Why do so many here greatly overestimate the power of DNC Chairman?

[Beet]

Bernie was screwed over by the corporate media more than anything. They are totally in bed with Trump. Why do you think CBS was allowed into the press gaggle? He got $2 billion worth of "free" coverage. Well maybe not free because now he's going to pay them back with deregulation. Sanders only got 20 minutes of broadcast news coverage in all of 2015. Trump got 326 minutes. Hillary got 200 but nearly half of that was about her emails.

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/24/cbs-fcc-trump/

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Bernie was screwed over by the corporate media more than anything. They are totally in bed with Trump. Why do you think CBS was allowed into the press gaggle? He got $2 billion worth of "free" coverage. Well maybe not free because now he's going to pay them back with deregulation. Sanders only got 20 minutes of broadcast news coverage in all of 2015. Trump got 326 minutes. Hillary got 200 but nearly half of that was about her emails.

https://theintercept.com/2017/02/24/cbs-fcc-trump/

The DNC and Hillary campaign did their best to have the corporate media give lots of coverage to "piped piper" candidates like Trump, and not much to Bernie.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is Bernie being ignored:



New York was always obviously a demographic nightmare for Bernie, plus Hillary's "home state" (sort of) too. It would be absurd to ever think he could win it. But his margin of defeat in delegates there wouldn't have made a dent in Hillary's nationwide delegate margin. Might I also note that the DNC does not control New York's party registration laws.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

And honestly if you do want to talk about "signals", how about the fact that Ellison was given a leadership role as well in an absolutely unprecedented move?

Gabbard and Rybak had leadership roles too, but couldn't stop DWS from rigging the primary.

It's hard to stop someone from doing something that they aren't doing.

Like stopping you from making a well-argued, articulate post?

Come on do you seriously agree with this loon who thinks Ohio 2004 was stolen that the primary was "rigged"?

I mean OK there was some background stuff that boosted Hillary in New York. Yeah that's a state she was sure in trouble of losing.

Name a state that would've voted for Sanders had it not have been for vote fraud or this "rigging".

F**k off, fake Bernie supporter.

How exactly is someone who voted for Sanders and served as a delegate of his to the district convention a "fake" supporter?

Anyone who thinks it was fine that the debates started about 6 months later in 2016 than 2008, and had had only around 30% as many, and the first debate was after the deadline to change parties in NY is a fake Bernie supporter. Not to mention all the other rigging that the DNC did.

I do not believe that was fine. I believe that it did not change the result of the primary, or even just the primary in New York.

It was obviously to help Hillary. In 2008, when she was behind, she asked for and got many more debates. There are always more debates when Hillary wants them, but not when she doesn't want them.

OK so are you saying the debate schedule is the only reason why Hillary won New York and her victory in New York is the only reason she won the nomination? Because that's a BOLD claim.

I can support Sanders and still believe that Hillary would've easily won the nomination had it not have been for some meaningless and incompetent meddling from one of the dumbest and most incompetent women in politics.

Bernie was ignored for months because there were no debates. It could have made a huge difference. If NY allowed independents to vote rather than having to change registration 6 months before, Bernie might have won it. The exit poll had him losing by only 4 and he lost by 16, which is definitely a sign of a discrepancy from how people wanted to vote and how their votes were counted.

Exit polls are reliable now?

Something is up when there's a 12 point discrepancy, whether it was people unable to vote because of NY's bullsh**t rule on having to register 6 months before, all the people whose registration were purged, or any possible problems with counting the vote.

Or maybe exit polls just really suck.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And honestly if you do want to talk about "signals", how about the fact that Ellison was given a leadership role as well in an absolutely unprecedented move?

Gabbard and Rybak had leadership roles too, but couldn't stop DWS from rigging the primary.

It's hard to stop someone from doing something that they aren't doing.

Like stopping you from making a well-argued, articulate post?

Come on do you seriously agree with this loon who thinks Ohio 2004 was stolen that the primary was "rigged"?

I mean OK there was some background stuff that boosted Hillary in New York. Yeah that's a state she was sure in trouble of losing.

Name a state that would've voted for Sanders had it not have been for vote fraud or this "rigging".

F**k off, fake Bernie supporter.

How exactly is someone who voted for Sanders and served as a delegate of his to the district convention a "fake" supporter?

Anyone who thinks it was fine that the debates started about 6 months later in 2016 than 2008, and had had only around 30% as many, and the first debate was after the deadline to change parties in NY is a fake Bernie supporter. Not to mention all the other rigging that the DNC did.

I do not believe that was fine. I believe that it did not change the result of the primary, or even just the primary in New York.

It was obviously to help Hillary. In 2008, when she was behind, she asked for and got many more debates. There are always more debates when Hillary wants them, but not when she doesn't want them.

OK so are you saying the debate schedule is the only reason why Hillary won New York and her victory in New York is the only reason she won the nomination? Because that's a BOLD claim.

I can support Sanders and still believe that Hillary would've easily won the nomination had it not have been for some meaningless and incompetent meddling from one of the dumbest and most incompetent women in politics.

Bernie was ignored for months because there were no debates. It could have made a huge difference. If NY allowed independents to vote rather than having to change registration 6 months before, Bernie might have won it. The exit poll had him losing by only 4 and he lost by 16, which is definitely a sign of a discrepancy from how people wanted to vote and how their votes were counted.

Exit polls are reliable now?

Something is up when there's a 12 point discrepancy, whether it was people unable to vote because of NY's bullsh**t rule on having to register 6 months before, all the people whose registration were purged, or any possible problems with counting the vote.

Or maybe exit polls just really suck.

It's kind of a moot point anyway, New York's laws regarding voter registration are not set by the DNC.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This is Bernie being ignored:



New York was always obviously a demographic nightmare for Bernie, plus Hillary's "home state" (sort of) too. It would be absurd to ever think he could win it. But his margin of defeat in delegates there wouldn't have made a dent in Hillary's nationwide delegate margin. Might I also note that the DNC does not control New York's party registration laws.

The DNC chair did have the first debate after the deadline to change parties, which was ridiculous. And the DNC did talk about having Illinois change when it voted to help non-establishment  Republicans.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And honestly if you do want to talk about "signals", how about the fact that Ellison was given a leadership role as well in an absolutely unprecedented move?

Gabbard and Rybak had leadership roles too, but couldn't stop DWS from rigging the primary.

It's hard to stop someone from doing something that they aren't doing.

Like stopping you from making a well-argued, articulate post?

Come on do you seriously agree with this loon who thinks Ohio 2004 was stolen that the primary was "rigged"?

I mean OK there was some background stuff that boosted Hillary in New York. Yeah that's a state she was sure in trouble of losing.

Name a state that would've voted for Sanders had it not have been for vote fraud or this "rigging".

F**k off, fake Bernie supporter.

How exactly is someone who voted for Sanders and served as a delegate of his to the district convention a "fake" supporter?

Anyone who thinks it was fine that the debates started about 6 months later in 2016 than 2008, and had had only around 30% as many, and the first debate was after the deadline to change parties in NY is a fake Bernie supporter. Not to mention all the other rigging that the DNC did.

I do not believe that was fine. I believe that it did not change the result of the primary, or even just the primary in New York.

It was obviously to help Hillary. In 2008, when she was behind, she asked for and got many more debates. There are always more debates when Hillary wants them, but not when she doesn't want them.

OK so are you saying the debate schedule is the only reason why Hillary won New York and her victory in New York is the only reason she won the nomination? Because that's a BOLD claim.

I can support Sanders and still believe that Hillary would've easily won the nomination had it not have been for some meaningless and incompetent meddling from one of the dumbest and most incompetent women in politics.

Bernie was ignored for months because there were no debates. It could have made a huge difference. If NY allowed independents to vote rather than having to change registration 6 months before, Bernie might have won it. The exit poll had him losing by only 4 and he lost by 16, which is definitely a sign of a discrepancy from how people wanted to vote and how their votes were counted.

Exit polls are reliable now?

Something is up when there's a 12 point discrepancy, whether it was people unable to vote because of NY's bullsh**t rule on having to register 6 months before, all the people whose registration were purged, or any possible problems with counting the vote.

Or maybe exit polls just really suck.

If exit polls were routinely off by 12 points, they'd probably stop bothering with exit polls.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

OK so fine so having the debate after the party registration deadline in one state (once again, not set by the DNC) is ridiculous. But that does not mean that it swung that state, much less the entire election.

This is sounding a lot like Trump's case for how he would've won the popular vote had it not have been for fraud.

[Mr. Morden]

On the 2016 primary debate issue, there's really nobody forcing the candidates to agree to the DNC sanctioned debates in the first place.  In 1999, Bush was way ahead in the polls, and refused to participate in any debates until December, just a month and a half before Iowa.  If the DNC had scheduled 20 debates and started them in April or May of 2015, Clinton would have just skipped them anyway.

And there was nothing stopping Clinton, Sanders, and all the other candidates from ditching the DNC debates altogether and just agreeing to a debate schedule of their own making.  Except that, again, Clinton wouldn't have gone along with many more (and earlier debates), and no one would have watched debates without the frontrunner.  So she was always going to have a good deal of leverage on this issue, regardless of what the DNC decided.

I would make an exception for the simple fact that you need to recruit candidates in tough seats in the first place to allow for circumstances to provide such a wave but both Perez and Ellison campaigned on doing exactly that, so...

How much of a role does the DNC even play in such recruitment?  Isn't that more of a task for the DCCC and DSCC?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

On the 2016 primary debate issue, there's really nobody forcing the candidates to agree to the DNC sanctioned debates in the first place.  In 1999, Bush was way ahead in the polls, and refused to participate in any debates until December, just a month and a half before Iowa.  If the DNC had scheduled 20 debates and started them in April or May of 2015, Clinton would have just skipped them anyway.

And there was nothing stopping Clinton, Sanders, and all the other candidates from ditching the DNC debates altogether and just agreeing to a debate schedule of their own making.  Except that, again, Clinton wouldn't have gone along with many more (and earlier debates), and no one would have watched debates without the frontrunner.  So she was always going to have a good deal of leverage on this issue, regardless of what the DNC decided.

I would make an exception for the simple fact that you need to recruit candidates in tough seats in the first place to allow for circumstances to provide such a wave but both Perez and Ellison campaigned on doing exactly that, so...

How much of a role does the DNC even play in such recruitment?  Isn't that more of a task for the DCCC and DSCC?

The DNC played the bad cop to Hillary's good cop, where they claimed she'd love more debates or some bullsh**t like that. If Hillary simply refused to debate, that wouldn't look so good.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

1) The DNC Chair is not the Boss of the Party. But it's not nothing.

2) Actually symbols *do * matter quite a lot. And whether y'all think it's childish or not there are a lot of pissed off people that need to feel included in the party.
    2a) And if it's a bureaucratic position related to raising money and electing people, Ellison was flat out the only damned candidate in the field. Perez has raised a truly pathetic amount of money over the course of his political career and has only run a statewide tertiary ticket campaign. Once. 
 
3) The DNC did not rig the primaries. Full stop. We lost NY (and a bunch of other states) because it (they) was (were) a closed primary. And that clerk coincidentally purged like what, a billion votes from Brooklyn? And because the Sanders campaign was worse than the Clinton campaign.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

1) The DNC Chair is not the Boss of the Party. But it's not nothing.

2) Actually symbols *do * matter quite a lot. And whether y'all think it's childish or not there are a lot of pissed off people that need to feel included in the party.
    2a) And if it's a bureaucratic position related to raising money and electing people, Ellison was flat out the only damned candidate in the field. Perez has raised a truly pathetic amount of money over the course of his political career and has only run a statewide tertiary ticket campaign. Once.  
 
3) The DNC did not rig the primaries. Full stop. We lost NY (and a bunch of other states) because it (they) was (were) a closed primary. And that clerk coincidentally purged like what, a billion votes from Brooklyn? And because the Sanders campaign was worse than the Clinton campaign.

1) So why not give Perez a chance instead of just demonizing him out the gate considering he had almost the same platform as Ellison? If he's as pathetic as DWS, then by all means go all in on the trashing, but what's happening now before he's done anything is actually kind of disgusting.

2) You have as much chance at getting me to ever care about symbolism as you will getting me to care about preserving my family's ethnic heritage, culture and traditions. Actually at one of my former jobs for a cell carrier, I became notorious for being 100% results focused, and not caring about the customers' circumstances or what led to the current situation, but only caring about how to resolve it and nothing more. And it worked. Because none of that bullsh!t mattered, only pure numbers, pure results.

2a) This is an actually valid criticism, so why are we just hearing it now instead of just frothing at the mouth "RAR RAR NEOLIBERALISM CORPORATISM!" nonsense and flat out admitting this whole thing is entirely about a childish desire to "flip the middle finger to the establishment" and nothing more?

3) There aren't a billion voters in Brooklyn. Or even in the entire US. And it's pretty easy to see that any purged votes in Brooklyn would not benefit Sanders. But yeah, common sense on New York and in general.

[Mr. Morden]

Btw, on the subject of party chairs and responsibility for downballot losses, I'll quote Matthew Yglesias's tweet on this:

https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/835692464962998272

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

1) The DNC Chair is not the Boss of the Party. But it's not nothing.

2) Actually symbols *do * matter quite a lot. And whether y'all think it's childish or not there are a lot of pissed off people that need to feel included in the party.
    2a) And if it's a bureaucratic position related to raising money and electing people, Ellison was flat out the only damned candidate in the field. Perez has raised a truly pathetic amount of money over the course of his political career and has only run a statewide tertiary ticket campaign. Once.  
 
3) The DNC did not rig the primaries. Full stop. We lost NY (and a bunch of other states) because it (they) was (were) a closed primary. And that clerk coincidentally purged like what, a billion votes from Brooklyn? And because the Sanders campaign was worse than the Clinton campaign.

1) So why not give Perez a chance instead of just demonizing him out the gate considering he had almost the same platform as Ellison? If he's as pathetic as DWS, then by all means go all in on the trashing, but what's happening now before he's done anything is actually kind of disgusting.

2) You have as much chance at getting me to ever care about symbolism as you will getting me to care about preserving my family's ethnic heritage, culture and traditions. Actually at one of my former jobs for a cell carrier, I became notorious for being 100% results focused, and not caring about the customers' circumstances or what led to the current situation, but only caring about how to resolve it and nothing more. And it worked. Because none of that bullsh!t mattered, only pure numbers, pure results.

2a) This is an actually valid criticism, so why are we just hearing it now instead of just frothing at the mouth "RAR RAR NEOLIBERALISM CORPORATISM!" nonsense and flat out admitting this whole thing is entirely about a childish desire to "flip the middle finger to the establishment" and nothing more?

3) There aren't a billion voters in Brooklyn. Or even in the entire US. And it's pretty easy to see that any purged votes in Brooklyn would not benefit Sanders. But yeah, common sense on New York and in general.

1) I'm not leaving the party. If he actually attempts to unite the party in a meaningful sense, all the better. Not going to stop helping take over the party, but I'll give him a solid 6/10.

Doesn't change the crime of his election.

2) I mean you can not care, but that doesn't change its importance to social relations.

And as I've stated elsewhere, DNC chair is *actually * a powerful position in certain respects - deciding how the party gets money and where the money goes - that would really help my faction within the party.

3) That was playful exaggeration to attempt to lighten the mood. I guess it didn't work.

[Torie]

FTR, I am not a part of the gang of "overestimators."  It is about the most overrated job in the world. 

[Lief 🗽]

A lot of the crazier Bernie supporters refuse to believe that their beautiful, perfect socialist hero overwhelmingly lost to Clinton fair and square, so they are living in a fantasy world where DWS rigged the primaries for Clinton. Now to be fair, if the DNC Chair did have the power to pick the next Democratic presidential nominee, that would be a very powerful position. But the DNC Chair obviously does not.

[TJ in Oregon]

From the perspective of an outsider, I think Perez was the right choice for the Democrats to try and rebuild their party. I suspect Ellison could have easily been turned into a kind of American Corbyn. The job of a party chairman is to be a full time hack and solicit donations. I think Perez will be more effective at that role. One of the ways people are most likely to screw up is by over-correcting from previous mistakes. While DWS was totally in the tank for Hillary, it's not at all clear who the establishment would be hawking in 2020 and they're going to have a harder time pushing their folks through a primary to begin with.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Party chairs have much more influence when there's no President from the same party.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Party chairs have much more influence when there's no President from the same party.

So Michael Steele was an influential powerhouse? And Reince Priebus?

[MAINEiac4434]

I'm confused as to how the 2016 election involved Democrats "screwing over the base" or whatever as a premise.

Bernie people think they're the base. They are woefully misinformed.

African-Americans and women are the major base of the party, because they vote for Democrats most consistently. And they voted for Hillary overwhelmingly.

White working class people haven't been the "base" of the party since Reagan if not Nixon. For over a generation it's been African-Americans, Latinos, Jewish people, women and big-city whites. Bernie only did extremely well with one of those demos - and Hillary may have won big-city whites going by her overwhelming victories in NYC, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Los Angeles.

[Shameless Lefty Hack]

I'm confused as to how the 2016 election involved Democrats "screwing over the base" or whatever as a premise.

Bernie people think they're the base. They are woefully misinformed.

African-Americans and women are the major base of the party, because they vote for Democrats most consistently. And they voted for Hillary overwhelmingly.

White working class people haven't been the "base" of the party since Reagan if not Nixon. For over a generation it's been African-Americans, Latinos, Jewish people, women and big-city whites. Bernie only did extremely well with one of those demos - and Hillary may have won big-city whites going by her overwhelming victories in NYC, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Los Angeles.

... You're from York or Cumberland county, aren't you?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Party chairs have much more influence when there's no President from the same party.

So Michael Steele was an influential powerhouse? And Reince Priebus?

Steele was a lightweight, but it's hard to underestimate such chairs as Dean, Robert S. Strauss, Larry O'Brien or Haley Barbour. A capable politician can be quite an influential chair. Lightweights like Steele... no matter how much power you gave them, they'll remain jokes. 

[Blackacre]

And honestly if you do want to talk about "signals", how about the fact that Ellison was given a leadership role as well in an absolutely unprecedented move?

Gabbard and Rybak had leadership roles too, but couldn't stop DWS from rigging the primary.

It's hard to stop someone from doing something that they aren't doing.

Like stopping you from making a well-argued, articulate post?

Come on do you seriously agree with this loon who thinks Ohio 2004 was stolen that the primary was "rigged"?

I mean OK there was some background stuff that boosted Hillary in New York. Yeah that's a state she was sure in trouble of losing.

Name a state that would've voted for Sanders had it not have been for vote fraud or this "rigging".

F**k off, fake Bernie supporter.

How exactly is someone who voted for Sanders and served as a delegate of his to the district convention a "fake" supporter?

Anyone who thinks it was fine that the debates started about 6 months later in 2016 than 2008, and had had only around 30% as many, and the first debate was after the deadline to change parties in NY is a fake Bernie supporter. Not to mention all the other rigging that the DNC did.

I do not believe that was fine. I believe that it did not change the result of the primary, or even just the primary in New York.

It was obviously to help Hillary. In 2008, when she was behind, she asked for and got many more debates. There are always more debates when Hillary wants them, but not when she doesn't want them.

OK so are you saying the debate schedule is the only reason why Hillary won New York and her victory in New York is the only reason she won the nomination? Because that's a BOLD claim.

I can support Sanders and still believe that Hillary would've easily won the nomination had it not have been for some meaningless and incompetent meddling from one of the dumbest and most incompetent women in politics.

Bernie was ignored for months because there were no debates. It could have made a huge difference. If NY allowed independents to vote rather than having to change registration 6 months before, Bernie might have won it. The exit poll had him losing by only 4 and he lost by 16, which is definitely a sign of a discrepancy from how people wanted to vote and how their votes were counted.

Exit polls are reliable now?

Something is up when there's a 12 point discrepancy, whether it was people unable to vote because of NY's bullsh**t rule on having to register 6 months before, all the people whose registration were purged, or any possible problems with counting the vote.

Exit polling isn't nearly as reliable in primaries because of power turnout and because it's harder to tell who supports which candidate. In particular, exit polling seems to oversample young voters, skewing data towards their preferences, (in this case, Bernie) which is compounded by the aforementioned issues. So it's no surprise that exit polls overestimated Bernie Sanders' support

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

I'm confused as to how the 2016 election involved Democrats "screwing over the base" or whatever as a premise.

Bernie people think they're the base. They are woefully misinformed.

African-Americans and women are the major base of the party, because they vote for Democrats most consistently. And they voted for Hillary overwhelmingly.

White working class people haven't been the "base" of the party since Reagan if not Nixon. For over a generation it's been African-Americans, Latinos, Jewish people, women and big-city whites. Bernie only did extremely well with one of those demos - and Hillary may have won big-city whites going by her overwhelming victories in NYC, Philadelphia, San Francisco and Los Angeles.

... You're from York or Cumberland county, aren't you?

He's right, though.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Give them a week, and they won't care anymore.