Well it was kinda mathematically proven that the majority of voting "Americans" are left-leaning, so... they feel like they're circling the wagons.
Well it was kinda mathematically proven that the majority of voting "Americans" are left-leaning, so... they feel like they're circling the wagons.
I feel like this is important.
The Donna Brazile excerpt is causing lots of sturm und drag with Senator Warren joining the chorus saying it proves the '16 Dem race was "rigged" in favor of Hillary Clinton. But I think we need to take a deep breath and unpack what's at issue.
The question is: what does the DNC actually do, and can it, even if it wanted to, rig 50+ primaries for any given candidate?
Well, let's start with what the DNC (and RNC) actually do: they are the governing bodies for their parties. They write the platform, support candidates up and down the ballot, fund state parties and operate what's called the "coordinated campaign" for the presidential nominee. They do not determine whether states have primaries or caucuses--that's up to the states and state parties. Most state parties prefer primaries because the state pays for them, while parties preferring caucuses do so for more control. Other than using their delegate allocation power to lock in the "go first" states, the DNC also doesn't set primary/caucus schedule. That too is up to the states, who generally pass laws to fix the date leaving it to the state party (not the DNC/RNC) if they're open or closed. That's why we already know the order for 2020. States for the most part already decided.
The DNC in 2016 also used the same delegate allocation rules from 2012, so all the candidates knew the deal. The DNC and RNC also form joint fundraising committees with the eventual nominee. They offer these agreements to all the candidates. Per Donna's contention, that process was polluted by the fact that Hillary Clinton was both a candidate and bailing out the DNC financially.
There's some question about whether she acquired control every nominee gets over the DNC before or after she clinched the nomination, but that, and the clear preference of DNC staff and longtime Clinton loyalist are the source of the "rigging" claim. That could affect the setting of the debate schedule, which you could argue was done to bury Sanders' appeal, though that clearly didn't work.
But the question is -- what could the DNC have done to actually cause Sanders to lose the states he lost, which cost him the nomination. Even if one objects to the JFA as Donna did, it didn't hurt Sanders financially. By April, he'd raised as much as HRC ($182,242,497 for HRC, $182,923,991 for Sanders). I was in S. Carolina covering that primary. Sanders had robust staff, enthusiastic supporters, and lots of money. Did the DNC "make him lose?"
South Carolina is the giant-killer in presidential campaigns, D and R. Had Obama lost it in '08, Clinton would likely have been the nominee. The DNC & the party writ large very openly favored Hillary Clinton. Obama lost huge primaries and won caucuses. He still got the nomination.
Since the rules were the same -- including superdelegate rules -- why was outsider Obama able to beat the DNC establishment then?
And by the way, if you made the superdelegates proportional, or disappeared them, Clinton still would have won.
The superdelegates strongly favored Clinton in 2008, including the CBC. They couldn't stop Obama from getting the nomination either. Even if the DNC passed a rule binding superdelegates to their state primaries, Clinton would have won.
So here's the deal: The DNC is full of super-Democrats who are party loyalists, and yep, they favored Clinton over the independent Sanders. They snarked about him in emails stolen and released by Russian hackers. They were a sloppy organization that was broke and needed Clinton's money. And they entered into a deal that basically saw the more or less inevitable nominee, based on the primary calendar, loan them money. But snarky emails didn't cost Bernie Sanders the nomination. DNC fundraising deals with Clinton (for money to spend in the general election, not primaries) didn't either. Sanders didn't win the nomination because Hillary Clinton got more votes than he did. She won the calendar. And she got more votes particularly in states with large black voting populations, which is how Democrats win primaries.
The DNC, from what I gather, including from Donna's book excerpt, could barely function let alone rig 50+ primaries. Because, again, how would an organization compel/force more people to vote for one candidate over the other. Perhaps if they had run a disinformation campaign against Sanders? Which is odd because there was one, that Russia was running against Clinton. The candidates traded insults and accusations but that's hardly rigging a campaign. He protrayed her as a crook, she called him unrealistic. (Well, maybe "crook" is too harsh -- but you get my drift.) The JFA is interesting news to me because it shows how fecacked the party was. But I can't see how that fundraising arrangement actually rigged the election in Clinton's favor.
Since DNC is so incompetent and couldn't even rig their own primaries and couldn't even win against an idiot from the opposing party..., do you guys think it's time for a reform yet?
Or it's still just a problem purely caused by the other side?
Guys, quit blaming others. Yes, others deserved to be blamed too. We're all responsible somewhat..., but fuck... shifting blame around won't solve anything.
Does the DNC have a plan for our future? Or it's just bitch and whine at how stupid the conservative right folks are?
Hillary's campaign was essentially 'status quo'... hey, let's just stay the course. Everything is cool!
Trump pretended to be a 'problem solver'... the problem was that there are swamp monsters on the capitol hill. Enough american people saw the problems and wanted a problem solver.
They couldn't have Sanders, so they picked Trump.
Of course Trump probably caused more problems...
It's a negative feedback loop caused by evil candidates. We can't just keep on electing lesser of the 2 evils and expect positive outcome. It's just a matter of time when we drop off a cliff.
Last edited by Crazed_Insanity; November 3rd, 2017 at 10:31 AM.
Okay, now I *know* you're trolling.Originally Posted by Crazed_Insanity
I'm always trolling, aren't I?
Hillary's campaign slogan was 'better together'.
Does she mean it?
Do you guys believe it?
If yes, then we have to figure out ways to be 'together', not just keep on blaming.
If you guys really think it's time to split up the country, then do something about it.
One way or another is fine, but just whining and bitching will get us nowhere.
For what it's worth, I'm with Hillary's campaign slogan... 'better together'.
America doesn't have to be great, but needs to get herself together!
Last edited by Crazed_Insanity; November 3rd, 2017 at 10:40 AM.
Sure, maybe.
But it overlooks some weird facts, like, for example:
Whether or not these and other actions had a material affect is debatable. But, being a pragmatist, I can't help but wonder why a person or a group would engage in activities to hamstring one person or prop another person up if those actions would have no material affect reality. If the outcome was predetermined, why waste the energy, why run the risk? Doesn't add up.2016 Presidential election
Clinton's opponents, Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders, separately criticized the decision by Wasserman Schultz to schedule only six debates in the 2016 Presidential Primary, fewer than in previous election cycles, as well as the timing of the debates.[65][66]
Some of Wasserman Schultz's actions that the news covered during the primaries were: having reduced the debate schedule,[67][68][69] disinvited former DNC Vice Chair Tulsi Gabbard to the first primary Democratic debate,[70][71] in an altercation shut down Sanders' campaign's access to the DNC server and thus halting their campaign until immense backslash led to her to rescind it,[72][73] defended the system of superdelegates that were used to signal to the support base that Clinton would be nominee,[74] quietly rescinded Obama's 2008 ban on donations to the DNC from corporate lobbyists and PACs[75][76] and thus paving way for the Hillary Victory Fund that was later reported by Politico to have laundered money to their campaign and DNC having hid the details of its agreement with the Clinton campaign[77] and falsely accused Sanders supporters of violence at the Nevada Convention.[78][79][80].
In May, MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski called on Schultz to step down over the DNC's bias against the Bernie Sanders campaign.[81] The 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak revealed that Schultz was furious at the negative coverage of her actions in the media, and she emailed Chuck Todd that such coverage of her "must stop".[82] Describing the coverage as the "LAST straw", she ordered the DNC's communications director to call MSNBC president Phil Griffin to demand an apology from Brzezinski.[83][84][85]
Resignation
See also: 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak
After WikiLeaks published Democratic National Committee emails which suggested that DNC staffers and partly Wasserman Schultz herself[86][87][88][89][90] had inappropriately backed Hillary Clinton in the primary campaigns while criticizing the Bernie Sanders campaign, Wasserman Schultz tendered her resignation as the head of the DNC, to become effective as of the close of the nominating convention in Philadelphia. According to reports in The Washington Post, Wasserman Schultz strongly resisted suggestions she resign, requiring a phone call from President Barack Obama to finally force her resignation.[91]
the same goes for HFA taking control of the DNC's administration. Maybe nothing untoward happened, or maybe if it did there was no material impact on events. But the act itself is unethical, and one can't help but wonder why anyone would risk the implications for an effort that had no material affect. Doesn't add up.
Everything about her doesn't add up. Maybe she has the best of intentions, maybe she is a legitimate saint. But her actions are questionable, she puts herself into questionable positions. If I had an employee that did all the things she did, I'd fire her ass. If I had a friend that did all the things she did, I wouldn't invite her into my house.
Last edited by thesameguy; November 3rd, 2017 at 10:50 AM.
The point is not Hillary. The point is that you literally just told people to stop blaming others, when I've spent maybe the past year dealing with you blaming everybody but Bernie for his loss. I tried to explain to you *so* *many* *times* that the DNC (and RNC) are private organizations and are allowed to support the candidates they choose to support that I gave up trying because you were never going to get it.
Just take me and Neanderthal for example.
I've never blamed him with his voting choice. (Nor would I blame roofer for his choice)
He blamed me.
In a democratic society, that is just fucking wrong.
Blaming the stupid voters for getting Trump elected, IMHO, is also wrong.
If you guys really think she should be the obvious queen, just get rid of the election then! It might also be worth investigating why people voted for Trump. (Reasons other than stupidity)
I believe Sanders was shafted.
You guys still believe Wells Fargo bank is an awesome bank just because they support gay marriage with empty words. Only actions they took was equal opportunity stealing. When shit hits the fan, 1st thing to do is firing of the low level employees who were forced into such practice...
I seriously don't believe Hillary will make this world a better place. Best she can do is delay the destruction of america perhaps while enriching herself. (That's status quo for you)
Last edited by Crazed_Insanity; November 3rd, 2017 at 10:57 AM.
He gets it. I get it.
But when an organization purports to be neutral but secretly is not, that's a problem.
One thing I gotta hand it to Trump is that he purports to be crazy openly and his supporters love him... sigh...
But luckily that love is shrinking.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote