2016 Postmortem

BigBearJohn

(11,410 posts) Mon Feb 1, 2016, 11:30 PM Feb 2016

Rachel says it is STILL too close to call and Hillary's camp may be trying to influence the outcome

22 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Rachel says it is STILL too close to call and Hillary's camp may be trying to influence the outcome (Original Post) BigBearJohn Feb 2016 OP

How so? Roland99 Feb 2016 #1

Could be. eom saltpoint Feb 2016 #2

how could they influence the outcome? virtualobserver Feb 2016 #3

McCaskill did this against Jim Talent in 2006. Dawson Leery Feb 2016 #4

LOL DURHAM D Feb 2016 #5

don't be silly. she said perceptions. not outcome. Grow up riversedge Feb 2016 #6

Aha. Well, of course they are. SusanCalvin Feb 2016 #12

Influence the narrative, not the results obviously. neverforget Feb 2016 #7

Not so much the outcome SheenaR Feb 2016 #8

Just like Shrub in 2000 Lorien Feb 2016 #9

This is the caucus in one state. It is not the national election. Who are "they" exactly? Hekate Feb 2016 #16

Influence the perception she said. Punkingal Feb 2016 #10

Here come the fraud allegations KingFlorez Feb 2016 #11

The OP misquoted, apparently. nt SusanCalvin Feb 2016 #15

How do you "influence the outcome"? brooklynite Feb 2016 #13

because if there is a discrepancy, they may need revotes dana_b Feb 2016 #17

Hm, interesting. Thanks. n/t cui bono Feb 2016 #18

This is a Caucus: people don't "leave"... brooklynite Feb 2016 #20

Slight edge to Clinton in outstanding wildeyed Feb 2016 #22

Rachel said that about Hillary? or did you just add that yourself? Hekate Feb 2016 #14

Rachel said it BigBearJohn Feb 2016 #21

Rachel said that Hillary might be trying to influence the spin on TV. Zen Democrat Feb 2016 #19

Roland99

(53,342 posts)

1. How so?

Reply to BigBearJohn (Original post)

Mon Feb 1, 2016, 11:30 PM

Feb 2016

saltpoint

(50,986 posts)

2. Could be. eom

Reply to BigBearJohn (Original post)

Mon Feb 1, 2016, 11:30 PM

Feb 2016

virtualobserver

(8,760 posts)

3. how could they influence the outcome?

Reply to BigBearJohn (Original post)

Mon Feb 1, 2016, 11:30 PM

Feb 2016

Dawson Leery

(19,348 posts)

4. McCaskill did this against Jim Talent in 2006.

Reply to BigBearJohn (Original post)

Mon Feb 1, 2016, 11:31 PM

Feb 2016

It worked.

DURHAM D

(32,611 posts)

5. LOL

Reply to BigBearJohn (Original post)

Mon Feb 1, 2016, 11:31 PM

Feb 2016

Does she thinks the polls are still open?

riversedge

(70,299 posts)

6. don't be silly. she said perceptions. not outcome. Grow up

Reply to BigBearJohn (Original post)

Mon Feb 1, 2016, 11:32 PM

Feb 2016

SusanCalvin

(6,592 posts)

12. Aha. Well, of course they are.

Reply to riversedge (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 1, 2016, 11:34 PM

Feb 2016

They'd be incompetent if they didn't.

neverforget

(9,436 posts)

7. Influence the narrative, not the results obviously.

Reply to BigBearJohn (Original post)

Mon Feb 1, 2016, 11:32 PM

Feb 2016

It's a really stupid move if she ends coming up short.

SheenaR

(2,052 posts)

8. Not so much the outcome

Reply to BigBearJohn (Original post)

Mon Feb 1, 2016, 11:32 PM

Feb 2016

But the perception of the outcome. It's actually a smart move. We know what's up. But the person sitting on their couch not as invested? They believe it

Lorien

(31,935 posts)

9. Just like Shrub in 2000

Reply to BigBearJohn (Original post)

Mon Feb 1, 2016, 11:33 PM

Feb 2016

they all play the same games.

Hekate

(90,793 posts)

16. This is the caucus in one state. It is not the national election. Who are "they" exactly?

Reply to Lorien (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 1, 2016, 11:36 PM

Feb 2016

Punkingal

(9,522 posts)

10. Influence the perception she said.

Reply to BigBearJohn (Original post)

Mon Feb 1, 2016, 11:33 PM

Feb 2016

KingFlorez

(12,689 posts)

11. Here come the fraud allegations

Reply to BigBearJohn (Original post)

Mon Feb 1, 2016, 11:34 PM

Feb 2016

Doesn't Bernie have the lawsuit filed yet?

At this point the votes have already been cast, so there is no way to influence the outcome. If you are claiming fraud, you better have the evidence.