Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   Quoth a DNC superdelegate, "If we don't have the vote, what good are we?" ...that's kind of the point   ( politico.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Democratic National Committee, DNC, DNC members, Delegate, Superdelegate, Democratic Party, DNC member, Howard Dean  
•       •       •

1643 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Jul 2018 at 10:50 AM (18 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



436 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-07-12 09:29:29 AM  
Yo, DNC, dump all the superdelegates entirely.  I had to google the guy quoted in this headline to find out who he even was, and he was a state legislator decades ago who has since been a lobbyist.  Why the fark should the DNC care about his opinion at all?
 
2018-07-12 09:43:41 AM  
Trump is a product of a purely democratic process with no superdelegates.
 
2018-07-12 09:58:41 AM  
FTFA: During the committee meeting Wednesday, Don Fowler, a former DNC chairman and outspoken critic of the rules change, asked, "For what? Why? ... Why vote if you can't affect the outcome?"

And now, Mr. Fowler, you understand how liberals in America feel.  Yet we vote for Democrats anyway, knowing that it will do fark-all to change anything.
 
2018-07-12 10:03:25 AM  

dv-ous: Trump is a product of a purely democratic process with no superdelegates.


I wouldn't say purely democratic. The GOP primaries are all kinds of weird with allocations of delegates.

Now the Democrats, proportional allocation of delegates is a far better system (even if it does encourage people to stay in the race long after it has been realistically, but not mathematically, decided).
 
2018-07-12 10:05:48 AM  

dv-ous: Trump is a product of a purely democratic process with no superdelegates.


Ummm...they didn't even hold caucuses in several states (including Colorado). I hope I missed a joke here.
 
2018-07-12 10:10:50 AM  

holdmybones: dv-ous: Trump is a product of a purely democratic process with no superdelegates.

Ummm...they didn't even hold caucuses in several states (including Colorado). I hope I missed a joke here.


Caucus's (whatever the plural is) aren't democratic, at least not in the same sense that a primary election is. Having to wait around for hours and hours to vote at a specific time is a great way to ensure that you discourage people from voting.

If I had to choose, I'd get rid of those before the superdelegates.
 
2018-07-12 10:31:06 AM  
It's this shiat again where the Third Way faction that controls the DNC tells us that they should be able to rig the primaries for the Third Way candidate because they may lose control of the party to actual liberals if they adhere to the ideal of one person one vote.

The Third Way has run the DNC into the ground. Their chosen candidate list to Donald Parking Trump. The lesson that they should have learned in the last election is that they shouldn't decide what the voters want and instead listen to what the voters want. Unfortunately a lot of the voters want liberal candidates and the Third Way is going to do everything in their power to stop that.

Just take a look at what DWS did during the 2016 primaries. I have a bridge to sell you if you think her being forced to resign from her position in the DNC for violating their bylaws in regards to the primaries and then being immediately hired by the campaign of the candidate that her actions benefited the most passes the smell test.
 
2018-07-12 10:31:19 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: FTFA: During the committee meeting Wednesday, Don Fowler, a former DNC chairman and outspoken critic of the rules change, asked, "For what? Why? ... Why vote if you can't affect the outcome?"

And now, Mr. Fowler, you understand how liberals in America feel.  Yet we vote for Democrats anyway, knowing that it will do fark-all to change anything.


Most liberals don't vote for Democrats. Most liberals don't vote.
 
2018-07-12 10:38:20 AM  

sigdiamond2000: AdmirableSnackbar: FTFA: During the committee meeting Wednesday, Don Fowler, a former DNC chairman and outspoken critic of the rules change, asked, "For what? Why? ... Why vote if you can't affect the outcome?"

And now, Mr. Fowler, you understand how liberals in America feel.  Yet we vote for Democrats anyway, knowing that it will do fark-all to change anything.

Most liberals don't vote for Democrats. Most liberals don't vote.


Yes, Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million people because most liberals didn't vote. *eyeroll*
 
2018-07-12 10:38:24 AM  

dv-ous: Trump is a product of a purely democratic process with no superdelegates.


Trump won the Republican nomination because he cornered the deplorable vote that made up at least 20% of their voters. You're going to win a lot of primaries when you get 20% of the vote and there are a dozen candidates fighting for the 80% that's left. Trump would never had won if he was up against two or three candidates from the start.
 
2018-07-12 10:41:13 AM  

red230: The Third Way has run the DNC into the ground. Their chosen candidate list to Donald Parking Trump. The lesson that they should have learned in the last election is that they shouldn't decide what the voters want and instead listen to what the voters want. Unfortunately a lot of the voters want liberal candidates and the Third Way is going to do everything in their power to stop that.


Only in Bernie land is 13,206,428 larger than 16,914,722.
 
2018-07-12 10:41:41 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: sigdiamond2000: AdmirableSnackbar: FTFA: During the committee meeting Wednesday, Don Fowler, a former DNC chairman and outspoken critic of the rules change, asked, "For what? Why? ... Why vote if you can't affect the outcome?"

And now, Mr. Fowler, you understand how liberals in America feel.  Yet we vote for Democrats anyway, knowing that it will do fark-all to change anything.

Most liberals don't vote for Democrats. Most liberals don't vote.

Yes, Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million people because most liberals didn't vote. *eyeroll*


Says the outspoken Stein voter.
 
2018-07-12 10:43:51 AM  

Gubbo: Caucus's (whatever the plural is)


Cauci.
 
2018-07-12 10:47:32 AM  

Nied: red230: The Third Way has run the DNC into the ground. Their chosen candidate list to Donald Parking Trump. The lesson that they should have learned in the last election is that they shouldn't decide what the voters want and instead listen to what the voters want. Unfortunately a lot of the voters want liberal candidates and the Third Way is going to do everything in their power to stop that.

Only in Bernie land is 13,206,428 larger than 16,914,722.


IDGAF what the vote total was, but let the votes be the votes and not be the superdelegates.  I wanted Bernie but voted Clinton because Bernie endorsed Clinton, which is what any person who is not insanely stupid should have done.
 
2018-07-12 10:48:54 AM  

GanjSmokr: Gubbo: Caucus's (whatever the plural is)

Cauci.


There's actually been some movement on that as well.

Honestly the effect of superdelegates is wildly overblown but if they get rid of both them and cauci that'd be just fine by me.
 
2018-07-12 10:49:50 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: sigdiamond2000: AdmirableSnackbar: FTFA: During the committee meeting Wednesday, Don Fowler, a former DNC chairman and outspoken critic of the rules change, asked, "For what? Why? ... Why vote if you can't affect the outcome?"

And now, Mr. Fowler, you understand how liberals in America feel.  Yet we vote for Democrats anyway, knowing that it will do fark-all to change anything.

Most liberals don't vote for Democrats. Most liberals don't vote.

Yes, Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million people because most liberals didn't vote. *eyeroll*


Our electoral system is so screwed up that your vote for president doesn't matter unless you live in a swing state. I'm a European progressive that lives in California. I despise the Third Way leadership of the DNC. I left my vote for president blank because California was going to send all of its electoral votes to Clinton. I was not going to vote for a candidate whose policies that I oppose when it was obvious that they were going to win California by a landslide.

/Yes I would have voted for Clinton had I lived in a swing state.
//I'd probably still be hung over after all the drinking that I would have done after voting for her.
 
2018-07-12 10:51:50 AM  

cousin-merle: IDGAF what the vote total was, but let the votes be the votes and not be the superdelegates. I wanted Bernie but voted Clinton because Bernie endorsed Clinton, which is what any person who is not insanely stupid should have done.


They did let the votes be the votes, Clinton won them by a huge margin.  I really don't know what voter is going to change their vote based on how some former state delegate says they plan to vote.
 
2018-07-12 10:52:42 AM  

cousin-merle: Nied: red230: The Third Way has run the DNC into the ground. Their chosen candidate list to Donald Parking Trump. The lesson that they should have learned in the last election is that they shouldn't decide what the voters want and instead listen to what the voters want. Unfortunately a lot of the voters want liberal candidates and the Third Way is going to do everything in their power to stop that.

Only in Bernie land is 13,206,428 larger than 16,914,722.

IDGAF what the vote total was, but let the votes be the votes and not be the superdelegates.  I wanted Bernie but voted Clinton because Bernie endorsed Clinton, which is what any person who is not insanely stupid should have done.


A large amount of Bernie wins were the undemocratic caucus states.
 
2018-07-12 10:55:58 AM  

red230: It's this shiat again where the Third Way faction that controls the DNC tells us that they should be able to rig the primaries for the Third Way candidate because they may lose control of the party to actual liberals if they adhere to the ideal of one person one vote.

The Third Way has run the DNC into the ground. Their chosen candidate list lost  to Donald Parking Trump. The lesson that they should have learned in the last election is that they shouldn't decide what the voters want and instead listen to what the voters want. Unfortunately a lot of the voters want liberal candidates and the Third Way is going to do everything in their power to stop that.

Just take a look at what DWS did during the 2016 primaries. I have a bridge to sell you if you think her being forced to resign from her position in the DNC for violating their bylaws in regards to the primaries and then being immediately hired by the campaign of the candidate that her actions benefited the most passes the smell test.


We've been through this a million times. Hillary lost because people didn't vote her. Democrats had nothing to do with the election.
 
2018-07-12 10:56:41 AM  

red230: I was not going to vote for a candidate whose policies that I oppose when it was obvious that they were going to win California by a landslide./Yes I would have voted for Clinton had I lived in a swing state.


So you only have principles when they don't change the outcome?  I think if you're okay with voting Clinton to stop Trump, which is perfectly rational, then you should vote Clinton not try to factor the odds of your vote affecting the outcome.  I wonder how many people in PA, WI, MI, etc though the same?
 
2018-07-12 10:58:50 AM  

red230: AdmirableSnackbar: sigdiamond2000: AdmirableSnackbar: FTFA: During the committee meeting Wednesday, Don Fowler, a former DNC chairman and outspoken critic of the rules change, asked, "For what? Why? ... Why vote if you can't affect the outcome?"

And now, Mr. Fowler, you understand how liberals in America feel.  Yet we vote for Democrats anyway, knowing that it will do fark-all to change anything.

Most liberals don't vote for Democrats. Most liberals don't vote.

Yes, Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million people because most liberals didn't vote. *eyeroll*

Our electoral system is so screwed up that your vote for president doesn't matter unless you live in a swing state. I'm a European progressive that lives in California. I despise the Third Way leadership of the DNC. I left my vote for president blank because California was going to send all of its electoral votes to Clinton. I was not going to vote for a candidate whose policies that I oppose when it was obvious that they were going to win California by a landslide.

/Yes I would have voted for Clinton had I lived in a swing state.
//I'd probably still be hung over after all the drinking that I would have done after voting for her.


The important thing is that you based your vote on how it made you feel.
 
2018-07-12 10:58:56 AM  
Need to dump the electoral voters too. Their job is to protect the citizens from electing a tyrant and they failed. Fark them.
 
2018-07-12 10:59:44 AM  

Meatsim1: I wonder how many people in PA, WI, MI, etc though the same?


Robby Mook, for one
 
2018-07-12 11:00:49 AM  
Invoking unrest at the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, Mulholland said, "Unfortunately, while the Republicans are winning elections and taking over the Supreme Court, we'll be in Chicago looking like 1968."

So shut up and don't contest the changes.
 
2018-07-12 11:01:10 AM  
By providing special reserved delegate spots for elected officials and party dignitaries, they prevent those bigger names from competing with the common guy for the regular delegate spots. This means MORE representation for regular people than if we didn't have super delegates.

Further, because blue states tend to have more elected Democrats, it makes blue states more important to the primary than red states of equal size - this drives the party to the left (which is precisely the thing the progressives say they want).

Finally, with the Democrats proportional allocation of delegates, the lack of super delegates would mean that a 3rd place candidate could play spoiler. In 2008 the difference between Hillary and Obama was only about 100 delegates. Had he stayed in Edwards could have easily garnered 100 delegates out of 58 state contests. That 3rd place candidate could then demand a spot on the ticket or in the administration in exchange for their support. It could potentially be very bad...

Super delegates have never overturned the will of the people in the primary, it's not a real threat. But they provide other important functions to the party - they provide more common citizen participation, keep the party moving left, and provide an important safety check on bad actors.

Brogressives are upset that the super delegates voted against Bernie and so they're lashing out without any understanding of the process. Removing super delegates actually hurts progressive causes within the party. But they're angry and willfully misunderstanding.
 
2018-07-12 11:01:16 AM  

red230: Just take a look at what DWS did during the 2016 primaries. I have a bridge to sell you if you think her being forced to resign from her position in the DNC for violating their bylaws in regards to the primaries and then being immediately hired by the campaign of the candidate that her actions benefited the most passes the smell test.


I missed this because of a call but literally everything you write here is false.  DWS didn't resign for violating bylaws because she didn't violate the DNC bylaws, and she was not hired by Clinton's campaign in any official capacity beyond some honorarium.

It's amazing two years later how much you guys still get suckered by the GRU.
 
2018-07-12 11:01:30 AM  

cousin-merle: Yo, DNC, dump all the superdelegates entirely.  I had to google the guy quoted in this headline to find out who he even was, and he was a state legislator decades ago who has since been a lobbyist.  Why the fark should the DNC care about his opinion at all?


Because they are a party controlled by corporate donors and their interests.
 
2018-07-12 11:01:37 AM  

Nied: red230: The Third Way has run the DNC into the ground. Their chosen candidate list to Donald Parking Trump. The lesson that they should have learned in the last election is that they shouldn't decide what the voters want and instead listen to what the voters want. Unfortunately a lot of the voters want liberal candidates and the Third Way is going to do everything in their power to stop that.

Only in Bernie land is 13,206,428 larger than 16,914,722.


And almost all his delegates came from states with caucuses, rather than primaries.
 
2018-07-12 11:01:44 AM  
They should dump the superdelegates. It would go a long way towards giving the primary process more credibility, if for no other reason than that they wouldn't have to answer questions about them.
 
2018-07-12 11:02:18 AM  

cousin-merle: Nied: red230: The Third Way has run the DNC into the ground. Their chosen candidate list to Donald Parking Trump. The lesson that they should have learned in the last election is that they shouldn't decide what the voters want and instead listen to what the voters want. Unfortunately a lot of the voters want liberal candidates and the Third Way is going to do everything in their power to stop that.

Only in Bernie land is 13,206,428 larger than 16,914,722.

IDGAF what the vote total was, but let the votes be the votes and not be the superdelegates.  I wanted Bernie but voted Clinton because Bernie endorsed Clinton, which is what any person who is not insanely stupid should have done.


The Sanders campaign wasn't prepared to run a national primary campaign. Clinton had the entire party leadership behind her. The head of the DNC was forced to resign or she would have been removed from her post because of her biased actions during the primaries.

All of this happened along with Superdelegates pledging their votes for Clinton before a single primary vote had been cast in their state. Sanders still made it a contest in spite of all of that and I am thrilled to have been able to vote for a liberal candidate in the California primary.

The Third Way faction is scared shiatless of a liberal candidate that can show up to the primaries with infrastructure in place because they know that it will mark the end of their "leadership" of the DNC.
 
2018-07-12 11:03:10 AM  

dv-ous: Trump is a product of a purely democratic process with no superdelegates.


And Hillary Clinton is the product of superdelegates.
 
2018-07-12 11:03:50 AM  
The proposal to reduce the power of superdelegates reflects a broader effort by the DNC to mend divisions still lingering from a fiercely contested 2016 presidential primary. Superdelegates, including members of Congress, governors, DNC members and other so-called "distinguished party leaders," overwhelmingly sided with Clinton.

Perez has said the proposal to reign in those superdelegates will help ensure "that no candidate will be able to have an accumulated lead, whether it's real or perceived, before a ballot has been cast."


This is the real threat, they won't be able to shape the race and present a narrative of inevitability for their preferred candidate.
 
2018-07-12 11:05:33 AM  

sigdiamond2000: AdmirableSnackbar: FTFA: During the committee meeting Wednesday, Don Fowler, a former DNC chairman and outspoken critic of the rules change, asked, "For what? Why? ... Why vote if you can't affect the outcome?"

And now, Mr. Fowler, you understand how liberals in America feel.  Yet we vote for Democrats anyway, knowing that it will do fark-all to change anything.

Most liberals don't vote for Democrats. Most liberals don't vote.


Liberals vote for Democrats more reliably than centrists and conservative D's do.

"Reagan Democrats" weren't liberals, nor were McCain Democrats, Bush Democrats, or Trump Democrats.
 
2018-07-12 11:06:11 AM  

red230: The Sanders campaign wasn't prepared to run a national primary campaign. Clinton had the entire party leadership behind her. The head of the DNC was forced to resign or she would have been removed from her post because of her biased actions during the primaries.


What were those actions? Come on be specific.
 
2018-07-12 11:07:10 AM  

DarnoKonrad: dv-ous: Trump is a product of a purely democratic process with no superdelegates.

And Hillary Clinton is the product of superdelegates.the overwhelming majority of primary voters.


FTFY
 
2018-07-12 11:07:13 AM  

DarnoKonrad: dv-ous: Trump is a product of a purely democratic process with no superdelegates.

And Hillary Clinton is the product of superdelegates.


So was Barack Obama.  And Bill Clinton.
 
2018-07-12 11:07:22 AM  

AdmirableSnackbar: sigdiamond2000: AdmirableSnackbar: FTFA: During the committee meeting Wednesday, Don Fowler, a former DNC chairman and outspoken critic of the rules change, asked, "For what? Why? ... Why vote if you can't affect the outcome?"

And now, Mr. Fowler, you understand how liberals in America feel.  Yet we vote for Democrats anyway, knowing that it will do fark-all to change anything.

Most liberals don't vote for Democrats. Most liberals don't vote.

Yes, Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million people because most liberals didn't vote. *eyeroll*


In 2016 45% of eligible voters didn't. Assuming the ratios are unchanged compared to those who did, then maybe not most as in "more than half" but 45% remains a damn big chunk.

But realistically it's likely that the lions share of those were disenfranchised liberal votes, especially im swing states.

The statement isn't far off the mark either way.
 
2018-07-12 11:09:05 AM  

red230: cousin-merle: Nied: red230: The Third Way has run the DNC into the ground. Their chosen candidate list to Donald Parking Trump. The lesson that they should have learned in the last election is that they shouldn't decide what the voters want and instead listen to what the voters want. Unfortunately a lot of the voters want liberal candidates and the Third Way is going to do everything in their power to stop that.

Only in Bernie land is 13,206,428 larger than 16,914,722.

IDGAF what the vote total was, but let the votes be the votes and not be the superdelegates.  I wanted Bernie but voted Clinton because Bernie endorsed Clinton, which is what any person who is not insanely stupid should have done.

The Sanders campaign wasn't prepared to run a national primary campaign. Clinton had the entire party leadership behind her. The head of the DNC was forced to resign or she would have been removed from her post because of her biased actions during the primaries.

All of this happened along with Superdelegates pledging their votes for Clinton before a single primary vote had been cast in their state. Sanders still made it a contest in spite of all of that and I am thrilled to have been able to vote for a liberal candidate in the California primary.

The Third Way faction is scared shiatless of a liberal candidate that can show up to the primaries with infrastructure in place because they know that it will mark the end of their "leadership" of the DNC.


The primary wasn't even remotely close, it only looks close of you don't understand the primary system the Democrats use.

As many others pointed out caucuses are actually less democratic and those are where Sanders racked up his wins.

In order to force DWS to resign she was given the position.  She was originally refusing to resign, that was a small conscesion to get her too.
 
2018-07-12 11:11:09 AM  

boise3981: By providing special reserved delegate spots for elected officials and party dignitaries, they prevent those bigger names from competing with the common guy for the regular delegate spots. This means MORE representation for regular people than if we didn't have super delegates.

Further, because blue states tend to have more elected Democrats, it makes blue states more important to the primary than red states of equal size - this drives the party to the left (which is precisely the thing the progressives say they want).

Finally, with the Democrats proportional allocation of delegates, the lack of super delegates would mean that a 3rd place candidate could play spoiler. In 2008 the difference between Hillary and Obama was only about 100 delegates. Had he stayed in Edwards could have easily garnered 100 delegates out of 58 state contests. That 3rd place candidate could then demand a spot on the ticket or in the administration in exchange for their support. It could potentially be very bad...

Super delegates have never overturned the will of the people in the primary, it's not a real threat. But they provide other important functions to the party - they provide more common citizen participation, keep the party moving left, and provide an important safety check on bad actors.

Brogressives are upset that the super delegates voted against Bernie and so they're lashing out without any understanding of the process. Removing super delegates actually hurts progressive causes within the party. But they're angry and willfully misunderstanding.


Literally what?

This may have sounded convincing and smart in your head but in print it's conjectural at best and incoherent gibberish at worst.
 
2018-07-12 11:12:07 AM  

Nied: cousin-merle: IDGAF what the vote total was, but let the votes be the votes and not be the superdelegates. I wanted Bernie but voted Clinton because Bernie endorsed Clinton, which is what any person who is not insanely stupid should have done.

They did let the votes be the votes, Clinton won them by a huge margin.  I really don't know what voter is going to change their vote based on how some former state delegate says they plan to vote.


Right, telling people that Clinton has a 700 out of 2300 vote lead before the first primary even starts has no effect whatsoever.   We'll just ignore the decades of research that says otherwise, and the fact that allegations of Russian election interference is premised on the exact same principle of human psychology.
 
2018-07-12 11:13:15 AM  

asquian: But realistically it's likely that the lions share of those were disenfranchised liberal votes, especially im swing states.


Bullshiat.  In MIchigan, for example, Hillary lost 300,000 votes from Obama's 2012 election.  You're saying that those 300,000 were all the liberals in Michigan?  I'm sure it feels good to point at liberals and say "you lost this for us" but it's not true and it's not helpful.
 
2018-07-12 11:13:29 AM  

DarnoKonrad: dv-ous: Trump is a product of a purely democratic process with no superdelegates.

And Hillary Clinton is the product of superdelegates.


....As is Obama
upload.wikimedia.orgView Full Size
 
2018-07-12 11:13:57 AM  

boise3981: Brogressives are upset that the super delegates voted against Bernie and so they're lashing out without any understanding of the process. Removing super delegates actually hurts progressive causes within the party. But they're angry and willfully misunderstanding


"The resisting superdelegates' odds of success are long. The proposal has the support of DNC Chairman Tom Perez and two former DNC chairs - former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean and Virginia Sen. Tim Kaine, Clinton's 2016 running mate. And the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee, following months of discussion, voted without dissent on Wednesday to recommend the plan to full DNC. The proposal was backed by many Clinton supporters, as well."

You either have to accept that your assessment is incorrect, or acknowledge that the "brogressives" are in charge now and get on board. It's not like you'd vote third party as a protest, right?
 
2018-07-12 11:14:04 AM  

dv-ous: Trump is a product of a purely democratic process with no superdelegates.


No, not a democratic process, an electoral college process. Hillary woul be president right now if this we had pure democracy.
 
2018-07-12 11:14:15 AM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: red230: AdmirableSnackbar: sigdiamond2000: AdmirableSnackbar: FTFA: During the committee meeting Wednesday, Don Fowler, a former DNC chairman and outspoken critic of the rules change, asked, "For what? Why? ... Why vote if you can't affect the outcome?"

And now, Mr. Fowler, you understand how liberals in America feel.  Yet we vote for Democrats anyway, knowing that it will do fark-all to change anything.

Most liberals don't vote for Democrats. Most liberals don't vote.

Yes, Hillary won the popular vote by 3 million people because most liberals didn't vote. *eyeroll*

Our electoral system is so screwed up that your vote for president doesn't matter unless you live in a swing state. I'm a European progressive that lives in California. I despise the Third Way leadership of the DNC. I left my vote for president blank because California was going to send all of its electoral votes to Clinton. I was not going to vote for a candidate whose policies that I oppose when it was obvious that they were going to win California by a landslide.

/Yes I would have voted for Clinton had I lived in a swing state.
//I'd probably still be hung over after all the drinking that I would have done after voting for her.

The important thing is that you based your vote on how it made you feel.


That's how everyone votes.
 
2018-07-12 11:14:30 AM  
red230:
The Sanders campaign wasn't prepared to run a national primary campaign.

Sanders had a plan, and a halfway decent one. His plan was based on momentum. He thought he could win Iowa and New Hampshire - two fairly Bernie friendly white states. He would then use the momentum from those 2 wins to surge to a win in Nevada (a slightly less friendly state, but easily one within reach). Then he'd head into South Carolina having beat the "unbeatable candidate" 3 out of 3 times. Her support and money would dry up, and he's beat her on Super Tuesday.

The problem for Bernie was that he was not a good candidate. He lost Iowa which blue a giant hole in his strategy. When he won New Hampshire, he spent the week whining about Super Delegates rather than using his blowout win to build momentum. He won, but spent the week before Nevada looking like a loser.

Then he ran into Hillary's "firewall"; Lost Nevada, lost South Carolina in a blowout, and instead of being up 3-1 going into Super Tuesday, he was lowing 3-1. Her support was surging, his was waning. And he got destroyed on Super Tuesday.

Had he won Iowa and not blown the messaging after New Hampshire he might have won. He blew his own election.

All of this happened along with Superdelegates pledging their votes for Clinton before a single primary vote had been cast in their state.

Did you make up your mind before stepping into the voting booth? Did you try to convince other people to vote the same way you were going to? Why would elected officials - people who know the most about the candidates and about how to win elections - be any different?

Sanders still made it a contest in spite of all of that and I am thrilled to have been able to vote for a liberal candidate in the California primary.

Sanders didn't make it a contest. His entire strategy was over as soon as the first state voted. If you follow politics, you knew as soon as he lost Nevada that he was done. Even casual observers knew after South Carolina. And anyone with a calculator knew after Super Tuesday.

In the Democratic primary being down 100 pledged delegates is too big a hole to climb out of. Bernie was down more than 300 pledged delegates after Super Tuesday. Every time he told you he was going to win after Super Tuesday was a bald faced lie.
 
2018-07-12 11:16:08 AM  

Nied: red230: The Third Way has run the DNC into the ground. Their chosen candidate list to Donald Parking Trump. The lesson that they should have learned in the last election is that they shouldn't decide what the voters want and instead listen to what the voters want. Unfortunately a lot of the voters want liberal candidates and the Third Way is going to do everything in their power to stop that.

Only in Bernie land is 13,206,428 larger than 16,914,722.


Did you know Hillary got more votes than Obama in the 2008 primary? Unfortunately for her, two of the states that went her way weren't counted, because they made their voting day too early. That didn't stop her from trying to cheat and get them counted, though.
 
2018-07-12 11:16:13 AM  
boise3981:

But they provide other important functions to the party - they provide more common citizen participation, keep the party moving left, and provide an important safety check on bad actors.

Meanwhile, over here in reality, the last Democratic president said he'd have been a Republican 20 years ago.
 
2018-07-12 11:16:29 AM  

Nied: DarnoKonrad: dv-ous: Trump is a product of a purely democratic process with no superdelegates.

And Hillary Clinton is the product of superdelegates.the overwhelming majority of primary voters.

FTFY


I sure do appreciate this correction. Now we have to talk to these 15,000,000 people and find out why they chose a loser so it doesn't happen again.
 
2018-07-12 11:17:56 AM  

boise3981: Sanders had a plan, and a halfway decent one. His plan was based on momentum.


So you're saying momentum is a thing? Would it apply if the party makes sure to keep touting the number of super delegates backing a candidate before any votes have been taken?
 
Displayed 50 of 436 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report