The only part the government plays is that, if you’re going to hold an actual election in a state, you need to hold it according to state law.
Or, you can hold a caucus and do whatever. Or you can have an election and disregard the results (as was threatened in 2008 for states that jumped the line).
AIUI, the state governments pay for the primary elections. The Story Behind Why You Have to Pay for Party Primaries
Yes. So, if you’re going to hold a primary election, you need to hold it according to state law. Nothing in those emails comes anywhere near to violating any state laws from states that held a primary election (vs a caucus). Of course, nothing in those emails comes close to actually “rigging an election” either unless someone is being very, very liberal with their definition of “rigging”.
That would be fine with me.
I didn’t say that there was. I was responding to John Mace who claimed that the rigged nature of the process was a feature, not a bug. But honestly, I don’t believe that the government should be playing any roll in the selection process of a party’s nominee, much less paying for it.
Of course its rigged, whoever gets the most votes wins. Totally unfair.
Yes, it’s terrible the way the DNC rigged the system against Sanders by allowing people to vote for whether they wanted Sanders or Clinton.
A fair and impartial system would have just appointed Sanders as the nominee. That would have preserved the democratic process.
I’m not going to say that anyone who criticizes Hillary is evil. But some of them are acting like petulant children who can’t accept the fact that they lost an election. Stop whining and suck it up. Do like Clinton supporters did in 2008: work with the guy who won and start planning for the future. Or decide that the real world is too difficult and you don’t want to deal with it.
Perfectly put, and confusing only to those who do not understand what “party politics” and “primaries” actually are, especially vis-a-vis general elections.
People don’t get it.
Hillary gets criticized a lot because she deserves it. She’s a lousy candidate. This isn’t like Obama at all. At least, at the time, Obama was much more ‘liked’ then than Hillary is now. So even IF I vote for Hillary, I plan on acting like a petulant child for as long as we have to deal with her.
They’ve just switched over to orange “We’re Number One” foam pointing fingers because of literacy problems within the base.
Oddly, the pointing finger is Very short…
That’s a “terrible” way to paraphrase what the OP is talking about.
It’s not as bad as the OP’s own misrepresentation of his own damn link.
Can you point to the precise points where the primary process was unfair? I’ve asked you this before but you must have missed it.
The word means “adjective with an unpleasant connotation we can attach to our opponents and give our side something to get upset about,” nothing more. That’s also what “socialism” has meant for the last eight years, given that Obama apparently is one in the eyes of Fox and right-wing radio.
Any meaning of these words referring to the relationships of government, industry, wealth distribution, and social programs is now archaic. They just mean “bad” now.
No, none of that, but I’m not especially outraged either. Bernie Sanders wasn’t even a member of the Democratic party until 2015 so I don’t quite understand the expectation that he should have been embraced, anymore than Trump should have expected to be embraced by establishment Republicans. If the argument is that the process ought to be hands-off and l’aissez faire, then I would remind you of how well that worked out for republicans, who are now forced to sit and watch as their party has been hijacked by someone who is leading the party off into never-never land. The DNC’s main job is to make sure that Democrats remain a relevant party. It’s not their job to ensure that anyone who wants to use their platform to get elected be allowed to do so.
The elections themselves were quite fair. Both contestants ran, won, and lost under the same set of rules. You’d have a fairness argument if that were not the case. But the mere fact that the Democrats didn’t want Bernie to win is no proof that the process is rigged.
I wonder how important Bernie Sanders voters are to Clinton’s election chances. It would seem that they are important, but there’s a lot of shifting going on within the electorate. I guess Clinton and the DNC selected Kaine to bring in more disgruntled moderate white-collar Republicans. Not exactly a way to fire up the Millennials. But were they going to vote for her anyway? And would Elizabeth Warren have really brought out enough of the millennials to compensate for the many other moderates and centrists who would have been worried about their jobs and 401ks?
Clinton isn’t running against Obama this time. She ran against Sanders. And got more votes than he did. If Clinton is a lousy candidate, then what does that make Sanders?
Sanders supporters need to face the reality - you are not a majority. You have a choice: Start working with people you’re not in complete agreement. Or become become the new Libertarians - pure and irrelevant.
Stop acting like you’re entitled.
Yeah, I wondered in another thread if a poll asking Bernie or Busters whether they voted in the last presidential election or two, and for whom, may not be enlightening in that regard.
ETA: And in my good decision of the month, I’ve decided not to try to inject some sanity from this thread into other discussions. It’d probably get lost in the hive mind anyway.
My guess is that TriPolar will keep on “missing” it. It’s much more fun to spout inchoate outrage, than to justify the outrage with actual facts.
The GOP is still holding out hope that they won’t have to face Hillary–and their very good friends the Sanders die-hards are trying to help them out. Today NPR carried an interview with a Sanders supporter who said that the super delegates have a Moral Duty to nominate Sanders. When asked if he cared that this would likely mean a Trump Presidency, he said that he’d be fine with Trump winning. Okay!
(Then he continued to proclaim that the Democratic primaries were corrupt and that Bernie was robbed. He offered no specifics in support of this premise, of course, other than that “votes were suppressed all over this country.”)
I wouldn’t have believed that anyone could still be seriously trying to sell this “Bernie can be the nominee if the super delegates come through” fairytale. But, there it is.
Hillary won because she was essentially the incumbent. Sanders was at, what, 4% a little over a year ago and almost won the nomination. That doesn’t sound lousy to me.
Maybe you should stop generalizing people based on a single political thought.
I’m ENTITLED to an opinion, just as you are.
Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk