Login   Register
 Login    Register
Bernie Supporters trying to rig 2020 primaries
O(+>
User avatar
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 2,759 | Offline
Joined: Aug 7, 2014
https://twitter.com/armandodkos/status/938980122752778240

Bernie supporters trying to punish states holding closed primaries by reducing their numbers of pledged delegates, forcing them to hold caucuses. NY Democratic party doesn't control the deadline complaining about here.

How is this any different from Republicans trying to drop minorities off voter lists, voter caging, knocking minorities off rolls with restrictive ID requirements? They're specifically targeting New York, which, guess what, is a majority minority Democratic primary, and trying to drop their delegates.

Digital Blackface
User avatar
 
Rank: User
Posts: 2,136 | Offline
Joined: Sep 12, 2017

Letting more people vote is now voter suppression? Huh

O(+>
User avatar
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 2,759 | Offline
Joined: Aug 7, 2014

Digital Blackface wrote:Letting more people vote is now voter suppression? Huh


Forcing caucuses is voter suppression.

Taking away delegates is disenfranchisement.

Digital Blackface
User avatar
 
Rank: User
Posts: 2,136 | Offline
Joined: Sep 12, 2017

not allowing people to vote(or change their party affiliation to vote) is voter suppression

O(+>
User avatar
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 2,759 | Offline
Joined: Aug 7, 2014

Digital Blackface wrote:not allowing people to vote(or change their party affiliation to vote) is voter suppression


I got no problem trying to change the deadline. The remedies they are suggesting are completely inappropriate and as I understand it the deadline is a function of state law rather than party policy.

Democrats have no power to change the state deadline, Republicans control the NY state senate. The Bernie supporters here understand that.

Digital Blackface
User avatar
 
Rank: User
Posts: 2,136 | Offline
Joined: Sep 12, 2017

maybe Hillary can run again in 2020 and squash this

HowWouldIKnowThat
User avatar
My bad, didn't even look at what thread we were in
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 16,504 | Online
Joined: Aug 15, 2013

thanks Mr. White
cantjudge wrote:Oh, I thought all the black wangs would help.


OldSnake
User avatar
stupid moron with an ugly face & a big butt
 
Rank: User
Posts: 16,059 | Online
Joined: Dec 5, 2011

O(+> wrote: https://twitter.com/armandodkos/status/938980122752778240

Bernie supporters trying to punish states holding closed primaries by reducing their numbers of pledged delegates, forcing them to hold caucuses. NY Democratic party doesn't control the deadline complaining about here.

How is this any different from Republicans trying to drop minorities off voter lists, voter caging, knocking minorities off rolls with restrictive ID requirements? They're specifically targeting New York, which, guess what, is a majority minority Democratic primary, and trying to drop their delegates.


Hillary and her collective shills in the DNC changed the rules after she lost in 2008 to make primaries the preferred voting process. Caucuses are harder to control and produce winners that the party's rich may not like, this is why Obama did well in them, as did Bernie... not surprisingly both were the best candidates in their races. Bernie is also trying to get rid of the superdelegates as well for the same reason.

This also is a commission lobbying for change, not the actual DNC
wbeaumo wrote:Clearly, this place is crawling with posters whose unofficial leader is that cockroach P.O.

O(+>
User avatar
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 2,759 | Offline
Joined: Aug 7, 2014

Primaries *should* be the preferred voting process. Caucuses are harder for people who have jobs / kids / other commitments, there's no reason for them. I find it hard to follow the consistency of people arguing for open primaries and arguing for same day registration to increase the number of people who can vote and then arguing for caucuses, which inherently limit participation.

Superdelegates are BS and should be eliminated, I think the only part of the party that supports the use of superdelegates are the superdelegates. I think people are definitely seeing the reasons to get rid of them - it makes candidates stick in it till the end because they are seen as a Hail Mary (see: Hillary 2008, Bernie 2016 petitioning superdelegates after they had lost pledged delegates), they create issues coming into the convention, they are seen as the establishment having a finger on the scale, they're inherently undemocratic, and they're probably just going to vote for whoever the winner is anyway.

OldSnake
User avatar
stupid moron with an ugly face & a big butt
 
Rank: User
Posts: 16,059 | Online
Joined: Dec 5, 2011

O(+> wrote:Primaries *should* be the preferred voting process. Caucuses are harder for people who have jobs / kids / other commitments, there's no reason for them.


It shows commitment to a party member who actually has something going for them other than commercials and big connections in the party. We're not talking about an election we're talking about the primary, or the part where people should start getting excited about something. Primary winners produce chosen results, caucus winners produce enthusiasm. How did not having any enthusiasm work for Hillary? Or Romney? Or McCain? Or just about any primary darling, sans Trump, because he's a fucking retard who couldn't wrangle his fellow retards up in caucuses to vote for him in the early going?

Obama, Sanders and Bush all did well in caucuses, 2/3 went onto 8 year presidencies and Sanders couldn't get over the networks strategically not taking him seriously until mid March.

Superdelegates are BS and should be eliminated, I think the only part of the party that supports the use of superdelegates are the superdelegates.


Which are almost all Hillary people in congress, or her big donors, or their proxies.
wbeaumo wrote:Clearly, this place is crawling with posters whose unofficial leader is that cockroach P.O.

O(+>
User avatar
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 2,759 | Offline
Joined: Aug 7, 2014

OldSnake wrote:
O(+> wrote:Primaries *should* be the preferred voting process. Caucuses are harder for people who have jobs / kids / other commitments, there's no reason for them.


It shows commitment to a party member who actually has something going for them other than commercials and big connections in the party.


Congratulations, you've just made the argument for closed primaries too and keeping people without a D next to their names out - gotta show some commitment and put that D after your name. <sarcasm>Or maybe we should just poll tax everyone and only allow people showing financial commitments to vote?</sarcasm> This "I like my candidate harder, so you don't count" argument is really stupid.

Voting shouldn't be about who can spare 2-6 hours - if you truly care about expanding the base of a party it should be about one person, one vote - not one person, one whole afternoon, one vote. Primaries better model actual general election procedures.

We're not talking about an election we're talking about the primary, or the part where people should start getting excited about something. Primary winners produce chosen results, caucus winners produce enthusiasm. How did not having any enthusiasm work for Hillary? Or Romney? Or McCain? Or just about any primary darling, sans Trump, because he's a fucking retard who couldn't wrangle his fellow retards up in caucuses to vote for him in the early going?


That's an argument without evidence - Bill Clinton and Obama managed to win primaries. This is all about trying to rig a system and a self selected voting population for Bernie.

AndySmith
User avatar
Im not special.
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 11,750 | Offline
Joined: Feb 12, 2013

Where are you getting all of this about caucus's from GORF? Because your the only one I see saying that, here or anywhere.

It appears they want to penalize states who make it harder to vote in the primary. Things like same day registration, or allowing you to declare on the day which party primary you choose to vote in would encourage more voters. I'm torn on caucuses because like Snake said, they build enthusiasm and get people who participate more invested in their candidate. But I also see your point that it can be exclusionary in that not everyone can participate due to work/family/life obligations. There's no perfect system, but what they are trying to do is good overall.

You need to set aside all your Bernie hate. After the last year, how could possibly argue that Bernie wouldn't have been the better candidate to defeat Trump and that him winning would have been better than a president Trump?

Digital Blackface
User avatar
 
Rank: User
Posts: 2,136 | Offline
Joined: Sep 12, 2017

GorF still supports Hillary and thinks she was a great candidate

O(+>
User avatar
 
Rank: Vetted
Posts: 2,759 | Offline
Joined: Aug 7, 2014

AndySmith wrote:Where are you getting all of this about caucus's from GORF? Because your the only one I see saying that, here or anywhere.


I understand being skeptical, but :

https://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/uni ... .uk8rM8xwV

The Unity Reform Commission will propose a system to penalize states like this, by docking their number of pledged delegates, should they not adjust deadlines.


Again - another state, Florida, has a Republican legislature. The Bernie camp here is trying to disenfranchise Floridians who vote in the Democratic primary because their legislature is Republican and won't open primaries.

It appears they want to penalize states who make it harder to vote in the primary. Things like same day registration, or allowing you to declare on the day which party primary you choose to vote in would encourage more voters. I'm torn on caucuses because like Snake said, they build enthusiasm and get people who participate more invested in their candidate. But I also see your point that it can be exclusionary in that not everyone can participate due to work/family/life obligations. There's no perfect system, but what they are trying to do is good overall.


If you're going to end up disenfranchising a ton of people, specifically minorities, I argue that's probably not good overall. Looks like Weaver's proposal for penalties went down though:

https://twitter.com/tmservo433/status/9 ... 6837849088


You need to set aside all your Bernie hate. After the last year, how could possibly argue that Bernie wouldn't have been the better candidate to defeat Trump and that him winning would have been better than a president Trump?


I haven't attacked Bernie at all in this thread - it's his supporters, like Jeff Weaver that are doing this. I think the hardcore ones are cultlike and have little respect for actual little "d" democratic results, like what happened in Nevada last year.

Todd Brisket
User avatar
human interaction simulation
 
Rank: Wiki Admin
Posts: 27,558 | Online
Joined: Aug 9, 2010

Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LeykisMan! and 2 guests