Wait, am I in the wrong thread? Something something Elizabeth Warren?
What it’s not called is an election.
Purchasing the primary is not the same as winning.
Losing the primary isn’t the same as winning.
None of the voters who gave Hilary that win received a cent from her.
Bernie lost - big time. You can try and call that a win all you want.
It isn’t. The voters didn’t support him.
The super delegates who put their thumb on the scale were purchased. At a certain point the votes didn’t matter because of the super delegates. Do s google search on the math. You can be in denial all you want about this but, it’s going to be in the history books my friend.
You’re saying it doesn’t matter that she won the popular vote because the delegate count shouldn’t represent the popular vote?
The non super delegate vote count didn’t matter because before a single vote was cast because she purchased the super delegates votes and they were showing her winning without even having a single non-superdelegate vote on major news stations. She rigged the process and still lost states in the primary that she lost in the general and Bernie would’ve picked up. Bernie could’ve won but, since Hillary CHEATED the process, we will never know.
Should the delegate count reflect the popular vote?
In a primary? No. Why should anyone but, the super delegates vote at that point? if a narrative can be pushed that whomever purchased the super delegates influence need not run nor even attempt to run against that someone else.
You can’t have it both ways - either the voters supporting the candidate winning the election should have their decision stand - or some other metric should have given Sanders the election because reasons.
He’s not a career politician because you like him.
He won the election because you like him.
He’s electable because you like him.
He’s ahead of Warren in the polls because you like him.
He’s got more hair than Harris because you like him.
He’s all things to you - so he must be all things to everyone.
OK you see this stuff in Third World countries that literally people are told not to even vote because we already know the outcome. If you really want our Democratic Party to aspire to be that I’m going to say that you are a very sad person. Ironic that you’re arguing there shouldn’t be a Democratic process in the Democratic primary.
You’re the one saying that the voters decision shouldn’t stand and that your opinion should substitute for it.
How sad is that?
I’m not saying that all all lol. You’re twisting my words because you’re still in denial. My words run directly counter to how you’re trying to frame them.
By Dean Baker
clinton won more primary votes than sanders.
she won more primaries and caucuses than sanders.
she won more votes to the tune of around 3 million in the presidential election than 45 did and only lost the election because of the way the electoral college skews.
none of that represents denial. the reason your words can be twisted so easily is because they run counter to reality.
on the other hand, you’re not wrong about warren. as described by paul krugman in the editorial linked below, warren has demonstrated how progressive real data about real solutions to many of the problems facing the u.s. can be. and that progressive trend is very popular. the things she wants to do are very popular and actual data backs those things up as feasible.
edited for clarity.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.