turnout in new hampshire is maybe not down by as much as it appeared to be initially. it looks like it's a little lower than 2008, but higher than 2016. so, arguing that bernie didn't get the vote out is only a part of the answer - he didn't, but it only accounts for a part of the discrepancy with the polling.
it makes sense that there would have been some non-ideological voters in 2016 that he couldn't hold in 2020, but that doesn't explain the distribution of votes. the glaring inconsistency isn't bernie's support level, it's klobuchar's. there is absolutely no polling evidence supporting this outcome at all - there's some propaganda coming from corporate media, but when the propaganda predicts the result in contradiction to the polling, that's actually a red flag about the fairness of the results.
when the gut feelings of tv anchors better reflect the outcome than scientific polling, there is something very wrong going on - chances are that the polling wasn't wrong, and chances are that the gut feeling wasn't more right; chances are that the election was rigged, and the tv anchor was in on the process.
my initial attempt to explain the situation by pointing to turnout was an attempt to provide a naturalistic explanation for an event that the evidence doesn't seem to support the likelihood of. if that isn't working out either, and it looks like it isn't, then we're left with a glaring contradiction between the polling and the results, which usually suggests a rigged election. the media's overwhelming support of a specific candidate seems to give itself away.
so, i'm changing my analysis - i think that amy klobuchar's numbers were falsified. she was propped up by the media days before, but none of the polling had her higher than 10%. when the polling disagrees with the results by this much, i don't tend to argue that the polling is wrong - i tend to argue that the process is unfair.
it's impossible to know who suffered at the benefit of klobuchar's vote totals being falsified upwards, but the main beneficiary of a split in the moderate vote was bernie sanders, who would not have won otherwise. i can't magically assign all of these votes to buttigieg - he actually outperformed his polling as well, but by an amount that is scientifically quantifiable. he didn't double his polling numbers, he's in a reasonable margin of error. but, you'll note that biden and warren both received 0 delegates.
the party itself might be pushing for generational change...
so, that's my official analysis - the results of the primary deviate so strongly from the polling that preceded it that i am casting doubt on the fairness of the election. and, i've done this more than once, now.
i believe that the results of elections on this continent are routinely falsified, in a way that north americans would naively assume is done in countries like russia, but isn't done here. it can happen here. it does all of the time...
i know what i posted about iowa the other day, but sometimes it takes time to believe the data. this idea of a falsified split to benefit sanders seems crazy, but i need to reiterate the point: when the polling fails to predict the outcome of an election, you should not deduce that the polling was wrong. you should question the fairness of the election. and, in context, the media's clear preference for the actor with the strangest results really clarifies the point.
and, you can only get so far with gramscian conditioning on this point. it's too much to invoke gramsci. it's more like some kind of manchurianism.
it's less complicated to argue it was rigged.
it makes sense that there would have been some non-ideological voters in 2016 that he couldn't hold in 2020, but that doesn't explain the distribution of votes. the glaring inconsistency isn't bernie's support level, it's klobuchar's. there is absolutely no polling evidence supporting this outcome at all - there's some propaganda coming from corporate media, but when the propaganda predicts the result in contradiction to the polling, that's actually a red flag about the fairness of the results.
when the gut feelings of tv anchors better reflect the outcome than scientific polling, there is something very wrong going on - chances are that the polling wasn't wrong, and chances are that the gut feeling wasn't more right; chances are that the election was rigged, and the tv anchor was in on the process.
my initial attempt to explain the situation by pointing to turnout was an attempt to provide a naturalistic explanation for an event that the evidence doesn't seem to support the likelihood of. if that isn't working out either, and it looks like it isn't, then we're left with a glaring contradiction between the polling and the results, which usually suggests a rigged election. the media's overwhelming support of a specific candidate seems to give itself away.
so, i'm changing my analysis - i think that amy klobuchar's numbers were falsified. she was propped up by the media days before, but none of the polling had her higher than 10%. when the polling disagrees with the results by this much, i don't tend to argue that the polling is wrong - i tend to argue that the process is unfair.
it's impossible to know who suffered at the benefit of klobuchar's vote totals being falsified upwards, but the main beneficiary of a split in the moderate vote was bernie sanders, who would not have won otherwise. i can't magically assign all of these votes to buttigieg - he actually outperformed his polling as well, but by an amount that is scientifically quantifiable. he didn't double his polling numbers, he's in a reasonable margin of error. but, you'll note that biden and warren both received 0 delegates.
the party itself might be pushing for generational change...
so, that's my official analysis - the results of the primary deviate so strongly from the polling that preceded it that i am casting doubt on the fairness of the election. and, i've done this more than once, now.
i believe that the results of elections on this continent are routinely falsified, in a way that north americans would naively assume is done in countries like russia, but isn't done here. it can happen here. it does all of the time...
i know what i posted about iowa the other day, but sometimes it takes time to believe the data. this idea of a falsified split to benefit sanders seems crazy, but i need to reiterate the point: when the polling fails to predict the outcome of an election, you should not deduce that the polling was wrong. you should question the fairness of the election. and, in context, the media's clear preference for the actor with the strangest results really clarifies the point.
and, you can only get so far with gramscian conditioning on this point. it's too much to invoke gramsci. it's more like some kind of manchurianism.
it's less complicated to argue it was rigged.
