So...the DNC?

[Kheldarson]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...385_story.html

How did the Democrats manage to fuck this up? The RNC handed them a golden opportunity.

[Gravekeeper]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...385_story.html

How did the Democrats manage to fuck this up? The RNC handed them a golden opportunity.

This is Bernie's fuck up. He courted this message and clung on to his campaign till the bitter end. So of course his supporters are bitter.

Flotus just knocked one out of the god damn park though.

[Canarr]

This is Bernie's fuck up. He courted this message and clung on to his campaign till the bitter end. So of course his supporters are bitter.

No, it's not. The Democratic National Committee used questionable and decidedly non-democratic methods to make sure that Hillary became the nominee, which IMO, Bernie and his supporters are rightfully pissed about.

And now, the leaked emails - leaked with very convenient timing - brought this to their attention right before the convention, so of course they're going to make noise about it.

Whether attacking Hillary over this is justified or not, I don't know. But after she gave the responsible Chairwoman a position on her campaign team just a few days ago, I think they can be forgiven for the thought.

The Democrat leadership fucked this up all on their own, no help from Bernie needed. We can just hope that they'll pull together again in time to stop Trump from becoming the new POTUS.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

She doesn't have a "position on her campaign team" though. It's a meaningless title. She has no power, no staff, no authority. It's just a title that does NOTHING. Obama had I think around 24 "honorary co-chairs" on his campaign, including an actress and a teacher.

Also, this has some really good information about the "e-mail leak." False Stories about DNC e-mail leak - WITH CITATIONS

Bernie did hurt the Democratic party from holding out so long. Hiliary still had to fight him off and focus on the primary when Trump (although not "official") was the only one left in his race and could turn full swing for the general election. I wish Bernie had fared better, but there was never a time where he was a ahead, no matter how much math and word twisting his supporters did. He whipped up a cult, feeding their hopes for a miracle and then when it didn't happen they're all ready to rampage.

[Canarr]

Also, this has some really good information about the "e-mail leak." False Stories about DNC e-mail leak - WITH CITATIONS

I stand corrected. Thank you for that link.

[TheHuckster]

She doesn't have a "position on her campaign team" though. It's a meaningless title. She has no power, no staff, no authority. It's just a title that does NOTHING. Obama had I think around 24 "honorary co-chairs" on his campaign, including an actress and a teacher.

An honorary title is still going to rub people the wrong way, though. I don't care if Hillary hired her to clean her toilets, she still is considering Schultz someone she wants to associate with, so if people condemn what Schultz did, then of course they're going to condemn any kind of recognition Hillary gives her.

And Hillary really shouldn't associate with any sort of scandal after her history. Associating with Schultz in any way is going to be detrimental to her campaign as far as I'm concerned.

[Gravekeeper]

An honorary title is still going to rub people the wrong way, though. I don't care if Hillary hired her to clean her toilets, she still is considering Schultz someone she wants to associate with, so if people condemn what Schultz did, then of course they're going to condemn any kind of recognition Hillary gives her.

And Hillary really shouldn't associate with any sort of scandal after her history. Associating with Schultz in any way is going to be detrimental to her campaign as far as I'm concerned.

Schultz is still good at what she does behind the scenes ( which is to say, fundraising and campaign organizing ). However, by all accounts it sounds like the honorary title might just be to get her to shut up. She did not want to step down and even Clinton's campaign had been calling for her to step down as early as a year ago. It took a personal call from Obama to get her to resign.

At which point its weighing the damage she can do somewhere you can keep an eye on her vs weighing the damage she can do if she rampages around during the DNC.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

No, it's not. The Democratic National Committee used questionable and decidedly non-democratic methods to make sure that Hillary became the nominee, which IMO, Bernie and his supporters are rightfully pissed about.

What methods would you like to point out? Because honestly this is the crux of the RNC's Clinton digs and ultimately its been an effective way to attack Clinton because people are lazy. Here was the reality of Sanders:
1) He entered the campaign an unknown which persisted through the early part of the campaign
2) He was not helped by the debate scheduling process although arguably he kept losing those debates
3) The DNC e-mails showed a preference of certain members but these are political players. I haven't seen a single thing that struck me as abnormal in them.
4) Sanders lost the campaign early where he was destroyed in states with diverse populations and where he was still unknown. Everything about that is democratic. It just didn't favor him in the same way Clinton getting trounced in extremely white and liberal Washington state is democratic.
5) He lost without the superdelagates.

It won't matter if 10 out of 10 criticisms are disproven, politics is a lot like high school. Bullshit sticks.

Ultimately, if you stoke a campaign based on the "system being rigged", don't be surprised when you can't maintain control of your base when you have to do what you have to do. It's taken the Republicans decades to find that out the hard way. Oddly it only took the Democrats one election cycle.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

(This was going to be posted to my Facebook, but I decided to really try and maintain my "Do not post political stuff on Facebook" rule, so I am posting it here. It is a general "You" not aimed at anyone. -Especially not Canarr, who is smart and willing to take in new information and digest it. You are awesome Canarr <3)

The truth of the matter is, Bernie Sanders was losing the entire time. (Note; I DID vote for him in my primary.) There was not a time he was ahead. By April, it was mathematically impossible for him to win (he lost WITHOUT super delegates even having to weigh in.)

Yet, every time a primary rolled around, I saw my feed on Facebook being filled with post after post of "Don't worry guys, we can still win!" (Even though it was mathematically impossible.)

"We can still win! It's still possible!" After each and EVERY primary when he was losing each one. Even up to the DNC, "He can still get the nomination!"

It's even gotten to the point that pointing out the facts with citations from PRIMARY sources are being hand waved aside to fuel more rage and foot stomping.

Do I wish he had won? Yes. I do. However, I saw the writing on the wall back in April. I was boggled at how many people pointedly ignored the facts and mathematics as each month crawled by, clinging harder and harder to a miracle that wasn't going to happen. Then when reality settles in, they jump on any scapegoat they could to find and easy way to let their rage come out.

If you aren't going to believe ~~primary~~ sourced (as looking at the ACTUAL evidence as presented, not two or three times removed from it) information, you aren't going to believe anything.

I am sorry he did not win, but it was obvious months ago that he was not. I do not know why people were so willing to blindly believe that he could when it was mathematically impossible (without even having to use the super delegates.)

[Gravekeeper]

I am sorry he did not win, but it was obvious months ago that he was not. I do not know why people were so willing to blindly believe that he could when it was mathematically impossible (without even having to use the super delegates.)

Yeah, absolutely none of this was a surprise. And for the DNC, their job is to get democrats elected. So I don't why anyone is shocked at their being bias towards Clinton. Bernie positioned himself as an outsider and actively attacked the DNC and Bernie wasn't going to help the down ticket. Which are arguable even more important than the presidency.

Also, neither the DNC or the RNC are technically "political" elections. They are both effectively private clubs. They set their own voting rules and systems. They're not legally bound to accept the choice of the voters. The primary process is less who do the people want for president than it is who can get the most votes for as a presidential nominee in the general.

Its not an election so much as market research.

But there seems to be a lot of die hards in the Bernie camp that think the primaries are actual federal elections. Instead of internal party popularity contests.

[Canarr]

(This was going to be posted to my Facebook, but I decided to really try and maintain my "Do not post political stuff on Facebook" rule, so I am posting it here. It is a general "You" not aimed at anyone. -Especially not Canarr, who is smart and willing to take in new information and digest it. You are awesome Canarr <3)

If I were truly awesome, I wouldn't have joined a discussion with just some rumors and half-assed research But, thanks anyway.

[Greenday]

It was never going to be Sanders. The DNC was never going to allow someone who wanted to change the status quo to win. Besides the whole superdelegates which remove democracy from the process, it was a pretty close vote. But one has to wonder, with superdelegates constantly being counted before they voted, how much did that sway the election? It made the vote seem much further apart than it really was early on so a lot of people refused to vote for Bernie because he was already doomed. Or people might not have bothered looking into Bernie prior to their primary because thanks to the early delegate counts including superdelegates, it wasn't close so they didn't think he should be taken seriously.

[Gravekeeper]

It was never going to be Sanders. The DNC was never going to allow someone who wanted to change the status quo to win.

Which status quo would that be exactly? Sanders and Clinton are very similar ideologically speaking. Disagreeing primarily only on defense issues.

Besides the whole superdelegates which remove democracy from the process, it was a pretty close vote.

The DNC and RNC are not democracies. They are private clubs. Whose jobs are to find the candidate that will be of most benefit to the party with the best chance of winning. Superdelegates are there to stop shit like Trump from happening and destroying the party. -.-

Or people might not have bothered looking into Bernie prior to their primary because thanks to the early delegate counts including superdelegates, it wasn't close so they didn't think he should be taken seriously.

Or Sanders could have hitched his wagon to the Dems to avoid running as a third party candidate. Then positioned himself as a hostile outsider to the DNC. Criticizing it at every turn then whining when the DNC wasn't thrilled about it. While likewise doing nothing to help down ticket candidates.

Or Sanders could have been completely beaten by Clinton's ground game and not realized he actually needed minority votes until it was too late.

Or Sanders could have inadvertently revealed through high profile interviews that he didn't actually have any plans to accomplish his platform goals thereby hurting his credibility with moderates.

Or Sanders could have had bad handlers or didn't listen to his handlers in regards to the optics of an old white guy on TV shushing a woman.

Or the majority of primary voters could simply have ( gasp ) preferred Clinton over Sanders.

But your right! Obviously the only explanation is an undemocratic conspiracy. >.>