|
Ardennes posted:
And will his supporters go on and on about the Democrat Party being rigged for months after that again? Ardennes posted:Trump wasn't president, and we didn't know what we know now. Also, he was expected to be "easy to beat", I don't the Democrats don't make the same mistake twice. Yeah. They usually do it more than twice! 
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 13:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 12:55 |
|
|
For what it's worth https://twitter.com/micahcohen/status/1050349105531297793
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 14:40
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:And will his supporters go on and on about the Democrat Party being rigged for months after that again? Maybe run not-olds against the creepy looking old guy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 14:55
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:And will his supporters go on and on about the Democrat Party being rigged for months after that again? Here, have tomorrow's conspiracy theory, today. https://twitter.com/HCTrudo/status/1047165969297235968
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 15:04
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Here, have tomorrow's conspiracy theory, today. Et tu, Elisabetta?
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 15:10
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:And will his supporters go on and on about the Democrat Party being rigged for months after that again? If they rig it again, people will probably talk about it again yes. Paracaidas posted:I think you may have misunderstood my post? No it isn't my premise, my premise is that voter preference is complicated and there are a lot of factors involved here of which age is a large and important indicator (weirdly, these factors keep getting cut out of quotes by people replying to me though, must be keyboard glitches), so when you look closer it's a lot more complicated than "gee I dunno if you look at 30-month-old polls Bernie seems bad on race, not saying he's racist, but I mean what else is there". It's all been discussed to death on these forums, and if you want we can talk again about the massive gap in name recognition at the beginning, a shoe-string campaign operation that was a protest run until it unexpectedly started growing in popularity, a well-established Democratic Party machine in southern primaries which gives huge turnout advantages to insiders vs outsiders, an initial justified wariness in Southern black voters about someone they've never heard of from a white-rear end state appealing to poor whites, the massive differential in funding which made it easier for a well-funded operation to campaign in multiple states ahead of Super Tuesday, yes Bernie's out-of-touch old man comments on race and his pivot to correct them by bringing BLM into his campaign, the trend toward Bernie among all demographics as people became more familiar with him, a trend which didn't end with the campaign but has now made him the most popular politician in the country for two years straight with a stratospheric approval rating among African Americans, etc. We can talk about all that, if you want. I don't see why people are so obsessed with talking about it when, if Bernie ever had a problem appealing to African Americans, two years of polling has consistently showed they love him now, but if you want to we can get into it all again. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:26 on Oct 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 15:23
|
|
|
Are we going to get into this again? While I thought Sanders' supporters raised a good point about the disadvantages of being an underdog, being an underdog who loses is not a sign of "rigging." It felt a lot like Trump saying that the election would be rigged against him to make him lose. But then again, I define rigging as false ballots and shenanigans like dead people coming back to life to vote on election day. Sanders did not have a lot of support amongst established party figures, but he lost because he lost the game, which was getting more primary votes than HRC. And is it really that surprising given that Sanders refuses to actually join the party he wants to become the nominee for? EDIT: If Sanders loses again, I would like to know what kind of loss will lead to his supporters saying that it wasn't rigged? Brony Car fucked around with this message at 15:33 on Oct 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 15:30
|
|
|
no a sign of rigging would be allowing one candidate's campaign to pick the staff for the national (and supposedly neutral) party before primaries have even begun
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 15:33
|
|
|
The interim DNC Chair and Clinton's friend looked into it, admitted it was rigged, published the proof, and apologized to Sanders. It happened. To cut off a tedious argument, the response is "okay but it didn't maaaaatter, Clinton would have won anywaaaaaay" which even if true doesn't justify cheating in most people's eyes, so if it happens again it will be discussed and will likely cause problems in the general, again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 15:38
|
|
|
“The Democratic Party and its various institutions preferred a candidate” (especially in the context of a two person election in which one of the candidates was explicitly running against the party) is not the same as “the primaries were rigged”. The DNC’s role in the primaries is to schedule some debates, prepare the convention, and adjudicate delegate disputes (there were none in 2016). It’s a nonsense statement to say that an entity who doesn’t handle any votes, doesn’t vet who is or isn’t allowed to run, and has no impact on the eventual results is capable of or did “rig” a primary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 15:42
|
|
|
Primary was rigged, just not against Bernie specifically - Biden was who Hillary was trying to effectively shut out. It just worked out that all that setup against Biden was still useful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
Also, it is a weird argument considering, the Russian hacking was supposed to be about the DNC's bias in the first place. I mean...you got to choose one or the other.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 15:44
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The interim DNC Chair and Clinton's friend looked into it, admitted it was rigged, published the proof, and apologized to Sanders. It happened. Donna Brazile's a bit of a twit, no? Did she really explain why it was rigged? I felt like it was just self-preservation to get the stink of failure off of her. I don't want to get too technical or legalistic since my idea of what "cheating" or "rigging" is not the same as "favoring" and I don't think anyone who had been a longtime Democrat expected the DNC to be neutral. Also, every party has its preferences (much like how the GOP establishment were wrestling with themselves in 2016 trying to find a way to avoid nominating Trump). The primaries are basically a popularity contest and Sanders wasn't tight enough with the Democrats to win it (even though Sanders would have been a better nominee). I think a lot of Sanders supporters (rightfully) wanted the primaries (and politics generally) to be a more meritocratic process and lost sight of that. I can see why there is an enormous feeling of resentment and I hope other posters here get that. HRC's cronies' influence over the party was (and still is) corrosive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 15:44
|
|
|
quote:In the emails, DNC staffers derided the Sanders campaign.[22] The Washington Post reported: "Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign. Basically, all of these examples came late in the primary—after Hillary Clinton was clearly headed for victory—but they believe the national party committee's stated neutrality in the race even at that late stage."[23] yeah i'm sure such a clear bias against one of the two candidates in a primary by the national party had absolutely no impact on the course of the election, particularly vis-a-vis a high level smear campaign by "senior party officials who asked not to go on record"
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
Hopelessly and wholly corrupt while using the full weight of their organization to favor a candidate but not technically rigging since they didn't literally stuff ballot boxes is not a distinction most people make
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 15:47
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:Did she really explain why it was rigged? Brony Car posted:I don't want to get too technical or legalistic since my idea of what "cheating" is not the same as "favoring" and I don't think anyone who had been a longtime Democrat expected the DNC to be neutral. They promised voters they would be neutral tho, turns out lying pisses people off and "well you should have known I would lie to get what I want" is not an acceptable excuse in the eyes of most people and they will probably talk about it. You can't have it both ways, if you want to favor a candidate say so openly, and the hit in support from voters who are repulsed by your contempt for democracy is the price you pay to get that. If you want the support from voters who demand a fair unbiased primary, then putting your personal preferences aside and running the election you promised them even if you might lose is the price you pay to get that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
you can argue about impact and results all you want but it has been clearly demonstrated that the DNC was not acting in good faith and absolutely nothing has been done to correct or address this
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
If the “full weight of the organisation” amounts to some snippy internal emails that fantasise about possible lines in off-the-record briefings, I don’t know what there is to be upset about. The DNC does not, in any meaningful sense, run “the Democratic Party” or the primary process, and I think it’s pretty clear that Sanders made the calculation that he gets a lot more out of positioning himself against the party insiders than he would get out of cozying up. Like, in 2016, mid-campaign, his campaign [i]sued the DNC[\i]. That was a popular move with his supporters, but it very obviously made people within the DNC less-than-pleased at him, and since then he’s kept occasionally poking a stick in the eye of various parry insiders and committees. That’s something that his supporters like, but it’s fundamentally incompatible with having party insiders be neutral-in-their-hearts about him, and that’s the point. He wants, and his supporters want, the sense of outsiderness and fighting the insiders.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
Iron Twinkie posted:Hopelessly and wholly corrupt while using the full weight of their organization to favor a candidate but not technically rigging since they didn't literally stuff ballot boxes is not a distinction most people make I'm in the legal sector. Making those distinctions is part of my job, sadly. Pinterest Mom is saying what i want to say more concisely. I get why the distinction does not sit well with people, but I do think it's an important difference to recognize. VitalSigns posted:You can't have it both ways, if you want to favor a candidate say so openly, and the hit in support from voters who are repulsed by your contempt for democracy is the price you pay to get that. I get that. That's a good point. Raskolnikov38 posted:you can argue about impact and results all you want but it has been clearly demonstrated that the DNC was not acting in good faith and absolutely nothing has been done to correct or address this Aside from electing someone else besides Perez, what should have been done? From what I'm gathering, people are just going to end up complaining about the primaries being rigged again if Sanders or Warren (or someone else left of the likes of Booker or Harris) does not win.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:bernie will win a plurality because of the clownshow, get hosed over by his own superdelegate rules change (jeez i wonder why the leadership accepted any revision to superdelegates) and i will cry/laugh as trump pulls a reagan in '84 over whoever the establishment coalesces behind This will only happen if the Democrats nominate Avenatti, which they are 100% capable of.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 16:06
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:If the “full weight of the organisation” amounts to some snippy internal emails that fantasise about possible lines in off-the-record briefings, I don’t know what there is to be upset about. The DNC does not, in any meaningful sense, run “the Democratic Party” or the primary process, and I think it’s pretty clear that Sanders made the calculation that he gets a lot more out of positioning himself against the party insiders than he would get out of cozying up. A lawsuit so powerful it reverberated back in time and caused the DNC, helpless against this unbearable insult, to sell off posts to the Hillary campaign so "Hillary would control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff" eight months in the past. The DNC was forced, forced, I tell you, what else could they possibly have done? Pinterest Mom posted:The DNC’s role in the primaries is to schedule some debates, prepare the convention, and adjudicate delegate disputes (there were none in 2016). It’s a nonsense statement to say that an entity who doesn’t handle any votes, doesn’t vet who is or isn’t allowed to run, and has no impact on the eventual results is capable of or did “rig” a primary. Riiiiight, the Clinton campaign just paid all that money to control it before the primaries begun for no reason. If you want to make this argument, it's unlikely to convince anyone unless the DNC shows they believe it by saaaay putting all of Bernie's people in those posts and giving his 2020 campaign "control of finances, staffing, and all the money raised along with right of refusal for communications director and final say on all other staff", since it makes no difference anyway right, might as well hand out this deal to someone else next time. I'm gonna bet that's not acceptable tho VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Oct 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 16:13
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:Aside from electing someone else besides Perez, what should have been done? From what I'm gathering, people are just going to end up complaining about the primaries being rigged again if Sanders or Warren (or someone else left of the likes of Booker or Harris) does not win. an apology from the party and some sort of committee to suggest neutrality reforms would have been nice instead of the two years of sweeping it under the rug (at best) or calling the people mad about it russian dupes or quislings (at worst) by the party leadership given recent revelations about ellison, perez was probably a better pick for the DNC head but this is entirely in retrospect
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 16:21
|
|
|
Slutitution posted:This will only happen if the Democrats nominate Avenatti, which they are 100% capable of. No, they absolutely are not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 16:29
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:I'm in the legal sector. Making those distinctions is part of my job, sadly. i was not ~cheating~ on my wife, you see, i was merely loving other women
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 16:29
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:i was not ~cheating~ on my wife, you see, i was merely sexting other women I fixed that for you. At my billable rate, you owe me $30.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 16:33
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:I fixed that for you. At my billable rate, you owe me $30. wait does this actually make a difference in divorce cases??
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 16:34
|
|
|
How does the argument "she should have known I was lying about forsaking all others, I mean come on whose fault is this really" hold up in court
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 16:38
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:wait does this actually make a difference in divorce cases?? I'm not a family lawyer, so I wouldn't know for sure. A coworker of mine was going through a divorce though and he disclosed to me how he and his lawyer had to really finesses their explanations about what led to the divorce to minimize how harsh his spousal support obligations would be. Given how a lot of family law matters do not have a clean, set quantitative formulas/standards to determine their outcomes, it seems like any measure to quash (or at least minimize) doubts about your morality so that they aren't rife in a judge's head when he or she makes, say, a child custody determination, is worth the pain. I'm glad I'm not in family law. Sorry for the digression here. Brony Car fucked around with this message at 16:50 on Oct 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
Brony Car posted:I'm in the legal sector. Making those distinctions is part of my job, sadly. I don't think that's a distinction that many people outside of other lawyers care about. Like you can sit down and explain to people that all the donations to campaigns and a politicians personal foundation, million dollar speaking fees, and highly paid post career consulting gigs where they have to show up maybe for two days are not bribes. You can explain that bribes are only literally a bag of money with a dollar sign on it with a notorized letter stating "Here is the money I am explicitly paying you to let me do crimes" and we might at best blink a few times before looking back at the above and saying "but those are bribes". On the topic of institutional power and segwaying back to the topic of 2020, I think what makes the election extremely unpredictable is that the Democratic power base has no clear heir. Kamala might have gone to the Hamptons and kissed the rings of the Hillary donors but it remains to be seen weather or not that will translate into actual momentum and I doubt they will stay loyal if another centrist looks like they may pull ahead. Booker has a well refined and rehearsed persona but its completely wrong for the times we are in and he doesn't seem either capable or cognizant that he needs to update it. McCaskill has the connections and has made efforts to retool her message to appear more progressive but she's persona non gratta for "betraying" Al Frankin and the power brokers of the party can't seem to get over that. Biden is, uh, problematic and I feel like the moment he starts saying or doing anything he's going to drop like a stone. In all honesty I don't even think Barrack Obama could sweep the board in 2020 if that were possible. If they were smart I think they would back Warren out the gate. She's proven that she wants to be agreeable to the power base and the reforms she's proposed so far are extremely tepid. You fill her campaign with the biggest fart huffing consultants and lanyards that money can buy and you do everything you can to push anyone to her left out of the race. Push her as far to the right as you possibly can and the best case is she wins and you fill her cabinet with the same people that have been running things for decades. Business as usual and decorum is restored. Worst case is she loses, Sanders either dies or retires before the next election, you spend your efforts to keep any other socialists from getting into striking distance of a national platform, and declare the left officially dead. They aren't going to do that though because she once said some mean things about Wall St.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 17:09
|
|
|
I assume you mean Gillibrand not McCaskill E: Yeah they could probably win with Warren and get 99% of what they want, but that other 1% might be her appointing an attorney general who doesn't think "ah but if you convict me of my crimes the shareholders might lose money and you won't be invited to my cocktail parties anymore" is an invincible legal defense and they can't have that. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Oct 11, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 17:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I assume you mean Gillibrand not McCaskill Whoops, yeah I meant Gillibrand
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 17:26
|
|
|
Do people like Warren that much? Are her national favorability ratings good? Maybe this is my age talking, but as much as I like her, I feel like she has Hillary/Kerry levels of public charisma (i.e., not a lot) and I find that really worrying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
I think she’s a better speaker than either one of them (not that that’s a high bar to clear) and really like the bills she’s put out recently related to codetermination and affordable housing. I think she can speak well about economic issues. However voters don’t care much about well designed policies so I don’t imagine that would get her very far. I don’t think she can be automatically discounted like a lot of people itt are doing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 19:02
|
|
|
Warrens really good about talking economics that average people can understand, and has a long career of talking about the problems facing working class families. She also set up the CFPB. She has name recognition and people like her. I think shes a pretty strong candidate. One possible down side misogyny but that's true of Gillibrand, Harris, etc. She might also have the "old white lady" racial implications. edit: I don't think the "pocahontas" poo poo sticks with anyone who wasn't already predisposed to dislike her.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
Gillibrand’s main problem is all the crazy people who think she personally murdered Al Franken, who did nothing wrong. I doubt they’re a large part of the electorate but they’re probably a decent chunk of primary voters.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 19:26
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:given recent revelations about ellison, perez was probably a better pick for the DNC head but this is entirely in retrospect
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 19:43
|
|
|
unless warren runs to the left she's going to be fighting for bernie's base as a more acceptable choice to centrists which isn't going to work with bernie running
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Has there been more evidence about Ellison being an abuser? http://www.startribune.com/family-court-referee-wants-to-decide-on-access-to-ellison-divorce-files-by-friday/496348141/ It doesn't look like it's going away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
punk rebel ecks posted:Has there been more evidence about Ellison being an abuser? without wading into that, him being DNC leader when it first arose would have been a disaster
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 12:55 |
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:without wading into that, him being DNC leader when it first arose would have been a disaster Could you please elaborate? Brony Car posted:http://www.startribune.com/family-court-referee-wants-to-decide-on-access-to-ellison-divorce-files-by-friday/496348141/ Ugh. I really want to root for Keith but him being any type of abuser would be a no go.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2018 19:48
|
|