Do you think the 2020 Democrat primary debates will be rigged by the DNC again?

Aug 24, 2016
1,032
275
265
#1
So it's no secret. One Debate in 2016 and almost everyone drops out for Hillary. The only reason Bernie didn't sink, even after he gave up his E-mail advantage in one of the dumbest moves in politics by saying he didn't care and giving her points, is because Bernie already generated a large base of pro-socialist voters who wanted free government services for free.

If Bernie didn't generate enough y that point he would have dropped out like the rest. In fact some speculate the only reason O'mally didn't drop out was because Bernie didn't and he was there to be a spoiler just in case,.

But anyway, if Hillary or another top democrat runs in 2020 do you think the DNC will rig the election again. Also Superdelegates. Do you think they'll refuse to make Super Delegates fair?
 
Likes: hargwood
Jul 13, 2018
289
297
195
#3
I think the DNC is dumb enough to actually buy the idea people went against Hilary because she was a woman and that's why they seem hellbent on pushing Beto O-Rourke. Beto is the man version of Hilary. He has money connections and can probably fundraise for the Dem Party.

The DNC basically said their rigging of the system was their right since they are the organizing force of the party. It's their candidate and they can do what they want with it. So they have made the moral argument for them doing it again. The question is will they need to or not. Beto doesn't have the long rap sheet that Hilary had so that may make him less repulsive to real lefty progressives and youth.
 
Aug 24, 2016
1,032
275
265
#5
I think the DNC is dumb enough to actually buy the idea people went against Hilary because she was a woman and that's why they seem hellbent on pushing Beto O-Rourke. Beto is the man version of Hilary. He has money connections and can probably fundraise for the Dem Party.

The DNC basically said their rigging of the system was their right since they are the organizing force of the party. It's their candidate and they can do what they want with it. So they have made the moral argument for them doing it again. The question is will they need to or not. Beto doesn't have the long rap sheet that Hilary had so that may make him less repulsive to real lefty progressives and youth.

Beto can't win the presidency with a loss to Ted Cruz. I don't think the DNC is THAT dumb.
 
Oct 3, 2004
1,169
674
1,290
Montreal, Quebec
#7
There will be additional scrutiny on the 2020 primary process thanks to the way Bernie was treated in 2016, but if you thought it was rigged before then little will change next time around because the media played a vital role in that mess. They'll play a vital role in the next election too, and you can bet they won't be giving Trump the kind of coverage they gave him in 2016.

I'll be incredibly surprised if Kamala Harris doesn't walk out of that crowded field of candidates because Dems, super pacs and the media have been doing everything in their power to push the woman narrative since Hillary lost - the women's march, the Kavanaugh hearing, the midterms, etc. It's all serving to lay a stronger foundation for that first woman president. Identity is an easy means of winning over the hearts and minds of the American people. They did it with Obama, they almost did it with Hillary and they'll surely do it with Harris because she's got both race and sex on her side without the decades of political baggage, another of Obama's strengths. She'll likely wind up finding herself in the same situation as Obama did in 2009, too, with a super majority.
 
Sep 4, 2018
1,062
952
225
#8
it is inevitable. Hillary has too much money invested, she and her husband have their hooks in the system, they will never let go. these politicians are vampires, it is their reason to live, they have fully bought into their own ego bullshit. this is regardless of if she wins or not, she will pull strings regardless.

the question is whether the Dems focus too much on Trump (like before) or whether they genuinely prove themselves to be an alternative. imo the reason Dems did so well in the midterms is due to lefty turnout, and a centrist candidate will kill that edge. i can see them pushing Biden, or Hillary again, and losing hard while yet again making tons of money from the same sycophants that previously purchased "What Happened?".

i don't know if it will be a woman or not, and i don't think picking a woman will make Dems more or less likely to lose. i think people are so obsessed with narratives these days, they keep talking about life like it is a mini series, or imagining the future movie version of events that are happening. people are becoming a little detached and that's probably not good for 2020. Trump is a media ninja and media mastery is pretty much the name of the game. tbh i think they are fighting an uphill battle.
 
Last edited:
Aug 24, 2016
1,032
275
265
#10
I think you are wrong about this winning that seat in Texas was always a pipe dream his run was more about national exposure than it was about actually winning the seat.

The artificial hype was based on believing he would win. That stings going to stay. They put too much false hype in the race for anyone to consider him even a thing in 2020.
 
Jun 20, 2018
1,295
1,297
205
#11
Yes of course, the party is everything now more than ever, there is even more consens and incentive among the media and DNC to do everything they can shady or not, just look at donna brazil handing out debate questions to the dnc in a election that they already thought was 100% victory for them or just look at california right now three weeks after the election STILL counting votes and finding new boxes lol
 
Last edited:
Likes: hargwood
May 17, 2018
2,057
925
275
#13
No last time they had to give Clinton her turn because she got out of Barack's way. Now there is no such obligation, it's who is the best candidate.
 

DietRob

i've been begging for over 5 years.
Dec 5, 2008
21,938
109
970
www.twitch.tv
#14
The artificial hype was based on believing he would win. That stings going to stay. They put too much false hype in the race for anyone to consider him even a thing in 2020.
Why do you think it was "artificial hype" instead of large groups of people in Texas and across the country genuinely connecting with him and his message and wanting to spread it?

That loss isn't stinging anyone at all. At least in my circles. There is still just as much enthusiasm for a charismatic messenger like him to carry the progressive message.
 
Last edited:
Jun 20, 2018
1,295
1,297
205
#15
Beto could beat Trump but I want it to be Avenatti or Ojeda. It would be way more entertaining and they have better policies too.
Avenatti is basically bankrupt and in trouble so he sure as hell will try to run if for nothing else than getting some of those sweet gofundme bucks from delusional leftists.
Beto is a unknown name with no prior achievements in anything politics or not, who literally got his name only known because of money getting pumped up his ass and a skateboard.
Just go with biden or Michelle or give oprha literally everything she wants to run lol
 
Last edited:
Likes: hargwood
Jan 12, 2009
15,355
1,079
735
#16
Beto made a name for himself visiting everywhere in Texas. His charisma made him real popular. I'm not sure whose gonna come out but it should be exciting.
 
Last edited:
Jul 20, 2018
270
240
190
#18
I mean the only reason Trump is president is that Hillary completely ignored the rust belt.

Trumps rhetoric continues to be aimed strait at them.

So this is fairly simple. Will these voters vote for him Trump again? Or will they turn Democrat when the party pretends to care about them again?

The Democrats WILL go after this group next time.

Should be interesting.
 
Oct 27, 2017
928
892
230
Moore Park Beach
#19
Still I think the DNC is going ask him to wait and let Bernie do his thing and rightfully so.
No, I don't think they will go with a far left voice. The tides are turning within the democratic party.

Just look at AOC. Her constant gaffes makes the democrats look like idiots and a laughing stock.
Then, who is she a threat to?

She joins protests in Pelosis office.
She openly campaign to replace fellow moderate democrat congressmen and senators.
She is completely off the rails. She does not understand she has to work WITH these people, these fellow
democrats if she wants things to be done? She thinks and acts as if her fellow centrist democrats are the enemy.
Insane. I hope someone can talk to her before she becomes persona-non-grata among the peers. Or she just becomes
too dangerous to work with for the rest of the democratic party.

It looks like she thinks she is still an activist and she is rapidly alienating herself from her fellow Democrats in the house.
Insane.

At this stage, to the average democrat congress member, AOC is a greater threat than the republican party.

I don't think they will allow another far left loose cannon like AOC to get anywhere the nomination.
 
Last edited:
May 17, 2018
2,057
925
275
#22
Beto will get his chance provided he is not into d*ck pics or anything. However the ressurgance in the democratic party is due to the progressives and Bernie was the spark for the progressive movement. They want to reward him for it.
 
Jan 7, 2018
1,947
719
310
#23
Fair enough. Bernie is more like a social democrat.
My mistake.

I meant to say he is however further left than most in the democratic party, i.e. the centre-left which Hillary represented. That is what I meant to say.
Well all Trump has to say is that Bernie would turn the US into Venezuela and sadly, it might work for Trump.
 
Mar 12, 2014
2,925
1,457
355
#25
Of course they will be rigged if one of the favored people run. Dates and times will be strategic for low viewership, questions will be given in advance, etc. And even if they are not rigged that way because none of the "elites" are running, they will still be rigged by asking questions suggesting the party cares about issues involving the poorest areas of big cities, even though they know those issues will quickly be forgotten about for 4 years until the next primary season.
 
Likes: danielberg
Mar 12, 2014
2,925
1,457
355
#27
Serious question: what rigging did the DNC do that had a measurable and significant negative impact on Bernie's chances.
Well, measurable is subjective and the DNC will spin away to pretend there was no such thing. But if you use common sense:

A) Fall of 2015 - CNN (and others) begin talking about superdelegates and Clinton's lead in them. CNN admits this, and says it was because they were reporting news (https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/politics/superdelegates-hillary-clinton-nomination/index.html). That is fair and true on their part regardless of their appearance to be a mouthpiece for the DNC. But putting CNN and media aside, the reality is the DNC knows very well that people will often begin to jump on the bandwagon when it seems inevitable, and intentionally took no steps to avoid super delegate discussions because they felt it was "her turn." They probably, but this is speculative, even encouraged it. Either way, this right here is slanting people one way before things are even under way. Because many people will not pay attention to someone who is expected to have no chance.

b) While that was going on, all throughout 2015 the DNC used the dates and times of debates to ensure minimum exposure for Bernie. First debate was on a Tuesday at 530 (rush hour). The last two were both on Saturday nights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums,_2016

c) As a result, by the time people were really paying attention to debates in mid January 2016, the message was already deeply ingrained into a shit ton of people that Bernie had no chance of winning and was a pipe dream of college kids.
 
Likes: Joe T.
Aug 11, 2018
426
272
170
#29
Well, measurable is subjective and the DNC will spin away to pretend there was no such thing. But if you use common sense:

A) Fall of 2015 - CNN (and others) begin talking about superdelegates and Clinton's lead in them. CNN admits this, and says it was because they were reporting news (https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/06/politics/superdelegates-hillary-clinton-nomination/index.html). That is fair and true on their part regardless of their appearance to be a mouthpiece for the DNC. But putting CNN and media aside, the reality is the DNC knows very well that people will often begin to jump on the bandwagon when it seems inevitable, and intentionally took no steps to avoid super delegate discussions because they felt it was "her turn." They probably, but this is speculative, even encouraged it. Either way, this right here is slanting people one way before things are even under way. Because many people will not pay attention to someone who is expected to have no chance.

b) While that was going on, all throughout 2015 the DNC used the dates and times of debates to ensure minimum exposure for Bernie. First debate was on a Tuesday at 530 (rush hour). The last two were both on Saturday nights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums,_2016

c) As a result, by the time people were really paying attention to debates in mid January 2016, the message was already deeply ingrained into a shit ton of people that Bernie had no chance of winning and was a pipe dream of college kids.
This seems pretty thin, even the debate scheduling stuff. When people are going around talking about how the DNC rigged it for Hillary you'd expect something more substantial. Especially considering Bernie lost by a percentage in the double digits.
 
Jun 20, 2018
1,295
1,297
205
#30
I wonder if people will actually vote for Bernie this time.
I am actually more interested if Bernie is thinking seriously about running for President because i honestly think he has become disillusioned and just doesnt have it in him anymore, i think the energy is gone and the tank is empty.
If this is true i cant even blame him he is old and he put everything he had in 2016.
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2014
2,925
1,457
355
#33
This seems pretty thin, even the debate scheduling stuff. When people are going around talking about how the DNC rigged it for Hillary you'd expect something more substantial. Especially considering Bernie lost by a percentage in the double digits.
Really?

Hey everyone, Hillary is winning by overwhelming numbers. Tune in this Saturday night to see her debate a guy with no chance.

What a great marketing pitch. Almost as nice to Bernie as giving her questions before debates that people would watch.
 
Likes: danielberg
Aug 11, 2018
426
272
170
#34
Really?

Hey everyone, Hillary is winning by overwhelming numbers. Tune in this Saturday night to see her debate a guy with no chance.

What a great marketing pitch. Almost as nice to Bernie as giving her questions before debates that people would watch.
1) CNN saying Clinton is going to win is not the same as the DNC rigging an election.
2) The question thing was stupid, but let's not act like the topics or questions of these debates are much a surprise for prepared candidates. If I remember correctly Hillary in particular does her homework very well for these things. So as moronic as it was I doubt it made a difference.
 
Mar 12, 2014
2,925
1,457
355
#35
1) CNN saying Clinton is going to win is not the same as the DNC rigging an election.
2) The question thing was stupid, but let's not act like the topics or questions of these debates are much a surprise for prepared candidates. If I remember correctly Hillary in particular does her homework very well for these things. So as moronic as it was I doubt it made a difference.
CNN reports news (sometimes anyway) - not their fault for super delegate thing. DNC has years of research and data that certainly tells them if they allow super delegates to be talking and telling the voters in the party she is winning by a huge margin, and let that news cycle continue for months while they bury debates on Saturday nights, the scales are tipped. People hate accepting this sometimes because we all like to believe we are super genius independent thinkers, but by and large our species is easily manipulated.

DNC tipped scales to HRC. This happened. Funniest part though, is DNC also tipped scales for Trump. This is not a joke, and is really what happened. They wanted their media allies to cover him day and night and encouraged it. They figured he was easiest to beat and his issues would distract from any HRC baggage. True story, no sarcasm. And honestly, it was kinda brilliant. It did work for the popular vote. The only foil was that HRC dropped the ball she was handed, and the Comey thing of course. But honestly, the Comey thing really falls into Lynch's lap. She was so dumb as to meet BC in secret / private that Comey was thrust into the position of calling the shots, and after that he was risking political suicide if he stayed quiet and the new emails were announced after she won.
 
Last edited:
Aug 11, 2018
426
272
170
#37
I won't deny the influence MSM has on the views of the public, but I fail to see how this has anything to do with the DNC rigging the primary election. Super delegates sharing who they're going to vote for isn't the DNC rigging an election.
 
Oct 3, 2004
1,169
674
1,290
Montreal, Quebec
#38
I won't deny the influence MSM has on the views of the public, but I fail to see how this has anything to do with the DNC rigging the primary election. Super delegates sharing who they're going to vote for isn't the DNC rigging an election.
What if one of those superdelegates responsible for tipping the scales in Hillary's favor was a cable news personality with lots of air time that went on to hand her those debate questions and later became DNC chairperson? It's enough to make you wonder just how far those tentacles went in their attempt to drown out Bernie.

CNN was the only US cable news network I was watching in 2015/2016 and I was glued to the presidential campaign coverage because I was a proponent of removing the establishment class with corporate funding from the White House. Trump made for entertaining TV and great "water cooler talk," but Bernie was the guy I was watching closely back then. It became painfully clear that CNN and their guests, many of whom are tied to that establishment class of politicians, were going out of their way to tell their audience Bernie didn't stand a chance because the super delegates were all with Hillary. If they couldn't pivot the discussion away from Bernie then they made sure to hammer on that one point so that the viewer wasn't "wasting their vote."
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2014
2,925
1,457
355
#39
What if one of those superdelegates responsible for tipping the scales in Hillary's favor was a cable news personality with lots of air time that went on to hand her those debate questions and later became DNC chairperson? It's enough to make you wonder just how far those tentacles went in their attempt to drown out Bernie.

CNN was the only US cable news network I was watching in 2015/2016 and I was glued to the presidential campaign coverage because I was a proponent of removing the establishment class with corporate funding from the White House. Trump made for entertaining TV and great "water cooler talk," but Bernie was the guy I was watching closely back then. It became painfully clear that CNN and their guests, many of whom are tied to that establishment class of politicians, were going out of their way to tell their audience Bernie didn't stand a chance because the super delegates were all with Hillary. If they couldn't pivot the discussion away from Bernie then they made sure to hammer on that one point so that the viewer wasn't "wasting their vote."
I can't say I would definitely have voted for Bernie, because I do think some of his ideas are more of the pie in the sky type of thing, and honestly I would be making shit up (by saying I would or would not have) since I have never once actually considered Trump or Bernie. But I was really intrigued by him because he came across as the most authentic "here for the common people" candidate I ever saw get that close, and I really wanted him to beat her to give us two non-establishment choices. And frankly, I also thought some of Trump's ideas are pie in the sky types of things too, most especially the notion that Mexico would agree to pay for the wall.

So although I cannot say for sure I would have voted for him, I absolutely would have considered him in earnest unlike HRC.
 
Oct 3, 2004
1,169
674
1,290
Montreal, Quebec
#40
I can't say I would definitely have voted for Bernie, because I do think some of his ideas are more of the pie in the sky type of thing, and honestly I would be making shit up (by saying I would or would not have) since I have never once actually considered Trump or Bernie. But I was really intrigued by him because he came across as the most authentic "here for the common people" candidate I ever saw get that close, and I really wanted him to beat her to give us two non-establishment choices. And frankly, I also thought some of Trump's ideas are pie in the sky types of things too, most especially the notion that Mexico would agree to pay for the wall.

So although I cannot say for sure I would have voted for him, I absolutely would have considered him in earnest unlike HRC.
Yeah, that was (and still is) the primary reason for my interest in Bernie, his authenticity. Some of his ideas are indeed pie in the sky, but I can live with that because those campaign promises always get whittled down once the election's over and you're forced to make them work (re: compromise).
 
Feb 21, 2018
1,952
1,195
270
#41
This seems pretty thin, even the debate scheduling stuff. When people are going around talking about how the DNC rigged it for Hillary you'd expect something more substantial. Especially considering Bernie lost by a percentage in the double digits.
"We learned today from the former Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Donna Brazile that the Clinton campaign, in her view, did rig the presidential nominating process by entering into an agreement to control day-to-day operations at the DNC," Tapper said, continuing on to describe specific arms of the DNC the Clinton camp had a say over, including strategy and staffing, noting that the agreement was "entered into in August of 2015," months before Clinton won the nomination.
"Debbie (Wasserman Schultz) was not a good manager," Brazile wrote in excerpts released in Politico on Thursday. "She hadn't been very interested in controlling the party -- she let Clinton's headquarters in Brooklyn do as it desired so she didn't have to inform the party officers how bad the situation was."
So I followed the money. My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama’s neglect had left the party in significant debt. As Hillary’s campaign gained momentum, she resolved the party’s debt and put it on a starvation diet. It had become dependent on her campaign for survival, for which she expected to wield control of its operations.
The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign. He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt.
On the phone Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged.



“No! That can’t be true!” I said. “The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers.”


“Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?” I asked. “I don’t know how Debbie relates to the officers,” Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary’s campaign, which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearinghouse.
Right around the time of the convention, the leaked emails revealed Hillary’s campaign was grabbing money from the state parties for its own purposes, leaving the states with very little to support down-ballot races. A Politico story published on May 2, 2016, described the big fund-raising vehicle she had launched through the states the summer before, quoting a vow she had made to rebuild “the party from the ground up … when our state parties are strong, we win. That’s what will happen.”


Yet the states kept less than half of 1 percent of the $82 million they had amassed from the extravagant fund-raisers Hillary’s campaign was holding, just as Gary had described to me when he and I talked in August. When the Politico story described this arrangement as “essentially … money laundering” for the Clinton campaign, Hillary’s people were outraged at being accused of doing something shady. Bernie’s people were angry for their own reasons, saying this was part of a calculated strategy to throw the nomination to Hillary.
The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.
The funding arrangement with HFA and the victory fund agreement was not illegal, but it sure looked unethical. If the fight had been fair, one campaign would not have control of the party before the voters had decided which one they wanted to lead. This was not a criminal act, but as I saw it, it compromised the party’s integrity.
 
Likes: HenkDV
Nov 11, 2018
67
28
135
#43
It really won't matter who they nominate. Short of it being the unearthed remains of Fidel Castro, the Dem nominee will handily beat Commander Cheeto.
 
Feb 21, 2018
1,952
1,195
270
#44
It really won't matter who they nominate. Short of it being the unearthed remains of Fidel Castro, the Dem nominee will handily beat Commander Cheeto.
Thats what they said about Hillary.

Don't worry Cheeto is already making plans with Putin to up the FaceBook ads this time and double the bots.
 

BANGS

Fresh single BANGS in your area, or in my browser.
Dec 13, 2016
3,817
1,522
420
#45
It really won't matter who they nominate. Short of it being the unearthed remains of Fidel Castro, the Dem nominee will handily beat Commander Cheeto.
LMFAO, I really hope the DNC makes the same mistake in underestimating Trump again, that would be glorious...
 
Likes: cryptoadam
Jun 20, 2018
1,295
1,297
205
#47
It really won't matter who they nominate. Short of it being the unearthed remains of Fidel Castro, the Dem nominee will handily beat Commander Cheeto.
Commander Cheeto lol you could not make it more obvious.
Watch less tv and especially less democrat court jesters/ late night comedy shows and no they are not political education sorry.
 
Last edited:
Nov 11, 2018
67
28
135
#48
Commander Cheeto lol you could not make it more obvious.
Watch less tv and especially less democrat court jesters/ late night comedy shows and no they are not political education sorry.
Make what more obvious? That I find Trump to be a grotesquely offensive insult to humanity. You don't have to worry about any subtly when it comes me expressing what I think of the man and anyone who supports him. I'm not a huge fan of the Dems, believing they share a good deal of the blame for what's happening in our country. They sat on their laurels, patted themselves on the back over symbolic victories, and allowed a seditious wing of government to be treated as legitimate opposition instead of a party of traitors who should be punished as such.
 
Last edited:
Jun 20, 2018
1,295
1,297
205
#49
Make what more obvious? That I find Trump to be a grotesquely offensive insult to humanity. You don't have to worry about any subtly when it comes me expressing what I think of the man and anyone who supports him.
I dont get your complaint you can say what you think about trump or his supporters i have no issue with it and i can say what i think about fools like you who confuse democrat pr/late night comedy with political education and sooner or later will set the world on fire thanks to a naive idiotic uninformed disney movie view of the world.
See we can all express what we think about the other side its not a problem to me, you seem to have a issue with it or seem to think you are the only one allowed to do that.
 
Last edited:
Jan 14, 2015
2,134
86
280
Connecticut
#50
I doubt it. It would be suicide to do it again and expect to not get caught.
Considering all the grassroot movements, progressives, socialists and left leaning centrists who came out and saved the Democratic party during the midterm, to rig it in favor of a more traditional Liberal would be the end of the party. No one would come back to vote for them during midterms (where it matters)