2016 Presidential Horse Race

[wizards8507]

It is true haha. She signed a contract essentially making the DNC beholden to her in exchange for funding and support of lower ticket Dems who would play ball.

They thought their best play was to tow the middle ground so they allowed Bernie (a self described socialist) to run as a distraction/comparison. Then they sandbagged him along the way becasue of his support. His support was legitimate IMO but it wasnt enough to beat the DNC machine.

I'm not disputing the idea that the establishment was in the tank for HRC. Of course it was. But I don't think it made the difference. Hillary would have beaten Bernie even with a neutral DNC.

Case-in-point: The Republican establishment was at least as anti-Trum as the DNC was anti-Bernie and DJT still won.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I'm not disputing the idea that the establishment was in the tank for HRC. Of course it was. But I don't think it made the difference. Hillary would have beaten Bernie even with a neutral DNC.

Case-in-point: The Republican establishment was at least as anti-Trum as the DNC was anti-Bernie and DJT still won.

RNC and DNC are private entities that set their own rules. We're all in agreement on this. But the difference in those rules is that the RNC doesn't hold closed primaries. This alone was a huge reason HRC won certain states. Bernie was/is an Ind and attracted a lot of non-registered Ind voters. In some states, you have to be a registered Dem to cast a vote. Of course HRC has a better shot in those states. Wow, so pro-democracy of you Dems.

Second, Trump is a well known reality tv star multi millionaire who to his credit, has some charm. Bernie was a complete unknown and lets face it, has zero charm. This matters during primaries. Name recognition is a big deal.

These are big differences. A neutral DNC, open primaries, and more well-known Bernie most likely wins.

 

[wizards8507]

Second, Trump is a well known reality tv star multi millionaire who to his credit, has some charm. Bernie was a complete unknown and lets face it, has zero charm. This matters during primaries. Name recognition is a big deal.

These are big differences. A neutral DNC, open primaries, and more well-known Bernie most likely wins.

That's a joke, right? As a political entity, Bernie was ten times as well known as Donald Trump. And he's ten times as well liked.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

That's a joke, right? As a political entity, Bernie was ten times as well known as Donald Trump. And he's ten times as well liked.

At the time of the primaries? Are you kidding? A huge percentage of our population has a better shot at naming all the Kardashians than they do the VP, yet you think they knew who Bernie was early on? Give me a break.

 

[GowerND11]

I'm not disputing the idea that the establishment was in the tank for HRC. Of course it was. But I don't think it made the difference. Hillary would have beaten Bernie even with a neutral DNC.

Case-in-point: The Republican establishment was at least as anti-Trum as the DNC was anti-Bernie and DJT still won.

I have friend that were never registered voters, independents, even registered Dems that became Republicans just to vote for him because he was anti-Republican establishment...

 

[wizards8507]

At the time of the primaries? Are you kidding? A huge percentage of our population has a better shot at naming all the Kardashians than they do the VP, yet you think they knew who Bernie was early on? Give me a break.

The Kardashian people are not primary voters. They're probably not even general election voters.

I have friend that were never registered voters, independents, even registered Dems that became Republicans just to vote for him because he was anti-Republican establishment...

Good for your friends. Now multiply that by every college campus in America, and that's the Bernie effect.

 

[Cackalacky]

I'm not disputing the idea that the establishment was in the tank for HRC. Of course it was. But I don't think it made the difference. Hillary would have beaten Bernie even with a neutral DNC.

Case-in-point: The Republican establishment was at least as anti-Trum as the DNC was anti-Bernie and DJT still won.

Not sure what you are actually disagreeing with... I never said the outcome was in question. Of course it wasnt. We all believed HRC was the presumptive nominee. This revelation by Donna puts credence in that belief.

I said the DNC had to work at nullifying Sanders unexpected support and momentum as they obviously felt they had to do something or DWS would not have done what she did. They obviously underestimated Bernie, just as they did DJT support.

The real revelation her is just how tone deaf HRC was and by default, the DNC becasue they were financially and contractually beholden to her.

 

[irishog77]

I find it difficult to believe that a man that had been in the United States congress for 26 years, was the ranking minority (democrat) of the senate budget committee, and was chair (democrat)of the senate Veterans' Affairs committee was the "outsider" some of you claim. He was a 3 term mayor before that.

As an "independent" in congress, I am unaware of any work he ever did with or within the republican party (although I could be wrong here), but instead worked solely with and within the democratic party (again, I could be wrong here).

Yes, he was different than hrc and most other politicians. That doesn't make him an "independent" or an "outsider." He was firmly entrenched in politics, d.c., and the democratic party.

It may make others "revisionists" though.

 

[Cackalacky]

I find it difficult to believe that a man that had been in the United States congress for 26 years, was the ranking minority (democrat) of the senate budget committee, and was chair (democrat)of the senate Veterans' Affairs committee was the "outsider" some of you claim. He was a 3 term mayor before that.

As an "independent" in congress, I am unaware of any work he ever did with or within the republican party (although I could be wrong here), but instead worked solely with and within the democratic party (again, I could be wrong here).

Yes, he was different than hrc and most other politicians. That doesn't make him an "independent" or an "outsider." He was firmly entrenched in politics, d.c., and the democratic party.

It may make others "revisionists" though.

In my part of the country he was very much an unknown quantity and the only word you ever heard next to his name was socialist..... and therefore un-American, therefore confirmation liberals are commies....and therefore lol ffs....end of discussion.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

The Kardashian people are not primary voters. They're probably not even general election voters.


Good for your friends. Now multiply that by every college campus in America, and that's the Bernie effect.

Jesus. The point I'm trying to make is that Bernie had a name recognition problem early on. Quinnipiac polling showed that 40% nationally had no idea who he was in the early part of the race. As people began to get familiar with him (in spite of the media's efforts to trash him), he closed the gap on HRC. Now imagine not starting out that far in the hole. If he runs in 2020, people around the country will already know who he is.

 

[wizards8507]

In my part of the country he was very much an unknown quantity and the only word you ever heard next to his name was socialist..... and therefore un-American, therefore confirmation liberals are commies....and therefore lol ffs....end of discussion.

It's not "your part of the country" labeling him a socialist. He's ACTUALLY a socialist. He calls himself a socialist.

 

[irishog77]

In my part of the country he was very much an unknown quantity and the only word you ever heard next to his name was socialist..... and therefore un-American, therefore confirmation liberals are commies....and therefore lol ffs....end of discussion.

Which he himself used to describe himself.

I am unaware of any person who hasn't watched or read the news for the past 26 years, paid any sort of attention to politics or government for the past 26 years, or was semi-intelligent who did not know who he was.

 

[Cackalacky]

It's not "your part of the country" labeling him a socialist. He's ACTUALLY a socialist. He calls himself a socialist.

Which he himself used to describe himself.

I am unaware of any person who hasn't watched or read the news for the past 26 years, paid any sort of attention to politics or government for the past 26 years, or was semi-intelligent who did not know who he was.

LOL. No shit. In "my part of the country" they didnt really KNOW him. They didnt know jack shit about him except that he was a socialist and that it was a perceived bad thing because #MERICA! Hell most American people dont even know what socialist actually is...lol. I see wiz doesnt even know what it is but it doesnt stop him from going off on it here.

Anyway... my point was that he wasn't well UNDERSTOOD. He wasn't a household name. And you VASTLY overestimate the intelligence of a significant portion of the population

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Can we all agree most voters aren't smart? I mean c'mon, the same base who flat out hated Obamacare, supported the ACA. True story. Lol.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

LOL. No shit. In "my part of the country" they didnt really KNOW him. They didnt know jack shit about him except that he was a socialist and that it was a perceived bad thing because #MERICA!

Anyway... my point was that he wasn't well UNDERSTOOD. He wasn't a household name. And you VASTLY overestimate the intelligence of a significant portion of the population

This.

 

[irishog77]

LOL. No shit. In "my part of the country" they didnt really KNOW him. They didnt know jack shit about him except that he was a socialist and that it was a perceived bad thing because #MERICA!

Anyway... my point was that he wasn't well UNDERSTOOD. He wasn't a household name. And you VASTLY overestimate the intelligence of a significant portion of the population

No, not at all. I fully understood most Americans are idiots when I typed that.

 

[Cackalacky]

No, not at all. I fully understood most Americans are idiots when I typed that.

How elitist of us

 

[wizards8507]

Can we all agree most voters aren't smart? I mean c'mon, the same base who flat out hated Obamacare, supported the ACA. True story. Lol.

On average, voters are smarter than non-voters. And primary voters are smarter still.

 

[Cackalacky]

On average, voters are smarter than non-voters. And primary voters are smarter still.

Please provide a source for this. I am very interested in understanding this phenomenon.

 

[wizards8507]

Please provide a source for this. I am very interested in understanding this phenomenon.

Who Votes, Who Doesn't, and Why | Pew Research Center

This touches on it.

And maybe I shouldn't have said "smarter." More engaged, for sure. Better informed. More likely to know who Bernie Sanders is.

 

[SonofOahu]

RNC and DNC are private entities that set their own rules. We're all in agreement on this. But the difference in those rules is that the RNC doesn't hold closed primaries.

I don't understand this point. The States control the open or closed nature of the primaries.

 

[greyhammer90]

More likely to know who Bernie Sanders is.

Who?

 

[SonofOahu]

Can we all agree most voters aren't smart? I mean c'mon, the same base who flat out hated Obamacare, supported the ACA. True story. Lol.

Absolutely. Let's not just limit that statement to the voters, though. That only accounts for about 33% of the country.

Our Nation is a nation of idiots. The sooner we embrace that sad fact, the better off we'll be.

 

[SonofOahu]

No, not at all. I fully understood most Americans are idiots when I typed that.

This guy GETS IT!

 

[GowerND11]

I don't know if I'd say we are a nation of idiots. I think we are a nation of great ignorance, and oblivious to it all.

 

[drayer54]

Banger of a tweet. Jake Sullivan still works for Biden.

 

[Blazers46]

 

[Giddyup]

Obama and HRC tried to take down an incoming president. Disgusting people shattering American peaceful transitions.