DNC Fraud case is over. Judge agrees DNC cheated, dismisses anyways.

[infinitemeridian]

How did the DNC convince almost 15 million people to vote against Sanders?

Checkmate atheists.

[Theodarzna]

You can also put part of them on Clinton as the leaks showed her working with the media to try and prop Trump up and take him more seriously. Otherwise he would have likely gotten the Sanders treatment on media where they were more interested in looking at empty podiums then him actually talking and treat him like the guy who was promising ponies if he won a few years ago.

And you also have to look at why they voted for him, he was at least paying lip service to problems the others ignored, he was bullshitting and speaking out his ass but he at least acknowledged them.

The last election was like voting whether you wanted to eat an entire live chicken whole or have it shoved up your ass. People don't exactly go for rational decisions when those are your only options.

Trump was also helped by Clinton's sheer arrogance and shitty campaigning. I mean who decides to not once visit a critical state? She ran a great campaign for 1990's or so. But times have changed.

[infinitemeridian]

[Bernie] was not the people’s choice. The Worst Woman In the History of the Planet was. St. Bernie was the choice of a loud and angry slice of Democratic primary voters — a group of people who felt totally entitled to win by virtue of the purity and holiness of their candidate and the horribleness of the opposing candidate. But it was the Worst Woman In the History of the Planet, not St. Bernie, who won the popular vote by double-digits nationwide. It was the Worst Woman In the History of the Planet, not St. Bernie, who won the pledged delegate count by about 350. It was the Worst Woman In the History of the Planet, not St. Bernie, who decisively won primaries in Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Arizona, and Georgia, and more closely in Nevada and Iowa. She won these primaries on the back of the support of registered Democrats, women, non-whites, and older voters. The only swing states Bernie Sanders won against Clinton that she failed to win in the general were Wisconsin and Michigan, both of which were won by Sanders only very narrowly. On top of this, Clinton also won every major Democratic stronghold, including California, New York, Maryland, Illinois, and Massachusetts.

But there’s more, still: it was actually Bernie Sanders, not Hillary Clinton, who benefited from the Democratic National Committee’s contest rules: it was Sanders’ heavily-young, heavily-white, heavily-male demographic that was peculiarly well-suited for winning caucuses. Witness the final set of contests, which happened to include both North Dakota and South Dakota. South Dakota held a primary and Hillary Clinton won by 2%. North Dakota held a caucus and Bernie Sanders won by 40%. Yet somehow we never hear about this insane disparity between primary and caucus results.

Linker and St. Bernie’s legions of fans are free to believe that the Worst Woman In the History of the Planet was a bad candidate — I’ve said it myself on many occasions. They are not free to lie about the way the contest unfolded, or about the role of the Democratic National Committee. Honest debate is necessary — but the staggering degree of dishonesty contained in this DNC-centric arguments must go.

Good article for everyone who still believes the DNC is some sort of all-powerful deity that dictates how people vote:

https://newamericanperspective.com/2...y-and-the-dnc/

[Fugus]

Trump was also helped by Clinton's sheer arrogance and shitty campaigning. I mean who decides to not once visit a critical state? She ran a great campaign for 1990's or so. But times have changed.

I can see how Trump got elected, Clinton's was arrogant as hell. Even while they were breaking their own rules to favor her and denying it. When Debbie was forced to step down in disgrace for actively cheating in Clinton's favor against Sander, Clinton snatched her up the same day and made her a head in her campaign. When asked if she would make any concessions to Sanders voters if she won, she laughed about it and said no because she was winning (While pretending she didn't do anything to put a thumb on that scale). Then you had the whole "Correct the record" group of paid trolls a million to support her and lie about crap online.

She actively worked to run off the Sanders voters thinking she didn't need them and they had no choice but to vote for her because she made sure Trump was on the other side and about the only candidate in US history hated even more than she was.

She felt that it was her turn and she was entitled to it. And she would cheat to get it but actively not feel like she needed to work for it because she deserved it.

If the DNC hadn't have cheated and gave a fair primary from the beginning. There is a really good chance Sanders would have won, but if by some chance he still lost, then the voters would have been more willing to vote for her but instead, she cheated and then antagonized all the people she cheated thinking they had no choice.

And yet we still have people trying to blame Sanders for Trump instead blaming the one who cheated against Sanders and actively worked to run that voter base off to begin with. Sanders didn't make her cheat, he didn't make her act like she did and actively run the voters off, he didn't make her snatch up DWS after she resigned in disgrace, he didn't cause her to do any of that.

[Theodarzna]

I can see how Trump got elected, Clinton's was arrogant as hell. Even while they were breaking their own rules to favor her and denying it. When Debbie was forced to step down in disgrace for actively cheating in Clinton's favor against Sander, Clinton snatched her up the same day and made her a head in her campaign. When asked if she would make any concessions to Sanders voters if she won, she laughed about it and said no because she was winning (While pretending she didn't do anything to put a thumb on that scale). Then you had the whole "Correct the record" group of paid trolls a million to support her and lie about crap online.

She actively worked to run off the Sanders voters thinking she didn't need them and they had no choice but to vote for her because she made sure Trump was on the other side and about the only candidate in US history hated even more than she was.

She felt that it was her turn and she was entitled to it. And she would cheat to get it but actively not feel like she needed to work for it because she deserved it.

If the DNC hadn't have cheated and gave a fair primary from the beginning. There is a really good chance Sanders would have won, but if by some chance he still lost, then the voters would have been more willing to vote for her but instead, she cheated and then antagonized all the people she cheated thinking they had no choice.

And yet we still have people trying to blame Sanders for Trump instead blaming the one who cheated against Sanders and actively worked to run that voter base off to begin with. Sanders didn't make her cheat, he didn't make her act like she did and actively run the voters off, he didn't make her snatch up DWS after she resigned in disgrace, he didn't cause her to do any of that.

She is a Clinton, and acted like a Clinton.

Democrats will twist themselves in knots to avoid blame or criticism for their own spectacular failures.

[infinitemeridian]

I can see how Trump got elected, Clinton's was arrogant as hell. Even while they were breaking their own rules to favor her and denying it. When Debbie was forced to step down in disgrace for actively cheating in Clinton's favor against Sander, Clinton snatched her up the same day and made her a head in her campaign. When asked if she would make any concessions to Sanders voters if she won, she laughed about it and said no because she was winning (While pretending she didn't do anything to put a thumb on that scale). Then you had the whole "Correct the record" group of paid trolls a million to support her and lie about crap online.

She actively worked to run off the Sanders voters thinking she didn't need them and they had no choice but to vote for her because she made sure Trump was on the other side and about the only candidate in US history hated even more than she was.

She felt that it was her turn and she was entitled to it. And she would cheat to get it but actively not feel like she needed to work for it because she deserved it.

If the DNC hadn't have cheated and gave a fair primary from the beginning. There is a really good chance Sanders would have won, but if by some chance he still lost, then the voters would have been more willing to vote for her but instead, she cheated and then antagonized all the people she cheated thinking they had no choice.

And yet we still have people trying to blame Sanders for Trump instead blaming the one who cheated against Sanders and actively worked to run that voter base off to begin with. Sanders didn't make her cheat, he didn't make her act like she did and actively run the voters off, he didn't make her snatch up DWS after she resigned in disgrace, he didn't cause her to do any of that.

You keep talking of "cheating", yet haven't produced a shred of evidence.

And Schultz wasn't made a "head" in her campaign. I'm not sure what's wrong with CTR - it's perfectly legal, and many and more of Sanders (and Trump) supporters did the exact same thing (And are still doing it today - Hey!).

[Endus]

@Endus

Alright, you are saying the primaries were fair. The stuff with Debbie and Donna never happened, the whole voice vote thing with Debbie never happened, the debate and primary scheduling to favor a single candidate never happened, the DNC and the media working together never happened and the media blackout on a single candidate never happened nor did the Super Delegates almost entirely line up behind a single candidate before a single vote was cast so they could claim she had an overwhelming lead she didn't have to try and give her as much momentum as she could and kill any momentum Sanders had trying to get his members to stay home never happened, ...... That's not even getting into everything.....

1> The "stuff with Debbie and Donna" was pretty much just those two saying they preferred Clinton. That's it. Nothing more. It was unprofessional, and probably meant they should have gotten fired, but that's as much as it meant. It didn't mean there was any "cheating".

2> Scheduling complaints are pretty sad and INCREDIBLY shaky.

3> There was no "media blackout". I saw plenty about Sanders in the media. You're making that up.

4> Super Delegates preferring a party regular over an Independent one-off is neither surprising nor any demonstration of wrongdoing of any sort whatsoever. And trying to establish a lead to gain momentum? Literally what campaigning is.

This is what I mean. This is unconvincing, borderline irrelevant twaddle. Unless you have a political axe to grind against the Democrats. And that's from someone who wanted to see Sanders win the nom from the beginning.

And you are saying the rules are binding, they are just not externally enforceable and will not be internally enforceable because they are being done by the ones in charge. Therefore, they are not binding.

Yes, internal rules can be overlooked if those running the group want to overrule them. And?

Don't like it? Don't participate in the Democratic Party, don't vote for their candidates, etc. That's your right, but that's about as far as your outrage justifiably goes.

As for your last part about the plaintiffs having no grounds, I will have to reread it because I read it as they could not prove that the actions had directly defrauded them as donors.

To the extent Plaintiffs have asserted specific causes of action grounded in specific factual allegations, it is this Court’s emphatic duty to measure Plaintiffs’ pleadings against existing legal standards. Having done so . . . the Court finds that the named Plaintiffs have not presented a case that is cognizable in federal court.

Right in the WaPo article, quoted directly. The case as presented by the plaintiffs wasn't just without legal merit, there's no grounds for any prosecution whatsoever because none of the accusations are about anything remotely illegal in any respect whatsoever.

That's what it being "not cognizable" means. That it isn't in the court's jurisdiction, because it isn't a legal matter in the first place. As the judges said, the plaintiffs should deal with this with their votes and such, and that's where it ends.

The problem with that is the US is setup so they voters can't punish the party that much.

Not only is this incorrect, you don't have to look any further than the 2016 election to see an incredibly clear example. Trump wasn't one of the RNC's picks to run for the candidacy, but he entered the race by their rules, and won despite their opposition and their support of their own candidates. If what you were describing were true, Trump wouldn't be President.

He is, which shows that you're wrong. We don't even have to get into hypotheticals, because the sitting President is proof positive.

[Fugus]

You keep talking of "cheating", yet haven't produced a shred of evidence.

And Schultz wasn't made a "head" in her campaign. I'm not sure what's wrong with CTR - it's perfectly legal, and many and more of Sanders (and Trump) supporters did the exact same thing (And are still doing it today - Hey!).

By cheat, I mean they broke their own rules and twisted things to intentionally favor one candidate over another while also trying to minimize one candidates exposure to the public. They cheated when they broke their own rules on neutrality.

Cheating in the primaries can mean things other than direct manipulation of the votes.

And Schultz was made snatched up by her campaign the same day as she was forced to resign. She came on as an Honorary chair of something to that effect.

[Endus]

She is a Clinton, and acted like a Clinton.

Democrats will twist themselves in knots to avoid blame or criticism for their own spectacular failures.

"Spectacular failures" like winning the popular vote by 3 million votes.

If you think the 2016 election was a landslide repudiation of the Democrats, you've been actively refusing to educate yourself about pretty much anything that happened over the course of that election, or since.

[Stormdash]

Reading the pull quotes -- I honestly don't care enough to go looking -- it sounds more like the judge granted a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the claim for "failure to have stated a claim for which relief may be granted" and not an actual summary judgment. That's what catches me eye about a claim not "cognizable in federal court". Important distinction is that the court in such situation isn't saying that the moving party is wrong and the other party was right, they are saying that the moving party, even if you consider every factual allegation they are making as true, isn't complaining about something that you can get a remedy for in federal court. So it's in no means a vindication of the DNC, it's just making it clear that complaints about it need to be directed directly at the DNC, politically.

[Endus]

Reading the pull quotes -- I honestly don't care enough to go looking -- it sounds more like the judge granted a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss the claim for "failure to have stated a claim for which relief may be granted" and not an actual summary judgment. That's what catches me eye about a claim not "cognizable in federal court". Important distinction is that the court in such situation isn't saying that the moving party is wrong and the other party was right, they are saying that the moving party, even if you consider every factual allegation they are making as true, isn't complaining about something that you can get a remedy for in federal court. So it's in no means a vindication of the DNC, it's just making it clear that complaints about it need to be directed directly at the DNC, politically.

Right. It's not a legal issue.

It's like if your brother ate the bagel you toasted, and you had to toast another. That's just going to get tossed for being pointless; talk to your brother and work it out yourselves.

[Vyuvarax]

By cheat, I mean they broke their own rules and twisted things to intentionally favor one candidate over another while also trying to minimize one candidates exposure to the public. They cheated when they broke their own rules on neutrality.

Cheating in the primaries can mean things other than direct manipulation of the votes.

And Schultz was made snatched up by her campaign the same day as she was forced to resign. She came on as an Honorary chair of something to that effect.

People have a very specific connotation for the word 'cheat,' which you are dishonestly using instead of terming the DNC's behavior with what they actually did so you can mislead people into thinking they did something more nefarious.

- - - Updated - - -

"Spectacular failures" like winning the popular vote by 3 million votes.

If you think the 2016 election was a landslide repudiation of the Democrats, you've been actively refusing to educate yourself about pretty much anything that happened over the course of that election, or since.

Theodarzna actively misinforms and avoids anyone who traps him in his lies. More misinformation like casting the election as a spectacular failure isn't surprising.

[Stormdash]

incredibly[/i] clear example. Trump wasn't one of the RNC's picks to run for the candidacy, but he entered the race by their rules, and won despite their opposition and their support of their own candidates. If what you were describing were true, Trump wouldn't be President.

He is, which shows that you're wrong. We don't even have to get into hypotheticals, because the sitting President is proof positive.

The RNC was simply never as aggressive about thumbing the scale. I know the vote totals for Bernie were less, but honestly, can people seriously imagine that turn-out wasn't depressed after it became clear that the Bernie voters would have to "beat the refs" in every state as well? 6 coin tosses for Hillary in Iowa didn't feel like a display of luck at the time and still doesn't.

For good or ill depending on your POV, the GOP was more aware of/afraid of the obvious political consequences of playing games with the nomination than the DNC was. They could have, if they wanted to, thrown Trump aside at his own convention but they didn't because they knew what that would mean for the Presidential election and down ticket.

[Fugus]

@Endus

I am not making the stuff up. And if you think Debbie and Donna were just favoring Clinton, then you should read up on them. I remember Donna getting fired for feeding Clinton questions and Debbie... Just google it.

And as far as the media blackout, it is already documented and they had a blackout on him until late in the primary when he had already fallen too far behind to catch up. I am not making it up. He didn't even get 3rd in coverage till AFTER Jeb had dropped out at which point he finally caught up to him afterward.

And again, you keep coming back to the rules. If they are not externally enforceable and they aren't internally enforced, then they aren't binding rules. And your thing about then just don't vote for them, you are completely ignoring the way the system works as been stated before, having the voters sort it out isn't really a viable option in a duopoly where there are only 2 options and the second option is even worse. That leave them with little to no accountability.

And your last part about Trump, you forget that Clinton worked with the media to prop him up otherwise he would have gotten the Sander treatment on coverage and they would have been more interested in empty podiums then actual speeches till near the end if at all. And the RNC didn't actively break their own rules to force him down.

At best, Trump was the middle finger to the Democrats for cheating in their own primaries and then working with the media to prop Trump up to be their patsy to lose to her.

Seriously Endus, you are typically more intellectual than this. You don't seem to be acting like I normally see when dealing with you.

- - - Updated - - -

People have a very specific connotation for the word 'cheat,' which you are dishonestly using instead of terming the DNC's behavior with what they actually did so you can mislead people into thinking they did something more nefarious.

I am not being dishonest using it. I typically call breaking the rules to be cheating.

If they were directly messing with the votes, I wouldn't have called it cheating, I would have called it either election or voter fraud.

Not much else I can call it other than cheating without trying to pretend it is less or more than it is. Breaking the rules as established is typically considered cheating.



Edit: AFK, possibly for the night.

[Endus]

I am not making the stuff up.

For most of it, you absolutely are, or at least exaggerating it beyond reason.

And if you think Debbie and Donna were just favoring Clinton, then you should read up on them. I remember Donna getting fired for feeding Clinton questions and Debbie... Just google it.

I know full well what they did. Bad enough to get fired. That's about it. No evidence it really had any effect on the primary in any way whatsoever, which is what you've claimed, but are making up.

And as far as the media blackout, it is already documented and they had a blackout on him until late in the primary when he had already fallen too far behind to catch up. I am not making it up. He didn't even get 3rd in coverage till AFTER Jeb had dropped out at which point he finally caught up to him afterward.

Where the hell is it "documented"?

Also, here's where you're using terms misleadingly. A "blackout" means he's not mentioned at all. Just getting less press than you think he deserved is not a "media blackout". The media is under no obligation to give each candidate equal time; they focus on what the public's interested in. For a long time, that wasn't Bernie. They didn't ignore him, and it certainly wasn't unfair, which is what you were claiming. And that's false.

And again, you keep coming back to the rules. If they are not externally enforceable and they aren't internally enforced, then they aren't binding rules.

I keep coming back to it because the point, here, is that this is a meaningless and imaginary classification you've made up in your own mind. The DNC's rules are just as "real" as the RNC's. Or the Green Party's, for that matter. Or the Libertarian Party's. You're not making an argument, you're just recognizing that some rules aren't legally binding and then acting as if that's terrible, when it isn't, it's standard operating practice.

And your thing about then just don't vote for them, you are completely ignoring the way the system works as been stated before, having the voters sort it out isn't really a viable option in a duopoly where there are only 2 options and the second option is even worse. That leave them with little to no accountability.

You can vote in the primaries, as well, y'know. And there is no "duopoly" that's in any way enforced. Literally all it takes is people voting for a candidate to get them to win. This is why there are Independents, like Bernie Sanders, in Congress as it is. Because it already works this way.

The reason 3rd party candidates get nowhere is largely because they've never presented an inspiring alternative with broad mass appeal. The moment they do, bam, you've got a third party candidate in there.

If it were the "duopoly" you claim, Independents couldn't exist. Since they do, you're clearly wrong.

And your last part about Trump, you forget that Clinton worked with the media to prop him up otherwise he would have gotten the Sander treatment on coverage and they would have been more interested in empty podiums then actual speeches till near the end if at all.

When you talk about how "Clinton worked with the media", you're basically entering tinfoil-hat conspiracy nonsense territory. There was no conspiracy. It's crazy talk you're making up. Was she in communication with the media? Sure. So was every single worthwhile candidate. That's as far as any of that went.

[Glorious Leader]

"Spectacular failures" like winning the popular vote by 3 million votes.

If you think the 2016 election was a landslide repudiation of the Democrats, you've been actively refusing to educate yourself about pretty much anything that happened over the course of that election, or since.

I dont think it was a landslide repudiation... but she still lost to the most unpopular candidate in all of electoral history. Im not sure how this isnt some kind of failure.

[Theodarzna]

"Spectacular failures" like winning the popular vote by 3 million votes.

If you think the 2016 election was a landslide repudiation of the Democrats, you've been actively refusing to educate yourself about pretty much anything that happened over the course of that election, or since.

Congrats, she can get Californians to vote in record numbers. If only that counted for shit.

[Edge-]

Congrats, she can get Californians to vote in record numbers. If only that counted for shit.

You'd figure being the 6th or 7th largest economy in the world would entitle us to something : P

Also, it would count for much more if California votes received proportional electoral college votes to other states.

[DarkTZeratul]

I dont think it was a landslide repudiation... but she still lost to the most unpopular candidate in all of electoral history. Im not sure how this isnt some kind of failure.

But it's largely a failure of Clinton herself, not of the Democratic Party as a whole.

[Wyrt]

You'd figure being the 6th or 7th largest economy in the world would entitle us to something : P

Also, it would count for much more if California votes received proportional electoral college votes to other states.

Conservatives just don't want California's votes to count at all.