Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

GoLeft TV

(3,910 posts)
Sat May 21, 2016, 10:51 AM May 2016

If Clinton Is So Sure She Will Win, Why Does She Need To Mislead Us About The Popular Vote?



Since the story from New York Daily News writer Shaun King came out on Thursday, there has been a big hullabaloo about what a difference adding the caucus results into the popular vote would make. Estimates have been made by the Washington Post and others, and they consistently show that it is indeed true that Clinton’s 3 million number is a misrepresentation of the true will of the people.

If Clinton is so sure that she will be the nominee, why then, does she continue to lie to the people? Ring of Fire’s Sydney Robinson discusses this.
136 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
If Clinton Is So Sure She Will Win, Why Does She Need To Mislead Us About The Popular Vote? (Original Post) GoLeft TV May 2016 OP
Kickin' with disgust Faux pas May 2016 #1
Allow me to second that kick - and its qualifying intention. eom Betty Karlson May 2016 #19
Quit attacking Hillary: Sanders has lost: Hillary knows she will fight for every vote lewebley3 May 2016 #59
Pointing out her lies isn't attacking. They didn't have WMD in Iraq, hello!! Not an attack. rhett o rick May 2016 #110
Hillary doesn't lie: if she did the GOP would bast it everywhere: lewebley3 May 2016 #124
When she lied about the WMD in Iraq they cheered. They like her. She agrees with rhett o rick May 2016 #127
Hillary is very honest person: she has to be everything she does or says is examined lewebley3 May 2016 #128
Then explain why she lied to the Senate about WMD in Iraq. Her speech was almost rhett o rick May 2016 #129
Hillary ddin't lie about anything about Iraq: Bush lied about Iraq lewebley3 May 2016 #131
She didn't lie: you are just Sanders propagandist lewebley3 May 2016 #132
Her speech is available. rhett o rick May 2016 #133
The Daily News is owned by Ruppert Murdoch. No different than FOX. P.S., Sanders still lost. The End Trust Buster May 2016 #2
The Daily News has consistently favored Hillary over Bernie. KPN May 2016 #5
Ruppert Murdoch is not objective by definition. He wishes to sow the seeds of division on the Left. Trust Buster May 2016 #8
True, but that rag has favored Hillary for the most part. KPN May 2016 #9
Democrats favor Hillary and not Sanders that is the only reason Sanders lost lewebley3 May 2016 #61
Sanders has won a victory one way or other. He has exposed the corrupt culture that rhett o rick May 2016 #112
Sanders exposed nothing: we all know about citizen's united lewebley3 May 2016 #123
She needs to bring Rupert to heel RufusTFirefly May 2016 #39
There is no division on the Left. The division in the Democratic Party is between the Left rhett o rick May 2016 #111
It was Sanders himself who had poor or NO answers to the interview he gave with NYDN. Sanders owned riversedge May 2016 #76
No - tge NY Post is murdoch's rag. nt Lucky Luciano May 2016 #28
Don't confuse them with facts nxylas May 2016 #53
If votes are not counted in caucus states then they can't be included Arkansas Granny May 2016 #3
Lol! KPN May 2016 #6
I see you don't understand what a representative government stands for. n/t A Simple Game May 2016 #13
Oh KPN sees all right Depaysement May 2016 #34
See there, you missed the whole point.... or.... pangaia May 2016 #23
Popular vote cannot be used SusanLarson May 2016 #45
It's really quite simple (and it's MATH!) 1monster May 2016 #47
Power to the math! MyNameGoesHere May 2016 #50
Never did understand Bernie math. LOL Laser102 May 2016 #81
And I'm not sure you're understanding Hillary Math either. 2banon May 2016 #114
this is really important information. thank you! Merryland May 2016 #4
For the same reason Trump is always bragging about his crowd and (ahem) hand size corkhead May 2016 #7
Hillary is winning the popular vote. hrmjustin May 2016 #10
She's the greatest thing ever. They just can't (or won't) see it. Gene Debs May 2016 #11
She's the greatest thing ever if you like Gary 50 May 2016 #15
Trust me, that was twelve tons of sarcasm. A comment on the apparent ironclad inability of Gene Debs May 2016 #18
:) 2banon May 2016 #115
Hillary is a politician: she is not applying for St.hood: She will work with her party lewebley3 May 2016 #64
Hillary Clinton's "party" consists of Hillary Clinton. Gene Debs May 2016 #78
LOL! Plucketeer May 2016 #31
Ain't you cute! hrmjustin May 2016 #32
Spent too much time around the Bushes. Downwinder May 2016 #12
If that were true she would not be Dem: Hillary is not a trust baby lewebley3 May 2016 #65
It depends on what is, is Geronimoe May 2016 #14
She is quoting the record. Yes, Hillary will win. Bernie has no rational chance. Sancho May 2016 #16
Hillary's big numerical lead is due to her having won in Southern states, many of which JDPriestly May 2016 #21
Arguments in favor of Bernie or against Hillary don't matter any more... Sancho May 2016 #27
So - you say to all the folks voting on June 7th... Plucketeer May 2016 #33
No...that's the size of the lead Hillary has... Sancho May 2016 #36
Hillary's run Plucketeer May 2016 #38
Not true...Bernie was lucky and he was treated more than fairly. Sancho May 2016 #57
On every point you are wrong. JDPriestly May 2016 #108
It's simply because Hillary ran a great campaign and got more votes, AlbertCat May 2016 #54
Bernie has immense support in California, and we would like to vote. JDPriestly May 2016 #105
Move earlier...we did in Florida.... Sancho May 2016 #107
Obama and ICE are currently running a deportation campaign. JDPriestly May 2016 #109
If you call a sleazy, slimy, lying campaign great... it was disgusting. cui bono May 2016 #119
Sanders is helping Trump now: Sanders had his chance he lost lewebley3 May 2016 #63
Beware! BOT Plucketeer May 2016 #73
Sanders is helping Trump now AlbertCat May 2016 #93
That attitude actually makes a Democratic win by any candidate JDPriestly May 2016 #103
+1 nt Duval May 2016 #29
FFS, even people in the south knew who Bernie was when they voted. Arkansas Granny May 2016 #62
Bernie's platform, his honesty and his good character have become JDPriestly May 2016 #104
Remember when we were told gordyfl May 2016 #88
.....! KoKo May 2016 #135
I believe yoju missed the point.. or.. you didn't miss the point.. pangaia May 2016 #24
Thanks for this post. It sets the record straight. JDPriestly May 2016 #17
one each for each vote won at the caucus Fresh_Start May 2016 #26
It's what she does best. smiley May 2016 #20
"... why then, does she continue to lie to the people?" pangaia May 2016 #22
Lying is so natural to her. It's 840high May 2016 #87
For 18th Time Today, Hillary Asks Aide if Bernie Has Conceded Yet LS_Editor May 2016 #25
Sanders has proven he doesn't have leadership qualities: his people are bullies lewebley3 May 2016 #67
How's that? LS_Editor May 2016 #90
Lame meme perpetrated by the DNC/Clinton establishment. KPN May 2016 #121
Will pass this on for sure! We have our State Convention coming up Equinox Moon May 2016 #30
"We're winning the popular vote" ~Hillary Clinton, 2008 LadyHawkAZ May 2016 #35
very interesting, thanks grasswire May 2016 #83
For the presumptive nominee, she's still doing a lot of nasty stuff RufusTFirefly May 2016 #37
3M+ - no amount of bernie-math changes the facts DrDan May 2016 #40
It's the number cited by every reputable source BainsBane May 2016 #41
If numbers do not lie why does Hillary need to do it so often? Ford_Prefect May 2016 #42
Hillary doesn't lie: Sander is lying to his supporters he has lost lewebley3 May 2016 #68
On the evidence she has repeatedly and about substantial issues. In this case the numbers. Ford_Prefect May 2016 #72
If she's so certain Wibly May 2016 #43
Sanders people, if that is what you are - asiliveandbreathe May 2016 #49
Call me names Wibly May 2016 #98
Hillary is not the only one that is certain: anyone with math skills knows Hillary has lewebley3 May 2016 #69
Only if its special Clinton math Wibly May 2016 #94
Another misleading OP SCantiGOP May 2016 #44
keep it up folk's - you surely are hell bent for election asiliveandbreathe May 2016 #46
When Hillary feels threatened Boldine May 2016 #48
Hillary never feels threatened she is a fighter: She will take on the Trump the bully lewebley3 May 2016 #74
Not a fighter, but a bare-knuckles scrapper Boldine May 2016 #82
Hopefully she will have whatever it takes: the poor and elderly are at risk: lewebley3 May 2016 #84
In the world of propaganda it's called bandwagoning azurnoir May 2016 #51
No it call math: we all arrived at same numbers: Sanders has lost: and without grace lewebley3 May 2016 #86
bandwagoning azurnoir May 2016 #91
No just adding numbers: that is all lewebley3 May 2016 #122
yep 'cause all the kewl kids are doing it azurnoir May 2016 #125
No lies, she has 3 million more people -Democrats- vote for her as President. wisteria May 2016 #52
huge numbers of her votes came from states Trump will slaughter her in AntiBank May 2016 #60
Maybe because a loser Socialist who has never even been vetted seems like a Walk away May 2016 #85
democratic socialist (a very mild one at that) and a progressive who would beat Trump AntiBank May 2016 #89
Bern has already lost to Hillary Cryptoad May 2016 #54
HIllary can lose every delegate in CA and she still wins the Nomination. AlbertCat May 2016 #58
yes, Clinton and her corporate masters want to smash, once and for all, any progressive AntiBank May 2016 #66
Nobody owns Hillary: She is her own person and always has been lewebley3 May 2016 #71
that qualifies as one of the most LUDICROUS statements I have ever seen on this board AntiBank May 2016 #75
It would to a Sander propaganda bully: if Hillary wanted to be richer she lewebley3 May 2016 #77
110+ million USD...How Hillary and Bill Clinton Parlayed Decades of Public Service into Vast Wealth AntiBank May 2016 #79
She is her own person and always has been AlbertCat May 2016 #92
If u don't win ur message is meaningless! Cryptoad May 2016 #106
If u don't win ur message is meaningless! AlbertCat May 2016 #113
She is up over 3 million votes over Bernie...she needs 92 more delegates... beachbumbob May 2016 #56
Proof please Wibly May 2016 #95
Sorry, but Hillary Clinton is winning the popular vote — by a wide margin reACTIONary May 2016 #70
Too funny Wibly May 2016 #96
LOL, right up there with.... reACTIONary May 2016 #100
She's not misleading RandySF May 2016 #80
What? Wibly May 2016 #97
No, its not misleading... reACTIONary May 2016 #101
She's telling the truth. Even Sanders admits it. He says over and ove that he has received lunamagica May 2016 #99
She is not the one misleadingshe is up by three million votes, this is a fact. Thinkingabout May 2016 #102
A misleading campaign means a misleading presidency felix_numinous May 2016 #116
Yes...it's Always about Business! Now that they have the Money! KoKo May 2016 #134
Lying liars lie. It's pathological for her, as natural as breathing. AtomicKitten May 2016 #117
Just might be compulsive since that seems to be what she does even when the truth serves better emsimon33 May 2016 #118
Because without lies it doesn't look so certain. nt thereismore May 2016 #120
Shaun King's attempt at analysis is simply wrong Gothmog May 2016 #126
Stop trying to undo the will of the majority of democrats youceyec May 2016 #130
When bullshit is all you've got... dchill May 2016 #136
 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
110. Pointing out her lies isn't attacking. They didn't have WMD in Iraq, hello!! Not an attack.
Sat May 21, 2016, 06:13 PM
May 2016

She isn't 3 million popular votes ahead of Sanders. Another lie. Again not an attack. She lies when the truth would do.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
127. When she lied about the WMD in Iraq they cheered. They like her. She agrees with
Mon May 23, 2016, 04:17 PM
May 2016

most of their issues. Seems some are blind to the fact that her principles are in tune with the Republicons. They love Free Trade Agreements, Fracking, a hawkish foreign policy, Kissinger, her tough stand on drug laws and killing welfare, the Patriot Act, min wage, her stand on medical marijuana, not providing free college, etc. The list goes on and on.

And in 2002, when we needed her the most, she betrayed us and sided with the Republicons, the Bush Republicons. With regard to Iraq, she said, "We came, we saw, they died."

She is tough, sadly tough on the 99% and not the 1%.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
129. Then explain why she lied to the Senate about WMD in Iraq. Her speech was almost
Mon May 23, 2016, 05:45 PM
May 2016

word for word the same as George Bush. Explain how that meets a definition of "very honest".

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
133. Her speech is available.
Tue May 24, 2016, 04:51 PM
May 2016
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."


There never was evidence that Hussein "has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program." Nor any evidence that, "He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members".

These were bold-faced lies aimed to help Bush, the Republicon, and the oil companies invade Iraq for profits. The consequences of these lies is horrendous and should not be forgotten nor forgiven.

The two-party system failed. There were no checks-and-balances when some of the Democrats acquiesced to the lying Republicons. We counted on the Democrats to help keep Bush and Cheney in check. Some Democrats failed us and bowed to the wishes of the Republicons.

KPN

(15,642 posts)
5. The Daily News has consistently favored Hillary over Bernie.
Sat May 21, 2016, 11:00 AM
May 2016

But that only matters if you want to be objective.

 

Trust Buster

(7,299 posts)
8. Ruppert Murdoch is not objective by definition. He wishes to sow the seeds of division on the Left.
Sat May 21, 2016, 11:01 AM
May 2016
 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
112. Sanders has won a victory one way or other. He has exposed the corrupt culture that
Sat May 21, 2016, 06:28 PM
May 2016

runs the Democratic Party and our election system. He has fought the Super-Pacs, Super-Delegates, a corrupt DNC, voter disenfranchisement, outright voter fraud, and a Corp-Media and still is in the race. Gloat all you will but the People will not be denied.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
111. There is no division on the Left. The division in the Democratic Party is between the Left
Sat May 21, 2016, 06:24 PM
May 2016

which supports the People and the Corporate Wing that you appear to support. Why would Democrats support corporations over humans. You know we have 2.5 million children homeless? And yet one supports the wealthy.

By the way both Ruppert and his son have donated to Clinton and he has publicly stated he could live with Clinton as president. Now that makes Goldman-Sachs, Richard Perile, the Koch Bros and Ruppert Murdock that have stated they would prefer Clinton over Sanders. The neocons and conservatives love her. The People love Sanders.

riversedge

(70,197 posts)
76. It was Sanders himself who had poor or NO answers to the interview he gave with NYDN. Sanders owned
Sat May 21, 2016, 02:24 PM
May 2016

his own mistakes and lack of knowledge on how he would implements his plans.

Arkansas Granny

(31,515 posts)
3. If votes are not counted in caucus states then they can't be included
Sat May 21, 2016, 10:57 AM
May 2016

in the popular vote. Period.

The votes that were counted in primary contests are heavily in Hillary's favor. Fact.

If the votes are not tallied, they can't be included in the popular vote count. Reality.

 

SusanLarson

(284 posts)
45. Popular vote cannot be used
Sat May 21, 2016, 01:17 PM
May 2016

Then the popular vote cannot be used to justify one candidate over the other as it is incomplete and inaccurate.

1monster

(11,012 posts)
47. It's really quite simple (and it's MATH!)
Sat May 21, 2016, 01:27 PM
May 2016

Take the number of caucus attendees taking part in the caucuses and multiply it by the percentage (it is easier to do if you change the percentage into a fraction) each candidate won. Or multiply the number of caucus participants, multiply it by the percentage won by one of the candidates. That is the number of votes, for lack of a better term here, won by that candidate. To get the number of votes won by the other candidate, subtract the first candidate's product from the number of caucus participants

For example: 100 people participated in an imaginary caucus. Candidate One gets 71% of the tally. Candidate Two gets 29% of the tally.

100 times .71 = 71! Subtract those 71 caucus participants from the total 100 participants and you get 29.

Ergo, Candidate one in this imaginary caucus got 71 votes and Candidate Two got 29 votes.

 

2banon

(7,321 posts)
114. And I'm not sure you're understanding Hillary Math either.
Sat May 21, 2016, 07:23 PM
May 2016

Of course I don't blame you. It's not your fault, they've put the most amazing fabrication of analytics and calculations designed to confuse and to mislead.

lots of mathematicians heads spinning to be sure!


Gary 50

(381 posts)
15. She's the greatest thing ever if you like
Sat May 21, 2016, 11:45 AM
May 2016

rule by the one percent, corporatism, hypocrisy, pathological evolving, militarism, fracking, poor judgement, arrogance, corruption, legalized bribery, the status quo, the third way, neoliberalism, lying, Rovian dirty tricks, artful smears, phony narratives (chairs thrown and violence), projection, pants suits, cackles, incrementalism, FBI investigations and the sound of "President Trump." Feel free to add to this list of what makes Hillary so great.

 

Gene Debs

(582 posts)
18. Trust me, that was twelve tons of sarcasm. A comment on the apparent ironclad inability of
Sat May 21, 2016, 12:15 PM
May 2016

Clinton's most vocal cheerleaders to articulate what, precisely, they love about her.

 

Plucketeer

(12,882 posts)
31. LOL!
Sat May 21, 2016, 12:51 PM
May 2016

You'd think with her millions, she could afford to have that outfit fumigated - but those pesky bugs just keep crawlin' out.

Sancho

(9,067 posts)
16. She is quoting the record. Yes, Hillary will win. Bernie has no rational chance.
Sat May 21, 2016, 11:48 AM
May 2016
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

RCP Total - 12,989,134 9,957,889 Clinton +3,031,245
Iowa February 1
New Hampshire February 9 95,252 151,584 Sanders +56,332
Nevada February 20
South Carolina February 27 271,514 95,977 Clinton +175,537
Alabama March 1 309,928 76,399 Clinton +233,529
American Samoa March 1
Arkansas March 1 144,580 64,868 Clinton +79,712
Colorado March 1 49,314 72,115 Sanders +22,801
Georgia March 1 543,008 214,332 Clinton +328,676
Massachusetts March 1 603,784 586,716 Clinton +17,068
Minnesota March 1 73,510 118,135 Sanders +44,625
Oklahoma March 1 139,338 174,054 Sanders +34,716
Tennessee March 1 245,304 120,333 Clinton +124,971
Texas March 1 935,080 475,561 Clinton +459,519
Vermont March 1 18,335 115,863 Sanders +97,528
Virginia March 1 503,358 275,507 Clinton +227,851
Louisiana March 5 221,615 72,240 Clinton +149,375
Nebraska March 5 14,340 19,120 Sanders +4,780
Kansas March 5 12,593 26,450 Sanders +13,857
Maine March 6
Mississippi March 8 182,447 36,348 Clinton +146,099
Michigan March 8 576,795 595,222 Sanders +18,427
Northern Marianas March 12
Florida March 15 1,097,400 566,603 Clinton +530,797
Illinois March 15 1,007,382 971,555 Clinton +35,827
Missouri March 15 310,602 309,071 Clinton +1,531
North Carolina March 15 616,383 460,316 Clinton +156,067
Ohio March 15 679,266 513,549 Clinton +165,717
Arizona March 22 235,697 163,400 Clinton +72,297
Idaho March 22 5,065 18,640 Sanders +13,575
Utah March 22 15,666 61,333 Sanders +45,667
Alaska March 26
Hawaii March 26 10,125 23,530 Sanders +13,405
Washington March 26
Wisconsin April 5 432,767 567,936 Sanders +135,169
Wyoming April 9 124 156 Sanders +32
New York April 19 1,054,083 763,469 Clinton +290,614
Maryland April 26 533,247 281,275 Clinton +251,972
Connecticut April 26 170,075 152,410 Clinton +17,665
Delaware April 26 55,950 36,659 Clinton +19,291
Pennsylvania April 26 918,689 719,955 Clinton +198,734
Rhode Island April 26 52,493 66,720 Sanders +14,227
Indiana May 3 303,382 335,256 Sanders +31,874
Guam May 7
West Virginia May 10 86,354 123,860 Sanders +37,506
Kentucky May 17 212,550 210,626 Clinton +1,924
Oregon May 17 251,739 320,746 Sanders +69,007


JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
21. Hillary's big numerical lead is due to her having won in Southern states, many of which
Sat May 21, 2016, 12:25 PM
May 2016

were the first states to vote before Bernie's name and message were well known.

Bernie has built tremendous momentum. Note how Hillary's wins/numbers in Kentucky and West Virginia in 2008 evaporated against Bernie.

The total vote count is not as essential to winning in November as is the momentum.

Conservative Southern states gave Hillary an impressive sounding raw vote lead, but Bernie is winning reliably Democratic states like Washington. We shall see how Bernie does in California. It should be pretty good.

Bernie won in Colorado, one of those states that has conservatives and liberals.

Bernie's honesty and message become more popular over time. Hillary's corruption and weak stances become less popular over time.

Hillary got huge margins in the Southern states. Do we really pick our candidate based on the votes of Southern states in this way? I'm against it. The Southern states will reliably and predictably vote Republican in November no matter what. The Democratic voters there should count, but they and their numbers and generous majorities for Hillary should not decide who is our nominee. And that is what Hillary wants.

This election contest is more complicated than some have been in the past.

We need to think about Trump's issues. Where he stands on trade is very appealing to many working Americans. That is a pocketbook issue. Hillary, having been in the State Department while the TPP and the other proposed trade agreements were negotiated is going to be the biggest issue that pushes Trump forward. If Bernie is the candidate, the injustice to American workers of these trade agreements will not be the big issue that could very well take Trump close to if not into the White House.

Bernie is the candidate to defeat Trump.

Bernie is honest. Trump poses as an honest person, but poses very persuasively. (With Trump the honesty is just a pose; with Bernie, it's real and everyone senses that.)

Bernie has far more experience dealing with Congress than Trump does.

Bernie is good with money. Trump spends big, lives big, and then takes his companies into bankruptcy. I think Bernie's views on money will, in the end, prevail over the spendthrift ways of trust-fund baby Trump.

Hillary on money? She begs for hers and is good at begging at the glitziest feasts.

Bernie is just the best candidate to face off with Trump.

I favor going with the democratic outcome of the primaries and caucuses. But this is going to be closer than people realize.

Sancho

(9,067 posts)
27. Arguments in favor of Bernie or against Hillary don't matter any more...
Sat May 21, 2016, 12:42 PM
May 2016

She is less than 100 delegates from winning outright, and will likely have a win before California is closed. Possibly before June 7.

This primary is over. No SDs will change based on GOP opponents. Hillary wins by votes, pledged delegates, and SDs. In the last few days Hillary has gained more SDs.

Hillary has won by all metrics.

It is time for all Democrats to GOTV and deal with helping Hillary defeat Trump.

 

Plucketeer

(12,882 posts)
33. So - you say to all the folks voting on June 7th...
Sat May 21, 2016, 12:54 PM
May 2016

Screw you - your votes don't matter! I guess it's a Hillary kinda love, eh?

Sancho

(9,067 posts)
36. No...that's the size of the lead Hillary has...
Sat May 21, 2016, 01:00 PM
May 2016

she needs 86 more delegates. There are 79 in Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands on June 4-5.

Hillary is ahead in polls in PR now. There are also SDs who continue to commit to Hillary each day.

If Hillary is a few short (20? 30?) on June 7, NJ will close and give her the win before California has finished voting.

It's simply because Hillary ran a great campaign and got more votes, more endorsements, more money, and more delegates than Bernie.



 

Plucketeer

(12,882 posts)
38. Hillary's run
Sat May 21, 2016, 01:04 PM
May 2016

a SHITTY CAMPAIGN. She's a person of that same caliber. If it weren't for the DNC having rigged her slide, she'd already be a footnote.

Sancho

(9,067 posts)
57. Not true...Bernie was lucky and he was treated more than fairly.
Sat May 21, 2016, 02:02 PM
May 2016

First, let's imagine that the "order" of Primaries were reversed. Hillary would have stomped Bernie early in California and NJ and been so far ahead he would never catch up. Having white, rural, Northern states with caucuses first allowed Bernie to get a name. Bernie caught all the breaks.

Second, the DNC could easily of refused to even accept Bernie as a Democrat. Hillary treated Bernie nicely and never ran obvious attack ads against him. At most there were a very few PAC ads. He got away scot free.

Hillary ran a brilliant and experienced campaign. As someone on Progress radio was saying the morning: exactly what did the DNC do to Bernie? He got a lot more than the original 6 debates. He got access to data (and stole stuff that wasn't his), he used Democratic voters to raise money (and got in trouble with the FEC), and the DNC did not oppose him on ballots that required them to allow Bernie to run as a Democrat (even though he didn't raise money except for himself).

Bernie has acted like a petulant child.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
108. On every point you are wrong.
Sat May 21, 2016, 05:55 PM
May 2016
First, let's imagine that the "order" of Primaries were reversed. Hillary would have stomped Bernie early in California and NJ and been so far ahead he would never catch up. Having white, rural, Northern states with caucuses first allowed Bernie to get a name. Bernie caught all the breaks.


It was Californians who played a big role in persuading Bernie to run and the crowds and encouragement he found on visits to California that were important in Bernie's decision to run. Hillary's big head start was in the South where regardless of race, religious conservatism that she subscribes to and lack of alternative news media made her popular and assisted her big wins there. Bernie has clearly gained in popularity, wins and votes as the campaign has progressed.

Second, the DNC could easily of [have] refused to even accept Bernie as a Democrat. Hillary treated Bernie nicely and never ran obvious attack ads against him. At most there were a very few PAC ads. He got away scot free.


The DNC did not "refuse" to accept Bernie as a Democrat because
a) they don't have that power (the states establish rules on party affiliation, and in most if not all states, the DNC cannot refuse to allow a candidate in its primaries if that candidate fulfills the requirements of state law; Vermont does not have the same system as some other state with regard to party affiliation); b) Bernie votes with Democrats and belongs to the Progressive and Democratic caucuses in Congress and is closely allied with the Democrats there (Democrats in Congress need his vote and benefit from his presence and no less than Obama has campaigned for Bernie in the past); c) Bernie stated (and he is an exceptionally honest man) that he was running as a Democrat so that he would not detract from the Democratic Party's chance to win.

In other words, the Democratic Party did not have any choice, and besides it is and was in the interest of the Democratic Party that Bernie run as a Democrat. It was and is also in Bernie's interest that he run as a Democrat.

It is unrealistic to think that the Democratic Party would have wanted to appear so inhospitable to progressives as to refuse to allow a progressive to run as a Democrat. The Democratic Party pretends to be a big tent and would ruin its appearance of being a big tent, inclusive party if it did not welcome Bernie and other progressives who have traditionally been a part of the Democratic Party.

Hillary did not run attack ads against Bernie for one reason: Bernie never, ever, ever runs attack ads against his opponents. It isn't that Hillary was being nice. It is that Bernie wins hands down when his political opponents run attack ads against him. In fact the current ugliness by many Hillary supporters and the DNC against Bernie is hurting Hillary now and likely to hurt her even worse in November. Hillary complains that Bernie's presence in the primary in California and other primaries is hurting her chances in November? No. It's her nastiness about Bernie's continuing to run that is hurting her.

Bernie does not run negative ads ever. You've probably seen his ads. Those that are approved are honest and positive. So that's why Hillary did not run negative ads. It would have insured her loss. Hillary is not a nice person. She did not refuse to run negative ads because she is nice. She did not run them because had she done so she would have already decisively lost.

radio was saying the morning: exactly what did the DNC do to Bernie? He got a lot more than the original 6 debates. He got access to data (and stole stuff that wasn't his), he used Democratic voters to raise money (and got in trouble with the FEC), and the DNC did not oppose him on ballots that required them to allow Bernie to run as a Democrat (even though he didn't raise money except for himself).

Bernie has acted like a petulant child.


Sorry. For some reason part of your post disappeared on my computer when I tried to copy these last paragraphs.

The DNC has been horrible to Bernie. I understand that Hillary is now refusing to debate before the California campaign. Her campaign here has been lackluster and cheap. No signs, no headquarters that I know of, nothing much. As for the number of debates, the DNC held far more in 2004 and 2008. And the DNC scheduled the debates this year at odd times and in conflict with sports events (white male voters going for Trump? No wonder.)

Hillary's campaign has been lackluster. Her crowds are small -- spends most of her campaign time with fat-cat donors seems to me. She is not dealing with the major issues for low income and young voters -- the cost of higher education, the burden of student debt, exorbitantly high co-pays for health insurance, jobs lost due to the trade agreements and the fear of the impending trade agreements that American workers do not want, in short, income disparity.

She is also giving only lip service to the issue most on the mind of the middle and professional class voters who support Bernie and make up much of his supporters: corruption in government. Rather than attack this issue honestly and strongly, Hillary courts the big, rich donors, the corporate and foreign money. Minor issues about nit-picky campaign finance rules that are nearly impossible to understand are petty compared to Hillary's selling her influence and her voice to wealthy people around the world.

Hillary pretends to have raised money for down-ticket races but has spent a lot of that money on her own campaign. Many of us who back Bernie normally donate to the various congressional fundraising groups but are donating to Bernie instead this year because we are making a statement: we want the Democratic Party and the Democrats in Congress to pass progressive legislation and to end the waste in the military spending. We need a strong military, but we also need a healthy, educated population. Let's find a better balance there.

I hope you are not offended by my post, but your post was rather a challenge to me. You are just plain wrong on a lot of things.

I would like to see a real Democrat win in November. And the only one running at this time in my view is Bernie. I was born in 1943 during the FDR presidency and WWII. I have been a Democrat all my life.

I assure you. If Hilary should win in November, her presidency will probably end as Nixon's ended. When you vote for Hillary, you are voting for corruption and other problems that the Republicans will merrily exploit. Hillary is not a candidate who can bring harmony to our country. The Republicans hated and impeached her husband in the House, and I have no doubt they will try to do the same to Hillary should she win in November.

The best candidate for Democrats is Bernie. By far.

But that is another chapter.

Feel the Bern!
 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
54. It's simply because Hillary ran a great campaign and got more votes,
Sat May 21, 2016, 01:52 PM
May 2016

Uh.... no it's not.

Anyone even glancingly paying attention and not starry-eyed over the Clinton brand name can see that.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
105. Bernie has immense support in California, and we would like to vote.
Sat May 21, 2016, 05:07 PM
May 2016

Let's see what happens in our primary.

It is yet another dirty trick that we who live in the very liberal state of California have been relegated to the caboose when it comes to voting in the Democratic Primary.

Our primary was not always so late.

As individual voters, we get cheated out here in California when it comes to 1) representation in the Senate (only two senators, same as states with only a fraction of our population) and therefore 2) the electoral college (in which representation and votes are based on the number of representatives and senators from the state).

We have a huge population but only 2 senators.

And this year, our primary is one of the last.

We do not like this. It is a travesty.

Let us vote.

Sancho

(9,067 posts)
107. Move earlier...we did in Florida....
Sat May 21, 2016, 05:15 PM
May 2016

If California was first in 2016, Hillary would win. As it is, Hillary won't spend too much time or money campaigning. It may be that she wins by a little, but it won't matter in this primary.

That's the way it worked out this time. With minority and immigrant demographics, Hillary has won every time so far.

With white, Northern, rural populations Hillary pretty much breaks even with Bernie. California falls in the Hillary favored demographic.



JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
109. Obama and ICE are currently running a deportation campaign.
Sat May 21, 2016, 06:04 PM
May 2016

I saw a sign denouncing that campaign on the freeway this morning. I'm out there campaigning. Bernie is adored by a lot of Californians. I see signs and bumper stickers for Bernie, tee shirts and buttons for Bernie but not for Hillary. I may just be in the Bernie part of town, but that is what I see.

Californians are our own demographic. Mostly middle-aged women are opting for Hillary here. I'm an older woman.

cui bono

(19,926 posts)
119. If you call a sleazy, slimy, lying campaign great... it was disgusting.
Sun May 22, 2016, 04:52 AM
May 2016

And I wouldn't go bragging about getting more money. I don't know what the final totals are but there were months where Bernie outraised her WITHOUT TAKING BIG MONEY. So she did NOT do better than Bernie with money. Of course you have to care about who a a candidate will be beholden to to worry about that.

She had the establishment behind her, that's the real reason she's ahead. There was a black out on Bernie from the beginning when she had the name recognition going in. If people had known about him earlier on he would have been winning earlier. As it is, now that the media HAD to cover him after his doing so well the people who get to know about him flock to him and as a result he is winning more than her. If we started over he would easily win the primary.

They also keep tallying the SDs when they are not supposed to.

The DNC also has been manipulating things in Hillary's favor, even going so far as to corrupt the democratic process as seen in Nevada and Iowa. And then there's the magical voter registration screw ups that seem to happen to mostly Bernie supporters, I mean really, 120,000 voters from Brooklyn having their registration changed? Something is rotten in Denmark. I'm convinced that this entire election was rigged for Hillary. The visible enthusiasm for Bernie not translating into him winning just doesn't make sense. And the exit polls show that to be true. So much so that word is that the networks aren't planning on doing exit polls in CA. If that's true it's very telling. DWS flat out LIED so many times, but when she LIED about the Nevada situation it was lower than low. And these people want Hillary to win the general after acting like complete assholes. Why would Bernie supporters join them now?

The closing of the polling places... the media bias against Bernie... the smear campaign from Hillary... it all adds up to corruption and dirty politics. Nothing to be proud of and nothing that is going to help a win in November should Hillary be the nominee.

Oh, and why were there no heavy hitters running against Hillary this time. Why is that? Clearly the Dem Party establishment had this all planned and Bernie threw a wrench in the works and they have gone all out to stop him. It's really disgusting. Especially since Bernie is the ONLY candidate running who really wants to fix this country and make it work for the working people rather than the corporations.

.

.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
93. Sanders is helping Trump now
Sat May 21, 2016, 03:22 PM
May 2016

How so?


Oh, and stop pretending it's over when everyone hasn't had a chance to vote. That's not very Democratic.

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
103. That attitude actually makes a Democratic win by any candidate
Sat May 21, 2016, 04:58 PM
May 2016

less likely in November. Bernie has won 20 contests at least and will probably do extremely well in California.

The Hillaryites should not shut us out of the Democratic Party. That is very unwise, but their smugness and their unwillingness to include us in the convention committees, etc. shut us out.

Arkansas Granny

(31,515 posts)
62. FFS, even people in the south knew who Bernie was when they voted.
Sat May 21, 2016, 02:07 PM
May 2016

This race had been going on for months before Super Tuesday. Would you accuse the people in Iowa of a similar lack of knowledge?

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
104. Bernie's platform, his honesty and his good character have become
Sat May 21, 2016, 05:03 PM
May 2016

more and more evident as the campaign has developed.

On the other hand, Hillary's legal problems, her pandering to wealthy donors, her dishonesty and sneakiness manifested by refusing to release the videos and transcripts of her speeches to Wall Street, her errors of judgment such as persuading Obama to implement violent regime change in Libya, her support for Islamic rebels who turned out to be violent fundamentalists, her last minute changes of heart on same-sex marriage, the Keystone pipeline and the trade agreements, her negativity about universal healthcare and free tuition at state schools and so many other Hillary problems have also developed and made it clear that she will have a hard time in November.

It's time for more change, and Hillary does not represent change.

Obama has done what he could, but we need a more resilient, creative president. Hillary does not fit the bill.

gordyfl

(598 posts)
88. Remember when we were told
Sat May 21, 2016, 02:52 PM
May 2016

Hillary would win all 50 states? Some conceded Bernie would win his home state of Vermont, only.

What happened on the way to the coronation?



JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
17. Thanks for this post. It sets the record straight.
Sat May 21, 2016, 12:09 PM
May 2016

How many voters are represented by Bernie's caucus wins? Does anyone know?

Fresh_Start

(11,330 posts)
26. one each for each vote won at the caucus
Sat May 21, 2016, 12:39 PM
May 2016

if a caucus has 100 ppl 70 for Sanders and 30 for Clinton.
Sanders gets credit for 70 votes and Clinton for 30 votes
one person, one vote

pangaia

(24,324 posts)
22. "... why then, does she continue to lie to the people?"
Sat May 21, 2016, 12:28 PM
May 2016

You know, it is 'not quite a lie.' Even if it is.

it is what lawyers, among others, are trained to do and often, although not always, not so good at doing.

LS_Editor

(893 posts)
25. For 18th Time Today, Hillary Asks Aide if Bernie Has Conceded Yet
Sat May 21, 2016, 12:35 PM
May 2016

Satire from TNA.

For 18th Time Today, Hillary Asks Aide if Bernie Has Conceded Yet

Hazard also explained Clinton became extremely agitated each time she learned Bernie Sanders had not called to quit the race, and charged, "I can't believe he hasn't quit yet. I just can't believe it."
 

lewebley3

(3,412 posts)
67. Sanders has proven he doesn't have leadership qualities: his people are bullies
Sat May 21, 2016, 02:14 PM
May 2016

Last edited Tue May 24, 2016, 12:15 PM - Edit history (1)

Equinox Moon

(6,344 posts)
30. Will pass this on for sure! We have our State Convention coming up
Sat May 21, 2016, 12:48 PM
May 2016

Will make sure this is looked at by the entire State Convention!

LadyHawkAZ

(6,199 posts)
35. "We're winning the popular vote" ~Hillary Clinton, 2008
Sat May 21, 2016, 12:58 PM
May 2016
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/06/02/memory-lapse

That’s why it has been clear all along that if one of the candidates is able to claim an indisputable majority of actual flesh-and-blood Democrats it will be difficult to deny him—or her—the nomination. But what if the majority is highly disputable, and everybody has one?

“We’re winning the popular vote,” Hillary Clinton said last week, after prevailing in the Kentucky primary by a margin bigger than that by which she lost in Oregon. “More people have voted for me than for anyone who has ever run for the Democratic nomination.” These statements must be read with the sort of close grammatical and definitional care that used to inform her husband’s descriptions of his personal entanglements. They are not quite true in the normal sense, but if made under oath they would not be prosecutable for perjury, either.

In a nominating process, especially this one, the “popular vote” is an elusive phenomenon. RealClearPolitics.com, an independent Web site whose numbers political reporters and operatives tend to trust, maintains six separate tallies. At the moment, Obama leads in four of them. With or without participants in the caucus states of Iowa, Nevada, Maine, and Washington (i.e., states where voters’ preferences were expressed by gathering in corners and the like, and whose numbers can be estimated but are not pinpointed), and with the totals for both Florida (whose primary was unsanctioned by the Democratic Party, with the consent of all the candidates, and where no one campaigned) and Michigan (also unsanctioned, and where Obama’s name was not even on the ballot), Clinton’s claim that more people have “voted” for her is factual. But her claim to be “ahead” depends entirely on a tally for the Michigan primary that is distinctly North Korean: Clinton, 328,309; Obama, 0. However, if the bulk of the 238,168 Michiganders who voted “uncommitted” are assumed to have been Obama supporters—a reasonable assumption—then Obama leads by every possible reckoning. And if only Florida is included, then Obama leads whether or not those four caucuses are counted.

Next week, after the three remaining primaries—Clinton is expected to sweep the largest of them, Puerto Rico’s—the likelihood is that each candidate will be able to point to “metrics” showing that he or she is the people’s choice. Obama will almost certainly have the better case, especially in view of opinion polls showing that his national lead among Democrats has been growing, but the reality is that the two have been almost equally strong. Obama will remain the leader in the delegate count, owing largely to a more astute strategy, and he will be the nominee. If there is a loftier lesson, it is that the nominating “system”—and not just in the Democratic Party—is an irrational mess. But that’s not how Hillary Clinton sees it.

RufusTFirefly

(8,812 posts)
37. For the presumptive nominee, she's still doing a lot of nasty stuff
Sat May 21, 2016, 01:03 PM
May 2016

None of it makes sense if she's truly sure she's got the nomination wrapped up.

Of course, there's a simple explanation for that.

BainsBane

(53,031 posts)
41. It's the number cited by every reputable source
Sat May 21, 2016, 01:12 PM
May 2016

It is not a lie. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Lies are not facts you would prefer not to hear about. Lies are not the revelation that other people besides Bernie supporters' votes count.


Now, there is a issue with the fact that caucus states report delegate equivalents and not votes because people don't actually vote in a caucus system. They cast presidential preference ballots. Some have estimated what the difference would be accounting for every person who attended caucuses, and they estimate a difference in the pop vote totals of approximately 200,000, which means Clinton's lead is still in the 3 million vote range. You see, caucuses have VERY LOW turnout. That in fact is what prompted Tad Devine, in Jan of 2016, to declare them essential to Bernie's strategy.

The idea is to take advantage of the caucus format, which tends to reward campaigns with the most dedicated partisans. The caucuses play to Sanders’ strength in another important way – they are largely held in states that are heavily white, which helps Sanders neutralize Clinton’s edge with minority voters.
With a dozen such contests coming before the end of March – and Clinton expected to perform well on March 1, the first big multi-state primary day -- the caucuses are emerging as an integral part of Sanders’ long-shot plan.
“Caucuses are very good for Bernie Sanders,” explained chief Sanders strategist Tad Devine, likening the 2016 strategy to the one he deployed as Mike Dukakis’ field director in 1988. “Caucuses tend to be in the much-lower turnout universe, and having people who intensely support you in events like that makes a huge difference. You saw that with President Obama in 2008, and you’re going to see it with Bernie Sanders."



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/bernie-sanders-iowa-obama-playbook-218137#ixzz49JLQNbe3
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

That strategy has born fruit. He has done best in caucus states, where voter participation this year has averaged 3.7%. They are the most restrictive means of selecting presidential candidates and have the lowest level of participation of people of color and the poor. Part of that is because most of the states that use caucus systems have low minority populations, but it is also because of the nature of the system that requires people be president during a set period on one night or afternoon. If you have to work and can't afford to take the time off, you're out of luck. If you have child care issues, you're out of luck. If you're elderly or disabled, it's exceedingly difficult if not impossible to participate.

Bottom line: Bernie's campaign strategy has depended on low voter turnout caucus victories. That has kept his overall vote count low. He has not done nearly as well in primaries. Even in states he has won, his margins of victory have been less in primaries, and he has not won a single state with a large population and high voter participation rate. His delegate count is thus substantially higher than his popular vote totals.

Ford_Prefect

(7,892 posts)
42. If numbers do not lie why does Hillary need to do it so often?
Sat May 21, 2016, 01:13 PM
May 2016

Politicians are known to exaggerate to suit their position, nothing new in that per se. 3 million is another scale and intentionally distorts the context. If those caucus numbers were irrelevant why would she and her surrogates fight so hard to defend their take of them. Caucuses are proportional representations just as they are in convention. If their relative proportion to the voters in caucus states were added to the whole people would see how close the vote really is, therefore they are kept out of the 3 million number.

Ford_Prefect

(7,892 posts)
72. On the evidence she has repeatedly and about substantial issues. In this case the numbers.
Sat May 21, 2016, 02:17 PM
May 2016

I would not want to buy a used car from her...

Wibly

(613 posts)
43. If she's so certain
Sat May 21, 2016, 01:13 PM
May 2016

Then why is her campaign so intent on getting Sanders to back out?
If she's sure, then why the desperation.
I know if I was sure I was going to win I'd be telling my crew, full steam ahead, let's play this out. Take the high road.
But no, it's constant misrepresentation of the numbers, negativity and accusations against Sanders and his supporters, and 24/7 spin.

asiliveandbreathe

(8,203 posts)
49. Sanders people, if that is what you are -
Sat May 21, 2016, 01:30 PM
May 2016

Hillary is NOT intent on getting Sanders out...

Your words - "I know if I was sure I was going to win I'd be telling my crew, full steam ahead, let's play this out." - She did!


Sanders says he won’t go negative against Hillary Clinton - seriously - emulate Bernie would be nice!

I don't care who wins the dem nomination --

and I think you are a troll!

Wibly

(613 posts)
98. Call me names
Sat May 21, 2016, 03:50 PM
May 2016

But the fact remains, Clinton through many of her supporters is constantly calling on Sanders to get out. They're doing this not because they are confident they will win.
As for me being a troll, maybe you need to look in a mirror.

Wibly

(613 posts)
94. Only if its special Clinton math
Sat May 21, 2016, 03:33 PM
May 2016

Trying to figure out if you're being facetious or not.
Here's the facts (bloomberg): Clinton 1768, Sanders 1494 with 939 yet to be counted. Less that 300 difference with nearly 100 to be counted is not a shoe in.
As for your penchant for counting super delegates ahead of the convention, Super Delegates do not have their votes counted until the convention and can change their minds anytime up until the convention.
Fact is, right now, neither Clinton nor Sanders have enough votes to win before the Convention, and once the convention starts, anything can happen.
Please stop letting your bias cloud your ability to see the facts.

asiliveandbreathe

(8,203 posts)
46. keep it up folk's - you surely are hell bent for election
Sat May 21, 2016, 01:25 PM
May 2016

to give trump the WH - I have seen the Nader (bush v gore) ...this is so like the PUMAs of yor' - folk yor' - I am so sick of all the infighting..may the Democratic party not splinter..I shudder to think you'all would put self interest before country...WTH...

I will continue to offer my time for voter registration .....for the good of the country - for the good of Democracy..and for the good of the effin' SUPREME COURT.....when will we ever learn -

I respect your opinion - just respect the opinions of others as well.....

Boldine

(86 posts)
48. When Hillary feels threatened
Sat May 21, 2016, 01:30 PM
May 2016

she fights dirty.............. so why is she fighting dirty when supposedly she is all but announced the nominee? Hillary is using the same dirty tactics she used in 2008. All with the support of DWS and the DNC.

 

lewebley3

(3,412 posts)
84. Hopefully she will have whatever it takes: the poor and elderly are at risk:
Sat May 21, 2016, 02:48 PM
May 2016

and she will not be alone: All Americans should help her fight Trump
the fascist. Hillary will sign anything the progressives can get the vote
for when she is President, she a team player.

Sander is only out for himself

azurnoir

(45,850 posts)
91. bandwagoning
Sat May 21, 2016, 03:14 PM
May 2016

partial list of propaganda techniques more at link

Specific techniques[edit]
Scholars have identified many standard techniques used in propaganda and persuasion.[2]



Ad hominem
A Latin phrase that has come to mean attacking one's opponent, as opposed to attacking their arguments.

Ad nauseam
This argument approach uses tireless repetition of an idea. An idea, especially a simple slogan, that is repeated enough times, may begin to be taken as the truth. This approach is more effective alongside the propagandist limiting or controlling the media.
Appeal to authority

Appeals to authority cite prominent figures to support a position, idea, argument, or course of action.
Appeal to fear

Appeals to fear seek to build support by instilling anxieties and panic in the general population, for example, Joseph Goebbels exploited Theodore Kaufman's Germany Must Perish! to claim that the Allies sought the extermination of the German people.

Appeal to prejudice
Using loaded or emotive terms to attach value or moral goodness to believing the proposition.

Bandwagon
Bandwagon and "inevitable-victory" appeals attempt to persuade the target audience to join in and take the course of action that "everyone else is taking."
Inevitable victory: invites those not already on the bandwagon to join those already on the road to certain victory. Those already or at least partially on the bandwagon are reassured that staying aboard is their best course of action. (e.g., "The debate is over. Nearly everyone who matters agrees with me..&quot
Join the crowd: This technique reinforces people's natural desire to be on the winning side. This technique is used to convince the audience that a program is an expression of an irresistible mass movement and that it is in their best interest to join.

"Getting What He Deserves" American anti-Catholic cartoon from Heroes of the Fiery Cross 1928.
Beautiful people
The type of propaganda that deals with famous people or depicts attractive, happy people. This suggests if people buy a product or follow a certain ideology, they too will be happy or successful. (This is used more in advertising for products, instead of political reasons.)

Big Lie
The repeated articulation of a complex of events that justify subsequent action. The descriptions of these events have elements of truth, and the "big lie" generalizations merge and eventually supplant the public's accurate perception of the underlying events. After World War I the German stab in the back explanation of the cause of their defeat became a justification for Nazi re-militarization and revanchist aggression.
Black-and-white fallacy
Presenting only two choices, with the product or idea being propagated as the better choice. (e.g., "You're either with us, or against us....&quot

Cherry picking (fallacy) or Selective truth
Richard Crossman, the British Deputy Director of Psychological Warfare Division (PWD) for the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF) during the Second World War said "In propaganda truth pays... It is a complete delusion to think of the brilliant propagandist as being a professional liar. The brilliant propagandist is the man who tells the truth, or that selection of the truth which is requisite for his purpose, and tells it in such a way that the recipient does not think he is receiving any propaganda... [...] The art of propaganda is not telling lies, but rather selecting the truth you require and giving it mixed up with some truths the audience wants to hear."[3]

Classical conditioning
All vertebrates, including humans, respond to classical conditioning. That is, if A is always present when B is present and B causes a physical reaction (e.g. disgust, pleasure), then when presented with object A in the absence of B, that same reaction will be experienced.

Cognitive dissonance
People desire to be consistent. Suppose a pollster finds that a certain group of people hates his candidate for senator but loves actor A. They use actor A's endorsement of their candidate to change people's minds because people cannot tolerate inconsistency. They are forced to either dislike the actor or like the candidate.

Common man
The "plain folks" or "common man" approach attempts to convince the audience that the propagandist's positions reflect the common sense of the people. It is designed to win the confidence of the audience by communicating in the common manner and style of the target audience. Propagandists use ordinary language and mannerisms (and clothe their message in face-to-face and audiovisual communications) in attempting to identify their point of view with that of the average person. A common example of this type of propaganda is a political figure, usually running for a placement, in a backyard or shop doing daily routine things. This image appeals to the common person. With the plain folks device, the propagandist can win the confidence of persons who resent or distrust foreign sounding, intellectual speech, words, or mannerisms."[4] For example, a politician speaking to a Southern United States crowd might incorporate words such as "Y'all" and other colloquialisms to create a perception of belonging.
Cult of personality

A cult of personality arises when an individual uses mass media to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise. The hero personality then advocates the positions that the propagandist desires to promote. For example, modern propagandists hire popular personalities to promote their ideas and/or products.

Demonizing the enemy
Making individuals from the opposing nation, from a different ethnic group, or those who support the opposing viewpoint appear to be subhuman (e.g., the Vietnam War-era term "gooks" for National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam aka Vietcong, or “VC”, soldiers), worthless, or immoral, through suggestion or false accusations. Dehumanizing is also a termed used synonymously with demonizing, the latter usually serves as an aspect of the former.

World War I poster by Winsor McCay, urging Americans to buy Liberty Bonds

Dictat
This technique hopes to simplify the decision making process by using images and words to tell the audience exactly what actions to take, eliminating any other possible choices. Authority figures can be used to give the order, overlapping it with the appeal to authority technique, but not necessarily. The Uncle Sam "I want you" image is an example of this technique.

Disinformation
The creation or deletion of information from public records, in the purpose of making a false record of an event or the actions of a person or organization, including outright forgery of photographs, motion pictures, broadcasts, and sound recordings as well as printed documents.

Door-in-the-face technique
Is used to increase a person's latitude of acceptance. For example, if a salesperson wants to sell an item for $100 but the public is only willing to pay $50, the salesperson first offers the item at a higher price (e.g., $200) and subsequently reduces the price to $100 to make it seem like a good deal.

Euphemism
A euphemism is a generally innocuous word or expression used in place of one that may be found offensive or suggest something unpleasant.

Euphoria
The use of an event that generates euphoria or happiness, or using an appealing event to boost morale. Euphoria can be created by declaring a holiday, making luxury items available, or mounting a military parade with marching bands and patriotic messages.

Exaggeration
An exaggeration (or hyperbole) occurs when the most fundamental aspects of a statement are true, but only to a certain degree. It is also seen as "stretching the truth" or making something appear more powerful, meaningful, or real than it actually is. Saying that a person ate 20 spring rolls at a party when they actually ate 7 or 8 would be considered an exaggeration.

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt
An attempt to influence public perception by disseminating negative and dubious/false information designed to undermine the credibility of their beliefs.

Flag-waving
An attempt to justify an action on the grounds that doing so will make one more patriotic, or in some way benefit a group, country, or idea. The feeling of patriotism this technique attempts to inspire may not necessarily diminish or entirely omit one's capability for rational examination of the matter in question.

The Finnish Maiden - personification of Finnish nationalism
Foot-in-the-door technique
Often used by recruiters and salesmen. For example, a member of the opposite sex walks up to the victim and pins a flower or gives a small gift to the victim. The victim says thanks and now they have incurred a psychological debt to the perpetrator. The person eventually asks for a larger favor (e.g., a donation or to buy something far more expensive). The unwritten social contract between the victim and perpetrator causes the victim to feel obligated to reciprocate by agreeing to do the larger favor or buy the more expensive gift.

Framing (social sciences)
Framing is the social construction of a social phenomenon often by mass media sources, political or social movements, political leaders, or other actors and organizations. It is an inevitable process of selective influence over the individual's perception of the meanings attributed to words or phrases.

Gish Gallop
Bombarding a political opponent with obnoxiously complex questions in rapid fire during a debate to make the opponent appear to not know what they are talking about.

Glittering generalities
Glittering generalities are emotionally appealing words that are applied to a product or idea, but present no concrete argument or analysis. This technique has also been referred to as the PT Barnum effect. (e.g., the advertising campaign slogan "Ford has a better idea!&quot

Guilt by association or Reductio ad Hitlerum
This technique is used to persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience. Thus if a group that supports a certain policy is led to believe that undesirable, subversive, or contemptible people support the same policy, then the members of the group may decide to change their original position. This is a form of bad logic, where A is said to include X, and B is said to include X, therefore, A = B.


Half-truth
A half-truth is a deceptive statement that includes some element of truth. It comes in several forms: the statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true but only part of the whole truth, or it may utilize some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation, or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade, blame, or misrepresent the truth.
Intentional vagueness
Generalities are deliberately vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations. The intention is to move the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analyzing their validity or attempting to determine their reasonableness or application. The intent is to cause people to draw their own interpretations rather than simply being presented with an explicit idea. In trying to "figure out" the propaganda, the audience forgoes judgment of the ideas presented. Their validity, reasonableness and application may still be considered.

Labeling
A euphemism is used when the propagandist attempts to increase the perceived quality, credibility, or credence of a particular ideal. A dysphemism is used when the intent of the propagandist is to discredit, diminish the perceived quality, or hurt the perceived righteousness of the individual. By creating a “label”, “category”, or “faction” of a population, it is much easier to make an example of these larger bodies, because they can uplift or defame the individual without actually incurring legal-defamation. Labeling can be thought of as a sub-set of guilt by association

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques

 

wisteria

(19,581 posts)
52. No lies, she has 3 million more people -Democrats- vote for her as President.
Sat May 21, 2016, 01:45 PM
May 2016

And, that is the truth.

 

AntiBank

(1,339 posts)
60. huge numbers of her votes came from states Trump will slaughter her in
Sat May 21, 2016, 02:06 PM
May 2016

She is a terrible GE candidate, far worse than Sanders. That's the truth.

Why is the Dem establishment, the DNC, etc etc, and so many on this board hellbent on shoving a neo liberal, neocon loved, bank loved, free trading, war mongering, under FBI investigation candidate down a PROGRESSIVE PARTY'S collective throats? And also in the process tearing the party apart and utterly alienating damn near half of it simply for wanting PROGRESSIVE policies and a progressive candidate instead of a corporatist with goon tactics, shady as hell primaries, insults and paternalistically loathsome smugness????

It's madness

Walk away

(9,494 posts)
85. Maybe because a loser Socialist who has never even been vetted seems like a
Sat May 21, 2016, 02:50 PM
May 2016

really bad candidate. This is a party nomination. If Hillary Clinton wins the most pledged delegates, she is going to win the nomination. She is almost 300 delegates ahead and she is definitely over 3,000,000 votes ahead. And we know for sure that, unlike Bernies') Hillary's votes are all Democrats and left leaning Independents and not a bunch of Republican spoilers trying to ratf**k the Democratic nomination.

If Bernie didn't like the Party or the rules, then he should have run as an Independent.

 

AntiBank

(1,339 posts)
89. democratic socialist (a very mild one at that) and a progressive who would beat Trump
Sat May 21, 2016, 02:53 PM
May 2016

FAr more easily than Clinton, if she can beat him at all.

Cryptoad

(8,254 posts)
54. Bern has already lost to Hillary
Sat May 21, 2016, 01:52 PM
May 2016

HIllary can lose every delegate in CA and she still wins the Nomination. Yall might as well stomp ur feet and throw some more chairs,,,, its over , Bern Lost!

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
58. HIllary can lose every delegate in CA and she still wins the Nomination.
Sat May 21, 2016, 02:02 PM
May 2016

But it's not just about winning numbers. It's about message.

I know all Hillary cares about is winning, but it's also about a message "losing every delegate in CA and she still wins" would send.


A person few people had ever heard of has comes within a few hundred votes, in a matter of months, of a person who has been campaigning since the 20th century.

THAT is what it's about.... and has been.

 

AntiBank

(1,339 posts)
66. yes, Clinton and her corporate masters want to smash, once and for all, any progressive
Sat May 21, 2016, 02:13 PM
May 2016

stance or hope out of the Democratic Party, making it a permanent GOP lite, with a captive base of African Americans and other minorities who will continue to vote for their (DNC bankster puppets) anointed "acceptable" candidates even they they get shit on or ignored or exploited by them at the end of the day almost as much as the wretched Rethugs themselves.

 

lewebley3

(3,412 posts)
77. It would to a Sander propaganda bully: if Hillary wanted to be richer she
Sat May 21, 2016, 02:25 PM
May 2016

could have been a GOP person or worked in private business: She
chose public service to help all Americans.

 

AntiBank

(1,339 posts)
79. 110+ million USD...How Hillary and Bill Clinton Parlayed Decades of Public Service into Vast Wealth
Sat May 21, 2016, 02:29 PM
May 2016
http://fortune.com/2016/02/15/hillary-clinton-net-worth-finances/

Politics as a very lucrative “family business”

People who go into politics have to arrange their affairs so that they can pursue power while maintaining the type of lifestyle that well-educated executives and their children have come to expect. In this presidential campaign season, as we’ve charted in this series, the dozen-odd serious candidates have employed a variety of strategies.

There’s the “Wives of Wall Street” model, used by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Texas Senator Ted Cruz. Billionaire developer Donald Trump and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina are pursuing the “Megabucks CEO” model. Florida Senator Marco Rubio, one of the few presidential candidates not in the 1%, uses his money woes as a kind of shield.

Then there is the model that Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, have pursued — with astonishing success. For them, politics is the family business. There is no distinction between business careers and political careers. Holding and serving in public office provides a platform from which they can monetize experience, connections and prominence. And then they use the wealth gained through, say, speaking engagements and media tours, to lay the groundwork for the next campaign. Electoral office, business, wealth, and public service, all meld together seamlessly.

snip
 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
92. She is her own person and always has been
Sat May 21, 2016, 03:20 PM
May 2016

She seems completely manufactured to me.

We keep hearing how great she is at everything from her and her "machine", but her two main gigs (1st Lady and SoS) were handed to her and her senate seat, the only election she's ever won, was not really a difficult thing to win....besides it obviously being merely a step in her quest for the presidency.

 

AlbertCat

(17,505 posts)
113. If u don't win ur message is meaningless!
Sat May 21, 2016, 07:03 PM
May 2016

That has got to be one of the most clueless things ever typed.

Hilsters just don't get it at all. It's just about winning.... at all costs, and the end justifies the means to them. That's Hillary's message.

 

beachbumbob

(9,263 posts)
56. She is up over 3 million votes over Bernie...she needs 92 more delegates...
Sat May 21, 2016, 01:55 PM
May 2016

She has beaten Bernie and all the delusions and alternative realities won't change it....

Wibly

(613 posts)
95. Proof please
Sat May 21, 2016, 03:34 PM
May 2016

Here's the facts (bloomberg): Clinton 1768, Sanders 1494 with 939 yet to be counted. Less that 300 difference with nearly 100 to be counted is not a shoe in.
As for your penchant for counting super delegates ahead of the convention, Super Delegates do not have their votes counted until the convention and can change their minds anytime up until the convention.
Fact is, right now, neither Clinton nor Sanders have enough votes to win before the Convention, and once the convention starts, anything can happen.

reACTIONary

(5,770 posts)
70. Sorry, but Hillary Clinton is winning the popular vote — by a wide margin
Sat May 21, 2016, 02:16 PM
May 2016

Quote Shaun King: What's wild, is that they act like polls aren't of real people. They aren't computer generated models. They are asking regular people.


Sure. But a better measure of who voters prefer to have as the nominee is letting them vote on it. And so far, 2.9 million more of them have picked Clinton.

Yes, Hillary Clinton is winning the popular vote — by a wide margin
http://wapo.st/1OCiSw0

Wibly

(613 posts)
97. What?
Sat May 21, 2016, 03:37 PM
May 2016

No, claiming you have the support of Super Delegates who do not count their votes until the Convention, and can change their votes anytime up until the convention is not "misleading"!
Its downright misrepresentation of fact though.

reACTIONary

(5,770 posts)
101. No, its not misleading...
Sat May 21, 2016, 04:33 PM
May 2016

.... the superdelagtes that have made their intentions known are not going to flip, especially in the face of Hillary's overwhelming lead in the popular vote.

It's over. Bernie lost. Time to move on to the general election.

lunamagica

(9,967 posts)
99. She's telling the truth. Even Sanders admits it. He says over and ove that he has received
Sat May 21, 2016, 04:17 PM
May 2016

9 million votes. Hillary has received 12.5

They both know that adding caucuses votes would make a significant dent in the vote number

Thinkingabout

(30,058 posts)
102. She is not the one misleadingshe is up by three million votes, this is a fact.
Sat May 21, 2016, 04:34 PM
May 2016

Why would anyone want to mislead on this fact. She is within 250 more pledged delegates until she has one half of the count. She is within 90 delegates of the required delegate count.

Now Sanders was saying until the last few days he was going to win, now tell me who has been misleading.

felix_numinous

(5,198 posts)
116. A misleading campaign means a misleading presidency
Sat May 21, 2016, 08:22 PM
May 2016

This is the way they do business, they do not seek our consent.

Gothmog

(145,132 posts)
126. Shaun King's attempt at analysis is simply wrong
Mon May 23, 2016, 03:37 PM
May 2016

Shaun King's analysis is simply wrong https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/19/yes-hillary-clinton-is-winning-the-popular-vote-by-a-wide-margin/

The idea that the popular vote totals are flawed because caucuses aren't included has been floating around for a while. The point of questioning the sum is obvious: To question the extent to which Democratic voters (and independents voting in Democratic contests, who usually favor Sanders) have preferred Clinton as the party's nominee.

This has been floating around so long, in fact, The Post's fact-checkers looked at this issue at the beginning of April. Did Clinton at that point actually lead by 2.5 million votes, as she claimed? No, she didn't.

She led by 2.4 million votes.

The Post's Glenn Kessler arrived at that figure by taking estimates of how many people came out to vote in caucus contests and applying the final vote margin to that population. This is admittedly imprecise, as King notes, since in some caucuses (like Iowa's) voter preferences can and do change. Kessler's total included Washington, despite King's insistence -- and in Washington, he figured that Sanders had the support of 167,201 voters to Clinton's 62,330. Despite that, still a 2.4 million advantage for Clinton.

It's worth noting that caucuses, for which it's harder to calculate vote totals, are usually in smaller states and/or have smaller turnout. King's concern about ensuring Alaska's huge Democratic voting base is included in the tally is answered by Kessler's math.

What's more, Kessler continued updating his tally as results came in. The most recent update was after the contests on April 27, at which point her wins in New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland and other Northeastern states had extended her lead to "just over 3 million votes" -- including his estimates for the caucuses. (By my tabulation of Kessler's numbers, it's 3.03 million.)

Since then, there have been five contests.

Indiana. Sanders won with 32,152 more votes.
Guam. Clinton won with 249 more votes.
West Virginia. Sanders won with 30,509 more votes.
Kentucky. Clinton won with 1,924 more votes (per the latest AP count).
Oregon. Sanders won with 69,007 more votes (per AP).

In total, then, Clinton's lead over Sanders in the popular vote is 2.9 million. The difference isn't because the total excludes Washington. It's because it includes more recent contests from the past 14 days.

That number will continue to change. There are only two big states left -- New Jersey and California -- both of which vote June 7. Clinton leads by a wide margin in New Jersey, where more than a million people turned out in 2008. She has a smaller lead in California, where about 5 million voted in the Democratic primary eight years ago. For Sanders to pass Clinton in the popular vote, he would need turnout like 2008 in California -- and to win by 57 points.

The analysis in the OP is simply false
 

youceyec

(394 posts)
130. Stop trying to undo the will of the majority of democrats
Mon May 23, 2016, 06:17 PM
May 2016

It will not be successful. All your doing is making it harder to unify sooner than later. Do you want GOP to win??? 90% of you Hillary hate is due to GOP propaganda. Here we have pioneer in women in politics, a former Sec State, Senator and first lady running for potus. Its really amazing how much hate there is.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»Video & Multimedia»If Clinton Is So Sure She...