# Wasserman Schultz: Toast or not toast? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 25, 2016, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704 "2016-05-25T23:10:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/221 "2016-09-06T16:16:48Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > The points have been addressed by others. > > I’ll play the PD example but let’s use say Vancouver. There are e-mails revealed between two police officers that document some prejudiced beliefs that they have, say they are anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim. And what if those emails were between the Chief of Police and captains of several precincts? > [@](#): > > There is no evidence that those individuals or any other individuals of the force ever acted in biased manner in their actual duties. Is it rational to go from there to suspecting, let alone strongly suspecting, the Vancouver PD of significant biased actions against Jews or Muslims? It depends on who sent the emails, how and to whom. If people felt free to send bigoted emails around the office using the office email system, I would have some strong suspicions, wouldn’t you? If the police leadership felt comfortable talking about how to deal with their Jewish problem, how comfortable would you feel that they felt they could send that sort of shit around the office even if it gets shot down by the chief of police? > [@](#): > > Cause I am pretty sure that if you hacked all of the Vancouver PD officers’ emails and taped all their conversations you find a few expressing some anti-Semitic and some anti-Muslim beliefs. This wasn’t two guys in the mailroom. > [@](#): > > The fact is most if not all PDs have at least as many with various prejudices as the general population. Having individuals on the force with prejudices of various sorts is regrettable but unavoidable. Finding that it exists would not shock; being unable to find any OTOH would. Acting on it is what is forbidden. The fact that they would feel free to share these belief with their superiors at work in discussions about their Jewish problem would say a lot about the general attitudes of the police department. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/222 "2016-09-06T16:43:24Z")
> [@JohnT](#): > > Since people seem to need reminding, here is Symone Sanders: > > [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoPomsiVUAEnTno.jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoPomsiVUAEnTno.jpg) > > (read from bottom, up) What the hell is THAT supposed to prove? So some former Sanders campaign person says the election wasn’t stolen. OK. I don’t see anyone on this thread saying that Sanders would have won. That doesn’t cleanse the taint of bias and it doesn’t make the weak ass excuses that people are making any less weak ass. We literally have people in this thread saying that if the DNC DID act on a bias in favor of Hillary and against Bernie, that would be a feature not a bug. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/223 "2016-09-06T17:05:33Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > We literally have people in this thread saying that if the DNC DID act on a bias in favor of Hillary and against Bernie, that would be a feature not a bug. But the DNC didn’t\*\* act\*\* with bias. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/224 "2016-09-06T18:09:15Z")
> [@](#): > > Originally Posted by Sherrerd > Your entire post is well-argued. I’d add that the Ferguson PD makes a poor analogy with the Democratic National Committee, because the Ferguson PD are sworn to see all they deal with as being equal before the law. But the DNC are not sworn to see all candidates as equally likely to win a general election. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Yes, that makes all the problems go away. The DNC never swore to be fair so its ok if they’re not. :rolleyes: ‘Being fair’ and ‘swearing to see all candidates as equally likely the win the general’ are not the same thing. ‘Being fair’ is a general (and commendable) position for any organization to embrace. Promising to believe that all candidates have the same chance to win in a general election, on the other hand, is a nutty position that few respectable organizations would embrace. Because, you know, it is _not_ the case that all candidates have the same chance to win in the general. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/225 "2016-09-06T19:55:40Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > But the DNC didn’t\*\* act\*\* with bias. And I repeat: “We literally have people in this thread saying that if the DNC DID act on a bias in favor of Hillary and against Bernie, that would be a feature not a bug.” So this attitude is independent of whether or not they did, people seem to think it would be a GOOD thing if they acted on that bias. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/226 "2016-09-06T20:01:44Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > ‘Being fair’ and ‘swearing to see all candidates as equally likely the win the general’ are not the same thing. > > ‘Being fair’ is a general (and commendable) position for any organization to embrace. > > Promising to believe that all candidates have the same chance to win in a general election, on the other hand, is a nutty position that few respectable organizations would embrace. Because, you know, it is _not_ the case that all candidates have the same chance to win in the general. Primaries are generally the way you determine who is most electable. The primary voters pick their candidate based in part on electability. That’s why Obama had to run against McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012. Noone needed to tilt the playing field to keep the nomination away from Alan Keyes or Ron Paul in 2008 and no one needed to tilt the playing field to keep the nomination away from Michele Bachman and Newt Gingrich in 2012. There weren’t any leaked emails of RNC members plotting how to secure the nomination for McCain or Romney. If the DNC has such a good bead on who is most electable then why even bother with primaries? Just to give the illusion of democracy? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/227 "2016-09-06T20:07:52Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And I repeat: > > “We literally have people in this thread saying that if the DNC DID act on a bias in favor of Hillary and against Bernie, that would be a feature not a bug.” > > So this attitude is independent of whether or not they did, people seem to think it would be a GOOD thing if they acted on that bias. IF! ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/228 "2016-09-06T20:19:35Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > IF! And I repeat again: "“We literally have people in this thread saying that if the DNC DID act on a bias in favor of Hillary and against Bernie, that would be a feature not a bug.” So this attitude is independent of whether or not they did, people seem to think it would be a GOOD thing if they acted on that bias." No ifs ands or buts. They think that acting on that bias would have been a good thing. Do you agree or are you just evading the issue? ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2016, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/229 "2016-09-06T22:31:39Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Primaries are generally the way you determine who is most electable. The primary voters pick their candidate based in part on electability. That’s why Obama had to run against McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012. Noone needed to tilt the playing field to keep the nomination away from Alan Keyes or Ron Paul in 2008 and no one needed to tilt the playing field to keep the nomination away from Michele Bachman and Newt Gingrich in 2012. There weren’t any leaked emails of RNC members plotting how to secure the nomination for McCain or Romney. > > If the DNC has such a good bead on who is most electable then why even bother with primaries? Just to give the illusion of democracy? No one tilted the playing field on the Dem side in 2016. The RNC however has actually done some shady shit and not just talked about in private emails. In 2016 the RNC [made signatures magically disappear](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/07/how_the_gop_rolled_the_anti_trump_movement.html) from petitions in order to avoid a roll call vote on convention rules. In 2012 the changed rules using a bullshit voice vote [to strip some delegates away from Ron Paul](http://www.democracynow.org/2012/8/29/chaos_on_the_convention_floor_as). These are actual actions and not just words in private. Show me the actions the DNC took to tilt the playing field and you might have something. I am willing to be convinced if you show me something. An email sent in May after Sanders was too far behind to possibly catch up that also did not impact a single vote is not tilting the playing field. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2016, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/230 "2016-09-07T00:19:40Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > An email sent in May after Sanders was too far behind to possibly catch up that also did not impact a single vote is not tilting the playing field. But it HAS to be! Otherwise Bernie would have WON! /fanatic ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2016, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/231 "2016-09-07T00:46:55Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > But it HAS to be! Otherwise Bernie would have WON! /fanatic Is there some reason you felt the need to drop this turd into the thread three times now? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2016, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/232 "2016-09-07T02:14:16Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Is there some reason you felt the need to drop this turd into the thread three times now? Has it been three times? How the crazy conspiracy theories fly! ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2016, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/233 "2016-09-07T16:03:25Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > And I repeat again: > > "“We literally have people in this thread saying that if the DNC DID act on a bias in favor of Hillary and against Bernie, that would be a feature not a bug.” > > So this attitude is independent of whether or not they did, people seem to think it would be a GOOD thing if they acted on that bias." OK, which posts? ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2016, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/234 "2016-09-07T16:31:49Z")
> [@Lance\_Turbo](#): > > No one tilted the playing field on the Dem side in 2016. That is irrelevant. OMFG, I am not saying that they did anything. I can prove bias but not that they acted on that bias, and you can’t prove they didn’t. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. but all of that is irrelevant. There is ABSOLUTELY a sentiment in this thread that it would be OK if they DID tilt the playing field. Is that what you are saying too? that it would be OK for the DNC to tilt the playing field in favor of one candidate over another? > [@](#): > > Show me the actions the DNC took to tilt the playing field and you might have something. I am willing to be convinced if you show me something. An email sent in May after Sanders was too far behind to possibly catch up that also did not impact a single vote is not tilting the playing field. Show me emails from the RNC. All you have is some republicans bitching that they weren’t given a fair shot in one way or another. The Bernie bros had THAT much before the emails. heck they’re still bitching and you guys are saying "fuck you Bernie bros, we don’t have to give your candidate a fair shot because the DNC has no obligation to be fair and in fact it SHOULDN"T be fair. Acting on bias is a feature not a flaw. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2016, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/235 "2016-09-07T16:36:50Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > but all of that is irrelevant. There is ABSOLUTELY a sentiment in this thread that it would be OK if they DID tilt the playing field. > . Show me the posts. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2016, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/236 "2016-09-07T17:18:50Z")
A quick scan gave me these posts: > [@Sherrerd](#): > > From where are you getting this idea you seem to have, that the purpose of a political party is to be _impartial_ in choosing a nominee? > [@Sherrerd](#): > > Neither party was founded in order to serve as a neutral referee for candidates. > [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](#): > > If a LaRouchie came along and wanted to run as a Democrat, I would want, and hope, that the party machinery would work on behalf of somebody else. > [@BlankSlate](#): > > I don’t see why it would be a problem if they tilted the playing field in the first place. Sanders isn’t a democrat. His policy positions aren’t consistent with the party. He was simply hijacking the party to further his cause rather than doing the hard work of building a grass roots movement. > [@Ulf\_the\_Unwashed](#): > > I’ll say it again: if it weren’t for the specific situation regarding Sanders and Clinton and residual hard feelings therefrom (and btw I agree with \*\*asahi \*\*that there’s very little evidence of tilting the playing field), I think _most Democrats_ would have no problem with the notion that the party can–and should, at times–treat candidates differently. > [@JohnT](#): > > I guess I’m a complete asswipe or something, but I don’t understand the problem in which a couple who have given 80 years of their combined lives to an organization and are that organizations single-greatest fundraising force in its 100+ year history, receive a better standard of treatment than the guy who joined just four months prior to throwing his hat in the ring. > [@asahi](#): > > .Donald Trump is the textbook example of why a political party should never ever be ashamed to do whatever it takes (within reason and the law) to ensure that the candidate that best represents their party and their interests wins. There are no laws against having a bias. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2016, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/237 "2016-09-07T17:27:24Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Has it been three times? How the crazy conspiracy theories fly! Yeah, he sure is one crazy Bernie Bro conspiracy theorist. Check this out: > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > At this point the election has become a foregone conclusion and I couldn’t be happier about that. I don’t want Bernie in the white house and I think Hillary will make a great President but she is going to be dogged by charges of corruption for her tenure and things like this are going to help keep it going. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2016, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/238 "2016-09-07T18:16:13Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > OK, which posts? 79, 86, 89, 90, 101, 103, 119, 146, 189. These posts seem to be pretty sanguine about tilting the playing field in favor of candidates like Clinton over candidates like Bernie. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2016, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/239 "2016-09-07T18:39:31Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > 79, 86, 89, 90, 101, 103, 119, 146, 189. > > These posts seem to be pretty sanguine about tilting the playing field in favor of candidates like Clinton over candidates like Bernie. You seem to be using some very idiosyncratic logic throughout this thread; your argument appears to be: PREMISE: Some people who post on the SDMB believe that in the present American Presidential election system, it’s reasonable for the leaders of each of the two major parties to believe one candidate more likely to win in the general election than others. CONCLUSION: Therefore, underhanded conduct by the party leaders must have occurred! Somehow you are getting from _'beliefs held by people posting here_’ to ‘_actions committed by leaders of the DNC_.’ And I’m just not seeing how you’re making that leap. ---
**Author:** ![Lance\_Turbo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lance_turbo/32/6156_2.png) [@Lance\_Turbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lance_Turbo)\ **Post date:** [September 7, 2016, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704/240 "2016-09-07T19:23:50Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > That is irrelevant. OMFG, I am not saying that they did anything. I can prove bias but not that they acted on that bias, and you can’t prove they didn’t. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I don’t know if it rises to the level of proof, but I don’t think a reasonable person can look at what happened in primaries and conclude that the DNC tilted the playing field. The primary process is relatively transparent and the DNC only has control over a few parts of that process. They have some control over the schedule of primaries, the debate schedule, and how delegates and superdelgates are assigned. All of the rules they set were in place before Sanders threw his hat in the ring. Here absence of evidence is evidence of absence, because the absence of evidence that the DNC changed any rules is in fact evidence that they didn’t change any rules. Individual state level democratic parties also have some control over how primaries are conducted in each state. Some state’s rules were more favorable to Clinton, but some state’s rules were more favorable to Sanders. The important part is that every state’s rules were in place before Sanders declared as a candidate. If, after Sanders entered the race, all the caucus states switched to closed primaries this would evidence of tilting the playing field. Once again absence of evidence that this occurred is evidence that this did not occur. Other than that there is nothing the DNC can really do to tilt the playing field and there’s no way for them to tilt the playing that wouldn’t be noticed. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > There is ABSOLUTELY a sentiment in this thread that it would be OK if they DID tilt the playing field. > > Is that what you are saying too? that it would be OK for the DNC to tilt the playing field in favor of one candidate over another? I do not share this sentiment. This, however, seems like a problem you have with posters in this thread and not with the DNC or Debbie Wasserman Schultz. If that’s the only thing you want to discuss, you should probably restrict your posts to that topic. I believe the primary rules should be set in advance, transparent to all candidates, and applied equally to all candidates. This is what happened in this primary. Sanders knew the rules and knew he had a tough road ahead of him, not because the playing was tilted, but because he was much less popular among democrats than the person he chose to run against. He closed that gap throughout the process, but he never closed it completely. Some may argue that the closed primaries some states used tilted the playing field toward Clinton, but I don’t think so. First, I believe state level democratic parties should be able to have some control over who participates in their primaries as long as the rules are transparent, non-discriminatory, and there is a low barrier to entry. And secondly, all the rules were in place when Sanders entered the race. No one tried to restrict or open up access once the candidates were known. > [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > Show me emails from the RNC. Are you familiar with the phrase, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”? Large swaths of the Republican party hate Trump. I would be absolutely stunned if there were no emails sent between RNC members about Trump and how to stop him, but the RNC didn’t get hacked so we may never know. I don’t, however, think that such an email would be evidence that RNC tilted the playing field away from Trump because the RNC, like the DNC, doesn’t have that much control. However, at least one state level Republican party did tilt the playing field this year. Kentucky held a Republican Caucus this year instead of a primary this year like they usually do. This change was made for the benefit of exactly one guy, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wasserman-schultz-toast-or-not-toast/755704.md?page=13)