You are not understanding me. Bernie knows he won't win, he's not an idiot, but he wants his voters to have their say. They will only vote if there is a mathematical chance he can still win. You know and I know and a whole lot of people know he's not gonna win but there is value in his voters taking part regardless.
What value is there in casting a vote in a contest when the outcome has already been decided?
Plus, what do you define as a mathematical chance he can win? Because he doesn't even have that.
I just... do I need to explain democracy?
Please do, because from my perspective the democratic process has already played itself out. Most of the country has voted, in a democratic fashion, and in an overwhelming way (to the tune of several hundred delegates and around three million actual votes) the people have democratically chosen Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.
They have even chosen her by such a degree that the remaining contests are unfortunately irrelevant.
It's not undemocratic just because your preferred candidate lost.
Binomial distrubition in a winner take all scenario is only decisive if it's a known population and u is the measurement. On any but the last sample, the variance, and not the mean, is the predictor of outcome
I do not understand your statement. Polls are predictive and the variance isnt predictive.
I must have messed something up. Variance determines the likelihood of of a given outcome assuming the null hypothesis, and gives context to the difference between the means of repeated samples (of any distribution), correct? I'm just trying to say that the actual performance in any given poll or election is not the whole of the probability of winning the next election, since they don't take into account sampling error.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
And if you're wondering why people are questioning his choosing to continue, here's why:
By nominating Hillary Clinton, Weaver insisted, the Democratic Party would be risking “disaster simply to protect the status quo” in the U.S.
“We’re going to have a contested convention where the Democratic Party must decide if they want the candidate with the momentum who is best positioned to beat Trump, or if they are willing to roll the dice and court disaster simply to protect the status quo for the political and financial establishment of this country,” he wrote.
You are not understanding me. Bernie knows he won't win, he's not an idiot, but he wants his voters to have their say. They will only vote if there is a mathematical chance he can still win. You know and I know and a whole lot of people know he's not gonna win but there is value in his voters taking part regardless.
What value is there in casting a vote in a contest when the outcome has already been decided?
Plus, what do you define as a mathematical chance he can win? Because he doesn't even have that.
I just... do I need to explain democracy?
Please do, because from my perspective the democratic process has already played itself out. Most of the country has voted, in a democratic fashion, and in an overwhelming way (to the tune of several hundred delegates and around three million actual votes) the people have democratically chosen Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders.
They have even chosen her by such a degree that the remaining contests are unfortunately irrelevant.
It's not undemocratic just because your preferred candidate lost.
Binomial distrubition in a winner take all scenario is only decisive if it's a known population and u is the measurement. On any but the last sample, the variance, and not the mean, is the predictor of outcome
I do not understand your statement. Polls are predictive and the variance isnt predictive.
I must have messed something up. Variance determines the likelihood of of a given outcome assuming the null hypothesis, and gives context to the difference between the means of repeated samples (of any distribution), correct? I'm just trying to say that the actual performance in any given poll or election is not the whole of the probability of winning the next election, since they don't take into account sampling error.
Kind of. It's true that the performance in any given poll is not the whole of the election but individual polls are consistent. The concept of a null hypothesis doesn't make much sense in a context like this, we aren't trying to be really sure that something is or isn't true we are trying to measure a value.
I can only hope that at the end of the day Hillary can still stand to look at herself in the mirror and live with herself for having the nerve to raise millions of dollars for downticket Democrats, but that she didn't do it the right way.
Also she got the added benefit of a PAC not transferring the money away from her to the DNC.
Man, what?
It's a half understood bullshit Sanders attack on Clinton fundraising for the party.
In this case not understanding the difference between directing support to downticket candidates and a joint fundraising fund. No one talks about the former with Clinton because it's obvious.
What I will say as my own personal opinion is that the response of "I don't want to hear about that person's problems, I've had it bad, too," is about the least "presidential" answer he could have given, considering the nature of the job he's applying for.
Would have been a nice moment to show Democratic party solidarity as well, instead of making this more and more seem like he's trying to both run as the Democratic nominee, but still act like a third party candidate.
I also have to come here and vent, I know it's dumb facebook bullshit, but I'm either confused or enraged
What I will say as my own personal opinion is that the response of "I don't want to hear about that person's problems, I've had it bad, too," is about the least "presidential" answer he could have given, considering the nature of the job he's applying for.
Would have been a nice moment to show Democratic party solidarity as well, instead of making this more and more seem like he's trying to both run as the Democratic nominee, but still act like a third party candidate.
I also have to come here and vent, I know it's dumb facebook bullshit, but I'm either confused or enraged
Am I the only one that thinks it's shady that Hilary is thinking of having Warren,the head of the DNC, as her VP. It sounds like someone made a deal
There's a few things. One, I don't think Warren is the head of the DNC? Do you mean Debbie Schultz?
Two- if we are talking about Warren, Elizabeth Warren, I thought she was someone we WANTED closer to the oval office???
I don't understand Bernie supporters
If Bernie does a thing, it is right, and pure, and good.
If Hillary does a thing, it is wrong, and dirty, and evil.
Literally the last 20 pages of this thread have pretty much demonstrated the precise reverse of this hypothesis
I suspect we are reading a different thread then.
Read the 20 posts before yours. Then read basically every post since that. I mean you've literally made that post directly in the middle of a discussion where people are being somewhat abusive about Bernie using the word 'moan', for heaven sake.
On this page: "Whiny fuck", sexist, one note stump, criticisms of Bernie supporters as a bloc. That just this page.
This is an extremely pro-Clinton forum with a few notable exceptions (Elki and a few others). To suggest otherwise is... well it's not acknowledging reality. It's not a bad thing, IMO, but if you're going to be rude about it based on a very incorrect analysis then expect to be called on it.
That does not actually demonstrate that peoplein this thread would not find similar actions inappropriate from Hillary in a similar situation.
Personally, i don't think of it as sexist, though i can see how it can come of like it might be.
I do think of it as incredibly whiny, that he proclaims that he has been attacked, when he has been treated very gently by everyone, including Hillary (for whatever reasons) during this primary.
While he has been anything but above mudslinging or negative campaigning.
And the thread, and I, quite clearly agree with you. Which was my point. You're saying the thread is not critical and that's demonstrably and obviously false - criticising Bernie is probably 80% of discussion here. Whether or not he deserves it is irrelevant; the thread does not put him on some pedestal as you seem to believe.
This is news to me, please show me where this thing has happened.
Thread is critical of Bernie (and of Clinton), when they do something worthy of criticism (in case of Bernie, this seems to happen a lot).
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who co-chairs the Progressive Caucus with Ellison, missed the testy meeting because he was traveling back from a trip to Puerto Rico. But the Arizona liberal said that, based on the accounts he heard, Grayson was out of line.
“I think it’s embarrassing for the caucus as a whole,” Grijalva said. “The leader’s there at our behest and working with us on legislative issues and budget issues. And for us to forgo that opportunity so that one member can bring his deal with Reid is inappropriate. You handle that different ways. You handle it one-on-one, you handle it through [the media]. You don’t bring that to that meeting.”
Grijalva also said Grayson is “not a regular attendee” at CPC meetings, and when asked if he thought Grayson appeared Wednesday for the sole purpose of confronting Reid, he didn’t hesitate.
Yeah I have not ever understood how it was possible people were robbed of a chance to vote for Sanders if he was always going to be on the ballots.
Active campaigning increases the odds that you'll wind, but it looks like there is not a feasible way for him to increase those odds to the point he does actually win.
I had the opportunity to vote for him earlier on, when there was a more feasible chance he could win. Were he to stop actively campaigning, other people could still vote for him when it is less feasible for him to win.
Also she got the added benefit of a PAC not transferring the money away from her to the DNC.
Man, what?
It's a half understood bullshit Sanders attack on Clinton fundraising for the party.
In this case not understanding the difference between directing support to downticket candidates and a joint fundraising fund. No one talks about the former with Clinton because it's obvious.
Naw you're just wrong again.
I understand it completely. I just don't like the HVF moving the money through the state committees to the DNC.
Let the committees donate it their selves if they want to. It is their money after all that the DNC wouldn't be allowed to take directly without it being funneled through them.
Also she got the added benefit of a PAC not transferring the money away from her to the DNC.
Man, what?
It's a half understood bullshit Sanders attack on Clinton fundraising for the party.
In this case not understanding the difference between directing support to downticket candidates and a joint fundraising fund. No one talks about the former with Clinton because it's obvious.
Naw you're just wrong again.
I understand it completely. I just don't like the HVF moving the money through the state committees to the DNC.
Let the committees donate it their selves if they want to. It is their money after all that the DNC wouldn't be allowed to take directly without it being funneled through them.
It isn't like they go in and just put it in the state DNC account and then take it out without the state DNCs sign off. The state DNC is complicit in the operation.
And if you're wondering why people are questioning his choosing to continue, here's why:
By nominating Hillary Clinton, Weaver insisted, the Democratic Party would be risking “disaster simply to protect the status quo” in the U.S.
“We’re going to have a contested convention where the Democratic Party must decide if they want the candidate with the momentum who is best positioned to beat Trump, or if they are willing to roll the dice and court disaster simply to protect the status quo for the political and financial establishment of this country,” he wrote.
Weaver
Weaver plz
Yet things are supposed to be dandy right after the convention when Bernie concedes to Hillary.
And if you're wondering why people are questioning his choosing to continue, here's why:
By nominating Hillary Clinton, Weaver insisted, the Democratic Party would be risking “disaster simply to protect the status quo” in the U.S.
“We’re going to have a contested convention where the Democratic Party must decide if they want the candidate with the momentum who is best positioned to beat Trump, or if they are willing to roll the dice and court disaster simply to protect the status quo for the political and financial establishment of this country,” he wrote.
Weaver
Weaver plz
Yet things are supposed to be dandy right after the convention when Bernie concedes to Hillary.
The fact that people minimize that kind of talk really bugs me.
And is largely at the heart of why i think people are giving Bernie a pass.
He is threatening with a floor fight, he is giving ammo to Trump, he attacks the almost certain nominee of the democratic party, he attacks the democratic party, makes bullshit accusations and constantly fumbles the most basic interviews.
He says we need to give everyone a change to participate (which is silly because they have that anyway), yet belittles the states he lost, he talks of democracy while trying to flip super delegates with a completely moronic "momentum" argument.
Fuck, no.
This thread is critical of Bernie, or, to be more precise, some people in this thread are critical of Bernie, others seem to give him a pass no matter what he does.
He lost, accept it, move on, figure out how to make a positive change.
Outside a miracle, a catastrophy, or a bullshit hijacking and subversion of the will of the people, Hillary will be the nominee.
And the fact that Bernie seems unable, or unwilling, to grasp that, even privately (or so it would seem from how he campaigns), speaks ill of him.
I think that there are two potential goals for Bernie at the moment.
A. Continue trying to become President.
B. Try to ensure that as much of his platform as possible becomes reality.
A) This'd be ok if he had any path to victory, he doesn't. Which would be better received if he wants trying to burn Hillary and the Dem establishment to the ground. Why would they listen to him now? He has no leverage, and if he does use the convention he torches his legacy as a good politician in the process, and makes it easier for Trump to win. He's be better doing this behind closed doors.
I think that there are two potential goals for Bernie at the moment.
A. Continue trying to become President.
B. Try to ensure that as much of his platform as possible becomes reality.
A) This'd be ok if he had any path to victory, he doesn't. Which would be better received if he wants trying to burn Hillary and the Dem establishment to the ground. Why would they listen to him now? He has no leverage, and if he does use the convention he torches his legacy as a good politician in the process, and makes it easier for Trump to win. He's be better doing this behind closed doors.
In A, it's hoping that Hillary gets indicted and that people will switch to him. As he has campaigned to this point, I think that Hillary's delegates and the super delegates would take a long look at offering the nomination to Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden before giving it to Bernie as the last man standing.
In B, I'm saying that he needs to stop threatening to burn the impure, and start showing that he can bring useful new converts. If he shows up at the convention and can say "these ten close congressional races? I stumped for the Democrat candidate, and look at how their poll numbers came up. If you take a few planks from my platform I can work with, and I can flip some of these seats and deliver a Democratic congress."
Civics is not a consumer product that you can ignore because you don’t like the options presented.
I think that there are two potential goals for Bernie at the moment.
A. Continue trying to become President.
B. Try to ensure that as much of his platform as possible becomes reality.
A) This'd be ok if he had any path to victory, he doesn't. Which would be better received if he wants trying to burn Hillary and the Dem establishment to the ground. Why would they listen to him now? He has no leverage, and if he does use the convention he torches his legacy as a good politician in the process, and makes it easier for Trump to win. He's be better doing this behind closed doors.
In A, it's hoping that Hillary gets indicted and that people will switch to him. As he has campaigned to this point, I think that Hillary's delegates and the super delegates would take a long look at offering the nomination to Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden before giving it to Bernie as the last man standing.
Relying on that for people to switch to him is a last resort maneuver, not a first. It's also reliant on those delegates being "forced" to vote for him, which isn't going to do him any favors within either. He's going to need a better Plan A to win this.
In B, I'm saying that he needs to stop threatening to burn the impure, and start showing that he can bring useful new converts. If he shows up at the convention and can say "these ten close congressional races? I stumped for the Democrat candidate, and look at how their poll numbers came up. If you take a few planks from my platform I can work with, and I can flip some of these seats and deliver a Democratic congress."
He's already shown he can bring in new converts, but he has yet to prove he can keep them voting for Hillary in the general. I don't think it's going to be that easy for him to do, and it also contradicts his escalated anger with the Dems/Hillary he's had going for a while. He's not going to be able to turn that on a dime, and keep his voters pleased to vote for Hillary. The longer her stays in the race, the less time his voters have to grieve and be emotionally ready to switch to her. A fair portion of his base is going to have a serious problem with this, it remains to be seen how large they are.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Yeah I have not ever understood how it was possible people were robbed of a chance to vote for Sanders if he was always going to be on the ballots.
Active campaigning increases the odds that you'll wind, but it looks like there is not a feasible way for him to increase those odds to the point he does actually win.
I had the opportunity to vote for him earlier on, when there was a more feasible chance he could win. Were he to stop actively campaigning, other people could still vote for him when it is less feasible for him to win.
This. So much this.
And I think the thing that irritates me is that if you're so excited to vote for Bernie, but ONLY if he's campaigning, and you might not show up to have your 'voice heard' even if he drops out, then why should the Party listen to your voice?
If you're only invested enough that your guy can win and not invested enough in the direction of the party or the party's platform that you show up to vote even if your person is not actively campaigning, then you're not invested enough.
"The people should have their say!" ok, that's great. The majority have decided for Clinton. It's next to mathematically possible for Sanders to win. But if people still want to vote for Sanders, they can. He will still be on the primary ballots in all the remaining states.
"But he's really continuing to get a voice in the platform!" Fantastic! That sounds amazing. He can campaign with a good, strong, issues based positive campaign. His supporters can still vote for him, those number will still show up, and they can have their say, proportionally, for the party platform both now and probably even more so in the future.
"But if he's not campaigning the voters won't show up to vote!" Then how do we know that they'll show up to vote in November? And if that's the case, then why in the world should the Party kowtow and bend the knee to the fickle voters? If they can only be bothered to get their asses to the polls at the chance they 'might win!' and to 'stick it to the establishment' then why should the establishment cater to them?
Another question that's been bothering me the last day or so. If Bernie feels so strongly about all of this. About his policies and the Establishment etc, then why is he only running now? Why didn't he run in 2008? Why wait until this point in time, against a candidate who has, for all intents and purposes, been the 'next thing' for the last 10 ( or more) years? Did he choose to run against Clinton to get his name out there or did he do it for the Cause? It's been irking me that I can't quite figure it out.
Also she got the added benefit of a PAC not transferring the money away from her to the DNC.
Man, what?
It's a half understood bullshit Sanders attack on Clinton fundraising for the party.
In this case not understanding the difference between directing support to downticket candidates and a joint fundraising fund. No one talks about the former with Clinton because it's obvious.
Naw you're just wrong again.
I understand it completely. I just don't like the HVF moving the money through the state committees to the DNC.
Let the committees donate it their selves if they want to. It is their money after all that the DNC wouldn't be allowed to take directly without it being funneled through them.
It isn't like they go in and just put it in the state DNC account and then take it out without the state DNCs sign off. The state DNC is complicit in the operation.
Well yes actually. It is.
That was the whole point of the article reporting on it and the previous discussion about it.
Some state representatives want to keep this money and not have it moved through them but don't get that choice.
Also she got the added benefit of a PAC not transferring the money away from her to the DNC.
Man, what?
It's a half understood bullshit Sanders attack on Clinton fundraising for the party.
In this case not understanding the difference between directing support to downticket candidates and a joint fundraising fund. No one talks about the former with Clinton because it's obvious.
Naw you're just wrong again.
I understand it completely. I just don't like the HVF moving the money through the state committees to the DNC.
Let the committees donate it their selves if they want to. It is their money after all that the DNC wouldn't be allowed to take directly without it being funneled through them.
It isn't like they go in and just put it in the state DNC account and then take it out without the state DNCs sign off. The state DNC is complicit in the operation.
Well yes actually. It is.
That was the whole point of the article reporting on it and the previous discussion about it.
Some state representatives want to keep this money and not have it moved through them but don't get that choice.
And if this was during the campaign and they were requesting funds for a competitive race and being told no, I would agree that there is a problem.
It's a problem no matter what because that's not the DNCs money. It is the states money.
These state Reps should be entitled to it if they want it no matter what.
The DNC literally couldn't legally accept this money if it weren't laundered through the committees first.
It's not the state's money specifically because they agreed to participate in the joint fundraising. This isn't some dirty trick being pulled on them, they knew full well the structure, intent, and purpose of this arrangement from the beginning.
It's a problem no matter what because that's not the DNCs money. It is the states money.
These state Reps should be entitled to it if they want it no matter what.
The DNC literally couldn't legally accept this money if it weren't laundered through the committees first.
It is a few individual state reps, not the majority or even plurality of the reps from any involved state otherwise they would not have signed up to be part of the pooling of resources.
It is just sour grapes on their part that their own warchest account balance isnt as large as it could be. As soon as they need more resources and money that would otherwise be locked into uncompetitive dem strongholds they will thank their lucky stars that the rest of the party isnt as shortsighted as they are.
It's a problem no matter what because that's not the DNCs money. It is the states money.
These state Reps should be entitled to it if they want it no matter what.
The DNC literally couldn't legally accept this money if it weren't laundered through the committees first.
It's not the state's money specifically because they agreed to participate in the joint fundraising. This isn't some dirty trick being pulled on them, they knew full well the structure, intent, and purpose of this arrangement from the beginning.
And now (some, few, anonymously) complain after the fact that rules they agreed to, actually apply.
+3
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Yeah I have not ever understood how it was possible people were robbed of a chance to vote for Sanders if he was always going to be on the ballots.
Active campaigning increases the odds that you'll wind, but it looks like there is not a feasible way for him to increase those odds to the point he does actually win.
I had the opportunity to vote for him earlier on, when there was a more feasible chance he could win. Were he to stop actively campaigning, other people could still vote for him when it is less feasible for him to win.
This. So much this.
And I think the thing that irritates me is that if you're so excited to vote for Bernie, but ONLY if he's campaigning, and you might not show up to have your 'voice heard' even if he drops out, then why should the Party listen to your voice?
If you're only invested enough that your guy can win and not invested enough in the direction of the party or the party's platform that you show up to vote even if your person is not actively campaigning, then you're not invested enough.
"The people should have their say!" ok, that's great. The majority have decided for Clinton. It's next to mathematically possible for Sanders to win. But if people still want to vote for Sanders, they can. He will still be on the primary ballots in all the remaining states.
"But he's really continuing to get a voice in the platform!" Fantastic! That sounds amazing. He can campaign with a good, strong, issues based positive campaign. His supporters can still vote for him, those number will still show up, and they can have their say, proportionally, for the party platform both now and probably even more so in the future.
"But if he's not campaigning the voters won't show up to vote!" Then how do we know that they'll show up to vote in November? And if that's the case, then why in the world should the Party kowtow and bend the knee to the fickle voters? If they can only be bothered to get their asses to the polls at the chance they 'might win!' and to 'stick it to the establishment' then why should the establishment cater to them?
Another question that's been bothering me the last day or so. If Bernie feels so strongly about all of this. About his policies and the Establishment etc, then why is he only running now? Why didn't he run in 2008? Why wait until this point in time, against a candidate who has, for all intents and purposes, been the 'next thing' for the last 10 ( or more) years? Did he choose to run against Clinton to get his name out there or did he do it for the Cause? It's been irking me that I can't quite figure it out.
Quoting myself cause I had another thought.
If the Bernie voters aren't going to show up to vote for him if he's not actively campaigning, then how exactly do they think this whole revolution thing is going to happen?
You can't just vent about it and then sit back and wait for it to compile, dammit.
Argh it's so frustrating because I wanted so badly to be a Bernie girl. I so very much wanted to feel the Bern, as it were. But the longer I paid attention, more it was just an irritation.
Also she got the added benefit of a PAC not transferring the money away from her to the DNC.
Man, what?
It's a half understood bullshit Sanders attack on Clinton fundraising for the party.
In this case not understanding the difference between directing support to downticket candidates and a joint fundraising fund. No one talks about the former with Clinton because it's obvious.
Naw you're just wrong again.
I understand it completely. I just don't like the HVF moving the money through the state committees to the DNC.
Let the committees donate it their selves if they want to. It is their money after all that the DNC wouldn't be allowed to take directly without it being funneled through them.
It isn't like they go in and just put it in the state DNC account and then take it out without the state DNCs sign off. The state DNC is complicit in the operation.
Well yes actually. It is.
That was the whole point of the article reporting on it and the previous discussion about it.
Some state representatives want to keep this money and not have it moved through them but don't get that choice.
Yes, it explicitly was stated. As well as the intimidation they felt from the DNC and the HVF for not playing ball whether they liked it or not.
As far as I can remember it said that the state committees don't like to give the national committee all their big donors and that the national dnc respects that and leaves some donors for the states to get money directly from without participating in the money pooling.
Yes, that was the defense given by the person contacted for the article.
On the subject regarding the HVF transferring all of their money away from them, it leaves them with little to no recourse because they can't go back and ask for more from any large donors they may have because said donors already hit their limit donating to them.
That the state committees could give them the names of these donors ahead of time and their specific monies wouldn't be transferred.
But its not that this situation is without the pressure and intimidation to fall in line regardless, that was also specifically stated. And you can't act like political revenge isn't a thing in a thread where people have previously advocated for the DNC to take such measures against Sanders after the election because they don't like how he's acted.
Yes, that was the defense given by the person contacted for the article.
On the subject regarding the HVF transferring all of their money away from them, it leaves them with little to no recourse because they can't go back and ask for more from any large donors they may have because said donors already hit their limit donating to them.
That the state committees could give them the names of these donors ahead of time and their specific monies wouldn't be transferred.
But its not that this situation is without the pressure and intimidation to fall in line regardless, that was also specifically stated. And you can't act like political revenge isn't a thing in a thread where people have previously advocated for the DNC to take such measures against Sanders after the election because they don't like how he's acted.
It's part of the game, unfortunately. This is why it's important for politicians to choose the right battles to fight, rather than to go war with everyone who they disagree with. That said, it's not like Bernie's not above doing that himself.
Also she got the added benefit of a PAC not transferring the money away from her to the DNC.
Man, what?
It's a half understood bullshit Sanders attack on Clinton fundraising for the party.
In this case not understanding the difference between directing support to downticket candidates and a joint fundraising fund. No one talks about the former with Clinton because it's obvious.
Naw you're just wrong again.
I understand it completely. I just don't like the HVF moving the money through the state committees to the DNC.
Let the committees donate it their selves if they want to. It is their money after all that the DNC wouldn't be allowed to take directly without it being funneled through them.
It isn't like they go in and just put it in the state DNC account and then take it out without the state DNCs sign off. The state DNC is complicit in the operation.
Well yes actually. It is.
That was the whole point of the article reporting on it and the previous discussion about it.
Some state representatives want to keep this money and not have it moved through them but don't get that choice.
No it isn't. "Anonymous state party officials" doesn't mean the people in charge of those decisions and 17 states decided not to take part because they didn't want to tie their fundraising together with the national party.
And they are still largely pooling their money because it's how it works. But nothing requires the transfer. It's a complaint to justify Sanders lack of party fundraising
edit Or that Clinton has been directing support downticket for a year and Sanders did it for three races only after a long period of pressure like a modern the ago and only in one email.
Yes, @Viskod. We get that you are morally offended by the moving money. However, it's legal and useful, and so long as it continues to be both, it's going to happen, because not engaging in the practice would just be handicapping the party for no good reason.
Turn your righteous indignation toward campaign finance reform if you hate the situation so much. You keep trying to use it to bludgeon Clinton, but it has nothing to do with her and everything to do with the law and the Supreme Court. Get out there and contact your congresscritters, start a petition, whatever.
The money was given to the states specifically because it could then be funneled into the DNC. In other words, without the scheme, the states would not have gotten these donations. This was all set up ex ante, and to reneg ex post is creating a commitment problem that would prevent such a scheme from existing in the first place. Maybe that's a good thing in your eyes but that doesn't seem to be the criticism.
The money was given to the states specifically because it could then be funneled into the DNC. In other words, without the scheme, the states would not have gotten these donations. This was all set up ex ante, and to reneg ex post is creating a commitment problem that would prevent such a scheme from existing in the first place. Maybe that's a good thing in your eyes but that doesn't seem to be the criticism.
That just means that her big "party fundraisers" are in fact funding her own campaign. Which is fine! Candidates raise funds for their campaigns, it's a thing. But she doesn't get too claim that she's funding down ticket races and is Helping The Party when the money is immediately returned to her own campaign fund.
The money was given to the states specifically because it could then be funneled into the DNC. In other words, without the scheme, the states would not have gotten these donations. This was all set up ex ante, and to reneg ex post is creating a commitment problem that would prevent such a scheme from existing in the first place. Maybe that's a good thing in your eyes but that doesn't seem to be the criticism.
That just means that her big "party fundraisers" are in fact funding her own campaign. Which is fine! Candidates raise funds for their campaigns, it's a thing. But she doesn't get too claim that she's funding down ticket races and is Helping The Party when the money is immediately returned to her own campaign fund.
But that's not what's happening. The money goes back to the DNC and it will be used in a targeted way during the election.
Also, this is why I have no confidence that there'll be a push for campaign finance reform. The narrative is already changing from "look, we know this is shady but we can't unilaterally disarm against the GOP" over to "there's nothing unethical here at all, never mind that this was super illegal until that court case in 2014". If there's nothing wrong with what the Clinton campaign is doing, then obviously the laws don't need to change back, right?
Also, this is why I have no confidence that there'll be a push for campaign finance reform. The narrative is already changing from "look, we know this is shady but we can't unilaterally disarm against the GOP" over to "there's nothing unethical here at all, never mind that this was super illegal until that court case in 2014". If there's nothing wrong with what the Clinton campaign is doing, then obviously the laws don't need to change back, right?
I haven't seen that argument made here or in other circles.
If you want to re-illegalise it then hold Hillary to account for her promises regarding Citizens United and similar. And if somebody does start making the "no need to change" argument, fight back against it.
Posts
I must have messed something up. Variance determines the likelihood of of a given outcome assuming the null hypothesis, and gives context to the difference between the means of repeated samples (of any distribution), correct? I'm just trying to say that the actual performance in any given poll or election is not the whole of the probability of winning the next election, since they don't take into account sampling error.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Weaver
Weaver plz
Kind of. It's true that the performance in any given poll is not the whole of the election but individual polls are consistent. The concept of a null hypothesis doesn't make much sense in a context like this, we aren't trying to be really sure that something is or isn't true we are trying to measure a value.
After his boosting her donations tripled. Also she got the added benefit of a PAC not transferring the money away from her to the DNC.
Man, what?
It's a half understood bullshit Sanders attack on Clinton fundraising for the party.
In this case not understanding the difference between directing support to downticket candidates and a joint fundraising fund. No one talks about the former with Clinton because it's obvious.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Thread is critical of Bernie (and of Clinton), when they do something worthy of criticism (in case of Bernie, this seems to happen a lot).
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Active campaigning increases the odds that you'll wind, but it looks like there is not a feasible way for him to increase those odds to the point he does actually win.
I had the opportunity to vote for him earlier on, when there was a more feasible chance he could win. Were he to stop actively campaigning, other people could still vote for him when it is less feasible for him to win.
Naw you're just wrong again.
I understand it completely. I just don't like the HVF moving the money through the state committees to the DNC.
Let the committees donate it their selves if they want to. It is their money after all that the DNC wouldn't be allowed to take directly without it being funneled through them.
It isn't like they go in and just put it in the state DNC account and then take it out without the state DNCs sign off. The state DNC is complicit in the operation.
Yet things are supposed to be dandy right after the convention when Bernie concedes to Hillary.
And is largely at the heart of why i think people are giving Bernie a pass.
He is threatening with a floor fight, he is giving ammo to Trump, he attacks the almost certain nominee of the democratic party, he attacks the democratic party, makes bullshit accusations and constantly fumbles the most basic interviews.
He says we need to give everyone a change to participate (which is silly because they have that anyway), yet belittles the states he lost, he talks of democracy while trying to flip super delegates with a completely moronic "momentum" argument.
Fuck, no.
This thread is critical of Bernie, or, to be more precise, some people in this thread are critical of Bernie, others seem to give him a pass no matter what he does.
He lost, accept it, move on, figure out how to make a positive change.
Outside a miracle, a catastrophy, or a bullshit hijacking and subversion of the will of the people, Hillary will be the nominee.
And the fact that Bernie seems unable, or unwilling, to grasp that, even privately (or so it would seem from how he campaigns), speaks ill of him.
A) This'd be ok if he had any path to victory, he doesn't.
In A, it's hoping that Hillary gets indicted and that people will switch to him. As he has campaigned to this point, I think that Hillary's delegates and the super delegates would take a long look at offering the nomination to Elizabeth Warren or Joe Biden before giving it to Bernie as the last man standing.
In B, I'm saying that he needs to stop threatening to burn the impure, and start showing that he can bring useful new converts. If he shows up at the convention and can say "these ten close congressional races? I stumped for the Democrat candidate, and look at how their poll numbers came up. If you take a few planks from my platform I can work with, and I can flip some of these seats and deliver a Democratic congress."
Relying on that for people to switch to him is a last resort maneuver, not a first. It's also reliant on those delegates being "forced" to vote for him, which isn't going to do him any favors within either. He's going to need a better Plan A to win this.
He's already shown he can bring in new converts, but he has yet to prove he can keep them voting for Hillary in the general. I don't think it's going to be that easy for him to do, and it also contradicts his escalated anger with the Dems/Hillary he's had going for a while. He's not going to be able to turn that on a dime, and keep his voters pleased to vote for Hillary. The longer her stays in the race, the less time his voters have to grieve and be emotionally ready to switch to her. A fair portion of his base is going to have a serious problem with this, it remains to be seen how large they are.
This. So much this.
And I think the thing that irritates me is that if you're so excited to vote for Bernie, but ONLY if he's campaigning, and you might not show up to have your 'voice heard' even if he drops out, then why should the Party listen to your voice?
If you're only invested enough that your guy can win and not invested enough in the direction of the party or the party's platform that you show up to vote even if your person is not actively campaigning, then you're not invested enough.
"The people should have their say!" ok, that's great. The majority have decided for Clinton. It's next to mathematically possible for Sanders to win. But if people still want to vote for Sanders, they can. He will still be on the primary ballots in all the remaining states.
"But he's really continuing to get a voice in the platform!" Fantastic! That sounds amazing. He can campaign with a good, strong, issues based positive campaign. His supporters can still vote for him, those number will still show up, and they can have their say, proportionally, for the party platform both now and probably even more so in the future.
"But if he's not campaigning the voters won't show up to vote!" Then how do we know that they'll show up to vote in November? And if that's the case, then why in the world should the Party kowtow and bend the knee to the fickle voters? If they can only be bothered to get their asses to the polls at the chance they 'might win!' and to 'stick it to the establishment' then why should the establishment cater to them?
Another question that's been bothering me the last day or so. If Bernie feels so strongly about all of this. About his policies and the Establishment etc, then why is he only running now? Why didn't he run in 2008? Why wait until this point in time, against a candidate who has, for all intents and purposes, been the 'next thing' for the last 10 ( or more) years? Did he choose to run against Clinton to get his name out there or did he do it for the Cause? It's been irking me that I can't quite figure it out.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Well yes actually. It is.
That was the whole point of the article reporting on it and the previous discussion about it.
Some state representatives want to keep this money and not have it moved through them but don't get that choice.
And if this was during the campaign and they were requesting funds for a competitive race and being told no, I would agree that there is a problem.
These state Reps should be entitled to it if they want it no matter what.
The DNC literally couldn't legally accept this money if it weren't laundered through the committees first.
This discussion is tired and I'm sick of you pretending it's just because we don't understand how it works.
It's not the state's money specifically because they agreed to participate in the joint fundraising. This isn't some dirty trick being pulled on them, they knew full well the structure, intent, and purpose of this arrangement from the beginning.
It is just sour grapes on their part that their own warchest account balance isnt as large as it could be. As soon as they need more resources and money that would otherwise be locked into uncompetitive dem strongholds they will thank their lucky stars that the rest of the party isnt as shortsighted as they are.
MWO: Adamski
Quoting myself cause I had another thought.
If the Bernie voters aren't going to show up to vote for him if he's not actively campaigning, then how exactly do they think this whole revolution thing is going to happen?
You can't just vent about it and then sit back and wait for it to compile, dammit.
Argh it's so frustrating because I wanted so badly to be a Bernie girl. I so very much wanted to feel the Bern, as it were. But the longer I paid attention, more it was just an irritation.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
Except that isn't what was stated in the article.
As far as I can remember it said that the state committees don't like to give the national committee all their big donors and that the national dnc respects that and leaves some donors for the states to get money directly from without participating in the money pooling.
On the subject regarding the HVF transferring all of their money away from them, it leaves them with little to no recourse because they can't go back and ask for more from any large donors they may have because said donors already hit their limit donating to them.
That the state committees could give them the names of these donors ahead of time and their specific monies wouldn't be transferred.
But its not that this situation is without the pressure and intimidation to fall in line regardless, that was also specifically stated. And you can't act like political revenge isn't a thing in a thread where people have previously advocated for the DNC to take such measures against Sanders after the election because they don't like how he's acted.
It's part of the game, unfortunately. This is why it's important for politicians to choose the right battles to fight, rather than to go war with everyone who they disagree with. That said, it's not like Bernie's not above doing that himself.
Oh the horror.
No it isn't. "Anonymous state party officials" doesn't mean the people in charge of those decisions and 17 states decided not to take part because they didn't want to tie their fundraising together with the national party.
And they are still largely pooling their money because it's how it works. But nothing requires the transfer. It's a complaint to justify Sanders lack of party fundraising
edit Or that Clinton has been directing support downticket for a year and Sanders did it for three races only after a long period of pressure like a modern the ago and only in one email.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Turn your righteous indignation toward campaign finance reform if you hate the situation so much. You keep trying to use it to bludgeon Clinton, but it has nothing to do with her and everything to do with the law and the Supreme Court. Get out there and contact your congresscritters, start a petition, whatever.
That just means that her big "party fundraisers" are in fact funding her own campaign. Which is fine! Candidates raise funds for their campaigns, it's a thing. But she doesn't get too claim that she's funding down ticket races and is Helping The Party when the money is immediately returned to her own campaign fund.
But that's not what's happening. The money goes back to the DNC and it will be used in a targeted way during the election.
*and by stealing, i mean accepting money freely donated to them in a previously agreed upon manner fully compliant with the law.
I haven't seen that argument made here or in other circles.
If you want to re-illegalise it then hold Hillary to account for her promises regarding Citizens United and similar. And if somebody does start making the "no need to change" argument, fight back against it.