Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 108 (8801 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-18-2017 5:05 AM
328 online now:
frako, PaulK (2 members, 326 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 822,604 Year: 27,210/21,208 Month: 1,123/1,714 Week: 331/525 Day: 6/67 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
4Next
Author Topic:   Newsweek: Hillary Clinton Robbed Bernie Sanders Of The Democratic Nomination, Accordi
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19215
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 31 of 53 (823166)
11-06-2017 4:28 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.

Please see

Four Viral Claims Spread by Journalists on Twitter in the Last Week Alone That Are False

quote:
Viral Falsehood #2

Sanders signed the same agreement with the DNC that Clinton did.


Perhaps that is why you didn't find any substantiation for that claim ...

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 23 by Rrhain, posted 11-04-2017 5:13 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Rrhain, posted 11-07-2017 5:21 PM RAZD has responded

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 978
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 32 of 53 (823179)
11-06-2017 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by NoNukes
11-06-2017 12:21 PM


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

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.

Sanders won 22 states and the 3 I just mentioned were diverse.

There are 4 majority minority states and Sanders won 1 (Hawaii), lost another by a few points (New Mexico), lost California by 7% (53-46), and was killed in Texas. He also lost Puerto Rico by about 59% to 38%, which was also a wide loss margin.

He won Michigan and Indiana as well as Rhode Island.

There were close losses

Nevada was a loss of 52.6% to 47.3%

Massachusetts 50.1% to 48.7%

Missouri 49.6% to 49.4%

Kentucky 46.8% to 48.3%

Connecticut 51.7% to 46.5%

Iowa 49.8% to 49.6%

Illinois 50.5% to 48.7%

New Mexico 51.5% to 48.5%

South Dakota 51.0% to 49.0%

Semi-close losses

California 53.1% to 46.0%

https://en.wikipedia.org/...rty_presidential_primaries,_2016

So he won 22 states but narrowly lost 9 (and semi narrowly lost California).

Don't forget that he was being dogged with dropping out in a lot of these contests (especially California) since he was said to be a totally dead dog. (due to super delegates).

Wikipedia says that Sanders got 46% of delegates that voters choose (I thought it was 45%). See link.

A 54% to 46% loss when there were lots of obstacles (such as saying that he was defeated from the start, we never heard that he only need to win margins by 9% to get delegates to catch up with Hillary. It was always at least "60%" of "remaining delegates" that he needed according to the party talking heads and media commentary.

That doesn't even get to the party not allowing open primaries, debate schedule, behind the scenes undermining of his candidacy, etc.

quote:

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.

People weren't assuming quite that much.

BUT BUT BUT

People were looking at what endless state and national polls showed in head to head hypothetical general election match ups..


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by NoNukes, posted 11-06-2017 12:21 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2017 3:19 AM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10056
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 33 of 53 (823183)
11-07-2017 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by LamarkNewAge
11-06-2017 8:20 PM


Re: Sanders still has an approval rating well over 50% (highest of any active politician)
Sanders won 22 states and the 3 I just mentioned were diverse.

I said diverse with a large urban population. That is where Sanders got his butt kicked. Hawaii and Alaska don't qualify. Nor do several of the other states you named. Michigan would qualify, but it is pretty much an exception for Sanders.

Clinton got millions of votes more than Sanders. The only way Sanders wins is if he gets those super delegates. But if you are making that argument, then you shouldn't be saying that counting the super-delegates is cheating.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

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 32 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-06-2017 8:20 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-07-2017 9:50 PM NoNukes has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 34 of 53 (823217)
11-07-2017 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by LamarkNewAge
11-04-2017 5:20 PM


Re: Then why did Wasserman Schultz and Brazile both have to resign (or fired from jobs
LamarkNewAge responds to me:

quote:
Look at the 2016 timeline.

Yes, look at it.

Exactly how did the DNC "rig" 57 elections in 50+ states and territories? Because as I've demonstrated before, it didn't matter if the election was open or closed, caucus or primary, Clinton beat Sanders.

What "plausible deniability"? Even Brazile has come out to say that Warren's claim that the election was "rigged" is going too far (http://www.cnn.com/...onna-brazile-primary-rigged/index.html).

As Joy Reid mentions (https://twitter.com/JoyAnnReid/status/926329971588714496), Sanders raised more money than Clinton did (but not for the DNC). Despite the fact that the "establishment" Democrats favored Clinton over Obama, he still beat her, so what happened with Sanders? Oh, that's right...Clinton won the base of the Democratic Party. But even then, making the superdelegates proportional or even doing away with them altogether wouldn't have changed the outcome. And all that money that people are complaining so loudly about? It was for the *general* election. So if Sanders had won, he would have had Clinton to thank for the funding the DNC had to help him in the general election.

Indeed, the truth is out there: But too many people who are incapable of accepting that their actions have consequences are trying to find any other scapegoat to blame.

Once again, I have the same question that still hasn't been answered: Would we be having this conversation if Clinton had won? If just a few thousand people in quite literally three cities had voted for Clinton, would we be having this conversation? And if not, how can you claim this argument holds any water?

We lost because we didn't vote to win.


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 24 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-04-2017 5:20 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-07-2017 10:09 PM Rrhain has responded
 Message 42 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-08-2017 12:47 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

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


Message 35 of 53 (823221)
11-07-2017 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by RAZD
11-04-2017 5:32 PM


RAZD responds to me:

quote:
quote:
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?

Logical error: Facts not in evidence.

The Clinton campaign didn't "vet all communications." That's a Republican talking point and you should know better.

But yes, Sanders signed the same FRA (fund raising agreement) as Clinton did. Sanders never did anything with it, but Clinton did, thus the other memo regarding the specifics of what that relationship meant. And on top of that, the extended agreement Clinton made specifically states:

"...nothing in this agreement shall be construed to violate the DNC's obligation of impartiality and neutrality through the Nominating process" and that "all activities performed under this agreement will be focused exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary."

And once again, this agreement was for the *general* election. Nobody has yet to explain how this agreement caused four million more people to vote for Clinton in the primaries.

And once again, nobody seems to remember that the DNC was broke. Obama left it in a shambles. Regardless of whoever won the primary, it was not in a position to be very effective during the general election. Thus, the DNC was looking for ways to get money together to function and one of those ways was to get assistance from the candidates. Thus, the FRAs given to both Clinton *AND* Sanders.

That Sanders blew the DNC off is his own decision. But let's suppose that he had had this alternative universe: No FRA. The DNC is still broke. And somehow, this lack of FRA results in four million people voting for him instead of Clinton (how? Exactly how does funding the DNC make you vote for her?) So now what happens in the general when Sanders needs the DNC's help and they don't have any to give? We're still stuck with Trump becoming president and we have a head of the party who doesn't work with the support structure that exists for him...assuming that he would still be pretending to be a Democrat.

And then where would we be looking ahead?

Sanders bought his own hype.


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 25 by RAZD, posted 11-04-2017 5:32 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-07-2017 11:22 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

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


Message 36 of 53 (823226)
11-07-2017 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by RAZD
11-06-2017 4:28 PM


RAZD responds to me:

quote:
Perhaps that is why you didn't find any substantiation for that claim ...

Except I did. See above. They both signed the same agreement (save for Treasurer) and then Clinton engaged with the DNC to come up with more specifics whereas Sanders let it die. And now he's whining about it. That's the epitome of "sour grapes." For crying out loud, he's been at this political game longer than she has. His inability to run a campaign is not her fault.

You've got the Republican talking points down, RAZD.


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 31 by RAZD, posted 11-06-2017 4:28 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 11-07-2017 5:42 PM Rrhain has responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19215
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 37 of 53 (823232)
11-07-2017 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Rrhain
11-07-2017 5:21 PM


Gosh I didn't know Donna Brazil was a republican and not just a DINO ...

ps check snopes.

And then check republican mouthpiece CNBC broadcasting

Here's the real bombshell revealed in Donna Brazile's book about the Dems

quote:
In her book, Brazile, the former DNC interim vice chair who fed questions to Hillary Clinton's campaign in advance of a 2016 Democratic Primary town hall, explained how she uncovered the joint fundraising agreement struck between the Clinton campaign and the DNC in August, 2015—before any caucuses, primaries, or debates—that not only allowed the Clinton campaign to essentially funnel money designated for state parties and the DNC back into its own coffers, but gave it stunning control over staffing, strategy, and finances at the "neutral" DNC.

While it stated that the agreement was "exclusively on preparations for the General Election and not the Democratic Primary" that clause isn't really worth the paper it's written on considering the Clinton campaign was given considerable control over many things during the primary that, shocker!, had ramifications during the primary.

Basically, in exchange for raising money for a near-bankrupt DNC, the deal provided the Clinton campaign with advanced screening of communications sent out about other primary candidates during the primary, and gave it, as Brazile pointed out and the documents confirmed, control over which "of two candidates previously identified as acceptable to HFA [Hillary For America]" would be hired as DNC Communications Director during the primary.


Seems this story has legs.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : .


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 36 by Rrhain, posted 11-07-2017 5:21 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Rrhain, posted 11-09-2017 4:28 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 978
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 38 of 53 (823237)
11-07-2017 9:50 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by NoNukes
11-07-2017 3:19 AM


Please understand my point. Pay attention.
First your quote.

quote:

said diverse with a large urban population. That is where Sanders got his butt kicked. Hawaii and Alaska don't qualify. Nor do several of the other states you named. Michigan would qualify, but it is pretty much an exception for Sanders.

Clinton got millions of votes more than Sanders. The only way Sanders wins is if he gets those super delegates. But if you are making that argument, then you shouldn't be saying that counting the super-delegates is cheating.


Let me use California to make my point.

First of all, yes Clinton did get 55% of the total primary vote. While Sanders got just 43%.

My point is that Sanders wouldn't have lost as many states as he did if he wasn't described as being "defeated" from the start.

He actually only lost 53.1% to 46.0% in California, but that was after Hillary supposedly had (almost) enough total delegates (pledged plus unpledged delegates going into the final June 6 Primary day of 6 states)so that Sanders should "drop out for the good of the party".

She would have lost New Mexico and South Dakota had Sanders not been attacked endlessly by the party apparatus for having the gall to stay in the race.

The ironic thing is that she had only won 24 states (Sanders 20) going into the last primary day (June 6).

Sanders got between 45.5% and 46.0% of delegates voters choose.

Hillary got between 54.0% and 54.5%.

This sort of crap happened the entire time.

But after Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada, Sanders was said to need 60% of the remaining delegates even though he had more votes total than Hillary.

He had his best overall performances in the early states (exit polls showed that he was winning the under age 30 black voters, and he also won the Hispanic & Asian vote in Nevada), yet he was described as having "insurmountable mathematical obstacles" when it came to winning enough delegates.

The super-delegates distorted and ruined this entire race. I remember the narrative very well.

The fact is that Sanders got 46% of the voter-selected delegates (he won a lot of delegate rich caucuses, just like Obama did), and had there been no super-delegate issue, then he would have won more states than he did. Everybody was saying he couldn't win, because it was constantly said that he needed like 70% of remaining delegates.

Enough people were tricked into thinking voting for Hillary was the responsible thing to do since "she already won, and we don't want to weaken her in the November general election by giving Sanders our vote".

That is so obvious that it is amazing I have to argue it. (If we could see all the Sunday shows during the 2016 primary, then it would be 100% obvious)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2017 3:19 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 978
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 39 of 53 (823238)
11-07-2017 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Rrhain
11-07-2017 4:53 PM


Re: Then why did Wasserman Schultz and Brazile both have to resign (or fired from jobs
quote:

Exactly how did the DNC "rig" 57 elections in 50+ states and territories? Because as I've demonstrated before, it didn't matter if the election was open or closed, caucus or primary, Clinton beat Sanders.

Kentucky would have been a Sanders win had the primaries not been closed. Amazing that Hillary clobbered Sanders in 11 out of 12 southern states (winning all), but in the general election, she then lost every single one of those states she won in the primary (except Virginia).

The super-delegates were all the discussion about "responsible people who will help Democrats select a winning candidate", when the real discussion should have been centered around the need to open the primaries so the Democratic primary didn't get so distorted with crazy partisan voters that were clueless.

Hillary won South Dakota because the party elites brainwashed the voters into thinking that she had already won.

She lost South Dakota too.

And the debate schedule clearly helped Clinton. The party attempted to give Sanders as little attention as possible. Relatively few debates to start with, but they were held on nights when the fewest possible viewers would view them.

The DNC had plenty of media consultants and they knew when people would be watching debates, and when they wouldn't be.

Sanders won Michigan because of his great debate performance (George Stephanapolis helped when he showed a 1994 Sanders quote where he stated his strong concern for the hurt minority communities would suffer from the Clinton crime bill), and it was in a state where every poll had him loosing by double digits.

quote:

Sanders: DNC using debates to rig primary

By Bradford Richardson - 08/28/15 06:23 PM EDT

Sen. Bernie Sanders(I-Vt.) believes the Democratic Party is using its limited primary debate schedule to rig the nomination process.

“I do,” Sanders reportedly responded when asked Friday whether he agrees with former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley’s assertion that the debate system is “rigged.”

The two Democratic presidential candidates were speaking at the summer meeting of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) in Minneapolis on Friday.

“This sort of rigged process has never been attempted before,” O’Malley said in his speech earlier Friday.

The DNC has drawn criticism for scheduling only four debates before the early-primary states cast their votes, and six total throughout the election cycle.

http://thehill.com/...nders-dnc-using-debates-to-rig-primary


The first debate wasn't until October 13 2015.

The former MD Governor was a Hillary supported as of February 1, 2016, but he essentially said the debate schedule smelled like a dead rat.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Rrhain, posted 11-07-2017 4:53 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 11-08-2017 7:51 AM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded
 Message 45 by Rrhain, posted 11-09-2017 4:37 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 978
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 40 of 53 (823239)
11-07-2017 10:16 PM


Hillary lost 17 of the 28 states she beat Sanders in.
Iowa
Ohio
Missouri
Arizona
Pennsylvania
South Dakota

Plus 11 of the 12 southern states.

Polls were showing Sanders doing better in all of these places. He raised the issue of Pennsylvania and Ohio showing Trump wins.

But the super-delegates didn't budge despite the DNC saying they were there to ensure an electable Democrat won.

Can you spell CORRUPTION?

Can you spell RIG?

Can you say RIGGING A RPIMARY?


    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 978
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 41 of 53 (823241)
11-07-2017 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Rrhain
11-07-2017 5:12 PM


The main issue is DNC corruption in OUR universe (not alternative universe scenarios
Wasserman Schultz had to resign the DNC chair in 2016 after the emails showed scheming in online party operative's conversations.

Donna Brazile was fired from CNN for leaking debate questions (and the specific citizen profile that would be asking the question) in 2016.

quote:

That Sanders blew the DNC off is his own decision. But let's suppose that he had had this alternative universe: No FRA. The DNC is still broke. And somehow, this lack of FRA results in four million people voting for him instead of Clinton (how? Exactly how does funding the DNC make you vote for her?)

People will always argue over what might have happened.

A DNC that wasn't corrupt wasn't on the menu in this universe.

A fair DNC would have been discussing many other things other than what they were and it wouldn't have been so manipulative in every single policy and discussion.

An open primary in Kentucky would have been a great discussion to have if there really was an interest in getting a primary winner that was more reflective of the general election electorate.

Sanders lost 48.8% to 48.3%.

That win would have given him 23 states.

We didn't get an honest narrative from the political operatives, and their powerful influence was to limit Sander's exposure to the potential-voting populace (via limited debates and holding them on nights where people wouldn't be tuning in as much as other nights would).

Sanders lost a lot of close ones, including late-voting states like South Dakota and New Mexico. The super-delegates should have been called on (by an honest and fair DNC in an alternate universe) to support Sanders since he was doing much better in the polls than Hillary Clinton.

Sanders won Nebraska (when the delegates were up for grabs) by about 15% but lost the "beauty contest" vote months later (it was just before the June 6 final primary that included the close losses in California, South Dakota, and New Mexico). By then he was said to be a looser, so that is an example of manipulation of voters. I was in Nebraska when Sanders lost (though I wasn't anywhere near the state when he won), and I was there during the Iowa vote. He was way more popular than she was.

Sanders would have won more than 22 states in a fair contest. (I think the likelihood is very high that he would have won 25+ in a fair election)

He was always mathematically able to win enough regular delegates, even going into the final June 6 (6 state) vote. Despite all the corruption and manipulation every step of the way.

The fact that Brazile has shown that the DNC was pro Hillary (multiple times - don't forget the time she was fired from CNN over the debate questions being smuggled to Hillary) is solid evidence of a conspiracy.

The cumulative evidence has settled the issue.

We can debate the hypotheticals but the superdelegates were part of the manipulation and deck stacking.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Rrhain, posted 11-07-2017 5:12 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
LamarkNewAge
Member
Posts: 978
Joined: 12-22-2015
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 42 of 53 (823245)
11-08-2017 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by Rrhain
11-07-2017 4:53 PM


"The Timeline" issue.
I told Rrhain to "Look at the 2016 timeline"

He responded

quote:

Yes, look at it.

Exactly how did the DNC "rig" 57 elections in 50+ states and territories? Because as I've demonstrated before, it didn't matter if the election was open or closed, caucus or primary, Clinton beat Sanders.

What "plausible deniability"? Even Brazile has come out to say that Warren's claim that the election was "rigged" is going too far (http://www.cnn.com/...onna-brazile-primary-rigged/index.html).

As Joy Reid mentions (https://twitter.com/JoyAnnReid/status/926329971588714496), Sanders raised more money than Clinton did (but not for the DNC). Despite the fact that the "establishment" Democrats favored Clinton over Obama, he still beat her, so what happened with Sanders? Oh, that's right...Clinton won the base of the Democratic Party. But even then, making the superdelegates proportional or even doing away with them altogether wouldn't have changed the outcome. And all that money that people are complaining so loudly about? It was for the *general* election. So if Sanders had won, he would have had Clinton to thank for the funding the DNC had to help him in the general election.

Indeed, the truth is out there: But too many people who are incapable of accepting that their actions have consequences are trying to find any other scapegoat to blame.

Once again, I have the same question that still hasn't been answered: Would we be having this conversation if Clinton had won? If just a few thousand people in quite literally three cities had voted for Clinton, would we be having this conversation? And if not, how can you claim this argument holds any water?

We lost because we didn't vote to win.


The superdelegates are a major issue (among many others), but it does get to hypotheticals (though there is one issue that wasn't so hypothetical)

Look at the math.

quote:

The 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries and caucuses were a series of electoral contests organized by the Democratic Party to select the 4,051 delegates to the Democratic National Convention held July 25–28 and determine the nominee for President of the United States in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The elections took place within all fifty U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories and occurred between February 1 and June 14, 2016. An extra 716 unpledged delegates (712 votes) or "superdelegates", including party leaders and elected officials, were appointed by the party leadership independently of the primaries' electoral process.

https://en.wikipedia.org/...rty_presidential_primaries,_2016


Of the 4,051 that voters choose, 2026 were needed for the majority.

Clinton 2205
Sander 1846

Here we see that the end margin of 359 was less than the 465 to 25 superdelegate lead that Hillary started out with (way before the voting started in Iowa!). The superdelegates included party officials.

Speaking of these officials.

Look at what happened to the 2 DNC party chairs in 2016.

quote:

On July 22, the Democratic National Committee email leak was published by WikiLeaks as part of an alleged operation by the Russian government to boost Republican nominee Donald Trump and undermine Hillary Clinton.[12] The leak cast doubt on the DNC's neutrality and according to Sanders operatives and multiple media commentators portrayed an organization invested in promoting the Clinton candidacy and sabotaging that of Bernie Sanders. In further emails from Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta, leaked online in early October, Clinton campaign officials are shown planning ahead the primary schedule to set some important disputes, such as New York and New Jersey, earlier than in 2008 so as to benefit Clinton.[13][14] The debate schedule had already been criticized as far back as 2015, including by aspiring candidate Martin O'Malley, as biased in Clinton's favor.[15] Democratic Party Chairwoman Donna Brazile, who succeeded Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC chair after the first batch of leaks, is shown in the e-mails leaking primary debate questions to the Clinton campaign before the debates were held.[16]

https://en.wikipedia.org/...rty_presidential_primaries,_2016


This latest bombshell (by the same DNC leader that smuggled debate questions to help Hillary) comes AFTER this 2016 corruption parade of DNC chairs getting exposed for rigging the game.

There will be lots of hypotheticals when one looks at what might have happened had this unreal corruption not be part of the reality we can't erase.

Here is the part that is not hypothetical.

The super delegates were supposed to be in the process to decide on a candidate that would be a likely general election winner.

They actually decided EARLY and in overwhelming numbers for Hillary Clinton while never budging (which was amazing since Sanders got stronger and stronger - RELATIVE to Hillary Clinton's polling & in ABSOLUTE raw numbers - in over 1000 general election state and nation polls that featured a hypothetical head to head matchup with various Republican candidates).

The manipulation was on from the start and it clearly influenced voters choices in the primaries.

They should have been neutral from the start. They were not (which isn't too shocking considering all the corruption from the top).

They held firm with a huge slant toward Hillary Clinton all the way to the end.

They should have switched from supporting Hillary to being "undecided" as we approached the June 6 finale.

They did not.

quote:

On June 6, 2016, the Associated Press and NBC News stated that Clinton had become the presumptive nominee after reaching the required number of delegates, including both pledged and unpledged delegates (superdelegates), to secure the nomination. In doing so, she had become the first woman to ever be the presumptive nominee of any major political party in the United States.[6] On June 7, Clinton officially secured a majority of pledged delegates after winning in the California and New Jersey primaries.[7] President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Senator Elizabeth Warren formally endorsed Clinton on June 9, 2016.[8][9] Sanders confirmed on June 24 that he would vote for Clinton over Donald Trump in the general election[10] and, on July 12, 2016, formally endorsed Clinton in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/...rty_presidential_primaries,_2016


By then, the evidence was that Sanders was the most electable, so perhaps the same super delegates that gave Hillary a 440 delegate vote lead from the start (using the electability argument) should have given Sanders a 440 vote net superdelegate margin now that the evidence swung solidly in the direction of the Vermont Senator being the most electable?

Regardless, the process was corrupt, and the superdelegates didn't do anything they were stated (by the DNC leadership) to have been tasked to do.

Another big lie is much clearer now that the cumulative evidence of corruption keeps on piling up.

Corruption is there for all who don't have the blind faith to ignore it.

There is a mountain of evidence and it was already a very large and solid mound just looking at the 2016 timeline alone.

Only extreme faith in the 2016 Democratic party leadership's innocence can move that mountain out of site.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Rrhain, posted 11-07-2017 4:53 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19215
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 43 of 53 (823251)
11-08-2017 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by LamarkNewAge
11-07-2017 10:09 PM


Re: Then why did Wasserman Schultz and Brazile both have to resign (or fired from jobs
The first debate wasn't until October 13 2015.

And the deadline to register as democrat in NY was before that date. New York had a closed primary that only allowed registered democrats to vote. The state democrat party purged (illegally) thousands of voters, including many in Bernie's old home district.

http://nypost.com/...be-suspended-for-mysterious-voter-purge

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 39 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-07-2017 10:09 PM LamarkNewAge has not yet responded

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


(1)
Message 44 of 53 (823390)
11-09-2017 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by RAZD
11-07-2017 5:42 PM


RAZD responds to me:

quote:
Gosh I didn't know Donna Brazil was a republican and not just a DINO ...

Since Brazile didn't say the election was rigged and has actively denied any such characterization, you're going to have to do better than that.

Hint: Just because there are some foolish Democrats out there (*ahem,* Ms. Warren), that doesn't mean the big drive is coming from the Republicans.

PS: Check Brazile's actual statements.

You seem to be shocked that Clinton, a politician, engaged in politics. What is more shocking is that Sanders, a man who has been in politics for thirty years, didn't seem to understand that when he joined the Democrats, he needed to engage with them and their institutions.

You know...engage in politics. Since part of Clinton's campaign was to assist in down-ballot elections, exactly what is the "rigging" involved in letting her know about "communications sent out about other primary candidates"? Isn't that precisely what you *want* to happen as a national committee seeking to get Democrats elected? Don't you *want* your top-of-the-ticket candidates to be talking up the rest of the field? It would seem the problem isn't that the DNC gave such information to Clinton but rather that they somehow had to be talked into it by Clinton in the first place and that they didn't immediately try to get Sanders in on it, too.

But then again, Sanders wasn't interested in playing ball with the Democrats. He didn't do much down-ballot campaigning. He wasn't invested in getting Democrats elected. He seemed to not understand that if he was going to be a member of the Democratic Party, that meant it was going to be about more than just him.

To whine about it now is pathetic.


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 37 by RAZD, posted 11-07-2017 5:42 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 45 of 53 (823392)
11-09-2017 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by LamarkNewAge
11-07-2017 10:09 PM


Re: Then why did Wasserman Schultz and Brazile both have to resign (or fired from jobs
LamarkNewAge:

quote:
Kentucky would have been a Sanders win had the primaries not been closed.

And Trump would have won the popular vote if not for all of those "illegal" voters, right?

Question: Who decides how a state's determination of candidate is carried out?

Hint: It isn't the DNC.
Hint: It wasn't Clinton, either.

quote:
The super-delegates were all the discussion about "responsible people who will help Democrats select a winning candidate", when the real discussion should have been centered around the need to open the primaries so the Democratic primary didn't get so distorted with crazy partisan voters that were clueless.

And as mentioned previously (please try to keep up), if you make the super-delegates proportional or even remove them from the equation completely, Clinton still beat Sanders.

quote:
Hillary won South Dakota because the party elites brainwashed the voters into thinking that she had already won.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

OK....and you just showed there's no point in continuing.

(*snigger*) "Brainwashed"

That's so precious.

Well, just one thing: You don't get to have it both ways. You can't say that "Sanders won Michigan because of his great debate performance" right after insisting that "the debate schedule clearly helped Clinton."

See, this is why there's no point in continuing: You're stuck in the throes of a conspiracy theory.


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 39 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-07-2017 10:09 PM LamarkNewAge has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-09-2017 5:44 PM Rrhain has not yet responded
 Message 47 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-09-2017 6:53 PM Rrhain has not yet responded
 Message 49 by LamarkNewAge, posted 11-10-2017 12:34 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
4Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017