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

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They rigged the primary against the candidate you claimed to have supported.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I don't think many HERE do, but the huge BernieBro community that doesn't know how politics works thinks it controls everything.

Nor are they interested in learning.  Some have already begun the character assassination of Tom Perez using questionable left wing sources I've never even heard of.  These people live in another dimension of reality.

It's a fact that he told the Hillary campaign to use race-baiting against Bernie supporters. Your side would rather have Democrats lose than give up a little bit of power. Sad!

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They rigged the primary against the candidate you claimed to have supported.

You are giving WAY too much credit to someone as objectively incompetant as DWS.

Also do you have any actual proof of vote fraud in the primary?

The first debate was after the deadline to change parties in NY. It's a fact that they had very debates and didn't start until late to protect Hillary and made an active effort to have the media report disfavorably to Bernie. Plus that whole ridiculous "datagate" scandal. The DNC was supposed to be neutral, and yet they were very biased. And Ellison as Deputy Chair won't help, Vice Chairs Gabbard and Rybak couldn't stop DWS's rigging.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

...so zero evidence of vote fraud. Figures.

and I'm so sure that if New York were an open primary Hillary would've lost the nomination (or even just New York. )

I didn't say voter fraud, but there were certainly a number of voting issues, including in NY state. But neoliberals like you don't give a sh**t.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

...so zero evidence of vote fraud. Figures.

and I'm so sure that if New York were an open primary Hillary would've lost the nomination (or even just New York. )

I didn't say voter fraud, but there were certainly a number of voting issues, including in NY state. But neoliberals like you don't give a sh**t.

I VOTED FOR SANDERS YOU DENSE F[INKS].

But you're otherwise all neoliberal all the time.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

Denying isn't helping.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥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. Plus there was that bullsh**t of only DNC sanctioned debates being allowed this time.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.

[○∙◄☻¥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.