• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Joe Biden. He'll run in 2020

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Indus said:
I wouldn't go that far. The Dem primary had issues with independents trying to change registration fast enough to vote for Bernie. I know quite a lot who were told.. their voter registration would not take effect until after the next presidential cycle.

Given how close it was.. and the superdelegate lead, that could have easily lost him the nomination and that left a bad taste in a lot of his supporters mouths.

And ofcourse you have Donna Brazile trying to sneak questions to Hillary before the debate.
Click to expand...

That sounds like the Democrats had a sensible mechanism in place to prevent the party being hijacked by entryists. System worked as intended.

If people wanted to select the Dem candidate, they should have registered Democrat.
 
Hey guys, its been in the news repeatedly that Debbie Wasserman Shultz admitted to rigging the Democratic primary in favor of Hillary Clinton. Her excuse was the DNC is a private organization and can do whatever they please. They dont actually have to follow their own rules. She had a fairly big cover up and then finally confessed and resigned. Her replacement was also a piece of crap.

Am I the only person here who actually watches the news anymore?


-------------------
http://observer.com/2017/08/court-a...rman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/

Its fucked up but basically legal. They're a private club, not a government organization.
 
Last edited:
woolfe9998 said:
Why do people who argue this never cite the actual numbers? Clinton beat Sanders by 3. 6 million votes out of a total of 30 million, a 12 point lead. In the general elections, that would be considered a blowout.
Click to expand...
Because no one is going to marvel at someone winning a race after benefitting from an insurmountable head start. It was her turn.
 
I'm pretty sure pressure from Hillary and her friends is the only reason he didn't run in 2016. He would have had my vote.
 
NTMBK said:
That sounds like the Democrats had a sensible mechanism in place to prevent the party being hijacked by entryists. System worked as intended.

If people wanted to select the Dem candidate, they should have registered Democrat.
Click to expand...

If that's the argument then shouldn't people stop bitching about Jill Stein and Bernie GE voters? Oh wait, you want their votes too, but you don't want to open up the nomination process to outsiders?

If only there was some metaphor for people that want to have it both ways.
 
shortylickens said:
Hey guys, its been in the news repeatedly that Debbie Wasserman Shultz admitted to rigging the Democratic primary in favor of Hillary Clinton. Her excuse was the DNC is a private organization and can do whatever they please. They dont actually have to follow their own rules. She had a fairly big cover up and then finally confessed and resigned. Her replacement was also a piece of crap.

Am I the only person here who actually watches the news anymore?


-------------------
http://observer.com/2017/08/court-a...rman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/

Its fucked up but basically legal. They're a private club, not a government organization.
Click to expand...
Source where she admitted to rigging the primary? She admitted she could if she wanted to, but did not admit that she did that I know of. Even your source there, everything points to everyone acknowledging that the DNC can pick their candidate if they want, but nothing says that they in fact did do that with Clinton.
 
Puffnstuff said:
I'd take Joe Biden any day over the current lump of worthless flesh we have now.
Click to expand...

Tulsi and Tammy are not worthless. Kamala too is intriguing but I'd prefer to have a male along those lines.

One has to remember.. whenever we nominated someone the country thought was qualified, they lost. Romney, McCain, Kerry, Gore, Dole, Mondale.. they all lost.

Who won? The cute young guy with a vision except for Drumpf and Nixon.

So we need to go with young and cute with a vision.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
Because no one is going to marvel at someone winning a race after benefitting from an insurmountable head start. It was her turn.
Click to expand...

How tone deaf can you be? Citing the numbers has nothing to do with "marveling" at anything. A claim is made by some Sanders supporters that somehow Bernie had the primaries stolen from him. The fact he lost by 3.6 million votes makes that extremely unlikely.
 
Indus said:
Tulsi and Tammy are not worthless. Kamala too is intriguing but I'd prefer to have a male along those lines.

One has to remember.. whenever we nominated someone the country thought was qualified, they lost. Romney, McCain, Kerry, Gore, Dole, Mondale.. they all lost.

Who won? The cute young guy with a vision except for Drumpf and Nixon.

So we need to go with young and cute with a vision.
Click to expand...

Duckworth doesn't support UHC - worthless.
I'm skeptical on Gabbard's foreign policy positions, but I guess we'll see.
 
woolfe9998 said:
How tone deaf can you be? Citing the numbers has nothing to do with "marveling" at anything. A claim is made by some Sanders supporters that somehow Bernie had the primaries stolen from him. The fact he lost by 3.6 million votes makes that extremely unlikely.
Click to expand...

And the fact he was soundly rejected by AAs, a bedrock of the D base.

Sanders lost. Hillary was terrible, and had many advantages given to her, but Trump still beat her.

Further more, Sander's candidates have not fared well in elections.

He's managed to move the party positions left, but that's separate from actually winning the office yourself.
 
woolfe9998 said:
How tone deaf can you be? Citing the numbers has nothing to do with "marveling" at anything. A claim is made by some Sanders supporters that somehow Bernie had the primaries stolen from him. The fact he lost by 3.6 million votes makes that extremely unlikely.
Click to expand...

That number is meaningless. HRC had an insurmountable lead early in the process because of declared superdelegate votes. That influences turnout. For example, I was a major Sanders supporter and I didn't even bother voting in the primary because there was no chance for Sanders to win at that point.

While I don't claim that HRC or the DNC "stole" the election from Sanders, I think the primary process was unfair and that Sanders was not on equal footing. The recent changes that the DNC has made to their rules seems like a tacit acknowledgment of that.
 
Indus said:
One has to remember.. whenever we nominated someone the country thought was qualified, they lost. Romney, McCain, Kerry, Gore, Dole, Mondale.. they all lost.

Who won? The cute young guy with a vision except for Drumpf and Nixon.

So we need to go with young and cute with a vision.
Click to expand...
Wait... didn't they assassinate him?

France is doing a lot better. They voted in the young good looking guy who married his teacher!
 
Biden does have one core strength v. Trump: his personality is essentially the diametric opposite of Trump's. He either is or at least seems like a genuinely decent human being who could bring some honesty and civility back into our politics. I can see that contrast working well for him with swing voters who are perhaps tied of Trump's constant drama and corruption scandals.

That said, I agree his age is a serious issue. I'm also concerned that Trump could trample him in a debate because he is too civilized.
 
woolfe9998 said:
How tone deaf can you be? Citing the numbers has nothing to do with "marveling" at anything. A claim is made by some Sanders supporters that somehow Bernie had the primaries stolen from him. The fact he lost by 3.6 million votes makes that extremely unlikely.
Click to expand...
Like I said, those 3.6M votes become less meaningful when you take into account the insurmountable momentum provided by the superdelegates and the party apparatus already aligned to ensure her nomination.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
Like I said, those 3.6M votes become less meaningful when you take into account the insurmountable momentum provided by the superdelegates and the party apparatus already aligned to ensure her nomination.
Click to expand...

I highly doubt the super delegates changed the votes of terribly many who actually voted. It may have caused some people to stay home, but those people could have been disposed to vote for either candidate. Either way, these theories could never account for a margin that large.

BTW, the fact that the party organization favors one candidate happens in every election. It's at most an open secret. 100 years ago the party leaders selected the party nominees. That's also the case today in most other countries. I think we were actually the first democracy to adopt primary voting. Given that, it shouldn't be a surprise that political parties still want some control over who their candidate is, which is why they have super delegates. It's only a "scandal" here because Russia hacked the DNC and we got to read 10's of thousands of their private communications. If we had access to this information for both political parties, and over time, I suspect we'd find that what we discovered here is actually quite tame.
 
dank69 said:
Source where she admitted to rigging the primary? She admitted she could if she wanted to, but did not admit that she did that I know of. Even your source there, everything points to everyone acknowledging that the DNC can pick their candidate if they want, but nothing says that they in fact did do that with Clinton.
Click to expand...
newspunch.com

Wasserman Schultz: Yes, We Rigged Primaries Against Bernie

Debbie Wasserman Schultz has admitted that the DNC rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders to allow their favorite candidate to win.
newspunch.com newspunch.com

 
shortylickens said:
newspunch.com

Wasserman Schultz: Yes, We Rigged Primaries Against Bernie

Debbie Wasserman Schultz has admitted that the DNC rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders to allow their favorite candidate to win.
newspunch.com newspunch.com

Click to expand...
Let’s give it few days for the wiki editors to mop up that hack job of a page. Do you think the page as written meets wiki’s standards?
 
shortylickens said:
newspunch.com

Wasserman Schultz: Yes, We Rigged Primaries Against Bernie

Debbie Wasserman Schultz has admitted that the DNC rigged the primaries against Bernie Sanders to allow their favorite candidate to win.
newspunch.com newspunch.com

Click to expand...


If this is completely accurate then we got what we deserved. 😳

I firmly believe that if Sanders had been the nominee in 2016 he would have been elected over the scumbag Dumpster simply by virtue of being male. (sad and disgraceful but true)

People like this POS "lady" are the main reason the Democratic party is in so much trouble now.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top