Chairman Claims Hillary bought the DNC, rigged in her favor.

[Petrasylvania]

So Rostavykhan is one of your alternate accounts then?

What makes you think I'd use that sort of name for an alt-account?

But to answer your question, no, they aren't.

Because the comment about part of the Trump base being trigger addicts was directed to that and you replied as if he was addressing you instead.

[Petrasylvania]

General buffoonery and impulsive thin-skinned tantrums, plus he may have affected the sentencing of Bergdahl by demanding his execution. And it'll be a miracle if his Twitterpatter doesn't reduce the sentence of the New York driver or even prevent him from being put on trial. Plus having a dicksaber duel with Kim Jong-Un which has Asia on edge.

Exactly, entertaining.

If you find a terrorist getting off scot-free on a technicality and the looming possibility of a nuclear conflict entertaining, you be you.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

What makes you think I'd use that sort of name for an alt-account?

But to answer your question, no, they aren't.

Because the comment about part of the Trump base being trigger addicts was directed to that and you replied as if he was addressing you instead.

Just because I replied to it doesn't mean that's my alt-account.

You clearly don't pay attention to my posting habits.

[Napkiraly]

Exactly, entertaining.

If you find a terrorist getting off scot-free on a technicality and the looming possibility of a nuclear conflict entertaining, you be you.

He's not going to get off scot-free. And that part isn't really entertaining. But the other Twitter outbursts, weird pronunciations, etc. All worth it tbh given the most likely crop of selections.

[Greed and Death]

The finances are interesting. The 2012 elections had the DNC in debt until 2016.

[Greed and Death]

Exactly, entertaining.

If you find a terrorist getting off scot-free on a technicality and the looming possibility of a nuclear conflict entertaining, you be you.

Why so Serious ? If you live in a major city you wont notice the nuclear explosion anyway.

[Luminesa]

What makes you think I'd use that sort of name for an alt-account?

But to answer your question, no, they aren't.

Because the comment about part of the Trump base being trigger addicts was directed to that and you replied as if he was addressing you instead.

People are agreeing with him so they automatically must be him? That’s...not a healthy way of looking at the world.

[Shofercia]

Her

And it's not her that's the problem, it's that the Dems are losing the public's trust. And I don't want a Republicans Gone Wild Government. There's no way the Dems can pick up the Senate in 2018, so they're only hope is to win the House. That's looking more and more unlikely. Meanwhile the Republicans are trying to bring back Caveat Emptor, because that worked sooo well for America during the Roaring 20's - it's what made the 1930s so awesome! Yes, I'm being sarcastic, hence the italics. And instead of targeting Republicans over that, DNC allies run ads with whites in pick up trucks running over minorities. Whites aren't the problem. Blacks aren't the problem. Latinos aren't the problem. The problem is the fucked up policies of both major parties, and the unwillingness to change said policies.

Problem: Rising Cost of Healthcare.
Solution: Nationwide Debate of Genuine Experts on Healthcare and implementation of their Proposal.
Democrat Solution: More Healthcare to the poor & more waste.
Republican Solution: Fuck the poor, but less waste.

So my choice is do I want to waste America's Funds, or do I want the poor to be fucked. That's not going to get me to support either party. That's like saying "do you want to hard core punch a Latino in the face or pick up said Latino's shit from the ground?" There has to be other options. There aren't.

Again, I'm looking at Trump's approval ratings and seeing a stable "We are sick of this idiot running the show" majority here.

I really think that this majority will force sain people in Senate.

As for the ads, they just need to remove there head from there ass and run better ads.

Well, there is always Bernie's idea. Or just ctrl C + ctrl V Canadian Healthcare in to America.

If the Democrats could copy-paste Canadian Healthcare - they'd be winning elections like mad. Even with candidates like Clinton. But they cannot. As for the Senate - I'm 99.9999999999% certain that Republicans will hold in 2018. There are 8 Senate seats up for grabs. Republicans need to win six of them to retain their majority. The states: Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Nebraska, Texas, Alabama. If the Republicans hold those, they hold the Senate. I didn't list Nevada or Tennessee - which are also likely to break Republican.

The Democrats on the other hand need to hold Montana, North Dakota, Missouri, West Virginia, and the places that are in the Rust Belt, including Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana. Oh yeah, Florida's always weird. Republicans might make the push to 60. For Republicans the worst case scenario is 50, and the best case scenario is 62. I'm 99.9999999999% certain the result will fall between those two numbers.

[Vassenor]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/358727-clinton-dnc-deal-revealed-in-memo

Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook signed the agreement on Aug. 26, 2016 with DNC CEO Amy Dacey, allowing the Hillary For America (HFA) campaign and its joint fundraising apparatus with the DNC to help repay the party's $24 million debt through a monthly allowance.

So the deal in question was signed over a month after the end of the primaries. Bit hard to rig something that's already finished.

[Vassenor]

This is all a bit suspicious. Brazile waits this long to throw both Obama and Hillary under the bus?

It's almost like she has a book to sell.

[Shikihara]

You're benefiting under Trump?

Obamacare killed me. I have a handicapped kid, my medical bills with good insurance run to 15% of my income. Obamacare increased the threshood for medical deductions.

Sorry to hear about that. Obamacare screwed my family over as well, but not as badly as yours it sounds.

[Myrensis]

To be fair, this only reinforces the theory of some people (among which are my dad) that politics is a rigged game.

They think there had to be foul play on the 2016 election (same as all other elections tbh), but this just confirms their theory that politics is, indeed, corrupt and a rigged game where the winners and losers are already picked from the get go.

Given that the super delegates did not alter the outcome, and that there was no contested convention or any obscure rules lawyering to change the nomination...I'm still waiting for someone to explain what devious thing the DNC actually did that brainwashed those 3 million+
obvious Sanders supporters into voting Hillary and giving her the nomination instead.

[Vassenor]

To be fair, this only reinforces the theory of some people (among which are my dad) that politics is a rigged game.

They think there had to be foul play on the 2016 election (same as all other elections tbh), but this just confirms their theory that politics is, indeed, corrupt and a rigged game where the winners and losers are already picked from the get go.

Given that the super delegates did not alter the outcome, and that there was no contested convention or any obscure rules lawyering to change the nomination...I'm still waiting for someone to explain what devious thing the DNC actually did that brainwashed those 3 million+
obvious Sanders supporters into voting Hillary and giving her the nomination instead.

A lot of it runs on confirmation bias. I've joked before about how it mostly comes across as "Bernie didn't win, so the primaries must have been rigged"; I don't know if it comes down to an overestimation of his base, or something like that, but it seems a lot like people just couldn't accept that their preferred candidate wasn't the most popular.

[Cosmopoles]

Well yes, she certainly did hit the nail on the head. That's why I find it so ridiculous. The DNC chair supposedly had this great insight before the election about the polls being wrong, but no one else seems to have confirmed that she was pushing this insight and I haven't seen any indication that this influenced the DNC's strategy. If someone tells you they predicted what the lottery numbers would be before they're drawn, ask yourself why they didn't buy a winning ticket.

Edit: In fact, the evidence suggests Donna Brazile didn't have a clue what she needed to do. While DNC people in Michigan were sounding warnings that low urban turnout meant Clinton could lose the state despite polls saying it was safe, Donna Brazile directed the last minute get-out-the-urban-vote cash to Illinois and Louisiana.

Obviously directing the cash to Illinois and Lousiana was dumb, since one state was solidly Democrat, and the other, a pipe dream. However, my main point was in response to your Leicester City analogy; it wasn't nearly impossible to predict Clinton losing the General Election. Whether or not Donna Brazille could've done it, is another question.

Furthermore, put yourself in her shoes. The Clinton Campaign is pressuring her to keep on going as usual. And if you go against your candidate, you're going to get screams of "DISUNITY!!!" in the party. Brazille protected herself by adhering to Clinton's commands, no matter how dumb they were. So if your point is that Brazille sacrificed the party for her well being, and is now acting like some heroic crusader - I don't disagree. But if your point is that Clinton's loss was not predictable, I strongly disagree.

Clinton's loss was predictable, depending on what information one had at the time. As the article linked shows, staff in Michigan were very worried about Clinton's ability to win their despite the polls and they were absolutely correct. I'd be very surprised if Donna Brazile wasn't aware of these warnings at the time because from the sounds of things her own people were pretty loud about it. But if she had believed them she would have directed the last minute funds she had available to getting young and minority voters out in Detroit rather than Chicago. That she is now saying she knew all along that the polls were wrong and thought Clinton might lose sounds like an attempt from her to rescue her political career by acting like she was the only smart person in the room, when her actions show she wasn't any better than anyone from the Clinton campaign.

[New Chalcedon]

If the Democrats could copy-paste Canadian Healthcare - they'd be winning elections like mad. Even with candidates like Clinton. But they cannot. As for the Senate - I'm 99.9999999999% certain that Republicans will hold in 2018. There are 8 Senate seats up for grabs. Republicans need to win six of them to retain their majority. The states: Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Nebraska, Texas, Alabama. If the Republicans hold those, they hold the Senate. I didn't list Nevada or Tennessee - which are also likely to break Republican.

The Democrats on the other hand need to hold Montana, North Dakota, Missouri, West Virginia, and the places that are in the Rust Belt, including Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana. Oh yeah, Florida's always weird. Republicans might make the push to 60. For Republicans the worst case scenario is 50, and the best case scenario is 62. I'm 99.9999999999% certain the result will fall between those two numbers.

I'd actually call Nevada (along with Arizona) the Dems' best pickup opportunity in 2018:

1. Clinton carried Nevada - narrowly, but she did.
2. Heller's approval ratings are in the 20s. He keeps criticising Trump (enraging the GOP base), whilst also voting in lockstep for his agenda (infuriating everyone else).
3. Most polling has Heller languishing at or below 40% of the vote, which is not a healthy place for incumbents to be.

Would replacing Heller with Tarkanian change this? Well, they'd partly neutralise (2) and (3); however, this isn't Tarkanian's first rodeo. He's run for office five times before, losing each time. Typically, Tarkanian has also trailed other Republicans on the ticket - sometimes badly. In 2006, for instance, Jim Gibbons (R) won with 48% of the vote, while Tarkanian came in at 40% for Secretary of State. In 2012, he was running for the 4th District, but only won 42% of the vote to Romney's 44% of the vote at the same time. And just last year, he ran for the 3rd District. The Democratic candidate, Jacky Rosen, won 47% of the vote...but Tarkanian only won 46%, a small but crucial slippage from Trump's 48%.

In short: The GOP's best hope is a candidate who's already run Statewide twice, and lost both times.

[Sernarbia]

Ostro posting a thread bashing a woman? How out of character for him!

[MERIZoC]

Ostro posting a thread bashing a woman? How out of character for him!

galaxy brain

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Again, I'm looking at Trump's approval ratings and seeing a stable "We are sick of this idiot running the show" majority here.

I really think that this majority will force sain people in Senate.

As for the ads, they just need to remove there head from there ass and run better ads.

Well, there is always Bernie's idea. Or just ctrl C + ctrl V Canadian Healthcare in to America.

If the Democrats could copy-paste Canadian Healthcare - they'd be winning elections like mad. Even with candidates like Clinton. But they cannot. As for the Senate - I'm 99.9999999999% certain that Republicans will hold in 2018. There are 8 Senate seats up for grabs. Republicans need to win six of them to retain their majority. The states: Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Nebraska, Texas, Alabama. If the Republicans hold those, they hold the Senate. I didn't list Nevada or Tennessee - which are also likely to break Republican.

The Democrats on the other hand need to hold Montana, North Dakota, Missouri, West Virginia, and the places that are in the Rust Belt, including Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana. Oh yeah, Florida's always weird. Republicans might make the push to 60. For Republicans the worst case scenario is 50, and the best case scenario is 62. I'm 99.9999999999% certain the result will fall between those two numbers.

Why not? All they have to do is go here, copy and paste everything, replace all references of: "Hockey","Poutine" and, "Maple Syrup" with: "Baseball", "Apple Pie" and, "The water of Boston Harbor after we threw the Tea in it".

I know it would be hard, but as Trump keeps on showing that he is incompetent and the Republicans are split, it would still be possible for the moderates to be sick of there crap and vote in anyone else.

[Rostavykhan]

Ostro posting a thread bashing a woman? How out of character for him!

Everyone knows men are the superior sex. It's a proven fact.

[Chestaan]

If Bernie had won the primary popular vote but had lost because of the super-delegates, would it have been a problem then??

Yes.

So then clearly there is a problem with the system. Not because of Bernie or anything to do with him, but because the system is inherently bad. Its like how the electoral college usually elects the same person as the popular vote would, but just because Obama won by the popular vote and the electoral college doesn't mean the electoral college isn't a bullshit system.

[Vassenor]

Yes.

So then clearly there is a problem with the system. Not because of Bernie or anything to do with him, but because the system is inherently bad. Its like how the electoral college usually elects the same person as the popular vote would, but just because Obama won by the popular vote and the electoral college doesn't mean the electoral college isn't a bullshit system.

Pretty sure I was calling the EC bullshit long before last year.

[The Black Forrest]

Clearly the democrats are evil because the Republicans would never do that.

[Chestaan]

So then clearly there is a problem with the system. Not because of Bernie or anything to do with him, but because the system is inherently bad. Its like how the electoral college usually elects the same person as the popular vote would, but just because Obama won by the popular vote and the electoral college doesn't mean the electoral college isn't a bullshit system.

Pretty sure I was calling the EC bullshit long before last year.

I'm sure you were but I don't see how that makes the super-delegate system right.

[Vassenor]

Pretty sure I was calling the EC bullshit long before last year.

I'm sure you were but I don't see how that makes the super-delegate system right.

I didn't say it was. Just that it wasn't the specific problem here.

[Chestaan]

Clearly the democrats are evil because the Republicans would never do that.

To say nothing about this case in particular, because I'm not sure how substantiated the claims against the DNC are, saying that the Republicans are doing something also is no defence of the Democrats.