DaveSchmidt said:

paulsurovell said:

I thought your point was that Greenwald didn't cite journalists.  Just curious -- why do you not consider Alex Seitz-Wald, Chris Hayes, Keith Olbermann and Steven Dennis to be journalists?

I do consider Seitz-Wald and Dennis journalists. I don’t consider the former’s story a falsehood, and I don’t have a problem with journalists retweeting one another’s stories. Yes, sometimes they’ll get things wrong, as journalists always have. That does not, in my opinion, degrade democracy.

Now, when pundits and talking heads like Hayes and Olbermann get ahold of something and regurgitate it in their own terms and for their own purposes and the spin spreads like wildfire, Greenwald may have a point. But to lay the blame on journalists, as if the practice of gathering and assessing information and striving to present it as accurately as one can — whatever the flaws that Greenwald (or you) might perceive — were a threat to democracy? Methinks he doth, etc.

Chris Hayes has been a journalist for a long time, including Washington DC editor of the Nation, replacing David Corn in 2007 (Wikipedia)

I hear he has a different job now.

paulsurovell said:

PVW said:

paulsurovell said:

You also forget that Superdelegates were free to change their votes at any time so regardless of the pledged count, it was not mathematically impossible for Sanders to win in May.

Hold on -- want to make sure I'm getting this right. You're suggesting that if the superdelegates had switched, and picked Sanders, even after a majority of non-superdelegate votes had chosen Clinton, you'd be fine with that? And at the same time, you're complaining about the primary being rigged? 

The only reason "people like" drummerboy say Sanders mathematically could not have won the election in May 2016 is because they are counting Hillary's superdelegates.

And the only way Sanders mathematically could have won is if you are counting the superdelegates. Clinton won more non-superdelegate votes; so once again, are you suggesting you would have been ok with the superdelegates overriding this?

DaveSchmidt said:

I hear he has a different job now.

You mean this job?

paulsurovell said:

DaveSchmidt said:

I hear he has a different job now.

You mean this job?

Yup, that, too. 

In general, if no line is drawn between POV-driven work (as worthy as it may be) and the work of journalists doing their best to be fair and accurate (flaws and all), I think it undercuts what can otherwise be healthy criticism.

you're almost right. by mid-May, if Bernie had won almost every single delegate left, he'd pull ahead of Hillary but he'd still have less than what was needed to win outright. (assuming no super-delegates)

If you want to believe that in May 2016, he was going to win every subsequent primary by 50 point margins, be my guest. It would just be another fantasy that you believe about this election.

I guess the correct phrase would have been "all but mathematically eliminated"

Is that better?

paulsurovell said:




The only reason "people like" drummerboy say Sanders mathematically could not have won the election in May 2016 is because they are counting Hillary's superdelegates.

So, as PVW says, even though more Democrats voted for Clinton than for Sanders, it would be okay with you if enough "superdelegates" voted for Sanders to make him the nominee.

paulsurovell said:

PVW said:

paulsurovell said:

You also forget that Superdelegates were free to change their votes at any time so regardless of the pledged count, it was not mathematically impossible for Sanders to win in May.

Hold on -- want to make sure I'm getting this right. You're suggesting that if the superdelegates had switched, and picked Sanders, even after a majority of non-superdelegate votes had chosen Clinton, you'd be fine with that? And at the same time, you're complaining about the primary being rigged? 

The only reason "people like" drummerboy say Sanders mathematically could not have won the election in May 2016 is because they are counting Hillary's superdelegates.

"Clinton supporters touting the fact that the joint fundraising agreement between the Clinton campaign and the DNC was reported in 2015 have dedicated themselves to the most disingenuous reading of this situation as possible. "

The Curious Case of Donna Brazile and Liberal Refusal to Admit So-Called Democracy Is Rigged

http://www.theroot.com/the-curious-case-of-donna-brazile-and-liberal-refusal-t-1820138886

you, nor anyone else in your claque, have yet to give one meaningful instance where Bernie lost a primary because of anything done by the DNC - or anyone, for that matter.

Not. one.

But keep on tearing us apart and helping Trump and R's. Who needs Russia when they've got you guys?

nan said:

"Clinton supporters touting the fact that the joint fundraising agreement between the Clinton campaign and the DNC was reported in 2015 have dedicated themselves to the most disingenuous reading of this situation as possible. "

The Curious Case of Donna Brazile and Liberal Refusal to Admit So-Called Democracy Is Rigged

http://www.theroot.com/the-curious-case-of-donna-brazile-and-liberal-refusal-t-1820138886

Great article in Rolling Stone by Matt Tabbi about why this matters:

" . . . The point of the Brazile story isn't that the people who "rigged" the primary were afraid of losing an election. It's that they weren't afraid of betraying democratic principles, probably because they didn't believe in them anymore."

Why Donna Brazile's Story Matters – But Not for the Reason You Might Think

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/taibbi-why-donna-brazile-book-on-hillary-clinton-primary-matters-w511099

drummerboy said:

you, nor anyone else in your claque, have yet to give one meaningful instance where Bernie lost a primary because of anything done by the DNC - or anyone, for that matter.

Not. one.

But keep on tearing us apart and helping Trump and R's. Who needs Russia when they've got you guys?

The Democratic Party needs to acknowledge that the DNC was corrupted by Hillary for America, as the first step toward rebuilding itself as a progessive force that will attract workers and the middle class.  Americans don't like dishonesty and cheating, which is what Clinton apologists like you are defending.

You're exactly what Trump wants and needs.

Since when don't Americans like dishonesty and cheating?

took the post right off my keyboard.

dave23 said:

Since when don't Americans like dishonesty and cheating?

No one likes election fraud except the people doing it.

drummerboy said:

took the post right off my keyboard.

dave23 said:

Since when don't Americans like dishonesty and cheating?

by the way Paul - I'm not "defending" Hillary. I'm just showing where your arguments don't hold up to scrutiny and explaining why that is. The DNC and Hillary might have quite well been as evil as you depict - but you have yet to show any practical effects of that evil. Or even attempts at it. And evil with no effect is basically no evil.

The best you can come up with is that something(?) was unfair.

oh boy. we're up to actually accusing Hillary of "election fraud"?

Dig that hole!

nan said:

No one likes election fraud except the people doing it.

drummerboy said:

took the post right off my keyboard.

dave23 said:

Since when don't Americans like dishonesty and cheating?

No, we are listening to you embrace dishonesty and cheating as acceptable and American.

drummerboy said:

oh boy. we're up to actually accusing Hillary of "election fraud"?

Dig that hole!

nan said:

No one likes election fraud except the people doing it.

drummerboy said:

took the post right off my keyboard.

dave23 said:

Since when don't Americans like dishonesty and cheating?

Time to read some more from the Tabbi article (Rolling Stone) posted above:

" . . .There are a lot of people who are going to wonder why so much time is being spent re-litigating the 2016 campaign. It sucked, it's over: Who cares? It does matter. That race is when many of the seeds of what will be the defining problems of our age first began to be sown.

The rise of Trump and the crypto-fascist movement that crushed establishment Republicans is half of the story. The sharp move among many white middle American voters away from Beltway Republicanism toward something far darker and more dangerous crystalized in 2015-16. So it has to be studied over and over. But there is an ugly thing on the other side that also began at that time. This is when establishment Democrats began to openly lose faith in democracy and civil liberties and began to promote a "results over process" mode of political thinking. It's when we started hearing serious people in Washington talk about the dangers of "too much democracy." This isn't about Hillary Clinton. It's about a broader movement that took place within the Democratic establishment, and spread rapidly to blue-friendly media and academia. It's a kind of repeat of post-9/11 thinking, when suddenly huge pluralities of Americans decided the stakes were now too high to continue being queasy about things like torture, extralegal assassination, and habeas corpus.

In the age of Trump, we're now throwing all sorts of once-treasured principles – press ethics, free speech, freedom from illegal surveillance – overboard, because the political stakes are now deemed too high to cede ground to Trump over principles. But this distrust of democracy began before Trump was even a nominee. As Brazile notes, it started within the ranks of the Democratic Party near the outset of the campaign. It would have been a huge boon to Clinton's run if the DNC had welcomed not only Sanders but other serious candidates into the race, in the true spirit of what the primary process is supposed to represent – the winnowing of many diverse views into one unified message. But the attitude in Washington is now the opposite. Primary challengers are increasingly seen as reprobates who exist only to bloody the "real" candidate. So they should be kept down and discouraged whenever possible.

As the campaign continued, and we saw both Trump's rise and results like Brexit, the "too much democracy" argument began to emerge even more, along with the embrace of techniques that would have horrified true liberals a generation ago. In the last year, we've seen the blue-state establishment celebrate the use of the infamous FISA statute against American citizens, and the use of warrantless electronic surveillance against the same. We've seen the ACLU denounced for defending free speech and we've seen sites like Buzzfeed celebrated for publishing unverified and/or slanderous material, usually because the targets are politically unpopular. Liberals used not to believe in doing these things not only because they understood that they would likely be the first victims in a society stripped of civil protections (a school district forcing the removal of Black Lives Matter stickers is a classic example of a more probable future in a world without civil liberties). No, they eschewed these tactics because they genuinely believed that debate, discussion, inclusion and democracy brought out the best in us. The point of the Brazile story isn't that the people who "rigged" the primary were afraid of losing an election. It's that they weren't afraid of betraying democratic principles, probably because they didn't believe in them anymore. If you're not frightened by the growing appeal of that line of thinking, you should be. There is a history of this sort of thing. And it never ends well. 

nan said:

No, we are listening to you embrace dishonesty and cheating as acceptable and American.

drummerboy said:

oh boy. we're up to actually accusing Hillary of "election fraud"?

Dig that hole!

nan said:

No one likes election fraud except the people doing it.

drummerboy said:

took the post right off my keyboard.

dave23 said:

Since when don't Americans like dishonesty and cheating?

Well-said, Nan. That's exactly what he's doing.

"Election fraud" is a term with a specific meaning.  Whatever you two claim the DNC and Hillary did, that term does not apply.

paulsurovell said:
 

nan said:

No, we are listening to you embrace dishonesty and cheating as acceptable and American.

drummerboy said:

oh boy. we're up to actually accusing Hillary of "election fraud"?

Dig that hole!

nan said:

No one likes election fraud except the people doing it. 

Well-said, Nan. That's exactly what he's doing.

So far, the claim that the primary was "rigged" based on this DNC/Clinton agreement sounds like the underpants gnomes from "South Park".

Phase 1:  Fundraising Agreement Terms

Phase 2: ?

Phase 3: Rigged primary election!

I don't know why people are defending the way the DNC put a huge thumb on the scale for Hillary Clinton. There was clearly no intent to have a truly competitive primary process. Because they knew if there was, there was a significant risk that she would not be the eventual nominee. A huge chunk of the Democratic base was willing to vote for a very fringe-y Bernie Sanders instead of the centrist Clinton. In 2008 she lost to the mostly previously unknown Obama. Legitimately, the left wing of the party wasn't a fan of her warmongering and economic centrism. 

The party took the risk that the left wing would go along with whatever they wanted to do. In retrospect it was hubris. And now instead of reaching out to the progressives for '18 and 20, the DNC will admit no mistakes, and instead blame the voters. 

Not a winning strategy for the future if you ask me. 

First time I have heard of this "too much democracy" POV.  I need to do a little noodling on this issue. Nan, nice job laying this out and analyzing this issue.  

nan said:

Time to read some more from the Tabbi article (Rolling Stone) posted above:




" . . .There are a lot of people who are going to wonder why so much time is being spent re-litigating the 2016 campaign. It sucked, it's over: Who cares? It does matter. That race is when many of the seeds of what will be the defining problems of our age first began to be sown.

The rise of Trump and the crypto-fascist movement that crushed establishment Republicans is half of the story. The sharp move among many white middle American voters away from Beltway Republicanism toward something far darker and more dangerous crystalized in 2015-16. So it has to be studied over and over. But there is an ugly thing on the other side that also began at that time. This is when establishment Democrats began to openly lose faith in democracy and civil liberties and began to promote a "results over process" mode of political thinking. It's when we started hearing serious people in Washington talk about the dangers of "too much democracy." This isn't about Hillary Clinton. It's about a broader movement that took place within the Democratic establishment, and spread rapidly to blue-friendly media and academia. It's a kind of repeat of post-9/11 thinking, when suddenly huge pluralities of Americans decided the stakes were now too high to continue being queasy about things like torture, extralegal assassination, and habeas corpus.

In the age of Trump, we're now throwing all sorts of once-treasured principles – press ethics, free speech, freedom from illegal surveillance – overboard, because the political stakes are now deemed too high to cede ground to Trump over principles. But this distrust of democracy began before Trump was even a nominee. As Brazile notes, it started within the ranks of the Democratic Party near the outset of the campaign. It would have been a huge boon to Clinton's run if the DNC had welcomed not only Sanders but other serious candidates into the race, in the true spirit of what the primary process is supposed to represent – the winnowing of many diverse views into one unified message. But the attitude in Washington is now the opposite. Primary challengers are increasingly seen as reprobates who exist only to bloody the "real" candidate. So they should be kept down and discouraged whenever possible.

As the campaign continued, and we saw both Trump's rise and results like Brexit, the "too much democracy" argument began to emerge even more, along with the embrace of techniques that would have horrified true liberals a generation ago. In the last year, we've seen the blue-state establishment celebrate the use of the infamous FISA statute against American citizens, and the use of warrantless electronic surveillance against the same. We've seen the ACLU denounced for defending free speech and we've seen sites like Buzzfeed celebrated for publishing unverified and/or slanderous material, usually because the targets are politically unpopular. Liberals used not to believe in doing these things not only because they understood that they would likely be the first victims in a society stripped of civil protections (a school district forcing the removal of Black Lives Matter stickers is a classic example of a more probable future in a world without civil liberties). No, they eschewed these tactics because they genuinely believed that debate, discussion, inclusion and democracy brought out the best in us. The point of the Brazile story isn't that the people who "rigged" the primary were afraid of losing an election. It's that they weren't afraid of betraying democratic principles, probably because they didn't believe in them anymore. If you're not frightened by the growing appeal of that line of thinking, you should be. There is a history of this sort of thing. And it never ends well. 

Personally, I'm not "defending" so much as still asking what exactly is the claim - in the context of the agreement, and whatever other agreements with whomever were out there, and in the context of what was done under the agreement.  How does all of that translate into taking primary and caucus votes away from Bernie?  Sorry, but that's how my mind works, I'd kind of like an explanation if there's an accusation.  So, if there's an explanation showing how that worked, could someone point that out? 

ml1 said:

I don't know why people are defending the way the DNC put a huge thumb on the scale for Hillary Clinton. There was clearly no intent to have a truly competitive primary process. Because they knew if there was, there was a significant risk that she would not be the eventual nominee. A huge chunk of the Democratic base was willing to vote for a very fringe-y Bernie Sanders instead of the centrist Clinton. In 2008 she lost to the mostly previously unknown Obama. Legitimately, the left wing of the party wasn't a fan of her warmongering and economic centrism. 

The party took the risk that the left wing would go along with whatever they wanted to do. In retrospect it was hubris. And now instead of reaching out to the progressives for '18 and 20, the DNC will admit no mistakes, and instead blame the voters. 

Not a winning strategy for the future if you ask me. 

If the response is "Read this and you'll know", with just a link, please spell out for me what facts are in the link that I should know.  If the only response is Ms. Nan or Mr. Surovell telling me I'm supporting vote rigging or something like that, I'll assume there's no answer to my question.

exactly. Apart from some emails that indicate some staffers didn't care for Bernie very much, what exactly did the DNC do to rob Bernie of votes?

We're not defending the DNC, because there apparently is little to nothing to defend them against.

nohero said:

Personally, I'm not "defending" so much as still asking what exactly is the claim - in the context of the agreement, and whatever other agreements with whomever were out there, and in the context of what was done under the agreement.  How does all of that translate into taking primary and caucus votes away from Bernie?  Sorry, but that's how my mind works, I'd kind of like an explanation if there's an accusation.  So, if there's an explanation showing how that worked, could someone point that out? 
...

drummerboy said:

exactly. Apart from some emails that indicate some staffers didn't care for Bernie very much, what exactly did the DNC do to rob Bernie of votes?

Here's a partial list of items in the public record. Only a committed Hillary apologist -- or a  fool -- would deny the likelihood of additional actions taken outside the public record.

-- Rigged the debate schedule to favor Hillary and sanctioned DNC member who complained.

-- Did nothing when Hillary refused to participate in scheduled CA debate.

-- Disseminated anti-Bernie literature.

paulsurovell said:

Here's a partial list of items in the public record. Only a committed Hillary apologist -- or a  fool -- would deny the likelihood of additional actions taken outside the public record.

-- Rigged the debate schedule to favor Hillary and sanctioned DNC member who complained.

-- Did nothing when Hillary refused to participate in scheduled CA debate.

-- Disseminated anti-Bernie literature.

If these things get you upset then you probably ought to take up a hobby outside of following politics.

this is from March - 

10 ways the Democratic primary has been rigged from the start

1. Major Media Blackout

2. They’re Debating When?

3. Sanders Booms, Media Works to Marginalize

4. Vote Rigging

5. The Sexism Canard

6. Undemocratic Primaries

7. Superdelegates Toe the Line

8. Who’s Most Electable, Who Is Not

9. The Math, the Math

10. Forward to Victory

https://www.salon.com/2016/03/30/10_ways_the_democratic_primary_has_been_rigged_from_the_start_partner/

dave23 said:

paulsurovell said:

Here's a partial list of items in the public record. Only a committed Hillary apologist -- or a  fool -- would deny the likelihood of additional actions taken outside the public record.

-- Rigged the debate schedule to favor Hillary and sanctioned DNC member who complained.

-- Did nothing when Hillary refused to participate in scheduled CA debate.

-- Disseminated anti-Bernie literature.

If these things get you upset then you probably ought to take up a hobby outside of following politics.

As I keep saying, the biggest problem with this wasn't that it wasn't politics as usual. It was dumb. Why no one else is critical of the DNC for what in retrospect is really stupid strategy, I don't know. 

Clinton was a weak candidate. She couldn't put freaking Bernie Sanders away without an unlevel playing field for jeebus' sake. If the DNC had intended a real primary competition and Biden and Warren had run, the winner would have been the strongest possible candidate. But they didn't do that. To all of our undying woe. 

What I asked:

nohero said:

Personally, I'm not "defending" so much as still asking what exactly is the claim - in the context of the agreement, and whatever other agreements with whomever were out there, and in the context of what was done under the agreement.  How does all of that translate into taking primary and caucus votes away from Bernie?  Sorry, but that's how my mind works, I'd kind of like an explanation if there's an accusation.  So, if there's an explanation showing how that worked, could someone point that out? 

The response:

paulsurovell said:
 
Here's a partial list of items in the public record. Only a committed Hillary apologist -- or a  fool -- would deny the likelihood of additional actions taken outside the public record.


-- Rigged the debate schedule to favor Hillary and sanctioned DNC member who complained.

-- Did nothing when Hillary refused to participate in scheduled CA debate.


-- Disseminated anti-Bernie literature.

So, nothing about how the agreement being discussed took primary and caucus votes away from Bernie.  There's just summary claims about other things, which probably were complained about before.  Being neither an apologist nor a fool, I still can notice that tacit admission that the agreement didn't take away any votes.

If Mr. Surovell wants to elaborate on his points, I am happy to be more informed.  Just looking at them, I was not aware that the DNC should have done something when Secretary Clinton declined to participate in a Fox News debate in California.  Again, happy to accept additional information or explanation about that.