I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But the world isn't going to end either way

We shall see. So far, you've yet to even admit to yourself some of his more obvious intentions (wars).

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ate_count.html

Ten points (in elected delegates) is not a close political race. And superdelegates count too.

BTW... http://usuncut.com/politics/bernie-s...crushed-trump/

You're not that stupid.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think it absolutely made a difference. What did it do? Again, this "show me" shit is irritating. You have google. But here's just a taste: http://nypost.com/2016/07/22/leaked-...rewed-sanders/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b0b3bb4b0800bd

That is the weakest of weak sauce.

eta: Here is my favorite paragraph from that piece:

Furthermore, the enormous advantages of having the DNC on her side bolstered Clinton, and hurt Sanders in the same manner any challenger would be undermined by such favoritism. To ignore the effects of the DNC’s underhanded tactics on media coverage, and the media’s bias against Bernie as a result, is to condone the rigged primary against Bernie. Presidential campaigns are won and lost by media, and political parties rallying around a particular candidate. In Bernie’s case, his missteps were magnified, his chances were minimized, and the potential consequences of Clinton’s FBI criminal investigation were virtually ignored by mainstream media. For an explanation of how The New York Times has become Hillary Clinton’s PR firm, simply watch one of my recent YouTube segments.

The third sentence is very true. Everything else is Bizzaroworld wrong. If it rings true, seek medical help.

How did it impact Bernie? Well, of course, no one can empirically measure that. But he lost. And he lost in a close race. And so applying the same logic on which you conclude Hillary would've won but for Russia, Comey, and media attention to her emails, I can say with exactly the same level of credibility, but for the DNC working against him and for Clinton, Bernie'd have gotten the nomination.

That's very clever, but your point is that either you are wrong about Bernie or wrong about Comey. One of two would be respectable, but because we're actually talking about the real world and not just clever logic, you're wrong on both counts. Hillary lost by ~100,000 votes out of more than 130 million cast, and she won the national vote by more than 2,000,000. That's a very narrow loss. So many things may have made a difference. Bernie was nowhere close to that with Hillary. The press covered the race because he stayed in, so it dragged on, but because Democratic primaries allocate electors proportionately, he never had a chance of catching her. The two races were not comparable.

And even if they had been, here's the thing: Debbie Wasserman Schulz can only dream that anything she might have done could have gotten the press attention and affected the media coverage for Hillary in the primary in the way that James Comey's actions towards Hillary affected coverage in the general. You very well know the two aren't even comparable. But you are pretending that Schulz and the DNC somehow rigged things for Bernie, but that Comey didn't have an effect. Really?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ate_count.html

Sebby, WTF? Please click on that link. It shows that 2,382 delegates were needed to win. Hillary had 2807, and Sanders had 1894. That's not close.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

DNC stuff

I have no idea why we're still talking about the DNC, but, hell, as a long-ago party official I do have a special interest in political party organization.

The only way the DNC can make a material difference in the primary elections is in setting the calendar and setting the rules. They have limited ability to do each (most of the rules set out options for state parties to choose among, and that is required because different states have laws that set different rules that also must be complied with - e.g., some state legally mandate open or closed primaries).

The calendar, with a couple strong Sanders states first in Iowa and NH and no major minority voters casting ballots until Super Tuesday, hurt Clinton, and she knew it would going in. But you don't screw with Iowa and NH. Had Super Tuesday been bigger, and the calendar more front-loaded, it also would have helped her. I don't see the case for the DNC helping Clinton with the Calendar.

It is also very hard to make a case that the rules favored Clinton, even though her operatives undoubtedly had a bigger hand in writing them than did Sanders. The main reason for this is that most of the rules were held over from Obama, because Obama liked them, and Sanders' voting pattern (strong in Caucuses and small states, week in big states, won narrowly where he won but lost big where he lost) was closer to Obama's voting pattern.

It is not hard to make a case that the rules favored Sanders. His delegate total is much stronger than his vote total justifies, mostly because they rewarded people who won a CD or state even when the win was narrow. So Sanders would pick up a 2-1 spread on delegates in a CD with a 52/48% win while Clinton would pick up a 2-1 spread on delegates in another CD with a 70/30% win.

I have no doubt there were individuals who favored Hillary over Bernie at the DNC - there were also some, who I know, who favored Bernie there, though many less. Remember, Tulsi Gabbard was a vice chair and pretty openly favored Bernie right up until the lead-in to Super Tuesday, when she moved to an active role in his campaign and stepped down. But I have trouble seeing how they had a fraction of the impact, especially compared to the many elected officials playing open roles in campaigns.

I mean, what else can or do they do? They don't spend money on media. They don't put field staff out until after the convention. They do focus on fundraising early on, and there are ways DNC accounts can be used to increase fundraising limits, but that's not particular to the DNC (it works for every state party, most town and city committees, and even things like delegate committees) and every opportunity the DNC offers is offered to both parties equally. Similarly, there are assets the party has it makes available, like voter lists, but those are also offered to all candidates equally and on the same terms (Bernie complained they came down on him hard when he violated the rules and accessed Hillary's data once - but, come on, he violated the rules and accessed Hillary's data). If the party didn't offer them, Hillary would have had a huge advantage because she had more early money and had run before, and that would have let her build the voter file three years ago. So what they do, say some mean things about him in emails?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That is the weakest of weak sauce.

This is the most hyperbolic of the hyperboles. I think it is always helps to ease into the weekend with a little George Clinton. Today's Daily Dose is Parliament: "Up For the Down Stroke."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y6L...LKDCGf5OdIPl0F

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Yeah, this is a great investigation right here, with excellent DNC cooperation: https://www.engadget.com/2017/01/05/...ss-to-servers/

Yo, let's back up a bit and let me ask you this: Why the fuck are you so interested in downplaying what is pretty obvious Russian interference in our electoral process? Even if it amounts to just revealing what they hacked from one side vs. the other as the bare minimum, why are you so invested in trying to make that sound like nothing?

I do not understand the position you're trying to take here. You've already said there are multiple reasons why Trump won. Whenever we try discussing one of them, you do your best to make it sound like nothing. Is it because you just know it's all about the economy and the bullshit jobs Trump has promised? Or do you have some alternate reason?

You sound fucking nutso.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

This is the most hyperbolic of the hyperboles. I think it is always helps to ease into the weekend with a little George Clinton. Today's Daily Dose is Parliament: "Up For the Down Stroke."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y6L...LKDCGf5OdIPl0F

why do you never play the Brides of Funkenstein? Hate women?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

why do you never play the Brides of Funkenstein? Hate women?

This is the dumbest thing ever written by anybody in the history of the universe. It literally is comprised of the shit of seventeen different animals. Calm down. Fuck you. I don't know them vey well, but I will acquaint myself. Stay tuned to the Daily Dose next week!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Yo, let's back up a bit and let me ask you this: Why the fuck are you so interested in downplaying what is pretty obvious Russian interference in our electoral process? Even if it amounts to just revealing what they hacked from one side vs. the other as the bare minimum, why are you so invested in trying to make that sound like nothing?

I do not understand the position you're trying to take here. You've already said there are multiple reasons why Trump won. Whenever we try discussing one of them, you do your best to make it sound like nothing. Is it because you just know it's all about the economy and the bullshit jobs Trump has promised? Or do you have some alternate reason?

You sound fucking nutso.

TM

Because this story has the stink of Big Spin. Of course Russia hacked. And that's an issue which should be examined. But it's being overplayed to create a narrative right now that Trump is somehow an illegitimate President. (He deserves that, richly, for his birtherism, but that's another discussion.)

I also looked at the report, and it's again more conclusions than evidence. It's filled with comments about Russia intending to demean HRC, but pretty thin on what exactly was done, other than some scant evidence connecting Russian hackers to phishing.

This report has political shit stains all over it. Like Taibbi, even where it's aimed at a guy such as Trump, I have a strong urge to tear it apart.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Interesting report out on the ways in which Russia is looking to interfere in Sweden's election.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Because this story has the stink of Big Spin. Of course Russia hacked. And that's an issue which should be examined. But it's being overplayed to create a narrative right now that Trump is somehow an illegitimate President. (He deserves that, richly, for his birtherism, but that's another discussion.)

I also looked at the report, and it's again more conclusions than evidence. It's filled with comments about Russia intending to demean HRC, but pretty thin on what exactly was done, other than some scant evidence connecting Russian hackers to phishing.

This report has political shit stains all over it. Like Taibbi, even where it's aimed at a guy such as Trump, I have a strong urge to tear it apart.

It's not going away because of Trump's response to it, and because both it and his response capture a lot of concerns people have about him. If he wanted it to go away, all he would have to do is say: "I have talked to our intelligence people, and I understand what they are saying, and when I take office I will take appropriate actions. For national security reasons, that's all I'm going to say." He is incapable of saying that, and so he keeps it alive.

I don't understand the way you use the word "political." Talking about the Russian hacking is bad for Trump. Not talking about the Russian hacking is good for Trump. Does that make anything anyone does political? What are you trying to say?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's not going away because of Trump's response to it, and because both it and his response capture a lot of concerns people have about him. If he wanted it to go away, all he would have to do is say: "I have talked to our intelligence people, and I understand what they are saying, and when I take office I will take appropriate actions. For national security reasons, that's all I'm going to say." He is incapable of saying that, and so he keeps it alive.

I don't understand the way you use the word "political." Talking about the Russian hacking is bad for Trump. Not talking about the Russian hacking is good for Trump. Does that make anything anyone does political? What are you trying to say?

This is an international and long-term issue.

I think we really need public hearings, and the big reason for that is that we have two sources of information: intelligence community people who do not want to give us detail, only conclusions, because that is how they protect sources and methods of their own, and private contractors, who ultimately need to serve their clients. We should be vetting and debating the degree to which this part of our cyber-security efforts needs to be more public.

Unfortunately, we need mature thoughtful leadership from Republicans to make this happen. I'm hoping McCain and Graham can pull it off, but, frankly, their record has been spotty and its not clear they can stand up to the McConnells, Rubios and Cruzes of the world for whom this is just a game where the only way you score is by razzing liberals.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Because this story has the stink of Big Spin. Of course Russia hacked. And that's an issue which should be examined. But it's being overplayed to create a narrative right now that Trump is somehow an illegitimate President. (He deserves that, richly, for his birtherism, but that's another discussion.)

I also looked at the report, and it's again more conclusions than evidence. It's filled with comments about Russia intending to demean HRC, but pretty thin on what exactly was done, other than some scant evidence connecting Russian hackers to phishing.

This report has political shit stains all over it. Like Taibbi, even where it's aimed at a guy such as Trump, I have a strong urge to tear it apart.

Here's my theory about you: I think you think Trump shouldn't have won. I think you realize that with the voter suppression (whether it be formal, through bullshit voter id laws, or informal, through forcing people to stand on hours-long lines), the Russian hacking, Benghazi, Hillary's emails and suspicions of Clinton Foundation improprieties, James Comey's bullshit, the press sucking Trump's dick for ratings over the last year and a half, and the hyper-slim margin by which he won, you know Trump shouldn't have won.

But deep down, under all your bullshit posturing and your over-the-top, fake ass laissez faire attitude to everything, you really did want him to win. Now that he's done just that, you intentionally focus on the very few people who call him an illegitimate President in attempt to make that some type of theme you can rail against. You try to argue that, separately, all the things I listed above couldn't possibly have made the difference. But you absolutely know that, together, they certainly did. And that bothers you. It bothers you because you know the man is completely unfit to serve as President. And no matter how much you focus on the DNC's or Hillary's political strategy, or how many times you talk about how "people on the left just don't get it because jobs and robots, man," you know his election is about small-minded fools being tricked. And since you secretly wanted him to win, now you don't know how to feel about yourself.

I'm sure you'll have some ridiculous Sebbyesque response where you argue that The Times and The Post were in the bag for the actual qualified candidate over the man-baby who knows fuck-all about everything or how I'm programmed to support only Democrats or some other stupid shit. But I don't really care. That's my theory.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It's not going away because of Trump's response to it, and because both it and his response capture a lot of concerns people have about him. If he wanted it to go away, all he would have to do is say: "I have talked to our intelligence people, and I understand what they are saying, and when I take office I will take appropriate actions. For national security reasons, that's all I'm going to say." He is incapable of saying that, and so he keeps it alive.

This. I do not understand it. All he has to do is say the right words, but he refuses. Why?