4 ms·

Tough to get more votes when the entire DNC is working against you: http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/ ht

Tough to get more votes when the entire DNC is working against you: http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rigged-dnc-undermined-democracy/ http://observer.com/2016/07/wikileaks-proves-primary-was-rig...

lern_too_spel 10y ago
That email chain was about how to deal with Sanders attacking the DNC for enforcing pre-agreed-upon rules in the Nevada convention. It had nothing to do with working against Sanders and everything to do with stopping Sanders from attacking the party heads for following the rules. http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/may/18/jeff-weaver/allegations-fraud-and-misconduct-nevada-democratic/ http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/may/18/jeff...
- chillacy 10y ago
  I assume you're referencing this one: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5508 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5508 But that article I linked is literally full of email chains which show the DNC clearly favoring Clinton. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/dnc-leak-shows-mechanics-of-a-slanted-campaign-w430814 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/dnc-leak-shows... The DNC played favorites from the beginning, and sanders supporters aren't too thrilled. Let's not forget that the DNC chief resigned over this.
  - lern_too_spel 10y ago
    Both of these links are about the same email chain that I already explained above in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12915266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12915266. Which email shows the DNC helping Clinton win the primary? They would have every reason to favor the candidate from their own party, but the emails show that they played it fairly. Moreover, none of the emails show the Clinton campaign influencing the DNC to rig the election, which is what was originally claimed (that she somehow stole the primaries to the tune of a 4 million vote victory).
    - chillacy 10y ago
      Yes, they were favoring the candidate from their own party. I already don't trust that they would have been 100% fair. Also, yes, Clinton did win most of the votes. And as of now it looks like she won the popular vote too. I don't doubt that she's more popular. But take a look at the states where Sanders did well vs where Clinton did well... http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/national-results-map http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/national-results-map Then take a look at which states she lost to Trump...
      - lern_too_spel 10y ago
        Just to be clear, you agree that Clinton didn't cheat when she won the popular vote by a landslide (more than 25% more votes than Sanders)? https://www.thenation.com/article/the-democratic-primary-wasnt-rigged/ https://www.thenation.com/article/the-democratic-primary-was... You may believe that the DNC wasn't 100% fair in the primaries, but nothing in their emails suggests they applied their own biases to changing the rules in favor of Clinton, so that belief is not supported by evidence. There is a secondary issue that maybe Sanders would have performed better in the general election than Clinton did. It's hard to do this kind of counterfactual analysis, but I disagree. Despite the media's horse race story, Clinton was so far ahead in votes and polling that she was never in danger of losing the primaries and so didn't throw the kitchen sink of "scandals" at Sanders. Had the race been closer, you would have seen these "scandals," and you certainly would have seen them had Sanders run against Trump (https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/bernie_sanders_electability_argument_is_still_a_myth.html https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...). More than that though, if progressive icon Russ Feingold couldn't win in Wisconsin, Sanders didn't stand a chance either.
        chillacy 10y ago
        I should clarify, I meant more popular than trump. Clinton did win most of the votes in the primary but I'm not going to give her the benefit of the doubt that she didn't use her connections to help her campaign. That article by the way came out in June, before the DNC leaks in July. Yes, I think it is hard to play "what if" history. It's been a few days and I've basically accepted President Trump. It'll help a lot of folks in this country, even if those folks aren't me.
- totalZero 10y ago
  Do you think Donna Brazile gave Bernie those debate questions in advance, too?
  - lern_too_spel 10y ago
    No, but if Bernie was in that debate, she probably would have.
    - totalZero 10y ago
      Correct me if I'm wrong here...the Brazile debate questions in question are from Democratic primary debates on March 6 and March 13, and Bernie was part of both, right?
      - lern_too_spel 10y ago
        You're right; however, Brazile was not the DNC chair at the time she did that (not until July), so she would have been allowed to help one candidate over another without it being the DNC rigging anything. Feeding Clinton questions is still bad but not an indication that the DNC rigged the primary against Sanders.

lern_too_spel 10y ago

That email chain was about how to deal with Sanders attacking the DNC for enforcing pre-agreed-upon rules in the Nevada convention. It had nothing to do with working against Sanders and everything to do with stopping Sanders from attacking the party heads for following the rules. http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/may/18/jeff-weaver/allegations-fraud-and-misconduct-nevada-democratic/ http://www.politifact.com/nevada/statements/2016/may/18/jeff...

chillacy 10y ago
I assume you're referencing this one: https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5508 https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5508 But that article I linked is literally full of email chains which show the DNC clearly favoring Clinton. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/dnc-leak-shows-mechanics-of-a-slanted-campaign-w430814 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/dnc-leak-shows... The DNC played favorites from the beginning, and sanders supporters aren't too thrilled. Let's not forget that the DNC chief resigned over this.
- lern_too_spel 10y ago
  Both of these links are about the same email chain that I already explained above in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12915266 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12915266. Which email shows the DNC helping Clinton win the primary? They would have every reason to favor the candidate from their own party, but the emails show that they played it fairly. Moreover, none of the emails show the Clinton campaign influencing the DNC to rig the election, which is what was originally claimed (that she somehow stole the primaries to the tune of a 4 million vote victory).
  - chillacy 10y ago
    Yes, they were favoring the candidate from their own party. I already don't trust that they would have been 100% fair. Also, yes, Clinton did win most of the votes. And as of now it looks like she won the popular vote too. I don't doubt that she's more popular. But take a look at the states where Sanders did well vs where Clinton did well... http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/national-results-map http://www.nytimes.com/elections/2016/national-results-map Then take a look at which states she lost to Trump...
    - lern_too_spel 10y ago
      Just to be clear, you agree that Clinton didn't cheat when she won the popular vote by a landslide (more than 25% more votes than Sanders)? https://www.thenation.com/article/the-democratic-primary-wasnt-rigged/ https://www.thenation.com/article/the-democratic-primary-was... You may believe that the DNC wasn't 100% fair in the primaries, but nothing in their emails suggests they applied their own biases to changing the rules in favor of Clinton, so that belief is not supported by evidence. There is a secondary issue that maybe Sanders would have performed better in the general election than Clinton did. It's hard to do this kind of counterfactual analysis, but I disagree. Despite the media's horse race story, Clinton was so far ahead in votes and polling that she was never in danger of losing the primaries and so didn't throw the kitchen sink of "scandals" at Sanders. Had the race been closer, you would have seen these "scandals," and you certainly would have seen them had Sanders run against Trump (https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/05/bernie_sanders_electability_argument_is_still_a_myth.html https://www.google.com/amp/amp.slate.com/articles/news_and_p...). More than that though, if progressive icon Russ Feingold couldn't win in Wisconsin, Sanders didn't stand a chance either.
      - chillacy 10y ago
        I should clarify, I meant more popular than trump. Clinton did win most of the votes in the primary but I'm not going to give her the benefit of the doubt that she didn't use her connections to help her campaign. That article by the way came out in June, before the DNC leaks in July. Yes, I think it is hard to play "what if" history. It's been a few days and I've basically accepted President Trump. It'll help a lot of folks in this country, even if those folks aren't me.
totalZero 10y ago
Do you think Donna Brazile gave Bernie those debate questions in advance, too?
- lern_too_spel 10y ago
  No, but if Bernie was in that debate, she probably would have.
  - totalZero 10y ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong here...the Brazile debate questions in question are from Democratic primary debates on March 6 and March 13, and Bernie was part of both, right?
    - lern_too_spel 10y ago
      You're right; however, Brazile was not the DNC chair at the time she did that (not until July), so she would have been allowed to help one candidate over another without it being the DNC rigging anything. Feeding Clinton questions is still bad but not an indication that the DNC rigged the primary against Sanders.