|
Fulchrum posted:Because I don't think trying to placate this delusion and thereby validate it will actually help. There will just be yet another thing that is the worst scandal ever to give any explanation other than the leftist candidate being a fuckup. even if you just hate leftists guts theres no reason to oppose a good change just to spite them
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 07:16 |
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:I understand, but you could just use the gender-neutral "they." Advance the cause of gender neutral pronouns and mock lovely Twitter accounts! they is a great pronoun and i heartily endorse it
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
King of Solomon posted:Didn't it come out shortly after the election that the Clintons basically owned the DNC? Didn't more people vote for Hillary over Bernie in the primary? Why do people keep saying it was fixed?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Because I don't think trying to placate this delusion and thereby validate it will actually help. There will just be yet another thing that is the worst scandal ever to give any explanation other than the leftist candidate being a fuckup. I thought it was gonna take at least one more response to you before you dropped the pretenses, but nice
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:"Don't estimate and publish superdelegate votes" is a simple change that could help, with no downsides that I can think of, so why are you arguing against it? Superdelegates no longer get a vote. There is no need to estimate them. If a second ballot is required, pledged delegates are no longer pledged and its just a complete shitshow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:Before the election It’s sad that this guy was so chuddy he couldn’t make it as a male model, because that face is so sculpted and so pouty it was made by God himself to sell overpriced clothes and perfume.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:08
|
|
|
Spacebump posted:Didn't more people vote for Hillary over Bernie in the primary? Why do people keep saying it was fixed? because it came out that hillary bought the DNC, was given the right to make staffing choices before the primary ended, and had access to general election funds during the primary that were meant for the dem nominee
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
RasperFat posted:Every election, even primaries, come down to low information voters. The people that are intensely engaged and know policy detail and local party structure all have their votes and preferred candidate locked in. Yeah, the donor money didn't matter, cause again, Bernie had more money than her. It was the name, the goodwill, the actual accomplishments, and the Democratic voter base liking her policies better that Bernie couldn't overcome. sexpig by night posted:again if they don't matter why have them Cause the situation they were intended to prevent, of a primary that does not produce a clear winner, could still happen. Condiv posted:because it came out that hillary bought the DNC, was given the right to make staffing choices before the primary ended, and had access to general election funds during the primary that were meant for the dem nominee Hey look, a bunch of things that didn't impact the goddamn primary. Shut the gently caress up, Rall.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:09
|
|
|
The funny thing getting largely lost in this discussion is that Hillary's attempt to fix the primary is actually what gave Bernie an opening to actually raise his profile and draw attention to his cause.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:
why do republicans not have them considering they could get the same situation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:11
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:I thought it was gonna take at least one more response to you before you dropped the pretenses, but nice That you are continuing to ignore the massive superdelegate change as if it never occurred pretty strongly supports the argument that your views are not going to change as the facts change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:12
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The funny thing getting largely lost in this discussion is that Hillary's attempt to fix the primary is actually what gave Bernie an opening to actually raise his profile and draw attention to his cause. i still dunno why the dem party has not embraced bernie sanders despite him being unbelievably popular with just about everyone in the voting public. if they just embraced and worked with him, the dems would be near unstoppable. he forced bezos to be a little less of a shithead without their support. imagine what he could do if the full democratic machine was echoing his message
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
clearly the only way to resolve this once and for all is to run both clinton and bernie again in 2020. i'll make the website.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:"Don't estimate and publish superdelegate votes" is a simple change that could help, with no downsides that I can think of, so why are you arguing against it? Fulchrum posted:Because I don't think trying to placate this delusion and thereby validate it will actually help. There will just be yet another thing that is the worst scandal ever to give any explanation other than the leftist candidate being a fuckup. Incredible. He even admits that there's no upside to what he wants to do, sticking a finger in democracy's eye is an end in itself.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Superdelegates no longer get a vote. There is no need to estimate them. If a second ballot is required, pledged delegates are no longer pledged and its just a complete shitshow. i forgot this part even though it's really obvious when you think about it
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:13
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:I thought it was gonna take at least one more response to you before you dropped the pretenses, but nice I've never hidden it, I've been very open that I think you all have absolutely gigantic victim complexes and will refuse to ever examine leftist candidates for any weaknesses, instead blaming everyone else for their failures. sexpig by night posted:why do republicans not have them considering they could get the same situation? Cause they have faithless delegates, who have the exact same function, only in an actually undemocratic manner since it encourages the pledged delegates to vote for whoever they actually want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
Spacebump posted:Didn't more people vote for Hillary over Bernie in the primary? Why do people keep saying it was fixed? Because she spent the 8 years after her loss to Obama consolidating power and bribing or threatening potential hopefuls in the Democratic party to not run against her. Because the DNC was in debt to her. Because the previous head of the DNC became her VP choice, because the current head of the DNC was a former staffer of hers. Because Washington is an insiders club and the Clintons have been there for decades amassing power. Theres a reason nobody ran against her, the Clinton's were powerful in Washington and are extremely petty. Bernie was a loving protest candidate, he was just supposed to be there to drag it left and his message found resonance in people
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:15
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:That you are continuing to ignore the massive superdelegate change as if it never occurred pretty strongly supports the argument that your views are not going to change as the facts change. why should they even exist though? There's still no actual explanation for why they even exist at all. I don't care if they change roles, I care that they are a thing at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i still dunno why the dem party has not embraced bernie sanders despite him being unbelievably popular with just about everyone in the voting public. if they just embraced and worked with him, the dems would be near unstoppable. he forced bezos to be a little less of a shithead without their support. imagine what he could do if the full democratic machine was echoing his message I hear Bernie even made the sun rise today! All hail Bernie! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:16
|
|
|
sexpig by night posted:why should they even exist though? There's still no actual explanation for why they even exist at all. I don't care if they change roles, I care that they are a thing at all. The elite are very attached to their titles. Superdelegates probably get an extra-special ribbon on their conference lanyard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:I hear Bernie even made the sun rise today! All hail Bernie! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:That you are continuing to ignore the massive superdelegate change as if it never occurred pretty strongly supports the argument that your views are not going to change as the facts change. With respect to the conversation at hand, it doesn't matter what the convention rules are if every election tracker still gifts a delegate to a candidate any time a superdelegate announces who they support. I agree that it would now be even more pointless to do so than it was in the past, so hopefully that takes care of itself, but little surprises me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
Chilichimp posted:Let me say unequivocally, that Joe Manchin sucks, right outta the gate. You've got no reason to come at me with Joe Manchin tweets or policy ideas. He loving sucks. Obama could have not made the secure communities program mandatory across the nation. He could have made ICE not raid school bus stops, and not put high schoolers in solitary detention. He could also not have helped sponsor a coup in Honduras that put someone tied to drug dealers in charge. Of course, you could have also bothered to read anything at all written by the immigrant rights community about Obama, but we all know that ignoring then is a feature, not a bug.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
GoluboiOgon posted:Fulchrum What's the surprise that Deak remains Deak, worthless as ever?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Superdelegates may no longer vote on the first ballot - ie they may only vote if there is a brokered convention because no candidate got 50% of the pledged ballots in the primary. This is the change that Bernie’s supporters demanded and was adopted in a lopsided vote in August. No; the change that Bernie's supporters demanded was getting rid of superdelegates altogether. Again: It's meaningless to say they can't vote till the second ballot when they can still announce their rock-solid support for a candidate before the first primary and the media tally it as an "insurmountable lead" for that candidate. (They should be able to announce their support for candidates, but the media need to exclude superdelegate votes till after the final primary.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Because I don't think trying to placate this delusion and thereby validate it will actually help. There will just be yet another thing that is the worst scandal ever to give any explanation other than the leftist candidate being a fuckup. Media coverage influencing elections is a "delusion"? We can't criticize the media for breathlessly reporting every empty Trump podium before a speech for hours on end, and not also criticize the media using super delegates in their delegate count to make a primary race look like a blowout. Perception matters. Not everyone is a football fan, but the Super Bowl gets massive ratings and is watched by even non-fans. If 5 minutes into the game the score is 97 to 3 a lot of people aren't going to keep watching. Are you really arguing that less interested voters won't be less engaged in the process if they believe the outcome is already a foregone conclusion? It's an easy fix too! If super delegates don't matter, get rid of them. Nothing is lost and the stupid, dumb worthless leftists have one less thing to complain about. Win win, right?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
Stexils posted:clearly the only way to resolve this once and for all is to run both clinton and bernie again in 2020. i'll make the website. or we can run a hybrid candidate: Bellary Clanders Right there the name gives you all the southern states
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i still dunno why the dem party has not embraced bernie sanders despite him being unbelievably popular with just about everyone in the voting public. if they just embraced and worked with him, the dems would be near unstoppable. he forced bezos to be a little less of a shithead without their support. imagine what he could do if the full democratic machine was echoing his message He's not registered as a Democrat, for one. I don't care about this but the party leaders almost certainly do. Terror Sweat posted:Because she spent the 8 years after her loss to Obama consolidating power and bribing or threatening potential hopefuls in the Democratic party to not run against her. Because the DNC was in debt to her. Because the previous head of the DNC became her VP choice, because the current head of the DNC was a former staffer of hers. Because Washington is an insiders club and the Clintons have been there for decades amassing power. Theres a reason nobody ran against her, the Clinton's were powerful in Washington and are extremely petty. It's sort of funny, but if Clinton had permitted a larger field of candidates Bernie probably wouldn't have caught on as the alternative. Her sucking all the air out of the room created a scenario where someone had to be the anti-Clinton and Sanders was the only real choice a single tear rolls down Martin O'Malley's cheek
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:20
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:Even back in the day when the GOP hadn't openly gone full chud the base still got most of what they wanted. At the very least I can't recall Republican establishment openly telling their base that they're never ever getting something they want, which is routine when the Dem establishment talks to their base. So it it really surprising that republican voters are more loyal? The GOP elite talked up immigration reform that would favor big buisness for decades because that's what big buisness wanted and the GOP is beholden to them. It is what really sank Bush 43s presidency, not Katrina. The base revolted.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:21
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:He's not registered as a Democrat, for one. I don't care about this but the party leaders almost certainly do. he almost certainly would be had they not stonewalled him. it's really unfortunate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
Oh my god best thing ever from this thread: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:22
|
|
|
Terror Sweat posted:
Yeah this is also worth keeping in mind. The Sanders campaign made plenty of mistakes and had some glaring oversights. I also think the fact that a lot of black voters tend to have a much more positive impression of the Democratic Party than other demographics meant that Sanders' outsider persona hurt him in some southern primaries. The fact he got as far as he did despite this should have been a huge signal for the Democrats to do a course correction and the fact they failed to do so says a lot about how unwilling the party is to change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
Hey Fulchrum is your argument that any appearance of unfairness shouldn't be rectified, even at zero cost, in order to spite potential D voters ahead of a general election. Or what are you proposing exactly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:23
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Yeah, the donor money didn't matter, cause again, Bernie had more money than her. It was the name, the goodwill, the actual accomplishments, and the Democratic voter base liking her policies better that Bernie couldn’t overcome. Wow. I already said Bernie probably wouldn’t have been able to win anyways, and you STILL refuse to engage in a good faith framing. Superdelegates being included early (or at all) is a bad thing, but you can’t even admit that very obvious thing and instead get hostile real quick with people that don’t like Hillary (even though we all voted for her anyways).
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:24
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:The GOP elite talked up immigration reform that would favor big buisness for decades because that's what big buisness wanted and the GOP is beholden to them. It is what really sank Bush 43s presidency, not Katrina. The base revolted. Nah the base revolted when he tried to cut SS and Medicare. Katrina was just a cherry on top of a dumpster fire. For some reason op-ed pieces almost always ignore how much people hated that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TrumpsAlert/status/1061284863431438337 https://twitter.com/TrumpsAlert/status/1061647260738416640
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:28
|
|
|
To be honest, I actually always thought it was a hyperbolic exaggeration that USPOL couldn't stop arguing about Hillary vs Bernie. Huh. Live and learn
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:29
|
|
|
Condiv posted:i still dunno why the dem party has not embraced bernie sanders despite him being unbelievably popular with just about everyone in the voting public. if they just embraced and worked with him, the dems would be near unstoppable. he forced bezos to be a little less of a shithead without their support. imagine what he could do if the full democratic machine was echoing his message Hard to say "with just about everyone in the voting public" when he didn't get more votes than Hillary though. I like Bernie but to get out of the primary you need more votes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 07:16 |
|
|
This is high art and I put it in the OP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2018 23:31
|
|
