Tom Perez Elected DNC Chair

[onejayhawk]

Of course it's bad, but we're at a point where nobody should be surprised. What do you really expect from the democraps and their mindless robot supporters?

Bout the same as I expect from the Repuboobs and their mindless supporters.

This line of logic gets you nowhere but trouble. among other things, it shows your not thinking and disregard new ideas. There are plenty of other posters in this thread that meet the same description. Try to be better.

J

 

[caketastydelish]

I'm not voting or supporting the Repuboobs either though.

 

[Camikaze]

@danjuno - my understanding of the definition of 'base' is that it specifically excludes people who consider themselves independents, so that a closed primary is the best mechanism to ensure the party is controlled by the base, and not influenced by those outside the base. But really I suppose that's just a semantic argument, because what you're saying is just that the Democratic party needs to be more inclusive of those people you're referring to, which you call 'the base', but which I might call something else.

The former DNC chair outright cheated in favor of Hillary, then Hillary made her, her campaign manager like she didn't even give a crap. But considering how you all wouldn't take my source seriously already, why should I continue?

Campaign chair, a purely honorary position to get her out of the DNC seat that she was clinging to. Campaign manager is a whole different kettle of fish; it's a position of substance. Clinton's campaign manager was Robby Mook.

 

[metalhead]

The former DNC chair outright cheated in favor of Hillary, then Hillary made her, her campaign manager like she didn't even give a crap. But considering how you all wouldn't take my source seriously already, why should I continue?

By the way, those "forums" you're talking about were all independent from the DNC.

Still waiting on this evidence of cheating you assert exists.

 

[Sommerswerd]

By the way, those "forums" you're talking about were all independent from the DNC.

Still waiting on this evidence of cheating you assert exists.

I understand the challenge you're making here, but I think you're missing the point. In this case, the confirmation bias is so strong that nearly every fact will be seen as evidence of the position, ie that Bernie got hosed by the Democratic establishment, regardless of what the specific facts actually are. ctd believes that Bernie was hosed, period... and no matter how many specific details he believes with respect to the way Bernie was hosed are actually proven wrong, he will still believe this. I'd bet that ctd might even recognize and confirm exactly this himself (ie "No matter what you say, I know Bernie was hosed.")

TBH, I suspect that Bernie recognized, embraced and cooperated with his role from the very beginning... and I have said as much in the past. By way of analogy, Bernie was like a minor-league pro-wrestler who came to the WWE and asked to be featured in their show to increase his public profile and notoriety. The WWE (DNC) said sure, we need a new foil/"heel" for our current top "face" character... one that can generate a lot of "heat", and thus big ratings... so as long as you understand that you're going to do a job, you're welcome to join the league (Democratic primary). In other words... Bernie wasn't hosed, he was taking a dive in exchange for being allowed to run as a Democrat, to boost his fame and thus, political power. Everyone at the top understood that's was what was going on. I admit, speculation on my part.

 

[Lexicus]

Did the DNC "cheat"? Probably not. At least, not in a way that can be proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

Did the DNC favor Clinton? Did it have its thumb on the scale for Clinton, in a way that walked right up to the line of technical "cheating"? Undoubtedly, and anyone who doesn't think so is in my view far too credulous and naive.

As @Sommerswerd has pointed out before though, this was, to an extent at least, their job. I was explaining this to a Bernie-or-bust guy not that long ago and I think it might even have gotten through: the DNC's job was to get a Presidential candidate who could win, and from where they were standing that was Hillary, so of course their job as they saw it was to get Hillary through.

 

[metalhead]

Here's the thing - it's one thing to say, "Bernie was hosed" or "The DNC had their thumbs on the scale," but we actually have evidence which, by its nature, would almost certainly provide proof of any cheating or thumb-scaling that went on. Naivete isn't really an applicable accusation to toss out there, because we actually have these people's emails that we can go look at, emails which would almost certainly prove if there was some actual "rigging" going on. We don't need to rely on speculation to draw conclusions, because we have access to real, hard evidence.

But whenever I ask, people point to things like Forum lineups that have nothing to do with the DNC. Or reporting superdelegate totals early, which has nothing to do with the DNC (but the media was in on the fix, natch). The only actual act of cheating was the providing of 2 debate questions ahead of time, which as far as anyone can tell was an act of a Clinton crony who happened to work at CNN, not the DNC.

 

[caketastydelish]

By the way, those "forums" you're talking about were all independent from the DNC.

Still waiting on this evidence of cheating you assert exists.

I didn't say the democratic party was the only one favoring Hillary. I also said the media favored her.

 

[caketastydelish]

Actually, yes. There was all kinds of cheating that went on. She herself intentionally did things to cheat in favor of Hillary. There was also voter fraud. The media overwhelmingly favored her. During those town hall debates, Bernie went first every single time. Even that other guy (I forget his name, I think O'Malley or something like that) went after him. And Hillary went last. Every single time. That meant she was guaranteed to get the last word. To make matters worse, it was discovered later on that they fed her the questions before her turn so she would have a prepared, polished answer. And after Walzerman-Shortz cheated, among other things (such as Hillary and her Husband having accepted over 100 million dollars in 'speeches' (AKA bribery), I wouldn't vote Hillary even if the Republicans are literally running Hitler and Satan

Fine. I'll take the time to provide sources for everything else, even though I know it won't mean anything to you. Let's take this one step at a time.

1) "There was also voter fraud." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riley-waggaman/its-not-just-arizona-elec_b_9550670.html

2) "She intentionally did things to cheat in favor of Hillary." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak (among other things)

3) "The media overwhelmingly favored her." I don't think I need to provide a source for this one.

4) "During those town hall debates, Bernie went first every single time." I already provided a source for this, it meant nothing to you.

5) "To make matters worse, it was discovered later on that they fed her the questions before her turn so she would have a prepared, polished answer." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ns-to-hillary-clinton/?utm_term=.40237bfb13d0

6) "Hillary and her husband have accepted over 100 million dollars in 'speeches' (AKA bribery)" http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/

 

[metalhead]

Fine. I'll take the time to provide sources for everything else, even though I know it won't mean anything to you. Let's take this one step at a time.

1) "There was also voter fraud." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riley-waggaman/its-not-just-arizona-elec_b_9550670.html

States and localities run elections. Not seeing where this implicates the DNC.

2) "She intentionally did things to cheat in favor of Hillary." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak (among other things)

What, exactly? I read that link. It doesn't say anything that anyone actually did to "cheat," unless I'm missing something.

3) "The media overwhelmingly favored her." I don't think I need to provide a source for this one.

Are we talking about the media or the DNC? The DNC doesn't run the media.

4) "During those town hall debates, Bernie went first every single time." I already provided a source for this, it meant nothing to you.

And I pointed out to you that the DNC doesn't run those town halls and has nothing to do with them. They were all run by the groups sponsoring them. I'm also not clear on how Bernie was disadvantaged by going first. The campaigns all would have had to agree to the order of appearance, so I don't know why you think this means anything.

5) "To make matters worse, it was discovered later on that they fed her the questions before her turn so she would have a prepared, polished answer." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ns-to-hillary-clinton/?utm_term=.40237bfb13d0

Yes, Donna Brazile gave them two debate questions ahead of time. She knew the questions in her role as a CNN person. But surely, as the only actual evidence of cheating, you don't believe this was what put Clinton over the top?

6) "Hillary and her husband have accepted over 100 million dollars in 'speeches' (AKA bribery)" http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/05/politics/hillary-clinton-bill-clinton-paid-speeches/

What this has to do with the DNC rigging the primary is totally beyond me.

So, you cited 6 things. 5 of those things don't even involve the DNC. What we learned from the DNC emails is that they really didn't like Bernie Sanders, and on one occasion said they ought to have his religion asked about - but as far as I know that question was never asked. I don't know how else I can try to explain to you that there is nothing to any of these claims, at least as far as the DNC is involved. The evidence just isn't there, and these things don't say or mean the things you think they say and mean.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Yes, Donna Brazile gave them two debate questions ahead of time. She knew the questions in her role as a CNN person. But surely, as the only actual evidence of cheating, you don't believe this was what put Clinton over the top?

Also, I don't want to minimize cheating like this, but one of the terribly disappointing things about this past campaign season is that I never heard a question that was in the tiniest bit surprising or beyond the scope of what a candidate would reasonably have prepared for anyway.

I wish someone had asked Trump "what is 136 minus 87?" Also, I wish someone had asked him "What do you regard as the Constitution's chief checks on executive authority?" Maybe the only surprising one was "Can you find something good to say about your opponent?"

 

[caketastydelish]

Well its more than the DNC. It's how the media favored her as well, and how Hillary is corrupt and why I can't vote for her. Here's another source on the voter rigged process. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/arizona-primary-long-lines-voting-restrictions

And here's another source for the democratic party chairman cheating. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/25/...serman-schultz-dnc-wikileaks-emails.html?_r=0 It's the New York times. Surely that counts as a 'reputable source'.

 

[metalhead]

I'll repeat - the elections were run by the Republicans in the state of Arizona. They set the restrictions, they reduced the number of polling places in Maricopa County. I can't imagine who you believe was rigging that process in favor of Mrs. Clinton. Republicans tend not to like her.

Here's what the story says:

The breach of the Democratic committee’s emails, made public on Friday by WikiLeaks, offered undeniable evidence of what Mr. Sanders’s supporters had complained about for much of the senator’s contentious primary contest with Mrs. Clinton: that the party was effectively an arm of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign. The messages showed members of the committee’s communications team musing about pushing the narrative that the Sanders campaign was inept and trying to raise questions publicly about whether he was an atheist.

So they discussed various narratives they might try to push in the media. I don't recall ever seeing either of those things - Bernie's campaign being a "mess" or Bernie being asked pointed questions about his religion - so did they even follow through? Did they do anything at all? Because the emails only seem to have a couple instances where DNC people talked about doing things, but it doesn't seem like any of the things were followed through on. Hell, the story you cited says that the DNC Chair advised them not to get involved in media stories about the Bernie campaign being a mess.

I mean, you're clearly going to believe this narrative regardless, but you aren't citing anything I don't already know about. The evidence simply doesn't show any of what you think it does.

 

[Farm Boy]

Cake, you may need to take the measure that Republican and Democrat voters themselves have large swaths of time they deliberately, purposefully, and actively just suck. We didn't need a conspiracy or "conservatives" to derail the Bern train this past cycle. "Progressive multi-cultural educated liberals," the "working poor," and whoever else voted in the primaries were happy to do it all themselves, or at least enough of them. They, like everyone else, are in it for themselves and screw the other guy. You have to decide if you're going to like them anyways. It's not superdedooper easy.
.

 

[caketastydelish]

And you're clearly going to come up with some excuse for everything I said, as you have demonstrated. Which is why I was hesitant to provide sources in the first place, even though everything I said is true.

I'm done with this thread.

edit: this was directed at metalhead

 

[metalhead]

I've asked you several times to specifically name what the DNC did that was "cheating." I don't know how else to ask you in a way you will answer. None of the links you provided answered my question.

 

[Lexicus]

Yeah, but does anyone really care whether the DNC technically cheated? Their bias was obvious. It's perfectly understandable and again as @Sommerswerd has pointed out the DNC wasn't under any obligation to run a fair contest.

 

[Farm Boy]

Care? Yes. Would be suprised by? No. I already knew Democrats are expulsive feces sphincters. You are correct. They're under no unique obligation to be anything but.

 

[ParkCungHee]

They're under no unique obligation to be anything but.

Remember the giant thread about 'why do The Democrats lose elections?' It's this right here.

Say what you want about the republicans, but when people get involved and active in the party, and want to move things in the country, they welcome that. They do a fantastic job taking the people who care and will put in the passion and energy to get things done. And if a politician can't appease the right wing base, or use their energy to shift the Overton window they're out. That's the biggest difference. The democratic party leadership would rather argue with their voters then get out of their way.

 

[metalhead]

Yeah, but does anyone really care whether the DNC technically cheated? Their bias was obvious. It's perfectly understandable and again as @Sommerswerd has pointed out the DNC wasn't under any obligation to run a fair contest.

I believe they owe some obligation to the voters to run a fair primary. Whether they are "biased" or not is irrelevant; of course they're biased. They're always biased. What they did with that bias, or not, matters.