Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pretty much not. If Bernie had won the presidency, then the Wall Street establishment democrats would be out of work. The party managers obviously are rational people and want to keep their privileges. Better to lose to Trump than to win with Bernie.
Oh, look, another bash Hillary thread to distract people from what our joke of a president is doing.
yep, this.
Righties are always telling us "Trump won, get over it!" yet they are the ones starting thread after thread after thread about Hillary Clinton. Someone's not over the election but it's not the Democrats.
It's already been established that it was a DNC setup against Sanders in favor of Shrillery. Sadly, Dems are such lemmings, they've already forgotten about it.
For many various reasons, people had a great dislike to hatred going towards Hillary since the 90s when she was first lady then you have the Benghazi deal. And not to make this about those issues, and regardless of how you feel about what she has done, it should have been EXTREMELY obvious even before Hillary was nominated there were LOTS of anti-hillary people out there. Whereas BS was fresh, new and didn't come with the controversies that she ever had. So why did the Dems have a brain aneurysm and think Hillary would be a great choice? Bernie Sanders as it was already had lots of support and fame and likeability on the outset. Was it really mostly hinged on the "the first female president" shtick? Even among lots of women that didn't fly if so.
I am no democrat by any means and I realize that this forum leans very heavily left, but even so, you have to admit that deciding to punk BS is the worst decision the Democratic party has ever made in its history, aside from creating the KKK anyway lol.
The Democratic Party leadership thought Hillary was a shoo-in and Bernie "couldn't win," so they acted in undemocratic ways.
This is a funny thread - well, any thread on this topic is "funny".
It's like no one here lived through the same reality that I did. Clinton received more primary votes than Sanders. She won more states.
If she had not been granted the candidacy, that would have been a narrative of a "stolen" candidacy.
I didn't like HRC, she wouldn't have been my choice for the Democratic candidacy - but you guys are showing a blatant disregard for the historical context of what happened.
Not going with the primary-elected candidate would have been a hugely scandalous event - and there's a reason it's never happened in recent history (to my knowledge).
Now, sure - much like the Russian interference discussion in the national election, there is a discussion to be had on how much the DNC swayed things. I don't think there's any question that some DNC members favored Clinton - but I'm not necesarilly convinced there was a large-scale effort to make sure she won. https://www.thenation.com/article/wh...ernie-sanders/
For many various reasons, people had a great dislike to hatred going towards Hillary since the 90s when she was first lady then you have the Benghazi deal. And not to make this about those issues, and regardless of how you feel about what she has done, it should have been EXTREMELY obvious even before Hillary was nominated there were LOTS of anti-hillary people out there. Whereas BS was fresh, new and didn't come with the controversies that she ever had. So why did the Dems have a brain aneurysm and think Hillary would be a great choice? Bernie Sanders as it was already had lots of support and fame and likeability on the outset. Was it really mostly hinged on the "the first female president" shtick? Even among lots of women that didn't fly if so.
I am no democrat by any means and I realize that this forum leans very heavily left, but even so, you have to admit that deciding to punk BS is the worst decision the Democratic party has ever made in its history, aside from creating the KKK anyway lol.
Ive seen others question this and agree, there's so much Trump hate here. I lean right, what this country needs is more God than anything.
Right but there's a media and political apparatus that helped encourage that.
I'm not saying "Bernie should have won." I'm saying that it wasn't a fair fight due to Clinton's clout with party insiders.
But is there evidence (non-public or public) of a coordinated effort to make sure she won? Something similar to what has been unearthed in Russian interference in the 2016 national election?
I don't discount the clear indications that she was the preferred candidate, but I'm not sure I buy the narrative that things were rigged in her favor.
https://www.thenation.com/article/wh...ernie-sanders/
Those e-mails every wants to point to were written when Sanders was very much out of the primary race. He had a statistically-small chance of winning the primary votes from the beginning, and it was becoming clearer and clearer that he wasn't going to win by that time.
Sanders' biggest problem was that he started his campaign WAYYYYYY too late. He would have had a REALLY good chance had he been on it early. No one knew who he was for a long time, and he lost a lot of the early voting because of that. Had he been a known commodity to people in those early primary contests, things would have been way different. I predict he would have won when you look at the incredible momentum he had by the end.
It's too bad - I wanted him to win, personally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by le roi
That's not reality, that's speculation.
If she wasn't granted candidacy after winning the primary votes (both in states won and total votes), yes that would have been scandalous. That would be the definition of not following protocol.
Of course it's speculation because it didn't happen - but that doesn't make it unrealistic speculation.
For many various reasons, people had a great dislike to hatred going towards Hillary since the 90s when she was first lady then you have the Benghazi deal. And not to make this about those issues, and regardless of how you feel about what she has done, it should have been EXTREMELY obvious even before Hillary was nominated there were LOTS of anti-hillary people out there. Whereas BS was fresh, new and didn't come with the controversies that she ever had. So why did the Dems have a brain aneurysm and think Hillary would be a great choice? Bernie Sanders as it was already had lots of support and fame and likeability on the outset. Was it really mostly hinged on the "the first female president" shtick? Even among lots of women that didn't fly if so.
I am no democrat by any means and I realize that this forum leans very heavily left, but even so, you have to admit that deciding to punk BS is the worst decision the Democratic party has ever made in its history, aside from creating the KKK anyway lol.
Because hillary colluded with the DNC to fix the primary.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
