Then there’s the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995. Plus his track record with DMCA, etc…
https://www.cnet.com/news/joe-bidens-pro-riaa-pro-fbi-tech-voting-record/
(Uncle Joe? When the fuck did we start calling him that?)
4 Likes
The DNC pushed the idea that a Bernie vote was futile, and engaged in shenanigans like scheduling debates for minimal viewership to mute his message. By the time it became widely evident that his campaign was much more than a quixotic protest, lots of states had already had their primaries or caucuses.
5 Likes
Wasn’t that what we called Stalin during that brief period we were allies?
1 Like
I couldn’t get through it.
1 Like
Bullshit. People state their opinions without qualification all the time. “Some have said” is weaslier than than a bowl of slippery ferrets. When it comes to political prognostications, it’s always an opinion unless there’s a crystal ball, a pentagram, and lots and lots of blood. And you’d have to be stupid to need that asterisk.
4 Likes
More residual Bernieganda.
I’m shocked – shocked – to hear that there were secret, internecine battles going on between the Clinton and Biden camps.
Remember: every time you read a Podesta email, you’re increasing Putin’s mana.
2 Likes
And not that many more,
Literally, millions more.
Polls showed that independents (currently around 40% of voters- a
larger block than either party can claim) favored Sanders by a wide
margin.
Sanders didn’t run in the independent primary. He ran in the Democratic primary.
I mean, isn’t that the reason they have superdelegates in the first place- To pick the candidate most likely to win the general election?
So, they’re undemocratic spoilers when they don’t vote the way you want? But champions if they vote for your guy? Come on.
Yeah, probably. I have no idea what that has to do with Clinton.
She won. Twice, in fact.
4 Likes
By the time it became widely evident that his campaign was much more
than a quixotic protest, lots of states had already had their primaries
or caucuses.
Any chance an unknown semi-radical with no name recognition outside of his tiny state might have a harder time getting his message out than a wildly-popular Senator, First Lady and Secretary Of State ?
Nope. Must’ve been a conspiracy!
1 Like
“Some have said” is weaslier than than a bowl of slippery ferrets
I’m glad that didn’t go unnoticed. Bonus points would’ve been awarded if you’d noted that it’s a Trumpism.
2 Likes
Of course it is. What we’re saying is that Trump’s campaign is going under because he’s a shitty human being, not because he has shitty policy positions. Which he does.
1 Like
Totally. The Clinton camp is trying to send the message that they’re the adults in the room. I understand that, especially given the opposition. But they do this to the extent where everyone else is a loony. Sanders supporters, Lessig supporters, Trump supporters, Johnson supporters, all loonies, and all the same type of loonies.
I would go after the independent vote and try to unify my side, but that’s why I’m not a politician.
So “wildly popular”, she lost against a random black guy coming out of nowhere in 2008, with zero connections, zero money and almost zero experience of national politics; and came very close to losing again against an old guy who’s not even in her party. Which means her own base does not like her that much. Wildly popular, yoo-hoo!
Dude, there is no need to pollute legitimate arguments with propaganda. That is a trumpism.
4 Likes
Hmmm… Now, granted I live North of your border, but I did get a strong impression that the DNC successfully managed the same sort of… filtering of the vote that New Labour tried with less success on Corbyn.
Wildly popular? Hadn’t noticed that up here. I recall the polls during the primaries: Sanders was cleaning up right across the political spectrum. I personally know a number of conservative Republicans who would have happily voted for him in preference to either HRC or the Donald, despite his socialist credentials. Ironically they’re all voting 3rd party (which usually splits progressive voting instead), so I suppose the DNC’s calculation worked…
It strikes me that HRC’s biggest selling point has been that she’s not Trump, and that’s a helluva statement about the quality of this election’s candidates.
5 Likes
Uh, maybe you haven’t noticed, but I’m not a Democrat and therefore not a Bernie voter.
From the outside, it looks like the Party Machine determines whose turn it is to run, with rare exceptions, and manipulates public opinion to that end using vast amounts of money. Superdelegates appear to be a response to people getting wise to information manipulation and failing to vote as required. But hey, I’m on the outside, maybe it’s not really the way it looks!
I’m a registered Republican who’s voting for Jill Stein. You’d think that combination would make dedicated Democratic party apparatchiks very happy, but apparently not. They keep trying to convince me that I shouldn’t vote Green…
3 Likes
So “wildly popular”, she lost against a random black guy coming out of nowhere in 2008,
Clearly we are talking about the 2016 race.
But, if you want to move the goalposts… in the 2008 race, Clinton actually won the popular vote totals.
And “wildly popular” refers to her approval polling, which in 2008, was exceedingly high, 70+ (sometimes 85+) among Democrats. And it stayed that way right up until the GOP really started bashing her over the Benghazi nonsense.
Yoo-hoo, indeed.
3 Likes
Wildly popular? Hadn’t noticed that up here.
Look at the polling. Her approval ratings among Democrats were 80%+ at times.
I recall the polls during the primaries
Her ratings dropped once the GOP started beating on her with the Benghazi nonsense, and the email server nonsense. Though nothing ever actually came of any of that, years of ‘questions’ in the press took their toll.
Sanders was cleaning up right across the political spectrum.
No, not really. Sanders did very well with young people, with left-leaning and libertarian-leaning unaffiliated voters, and with white voters. He did not do so well with older voters (40+), minorities, and actual Democrats. But he was running in the Democratic primary, not the left-leaning and libertarian-leaning unaffiliated primary. So he lost.
It strikes me that HRC’s biggest selling point has been that she’s not Trump
Not quite. Recent polling which asks this very question shows that the majority of people voting for her are voting for her, and not simply against Trump.
She wouldn’t be my first choice (and Sanders wouldn’t even be close to my first choice), but she’s a solid liberal. We could do far worse. And if the armchair purity warriors could stir themselves to help us elect some more Congressional Dems in 2018, she’ll get some real good stuff done.
2 Likes
I guess I add one more to the list of Republicans I know who are voting 3rd party. <wry grin>
3 Likes
Uh, maybe you haven’t noticed, but I’m not a Democrat and therefore not a Bernie voter.
I admit I hadn’t studied your bio quite as thoroughly as I could have.
Superdelegates appear to be a response to people getting wise to information manipulation and failing to vote as required.
They were put in place in the 80s after a decade where the Democratic Party went through a riotous convention (1968) and couple of truly catastrophic electoral ass-whippings (Carter, Mondale). They were supposed to help provide order at the convention (by eliminating the chance of having the nomination decided on the convention floor) and to act as a safety in case the party chose someone truly terrible (which is a shitty reason to have them).
But they were totally irrelevant this year. They could’ve all decided to ignore the popular vote and swing the primary to Sanders. But that would’ve been exactly the kind of anti-Democratic shenanigans that Sanders supporters are imagining to have happened. But, in the end, in reality, Sanders simply lost fair and square. He did amazingly well given where he started from, but he didn’t do well enough to win.
3 Likes
You didn’t pay very close attention did you? It’s OK. Most people didn’t.[quote=“fluffitfluffit, post:102, topic:88217”]
But, in the end, in reality, Sanders simply lost fair and square.
[/quote]
What you are missing is the Wasserman Schultz agenda of marginalizing Bernie in the media and among the Dem elite. She directed funds to help Clinton and to attack Sanders. The promised impartiality never happened. As a result the press followed her lead and when they did bother to report on Sanders is was largely how he was unelectable even though he was pulling in larger crowds than anyone else.
The primary voters simply voted for the name the knew and the DNC and Wasserman Schultz made sure that name was Clinton. It was a master class in manipulating the outcome of a primary.
6 Likes
