Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Newsweek: Hillary Clinton Robbed Bernie Sanders Of The Democratic Nomination, Accordi
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 1 of 53 (822861)
11-02-2017 4:02 PM


The news is lighting up. I can't even find stories that were at the top of the list just an hour ago. I wanted to find the fist one I saw but can't.
Here is one.
Hillary Clinton Robbed Bernie Sanders Of The Democratic Nomination, According to Donna Brazile
By Greg Price On 11/2/17 at 9:09 AM
Hillary Clinton Robbed Bernie Sanders Of The Democratic Nomination, According to Donna Brazile
Wow.
What an admission.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminPhat, posted 11-02-2017 4:12 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied
 Message 3 by AdminPhat, posted 11-02-2017 4:46 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 11-02-2017 5:49 PM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 8 by ringo, posted 11-03-2017 11:56 AM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 23 by Rrhain, posted 11-04-2017 5:13 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 6 of 53 (822906)
11-03-2017 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
11-02-2017 5:49 PM


"If you had told me this during the primary... I would have called you a conspiracy
Razd:
quote:
It is time for the superdelegates to be relegated to the history of bad ideas ... preventing a popular candidate from winning the primary process ...
I think I was called a conspiracy nut (by NoNukes?) during the debate over the DNC deck stacking.
From Vox
quote:
Donna Brazile’s bombshell about the DNC and Hillary Clinton, explained
During the 2016 election, Sanders allies alleged that the DNC did not act as a neutral arbiter of the Democratic primary, favoring Clinton in its selection of debate times and fundraising. Their suspicions were only heightened when leaked emails published by WikiLeaks, and now reported to have been hacked by the Russians, appeared to show DNC staffers deriding Sanders and plotting ways to help Clinton. The accusations grew so heated that Wasserman Schultz resigned, which is when Brazile took over.
But now Brazile has provided explosive new evidence for the initial allegations. "The shocking news here is this idea they were exerting a level of control over DNC affairs that we didn't know about," said Kenneth Pennington, who served as digital director for the Sanders campaign. "If you had told me this during the primary that they're using the joint fundraising committee to get veto power over DNC functions I would have called you a conspiracy nut."
Page gone - MSN
There has been near total confirmation of the fears from "conspiracy nuts" like myself.
Sanders not only was robbed of the Democratic nomination, but all this crap laid the groundwork for an election that eventually got us Donald Trump.
And that wasn't all that happened in the end.
The same exact November 2016 day that saw Trump defeat Hillary also came with a monumental day for Republican Senate candidates. Don't forget that the basic arithmetic of the (33) seats up in 2016 demanded that there would be enough victorious Democrats so that there was at least an even 50 to 50 breakdown in the larger body of 100 in the Senate. Instead we got a 52 to 48 GOP majority.
Don't forget the Senate.
Now we need to rely on an increasingly radical GOP Senate to refuse the policies of Trump.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 11-02-2017 5:49 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Taq, posted 11-03-2017 11:51 AM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 13 by NoNukes, posted 11-03-2017 3:57 PM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 11-06-2017 11:23 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 9 of 53 (822911)
11-03-2017 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by ringo
11-03-2017 11:56 AM


Forget something Ringo?
quote:
What a joke.
I missed the punch line.
Care to elaborate.?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by ringo, posted 11-03-2017 11:56 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 11-03-2017 12:09 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


(1)
Message 10 of 53 (822912)
11-03-2017 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Taq
11-03-2017 11:51 AM


Re: "If you had told me this during the primary... I would have called you a conspiracy
quote:
Those are some rather large assumptions. I don't see how Sanders was guaranteed to beat either Clinton or Trump on a level playing field.
He was already declared defeated (from the start) due to the big Super delegate lead Hillary Clinton began with.
He didn't get media coverage that described him as anything but a small nuisance.
And the debate calendar was designed to keep him "dead" in the water.
(debates are really important due to the massive voting audience)
He still won 22 states.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Taq, posted 11-03-2017 11:51 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Taq, posted 11-03-2017 12:18 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 14 of 53 (822926)
11-03-2017 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ringo
11-03-2017 12:09 PM


Re: Forget something Ringo?
quote:
As Taq pointed out (and I'll put it more bluntly), Sanders wouldn't have won the nomination even if Hillary had vanished off the face of the earth. He was one of Trump's greatest assets but he was no asset to the Democratic Party.
Forget about the last sentence. (I can't argue against your great point that Sanders wasn't able to do much to help with Hillary's atrocious reputation & issue stances during the general election)
But it is the point that "Sanders wouldn't have won the nomination even if Hillary had vanished off the face of the earth" that I want to look at (more of a glance).
The fact of the matter is that he did win general elections in Vermont. He lost his first statewide congressional race (well the 1988 open House seat might not have been his very first) to a moderate Republican by a few points (about 51% to 48% which was less than the 54% to 45% loss that Dukakis lost to Bush) and he was actually so popular that the Democratic party supported him.
Vermont had never elected a Democratic congressman in over 200 years when Sanders won the rematch 2 years later in 1990. He won 56% to 40% but it had a lot to do with the fact that his 1 term Republican opponent was at odds with the Republican party on abortion, gun control, and taxes (He actually felt Bush didn't raise taxes on the wealthy enough, while the party felt he shouldn't have raised taxes at all).
Again, he had the support of the Democratic party.
He joined the Democratic caucus in the House after he was sworn in during January 1991.
The first ever Democratic congressman.
Bill Clinton won Vermont 46% to 33% in 1992 but Sanders won by a wider margin in both 1990 and 1992.
Sanders did only win 47% to 44% in the 1994 GOP tidal wave but he and Clinton both won by 23% in 1996.
Gore only won by 10% in 2000 but Sanders won by over 30% in 1998 and 2000.
Kerry won 62% to 37% in 2004 but Sanders won the open Senate seat in 2006 by over 30%.
NOW THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY IN 2016
He did loose to Hillary in the 2016 delegate race and even with regular delegates. He lost regular delegates 55% to 45%.
Kentucky, Missouri, and Iowa were settled by less than 1% and had he won those three, then he would have won 25 states. Massachusetts was also super close. As was South Dakota (I think).
Hard to argue that he couldn't be considered a strong runner for the nomination.
Now.
Would he have been out of the picture had the toxic Hillary Clinton not been his 1 on 1 opponent?
Was he only strong in the primary because Hillary was his opponent?
We don't truly understand the various dynamics and how the cookie crumbles under vastly different circumstances.
Some think he might have done better among African Americans if Hillary wasn't his opponent. He might not have beat his 22% performance but he wouldn't have lost them by 56% (78% to 22%) and that is especially true if a non-Hillary primary featured a big field of presidential hopefuls.
He wouldn't have lost the Jewish vote by so much in a divided field.
He failed to win 3 chief Democratic constituencies (Black, Hispanic, and Jewish voters).
He won whites, Asians, and Native Americans.
Was his success among the latter simply due to his opponent being Hillary Clinton?
I don't know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 11-03-2017 12:09 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by ringo, posted 11-05-2017 1:16 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 15 of 53 (822927)
11-03-2017 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by ringo
11-03-2017 12:09 PM


duplicate post
.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 11-03-2017 12:09 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


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 replied

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

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


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
EvC Forum: Yes, The Real The New Awesome Primary Thread
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.
....
HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost
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.
Google+...
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
EvC Forum: Yes, The Real The New Awesome Primary Thread

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

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


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 replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


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 replied

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

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


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 replied

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

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


(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 replied

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

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


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%
2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries - Wikipedia
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 replied

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

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


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 replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 738 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


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 replied

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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024