|
0 members (),
8
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,089
Posts313,787
Members6,305
| |
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,286 Likes: 351
Member CHB-OG
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,286 Likes: 351 |
We've seriously drifted into fantasy land, here. "The question is: why is this nomination process so rigged?" How is winning the majority of elected delegates "rigged"? It is not "rigged" just because you don't like the outcome. Actually it is "rigged." When Bernie Sanders wins a state and Hillary gets nearly the same number or more delegates than Bernie, when he actually wins - that's a "rigged" system.  Look at Oklahoma, Bernie won by 10 points, yet only 4 delegates difference between them. Kansas, Bernie won by 26%, yet only 15 delegates separate the two. Nebraska, Bernie wins by 15%, 5 delegates separate Bernie and Hillary. Colorado, Bernie wins by 18 points, 7 delegates separate the two.
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,286 Likes: 351
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,286 Likes: 351 |
According to, On The Issues.Org, "She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders." I find that hard to believe. I don't think Lizzy Warren will be taking a Golden Sacks check anytime soon. Hillary never met a Golden Sacks check which she didn't like. I'm sure everyone has noticed that Lizzy hasn't endorsed Hillary yet, right? 
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,286 Likes: 351
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,286 Likes: 351 |
From FiveThirtyEight: "Clinton got beat on the left on one issue the last time she ran for president: the Iraq War." But in voting for the resolution, she was in the majority of the Democratic party: 58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. In the context of the time, this is not actually surprising. People conveniently forget that the resolution authorized the President the discretion to use force.. We Lefties also said at the time, that the Bush Administration made-up Intel and the vote was based upon that. According to Fronline's documentary on the History of ISIS, VP Cheney's Office DID re-write the analysis from the CIA to promote an invasion, and Powell repeated those made-up "facts" at the U.N. - unwittingly. For Senators like Sanders, he never violated his principal aversion to war and he didn't let the a-hole conservative neocons ("You're either with us; or against us") embarrass him into not voting for war. Good on him!
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,985 Likes: 178
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 17,985 Likes: 178 |
Good god, Rick, you do do basic math, don't you? Have you applied that to these results? (I have, it works. You have to know how votes are allocated.) In Oklahoma and Nebraska he actually got more than his proportional share of delegates.
Second, the rules are the same for all candidates. Just because the math doesn't work for Sanders does not indicate it is "rigged." That is truly just partisanship speaking.
Look, I'm a political scientist by training. I'm just analyzing this as an academic exercise. I'm not wearing blinders based upon my partisan desires.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,286 Likes: 351
Member CHB-OG
|
|
Member CHB-OG
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 47,286 Likes: 351 |
Good god, Rick, you do do basic math, don't you? Have you applied that to these results? (I have, it works. You have to know how votes are allocated.) In Oklahoma and Nebraska he actually got more than his proportional share of delegates. Naw mang, too lazy. Look, I'm a political scientist by training. I'm just analyzing this as an academic exercise. I'm not wearing blinders based upon my partisan desires.
Contrarian, extraordinaire
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 19,831 Likes: 180
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 19,831 Likes: 180 |
I'm a political scientist by training. I'm not. But we seem to have come to the same conclusion.
Good coffee, good weed, and time on my hands...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,129 Likes: 257
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,129 Likes: 257 |
The "rigging" is all in the super-delegates. But, you know it's very easy to subtract them out when you look at the delegate counts. Other than their votes, all states have a set of rules that do not favor one candidate over another. Not the same set of rules, mind you, but still fair. The fact that one candidate in this race has more enthusiastic fans who are motivated to attend a caucus (as opposed to just a mail-in ballot like my area) is simply a matter of the rules for those states.
Are caucuses more democratic than primary elections? Got me!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388 |
We've seriously drifted into fantasy land, here. "The question is: why is this nomination process so rigged?" How is winning the majority of elected delegates "rigged"? It is not "rigged" just because you don't like the outcome. Clinton has won more delegates. You truly DID NOT understand the issue. It is not about this particular primary process - it is about the whole process. I have shown with fact that it is rigged. The existence of delegates that are not tied to the results of popular votes and who answer only to the party bosses is a FACT. Please read previous posts before responding. Your partisanship is showing dear fellow. What is being classified as liberal? Is that the same as progressive? To compare Hillary to Warren is to muddy the waters. For example, in her book, “The Two Income Trap,” Warren slammed Clinton for casting a Senate vote in 2001 for a bankruptcy bill that ultimately passed in 2005. That legislation makes it more difficult for credit card customers to renegotiate their debts, even as it allows the wealthy to protect their second homes and yachts from creditors. According to a 2009 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the bankruptcy bill’s provisions changing debt payback provisions played a central role in the foreclosure crisis, as the new law forced homeowners to pay off credit card debts before paying their mortgage.
“As first lady, Mrs. Clinton had been persuaded that the bill was bad for families, and she was willing to fight for her beliefs,” Warren wrote. “As New York’s newest senator, however, it seems that Hillary Clinton could not afford such a principled position. … The bill was essentially the same, but Hillary Rodham Clinton was not.” When I take a position, I base it upon facts, not wishful thinking. According to, On The Issues.Org, "She is as liberal as Elizabeth Warren and barely more moderate than Bernie Sanders." Not sure what you are calling fact but it does not pass the test of actual fact or even common sense. From FiveThirtyEight: "Clinton got beat on the left on one issue the last time she ran for president: the Iraq War." But in voting for the resolution, she was in the majority of the Democratic party: 58% of Democratic senators (29 of 50) voted for the resolution. In the context of the time, this is not actually surprising. People conveniently forget that the resolution authorized the President the discretion to use force. At the time, many believed it was necessary to do so to strengthen the President's hand in ongoing negotiations with the Hussein regime. A vote against the resolution (which was bipartisan and co-sponsored) would have undermined his negotiating position. While I didn't trust Bush to behave responsibly, he was the President, and needed that authority in the interest of national security. That he misused that authority once he got it cannot be blamed on the Democrats, even those that voted for it. This is a cop out. And it isn't true. She didn't lose on the left ONLY because of the Iraq war. She lost because she has no real positions on the issues that matter to the left. And she has been known to cater to opposing interests when it suits her ends. She is not a believable candidate, never was. This is why: On Thursday, Clinton herself vented about the Sanders campaign at a rally in New York, and when confronted by a Greenpeace activist about her financial ties to the fossil fuel industry, she replied testily: “I am so sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me. I’m sick of it.”
Of course, no one is lying about Clinton, who employs a number of bundlers registered as lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry — as Greenpeace documents here — and in an issued response, Greenpeace Democracy Campaign Director Molly Dorozenski said the following:
“Secretary Clinton is conflating Greenpeace with the Sanders campaign, but we are an independent organization, and our research team has assessed the contributions to all Presidential candidates. We have not and will not endorse candidates. Earlier this year, we asked both Secretary Clinton and Senator Sanders to sign our pledge to #fixdemocracy, and while Sanders signed, Clinton did not. We intend to continue to challenge all candidates to listen to the people, not their biggest donors.” I think you will find the partisan by looking in the mirror.  Now add to that her ties to Wall Street and to neo liberal economics and you've got a clear distinction between Sanders and Warren vs. Clinton.
Last edited by Ezekiel; 05/31/16 10:01 AM.
"The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them."
Lenny Bruce
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month."
Dostoevsky
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388 |
I'm not wearing blinders based upon my partisan desires. Maybe you are?
"The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them."
Lenny Bruce
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month."
Dostoevsky
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,388 |
And of course, as if more proof were needed, here are her picks for the DNC Platform: Intercept
"The liberals can understand everything but people who don't understand them."
Lenny Bruce
"The cleverest of all, in my opinion, is the man who calls himself a fool at least once a month."
Dostoevsky
|
|
|
|
|
