|
luckily we live in Trumpmerica now so we don't need facts to back up our claims
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 08:58 |
|
|
My favorite part of the primaries was people who are otherwise activists for expanding voting rights acting like NY's six month out deadline for registering for the primary was a Good Thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:i mean even if he is/they are it doesn't stop the thread being poo poo because of it slap-fights make every thread worse, this is true *gazes sadly upon the ruined visage of this thread here right now*
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
loquacius posted:Yeah uh if your thesis is that "the process wasn't RIGGED per se, just BIASED" I don't really think that's a point against the people who were complaining about it because news flash the process isn't supposed to be biased either it was biased in the sense that hillary had a lot of institutional support. bernie wasn't able to get good staff, because no one wants to work for the guy getting 3% in the polls. the people at the dnc, for the most part, personally preferred hillary. in that sense, every primary is going to be biased because they're party-run enterprises. that doesn't imply that it had any real impact on the primary, because i think it didn't. there's a giant, giant world of difference between "the dnc preferred hillary" and "the dnc rigged the primary so hillary would win." one implies hillary won the contest fairly, the other implies that the primary process was a joke and bernie couldn't possibly have won.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:12
|
|
"
|
Mister Fister posted:Except Hillary got far more coverage than Bernie which again is just a natural bias towards a presumed candidate who was leading through the entire primary in the polls, and a candidate who has been known for 20 years. and tbf bernie got nowhere near the negative press that clinton got. yes the Very Serious people were the confederacy of dunces they always are but that expecting better of them was not going to work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
The DNC rigged the primary by clearing the path, leaving the obvious path of all the DNC staffers to go right to the coronated candidate. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:the other implies that the primary process was a joke and bernie couldn't possibly have won. So yeah the major disagreement here seems to be a definitional one, you seem to think rigging requires a lot more competence and courage than the DNC and Clinton campaigns possessed so its de facto impossible for them to have rigged it, and I agree in that case. I don't think that's how people leveling the accusation think about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
loquacius posted:slap-fights make every thread worse, this is true *gazes sadly upon the ruined visage of this thread here right now* in the end i just became one of the slappers save yourself, escape the bad thread before it's too late
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Winning the nomination was an uphill battle for Bernie for sure, but not rigged. The fact that he did so well is amazing considering that 2 years ago the only ones who about Bernie were Vermonters or politics nerds. Bernie lost because he did a lovely job of appealing to black democrat voters, even with the help of Killer Mike. Meanwhile Hillary was able to pull 70% of the vote in southern states, in part because those voters had fond memories of Bill Clinton, and only somewhat distrusted Hillary.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
Like before the primary even started we all knew it would be Clinton. I had never even heard of Bernie Sanders before and the surprising thing to me was that he got any mention at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
You do realise that these are the exact same things that you are saying that any decent candidate should have been easily able to overcome when it comes to the general, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Condiv posted:the DNC was aiding the hillary campaign throughout and was probably funneling downticket money into her primary campaign all of these just aren't true. the dnc did not aid the hillary campaign and wasn't crafting attacks on bernie sanders. there were a few emails found in the dnc very late in the primary process that showed some stuff that was inappropriate (i.e. the guy suggesting that they tell people in WV that bernie is an atheist) but crucially 1. it never happened and 2. there's no evidence of coordination. in fact, one of the podesta emails showed that hfa did, in fact, give messaging suggestions to the dnc - telling them to focus on the general election and the republican candidates. as far as "funneling downticket money," that's just a misunderstanding of how campaign finance laws work. no money was ever taken from the down ticket, and sanders could have had the exact same setup if he wanted it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You do realise that these are the exact same things that you are saying that any decent candidate should have been easily able to overcome when it comes to the general, right? Fulchrum saying Trump is a good candidate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
maybe im wrong but rigging to me has a literal meaning of stuffing vote boxes and actually directly cheating in elections. having institutional support and indirect advantages from that is not rigging and cheapens the meaning.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Lol @ fulchrum still thinking a closed primary is any way similar to an open presidential election
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:18
|
|
|
Are we still going to be debating this primary in 2020? Sure feels like it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:So yeah the major disagreement here seems to be a definitional one, you seem to think rigging requires a lot more competence and courage than the DNC and Clinton campaigns possessed so its de facto impossible for them to have rigged it, and I agree in that case. well the issue at hand is that the phrase "rigged" in the sense of an election has literally always meant ballot stuffing and fraud.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:You do realise that these are the exact same things that you are saying that any decent candidate should have been easily able to overcome when it comes to the general, right? in a shocking twist, Hillary's overwhelming support from black voters during the primary translated into a fatal decline in black turnout during the general! oh, the tragic irony.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:19
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Are we still going to be debating this primary in 2020? Sure feels like it. Honestly I do feel like it will blow over. But then again it does represent an ideological schism in the party so who knows.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
Fiction posted:Lol @ fulchrum
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Is this a joke No, it's concerned citizen. A part of the triumvirate of Hillary goons who are incapable of contemplating a reason Hillary Clinton lost that doesn't begin and end with the words "Hillary Clinton."
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Are we still going to be debating this primary in 2020? Sure feels like it. Yes because when the dems nominate a wet blanket candidate from Wall St, we'll all be saying "WHAT ABOUT BERNIE!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
I personally rigged the california primary for hillary then I voted for her in the general I may or may not have some poo poo opinions what party can I join
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:it was biased in the sense that hillary had a lot of institutional support. bernie wasn't able to get good staff, because no one wants to work for the guy getting 3% in the polls. the people at the dnc, for the most part, personally preferred hillary. in that sense, every primary is going to be biased because they're party-run enterprises. that doesn't imply that it had any real impact on the primary, because i think it didn't. there's a giant, giant world of difference between "the dnc preferred hillary" and "the dnc rigged the primary so hillary would win." one implies hillary won the contest fairly, the other implies that the primary process was a joke and bernie couldn't possibly have won. Republicans are generally more corrupt and just kinda worse in every way than Democrats, right? I think we can all agree on that. The RNC's favored candidate at the start of the primary was probably Jeb!, but we have to say "probably" there because there were like 20 loving candidates and a decent number of them had at least a little front-runner time, because that's how Republican primaries always go. The Republican establishment might have a "favorite" at the start of the season, but for the most part they let whoever wants to run run without impeding them, and then they wait and see who's most likely to give them a victory before they declare their support. They drug their feet on this one a little bit because they were definitely biased against Trump for obvious reasons, but your explanation makes it seem like the entire establishment being biased in favor of one candidate is just the natural order of things and it just wasn't true for the GOP. The GOP is Always Worse. You say establishment bias is inevitable. And yet the GOP managed not to coronate anyone. In response to a different set of posts, I actually don't think black voters were Bernie's problem as much as a generational divide was. Black millenials liked Bernie as much as white millenials did; the Oldster Horde voted him out because old Democrats are party loyalists through and through.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
Vlad Peeps posted:Trump's wins were razor loving thin. If she got another 0.2 points, we'd be talking about how Madam President won by almost 3 million votes. I'm pretty sure the ginormous amount of a heaping pile of poo poo attached to her (lack of ground game, lack of excitement, less turnout than 2012, etc.) is more to blame. The emails are just what broke the camel's back. If she for example even somewhat focused on Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, etc., then she would have won, and likely by bigger margins than another email scandal not happening. There were a poo poo ton of things that contribute to her lose and virtually all of them were tied to incompetence. punk rebel ecks has issued a correction as of 16:28 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Gene Hackman Fan posted:No, it's concerned citizen. A part of the triumvirate of Hillary goons who are incapable of contemplating a reason Hillary Clinton lost that doesn't begin and end with the words "Hillary Clinton." i have actually said, as a hillary goon, that hillary is a bad candidate since before iowa. i thought she'd make a good president, but she was a bad candidate. so yes the #1 reason why she lost is that she carried too much baggage to win a general. i also think that trump was such a spectacularly bad candidate that a lot of things needed to go wrong for her to lose, and all of them did. the race was close enough that any two or three things combined going the other way might have changed the result. if the comey letter hadn't happened and hillary had chosen bernie as her vp in may, for example. Concerned Citizen has issued a correction as of 16:26 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
UHD posted:I personally rigged the california primary for hillary The Green party, they're almost as effective as democrats on the national level. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:all of these just aren't true. the dnc did not aid the hillary campaign and wasn't crafting attacks on bernie sanders. there were a few emails found in the dnc very late in the primary process that showed some stuff that was inappropriate (i.e. the guy suggesting that they tell people in WV that bernie is an atheist) but crucially 1. it never happened and 2. there's no evidence of coordination. in fact, one of the podesta emails showed that hfa did, in fact, give messaging suggestions to the dnc - telling them to focus on the general election and the republican candidates. no, that's evidence of coordination. dunno why you want to pretend it isn't. ditto for brazile handing hillary debate questions. there's a reason DWS was oustered (oh, and hillary hooking her up with a job in her campaign sure doesn't reek of coordination, no sir) quote:as far as "funneling downticket money," that's just a misunderstanding of how campaign finance laws work. no money was ever taken from the down ticket, and sanders could have had the exact same setup if he wanted it. yeah no, hillary's campaign quite clearly took money that should've gone to downtickets during her general campaign. i just think it happened during the primary too. Concerned Citizen posted:well the issue at hand is that the phrase "rigged" in the sense of an election has literally always meant ballot stuffing and fraud. basically you're arguing for an extremely strict definition of rigging that cannot keep up with the times. much like the supreme court argument that bribery hasn't happened unless there's evidence of quid-pro-quo
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Are we still going to be debating this primary in 2020? Sure feels like it. might as well, the primary process is obv extremely flawed if it lets a candidate through that can lose to donald trump of all people Condiv has issued a correction as of 16:30 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:maybe im wrong but rigging to me has a literal meaning of stuffing vote boxes and actually directly cheating in elections. having institutional support and indirect advantages from that is not rigging and cheapens the meaning. Concerned Citizen posted:well the issue at hand is that the phrase "rigged" in the sense of an election has literally always meant ballot stuffing and fraud. If someone had said that the primary vote was rigged I'd agree with you, but I don't get that sense? I'd also consider the Republican voter suppression tactics to be vote rigging, though, even if it's short of absolute election fraud. Maybe there is a better word for what I'm actually describing? If it's good enough, you'd probably be better off by suggesting people call it that rather than simply denying it was rigged, because semantic fights are dumb and bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
The primary process is probably the thing that can be most meaningfully reformed in a short amount of time because we don't need cooperation from victorious Republicans to do it. So I say let's talk about it a lot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Condiv posted:no, that's evidence of coordination. dunno why you want to pretend it isn't. ditto for brazile handing hillary debate questions. there's a reason DWS was oustered (oh, and hillary hooking her up with a job in her campaign sure doesn't reek of coordination, no sir) ok fine, it seems we disagree on a matter of fact. so please show me the email that demonstrates the dnc and hfa coordinating on primary-related messaging. (and it should be fairly obvious by now - but clearly dws was given a do-nothing, unpaid cheerleading job with hfa so she would gently caress off from the dnc quietly and stop trying to make a scene) quote:yeah no, hillary's campaign quite clearly took money that should've gone to downtickets during her general campaign. i just think it happened during the primary too. nope. she did use a campaign finance loophole to raise more money by funneling it through state parties (obama also used this same trick but on a smaller scale) but that money was never going to the state parties. the parties that signed up for it were well aware of what they were signing up for and how it worked. and you also don't understand how the democratic party works - state parties do not finance down tickets except when the peculiarities of state campaign finance law makes it the better option. federal money is given to down tickets through dga, dccc, etc. i will admit though that this impression was built by the hillary campaign in a pretty dishonest way in the first place, by touting their joint victory fund money as "downticket money" when only some of that money raised for dnc was going to ultimately end up with downtickets. quote:basically you're arguing for an extremely strict definition of rigging that cannot keep up with the times. much like the supreme court argument that bribery hasn't happened unless there's evidence of quid-pro-quo perhaps you should look up the definition of "loaded words." you can't run back to a random dictionary definition when the plain meaning of what is meant is clear to everyone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:If someone had said that the primary vote was rigged I'd agree with you, but I don't get that sense? there is a very strong belief among a lot of probernie people that the DNC and Clinton literally rigged a number of primaries, and they are wrong
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:there is a very strong belief among a lot of probernie people that the DNC and Clinton literally rigged a number of primaries, and they are wrong do you have any proof they weren't rigged?  if you can't prove they weren't rigged then that means they were rigged!
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:there is a very strong belief among a lot of probernie people that the DNC and Clinton literally rigged a number of primaries, and they are wrong That doesn't seem to be common among the people I know and it wasn't behind the claim I made. This is why it's important to figure out whether you're talking about the same thing before jumping right to disagreement. I was thinking a lot more about the debate scheduling and DWS bias and leaked questions (I specifically said rigged in some small way that let people believe in worse things than actually happened, which obviously wouldn't even be a sensible statement under the definition you guys are using so it should have been obvious we were talking about different things at that point)
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:I was thinking a lot more about the debate scheduling and DWS bias and leaked questions (I specifically said rigged in some small way that let people believe in worse things than actually happened, which obviously wouldn't even be a sensible statement under the definition you guys are using so it should have been obvious we were talking about different things at that point) The fact that people have to debate whether it was rigged and what is rigging really, is sorta indicative of the problem. You don't win back trust by opening a dictionary, you make sure the question is never raised in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
I don't think the primary was literally rigged, but I do think the media was pushing the Bernie Bro narrative pretty hard for something that was made up entirely from whole cloth, and managed to turn socialism into something with serious racist and sexist implications in the mind of the Democratic primary electorate There was some pushback to this after Steinem et al ran their mouths a little too much about it, but it was lost in the thinkpiece noise also DWS was corrupt as poo poo and I am glad she was fired and I don't even like Tim Canova but I'm sad he lost because it means she's still in Congress I'm ready for my sixer, I admit I deserve it (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
Thalantos posted:Anyone on Atlanta? I kinda want to go get involved in my local democrat party. I am in Atlanta, and have tried my darndest to find out how to get involved with the Democratic party, as well as the Democratic Socialist party, and have had absolutely no luck with either. We should both work on this and try to find a way to start something if nothing is going on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:there is a very strong belief among a lot of probernie people that the DNC and Clinton literally rigged a number of primaries, and they are wrong i've been reading a lot of ha goodman lately... and i think pizzagate is real
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 08:58 |
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:in a shocking twist, Hillary's overwhelming support from black voters during the primary translated into a fatal decline in black turnout during the general! oh, the tragic irony. Man, it's almost as if she was badly hurt by taking sections of her own base for granted, and instead chasing after the unicorn of GOP moderate voters!
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:44
|
|
