Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-20-2017 10:20 AM
349 online now:
Coragyps, Diomedes, DrJones*, dwise1, halibut, jar, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle (9 members, 340 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,689 Year: 27,295/21,208 Month: 1,208/1,714 Week: 51/365 Day: 7/44 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
34Next
Author Topic:   Newsweek: Hillary Clinton Robbed Bernie Sanders Of The Democratic Nomination, Accordi
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 981
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 16 of 53 (822928)
11-03-2017 4:06 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Taq
11-03-2017 12:18 PM


Re: "If you had told me this during the primary... I would have called you a conspiracy
quote:

The debate calendar kept him from winning? Seriously?

Super delegates are part of the nomination process, and Sanders was responsible for his own public image. Those would all be present with a level playing field.


It is fairly well documented that debates were deliberately placed on dates when there would be the smallest possible audience.

And Donna Brazile was fired from CNN when they found out that she sent debate questions to Hillary so she would be ready.

Also

I'm sure you really think that Hillary had such a positive public image. Nothing to do with a corrupt process from party big wigs.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Taq, posted 11-03-2017 12:18 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Taq, posted 11-03-2017 4:34 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 981
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 17 of 53 (822931)
11-03-2017 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by NoNukes
11-03-2017 3:57 PM


Re: "If you had told me this during the primary... I would have called you a conspiracy
I SAID:
quote:

I think I was called a conspiracy nut (by NoNukes?) during the debate over the DNC deck stacking.

NoNukes said:

quote:

Why don't you cite the exact conspiracy statements that resulted in in me calling you that?


Here is a post from long ago (in a time and galaxy far far away)

LamarkNewAge
Message 376 of 478 (782761)
04-28-2016 3:16 PM

http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=782763

quote:

Entire message 358 of NoNukes

quote:

[selective quote of LamarkNewAge]
Not bad considering he had already suffered having to deal with 11 southern states.

[NoNukes]
That's right. Southern states are a Democratic party plot designed to keep Sanders from winning the primary.

[selective quote of LamarkNewAge]
Now it is 17-12 for Bernie outside the south and he is down 23 to 17 in 40 states total.

[NoNukes]
Because southern states don't count despite the fact that southern democrtatic voters represent a diverse cross section of the population that is generally not found in the states Bernie has tended to win. Let's count up victories in Alaska and Wyoming and claim that those wins mean more than victories in Georgia or North Carolina.

I know we like to think that southern states are just redneck red states, but the population that gives southern states that reputation is not the population that Sanders and Clinton are appealing to and competing for in southern states. Or for that matter even in states like New York, Pennsylvania, or Delaware.

I like Bernie, and I appreciate that he has not gotten a fair shake from the Democratic party. But some arguments should not be used by creationists or anyone else.


Now for my actual post (which was #357).

quote:

Superdelegates "have never been a determining factor in who our nominee is since they've been in place since 1984."
— Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Monday, March 21st, 2016 in an interview on Fox Business News

They sure did influence the media coverage. Bernie was defeated from the start with Hillary and her big super delegate tallies frequently used as a yardstick.

After Wisconsin, Bernie needed 55% of the remaining (non-superdelegate) delegates to lead Hillary among voter chosen delegates. Not bad considering he had already suffered having to deal with 11 southern states. He actually had (post-Wisconsin) beaten her 16 to 7 in non southern states. Now it is 17-12 for Bernie outside the south and he is down 23 to 17 in 40 states total.

But the media kept saying he needed around 70% of remaining delegates. Because of the supers.

My point is that from the beginning, the media has assured us that Hillary has a "500" delegate lead" and "can't be stopped". After Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada Bernie had gotten more votes but the media was talking like it was nearly over because she has 450 or so more delegates. Then she crushed him in South Carolina and they talked about how Bernie needed 60% of all remaining delegates to win even though there were only 4 states (with 3% of the population) having voted.

Then came Super Tuesday.

Bernie won Oklahoma, Vermont, Colorado, and Minnesota.

Hillary won 7 states (6 southern ones plus Massachusetts).

15 states voted. With about 30% of the population.

Hillary won 10 (Iowa and Massachusetts very narrowly)

Bernie won 5 by at least 11 points each.

But Hillary had this big lead of something like 1000/1100 to 400 because of a 465 to 25 or something lead among the super delegates.

"Bernie needs like 65% of remaining delegates to win, the revolution is over".

It is over they tell us.

Now the nation thinks "silly old Bernie can't win" (people were saying that from the start) Before the race began (way back in September 2015), everybody had been saying the same thing. "He is too old, I'm supporting Trump." "Sanders isn't bad, just too old, I'm voting for Trump". "Only Trump can take on the establishment". "Sanders ain't going to win". "He will die in office". I heard that a trillion times way back before 2016! And all through January.

As soon as the voting started, the Democratic establishment (and the media) was ready to invoke the "Big Hillary delegate lead" and call the race.

Compare this to what Fowler jr. said back in 2011.

quote:

My father Don Fowler is a superdelegate. I love my father, and I trust my father. And I gave up letting my father dictate my life since he determined how late I got to stay up at night.

So, as much as I love and respect him, I don’t trust him and his fellow superdelegates to decide for me and the American people who should be the Democratic nominee.

Truth is, they won’t.

There is a tremendous amount of discussion and even paranoia suggesting that a group of party insiders are already at work cutting some backroom deal to pick the nominee they want ... damn the will of the voters and damn the democratic process.

That’s pretty much hogwash when one looks at who these superdelegates actually are.

Half of them are superdelegates precisely because of the will of the voters — all Democratic House members, all Democratic senators (except Lieberman), and all the Democratic governors. The other half are the 450 or so members of the Democratic National Committee — a sort of oversized board of directors for the national party. These folks come from every state and represent every wonderful, vibrant piece of cloth that makes up the Democratic electoral quilt.

Establishment, you say? These very same DNC members are the reason Howard Dean is Chairman of the Party ... despite the vocal, aggressive, even nasty opposition of the establishment. One very powerful establishment leader said of Governor Dean’s chase for the chairmanship after Kerry’s 2004 loss, “I don’t care who the Chairman of the DNC is, it just can’t be Howard Dean.” Oops. That was not a lonely sentiment coming from DC. Yet it was the 450 DNC members — superdelegates all — who put him exactly where he needed to be.

Let’s take this superdelegate analysis even further. At the end of this nomination process when the voters have spoken, the superdelegates will want what is best for the party (meaning a victory in November) and will almost all resist any temptation to overturn any decision made by a clear majority of voters in the states
....
So the superdelegates are, in fact, “super” because of their commitment to the Democratic Party and its ideals. And most were elected to that position in one way or another. They are not “super” because they have extra votes or because one presidential campaign controls them.
....
Why are the superdelegates there, then? They provide a sense of perspective and wisdom and, if ever needed, they could slow down the rise of an unfortunate and dangerous insurgent candidate like a Lyndon Larouche or David Duke. Just to be extra special clear, neither Senator Obama nor Senator Clinton are what the national party leadership had in mind over twenty years ago when the superdelegates came into being.
....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...he-superdelega_b_85936.html


How can anybody, no matter how smug, claim that the super delegates didn't slow down (if not trample all over) Bernie Sanders?

This Democratic primary has been about the biggest joke of a "democratic" process one can imagine.

They gave 15% of the delegates (or at least a net of 10% anyway) to Clinton right from the start. The media was happy to sell the narrative (big shock). And even more convenient that the primaries were front loaded with southern states (one can offer a straw-man joke about whether that was a deliberate conspiracy, but understand that the issue should be one of perspective - that being the media preferred perspective is to say "it's all over for any Bernie momentum after Hillary clobbered him early down south" and the non-corrupt perspective that less favorable, to Hillary, non-southern states should have their say without this "it's all over" b.s.)

Fowler claimed that superdelegates would change their minds based on the eventual pledged delegate (Democratic primary/caucus voter decided) outcome, but the media coverage has been to mock Bernie when he suggests that he only needed (till recently) around 55% , and not 73% of remaining delegates because, as he argued, he could get the Hillary supporting (unelected)Super Delegates to change their minds if he won their states (which would essentially be evening the superdelegates and relegating them to a complete wash and neither a net benefit or loss for either candidate).

Here is my google link which shows media reaction to the suggestion of Bernie that the Super Delegates would change their minds.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=sanders+says+change+...

I guess Bernie was the "unfortunate and dangerous insurgent candidate" Fowler jr. warned us about.



It was an comment that I was a conspiracy clown.

Here was the other person who was challenging me.

quote:

AZPaul3
Message 379 of 478 (782772)
04-28-2016 5:09 PM Reply to: Message 376 by LamarkNewAge
04-28-2016 3:16 PM

quote:

[LamarkNewAge said]
Re: Textbook case of quote mining staring NoNukes.

This Democratic primary has been about the biggest joke of a "democratic" process one can imagine.


Except it was never intended to be a "democratic" process in the extreme sense you are trying to make it. The process is intended to offer up the nominee of the Democratic Party not the nominee of the American people writ large. And the Democratic Party is the leadership of the party put in their positions by the party base not the American people writ large.

The sooner people understand what a political party really is the sooner this conspiracy tripe can end.

Edited by AZPaul3, 04-28-2016 5:11 PM: tighpoe


http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=782763


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by NoNukes, posted 11-03-2017 3:57 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 18 of 53 (822933)
11-03-2017 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by LamarkNewAge
11-03-2017 4:06 PM


Re: "If you had told me this during the primary... I would have called you a conspiracy
LamarkNewAge writes:

It is fairly well documented that debates were deliberately placed on dates when there would be the smallest possible audience.

And Donna Brazile was fired from CNN when they found out that she sent debate questions to Hillary so she would be ready.

Do you really think that these two factors prevented Sanders from winning the primary?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-03-2017 4:06 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 981
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 19 of 53 (822938)
11-03-2017 5:01 PM


NoNukes clicked the approval disc calling me a "conspiracy nut" here.
My post

quote:

Message 380 of 478 (782773)
04-28-2016 5:25 PM Reply to: Message 379 by AZPaul3
04-28-2016 5:09 PM

Superdelegates defended again.
15% of the vote is rigged.
Might as well say Sanders needs to win 50% out of the remaining 85%.

Or 59% to 41% of the voters.

Democratic voters need to vote nearly 3 to 2 to defeat the "one whose turn it is" as decided by an out of touch bunch of elites.

One person equals one vote in the democratic primary.

But. But. But.

You need to win 1.5 to 1 to win.

This wasn't what Fowler jr. told us back in 2011 (see article). Unless one ones to assume that Sanders fit the mold of that dangerous insurgent candidate. Like Larouche, he is anti-war (not quite as much as the strict pacifist Larouche), so that makes him a dangerous radical.

We were not sold this super delegate bowl of goods on the notion that Sanders was unfit to be President according to the all-knowing Democratic elites. And they called Larouche a "right-wing fascist" anyway (aside from his odd stance on HIV in the 1980s, nothing could be further from the truth), so who knows what the standard is?

I want to know what exactly made Sanders unfit for a simple majority of Democrats to be trusted?

Why does he need a super majority of (Democratic - Capital D) voters to win?


Then the response by AzPaul3 (which NoNukes clicked an agreement with)

quote:

Message 381 of 478 (782775)
04-28-2016 5:48 PM Reply to: Message 380 by LamarkNewAge
04-28-2016 5:25 PM

Re: Superdelegates defended again.

quote:

[LamarkNewAge]

I want to know what exactly made Sanders unfit for a simple majority of Democrats to be trusted?
Why does he need a super majority of (Democratic - Capital D) voters to win?


First, Bernie, and I really like Bernie, is too far to the left of the Democratic Party to garner the support needed to win the nomination of the party. Second, Hillary has that support and will skate into Philadelphia to accept the nomination based on pledged delegates alone.

quote:

[LamarkNewAge]

15% of the vote is rigged.


Conspiracy nut.

15% are super delegates. They are all the Democratic Party members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, all serving Democratic Party Governors of states, the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Democratic Party in each state and the members of the Democratic Leadership Council and the Democratic Party National Committee.

They were chosen because of their position. They are not chosen because they like Hillary. That is not "rigged".

They are free to support anyone they so chose. That is not "rigged".

This is the leadership of the party exercising some modicum of control over who best represents the philosophy and agenda of the Democratic Party. That is not "rigged"'

Because of her philosophy, her history, her work and her strength, a majority of those supers are supporting Hillary.

That's not "rigged". That is the party voice.

Edited by AZPaul3, 04-28-2016 5:51 PM: No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, 04-28-2016 5:56 PM: No reason given.


There you have it.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by NoNukes, posted 11-03-2017 11:01 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10059
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 20 of 53 (822953)
11-03-2017 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by LamarkNewAge
11-03-2017 5:01 PM


Re: NoNukes clicked the approval disc calling me a "conspiracy nut" here.
There you have it.

So I simply clicked an agreement with someone else.

I stand by my click. Paul's statements were absolutely correct.

That said, I am hardly the person who is responsible for that particular characterization of you as a nut. There are plenty of others instances in which I am the author.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-03-2017 5:01 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-03-2017 11:24 PM NoNukes has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 981
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 21 of 53 (822959)
11-03-2017 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by NoNukes
11-03-2017 11:01 PM


Re: NoNukes clicked the approval disc calling me a "conspiracy nut" here.
But opinions are changing when we learn more about what was going on (behind the scenes) during the period.

Nice to see that you bitterly cling to your guns and religion (just kidding). You DO cling to your outdated views though.

You are so last year.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NoNukes, posted 11-03-2017 11:01 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by NoNukes, posted 11-04-2017 8:07 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10059
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 22 of 53 (822967)
11-04-2017 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by LamarkNewAge
11-03-2017 11:24 PM


Re: NoNukes clicked the approval disc calling me a "conspiracy nut" here.
But opinions are changing when we learn more about what was going on (behind the scenes) during the period.

Whether or not new revelations cause is to rethink our positions is one thing. On the other hand, the idea that super-delegates were some kind of conspiracy against Bernie Sanders, when they existed well prior to this last campaign is something else. The idea is still just as stupid as when you (and others) first suggested it.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-03-2017 11:24 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6192
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 23 of 53 (822997)
11-04-2017 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by LamarkNewAge
11-02-2017 4:02 PM


There are many problems with the excerpt's account, however.

One big one is that Sanders signed the exact same agreement that Clinton did with regard to financing the DNC.

He just didn't do anything about it.

Of course, there is a huge memory hole going on here: Obama. Obama left the DNC in shambles. It was broke. Thus, the DNC went to the candidates to come up with a plan that would allow the DNC to continue to function which meant funding from the candidates.

We talked about this before: Clinton actually engaged with the DNC and provided support for down-ticket candidates. Part of her campaign was fund-raising for the DNC and for local candidates.

Sanders didn't. He only joined the Democratic Party because he knew that he would never be able to be a viable candidate running as an Independent. He never assisted the DNC. For all his bluster, he was never really a Democrat...so is anybody really surprised that the Democratic Party overwhelmingly chose the Democrat? Remember, Clinton beat Sanders by more raw votes than she beat Trump.

Now, we can debate some of the finer details of how the DNC treated him, but to claim that it was somehow "rigged" is to deny reality (sorry, Ms. Warren). Bernie had the exact same opportunity to have influence in the DNC as Clinton did.

He didn't take advantage of it.

To complain about it after the fact is the definition of "sour grapes."


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-02-2017 4:02 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-04-2017 5:20 PM Rrhain has responded
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 11-04-2017 5:32 PM Rrhain has responded
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 11-06-2017 4:28 PM Rrhain has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 981
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 24 of 53 (822998)
11-04-2017 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Rrhain
11-04-2017 5:13 PM


Then why did Wasserman Schultz and Brazile both have to resign (or fired from jobs
Look at the 2016 timeline.

The DNC chairs.

The CNN jobs.

The firings.

I just think that Donna Brazile feels like she has no choice but to notice the actual spirit of all the conspiracies going on.

The truth is just there, and Brazile just can't stand her party playing this plausible deniability game anymore it seems.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Rrhain, posted 11-04-2017 5:13 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Rrhain, posted 11-07-2017 4:53 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19217
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 25 of 53 (822999)
11-04-2017 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Rrhain
11-04-2017 5:13 PM


One big one is that Sanders signed the exact same agreement that Clinton did with regard to financing the DNC.

Really? The one that gave the Clinton campaign the right to vet all communications, fund raising and disbursements, etc?

Fascinating


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Rrhain, posted 11-04-2017 5:13 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Rrhain, posted 11-07-2017 5:12 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13874
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 26 of 53 (823026)
11-05-2017 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by LamarkNewAge
11-03-2017 4:00 PM


Re: Forget something Ringo?
LamrkNewAge writes:

Was he only strong in the primary because Hillary was his opponent?


Self-identifying as a socialist, he's lucky he wasn't lynched.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-03-2017 4:00 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-05-2017 9:08 PM ringo has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 981
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


(1)
Message 27 of 53 (823088)
11-05-2017 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by ringo
11-05-2017 1:16 PM


Sanders still has an approval rating well over 50% (highest of any active politician)
Just remember the primary night when Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii held votes?

He was interviewed by David Gregory on Meet The Press, the Sunday after (I think the vote was Saturday night).

Gregory had just showed the unreal 82% to 18% win in Alaska and the shocking 73%-27% win over Hillary in Washington state. He then went on to show the Hawaii results. As the results in Hawaii were shown onscreen, he sarcastically said something like, "This margin was much closer - 42 points".

He won there 71% to 29% over Hillary.

You can make the case that Hillary was clearly a joke if she was getting slaughtered by that margin in state after state (as she was in certain states). You BETTER make that case. The point will then be "Sanders only made such an impact because he was fortunate enough to have Hillary as an opponent in the Democratic primary".

(Hillary was clearly about the same thing as vomit to many people)

However, it isn't at all clear that Sanders was otherwise toxic himself.

I just don't see a whole lot of evidence there. I see more evidence to the contrary.

Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by ringo, posted 11-05-2017 1:16 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by ringo, posted 11-06-2017 11:15 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 30 by NoNukes, posted 11-06-2017 12:21 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13874
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 28 of 53 (823122)
11-06-2017 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by LamarkNewAge
11-05-2017 9:08 PM


Re: Sanders still has an approval rating well over 50% (highest of any active politician)
LamarkNewAge writes:

(Hillary was clearly about the same thing as vomit to many people)

However, it isn't at all clear that Sanders was otherwise toxic himself.


Maybe his slogan should have been, "Better than vomit."
This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-05-2017 9:08 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19217
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 29 of 53 (823124)
11-06-2017 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by LamarkNewAge
11-03-2017 11:43 AM


Re: "If you had told me this during the primary... I would have called you a conspiracy
Don't forget the Senate.

With this latest verification that the Clinton machine laundered donations through the DNC by giving to the state committees and then immediately sucking ALL the funds out of them ... I wonder how that affected all the down ticket campaigns that then got no support through the DNC.

Also I don't recall her supporting other candidates, but that could be mostly me ignoring what she was doing.

Regardless the down ticket candidates lost more than was predicted, so it appears she took them down too.

This is fairly typical of the DNC elites and their failure to gain any traction at state levels.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-03-2017 11:43 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10059
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 30 of 53 (823129)
11-06-2017 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by LamarkNewAge
11-05-2017 9:08 PM


Re: Sanders still has an approval rating well over 50% (highest of any active politician)
Gregory had just showed the unreal 82% to 18% win in Alaska and the shocking 73%-27% win over Hillary in Washington state. He then went on to show the Hawaii results. As the results in Hawaii were shown onscreen, he sarcastically said something like, "This margin was much closer - 42 points".

He won there 71% to 29% over Hillary.

This stuff is all true, and yet you are clearly sharing only part of the story. Sanders got his butt totally kicked in just about every state primary with any kind of sizeable urban population with the tiniest bit of diversity.

There is an assumption here that while a sizeable number of Sanders voters would not vote for Hilary, that Sanders would have gotten essentially all of the Hillary voters out to vote so that he could win. That is speculation for which there is little to no real evidence.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I was thinking as long as I have my hands up … they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking — they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey

We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World.

Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith

I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-05-2017 9:08 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-06-2017 8:20 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Prev1
2
34Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017