Renzatic on 19/2/2020 at 21:34
[video=youtube_share;PE8GlPpuLuY]https://youtu.be/PE8GlPpuLuY[/video]
catbarf on 19/2/2020 at 23:32
Quote Posted by Starker
And yes yes, Clinton and DNC rigged the election with superdelegates and whatnot
That's really all that matters. We don't know what
could have happened, but we know that the DNC used underhanded tactics that poisoned the well among liberals and were partially responsible for both Clinton and Trump winning their primaries. The Dolchstosslegende-esque interpretation that it's fickle voters that singlehandedly lost the election is myopically self-serving propaganda, shifting all blame from the one entity that had the biggest impact on the outcome of 2016 to literally the entire American electorate.
My-candidate-or-bust voters have never been a serious issue for either party. The candidate pool has enough good choices this time that all the DNC has to do to avoid a poor turnout is not try to steer the result.
Quote Posted by heywood
What I don't understand is why anybody (besides the man himself) thought Bloomberg was needed in the race.
When you have ~$30 billion to throw around, (
https://theweek.com/articles/895985/mike-bloomberg-not-lesser-two-evils) nobody else is needed. He's been (
https://theintercept.com/2020/02/13/bloomberg-spending-local-state-campaigns/) buying up so many staffers at high rates that small progressive organizations are having trouble just looking for employees.
lowenz on 19/2/2020 at 23:38
You see the problem with market+big capitals in ONE hand? (actually 2 hands :v )
Pyrian on 19/2/2020 at 23:50
I posit that the hack and release of the DNC emails had more impact on the election than everything it revealed put together. They didn't "rig" shit.
Renzatic on 20/2/2020 at 00:09
Quote Posted by Pyrian
I posit that the hack and release of the DNC emails had more impact on the election than everything it revealed put together. They didn't "rig" shit.
It wasn't THE greatest contributing factor to the 2016 election, but it was one of them. It was a perfect storm of malfeasance, fuck ups, and good old fashioned miscalculations that cost Hillary the presidency. Or in more in depth, you had a generally not-too-terribly popular candidate all but strongarming the DNC into supporting her at everyone else's expense, a server hack that gave the opposition tons of ammunition, a badly run campaign that took too much for granted, and then, as the cherry on top, the FBI reopened their case against her right before the election.
Though to clarify, the DNC didn't
rig the election. That sounds like they were tampering with ballots, and changing votes. That isn't what happened. Hillary did secure the popular vote during the primary without any weirdness going on at the voting booth. What they did was play favorites, giving Hillary the lions share of support, while cold shouldering everyone else. She had more money thrown her way, her campaign ads got more air time, they cut the debates short to favor her, presented her in front of the media more often. The DNC in 2016 was all about Hillary, everyone else got scraps, and it could be argued that the extra exposure is what allowed her to win the primaries.
catbarf on 20/2/2020 at 00:33
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Though to clarify, the DNC didn't
rig the election. That sounds like they were tampering with ballots, and changing votes. That isn't what happened. Hillary did secure the popular vote during the primary without any weirdness going on at the voting booth. What they did was play favorites, giving Hillary the lions share of support, while cold shouldering everyone else. She had more money thrown her way, her campaign ads got more air time, they cut the debates short to favor her, presented her in front of the media more often. The DNC in 2016 was all about Hillary, everyone else got scraps, and it could be argued that the extra exposure is what allowed her to win the primaries.
They also leaked debate questions to her campaign staff ahead of time and used the superdelegate count to reinforce the narrative that she was winning by a landslide the entire primary season.
If 'rigged' has to mean falsifying ballot counts then sure, it wasn't rigged. I think that's overly reductionist.
Pyrian on 20/2/2020 at 00:37
Quote Posted by Renzatic
Though to clarify, the DNC didn't
rig the election.Yet that specific term is exactly what keeps getting bandied about.
Quote Posted by Renzatic
...and it could be argued that the extra exposure is what allowed her to win the primaries.
Pfff, she won by a lot, and had an amusing tendency to go lower in the relevant polls every time she got exposure. People made a lot of hay about her not going to Wisconsin but she might've won by
not going to Pennsylvania.
EDIT:
Quote Posted by catbarf
They also leaked debate questions to her campaign staff ahead of time...
It's not like there were surprise questions in there.
Quote Posted by catbarf
...and used the superdelegate count to reinforce the narrative that she was winning by a landslide the entire primary season.
I mean, she
was, though.
Quote Posted by catbarf
If 'rigged' has to mean falsifying ballot counts then sure, it wasn't rigged. I think that's overly reductionist.
I think if we're going to get all loosey goosey about what counts as "rigged" than the general election was rigged against her way more than the primary was rigged for her.
Renzatic on 20/2/2020 at 00:58
Quote Posted by catbarf
They also leaked debate questions to her campaign staff ahead of time and used the superdelegate count to reinforce the narrative that she was winning by a landslide the entire primary season.
If 'rigged' has to mean falsifying ballot counts then sure, it wasn't rigged. I think that's overly reductionist.
I'm not being overly reductionist so much as stating that rigged is too strong a word. Fucked over would be the better phrase to use here.
Plus, the superdelegate issue is an old one that people have been complaining about for years, and was hardly unique to Hillary. (
https://www.270towin.com/content/superdelegate-rule-changes-for-the-2020-democratic-nomination) Hence why the rules have been changed for the 2020 election.
edit: regardless of your politics or opinions, (
https://politics.theonion.com/the-onion-s-guide-to-the-2020-democratic-candidates-1841331219) it's hard to deny this is absolutely hilarious. Go through them all. It's good fun. Reminds me of the days when we treated our politicians with proper derision, and not as Jesus Christ's Personal Earthly Avatars Who Will Save America From Itself.
heywood on 20/2/2020 at 02:02
I don't like the term rigged either. More like stacked the deck, through use of influence and money. But in the end, she got more votes. If Bernie had won more votes, but the superdelegates swung it to Hillary, then you could say rigged. But that didn't happen, and we probably shouldn't assume the superdelegates would have stayed loyal to her if she lost the popular vote.
And regardless of who they support, superdelegates are anti-democratic. The party needs to get rid of that baggage.