Posted by bad_luck on 5/3/2017 4:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2017 4:13:00 PM (view original):
Sigh. Why is there a lawsuit against the DNC?

Do you think the existence of a lawsuit is proof, tec jr?

If you don't want to discuss a subject, why do you pretend you do then ask stupid question to avoid discussing the subject?

Why has a lawsuit, perhaps unfounded, been brought against the DNC?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2017 4:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/3/2017 4:18:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2017 4:13:00 PM (view original):
Sigh. Why is there a lawsuit against the DNC?

Do you think the existence of a lawsuit is proof, tec jr?

If you don't want to discuss a subject, why do you pretend you do then ask stupid question to avoid discussing the subject?

Why has a lawsuit, perhaps unfounded, been brought against the DNC?

I'm fine with discussing the subject but I'm not interested in what is likely a bullshit, sour grapes lawsuit.

If your (or tec's) argument is that political parties should hold open primaries and nominate whatever candidate happens to win the most votes, no matter what, fine, that's your opinion. I disagree (my opinion). It's also not how things work (fact).

So, in your opinion, what's the point of primary voting if the party has already decided who they want to run?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2017 4:28:00 PM (view original):
So, in your opinion, what's the point of primary voting if the party has already decided who they want to run?

It's actually a relatively new process. They used to (up until the ~1960's) literally just nominate someone in a backroom, out of public view.

They obviously do it because they want a strong candidate. A primary acts as a litmus test. For example, the DNC favored Clinton in 2008 but Obama proved to be the better candidate, so, in the end, DNC support moved from Clinton to Obama.

So, in your opinion, if a party decides that a certain candidate has no chance, should they just say "Sorry, no thanks. You're wasting time and money"?

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2017 4:59:00 PM (view original):
So, in your opinion, if a party decides that a certain candidate has no chance, should they just say "Sorry, no thanks. You're wasting time and money"?

That happens every election. Not so much at the Presidential level, but always at the Congressional level. For example, if a Dem holds a seat in a competitive district, the RNC isn't going to support all GOP candidates in the primary. The RNC will decide who it thinks has a shot and then support that candidate.

Posted by bad_luck on 5/3/2017 4:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2017 4:28:00 PM (view original):
So, in your opinion, what's the point of primary voting if the party has already decided who they want to run?

It's actually a relatively new process. They used to (up until the ~1960's) literally just nominate someone in a backroom, out of public view.

They obviously do it because they want a strong candidate. A primary acts as a litmus test. For example, the DNC favored Clinton in 2008 but Obama proved to be the better candidate, so, in the end, DNC support moved from Clinton to Obama.

"They obviously do it because they want a strong candidate. A primary acts as a litmus test."

Hmm. Let's see what came from the DNC's litmus test last year. They had one candidate who had a very strong, very loyal, very passionate, almost fanatical following. They had another candidate who was seen as in the pockets of Wall Street, had a long history of being involved in controversy (either directly, or through her husband), was deemed (rightly or wrongly, depending on your point of view) as untrustworthy, and also had a significantly low likability rating.

Which of those two passed the DNC "litmus test"? How did that work out for them?

Posted by tecwrg on 5/3/2017 7:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 5/3/2017 4:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 5/3/2017 4:28:00 PM (view original):
So, in your opinion, what's the point of primary voting if the party has already decided who they want to run?

It's actually a relatively new process. They used to (up until the ~1960's) literally just nominate someone in a backroom, out of public view.

They obviously do it because they want a strong candidate. A primary acts as a litmus test. For example, the DNC favored Clinton in 2008 but Obama proved to be the better candidate, so, in the end, DNC support moved from Clinton to Obama.

"They obviously do it because they want a strong candidate. A primary acts as a litmus test."

Hmm. Let's see what came from the DNC's litmus test last year. They had one candidate who had a very strong, very loyal, very passionate, almost fanatical following. They had another candidate who was seen as in the pockets of Wall Street, had a long history of being involved in controversy (either directly, or through her husband), was deemed (rightly or wrongly, depending on your point of view) as untrustworthy, and also had a significantly low likability rating.

Which of those two passed the DNC "litmus test"? How did that work out for them?

Well, the guy with the passionate, loyal following received four million less votes across all the primaries than the other candidate. So maybe he wasn't that great of a candidate.

Well, the woman with all the popular votes in November lost the electoral vote by 74 votes. So maybe she wasn't so smart of a candidate.

And do you realize that you're using the results of the primaries as some sort of "proof" that the Democratic primaries were on the level, when this whole thread stems from a lawsuit contending that it wasn't?

No. No, of course you don't. Because you have no self awareness.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/3/2017 7:28:00 PM (view original):
Well, the woman with all the popular votes in November lost the electoral vote by 74 votes. So maybe she wasn't so smart of a candidate.

Different argument.

You started this thread saying parties should give the nomination to the candidate with the most votes. Clinton had the most primary votes.

Posted by tecwrg on 5/3/2017 7:31:00 PM (view original):
And do you realize that you're using the results of the primaries as some sort of "proof" that the Democratic primaries were on the level, when this whole thread stems from a lawsuit contending that it wasn't?

No. No, of course you don't. Because you have no self awareness.

I'm not trying to prove the Dem primaries were on the level, I'm assuming they were.

The fact that someone filed some lawsuit doesn't prove that they weren't.

The lawsuit alleges that the DNC misrepresented the primary process as being "fair and impartial".

The DNC's legal response is "we don't have to run a fair and impartial primary process".

So you're saying that you're reading between the lines and concluding that the primaries were indeed fair and impartial?

It takes a special kind of stupid to come to that conclusion. Is that what you are? Are you that special kind of stupid?

Posted by tecwrg on 5/3/2017 8:07:00 PM (view original):
The lawsuit alleges that the DNC misrepresented the primary process as being "fair and impartial".

The DNC's legal response is "we don't have to run a fair and impartial primary process".

So you're saying that you're reading between the lines and concluding that the primaries were indeed fair and impartial?

It takes a special kind of stupid to come to that conclusion. Is that what you are? Are you that special kind of stupid?

Again, two different arguments. The DNC and RNC are well within their rights to support one candidate over another. I'm saying that the elections themselves were not rigged. Clinton actually did receive more votes than Sanders.

EDIT:

Even if Sanders had received more votes, the DNC would have been well within their rights to hand the nomination to Clinton with Super Delegates. But that isn't what happened.