Democratic leadership recorded pressuring progressive to leave race - Polidicks

This was happening before he had 'lost' a lot of the emails were sourced when he won several key primaries in surprise upsets. The emails were sent months before they were leaked so you have to follow that in line.

"Paustenbach suggested that the incident could be used to promote a "narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never had his act together, that his campaign was a mess." (The suggestion was rejected by the DNC.)" "Basically, all of these examples came late in the primary—after Hillary Clinton was clearly headed for victory" Good source. Read it next time.

Trying to get rid of him was a very bad look when their message was 'Unity'. It should surprise you the DNC was not completely neutral because that is what they promised to be.

I mean Tom Perez, current chair of the democratic party, originally admitted that yes, the race was rigged against Sanders: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/race-dnc-chair-tom-perez-pledges-woo-back-red-rural-n718536

Obama certainly wasn't the first black man to run in a primary, although yeah, he does have a pretty special charisma.

Read the articles? Also of course the DNC would reject the accusations? Being accused of purposely tanking a candidate's run for president even though they promised to be neutral? Are you high?

I wrote that in my reply, though.

Later Wednesday, Perez clarified on Twitter that he "misspoke" about the primary process being rigged. "Hillary became our nominee fair and square, and she won more votes in the primary — and general — than her opponents," he added.

Ah yes, misspoke. That doesn't work for Republicans why would it work for Democrats?

Nobody could ever lie about something they said after it turned out to be something that people who weren't supposed to hear it heard it.

Or maybe he realized that it wasn't the right wording to use. You only believed him the first time because of confirmation bias, you either believe him or you don't. Don't post articles that disprove your own point and then come up with an excuse afterwards.

The DNC bent over backwards to make Bernie happy at the convention and changed the platform for him. They did try their best to unify after a shit primary. He should've called it far earlier than he did and because he didn't he armed the GOP in the general against Clinton.

OK, I won't. Good news: I haven't done so because you're talking to someone else. On the first point I can accuse you also of having confirmation bias for believing him the second time. It is true, however, that we either believe him or don't. Politicians routinely 'correct themselves' after they 'misspoke'; a not insignificant portion of the time they were actually telling the truth, but the truth is politically damaging so they cover it up with platitudes and misdirections (read: lies).

What a crock of shit. Clinton hurt Clinton, as did the DNC. Literally go back to the fucking polls run at the time on a national level and they all readily show Sanders beating everyone else. Sanders did nothing to hurt Clinton, the DNC and her own party and her disgusting, ignorant elitism that made her neglect key states fucked her over. She was a completely incompetent candidate who felt she deserved it and then fucking lost it all. Fuck off with this dumb bullshit, it hasn't worked for the last year and a half, it hasn't been true for the last year and a half, its not going to start being true.

Eh, that's not entirely true. Sanders did metaphorically punch her quite a few times during their debates - and got good points in while he did so. When he did concede, sure, he did everything in his power to get her elected - but everything up to that point was all on her; especially since the DNC was effectively staffed by people who were preparing for four years to elect her to the Presidency - not anyone else.

I watched the Convention, the Bernie supporters were very easy to hear. You have got to be kidding if you think Bernie would've gotten even 10% of what he campaigned on passed through Congress if he did indeed win the Presidency. The platform doesn't survive because the President doesn't actually have that much control over things.

Those weren't Bernie 'supporters'. Those were Bernie delegates. Those same delegates were given 'a talking to' by DNC staff as the night wore on, which I can only presume was 'stop trying to rock the boat'. The majority of the supporters were taken out of the building and put into the parking lot; those that managed to get in without having any sort of Sanders stuff being worn that is. I watched the entire Convention, start to finish.

Bernie Sanders says he polls better against Donald Trump than Hi.. So Sanders is correct that he fares better against Trump than Clinton does in every poll over the past six weeks -- more than 6 points better than Clinton, on average. And Sanders is beating Trump by an average of 12 points in these eight polls, so "big numbers" seems like a reasonable description for Sanders to use. Case closed? Not quite, say polling experts. "General election polls don’t mean much until the conventions are over and you get to late summer or early fall," Swint said. "A lot of voters don’t look at Sanders as a legitimate threat. It’s almost like he’s an imaginary candidate." In addition, early polls do not weed out "likely voters," as polls later in the campaign do, Steven S. Smith, a Washington University political scientist and a specialist in public opinion, told PolitiFact when we previously checked a similar statement by Sanders. This could matter, given Sanders’ high rates of support among college students and younger voters, who have not yet demonstrated a long track record of voting. "If Sanders draws disproportionately from people who are not likely to vote, which is a reasonable speculation at this point, then his support may be somewhat overstated in some comparisons," Smith said. And it’s worth adding that, as Meet the Press host Chuck Todd noted, Clinton can be expected to poll better against Trump after she officially secures the nomination and many former Sanders supporters come to her side. On the numbers, Sanders is correct: In the past six weeks’ worth of polls, Sanders fares 6 points better against Trump than Clinton does, and he beats Trump by double digits on average. Still, polling experts caution that polls this far away from Election Day are not entirely reliable, and they add that Sanders hasn’t been exposed to the same degree of negative attacks as Clinton has.

So literally, "Facts don't matter, what I want them to mean matters more."

So in other words, he was correct that the polls did show what Sanders stated. Some disputed that those numbers could change when he was brought under heavy attack - the problem would come in asserting that 'therefore they would've changed'.

That describes your reaction to polling experts yeah.

Your info literally refutes what you said but you're the one acting like you've provided refutation? Is this some high tier debate strategy? Also polling experts were notoriously wrong during the 2016 Primaries and 2017 Election. 538 themselves have even noted that for many of the pollsters, they let their own biases shade the data.

You could also argue that them not treating him seriously would allow him to win said election. My evidence for that claim is Donald Trump - who literally nobody took seriously and, well look at that, he won. Turns out when you think someone is not a threat and not seriously attack them that they have all the time and energy they need to really rally and lock down their voter base.

I was a Bernie supporter in the Primary. But you guys are being so obtuse in this discussion. Not everything is black and white and can be reduced to simple arguments. How you missed the point of the Politico article is beyond me.

Not really, they're trying to recontexualize raw data to make a political statement not a factual statement and you're just repeating it because it's convenient without understanding it.

So was I. I'm not making any simple arguments, either.

Clinton won the popular vote in both the primary and general. Americans wanted her not Trump. Republicans voted for Trump based on a lot of things but he got about the same amount of votes in the General as any Republican would have so it was mostly based on party affiliation. Trump is unique and can't be compared to Bernie is that context. Bernie appealed to the newer generation that is less hostile to socialist ideas. Trump represents the dying breath of old boomers who have been indoctrinated by fox news. The reason Trump so decimated the GOP primary was because he is the fox news republican. Rubio, Bush etc just use Fox News for propaganda purposes. Trump literally believes that shit and represented the GOP base in a way no other Republican has come close to. Democrats aren't anything like that and you can't compare Democrat voters to them. This is further evidenced by how polling shows Republicans will drastically shift their policy views depending on who is in charge whereas Democrats do not.

Americans more or less equally wanted her and Trump*. Republicans voted for Trump out of solidarity and unified behind him as they fully adopted his platform and accepted his supporters. Democrats rejected Sanders' supporters but for their vote, divided their party while yelling that they'd unified it, and continuously stated they ran a fair game while evidence continued to mount that they had not. The reason why Trump decimated the GOP primary is because he got airtime because people thought he was a harmless sideshow - a carcrash in slow motion that would surely end before too long which was horrifying but would pass - and then found out that he wasn't harmless and were stuck with him. Fox News then began pumping him out 24/7 the moment he became their candidate while the non-ridiculously-biased news organizations tried to sort through the mess of Clinton's servers, the FBI investigation, worries over her health, and so forth while also documenting that Sanders' supporters did not feel included in the party, which was more than justified by how they were treated. So, yeah, I can compare Democrat voters to them because they both were 'outsider candidates' who were either begrudgingly embraced (RNC) or stealthily pushed away (DNC).

You can't make factual statements about future unknown events. It is all speculation. I'd rather trust the polling and political experts than the feeling that Bernie would've won. Bernie was wrong to say that polls a year before the election meant that he'd be more likely to win. This is based on the facts that he was not yet a target for the GOP so there was no point comparing him to Trump at that stage. You can't really believe that the GOP would've lost to somebody that they could have very easily convinced the country was a communist with no real explanations as to how he would achieve his policies. Bernie was a huge liability and freaks out a large portion of the country.

Trusting the political experts who weren't making factual statements about future unknown events as making factual statements about future unknown events is implicitly trusting speculation to have bored out as truth. He was a target for the GOP - he was just a very low priority target. Their main target was, ironically, Trump. I can really believe the GOP would've lost because many of Trump's supporters, who were the ones who secured his election, favored Sanders - meaning Sanders had a chance to win them over in the Presidential debates. Clinton had no such chance because those same supporters had already made up their mind about her.