And the parties chose to put the decision to voters. You may have noticed these things called “primaries” where people “vote” for their preferred candidate.
Fair enough. And I would want my party to do whatever it possibly could to keep a David Duke out.
And then have various systems so that the Party can then put the thumb on the scale.
Personally, I’d prefer a proper preliminary election without parties getting in the way. But, as it is, we tend to want Republican vs. Democrat, and we want each to put forth the candidate most likely to win. It doesn’t matter what process produces this.
I don’t think anyone would care about the Sanders thing had people not already been floating the idea that the system was rigged. As you agree, there is no evidence it was rigged, meaning there’s nothing to get upset about.
I am afraid I’ve got strongly disagree with that. How could lettng the individual states set their own systems let “the Party” put their thumb on the scale? And there’s not a crazy amount of leeway anyway - every state has proportional allocation of delegates. There’s a bunch of goofy rules in the caucus states but generally you get the same share of the delegates as your share of the votes.
Except the DNC doesn’t run the primaries. That’s done by the state governments (for primaries) and state parties (for caucuses).
And oddly enough, the Democratic party does not seem eager to advertise this in their political literature. Why do you think that is?
The fact of the matter is that most of the delegates at the convention are bound by law to vote for the nominee that won their primary. Those primary elections are determined by voters. The notion that the process can be twisted in favor of one candidate over another would probably receive a poor reception as evidenced by how poorly even the hint of this bias was received when Wasserman Schultz did it.
You said that your comment “nice try” was related to my last sentence in one of the posts above where I ask if both parties were allowed to rig their primaries. You seemed to be saying that both parties manipulated their primaries and I am saying that if the Republicans are manipulating their primaries then they are doing a real bad job of it because they nominated someone that noone in the party leadership seemed to want.
I was responding to the notion that people who are critical of debbie are automatically conservative. I mean seriously, where do you get the notion that I am conservative?
shaky?
Are you fucking kidding me? You think that asserting that bias by the DNC during the primary process would NOT be seem as corrupt by most people? Then why did Debbie have to step down?
Cite that they say what you say they say. Unless you are talking about YOUR posts.
No, I am shocked that it not only wouldn’t bother you if they were rigged but that you think it is a feature, not a bug.
Who knows what the fuck happened but you can’t show me similarly damning emails from the RNC can you?
I think that people who understand the Democratic primary process do not see it as corrupt.
The emails showed that some individuals involved in the process had personal biases, but there is no evidence that anyone took any actions that tilted the playing field.
Clinton had some built in advantages because she’s always been a democrat and has been running for president for ten years. Sanders had the option of doing that but chose not to do so. None of that has anything to do with the DNC.
Is it ‘twisting’ when the members of a club are given a set number of choices to vote for leadership positions? The fact is, both the Dem/Pub nominating processes are more democratic than they need to be.
Really? If primary elections are determined by voters, how did Cruz catch those extra delegates in the primary?
Lance Turbo’s response is excellent, but I’ll add a few comments:
I haven’t seen anyone asserting that. It would be surprising if anyone would do so, when those paying attention are well aware that it was Bernie Sanders supporters who were so loudly “critical of debbie,” as you say.
As for the rest: you seem quite committed to the idea that it’s shameful for leaders of a political party to care which candidate gets the nomination. This claim makes little sense in the light of actual American history.
We’ve gone from choices made in smoke-filled rooms to more-democratic ways, mainly because each major party has come to believe that participating in a primary election motivates a voter to show up on the general-election day. But this is simply an opinion (backed up by data as it may be)—it’s neither a moral imperative nor a Constitutional mandate.
You seem similarly committed to the notion that it’s significant in some unexplained way that we have emails showing that DNC personnel had a preference in the nomination process, but no emails showing that RNC personnel had a preference in their own nomination process. The significance you allege must remain a secret, unless you care to explain it.
Finally, the fact that the head of the DNC resigned, is cited by you as proof that “most people” see corruption in the DNC preference for Clinton as nominee. This fails as a proof.
Leaving aside the questionable validity of any “most people” claim, it’s obvious from news reports, columns, message board posts, etc. that Wasserman Schultz’s resignation was interpreted as an indication that Clinton’s people hoped to please Sanders voters. Dispensing with the services of someone that Sanders’ voters hated (rationally or otherwise) was a gesture made in the interests of party unity.
I’ve no doubt you’ll carry on your crusade to sell people on the idea that choosing a party nominee must be an exercise in direct democracy with no input by the party, or else Corruption! But I wouldn’t expect you to have much success with it.
Well, no one has hacked into their server yet.
So to the point of whether or not she is completely buttered … will she win her primary against Sanders-backed Canova on August 30th? Will she win in the general if she does?
If not does is she not still just stale white bread?
If they were much less Democratic, they might not do as well in the general.
If the RNC decided to change the rules to nominate Marco Rubio instead of Donald Trump at the convention, how well do you think the lack of democracy in the nominating process would be received by the voting public.
Can you be a little more clear? Are you saying that the democratic nature of the Republican primary is upended because Cruz wiggled around the rules
Should be “If she does then is she not …” Sorry bout that confusing Yoda talk.
Both you and Asahi seem to think I am a conservative. If this is not based on my distaste for the bullshit that occurred at the DNC then what makes you think I am conservative?
The fact is that you are not only making excuses for shitty behaviour, you are saying that this behaviour is a feature not a bug. It makes me wonder if there is anything that you would condemn or if you are the Democratic equivalent of a Republican that would convince himself that Trump is a good candidate.
No I am committed to the idea that this sanguine attitude towards corruption and bias is fucking shocking. We can have differences of opinion about whether or not the emails indicate corruption or not but the conversations has moved beyond that. We are discussing whether that sort of bias and distortion of the primary process is not only acceptable it is desirable.
No I don’t think its that significant. I think that it plays well into the narrative that the Democratic party establishment stacked the deck against Bernie. I think its significant that several posters on this board are entirely sanguine about the notion that even if the DNC was stacking the deck, tilting the playing field and playing favorites, that would not only be OK, it would be the proper function of the party officials.
Read what I actually said:
“The fact of the matter is that most people would see bias by the DNC during the primary process as corrupt.”
IOW they would not be as sanguine as you about corruption in the primary process.
I voted for Clinton.
It was made in the interests of throwing DWS under the bus so that the bus wouldn’t hit Hillary; and Bernie was just as interested in stopping that bus as anyone else.
It needn’t be an exercise in direct democracy. We’ve known about super-delegates since 2008 when Hillary tried to get the super-delegates to overrule the popular vote and nominate her but I doubt that either party would want to advertise that lack of democracy in their nomination process. It would be a good way to lose the the general election.
IMO Hillary has really only trailed Trump at one point in the election. The few days between when the emails were revealed and the day when Trump insulted the Muslim parents of a dead soldier.
I don’t know if I would want to be part of that party.
Who knows how deep it runs. There were certainly allegations of bias at the state level.
I find it upsetting that so many posters here would not be upset if it WAS rigged.
But all you have shown so far was that some individuals involved in the process had personal biases that had no effect on the process, and you have shown zero evidence of corruption.
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. I don’t expect the new guy to get substandard treatment, of course… and by everything Bernie and his staff have been saying, this did not occur… but he sure isn’t going to have the staff emotionally behind him, no matter what the rules say.
The Clintons are just better at politics than Bernie Sanders, and that’s pretty much that.