Merged Wikileaks DNC leak proves primary was rigged /DNC planned to use Sanders' religion ag

[BobTheCoward]

It is simply how the system works. If Hillary had run as an independent in 2008, it would have helped John McCain. That doesn't mean that Obama was a weak candidate.

And if neither Clinton nor Obama ran, McCain would have won.

Who are these people that you cannot convince to vote for your candidate given 3 choices, who you don't value their choices and want to limit them to your candidate?

Any candidate with such disdain for people in representative government have no place near it.

 

[Fudbucker]

"Wasserman Schultz says the party came up with a debate schedule "to maximize the opportunity for voters to see our candidates."

Wasserman Schultz’s best point is that the Democrats largely scheduled their debates with TV networks, which means viewers without cable can see them. But other than that, her statement is very disingenuous.

There are six Democratic party debates compared with 11 scheduled for the Republicans, and half of the Democratic debates are on weekends -- including one the weekend before Christmas and another on the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday weekend. If the Democrats had wanted to "maximize" opportunities for viewers, the party could have added more debates, scheduled them on weekdays and avoided holidays.

We rate this claim False."

http://www.politifact.com/florida/s...atic-debates-maximize-exposure-debbie-wasser/

 

[Tony Stark]

And if neither Clinton nor Obama ran, McCain would have won.

Who are these people that you cannot convince to vote for your candidate given 3 choices, who you don't value their choices and want to limit them to your candidate?

Any candidate with such disdain for people in representative government have no place near it.

Splitting your side helps the other side. That's the simple fact of the matter of how first past the post voting systems work.

Bernie Sanders is not going to help Donald Trump.

 

[Tony Stark]

I haven't heard Sanders blaming his loss on this.

What the **** is he bitching about then. If he knows that DWS preferring a life long Democrat over someone who just joined the party didn't affect the outcome, what is the huge problem?

 

[Fudbucker]

I don't get all this whining about superdelegates when Bernie lost big not including them and they have never gone against the pledged delegates.

Why aren't the Bernie Bros complaining about caucuses. They are undemocratic. It couldn't be because they worked in Bernie's favor, could i?

I never got the argument that caucuses are undemocratic. People can caucus. It's harder than voting, but so what? Making voting harder affects both candidates equally.

Bernie didn't lose because of superdelegates, but they certainly didn't help him, and they certainly did help her. How many times did we see superdelegates lumped in with the pledged delegates whenever the media reported on Clinton's lead? It made Bernie's job much harder. It made the race look like a blowout when it was actually fairly close much of the time.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Splitting your side helps the other side. That's the simple fact of the matter of how first past the post voting systems work.

Bernie Sanders is not going to help Donald Trump.

Which the voter's know and still would vote for Sanders. If you cannot win with them doing that, why do you want to win? I would take that as a sign my candidate isn't cut out for the top job.

 

[The Big Dog]

Wrong, unless you don't know anything about wikileaks and their purported philosophy. Yet again, you have no evidence but claim victory.

Otherwise, one could say, 'We don't need to hack the DNC because here are their public statements.' You don't believe that, correct?

You obviously don't know what a strawman is. Not sure why you persist in arguing about it.

 

[Tony Stark]

I never got the argument that caucuses are undemocratic. People can caucus. It's harder than voting, but so what? Making voting harder affects both candidates equally.

People can caucus. If they have time to go to a designated place for a few hours at a specific time.

And caucuses favor the most fanatical side. The ones most willing to bully and peer pressure their neighbors.

Bernie didn't lose because of superdelegates, but they certainly didn't help him, and they certainly did help her. How many times did we see superdelegates lumped in with the pledged delegates whenever the media reported on Clinton's lead? It made Bernie's job much harder. It made the race look like a blowout when it was actually fairly close much of the time.

Nah, it was never close. If Hillary wins the GE by as much as she did the primary, it will be considered a complete blowout.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I haven't heard Sanders blaming his loss on this.

Then you weren't listening to his stump speeches.

Once he lost, and was done pretending there might be a contested convention, he quit blaming his loss on anything and began saying Clinton won.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I never got the argument that caucuses are undemocratic. People can caucus. It's harder than voting, but so what? Making voting harder affects both candidates equally.

Bernie didn't lose because of superdelegates, but they certainly didn't help him, and they certainly did help her. How many times did we see superdelegates lumped in with the pledged delegates whenever the media reported on Clinton's lead? It made Bernie's job much harder. It made the race look like a blowout when it was actually fairly close much of the time.

If the caucuses reflected the actual will of the people, WA State's primary wouldn't have shown the opposite result as the caucus result.

The superdelegates gave Sanders a fundraising and campaign issue: the evil establishment.

 

[Tony Stark]

Which the voter's know and still would vote for Sanders. If you cannot win with them doing that, why do you want to win? I would take that as a sign my candidate isn't cut out for the top job.

Having both the first and second place finishers run would help the Republicans no matter who the candidates were. It has nothing to do with the weakness of the candidate but rather the simple math of the situation. It is the whole entire reason that the parties each run only one candidate.

 

[Stacko]

Nah, it was never close. If Hillary wins the GE by as much as she did they primary, it will be considered a complete blowout.

It was a way bigger beatdown that Obama handed Hillary and it was over by mid-March.

 

[Tony Stark]

News now reporting that DWS will step down as DNC chair at the end of the convention.

Meh, she was going to be gone sooner or later anyway.

 

[The Atheist]

I voted for Bernie and donated to his campaign. If he did that, I would absolutely hate him and personally blame him for President Donald J. Trump.

Unless he won, of course.

Given the deep unpopularity of both candidates, there's nothing says he couldn't win from where I'm looking.

The DNC emails don't matter and Bernie wouldn't think of pulling a stunt like that. He cares too much about the people he serves to play that game.

Cares enough to let the party crap all over them? That's some serious caring going on.

No, he shouldn't do that at all. For like the 10,000th time, Bernie Sanders is a good person. He will not undermine Clinton. Beating Trump is too important, and he knows it. He's not as stupid as his most extreme supporters.

Or, as it looks to me, he's decided that he will accept the rip-off in return for sainthood if Billary wins.

What if she loses? What does that make him?

 

[Fudbucker]

People can caucus. If they have time to go to a designated place for a few hours at a specific time.

And caucuses favor the most fanatical side. The ones most willing to bully and peer pressure their neighbors.

That just means candidates need to get their supporters fired up. Maybe if I was a Democrat I would care more.

Nah, it was never close. If Hillary wins the GE by as much as she did they primary, it will be considered a complete blowout.

True, but then again, Clinton never did get enough pledged delegates to win. She needed superdelegate votes. As primaries go, it was close. The only other close one I can think of on the Democrat side was 2008. Before 2008, when was the last time we got to June without having a presumptive nominee?

In any case, her lead was never as big as the media sometimes claimed it was, when they included the Supers in her delegate count.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Having both the first and second place finishers run would help the Republicans no matter who the candidates were. It has nothing to do with the weakness of the candidate but rather the simple math of the situation. It is the whole entire reason that the parties each run only one candidate.

And if you can't win under that simple math, you are a poor representative for the people. Nader received 2.8 million votes.if Gore did a better job convincing the American people he was right for president, it would have been far lower.

 

[Tony Stark]

Unless he won, of course.

Given the deep unpopularity of both candidates, there's nothing says he couldn't win from where I'm looking.

That's because you're not an American and have no understanding whatsoever of American politics.

He would definitely not win. There is no question.

 

[Fudbucker]

News now reporting that DWS will step down as DNC chair at the end of the convention.

Meh, she was going to be gone sooner or later anyway.

You know, when did the Democrats become so disciplined? This is how you do damage control. Bernie got his revenge (he's hated her for awhile), and now it's a non-story (unless more emails come out).

 

[NoahFence]

What the **** is he bitching about then. If he knows that DWS preferring a life long Democrat over someone who just joined the party didn't affect the outcome, what is the huge problem?

I don't think he's bitching about the loss. He's bitching about the process. He accepts that things are the way they are, but can also say that it's not right.

 

[Tony Stark]

And if you can't win under that simple math, you are a poor representative for the people. Nader received 2.8 million votes.if Gore did a better job convincing the American people he was right for president, it would have been far lower.

Having the second place finisher compete in the GE would help the other party no matter who the nominee was. As I said, that is why the parties run only one nominee each.