4 ms·

Maybe the democratics shouldn't have cheated, stolen the nomination from bernie, or coordinated illegally with their super pacs.

TorKlingberg 10y ago
Bernie Sanders lost because he didn't have nearly as much support from voters.
tptacek 10y ago
The "Democrats" didn't "steal" the nomination from Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders got crushed in the Democratic primaries, by a margin almost ten times that of what Obama achieved over Hillary Clinton in 2008. Even if leaked emails had shown material support for Clinton over Sanders, let alone before the nomination had become a foregone conclusion, there's nothing the DNC could do to explain the extent to which Sanders lost. He lost decisively, both by the same pledged delegate count margin Obama achieved and for which his team was praised as delegate counting geniuses, and by a massive gulf in the popular vote.
- rudolf0 10y ago
  That doesn't make their favoritism any more right.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  Uh, I would count that media companies shown to be colluding with Hillary ran delegate counts with superdelegates included to be a massive propaganda campaign to influence voters for Hillary by making them feel there's no viable alternative. It's hard to estimate the impact of that, and I dont recall it happening as much in 2008.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    You think some media somewhere about "superdelegates" accounts 3.7 million additional votes for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders? I agree to disagree with you about that. Want to know the popular vote margin in 2008, where the superdelegates were also a huge part of the narrative? -273,000.
    - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
      No, I think virtually all of the vote tallies, across virtually all media showing superdelegates included with pledged delegrelevant, by prsenting Bernie as having to make up over a thousand votes instead of dozens, early in the race. That said, you bring up relevant points and I think we should agree to disagree. (Not much to be said, just correcting your summary of my position.)
      - tptacek 10y ago
        If anything, the media bias is in exactly the opposite direction: a horse race between Sanders and Clinton sells advertising. It's literally the reason we have the term "horse race" --- because the media has been selling us this story for generations.
- vonklaus 10y ago
  What? Five thirty eight has them at: HRC: 2,218 BS: 1,833 This includes >700 superdelegates which are not tied to primary contests. Hillary won almost all of these. If this was 100% up to voters (which admittedly is not how this contest works) it would be closer. That said, she certainly influenced those SD to vote for her well in advance. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/ http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-t... edit: The above information is wrong. Tptacek corrected me. Please see my comment below for expanded point.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Not only does that count not include the superdelegates, but the page you linked to, in the only mention of superdelegates, below a count labeled "pledged delegates" (who are not superdelegates), specifically says they aren't. Further, by the logic you just used, had the count included "superdelegates" that Hillary Clinton won entirely, you would be suggesting that Bernie Sanders would have won the Democratic Primary without them (he would not have). Bernie Sanders lost decisively. But because Wikileaks strategically leaked the right hacked emails, his supporters believe instead in a false alternative history. It's Wikileaks you should be angry at.
    - vonklaus 10y ago
      Point ceded, Clinton did win without super delegates. I misread that. That said, I believe sanders would have beaten Trump. I also believe the wikileaks emails and do not believe it was a fair contest (primary or general election). Again, I agree you are correct Hillary won, however I do not believe this was "fair". I believe the emails to be genuine as they were not disputed, and some were released by the government itself. I won't try to convince you how to interpret the content, but much of it certainly seems clear to me that between the non-agression pact, references to keeping in check due to their "leverage" over him, and the entire internal DNC scandal with DWS, ect. that this was anything but a typical primary.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        Sanders would have gotten his ass kicked against Trump. I can't make that argument as conclusively as I can the argument that the DNC didn't steal the primary from him, but I personally believe it just as firmly: * Turnout was lower for both the D's and the R's this cycle. R turnout would not have been lower if the D's had run an avowed socialist. Suburban/exurban voters --- a natural R cohort Clinton actually outperformed with in this cycle --- would have turned out in force for the GOP. * Sanders policy proposals and the language he uses to talk about it aren't in sync with the white working class (really, any part of the working class); it's "let them eat college tuitions". Unemployed tool & die engineers aren't looking for college subsidies, and they already survive on handouts ("long term disability"). That's why they're angry. * Sanders did terribly at engaging the African American vote, so much so that insider stories got written about how messed up their African American outreach was. The narrative of this election is that Clinton lost in part because she failed to mobilize Obama's coalition. But Clinton crushed Sanders in the primary with exactly that coalition, so the evidence suggests Sanders would have done even worse with the hand Clinton was dealt. * Sanders was terribly vulnerable. His supporters like to believe that HRC gave it to him with both barrels during the primary. But she did not: she was a complacent candidate who believed (correctly) in the inevitability of her nomination and (incorrectly) in the inevitability of her election. It is simply a fact that Sanders did not receive a serious vetting during the primary, and to see that, you only have to see what stories didn't come up during the primary: --- Sanders chaired Senate VA during the Veterans Health Scandal and was on VA during the Walter Reed scandal. Unlike Benghazi, these were real failures of oversight that harmed large numbers of American veterans. Not only that, but Sanders has in part built a Senate career on support for veterans benefits, so the attack ads write themselves. How culpable was Sanders for any of this? Fuck if I know. That's not the point. --- Sanders wrote an essay that stated women fantasize about being raped by three men simultaneously. Does that really matter? Almost certainly not. That's not the point. --- While Trump was starting his real estate "empire" with help from his father, not only was Bernie Sanders not winning victories for the working class, he was collecting employment (in his mid-30s) and stealing electricity from his neighbors. Does that matter? Not to me; to me that makes him more relatable. But that's not the point. --- Sanders is not only a supporter of, but personally profits from, a scheme to transport toxic waste from Vermont and dump it in Latino communities in Texas. Does that make Sanders an "environmental racist"? Well, in fact, yes it does. Are all of these things dispositive? No. But they give the lie to the idea that Sanders would have crushed Trump because Clinton had too much baggage to run with.
vonklaus 10y ago
no idea why this is downvoted. The emails provide this evidence. It can be searched literally right now on wikileaks. If the emails are real, these FACTS are included in emails: - Campaign used influence to influence RNC via Pied Piper technique of promoting the weakest candidates...it worked. - Campaign planned to oust DWS. They influenced the DNC to promote HRC over Sanders. - Coordinated with DOJ. - Coordinated with reporters both in feeding questions to RNC candidates and getting leaked questions in debates HRC was participating in. - Stage protests at DJT rallies. TO BE CLEAR, whether you believe the emails are genuine or not they DO contain this content and that is nearly indisputable.

TorKlingberg 10y ago

Bernie Sanders lost because he didn't have nearly as much support from voters.

tptacek 10y ago

The "Democrats" didn't "steal" the nomination from Bernie Sanders. Bernie Sanders got crushed in the Democratic primaries, by a margin almost ten times that of what Obama achieved over Hillary Clinton in 2008. Even if leaked emails had shown material support for Clinton over Sanders, let alone before the nomination had become a foregone conclusion, there's nothing the DNC could do to explain the extent to which Sanders lost. He lost decisively, both by the same pledged delegate count margin Obama achieved and for which his team was praised as delegate counting geniuses, and by a massive gulf in the popular vote.

rudolf0 10y ago
That doesn't make their favoritism any more right.
SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
Uh, I would count that media companies shown to be colluding with Hillary ran delegate counts with superdelegates included to be a massive propaganda campaign to influence voters for Hillary by making them feel there's no viable alternative. It's hard to estimate the impact of that, and I dont recall it happening as much in 2008.
- tptacek 10y ago
  You think some media somewhere about "superdelegates" accounts 3.7 million additional votes for Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders? I agree to disagree with you about that. Want to know the popular vote margin in 2008, where the superdelegates were also a huge part of the narrative? -273,000.
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    No, I think virtually all of the vote tallies, across virtually all media showing superdelegates included with pledged delegrelevant, by prsenting Bernie as having to make up over a thousand votes instead of dozens, early in the race. That said, you bring up relevant points and I think we should agree to disagree. (Not much to be said, just correcting your summary of my position.)
    - tptacek 10y ago
      If anything, the media bias is in exactly the opposite direction: a horse race between Sanders and Clinton sells advertising. It's literally the reason we have the term "horse race" --- because the media has been selling us this story for generations.
vonklaus 10y ago
What? Five thirty eight has them at: HRC: 2,218 BS: 1,833 This includes >700 superdelegates which are not tied to primary contests. Hillary won almost all of these. If this was 100% up to voters (which admittedly is not how this contest works) it would be closer. That said, she certainly influenced those SD to vote for her well in advance. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-targets/ http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/delegate-t... edit: The above information is wrong. Tptacek corrected me. Please see my comment below for expanded point.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Not only does that count not include the superdelegates, but the page you linked to, in the only mention of superdelegates, below a count labeled "pledged delegates" (who are not superdelegates), specifically says they aren't. Further, by the logic you just used, had the count included "superdelegates" that Hillary Clinton won entirely, you would be suggesting that Bernie Sanders would have won the Democratic Primary without them (he would not have). Bernie Sanders lost decisively. But because Wikileaks strategically leaked the right hacked emails, his supporters believe instead in a false alternative history. It's Wikileaks you should be angry at.
  - vonklaus 10y ago
    Point ceded, Clinton did win without super delegates. I misread that. That said, I believe sanders would have beaten Trump. I also believe the wikileaks emails and do not believe it was a fair contest (primary or general election). Again, I agree you are correct Hillary won, however I do not believe this was "fair". I believe the emails to be genuine as they were not disputed, and some were released by the government itself. I won't try to convince you how to interpret the content, but much of it certainly seems clear to me that between the non-agression pact, references to keeping in check due to their "leverage" over him, and the entire internal DNC scandal with DWS, ect. that this was anything but a typical primary.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Sanders would have gotten his ass kicked against Trump. I can't make that argument as conclusively as I can the argument that the DNC didn't steal the primary from him, but I personally believe it just as firmly: * Turnout was lower for both the D's and the R's this cycle. R turnout would not have been lower if the D's had run an avowed socialist. Suburban/exurban voters --- a natural R cohort Clinton actually outperformed with in this cycle --- would have turned out in force for the GOP. * Sanders policy proposals and the language he uses to talk about it aren't in sync with the white working class (really, any part of the working class); it's "let them eat college tuitions". Unemployed tool & die engineers aren't looking for college subsidies, and they already survive on handouts ("long term disability"). That's why they're angry. * Sanders did terribly at engaging the African American vote, so much so that insider stories got written about how messed up their African American outreach was. The narrative of this election is that Clinton lost in part because she failed to mobilize Obama's coalition. But Clinton crushed Sanders in the primary with exactly that coalition, so the evidence suggests Sanders would have done even worse with the hand Clinton was dealt. * Sanders was terribly vulnerable. His supporters like to believe that HRC gave it to him with both barrels during the primary. But she did not: she was a complacent candidate who believed (correctly) in the inevitability of her nomination and (incorrectly) in the inevitability of her election. It is simply a fact that Sanders did not receive a serious vetting during the primary, and to see that, you only have to see what stories didn't come up during the primary: --- Sanders chaired Senate VA during the Veterans Health Scandal and was on VA during the Walter Reed scandal. Unlike Benghazi, these were real failures of oversight that harmed large numbers of American veterans. Not only that, but Sanders has in part built a Senate career on support for veterans benefits, so the attack ads write themselves. How culpable was Sanders for any of this? Fuck if I know. That's not the point. --- Sanders wrote an essay that stated women fantasize about being raped by three men simultaneously. Does that really matter? Almost certainly not. That's not the point. --- While Trump was starting his real estate "empire" with help from his father, not only was Bernie Sanders not winning victories for the working class, he was collecting employment (in his mid-30s) and stealing electricity from his neighbors. Does that matter? Not to me; to me that makes him more relatable. But that's not the point. --- Sanders is not only a supporter of, but personally profits from, a scheme to transport toxic waste from Vermont and dump it in Latino communities in Texas. Does that make Sanders an "environmental racist"? Well, in fact, yes it does. Are all of these things dispositive? No. But they give the lie to the idea that Sanders would have crushed Trump because Clinton had too much baggage to run with.

vonklaus 10y ago

no idea why this is downvoted. The emails provide this evidence. It can be searched literally right now on wikileaks. If the emails are real, these FACTS are included in emails: - Campaign used influence to influence RNC via Pied Piper technique of promoting the weakest candidates...it worked. - Campaign planned to oust DWS. They influenced the DNC to promote HRC over Sanders. - Coordinated with DOJ. - Coordinated with reporters both in feeding questions to RNC candidates and getting leaked questions in debates HRC was participating in. - Stage protests at DJT rallies. TO BE CLEAR, whether you believe the emails are genuine or not they DO contain this content and that is nearly indisputable.