Hillary Clinton welcomes Wasserman-Schultz to campaign as ‘honorary chair’

[Theodarzna]

Seriously though, this is suppose to be the big political player, the one who can "play the game," and is currently exercising the political tact of a corpse.

Seriously if this is her judgement on the campaign trail, what will her judgement be like in the White House.

[Reeve]

Also, you are dead wrong about the intentions of the party. Many parties simply nominate who they want. But, the DNC holds a primary, very clearly asking constituents to make the choice.

Yes, they hold a primary, but they also have Superdelegates whose entire job is to ensure that if people choose something the party doesn't like, they can invalidate the choice and pick who they really want. The primaries are more just non-binding opinion referenda in the Democratic process. The party still gets to choose who they want, because at the end of the day they're a private club, not a public entity.

[Mavick]

Bernie telling people to vote on clinton just proves is a big piece of shit.

The guy that wanted to end with corruption and lobbys and suports the bitch is wall street all the way

Good job on shiting hard on your suporters

I hate seeing it as much as you but don't be too hard on him. I mean sure it would be great to see him say "fuck it" and stick to his guns but that would virtually guarantee Trump got elected if he kept the party split. Plus, if Trump got elected, with a Republican controlled Congress as well, his life would be a literal hell in the Senate. I get why he's doing it, as much as I hate seeing it.

[Tijuana]

Yes, they hold a primary, but they also have Superdelegates whose entire job is to ensure that if people choose something the party doesn't like, they can invalidate the choice and pick who they really want. The primaries are more just non-binding opinion referenda in the Democratic process. The party still gets to choose who they want, because at the end of the day they're a private club, not a public entity.

Oh, I agree the DNC is corrupt. My point though, is that the public is very much unhappy about it. Perception is reality. The public thought they had a role in the selection when they pulled that lever. Clearly, they do not.

[Reeve]

The fallacy to your argument is that the party doesn't have a candidate yet, that doesn't become official until Thursday. But they clearly favored one from the beginning, as demonstrated, and that is the issue with many people.

But that's because people have an unrealistic expectation that an entity created for the purpose of putting for a platform with candidates that can bring that platform into reality shouldn't then have a bias in favor of candidates who support their platform.

People are seriously upset that the establishment didn't support the anti-establishment candidate. Of course they didn't. Bernie didn't represent the party. He represented something else, and ran within the Democratic party, trying to usurp it from within. Is it any wonder the DNC would oppose him?

It's the same thing with Trump. He represents something very different from the Republican establishment, came in under the R flag nonetheless, and has now managed to entirely subvert the party from within. Is it any surprise they worked so hard to avoid his victory?

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, I agree the DNC is corrupt. My point though, is that the public is very much unhappy about it. Perception is reality. The public thought they had a role in the selection when they pulled that lever. Clearly, they do not.

That's not corruption. That's a private organization operating as intended.

[zenkai]

Which means jack shit for the future of the country. That's how it is with your two-party system. I can't believe how hopelessly ideological people in here are.
They can either chose Hillary, which is more right than Sanders, but otherwise an intelligent, experienced leader OR they can vote for Trump, a psychotic clown which shits on everything liberals stand for. If Hillary is not Jesus, they chose the devil because they're bitter that the perfect leader doesn't exist as a proper alternative.
Obviously they don't give a fuck about the policies that Bernie stands for, so what is the point?


Even if Democrats chose Sanders as their candidate, he would NEVER win, because every conservative and even moderate voter is scared of his politics. They would rather have voted for Saddam Hussein if he was the republican candidate.

Hillary intelligent? LOL she can't even use email properly

[Mavick]

Yes, they hold a primary, but they also have Superdelegates whose entire job is to ensure that if people choose something the party doesn't like, they can invalidate the choice and pick who they really want. The primaries are more just non-binding opinion referenda in the Democratic process. The party still gets to choose who they want, because at the end of the day they're a private club, not a public entity.

Superdelegates which they've already agreed to cut by two thirds due to how much that has impacted the last few primaries, particularly this one. And by impact I don't mean by numbers, but merely the ones who chose a candidate before a single primary vote was cast. So bear that in mind when you bring things like that up. The superdelegates were NEVER meant to decide the outcome, they were simply a failsafe for when someone *might* attempt to hijack the party.

[zenkai]

Bernie telling people to vote on clinton just proves is a big piece of shit.

The guy that wanted to end with corruption and lobbys and suports the bitch is wall street all the way

Good job on shiting hard on your suporters

^---this. Someone who actually believes what they say wouldn't compromise their ethics.

[Reeve]

Superdelegates which they've already agreed to cut by two thirds due to how much that has impacted the last few primaries, particularly this one. And by impact I don't mean by numbers, but merely the ones who chose a candidate before a single primary vote was cast. So bear that in mind when you bring things like that up. The superdelegates were NEVER meant to decide the outcome, they were simply a failsafe for when someone *might* attempt to hijack the party.

A failsafe IS deciding the outcome. That is literally their entire purpose.

And they're talking about cutting them back because people have unrealistic expectations of democracy in a process that isn't necessarily supposed to be democratic.

[Tijuana]

But that's because people have an unrealistic expectation that an entity created for the purpose of putting for a platform with candidates that can bring that platform into reality shouldn't then have a bias in favor of candidates who support their platform.

People are seriously upset that the establishment didn't support the anti-establishment candidate. Of course they didn't. Bernie didn't represent the party. He represented something else, and ran within the Democratic party, trying to usurp it from within. Is it any wonder the DNC would oppose him?

It's the same thing with Trump. He represents something very different from the Republican establishment, came in under the R flag nonetheless, and has now managed to entirely subvert the party from within. Is it any surprise they worked so hard to avoid his victory?

- - - Updated - - -



That's not corruption. That's a private organization operating as intended.

Dude, are you for real? You are saying it's intended for the primary to be fake? If the DNC said that, your party would cease to exist in one cycle or less.

[Stonecloak]

A failsafe IS deciding the outcome. That is literally their entire purpose.

And they're talking about cutting them back because people have unrealistic expectations of democracy in a process that isn't necessarily supposed to be democratic.

Well they have unrealistic expectations because that's the way it's supposed to be. Slowly people are starting to learn. If they haven't already.

[zenkai]

And yet during that whole "scandal" you guys claimed that she "personally set up her own email server all by herself because that sounds the most incriminating".

You guys?

I don't think I ever heard anyone say she did it herself, they all said she had it done.

[Mavick]

But that's because people have an unrealistic expectation that an entity created for the purpose of putting for a platform with candidates that can bring that platform into reality shouldn't then have a bias in favor of candidates who support their platform.

People are seriously upset that the establishment didn't support the anti-establishment candidate. Of course they didn't. Bernie didn't represent the party. He represented something else, and ran within the Democratic party, trying to usurp it from within. Is it any wonder the DNC would oppose him?

It's the same thing with Trump. He represents something very different from the Republican establishment, came in under the R flag nonetheless, and has now managed to entirely subvert the party from within. Is it any surprise they worked so hard to avoid his victory?

You seem to have a misconception of the role of the DNC. It was created to be a resource to all candidates at all levels and to be anything but undermines the reasons for its existence. Voters do NOT need a committee to tell them how to vote, that goes against the concept of democracy itself.

And to color Bernie in that manner is extremely disingenuous. If anything he's provided tremendous help to the Democratic party this primary with the sheer amount of voters he's brought in. I cast my first ever democratic primary vote because of him, for example. While he may have been outside of the party previously in technicality, he's always worked with them in practice and you could argue that his values are closer to what the democratic party should have had for quite some time now.

- - - Updated - - -

A failsafe IS deciding the outcome. That is literally their entire purpose.

And they're talking about cutting them back because people have unrealistic expectations of democracy in a process that isn't necessarily supposed to be democratic.

So give me any example of the superdelegates performing their intended function of preventing someone from hijacking or throwing an election for them? I'm sure if those examples existed they wouldn't be cutting them so drastically.

And exactly what part of this process are you saying doesn't necessarily need to be democratic? I would so love to hear an explanation for this.

[Reeve]

Dude, are you for real? You are saying it's intended for the primary to be fake? If the DNC said that, your party would cease to exist in one cycle or less.

Not fake. It's intended for it to be a snapshot of what the electorate wants, but not necessarily what the party must do.

Political parties are formed to accomplish political goals, not to give the public what it wants. They choose the candidate that has the best chance of succeeding in those political goals. When the primary participants are all pretty close to the party in their goals, then they just want to pick the person most likely to win, since that person is also most likely to succeed in the party's goals. When the participants don't share the party's goals, the party has no reason to want to put them up as their nominee, since he/she doesn't share the vision of the party.

That's why parties exist, not to just be extensions of the elections process.

- - - Updated - - -

So give me any example of the superdelegates performing their intended function of preventing someone from hijacking or throwing an election for them? I'm sure if those examples existed they wouldn't be cutting them so drastically.

It hasn't yet happened in the Democratic Party, so far as I know. But I bet the Republicans would love to have had Superdelegates this year.

And exactly what part of this process are you saying doesn't necessarily need to be democratic? I would so love to hear an explanation for this.

The selection of nominees doesn't need to be democratic. It wasn't democratic all the way up into the early 20th century. The purpose of the party is to fulfill the party platform. Having a winning candidate helps with that if the candidate agrees with that platform. If the candidate doesn't agree with that platform, the party has no reason to want them to win. If the candidate does agree, then having a primary where voters tell you who they're more likely to actually vote for is helpful, but if they choose someone your party disagrees with, then you still shouldn't want to nominate that person, since even though they'll have a D next to their name, they'll be working against the party's interests.

Parties aren't extensions of the democratic process. They're private institutions with private objectives.

[Sorrior]

If you don't want Hillary to win, vote for Trump. Similarly, if you don't want Trump to win, vote for Hillary. Pretty much as simple as it gets.

Problem is people like me want NEITHER to win

[Reeve]

Problem is people like me want NEITHER to win

Unfortunately, one of them will win, and wishing and hoping and thinking and praying isn't going to change that.

[Nathreim]

In addition to your quite correct argument about the SCOTUS seats which could affect this country massively for the next 30-50 years, I'd also argue that a political party having a favored candidate that they promote isn't exactly "corruption." It's kind of the whole purpose of political parties.

Trump put out a list of SC picks it was actually good.

Steven Colloton of Iowa, Allison Eid of Colorado, Raymond Gruender of Missouri, Thomas Hardiman of Pennsylvania, Raymond Kethledge of Michigan, Joan Larsen of Michigan, Thomas Lee of Utah, William Pryor of Alabama, David Stras of Minnesota, Diane Sykes of Wisconsin and Don Willett of Texas.

[Mavick]

It hasn't yet happened in the Democratic Party, so far as I know. But I bet the Republicans would love to have had Superdelegates this year.

That's right, it hasn't. And in the case of Trump, unless he blatantly throws the election, which is pretty laughable to say since he always seems to be anyway and it has the opposite effect, you can't argue against them selecting a candidate who received more GOP votes in the history of primaries than anyone.

The selection of nominees doesn't need to be democratic. It wasn't democratic all the way up into the early 20th century. The purpose of the party is to fulfill the party platform. Having a winning candidate helps with that if the candidate agrees with that platform. If the candidate doesn't agree with that platform, the party has no reason to want them to win. If the candidate does agree, then having a primary where voters tell you who they're more likely to actually vote for is helpful, but if they choose someone your party disagrees with, then you still shouldn't want to nominate that person, since even though they'll have a D next to their name, they'll be working against the party's interests.

Parties aren't extensions of the democratic process. They're private institutions with private objectives.

So why even have primaries then, or elections for that matter? We could just have a committee for each party pick their candidate and settle who wins by jousting or something. I mean, what you're saying is literally absurd and factually inaccurate as all hell. That's NOT why parties exist, or their respective committees either. You're literally making this shit up.

[Sorrior]

Which means jack shit for the future of the country. That's how it is with your two-party system. I can't believe how hopelessly ideological people in here are.
They can either chose Hillary, which is more right than Sanders, but otherwise an intelligent, experienced leader OR they can vote for Trump, a psychotic clown which shits on everything liberals stand for. If Hillary is not Jesus, they chose the devil because they're bitter that the perfect leader doesn't exist as a proper alternative.
Obviously they don't give a fuck about the policies that Bernie stands for, so what is the point?


Even if Democrats chose Sanders as their candidate, he would NEVER win, because every conservative and even moderate voter is scared of his politics. They would rather have voted for Saddam Hussein if he was the republican candidate.

It is more like some are tired of choosing between Satan and baphomet while feeling powerless to change anything. Sooo some want the system to burn to be rebuilt

[Reeve]

That's right, it hasn't. And in the case of Trump, unless he blatantly throws the election, which is pretty laughable to say since he always seems to be anyway and it has the opposite effect, you can't argue against them selecting a candidate who received more GOP votes in the history of primaries than anyone.

I certainly can, since he doesn't uphold the values of the party itself, and if elected, he's likely to do things that the party doesn't like. The fact that he got a lot of votes doesn't change that fact.

So why even have primaries then, or elections for that matter? We could just have a committee for each party pick their candidate and settle who wins by jousting or something. I mean, what you're saying is literally absurd and factually inaccurate as all hell. That's NOT why parties exist, or their respective committees either. You're literally making this shit up.

We didn't used to have primaries. They only started to exist some time in the 20th century. But the reason we have them is to see among the set of candidates who stands the best chance of being elected. It doesn't say whether or not that candidate is likely to fulfill the goals of the party.

And elections are a completely different thing from primaries. Elections are the actual democracy, so of course we shouldn't get rid of them. Primaries are just a method for the party to internally decide who they want to put up for election.

So what do you think is the purpose of a political party?