RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2019 01:08 am
I am waiting who see who stays in the race. Hell, is a year and 9 months till the election. I want to hear some opinions from the candidates.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2019 03:27 am
edgarblythe wrote:
The DNC wants for her to take Clinton's "turn" and are already making moves to anoint her. If they can't have a clean vote and let the people make an un-manipulated choice I and a substantial number of liberals will not play along from convention on.

I don't see how the DNC can "anoint" a candidate. And even if they did, why does that make people want to vote for the "anointed one"? I get the feeling that whoever gets the most votes, unless it's the independent, Sanders, edgar will use that candidate's status as the most popular vote-getter as proof of this fabled DNC "anointment".
snood
 
  4  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2019 05:44 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
The DNC wants for her to take Clinton's "turn" and are already making moves to anoint her. If they can't have a clean vote and let the people make an un-manipulated choice I and a substantial number of liberals will not play along from convention on.

I don't see how the DNC can "anoint" a candidate. And even if they did, why does that make people want to vote for the "anointed one"? I get the feeling that whoever gets the most votes, unless it's the independent, Sanders, edgar will use that candidate's status as the most popular vote-getter as proof of this fabled DNC "anointment".



Yup.

It’s not rational, by any estimation.

Any result besides Bernie getting the Democratic nomination will be harangued upon by Edgar as a tainted, crooked act of conspiratorial thievery.

And this paranoid conclusion was already reached before one word of debate has been uttered; before any competition has been mounted.

And we all get the privilege of being accused as complicit if we have any opinion that doesn’t match Edgar’s conplete fealty to Bernie and disdain of all other candidates.

It’s ******* nuts.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2019 07:03 am
@hightor,
I can’t decide if you guys actually didn’t watch and learn from the DNC’s legendary theft of the primary from Bernie and his supporters...if you are ignorant of the lawsuit confronting that theft (or just pretending to be), and I guess for good measure, you’re also pretending to be unaware that the defense for cheating argued by the DNC was ‘we can cheat if we want to.’ They won.

They used connections with crony journalists to build up Donald Trump, believing unpopular Clinton had the best chance beating him.

The DNC did anoint her. Bernie was only allowed in the race to give the appearance that it wasn’t a coronation. They were just hornswaggled by the result.

Before Hillary Clinton took off her purple pantsuit, the donor establishment anointed Kamala Harris. People who were watching saw the process. Her trip
with Hillary to the Hamptons to perform for the billionaires who run this country was first.

The progressive community has been watching and discussing it for months.

You can continue to feign ignorance if you please; I don’t know what it does for you, but Edgar knows a hell of a lot more about what’s actually occurring than you do.

The DNC said they’d learned from the mistakes that cost them the last election, but the coronation of Kamala Harris shows they were lying again. They have no
intention of allowing the people to vote fairly for the democrat nominee. They’ve shut down coverage of Tulsi Gabbard’s campaign. They attacked Rep. Ilhan’s brave statement against Israeli overreach in our halls of Congress and brought AOC into the corporate fold, they’ve pulled their strings to get preferential coverage for Kamala—but the biggest thing they’ve done is to go back on their promise to keep superdelegates quiet about endorsements until after voting. We knew they were lying—and they obviously were.

Kamala has five endorsements before she even has a sentence of policy up.

If you really want to know what people who are watching know:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/24/democratic-donors-kamala-harris-rising-star-hamptons

Democratic donors still think they can anoint rising stars in the Hamptons
Ross Barkan

What’s strange about living in the year 1 AT (After Trump) is how Democrats disregard the phenomenon in their wake. But business as usual won’t do





Lash
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2019 07:38 am
The Democrats think it’s ok to by-pass the ‘democracy part’ of elections.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/11/democrat-primary-elections-need-reform

Dear Democratic party: it's time to stop rigging the primaries
Heather Gautney
If Democrats want any hope of voting Trump out, they must fix the broken primary system before the next election

Mon 11 Jun 2018 06.00 EDT Last modified on Wed 22 Aug 2018 15.15 EDT

Ask countless Bernie Sanders supporters, and they’ll tell you a big reason he lost the Democratic party primaries is simple: the process was rigged. In one state after another, the votes by party elites – so-called “superdelegates” – counted more than those of regular members. And arduous voting requirements meant that countless people who would have voted for Sanders were denied that right. If the Democrats want any hope of voting Trump out of the White House, it is urgent they fix this broken system before the next election.

As a member of Sanders’ campaign, I’ll never forget watching the primary votes being counted for Michigan, one of the key states that decided the 2016 election. Sanders’ “pledged delegate count” – which reflected the number of votes he received from rank-and-file Democrats – exceeded Clinton’s by four. But after the superdelegates cast their ballots, the roll call registered “Clinton 76, Sanders 67”.

America's shameful history of voter suppression

This repeated itself in other states. In Indiana, Sanders won the vote 44 to 39, but, after the super delegates had their say, Clinton was granted 46 delegates, versus Sanders’ 44. In New Hampshire, where Sanders won the vote by a gaping margin (60% to 38%) and set a record for the largest number of votes ever, the screen read “16 Sanders, 16 Clinton”.


Sanders “lost” those states because hundreds of superdelegates had pledged their votes long before the primaries and caucuses began. By including those prearranged votes, running media tallies reinforced the inevitability of a Clinton win and the common perception that the Democratic primary was “rigged”. In June, the Associated Press went so far as to call the primary in Clinton’s favor – before Californians even had a chance to cast their votes.
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2019 07:41 am
@Lash,
Quote:
They won.

Okay. So I'll accept, for the sake of discussion, that the DNC cheated. Meanwhile, Clinton won more Democratic votes in the primaries. Why not say that she was able to win, in spite of being the "establishment candidate"?

It's not as if primary voters are waiting to hear from the DNC who they "should" support. Sanders had a good message, ran a good campaign, and had dedicated supporters. That doesn't translate to a victory if enough voters don't check the right box on the ballot. I almost expect the Sanders campaign to start running ads featuring his visage and the slogan, "It's My Turn!"
Quote:
Bernie was only allowed in the race to give the appearance that it wasn’t a coronation.

He won his place as a primary candidate fair and square.
Quote:
The progressive community has been watching and discussing it for months.

So have a lot of other people.
Quote:
...but Edgar knows a hell of a lot more about what’s actually occurring than you do.

Yes, you've both made that abundantly clear for some time now.
Quote:
Kamala has five endorsements before she even has a sentence of policy up.

And before a single vote has even been cast. There's nothing sinister about early endorsements. People want to give their preferred candidate a head start. People with money can be expected to make large political contributions. It doesn't guarantee success at the polls. The candidates have a whole year to stake out positions, secure funding, and get their organizations up and running. Harris might not even emerge as a front runner. I'd be surprised if she did.
hightor
 
  3  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2019 07:44 am
@Lash,
Quote:
America's shameful history of voter suppression

So you think the superdelegate's votes should have been suppressed?
maxdancona
 
  8  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2019 08:11 am
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:

Quote:
There are better ways to save American lives.

No, they are not better ways, they are more ways. Everything should be used.


Like banning guns for example?
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2019 08:12 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:

Quote:
America's shameful history of voter suppression

So you think the superdelegate's votes should have been suppressed?

Superdelegates should have a much more limited ability to decide whom the party will nominate, if exist at all.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2019 08:19 am
Warren has my sympathy on the "Indian issue." My mother used to proudly tell me about my Native American heritage. I boasted of it many times for nearly seventy years. Turns out, she was misinformed and we are 100% European. You can't hold it against Warren for mistaken ancestry, when she was likely fed the information the same way I was.

I used to view her as another Bernie. Now that I know she is an amalgam of corporatist/liberal, I would vote for her if she were nominated, but hold my nose to do it.
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2019 08:22 am
@Lash,
Lash's post is in line with my position.
Lash wrote:

I can’t decide if you guys actually didn’t watch and learn from the DNC’s legendary theft of the primary from Bernie and his supporters...if you are ignorant of the lawsuit confronting that theft (or just pretending to be), and I guess for good measure, you’re also pretending to be unaware that the defense for cheating argued by the DNC was ‘we can cheat if we want to.’ They won.

They used connections with crony journalists to build up Donald Trump, believing unpopular Clinton had the best chance beating him.

The DNC did anoint her. Bernie was only allowed in the race to give the appearance that it wasn’t a coronation. They were just hornswaggled by the result.

Before Hillary Clinton took off her purple pantsuit, the donor establishment anointed Kamala Harris. People who were watching saw the process. Her trip
with Hillary to the Hamptons to perform for the billionaires who run this country was first.

The progressive community has been watching and discussing it for months.

You can continue to feign ignorance if you please; I don’t know what it does for you, but Edgar knows a hell of a lot more about what’s actually occurring than you do.

The DNC said they’d learned from the mistakes that cost them the last election, but the coronation of Kamala Harris shows they were lying again. They have no
intention of allowing the people to vote fairly for the democrat nominee. They’ve shut down coverage of Tulsi Gabbard’s campaign. They attacked Rep. Ilhan’s brave statement against Israeli overreach in our halls of Congress and brought AOC into the corporate fold, they’ve pulled their strings to get preferential coverage for Kamala—but the biggest thing they’ve done is to go back on their promise to keep superdelegates quiet about endorsements until after voting. We knew they were lying—and they obviously were.

Kamala has five endorsements before she even has a sentence of policy up.

If you really want to know what people who are watching know:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/24/democratic-donors-kamala-harris-rising-star-hamptons

Democratic donors still think they can anoint rising stars in the Hamptons
Ross Barkan

What’s strange about living in the year 1 AT (After Trump) is how Democrats disregard the phenomenon in their wake. But business as usual won’t do






0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2019 08:29 am
On the personal, as regards Harris, I can't be successfully accused of a racist decision, or a misogynist position, as I have voted for people of color when good candidates came along, including Jesse Jackson and Obama. My favorite politicians on the scene just now are AOC and her sisters in the house. At one time I held out for Clinton when everybody told me to go with Barak. So, let's leave the personal out of it.
edgarblythe
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2019 09:10 am
In 2016, we posted these type stories everyday, but "centrists" claim amnesia now. Try to pay attention this cycle.

Pat the Berner🌹
@PatTheBerner
·
6h
Dem Party fuckery is afoot.

Check your registration!

In 2016, registrations were changed to stop people from voting for Bernie in the primaries.

Just recently mine was switched and I switched back to vote for CA Adems. Just checked and I'm switched back to Green again!

****!
revelette1
 
  4  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2019 09:22 am
@edgarblythe,
I am not aware of anyone accusing of racism. Just not liking any so called establishment democrat and always thinking the progressive choice is being cheated in some way.

I doubt I vote for Harris unless she wins the primary. I would vote for Bernie before voting for her. Like I said, she seems to just go along with whatever is popular; I just don't get sincerity from her. But that is just my opinion and I wouldn't get mad at anyone for supporting her for President.

I agree with the establishment primary set up with open and closed primaries; having open primaries leaves the party vulnerable in my opinion to political sabotage. There is a simple solution if you want to vote in a democrat closed primary, register as a democrat. It is like paying a ticket to get in to see a movie. You can't see the movie without the ticket.

As for superdelegates, their purpose is to keep unaffiliated voters from choosing a democrat candidate. However, I am not quite sure if I agree with superdelegates.
maporsche
 
  4  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2019 09:24 am
@revelette1,
I won’t be voting for Harris in the primary either most likely.

That people think she’s “anointed” is just funny and delusional.


And superdelegates have been neutered for 2020. Remember how happy progressives were about that? Now they’re trotting out old boogeymen to serve as excuses for most of their candidates losing and their ideas polling poorly when people understand what they’re supporting.

They’re not trying to convince anyone why their ideas are better, they’re merely attacking anyone that doesn’t meet their purity test.



Remember this?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/splinternews.com/in-a-crucial-reform-vote-democrats-move-to-weaken-the-1828603173/amp
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2019 09:27 am
@edgarblythe,
That is a valuable post, edgar. Thanks!
0 Replies
 
revelette1
 
  2  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2019 09:30 am
@edgarblythe,
I have relatives who get carried away, I have heard everything from we are related to Pocahontas to Faye Rae on King Kong. But I wouldn't go putting any of that on an application. Unless she knew for sure, she shouldn't have listed it on an application.
revelette1
 
  2  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2019 09:34 am
@maporsche,
Thanks for that reminder about the changes made for superdelegates.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  4  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2019 09:39 am
I don't know why we're still debating the last election primaries. Changes to the DNC rules have been made.

The Democratic Primary Wasn’t Rigged

But now Clinton and Sanders supporters should unite on making it easier to vote.

Quote:
Hillary Clinton won the Democratic presidential primary by 387 pledged delegates and 3.7 million votes.

Despite this large margin, some of Bernie Sanders’s most strident supporters have attributed Clinton’s lead to foul play, alleging that the Democratic Party’s nominating rules cost Sanders the nomination and the Clinton campaign deliberately suppressed pro-Bernie votes. These claims, which have circulated widely online, are false. My colleague Joshua Holland, who supports Sanders, has extensively debunked many of these conspiracy theories, but I want to add more detail now that the primary is over. (I’ve been neutral throughout the race and do not endorse candidates.)

First off, the party’s rules were not the deciding factor. Sanders has rejected the idea that the nomination was “rigged” but has repeatedly criticized things like superdelegates and closed primaries, in which Independent and unaffiliated voters can’t participate. Here’s what he told Face the Nation in late May:

What has upset me, and what I think is—I wouldn’t use the word rigged, because we knew what the rules were—but what is really dumb is that you have closed primaries, like in New York state, where three million people who are Democrats or Republicans could not participate, where you have situation where over 400 superdelegates came on board Clinton’s campaign before anybody else was in the race, eight months before the first vote was cast.

That’s not rigged. I think it’s just a dumb process, which has certainly disadvantaged our campaign.

Clinton did do better than Sanders in closed primaries, winning 17 to his 9, but she also won more open primaries than he did, 13 to 10. Anti-democratic caucuses, where Sanders did very well, hurt Clinton far more than closed primaries hurt Sanders, writes Nate Cohn of The New York Times:

Sanders was generally hurt by closed primaries. By our estimates, he did about 3.5 points worse in such contests. But most states aren’t closed, so Mr. Sanders wasn’t hurt that badly over all. And Mrs. Clinton was hurt more by caucuses, where she did about 10 points worse, according to the same model.

If every contest in the country had been an open primary, Mrs. Clinton’s delegate lead would have grown. She would have lost ground in some of the contests, gained ground in the states with large numbers of anti-Obama registered Democrats (Oklahoma, West Virginia and Kentucky), and gained lots of ground in Western caucuses—where Mr. Sanders earned most of his big delegate hauls.

Over all, Mrs. Clinton would have about a 12-point lead in pledged delegates if every state had an open primary, according to our estimates.

Nor did superdelegates decide the nomination for Clinton. They gave her a symbolic early lead and momentum, but Clinton’s pledged delegate lead over Sanders was three times larger than Obama’s margin over Clinton in 2008, under the same rules. I’m in favor of abolishing superdelegates or curtailing their influence, but it’s worth remembering that they’ve followed the pledged-delegate winner in every presidential contest since their creation in 1984.

Secondly, the Clinton campaign did not intentionally try to suppress the votes of Sanders supporters. Some Sanders supporters point to Arizona, where there were five-hour lines in Phoenix’s Maricopa County during the March 22 primary, as a glaring example of malfeasance. But those lines occurred because Republican clerk Helen Purcell cut the number of polling places from 200 in 2012 to just 60 in 2016—a decision made possible by a 5-4 conservative majority on the Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act and ruling that states like Arizona no longer had to approve their voting changes with the federal government.

Clinton strenuously criticized that decision and sued Arizona over the polling place closures, a lawsuit the Sanders campaign joined. Latino voters in Maricopa County, who were most affected by the long lines, strongly supported Clinton and she won the state overall by 15 points. Why would she disenfranchise her own supporters?

Voter-suppression accusations were also rampant after the New York primary. Sanders backers falsely accused Clinton of supporting a controversial purge of 125,000 registered voters in Brooklyn. Of the inactive voters purged in Brooklyn, only 8 percent of whom voted in 2012, 5 percent were 18 to 29 and 61 percent were black and Hispanic. While Sanders won young voters in New York by 30 points, Clinton won black voters by 50 points and Latino voters by 38 points, groups whose numbers were much more likely to be lessened by the purge, and carried Brooklyn by 20 points overall. The purge, to the extent that it mattered, hurt Clinton far more than Sanders. “We are very concerned about it because we believe we probably lost a lot of votes there,” said Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri.

The latest controversy surrounds California, where Hillary leads by 12 percent, 438,000 votes, but Sanders supporters are still claiming he can win the state based on 1.4 million unprocessed absentee and provisional ballots, even though Clinton has won 52 percent of the 800,000 votes counted after Election Day so far.

I could go on and on, but the point is that the outlandish claims fall apart when subjected to closer scrutiny.

“To the extent that the nomination was rigged in the sense that there was illegal activity going on that was directed by the Democratic Party or the Clinton campaign to sabotage Bernie Sanders’s chances, I’ve seen no credible evidence of that,” says law professor Rick Hasen of the University of California–Irvine.

There were problems in the primaries, without a doubt, and Sanders is right that the nominating process should be reformed. He’s called for open primaries, same-day registration, and abolishing superdelegates—worthwhile ideas that merit more discussion.

Yet not all of these reforms would benefit a future Bernie Sanders. Open primaries, for example, tend to produce more moderate candidates for local offices and can be an impediment to progressive insurgents like Sanders.

Moreover, it’s hypocritical for Sanders to call for more democracy in the Democratic Party and ignore the role of caucuses, which are the most antidemocratic part of the nominating process. Writes David Atkins in The Washington Monthly:

By their very nature, caucuses disenfranchise voters: they’re confusing, stressful and tiring to participate in, they have no voter secrecy or privacy, they require at least an hour of the voter’s time and often more at a very specific time of day, there is no ability to caucus by mail, etc. Caucuses also require chairs, secretaries, check-in volunteers and other officials who count votes, make tallies and determine eligibility–all of whom are are chosen by party leaders who can and do stack the deck for chosen establishment candidates in ways that range from unseemly to blatantly illegal.

The eight states with the lowest voter turnout in 2016 were all caucuses, according to political scientist Michael McDonald of the University of Florida, with an average turnout of 8.4 percent. Turnout was three times lower in caucuses than primaries in 2016. Yet Sanders has refrained from criticizing caucuses because he won 12 out of 18, compared to 28 of 38 primaries for Clinton.

“The caucus is the most voting suppressive system we have,” says Hasen. “The fact that this is off his list makes me question his integrity in making these reforms.”

The bigger danger facing Democrats are not their own rules, but new GOP voting restrictions aimed at depressing the vote among Democratic-constituencies. “What is happening is a sweeping effort to disempower and disenfranchise people of color, poor people and young people from one end of our country to the other,” Clinton said in a major speech on voting rights in June 2015, at the beginning of her campaign. Clinton emphasized this issue before Sanders, and lawyers affiliated with her campaign have filed lawsuits against GOP voting restrictions in key battleground states.

Both campaigns can unite on this issue. Clinton supporters should join Sanders in reforming the Democratic Party, while Sanders supporters should help Clinton combat obstacles to the ballot box like strict voter ID laws, cutbacks to early voting and restrictions on voter registration.

But there also needs to be an honest discussion separating fact from fiction. Crying wolf about rigged elections, like some Sanders supporters have done, undermines the legitimacy of documented cases of voter suppression resulting from GOP-passed laws in states like North Carolina, Texas, and Wisconsin, which pose a real and urgent threat to American democracy.

thenation
snood
 
  0  
Reply Sun 17 Feb, 2019 09:41 am
When was Edgar accused of racism or misogyny, and who did the accusing?
That’s a pretty hefty red herring to be tossing about.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 12/04/2021 at 01:01:20