• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

Vox: Hillary Clinton "Unleashed" interview w/ Ezra Klein

Pixieking

Banned
Jan 9, 2016
3,351
0
0
CNN, MSNBC, etc... generally grouped them together. Not when talking about a specific states' primary results but when talking about the overall progress. The votes of superdelegates, despite the fact that they don't vote until the convention, was always displayed.

So this, coupled with Kirblar's post, would seem to suggest that the TV media need to be kicked into educating the voters about the Super Delegate system.
 

ChainedMaster

Banned
Oct 20, 2012
2,258
559
765
Because it is deliberately undemocratic in order to allow for them to intervene in two scenarios:

a) You get a nightmare scenario where a candidate turns out to be the Zodiac Killer and needs to be kept out of the nomination (aka a Trump)
b) To tiebreak in the event that no candidate gets a majority

This is a party election, not a federal one. It does not have to be purely democratic and it's very hard to argue that the "pure" GOP method was a better one this cycle!

Yet they "intervene" from the start by displaying their votes and grouping them together in primary results helping to sway public opinion. They are a bad concept. And I'd like to see when a Zodiac killer has ever been stopped by superdelegates. Just curious how much weight this fear really has.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
Yet they "intervene" from the start by displaying their votes and grouping them together in primary results helping to sway public opinion. They are a bad concept. And I'd like to see when a Zodiac killer has ever been stopped by superdelegates. Just curious how much weight this fear really has.
Again, Obama beat Clinton in '08 and the SuperDelegates fell in line.

It's not the DNC's fault that young kids are buying into a terrible narrative.
 

ChainedMaster

Banned
Oct 20, 2012
2,258
559
765
Again, Obama beat Clinton in '16 and the SuperDelegates fell in line.

It's not the DNC's fault that young kids are buying into a terrible narrative.

Sure, they fell in line. But as I said they sway public opinion by displaying their votes from the start. They are like scalpers. Trying to drum up hype for a certain candidate like scalpers hope to drum up demand for a certain game console. Except unlike scalpers who are only trying to provide a service to willing buyers, superdelegates are interfering with a primary process with their hypetrain.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
Sure, they fell in line. But as I said they sway public opinion by displaying their votes from the start. They are like scalpers. Trying to drum up hype for a certain candidate like scalpers hope to drum up demand for a certain game console. Except unlike scalpers who are only trying to provide a service to willing buyers, superdelegates are interfering with a primary process with their hypetrain.
If you really think that a random count of endorsements sways public opinion? .. I just can't.

All the SD votes were for Clinton in '08. That didn't matter. They're just endorsements, and endorsements mean very little nowadays.
 

ChainedMaster

Banned
Oct 20, 2012
2,258
559
765
If you really think that a random count of endorsements sways public opinion? .. I just can't.

All the SD votes were for Clinton in '08. That didn't matter. They're just endorsements, and endorsements mean very little nowadays.

Well endorsements are different because superdelegates are often grouped together towards a candidate's tally in news networks. Like I said, it helps shroud the underdog by making the primary seem decided when in actuality it is a much closer race.
 

chaos789

Banned
Nov 21, 2012
784
358
505
Whether you were a Bernie supporter or a Hilliary supporter. I hope everyone can agree that we vote Democratic in 2018 and 2020 if we want any shot of furthering the goals most of us can agree on. Its the application of those goals were people seem to differ. One thing I will never understand is why 10% of Bernie supporters voted for Trump. As a Bernie supporter myself I find that decision highly moronic if you agreed with Bernie.
 

Pixieking

Banned
Jan 9, 2016
3,351
0
0
One thing I will never understand is why 10% of Bernie supporters voted for Trump. As a Bernie supporter myself I find that decision highly moronic if you agreed with Bernie.

A partial answer is hidden here:

Like I said, it helps shroud the underdog by making the primary seem decided when in actuality it is a much closer race.

Considering Bernie had as much publicity and air-time as Hillary (and more, if you consider solely positive coverage), the argument of SDs "shrouding" the underdog only merits consideration if you a) don't care about policies, or b) want to vote for a winner, not a loser. In either case, Bernie-Trump voters make a lot more sense.
 

ChainedMaster

Banned
Oct 20, 2012
2,258
559
765
A partial answer is hidden here:



Considering Bernie had as much publicity and air-time as Hillary (and more, if you consider solely positive coverage), the argument of SDs "shrouding" the underdog only merits consideration if you a) don't care about policies, or b) want to vote for a winner, not a loser. In either case, Bernie-Trump voters make a lot more sense.

MSM undeniably gave Hilary much more positive publicity. Not sure how that changes anything.
 

excelsiorlef

Member
Sep 20, 2014
32,454
9
525
Burnaby, BC
The reaction the past few weeks to Clinton's interviews and books are fascinating.


"Even though she has admitted many of her mistakes, Hillary Clinton needs to blame only herself for losing by 70k. Stop blaming sexism, white supremacy, the Comey letter, the email hacks, the media normalizing white supremacy, Russian interference. Also don't mention her own mistake of using a private email server, that's not the type of self blame I want"

"Bernie Sanders only lost to Clinton by almost 4 million because of Super Delegates, the biased DNC, DWS, the media, the debate schedule, the order of the primaries, Donna Brazile, the lack of more open primaries, the fact that the south gets to vote in the primary. Why won't Clinton just admit it's all her fault and show more class, afterall Bernie only lost because of a rigged primary."
 

Pixieking

Banned
Jan 9, 2016
3,351
0
0
You are delusional.

One word: Emails.

Also Benghazi, which was an issue through the Primary season and beyond.

Just because some TV or paper complimented Hillary, doesn't lessen the sheer weight of shit that was appearing in the same places via the Republican campaign machine, and Republican politicians. Bernie never had to contend with any of that, and was gifted positive PR like he was the Second Coming (that bloody bird on the podium, for instance).

Oh, and

MSM undeniably gave Hilary much more positive publicity. Not sure how that changes anything.

Your assertion that the Super Delegate tallies "shroud the underdog" is meaningless if Bernie never appeared the underdog. And whilst the number alone would suggest he appeared the underdog, taken in the wider context of the Primary campaign and national awareness, neither candidate could be said to have been an "underdog". The grassroots push for Bernie was so staggering that at times he felt inevitable. Even Hillary was worried that his momentum would carry through and she'd lose before she even (properly) started.

Which makes his loss his loss, and not something that he or his supporters should pin on something or someone else.
 

ChainedMaster

Banned
Oct 20, 2012
2,258
559
765
Also Benghazi, which was an issue through the Primary season and beyond.

Just because some TV or paper complimented Hillary, doesn't lessen the sheer weight of shit that was appearing in the same places via the Republican campaign machine, and Republican politicians. Bernie never had to contend with any of that, and was gifted positive PR like he was the Second Coming (that bloody bird on the podium, for instance).

Oh, and



Your assertion that the Super Delegate tallies "shroud the underdog" is meaningless if Bernie never appeared the underdog. And whilst the number alone would suggest he appeared the underdog, taken in the wider context of the Primary campaign and national awareness, neither candidate could be said to have been an "underdog". The grassroots push for Bernie was so staggering that at times he felt inevitable. Even Hillary was worried that his momentum would carry through and she'd lose before she even (properly) started.

Which makes his loss his loss, and not something that he or his supporters should pin on something or someone else.

Well as I said, it's an undemocratic institution that I do not agree with. Clearly you think the threat of a zodiac killer becoming the democratic candidate is large enough to warrant it, I don't. Just like I don't think it's a good reason for the EC. Turns out delegates don't have the balls to vote against the people to prevent a dangerous demagogue from taking office. Shocker. But hey keep defending it for the reason of....who knows.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
Well as I said, it's an undemocratic institution that I do not agree with. Clearly you think the threat of a zodiac killer becoming the democratic candidate is large enough to warrant it, I don't. Just like I don't think it's a good reason for the EC. Turns out delegates don't have the balls to vote against the people to prevent a dangerous demagogue from taking office. Shocker. But hey keep defending it for the reason of....who knows.
So you argue against it because it's "undemocratic", then you explicitly argue that they should have overturned the results because you didn't agree with them, thus creating an undemocratic result?

Fucking hell.
 

ChainedMaster

Banned
Oct 20, 2012
2,258
559
765
So you argue against it because it's "undemocratic", then you explicitly argue that they should have overturned the results because you didn't agree with them, thus creating an undemocratic result?

Fucking hell.

When did I say they should have overturned anything? I'm saying I don't think they should exist.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
When did I say they should have overturned anything? I'm saying I don't think they should exist.
Turns out delegates don't have the balls to vote against the people to prevent a dangerous demagogue from taking office.
Were you arguing that the DNC Superdelegates should have installed Bernie as the nominee, or that the RNC Superdelegates should have stopped Trump?
 

ChainedMaster

Banned
Oct 20, 2012
2,258
559
765
Were you arguing that the DNC Superdelegates should have installed Bernie as the nominee, or that the RNC Superdelegates should have stopped Trump?

No you said they serve a purpose of preventing a maniac from getting the nomination if the people vote for one. I said going by Trump's win in the EC, I'm not convinced delegates or electorates or anyone have the guts to vote against the people's will.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
No you said they serve a purpose of preventing a maniac from getting the nomination if the people vote for one. I said going by Trump's win in the EC, I'm not convinced delegates or electorates or anyone have the guts to vote against the people's will.
(they're Electors, hence the confusion.)
 

Particle Physicist

between a quark and a baryon
Jun 7, 2004
25,579
1
1,730
They are terrible because they misrepresent the lead to the voters. They can easily sway voters by misrepresenting primary performance. That absolutely helps determine the end result when people see the established candidate as 300 delegates from the start of the Iowa caucus and people think "lol who's that nobody Bernie Sanders" as opposed to "whoa who's Bernie Sanders. He's neck to neck with Hilary. I should do more research on him". They are awful. Not sure why you'd defend them. I take it you defend the EC as well.

Where am I defending them? I said that they are terrible. Second sentence.

You didn't answer the question about caucuses. Do you think caucuses are democratic?
 

Pixieking

Banned
Jan 9, 2016
3,351
0
0
No you said they serve a purpose of preventing a maniac from getting the nomination if the people vote for one. I said going by Trump's win in the EC, I'm not convinced delegates or electorates or anyone have the guts to vote against the people's will.

I don't know if the GOP failing in their duty to prevent Trump is a sound reason to remove the system. The GOP were in a bind because traditional conservative values (anti-abortion, low taxes, trickle-down economics) are usually overt, with the racism being a dog-whistle. Trump made the racism explicit, ran with it, and the entire Republican establishment were horrified.

They were caught between "Will of the people", "Deny him and he'll run as an Indie and split our base" and "Hillary will win no problem." At the time, it was a sound strategic decision to let him be the candidate - The Republicans were seen to respect the voting base, keep a unified party, and Hillary would trounce him. They'd lose, but they'd rally, disown the racism of Trump, and rebuild. I was reading a lot of papers around this time, and it cannot be overstated how much Republicans themselves thought they would lose with Trump.

I think, if you asked the ruling members of the party now - in private - if they should have prevented him from being nominated, they would unequivocally answer yes. And, on this basis, it actually speaks to the need to keep the SD system. Knowing what Trump made himself out to be during the Primary is the same as he is now, and that he could've been prevented from being President, I think future SDs and Convention Rules Lawyers will be more willing to speak up and take action.

Though I hedge towards optimism, so *shrugs*
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
No you said they serve a purpose of preventing a maniac from getting the nomination if the people vote for one. I said going by Trump's win in the EC, I'm not convinced delegates or electorates or anyone have the guts to vote against the people's will.

Democratic primary of 1972 was at a time when the people's votes didn't result in any pledged delegates at all, and the delegates went against the people's vote. Things did not go very well, resulting in the system we have today.

I don't know if you consider that lesson learned, or proof it can happen again.

Funny thing is the very next election carter exploited the hell out of the new system with the strategy of focusing entirely on early states, and we're still stuck with mostly the same early states deciding the primaries.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
Democratic primary of 1972 was at a time when the people's votes didn't result in any pledged delegates at all, and the delegates went against the people's vote. Things did not go very well, resulting in the system we have today.

I don't know if you consider that lesson learned, or proof it can happen again.

Funny thing is the very next election carter exploited the hell out of the new system with the strategy of focusing entirely on early states, and we're still stuck with mostly the same early states deciding the primaries.
Didn't happen in '08 or '16 though? As soon as SC happened in '16 we knew Sanders was drawing dead unless he fixed his AA problem (which he didn't) and in '08 Obama/Clinton went down to the wire.
 
Dec 11, 2012
4,940
2
0
Oh, boohoo, Hillary. You lost. Get over it. Dems need to regroup and stop with this crap. At least her book cover poses what should have a question mark with the answer right under the title: What Happened!? "HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON"
You are delusional.

One word: Emails.
They should've covered those emails but there's no denying she was a media darling. Her campaign had "journalists" on speed dial to churn out possible stories for her and "Bernie Bros." narratives for Bernie. NYT and WaPo anointed her; Huffington "98% chanse of winning" Post couldn't get enough of her... please. People are delusional but it damn sure isn't ChainedMaster. The emails were fair game because it showed the primary wasn't exactly fair. The sooner she quits trying to steal the limelight the sooner we can all move on and stop having the clean up her spilled milk.
 

BertramCooper

Banned
Sep 3, 2009
34,222
1
0
www.youtube.com
They should've covered those emails but there's no denying she was a media darling. Her campaign had "journalists" on speed dial to churn out possible stories for her and "Bernie Bros." narratives for Bernie. NYT and WaPo anointed her; Huffington "98% chanse of winning" Post couldn't get enough of her... please. People are delusional but it damn sure isn't ChainedMaster. The emails were fair game because it showed the primary wasn't exactly fair. The sooner she quits trying to steal the limelight the sooner we can all move on and stop having the clean up her spilled milk.

 

llien

Member
Feb 1, 2017
10,393
8,354
945
BBC is rather sarcastic:
"What Happened: The long list of who Hillary Clinton blames"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41244474

So you argue against it because it's "undemocratic"....

You weren't talking to me, but I am puzzled why you put that into quotes.
You can't be arguing "supercandidates know better" is not not democratic, it is not democratic by the very definition.

Whether it is lesser evil etc is a completely different discussion.
Technically a party doesn't need to be democratic internally, it's about what strategy they think makes them more likely to win the elections.
 

water_wendi

Water is not wet!
Oct 8, 2006
19,066
0
0
Ugh.

They should've covered those emails but there's no denying she was a media darling. Her campaign had "journalists" on speed dial to churn out possible stories for her and "Bernie Bros." narratives for Bernie. NYT and WaPo anointed her; Huffington "98% chanse of winning" Post couldn't get enough of her... please. People are delusional but it damn sure isn't ChainedMaster. The emails were fair game because it showed the primary wasn't exactly fair. The sooner she quits trying to steal the limelight the sooner we can all move on and stop having the clean up her spilled milk.
This is just a lie. The media tore her ass to shreds on the front page and evening news daily. Every single outlet was aimed at bringing her down. Not only that but all the democratic politicians and the White House were just savaging her at every chance.
 

Nafai1123

Banned
Apr 7, 2008
12,712
0
0
The reaction the past few weeks to Clinton's interviews and books are fascinating.


"Even though she has admitted many of her mistakes, Hillary Clinton needs to blame only herself for losing by 70k. Stop blaming sexism, white supremacy, the Comey letter, the email hacks, the media normalizing white supremacy, Russian interference. Also don't mention her own mistake of using a private email server, that's not the type of self blame I want"

"Bernie Sanders only lost to Clinton by almost 4 million because of Super Delegates, the biased DNC, DWS, the media, the debate schedule, the order of the primaries, Donna Brazile, the lack of more open primaries, the fact that the south gets to vote in the primary. Why won't Clinton just admit it's all her fault and show more class, afterall Bernie only lost because of a rigged primary."

Quoting for truth. These people are so delusional.
 

Kin5290

Member
Jan 12, 2015
2,230
0
0
The folks at FiveThirtyEight agreed that Clinton was generally on point with why she lost. Also:
Nate Silver said:
Anyway, I give that one a 1.5. A good litmus test is that if a reporter says “But Wisconsin” when someone brings up another cause of Clinton’s defeat, that reporter doesn’t know what they’re talking about.
Nate Silver said:
You might even say, Micah, that Clinton got closer to … The Real Story Of 2016 than most of the media’s postmortems have.
Nate Silver said:
I’m repeating myself here, but a lot of the admonitions that Clinton is getting from the press are about the media pre-empting discussions that could make them look bad and call into question their editorial decision-making.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-hillary-clinton-right-about-why-she-lost/
 

Ekai

Member
May 23, 2015
4,702
0
0
clinton: "I think we operate better when we're kinda between center-right and center-left."

....Did she seriously say that? Don't have time to listen so just quoting from another person's post.
 
Jul 24, 2014
15,885
0
0
They should've covered those emails but there's no denying she was a media darling. Her campaign had "journalists" on speed dial to churn out possible stories for her and "Bernie Bros." narratives for Bernie. NYT and WaPo anointed her; Huffington "98% chanse of winning" Post couldn't get enough of her... please. People are delusional but it damn sure isn't ChainedMaster. The emails were fair game because it showed the primary wasn't exactly fair. The sooner she quits trying to steal the limelight the sooner we can all move on and stop having the clean up her spilled milk.

I think you need to see proctologist to get your head removed from your ass.

You are delusional. Media barely touched Bernie.
 

excelsiorlef

Member
Sep 20, 2014
32,454
9
525
Burnaby, BC
Oh, boohoo, Hillary. You lost. Get over it. Dems need to regroup and stop with this crap. At least her book cover poses what should have a question mark with the answer right under the title: What Happened!? "HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON"

They should've covered those emails but there's no denying she was a media darling. Her campaign had "journalists" on speed dial to churn out possible stories for her and "Bernie Bros." narratives for Bernie. NYT and WaPo anointed her; Huffington "98% chanse of winning" Post couldn't get enough of her... please. People are delusional but it damn sure isn't ChainedMaster. The emails were fair game because it showed the primary wasn't exactly fair. The sooner she quits trying to steal the limelight the sooner we can all move on and stop having the clean up her spilled milk.

Loss by 70k:

2 said:
Oh, boohoo, Hillary. You lost. Get over it.


Loss by 4 million:

Her campaign had "journalists" on speed dial to churn out possible stories for her and "Bernie Bros." narratives for Bernie.

...

The emails were fair game because it showed the primary wasn't exactly fair.


Some of y'all are the reason satire is dead.
 

Neoweee

Member
Oct 8, 2014
4,739
0
415
....Did she seriously say that? Don't have time to listen so just quoting from another person's post.

Read the entire section of the interview, please. Seeing people flip out over a sample of a super reasonable philosophy is giving me a stroke.
 

Ekai

Member
May 23, 2015
4,702
0
0
Read the entire section of the interview, please. Seeing people flip out over a sample of a super reasonable philosophy is giving me a stroke.

There is nothing reasonable what-so-fricking-ever about centrism.

I will read it when I have a chance but that doesn't bode well to me.

Edit: Having watched it, yea, can't say it's the least bit reasonable. It's that kind of appeal for centrism that really doesn't sit well with me.
 

a.wd

Member
Mar 16, 2007
3,886
0
0
uk
It was a good interview, though the Pod Save America one was better, she has a point the current republicans aren't really conservative and want to strip mine the laws to enable wealthy donors and corps to really shit on America.

Its a long term investment by people with enough money to burn for multiple years to see a ROI, and getting rid of money in politics and making the influence of money in politics punishable by law is the only way to stop it.

She is pragmatic, but not inspirational though I find myself closer to Bernie on policy than hilary, but that doesn't mean that I don't like her policies and if she had actually been allowed to get in she could have made some great changes.
 

Kin5290

Member
Jan 12, 2015
2,230
0
0
To further torture the example that's driving everyone crazy:

She wanted to run on giving everyone a unicorn. She couldn't figure out how to make a unicorn something she could realistically even start to work on delivering. Ran the numbers, crunched, considered, reconsidered, but her path to unicorns was basically interrupted by the Grand Canyon early on.

So then she runs without the unicorn promise, and her opponent is promising everyone he'll get them ponies. She doesn't understand how he's going to do that, but people respond. People want ponies! She doesn't want them to have ponies! She's an out of touch shill propped up by Big Glue to prevent the people from having ponies!

Meanwhile, Trump is promising everyone rocket-powered robohorses that nuke terrorists and emit a sonic frequency that will drive people with darker skin away. People respond! They love it!

So she beats the pony guy, is still regarded as paid off to have an anti-pony agenda, and loses to the rocket-powered robohorse guy. She understands people found her less likable because she was so anti-pony-promises, and wonders at this point if she should have just promised everyone unicorns she knew she couldn't deliver, because fantasy dream equines were a huge component of popularity.

Like, all else aside, her wanting UBI, rejecting it as something she could run on, and wondering if running on it anyway might have ultimately helped her campaign seems super consistent.
In this metaphor, unicorns actually exist, and the population of an entire state already enjoys universal unicorn possession, but there are not enough of them to realistically distribute to every person in the country.
 
Dec 11, 2012
4,940
2
0
This is just a lie. The media tore her ass to shreds on the front page and evening news daily. Every single outlet was aimed at bringing her down. Not only that but all the democratic politicians and the White House were just savaging her at every chance.
It's not a lie. She was revered by the media, they loved her. And by media, I'm talking about MSM, not independent media - who couldn't stand her (like me). I won't accuse you of lying though, because I actually understand nuance and anecdotes, and thus it's clear to me we didn't see the same sources. I don't read print journalism, so you can be right about a front page of a paper tearing her to shreds. I don't watch evening news either. So you may be right. But all the media I saw online from MSM was OVERWHELMINGLY positive. They wanted her to win. They're having just as hard a time coping as you all are - blaming everything and everyone for her loss.
I think you need to see proctologist to get your head removed from your ass.

You are delusional. Media barely touched Bernie.
Don't be mad at me because your preferred candidate lost! I know this is hard for you to accept. It clearly makes you intolerant to hear opinions you don't agree with and unable to fight the impulse to lash out like you did. But that's your problem. She lost. She was a terrible candidate. The media LOVED her. The media did not like Bernie. It is what it is. Or, it was what it was, I should say.

And if you're still having trouble coping with this outcome. I suggest you talk to someone. You can start here. Enter your zip and search widely for the perfect fit. I'm sure you'll get help and learn not to lash out in anger like a juvenile when you're triggered.

Really no use engaging some of you when it comes to Dems/Hillary. Y'all are just batshit crazy when it comes to this. Best to let y'all circle jerk.

I'm out.
 

y2dvd

Member
May 14, 2008
11,223
0
1,030
Whether you were a Bernie supporter or a Hilliary supporter. I hope everyone can agree that we vote Democratic in 2018 and 2020 if we want any shot of furthering the goals most of us can agree on. Its the application of those goals were people seem to differ. One thing I will never understand is why 10% of Bernie supporters voted for Trump. As a Bernie supporter myself I find that decision highly moronic if you agreed with Bernie.

The mistake you're making is assuming those 10% were Democrats in the first place. They saw a populist candidate and went to the next one.
 

Kin5290

Member
Jan 12, 2015
2,230
0
0
It's been confirmed Politico was sending articles to Clinton's campaign for approval before publishing.

Hillary Clinton is the reason satire is dead.
Citation needed.

Are you referring to the standard practice of contacting a public figure's office for comment prior to publishing an article on them?
 

Jeels

Member
Nov 18, 2009
9,209
0
0
Sugar Land, TX
twitter.com
Lol. Bernie bros just never quit. Hillary would have won without superdelegates too, that's just math. And I doubt anything Bernie proposed would get through a center right or center left Congress.

To the poster above, being humbled and throwing her to the fire are two different things. She was still the most qualified competent candidate in 2016.
 

Bolivar687

Banned
Jun 13, 2014
7,261
7,844
800
USA

Machina

Banned
Jun 11, 2015
6,609
5
0
To the poster above, being humbled and throwing her to the fire are two different things. She was still the most qualified competent candidate in 2016.

She voted for both Iraq and the PATRIOT act. That doesn't strike me as "competent".
 

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Jul 17, 2013
4,888
0
465
Man, I miss the good ol days when we thought Trump was gonna split and destroy the Rs into eternal doom and didn't hate a good portion of our own party.

Man I hope 2018 works out.

I'd be more worried about this if I hadn't watched the Republicans go through the same thing post Obama loss (which turned into the creation of the Tea Party). When parties lose, this is what happens. If the pattern holds, the Democrats will run a candidate that appears to be focused on economics and more popular in the Midwest, just like Kerry was chosen in 2004 to combat the "wartime" part of GWB, and Romney was chosen in 2012 to be more "centrist / from MA".

Didn't happen in '08 or '16 though? As soon as SC happened in '16 we knew Sanders was drawing dead unless he fixed his AA problem (which he didn't) and in '08 Obama/Clinton went down to the wire.

08 was over in March, to be honest. Axelrod has talked about this in interviews before, but the only reason the raw vote count was close is because several states that were thrown out of the primaries for breaking rules didn't have Obama running in them (Michigan and Florida I think?). The delegate fight was over by March. Hell, Clinton even knew it, and invoked Robert Kennedy getting assassinated as a reason to stay in the race (because that was so thoughtful considering Obama and Colin Powell's concerns of running).

It will always frustrate me that she never let us see the snarky, assholey, smartest person in the room and unafraid to show it, charismatic side of her during the campaign. It would have been an awesome counter to Trump, and with authenticity being such a major factor in American presidential elections (Reagan, Clinton, GWB, Obama); I think the places it would have hurt her vote wise were places that were out of her reach anyway.
 

kirblar

Member
Oct 9, 2010
63,315
1
860
08 was over in March, to be honest. Axelrod has talked about this in interviews before, but the only reason the raw vote count was close is because several states that were thrown out of the primaries for breaking rules didn't have Obama running in them (Michigan and Florida I think?). The delegate fight was over by March. Hell, Clinton even knew it, and invoked Robert Kennedy getting assassinated as a reason to stay in the race (because that was so thoughtful considering Obama and Colin Powell's concerns of running).

It will always frustrate me that she never let us see the snarky, assholey, smartest person in the room and unafraid to show it, charismatic side of her during the campaign. It would have been an awesome counter to Trump, and with authenticity being such a major factor in American presidential elections (Reagan, Clinton, GWB, Obama); I think the places it would have hurt her vote wise were places that were out of her reach anyway.
That count exclude Michigan. The delegate count was still close as well.

We knew Bernie was done after SC (way before March/Super Tuesday) unless he fixed his polling numbers in the South, and he never put in the effort to do it.
 

Tranqueris

Banned
May 15, 2014
1,991
0
0

excelsiorlef

Member
Sep 20, 2014
32,454
9
525
Burnaby, BC
No, I'm referring to the highly irregular practice of the journalist in question acknowledging that what he was doing was wrong and cautioning the public figure's office not to tell anyone what he was doing:

http://www.businessinsider.com/politico-glenn-thrush-john-podesta-2016-10


Sending paragraphs from a story to ensure accuracy is not uncommon in journalism, and there is no proof that Podesta asked to have anything changed. Later in the email thread, he said "no problems here."

Literally from your own link.