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 Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Democratic Primaries

Uncle Joe

(65,882 posts)

33. The assumption is based on at least the minimum, full transparency for democratic processes

Reply to beastie boy (Reply #31)

Thu Sep 19, 2019, 02:20 PM

Sep 2019

(even if it's not truly one person one vote,) and mathematics.

I'm not outraged so much as curious.

If I were to vote in a presidential
primary today, I would vote for: Undecided

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

38 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sanders supporters cry foul over Working Families endorsement of Warren [View all] brooklynite Sep 2019 OP

Her center-piece is working families. She is all about working families. He's like Revolution, dude. emmaverybo Sep 2019 #1

Weighted equally means Eric J in MN Sep 2019 #2

No way to tell from the OP what exactly "weighed equually" means beastie boy Sep 2019 #7

Here is an article stating how it could happen. Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #9

Actually, the chart is incorrect. It assumes that 100% of WFP leadership voted for either Warren or beastie boy Sep 2019 #29

The chart only uses 100% in the case that 20 odd percent of members voted for Warren. If Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #30

It's not the numbers ON the chart I am questioning. It's the assumption that the chart is beastie boy Sep 2019 #31

The assumption is based on at least the minimum, full transparency for democratic processes Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #33

I just agreed with you on transparency of democratic process. I don't know what else you expect. beastie boy Sep 2019 #34

Another true title - Sanders supporters errupt with calls of foul play because their guy lost. lark Sep 2019 #3

Did they feel ENTITLED to the endorsement? NurseJackie Sep 2019 #12

Sanders Supporters: "I'll Respect The Outcome Of The Vote If We Win" smb Sep 2019 #27

Pre-cisely, lark! Cha Sep 2019 #38

They should probably just release the vote breakdown... TCJ70 Sep 2019 #4

Guess it's not so meaningless after all. TwilightZone Sep 2019 #5

Release the Full Vote WFP ritapria Sep 2019 #6

It is proof that the "establishment" rigged the election BlueMississippi Sep 2019 #20

"Dues Paying"? brooklynite Sep 2019 #22

The WFP doesn't require dues. TwilightZone Sep 2019 #36

I wonder if all those complaining today remember last year when the WFP endorsed and RAN... George II Sep 2019 #8

Not exactly what happened brooklynite Sep 2019 #16

Aw. NurseJackie Sep 2019 #10

Yes, lack of transparency is sad. Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #11

The sense of entitlement is even sadder. NurseJackie Sep 2019 #13

"Entitlement" to transparency is sad? How curious. Uncle Joe Sep 2019 #14

Ha! NurseJackie Sep 2019 #15

Supporters are complaining but not the campaign itself. LiberalFighter Sep 2019 #17

Figures. NurseJackie Sep 2019 #18

Rigged by the "establishment" BlueMississippi Sep 2019 #19

This is disqualifying. BannonsLiver Sep 2019 #21

Nobody is entitled to an endorsement Otto Lidenbrock Sep 2019 #23

:) On schedule, even tho the WFP normally endorses a Democrat or Republican. Hortensis Sep 2019 #24

weren't they saying this endorsement makes no difference ? JI7 Sep 2019 #25

Here's the link to the WFP rules SharonClark Sep 2019 #26

April 22, 2015 Working Families met with Elizabeth to 'Draft Warren' crazytown Sep 2019 #28

Sanders supporters cry foul over [fill in the blank]. honest.abe Sep 2019 #32

Surprise! Sanders declined to meet with WFP leadership...unlike Warren brooklynite Sep 2019 #35

Apparently, "crying foul" involves racism, sexism and threats. TwilightZone Sep 2019 #37