|
Tom Perez B/K/M? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| B |
|
77 | 25.50% |
| K |
|
160 | 52.98% |
| M |
|
65 | 21.52% |
| Total: | 229 votes | ||
|
I'm not sure it counts as private or personal once you write a book about it.
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:58 |
|
|
"The Aristocrats!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:I'm not sure it counts as private or personal once you write a book about it. That's my point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
I wouldn't worry too much about Hillary's supporters, outside the Democrat establishment anyway, as you've had a pretty public referendum revealing there really aren't nearly as many of them as anyone thought. To be honest, you could probably win more votes by trashing her, especially since she's got most of the same problems as Obama with none of the upsides.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:I wouldn't worry too much about Hillary's supporters, outside the Democrat establishment anyway, as you've had a pretty public referendum revealing there really aren't nearly as many of them as anyone thought. To be honest, you could probably win more votes by trashing her, especially since she's got most of the same problems as Obama with none of the upsides. By that logic, Democrats could trash Sanders because he lost to Clinton in the primaries. I'm not actually suggesting that anyone should trash Sanders with this argument.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 17:02
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:By that logic, Democrats could trash Sanders because he lost to Clinton in the primaries. not really, cause the primaries were rigged. it's unfortunate that the DNC put their thumb on the scale for hillary
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 17:09
|
|
|
Condiv posted:not really, cause the primaries were rigged. it's unfortunate that the DNC put their thumb on the scale for hillary "Rigged" is a word with more unfortunate implications. Let's just say that Hillary had every structural advantage in the world as well as a huge amount of name recognition. The way the media reported delegate counts was lovely as hell, too, where they lumped in her superdelegates to make it look like she had a commanding lead right from the start.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 17:11
|
|
|
Has there been any serious talk in the DNC about getting rid of super delegates? It's a small thing but IMO it would go a long way towards rebuilding faith in the party on the left.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Has there been any serious talk in the DNC about getting rid of super delegates? It's a small thing but IMO it would go a long way towards rebuilding faith in the party on the left. lmao
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Has there been any serious talk in the DNC about getting rid of super delegates? It's a small thing but IMO it would go a long way towards rebuilding faith in the party on the left. lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
More primary voters voted for Hillary Clinton than Bernie Sanders. She had more pledged delegates by any measure. That's a defeat. I don't know how else to characterize it. If you can't accept that, then you're consigning yourself to a different reality.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:More primary voters voted for Hillary Clinton than Bernie Sanders. She had more pledged delegates by any measure. No one is claiming otherwise. We're pointing out that Hillary had massive massive advantages that made it not exactly a fair contest. Like, you know, superdelegates.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 17:23
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:No one is claiming otherwise. We're pointing out that Hillary had massive massive advantages that made it not exactly a fair contest. More people voted for her. If superdelegates never existed, she still would have won.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:More people voted for her. If superdelegates never existed, she still would have won. I realize this. Do you want to admit that news constantly showing an inflated delegate count for Hillary maybe made people think she was winning by a landslide even extremely early on and do you think that may have influenced how some primary voters voted? I mean, she was always going to win, her last name is Clinton, and no one know who Bernie was before he ran. I'm just trying to explain how the primary was stacked in her favor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:More people voted for her. If superdelegates never existed, she still would have won. That is a completely unprovable hypothetical. It's obvious that seeing Hillary Clinton with a massive lead on the news every night because of super delegates probably had a negative effect on Sanders' campaign. I mean, for gently caress sake, she was declared the winner before the primaries were over based on super delegates. Even setting aside all the other assistance she got, the super delegates alone mean that Clinton did not win an even fight fair and square.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I realize this. Do you want to admit that news constantly showing an inflated delegate count for Hillary maybe made people think she was winning by a landslide even extremely early on and do you think that may have influenced how some primary voters voted? Yeah. Exactly. While it's all speculation, it was insanely hosed up that CNN and the rmajor news outlets showed her having all of the SDs before they even loving voted at the convention. This kind of poo poo has an effect on both sides.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
Hey guys, remember how Hillary had way more superdelegates on her side at the beginning of 2008 and then she won the primary because of that, and it was totally rigged for her?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 17:45
|
|
|
poo poo, even Tina Fey is wiffing this? I never expected her to bat for antifa and DSA, but I expected her to at least know better than to go "Come onnn guys, let the nazis have our streets now and then, what's it to ya?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
jklfdsa posted:Hey guys, remember how Hillary had way more superdelegates on her side at the beginning of 2008 and then she won the primary because of that, and it was totally rigged for her? Want to play this game? How about the hissyfit they threw when Bernie wouldn't drop out when she did the same poo poo in 2008 and alluded to Barry getting assassinated?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:I realize this. Do you want to admit that news constantly showing an inflated delegate count for Hillary maybe made people think she was winning by a landslide even extremely early on and do you think that may have influenced how some primary voters voted? It may have had some effect, but did it affect 4 million votes? This was not a particularly lose contest in popular vote, either. This is not a commentary on Sanders' ideas or platform, this is just a statement of reality.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:It may have had some effect Okay, great, thanks for agreeing. I already said that Clinton was always going to win, even if it were a "fair" contest she had huge name recognition and ties to the Democratic institutions for her entire life.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:It may have had some effect, but did it affect 4 million votes? This was not a particularly lose contest in popular vote, either. of course it had some effect. one that's been observed and named for a long rear end time. it's called the bandwagon effect quote:About 70% of subjects received information about the expected winner. Independents, which are those who do not vote based on the endorsement of any party and are ultimately neutral, were influenced strongly in favor of the person expected to win. Expectations played a significant role throughout the study. It was found that independents are twice as likely to vote for the Republican candidate when the Republican is expected to win. From the results, it was also found that when the Democrat was expected to win, independent Republicans and weak Republicans were more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate. Condiv fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Aug 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
jklfdsa posted:Hey guys, remember how Hillary had way more superdelegates on her side at the beginning of 2008 and then she won the primary because of that, and it was totally rigged for her? Remember when she threw a hissy fit and can still claim she "won the popular vote" in 08 because she was the only candidate running in the supposed-to-be-cancelled Michigan primary
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Matt Zerella posted:Want to play this game? How about the hissyfit they threw when Bernie wouldn't drop out when she did the same poo poo in 2008 and alluded to Barry getting assassinated? But like, she did end up dropping out, though, unlike Bernie? Obama won more pledged delegates than her, thus prompting the superdelegates to defect from her. This started happening pretty early in the primary, yes, and these things do feed into each other (people seeing superdelegates fleeing Clinton probably helped Obama), but the idea that the same thing somehow wouldn't have happened in 2016 if Hillary was clearly losing is kind of absurd. The superdelegates (who should absolutely be abolished!) would have defected from Hillary if she were clearly losing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Remember when she threw a hissy fit and can still claim she "won the popular vote" in 08 because she was the only candidate running in the supposed-to-be-cancelled Michigan primary Yes, and I also remember her also dropping out after she got fewer pledged delegates than Obama.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
jklfdsa posted:Yes, and I also remember her also dropping out after she got fewer pledged delegates than Obama. Conceding after demanding to run all 50 states to the knife isn't "dropping out" He also didn't dogwhistle about the possibility that she might be assassinated as an excuse to keep running.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Okay, great, thanks for agreeing. Unless you can prove that Sanders was cheated out of 4 million votes, it simply doesn't matter. Sanders wasn't cheated out of anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Unless you can prove that Sanders was cheated out of 4 million votes, it simply doesn't matter. Sanders wasn't cheated out of anything. Obviously that's impossible to prove. He wasn't "cheated" but it also wasn't fair. Can you get your mind around that concept? Maybe we should do stuff to make the next primary more fair, like get rid of the loving superdelegates. I think wanting the primary to be open and fair to all is something all Dems should be able to agree on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
jklfdsa posted:But like, she did end up dropping out, though, unlike Bernie? Obama won more pledged delegates than her, thus prompting the superdelegates to defect from her. This started happening pretty early in the primary, yes, and these things do feed into each other (people seeing superdelegates fleeing Clinton probably helped Obama), but the idea that the same thing somehow wouldn't have happened in 2016 if Hillary was clearly losing is kind of absurd. The superdelegates (who should absolutely be abolished!) would have defected from Hillary if she were clearly losing. IF they're going to keep superdelegates, the compromise is that their vote says confidential until the convention. I want them gone altogether but if they refuse to change, that's something I'd grudgingly accept.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Agnosticnixie posted:Conceding after demanding to run all 50 states to the knife isn't "dropping out" Yeah, she was a sore loser in 2008. So? 2016 was rigged because she was a sore loser in 2008?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Yeah, I don't think Democrats realise 'We didn't cheat, the rules are just massively biased in our favour' doesn't actually make them sound any better, especially when the Republican primaries were actually fair and democratic to what turned out to be a horrifying extent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:Unless you can prove that Sanders was cheated out of 4 million votes, it simply doesn't matter. Sanders wasn't cheated out of anything. *cough* ny dem primary rules
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
It's also worth keeping in mind that alot of people don't vote in the primaries or, in some states like mine, the primary is only open to registered party members. Hillary won the Florida primary pretty decisively but (from memory, exact percentage may be wrong) only 25% of the democrats that showed up for the general voted in the primaries and Hillary ended up losing the state.
Call Me Charlie fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Aug 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:Yeah, I don't think Democrats realise 'We didn't cheat, the rules are just massively biased in our favour' doesn't actually make them sound any better, especially when the Republican primaries were actually fair and democratic to what turned out to be a horrifying extent. The rules were not massively biased in her favor. Superdelegates were, unless someone else can prove otherwise, immaterial to the outcome of the race.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:Yeah, I don't think Democrats realise 'We didn't cheat, the rules are just massively biased in our favour' doesn't actually make them sound any better, especially when the Republican primaries were actually fair and democratic to what turned out to be a horrifying extent. actually, what they did was against their own rules. their argument is that their rules are more like campaign promises, ideals that they'll never stick to!
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:The rules were not massively biased in her favor. Superdelegates were, unless someone else can prove otherwise, immaterial to the outcome of the race. Are you loving serious dude? No one can prove that unless they can visit an alternate timeline where there were no Super delegates
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:Yeah, I don't think Democrats realise 'We didn't cheat, the rules are just massively biased in our favour' doesn't actually make them sound any better, especially when the Republican primaries were actually fair and democratic to what turned out to be a horrifying extent. What, specifically, are you talking about?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 18:06
|
|
|
Democrazy posted:The rules were not massively biased in her favor. Superdelegates were, unless someone else can prove otherwise, immaterial to the outcome of the race. Are you loving serious? Superdelegates are part of the rules you moron
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 18:07
|
|
|
Grognan posted:*cough* ny dem primary rules Having clear rules is not unfair. It was up to the Sanders campaign and voters to navigate the rules, not the NY Democratic Primary to change their rules because one of the candidates didn't like them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 20:58 |
|
