|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Warren admits primary rigged
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
For Hillary.
BBC article
What was suspected, or believed, has been proven true by the publication of Brazile's book and Warren confirming. Brazile writes of more goings-on for or at the request of Clinton.
Is this a problem? Will Sanders' supporters feel aggrieved? What will Clinton supporters think, or will it be ignored by them predominantly?
And if it is a problem, what are the DNC going to do?
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I've basically just heard the Donna B. headlines, but not explored further.
I have seriously mixed feelings.
--I proudly voted for Hilary, both for her as herself, and as the best chance ever for us to finally have a woman president, after more than 200 yrs. of waiting. This matters.
--It did really seem like it was H's time, women's time, our time.
--I think I'd need to know what other politicians do, in order to judge. If H and/or (staff, supporters, donors) didn't play fair, what do other candidates do?
--Sanders' supporters will probably say "told ya so".
--I don't know what should be done.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
We knew it was rigged from the get-go. That is why many of us are now working to eliminate the superdelegate program. I am thinking there were be some significant rule changes by the end of next year.
What happened, though, was not illegal, maybe immoral, but no laws were broken from my perspective.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
Thanks Gramps & GK.
Agree nothing was illegal, Gramps; if I insinuated it was, I take it back. Immoral...well, I hardly think favouring a candidate before the people have spoken is good practice.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
The book hasn't been published yet. Whatever else may be going on, the advance release of excerpts is likely to boost sales.
But the story looks sound. Truth can be painful sometimes. Money always talks. Probably best to get the truth out now, a full year before the November 2018 House elections, let it burn through, let Trump have his tweeting fun, and let the DNC put some reforms in place to prevent any repeat.
Hillary Clinton isn't going to run again, nor is Bernie. The Dems need a younger 2020 candidate who is in favour of greater political transparency, not just talking about it but supporting actions to foster greater transparency.
I'm sure one of the themes of 2020 will be the cost of "Crooked Donald". The Dems will turn their backs on the power-brokering of "Crooked Hillary" in favour of an untainted candidate. All they have to do now is find that candidate.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Has a certain Mr. B. Obama been approached yet?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Has a certain Mr. B. Obama been approached yet?
The Constitution limits presidents to two terms.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
The executive of a political party favoring a candidate for a particular nomination is entirely unsurprising.
That Hillary's campaign gave the DNC millions of dollars to dig it out of a debt hole in return for early control of the DNC strikes me as a sensible arrangement. She was going to get control of the Party when she won the nomination, and she was going to win the nomination. Sure Sanders was leading an insurgency to have an impact on her platform, but that's all it ever was. She was going to win the nomination and with it control.
The above is my reaction to reading the links and the article in politico up to my maximum rage tolerance.
What actual prejudicial steps or decisions were taken by the DNC in Hilary's favor? That's the rub, not this agreement. This agreement is called politics as usual in an imperfect Democracy.
Also, why is this DNC official publishing this book? Shouldn't she wait another 5 years or longer before cashing in? DOES SHE WANT THE REPUBLICANS TO KEEP WINNING????????????????????? ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
The executive of a political party favoring a candidate for a particular nomination is entirely unsurprising.
That Hillary's campaign gave the DNC millions of dollars to dig it out of a debt hole in return for early control of the DNC strikes me as a sensible arrangement.
You may not have a full understanding of how the nomination process is "alleged" to operate in the US.
Have no doubt that if it were revealed Trump had assumed control of the national GOP fundraising and communications a year prior to the convention there would be HOWLS OF OUTRAGE...and probably violence.
All this is just the final throes of the Clinton era and Obama's devastating impact on the democrat party.
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
It's not quite as dire as the GOP would have us believe. This article details the central error in Brazile's story. It's being hyped by Faux News, etc. as a diversion-- the familiar "yeah but whaddabout" tactic-- from the deepening Russian collusion investigation.
That being said, we have known for some time that there were deep problems in the DNC, that no doubt contributed in some way to losing what should have been a runaway victory. The fact that the DNC entered the presidential race dead broke (thus necessitating the first Clinton-DNC financial agreement) is due both to gross mismanagement, as well as Obama's misuse of his highly effective fund-raising machine*, which ended up syphoning off $$ to a 1000 different efforts rather than allowing the DNC to raise a unified fund as in years past to focus on contested elections and/or battleground states. And there is definitely evidence that the DNC was tilted toward HRC from day 1, leading to unequal treatment which rightly did not sit well with Sanders supporters (myself included). It's far, far lower level than what Faux News would have us believe-- but it's not great either, and ended up squandering the youth vote which should have been a lock in '16. Again, more gross mismanagement rather than actual illegal or even unethical behavior. Mostly just really stupid. That's our jam.
*backstory that will be familiar to US shipmates: Obama really turned political fundraising around in '08, effectively utilizing mass media to generate a true grassroots campaign built on millions of small donations rather than the big Goldman-Sachs $$ that had funded campaigns in the past. Unfortunately, in the 8 years that followed, that golden goose was strangled. Whereas in years past I would get 2-3 snail mail solicitations (with maybe a slight uptick in big elections) from the DNC a year, all going into a united fund, once my email was part of that system I started getting 2-3 "urgent" emails a day from my new best friends Barack, Michelle, Joe, Hilary, and Nancy. All urgent, all asking for donations. All of that $$ got syphoned off into a 1000 individual efforts aimed at one-issue priorities. All good things that as a lefty I support (e.g. Obamacare) but not supporting the general DNC fund that is used for Congressional and presidential races. The end result is, when it came time to raise funds for '16, we'd all stopped paying attn to these "urgent" appeals from the DNC. The well had run dry, the goose is dead.
[ 04. November 2017, 14:00: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
This is a load of crap. There are all sorts of problems with the nomination process, but this is bullshit.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Can you be a little more honest, Ruth W?
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
We knew it was rigged from the get-go. That is why many of us are now working to eliminate the superdelegate program.
Blaming the superdelegates for rigging the 2016 nomination in favor of Clinton is barking up the wrong tree.
Clinton did get the votes of a disproportionate share of superdelegates, but she also would have beaten Sanders easily without them, or if they had been required to follow their state results either as winner-take-all or proportionally.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Can you be a little more honest, Ruth W?
And I will give a crap about Sanders when a. he comes up with a plan for how he will break up the banks, and b. registers as a Democrat.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
quote:
Blaming the superdelegates for rigging the 2016 nomination in favor of Clinton is barking up the wrong tree.
I respectfully disagree. At the time of the convention, Clinton and Sanders were in a dead heat, virtually tied But Clinton had 400 superdelegates in her pocket.
I think the Clintons' financing of the DNC and her support of 400 superdelegates are linked. After all, one does not want to bite the hand that feeds them.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Let me rephrase what I had posted.
At the time of the convention, Clinton had 1768 delegates. Sanders had 1494. I believe the nominee needed around 2300 to win. 400 superdelegate helped to put Clinton over the top.
True, she had to pick up more than just the 400, but just the way the system appeared it was rigged.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Let me rephrase what I had posted.
At the time of the convention, Clinton had 1768 delegates. Sanders had 1494. I believe the nominee needed around 2300 to win. 400 superdelegate helped to put Clinton over the top.
True, she had to pick up more than just the 400, but just the way the system appeared it was rigged.
This is incorrect. Clinton had 2205 pledged delegates (i.e. non superdelegates) going into the convention, Sanders had 1846 (according to Wikipedia) - hardly a virtual tie. The requirement to win was a majority; that's 2382 out of 4763 (4051 pledged delegates + 712 superdelegates.) If they had disallowed all the superdelegate votes, she still would have won easily since she had well over the 2026 votes that would have been needed to get a majority of pledged delegates.
[ 04. November 2017, 16:11: Message edited by: Dave W. ]
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
quote:
Blaming the superdelegates for rigging the 2016 nomination in favor of Clinton is barking up the wrong tree.
I respectfully disagree. At the time of the convention, Clinton and Sanders were in a dead heat, virtually tied But Clinton had 400 superdelegates in her pocket.
I think the Clintons' financing of the DNC and her support of 400 superdelegates are linked. After all, one does not want to bite the hand that feeds them.
See my link above re how Brazile conflated two financial agreements between the DNC and Hilary-- one before the nomination and one after. That confusion is the essence of Brazile's self-serving, book-selling claim.
I would agree that there was way too much dismissal of Sanders from the get-go, too much blithe acceptance of Hilary as the presumptive nominee. All of which erodes trust, which will need to be hard-won back. But the misrepresentations that are being peddled are not going to help that, they only serve the "whataboutism" of the GOP in deflecting attention from the far more serious matters at hand in the Trump administration.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Brazile's latest "revelation" is that *she* thought Clinton's campaign was doomed and that she (Brazile) considered replacing her with Biden (who had himself declined to run following the death of his son). As if it were up to her. So Brazile writes a tell-all book about Clinton trying to control the nomination, while simultaneously apparently assuming that she herself was the one who should have been controlling the nomination. Sheesh.
Don't know what that's about •cough•$$$booksales$$$•cough•
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
Hrmph. I thought it was bullshit.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
The point is, where is the Democratic Party going from here?
While the current DNC chairman is Tom Perez, an operative from the Clinton camp, he has asked Keith Ellerson, a progressive from Minnesota, to be his co-chair. Tom points out that he has gotten commitments from all 50 Democratic State Parties to work together in fundraising efforts. He is promising reform and transparency. Unfortunately, he is not very specfic.
There are two key off-year elections that will be decided tonight. The governorship of New Jersey will most likely go to the Democrats. The governorship of Virginia is too close to call. The key precincts will be the Washington Metro precincts. IMHO, if the Democrats can win both of them, that will put them on good footing for the Congressional elections in 2018.
As an aside, Mr Perez pointed out the primary system in the United States is controlled by the state parties. There are some states that use the Caucus system. Those were controlled by the National Party. Hilary did well in primary states. Bernie did well in states with caucuses.
[ 07. November 2017, 23:07: Message edited by: Gramps49 ]
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Democrats kicked ass at the polls today. They took the governor's house in New Jersey (expected) and Virginia (which was close in the pre-election polls, but Northam won by 9 percentage points). It looks like Democrats are now in control of the Virginia state legislature, which was completely unexpected. One of those seats was won by a transgender woman defeated a self-proclaimed homophobe who sponsored one of those horrible anti-trans bathroom bills. It looks like Washington state's upper house will go blue, which means the three west coast states are all blue -- Democrats control the legislatures and hold the governorships. Mainers voted to expand Medicaid, over-riding Gov. LePage's vetoes of five legislative bills.
Two important general points, I think:
1. Democrats turned out to vote in an off-year election, which they typically don't do. Clinton won Virginia by 6 points last year, but Northam did better, winning by 9 points. This bodes well for the Congressional midterm elections next year.
2. Lots of Democrats -- a diverse crew of Democrats -- ran in Virginia legislative races. Running a lot of candidates is good because it gives voters a chance to pick the good ones (Fivethirtyeight has a good article about this).
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
cliffdweller--
Your assessment is probably about right. I haven't dug into this, or done more than see a bit of TV news about her book. But wasn't she deposed from her DNC position for something? Or was that to do with her husband?
Anyway, she may have injured her own cause by a) being visibly angry on TV; and b) saying that anyone who doesn't like the book "can go to hell". And she may have lost the possible readers who dislike Hillary, because that's often due to the sharper edges of H's personality. Why read a book about one sharp-edged person, written by another sharp-edged person?
Bad strategy.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
Not only did the Democrats win New Jersey and Virginia, they did much better than expected in other parts of the country. A number of progressive issues won as well.
This is what I am talking about.
Even in our municipality the progressives did quite well. The elections here are supposedly non partisan but the Democratic Party endorsed three candidates for city council. Two of them won. It also endorsed three candidates for the school board, two of them won as well.
Trump is having a major meltdowwn.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Democrats kicked ass at the polls today. They took the governor's house in New Jersey (expected) and Virginia (which was close in the pre-election polls, but Northam won by 9 percentage points). It looks like Democrats are now in control of the Virginia state legislature, which was completely unexpected. One of those seats was won by a transgender woman defeated a self-proclaimed homophobe who sponsored one of those horrible anti-trans bathroom bills. It looks like Washington state's upper house will go blue, which means the three west coast states are all blue -- Democrats control the legislatures and hold the governorships. Mainers voted to expand Medicaid, over-riding Gov. LePage's vetoes of five legislative bills.
Two important general points, I think:
1. Democrats turned out to vote in an off-year election, which they typically don't do. Clinton won Virginia by 6 points last year, but Northam did better, winning by 9 points. This bodes well for the Congressional midterm elections next year.
2. Lots of Democrats -- a diverse crew of Democrats -- ran in Virginia legislative races. Running a lot of candidates is good because it gives voters a chance to pick the good ones (Fivethirtyeight has a good article about this).
This gives me hope.
In my corner of Michigan (Detroit), we only had city-related elections, so I didn't have a gauge on this from our local elections (although I'm very happy with how they came out!).
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
--It did really seem like it was H's time, women's time, our time.
Is that part of why she lost ?
That sense among the disenchanted and non-aligned that Hillary was the anointed candidate of the political establishment ? That sense that they were being told that it was her turn, her time ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
I know that turned off some people I know. But her "backflip" on the TPA and her Goldman Sachs' "one story for you; one for the (suckers) out there" speech did it in for them too. They felt she couldn't be trusted. They were anti TPA but would've voted for her...her flipping just was too much.
I don't doubt the heartache and pain felt by people like GK. To have your candidate defeated is tough; to have them defeated by Gropealot is devastating. I cannot imagine.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
simontoad
Ship's Amphibian
# 18096
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
--It did really seem like it was H's time, women's time, our time.
Is that part of why she lost ?
That sense among the disenchanted and non-aligned that Hillary was the anointed candidate of the political establishment ? That sense that they were being told that it was her turn, her time ?
So they gave fucking Trump a go. Jesus H. Christ I get so angry when I think about this angle.
--------------------
Human
Posts: 1571 | From: Romsey, Vic, AU | Registered: May 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ian Climacus
Liturgical Slattern
# 944
|
Posted
In some of my friends' cases, they didn't vote at all, or went Green (a Libertarian friend was not impressed with the candidate's actions). Which may well be the same thing in the end.
Posts: 7800 | From: On the border | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I went to Donna Brazile's Wikipedia page, and looked up the 2016 election section.
If that's remotely accurate, plus her political campaign resume, plus some of the recent news about her and her book, it sounds to me like she expected to continue in power--maybe even a Clinton administration position. It decidedly didn't work out that way. Maybe she needs someone to blame, besides herself.
Per Wikipedia, there might be reason to think she bears some blame for Hillary not winning the electoral college--or, possibly, praise for Hillary winning the popular vote.
YMMV.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Ian--
quote:
Originally posted by Ian Climacus:
I don't doubt the heartache and pain felt by people like GK. To have your candidate defeated is tough; to have them defeated by Gropealot is devastating. I cannot imagine.
Even worse when having your candidate win would've been a gigantic, civil-rights milestone. And the winner is a monster who preys on your kind.
As if a very active KKK grand wizard and also a slave-owner had won instead of Obama.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
This is just a musing, and I don’t know what I think about it yet – but I’ve seen several analyses of late saying that (a) if the election was rerun tomorrow, Hillary would lose again* and (b) if Joe Biden had been the candidate against Trump, he might well have won.
So, while I would have liked to see a woman in the highest political office in the US, part of me is wondering whether the Democrats shouldn’t have gone for Joe Biden instead. Grieving over the fact that a woman didn’t win when a man (Biden) could have done feels to me to be rather making the best the enemy of the good. (I admit I have really looked into whether Biden actually wanted the job.)
*i.e. she would lose the electoral college. I’m surprised Democrats aren’t making more noises about reforming the same if they get back into power.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
lver--
Biden specifically chose not to run, even though he promised his dying son that he would run.
Respetfully, this was the time for Hillary. In the 2008 election, glass ceilings would've been broken, no matter who won, even on the Republican side. If McCain had won, IIRC, he would've been the oldest president, and the only one born in the Panama Canal Zone. And Sarah Palin (eek!) would've been the first female VP. If McCain's buddy, Joe Lieberman, had been the VP pick (as expected), he would've been the first Jewish VP. (Possibly the first high-ranking Jewish person in the US gov't, though I'm not sure of that.) And Hillary and Obama, of course, over on the Democratic side.
At the time, I felt both H and O needed a lot more experience; but they were the choices. Being a Green, I wrote in H in the primary, because I needed to vote for a woman president once in my life. At that time, I didn't think in terms of changing parties. In the general election, I happily voted for Obama, though wistfully.
Hillary earned a lot of experience as secretary of state. I think she did a good job. (FYI, she was only the second woman to have that job.) So, when she ran again, I was even happier to vote for her. So much so that I left the Green party and went Dem, so that I could vote for her in a way that had more of a chance of being counted. (Write-ins sometimes aren't.)
H was uniquely qualified. O said that H was the most qualified pres. candidate ever, and I think he was right. Part of that was due to being first lady of Arkansas, and again of the US. First ladies learn, know, and do a lot. After her husband became president, some movers and shakers said maybe they'd elected the wrong Clinton.
After having the first African-American president, of course it seemed time to try again for the first woman.
I would've vote for whatever Dem won the primary. Biden might have been able to win. But he chose not to run, for his own reasons. And he would've been one more white guy in office. We've had more than 200 years of them.
There's plenty of blame to go around for H not winning overall. H has taken responsibility for a lot. Russia is probably responsible for a lot. AIUI, winning the electoral college is more about strategy--getting the right number of votes in the right places. I don't know who might've been responsible for that mess, if anyone. The electors could've spared us from T, but they didn't. Etc.
As to changing or ditching the electoral college, that would require a constitutional amendment, IIRC. I think that would involve Congress passing a bill to put it to the people. Not sure if the pres would have to sign it. Then each state would have to approve it. I think that's sometimes taken years, but that might have been due to limited transportation and communication. If enough states approve the amendment, I'm not sure what the next step would be.
I'm not sure what to do about the EC. I've been back and forth. It did give us Lincoln. America doesn't often change the fundamental framework that the Founding Guys set up. We've done something like 25 amendments to the Constitution, in about 240 years.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
One point that has been consistently underreported was Hillary's health problems. I know that several doctors who had never examined her "diagnosed" various problems. These statements were properly ignored. A statement issued by her doctor said that several years earlier she had suffered a blood clot in a vein between her skull and her brain. They said she recovered completely. However, there were several problems that were obvious to the public.
The most glaring one was shown on a video made at a campaign appearance. She started nodding her head up and down for at least a half minute; she appeared unable to stop. I have never before or since seen anyone, IRL or on video, do this.
When she collapsed on 9/11, it was announced that she was overcome by heat and dehydration. However, these conditions should have caused her to go limp; she wasn't limp, she was frozen. Another serious indication of a problem was that she took several weeks off from campaigning after she collapsed on 9/11. Many voters do not pay much attention to presidential campaigns until Labor Day. The period between Labor Day and Election Day is normally the most intense campaign period. It must have been a very pressing reason that made her take time off during that period.
A lot of people, including Donna Brazile, had serious doubts about her health, although her campaign said that this was just Russian propaganda.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gramps49
Shipmate
# 16378
|
Posted
The explanation for the fainting spell by the Clinton camp was that she was suffering from pneumonia. As I recall, she did take about a week after the incident to recover.
But I agree her poll numbers really started to sag after that time.
Then there was the email dump by the Russians less than ten days before the election. There was just no time to recover from that.
Posts: 2193 | From: Pullman WA | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
If wishes were horses and all that… I’m not saying Hillary shouldn’t have won. In a better world she would have done.
What I’m getting at is that we don’t live in that world. In this world she couldn’t win. Even after all the mayhem, incompetence and scandal of the last year, if the election was rerun tomorrow, it looks like she would lose again. So my question is, taken that we can’t have Hillary, wouldn’t we have been better off with Biden? Wanting Hillary gets us Trump.
Bit of a tangent, but given that getting elected today apparently depends on being on TV and success (or supposed success at least, since Trump is actually crap at it) in business, do you know who I think should start getting a campaign team together? Oprah Winfrey. I mean that much more sincerely than you might think.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Then there was the email dump by the Russians less than ten days before the election. There was just no time to recover from that.
That's the first time I've ever heard James Comey referred to as "the Russians".
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
So my question is, taken that we can’t have Hillary, wouldn’t we have been better off with Biden? Wanting Hillary gets us Trump.
Joe Biden has already had two bites at the presidential apple and both were rather spectacular failures. I suppose it's theoretically possible someone with a presidential campaigning history whose highest point was a fifth place finish in the Iowa caucuses might run a better campaign than the first woman to secure a major party presidential nomination, but there doesn't seem to any historical evidence to support that hypothesis.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Biden used to be known for wildly awkward comments. Haven't heard about any in years. If he were to run, I'd want to know whether he's stopped making them altogether, or stopped in public, or whether the press just stopped covering them.
BTW, he did a good interview with Stephen Colbert in 2015. Talked about his late son, and his own RC faith. (It really means a lot to him.) Colbert tried to push him into running.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Yes, let's please remember that Biden was still mourning the recent loss of his son, and had already decided & declared that he would not run. Despite Brazile's grand delusion that she was the Master Lord & Ruler of the Democratic Party, able to choose unilaterally who will be the nominee, Biden is still an autonomous person able to make these decisions for himself.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
The larger issue is that it is, or should be, the national party's job to be sure that the main candidate is a good one. Failure in this leads to the president we have today; another great current example would be Roy Moore -- a man who never should have been allowed to run in the first place.
Inevitably, since the various molesters and pussygrabbers have their supporters, there is yelling.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The larger issue is that it is, or should be, the national party's job to be sure that the main candidate is a good one. Failure in this leads to the president we have today; another great current example would be Roy Moore -- a man who never should have been allowed to run in the first place.
I think it's more complex than that. We really have two extremes here-- on the one hand, a failure to provide any reasonable defense against such horrifically bad options as Moore & Trump-- but otoh, the consistent allegations of "rigging" (which I think are exaggerated) on the part of the DNC, which undermines trust.
There's a happy medium here that both parties need to move toward-- having a fair, transparent process where voters can trust that their primary vote/voice truly matters. That's the challenge the DNC faces right now. But the party also has a responsibility to articulate and defend a clear vision, based on core values/principles, that is something more than just "beating the other guys". That's the challenge the GOP faces right now, and one that might have avoided Moore & Trump had they truly articulated and then lived up to their now-infamously laughable "family values" claim.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
There's a happy medium here that both parties need to move toward-- having a fair, transparent process where voters can trust that their primary vote/voice truly matters.
I just can't see that the GOP wants fair or transparent anything in voting.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
There's a happy medium here that both parties need to move toward-- having a fair, transparent process where voters can trust that their primary vote/voice truly matters.
I just can't see that the GOP wants fair or transparent anything in voting.
Nor do I think they'd recognize a value, family or otherwise, if it rose up and slapped them in the face.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Biden is scheduled to be on Stephen Colbert's "Late Show" tonight (Monday). And Elton John, too!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It will probably be online sometime Tuesday, I think.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
That's the challenge the GOP faces right now, and one that might have avoided Moore & Trump had they truly articulated and then lived up to their now-infamously laughable "family values" claim.
Yes, well, if they didn't figure that out after Newt Gingrich, and all the many affairs that male members of Congress have had; and suspicious situations like intern Chandra Levy's murder--bad optics, at the very least--if they couldn't figure out that T would make them look ridiculous and supportive of assault...if none of that got through to them, they really may not be able to understand the situation at all.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
At this point surely no one can believe that the GOP represents families, Christianity, or even decency any more. It's hopeless on the face of it, with a self-confessed abuser and crotch-grabber at the top.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Maybe when they said they represent "family values" we should have paused long enough to ask exactly which family it was they represented...
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
