Superdelegates in the Democratic Party (Primary) should be eliminated

[UncleBuck]

Clinton controlled the DNC. The DNC is responsible for selecting the candidate and funding the races.

See, that's rigging the primary

No.

 

[ttystikk]

You choose not to understand how tax policy actually works. We might actually be able to have a real conversation about this that would benefit progressives if you didn't automatically resort to calling every single thing you disagree with racist or sexist and try to shut down the opposition that way instead of actually presenting good ideas that people can agree with..

It's not nice to pick on the mentally handicapped.

 

[Fogdog]

If 90% weren't a good predictor then no one would bother with statistics. You've completely mistaken 'good' for 'perfect'.

This shows in many of your arguments and explains your persistent political myopia.

Can you tell us what the 90% means? How was it derived?

 

[ttystikk]

Can you tell us what the 90% means? How was it derived?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/04/04/think-money-doesnt-matter-in-elections-this-chart-says-youre-wrong/?utm_term=.b548b2aca972

Not my problem if you can't understand statistics.

 

[Fogdog]

I didn't appeal to Chomsky's authority. I asked Fogdog why he thought Chomsky believed the primary was rigged. Failed to get an answer..

So, maybe you can do better. Why do you believe Chomsky believes the primary was rigged?

Really? I admit I don't know what Chomsky was thinking. Can you absolutely say what he was thinking when he said it?

 

[ttystikk]

Really? I admit I don't know what Chomsky was thinking. Can you absolutely say what he was thinking when he said it?

That's fucking weak, even for you.

You can take an honest man at his word.

Maybe you are the dishonest one.

 

[Fogdog]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/04/04/think-money-doesnt-matter-in-elections-this-chart-says-youre-wrong/?utm_term=.b548b2aca972

Not my problem if you can't understand statistics.

this is about congressional races, not presidential races idiot.

 

[Fogdog]

That's fucking weak, even for you.

You can take an honest man at his word.

Maybe you are the dishonest one.

So, the great tty can read minds? You know what Chomsky was thinking?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Really? I admit I don't know what Chomsky was thinking. Can you absolutely say what he was thinking when he said it?

...he said what he was thinking

 

[SneekyNinja]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/04/04/think-money-doesnt-matter-in-elections-this-chart-says-youre-wrong/?utm_term=.b548b2aca972

Not my problem if you can't understand statistics.

"* Winning candidates on average spent $2.3 million. Losing candidates, on average, spent $1.1 million.

Now, there's a variety of reasons for why the better-financed candidates are victorious much more often (and, conversely, why winning candidates are more often better-financed).

One huge advantage is incumbency. Those who have won election in the past begin any race with the advantage of having already-built fundraising networks. On average, congressional incumbents in 2012 raised more than double the amount of money brought in by their challengers -- and boasted a 90 percent reelection rate.

Also, some would argue that in many cases the candidates who win the most votes do so based on the same electability, popularity and qualifications that make them the best at fundraising, and vice versa. A candidate who is compelling enough to get you to open your wallet should, in theory, also be able to get you to head to the ballot box for him or her."

From your own article you retarded headline-skimming moron.

 

[Fogdog]

again, this pertains to congressional races. Still, the reasons behind the trend are more importatant than the trend itself.

Also, some would argue that in many cases the candidates who win the most votes do so based on the same electability, popularity and qualifications that make them the best at fundraising, and vice versa. A candidate who is compelling enough to get you to open your wallet should, in theory, also be able to get you to head to the ballot box for him or her.

The question must be asked why did the congressional candidate gain the upper hand in campaign contributions. Our cynical bernie babies have a simple answer. It's not always that simple.

 

[Fogdog]

...he said what he was thinking

No he didn't.

 

[ttystikk]

No he didn't.

So now you're a mind reader.

 

[ttystikk]

"* Winning candidates on average spent $2.3 million. Losing candidates, on average, spent $1.1 million.

Now, there's a variety of reasons for why the better-financed candidates are victorious much more often (and, conversely, why winning candidates are more often better-financed).

One huge advantage is incumbency. Those who have won election in the past begin any race with the advantage of having already-built fundraising networks. On average, congressional incumbents in 2012 raised more than double the amount of money brought in by their challengers -- and boasted a 90 percent reelection rate.

Also, some would argue that in many cases the candidates who win the most votes do so based on the same electability, popularity and qualifications that make them the best at fundraising, and vice versa. A candidate who is compelling enough to get you to open your wallet should, in theory, also be able to get you to head to the ballot box for him or her."

From your own article you retarded headline-skimming moron.

Did you read the part about the average size of contributions?

Or do you just feel inadequate when people talk about size?

 

[Fogdog]

It's about all races, you shit stupid moron.

But nice try cherry picking.

You are saying that presidential races are the same as congressional ones? Reallly?

Trump got more than a billion dollars in free media attention. No congressional candiate ever got that much attention.

Sanders got a huge benefit from his positive media attention when Clinton was being attacked by right wingers over a fake story called Benghazi. No congressional candidate ever had the same attention that Clinton had.

The study was a good one and shows that congressional races the largest spender usually wins. It is interesting but there is noting in that study that talks about presidential races.

You are the one who is cherry picking. You pick data from congressional races and apply it to presidential races without any justification.

 

[ttystikk]

You are saying that presidential races are the same as congressional ones? Reallly?

Trump got more than a billion dollars in free media attention. No congressional candiate ever got that much attention.

Sanders got a huge benefit from his positive media attention when Clinton was being attacked by right wingers over a fake story called Benghazi. No congressional candidate ever had the same attention that Clinton had.

The study was a good one and shows that congressional races the largest spender usually wins. It is interesting but there is noting in that study that talks about presidential races.

You are the one who is cherry picking. You pick data from congressional races and apply it to presidential races without any justification.

Congratulations- you just figured out why it's 90%.

But Bernie did not get media attention. Any Hollywood flack will tell you that negative attention is much better than none.

For proof, just look at the Shitgibbon in the Oval Orifice.

 

[Fogdog]

Do you work at being this stupid or does it come naturally?

Congratulations- you just figured out why it's 90%.

But Bernie did not get media attention. Any Hollywood flack will tell you that negative attention is much better than none.

For proof, just look at the Shitgibbon in the Oval Orifice.

I've posted that information about how much more positive Bernie's media coverage was compared to Clinton many times and you don't remember. You'll just have to search it out. Not going to lead you to water again.

You and Pad keep harping on rigged yet neither of you address why, if this is all due to general campaign spending or shenanigans by the DNC, why did only white males vote in large numbers for Bernie? Why wouldn't everybody be affected equally? I look at the fact that 75% of black Democratic party voters chose Clinton and ask why weren't white male voters affected in similar proportions by your so called corrupt acts? If the issue was solely due to campaign spending or DNC tricks, why was the effect only seen in select groups.

What black people who are analysts say is that Bernie didn't convince black voters that he was going to be a good leader on their issues. This makes much more sense than all your complex conspiracy theories. Occam.s razor and all that.

 

[ttystikk]

I've posted that information about how much more positive Bernie's media coverage was compared to Clinton many times and you don't remember. You'll just have to search it out. Not going to lead you to water again.

You and Pad keep harping on rigged yet neither of you address why, if this is all due to general campaign spending or shenanigans by the DNC, why did only white males vote in large numbers for Bernie? Why wouldn't everybody be affected equally? I look at the fact that 75% of black Democratic party voters chose Clinton and ask why weren't white male voters affected in similar proportions by your so called corrupt acts? If the issue was solely due to campaign spending or DNC tricks, why was the effect only seen in select groups.

What black people who are analysts say is that Bernie didn't convince black voters that he was going to be a good leader on their issues. This makes much more sense than all your complex conspiracy theories. Occam.s razor and all that.

Mr Sanders did get positive coverage; just not much of it.

 

[ANC]

 

[ttystikk]

Things are getting worse, not better. It took the American People threatening revolt in the 1930s for Roosevelt to gain the political capital necessary to push through the New Deal.

I'm pushing hard now because I'd hate to see another Great Depression. It would be enormously destructive to our country.

I'm not convinced that Democrats are willing to listen to progressives- in fact, I see them doing all they can to ignore and even discredit their Left flank. Following the money, it's not hard to see why.

Arguing about the 90% rule bring applicable only to Congressional politics vs presidential races is ignoring the larger trends at play and risks direction from the underlying issues.

Maybe I shouldn't try so hard to advocate for a better country. Maybe I should just adopt the same sneering attitude towards my less financially fortunate Americans as the rich do and look out for myself and tell everyone else they're on their own.

Just doesn't seem like a good way to run a railroad to me.