2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumLemme guess.....
Voters in the primary of WA state who voted for Hillary are either:
1) too dumb to know what's good for them
2) Bought and paid for by oligarchs
3) unprincipled Democrats
4) Really are republicans voting for Hillary
5) Somehow it was rigged by the ever powerful DWS.
Take your pick.
this is sarcasm for those who can't determine.... LOL
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)boston bean
(36,217 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)6) It was trickery designed to oppress white males.
7) She never would have won if they took land ownership into account.
8) It's not legitimate because I promise you there will be an indictment.
9) POC are all anti Semitic.
Yes, I've seen all of those arguments made recently.
boston bean
(36,217 posts)10) Trump Tweets!
LOL
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)How did I forget about their passionate pleas to take Trumps devastating tweets into account.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Now you can go tell people you read that on the Internet.
mcar
(42,278 posts)And we know Southern Democratic votes don't count.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)boston bean
(36,217 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)LexVegas
(6,023 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)Period.
boston bean
(36,217 posts)You know where 3x less people get to decide the outcome of delegate allocation!
POOR BERNIE!
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Had WA allocated delegates by primary vote, the campaigning would have been different.
Basic stuff.
boston bean
(36,217 posts)firebrand80
(2,760 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)boston bean
(36,217 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,160 posts).
There is a lack of parallelism and the contemplation to come up with appropriate items.
#3 and #4 fail, since these are arguments that I believe even you used against SBS.
They stand out like a sore thumb and detract from a possibly good post.
.
boston bean
(36,217 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,160 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)boston bean
(36,217 posts)Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)Wait for it--the swarm will be along any minute to "catapault the propaganda".
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)demanding to be allowed to caucus instead of hold a primary, they sued the State for the right to caucus.
So your complaints and criticisms should be aimed at those who made this choice, the Democratic Party of Washington. Oddly, Hillary supporters usually claim to be Super Ultra Party Loyal. They say it is Sanders supporters who criticize the Party. But this OP is nothing but a massive criticism of the Democratic Party of Washington by persons who do not think their choices are legitimate.
Of course the Nevada Caucus is fine because Hillary has won both contested caucuses in Nevada history, their Democratic Party established their nasty caucus system just in time for 2008. Harry Reid was a major proponent of going to the caucus system and dropping the Primary.
So basically both Camp Clinton and Camp Sanders have criticisms of the system as it now stands and both have complaints about the Democratic Party's choices. Common ground if you admit it.
boston bean
(36,217 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)and that's what it is. The caucuses were not invented by Jeff Weaver, bean. Do you know these things?
If you don't like the caucuses, tell it to those who create them. Blaming candidates for them is daft.
boston bean
(36,217 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I think you have a rucksack full of snark and no point at all, the objective is division. The double standard you employ is neon bright.
boston bean
(36,217 posts)If you don't get the sarcasm, move on.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)boston bean
(36,217 posts)But they should make it easier for other parties to get on ballots.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)to be allowed to caucus instead. It's a caucus because that's how the Party wanted it. I think that's a stinking rotten choice. Criticism of that choice is criticism of the Party, even if you can't bring yourself to admit it, you are critical of the Party just as Sanders supporters are.
boston bean
(36,217 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Once a contest is in play, the rules are the rules. I oppose all caucuses. But I want my candidate to win the game as the game is defined by the Party. As do you, which is why you are not upset Clinton won the Nevada caucus, two times running. Too bad they were not both mail in primaries. That's what Oregon has, Bernie won it by double digits.
Fact is Washington's caucus is the method of delegate allotment because the Democratic Party insisted upon a caucus. Bernie won that caucus, thanks to the Democratic Party.
My entire life I've watched candidates I support win or lose caucuses while I say 'that's a stupid and exclusionary system'. But it's also legitimate under our laws, it's how Obama got the nomination and how Bill Clinton got it. It's not new to this cycle. It's not created by one of the other candidate and clearly both of them have won caucuses. Hillary did not do as well in caucuses against Obama either. That was 8 years ago, all that time to advocate changes in the system and you know what changed? Washington tried to go primary and the Party sued to caucus.
And again, supporters of both candidates have major criticisms of the Party and of the process. It's common ground. Like it or not.
boston bean
(36,217 posts)Skwmom
(12,685 posts)was working on states that have yet to vote. Oh, the horror.
Response to boston bean (Original post)
Vattel This message was self-deleted by its author.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Those aren't necessarily bad things.
jcgoldie
(11,610 posts)Bill Clinton scared all the Bernie voters away at the polling place... duhhh.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I wonder what the outcome would have been if it was an open primary.