Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[May90]

They were rigged, but its not a big deal because they were rigged against someone who bypassed their entire establishment, declared himself a member, and ran to basically be the 'leader' and primary representative of their party in our government.

Rigged in what way?

[Orbitus]

DNC Lawyers Argue No Liability: Neutrality Is Merely a ‘Political Promise’


(source)

So I guess there is another "Conspiracy Theory," prove true thanks in no small part due to Wikileaks. So the whole "Of course it was neutral!" is bullshit by the DNC's own admission. Why even hold a primary then?

Considering your source, yeah, closer to conspiracy theory than anything. Since the "Observer" is owned by Trump's SON-IN-LAW.

[Venant]

And your point is...?

Seriously, they're not a government branch of any sort. Not even a twig. They're both private entities that can do whatever the fuck they want with their candidate selection. Don't like it? Form your own parties to challenge them. But start locally rather than trying to slam into the presidency, because local is where you can actually get shit done, and get legitimacy for higher elections.

Tell that to the libertarians who have been trying to break into the system using that manner for several decades. On a local level, the corruption is even more ridiculous in most places.

[May90]

Tell that to the libertarians who have been trying to break into the system using that manner for several decades. On a local level, the corruption is even more ridiculous in most places.

Maybe those libertarians should have had something to offer, rather than idealistic nonsense no one except them takes seriously?

[Vanyali]

Tell that to the libertarians who have been trying to break into the system using that manner for several decades. On a local level, the corruption is even more ridiculous in most places.

Clearly people aren't a fan of their message then. Unless you're going to claim that everything is rigged against them, in which case you're wandering into conspiracy level.

It does also depend on people not blindly following D or R though, I'll give you that, but that can be accomplished by having a coherant message at a local level rather than shrieking it's not fair no one takes them seriously in senate / congress.

[Edge-]

"They are 'totes bullshit! I didn't even watch them!"

Well you are a Mod, I suppose that makes you an authority that I should trust? Like CNN!

They've been shown to be completely untrustworthy, so I have no inclination to take them seriously anymore.

Though you did't address the point about the guy being part of the DNC. Is there another video where he does talk to someone from the DNC, in which case that's cool. Otherwise, the guy I saw him talking to worked for a PAC and not the DNC. So in that case it would not be the words of a DNC official.

And I am happy to see Democrats are now dutiful little Cold Warriors, I hope you are enlisting to fight those evil Ruskies!

Sure, I guess?

I mean, if Trump supporters want to eat up the Russian propaganda Trump reads I guess I'm alright being on the other side of that.

inb4 "out of context!@12" or "edited!@!@"

Not a DNC official, he does not speak for the Democratic party. People for the American Way has also only been around since 1981, so not sure what that man who doesn't even seem like he's 50 years old is talking about.

There's also been literally no evidence outside these statements to support the scale of voter fraud the video purports exists.

[I Push Buttons]

Rigged in what way?

Media portrayal mostly.

Clinton losing a state, but the reports afterward showing she came away with more delegates.

Most if not all delegate counts/totals included super delegates, for example. For most of the race actual results were neck and neck, but the counters always showed Hillary winning by a good margin since they included super delegates. So it influenced turnout and support as the primary race went on.

Influenced it in as in, say a Bernie supporter looks at the delegate count and it says "Hillary is at 2000 (2382 needed to win) and Bernie is at 1600" If they aren't looking too far into it they might think to them self its already over and not even bother going to vote. Even though the actual count not including super delegates might have been more like 1650 to 1600.

Its some pretty softcore rigging, but rigging nonetheless. There wasn't any fraud, or suppression or any of that bullshit, anyone who says otherwise is a retarded conspiracy theorist. But it was rigged against Bernie Sanders.

[May90]

Media portrayal mostly.

Clinton losing a state, but the reports afterward showing she came away with more delegates.

Most if not all delegate counts/totals included super delegates, for example. For most of the race actual results were neck and neck, but the counters always showed Hillary winning by a good margin since they included super delegates. So it influenced turnout and support as the primary race went on.

Influenced it in as in, say a Bernie supporter looks at the delegate count and it says "Hillary is at 2000 (2382 needed to win) and Bernie is at 1600" If they aren't looking too far into it they might think to them self its already over and not even bother going to vote. Even though the actual count not including super delegates might have been more like 1650 to 1600.

Its some pretty softcore rigging, but rigging nonetheless. There wasn't any fraud, or suppression or any of that bullshit, anyone who says otherwise is a retarded conspiracy theorist. But it was rigged against Bernie Sanders.

Well, since the media space isn't dominated by DNC, it can't equal to the primaries having been rigged, I'd say. It's just the media overall preferring one candidate over another. Which is understandable in this case, given Bernie's stance on media.

[I Push Buttons]

Well, since the media space isn't dominated by DNC, it can't equal to the primaries having been rigged, I'd say. It's just the media overall preferring one candidate over another. Which is understandable in this case, given Bernie's stance on media.

Well I mean they were just reporting the DNC results. The super delegates (barring a few exceptions) voted the way the DNC establishment told them to vote.

[Edge-]

Media portrayal mostly.

Clinton losing a state, but the reports afterward showing she came away with more delegates.

That's not rigged, that's reporting the facts. She lost the popular vote during the primaries in a number of states but ended up with more delegates from them due to the way superdelegates work.

People suddenly discovering that superdelegates, which have never been a secret, exist for the first time and pitching a fit is not evidence of a conspiracy or media rigging. That's them coming out of the cave of their own ignorance.

Most if not all delegate counts/totals included super delegates, for example. For most of the race actual results were neck and neck, but the counters always showed Hillary winning by a good margin since they included super delegates. So it influenced turnout and support as the primary race went on.

In the popular vote things fluctuated for a bit, but Hillary absolutely gained a lead partway through and held it until the end. But Democratic presidential candidates are not nominated off of popular vote alone.

Counters including superdelegates are how Democratic delegate counts have always been done, because that's how the states end up voting usually. Again, this is not media rigging anything, this is them reporting the facts and often times clarifying the difference between the pledged delegates and the superdelegates.

People not realizing this is their problem, media were plenty clear about it all primary.

Influenced it in as in, say a Bernie supporter looks at the delegate count and it says "Hillary is at 2000 (2382 needed to win) and Bernie is at 1600" If they aren't looking too far into it they might think to them self its already over and not even bother going to vote.

That's their fault then and they should educate themselves on the Democratic primary system.

Its some pretty softcore rigging, but rigging nonetheless. There wasn't any fraud, or suppression or any of that bullshit, anyone who says otherwise is a retarded conspiracy theorist. But it was rigged against Bernie Sanders.

No, it's not rigging at all.

Again, I say all this as someone who supported and voted for Sanders in the primary and would much rather he have won than Hillary.

[Skroe]

DNC Lawyers Argue No Liability: Neutrality Is Merely a ‘Political Promise’


(source)

So I guess there is another "Conspiracy Theory," prove true thanks in no small part due to Wikileaks. So the whole "Of course it was neutral!" is bullshit by the DNC's own admission. Why even hold a primary then?

Because it's normally far more competitive. Such as that time Hillary Clinton lost to that first term senator black dude with half her organization who ran for President back in 2008.

Hillary Clinton and the DNC didn't fuck Bernie Sanders and the Bernie Bros. Bernie Sanders and the Bernie Bros fucked themselves. Or do you forget how in the middle of the Primary, that Bernie thread discussed at length how for all the fervor at the rally, Bernie was being organizationally outmatched despite having comparable resources.

Regardless of how much you liked his ideas, Bernie Sanders ran an absolutely garbage campaign compared to the highly innovative and winning one Obama ran against Hillary in 2008. And you people never demanded better. Worse than that, you defended and excused it.

I've said it like eight times time now: passion matters for squat, people get elected on the basis of the mechanics... the infrastructure of campaigns. It's a math problem, not a "feels" problem. Obama's 21st century campaign outclassed Hillary's 20th century campaign in 2008. Obama's 21st century "big data' campaign trucked Romney's traditional effort in 2012. Hillary's evolution of the Obama model (many of the same people running it), flattened Sanders and is flattening Trump. When Sanders was flush with money and manpower, every bit as much as Clinton, it wasn't the DNC, Superdelegates, advertisers or anything else external that prevented them from implementing a big data Get out the Vote effort, open hundreds of offices and Fund Raising Operation in key states.

In large part it was that for the revolutionary rhetoric of the Bernie Sanders front effort, the back office was largely composed of the B-Squad of Democratic lefty operatives... usually too far to the left for the New Democrats, but since 1984 have been enriching themselves running generally losing campaigns. All those $27 dollar donations went into the pockets of people Obama had (largely) nothing to do with when he was the insurgent candidate, and whose track record was of traditional campaigns and losing.

We actually talked about this. At length. The FEC data was public about where the money went.

Like what is the point of even running a campaign if you aren't going to run with an approach that is superior to the competition? Bernie Sanders had zero answer to the Clinton effort. That's what did him in. Not the DNC. Not anything Hillary Clinton said. And you people never once had the moral courage to say "full stop... Bernie... we love you... but what in god's name are you doing?"

If Bernie Sanders was as innovative as Obama was in 2008, he could have beaten Hillary in the Primary. But he wasn't and his hapless legion never held him to that high standard. It deserved to lose on that alone.

You want to get a lefty candidate into the General Election? Be ambitions, not just in political ideas, but in how you're going to beat the establishment candidate. Bernie Sanders said a lot of ambitious stuff. But the other side of his campaign was a colossal failure. Or don't you recall that leadership ex-Bernie for President staff mass quit his Grassroots post-Primary campaign because Bernie put his old havent-a-clue-how-to-win campaign manager in charge again?

[Venant]

Clearly people aren't a fan of their message then. Unless you're going to claim that everything is rigged against them, in which case you're wandering into conspiracy level.

It does also depend on people not blindly following D or R though, I'll give you that, but that can be accomplished by having a coherant message at a local level rather than shrieking it's not fair no one takes them seriously in senate / congress.

You know, there are lots of really important and influential decisions made on the local level of government, like zoning laws. Do you think somebody is really going to be swayed by your 'message' when they have a direct economic interest at stake on a local level? And sure you can try going straight to the 'people', you can try to break the local political machine, but that basically means having loyalists who will control the town council. And if you want to move up to systematic control of an entire state, that requires going into the cities, where the machine control will be even more entrenched.

Sure people will bring up examples like Mike Bloomberg, Jesse Ventura and Bernie Sanders as non R/D politicians who achieved important elected positions, but those guys were all forced to integrate themselves into the R/D dynamic in order to get anything done. To have a true third party, you would need to be replacing mass numbers of operatives on every level of the political system, which is why the emergence of a true third party is practically impossible.

[Theodarzna]

Thanks to the Wikileaks, and to Skroe I know not to vote for Hillary.

Thanks to the leaks we know Hillary is lying through her teeth about her "opposition,"/Public Position on TPP.

We know she intends to repeat the same failed mistakes Bush did in Iraq, and support a bunch of Wars that most of you would reject if a Republican said it, but I guess now that its a Democrat its fine?

[Skroe]

His campaign was certainly flawed. I still appreciate what it did for him though as it helped get his message out at least somewhat. His ideas aren't perfect, but I feel he is always fighting for what's best for the American people. You can't really say that about... any of the other candidates from this cycle.

That's fine but it needs to be separated. Bernie Sanders supporters (not sure if you're one) always say this shit. And I do not understand it. It's like they say they want to win but when it comes to actually the details of the winning thing, they don't want to do it. They don't want to think hard about why he lost.

It is perfectly acceptable to say "I like Bernie Sanders" but also say "I consider his campaign a disaster from an organizational / political campaign point of view"

Simply trying a Bernie Sanders II figure and then, when that person loses badly too by employing the same strategy, blaming it on the dastardly DNC is in no way shape or forming a winning strategy.

[Garnier Fructis]

Thanks to the Wikileaks, and to Skroe I know not to vote for Hillary.

Let's not pretend like you were even remotely close to voting Clinton at any point this election cycle.

[Skroe]

Thanks to the Wikileaks, and to Skroe I know not to vote for Hillary.

Thanks to the leaks we know Hillary is lying through her teeth about her "opposition,"/Public Position on TPP.

We know she intends to repeat the same failed mistakes Bush did in Iraq, and support a bunch of Wars that most of you would reject if a Republican said it, but I guess now that its a Democrat its fine?

Poor loser.

You know what Leftist Candidates like Sanders are perpetually screwed in this country? Look in the mirror. It's a massive country. It requires an industrial-scale organization to win the Presidency to win in 9000 polling places across the country. For decades people like you have kept mistake their passion for a winning approach. And for decades people like you have kept losing.

At what point do you plan to get sick of losing primaries or elections or votes and plan to start taking the concrete, empirically proven steps towards winning?


I said it back in April. People like you Theo held Bernie for President to an astonishingly low standard. For their part the Trumpkins are doing the exact same, and just like Sanders reaping what they sowed.

You cannot win elections in 2016 (and 2008, and 2012) that take place in 9000 voting places without a massive, manpower, data and money intensive operation. The end. It has nothing to do with political philosophy, left right or center. It is organizational. It is politically agnostic.

Any voter who doesn't demand their candidate deploy something like what Obama and Clinton have in 2008,2012, 2016 (and to a lesser degree, Ted Cruz in the Primary this year), is being a willing participant in a substandard campaign.

[Vanyali]

You know, there are lots of really important and influential decisions made on the local level of government, like zoning laws. Do you think somebody is really going to be swayed by your 'message' when they have a direct economic interest at stake on a local level? And sure you can try going straight to the 'people', you can try to break the local political machine, but that basically means having loyalists who will control the town council. And if you want to move up to systematic control of an entire state, that requires going into the cities, where the machine control will be even more entrenched.

Sure people will bring up examples like Mike Bloomberg, Jesse Ventura and Bernie Sanders as non R/D politicians who achieved important elected positions, but those guys were all forced to integrate themselves into the R/D dynamic in order to get anything done. To have a true third party, you would need to be replacing mass numbers of operatives on every level of the political system, which is why the emergence of a true third party is practically impossible.

Sooooo what you're saying is that their message isn't viable at the local level, but it's totally viable and good nationally? Please. You just stated why they're generally laughed at.

[Garnier Fructis]

I said it back in April. People like you Theo held Bernie for President to an astonishingly low standard. For their part the Trumpkins are doing the exact same, and just like Sanders reaping what they sowed.

Even the rigged election claims are the same, at least in spirit.

[Skroe]

*shrugs* I voted Hillary.

Well then what I was saying doesn't apply to you. But it was certainly the theme of the post-Primary Bernie thread. A lot of "dastardly, un-democratic Superdelegates!" And not a peep how Bernie Sanders basically forgot to campaign in winnable states simply because he didn't open offices there (or had offices and manpower comparable to the Clinton effort, despite having the money to do so).

[Wells]

Poor loser.

You know what Leftist Candidates like Sanders are perpetually screwed in this country? Look in the mirror. It's a massive country. It requires an industrial-scale organization to win the Presidency to win in 9000 polling places across the country. For decades people like you have kept mistake their passion for a winning approach. And for decades people like you have kept losing.

At what point do you plan to get sick of losing primaries or elections or votes and plan to start taking the concrete, empirically proven steps towards winning?


I said it back in April. People like you Theo held Bernie for President to an astonishingly low standard. For their part the Trumpkins are doing the exact same, and just like Sanders reaping what they sowed.

You cannot win elections in 2016 (and 2008, and 2012) that take place in 9000 voting places without a massive, manpower, data and money intensive operation. The end. It has nothing to do with political philosophy, left right or center. It is organizational. It is politically agnostic.

Any voter who doesn't demand their candidate deploy something like what Obama and Clinton have in 2008,2012, 2016 (and to a lesser degree, Ted Cruz in the Primary this year), is being a willing participant in a substandard campaign.

People like Theo bitch and moan about expectations of loyalty and support and then get mad when they don't successfully mobilize.