U.S. Elections: The Trumph of the Will

[Martell Spy]

Interesting article. What does the GOP look like post Trump? If he wins, obviously some of these changes will be permanent. If he loses though, how much of the nationalism/protectionism, etc last in the party? Does the party just go back to how it was? Not sure that's even possible if their voters keep making similar decisions.

Also, in regards to number 1 in the article, that's the case with any Democratic party President, at least since Bill Clinton. They are portrayed by Republicans as a terrorist, crook, terrorist, socialist (code for communist authoritarians), tyrant, secret Muslim, and so on. That's the rule, and it certainly won't change with Hillary.

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/22/12253624/donald-trump-speech-convention-2016

Donald Trump's convention proved it: the old GOP is dead

[DunderMifflin]

Seems the Rep/Dem rigged system was circumvented and people supported a 3rd party anyway.

[The Fallen]

3 hours ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

Why not?

Really? First there were protestations against charges that the DNC favored Hillary. Now you're saying it's ok? 

[Fez]

I watched Tim Kaine's speech down in Miami. Jeez, I kinda wish he was the nominee; really can't say enough good things about him, on both style and substance. Especially the style actually. There aren't that many Democratic politicians that can do the folksy charm thing anymore (I'd argue that Bill hasn't had the past few years either), but Kaine was nailing it.

If he can keep it up, I think he could definitely be worth a couple % to Clinton (which would be huge for a VP) as a reassuring draw for moderate conservatives who usually vote Republican, but hate Trump, but also don't like Clinton.

I also find it interesting that the only attack Republicans have tried on him so far is the concern troll variety, putting out press releases like 'Kaine selection disappoints liberal base' (which actually seems like it could pretty easily backfire by letting him help Clinton capture even more of the center). Meanwhile, several Republican senators put out statements saying nice things about Kaine, most notably Toomey. Toomey had the requisite attack on Clinton included in the statement of course, but still, if you're a sitting senator in a swing state you don't start saying anything nice about the other ticket. Unless, of course, you're also up for reelection and are trying to distance yourself as much as possible from your party's ticket.

[Shryke]

3 hours ago, lancerman said:

Idk. According to the FBI director Clinton's server was less secure than a free gmail account. Hard to think they got their hands on DNC emails and not hers. 

Very bad look

Based on ... what?

My house is less secure then a bank but that doesn't mean my house was obviously robbed just because a bank has at some point been robbed.

 

Y'all are using some tenuous non-logic here.

[Shryke]

3 hours ago, Altherion said:

Here's another interesting one: it shows a Politico reporter vetting his story with the DNC. Combine that with the anti-Sanders bias and certain facts about the coverage of the election become less puzzling, at least for lesser media (I don't think they could get such an agreement with the New York Times or Washington Post).

Except ... the coverage wasn't anti-Sanders. They were mostly anti-Clinton.

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/15/11410160/hillary-clinton-media-bernie-sanders

 

[Shryke]

4 hours ago, Inigima said:

I'm not saying it's illegal -- but the DNC has no business trying to force a particular outcome. It may not be illegal, but it's a real bad look. The DNC should not be in the tank for a candidate.

What evidence is there they forced anything?

[DunderMifflin]

The Brad Marshall jew or atheist for several points difference email looked like some evidence to me.

I read somewhere that he denied he was talking about Bernie there. I still have my doubts.

[lancerman]

32 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Based on ... what?

My house is less secure then a bank but that doesn't mean my house was obviously robbed just because a bank has at some point been robbed.

 

Y'all are using some tenuous non-logic here.

No you're using tenous logic comparing your house to bank vs the DNC to the Security of State. To a foreign country Clinton at the time was a more valuable target. Not even close. 

Unless your house is widely known to store as much money as Fort Knox, and virtually every would be bank robber knew it,  it's a terrible comparison.

Not to mention we know from the FBI that her emails were hacked and Julian Assange said he was sitting on her emails. So there's that. 

So I don't know where you are getting the idea that it is unlikely. She was the head of foreign policy to the biggest militarized country in the world and she had crap security for her emails. And far lesser people have been hacked, and far more secure entities have been hacked. 

[Altherion]

Here's another email wherein Mr. Miranda forwards a letter sent to the DNC by the Sanders campaign to a reporter with the comment "OFF THE RECORD, You didn’t get this from me. They didn’t send it to us before planting the story. We’re operating in good faith."

And here's one which has nothing to do with the primary, but is hilarious in hindsight. It's titled "The dumbest thing I've ever read: Buzzfeed: These Experts Think The DNC And RNC Are Both Horrible At Cybersecurity"

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, The Fallen said:

Really? First there were protestations against charges that the DNC favored Hillary. Now you're saying it's ok? 

I'm not saying that I agree with it, but I'm simply asking - why is it not okay for the DNC to favor someone? 

I think it's clear and has been clear that the DNC favored Clinton - both now and in 2008. I think it's also clear that said favoritism isn't the same thing as rigging the election or even producing strong outcomes. I think that the Democratic party has a vested interest in favoring those who favor the party and have made connections with the party. 

I am not saying that it's fair, or right, or even the best outcome for the DNC - but from purely looking at it from the DNC's perspective - why shouldn't they favor one candidate over another? Why should they act neutral when one candidate might be completely against them and the party they serve?

We have a counterexample of the party being ineffectual and uncoordinated and how well that worked out - Trump. If the Republicans were able to provide even a reasonably decent candidate, chances are good they'd win the White House this election despite demographics, because Clinton has such high negatives. Instead, they got the most unliked and most extreme candidate in 2 generations, and that's because their party did not favor someone until it was far, far too late.

[Kalbear]

18 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Here's another email wherein Mr. Miranda forwards a letter sent to the DNC by the Sanders campaign to a reporter with the comment "OFF THE RECORD, You didn’t get this from me. They didn’t send it to us before planting the story. We’re operating in good faith."

I don't understand the objection to this. The DNC is responding to the press by giving a document that has already been leaked in some way prior to this, right? And it's specifically a letter attacking the performance of the DNC. So they provide off the record a document to the press, and this is bad? 

Quote

Here's another interesting one: it shows a Politico reporter vetting his story with the DNC. Combine that with the anti-Sanders bias and certain facts about the coverage of the election become less puzzling, at least for lesser media (I don't think they could get such an agreement with the New York Times or Washington Post).

I don't get the objection to this at all. When you're talking about writing an article about a major party and the system it is entirely standard practice to send that article to the parties involved to vet it and point out any potential errors. Seriously, this is a feature of typical journalism. Often you'll do this to get comments on the story (you might recognize the phrase 'declined to comment on the article' or 'could not be reached to comment' or 'commented with') before sending it out. What is your objection here?

[IheartIheartTesla]

If they wanted to do that, why even have a long drawn out process for deciding the candidate? Just have a decision by committee and be done with.

What is hypocritical is actually having a process in place that is supposedly democratic and then put a thumb on the scales. If they think they know who the best candidate is then letting millions of people spend their hard earned money and time for a candidate is simply not being respectful to their wishes.

Anyway, the Democrats have managed to take what should have been a slam dunk and turned it into a tight contest. Now we this whiff of corruption swirling around the Clinton campaign again. Everyone here can sit and make as many excuses as they want, but if you step outside the bubble this is how the country is thinking.

[Xray the Enforcer]

3 minutes ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

I don't get the objection to this at all. When you're talking about writing an article about a major party and the system it is entirely standard practice to send that article to the parties involved to vet it and point out any potential errors.

Not exactly. During regular fact checking, you would usually call the sources and maybe send small snippets or quotes. But you would never send an entire article to a source for regular fact checking. 

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Xray the Enforcer said:

Not exactly. During regular fact checking, you would usually call the sources and maybe send small snippets or quotes. But you would never send an entire article to a source for regular fact checking. 

For fact checking, sure. For comments, you'd send the article - at least that's what I've seen for political stuff. 

Quote

If they wanted to do that, why even have a long drawn out process for deciding the candidate? Just have a decision by committee and be done with.

That's how it was done for the first 200 years. They don't want to just pick someone, but they do want the party to also have a say. That's why superdelegates exist, and that's why the DNC exists - to specifically fight against populist candidates that can win a lot of votes but can't win an election. They also want to use it to gauge the popularity and electability of a candidate. This was, for instance, how Kennedy ended up getting the nomination - he had to show that he was at least reasonably electable.

Quote

What is hypocritical is actually having a process in place that is supposedly democratic and then put a thumb on the scales. If they think they know who the best candidate is then letting millions of people spend their hard earned money and time for a candidate is simply not being respectful to their wishes.

I agree that it looks completely sketchy and lame. But it's never been a democratic process, and doesn't claim to be. They certainly think they know who the best candidate is, but they don't make that be the final decision. Again, Obama won despite being disfavored by the DNC initially. He did so by not only winning over voters but by winning over party elites and getting endorsements. Those things matter too, at least to the Democratic party. 

 

[DunderMifflin]

The Charter & The Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States is viewable online.

Within contain reasons why all democrats should be treated fairly and conduct themselves in a better manor than implied in certain e-mails

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

The Charter & The Bylaws of the Democratic Party of the United States is viewable online.

Within contain reasons why all democrats should be treated fairly and conduct themselves in a better manor than implied in certain e-mails

Sure - and like everything in the charter and bylaws, it's not legally binding. I'm fairly certain by the bylaws Sanders didn't exactly behave appropriately either, did he? The 'unqualified for president' comment is conduct becoming? 

Again, I get it - it is unfair. It totally, absolutely, is unfair. The person with power used their power to win, and the person who had less had an even bigger disadvantage. 

Let me ask something: is it unfair of the RNC to support and coordinate with Mitt Romney to have him attack Trump publicly? 

[IheartIheartTesla]

Since they have it all figured out, they can figure out how to win the general elections without my help, I guess. Good thing I saved myself $7 per month.

And I disagree about it never being considered a democratic process. We've had endless debates here about whether primaries or caucuses were more democratic or not, and now to turn around and say, well, the process isnt supposed to be democratic is sort of mind-boggling to me.

[DunderMifflin]

1 minute ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

Sure - and like everything in the charter and bylaws, it's not legally binding. I'm fairly certain by the bylaws Sanders didn't exactly behave appropriately either, did he? The 'unqualified for president' comment is conduct becoming? 

Again, I get it - it is unfair. It totally, absolutely, is unfair. The person with power used their power to win, and the person who had less had an even bigger disadvantage. 

Let me ask something: is it unfair of the RNC to support and coordinate with Mitt Romney to have him attack Trump publicly? 

I'm just saying a reason why they should conduct themselves in a better manor.

I don't think criminal activity should be where the line is drawn.

The rules they set for themselves are almost clearly broken IMO.

I've already said this looks like business as usual politics for both parties so I'm not trying to make one side look worse than the other.

I don't really want to vote for any of these people as of right now. There's no way I can vote for build a wall though.

[Altherion]

Well, that was faster than I thought: it's on the front page of CNN now. That article also has this (the emphasis is mine):

Quote

"My expectation is beyond your opinion about a candidate, that you act evenly. All of the officers took a pledge of neutrality and I honored that, and I take that very seriously," Rawlings-Blake told CNN's Poppy Harlow.

So there certainly was an expectation of neutrality and they clearly broke that pledge.