Hell, she also thought that "I don't think [Warren] meant the word 'rigged.'"
What Brazile did find was a memorandum of agreement between the DNC and the Clinton campaign, she said.
“The thing, the only thing, I found -- which I said, 'I found the cancer, but I'm not killing the patient' -- was this memorandum that prevented the DNC from running its own operation,” Brazile said on “This Week.”
Per your source. Brazile isn't willing to go as far as Warren, but she didn't invalidate shit. The DNC pulled some shady shit and no amount of whitewashing by disingenuous parties such as yourself will change those facts.
but she didn’t invalidate shit
She expressly and explicitly said it wasn't rigged. Saying it's "dishonest" to point to this when someone claims she would agree it's "rigged" doesn't make any sense. Additionally, I never said there was no right to be suspicious. I was suspicious when all this came out at first. But the facts have since made clear that the nomination was not rigged. So I dropped my suspicion. This is how it should work.
If the argument is that things should change with the process, and that it creates a huge conflict of interest that Clinton controlled the finances, I'm 100% on board. But then we should be having a rational discussion about what we objectively know to be true and what needs to change, rather than making up BS that it was rigged against Sanders and going from there. If we don't start from a place of facts, the outcome won't be any good. As they say: Garbage in, garbage out.
If the DNC had rigged the nomination process against Bernie Sanders, logic would suggest Hillary Clinton should have swept the caucuses and Sanders should have performed best in the primaries. After all, the state Democratic Party organizations administer the caucuses, whereas state and local election authorities administer primary elections. Instead, the reverse proved to be true. Clinton won twenty-nine out of the thirty-nine primaries, whereas Sanders won twelve out of the fourteen caucuses. Ironically, therefore, Sanders ran strongest in the election contests administered by the Democratic Party
anytime who is unsure which of us is right will look into it.
The fact that you haven't linked to your evidence is enough for everyone to see how little faith you have in your claim.
I am watching the sopranos. but I have faith in the users here.
but I have faith in the users here.
Some posted a paper below, with the intent that showing a belief in it being rigged is "reasonable," that pretty much clearly concluded the opposite and that the evidence suggests it wasn't rigged. Even going so far as to call it a "myth" that it was rigged.
And people upvoted it, because they were told it supports their claim that it was rigged against Sanders. And these are the people you have "faith" in getting to the right answer. lol
that paper seems more concerned with not undermining the system than finding out with whether the system was undermined. but other replies found the dnc and its members explaining how it was rigged.
Or, maybe, it wasn't rigged and they are just honestly assessing it. Nah. Obviously this was some rigged paper!
Hey, any excuse to ignore the facts when they contradict your beliefs. lol
i sincerely hope anyone woh thinks you are right reads that paper
I like how you're pretending you read it, and this have actual valid criticisms of their methods and conclusions. Rather than the reality that you are just dismissing it out of hand because it doesn't confirm your belief.
from what i understood, they concluded that we shouldn't tell people the 2016 nomination was rigged because it would undermine faith in the system. did i misunderstand that?
That should be enough, I also linked them to u/EatATaco
Enough to post, but not enough to back up your BS claims. Convenient. Lol
my claims aren't bs.
And yet you don't have the faith to back them up. Lol oh wait, not enough time to back them up...but plenty of time to post over and over again
This is a very lengthy examination of the primaries. It doesn't really conclude anything except that the process in 2016 wasn't as transparent as it usually was and it might be reasonable to think it might have been rigged.
I hate shitting on your post because, unlike pretty much every other response to me, you actually offered up some evidence to back up your claim.
However, it also demonstrates my point.
From the conclusion in your link.
The bottom line is Clinton won the nomination because she appealed to more Democratic voters than Sanders did.
The ultimate irony of the 2016 presidential contest was the fact that the Democratic rules benefited Bernie Sanders far more than Hillary Clinton.
For example, if every superdelegate from a state won by Sanders supported him at the nominating convention, Clinton would still have led Sanders by a margin of 2,721 delegates to 2,019.2
Likewise, eliminating superdelegates entirely would still have seen Clinton ahead of Sanders by a margin of 2,205 pledged delegates to 1,846
If the DNC had rigged the nomination process against Bernie Sanders, logic would suggest Hillary Clinton should have swept the caucuses and Sanders should have performed best in the primaries. After all, the state Democratic Party organizations administer the caucuses, whereas state and local election authorities administer primary elections. Instead, the reverse proved to be true. Clinton won twenty-nine out of the thirty-nine primaries, whereas Sanders won twelve out of the fourteen caucuses. Ironically, therefore, Sanders ran strongest in the election contests administered by the Democratic Party
The simple fact is Sanders lost the race because Democratic voters preferred Clinton. As the political scientist William Mayer observed, "whatever criticisms Sanders and his supporters may have about the 2016 presidential nomination process, they cannot reasonably complain that Hillary Clinton won even though the voters really preferred him. The primary results, in particular, speak loudly to the contrary."
The 2016 election demonstrated the disturbing ease with which political falsehoods spread. . . It is therefore more important than ever to document the historical record accurately. The myth of a "rigged" nomination must not be left unchallenged. In defense of America's democratic institutions, we must tell the truth about what happened in the
2016 election.
They point out very clearly that not only is there no evidence it was rigged, but a lot of evidence that suggests it likely was not rigged. Literally it outright calls it a myth. It doesn't, at all, as you say, conclude that it "might be reasonable to think it might have been rigged."
Not a single person who upvoted your post actually read the linked piece. You just claimed it supported your point, and thus they all just believe it did and upvoted it. And I bet all of these people likewise shit on Trump supporters for claiming fraud despite the evidence to the contrary.
But I do appreciate the link, and I thank you for giving it to me, because I'm going to keep it in my back pocket for the inevitable next time someone falsely claims the nomination was rigged.
The agreement — signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and [Clinton campaign manager] Robby Mook with a copy to [Clinton campaign counsel] Marc Elias— specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised,” Brazile wrote in the story under the headline “Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC.”
Brazils added of the deal: “[Clinton’s] campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.”
The Clintons outright took control of the DNC, hardly conductive to a fair primaries.
“I have an apology to make to @BernieSanders,” Phillips wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter. “I had long dismissed his complaints about the rigged Democratic Party primary system.”
“But you know what? He was right. And I apologize, Bernie,” he added.
Other D’s ageee
After hacked emails published Monday by WikiLeaks appeared to reveal Brazile, during her time as a CNN commentator, giving advance notice to Clinton’s camp about a debate question,
They further gave unfair advantages to benefit Hillary
In the emails, DNC staffers derided the Sanders campaign.[28] The Washington Post reported: "Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders's presidential campaign."[8]
The leaks show the DNC was weaponised against Bernie, they colluded together to find ways to smear his campaign, even suggesting antisemitism.
Etc etc etc. I’ve done this song and dance a million times with you people and if I was still on Reddit I’d go back and find my long perfectly sourced post that I’d trot out every time.
You’d end up saying “wahhh it’s not technically illegal so it doesn’t matter” and I’d go on with my day not wasting any further time. So enjoy me randomly copying stuff from the first 3 links I clicked on Google, you can be a big boy and go search those exact quotes to find the corresponding pages I got them from if you want to read more.
tl;dr: Hacked emails and admissions from DNC chairpeople all point to the same thing, the DNC was rigged to give Hillary an unfair advantage over everyone else. Democracy was subverted through this bias, and as such we will never know how Bernie would’ve failed.
What we do know is that Hillary tried her best to game the system and lost. So it’s not like Bernie could have done any worse.
I guess I'm a proof is in the pudding guy. You've not provided any proof, just a lot of reason to be suspicious. This goes exactly like my debates with Trump supporters when it comes to the 2020 election "Well, I believe I have a lot of reasons to be suspicious, so it's reasonable for me to call it rigged." In both cases, the evidence does not back up the claim.
If the claim is that the DNC did some improper things during the 2016 democratic nomination and showed a bias against Sanders, I absolutely agree. If the claim is that they rigged it, sorry, my man, but that's just as fictional as the MAGA claims of 2020 election fraud.
I'm mostly copy-pasting this from another post I made, where someone graciously gave me a link that pretty much completely dispels the myth of rigging the 2016 (ironically, they were providing the link to make it seem reasonable to believe it was rigged).
The bottom line is Clinton won the nomination because she appealed to more Democratic voters than Sanders did.
The ultimate irony of the 2016 presidential contest was the fact that the Democratic rules benefited Bernie Sanders far more than Hillary Clinton.
if every superdelegate from a state won by Sanders supported him at the nominating convention, Clinton would still have led Sanders by a margin of 2,721 delegates to 2,019.2 Likewise, eliminating superdelegates entirely would still have seen Clinton ahead of Sanders by a margin of 2,205 pledged delegates to 1,846
If the DNC had rigged the nomination process against Bernie Sanders, logic would suggest Hillary Clinton should have swept the caucuses and Sanders should have performed best in the primaries. After all, the state Democratic Party organizations administer the caucuses, whereas state and local election authorities administer primary elections. Instead, the reverse proved to be true. Clinton won twenty-nine out of the thirty-nine primaries, whereas Sanders won twelve out of the fourteen caucuses. Ironically, therefore, Sanders ran strongest in the election contests administered by the Democratic Party
The simple fact is Sanders lost the race because Democratic voters preferred Clinton. As the political scientist William Mayer observed, "whatever criticisms Sanders and his supporters may have about the 2016 presidential nomination process, they cannot reasonably complain that Hillary Clinton won even though the voters really preferred him. The primary results, in particular, speak loudly to the contrary."
The 2016 election demonstrated the disturbing ease with which political falsehoods spread. . . It is therefore more important than ever to document the historical record accurately. The myth of a "rigged" nomination must not be left unchallenged. In defense of America's democratic institutions, we must tell the truth about what happened in the
2016 election.
You’d end up saying “wahhh it’s not technically illegal so it doesn’t matter”
Don't put words in my mouth, you'll just make a fool of yourself. Although, I'm curious how you are going to spin and deny an actual analysis of the vote showing that it being rigged was extremely unlikely. Just like Trump supporters, you'll just keep on going believing what you want to believe, facts be damned. You're not the only one who has done this dance a million times. The difference between you is that I put the facts above my desire, and once they showed that it wasn't true, I stopped believing it.
they admitted they rigged that primary
No they didn't. No primary was rigged.
Elizabeth Warren and Donna brazile disagree
No they don't.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/sen-elizabeth-warren-says-2016-democratic-primary-was-rigged
https://youtu.be/XBYnJh45WS8?si=WG1P0TiHYLaheVpB
And Donna Brazille says there is "no evidence" the primaries were rigged. Making the statement clearly false.
Hell, she also thought that "I don't think [Warren] meant the word 'rigged.'"
Per your source. Brazile isn't willing to go as far as Warren, but she didn't invalidate shit. The DNC pulled some shady shit and no amount of whitewashing by disingenuous parties such as yourself will change those facts.
She expressly and explicitly said it wasn't rigged. Saying it's "dishonest" to point to this when someone claims she would agree it's "rigged" doesn't make any sense. Additionally, I never said there was no right to be suspicious. I was suspicious when all this came out at first. But the facts have since made clear that the nomination was not rigged. So I dropped my suspicion. This is how it should work.
If the argument is that things should change with the process, and that it creates a huge conflict of interest that Clinton controlled the finances, I'm 100% on board. But then we should be having a rational discussion about what we objectively know to be true and what needs to change, rather than making up BS that it was rigged against Sanders and going from there. If we don't start from a place of facts, the outcome won't be any good. As they say: Garbage in, garbage out.
As this paper points out:
anytime who is unsure which of us is right will look into it.
The fact that you haven't linked to your evidence is enough for everyone to see how little faith you have in your claim.
I am watching the sopranos. but I have faith in the users here.
Some posted a paper below, with the intent that showing a belief in it being rigged is "reasonable," that pretty much clearly concluded the opposite and that the evidence suggests it wasn't rigged. Even going so far as to call it a "myth" that it was rigged.
And people upvoted it, because they were told it supports their claim that it was rigged against Sanders. And these are the people you have "faith" in getting to the right answer. lol
that paper seems more concerned with not undermining the system than finding out with whether the system was undermined. but other replies found the dnc and its members explaining how it was rigged.
Or, maybe, it wasn't rigged and they are just honestly assessing it. Nah. Obviously this was some rigged paper!
Hey, any excuse to ignore the facts when they contradict your beliefs. lol
i sincerely hope anyone woh thinks you are right reads that paper
I like how you're pretending you read it, and this have actual valid criticisms of their methods and conclusions. Rather than the reality that you are just dismissing it out of hand because it doesn't confirm your belief.
from what i understood, they concluded that we shouldn't tell people the 2016 nomination was rigged because it would undermine faith in the system. did i misunderstand that?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/sen-elizabeth-warren-says-2016-democratic-primary-was-rigged
https://youtu.be/XBYnJh45WS8?si=WG1P0TiHYLaheVpB
That should be enough, I also linked them to u/EatATaco
Enough to post, but not enough to back up your BS claims. Convenient. Lol
my claims aren't bs.
And yet you don't have the faith to back them up. Lol oh wait, not enough time to back them up...but plenty of time to post over and over again
This is a very lengthy examination of the primaries. It doesn't really conclude anything except that the process in 2016 wasn't as transparent as it usually was and it might be reasonable to think it might have been rigged.
https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=jlpp
I hate shitting on your post because, unlike pretty much every other response to me, you actually offered up some evidence to back up your claim.
However, it also demonstrates my point.
From the conclusion in your link.
They point out very clearly that not only is there no evidence it was rigged, but a lot of evidence that suggests it likely was not rigged. Literally it outright calls it a myth. It doesn't, at all, as you say, conclude that it "might be reasonable to think it might have been rigged."
Not a single person who upvoted your post actually read the linked piece. You just claimed it supported your point, and thus they all just believe it did and upvoted it. And I bet all of these people likewise shit on Trump supporters for claiming fraud despite the evidence to the contrary.
But I do appreciate the link, and I thank you for giving it to me, because I'm going to keep it in my back pocket for the inevitable next time someone falsely claims the nomination was rigged.
The Clintons outright took control of the DNC, hardly conductive to a fair primaries.
Other D’s ageee
They further gave unfair advantages to benefit Hillary
The leaks show the DNC was weaponised against Bernie, they colluded together to find ways to smear his campaign, even suggesting antisemitism.
Etc etc etc. I’ve done this song and dance a million times with you people and if I was still on Reddit I’d go back and find my long perfectly sourced post that I’d trot out every time.
You’d end up saying “wahhh it’s not technically illegal so it doesn’t matter” and I’d go on with my day not wasting any further time. So enjoy me randomly copying stuff from the first 3 links I clicked on Google, you can be a big boy and go search those exact quotes to find the corresponding pages I got them from if you want to read more.
tl;dr: Hacked emails and admissions from DNC chairpeople all point to the same thing, the DNC was rigged to give Hillary an unfair advantage over everyone else. Democracy was subverted through this bias, and as such we will never know how Bernie would’ve failed.
What we do know is that Hillary tried her best to game the system and lost. So it’s not like Bernie could have done any worse.
I guess I'm a proof is in the pudding guy. You've not provided any proof, just a lot of reason to be suspicious. This goes exactly like my debates with Trump supporters when it comes to the 2020 election "Well, I believe I have a lot of reasons to be suspicious, so it's reasonable for me to call it rigged." In both cases, the evidence does not back up the claim.
If the claim is that the DNC did some improper things during the 2016 democratic nomination and showed a bias against Sanders, I absolutely agree. If the claim is that they rigged it, sorry, my man, but that's just as fictional as the MAGA claims of 2020 election fraud.
I'm mostly copy-pasting this from another post I made, where someone graciously gave me a link that pretty much completely dispels the myth of rigging the 2016 (ironically, they were providing the link to make it seem reasonable to believe it was rigged).
https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1062&context=jlpp
From the link:
Don't put words in my mouth, you'll just make a fool of yourself. Although, I'm curious how you are going to spin and deny an actual analysis of the vote showing that it being rigged was extremely unlikely. Just like Trump supporters, you'll just keep on going believing what you want to believe, facts be damned. You're not the only one who has done this dance a million times. The difference between you is that I put the facts above my desire, and once they showed that it wasn't true, I stopped believing it.