Bernie wuz robbed!

[dismal]

I had promised Bernie when I took the helm of the Democratic National Committee after the convention that I would get to the bottom of whether Hillary Clinton’s team had rigged the nomination process, as a cache of emails stolen by Russian hackers and posted online had suggested. I’d had my suspicions from the moment I walked in the door of the DNC a month or so earlier, based on the leaked emails. But who knew if some of them might have been forged? I needed to have solid proof, and so did Bernie.

So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

So, it's not so much that the DNC skewed the primary elections to help the Clinton Campaign, it's that the DNC was the Clinton Campaign.

Also it seems Donna Brazile is a Russian hacker.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

 

[untermensche]

People clearly understood this at the time.

Despite the shrieks from the Clinton lovers.

The lovers of corrupt politicians.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

While Sanders would have had more liberals voting, I think race turnout would have dropped, and Independents would have swayed to Trump because of the relentless 'communist' shit from the Trump campaign that would have been spewed. Then people would have been asking whether we'd been better off with Hilary Clinton.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Multiple conflicts of interest. The Clinton campaign had oversight on the DNC decisions and financial control. It means bias and it would be difficult for people to be objective. Even if they were objective, they may have been brought in because they already had pro-Clinton ideas.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Multiple conflicts of interest. The Clinton campaign had oversight on the DNC decisions and financial control. It means bias and it would be difficult for people to be objective. Even if they were objective, they may have been brought in because they already had pro-Clinton ideas.

It could also be noted that Clinton was a Democrat, Sanders wasn't.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Multiple conflicts of interest. The Clinton campaign had oversight on the DNC decisions and financial control. It means bias and it would be difficult for people to be objective. Even if they were objective, they may have been brought in because they already had pro-Clinton ideas.

It could also be noted that Clinton was a Democrat, Sanders wasn't.

If you read the article in full, you'll see that this was very irregular. That kind of control comes later after a winner is declared or an incumbent President is running. This control was exerted like a year earlier according to the article, creating a conflict of interest when there could be other candidates. Bernie became such a candidate by registering as a Democrat but someone else in theory could have also taken that role such as Kucinich or Biden.

 

[ksen]

While Sanders would have had more liberals voting, I think race turnout would have dropped, and Independents would have swayed to Trump because of the relentless 'communist' shit from the Trump campaign that would have been spewed. Then people would have been asking whether we'd been better off with Hilary Clinton.

nah

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

While Sanders would have had more liberals voting, I think race turnout would have dropped, and Independents would have swayed to Trump because of the relentless 'communist' shit from the Trump campaign that would have been spewed. Then people would have been asking whether we'd been better off with Hilary Clinton.

nah

Bernie Sander's platform was one that most people could agree with. The Republicans are master tacticians for getting their base to vote against what they actually want.

The advertisements against Sanders would have been brutal (and completely dishonest). I don't think Sanders would have won. He never was able to get the minority vote behind him (despite the whole getting arrested during protests back in the 60s thing), which is why he lost the primaries in the first place. All things being equal, he drowned in the South.

 

[Underseer]

Oh hey, look who is trying to change the subject from the treason investigation.

At least you've come up with an original one instead of the same "Hillary is the real Russian conspirator" argument as your fellow Republicans.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

nah

Bernie Sander's platform was one that most people could agree with. The Republicans are master tacticians for getting their base to vote against what they actually want.

The advertisements against Sanders would have been brutal (and completely dishonest). I don't think Sanders would have won. He never was able to get the minority vote behind him (despite the whole getting arrested during protests back in the 60s thing), which is why he lost the primaries in the first place. All things being equal, he drowned in the South.

Yes, but he did better in the rust belt which was an area of interest because it somewhat turned from Hillary to Trump. And Sanders would have also upped his game against Trump. But then the news media would have a bias against Sanders. It's all speculation and hard to say what would have happened.

...is it really relevant who would have won? The fact that there were conflicts of interest we are only now hearing about is troubling.

I also think the timing is weird because there seems to be a pile up on Clinton at the moment. Even so, it's troubling. Maybe Clinton should respond to the charge. Maybe it's not even true.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Bernie Sander's platform was one that most people could agree with. The Republicans are master tacticians for getting their base to vote against what they actually want.

The advertisements against Sanders would have been brutal (and completely dishonest). I don't think Sanders would have won. He never was able to get the minority vote behind him (despite the whole getting arrested during protests back in the 60s thing), which is why he lost the primaries in the first place. All things being equal, he drowned in the South.

Yes, but he did better in the rust belt which was an area of interest because it somewhat turned from Hillary to Trump. And Sanders would have also upped his game against Trump. But then the news media would have a bias against Sanders. It's all speculation and hard to say what would have happened.

In hindsight, Sanders' win in Michigan should have been a warning sign.

...is it really relevant who would have won? The fact that there were conflicts of interest we are only now hearing about is troubling.

You mean there were politics involved in politics?

I also think the timing is weird because there seems to be a pile up on Clinton at the moment. Even so, it's troubling. Maybe Clinton should respond to the charge. Maybe it's not even true.

I'm so tired of hearing about Clinton. It Uranium One was such a big fucking deal, why didn't the House investigate it and put her in jail?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Trying to figure out what's up with the timing...Wouldn't Donna Brazile have known about this for a while? So why now?

Answer: she has written a book, coming out Nov 7th in 5 days. The article may be an excerpt. Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House

 

[dismal]

Trying to figure out what's up with the timing...Wouldn't Donna Brazile have known about this for a while? So why now?

The article makes it pretty clear she knew all about this before the general election and sat on it.

Answer: she has written a book, coming out Nov 7th in 5 days. The article may be an excerpt. Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House

Was the line at the bottom about this article being an excerpt from the book your first clue?

 

[LordKiran]

Bernie Sander's platform was one that most people could agree with. The Republicans are master tacticians for getting their base to vote against what they actually want.

The advertisements against Sanders would have been brutal (and completely dishonest). I don't think Sanders would have won. He never was able to get the minority vote behind him (despite the whole getting arrested during protests back in the 60s thing), which is why he lost the primaries in the first place. All things being equal, he drowned in the South.

Yes, but he did better in the rust belt which was an area of interest because it somewhat turned from Hillary to Trump. And Sanders would have also upped his game against Trump. But then the news media would have a bias against Sanders. It's all speculation and hard to say what would have happened.

...is it really relevant who would have won? The fact that there were conflicts of interest we are only now hearing about is troubling.

I also think the timing is weird because there seems to be a pile up on Clinton at the moment. Even so, it's troubling. Maybe Clinton should respond to the charge. Maybe it's not even true.

Better question? is it relevant who did better in the south during primaries as if either candidate would have won in the south? Really southern democrats would do everyone a favor if they just stayed home during nominations. They drag the party down with their centrism when that's not what people in the northern states want and it shows in their voting habits during 2016

 

[prideandfall]

it all seems a bit moot to me anyways since either one of them would have lost.
the nature of elections is so predictable and cyclical anyone with half a brain actually paying attention knew that whomever the democrat nominee was was irrelevant since they were going to lose.
add that to the fact that the republicans had one of if not the best candidates they've ever had and the election was over as soon as trump got the nomination.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yes, but he did better in the rust belt which was an area of interest because it somewhat turned from Hillary to Trump. And Sanders would have also upped his game against Trump. But then the news media would have a bias against Sanders. It's all speculation and hard to say what would have happened.

...is it really relevant who would have won? The fact that there were conflicts of interest we are only now hearing about is troubling.

I also think the timing is weird because there seems to be a pile up on Clinton at the moment. Even so, it's troubling. Maybe Clinton should respond to the charge. Maybe it's not even true.

Better question? is it relevant who did better in the south during primaries as if either candidate would have won in the south?

Well if you combine the results of all the primaries, yeah, it matters who won in the south.

 

[LordKiran]

Better question? is it relevant who did better in the south during primaries as if either candidate would have won in the south?

Well if you combine the results of all the primaries, yeah, it matters who won in the south.

S'kindof my point though. The biggest problem the DNC has is their own electoral process for candidates doesn't accurately match how we elect presidents. as a result of this you have centrist democrats in the south holding the party back even though their votes don't mean shit in a general election (And should be treated accordingly to be brutally honest.)

The way I see it, you have two directions the party can go:

1. Continue playing to southern centrists in some hope that "Maybe this time it will get you somewhere." (Remember: The definition of 'stupidity' is to repeat the same process over and over again and expecting a different result each time.)

2. Court the vote of northern democrats that can actually get you elected. (Three exceptions to this: Arizona, Texas, and Florida)

 

[dismal]

it all seems a bit moot to me anyways since either one of them would have lost.
the nature of elections is so predictable and cyclical anyone with half a brain actually paying attention knew that whomever the democrat nominee was was irrelevant since they were going to lose.
add that to the fact that the republicans had one of if not the best candidates they've ever had and the election was over as soon as trump got the nomination.

Isn't this a bit like saying we shouldn't care about murders because people are going to die anyway?

The issue here isn't who coulda shoulda woulda won or what coulda shoulda woulda happened in the general election, it's that one player had taken control over the referee in what was supposed to be a fair contest.

 

[LordKiran]

Whoops delete

 

[prideandfall]

it all seems a bit moot to me anyways since either one of them would have lost.
the nature of elections is so predictable and cyclical anyone with half a brain actually paying attention knew that whomever the democrat nominee was was irrelevant since they were going to lose.
add that to the fact that the republicans had one of if not the best candidates they've ever had and the election was over as soon as trump got the nomination.

Isn't this a bit like saying we shouldn't care about murders because people are going to die anyway?

The issue here isn't who coulda shoulda woulda won or what coulda shoulda woulda happened in the general election, it's that one player had taken control over the referee in what was supposed to be a fair contest.

i can totally see that point, but at the same time two important things stick out to me:

1. griping that an entrenched political body, that has been given about 50% of the power in the country in a gift-wrapped box, is spending more time on its own influence than it is on representing the will of the people is kind of like going "hey what the hell!? all i did was jump into this pit of angry scorpions, and i got stung all over!"

2. technically speaking an argument could be made that what the DNC pulled is exactly what a lot of people have either suggested the RNC should have done or wish the RNC had done: stepped in and vetoed the will of the people when they thought the candidate they picked was problematic.
i'm sure a LOT of folks would have no problem with the idea of the RNC having stepped in during the primaries and just going "yeah... no" and finding some way, any way, to nix trump from the process.
so either campaign bodies exist in order to temper the impetuousness of the voting public, or else they only exist for the purposes of organization and facilitate the election process and can never and should never get involved to wrangle the unruly masses.

seems a bit hypocritical to complain of the one aspect while encouraging the other.