Oprah 2020

[ServiceSoon]

Coincidence or simple fact that the most popular candidate has better odds of winning and is hence more often chosen by the party.

The Sanders voters just didn't understand how the system works and they got salty because they didn't get their fantasy version of the world... just like some fans didn't get their fantasy version of Luke Skywalker.

Similarly, how Trump won the presidency even though he loss the popular vote.

No but Sanders fans and right-wingers both have a vested interest in selling the idea that there was.

As do at least 2 people within the DNC. It may not have been rigged, but it was most definitely unfair to Sanders.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Primary Elections Explained by GCP Grey:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_95I_1rZiIs

 

[Belz...]

Similarly, how Trump won the presidency even though he loss the popular vote.

Yes, exactly like that. People didn't understand how the system works and bitched about it when they lost.

As do at least 2 people within the DNC. It may not have been rigged, but it was most definitely unfair to Sanders.

In what way? Should it have been fair to all potential candidates, regardless of how bankable they were?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Whatever's convenient at the time. Same way people complained about the EC when Hillary lost but would've been quite happy if the situation had been reversed.

Yep. The fact that the Electoral College vote and the Popular Vote usually coming to the same conclusion doesn't mean the "Popular Vote" is even a thing on any political or legal or Constitutional level.

 

[Segnosaur]

Perhaps its my choice of words that's poked this hornets nest.

All I'm saying is that the Dems had a system of selecting their candidate that favors candidates that are preferred by the folks in positions of leadership within the party.

Saying the wrong thing using different wording doesn't make it correct. Its still just as wrong.

The fact that clinton was both the preferred choice of the leadership AND won doesn't mean that the preference by the leadership had anything to do with her victory.

This system clearly favored Clinton over Sanders.

It clearly favored someone who had better name recognition and a history of working with and for the people that were voting.

That it didn't matter in this election doesn't really change that. I suspect lot of regular dems didn't realize that until this election. Saying things like Sanders had a fair chance is just silly, he didn't but he shouldn't have, he wasn't even a democrat.

Sanders had a fair chance. The fact that you keep repeating he did not does not make it any more true. He wasn't a long-term democrat and didn't fully fit in with the party. That's not a sign of how he "didn't get a fair shot". Its a sign that people within the party didn't want what he was offering.

You know who else didn't get nominated? The homeless guy shouting obscenities at random strangers. Is that a sign that the system is 'rigged'? No, its not.

How many rank and file democrats new that 15% of the delegates weren't determined by primary voting prior to 2016?

An irrelevant question. Even if a democrat during the primary knew nothing about super delegates, it would not have changed the outcome.

 

[ahhell]

Because this isn't an EULA. This isn't "The fine print." This isn't some technicality.

Sure that was just a tongue and cheek comment but it is sort of the fine print. We have these things called primaries that appear to select a a party's primary candidate but they really only sort of do. That's naturally not going to be clear to most voters.

On it's most basic level the whole "rigged" argument boils down to the Democratic Voter Base asking the Democratic Leadership who they think they should vote for... and then telling them they are wrong. This was an issue with both parties, remember the talk of the GOP trying to unseat Trump at the convention. They probably could have and probably would have been totally legal and maybe even with in the rules of the party, but they couldn't have and still had a party to speak of. Not that they really have one now. The complaints that Obama left the Dems hollowed out and unfunded are going to pale in comparison to how Trump leaves the GOP.

If a majority of the Democratic Voter Base wanted Sanders as President why isn't he President (or at least why wasn't he the one that lost to Trump and not Hillary?) Because the Party Leadership said no? Than why'd you ask the Party? 20 goto 10.

If the Primaries are the Voter Base asking the Party who do vote for than you can't get mad when you don't like the answer given.

And the Primaries being the Voter Base telling the Party who they are going to vote for doesn't make any kind of sense.

I don't really follow that. In my case, the "rigged" argument is basically saying that the primary system is designed to give the leadership a thumb on the results of the outcome in case the voters end up choosing a wing nut or even just a guy the leaders don't like. Probably also intended to make the winner seem like they had a bigger majority than they did for propaganda purposes too but that's pure speculation on my part. The problem with that is that it pretty much never matters and almost nobody realized it until this election. A sizeable portion of potential voters felt cheated and disenfranchised.

I doubt 1 in 20 voters could tell you with any degree of accuracy or comprehension how, on a functional level, how their Party operates. Hell I doubt a solid 1/4 of Americans could write a solid paragraph explain exactly why they are a member of a political party in any way that makes sense.

But that's their problem.

But isn't it also a problem for the party? If it their voters don't understand the system then some number of them get pissed when they figure out it doesn't work the way they thought it does?

Edit, AT Seg, I think the 15% superdelegate thing is relevant. In order for Bernie to have had a chance he needed a 15% margin of victory, which basically means he never had a chance. Again, he wasn't a democrat so ok but its a clear recipe to piss off bernie bros and even some fence sitters.

 

[Belz...]

Sure that was just a tongue and cheek comment but it is sort of the fine print. We have these things called primaries that appear to select a a party's primary candidate but they really only sort of do.

No, they don't sort of do. They do. That they don't work the way you thought doesn't make them rigged or unfair.

 

[Segnosaur]

In my case, the "rigged" argument is basically saying that the primary system is designed to give the leadership a thumb on the results of the outcome...

Except of course that is not what happened in the 2016 primaries.

There was absolutely nothing done by the DNC that gave the leadership a "thumb on the results". Absolutely nothing. Not the debate schedule (which was similar to that in previous elections), not the primary voting methods (which are controlled at the state level), not the super delegates.

The results of the primary unfolded exactly as you would expect when a long-term democrat with name recognition faced a challenger with limited name recognition and very little track record within the party.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Sure that was just a tongue and cheek comment but it is sort of the fine print. We have these things called primaries that appear to select a a party's primary candidate but they really on sort of do. That's naturally not going to be clear to most voters.

Well I don't have much sympathy for a populace that depends on political parties to do their thinking for them. If you're hitching your cart to a horse just because an organization tells you too and you haven't taken the time to research the organization and how it works... cry me a river.

I don't really follow that. In my case, the "rigged" argument is basically saying that the primary system is designed to give the leadership a thumb on the results of the outcome in case the voters end up choosing a wing nut or even just a guy the leaders don't like.

And my point is that's like calling water rigged because it's wet.

A sizeable portion of potential voters felt cheated and disenfranchised.

So? You think the Party gives a salad toss about that? Who cares if they felt cheated and disenfranchised? They know damn well the number who are actually going to going to jump parties or go independent is statistically nil.

The idea Bernie supporters "lost" the election for Hillary is sour grapes after the fact rationalization. Trump had 304 electoral votes. Hillary had 227. Sanders had one. That's less than people who weren't even running in the election got.

But isn't it also a problem for the party? If it their voters don't understand the system then some number of them get pissed when they figure out it doesn't work the way they thought it does?

Why on Earth would they? So what if they are pissed at their party? What are they going to do switch? Not gonna happen and they know it.

Politically the only thing that happened was the Democrats losing an election they were going to lose anyway. All the "It was rigged!" and "Grrrrr Bernie Bros!" nonsense (which the facts and numbers don't back up) is just them trying to invent a reason for it after the fact.

 

[rwguinn]

Is this the same Oprah who gave us Dr Phil and Dr Oz?

 

[JoeMorgue]

There was absolutely nothing done by the DNC that gave the leadership a "thumb on the results". Absolutely nothing. Not the debate schedule (which was similar to that in previous elections), not the primary voting methods (which are controlled at the state level), not the super delegates.

And this is another point that gets missed. It's not "The Primary" it's about 55 different "Primaries" (or Primaries and Caucuses if one wants to get technical), some open, some closed, some by themselves, some in blocks with countless variations in the nuts and bolts rules of how they function.

The same thing that makes the system so horribly complicatedly broken also makes it pretty much immune to any real level of "rigging."

And again the system is such a legit, approved smoke and mirrors act that why rig it? Why rig a game you already officially control?

The Party Leadership has absolutely no reason or indeed even real way to rig what is essentially a huge party they thrown in celebration of themselves.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Is this the same Oprah who gave us Dr Phil and Dr Oz?

And Deepak. And "The Secret."

 

[Segnosaur]

Is this the same Oprah who gave us Dr Phil and Dr Oz?

Yup. and the same Oprah who helped Jenny McCarthy push her anti-vax nonsense. And the same Oprah who interviewed fraud artists like John Edward.

 

[Belz...]

Yup. and the same Oprah who helped Jenny McCarthy push her anti-vax nonsense. And the same Oprah who interviewed fraud artists like John Edward.

Yeah but she gave people cars, so she can't be all bad, right?

 

[xjx388]

Well... yeah mostly.

Again I personally think using the term "rigged" is wrong because... rigged suggest it's doing it's not supposed to be doing and not openly admitting it's doing. It goes beyond "Open Secret" into full on "I'm literally just doing exactly what I said I was going to do." level.

But that isn't the way it usually works. I don't think that Obama was who the DNC handpicked to be the nominee; that came about because of the popularity levels he was reaching in the primaries. This is the first election I'm aware of where the DNC had a candidate in mind (it was "Hillary's turn") and steered things in that direction even in the face of a primary challenge. Note the scandal that arose when it was learned the DWS was steering things that way. Note the scandal that arose when it was learned that Hillary got debate questions in advance. If it has always been "I'm literally just doing exactly what I said I was going to do," then I don't understand why those things caused such upheaval in the DNC. It seems to me they didn't want the public to know they were steering things and then made a big show about ousting the parties that were doing the steering. So, NOT even an open secret but one they are actively trying to conceal.

Now to be fair do I think the DNC just straight up ignores the primary vote? No. Again knowing what their voter base wants is just useful information.

But they aren't held to it. This is a narrative they are writing and 99 times out of a 100 they can rewrite the narrative and tell the voters that the candidate they want is the best one and... most voters go along with that.

Again the primary, stated purpose of a Primary is for the Party Leadership to tell the Party Voter Base who to vote for, not for the Party Voter Base to tell the Party Leadership who they want the candidate to be and the fact so many people seem to think it is is just hard for me to wrap my head around because... how that even work I don't can't even.....

And I have a tough time accepting that the purpose of a Primary is to dictate to the membership who they are supposed to vote for. I have always seen it as: several candidates throw their hat into the ring and the membership chooses which of them they want. Now you are asserting that this is completely wrong, that the STATED purpose of the primary is for the party leadership to dictate the choice to the membership. Can you point to where this is explicitly stated?

Now if you are the leadership of an organization that is preparing to present a plan to it's membership knowing what plan the membership would prefer is extremely useful information and if you can make your plan match the prefer plan all the better for everyone involved but.... again not required.

Then how do you convince the membership to vote for a candidate and platform that they do not prefer? Again, I think this is exactly what happened last election -the DNC steered the membership to a candidate that did not have wide support amongst the membership- and it had disastrous results; their candidate lost. When Obama won the primaries over Hillary, presumably the candidate the party would have selected, he and the party won overwhelmingly. Trump was not the RNCs preferred candidate. He was chosen through the primary process and subsequently won the election narrowly.

Well yeah.

Again I'm honestly perplexed at people who think this whole process flows in a different direction because... what sense would that even make? How would that even work as a concept? How do 44 million people vote to tell 4 thousand people who to tell them to vote for?

This isn't like election day where you're (ostensibly) telling the Electoral College voters who to vote for.

If the Party Voter Base already knew he they wanted to vote for and were telling the Party Leadership... what purpose would the Party Leadership even fulfill in that process? You don't need their permission to vote for the guy you want to vote for.

Again the only way this entire process makes sense is if there is a large enough to be statistically meaningful block of voters out there who don't know who they are going to vote for until their party tells them who to vote for.

How can asking someone for them to tell you who to vote for and them not giving you the answer you want be rigged?

The Primaries are basically opinion polls where the Party Leadership gets a gauge of how popular their potential candidates are but that's it. If the Party Decides they can run with a candidate less popular by knowing full well that a large enough chunk of their Voter Base is going to vote for whoever they tell them to anyway they'll run with it.

I think the Obama nomination counters this. Hillary was the preferred candidate; superdelegates had pledged their support to her already. The membership told the leadership different and those superdelegates pivoted. How do you explain the fact that Hillary lost the primary in 2008 but the DNC didn't dictate the choice then?

 

[Belz...]

But that isn't the way it usually works. I don't think that Obama was who the DNC handpicked to be the nominee; that came about because of the popularity levels he was reaching in the primaries. This is the first election I'm aware of where the DNC had a candidate in mind (it was "Hillary's turn") and steered things in that direction even in the face of a primary challenge.

Maybe that's because this is the first time you know what the DNC had in mind.

And maybe Sanders wasn't as popular as you think he was.

 

[Segnosaur]

Note the scandal that arose when it was learned that Hillary got debate questions in advance.

Ah yes, the whole "Hillary got the debate questions" argument often brought up by BernieBros.

While it may not have been wise to provide Hillary that stuff in advance, the questions were pretty generic in nature and probably ones that both Sanders and Clinton would have had answers to already. The questions I can remember off the top of my head were about Flint's water (which was a pretty notable topic at the time) and the death penalty. I don't think either of those questions was a "gotcha" type of question which would have caused problems for either candidate.

Oh, and by the way, here's what Brazile mentioned in an interview:

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/3...razile-thats-the-greatest-spin-ive-ever-heard
WikiLeaks sought to divide us. These were active measures where you got to see the things I gave to Hillary, you never got a chance to see the things I gave to Bernie or Martin O'Malley.

Its certainly plausible that Brazile gave similar assistance to Sanders, but we just didn't hear about it because Wikileaks concentrated on Clinton. (Although I also acknowledge that it could also be a self-serving statement.)

 

[JoeMorgue]

But that isn't the way it usually works. I don't think that Obama was who the DNC handpicked to be the nominee; that came about because of the popularity levels he was reaching in the primaries. This is the first election I'm aware of where the DNC had a candidate in mind (it was "Hillary's turn") and steered things in that direction even in the face of a primary challenge.

Because usually it's not a "thing" because the Party's preferred candidate and people's preferred candidate usually match up.

Again don't mis-understand me who the "Popular" guy is among the voter base is hughly important in choosing your candidate but it's not a requirement and sometimes other factors override it.

And I have a tough time accepting that the purpose of a Primary is to dictate to the membership who they are supposed to vote for. I have always seen it as: several candidates throw their hat into the ring and the membership chooses which of them they want.

Because that's the best narrative for the laypeople of the party to hear. And it's technically correct while being functionally wrong.

It all comes down to the "Party" and "The voters who support that party." Both sides think they are the dog wagging the tail. But we have to ask what exactly are the broad democratic voter base getting out of the arraingement.

Now you are asserting that this is completely wrong, that the STATED purpose of the primary is for the party leadership to dictate the choice to the membership. Can you point to where this is explicitly stated?

Again you are missing the point.

To answer your question. Article 3 Section 1 of the most current Democratic Party Charter and Bylaws:

The Democratic National Committee shall have general responsibility for the affairs of the Democratic Party between National Conventions, subject to the provisions of this Charter and to the resolutions or other actions of the National Convention. This responsibility shall include:
(a) issuing the Call to the National Convention;
(b) conducting the Party's Presidential campaign;
(c) filling vacancies in the nominations for the office of President and Vice President;

The DNC. Not the Democratic base voters. The DNC. An appointed, not necessarily elected group of 4,763 people (as of the 2016 convention, that number varies from convention to convention). That's who decides who the Democratic Presidential Nominee is going to be.

Now again usually this is also the popular candidate because that just makes the whole process easier, but they are not beholden to it.

Then how do you convince the membership to vote for acandidate and platform that they do not prefer?

Really? Really? Have you seen American politics in the last... our lifetimes? Have you ever seen any American political conversation ever?

Here I'll show you. The Party Voter Base liked a certain candidate but the Party Leadership choose someone else. Yes this is a pickle. How on Earth am I ever going to get out of this. Oh.. I know.

*Clears my thoat* "But the other side..." and I just solved that problem.

Again, I think this is exactly what happened last election -the DNC steered the membership to a candidate that did not have wide support amongst the membership- and it had disastrous results; their candidate lost.

Lost an election they were going to lose anyway. Bernie would have got creamed by Trump even harder. And I'm not saying that as someone who liked the results of 2016 by any means.

When Obama won the primaries over Hillary, presumably the candidate the party would have selected, he and the party won overwhelmingly. Trump was not the RNCs preferred candidate. He was chosen through the primary process and subsequently won the election narrowly.

If the RNC hadn't wanted Trump to run as their nominee.... he wouldn't have run as their nominee. Don't kid yourself.

I think the Obama nomination counters this. Hillary was the preferred candidate; superdelegates had pledged their support to her already. The membership told the leadership different and those superdelegates pivoted. How do you explain the fact that Hillary lost the primary in 2008 but the DNC didn't dictate the choice then?

Because Obama was a (in the eyes of the DNC) a better choice than Hillary but Hillary was a better choice than Sanders.

 

[ahhell]

I am frustrated by this conversation.
Is it incorrect to say that 15% of the delegates were not selected via voting in the primary?
Is it incorrect to say that most democrats didn't know that prior to 2016?
Was the purpose of that to prevent a grass roots candidate from getting the Democrat Party nomination?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I am frustrated by this conversation.
Is it incorrect to say that 15% of the delegates were not selected via voting in the primary?
Is it incorrect to say that most democrats didn't know that prior to 2016?
Was the purpose of that to prevent a grass roots candidate from getting the Democrat Party nomination?

I don't really know what you want to hear.

I'm not disagreeing with your factoids, just the conclusion you seem to want to wring out of them. I don't agree that your points add up to "rigged" or even particularly under handed or dishonest. At worst it's just unapologetic.

If this is turning into some rabbit hole you want me to follow you down I'll pass.