|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
Maarek posted:I know some people are convinced that Clinton won the primary by cheating, but that's not true at all. While they definitely stacked the deck as much as they could, at the end of the day Hillary was/is massively popular among registered Democrats and those are the people who vote in a primary. The problem was that she was much less popular with everyone else, while her primary opponent was more universally liked or at least tolerated. "But the cheating didn't matter" is about the weakest defense for cheating I can imagine. Where in life does that show up other than the Democratic Primary. I guess the rules not applying to the political elite is a feature, not a bug.
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:19 |
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:"But the cheating didn't matter" is about the weakest defense for cheating I can imagine. Where in life does that show up other than the Democratic Primary. Buddy, I'm not defending the cheating. I'm saying she would have won even without the cheating, because she was Queen of the Democrats in a competition that was largely decided by people who love the Democratic party. His biggest advantage was among younger people, who are less likely to be registered for closed primaries and just less likely to vote in a political primary to begin with. She also whooped him with more affluent voters in the northeast, and I don't have to tell you how hard it is to get poor(er) people to vote in a normal election, much less a primary one. You are right, though, the rules really obviously do not apply to the elites in any facet of our society.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:How could Bernie Sanders, the most popular politician, get fewer votes than Hillary, who nobody likes other than the feckless DNC, which has proven themselves to be incapable of winning elections? How can Obama be rated as a better president than Nixon when in 1968 nobody showed voter preference for Obama over Nixon? Jesus Christ, what is it like to be a shameless, spineless creep who is willing - day in day out - to sacrifice any remaining intellectual integrity in order to come up with a hot take, WJ?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Because it pisses you off so much
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
Maarek posted:Buddy, I'm not defending the cheating. I'm saying she would have won even without the cheating She wouldn't have won if the Democratic party had a spine and actually responded to someone openly cheating Like yeah, it's easy to cheat, not get punished for it and then say "well the cheating didn't matter".
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Because it pisses you off so much Well, it's really not helpful. It kind of reminds me of the Medium piece I just posted: sour grapes, coupled with complete unawareness of how you were, and remain, part of the problem. NewForumSoftware posted:She wouldn't have won if the Democratic party had a spine and actually responded to someone openly cheating What, exactly, would this have looked like, do you think? Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:40 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Oops guys, we were wrong, turns out Bernie stabbed Clinton in the back: this article and its comments are just awful the democratic ship is sinking and people are yelling at the guy getting out the lifeboats
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 19:49
|
|
|
Majorian posted:What, exactly, would this have looked like, do you think? Removing her from the primary, since it was clear Bernie would have had a much better chance in the general. Then again, that's only if you actually wanted the Democrats to win the election.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Because it pisses you off so much thank you, every Trump voter
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:She wouldn't have won if the Democratic party had a spine and actually responded to someone openly cheating I think she would have won even if the DNC hadn't done a single one of those things. It was a primary election where 30 million of the eligible voters most inclined to like the Democratic party picked between a fixture of said party and a guy who isn't really even part of it. It was Her Turn and nothing was going to stop the nomination. The problem always was that there were another hundred million people who would get to vote in the national election who don't drink the blue kool aid. NewForumSoftware posted:Removing her from the primary, since it was clear Bernie would have had a much better chance in the general. The modern primary system came about to prevent the party bosses from just picking who the nominee would be, though. If the DNC in 2016 could just crown someone it wouldn't have been Bernard Sanders
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:this article and its comments are just awful "We keep losing elections what we need is less people voting for us!" Like even if you hate the idea of economic leftism like these guys seem to I just don't understand what their possible strategy is to getting into power to enact their goals. Maybe they are going back to the idiotic well of telling leftists they aren't needed and then blaming leftists for not voting. That will work this time for sure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
Top story on HuffPo right nowquote:Reminder To Progressives: Abortion Is An Economic Issue
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Maarek posted:I think she would have won even if the DNC hadn't done a single one of those things. So? That what if is about worth zero now that we decided "nah, let's go ahead and run our openly corrupt most hated politican in america" and lost The entire goal of the primary is to choose the candidate who has the best chance of winning the general (lol just kidding we need to ensure taxes for the rich are kept low first and foremost). The DNC's primary was a failure in every way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
I think it's worth understanding that the primary electorate doesn't necessarily have the same interests as the voting public in general.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Radish posted:"We keep losing elections what we need is less people voting for us!" shame and berate everyone into bowing to them. there couldn't possibly be some sort of horrific backlash
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Maarek posted:I think it's worth understanding that the primary electorate doesn't necessarily have the same interests as the voting public in general. Yes, we know Democrats are poo poo. What's unfortunate is that they'd rather lose to Donald Trump than let Bernie Sanders make the country a better place.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Removing her from the primary, since it was clear Bernie would have had a much better chance in the general. That wouldn't have happened. It would have triggered a revolt among her supporters, who were more numerous than Sanders' in any case. It would have guaranteed a loss. NewForumSoftware posted:Yes, we know Democrats are poo poo. You're conflating DNC members with the primary voters who actually voted for Clinton. Those voters aren't "poo poo," most of them aren't one-percenters, and a lot of them genuinely love Clinton. DaveWoo posted:Top story on HuffPo right now This is a weird situation that I've been trying to delve more deeply into over the last couple days. I'm honestly not sure what Sanders was thinking by endorsing Mello. Perhaps he heard, as many of us did, that Mello got an 100% rating from Planned Parenthood Nebraska, when that actually turned out not to be the case. I do think Sanders needs to withdraw his endorsement, just as Kos has. But I'm guessing there's also more to this story than we are seeing. Majorian fucked around with this message at 19:58 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That wouldn't have happened. It would have triggered a revolt among her supporters, who were more numerous than Sanders' in any case. It would have guaranteed a loss. Nope, actually Bernie would have won. You have to remember, there were only two choices this election and any vote not for the Democratic nominee is a vote for Trump! Even Michael Bloomberg doing his best would have had zero impact on the race.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
I mean I still have the same problem today with Bernie that I did during the primaries, namely a a dumb idea of how political change actually gets enacted. The "I'm gonna show up to Mitch McConnell's door with a million pissed off people" strikes me as the same kinda dumb bullshit as Lessig's mandate, or Obama's "the fever's gonna break in 2012". The necessary first step is beating Republicans, and it's why his answer has gotta be "then we'll get rid of him next election", and why it's important to elect Mello and Ossoff etc. Of course, there's then "how you win", which is why I joined DSA after Hillary proved that the status quo is a loser for Democrats
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:Top story on HuffPo right now i've seen the abortion thing brought up a couple times now to me, abortion is one of those sacred things where there is no room for compromise. (it should be legal and easily accessible) seeing bernie getting tied to pro-lifers is pretty disappointing of course, i also know that a lot of people are out for his blood so relying on hearsay and innuendo isn't a good thing does anyone have anymore information about this recent bernie/pro-life support stuff?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Nope, actually Bernie would have won. If he had gotten the nomination by getting more primary votes? Yeah, probably. If he had gotten it by Clinton being removed as nominee? Not a chance in hell. A lot of Clinton's primary voters would have stayed home, after having seen "their" candidate removed by an undemocratic institution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
Majorian posted:If he had gotten the nomination by getting more primary votes? Yeah, probably. Based on what? Do you think Clinton supporters would have voted for Jill Stein or something? Like how do you honestly see it playing out. The Centrists are renowned pragmatists, how could they vote third party with the stakes so high?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 19:59
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Yes, we know Democrats are poo poo. What's unfortunate is that they'd rather lose to Donald Trump than let Bernie Sanders make the country a better place. Sanders wouldn't have done poo poo, he would've been another Carter. But then again at least Carter won
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Based on what? Do you think Clinton supporters would have voted for Jill Stein or something? Like how do you honestly see it playing out. I see a lot of black, Latino, LGBT, and women voters staying home, voting for a third party candidate, or writing in Clinton's name, rather than acquiescing to a non-democratic body removing a female candidate and replacing her with an old white man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Majorian posted:If he had gotten the nomination by getting more primary votes? Yeah, probably. hmm, i dunno. "i took down the corrupt, evil Hillary!" might actually play better than you think of course, that would depend on the circumstances of her removal edit: hmm, you edited it but i still think "not a chance in hell" isn't the most accurate portrayal of that scenario
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I see a lot of black, Latino, LGBT, and women voters staying home, voting for a third party candidate, or writing in Clinton's name, rather than acquiescing to a non-democratic body removing a female candidate and replacing her with an old white man. So you think black people would have voted for Jill Stein over Bernie Sanders because Hillary Clinton didn't get the nomination? The DNC has nothing to do with democracy, you should know that. You do realize that Bernie Sanders marched with MLK, right? And that his popularity has continued to grow, especially amongst minorities? Including the entire runup to the election.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That wouldn't have happened. It would have triggered a revolt among her supporters, who were more numerous than Sanders' in any case. It would have guaranteed a loss. I think Mello's 180 come to Jesus statement is enough
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
The entire "minorities were really wary of Bernie Sanders" shtick needs to die. It was a name recognition issue first and foremost. The fact that he has been, and probably will continue to be, the most popular politican in America (even moreso amongst minorities) should be kind of a hint. Beyond that, age had way more to do with it than race.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:04
|
|
|
Majorian posted:If he had gotten the nomination by getting more primary votes? Yeah, probably. This. Frankly i think if Bernie had started out a bit earlier with an intent from the start to be the nominee i think he could have beaten Hillary as he probably would have campaigned enough in the south to possibly resurect the populism of the rainbow coalition.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:So you think black people would have voted for Jill Stein over Bernie Sanders because Hillary Clinton didn't get the nomination? I think they would have stayed home, by and large, or voted for Stein, or written in Clinton's name. quote:You do realize that Bernie Sanders marched with MLK, right? And that his popularity has continued to grow, especially amongst minorities? Including the entire runup to the election. That popularity would probably not have continued to grow if Clinton had been removed from the nomination by the DNC.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I think they would have stayed home, by and large, or voted for Stein, or written in Clinton's name. Based on what? Bernie's overwhelming popularity with the American people? quote:That popularity would probably not have continued to grow if Clinton had been removed from the nomination by the DNC. Not only that, Bernie would have gotten way more Republicans to cross the aisle than Hillary ever could have hoped to. The DNC could not have picked a worse candidate really. NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
Scrapping the primary system and returning to appointing nominees would lead to more Hillary Clintons, not fewer of them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
NewForumSoftware posted:Based on what? Bernie's overwhelming popularity with the American people? Sanders' popularity with the American people was not as high at the time as it is now. A lot of Clinton loyalists would have stayed home out of resentment at seeing a group of elites replace the candidate who got the most primary votes. The notion that Sanders would have been able to make up for this shortfall in support in the few months between the convention and the election is absurd. quote:Not only that, Bernie would have gotten way more Republicans to cross the aisle than Hillary ever could have hoped to. I don't see much evidence of this, beyond your wishful thinking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Sanders wouldn't have done poo poo, he would've been another Carter. But then again at least Carter won Carter was a fiscal conservative who stopped Ted Kennedy from passing UHC and guaranteed government employment. Bernie would have been like Corbyn.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
Because Clinton's supporters actually liked her and having the DNC do to her far worse than anything what they've been accused to doing to Bernie would not engender good feelings towards either the DNC or the candidate on whose behalf the DNC intervened, christ
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:I think Mello's 180 come to Jesus statement is enough What was that? I missed it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:09
|
|
|
JeffersonClay posted:Carter was a fiscal conservative who stopped Ted Kennedy from passing UHC and guaranteed government employment. Bernie would have been like Corbyn. Sure, more the "one term president without any working relationship with Congressional leadership", because 2016, even had Sanders won, would not have been a Sanderista downticket wave but at best a Clintonista downticket wave because he didn't have a movement going into the election like he does coming out of it
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Carter was at odds with his party and Bernard would have been too, just for polar opposite reasons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Maarek posted:Scrapping the primary system and returning to appointing nominees would lead to more Hillary Clintons, not fewer of them. Don't scrap it. Keep it. If someone cheats though, they should be removed from contention. This isn't really that hard to figure out. Majorian posted:I don't see much evidence of this, beyond your wishful thinking. Here's something fun, name 3 democrats republicans hate more than Hillary Clinton
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 23:19 |
|
|
Majorian posted:I think they would have stayed home, by and large, or voted for Stein, or written in Clinton's name. Also this Hillary has her reputation in the shitter because of all the poo poo that has been revealed after the election. She was never liked but besides the lovely hangers on alot have given up on hercdue to these internal revelations. Her getting removed would have been a confirmation of Hillaries rants abot a vrwc. But now with Bernie being part of it. Alot would have stayed home. Frankly as much as i love Sandrrs i think him by himsekf largely in office would not do us favors. This defeat made the left realise that centrists have been lying about their effectiveness and given progressive politics a new wind. Crowsbeak fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Apr 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2017 20:13
|
|