting their preferences.

          Can we reasonably assume many early or postal votes would have gone to Warren in her home state of Massachusetts? In that instance, the exit polling would have underestimated her vote share if she had been dropping out of favour post- S. Carolina, yes?

          Yet, in Massachusetts, the reported count (the result) was a 14% drop (over double the margin of error) for Warren when compared to the exit polls.

          I'm no statistician, but the links I provided appear thorough and robust. I strongly suggest you peruse them

    • Cindy 1.2
      11 March 2020 at 7:37 am

      The latest vote to report in California will be skewed even more toward Bernie… why? Because it will include the provisional ballots that we manage to actually get counted (big effort to not count them) and the vote by mail ballots that were initially rejected by the signature verification machines and then later accepted when humans looked at them. There was a massive effort to hand out provisional ballots in Bernie strongholds… heavily Latinx communities and precincts where a lot of young people (college students, etc) vote. This is very intentional and form of voter suppression. On the initially rejected by the machines and later accepted by humans vote by mail ballots, in 2016, these went very heavily for Bernie… the machine accepted ones went heavily for Hillary Clinton… imagine that! The first ones were including in the sampling for the supposedly "random" 1% mandatory audit… the later ones were not… imagine that! I will also point out that the absentee votes in South Carolina and very very suspicious in their overwhelming dominance for Biden, much higher than the same day vote.

  2. A 2
    10 March 2020 at 10:03 pm

    Figured it would be Biden, but also thought he would pull out at a point further along due to "health reasons" at which point the pre-selected candidate will run. Guess we will see.

  3. adam 3
    10 March 2020 at 11:51 pm

    Nothing to see here – move on.

  4. Ad 4
    11 March 2020 at 7:29 am

    Hang in there Bill.

  5. Andre 5
    11 March 2020 at 8:22 am

    Let's ponder how many different people in how many different organisations would be needed to pull off what's being insinuated here.

    There would need to be employees within Edison Research and CNN 'adjusting' the results of exit polls in coordination with all the state Democratic Party organisations involved (and remember, the state organisations are independent from each other and the DNC). Then those involved in the "unobservable computer counts" would have to be involved – in somehow providing a mechanism to manipulate the results and then actually doing so.

    Out of all these (probably thousands) of people that would have to be coordinated in manipulating results and making it possible to manipulate results, not a single one is sufficiently dedicated to democratic principles and/or sympathetic to Bernie's ideas to preserve evidence and blow the whistle? Really?

    Or maybe, just maybe, what is observed is the entirely natural result of a previously very chaotic fluid situation with multiple moderate candidates splitting the vote, that was quickly resolved by the undecided moderate majority coalescing around Biden triggered by the South Carolina vote showing Biden was indeed a popular viable candidate.

    edit: Oh, and all of this sophisticated widespread conspiracy would have to be carried out in perfect secrecy with the DNC coordinating it all. Has the hilariously inept DNC ever displayed even a tiny fraction of the unity, competence and discipline that would be required to pull it off?

    • bill 5.1
      11 March 2020 at 10:03 am

      Let's ponder how many different people in how many different organisations would be needed to pull off what's being insinuated here.

      In the case of electronic voting, not many. Read the link I provided to The New York Book of Reviews on voting machines in the post. (under "unobservable computer counts" in the first block of quoted text)

      I can't see why there would be any fuckery at play with the exit polls. The whole point is that the final count does not correspond with the exit polls and their margins of error.

      • Andre 5.1.1
        11 March 2020 at 11:09 am

        CNN's exit polls:

        https://edition.cnn.com/election/2020/entrance-and-exit-polls/california/democratic

        Latest vote counts (not all complete):

        https://www.thegreenpapers.com/

        Looking at just a few of them, they look quite close.

        CA: Biden exit 24% vote 27% Bernie exit 36% vote 34%

        MA: Biden exit 34% vote 34% Bernie exit 28% vote 27%

        VA: Biden exit 54% vote 53% Bernie exit 23% vote 23%

        Note that the exit poll numbers for California are different to the ones claimed in your TDMS Research piece. This is apparently because

        [1] Exit poll (EP) downloaded from CNN’s website by TDMS on election night, March 3, 2020 at 11:00 PM ET. Candidates’ exit poll percentage/proportion derived from the gender category. Number of EP respondents: 2,350. As this first published exit poll was subsequently adjusted towards conformity with the final computerized vote count, the currently published exit poll differs from the exit poll used here and available through the link below.

        (quote from your TDMS Research footnote)

        I'll leave it to readers to form their own opinions as to whether it reflects a genuine difference between early and late exit poll respondents, CNN/ Edison Research fuckery, fuckery by dude publishing stuff in teh webz (look the guy up if you want to consider that possibility) or something else.

        It's entirely plausible there's a significant difference between early deciders, where those with their hearts set on Bernie would be overrepresented, and late deciders who hadn't decided which moderate to go for until the late coalescence around Biden would be overrepresented. Hence the steady increase in Biden's vote share as the late mailed ballots are ever so slowly counted.

        It's also entirely plausible there's a systematic difference between those that vote by mail, and are more difficult to capture in exit polling, and those that turn up to deal with the lines and hassle of polling booths and are easy to capture for exit polling.

        As for the voting machines, they are not universally used (rarely used is a fairer description), and there are several vendors. Are they all in on the same conspiracy?

        Looking at the states that voted on Super Tuesday, your piece says electronic machines are used in "California (again, for the most populous county)", "Texas (for at least Dallas and Travis counties)", "Colorado (for early voting)", " Arkansas (at least four counties)", "North Carolina (for the most populous county)". All of that adds up to just a tiny fraction of the votes cast on Super Tuesday.

        Furthermore, it would be astonishing if the vote distributions coming out of the voting machines weren't closely scrutinised for redflags in comparison to the huge majority of votes cast by other methods. Going off the 2016 experience, the election officials involved will be well aware of the likelihood of allegations of impropriety from disappointed BernieBro cultists.

        To be sure, the flaws in those machines means using them is a really crap idea. But leveraging those flaws that might affect a tiny portion of the votes cast into building a conspiracy of election-changing fraud? Really?

        • Bill 5.1.1.1
          11 March 2020 at 12:14 pm

          You're looking at the wrong figures Andre. The percentage differences that matter are the ones relating to a per candidate basis.

          Take Massachusetts. Warrens percentage drop was 14.7%. But the drop she records in relation to the overall vote is 3.7%.

          Yes, the exit poll numbers are adjusted by CNN to better fit vote counts as time passes. That's a known and doesn't invalidate the original exit poll results in any way whatsoever. You do understand that it's not the veracity of the exit polls that's in question, yes?

          On the early vote versus actual day vote scenario, I'll just repeat for you what I wrote in response to Lynn above –

          Can we reasonably assume many early or postal votes would have gone to Warren in her home state of Massachusetts? In that instance, the exit polling would have underestimated her vote share if she had been dropping out of favour post- S. Carolina, yes?

          Yet, in Massachusetts, the reported count (the result) was a 14% drop (over double the margin of error) for Warren when compared to the exit polls.

          • Andre 5.1.1.1.1
            11 March 2020 at 12:48 pm

            The CNN exit poll for Massachusetts gave Warren a 20.9% share, from 1443 respondents. This result has a margin of error of 2.1% (95% CI).

            Warren's actual vote share in Massachusetts was 21.4%, well within the exit poll's margin of error.

            • bill 5.1.1.1.1.1
              11 March 2020 at 7:01 pm

              Again Andre – you're looking at the wrong figures. To repeat. The important numbers – the ones that indicate fuckery – are the difference in the numbers for Warren (or who-ever) when looking at their exit polling numbers compared to their reported count.

              Read the links that provide ample explanation and stop trolling with 'stupid'. Thank you.

        • Bill A 5.1.1.2
          23 March 2020 at 11:16 pm

          Andre in your skew answer me this . The same company Edison Research does exit polling for Republican primary also in 2016 and 2020 they were all within the margin of error.

          If there was a flaw in the method it would also show in the Republican primary.

          If it was random it would show on both sides

          So why is it that every time the discrepancy outside of the margin of error always favors the DNC favored candidate ? Hillary in 2016 and Biden in 2020 with i think 1 exception.

          States with paper trail were within margin of error. State with unobserved machine counts are where the discrepancies show up.

          In 2008 Between Obama and Hillary strangely enough there were no such discrepancies.

          Of course your bias shows in your reply

  6. Tiger Mountain 6
    11 March 2020 at 8:53 am

    The US political scene has the potential to do any leftists head in. So many systemic ‘fixes’ are in already to preserve oligarchical hegemony, that it is amazing anyone turns out. On Super Tues the majority of contests were “open” primaries, so the results can be affected by Republicans! or whoever turns up.

    South Carolina was vote herded by Mr Clyburn–a DNC favourite–will any Democrat go near the state again before November? It is clearly a Trump state–yet a major harbinger for the pundits in the Democratic nomination process. I don’t buy the “noble working class has spoken and critics should butt out” line over SC from TRP and other centre line huggers that post here. The SC working class wouldn’t even vote to go Union at Boeing!
    https://labornotes.org/blogs/2017/02/viewpoint-boeing-vote-was-not-referendum-organizing-south

    Bernie has run an actual campaign with countless rallies and gatherings–Biden’s has been a phantom campaign–now with unimaginably huge backing, the billionaires are all in for him. They will keep him out of the public eye and charge on. A Union AFL/CIO Biden/Sanders debate scheduled prior to Florida Primary has been cancelled due to “Corona virus” uh huh…will in fact there ever be a one on one Sanders/Biden debate now?

    All the previous candidates have had “the call” and Elizabeth Warren (so far) seems the only one not to have shown their inner weasel. From the Buttigieg sponsored vote rigging application in Iowa to the millions of dollars spent by Bloomberg it has been a rotten affair. What a man Bernie Sanders is, and the disparate peoples movements that have enabled Sanders MkII, standing strong against that pile!

    • Phil 6.1
      11 March 2020 at 10:07 am

      South Carolina was vote herded by Mr Clyburn–a DNC favourite

      He's literally the House Majority Whip and has been a long-standing senior member of the Black Congressional Caucus. Maybe you could be a little less patronising next time and describe him by his role rather than like someone's favorite flavour of icecream.

      It is clearly a Trump state–yet a major harbinger for the pundits in the Democratic nomination process.

      SC was the first state that black voters (approx 40% of the overall democratic primary electorate) got to make their voice heard en masse. It *is* important for understanding trends and forces in the nomination process.

      • bill 6.1.1
        11 March 2020 at 10:18 am

        50% of African Americans polled who had voted for Biden, said they had voted for Biden because of Clyburn's endorsement.

        Some black folks are less than impressed at what Clyburn has enabled. Try the vid below from about 5min 30 sec for a taster, aye?

        • Sabine 6.1.1.1
          11 March 2020 at 10:36 am

          maybe some of that shit is what puts people of the Saint?

          https://twitter.com/blackwomenviews/status/1236352623428673539

          or this shit here, but then he 'condems' it. 🙂

          https://www.businessinsider.com.au/bernie-sanders-condemns-attacks-against-elizabeth-warren-after-super-tuesday-2020-3?r=US&IR=T

          or this shit

          https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-02-19/bernie-sanders-supporters-toxic-online-culture

          personally i my fave has quit the race and now its a race of three old white man and i am like so many in the US. If i had to vote for any of the three old white man i would have to don a full body hazmat suit, bring a barge pole to push the button with and then sanitze for hte rest of the year in a tub of liquid alcohol.

          But fact is that the US has the enviable choice of thee old white man. And two of these guys have some of the worst supporters ever.

          p

          • Bill 6.1.1.1.1
            11 March 2020 at 10:54 am

            Confused where you get the "two old white men" thing from.

            Sanders, Biden and Gabbard (a 40 something non-Christian woman of colour) are the three remaining candidates.

            Of course, the DNC has changed the rules (yet again) – this time to exclude Tulsi Gabbard from the upcoming CNN debate.

            • Phil 6.1.1.1.1.1
              11 March 2020 at 11:15 am

              Oh, please, Bill, get off it. Gabbard hasn't qualified for the Dem debate stage since November and, as far as I can tell, never polled higher than about 2% nationally.

            • Andre 6.1.1.1.1.2
              11 March 2020 at 11:22 am

              Gabbard has won 0.71% of the votes cast so far. You think that should get her a spot on the stage? Really?

              • Bill …
                11 March 2020 at 11:57 am

                The debate rules put in place by the DNC – that they claimed were immutable right up until they changed them to allow Bloomberg in – state that any person who has won a delegate qualifies to be in debates.

                Gabbard has a delegate.

                • Phil …
                  11 March 2020 at 12:10 pm

                  Yeah, getting into the debate REALLY helped Bloomberg, didn't it?

                  The qualification thresholds have, entirely reasonably, increased for every debate and narrowed the field. Statistically speaking, if the polling was representative of regular commenters on this blog, literally no-one other than you gives a single fuck about Gabbard's campaign.

                • Andre …
                  11 March 2020 at 12:11 pm

                  Getting a delegate was one of the ways to qualify for the tenth debate on 25th February.

                  There were no announced qualifications for the eleventh debate until the requirement of 20% of the pledged delegates awarded by March 15, announced on March 6. Qualification rules for the eleventh debate weren't changed, they simply hadn't been finalised.

                  Unless you got a link that says otherwise?

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_debates#Qualification_11

                  • Bill …
                    11 March 2020 at 12:17 pm

                    Sure. The rules were changed post Super Tuesday. What's your point?

                    • Andre …
                      11 March 2020 at 12:30 pm

                      The rules for qualifying for the eleventh debate did not exist before the March 6th announcement of what they were going to be. They were not, repeat, not changed.

                      Nobody with any authority ever asserted or promised the rules would remain the same from the tenth debate to the eleventh debate, that I'm aware of or can find.

                      Some Tulsi fanbois may have had a head explosion when Tulsi met the bar too late for the previous debate that had already happened, but that's not actually the same as meeting rules that have yet to be announced for a future debate. That's just a lack of understanding of how time works.

                    • RedLogix …
                      11 March 2020 at 12:41 pm

                      As a "Tulsi fanboi" whose head hasn't exploded, it's still clear to me that the DNC establishment went out of their way to ensure she wasn't going to get a hearing.

                      All other considerations aside … who would you actually prefer as a US President … an intelligent woman with an articulate story to tell about US foreign policy, or Joe Biden's doddery establishment fuckery?

                      And just for the record, I strongly supported Sanders in 2016, but the context changed in 2020. I think he should not have run this time, but rather committed his formidable campaigning powers to supporting younger voices.

                    • Andre …
                      11 March 2020 at 2:05 pm

                      @RedLogix: I'm assuming that comment was aimed at me.

                      Looks to me more like the DNC declined to take the opportunity to create contorted rules to bring Tulsi into the debate. Given her very low support level, and that she's 2:1 underwater unfavourable/favourable with Democratic voters, I can't see much incentive for the DNC to go out of their way for her.

                      Sure I'd love to have an articulate woman with a story to tell about US foreign policy as president, provided that foreign policy was something I could at least choke down. Tulsi's enthusiasm for authoritarian dictators and nationalism, and droning the fuck out foreign brown people whose religion she doesn't like using a bloated military means she's not that person.

                    • RedLogix …
                      11 March 2020 at 2:23 pm

                      Tulsi's enthusiasm for authoritarian dictators and nationalism, and droning the fuck out foreign brown people whose religion she doesn't like using a bloated military means she's not that person.

                      Having actually listened to her speak at length I really wonder exactly how you managed to twist what she is saying into that smeary mess. But then again if you're getting your info from the Dem mainstream I'm not surprised.

                      Sure she isn’t ‘progressive’ enough to make anyone happy around here, but in purely pragmatic terms of governing a nation like the USA she’s a better fit than Sanders TBH.

                    • Andre …
                      11 March 2020 at 2:37 pm

                      I didn't think Jacobin was a mainstream Dem source. Learn something every day, I s'pose.

                      https://www.jacobinmag.com/2017/05/tulsi-gabbard-president-sanders-democratic-party

                    • RedLogix …
                      11 March 2020 at 2:46 pm

                      I realise the left is in love with anything Islam at the moment and any discussion or criticism of fundamentalist terrorism is off-limits. So … no comment.

            • Sabine 6.1.1.1.1.3
              11 March 2020 at 11:43 am

              i have no use for Gabbard. None. And she is some 300+ delegates short to being even mentioned. Like this is pulling at straws. At the very best this chick should get hired by either Fox or RT and then she did well for her. And no, she was not excluded, she got 1 – i repeat 1 delegate (from her Native Samoa) and thus needs a bit more to get into any debate. Now it is set at delegate count and not money raised. But she will look nice on RT or Fox whinging about the Democrats while not once mentioning the shenanigans of hte republicans.

              Ask her constituence in Hawaii how well they did, and look just at how much support she got from her native American Samoa.

              There are three old white men running. 🙂 One is the sitting bullshitter and the others are still fighting about whom will be the selected bullshitter for the D's to go after the sitting bullshitter for the R.s.

              As for Bernie, he wasted almost 4 years doing fuck all. And again, this is the choice the public has to make, which of the three mediocre white men to elevate as that is the only choice there ever was.

              None of these three are the solution to anything.

        • Phil 6.1.1.2
          11 March 2020 at 10:37 am

          50% of African Americans polled who had voted for Biden, said they had voted for Biden because of Clyburn's endorsement.

          Right. Even in the hyper-online world of 2020, some old-fashioned personal endorsements still matter.

    • bill 6.2
      11 March 2020 at 10:09 am

      will in fact there ever be a one on one Sanders/Biden debate now?

      Apparently not. CNN the DNC have decided the next "head to head" will in fact be a seated affair where each candidate fields audience questions. So…no opportunity to debate one on one, and no mutual grilling by journalists or moderators on specific points…just (surely not vetted!) audience questions from a (representative?) audience.

  7. Adrian Thornton 7
    11 March 2020 at 10:38 am

    Voting Biden for anyone in the states who earns less than 100K is like voting for your old slave master, and for the rest of the world it means a big fuck you to anyone who cares what shape the planet will be left in for our children and grandchildren..because as we know now these so called moderate centrist liberals have no answers for climate change and never will..that is a fact.

    Here is an indication to what a Biden White House will most probably look like..it makes me feel a bit sick..



  8. Tiger Mountain 8
    11 March 2020 at 11:21 am

    The 2020 US General Election so far has been a masterclass in US ruling class corruption, – “do you really want to know how a sausage is made”…

    The Democrats Abroad Primary voting (3-10 March) should have closed now, and will that ever be fully reported in a timely manner, as per California, unless favourable to Joe? Predictions from pundits are for a huge absentee mail in vote in Michigan too, following a 2018 change.

  9. Siobhan 9
    11 March 2020 at 12:40 pm

    another factor in all of this…the closure of Voting booths..which arguably, in some states, favours Republicans..but most definitely leaves the most disadvantaged cut off from chance to engage in American style Democracy…6 hour wait times in Texas…"Hey Mr McDonald's manager..I may be a little late for my shift…"

    https://www.kctv5.com/news/local_news/kansas-city-mayor-turned-away-at-polling-location-on-election/article_8e2b2c5e-62cc-11ea-89ac-1ba48ed21669.html?fbclid=IwAR1zpcO0d7vYIDPfGNU

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/mar/02/texas-polling-sites-closures-voting

    https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/03/texas-primary-lines/

  10. Tiger Mountain 10
    11 March 2020 at 1:12 pm

    The more you delve into US political innards the more you wonder why anyone bothers…
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/your-candidate-dropped-out-some-michigan-residents-can-vote-twice-n1151891

  11. Phil 11
    11 March 2020 at 2:12 pm

    Just after 2pm NZT and Michigan has been called for Biden. Whatever flickering flame of hope Sanders had of clinching the nomination has been extinguished. Farewell, good man.

  12. Ad 12
    11 March 2020 at 2:35 pm

    Why isn't Sanders doing better than last time?

    Surely Biden is weaker than Hillary was?

    • Andre 12.1
      11 March 2020 at 2:51 pm

      Biden's history is somewhat bland and innocuous. Hillary's history includes decades of smears.

      Biden has a willy. Hillary doesn't.

      Biden's caricature is the uncle that's friendly goofy, slightly-not-with-it but fun anyway. Hillary's caricature was shrill, calculating, evasive and devious.

      Hillary’s strengths are being articulate and prepared and capable and having thought things through. Biden’s strengths are … not those. But apparently those don’t matter to the broader American electorate.

    • Phil 12.2
      11 March 2020 at 2:59 pm

      I think the harshest lesson to learn from 2016, in hindsight, is that it was more of an Anti-Hillary movement than it ever was a Pro-Bernie movement.

      Biden also still gets some reflective glow from the Obama era.

      • McFlock 12.2.1
        11 March 2020 at 4:05 pm

        But why were white men so much more anti HRC than they are anti-Biden?

        https://twitter.com/ryanstruyk/status/1237546951026946048

        • Sabine 12.2.1.1
          11 March 2020 at 7:15 pm

          30 years of vilifying starting with her not wanting to sit at home baking cookies when dear hubby was governor of arkansas. Literally she is the most vilified person in us politics, and fwiw, she is either the most genius of all villains – no bodies are ever found, or she is just good at what she is but she has a vagina rather then a penis and thus can not be godly. After all women shall not teach men, or something like that the bible says.

          Also quite a few of evangelics and armageddon and pro 'forced pregnancy' white men would never ever ever vote for a women, they would vote to repeal the 19th ammendment to remove the right to vote for women and to be honest some of the women in thise cults would probably do the same. Cause we are made for making sandwiches, babies and sexually pleasing hubby. Sentient doormats in essence.

          • weston 12.2.1.1.1
            11 March 2020 at 10:23 pm

            sounds like you bought 'dear' hillery's Tulsi is a russian mole story hook line and sinka sabine ?Since hillery has the clinton family fortune to fall back on and hence any amount of cash to give her lawyers i doubt tulsi will ever see much of the 50 mil from her lawsuit still it might induce HC to lie a little less openly perhaps ?

  13. mat simpson 13
    11 March 2020 at 3:05 pm

    Imagine if Bernie had reacted this way.

    The establishment mask is beginning too slip.



  15. Ad 15
    11 March 2020 at 6:24 pm

    Tough day there Bill.

    If it's any consolation I feel as disappointed with our own government.

    I'd like Sanders in Cabinet at HUD.

    • RedLogix 15.1
      11 March 2020 at 6:44 pm

      + lots.

      I've been through the Sanders disappointment in 2016 so I'm feeling it less the second time around. As I said elsewhere in 2020 the context has changed and I think he should have not run this time. It only badly split an already underdog progressive field.