• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Presidential Primaries 2016

uke2se said:
Sounds like "fair treatment" in this case is "proportionally fair treatment". Utterly ridiculous. Every candidate in a debate should get equal time and an equal amount of questions. Anything else is anti-democratic.
Click to expand...

Well, especially if you consider how early O'Malley dropped out. He was in early debates and I would like my news sources to be concentrating more on the challengers at that stage. If you have a debate in April or May and the 3% guy/gal is fighting to the end, I can see concentrating on the leading candidates.
 
Maya22 said:
I haven't yet found information about the speaking time of the candidates from the 2nd, 3rd and 4th debates, however, I found this article which has a picture listing the speaking time of the five candidates from the first debate.

http://www.nytimes.com/live/first-democratic-debate-cnn-election-2016/

I wish that all candidates would receive the same amount of questions.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you are old enough to know the finesse they pulled to get away with this. 1960. They had to get the FCC to declare the Kennedy/Nixon debates a "news event" rather than a political candidates' debate. As "news" they were able to avoid the Fairness Rule, which requires stuff that would bankrupt Fox.... that if you have chat opportunities for one candidate, you have to give equal time to opposing candidates. Rightly, because broadcast was limited to so few options, they felt that a network could slant coverage to a chosen candidate. Imagine Fox having to comply with that? (Fox is cable; does not apply.)
 
The first time I paid attention to the Democratic primaries was when Jesse Jackson, Walter Mondale and Gary Hart were running in 1984. I was too young to vote, however, I remember watching one of the debates and writing a short paper about it. If I recall correctly, all three candidates were asked the same amount of questions and had the same amount of time to speak.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
It came out at a snail's pace but CNN and CBS are now reporting Clinton is winning 62-38 with a bit over 50% reporting. They've both called it for Clinton.

http://edition.cnn.com/election/primaries/states/pr/Dem

http://www.cbsnews.com/elections/2016/primaries/democrat/puerto-rico/
Click to expand...

Oh, I could get the winner predictions, I just wanted to know the numbers. Hillary sent a tweet, and that's about it. No speeches, no crowing... apparently she's laying back on Bernie, a tad. Maybe discussions in the works?
 
Foolmewunz said:
Oh, I could get the winner predictions, I just wanted to know the numbers. Hillary sent a tweet, and that's about it. No speeches, no crowing... apparently she's laying back on Bernie, a tad. Maybe discussions in the works?
Click to expand...
:confused:

Those are not predictions, they are results.

CNN with 61% reporting:

clinton 34,761 votes 61.5% --pledged delegates: 31 Supers: 6
sanders 21,551 votes 38.1% --pledged delegates: 14
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
:confused:

Those are not predictions, they are results.

CNN with 61% reporting:

clinton 34,761 votes 61.5% --pledged delegates: 31 Supers: 6
sanders 21,551 votes 38.1% --pledged delegates: 14
Click to expand...

Frowny face?

I meant that the articles I could find were the networks and news organizations "calling it" for Hillary, but that no one had any actual results.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Frowny face?

I meant that the articles I could find were the networks and news organizations "calling it" for Hillary, but that no one had any actual results.
Click to expand...

You've lost me, my friend. How are 36,026 to 22,768 votes not actual results?

For whatever reason there is still only about 60-70% of the results in. (The two sites are reporting the same number of votes but not the same percentage of the votes in.)
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
You've lost me, my friend. How are 36,026 to 22,768 votes not actual results?

For whatever reason there is still only about 60-70% of the results in. (The two sites are reporting the same number of votes but not the same percentage of the votes in.)
Click to expand...

Thump. Thump. [me beating my head against the wall]

I ain't saying the numbers YOU gave me - and thank you - are not numerical results. I, like most of us, write in the present tense. When I made my first post today in this thread, all I'd seen was summaries, but no actual counts.

File it under M for misunderstanding. Since then numbers have showed up on the standard sites
 
Los Angeles Election Chief Dismissive of Ballot Shortage Concerns for Hillary Clinton vs. Bernie Sanders California Election Contest

Doug Johnson Hatlem said:
Poll workers in Los Angeles County are reporting that they are short, in some cases well-short, of the number of Democratic and No Party Preference cross-over Democratic ballots required for their precincts tomorrow under California Elections Code Section 14102 (a)1, (a)2, and (b). Dean C. Logan, L.A. County’s Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk, is dismissive of these claims, however, suggesting that precinct inspectors should be speaking to his office instead of the media and offering a definition of “registered voters” that flies in the face of Federal law and California’s Secretary of State guidance in accordance with Federal law.

Elections Code 14102’s requirement for stocking precincts with ballots ahead of time states that “in no case shall the number be less than 75 percent of registered voters in the precinct.” CounterPunch has reviewed the numbers of ballots for six precincts as provided to Election Justice USA by Los Angeles precinct workers and has spoken by phone to confirm with three of the six. [...]
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom