THE Political Thread (ALL Political Discussion Here - See Rules, P. 1)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1812, 1813, 1814 ... 3661, 3662, 3663  Next
 
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ribeye
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 12612

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 6:52 am    Post subject:

ribeye wrote:
Today at FiveThirtyEight, pre hearing, Impeachment (aggregate): Support, 49.1%; Don't support, 45.3%.

Let's see where it goes.


Today at FiveThirtyEight, Impeachment: Support, 47.7%; Don't support, 45.6%
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13811
Location: Boulder ;)

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 7:06 am    Post subject:

There is something special about people with a tremendous amount of Virtue

https://www.newsweek.com/yovanovitch-trump-impeachment-jazz-club-ovation-1472315?
Quote:

Meanwhile on Sunday night, she was spotted attending a show by Cuban-American jazz trumpeter Arturo Sandoval at the jazz club Blues Alley, in Georgetown.

As she took her seat in the club, she was spotted by another a
udience member, and the crowd broke out into applause.


33 Years of service
The NAZI party and it's leader trash her reputation because they're hardened criminals and thugs

I hope she gets to see them all in handcuffs

(bleep) all Trump tainted humans. You are the most vile scum Americans will EVER FIGHT

Removing Trump is one of the most important things the Whole World should be doing

Where is the Ukrainian President. Scared of our Mafia President. That's where.

Jail all these pricks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:50 am    Post subject:

Surfitall wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
Former Dem Gov. Bill Richardson Tells Smerconish 2020 Democratic Primary Heading Toward Brokered Convention

Maybe they can nominate Hillary again!


Remember when much noise was made about the reforms that were happening in the Democratic Party after 2016 so that super delegates would no longer have an outsized voice in deciding who the candidates are? Here is a reminder:

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/democrats-vs-trump/democrats-strip-super-delegates-power-reform-caucuses-historic-move-n903866

The more things change the more they stay the same.


I’m curious. Have the superdelegates ever carried a candidate to the nomination over someone who won more regular delegates?


I don’t know (I remember ‘84 with Mondale using superdelegates to declare victory had a whif of this after Hart won three primaries in a row including California), but I don’t think the question really matters when looking at what happened in 2016. There is a lot to cover:

In 2016, all the major media outlets showed Hillary with a huge lead over Sanders even though no primaries had been held yet. The Democratic Party actually asked the media to stop including superdelegate votes in the overall total because they knew it looked bad...superdelegates aren’t supposed to vote until the convention and can change their minds. Until convention, their support is hypothetical.

What happens next? Sanders overwhelmingly wins New Hampshire in the ballot box, but mainstream news outlets report that Hillary actually “won” NH 15-13 (because of superdelegates), and/or they report that she has a 431-50 lead over Sanders. The perceptions created was that the deck was stacked against Sanders...that even if he got more votes, he wasn’t going to win.

I’m leaving a lot out, but...Fast forward to the tail end of the primaries, where AP reporting that Hillary had clinched the nomination the day before California and New Jersey and other states had even voted. Victory had been declared, not after a vote, but after a reporter called up a bunch of mayors, congressmen, etc that were superdelegates and got them to admit who they were supporting. This manufactured “win” got picked up by all other media outlets...none of this means Sanders necessarily would have have won, or that there is some purposeful conspiracy, but they might have well said, “California, don’t even bother voting tomorrow.”, all the while with no mention that superdelegates commitments change all the time (See Clinton vs. Obama).

It was a perfect storm of a terrible system + super connected Clintons + bumbling and/or complicit media + an unexpected and incredibly popular outsider and non-establishment candidate in Sanders. Fast forward again to today...here is 538’s breakdown of “endorsements” for each of the candidates:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-endorsements/democratic-primary/?ex_cid=rrpromo


It was a semi-rhetorical question, and the answer is no. Thus far the superdelegates have tended to fall to the leader in regular votes at an even higher rate than the regular vote. That's part of the design, to give an overwhelming feeling to even a narrow victory, a unifying gesture by party notables.

The other part of the design is to guard against a guy like Trump, but I suspect that doesn't sit well with some folks, even though it is a party and it has the right to do it. Although I do find it odd that a bunch of people who aren't even Democrats voting for a guy who wasn't a Democrat were the loudest about open primaries (you know, where the GOP can vote in them as well) and such. Become a Democrat, take part in making the rules, seems fair to me.

The bottom line though is we never hear about 2008, when the same scenario as 2016 played out but the underdog/outsider won anyway, and convincingly. But that doesn't suit the narrative. The real issue here is that the dilettante running against Hillary got beat by a larger margin than she beat Trump by, and he only was reasonably relevant because of decades of GOP propaganda followed by a couple years of intense Russian propaganda, much of it to and through the far left. And caucuses, which the "we want fairness" folks don't seem to mind despite being very unrepresentative. What the far left wants in most cases doesn't appear to be fairness, just a victory. And if the majority isn't with them, it's rigged. That's just sad. It's also what Trump does. We need to be better than that.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 24996

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:20 am    Post subject:

What choice do Americans have beside Republican Party or Democratic Party? None, Unless u choose a Symbolic non viable party
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 10:35 am    Post subject:

governator wrote:
What choice do Americans have beside Republican Party or Democratic Party? None, Unless u choose a Symbolic non viable party


This is true. And the way you get more choices is not throwing fits and calling things rigged when you (in general, not you personally) lose to the majority. To build a viable alternative does not involve showing up with a candidate every four years for the presidency. That's like trying to work your way up in a company by expecting to beCEO on your first day. Build a congressional coalition, and a local grassroots one, and a state level one. Do the work others have done instead of just expecting them to give it to you because you want it, but you're not really into what it takes.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
eddiejonze
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 19 Dec 2013
Posts: 7191

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:32 am    Post subject:

ContagiousInspiration wrote:
DaMuleRules wrote:
tox wrote:

(Probably because he's old as (bleep) and out of touch but I digress)


Something many of us have been saying since even before he entered the race.


He has felt like a South Park character to me. Granted he is slim and does exercise but he seems like senility and old age mental decline will be what were electing. He had to have been a drinker in his day?


Hey good point, Biden must have been a drinker back in the day!

Meanwhile Mayor pete continues to have trouble getting African American support and just had to apologize for using a stock photo of Kenyan women yet here we are, picking on Joe Biden who smartly wants to appeal to moderates by saying he would be anti pot, just like Obama.
The fact that no one thinks Biden would have a change of heart on Weed after elected is kind of sad, Was Obama pro Gay marriage before elected?
Nope, but Biden might have been a drinker I hear.
#thisnitpickingwillgettrumpreelected
#demswillnotwinwithoutAAsupport
_________________
Creatures crawl in search of blood, To terrorize y'alls neighborhood.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Surfitall
Star Player
Star Player


Joined: 12 Feb 2002
Posts: 3829
Location: South Orange County

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 11:44 am    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
Former Dem Gov. Bill Richardson Tells Smerconish 2020 Democratic Primary Heading Toward Brokered Convention

Maybe they can nominate Hillary again!


Remember when much noise was made about the reforms that were happening in the Democratic Party after 2016 so that super delegates would no longer have an outsized voice in deciding who the candidates are? Here is a reminder:

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/democrats-vs-trump/democrats-strip-super-delegates-power-reform-caucuses-historic-move-n903866

The more things change the more they stay the same.


I’m curious. Have the superdelegates ever carried a candidate to the nomination over someone who won more regular delegates?


I don’t know (I remember ‘84 with Mondale using superdelegates to declare victory had a whif of this after Hart won three primaries in a row including California), but I don’t think the question really matters when looking at what happened in 2016. There is a lot to cover:

In 2016, all the major media outlets showed Hillary with a huge lead over Sanders even though no primaries had been held yet. The Democratic Party actually asked the media to stop including superdelegate votes in the overall total because they knew it looked bad...superdelegates aren’t supposed to vote until the convention and can change their minds. Until convention, their support is hypothetical.

What happens next? Sanders overwhelmingly wins New Hampshire in the ballot box, but mainstream news outlets report that Hillary actually “won” NH 15-13 (because of superdelegates), and/or they report that she has a 431-50 lead over Sanders. The perceptions created was that the deck was stacked against Sanders...that even if he got more votes, he wasn’t going to win.

I’m leaving a lot out, but...Fast forward to the tail end of the primaries, where AP reporting that Hillary had clinched the nomination the day before California and New Jersey and other states had even voted. Victory had been declared, not after a vote, but after a reporter called up a bunch of mayors, congressmen, etc that were superdelegates and got them to admit who they were supporting. This manufactured “win” got picked up by all other media outlets...none of this means Sanders necessarily would have have won, or that there is some purposeful conspiracy, but they might have well said, “California, don’t even bother voting tomorrow.”, all the while with no mention that superdelegates commitments change all the time (See Clinton vs. Obama).

It was a perfect storm of a terrible system + super connected Clintons + bumbling and/or complicit media + an unexpected and incredibly popular outsider and non-establishment candidate in Sanders. Fast forward again to today...here is 538’s breakdown of “endorsements” for each of the candidates:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-endorsements/democratic-primary/?ex_cid=rrpromo


It was a semi-rhetorical question, and the answer is no. Thus far the superdelegates have tended to fall to the leader in regular votes at an even higher rate than the regular vote. That's part of the design, to give an overwhelming feeling to even a narrow victory, a unifying gesture by party notables.

The other part of the design is to guard against a guy like Trump, but I suspect that doesn't sit well with some folks, even though it is a party and it has the right to do it. Although I do find it odd that a bunch of people who aren't even Democrats voting for a guy who wasn't a Democrat were the loudest about open primaries (you know, where the GOP can vote in them as well) and such. Become a Democrat, take part in making the rules, seems fair to me.

The bottom line though is we never hear about 2008, when the same scenario as 2016 played out but the underdog/outsider won anyway, and convincingly. But that doesn't suit the narrative. The real issue here is that the dilettante running against Hillary got beat by a larger margin than she beat Trump by, and he only was reasonably relevant because of decades of GOP propaganda followed by a couple years of intense Russian propaganda, much of it to and through the far left. And caucuses, which the "we want fairness" folks don't seem to mind despite being very unrepresentative. What the far left wants in most cases doesn't appear to be fairness, just a victory. And if the majority isn't with them, it's rigged. That's just sad. It's also what Trump does. We need to be better than that.


I literally pointed out what happened in 2008 as part of my explanation above. In fact, the fact that this played out differently in 2008 is part of why this is so interesting, and why there was such frustration from such a large contingent of Democrats in 2016. In 2016, the media was covering the primaries as though the superdelegates were unwaveringly committed to Hillary Clinton. This was not the case in 2008. As I cited above, Bernie wins the popular vote in NH, but it gets covered by the media as though Hillary won because the superdelegates were hers with no chance that could change. There was no mention that superdelegates aren't allowed to vote until the convention, or that things can and do happen, like another candidate winning the popular vote and the supers thinking, gee, maybe we shouldn’t subvert the will of the people (see Clinton v. Obama, 2008). Or someone could get indicted, or die, or name your reason. This became such a hot button issue that the DNC actually went on CNN, talked about how things played properly in 2008, and that the media needs to stop including the super delegate numbers in their reporting because it's creating an inaccurate perception about how the superdelegates actually work. You can see Jake Tapper's surprise that the DNC is telling them to cover it differently than they have been.



Was that the only factor in the Sanders loss to Clinton? Of course not, but anyone who denies that it was a factor is deluding themselves. To anyone watching and supporting Sanders, it looked like an unconscious (or conscious if you are conspiratorial minded) collusion between the media and the Democratic party power structure.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:45 pm    Post subject:

Surfitall wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
Former Dem Gov. Bill Richardson Tells Smerconish 2020 Democratic Primary Heading Toward Brokered Convention

Maybe they can nominate Hillary again!


Remember when much noise was made about the reforms that were happening in the Democratic Party after 2016 so that super delegates would no longer have an outsized voice in deciding who the candidates are? Here is a reminder:

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/democrats-vs-trump/democrats-strip-super-delegates-power-reform-caucuses-historic-move-n903866

The more things change the more they stay the same.


I’m curious. Have the superdelegates ever carried a candidate to the nomination over someone who won more regular delegates?


I don’t know (I remember ‘84 with Mondale using superdelegates to declare victory had a whif of this after Hart won three primaries in a row including California), but I don’t think the question really matters when looking at what happened in 2016. There is a lot to cover:

In 2016, all the major media outlets showed Hillary with a huge lead over Sanders even though no primaries had been held yet. The Democratic Party actually asked the media to stop including superdelegate votes in the overall total because they knew it looked bad...superdelegates aren’t supposed to vote until the convention and can change their minds. Until convention, their support is hypothetical.

What happens next? Sanders overwhelmingly wins New Hampshire in the ballot box, but mainstream news outlets report that Hillary actually “won” NH 15-13 (because of superdelegates), and/or they report that she has a 431-50 lead over Sanders. The perceptions created was that the deck was stacked against Sanders...that even if he got more votes, he wasn’t going to win.

I’m leaving a lot out, but...Fast forward to the tail end of the primaries, where AP reporting that Hillary had clinched the nomination the day before California and New Jersey and other states had even voted. Victory had been declared, not after a vote, but after a reporter called up a bunch of mayors, congressmen, etc that were superdelegates and got them to admit who they were supporting. This manufactured “win” got picked up by all other media outlets...none of this means Sanders necessarily would have have won, or that there is some purposeful conspiracy, but they might have well said, “California, don’t even bother voting tomorrow.”, all the while with no mention that superdelegates commitments change all the time (See Clinton vs. Obama).

It was a perfect storm of a terrible system + super connected Clintons + bumbling and/or complicit media + an unexpected and incredibly popular outsider and non-establishment candidate in Sanders. Fast forward again to today...here is 538’s breakdown of “endorsements” for each of the candidates:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-endorsements/democratic-primary/?ex_cid=rrpromo


It was a semi-rhetorical question, and the answer is no. Thus far the superdelegates have tended to fall to the leader in regular votes at an even higher rate than the regular vote. That's part of the design, to give an overwhelming feeling to even a narrow victory, a unifying gesture by party notables.

The other part of the design is to guard against a guy like Trump, but I suspect that doesn't sit well with some folks, even though it is a party and it has the right to do it. Although I do find it odd that a bunch of people who aren't even Democrats voting for a guy who wasn't a Democrat were the loudest about open primaries (you know, where the GOP can vote in them as well) and such. Become a Democrat, take part in making the rules, seems fair to me.

The bottom line though is we never hear about 2008, when the same scenario as 2016 played out but the underdog/outsider won anyway, and convincingly. But that doesn't suit the narrative. The real issue here is that the dilettante running against Hillary got beat by a larger margin than she beat Trump by, and he only was reasonably relevant because of decades of GOP propaganda followed by a couple years of intense Russian propaganda, much of it to and through the far left. And caucuses, which the "we want fairness" folks don't seem to mind despite being very unrepresentative. What the far left wants in most cases doesn't appear to be fairness, just a victory. And if the majority isn't with them, it's rigged. That's just sad. It's also what Trump does. We need to be better than that.


I literally pointed out what happened in 2008 as part of my explanation above. In fact, the fact that this played out differently in 2008 is part of why this is so interesting, and why there was such frustration from such a large contingent of Democrats in 2016. In 2016, the media was covering the primaries as though the superdelegates were unwaveringly committed to Hillary Clinton. This was not the case in 2008. As I cited above, Bernie wins the popular vote in NH, but it gets covered by the media as though Hillary won because the superdelegates were hers with no chance that could change. There was no mention that superdelegates aren't allowed to vote until the convention, or that things can and do happen, like another candidate winning the popular vote and the supers thinking, gee, maybe we shouldn’t subvert the will of the people (see Clinton v. Obama, 2008). Or someone could get indicted, or die, or name your reason. This became such a hot button issue that the DNC actually went on CNN, talked about how things played properly in 2008, and that the media needs to stop including the super delegate numbers in their reporting because it's creating an inaccurate perception about how the superdelegates actually work. You can see Jake Tapper's surprise that the DNC is telling them to cover it differently than they have been.



Was that the only factor in the Sanders loss to Clinton? Of course not, but anyone who denies that it was a factor is deluding themselves. To anyone watching and supporting Sanders, it looked like an unconscious (or conscious if you are conspiratorial minded) collusion between the media and the Democratic party power structure.


I'm sorry, I know you mentioned it, it was a general critique on the subject.

And Sanders got far more help than harm. The GOP gassed him up and even came out in open primaries, the Russians pushed narratives that helped him, his press coverage was just free spot ads of his stump speech while Clinton was put through the ringer daily.

And of course the superdelegates supported the actual Democrat with the actual record and qualifications. As did a lot of the pundits who are Democratic strategists and operatives. As they should. There has hardly been a better qualified candidate. And if Sanders pulls out the popular vote, they would have gone to him. It's how it works. It's a party, not some game that a small minority should expect to just show up and win.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:01 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
Former Dem Gov. Bill Richardson Tells Smerconish 2020 Democratic Primary Heading Toward Brokered Convention

Maybe they can nominate Hillary again!


Remember when much noise was made about the reforms that were happening in the Democratic Party after 2016 so that super delegates would no longer have an outsized voice in deciding who the candidates are? Here is a reminder:

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/democrats-vs-trump/democrats-strip-super-delegates-power-reform-caucuses-historic-move-n903866

The more things change the more they stay the same.


I’m curious. Have the superdelegates ever carried a candidate to the nomination over someone who won more regular delegates?


I don’t know (I remember ‘84 with Mondale using superdelegates to declare victory had a whif of this after Hart won three primaries in a row including California), but I don’t think the question really matters when looking at what happened in 2016. There is a lot to cover:

In 2016, all the major media outlets showed Hillary with a huge lead over Sanders even though no primaries had been held yet. The Democratic Party actually asked the media to stop including superdelegate votes in the overall total because they knew it looked bad...superdelegates aren’t supposed to vote until the convention and can change their minds. Until convention, their support is hypothetical.

What happens next? Sanders overwhelmingly wins New Hampshire in the ballot box, but mainstream news outlets report that Hillary actually “won” NH 15-13 (because of superdelegates), and/or they report that she has a 431-50 lead over Sanders. The perceptions created was that the deck was stacked against Sanders...that even if he got more votes, he wasn’t going to win.

I’m leaving a lot out, but...Fast forward to the tail end of the primaries, where AP reporting that Hillary had clinched the nomination the day before California and New Jersey and other states had even voted. Victory had been declared, not after a vote, but after a reporter called up a bunch of mayors, congressmen, etc that were superdelegates and got them to admit who they were supporting. This manufactured “win” got picked up by all other media outlets...none of this means Sanders necessarily would have have won, or that there is some purposeful conspiracy, but they might have well said, “California, don’t even bother voting tomorrow.”, all the while with no mention that superdelegates commitments change all the time (See Clinton vs. Obama).

It was a perfect storm of a terrible system + super connected Clintons + bumbling and/or complicit media + an unexpected and incredibly popular outsider and non-establishment candidate in Sanders. Fast forward again to today...here is 538’s breakdown of “endorsements” for each of the candidates:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-endorsements/democratic-primary/?ex_cid=rrpromo


It was a semi-rhetorical question, and the answer is no. Thus far the superdelegates have tended to fall to the leader in regular votes at an even higher rate than the regular vote. That's part of the design, to give an overwhelming feeling to even a narrow victory, a unifying gesture by party notables.

The other part of the design is to guard against a guy like Trump, but I suspect that doesn't sit well with some folks, even though it is a party and it has the right to do it. Although I do find it odd that a bunch of people who aren't even Democrats voting for a guy who wasn't a Democrat were the loudest about open primaries (you know, where the GOP can vote in them as well) and such. Become a Democrat, take part in making the rules, seems fair to me.

The bottom line though is we never hear about 2008, when the same scenario as 2016 played out but the underdog/outsider won anyway, and convincingly. But that doesn't suit the narrative. The real issue here is that the dilettante running against Hillary got beat by a larger margin than she beat Trump by, and he only was reasonably relevant because of decades of GOP propaganda followed by a couple years of intense Russian propaganda, much of it to and through the far left. And caucuses, which the "we want fairness" folks don't seem to mind despite being very unrepresentative. What the far left wants in most cases doesn't appear to be fairness, just a victory. And if the majority isn't with them, it's rigged. That's just sad. It's also what Trump does. We need to be better than that.


I literally pointed out what happened in 2008 as part of my explanation above. In fact, the fact that this played out differently in 2008 is part of why this is so interesting, and why there was such frustration from such a large contingent of Democrats in 2016. In 2016, the media was covering the primaries as though the superdelegates were unwaveringly committed to Hillary Clinton. This was not the case in 2008. As I cited above, Bernie wins the popular vote in NH, but it gets covered by the media as though Hillary won because the superdelegates were hers with no chance that could change. There was no mention that superdelegates aren't allowed to vote until the convention, or that things can and do happen, like another candidate winning the popular vote and the supers thinking, gee, maybe we shouldn’t subvert the will of the people (see Clinton v. Obama, 2008). Or someone could get indicted, or die, or name your reason. This became such a hot button issue that the DNC actually went on CNN, talked about how things played properly in 2008, and that the media needs to stop including the super delegate numbers in their reporting because it's creating an inaccurate perception about how the superdelegates actually work. You can see Jake Tapper's surprise that the DNC is telling them to cover it differently than they have been.



Was that the only factor in the Sanders loss to Clinton? Of course not, but anyone who denies that it was a factor is deluding themselves. To anyone watching and supporting Sanders, it looked like an unconscious (or conscious if you are conspiratorial minded) collusion between the media and the Democratic party power structure.


I'm sorry, I know you mentioned it, it was a general critique on the subject.

And Sanders got far more help than harm. The GOP gassed him up and even came out in open primaries, the Russians pushed narratives that helped him, his press coverage was just free spot ads of his stump speech while Clinton was put through the ringer daily.

And of course the superdelegates supported the actual Democrat with the actual record and qualifications. As did a lot of the pundits who are Democratic strategists and operatives. As they should. There has hardly been a better qualified candidate. And if Sanders pulls out the popular vote, they would have gone to him. It's how it works. It's a party, not some game that a small minority should expect to just show up and win.


Yeah, if Sanders was being sandbagged (and I am not saying he wasn't) it didn't work on a whole bunch of voters. Virtually every Democrat friend and relative who stated a preference going into the Primary went with Bernie (myself included). No doubt in great part to his glomming on to the DNC in the first place. He got a huge boost from doing so. He essentially used the DNC to increase his chances. And when it wasn't ultimately successful, he and his hardcore base went into victim mode, which was pretty disingenuous.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 1:10 pm    Post subject:

DaMuleRules wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
Omar Little wrote:
Surfitall wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
Former Dem Gov. Bill Richardson Tells Smerconish 2020 Democratic Primary Heading Toward Brokered Convention

Maybe they can nominate Hillary again!


Remember when much noise was made about the reforms that were happening in the Democratic Party after 2016 so that super delegates would no longer have an outsized voice in deciding who the candidates are? Here is a reminder:

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/democrats-vs-trump/democrats-strip-super-delegates-power-reform-caucuses-historic-move-n903866

The more things change the more they stay the same.


I’m curious. Have the superdelegates ever carried a candidate to the nomination over someone who won more regular delegates?


I don’t know (I remember ‘84 with Mondale using superdelegates to declare victory had a whif of this after Hart won three primaries in a row including California), but I don’t think the question really matters when looking at what happened in 2016. There is a lot to cover:

In 2016, all the major media outlets showed Hillary with a huge lead over Sanders even though no primaries had been held yet. The Democratic Party actually asked the media to stop including superdelegate votes in the overall total because they knew it looked bad...superdelegates aren’t supposed to vote until the convention and can change their minds. Until convention, their support is hypothetical.

What happens next? Sanders overwhelmingly wins New Hampshire in the ballot box, but mainstream news outlets report that Hillary actually “won” NH 15-13 (because of superdelegates), and/or they report that she has a 431-50 lead over Sanders. The perceptions created was that the deck was stacked against Sanders...that even if he got more votes, he wasn’t going to win.

I’m leaving a lot out, but...Fast forward to the tail end of the primaries, where AP reporting that Hillary had clinched the nomination the day before California and New Jersey and other states had even voted. Victory had been declared, not after a vote, but after a reporter called up a bunch of mayors, congressmen, etc that were superdelegates and got them to admit who they were supporting. This manufactured “win” got picked up by all other media outlets...none of this means Sanders necessarily would have have won, or that there is some purposeful conspiracy, but they might have well said, “California, don’t even bother voting tomorrow.”, all the while with no mention that superdelegates commitments change all the time (See Clinton vs. Obama).

It was a perfect storm of a terrible system + super connected Clintons + bumbling and/or complicit media + an unexpected and incredibly popular outsider and non-establishment candidate in Sanders. Fast forward again to today...here is 538’s breakdown of “endorsements” for each of the candidates:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-endorsements/democratic-primary/?ex_cid=rrpromo


It was a semi-rhetorical question, and the answer is no. Thus far the superdelegates have tended to fall to the leader in regular votes at an even higher rate than the regular vote. That's part of the design, to give an overwhelming feeling to even a narrow victory, a unifying gesture by party notables.

The other part of the design is to guard against a guy like Trump, but I suspect that doesn't sit well with some folks, even though it is a party and it has the right to do it. Although I do find it odd that a bunch of people who aren't even Democrats voting for a guy who wasn't a Democrat were the loudest about open primaries (you know, where the GOP can vote in them as well) and such. Become a Democrat, take part in making the rules, seems fair to me.

The bottom line though is we never hear about 2008, when the same scenario as 2016 played out but the underdog/outsider won anyway, and convincingly. But that doesn't suit the narrative. The real issue here is that the dilettante running against Hillary got beat by a larger margin than she beat Trump by, and he only was reasonably relevant because of decades of GOP propaganda followed by a couple years of intense Russian propaganda, much of it to and through the far left. And caucuses, which the "we want fairness" folks don't seem to mind despite being very unrepresentative. What the far left wants in most cases doesn't appear to be fairness, just a victory. And if the majority isn't with them, it's rigged. That's just sad. It's also what Trump does. We need to be better than that.


I literally pointed out what happened in 2008 as part of my explanation above. In fact, the fact that this played out differently in 2008 is part of why this is so interesting, and why there was such frustration from such a large contingent of Democrats in 2016. In 2016, the media was covering the primaries as though the superdelegates were unwaveringly committed to Hillary Clinton. This was not the case in 2008. As I cited above, Bernie wins the popular vote in NH, but it gets covered by the media as though Hillary won because the superdelegates were hers with no chance that could change. There was no mention that superdelegates aren't allowed to vote until the convention, or that things can and do happen, like another candidate winning the popular vote and the supers thinking, gee, maybe we shouldn’t subvert the will of the people (see Clinton v. Obama, 2008). Or someone could get indicted, or die, or name your reason. This became such a hot button issue that the DNC actually went on CNN, talked about how things played properly in 2008, and that the media needs to stop including the super delegate numbers in their reporting because it's creating an inaccurate perception about how the superdelegates actually work. You can see Jake Tapper's surprise that the DNC is telling them to cover it differently than they have been.



Was that the only factor in the Sanders loss to Clinton? Of course not, but anyone who denies that it was a factor is deluding themselves. To anyone watching and supporting Sanders, it looked like an unconscious (or conscious if you are conspiratorial minded) collusion between the media and the Democratic party power structure.


I'm sorry, I know you mentioned it, it was a general critique on the subject.

And Sanders got far more help than harm. The GOP gassed him up and even came out in open primaries, the Russians pushed narratives that helped him, his press coverage was just free spot ads of his stump speech while Clinton was put through the ringer daily.

And of course the superdelegates supported the actual Democrat with the actual record and qualifications. As did a lot of the pundits who are Democratic strategists and operatives. As they should. There has hardly been a better qualified candidate. And if Sanders pulls out the popular vote, they would have gone to him. It's how it works. It's a party, not some game that a small minority should expect to just show up and win.


Yeah, if Sanders was being sandbagged (and I am not saying he wasn't) it didn't work on a whole bunch of voters. Virtually every Democrat friend and relative who stated a preference going into the Primary went with Bernie (myself included). No doubt in great part to his glomming on to the DNC in the first place. He got a huge boost from doing so. He essentially used the DNC to increase his chances. And when it wasn't ultimately successful, he and his hardcore base went into victim mode, which was pretty disingenuous.


The real fun part is that Bernie's campaign and his supporters were appealing to the superdelegates late in the race to drop the person actually winning and give their votes to him.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Wilt
LG Contributor
LG Contributor


Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 13711

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:16 pm    Post subject:

We went through all of this in this thread in 2017.

It's not some extraordinary insight to conclude that Hillary, as a Democrat running in the Democratic primary, had certain inherent advantages over a non-Democrat running in the same Democratic primary. Is it fair? Well, the Democratic Party creates its own rules and you have to follow them.

Even if we agree that Bernie was somewhat undermined by the DNC and the media's focus on superdelegates, he still benefited more by participating in the process of a party he has never identified with. He went through the entire election benefiting from mostly positive media coverage. He got his message out effectively. The DNC and the media had little to do with the fact that, as an outsider and a non-Democrat, he never appealed to the core of the Democratic base, primarily African-American women. Which is why Hillary swept the South and won all the big states, except Michigan. As a result of that, she won the primary by a substantial margin and all the talk about certain perceptions about the role of superdelegates had little to do with that. And she won by having to deal with the most negative, most unfair press coverage imaginable.

As 24 said, when the Bernie people attempted to convince superdelegates to support the guy that just lost the primary by 4 million votes, they lost all credibility. And I was a Bernie supporter back then, but the campaign largely alienated me as the process dragged on.
_________________
¡Hala Madrid!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
DaMuleRules
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 52624
Location: Making a safety stop at 15 feet.

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 5:59 pm    Post subject:

Wilt wrote:

As 24 said, when the Bernie people attempted to convince superdelegates to support the guy that just lost the primary by 4 million votes, they lost all credibility. And I was a Bernie supporter back then, but the campaign largely alienated me as the process dragged on.


There are a great many of us who felt/feel the exact same way.
_________________
You thought God was an architect, now you know
He’s something like a pipe bomb ready to blow
And everything you built that’s all for show
goes up in flames
In 24 frames


Jason Isbell

Man, do those lyrics resonate right now
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67317
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:25 am    Post subject:

Not going well for Trump today. I forget which Republican it was but he was Trumpish in his descriptions of the hearing and some witnesses. i.e. name calling.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
kikanga
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 15 Sep 2012
Posts: 29150
Location: La La Land

PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 10:21 am    Post subject:

Maloney is doing a great job right now.
_________________
"Every hurt is a lesson, and every lesson makes you better”
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67317
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 10:57 am    Post subject:

Republicans spent the day attacking and and demeaning. The never ask and skirted answering the question about why they were there.

A formal impeachment inquiry was launched on September 24, 2019, as a response to the Trump–Ukraine scandal, in which Trump and his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani pressed the Ukrainian government repeatedly since at least May 2019 to investigate Hunter Biden, the son of 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Wilt
LG Contributor
LG Contributor


Joined: 29 Dec 2002
Posts: 13711

PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:10 am    Post subject:

They implicitly accused Vindman - immigrant and Jewish - of divided loyalties.
_________________
¡Hala Madrid!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:12 am    Post subject:

Wilt wrote:
They implicitly accused Vindman - immigrant and Jewish - of divided loyalties.


This is when they are actually at their most honest. This is what the current GOP is, a race-baiting white nationalist cult.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ChefLinda
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 24113
Location: Boston

PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:23 am    Post subject:

I very rarely get teary about patriotism (true patriotism, not phony MAGA jingoism) but Vindman's testimony (as well as Ambassador Yavanovitch) did it for me. The Republicans were completely over-the-top disgraceful.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ContagiousInspiration
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 07 May 2014
Posts: 13811
Location: Boulder ;)

PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:34 am    Post subject:

^^^Someone has to get through to the Citizens where trash like these Republicans spawn

How can a Christian preacher/pastor speak to support Trump?

I believe there need to be rabblerousers who go INTO the churches..
Interrupt services
Demand they either listen or answer our plea as *Children of God like themselves.. **Must speak in their dialect to get rapport..

Plea to their teachings and their heart to help free America from these people

Something has to change.. how can a Christian side with Donald Trump?

Whoever did this would probably get arrested for trespassing? Maybe set up pa speakers and such across the street... Demand these people do something right for once... Get rid of McConnell and Trump and Jordan and all kinds of these 3rd grade liars and thieves and Kompromat Hypocrites
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67317
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 11:44 am    Post subject:

ChefLinda wrote:
I very rarely get teary about patriotism (true patriotism, not phony MAGA jingoism) but Vindman's testimony (as well as Ambassador Yavanovitch) did it for me. The Republicans were completely over-the-top disgraceful.


I agree Republicans were over the top. Vidman presented a patriot undeniable. What caused my heart to swell was the applause after he finished. I don't recall any applause before this.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
jodeke
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 17 Nov 2007
Posts: 67317
Location: In a world where admitting to not knowing something is considered a great way to learn.

PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:34 pm    Post subject:

Nunes calls the proceedings a circus.
_________________
Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.

America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 36081
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 12:36 pm    Post subject:

Which of these 2020 Democrats agrees with you most?

Surprised how much I agreed with Booker and how little with Gabbard. There's nothing on foreign policy, though.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Omar Little
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 90299
Location: Formerly Known As 24

PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:03 pm    Post subject:

greenfrog wrote:
Which of these 2020 Democrats agrees with you most?

Surprised how much I agreed with Booker and how little with Gabbard. There's nothing on foreign policy, though.


I must be a pretty mainstream Dem because the highest agree score was 6 and the lowest was four, and the highest number of candidates were at 5.
_________________
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” ― Elie Wiesel
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
governator
Franchise Player
Franchise Player


Joined: 28 Jan 2006
Posts: 24996

PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:09 pm    Post subject:

greenfrog wrote:
Which of these 2020 Democrats agrees with you most?

Surprised how much I agreed with Booker and how little with Gabbard. There's nothing on foreign policy, though.


got Biden 7, nothing with Warren 0


Last edited by governator on Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:47 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
greenfrog
Retired Number
Retired Number


Joined: 02 Jan 2011
Posts: 36081
Location: 502 Bad Gateway

PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:34 pm    Post subject:

Omar Little wrote:
greenfrog wrote:
Which of these 2020 Democrats agrees with you most?

Surprised how much I agreed with Booker and how little with Gabbard. There's nothing on foreign policy, though.


I must be a pretty mainstream Dem because the highest agree score was 6 and the lowest was four, and the highest number of candidates were at 5.


You get what you want (being in the middle seems to be your thing). I tried to answer the questions honestly, acknowledging the differences I have with my preferred candidate, and still got my preferred candidate. Unscientific af.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic    LakersGround.net Forum Index -> Off Topic All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 1812, 1813, 1814 ... 3661, 3662, 3663  Next
Page 1813 of 3663
Jump to:  

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum






Graphics by uberzev
© 1995-2018 LakersGround.net. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy. Terms of Use.
LakersGround is an unofficial news source serving the fan community since 1995.
We are in no way associated with the Los Angeles Lakers or the National Basketball Association.


Powered by phpBB