Superdelegates in the Democratic Party (Primary) should be eliminated

[_gresh_]

@ttystikk - i will take your self satisfaction. i will rob you blind.

 

[mr sunshine]

Why does he want to love the dudes and demean the women? I love girls, my natural instinct is to protect them, not make them feel like trash. I don't like the vibe that shit gave me.


This whole thing is none of my business, I'm just here to watch.... carry on

 

[_gresh_]

"The new world order reeks of dying empire odor
and changing the channel wont make that go away.
As the veneer of democracy fades away, as the worlds
down-size until it explodes, as the shanty-towns piled
behind the malls become visible, as the savages on the
other side of the wall break through, as everybody from
gun-crazy militias to anti-immigrant nazis to fundamentalist
child-raping christians to gangsta rappers to community
activists to working families just struggling to put food
on the table, all mad at the same thing. your SUV; me, me, me;
"mission accomplished"; bring em on;
buy more stuff, buy more stuff,
fight terror, defend freedom so we can buy more stuff.
The false illusion of the world is going down, motherfucker.
Walk off the job. Crime is beautiful.
A prank a day keeps the dog-leash away.
Quit your jobs. Burn down the malls. AAARRRGGHHHH"

 

[dagwood45431]

Why does he want to love the dudes and demean the women? I love girls, my natural instinct is to protect them, not make them feel like trash. I don't like the vibe that shit gave me.


This whole thing is none of my business, I'm just here to watch.... carry on

I wonder what happened to him too. Unless it's possible to be genetically predisposed to getting off on humiliating women, something went wrong in BTTYK's life. I wonder if daddy was a brute and mommy was a frequent target (or the other way around)? Whatever it was, I hope he doesn't pass it on and it dies with him. I'm going to blame his shallow reasoning ability on genetics, however.

 

[Fogdog]

They can't handle the truth; they'd rather keep getting fucked by the system.

It's you guys that are having difficulty with the truth. Chomsky is slipping. He started out with the claim that prior to Sanders you could predict outcomes by campaign funding. That's not true. There is a general relationship between campaign spending and outcomes but his claim of a predictive relationship is not true, especially in a race with lopsided results. Also, his claim that Sanders would have won if not for the shenanigans of the Democratic party doesn't square with the facts.

We can put this one down to more bernie baby whining about not getting having their way.

 

[Padawanbater2]

He started out with the claim that prior to Sanders you could predict outcomes by campaign funding. That's not true. There is a general relationship between campaign spending and outcomes but his claim of a predictive relationship is not true

"As I said, you can pretty well predict electoral outcomes simply by campaign funding alone. There's other factors that intensify it." -Chomsky

He said you can pretty well predict electoral outcomes, just by looking at who spends more during the election cycle. That's true, there is a general correlation between campaign finance and votes. His larger point was;

"Here comes Sanders, someone nobody ever heard of, no support from the wealthy, no support from corporations, the media ignored or disparaged him, he even used a scare word "Socialist", came from nowhere. He would have won the Democratic party nomination if it hadn't been for the shenanigans of the Obama/Clinton party managers who kept him out, might have been president.. From nothing. That's an incredible break that shows what can happen when policies are proposed that do meet the general, just concerns of much of the population."

Which is also true

 

[UncleBuck]

"Here comes Sanders, someone nobody ever heard ot"

check my posts. i've been a fan or bernie since before you were.

i still voted for hillary in the primary and so did my wife. we just thought she was better and her plans had a better chance of actually passing. i'd let either one of them sit there and pick judges though.

noam chomsky is great but his opinion pieces are not facts padaraper

 

[Fogdog]

"As I said, you can pretty well predict electoral outcomes simply by campaign funding alone. There's other factors that intensify it." -Chomsky

He said you can pretty well predict electoral outcomes, just by looking at who spends more during the election cycle. That's true, there is a general correlation between campaign finance and votes. His larger point was;

"Here comes Sanders, someone nobody ever heard of, no support from the wealthy, no support from corporations, the media ignored or disparaged him, he even used a scare word "Socialist", came from nowhere. He would have won the Democratic party nomination if it hadn't been for the shenanigans of the Obama/Clinton party managers who kept him out, might have been president.. From nothing. That's an incredible break that shows what can happen when policies are proposed that do meet the general, just concerns of much of the population."

Which is also true

As you say, Chomsky said you can pretty well predict electoral outcomes simply by campaign funding alone. This isn't true. You can't. There is a general trend showing larger spending increases the chance of winning but you can't "pretty well predict" the outcome of any individual race. There is too much scatter in the data for that. I know you can't understand this. You can repeat it all you like but it isn't true.

The red line shows the trend, yes, more spending increases chances of winning. But there is too much scatter around that trend line to provide any predictive capability of any individual race. Chomsky is providing you with a false premise to allow you to hold tightly to your fake conspiracy theory.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/11/does-more-campaign-money-actually-buy-more-votes-investigation/355154/

The claim that Sanders would have won if not for Democratic Party shenanigans is also false. There is too much information available to refute that to give any credence to this claim.

I know this won't make any difference to you. You are just another victim of the human weakness to cling to false conspiracy theories.

 

[Padawanbater2]

check my posts. i've been a fan or bernie since before you were.

i still voted for hillary in the primary and so did my wife. we just thought she was better and her plans had a better chance of actually passing. i'd let either one of them sit there and pick judges though.

noam chomsky is great but his opinion pieces are not facts padaraper

When Sanders arrived on the scene in 2015/2016, he was a virtually unknown Senator from Vermont. Without the help of corporate donors and establishment media, he showed what is possible "when policies are proposed that do meet the general, just concerns of much of the population."

Chomsky is an established academic with decades of valid progressive political activism and analysis under his belt. I can't think of a single time he was wrong on a political issue. Why would someone like Chomsky assess the evidence in regards to the Democratic primary and conclude that it was rigged against Sanders by the Democratic political establishment? Why would he say Sanders would have won if it hadn't been for that?

 

[Padawanbater2]

As you say, Chomsky said you can pretty well predict electoral outcomes simply by campaign funding alone. This isn't true. You can't. There is a general trend showing larger spending increases the chance of winning but you can't "pretty well predict" the outcome of any individual race. There is too much scatter in the data for that. I know you can't understand this. You can repeat it all you like but it isn't true.

"There's other factors that intensify it."

Chomsky is not saying it's an absolute, he's saying that usually, whoever spends the most wins. There is data that corroborates this, it's something like 95% of the time whichever candidate spends more in a federal election wins. He chose to preface his main point with this fact to emphasize the feat Sanders and his campaign actually accomplished. He's saying even without the help of the Democratic establishment, Sanders, by utilizing a populist progressive message that resonated with poor and middle class people, he was able to make the contest competitive.

The red line shows the trend, yes, more spending increases chances of winning. But there is too much scatter around that trend line to provide any predictive capability of any individual race.

What does all of this tell us? That our shorthand for political success — more money, more votes — was validated in 2012.

 

[Fogdog]

When Sanders arrived on the scene in 2015/2016, he was a virtually unknown Senator from Vermont. Without the help of corporate donors and establishment media, he showed what is possible "when policies are proposed that do meet the general, just concerns of much of the population."

Chomsky is an established academic with decades of valid progressive political activism and analysis under his belt. I can't think of a single time he was wrong on a political issue. Why would someone like Chomsky assess the evidence in regards to the Democratic primary and conclude that it was rigged against Sanders by the Democratic political establishment? Why would he say Sanders would have won if it hadn't been for that?

Bernie lost because he failed to win in the south. The reason he lost n the south is because black voters preferred Clinton. He never had a chance after that. It's not as if his losses were due to his unknown status at the beginning of the primary, either. He was plenty well known by then. Also the trend didn't change over time. Throughout the rest of the campaign, Sanders never polled well with Hispanic and black voters.

Unlike you, I don't claim to read minds. I only know that Chomsky's claim isn't backed up by the facts. Sanders lost because he failed to connect with women, Hispanic and black voters. There are plenty of opinion pieces published by black and female analysts who try to explain why. Suggest you stop listening to you-tube and try to understand for yourself why this is true. Denying the facts isn't going to get you any answers.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Bernie lost because he failed to win in the south. The reason he lost n the south is because black voters preferred Clinton. He never had a chance after that. It's not as if his losses were due to his unknown status at the beginning of the primary, either. He was plenty well known by then. Also the trend didn't change over time. Throughout the rest of the campaign, Sanders never polled well with Hispanic and black voters.

Unlike you, I don't claim to read minds. I only know that Chomsky's claim isn't backed up by the facts. Sanders lost because he failed to connect with women, Hispanic and black voters. There are plenty of opinion pieces published by black and female analysts who try to explain why. Suggest you stop listening to you-tube and try to understand for yourself why this is true. Denying the facts isn't going to get you any answers.

Speculate. Why do you think Chomsky believes the Democratic primary was rigged against Sanders?

 

[Fogdog]

There is data that corroborates this, it's something like 95% of the time whichever candidate spends more in a federal election wins.

No there isn't something like 95 percent of the time whichever candidate spens more in a federal election wins. Just pull up the article I posted and look at the scatter of the data on those charts.

Yes, there is a trend that shows more campaign spending increases the likelihood of winning. But nothing like what you claim for any individual race. You are arguing from a base of ignorance and wishful thinking. There is too much scatter in those charts for anybody to make the claim you did unless they simply don't know anything.

You are basically resorting to an old and tired debating trick of quoting a source who is not available for questions. That you-tube video doesn't provide any references or back up material. It's just Chomsky word. You-tube is useless for this kind of reference material. Post some text that contains real information, not somebody's opinion and maybe I'll stop laughing at you.

 

[Padawanbater2]

No there isn't something like 95 percent of the time whichever candidate spens more in a federal election wins.

Money is pretty good predictor of who will win elections
Money Wins Presidency and 9 of 10 Congressional Races in Priciest U.S. Election Ever
Which Presidential Candidates Are Winning the Money Race
Occupy Wall Street protester's sign says 94 percent of deeper-pocketed candidates win
MONEY wins ELECTIONS

Yes there is..

Yes, there is a trend that shows more campaign spending increases the likelihood of winning. But nothing like what you claim for any individual race.

Chomsky didn't make any claims about individual races. He referenced the trend in federal elections in general, that the more you spend, the more likely you are to win. His point being that Sanders made it competitive without having to utilize traditional means of fundraising, like corporate or Super PAC donations simply by appealing to a populist progressive message. His message is what made it competitive.

Address that

 

[Fogdog]

Speculate. Why do you think Chomsky believes the Democratic primary was rigged against Sanders?

He's wrong. What possible reason could I have trying to speculate why?

No matter how much you want it to be so, the primary was not rigged. Sanders did not win because of shenanigans. There is too much information available that refutes these claims. You might as well start talking about how the earth is flat. You are falling for a fake conspiracy theory.

The following are cittations of real reporting, on the subject, not an opinion piece such as your you-tube vidieo.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/11/05/brazile-says-she-found-no-evidence-that-democratic-primaries-were-rigged-for-clinton/?utm_term=.1469d065d7e2

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/11/04/no-the-dnc-didnt-rig-the-democratic-primary-for-hillary-clinton/?utm_term=.906e464f5234

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-democratic-primary-wasnt-rigged/

“To the extent that the nomination was rigged in the sense that there was illegal activity going on that was directed by the Democratic Party or the Clinton campaign to sabotage Bernie Sanders’s chances, I’ve seen no credible evidence of that,” says law professor Rick Hasen of the University of California–Irvine.

 

[Fogdog]

ace
Occupy Wall Street protester's sign says 94 percent of deeper-pocketed candidates win
MONEY wins ELECTIONS

Oh good god. You are quoting an occupy wall street protester's sign as proof.

Go away. You are getting desperate.

 

[Padawanbater2]

He's wrong. What possible reason could I have trying to speculate why?

No matter how much you want it to be so, the primary was not rigged. Sanders did not win because of shenanigans. There is too much information available that refutes these claims.

Why do you believe he's wrong? The reason(s) why you think Chomsky is wrong are important to get an accurate idea of whether you're assessing his conclusion based on logic and reason or preconceived biases

Since the amount of damage done by the Clinton campaign's control of the DNC preceding the primary can't be accurately assessed, why are you speculating on it?

My argument is the damage was done. "How much?" is an irrelevant question towards the goal of protecting democracy and ensuring it doesn't happen again. To deny democracy was subverted in 2016 is to support the candidates that would choose to do it in future federal elections. No different than Republicans in Alabama who still support Roy Moore despite the evidence against him.

The following are cittations of real reporting, on the subject, not an opinion piece such as your you-tube vidieo.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/11/05/brazile-says-she-found-no-evidence-that-democratic-primaries-were-rigged-for-clinton/?utm_term=.1469d065d7e2

That's an opinion piece by Phil Rucker

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/11/04/no-the-dnc-didnt-rig-the-democratic-primary-for-hillary-clinton/?utm_term=.906e464f5234

"Brazile’s claims show that two things are true. First, the DNC preferred Clinton over Sanders"

-"DNC preferred Clinton over Sanders"

Article 5; Section 4 - DNC Charter and Bylaws

The National Chairperson shall serve full time and shall receive such compensation as
may be determined by agreement between the Chairperson and the Democratic National Committee. In
the conduct and management of the affairs and procedures of the Democratic National Committee,
particularly as they apply to the preparation and conduct of the Presidential nomination process, the
Chairperson shall exercise impartiality and evenhandedness as between the Presidential candidates and
campaigns. The Chairperson shall be responsible for ensuring that the national officers and staff of the
Democratic National Committee maintain impartiality and evenhandedness during the Democratic Party
Presidential nominating process.

and provided her campaign with power over the committee in exchange for financial support."

aka. rigging

Second, while the DNC preferred Clinton, this may have had little impact on the actual outcome of the primaries."

The part that denotes rigging is that the DNC preferred Clinton when they were supposed to remain neutral, not the amount of damage caused which is completely unverifiable. Nobody knows how much damage was caused by the Clinton campaign rigging the primary, but we know they rigged the primary. We don't need to know the details of to what extent it affected the outcome of the election in order to accurately conclude that it was rigged. And here are two different Washington Post opinion pieces that admit to it being rigged.

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-democratic-primary-wasnt-rigged/

Yet another opinion piece..

“To the extent that the nomination was rigged in the sense that there was illegal activity going on that was directed by the Democratic Party or the Clinton campaign to sabotage Bernie Sanders’s chances, I’ve seen no credible evidence of that,” says law professor Rick Hasen of the University of California–Irvine.

Nobody claimed what the DNC did was illegal. I posed the question after the primary if it should be illegal, and you said it shouldn't.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Oh good god. You are quoting an occupy wall street protester's sign as proof.

Go away. You are getting desperate.

That's a politifact article

You can't argue the points, so you dismiss the messenger. I just spent 20 minutes reading through the sources you posted and debunked them. That's the power of being on the right side of the issue. Try addressing the facts instead of resorting to common logical fallacies.

 

[Fogdog]

That's a politifact article

You can't argue the points, so you dismiss the messenger. I just spent 20 minutes reading through the sources you posted and debunked them. That's the power of being on the right side of the issue. Try addressing the facts instead of resorting to common logical fallacies.

You are desperate.

Here's an example of an opinion piece. The you-tube vid by Chomsky contained only opinions.

The articles you claim were opinion pieces built up a case of facts and then gave conclusions. I'm fine if you don't think it's enough. That's OK. Three articles aren't enough to make a case, I agree. There are more, the list goes on and on, including Brazile's own book. Brazile herself says the primary wasn't rigged. But I realize that's not enough for you.

I'll just leave your line of reasoning regarding rigged with this:

and provided her campaign with power over the committee in exchange for financial support."​

The above does not constitute "rigging" as you claim. The whole brouhaha that has you spinning in your chair about rigging is because the DNC was broke and Clinton provided funds so they could keep the office lights on, the computers running and the DNC staff paid. This happened in August. At the time, Clinton required control of how funds were spent. Yet, despite how much control Clinton had, nobody, not Brazile, not Sanders, not that academic who in fact reviewed the evidence said there is anything that shows the DNC did anything to skew election results toward Clinton.

Only outsiders like you and now Chomsky says so. I give you and Chomsky little credence..

I'm an outsider too. But Brazile wasn't. She found all sorts of things that were irregular, unethical too. She says no evidence of rigging. Same with others who have much more access to people and documents than you or I. They say it wasn't rigged. I take them at their word. But I don't stop there.

How the electorate voted is what convinces me more than what Brazile and others say. Sanders failed to convince Hispanic, black and women voters to give him their vote. The claim of rigging that you make would have to account for why, throughout the primary, Clinton consistently won votes of Hispanic and black voters by very wide margins . Also, the majority of women voters went to Clinton.. The skewed demographics that favored Clinton persisted throughout the campaign.

So, tell me Sherlock, what actions taken by the DNC or Clinton could have skewed the primary vote such that only white male Democratic party voters went hard to Sanders. I find it too hard to believe that the primary was rigged but only one group wasn't affected. Please no you-tube videos, provide something that explains this.

I've read up on what black and women analysts say. They say they didn't feel that Sanders would be a good leader for their issues. That's a damn good reason for them to vote for Clinton.

 

[Padawanbater2]

Define the word "rig"