EXCUSE ME?!..The OFFICIAL Bernie Sanders For President 2016 Thread

[UncleBuck]

I don't argue with the position that if primaries were open, Bernie would have won.

i do.

bernie's strategy was to be highly organized and get small groups of vocal supporters out to caucuses. he did not fare well in primary style states.

for example, washington state.



those were the caucus results. bernie swept big time by a massive margin.

but in the meaningless primary...

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/wash-primary1/

On the Democratic side, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton beat Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. She had nearly 54 percent of the vote in Tuesday’s returns in a major reversal — though purely symbolic — from March caucuses, in which Sanders dominated.

The Associated Press called both races shortly after 8 p.m.

While nearly 1.3 million primary votes had been returned to county elections offices as of Tuesday, Washington’s tally won’t have much sway on the 2016 race for the White House.

Democrats are ignoring the result and already allocated delegates based on March caucuses. Despite her win with a much larger primary electorate, Clinton won’t amass any more delegates.

 

[Fogdog]

This article doesn't ask the question it sets up with its headline but it does discuss the issues paddy, ty and sky bring up.

Was the Democratic Primary Just Manipulated, or Was It Stolen?
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/36408-was-the-democratic-primary-just-manipulated-or-was-it-stolen
An excerpt:
The heavy-handedness of the Democratic Party elite -- particularly Debbie Wasserman's actions as party chair in restricting debates, followed by her statement that did little to change public perception that the purpose of superdelegates is to crush the possibilities of grassroots candidates rising to challenge the party establishment -- was called to account even by Democrats. Calls for Wasserman’s removal were not isolated.

The primary process was also one of the most distorted media political events we have witnessed in recent years, with the networks exhibiting an astonishingly destructive lust for profits by handing Donald Trump billions of dollars in free airtime in order to build ratings, even as they deliberately tuned out Sanders’campaign.

If the argument is that the election was swung 12 percentage points by media manipulation, I'm not going to argue with that. I think its quite possible, especially given the different starting points for the two candidates last year.

 

[UncleBuck]

similar thing happened in 2008, but with obama and hillary's roles reversed.

obama won the caucus by a massive margin, but only won the primary by a tiny margin.

 

[Fogdog]

That's pretty much what I'm saying, the primaries were run unfairly in favor of Clinton. It wasn't a fair election, what we saw wasn't democracy. If it were fair, Sanders would have won.

Do you mean "fair" as in open vs closed primaries? Because that's not a case of skulduggery. It was done in the open and had been the rule since 1982. I'm not altogether against closed primaries either. Because, this is the election of the nominee for the Democratic Party's candidate. Why should somebody who won't even register as Democrat select that party's candidate?

 

[Fogdog]

i do.

bernie's strategy was to be highly organized and get small groups of vocal supporters out to caucuses. he did not fare well in primary style states.

for example, washington state.

View attachment 3711510

those were the caucus results. bernie swept big time by a massive margin.

but in the meaningless primary...

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/wash-primary1/

On the Democratic side, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton beat Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. She had nearly 54 percent of the vote in Tuesday’s returns in a major reversal — though purely symbolic — from March caucuses, in which Sanders dominated.

The Associated Press called both races shortly after 8 p.m.

While nearly 1.3 million primary votes had been returned to county elections offices as of Tuesday, Washington’s tally won’t have much sway on the 2016 race for the White House.

Democrats are ignoring the result and already allocated delegates based on March caucuses. Despite her win with a much larger primary electorate, Clinton won’t amass any more delegates.

I'm referring to national polls showing Bernie as winning in a head to head election against the orange one by a lot wider margin than Hillary. Independents and disaffected Republicans are more likely to vote for Bernie than Hillary. But your argument holds water. The problem with it is small sample size. We don't have many examples of open primary election results to point to. We have many national polls showing Bernie is much more popular with Indys than either Hillary or Trump.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Do you mean "fair" as in open vs closed primaries? Because that's not a case of skulduggery. It was done in the open and had been the rule since 1982. I'm not altogether against closed primaries either. Because, this is the election of the nominee for the Democratic Party's candidate. Why should somebody who won't even register as Democrat select that party's candidate?

No, I mean 'fair' by having equal news coverage and given equal opportunity in regards to support by party leaders. Hillary Clinton was chosen by the democratic party to be the next president since 2008, her stint as SoS was carefully selected to advance that goal. So the people within the party establishment have been orchestrating her 2016 run as a no-lose scenario that's manifested in many different ways. All things equal, Sanders takes it easy, the problem was that all things weren't equal. I think anyone who followed things would agree with that.

As far as open/closed primaries, I'd go with whatever is most democratic. It seems like the best way to get the best candidates for the job would be by having more people vote for them

 

[abandonconflict]

 

[ttystikk]

This article doesn't ask the question it sets up with its headline but it does discuss the issues paddy, ty and sky bring up.

Was the Democratic Primary Just Manipulated, or Was It Stolen?
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/36408-was-the-democratic-primary-just-manipulated-or-was-it-stolen
An excerpt:
The heavy-handedness of the Democratic Party elite -- particularly Debbie Wasserman's actions as party chair in restricting debates, followed by her statement that did little to change public perception that the purpose of superdelegates is to crush the possibilities of grassroots candidates rising to challenge the party establishment -- was called to account even by Democrats. Calls for Wasserman’s removal were not isolated.

The primary process was also one of the most distorted media political events we have witnessed in recent years, with the networks exhibiting an astonishingly destructive lust for profits by handing Donald Trump billions of dollars in free airtime in order to build ratings, even as they deliberately tuned out Sanders’campaign.

If the argument is that the election was swung 12 percentage points by media manipulation, I'm not going to argue with that. I think its quite possible, especially given the different starting points for the two candidates last year.

This, summed up with everything else, leads to the inescapable conclusion that we are not living in a democracy- and that those who influence the results are comfortable enough with their power that they don't care if they're noticed.

So the next question is, do we give them consent to given us? If they can't be bothered to hold free and fair elections, we must not allow them to take and wield power over us.

If they've broken their promise, We the People must withdraw our consent to be governed.

 

[Fogdog]

This, summed up with everything else, leads to the inescapable conclusion that we are not living in a democracy- and that those who influence the results are comfortable enough with their power that they don't care if they're noticed.

So the next question is, do we give them consent to given us? If they can't be bothered to hold free and fair elections, we must not allow them to take and wield power over us.

If they've broken their promise, We the People must withdraw our consent to be governed.

There is a lot of really good analysis in that article. Some of which is the voter exclusion laws that have been enacted in every red state in this country. Not in blue states. It just points out how low GOP will go to defeat democracy.

What Hillary's camp did was subversive. Using every trick and maneuver available to swing the election her way. That this doesn't always work as in the 2008 election doesn't excuse the fact that this was a core part of Hillary's strategy in both elections.

As far as "withdrawing consent" goes, what does that look like? Won't withdrawing from the process will just hand power over to malefactors? As in 2000 and 2004, staying out of the process or handing votes to Nader, that kind of action has the opposite effect that we want.

 

[londonfog]

Let's compare Sanders' senate campaign donations to Clinton's senate campaign donations;

Hack

Still does not take away the fact that Bernie bitches about money in elections whilst he receive money taken in elections. Hypocrite much ? Bernie is no different than any other politician, He just not as good at it.

 

[londonfog]

That's pretty much what I'm saying, the primaries were run unfairly in favor of Clinton. It wasn't a fair election, what we saw wasn't democracy. If it were fair, Sanders would have won.

 

[Fogdog]

There is an opportunity to make the process more fair. I'd say your line of reasoning is more appropriate to followers of Trump.

 

[abandonconflict]

 

[Padawanbater2]

Still does not take away the fact that Bernie bitches about money in elections whilst he receive money taken in elections. Hypocrite much ? Bernie is no different than any other politician, He just not as good at it.

Sanders takes donations from individuals, not corporations. He criticizes corporate influence in American politics. Where exactly is the hypocrisy? There's nothing wrong with individuals donating to political campaigns, there is something wrong with corporations acting as individuals donating to political campaigns.

 

[Padawanbater2]

There is an opportunity to make the process more fair. I'd say your line of reasoning is more appropriate to followers of Trump.

Exactly, he acts like winning a rigged game is something to be proud of

 

[abandonconflict]

 

[schuylaar]

similar thing happened in 2008, but with obama and hillary's roles reversed.

obama won the caucus by a massive margin, but only won the primary by a tiny margin.

Yup all you need is establishment backing..and you're the winner!

 

[schuylaar]

Exactly, he acts like winning a rigged game is something to be proud of

 

[schuylaar]

Still does not take away the fact that Bernie bitches about money in elections whilst he receive money taken in elections. Hypocrite much ? Bernie is no different than any other politician, He just not as good at it.

Your 'allowed' to take money from the people, moron.

 

[schuylaar]

There is a lot of really good analysis in that article. Some of which is the voter exclusion laws that have been enacted in every red state in this country. Not in blue states. It just points out how low GOP will go to defeat democracy.

What Hillary's camp did was subversive. Using every trick and maneuver available to swing the election her way. That this doesn't always work as in the 2008 election doesn't excuse the fact that this was a core part of Hillary's strategy in both elections.

As far as "withdrawing consent" goes, what does that look like? Won't withdrawing from the process will just hand power over to malefactors? As in 2000 and 2004, staying out of the process or handing votes to Nader, that kind of action has the opposite effect that we want.

And we're supposed to be good with this?