Bernie's 2020 Campaign: August 2016 - At least through April, apparently
nohero said:
Instead of "hilarious", I think it's accurate to say "exaggerated". There were more than a few debates. The allegations of voters being dropped (I assume this is based on NYC) turned out NOT to be due to the Democratic Party, and in fact a good chunk of those voters were in areas that went for Hillary. Hillary got, what, one or two (obvious) debate questions?
Most important, Bernie didn't get as many votes or elected delegates as Hillary did. So "rigging" isn't the real explanation for who won the nomination.
As for elected officials like Pelosi and Schumer having an opinion about the candidate - it's a free country. In the end, it will come down to the primary voters.
Yes, love how you spin, Dem leadership and think tank and wealthy donor and pres candidate meeting in secret to sabotage the guy currently leading in the polls who can beat Donald Trump as "having an opinion."
drummerboy said:
Hillary got more votes in the primaries. Therefore won the nomination.
Pretty simple.
Nothing is simple............during the campaign the DNC clearly did all they could to influence eligible
voters into her camp. The problem there is the DNC is supposed to be a neutral body...........it was not. When all this came out Debbie Wasserman, Chairwoman was forced to resign her post just before the nominating convention.
And Donna Brasile meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac of the airport......Jesus Wept.
They could at least have worn ZZ Top disguises with the long beards and fedora hats.
author said:
Hillary scooped out of the air 2814 super delegates......or some call them Party Hacks who sprung from the mind of the Democratic Party to insure another George McGovern would ever get the nomination
Forced to abide by the rules of the game Bernie ended up with 1893.
It was never a level playing field from day one.
Hillary had the majority of ELECTED delegates, exclusive of superdelegates. If there were no superdelegates, Hillary would still have the majority and the nomination.
I don't know any other way to say it so that the "Superdelegates gave Hillary the nomination" story is not repeated.
nan said:
nohero said:Yes, love how you spin, Dem leadership and think tank and wealthy donor and pres candidate meeting in secret to sabotage the guy currently leading in the polls who can beat Donald Trump as "having an opinion."
Instead of "hilarious", I think it's accurate to say "exaggerated". There were more than a few debates. The allegations of voters being dropped (I assume this is based on NYC) turned out NOT to be due to the Democratic Party, and in fact a good chunk of those voters were in areas that went for Hillary. Hillary got, what, one or two (obvious) debate questions?
Most important, Bernie didn't get as many votes or elected delegates as Hillary did. So "rigging" isn't the real explanation for who won the nomination.
As for elected officials like Pelosi and Schumer having an opinion about the candidate - it's a free country. In the end, it will come down to the primary voters.
It's not spin, it's just a fact.
You keep using the word "sabotage" as if that's an accurate description of - people supporting other candidates.
nohero said:
It's not spin, it's just a fact.
You keep using the word "sabotage" as if that's an accurate description of - people supporting other candidates.
This is not a normal "people supporting other candidates" This is the leaders of the Democratic Party trying to sabotage the front-runner, a guy who can beat Donald Trump. I thought that beating Donald Trump was the only goal? Seems like they don't care about that as much as beating the guy who opposes their donors.
The matter of What To Do About Bernie and the larger imperative of party unity has, for example, hovered over a series of previously undisclosed Democratic dinners in New York and Washington organized by the longtime party financier Bernard Schwartz. The gatherings have included scores from the moderate or center-left wing of the party, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California; Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader; former Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia; Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., himself a presidential candidate; and the president of the Center for American Progress, Neera Tanden.
nan said:
nohero said:This is not a normal "people supporting other candidates" This is the leaders of the Democratic Party trying to sabotage the front-runner, a guy who can beat Donald Trump. I thought that beating Donald Trump was the only goal? Seems like they don't care about that as much as beating the guy who opposes their donors.
It's not spin, it's just a fact.
You keep using the word "sabotage" as if that's an accurate description of - people supporting other candidates.
The matter of What To Do About Bernie and the larger imperative of party unity has, for example, hovered over a series of previously undisclosed Democratic dinners in New York and Washington organized by the longtime party financier Bernard Schwartz. The gatherings have included scores from the moderate or center-left wing of the party, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California; Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the minority leader; former Gov. Terry McAuliffe of Virginia; Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., himself a presidential candidate; and the president of the Center for American Progress, Neera Tanden.
These are elected officials. You're saying that, at some point, an elected official loses the right to prefer a candidate or a policy.
You were fine with Bernie getting involved in the 2018 Kansas primary. You consider him a prominent member of the party, but that was okay for him to do.
nohero said:
These are elected officials. You're saying that, at some point, an elected official loses the right to prefer a candidate or a policy.
You were fine with Bernie getting involved in the 2018 Kansas primary. You consider him a prominent member of the party, but that was okay for him to do.
These are not members--these are the leaders and they are meeting in secret. These are the people who were telling us to not criticize other candidates. They were saying that Progressives were a "circular firing squad" when they literally were secretly working on one.
Not a good look for Nancy & Chuck. And makes Mr. "Values and Character" Buttigeig look hypocritical also.
nan said:
These are not members--these are the leaders and they are meeting in secret. These are the people who were telling us to not criticize other candidates. They were saying that Progressives were a "circular firing squad" when they literally were secretly working on one.
Not a good look for Nancy & Chuck. And makes Mr. "Values and Character" Buttigeig look hypocritical also.
Last I checked, they were elected officials. They have government posts, not party posts.
Just like Bernie, who is an elected official with a government post, but also someone you consider the leader of a significant part of the Democratic Party.
nohero said:
author said:Hillary had the majority of ELECTED delegates, exclusive of superdelegates. If there were no superdelegates, Hillary would still have the majority and the nomination.
Hillary scooped out of the air 2814 super delegates......or some call them Party Hacks who sprung from the mind of the Democratic Party to insure another George McGovern would ever get the nomination
Forced to abide by the rules of the game Bernie ended up with 1893.
It was never a level playing field from day one.
I don't know any other way to say it so that the "Superdelegates gave Hillary the nomination" story is not repeated.
Apparently the influence of the Democratic National Committee means nothing to you. When cause and effect is clearly shown..........when Debby Wasserman DNC Chair is given her walking papers just before the convention.......that is a form of delayed justice. But their misdeeds had already been done. A truly level playing field would have yielded different results and a candidate who could and would have won.
author said:
nohero said:Apparently the influence of the Democratic National Committee means nothing to you. When cause and effect is clearly shown..........when Debby Wasserman DNC Chair is given her walking papers just before the convention.......that is a form of delayed justice. But their misdeeds had already been done. A truly level playing field would have yielded different results and a candidate who could and would have won.
author said:Hillary had the majority of ELECTED delegates, exclusive of superdelegates. If there were no superdelegates, Hillary would still have the majority and the nomination.
Hillary scooped out of the air 2814 super delegates......or some call them Party Hacks who sprung from the mind of the Democratic Party to insure another George McGovern would ever get the nomination
Forced to abide by the rules of the game Bernie ended up with 1893.
It was never a level playing field from day one.
I don't know any other way to say it so that the "Superdelegates gave Hillary the nomination" story is not repeated.
The topic was superdelegates.
nohero said:
Last I checked, they were elected officials. They have government posts, not party posts.
Just like Bernie, who is an elected official with a government post, but also someone you consider the leader of a significant part of the Democratic Party.
The DNC can technically pick the nominee in a cigar filled back room. They can do whatever they like to conspire against their own candidates. However, I'm surprised that you approve of this because it is helping Trump get elected. It also makes them look like HUGE hypocrites and cheats. I now will not vote for Pete Buttigeig no matter if he becomes the nominee. I will not continue to reinforce bad behavior. I'm sure you will be mad at me and let them off the hook to continue to do whatever they want to subvert Democracy. But, I'm letting you know that if you honestly want Trump gone you will be condemning their actions. They are plotting against the current front-runner, who can beat Trump. And they are making his supports think about voting 3rd party or staying home. And Obama should be taking back his circular firing squad remark because this is the kind of behavior establshment Dems tolerate: https://twitter.com/GeoffMiami/status/1119298951939854342
nan said:The DNC can technically pick the nominee in a cigar filled back room. They can do whatever they like to conspire against their own candidates. However, I'm surprised that you approve of this because it is helping Trump get elected. It also makes them look like HUGE hypocrites and cheats. I now will not vote for Pete Buttigeig no matter if he becomes the nominee. I will not continue to reinforce bad behavior. I'm sure you will be mad at me and let them off the hook to continue to do whatever they want to subvert Democracy. But, I'm letting you know that if you honestly want Trump gone you will be condemning their actions. They are plotting against the current front-runner, who can beat Trump. And they are making his supports think about voting 3rd party or staying home. And Obama should be taking back his circular firing squad remark because this is the kind of behavior establshment Dems tolerate: https://twitter.com/GeoffMiami/status/1119298951939854342
Guess nan/paul have fond their justification for betraying the principles of democracy, just like they did with Wassermann-Schultz and Brazille. Doing it this early certainly takes the pressure off, doesn't it?
Dennis_Seelbach said:
Guess nan/paul have fond their justification for betraying the principles of democracy, just like they did with Wassermann-Schultz and Brazille. Doing it this early certainly takes the pressure off, doesn't it?
Right, as I said, the DNC can be found to have secret meetings to sabotage the front-runner (who can beat Trump), and the criticism will be on the supporters of the attacked candidate who don't want to pay along. Thanks, Dennis, for showing why we will have more and worse Trumps coming down the pike.
Why do you people from the Bern unit feel that Trump would not have beaten Sanders in 2016? He might stand a better chance now but back then Hillary was the best candidate.
Because when you join a cult, you need to constantly support the leader.
Jaytee said:
Why do you people from the Bern unit feel that Trump would not have beaten Sanders in 2016? He might stand a better chance now but back then Hillary was the best candidate.
No, he was the best candidate in 2016 and he's still the best candidate in 2020. Every poll in 2016 showed that. And, to be fair, I think any other candidate besides Hillary Clinton could have beat Trump also. She was the worst one they could have picked. But, she had the cash, so they made a deal and did not let anyone else run who would have been considered a real challenge. They also encouraged Trump to run because they thought he would be easy to beat (Pied Piper strategy).
nan said:
The DNC can technically pick the nominee in a cigar filled back room. They can do whatever they like to conspire against their own candidates. However, I'm surprised that you approve of this because it is helping Trump get elected. It also makes them look like HUGE hypocrites and cheats. I now will not vote for Pete Buttigeig no matter if he becomes the nominee.
It's much too early in the process for the recriminations to begin.
And if you're not voting for any candidate who is not Bernie, you and similar Bernie fans will make Trump's re-election a self-fulfilling prophecy.
nan said:
Jaytee said:No, he was the best candidate in 2016 and he's still the best candidate in 2020. Every poll in 2016 showed that. And, to be fair, I think any other candidate besides Hillary Clinton could have beat Trump also. She was the worst one they could have picked. But, she had the cash, so they made a deal and did not let anyone else run who would have been considered a real challenge. They also encouraged Trump to run because they thought he would be easy to beat (Pied Piper strategy).
Why do you people from the Bern unit feel that Trump would not have beaten Sanders in 2016? He might stand a better chance now but back then Hillary was the best candidate.
Thank you for your opinion.
So if Bernie was the nominee, would the Russians have put away their "Hillary file", and pulled out the "Bernie file"?
nohero said:
It's much too early in the process for the recriminations to begin.
And if you're not voting for any candidate who is not Bernie, you and similar Bernie fans will make Trump's re-election a self-fulfilling prophecy.
I am not voting for Pete Buttigeig because Pete cheats. I know this is technically not true, but that is how I view it. Also don't like the Goldman Sachs fundraising. As to other candidates I would gladly vote for Tulsi Gabbard and not as happy but OK with Elizabeth Warren. Voting for the rest of them will depend on how corrupt the process is and how I feel at election time. The DNC needs to earn my vote and not assume it is theirs. They need to hold a free and FAIR election as expected in a Democracy.
And--as I said--you will only hold me accountable for Trump's re-election. The corruption of the DNC will be ignored so it can continue to 2024 and beyond, when there will be more and worse DJT candidates.
Don't say I did not warn you.
Nan - what will your excuse be if bernie wins the democratic primary and loses to Trump?
jamie said:
Nan - what will your excuse be if bernie wins the democratic primary and loses to Trump?
That is unlikely:
nan said:
That is unlikely:
Hillary was ahead of Trump by more than 7% in the polls....
Jaytee said:
Hillary was ahead of Trump by more than 7% in the polls....
This is just the poll for the FOX news audience, whom are probably Republicans. IF you add in Democrats, it will go way up.
nan said:
jamie said:That is unlikely:
Nan - what will your excuse be if bernie wins the democratic primary and loses to Trump?
That photo you keep posting is either a mistake or a fraud, because those aren’t the Sanders results from that poll. They’re the Biden results:
The Sanders results against Trump were 44% to 41% percent in favor of Sanders, but that’s within the three-point margin of error. There goes your “That is unlikely,” even in a meaningless early poll.
DaveSchmidt said:
That photo you keep posting is either a mistake or a fraud, because those aren’t the Sanders results from that poll. They’re the Biden results:
Most likely the photo originated 4 days ago on the "Democratic Socialists" Reddit.
At least that's what an image search says.
https://www.reddit.com/r/dsa/comments/bdyiwg/this_is_why_you_go_on_fox_and_reach_out_to_their/
Rentals
Featured Events
-
Go "Back to the '70s" with The Maplewood Glee Club and Special Guests from CHS
May 19, 2024 at 4:00pm
Advertisement
If you ignore all the cheating and how a horrible candidate got propped up and ran a lame-o campaign and lost to an psycho orange clown reality TV star. Yeah, so simple.