Like clockwork, no?
No, wait, the DNC supported the long time democrat instead of the independent that became a temporary democrat so he'd have a chance at running for president, because the 1st past the post BS system the US has?
No way, i would have never seen that coming.
While I'd have preferred Bernie as an opponent to Trump, still talking about the DNC blocking Bernie is pretty much the left version of "but her e-mails".
Yeah, he probably would've made a better candidate, yes they obstructed him. Water under the bridge.
That said, "Russia played an important, illicit role in the American election process" is serious and should be treated seriously, not as if it's some Bond story in a fictional world. Even if they only released information "the people have a right to know" and they were "good guys", that still only puts them on the level of Assange - who I'm fairly sure the same right considers a criminal.
Yeah, he probably would've made a better candidate, yes they obstructed him. Water under the bridge.
That said, "Russia played an important, illicit role in the American election process" is serious and should be treated seriously, not as if it's some Bond story in a fictional world. Even if they only released information "the people have a right to know" and they were "good guys", that still only puts them on the level of Assange - who I'm fairly sure the same right considers a criminal.
Seriously. Any time before 1988, this level of Russian/Soviet meddling would have been considered an act of war. But ever since Roger Ailes came along, it's been party before country, growing by orders of magnitude every year.
(I was going to say 1992 and the Clintons, but then I remembered Roger Ailes was the guy who dropped Willie Horton on us, and later headed up Fox News. And we all know how that's turned out.)
The DNC was one of their targets, but they also breached the State Department, several American Embassies and the White House email server.
And it turned out terribly for them. Hillary kept them barely paid for as she took their money that could have been used to win down ballot races in order to finance her lose to Donald Trump. Her strategy was so bad that in the final weeks she was trying to run up the score in Arizona instead of securing the states that hadn’t gone for a republican since Reagan.
Hell they didn’t even take back the senate despite 24 republican senators being up for relection vrs only ten democrats.
They fucked up really bad when they decided to back Hillary instead of just being a neutral arbiter.
Dave
Staff member
Does nobody on the right remember when our rivers were fucking ON FIRE?!? Or the smog that blanketed cities?
https://www.apnews.com/646836ad590c...n-air-policy-opposed-by-fossil-fuel-interests
https://www.apnews.com/646836ad590c...n-air-policy-opposed-by-fossil-fuel-interests
On the other hand, Bernie lost the majority of the primaries and came up 4 million votes short compared to Hillary, so saying that the guy who lost to Hillary by 4 million votes would have beaten the guy who lost to Hillary by 3 million votes seems kind of ridiculous. Not to mention how the GOP would have hammered Bernie as being a socialist, and brought up the FBI investigation into Jane Sanders' bank fraud that caused Burlington College go bankrupt.
But no, keep on trucking, Bernie Bros.
He really wouldn't have.
I'm just continuing my habit of posting the same cliched one line arguments that have been happening for a year.
Just because he's a socialist does not mean that Russia would necessarily have supported him instead.
I think the race would have been a lot more interesting. It didn't feel like Bernie had elitist disdain for people and entire voting blocks. Now the real question is if his campaign would have played the electoral voting game better than Clinton's.
I still think the election was Hilary's to lose. She made a lot of baffling choices on the campaign trail and basically ignored some key states because she just assumed they would be blue (Pennsylvania). I honestly think since she knew she was going up against Trump she got overconfident that she would win, you know with all those early polls making her the victor. She didn't realize how damaging the whole e-mail / primary rigging shit was with on the fence democrats / Bernie supports, and how fervent Trump's supporters were. In the end just enough democrats in those key areas decided to stay home compared to those Trumpers that wanted Trump, and the rest is now history.
I think, had Bernie won the primary, he would have done a better job focusing on those key states and it would have at least been a lot closer on the electoral scale. There also wouldn't have been a "Never Bernie" movement with certain democrats like there was with Hilary.
I think, had Bernie won the primary, he would have done a better job focusing on those key states and it would have at least been a lot closer on the electoral scale. There also wouldn't have been a "Never Bernie" movement with certain democrats like there was with Hilary.
A good response to an argument that I didn’t make. My argument was how the DNC betrayed their status as a neutral arbiter to support a candidate who pretty much screwed them worse than I’ve ever seen.
Also primaries are quite a bit different than general elections. Just ask Roy Moore.
I feel like Trump won because that majority of the voter base was looking for a “friend to the Common Man,” and they saw that in Trump more than Hillary (and I don’t disagree). However, Bernie also appealed to this “Common Man” demographic, so I think the race might’ve actually been closer than the Hillary/Trump one we got.
—Patrick
—Patrick
GasBandit
Staff member
I don't give two cold fucks what your idiot argument was, I'm telling you what really happened. He lost. By a lot. And that was just among Democrats. He never even got to the show, so the argument that he would have won is quite frankly insane. That's like arguing that Tebow should get NL MVP this year, despite the fact that he's not even a roster player.
Dave
Staff member
Yet the fact that the DNC actively promoted a candidate while kneecapping another, arguably better candidate has no bearing whatsoever on this? Because of the idiocy of the "superdelegate", Bernie never stood a chance. Because that's what the DNC wanted. You can argue against that all you want, but the DNC and the Clintons locked up the supers WAY before the campaign really got into full swing. And their underhanded tactics ensured that Bernie stood no chance in states like California. So you can bitch and moan all you want, but Hillary's huge win has an army of asterisks by it.
All the superdelegates supported Hillary in 08.
Dave
Staff member
Wrong. They initially said they were going for Clinton, but most of them switched to Obama. While she started with a 3:1 margin over Obama, when the conference was held, he had more than her. The difference this time was the amount of influence the Clintons - and their pet DWS - had over the DNC, which was entrenched and based largely on financial leverage. So there would be no switching. Additionally, Sanders was a anti-status quo guy and the supers believed that Clinton would keep the economic divide and be friendlier to big business. So while Obama siphoned a lot of them away, Bernie didn't have the establishment in his corner, so that was not going to happen.[DOUBLEPOST=1516998078,1516997997][/DOUBLEPOST]And Clinton started with 23.9% of the delegates needed to get the nomination. Sanders got much, much closer than anyone expected or feared. He created excitement and generated an enthusiastic following that Hillary could only dream of.
And still lost to her by 4 million votes.
Dave
Staff member
Much like the popular vote in the general, it's the delegate count that mattered. And in Bernie's case, he got a total of 39.6% of general delegates. Part of the reason for this is low turnout in states like Texas and California, where it was made clear that Hillary had already clinched, even though that was bullshit. They counted the supers in the overall total, which caused perception to skew in her favor. It was a calculated and purposeful tactic by the DNC. Like I said, kneecapping Sanders at every opportunity.
You can argue against it all you want, but the fact that the DNC shilled for Hillary and undercut Sanders whenever possible is irrefutable. And THAT'S why she won by such a margin. It sure wasn't on her strength as a candidate.
So he lost 60.4% of the general delegates, but you still insist that he could have won.
Sure. Fine. Good. Yeah.
How strange that the DNC would stump for someone who'd been a member of the party for 20 years, instead of a guy who borrowed their badge for the primaries then left again as soon as the election was over. How corrupt.
Sure. Fine. Good. Yeah.
How strange that the DNC would stump for someone who'd been a member of the party for 20 years, instead of a guy who borrowed their badge for the primaries then left again as soon as the election was over. How corrupt.
Thenwhy even quote me? Also what the fuck is with the hostility? Did you not like me calling you out on your nonsequitor?
If you want to do an honest sports metaphor it would be that the Vikings would have beaten the Patriots to win the super bowl (calling it now). Which Honestly I do find that to be a fun discussion but other people (mostly you) seem to be really pissed off about it.
But if primaries are such a perfect representation explain to me Lieberman’s 2006 campaign where he lost the primary and then went on to run as an independent and win the general. A victory that if primaries were perfectly representative of success in the general would be unheard of. I’d love to argue it with you if you could manage a thin veneer of not being an asshole. If not just don’t bother responding cause then we just end up insulting each other and cause a threadlock.