The 2016 Democrat National Convention

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

 

This DNC email thing is a mess. DWS has handled it terribly from the start and she got her walking papers. Clean out the idiot that made that email about Bernie's religion, too, and anyone else producing anything else as offensive. Let's reboot and try again.

 

But let's lay out a few undeniable facts about this situation:

 

• This is what happens when you peel back the curtain on politics. The ones saying the RNC would have similar inner workings are exactly right. These nasty, tooth and nail, inside baseball type of tactics are commonplace in cutthroat politics, most of us just don't think about it most of the time.
• The Democratic party had reason to want HRC to win instead of Bernie. That's not to say that they should have done this, of course-- they should be a neutral arbiter. But that they preferred a candidate should surprise no one.
• Zoogs is right-- in our system, primary voting is worth about a plugged nickel, since the parties make the rules and they can select their nominee at will. General elections is where votes ultimately always matter.
• Bernie didn't lose because democracy was subverted, or it was ripped away from him, or anything else along those lines. He lost because he appealed to too narrow a slice of Americans, and in particular could not appeal to minorities, which is key for Democrats. That said, that this went on was sh**ty and his supporters are right to be aggrieved right now. To his own credit, Bernie himself let it go because he can see the endgame.

And finally, who's really going to vote on the DWS-DNC email scandal in the fall? Anyone? This will be a blip by then. Maybe some Sanders supporters, but they likely weren't in her corner before this anyway.

 

Wow, nice try at spinning this as not being a huge deal. That seems to be the common response for anything that Hillary or the DNC is doing wrong..."well, they all do it" seems to be the canned response. There is no way of knowing how different the Democratic primaries would have turned out had Hillary not been pushed by the DNC from the get go. Despite being behind nearly 600 delegates (via Superdelegates) before the first state even voted, Bernie was very close up until the end. This will make a huge impact this fall as Bernie received close to half of all votes in the Democratic primaries. While a good number of his supporters will end up supporting Hillary, a good number will not and will either vote for Trump, Johnson, Stein, or stay home. The larger that group that chooses to not support Hillary, the bigger impact it will have in November.

 

And let's not forget one key factor in this rigged DNC mess...DWS spearheaded all of this and left her post, BUT the HIllary campaign immediately moved to hire her and put her in a key role for the fall campaign. How is her presence as part of HIllary's campaign going to make many Bernie Sanders want to rush to join Team Hillary.

 

 

As of yesterday, I think I saw that 5% of those Bernie voters will vote for Trump.

 

The diehards can do what they will. Bernie won 13 million some votes in the primary. Winning a general generally portends 60 or 70 million. If you add ALL of his voters to her 16 million votes, she's not even halfway there. She's not winning this election on the backs of Sanders voters anyway you slice it. The election is won elsewhere.

 

I don't get the optics of appointing DWS to an honorary (likely cushy do-nothing) position. But I doubt it's a key position. They can't be politically dumb enough to give her any kind of public visibility after all of this.

 

But I stand by my assertion. I feel awful for Bernie about all of this. It's wrong and it stinks. I can't stand DWS. But he ran the weaker campaign and he lost, accordingly. And no, I still don't think this drastically changes anything come November.

 

 

Hmm, I guess I would not discount the impact of Bernie supporters choose other options besides joining Team Hillary. In a typical election 60 to 70 million votes would win the Presidency. IN 2016, with 2 outside parties already getting a combined 12-15% of the vote (Johnson and Stein), the winner of this election may not get to 60 million votes, and the difference between the Hillary and Trump could be less than 5 million votes. If that is the case, Bernie's 13 million votes could play a role. I personally do not think he ran the weaker campaign. He was up against a juggneraut operation that had the backing of all the establishment and the DNC and came extremely close to winning. Had he started out with a 600 superdelegate lead before the first state voted, how do you think the narrative throughout the entire campaign would have differed?

 

 

I'm kind of on the fence about the superdelegates. I understand why they were enacted in the first place (avoiding a too-extreme McGovern-esque candidate after '72) and what their purpose is. Hell, if the GOP primary wasn't as much of a trainwreck as it was, it could have saved them from Trump. But that would've required for the other candidates to take him seriously in the first place and coalesce around a better alternative, both things that failed to happen.

 

But I also see Bernie's beef. I don't know that it's right that so many of them overwhelmingly came out for Clinton early. That could be demoralizing to Bernie supporters. Perhaps a situation where they couldn't publicly disclose their allegiance until the convention could've worked? Then people probably complain and fear "shadow delegates" are rigging their election.

 

On the other hand, Obama didn't let this stop him in 2008. Hillary started out with the early superdelegate and establishment support, but he started pulling away and they rightfully switched to him. He won handily.

 

He still got his butt kicked pretty cleanly across the board in the important areas pledged delegates, or real voters.

 

It's largely a moot point now, as the Dems have formed a commission to examine changing superdelegates and making 2/3 of the regular, pledged (bound, determined by votes) delegates.

 

Let's see if this results in them nominating a more far left candidate in the future that appeals to too narrow a portion of the American people... I wonder if we're entering an era of that from both sides...

[Danny Bateman]

Especially since The Donald reiterated his request in writing:

 

Perhaps you should share your taxes, so we know how much pull you have over there!

 

No tax returns? Sad!

[BigRedBuster]

Dear Russia....

 

Can you hack into the IRS and get Trumps tax returns?

 

Sincerely,

 

Concerned Citizen

[Danny Bateman]

 

Nebraska has what, one electoral vote that's up for grabs? Obama won it in at least one of his elections. You guys over there, organize and deliver it anywhere else.

 

I know it's just a tiny slice, and I'm sure there are differing opinions about where it would be most useful for it to go, but if the only possible options end up being "Trump" or "Someone not Trump" in the district, then of course I hope it's the latter.

I live there now. For the record it was gerrymandered but it's only a "Trump lean" last time I checked. I'll vote for the someone not Trump who has the best chance of beating him. Unless at that point the polling is 35-35-30 and Johnson's losing. Then I'll probably vote for him assuming I don't find out that I don't like him.

 

 

She wants to win the split electoral votes in Nebraska and Maine, apparently.

 

Well, we did it in 2008 for Obama. I'd love to see it happen again. I'll be doing my part.

 

Wish we had access to any type of polling, though.

[ZRod]

 

 

Nebraska has what, one electoral vote that's up for grabs? Obama won it in at least one of his elections. You guys over there, organize and deliver it anywhere else.

 

I know it's just a tiny slice, and I'm sure there are differing opinions about where it would be most useful for it to go, but if the only possible options end up being "Trump" or "Someone not Trump" in the district, then of course I hope it's the latter.

 

I live there now. For the record it was gerrymandered but it's only a "Trump lean" last time I checked. I'll vote for the someone not Trump who has the best chance of beating him. Unless at that point the polling is 35-35-30 and Johnson's losing. Then I'll probably vote for him assuming I don't find out that I don't like him.

She wants to win the split electoral votes in Nebraska and Maine, apparently.

 

Well, we did it in 2008 for Obama. I'd love to see it happen again. I'll be doing my part.

 

Wish we had access to any type of polling, though.

Weren't the district lines redrawn after 2008 0r12 to prevent it from happening again?

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

 

Nebraska has what, one electoral vote that's up for grabs? Obama won it in at least one of his elections. You guys over there, organize and deliver it anywhere else.

 

I know it's just a tiny slice, and I'm sure there are differing opinions about where it would be most useful for it to go, but if the only possible options end up being "Trump" or "Someone not Trump" in the district, then of course I hope it's the latter.

I live there now. For the record it was gerrymandered but it's only a "Trump lean" last time I checked. I'll vote for the someone not Trump who has the best chance of beating him. Unless at that point the polling is 35-35-30 and Johnson's losing. Then I'll probably vote for him assuming I don't find out that I don't like him.

She wants to win the split electoral votes in Nebraska and Maine, apparently.

 

Well, we did it in 2008 for Obama. I'd love to see it happen again. I'll be doing my part.

 

Wish we had access to any type of polling, though.

Weren't the district lines redrawn after 2008 0r12 to prevent it from happening again?

 

 

I believe you're correct.

 

That's a shame. Gerrymandering is awful. Still got to try. Hopefully there's a decent chunk of Omahans who follow Sasse's lead and abstain from Trump.

[zoogs]

^ Ah, the lovable GOP-dominated House.

[Danny Bateman]

Sanders delegates are really doing their best to get America to love them this convention.

 

Just started chants anti-war chants multiple times interrupting Panetta's speech as he was ripping into Trump.

[zoogs]

These were the "NO MORE WAR!" chants? Seems like a good voicing of opinion. It is a former CIA chief and Defense Secretary, after all. When and where better to demonstrate that there is an antiwar constituency in America?

[ZRod]

^ Ah, the lovable GOP-dominated House.

That was actually the Nebraska legislature who did it. And the thumb head of a governor vetoed a bipartisan reform bill designed to have an independent party redraw the lines in 2021.

[zoogs]

Oh. My mistake!

[Moiraine]

That's why it's so important to vote - you vote for the politicians (state legislators) who can redraw maps to benefit their party.

[zoogs]

Michael Bloomberg is an impressive guy.

 

When's the last time someone walked into a Democratic National Convention and told everyone that Democrats put unfair blame on big businesses?

 

The trade barrier line met with silence, too. But I agree on both those counts.

[Danny Bateman]

Some big cojones on him, that guy.

 

Some pretty good zingers in his speech, too. It almost sounds like he's trying out material for sure to flounder standup career.

 

With the sizeable vocal anti-TPP crowd that's filling that hall in Philly, it doesn't surprise me that evoking trade in a speech is met with silence. But surely any sane person who reads and thinks through Trump's call for leveraging tariffs against China and other superpowers knows it's insane...

[Danny Bateman]

Put the politics aside for a second.

 

What a good man this is.