Politics Bernie Sanders blames election loss on Kamala Harris listening to billionaires over working class

[barfo]

No, the superdelegates were reported as locked in. They weren't listing polls from other states. Only the States superdelegates first, then the states who had completed their primaries.

Really? The media didn't report on polls from states that hadn't voted yet? I find that a bit difficult to believe.

No it wasn't the media. That was information directly from the DNC displayed as the DNC wanted it displayed. The media just played along, because why wouldn't they? They were just trying to work with the DNC to get info to the public.

That's an interesting conspiracy theory. Do you have any evidence?

I heard that Bernie is actually an 10 million year old walrus from Venus. Prove me wrong!

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

Really? The media didn't report on polls from states that hadn't voted yet? I find that a bit difficult to believe.

They were reporting on polls but they were not listing those polls with superdelegate counts.

The superdelegate counts were listed in the same chart as they counted states who had already voted, as though they were final.

A lot of people who were asked (on the news) said that's why they voted for Hillary. They wanted to support the winner and they thought she already had locked up the superdelegates.

That's an interesting conspiracy theory. Do you have any evidence?

barfo

I'm shocked you don't remember. It was a huge deal. It's kind of hard to go back and find that information nearly a decade later...

But if you weren't paying attention at the time (or even if you were in denial about it) your current position makes a lot more sense to me.

"The attorneys representing the DNC have previously argued that Sanders supporters knew the primaries were rigged, therefore annulling any potential accountability the DNC may have. "

It was rigged. That's a bad look.

 

[barfo]

They were reporting on polls but they were not listing those polls with superdelegate counts.

The superdelegate counts were listed in the same chart as they counted states who had already voted, as though they were final.

A lot of people who were asked (on the news) said that's why they voted for Hillary. They wanted to support the winner and they thought she already had locked up the superdelegates.

I'm shocked you don't remember. It was a huge deal. It's kind of hard to go back and find that information nearly a decade later...

But if you weren't paying attention at the time (or even if you were in denial about it) your current position makes a lot more sense to me.

It's not that hard to find evidence that what you said isn't true, though.

https://www.npr.org/2016/02/18/467230964/survey-clinton-maintains-massive-superdelegate-lead

"Of the 712 Democratic superdelegates, 449 (or about 63 percent) currently support Clinton, according to the latest Associated Press survey of superdelegates. Only 19 support Sanders. (AP did not reach 62 superdelegates, and 182 remained uncommitted or undecided.)"

That doesn't sound like the AP was polling the DNC. That sounds like the AP was polling the superdelegates.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

It's not that hard to find evidence that what you said isn't true, though.

https://www.npr.org/2016/02/18/467230964/survey-clinton-maintains-massive-superdelegate-lead

"Of the 712 Democratic superdelegates, 449 (or about 63 percent) currently support Clinton, according to the latest Associated Press survey of superdelegates. Only 19 support Sanders. (AP did not reach 62 superdelegates, and 182 remained uncommitted or undecided.)"

That doesn't sound like the AP was polling the DNC. That sounds like the AP was polling the superdelegates.

barfo

Except I didn't say they weren't polling superdelegates. I said they were displaying it the way DNC told them to.

Which was in the chart that was used for finalized state votes. Separate from state polls.

It looked like the superdelegate polls were finalized votes that couldn't be changed. And that directed a lot of votes to Hillary

 

[Sheldon Shape]

That's hilariously inaccurate.

The Republican party was absolutely 100% against Trump during the 2016 primaries, he won by getting more votes from their idiot voters in spite of the party's wishes.

Similarly, Bernie didn't win because he didn't get more votes in the primary.

barfo

Convenient to leave out what super delegates did to Bernie. The Republican party doesn't have the same system in that regard. Apples and oranges.

 

[barfo]

Except I didn't say they weren't polling superdelegates. I said they were displaying it the way DNC told them to.

Which was in the chart that was used for finalized state votes. Separate from state polls.

It looked like the superdelegate polls were finalized votes that couldn't be changed. And that directed a lot of votes to Hillary

Well, you said:

"No it wasn't the media. That was information directly from the DNC displayed as the DNC wanted it displayed. The media just played along, because why wouldn't they? They were just trying to work with the DNC to get info to the public."

It sounded to me like you were saying that the superdelegate count came 'directly from the DNC'.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Convenient to leave out what super delegates did to Bernie. The Republican party doesn't have the same system in that regard. Apples and oranges.

I don't think it's been left out. We've been discussing superdelegates at length here.
My point in what you quoted was, Trump got more votes in 2016. Hillary got more votes in 2016.
The losers in both contests have plenty to bitch about, but that's literally always the case.
And all the superdelegates really did to Bernie was prefer a different candidate.
Was the superdelegate system stupid? Sure, but the system was set *before Bernie ever joined the race*. In fact, it had been in use since 1982.
When the Blazers lose, they don't get to complain that the opponents 3pt shots shouldn't have counted for 3 points.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

Convenient to leave out what super delegates did to Bernie. The Republican party doesn't have the same system in that regard. Apples and oranges.

Republicans got rid of superdelegates in 2012 because they couldn't get any candidates people actually liked.

That gave us Trump. But only because Democrats leaned into superdelegates instead of letting the people pick who they want.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Well, you said:

"No it wasn't the media. That was information directly from the DNC displayed as the DNC wanted it displayed. The media just played along, because why wouldn't they? They were just trying to work with the DNC to get info to the public."

It sounded to me like you were saying that the superdelegate count came 'directly from the DNC'.

barfo

Yeah, I can see that I should have been more clear, good point. I stand corrected.

The important part was how it was displayed to look like the superdelegates were already locked in. And all media outlets displayed it the same way. That came from the DNC. Who we know was working directly with the media on Hillary's behalf, and even helping Hillary at the debates.

Again, I don't really blame the media here. They were just playing along to help the DNC do their thing and get the information the DNC wanted to their voters.

 

[Phatguysrule]

I don't think it's been left out. We've been discussing superdelegates at length here.
My point in what you quoted was, Trump got more votes in 2016. Hillary got more votes in 2016.
The losers in both contests have plenty to bitch about, but that's literally always the case.
And all the superdelegates really did to Bernie was prefer a different candidate.
Was the superdelegate system stupid? Sure, but the system was set *before Bernie ever joined the race*. In fact, it had been in use since 1982.
When the Blazers lose, they don't get to complain that the opponents 3pt shots shouldn't have counted for 3 points.

barfo

But Bernie isn't bitching about it. We're bitching that we want a better system that gives us a better candidate more consistently, rather than whoever the DNC decides has paid their dues.

We're using Bernie, Hillary, Biden and Harris as examples of the DNC doing a shitty job of giving the people the best candidates.

 

[Sheldon Shape]

So

I don't think it's been left out. We've been discussing superdelegates at length here.
My point in what you quoted was, Trump got more votes in 2016. Hillary got more votes in 2016.
The losers in both contests have plenty to bitch about, but that's literally always the case.
And all the superdelegates really did to Bernie was prefer a different candidate.
Was the superdelegate system stupid? Sure, but the system was set *before Bernie ever joined the race*. In fact, it had been in use since 1982.
When the Blazers lose, they don't get to complain that the opponents 3pt shots shouldn't have counted for 3 points.

barfo

So it sounds like the Republican primaries could be considered more democratic than the Democrat primaries.

 

[barfo]

Yeah, I can see that, good point. I stand corrected.

The important part was how it was displayed to look like the superdelegates were already locked in. And all media outlets displayed it the same way. That came from the DNC. Who we know was working directly with the media in Hillary's behalf, and even helping Hillary at the debates.

Again, I don't really blame the media here. They were just playing along to help the DNC do their thing and get the information the DNC wanted to their voters.

If the media took orders from the DNC, then you absolutely should blame the media as well.

I don't see any evidence they were doing anything other than calling the horserace as usual, but if you can provide some evidence for your claim I'm all ears.

As for it being presented as locked in, well... I think there was plenty of coverage that explained how the system worked, and when the delegates actually voted.

Did people pay attention to that? Of course not! But that's not the DNC's fault, or the media's fault.

There's unfair horserace coverage in every race. They are always talking about how A has momentum and B is fading and the polls are bad for C in state D. And their coverage almost always has the effect of propping up the leader and minimizing the chances of the laggards.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

So


So it sounds like the Republican party could be considered more democratic than the Democrat party.

In the primaries, sure. They had to or they would have never beaten any of the Dem candidates.

 

[barfo]

So it sounds like the Republican primaries could be considered more democratic than the Democrat primaries.

For the six years that D's had superdelegates and R's didn't, 2012-2018, you have a point.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

If the media took orders from the DNC, then you absolutely should blame the media as well.

I don't see any evidence they were doing anything other than calling the horserace as usual, but if you can provide some evidence for your claim I'm all ears.

As for it being presented as locked in, well... I think there was plenty of coverage that explained how the system worked, and when the delegates actually voted.

Did people pay attention to that? Of course not! But that's not the DNC's fault, or the media's fault.

There's unfair horserace coverage in every race. They are always talking about how A has momentum and B is fading and the polls are bad for C in state D. And their coverage almost always has the effect of propping up the leader and minimizing the chances of the laggards.

barfo

The evidence is that it wasn't displayed that way any longer after 2016 when Bernie made the DNC change it before agreeing to support Hillary.

I honestly don't think the media knew any better. The DNC sets up the process, creates the score cards, and the media just reports those things.

If you expect them to be accountable for the information the DNC wants the voters to have I wouldn't be opposed. But I don't know how they're supposed to know the ins and outs of the DNC primaries better than the DNC.

The DNC is supposed to be impartial though. And they very clearly have not been.

 

[barfo]

But Bernie isn't bitching about it. We're bitching that we want a better system that gives us a better candidate more consistently, rather than whoever the DNC decides has paid their dues.

We're using Bernie, Hillary, Biden and Harris as examples of the DNC doing a shitty job of giving the people the best candidates.

Sorry, I didn't mean Bernie was the one bitching about it

Bernie, in my opinion, has handled his losses pretty gracefully.

Harris, there's a definite point about the (lack of) process, although that was a rather unusual situation which hopefully will never occur again.

Biden won the primaries in both 2020 and 2024. That wasn't the work of the party. That was the work of voters in the primaries.

Hillary won the primaries in 2016. I am aware you think that was somehow arranged by the DNC, but in fact she got more votes.

I'm all for a better system. Money plays far too large a role, causing good candidates to drop out before the voters get to know them - or never run at all.

But we may find that our preferred candidates still don't win in a better system.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

Sorry, I didn't mean Bernie was the one bitching about it

Bernie, in my opinion, has handled his losses pretty gracefully.

Harris, there's a definite point about the (lack of) process, although that was a rather unusual situation which hopefully will never occur again.

Biden won the primaries in both 2020 and 2024. That wasn't the work of the party. That was the work of voters in the primaries.

Hillary won the primaries in 2016. I am aware you think that was somehow arranged by the DNC, but in fact she got more votes.

I'm all for a better system. Money plays far too large a role, causing good candidates to drop out before the voters get to know them - or never run at all.

But we may find that our preferred candidates still don't win in a better system.

barfo

I think Biden got a lot of help from the DNC and the establishment in 2020 as well, but it wasn't nearly as crooked as 2016. And I've never claimed that Bernie got more votes than Hillary. That's never been in question.

I don't necessarily care if my preferred candidate wins as long as they do the job well on behalf of the American people.

I wasn't happy that the Blazers hired Terry Stotts, but I really appreciated him as a coach more than I thought I would. I'm probably one of his biggest supporters now.

I just want an improved system that leads to better, more logical policy.

 

[Sheldon Shape]

I think Biden got a lot of help from the DNC and the establishment in 2020 as well, but it wasn't nearly as crooked as 2016. And I've never claimed that Bernie got more votes than Hillary. That's never been in question.

I don't know. Superseding the people's will and getting everyone to drop out to support the Dementia-adled Biden is pretty bad too.

 

[barfo]

I don't know. Superseding the people's will and getting everyone to drop out to support the Dementia-adled Biden is pretty bad too.

It would be if it happened that way, but in fact it didn't. Smart politicians don't run races they don't think they can win, and running against an incumbent president in the primaries is not a smart career move. No one ran besides Dean Phillips because no one with future prospects wanted to run. If a politician does want to run for president the party can't stop them.

barfo

 

[Sheldon Shape]

It would be if it happened that way, but in fact it didn't. Smart politicians don't run races they don't think they can win, and running against an incumbent president in the primaries is not a smart career move. No one ran besides Dean Phillips because no one with future prospects wanted to run. If a politician does want to run for president the party can't stop them.

barfo

I was talking about 2020. Bernie was 48 hours away from locking the nomination until Obama got everyone to drop out to back Biden who was in 7th place or so.

That happened.

 

[barfo]

I was talking about 2020. Bernie was 48 hours away from locking the nomination until Obama got everyone to drop out to back Biden who was in 7th place or so.

That happened.

Nah.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

I was talking about 2020. Bernie was 48 hours away from locking the nomination until Obama got everyone to drop out to back Biden who was in 7th place or so.

That happened.

Good point. I forgot about those details. It was pretty bad...

*Edit* That's right, Kamala and Pete dropped out, but Warren stayed in to be the spoiler after Obama spoke with them and a bunch of new money started spreading around. Obama spoke with the SC Reverend who had been withholding his support from Biden, who then flip-flopped and publicly supported Biden right before the primary.

HUGE Dem push to maintain the status quo, even though Sanders was leading and had raised more money than anybody else.

Horrible. You just knew that was going to lead to dark days... And here we are...

 

[barfo]

Good point. I forgot about those details. It was pretty bad...

*Edit* That's right, Kamala and Pete dropped out, but Warren stayed in to be the spoiler after Obama spoke with them and a bunch of new money started spreading around. Obama spoke with the SC Reverend who had been withholding his support from Biden, who then flip-flopped and publicly supported Biden right before the primary.

HUGE Dem push to maintain the status quo, even though Sanders was leading and had raised more money than anybody else.

Horrible. You just knew that was going to lead to dark days... And here we are...

So the candidates that dropped out did so because of the conspiracy, and the candidates that stayed in did so because of the conspiracy.
That sure has all the hallmarks of a conspiracy... theory.

What you describe as a conspiracy is actually just humans doing normal human stuff.
Is it really nefarious that Obama, who has some experience and interest in politics, would talk to candidates?
Is it really nefarious that they might consider his advice?

Is it really nefarious that people try to convince other people to support their favorite candidate?

Do you really think presidential candidates - people with huge egos - have no agency whatsoever and just do whatever the "DNC" tells them to do?

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

So the candidates that dropped out did so because of the conspiracy, and the candidates that stayed in did so because of the conspiracy.
That sure has all the hallmarks of a conspiracy... theory.

What you describe as a conspiracy is actually just humans doing normal human stuff.
Is it really nefarious that Obama, who has some experience and interest in politics, would talk to candidates?
Is it really nefarious that they might consider his advice?

Is it really nefarious that people try to convince other people to support their favorite candidate?

Do you really think presidential candidates - people with huge egos - have no agency whatsoever and just do whatever the "DNC" tells them to do?

barfo

Did I say it was nefarious? No. I said it protected the status quo. Which gave us lesser candidates and removed superior candidates.

I think they all knew they weren't going to beat Bernie. They probably weren't going to beat Biden. And the DNC, with Obama's help, offered them the guarantee of money and power the likes of which Sanders didn't have the power to offer yet.

The same way Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, or Facebook buys up the competition to protect themselves.

It's not a conspiracy theory. It's not nefarious. But it definitely hurts innovation as well as the consumer.

The same way the DNC (establishment Democrats) has been hurting progress and the voter.

 

[barfo]

Did I say it was nefarious? No. I said it protected the status quo. Which gave us lesser candidates and removed superior candidates.

I think they all knew they weren't going to beat Bernie. They probably weren't going to beat Biden. And the DNC, with Obama's help, offered them the guarantee of money and power the likes of which Sanders didn't have the power to offer yet.

What money and power did they get? Warren went back to the senate and Bernie could have promised the others jobs just as easily as Biden could, if that's what actually happened.

The same way Google, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, or Facebook buys up the competition to protect themselves.

It's not a conspiracy theory. It's not nefarious. But it definitely hurts innovation as well as the consumer.

The same way the DNC (establishment Democrats) has been hurting progress and the voter.

Ok, if it's not nefarious, why complain about it for years? Not everyone gets to be president.

barfo

 

[e_blazer]

Biden’s virtually uncontested nomination was pretty much the exact process as Reagan had for his second term. That netted us another dementia ridden geezer president. It’s almost as if that’s a bad plan.

 

[Phatguysrule]

Ok, if it's not nefarious, why complain about it for years? Not everyone gets to be president.

barfo

I already answered that in the post you're responding to. But let's try it this way...

Do you like the way things have turned out? I don't. That's why I'm complaining about the DNC and corporate Dems.

I want positive changes. Republicans aren't going to change anything (certainly not for the better). Dems want things to go back to how they were. How they were is why we have Trump as president now.

 

[barfo]

I already answered that in the post you're responding to. But let's try it this way...

Do you like the way things have turned out? I don't. That's why I'm complaining about the DNC and corporate Dems.

I want positive changes. Republicans aren't going to change anything (certainly not for the better). Dems want things to go back to how they were. How they were is why we have Trump as president now.

But you are complaining about the wrong thing, in my opinion. The DNC and corporate Dems aren't the source of the problem, they are merely actors within the political system we have. If you want a party to reform, you have to force them to reform - Bernie didn't quite have the voter support to make that happen; Trump did.

barfo

 

[barfo]

Biden’s virtually uncontested nomination was pretty much the exact process as Reagan had for his second term. That netted us another dementia ridden geezer president. It’s almost as if that’s a bad plan.

On the other hand, it's pretty easy to argue that Ted Kennedy challenging Jimmy Carter led to Reagan being president in the first place.

barfo

 

[Phatguysrule]

But you are complaining about the wrong thing, in my opinion. The DNC and corporate Dems aren't the source of the problem, they are merely actors within the political system we have. If you want a party to reform, you have to force them to reform - Bernie didn't quite have the voter support to make that happen; Trump did.

barfo

That's the problem. The DNC (corporate Dems) were in Bernie's way.

The RNC wasn't in Trump's way. They had changed the rules to get out of the way.

I'm advocating for the DNC to get the hell out of the way (to be "impartial" and "evenhanded", as their charter says) and for the people to hold their feet to the fire if they don't.