politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Which state's primary votes did the DNC alter or override to give Hillary the nomination by popular vote instead for Bernie?
The other candidates gradually stepped aside to allow Hillary to run. The big one being Joe Biden not running as it was her "turn", allegedly after the deal between the Clintons and the Obamas.
If Biden had run in 2016, he probably would have won. And Trump would be a footnote in history.
Now Trump will be at least a chapter, maybe even a whole book!
And it will be the greatest book you have ever read, just so bigly yuge, tremendous! Not like those Democrats and their small books, with the tiny writing and confusing words and no pictures.
...I tried. Just imagine the pitch gradually increasing and the first part being all enthusiastic, then him dropping to a low pitch and trying to sound all grave for the second sentence. Someone else better at channeling orange asshole-ese?
Apologies, but I can't tell if you're trying to supplement my point or pose an answer to my question.
What if I told you it was also about manipulating voter opinions.
Like how the superdelegates were all pledging their votes to Hillary way ahead of the first primaries. Or how the DNC pushed Hillary over Bernie, as was clear in the Debbie W.S. leaked DNC emails. Also, the widespread pressure from party darlings on Bernie to drop out.
Messaging from the media was to blame as well. This was reflected in:
Lack of coverage of the polling that showed the better margin of success in a Bernie v. Trump matchup against a Hillary v. Trump matchup. This one is especially egregious, in my opinion, since a lot of the Hillary supporters I personally knew voted for her in the primaries because they assumed she had a better chance of winning.
Lack of coverage about Bernie's higher popularity with independent voters in polls.
Widespread reporting when Hillary decided to label Bernie supporters as basement dwellers.
Hillary accused Bernie of being sexist and the media did terrible due diligence.
Why not just tell me those things instead of making it a hypothetical?
I think those are all valid points to raise and consider. I voted for Bernie in my primary and Hillary in the general.
Was there a single state, where the popular vote was for Bernie but the super delegates swept in and gave it Hillary instead?
This is not me shrugging it off as a totally cool and reasonable thing, but is that any different than any other election year, from either party, where the established power structure of the party has a preferred candidate? What I'm saying is I don't think this is anything specifically anti-Bernie as much as a very well established pattern of nepotism that goes back centuries.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did not the DNC emails show that proposed rat-fuckery was ultimately rejected?
Just par for the course, and not special opposition because Bernie is Bernie.
I agree with you that the media wasn't fair in their coverage. Maybe just have been my own echo chamber but I do recall seeing polling data showing Bernie did better against Trump being brought up all over the place.
However, I'm only pursuing discussion of the claims/sentiment that the DNC denied Bernie the nomination. I see that sentiment popping up a lot, and it always completely ignores the fact that Hillary won the popular vote in the primary. Just like Trump just won the popular vote in the general. The only way the parties will change is by enough people showing up in their primaries to nominate better candidates. They aren't going to change because we're mad about the results of the election. They don't care what non-voters think because non-voters don't win elections, voters do.
Mine. West Virginia. Hillary got 35% of the primary vote while Bernie only got 51% and therefore she got one more delegate than Bernie. She literally only ever needed 30% of the primary vote in any state because of superdelegates.
We had a local candidate who only ran in WV, whose whole purpose for running was to try to draw national attention to economically gutted regions of the state caused by the so-called war on coal who got 9% of the vote, and even he managed to outperform Hillary in one county (taking second, because Bernie won every county in WV) - when you're behind a protest candidate anywhere, you done fucked up.
Thank you! I've been asking that question for years and you're the first to provide an example. Point conceded.
Yeah what I remember working on the campaign was a bunch of people didn't show up and fucking vote in the primary and Bernie lost. Sure, there was some fuckery that shifted momentum but at the end of the day my fellow progressives didn't get enough votes because we act like the DNC controls the outcome of the primaries and end up helping make that the reality ourselves.
If all the people bitching about the DNC and telling everyone the Democrats are a lost cause showed up to vote in the primary, Bernie would've won.
It's obnoxious how often that's why the conservatives win.
It's genuinely every time. That is the principle difference between left and right voters.