Does anybody want Joe Biden as President?

[brandonbull]

How did the DNC rig it so that Hillary won the primaries by more than 4 million votes?

I don't get how people claimed Bernie would have won against Trump.

 

[brandonbull]

At this point, any functioning adult is acceptable and better than what we currently have.

ANY.

FUNCTIONING.

ADULT.

This is how low the bar has now been set.

So yes, any alternative on the ballot is an instant yes.

FYI the Democrats seem to be fresh out of those. Good luck running another Obama era retread against Trump.

 

[SlowSpyder]

So to be clear you're saying the DNC stumping on behalf of Clinton changed the mind of four... million... voters. lol, you are living in a dream world. Get out of the bubble.

Hell, there were only about 20 million Democratic primary votes total, meaning in your mind the DNC saying nice things about Clinton was responsible for 20% of the votes in the elections overall. If that were true then the DNC is officially the most effective political organization in the history of democracy and people/institutions around the world should be beating down their doors for political advice.

I mean seriously, just how stupid does someone need to be to think that the DNC of all things was responsible for 20% of the primary vote. lol. The sheer dumbness.

Yet you think Russian's took the free will of voters in the election? You can't have it both ways.

The DNC had a clear favorite and did everything in their power to make her win. America really dodged a bullet by electing Trump.

 

[fskimospy]

Yet you think Russian's took the free will of voters in the election? You can't have it both ways.

You can if you know that 4,000,000/20,000,000 is a larger number than 70,000/130,000,000.

Then again you consistently struggle with basic math, which really explains why you're making this dumb argument to begin with.

The DNC had a clear favorite and did everything in their power to make her win. America really dodged a bullet by electing Trump.

Right, so after your point was shown to be stupid you're back to mindlessly repeating the same thing mindlessly.

 

[SlowSpyder]

You can if you know that 4,000,000/20,000,000 is a larger number than 70,000/130,000,000.

Then again you consistently struggle with basic math, which really explains why you're making this dumb argument to begin with.



Right, so after your point was shown to be stupid you're back to mindlessly repeating the same thing mindlessly.

Ok, so Trump benefited from the Russians (despite no evidence being found) but Hillary didn't benefit from the DNC doing everything in their power to put their puppet in place? Good thing America saw through their ruse.

You don't think Debbie Wasserman Schultz pushed things in Hilary's favor? Really? Her actions were what made me know I could not vote for the Dem candidate... the bought and sold puppet they wanted put in place.

 

[soundforbjt]

Ok, so Trump benefited from the Russians (despite no evidence being found) but Hillary didn't benefit from the DNC doing everything in their power to put their puppet in place? Good thing America saw through their ruse.

You don't think Debbie Wasserman Schultz pushed things in Hilary's favor? Really? Her actions were what made me know I could not vote for the Dem candidate... the bought and sold puppet they wanted put in place.

Yet you have zero problems with Trump being a puppet put in place by Putin.

 

[fskimospy]

Ok, so Trump benefited from the Russians (despite no evidence being found) but Hillary didn't benefit from the DNC doing everything in their power to put their puppet in place? Good thing America saw through their ruse.

You don't think Debbie Wasserman Schultz pushed things in Hilary's favor? Really? Her actions were what made me know I could not vote for the Dem candidate... the bought and sold puppet they wanted put in place.

Slowspyder logic:

1) Russian interference in the election changing the mind of 1% of voters? IMPOSSIBLE.

2) DNC changing the mind of 20% of voters? OF COURSE THEY DID.

 

[dank69]

Ok, so Trump benefited from the Russians (despite no evidence being found) but Hillary didn't benefit from the DNC doing everything in their power to put their puppet in place? Good thing America saw through their ruse.

You don't think Debbie Wasserman Schultz pushed things in Hilary's favor? Really? Her actions were what made me know I could not vote for the Dem candidate... the bought and sold puppet they wanted put in place.

There was plenty of evidence found. Your confusion is probably because you think collusion is the same thing as Russia just flat out helping Trump whether or not Trump knew about it. But also the math problem you have.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Yet you have zero problems with Trump being a puppet put in place by Putin.

LOL. Trump has been harsher on Russia than anyone since Reagan. He's armed the Ukraine, remember when Crimea was annexed under Obama? Several hundred Russians killed by the US in Syria under Trump.

You guys have nothing but lies to repeat. The thing is you keep telling each other these same lies enough that you believe them. Trump has been hard on Putin, it wasn't Trump telling Russia he'd have more flexibility after he's elected...

 

[soundforbjt]

LOL. Trump has been harsher on Russia than anyone since Reagan. He's armed the Ukraine, remember when Crimea was annexed under Obama? Several hundred Russians killed by the US in Syria under Trump.

You guys have nothing but lies to repeat. The thing is you keep telling each other these same lies enough that you believe them. Trump has been hard on Putin, it wasn't Trump telling Russia he'd have more flexibility after he's elected...

What steps has Trump taken to safeguard the 2020 election against Russian interference?

 

[SlowSpyder]

What steps has Trump taken to safeguard the 2020 election against Russian interference?

I don't know. Doesn't sound like they've ever made a significant impact, maybe no real impact. The Democrats and their base have been pushing this line for a while now, "the Russians!" but it is plainly obvious it is nothing more than a coping mechanism to reconcile America rejecting their overly PC, left of common sense ways today. Project the bubble, blame the Russian, can't be that Trump simply ran a better campaign against an unlikable candidate.... no, has to be something to protect their feelings. Blaming the Russians for the loss fits the bill nicely.

 

[brandonbull]

Don't forget Biden doesn't think China is a threat. I remember when Obama didn't think Russia was a threat.

 

[soundforbjt]

I don't know. Doesn't sound like they've ever made a significant impact, maybe no real impact. The Democrats and their base have been pushing this line for a while now, "the Russians!" but it is plainly obvious it is nothing more than a coping mechanism to reconcile America rejecting their overly PC, left of common sense ways today. Project the bubble, blame the Russian, can't be that Trump simply ran a better campaign against an unlikable candidate.... no, has to be something to protect their feelings. Blaming the Russians for the loss fits the bill nicely.

Of course YOU believe that...lol.

Also, most of the tough steps "taken" by Trump were really taken via Congress with a veto proof majority so he had no choice in the decisions.

 

[glenn1]

Slowspyder logic:

1) Russian interference in the election changing the mind of 1% of voters? IMPOSSIBLE.

2) DNC changing the mind of 20% of voters? OF COURSE THEY DID.

Dem primaries don't work on total popular vote any more than the general election with the EC does so 4 million more votes or 14 million don't matter only where the votes are distributed. I agree with you that DNC efforts weren't determinative in making Clinton the winner but you should likewise concede that without their efforts that it's extremely plausible things could have gone the other way. Momentum tends to snowball for early winners and small changes in votes tallies for a couple March primary states could have made the difference in the later contests. For example, the margin was 2k votes in both Missouri (49.6% to 49.4%) and Kentucky (46.8% to 46.3%) which is way smaller than the alleged Russian interference.

 

[fskimospy]

Dem primaries don't work on total popular vote any more than the general election with the EC does so 4 million more votes or 14 million don't matter only where the votes are distributed. I agree with you that DNC efforts weren't determinative in making Clinton the winner but you should likewise concede that without their efforts that it's extremely plausible things could have gone the other way. Momentum tends to snowball for early winners and small changes in votes tallies for a couple March primary states could have made the difference in the later contests. For example, the margin was 2k votes in both Missouri (49.6% to 49.4%) and Kentucky (46.8% to 46.3%) which is way smaller than the alleged Russian interference.

This is not accurate. Republican primaries are usually winner take all but Democratic primaries award delegates proportionally. For example in Missouri as you mention Clinton got 36 delegates and Sanders got 35. Essentially a wash.

This is the primary (har) reason that Sanders was doomed after Super Tuesday. Because delegates are awarded proportionally you need blowout wins to catch up.

 

[glenn1]

This is not accurate. Republican primaries are usually winner take all but Democratic primaries award delegates proportionally. For example in Missouri as you mention Clinton got 36 delegates and Sanders got 35. Essentially a wash.

This is the primary (har) reason that Sanders was doomed after Super Tuesday. Because delegates are awarded proportionally you need blowout wins to catch up.

You completely ignored my snowball/momentum comment and how important perceptions formed by early contest wins/losses are. If Missouri had flipped because of 2k votes then other states could have moved another percentage or so towards Bernie. Perhaps another reasonably close contest like CT gets flipped to Bernie. Again, DNC efforts that only gained a couple thousand votes in earlier states could have been resulted in more votes for Clinton later on because of the bandwagon effect. Again I'm not holding this determined the outcome but I think you can acknowledge that DNC actions did help Clinton. To pretend they didn't is being obtusely delusional.

 

[fskimospy]

You completely ignored my snowball/momentum comment and how important perceptions formed by early contest wins/losses are. If Missouri had flipped because of 2k votes then other states could have moved another percentage or so towards Bernie. Perhaps another reasonably close contest like CT gets flipped to Bernie. Again, DNC efforts that only gained a couple thousand votes in earlier states could have been resulted in more votes for Clinton later on because of the bandwagon effect. Again I'm not holding this determined the outcome but I think you can acknowledge that DNC actions did help Clinton. To pretend they didn't is being obtusely delusional.

Great, so they all moved a percent. Only 19% to go.

It’s a straw man to say my argument is that the DNC didn’t help her. My argument is that she won by such a huge margin that it’s exceedingly unlikely the DNC’s influence changed the outcome, same as yours. The same is not the case for Russian interference where a 1% change reasonably likely means Clinton is president.

 

[woolfe9998]

You completely ignored my snowball/momentum comment and how important perceptions formed by early contest wins/losses are. If Missouri had flipped because of 2k votes then other states could have moved another percentage or so towards Bernie. Perhaps another reasonably close contest like CT gets flipped to Bernie. Again, DNC efforts that only gained a couple thousand votes in earlier states could have been resulted in more votes for Clinton later on because of the bandwagon effect. Again I'm not holding this determined the outcome but I think you can acknowledge that DNC actions did help Clinton. To pretend they didn't is being obtusely delusional.

You simply can't overcome the math with this argument. Clinton won by way too many votes for the DNC's actions to have made the difference. Had the DNC been neutral I doubt it would have cut into a fifth of her lead, and that's being generous.

Also, has it occurred to anyone that DNC and RNC both always have an internal preference in every primary, and likely always take some steps to help their preferred candidate? The only difference here is that yeah, we saw DNC's internal e-mails. Didn't RNC favor someone other than Trump early on? IIRC wasn't it Rubio? Didn't do a lick to change the outcome, did it?

 

[mect]

So what exactly did they do that caused Clinton to gain 4 million additional votes?

Please be specific.

Slow of course has no clue what he's talking about, and I don't think "rigged" is the proper term because they simply followed the rules, but the rules of the democratic primary certainly favored Clinton. I don't know that it would have changed the outcome, but having the super delegate votes declared before the people started voting was a huge advantage for Clinton. Now that the rules for the super delegates have changed we should certainly see a more level playing field. Additionally, there were several unions (including my own) that endorsed Clinton with no input from the union membership despite Sanders having a stronger pro union stance, presumably due to pressure from the democratic party. Momentum can have a huge impact on primary voting, I wouldn't put 20% of the vote as being outside the realm of possibility for influence. One study found early primary voters have 20x the influence of later voters in primary elections.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w13637

 

[SlowSpyder]

You simply can't overcome the math with this argument. Clinton won by way too many votes for the DNC's actions to have made the difference. Had the DNC been neutral I doubt it would have cut into a fifth of her lead, and that's being generous.

Also, has it occurred to anyone that DNC and RNC both always have an internal preference in every primary, and likely always take some steps to help their preferred candidate? The only difference here is that yeah, we saw DNC's internal e-mails. Didn't RNC favor someone other than Trump early on? IIRC wasn't it Rubio? Didn't do a lick to change the outcome, did it?

I don't know, Bernie went from essentially no support to almost winning. The DNC helped make sure that she won, who knows how it would have gone if the DNC gave him the support she got. There are facts and there is speculation. It is a fact that the DNC pulled strings on Hilary's behalf. It is speculation how that affected things in the final outcome. How do you know if Bernie had gotten the same level of support and string pulling as Hilary that he wouldn't have won the bid as the Democrat candidate?

The DNC wanted to put in a career entrenched politician from the old guard. But luckily America decided to drain the swamp.

 

[fskimospy]

Slow of course has no clue what he's talking about, and I don't think "rigged" is the proper term because they simply followed the rules, but the rules of the democratic primary certainly favored Clinton. I don't know that it would have changed the outcome, but having the super delegate votes declared before the people started voting was a huge advantage for Clinton. Now that the rules for the super delegates have changed we should certainly see a more level playing field. Additionally, there were several unions (including my own) that endorsed Clinton with no input from the union membership despite Sanders having a stronger pro union stance, presumably due to pressure from the democratic party. Momentum can have a huge impact on primary voting, I wouldn't put 20% of the vote as being outside the realm of possibility for influence. One study found early primary voters have 20x the influence of later voters in primary elections.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w13637

Well sure, Clinton had spent her entire life building support within the Democratic Party, it’s not exactly surprising that superdelegates would endorse her over a guy that didn’t even join the party to run in the primary. So yes, Clinton’s stature in the party and her institutional support could have absolutely been decisive, I agree. That’s just politics though.

Clowns like Slow are talking about nebulous nefarious actions by the DNC to boost Clinton and there’s simply no plausible scenario to me where it changes the vote totals nearly enough.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Well sure, Clinton had spent her entire life building support within the Democratic Party, it’s not exactly surprising that superdelegates would endorse her over a guy that didn’t even join the party to run in the primary. So yes, Clinton’s stature in the party and her institutional support could have absolutely been decisive, I agree. That’s just politics though.

Clowns like Slow are talking about nebulous nefarious actions by the DNC to boost Clinton and there’s simply no plausible scenario to me where it changes the vote totals nearly enough.

Yet Bernie went from nothing to very nearly winning. But, the DNC puts insiders' opinions over that of their base. At least the GOP listened to their base.

 

[Moonbeam]

You simply can't overcome the math with this argument. Clinton won by way too many votes for the DNC's actions to have made the difference. Had the DNC been neutral I doubt it would have cut into a fifth of her lead, and that's being generous.

Also, has it occurred to anyone that DNC and RNC both always have an internal preference in every primary, and likely always take some steps to help their preferred candidate? The only difference here is that yeah, we saw DNC's internal e-mails. Didn't RNC favor someone other than Trump early on? IIRC wasn't it Rubio? Didn't do a lick to change the outcome, did it?

The important lesson I think Democrats should have learned has not much really to do with the DNC. They simply reflected what the majority of Democrats felt, that Hillary should be the candidate. But they did so and lost because they do not understand how to message, an ability or an understanding that Sanders had. Sanders lost and then Clinton lost because not enough Democrats have the kind of emotional IQ it takes to win. They are up in their heads but elections are won on moral values and the importance of those values to people. Republicans intuitively understand that because they have a far greater range of values they believe in, values that most people feel. We need a candidate that doesn't talk to people's heads but to their hearts. This is something that overly intellectualized people don't get.

 

[HomerJS]

LOL. Trump has been harsher on Russia than anyone since Reagan. He's armed the Ukraine, remember when Crimea was annexed under Obama? Several hundred Russians killed by the US in Syria under Trump.

You guys have nothing but lies to repeat. The thing is you keep telling each other these same lies enough that you believe them. Trump has been hard on Putin, it wasn't Trump telling Russia he'd have more flexibility after he's elected...

You think Putin cares about a few hundred troops? He wants all sanctions lifted and Trump has been trying to do that.

You were pretty silent after Trump's Helsinki presser when Trump took the side of Putin over his own country.

 

[woolfe9998]

The important lesson I think Democrats should have learned has not much really to do with the DNC. They simply reflected what the majority of Democrats felt, that Hillary should be the candidate. But they did so and lost because they do not understand how to message, an ability or an understanding that Sanders had. Sanders lost and then Clinton lost because not enough Democrats have the kind of emotional IQ it takes to win. They are up in their heads but elections are won on moral values and the importance of those values to people. Republicans intuitively understand that because they have a far greater range of values they believe in, values that most people feel. We need a candidate that doesn't talk to people's heads but to their hearts. This is something that overly intellectualized people don't get.

Are you saying the entire political left consists of "overly intellectualized people?" Or just the DNC? Because it wasn't really the DNC who nominated Clinton. It was the dem voters. And they'll probably do it again this time, nominate Biden over Sanders. But Biden is definitely more of a heart guy than he is a head guy in the sense that people just like him. But really, the dems are about nominating who they think will win, just like in 2016, but more so this time.

I disagree with the bolded sentence. I don't think republican voters have many values, not any more. Unless you count fear and anger as "values." You're confusing emotion, in this case, the negative kind, with values. Here's some values of the left: democracy, freedom, equality and prosperity of all, not just the elite. Show me the republican values, the real ones, not the lies their leaders tell, which compete with those. Which "values" does their chosen candidate reflect? He's one of the most popular republicans ever and he's a piece of feces. He certainly doesn't reflect any of the values that religious Christians claim to cherish. Not the family kind, or any other kind.