Thank you for you agreeing I am correct that they follow the votes. You can move the goalposts to campaign financing if you like.
They move to the right and then announce they follow the votes, regardless of where the votes actually are. You're just happy they move to the right.
I linked you to what the votes in that primary actually were, feel free to observe the facts if your ego isn't too fragile for it. I'm not happy about it, I am just trying to not have a cognitive bias in the same why that you do. It's insane. We agree on the desired outcome in these elections but you're so focused on being mad about how the votes went in the 2016 primary that you accuse me of being happy they chose Clinton. Get a grip.
I linked you to what the votes in that primary actually were
And implicit in that is the assumption that the 2016 primaries were fair. I also pointed out that the party leadership was all in on Clinton before a single vote was cast. They had no way of knowing where the votes were. They saw that Obama, who ran to Clinton's left, was popular with voters. But they wanted Clinton. So they put the cart before the horse.
Maybe they should have taken the votes of people in swing states into account when they totally decided to follow the votes instead of just moving to the right.
What swing states? AZ? NV? PA? FL? Somehow I suspect the DNC should have thrown out those votes and listened to only CO and WI, right?
Do you fact check anything you write or you're just all in on cognitive bias all the time?
Again, you're assuming a fair primary. You're also assuming that Sanders would have fewer votes in the general.
There was no public sentiment clamoring for the party to move to the right in 2016. Just the unfounded assumption that Clinton was the strongest available candidate because the party had bullied all other candidates save one out of the race.
She lost to Trump because she didn't have enough votes. She had more than Trump did, sure. But it wasn't enough votes. Enthusiasm matters. Railroading the voters with a candidate they resent voting for kills enthusiasm.
Enthusiasm matters, so ignore what the majority of the voters want? Insane.
They didn't "bully" anyone, they had a bias with funding. They preferred her going in, maybe because Clinton was literally neck and neck with Obama in the 2008 primaries and Obama did really fucking well in the general.
Voter turnout in the '08 primaries was like 35 million. Voter turnout in '16 was like 30 million. If people were that enthusiastic they could have easily overridden the DNC's bias towards Clinton.
Which, again, is what that person was saying, you cannot move the needle by sitting aside and letting them choose. Again, try to get beyond your profound cognitive bias and look at what actually started this chain. Holy fuck. It is exhausting.
You are doing some revisionist history. You are too biased to even speak with. You literally want them to ignore what their voters are voting for while claiming that you want the opposite. Come on.
Thank you for you agreeing I am correct that they follow the votes. You can move the goalposts to campaign financing if you like.
They move to the right and then announce they follow the votes, regardless of where the votes actually are. You're just happy they move to the right.
I linked you to what the votes in that primary actually were, feel free to observe the facts if your ego isn't too fragile for it. I'm not happy about it, I am just trying to not have a cognitive bias in the same why that you do. It's insane. We agree on the desired outcome in these elections but you're so focused on being mad about how the votes went in the 2016 primary that you accuse me of being happy they chose Clinton. Get a grip.
And implicit in that is the assumption that the 2016 primaries were fair. I also pointed out that the party leadership was all in on Clinton before a single vote was cast. They had no way of knowing where the votes were. They saw that Obama, who ran to Clinton's left, was popular with voters. But they wanted Clinton. So they put the cart before the horse.
Maybe they should have taken the votes of people in swing states into account when they totally decided to follow the votes instead of just moving to the right.
What swing states? AZ? NV? PA? FL? Somehow I suspect the DNC should have thrown out those votes and listened to only CO and WI, right?
Do you fact check anything you write or you're just all in on cognitive bias all the time?
Again, you're assuming a fair primary. You're also assuming that Sanders would have fewer votes in the general.
There was no public sentiment clamoring for the party to move to the right in 2016. Just the unfounded assumption that Clinton was the strongest available candidate because the party had bullied all other candidates save one out of the race.
She lost to Trump because she didn't have enough votes. She had more than Trump did, sure. But it wasn't enough votes. Enthusiasm matters. Railroading the voters with a candidate they resent voting for kills enthusiasm.
Enthusiasm matters, so ignore what the majority of the voters want? Insane.
They didn't "bully" anyone, they had a bias with funding. They preferred her going in, maybe because Clinton was literally neck and neck with Obama in the 2008 primaries and Obama did really fucking well in the general.
Voter turnout in the '08 primaries was like 35 million. Voter turnout in '16 was like 30 million. If people were that enthusiastic they could have easily overridden the DNC's bias towards Clinton.
Which, again, is what that person was saying, you cannot move the needle by sitting aside and letting them choose. Again, try to get beyond your profound cognitive bias and look at what actually started this chain. Holy fuck. It is exhausting.
You are doing some revisionist history. You are too biased to even speak with. You literally want them to ignore what their voters are voting for while claiming that you want the opposite. Come on.