Yesterday, Sanders Wins Caucuses While Hillary Wins DRE Primary

by Scott Creighton

Killary can hardly contain her death rays.

This is interesting.

Bernie Sanders won two states yesterday in the Democratic Party primary, Utah and Idaho, while Hillary Clinton won Arizona.

What’s interesting is Utah and Idaho both have caucus systems while Arizona is counted electronically on a Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) System.

Sanders crushed Killary in both caucus states winning 78% of the vote in Idaho and almost 80% in Utah. In Arizona, Clinton won 57% to 39%.

Turnout on the Democrat side was down yesterday as well. Back in 2008, 453,600 or so voters turned out while yesterday only 395,000 bothered to show up.

In Idaho, Bernie Sanders won more votes this time around than Obama did in 2008.

There’s definitely an interesting pattern developing here. To bad it costs campaigns so much money for a recount.

4 Responses

  1. “Turnout on the Democrats’ side”

    Or, “Turnout on the Democratic side”

    ‘Too’ Not “To bad…” Could you please proof-read your final sentence? Are strong conclusions important?

    *There’s no excuse for this. No, I won’t read your excuses or tart replies.

    • so you got the gist of the article? Yeah. good. rest… don’t care. Was a carpenter, draftsman and project manager for 20+ years. Not a “tart reply” or an excuse, just a fact. It’s a blog. I do my best. Not good enough for you… okay then.

      • Sas appears to be a Hilla-phant who is upset that you pointed out something neither of the two major parties would want most Americans to consider….that our voting system and political system are completely manipulated by those who would stay in power, and bleed us dry, forever.
        Sas offers not one shred of commentary or insight on the thrust of your article, just an attack on your grammar and syntax.
        Who’s next?
        After all, I make an even stronger attack on, and case against, the electronic voting system.
        I care not.
        Schills and sycophants are a Dime a Dozen.

        And yes, Sas, I know I spelled schills differently than you would and OMG, I started a sentence with the word “and”.
        Can I ever be forgiven?

  2. In my opinion, electronic voting machines are just easily manipulated devices designed solely to give the “controllers” the results they want.
    They can’t make such a decision a landslide, that would be too suspicious, but instead they make it close enough to maybe, kinda, sorta be plausible.
    I participated in a voter device study at Rice University which showed that the majority of those responding preferred a voting machine with paper ballots over any kind of electronic device.

    The two major parties have insisted, untruthfully, that “the people” want electronic voting. Only the two major parties want electronic voting.
    With every “secure” electronic system in the world having been hacked at one time or another, are we really going to believe that our electronic voting system can’t be?

    I remember a quote from John Diebold, whose company invented the machine, just prior to the 2004 election : ” I’m looking forward to handing George Bush a victory in the coming election. “

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: