DNC emails leaks about Sanders going to mean anything?

[Filliam H. Muffman]

With all the super delegates throwing in for Clinton before the primaries even started, it was rigged from the start. Bernie had a surprisingly good result. I think he got off to a late start because he didn't believe he had a chance. Things like the voter suppression in NY with a 6 month lead time to switch from Independent to Democrat made it even harder. The Clinton campaign and the DNC working together against him was just another thumb on the scale.

[DeusxMac]

vision63 wrote:
He should have never been in it. For real. This election wasn't close. She trounced him.

We know you're a rabid Hillary fan, but your "wasn't close" and "trounced" exaggerations are too much.

trounce
- to defeat easily and thoroughly
- to thrash or punish severely

Is there any question that Sanders' popularity was completely unanticipated by Clinton's organization?

Sanders won as many contests in 2016 and Clinton did in 2008.

Sanders' 43.1% of the popular vote is no example of candidate who "should have never been in it".

[sekker]

I love the energy of Sanders. Was refreshing. And he brought some good points into the discussion this year.

But he's truly an outsider to the DNC compared to HC.

As for who he supports - no way he goes Trumpian. So who will he endorse if not HC? If he goes independent or libertarian, he just proved he's not committed to being a Democrat.

[Lux Interior]

Ted King wrote:


When I get some time, I'll try to look into the party rules to see what they have to say about this.

It's still their party and they are free to change the rules.

[Lemon Drop]

DWS is getting her hand slapped. I do think she should resign and she likely will, but my bet would be it's after the election. Hillary will put someone else in charge of the DNC; DWS is an "in name-only" leader at this point anyway.

"She's been quarantined," another top Democrat said, following a meeting Saturday night.
This is seen as a concession to Sanders, who has been furious at Wasserman Schultz for what he believed was favoritism to Clinton.
The Democrat familiar with the decision said it was done in hopes of preventing chaos on the convention floor among Sanders supporters.
The decision was blessed by Clinton and Sanders officials, this Democrat said.

[vision63]

Filliam H. Muffman wrote:
With all the super delegates throwing in for Clinton before the primaries even started, it was rigged from the start. Bernie had a surprisingly good result. I think he got off to a late start because he didn't believe he had a chance. Things like the voter suppression in NY with a 6 month lead time to switch from Independent to Democrat made it even harder. The Clinton campaign and the DNC working together against him was just another thumb on the scale.

Liquors must have drunkened you. Hillary Clinton got 3.7 million more votes than Sanders. Here's a primer on how she defeated him lest you should ever become confused again.

How Clinton Won
How Hillary Clinton overcame the challenge from Sen. Bernie Sanders
http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/how-clinton-won/

The System Isn’t ‘Rigged’ Against Sanders
Clinton’s winning because more Democrats want her to be the nominee.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-...t-sanders/

Nate Silver Explains Why Clinton Will Be Democratic Nominee – It’s Not A Rigged System
Hillary Clinton will be the nominee because more Democrats voted for her because she is a "hard core liberal" and not because of a rigged system.
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/06/09/n...ystem.html

[vision63]

Lemon Drop wrote:
DWS is getting her hand slapped. I do think she should resign and she likely will, but my bet would be it's after the election. Hillary will put someone else in charge of the DNC; DWS is an "in name-only" leader at this point anyway.

"She's been quarantined," another top Democrat said, following a meeting Saturday night.
This is seen as a concession to Sanders, who has been furious at Wasserman Schultz for what he believed was favoritism to Clinton.
The Democrat familiar with the decision said it was done in hopes of preventing chaos on the convention floor among Sanders supporters.
The decision was blessed by Clinton and Sanders officials, this Democrat said.

Her job is to implement Hillary's 50 state strategy. The convention is basically a formal showcase infomercial. Obama already told DWS "I got your back" multiple times.

[Ted King]

For sure I think there is plenty to be critical of, of the Democratic National Committee, but there is a claim that I have been hearing quite a bit that Clinton or her campaign were directing the shenanigans at the DNC that were efforts to diminish Sanders as a candidate - that is a claim I have not seen any credible evidence for yet. Is there evidence that fairly conclusively leads to the conclusion that there was direct collusion between the Clinton campaign and the DNC? Of course, there may be "hidden" collusion, but it may be "hidden" because it doesn't exist. I certainly wouldn't discount the possibility but being possible does not imply that it is actual.

I actually would be a little surprised if anyone presented evidence of collusion - although the Clinton campaign has shown itself to do pretty stupid things on occasion. I do think, though, that DWS (Schultz) and some of her DNC cohorts were well aware of what side their bread is buttered on and didn't need to collude with the Clinton campaign to figure out what they could do to help assure she would win the nomination.

[vision63]

DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=vision63]
He should have never been in it. For real. This election wasn't close. She trounced him.

We know you're a rabid Hillary fan, but your "wasn't close" and "trounced" exaggerations are too much.

trounce
- to defeat easily and thoroughly
- to thrash or punish severely

Is there any question that Sanders' popularity was completely unanticipated by Clinton's organization?

Sanders won as many contests in 2016 and Clinton did in 2008.

Sanders' 43.1% of the popular vote is no example of candidate who "should have never been in it".
First of all. Never ever ever do I allow my enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton to affect the realty of any given situation. I keep it 100 percent real at all times. She's got illogical haters that never can seem to qualify or quantify their accusations. I ask, they never tell.

I explained thoroughly how Sanders "won." You either don't believe it or you're just skipping it. She defeated him handily.

[vision63]

(vikm) wrote:
It is clear from the last couple of weeks reading posts here who's been sincerely following all of the information related to the leaks and all of the other info around the country regarding the election fraud from the last couple of months. People are so blinded by their hatred of Trump (and I'm no fan) that they come off as having no desire to know the truth. I'm amazed at the number of Hillary supporters that will continue to make excuse after excuse for every single issue. It's not even debatable that the DNC was going to make Hillary their candidate come hell or high water.

For those that haven't followed it as closely as others, Sanders was required to endorse her. He would have been stripped of delegates and certainly wouldn't get the speaking gig he's got lined up at the convention. I can't imagine how furious he's been after all of the evidence that's come out. They will be lucky if that building is still standing after he speaks. All I'm saying, and believe what you want, is don't be surprised when November rolls around and Bernie is no longer endorsing her.

Sanders endoresed her because he is a sitting Senator that is supposedly now a Democrat, otherwise he caucused with Democrats. This means he considers his relationships, his assignments and his appointments moving forward. That's just practical. If you think somebody "told" Bernie Sanders that he "must" endorse Hillary Clinton, then you're a fool.