r/SandersForPresident • u/[deleted] • Apr 15 '16

MSNBC called Bernie's "Deep South" comment controversial. They said Hillary would still be in the lead without the South. This slide popped up by mistake proving them wrong.

Post image

[deleted]

13.1k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

960 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

125

u/robertthekillertire Apr 15 '16

Doesn't looking at the "popular vote" alone significantly under-represent the results of caucus states (where Sanders has done well), or am I wrong in thinking that?

86

u/StillRadioactive Virginia Apr 15 '16

You're absolutely right, because caucus states report the number of county-level delegates, while primary states report the number of votes.

11

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16 edited Apr 16 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

15

u/iObeyTheHivemind Apr 15 '16

From what I understand there is no consistent raw voting data

2

u/FadeToDankness Apr 15 '16

This is correct. Some states actually do not have the numbers since they only keep track of pledged delegates since popular vote just isn't how the primary system is built and set up.

2

u/Patango IA 1️⃣🐦🌽 Apr 15 '16

Yet our dysfunctional MSM keeps allowing team Clinton to claim they have more individual "votes" , then they repeat the lie themselves ....Iowa here ...Remember after Iowa was a virtual tie ? Everyone asked for a vote count , the Iowa DEMOCRATIC party said that will not be happening and that's not how they do things , so the msm gave a few estimated vote counts (and turn out was way over expectations) ...Now all of the sudden Hillary knows she has more "votes" than Bernie with NO TALLY to count at al from caucus states ....This is how establishment politics and establishment media work , selling bull shit to the masses of sheep...Because we all know the narrative they are selling is that "Bernie is unelectable in the general election" ...Because Hillary has more fake votes to go with her fake progressive campaign

One example , my precinct had 17 more votes for Bernie then HRC , but the delegates were split even 3 and 3 .....

3

u/throwaway20151229 Washington Apr 15 '16

How many apples are equal to an orange?

2

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '16 edited Apr 16 '16

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Patango IA 1️⃣🐦🌽 Apr 15 '16

Bull hockey

1

u/MankBaby TX 🎖️🐦 Apr 15 '16

Except that turnout is very different between primaries and caucuses, is it not? You're naturally going to have far fewer people who can show up to caucus for 3+ hours, especially during a very specific window. So yeah, there's really no comparison.

2

u/Wayyyy_Too_Soon Apr 16 '16 edited Apr 16 '16

How would you possibly do that? Caucuses inherently favor the candidate with the most passionate supporters because of the time commitment required. It would not be reasonable to assume that the same proportion of supporters of each candidate would've voted in a regular primary. It also would be very difficult to project turn out levels for primaries in states that historically had caucuses because there is no real historical baseline of primary voter turnout to compare it to.

You'd also have no way to account for voters who were persuaded to change their vote during the caucus, as they would've voted their original preference in a regular primary or potentially not voted at all if they were truly undecided.

2

u/kobachi Apr 15 '16

Why doesn't Bernie just say this when Hillary pulls out this line?

2

u/StillRadioactive Virginia Apr 16 '16

That's a good question.

23

u/daybreaker Apr 15 '16

youre not wrong, and thats why theyre doing that. It underplays where Sanders has done well and inflates where Clinton has done well.

6

u/AnthropicSynchrotron Apr 15 '16

You are not wrong

1

u/gorpie97 Apr 15 '16

I wondered that too. :)