Jump to content


The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Wow...this discussion is a lot different than right after the election when everyone was saying the DNC screwed over Sanders.

 

20 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Danny is a moderate Democrat. I’m guessing he wasn’t one of those people. Not sure on funhusker. Everyone else either doesn’t have an opinion or thinks they screwed him over. 

 

3 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Like I said, i'm probably making wrong assumptions.

 

It just feels like people are blaming the "establishment" for his loss and it was unfair.  But the majority of votes is why she won, not some backroom deal.  I'd agree that a majority of votes were swayed by campaigns supported by people in high positions.  

 

So we agree.  I think...

 

 

 

We get caught up in this two-party system and by default presume that Democrats & Republicans are the government. They aren't. They are private clubs in the political sphere and are not by default bound by voters' decisions.

Link to comment

4 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Like I said, i'm probably making wrong assumptions.

 

It just feels like people are blaming the "establishment" for his loss and it was unfair.  But the majority of votes is why she won, not some backroom deal.  I'd agree that a majority of votes were swayed by campaigns supported by people in high positions.  

 

So we agree.  I think...

 

 

I don’t think we agree because you keep coming to a different conclusion.

 

Your conclusion implies that voters couldn’t have been influenced to vote for Clinton due to her having the DNC’s full backing.

 

How do you feel about Russia meddling in our elections? Is it a concern? If so, why?

Link to comment
1 minute ago, knapplc said:

 

 

 

 

We get caught up in this two-party system and by default presume that Democrats & Republicans are the government. They aren't. They are private clubs in the political sphere and are not by default bound by voters' decisions.

I know.  It's just a different discussion than what was had back then.  I remember a lot of people agreeing that the DNC screwed over Bernie.  That was a pretty common national narrative.  

Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I don’t think we agree because you keep coming to a different conclusion.

 

Your conclusion implies that voters couldn’t have been influenced to vote for Clinton due to her having the DNC’s full backing.

 

How do you feel about Russia meddling in our elections? Is it a concern? If so, why?

It does no such thing.  My conclusion is that even though people are effected by campaigns, they are responsible for their vote.  And the majority (aka the establishment) voted for Hillary.

 

And please don't try to equate an American political party to a foreign nation.  You're better than that.

Link to comment
1 minute ago, knapplc said:

We get caught up in this two-party system and by default presume that Democrats & Republicans are the government. They aren't. They are private clubs in the political sphere and are not by default bound by voters' decisions.

 

 

I’ve said at least half a dozen times in this forum that the DNC can hold elections however they want. They could choose Eddie Vedder right now if they want and put him up against Trump.

 

That’s not really what this discussion has been about for the past dozen or so posts, though, including the post of mine that you quoted. We aren’t arguing whether they’re doing anything illegal. We’re arguing whether or not they favored Clinton over Sanders and whether that’s why she won. Whether it was wrong or not is a different discussion, at least to me. 

Link to comment

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I know.  It's just a different discussion than what was had back then.  I remember a lot of people agreeing that the DNC screwed over Bernie.  That was a pretty common national narrative.  

 

I think there were some loud voices who felt this, but I don't think it was the mainstream idea. And the votes bore that out:

 

Clinton: 16.9 million

Sanders: 13.2 million

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, funhusker said:

It does no such thing.  My conclusion is that even though people are effected by campaigns, they are responsible for their vote.

 

And please don't try to equate an American political party to a foreign nation.  You're better than that.

 

 

I’m not equating what the DNC did to Russia. If you think I’m better than that you shouldn’t assume otherwise. If you would answer the question you would find that out why I’m asking. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

I’m not equating what the DNC did to Russia. If you would answer the question you would find that out.

Like you, I'm okay with the DNC or GOP running their parties however they wish.  And also like you, I'd assume, I'm against a foreign nation spreading disinformation and illegally hacking servers.

 

Now, if you would please answer the question I asked many posts ago: did the person with the most votes win the 2016 democratic primary?

Link to comment
1 hour ago, ActualCornHusker said:

 

It doesn't say anything about the timing of those superdelegate pledges. From my recollection, many of the superdelegates had pledged their support early in the process - and while they didn't commit to anyone until the race was about over, they had an enormous influence on many Dem voters who saw the support Hillary had from the superdelegates and therefore cast their vote for her. She had the DNC wrapped around her finger.

I have not heard of one person that says a superdelegate influenced their vote.  Ever. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Do campaigns have an effect on every day voters?

 

Clinton got more votes but a big factor in that is she had the full support of the DNC. It was legal but the argument is that the establishment chose her and backed her. They didn’t want Sanders to win; he’s not a real Democrat.

Let me try to answer this a better way to hopefully clear up our disconnect.

 

My first post was in response to Landlord saying the "establishment absolutely 'picked' the nominee".  I assumed this was a jab at "super delegates" and why I posted the article.  

 

My issue was with his language.  The DNC absolutely "supported" one candidate, but the voters "picked" the nominee.

 

This snowballed a lot bigger than it ever should have...

Link to comment

12 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Like you, I'm okay with the DNC or GOP running their parties however they wish.  And also like you, I'd assume, I'm against a foreign nation spreading disinformation and illegally hacking servers.

 

Now, if you would please answer the question I asked many posts ago: did the person with the most votes win the 2016 democratic primary?

 

 

 

I answered your question already. You know I’m not a moron, so it should be obvious that what we’re discussing isn’t whether Clinton won the nomination with the most votes or not.

 

I said no one replying to you thinks Sanders got more votes than Clinton. Am I or am I not replying to you? Of course Clinton got the most votes.

 

We’re talking about influence on an election. I don’t think Clinton won because she had the DNC’s backing, but it most likely swayed votes. What you’re saying you believe about influence on votes and your obsession with the final tally are not compatible. 

 

Why are you against a foreign nation spreading disinformation?

 

 

5 minutes ago, funhusker said:

 

Let me try to answer this a better way to hopefully clear up our disconnect.

 

My first post was in response to Landlord saying the "establishment absolutely 'picked' the nominee".  I assumed this was a jab at "super delegates" and why I posted the article.  

 

My issue was with his language.  The DNC absolutely "supported" one candidate, but the voters "picked" the nominee.

 

This snowballed a lot bigger than it ever should have...

 

 

Gotcha. I thought it was hyperbole, so I didn’t realize you were arguing with it literally. But @Landlord obviously doesn’t think Sanders got more votes either so I still don’t know why I got asked that. 

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

I answered your question already. You know I’m not a moron, so it should be obvious that what we’re discussing isn’t whether Clinton won the nomination with the most votes or not.

 

I said no one replying to you thinks Sanders got more votes than Clinton. Am I or am I not replying to you? Of course Clinton got the most votes.

 

We’re talking about influence on an election. I don’t think Clinton won because she had the DNC’s backing, but it most likely swayed votes. What you’re saying you believe about influence on votes and your obsession with the final tally are not compatible. 

 

Why are you against a foreign nation spreading disinformation?

 

 

 

 

Gotcha. I thought it was hyperbole, so I didn’t realize you were arguing with it literally. But @Landlord obviously doesn’t think Sanders got more votes either so I still don’t know why I got asked that. 

LIke I said earlier, I was probably making incorrect assumptions. ;)

Link to comment
2 hours ago, funhusker said:

 Clinton won the nomination because more Democratic voters voted for her.  Plain and simple.

 

https://www.vox.com/2016/5/6/11597550/superdelegates-bernie-sanders-clinton

 

Yeah....nobody has said anything otherwise. This is a very peculiar way to try and steer the conversation. That's not in dispute. 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, funhusker said:

My original point is that it was determined by everyday voters.  If those voters made choices on what they hear in the news and based on the opinions of people they "trust", that is their decision.  And that's why they had the outcome they did.

 

Again, yeah you are right, but so what? That's not what we were talking about. You're not wrong, it's just....so? 

 

Alarmingly you are letting very powerful actors/agents/influences off the hook and putting all the responsibility on voters and none on the people who try to sway those voters. You told Moiraine not to compare the DNC to Russia, but the argument you're making is philosophically the exact same as one that says Trump won the election because more people where it mattered voted for him in places he needed them to. Plain and simple. Were those voters influenced by Russian interference? Probably. Did they make their votes based off of social media bots fanning the flames of outrage? Yeah maybe. But that's on them. 

 

Like, yeah, it is, but that's only one element of the equation. And I'm not sure why it's the only one you're focusing on. 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, funhusker said:

My first post was in response to Landlord saying the "establishment absolutely 'picked' the nominee".  I assumed this was a jab at "super delegates" and why I posted the article.  

 

My issue was with his language.  The DNC absolutely "supported" one candidate, but the voters "picked" the nominee.

 

 

The DNC/establishment absolutely did pick their candidate. Which is exactly what I said, that they picked their candidate. I didn't say that they got to pick who won in a way that undermined votes or the democratic process. Don't know why you would read it that way. They picked their candidate that they wanted to win and they worked to make it happen, and it worked.

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

Yeah....nobody has said anything otherwise. This is a very peculiar way to try and steer the conversation. That's not in dispute. 

 

So let's don't then :dunno

 

I apparently missed a good chunk of discussion (Thanks 15 posts per page....) and incorrectly made some assumptions.

 

I apologize

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Moiraine said:

I’ve said at least half a dozen times in this forum that the DNC can hold elections however they want. They could choose Eddie Vedder right now if they want and put him up against Trump.

 hell yeah, I'd vote for Eddie any day

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...