Donna Brazile turns

[theBLADE1]

Clinton won by 12 points at the end. When did it look closer than that?



His candidacy was "portrayed" as impossible because he was trailing badly in the polls. Hence my point. And Bernie got *less* coverage than Clinton for the obvious reason that he was way behind but far more-favorable coverage. Also note that Bernie outspent Clinton in the primary so I can't see how funding strengthens your point here.



This sounds implausible to me, but if you have any evidence to support it, I'm open to taking a look.



Bernie had a much weaker campaign organization and was further from the median voter ideologically. And the GOP held back on the attacks because he never seemed likely to win. If he were the likely winner, he'd be the one people would be believing all kinds of horrible claims about and the one people like @ultramanhyata would think was a corrupt monster.

Nothing you wrote could be further from the truth. Apologists like you gave us Donald Trump. The DNC controlled the narrative and caused people to do harm to their country and then shunned the other half who actually cared. Sanders was filling out stadiums like the Rolling Stones and their prime and Clinton couldn't fill out a high school gymnasium without the help of Lebron James.

There is no way she'd beat him fair and square and the fact that you continue to push these false claims means you lack the ability to think for yourself.

 

[HomerThompson]

Clinton won by 12 points at the end. When did it look closer than that?



His candidacy was "portrayed" as impossible because he was trailing badly in the polls. Hence my point. And Bernie got *less* coverage than Clinton for the obvious reason that he was way behind but far more-favorable coverage. Also note that Bernie outspent Clinton in the primary so I can't see how funding strengthens your point here.



This sounds implausible to me, but if you have any evidence to support it, I'm open to taking a look.



Bernie had a much weaker campaign organization and was further from the median voter ideologically. And the GOP held back on the attacks because he never seemed likely to win. If he were the likely winner, he'd be the one people would be believing all kinds of horrible claims about and the one people like @ultramanhyata would think was a corrupt monster.

Of the first 35 states, Hillary won 18, and Bernie won 17.

You really think that if Bernie had a 500 delegate lead to start with that that wouldn't have influenced the primary voters?

<puh-lease75>

His candidacy was portrayed as impossible, because he was genuinely progressive, and not at all beholden to Wall Street. End communication.

Hillary is uniquely hated by the right. Bernie would've been smeared, sure, but it wouldn't have had nearly the same impact. Not being under FBI investigation alone would be a dramatic tipping to Bernie in this category.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Nothing you wrote could be further from the truth.

And yet you cannot cite anything specific that was wrong because you're responding entirely out of tribalism. I'm not agreeing with you, but you don't really have an alternative position that makes sense so you're just angrily lashing out.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Of the first 35 states, Hillary won 18, and Bernie won 17.

Sure, because the early states were more-favorable territory for Bernie. That was widely known at the time, which is why early wins didn't improve his betting odds.

You really think that if Bernie had a 500 delegate lead to start with that that wouldn't have influenced the primary voters?

Very much yes. Like I said, if you have evidence showing that superdelegate leads influence voters, I'm interested in seeing it, as it would be a highly surprising result.

His candidacy was portrayed as impossible, because he was genuinely progressive, and not at all beholden to Wall Street. End communication.

No, it was entirely because of the polling and general state of the campaign.

Hillary is uniquely hated by the right. Bernie would've been smeared, sure, but it wouldn't have had nearly the same impact. Not being under FBI investigation alone would be a dramatic tipping to Bernie in this category.

Hillary had favorables in the 60s before the campaign started. She's "uniquely hated by the right" because she's the most recent Democratic Party nominee. What makes you think that Bernie wouldn't be under FBI investigation if Republicans perceived him as the bigger threat?

 

[theBLADE1]

And yet you cannot cite anything specific that was wrong because you're responding entirely out of tribalism. I'm not agreeing with you, but you don't really have an alternative position that makes sense so you're just angrily lashing out.

Early in the primaries the race was close, but the DNC along with the media who was in the bag for the Clinton campaign pushed every single narrative to paint Sanders as a longshot before that was ever even remotely true. The amount of polling locations that were shut across the country to limit the amount of voters is also further proof of this. The OUTRAGEOUS amount of superdelegates she laid claim to before Sanders even entered the race is also further proof. Hillary Clinton was/is one of the most well-known political figures and the world and Sanders didn't get his fair share of unbiased coverage that he was owed.

I don't believe she got more votes than him honestly. I can post some evidence of this but not enough to make anyone else believe it because there isn't enough evidence yet. But everything we said about the DNC being in the bag for Clinton was ultimately proven right and I feel I will be vindicated when more news comes out about the lengths they were willing to go to slam the door on Sanders.

You let people in power positions form your appending for you. I honestly believe that progressives need to take away the Democratic Party from people who believe the type of things you do. A purging of sorts.

You might thank us when were actually doing something about wealth inequality and climate change.

 

[Fawlty]

You're a sheep

You should really think long and hard about fucking yourself for being that way when I explained myself politely and reasonably.

 

[Fawlty]

I don't get what your saying here. So anyone who signs up as a Democrat has to tow the party line and cant' try to change it whatsoever? What if Bernie had won as a democrat wouldn't that mean that being a democrat is changing and it's exactly what the democrats want? Shouldn't the democrats (as in the voters) get to decide who they want to win the primaries?

It sounds like what your saying here is that anyone who doesn't have what you consider policies in line with what current democrats want shouldn't be allowed to win the primaries. Regardless if it's what the people want or not.

I'm saying the dem party has a platform, and that Bernie was not on that platform. He was an indie threatening to take control of the party. The party defended itself. Perfectly reasonable reaction.

 

[theBLADE1]

You should really think long and hard about fucking yourself for being that way when I explained myself politely and reasonably.

I'm good.

You're advocating for the further silencing of people in the democratic process. I don't respect that and I don't respect you.

That's sheepish.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't believe she got more votes than him honestly

You should have said this from the beginning so it would have been clear that you were a lunatic.

You let people in power positions form your appending for you.

You will be able to provide no examples of this ever happening. It's just a fabrication because you're not able to admit either the possibility that you may be wrong about something or that someone else can disagree with you in good faith.

 

[Fawlty]

They signed the agreement before Bernie was even making real noise though. August of 2015. Even another insider to the party would've gotten similarly screwed. Therefore, your argument is invalid.

Yeah they're separate issues, but the animosity directed toward me by Blade is (and always has been) all about Bernie. And he's being a real bitch about it. It's the only issue where you get angry at me, too.

I don't have much to say about Brazile's outburst. It's not exactly a good source or a good way to learn about this victory fund hubbub.

 

[Fawlty]

I'm good.

You're advocating for the further silencing of people in the democratic process. I don't respect that and I don't respect you.

That's sheepish.

Are you surprised that I'm not oriented toward your scope of respect? You did vote for Jill Stein, after all.

 

[HomerThompson]

Yeah they're separate issues, but the animosity directed toward me by Blade is (and always has been) all about Bernie. And he's being a real bitch about it. It's the only issue where you get angry at me, too.

I don't have much to say about Brazile's outburst. It's not exactly a good source or a good way to learn about this victory fund hubbub.

I'm not angry here man, I just think you're wrong. It's impossible that they took moves to protect the party from an outsider when they had already made those moves before he was on the radar. It's an impossible leap.

 

[Jack V Savage]

You should really think long and hard about fucking yourself for being that way when I explained myself politely and reasonably.

It's weird how these guys get so worked up and are so unable to handle basic disagreement. Reminds me of a point I made in a related thread: "My view is that people on both sides greatly underestimate the extent to which the other side sincerely believes that a different policy set is right and good. Most politicians on both sides go into politics because they want to make a positive change, and most think that they are doing that still." Like, by all means, let's discuss how fucked-up the GOP's healthcare and tax plans are, but start with the understanding that Ryan, Trump, McConnell and Co. really believe that they're the good guys. And likewise, if you think Sanders could have stopped all this if he'd gotten the nomination or that he could have gotten the nomination if not for some nefarious plot, make the case, but understand that other people don't buy it yet and you're not going to browbeat them into agreement.

 

[HomerThompson]

It's weird how these guys get so worked up and are so unable to handle basic disagreement. Reminds me of a point I made in a related thread: "My view is that people on both sides greatly underestimate the extent to which the other side sincerely believes that a different policy set is right and good. Most politicians on both sides go into politics because they want to make a positive change, and most think that they are doing that still." Like, by all means, let's discuss how fucked-up the GOP's healthcare and tax plans are, but start with the understanding that Ryan, Trump, McConnell and Co. really believe that they're the good guys. And likewise, if you think Sanders could have stopped all this if he'd gotten the nomination or that he could have gotten the nomination if not for some nefarious plot, make the case, but understand that other people don't buy it yet and you're not going to browbeat them into agreement.

I don't think it's fair to say, "these guys". I'm making actual arguments here. Also, I will respond to your other post shortly.

 

[Fawlty]

I'm not angry here man, I just think you're wrong. It's impossible that they took moves to protect the party from an outsider when they had already made those moves before he was on the radar. It's an impossible leap.

Eh, he's pissed at me about Bernie, not this. I'm also not wrong to say that it's reasonable for the party to defend itself from indie challenges. You might be wrong for drawing so much water from this article, though. We'll see how it develops.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I don't think it's fair to say, "these guys". I'm making actual arguments here. Also, I will respond to your other post shortly.

Fair. I didn't intend to refer to you as being Blade-like. "These guys" means "Blade and people like him," but could be read as "Homer and Blade" given the flow of the thread. I apologize for my role in that misunderstanding.

 

[Fawlty]

It's weird how these guys get so worked up and are so unable to handle basic disagreement. Reminds me of a point I made in a related thread: "My view is that people on both sides greatly underestimate the extent to which the other side sincerely believes that a different policy set is right and good. Most politicians on both sides go into politics because they want to make a positive change, and most think that they are doing that still." Like, by all means, let's discuss how fucked-up the GOP's healthcare and tax plans are, but start with the understanding that Ryan, Trump, McConnell and Co. really believe that they're the good guys. And likewise, if you think Sanders could have stopped all this if he'd gotten the nomination or that he could have gotten the nomination if not for some nefarious plot, make the case, but understand that other people don't buy it yet and you're not going to browbeat them into agreement.

Blade is excited because a politico article and a (probably scummy and questionably accurate) move by Brazile indirectly supports his world view, and he'd like for me to feel bad because of that. It's very desperate behavior.

 

[HomerThompson]

Sure, because the early states were more-favorable territory for Bernie. That was widely known at the time, which is why early wins didn't improve his betting odds.



Very much yes. Like I said, if you have evidence showing that superdelegate leads influence voters, I'm interested in seeing it, as it would be a highly surprising result.



No, it was entirely because of the polling and general state of the campaign.



Hillary had favorables in the 60s before the campaign started. She's "uniquely hated by the right" because she's the most recent Democratic Party nominee. What makes you think that Bernie wouldn't be under FBI investigation if Republicans perceived him as the bigger threat?

I disagree. 4 of the first 10 primaries were in the South. The other 6 weren't all Vermont.

This is preposterous. It's human nature to back winners.

"Hey Jack, there will be 50 votes coming up to determine a nominee, and one of them already has 25% of the votes she needs to win without any voting having occurred. "

"Sounds fair to me! Also, it doesn't influence me at all."

Silly.

It isn't the case that it was simply polling, and the state of the campaign. Bernie was always treated as a joke candidate until he started threatening Hillary. Then, he got a little dap from the MSM. But, it was too late by then. He was never a joke though. His ideas resonated.

I have no illusions about the depths the modern Republican party will sink to, but manufacturing outrage against him would've been a much tougher task. He simply doesn't have the baggage. Only one of those 2 people used politics to make themselves fabulously wealthy.

 

[HomerThompson]

Fair. I didn't intend to refer to you as being Blade-like. "These guys" means "Blade and people like him," but could be read as "Homer and Blade" given the flow of the thread. I apologize for my role in that misunderstanding.

Thanks man. Although, I'm a little freaked out reading a post like this in the war room.

 

[HomerThompson]

Also, sorry for my inability to split quotes up. I don't know how besides typing the

box in more places, and ain't nobody got time for that.

Edit: LOL, it made a partial quote. That shuld just read as "quote box".