Current Events > how is Clinton's new book? is it out yet?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Coffeebeanz posted...

Because the DNC decided who their candidate would be long before the primaries happened, and did not give two s***s about what their own voterbase cared about. When the emails came out, showing Debbie Wasserman Schultz colluding directly with the Hillary camp, it simply reaffirmed those suspicions to a lot of people.

But what was the DNC supposed to do? Make more candidates run? If the voter base doesn't like any of their choices for a primary, they should encourage a different candidate to run.
---

Hillary won among Democratic voters, but I think it's fair to say that she was horribly unsuited for a 2016 general electorate. Arguments from the primary about her "electability" really misread the situation.
---

Anteaterking posted...

Coffeebeanz posted...

Because the DNC decided who their candidate would be long before the primaries happened, and did not give two s***s about what their own voterbase cared about. When the emails came out, showing Debbie Wasserman Schultz colluding directly with the Hillary camp, it simply reaffirmed those suspicions to a lot of people.

But what was the DNC supposed to do? Make more candidates run? If the voter base doesn't like any of their choices for a primary, they should encourage a different candidate to run.

open primaries would help.
---

She lost because she didn't campaign in the right places, it doesn't matter about Bernie or the DNC or the debates. She had enough votes, she didn't have them in the right places.
---

It doesn't help that for the last couple of years the US has experienced a sort of "fuck the establishment" mentality. Then the DNC coronates the most establishment candidate possible.
---

lilORANG posted...

open primaries would help.

Doesn't this open up the possibility of people going out and voting against the competitor they don't want to be pitted against?
---

COVxy posted...

lilORANG posted...

open primaries would help.

Doesn't this open up the possibility of people going out and voting against the competitor they don't want to be pitted against?

sure. democracy is a fun thing. use your vote however you want it.
---

lilORANG posted...

COVxy posted...

lilORANG posted...

open primaries would help.

Doesn't this open up the possibility of people going out and voting against the competitor they don't want to be pitted against?

sure. democracy is a fun thing. use your vote however you want it.

And that isn't just as unfair, if a republican votes against the star democratic candidate to reduce their probability of winning the primary?
---

Coffeebeanz posted...

It doesn't help that for the last couple of years the US has experienced a sort of "fuck the establishment" mentality. Then the DNC coronates the most establishment candidate possible.

You keep saying this like the DNC coronation doesn't mean anything. The DNC crowned Hillary AND THEN PEOPLE VOTED FOR HER OVER BERNIE.

People who vote in the primaries are a part of the DNC voterbase. If your complaint is that the voterbase picked a candidate who wasn't very electable, that's a completely different conversation.
---

COVxy posted...

lilORANG posted...

COVxy posted...

lilORANG posted...

open primaries would help.

Doesn't this open up the possibility of people going out and voting against the competitor they don't want to be pitted against?

sure. democracy is a fun thing. use your vote however you want it.

And that isn't just as unfair, if a republican votes against the star democratic candidate to reduce their probability of winning the primary?

You're putting way more thought into this than 99+% of voters would.

ElatedVenusaur posted...

You're putting way more thought into this than 99+% of voters would.

I think the same people who blame the closed primary for Bernie's loss would also claim that he was screwed out of it by opposition voters employed by the establishment.
---