DNC

VarunaTT · July 2016

Well, let's get this shit show under way.

They started off with booing Barney Frank. I cannot with these delegates. That's BS. Sanders hasn't had 1/8th of the career Frank has. Grrrr.

charlotte989875 · July 2016

So this might be an unpopular opinion, but I think the Sanders delegates have a right to be upset about the email leak and how some of the primaries and caucuses were handled (particularly Nevada).

I think the way some of the DNC members have tried to say it's no big deal or that it's only a few emails and a few members is the wrong approach.

kimmiinthemitten · July 2016

Hillary could have done a ton yesterday and chose not to. That's not going to bare well for her this week.

She should have called for DWS to step down first and issued a statement to Bernies supporters. She didn't. She hired DWS onto her campaign in a key role.

She should have this election in the bag, but the DNC has operated in a bubble for a while now and is out of touch and believe themselves to be untouchable. That's not going to fly this election season. If her goal is to appear more trustworthy for the general election, her last move just guaranteed votes for Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.

ETA without super delegates she is only 359 delegates ahead. That's really not a lot.

VarunaTT · July 2016

I don't. The DNC committees is allowed to have personal opinions as long as they still do their jobs, just like I can think Diva is a Diva, but still do my job. Additionally, there's a lot of factual information about that "leak" that is being overlooked;

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/let-me-address-this-ridiculousness-surround-the-dnc-email-hack/

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/for-the-last-time-heres-proof-the-democratic-primary-wasnt-rigged-against-bernie-sanders/

There were never any issues w/primaries b/c HRC always took the primaries. Weirdly enough, caucuses always seemed to be the issue, where Sanders performed better.

And this column sums it up perfectly for me (I believe this has been picked up by HuffPo now): https://extranewsfeed.com/dear-senator-sanders-on-the-eve-of-the-dnc-102b6ce0b9e0#.6msql7hoy

VarunaTT · July 2016

No, DSW is an "honorary" campaign chair. That's the equivalent of "sit in the corner and be pretty." She is NOT in a key position of the HRC campaign. My feeling is HRC made a call, told DSW to resign, and this was her offer of a golden parachute.

HRC, as she has been doing, needs to not acknowledge the BS that is continually thrown at her. These e-mails weren't between her and the DNC or anyone in her campaign and the DNC. It's ridiculous that in 20K e-mails WITH NO PROOF OF COLLUSION, she is being accused of collusion.

kimmiinthemitten · July 2016

I don't think the problem is Sanders, but his supporters who feel disenfranchised by the system and excluded from the system, especially HRCs centrist policies. Like it or not, the wiki leaks emboldened their claims that for months plus the DNC was colluding against Sanders. You can have favorites, you can't encourage the media to act on them when representing the party.

What about the CFO who tried getting journalists to push him about being an atheist instead of Jewish because it would hurt him in the South?

Bottom line, as Oliver's segment on the RNC shows, perception is reality when it comes to politics. She has a major credibility problem and just doubled down on that image with a large group of Dem voters.

VarunaTT · July 2016

Superdelegates are people too. They were put into place from the fiasco of the 1968 Democratic convention which WAS decided in smoke filled backroom and thwarted the will of the Party members.

If they get rid of superdelegates, lay people will find it very hard to be delegates anymore. It's an expensive, time consuming process and elected officials will be favored and voted into delegate positions, instead of taking a superdelegate position.

kimmiinthemitten · July 2016

For the record, I'm voting for Hillary, and was a huge fan of DWS and everything she did for women, especially those with genetic dispositions for the BRCA gene in the 90s and 2000's. But she fell out of touch with the average person and became part of the machine.

And that is HRCs problem within the party. She dismisses legitimate concerns people have about her and does what she wants. Do I think she orchestrated the DNCs support of her? No. Don't think she knew damn well what was going on the entire time? Hell yes. She never expected a primary challenger, let alone a real one and took all the help she could get.

VarunaTT · July 2016

I think that CFO should be removed from his position. That's one e-mail. The count is 5-6 e-mails, only one that actually advocate political strategy (the one you're talking about) out of 20K. That still isn't HRC or her campaign.

And, quite frankly, HRC is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't. If she did come out with a statement, she would've been perceived as weak, not able to control her party that she is the presumed head of, etc, etc, etc. She keeps her nose to the grind and does the work, rather than play the media spin.

charlotte989875 · July 2016

So because Sanders won caucuses we shouldn't be concerned about issues with them?

Sure HRC doesn't have to respond to these issues, but only 55% of Sanders supports (in one poll) have switched to Clinton. So sure she doesn't need to respond but if there is to be any unity it would be good to acknowledge the concerns about the emails and the process and move forward. This attitude that it's not a big deal doesn't help in uniting the party.

And yes DNC officials can have preferences but you said it as long as they do their jobs. The DNC remains neutral in the primaries and devising strategies to attack someone's religion (or lack thereof) isn't neutral.

VarunaTT · July 2016

I should add, I started out as a Sanders voter. The more I researched his policies and his sources, the more disillusioned I became that he actually knew/understood what he was talking about and was lacking talking points in areas I felt were important for a president.

But where is the "help" given in this e-mails? There's no secret "Scandal" type e-mail where voting machines were rigged. There's no pulling of money. And Sanders got what he wanted most of the times: additional debates, some other things I'm blanking on, while his campaign was violent in NV and stole data from HRC. But we're mad about a religious bashing e-mail and someone talking some smack? That's just ridiculous to me.

VarunaTT · July 2016

charlotte989875 said:

And yes DNC officials can have preferences but you said it as long as they do their jobs. The DNC remains neutral in the primaries and devising strategies to attack someone's religion (or lack thereof) isn't neutral.

one e-mail =/= devising a strategy. And there's no proof it was ever used. And there's still no proof, in all those e-mails, of vote rigging.

charlotte989875 · July 2016

VarunaTT said:

charlotte989875 said:

And yes DNC officials can have preferences but you said it as long as they do their jobs. The DNC remains neutral in the primaries and devising strategies to attack someone's religion (or lack thereof) isn't neutral.

one e-mail =/= devising a strategy. And there's no proof it was ever used. And there's still no proof, in all those e-mails, of vote rigging.

So I think in this case it's the appearance of bias rather than any evidence of vote rigging that's a problem. It's feeding into what Sanders supporters were already feeling. So by continuing to say oh nothing's happening without acknowledging there have been some minor problems does more harm than good. I fail to see the problem with the leader of the party saying "Look we can do better and we will do better".

FTR I'm not a Clinton or Sanders supporter, but a political scientist and it seems from a strategic standpoint there were better ways to handle this.

VarunaTT · July 2016

Confirmation bias is a real thing and I do agree that's what's happening.

I also don't think that even if HRC came out and said, "I had nothing to do with that and I condemn the actions of those in the DNC who did it," it wouldn't be enough for the rabid Sanders supporters out there (which is not everyone, I fully acknowledge). It's better to stay silent, and let other people battle it out, than take it upon yourself as a leader, sometimes.

kimmiinthemitten · July 2016

VarunaTT said:

Confirmation bias is a real thing and I do agree that's what's happening.

I also don't think that even if HRC came out and said, "I had nothing to do with that and I condemn the actions of those in the DNC who did it," it wouldn't be enough for the rabid Sanders supporters out there (which is not everyone, I fully acknowledge). It's better to stay silent, and let other people battle it out, than take it upon yourself as a leader, sometimes.

First, let me say that I hate, loathe, despise the American way of thinking that says an apology or recognition of a problem is weakness (per your earlier post). Acknowledging the presence of bias is not a weakness.

Also, there is still long standing voter problems that haven't been acknowledged by the DNC or wiki leaks yet, such as the multiple states where voter polls were purged but only of Democratic voters. Or how about that time a Bernie intern fell upon voter rolls and reported it only to be accused of theft, and then it was widely believed the DNC let that slip to create a problem. The leak and the DNC/HRC response to it doesn't help any of these previous beliefs. The fact that DWS tried to show up and speak today proves how out of touch they are.

We deserve transparency in our elections, and if HRC wants to prove herself as a transparent, trustworthy politician, she had an opportunity handed to her on a golden platter and she snubbed it. That was a major campaign fubar.

In addition to being a life long progressive dem, I'm also a former local campaign organizer so my views come from my time spent behind the candidate/petition.

kimmiinthemitten · July 2016

This just in (I've always wanted to say that): Bernies name will be part of the nomination roll call! This could be interesting, especially coming from a primary state that supported him.

VarunaTT · July 2016

His name was always going to be on the convention roll call. IIRC, only candidates who officially withdraw their name wouldn't be on the roll call. That's SOP.

VarunaTT · July 2016

I'm also reminded of the quote from Dawkins, I think, "If someone arrives at an opinion illogically, you can't logic them out of it."

I come at it from experience in local and state campaigns, and a small dab at national before I quit, a lot of activist issue campaigns, and a lot of political leadership. I think one of the hardest things for leaders to do is to know when to remain silent, b/c anything else is screaming into the wind. HRC would just be giving ammunition and credence to this "scandal" with a statement. She's been doing this thing for 25 years now. I trust that sense.

kimmiinthemitten · July 2016

VarunaTT said:

His name was always going to be on the convention roll call. IIRC, only candidates who officially withdraw their name wouldn't be on the roll call. That's SOP.

Gotcha...when they interviewed The Michigan delegation they said since they've decided to add his name to the roll call, they were debating how to vote.

VarunaTT · July 2016

I think, and this is pulling from a long time, that was different in '04 b/c HRC released her delegates to Obama, effectively removing her name from the rolls (I'm don't remember there was ever an official removal). Earlier, I saw that Sanders said he was going to release his delegates, but I"m not sure he has/still is. And at that point, my memory of the convention rules totally fails.

charlotte989875 · July 2016

VarunaTT said:

I think, and this is pulling from a long time, that was different in '04 b/c HRC released her delegates to Obama, effectively removing her name from the rolls (I'm don't remember there was ever an official removal). Earlier, I saw that Sanders said he was going to release his delegates, but I"m not sure he has/still is. And at that point, my memory of the convention rules totally fails.

I've been out running so I haven't seen Any DNC coverage, but my recollection is that he hasn't released his delegates, but has urged everyone to vote for Clinton, so they can still pledge their delegates for him, but they can also switch to Clinton. If (and this would be so so unlikely) she doesn't get the magic number on the first ballot (regular delegates + supers) they would have to go to the second. Again that's not going to happen.

kimmiinthemitten · July 2016

I have my beer and I'm ready to play....

http://www.cbs.com/shows/the-late-show-with-stephen-colbert/convention-bingo/?nm

monkeysip · July 2016

kimmiinthemitten said:

I have my beer and I'm ready to play....

http://www.cbs.com/shows/the-late-show-with-stephen-colbert/convention-bingo/?nm

LOL

"White person attempts to speak spanish"
"Story of made-up working class person"
"Uncomfortable HRC laugh"

kimmiinthemitten · July 2016

Can we bottle Michelle Obama? Goosebumps, tears, and everything in between.

I seriously do not understand the vitriol against her!

scrunchythief · July 2016

kimmiinthemitten said:

Can we bottle Michelle Obama? Goosebumps, tears, and everything in between.

I seriously do not understand the vitriol against her!

I just finished it, and I don't have enough words. This is the most hopeful I've felt about our nation in a long time.

Now I just need to not read any comment sections.

monkeysip · July 2016

I kinda wish Michelle was running instead of Hillary.

I've always thought she was a very elegant and smart first lady.

VarunaTT · July 2016

I'm about to totally bawl in my office. I'm watching Roll Call. That elderly woman who stood up to cast the delegate vote for Hilary Clinton is killing me. I keep thinking of all she must've seen in the fight for women's rights and now she's here announcing for the first female candidate for a major political party.

Screw all the haters, me and my female self get to be damn proud of this moment.

VarunaTT · July 2016

SHE'S 102!!! http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/meet-jerry-emmett-arizonas-102-year-old-honorary-delegate-to-the-democratic-national-convention-8472872

kimmiinthemitten · July 2016

VarunaTT said:

I'm about to totally bawl in my office. I'm watching Roll Call. That elderly woman who stood up to cast the delegate vote for Hilary Clinton is killing me. I keep thinking of all she must've seen in the fight for women's rights and now she's here announcing for the first female candidate for a major political party.

Screw all the haters, me and my female self get to be damn proud of this moment.

There is something poetic about her name being Geraldine too.

kimmiinthemitten · July 2016

It's neither here nor there in the end result but this is an example of why the delegate system pisses me off. Michigan is an open primary state. Bernie won Michigan, despite every single pollster predicting double figure leads for Hillary. The breakdown based on percentage of the vote before super delegates was 67 Sanders, 63 Clinton.

Today Hillary received 81 of Michigan's delegates and Sanders only 66. Each super delegate, represented about 8,800 voters in their singular vote. That's complete and utter bullshit.

VarunaTT · July 2016

The superdelegates don't represent anything but the majority will of the Party. They were set up that way b/c in 1968, the backdealing Dems put up a presidential candidate that never ran in the primaries. It's to ensure that that can't happen again. The Party chooses who their candidate is. I tend to think open primaries are the wrong thing to do. Primaries should be closed, with an Independent ballot available for informational purposes and/or other candidates that don't want to run with a specific party platform.

I don't think you have to like it, but the conversation needs to be "what is a better system to ensure democratic votes to the most people." And part of that conversation is the responsibility of the people.

DNC

Re: DNC

Choose Another Board

Search Boards