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.
The DNC owed Hillary a major debt and was trying to pay it back.
She was told that if she stood by Bill, she would get a turn.
I agree with the above but adding that she was also required to stand with Obama and promised that would get her the nomination in 2016. I think by the limited number of candidates running for the Democratic nomination, it was obvious what was going on. I believe that Sanders was a "place holder" to begin with and did this for the opportunity to get his message out hoping that the younger generation might embrace it and move it forward at a later date. Sanders became popular along with his message, especially against the highly flawed Clinton. Sanders was "put in his place", thank God, he is still with us and backed off. If he had not of backed off when told to, he might have joined the Clinton death list, you know an "accident" or "suicide by proxy".
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.
I live in NYC which like DC, SF and LA which elite, NYC is home to the liberal Judeo Wasp elite who dominate wall street and send their offspring's to IVY League schools or top private schools like Georgetown. Also the liberal elite in my city made sure that their followers also voted for Hillary. Feminists like college educated white and black women in my area overwhelmingly voted for Hillary. These folks I have mentioned despised Bernie Sanders, and everything that Bernie stand for. I remember at work I told one lady that I voted for Bernie during the primaries, she said that Bernie Sanders is a Communist, and why Hillary would be a better choice because Hillary is not a communist. Mind you this lady and her husband are millionaires and supported Hillary, and are also friends with the Trumps. In liberal parts of America, Hillary did well with black women, college grads, homosexuals, welfare types, and wealthy liberal elite. This cemented her victory in these parts of America. Places like NYC, once famous for its blue collar background, blue collar industry was decimated. if NYC and NYS was more blue collar, Bernie would have NY state during the primaries. Surprisngly, Bernie won blue collar industry states, but lost the elite liberal states like NYS, Illinois Massachusetts, Maryland, NJ, PA, California, Connecticut.
With the running of Bernie Sanders VS Hillary, I saw how deeply divided this country as become and who those on the left side of America did not want to work with one another. Why the Dems favored Hillary over Bernie is that, Hillary was better for women. Their was a chart that Hillary favored more rights for women compared to Bernie. Wall Street Democrats, silicon Valley, DC hacks also favored Hillary. If Bernie would have won, Silicon Valley, DC hacks, and Wall Street would team up and we will see the greatest economic flight in American history. Immigrants also favored Hillary and were afraid of Bernie Populism. Also amongst the left their was a small and hidden levels of anti-Semitism. Liberals and even Jewish liberals did not like Bernie and some even felt that America was not ready for a Jewish President. Sadly Hillary and even Donald Trump are heavily tied to Jews. Trump himself all of his kids except for the two youngest are all married to Jews and have Jewish children.
For me I voted for Bernie due to the fact his message resonated with me. If Bernie would have won the Primaries against Hillary, the wealthy and their slaves of NY, DC, Maryland, California, CT, Massachusetts, NJ, Washington State, Illinois would have tearfully sat home during election day, or suck it up and voted for Bernie, or vote for a man that is an Ivy League Grad and a Billionaire and his name is Trump. At least Trump has something in common with liberal elites, being wealthy and going to college.
Personally I think the primary was rigged. The DNC wined and dined the low information voters and pushed the "Hillary" vote.
That's my opinion though. The courts have yet to rule on what the DNC did or didn't do (class action lawsuit got filed). But it should be obvious to everyone that the DNC did NOT stay neutral as their charter states.
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.
I believe that Hillary was promised 2016 candidacy back in 2008 when she had to step aside for Obama. The 2008 election was her baby and then Obama came from out of no where. When the Clinton's left the White House, Hillary ended up one of the senators for New York. Why New York....why not Arkansas where they were from? I think that's because it was determined to be the easiest place where she could win an election and establish some experience as a senator starting in 1/2002 so she could run for president in 2008. Obama on the other had only been a senator as of 1/2005....he really didn't establish much experience as a senator because he started campaigning shortly after he took office. Hillary was more qualified but, the Democrat's love identity politics and getting the first black president into office sounded even better than the first female president (it seems reasonable that the rumors about the Clinton's and the Obama's are not the best of friends , are true). I think the only reason she ended up as Secretary of State for the first 4 years was so that she stay relevant in government (and add to her resume) before leaving and starting to campaign for president during the next four years.
I think the only reason Sanders ran against her was because they had to have at least one other person challenging her....the Republican's had I think 17 and the Democrat's had 3 but, I don't even remember who the third one was, he dropped out at the start. I believe Sanders declaring him self a socialist was not going to be a serious threat to her but, she ended up having so much baggage that he actually became a threat (because what other choice did the public have).
In my opinion the party screwed up, they should have let her run in 2008 and Obama in 2016. I think the powers that be in the Democratic party basically made the decision who would run, rather than letting the party elect a candidate, by allowing only Sanders as an alternative.
All the polls prior to the elections, were way off (which is very suspicious). Hillary was suppose to win easily....it makes you wonder if that was in some way intentional to keep Trump voters from bothering to vote. Although, Hillary obviously used them to decide where she needed to campaign, so she could win the electoral vote, while Trump was campaigning in places she skipped.
Now that's only my opinion but, it sure seems to have worked out like that.
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.
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.
It wouldn't have mattered because Hillary already had all the superdelegates locked up before the primaries. Bernie couldn't have done that even if he started earlier because he wasn't a Democrat.
you use this word as if you know what it means. I suggest a dictionary.
We have had socialist policies for nearly a century, also.
Lol i agree. Some people don't even know that Soviet Union. China, North Korea, Cuba never really practiced full communism, just only communist in name. Plenty of liberals also don't know that nazi Germany was socialist.
This forum leans left? Now that's news to me. If I had a dollar for every time a "why the left wants to destroy america, liberals hate america and trump is tbe!" Thread was created I'd give every member on this site a $500 gift card to their favorite store with enough money leftover to eliminate the deficit.
Same here. As for Hillary, I think Dems felt bad about 2008 and thought she would do better and it would be nice to finally have a female president after 200 years. It's not like nominating Hillary was inconceivable, she won the majority vote and Trump is a minority elected president. If Bernie had been nominated I would have voted for him. If Joe Biden has run and won the nomination I would have voted for him.
This forum leans very heavily left?? LOL... That's the only thing I really noted from OP
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.
