2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI am so glad fucking Media IS DECIDING OUR ELECTIONS NOW. THEY COULDN'T WAIT A NITE.
Amended -- The media not just Comcast. I was out earlier and came home and turned on the TV and they were talkiung about NBC calling it. So a pox on all their houses.Godamn fucking Big Corporate Media has crossed over the line. Democracy is officially DEAD as a FUCKING DOOR NAIL. We are now the United States of Corporations.
Comcast -- who own NBC and Universal Studios and is trying to take over our entire national information infrastructure-- has decided that Clinton has won it. They have decided to undermine the electoral system.
By "coincidence" Comcast is sponsoring the Democratic National Convention
FUCK THEM.
Maybe Clinton has won it for real. But that is not the godamn point.
They could not wait a godamn night until the fucking people of California have had a chance to vote?
We no longer live in a democracy.
Enjoy your Official Oligarchy. Revel in the ILLUSION OF CHOICE that the Democratic Party has been complicit in creating.
Response to Armstead (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Armstead
(47,803 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,787 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Greywing
(1,124 posts)and CBS and ABC followed suit THEN NBC ... not fair but those are the facts.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Duval
(4,280 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)...to February 1?
randome
(34,845 posts)Big deal.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Armstead
(47,803 posts)"Presumptive nominee" is a subjective opinion. It is NOT like a force of nature or an actual election.
They could have waited a night, and at least allowed the process to be completed. The largest state in the Union is voting tomorrow.
No way this will not affect the outcome with a self-fulfilling prophecy.
It stinks to high heaven and if you think it's okay, you disappoint me.
randome
(34,845 posts)The math is just a snapshot of how things stand currently. Anything can change between now and the convention. It likely won't but, again, your argument is with math, which is an objective fact, not a subjective opinion.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
KPN
(15,637 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Or am I missing something and you're passive-aggressively trying to inspire unity?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
KPN
(15,637 posts)have posted it.
As for the unity thing, nope. The hell with unity at this point.
I'm a Bernie or Buster.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)Please try to listen to yourselves. Your bitterness is making you see conspiracies everywhere.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
KPN
(15,637 posts)isn't paying attention, or are just lemmings frankly.
Anyone who doesn't care is worse.
babylonsister
(171,035 posts)who haven't even voted yet. Shame on you for thinking 'that' is no big deal.
randome
(34,845 posts)I guess I'm more unique than I thought.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
TwilightZone
(25,428 posts)Please proceed.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)And if we elect Bernie he will put the press in their...never mind.
tritsofme
(17,371 posts)Sounds like your beef should be with them.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)tritsofme
(17,371 posts)It didn't have to be weeks/months after the contest was decided.
No reason every state couldn't vote by the end of April when they could potentially be relevant to the process, I have no idea why state officials would choose to go dead last and make their voters irrelevant.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Mainly it state campaigns. Primaries are somewhat cheap, general elections are expense. By having it so late, state canidates do not go into general election mode until June, which makes elections more affordable. And to have a February/March presidential primary and a June state primary would be too expensive for the state.
still_one
(92,061 posts)their's back up again
I personally don't think it would be a good idea to have primaries all run on the same day. Part of the process is get to know the candidates
People can legitimately disagree if that process is done fairly or not
LiberalFighter
(50,787 posts)Most states do not hold primaries just to decide who will be a nominee for President. California has this primary election to also decide the nominees for U.S. Senator and U.S. Representatives.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,787 posts)I doubt there would be much of a lower voter turnout because of it.
treestar
(82,383 posts)It would depend how close the election is. In a close one they could be even more "relevant." In the end every vote is still the same in weight.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)Why would it be any less biased to not call it when she reaches the necessary number of delegates? Wouldn't that technically be more biased than simply reporting the news when it happens?
retrowire
(10,345 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)All this is is the latest snapshot of how things stand currently.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Generic Brad
(14,272 posts)Seriously, your argument is little more than wishful thinking.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)Generic Brad
(14,272 posts)Thank you so much for correcting the internet.
TwilightZone
(25,428 posts)If she has the numbers, she has the numbers. Sitting on that information wouldn't make any sense.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)You are very kind to give this thing an additional week. More patient than I could be.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)How Republican of you.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)the AP did what they all try to do "get a scoop". And you blame Comcast and Hillary even though you know your OP is a lie. I could ask what that makes YOU sound like?
Armstead
(47,803 posts), I expect you to just shrug your shoulders and say "Well that's just the way it goes."
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)but you need to calm down and stop posting nonsense all calling us Republicans and blaming Comcast for AP decisions -manufacturing conspiracy theories. Enough of that shit already. Seriously.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The Democrats were pressured to give up the night after the election.
There are many ways to artificially influence the results. You ready for the GOP and media to unleash their bag o' tricks?
This is not simply about Sanders v Clinton. It''s about how far from an actual democracy we are moving.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)there you go .
Armstead
(47,803 posts)"Vice President Gore. You have clearly lost. Don't waste the nation's time with a recount or contesting the results. It's a done deal."
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)And ultra lefties were TOTAL dumbasses for pushing for Nader.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)And I never realized you hate progressives so much.
But aside from that, if you want to accept the media/GOP judgement if there is a similar problem in November go ahead. We don't need those processes that make up democracy anymore. Just let the media and the pooh bahs make the final decisions for us.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)stories about Comcast, or Trump= Clinton, we here = Republicans or indictments "happening" when that is merely your fantasy talking. Stop making shit up. It should be beneath you.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Trump does not equal Clinton.....but I don't have to like Clinton either.
I don't dwell in fantasy. I assumed frok day one that Clinton will be the nominee. But I had hoped there would at least be more of a level playing field.
Silly me. Thinking that almost half the people in the primary make any damn difference if they're not in lockstep with the Democratic Corporate Machine.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)about that? Seriously. It's a lesson Sanders needs to learn too.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I was out with a friend tonight. We were talking fairly calmly about how it would probably be over tomorrow night. Not happy, but accepting of it.
Then I come home and find out that the California and otehr last states elections have been essentially nullified by the media and the Democratic machine.
Screw that. One more nail in the coffin of participatory democracy. It's not just about Sanders v. Clinton.
You and others will learn that the hard way when it';s your turn to be screwed by negation of the process.
Respect my opinion or not. It is not my concern at the moment.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)this season, it is that there is no end to the "special new rules" you'd love to have apply to this race.
The shit about waiting till the convention was always ridiculous because it disrespects the majority of voters- and that was a really fucked up gambit to take. Not happening and I am happy it won;t.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)To be honest, I would not have wanted Bernie to stay on attack mode into the convention.
But I also don't want him to give up on the fight to open up the party.
I don't know what you are referring to by "new rules."
But I just hope you are as accepting of things if the GOP and/or media uses the rules to screw it up for Democrats down the line. It is not an impossibility.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)in fact he tried to. He was not going to get the SD to overturn their votes, and because he was spreading this fantasy scenario someone had to level set his supporters. Not happening- and enough SDs wanted AP to know it today.
You'll see Obama and probably Warren coming out to endorse her this week, because we really do not need another six weeks of playing games once the voting is over. SBS forced the hand of the SDs himself, and this is the result. They told AP he has no chance.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)"Frankly I don't give a damn" anymore.
Have your election. I hope Clinton pulls it off against Trump.
At best we'll just slog along and allow the wealth to continue to become more concentrated, Corporations and Wall St. to continue to buy the government, private health insurance will continue to call the shots and keep medical care unaffordable....We'll continue to allow the poor to become poorer and more desperate. We'll allow the working class to continue to get screwed the middle class continue to shrink...While Lloyd Blankfine and his buddies amasse ever more obscene wealth.
Not to mention continued misadventures in the Middle East and elsewhere.
And a whole host of otehr crap that the Democratic Party has failed to acknowledge or address for too many years.
And all those enthusiastic young people. They will continue to be given little incentive to be enthusiastic about the political process, because they don't matter.
It's summer and life is too short for this shit.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)governing was never going to be a cakewalk for any Dem next year....
Armstead
(47,803 posts)And that has been a dominant theme.
Insult them as Berniebros. Tell them that their aspirations are not realistic. Tell them that they are not really welcome because they are just shallow young people who have not been engaged in party politics for years.
Doesn't matter. It's done. Clinton gets the mess. As far as I'm concerned, she's welcome to it. Good luck to her. She is going to need it.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)voters, for fucks sake? Honestly- this is ridiculous, if you want to change things it takes work- not complaining about it after it fucking happens. This shit is getting really embarrassing.
Response to Armstead (Reply #91)
KPN This message was self-deleted by its author.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)I remember them being joined by 20% of the party nationwide.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Because of the process, Hillary Clinton is now the presumptive nominee.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)If Clinton wins it, so be it.
But to anoint her as the "presumed nominee" the night before the largest state in the union is set to vote is UNDERMINING THE PROCESS.
They all couldn't have waited one more night until they had a chance to vote?
Hell let's just call the Presidential Elections in September if one candidate is far enough ahead in the polls.
Democrats should not defend that behavior. I don't care who one supports.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)You're better than that.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)That was low of me and I apologize.
But I really am pissed. This is not how democracy is supposed to work, no matter who is the winner.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)I don't really want to be treated any better than you are willing to treat other DUers.
passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)Just sayin...not in this thread at this point, but elsewhere.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)and I am angry that Democrats are condoning the idea that the media should be making remaining primaries meaningless by pronouncing it over the night before important votes.
This is not just about Bernie v. Clinton. It brings back memories of 2000, and the otehr times the GOP and/or media have undercut the process to the determent of Democrats.
We accept this, and that means we have to accept similar things in the future.
FYI I was out with a friend tonight, and we were accepting that the primary is essentially over. Not happy about it but accepting it.
.....But when I came home and turned on the TV and saw that California, New Jersey and the otehr states had been essentially disenfranchised by the media calling the primary officially over the NIGHT BEFORE a huge vote....Well it made steam come out of my ears.
I apologize if I vented too strongly to some. But I believe any Democrat who believes in the process should be angry about this, whomever they support.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)In fact that happens more often than not. Was it unfair that Gore in 2000 secured the nomination in March, long before many states had voted? Was it unfair that Kerry did the same in 2004? Would it have been unfair, had the AP not conducted their survey of the superdelegates, for the winner to be called before the District of Columbia got to vote?
LiberalFighter
(50,787 posts)dana_b
(11,546 posts)why do we have to explain this to you?
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)Those less informed than most of us that post here will read and/or watch this and they will not go out to vote -- this applies to both sides. And, there are other primaries and ballot issues that need to be voted on that could be negatively impacted by hearing this. If Hillary won/lost, the less politically savvy will not realize they still need to go out and vote
Apart from the Hillary/Bernie race, this is media negligence at best.
antigop
(12,778 posts)KPN
(15,637 posts)The responsible thing would be to wait one day don't you think? Is being responsible biased?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)because they are not quite ready to handle the truth?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)People should have a chance to vote without being told their vote doesn't matter because the media has made a decision.
If they did this and declared the GOP the winner in an election before the vote, you know goddamn well you'd be pissed.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)in the name of being "responsible". In fact I would be fine with exit polls being published in real time all day on polling day.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Suppose Hillary had won a few more states and secured a delegate majority on May 17. Or suppose Bernie hadn't run at all, and Hillary only had O'Malley to beat and thus reached 2383 pledged delegates months ago. Would it then have been unfair for the media to say there's a nominee before many states voted?
The reality is that more often than not, somebody will have a delegate majority before every state has voted. That's the nature of the primary system, and will continue to be unless we start having simultaneous nationwide voting. I'm not saying that would be a good idea (though I'm not saying it would be a bad idea either), just that it's the only possible way we could guarantee that every primary ballot gets cast before a winner is named.
ecstatic
(32,653 posts)until after tomorrow's butt kicking... I'm hoping this doesn't depress turnout.
still_one
(92,061 posts)LiberalFighter
(50,787 posts)still_one
(92,061 posts)else to demonstrate their support among the voters.
but yes, your point that this is more than just a primary for President is right on
icecreamfan
(115 posts)onenote
(42,598 posts)which is to report newsworthy events when they happen, not hold off reporting until you're ready to hear the news.
Honestly, if Bernie had swept through the primaries and won 2383 delegates before California voted would you be this upset?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Honestly, I don't think any wionners should be called before the process is done.
Honestly if this involved scuttling an election to favor Republicans, you'd just accept it?
Maru Kitteh
(28,317 posts)Were you upset when Sanders "determined" the election for Obama in 2008 before Hillary dropped out?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)I fully expected Clinton to win.
But I though that at least the voting would be allowed to be completed to minimize the artificial skewing of the result.
Maru Kitteh
(28,317 posts)It seems like it would be more supressive of her voters. As in "hey we got this thing, don't really feel like standing in a long line tonight in the hot sun."
Armstead
(47,803 posts)JustinL
(722 posts)onenote
(42,598 posts)The fact they reported determine the outcome. Not those reporting those facts.
TimPlo
(443 posts)Do not remember 2000 election. The media calling it over for Bush was same shit as this. And we see how that turned out. It effected the election. Same here no matter what happens tomorrow the news calling a early winner is dishonest and many are just going to see this as not a true count of voters. She is not the nominee till CA votes. If Sanders got 80% of vote in CA he would have the majority of pledged delegates, are we to think the SD would not then change their votes then? But we will never know if Sanders had a chance because the media threw a biased call into the mix.
If there is a similar cock up in the General Election to favor the GOP, these people have sacrificed all right to object.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)Let's just cancel the conventions. They're nothing but multi-night infomercials.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Something they have in common with you.
baran
(92 posts)no super delegates involved there. THAT was a clear-cut majority! This -- not so much.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)And please be serious, 80% of the vote in CA is not achievable.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)In Cali.
And highly unlikely that Hillary would get 80 percent in Cali.
me b zola
(19,053 posts)KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Media calls do not decide elections, period. Present one piece of evidence that a media call trumps votes.
still_one
(92,061 posts)TheFarS1de
(1,017 posts)eom.
jamese777
(546 posts)Not tomorrow and nobody knows ahead of time who is going to be where in the delegate count when one candidate becomes the "presumptive nominee."
Th OP is trying to kill the messenger.
YouDig
(2,280 posts)I would rather they just wait until tomorrow, when Hillary has the majority of pledged and super delegates and also the majority of popular votes. Then nobody could argue.
But the fact is, Hillary hit the number tonight. You can't blame the media for not sitting on it. If one outlet doesn't report it another one will. They all want to be first. They're not going to hold back from reporting facts for dramatic effect.
pmorlan1
(2,096 posts)No need for voting any more we will just get the AP to take a survey and let us know who won.
dana_b
(11,546 posts)Fascists. Trying to suppress the votes in MY state! FUCK THEM!!!!!!!!!!
MFM008
(19,803 posts)The media can't help themselves.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)mean to you?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Therefore if you live in California or one of the otehr remaining states, it creates a self fulfilling prophecy. "Why make the effort to vote for a candidate who has already lost?"
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)not vote because of that designation? If not ...
Then, why would you presume it will have that effect on others?
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Renew Deal
(81,847 posts)Number23
(24,544 posts)Sanders was never going to be the nominee. Lost way too many races and constituencies.
Even if he won California even by 70-30% it would change NOTHING. This OP is incredibly embarrassing.
Daniel537
(1,560 posts)but they are more than happy to be shills for Clinton and the DNC. Can't have an upset tomorrow in California, now can we? I was never going to vote for Hillary so my Florida vote will be going to Jill Stein. Dems can now enjoy they're regime change neocon candidate.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)The media doesn't have an obligation to sit on this information, any more than they would have an obligation to sit on anything else that could impact election results.
Corporate666
(587 posts)It's been over for weeks... months even!
The media has been VERY generous with Bernie by not putting hard questions to him, not illustrating how lost his cause is, and not taking him to task for his pandering and grumpy sore-loser rhetoric.
Hillary has won the delegates needed for the nomination. Expecting the media NOT to report that just so Bernie can feel better about getting his ass kicked is just ridiculous.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)...putting their thumb on the scale?
Corporate666
(587 posts)They did not have "their thumb on the scale".
Hillary has been ahead for months. Why do the Bernie supporters flat out refuse to believe that it's possible she is just the preferred candidate? Are you all to egotistical that you think it's absolutely impossible for people to think differently without being wrong or without being misinformed or stupid or racist or falling victim to lies or victim of media/corporate/super PAC bias?
She gets coverage because she's winning. Why on earth should they give equal time to Bernie? He's been out of the race for months. He's been a non-issue for months.
The only reason some of you folks are going apeshit right now is because you've been buying into his bullshit and thinking there was actually a chance. There wasn't. He just didn't have the support of the people. Period.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Corporate666
(587 posts)there's probably some guy driving a bus in Cleveland who would be the best President the USA has ever seen. But he will never get a shot because he has no podium to speak from, no name recognition, no money and no following.
Is it 'fair' that he will never get a shot? Is it fair that Bernie automatically gets airtime, name recognition, financing and a podium to speak from because he's already in politics? No, it's not fair. But it's life.
Politics isn't every interested party submitting an essay on why they should win. It's a popularity contest where money, connections, sound-bytes, physical appearance and other factors all play a big role.
Until I hear Bernie supporters saying that Bernie should have eased up on his new media ground game (facebook, twitter, web forums, etc) to make sure Hillary has equal exposure, then those supporters are nothing but hypocrites being sore losers.
Seeinghope
(786 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)I know he wants to but it would be presumptuous and assume he already knows Cali's turnout.
Sorry guys...you just need to be a little more patient...until tomorrow night after the votes are in, then you can call a presumptive nominee.
Thanks for respecting the rest of us.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)as well as to Sanders's campaign.
the media should not be manufacturing news--if these delegates aren't committed in public, they're not committed.
Jennylynn
(696 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Look, the rest of the country is not obliged to play along with your last-minute-improbable-victory fantasy. Enough voters and superdelegates have already expressed their preference for her to be able to win, but nobody's supposed to report that fact because it will hurt your feelings? Ridiculous.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)anigbrowl
(13,889 posts)Is it somehow Hillary Clinton's fault that the primaries are spread out over time and it's possible for one person to be reasonably identified as the victor before all the voting has concluded? Everyone knows it's not the official result which doesn't take place until the convention, so what's the problem here? Nobody is preventing Bernie fans from going out to vote tomorrow if they want to.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)You may find out the hard way, when there is some "snafu" that brings us President Trump...or some other manipulation that results in a GOP victory. Remember 2000? Remember the questions about Kerry and Ohio?
CountAllVotes
(20,867 posts)Not over until every vote has been counted.
Sanders 2016 ---> all the way to the convention!
Beacool
(30,247 posts)but the truth is that the media was going to call her the presumptive nominee tomorrow night after the polls closed in NJ. They seem to be chomping at the bit for the general election to get on its way.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)There's a little thing called a primary in the largest state in the union tomorrow...not to mention other primaries.
The world would not have ended if they had to sit on their "scoops" for a day so those silly liuttle voters could have a say without an artificial ending of the election.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Had there not been additional superdelegate endorsements today that put Hillary over the top, instead it would've been New Jersey's results putting her over while the polls were still open in California.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)There would be no legal grounds for allowing such an embargo.
Also why just the West Coast? Are those 3 states the only ones that matter?
Beacool
(30,247 posts)The outcome would have been the same, but the people in those states deserved to have a chance to vote before the winner was announced.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)The media calls a winner when somebody wins.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)onenote
(42,598 posts)gopiscrap
(23,726 posts)gordyfl
(598 posts)This week's issue (June 2016).
I just picked up a copy at the supermarket.
Hokie
(4,286 posts)If AP has information that enough super delegates have indicated they are voting for Clinton plus pledged delegates to constitute a majority then that's news. Why should they hold that back? Reporting news is what they do.
California is the one that scheduled the date of their primary. They knew that the odds favor one candidate clinching by June. Anyone with a brain knew that Clinton would clinch tomorrow regardless of the outcome of any of the states.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)There used to be some sense of restraint in when to release information about elections, so as not to interfere with the process.
This is just a case of "scoop fever" mixed in with the desire of some in power to put a premature end to the process.
Hokie
(4,286 posts)You are looking at this through glasses colored with your beliefs. Hillary winning the nomination is a big deal. It's news. The AP has been keeping a running count of delegates. They update it as they have information. I think Hillary's people if the truth be told would not have wanted this news out tonight.
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]
Sparkly
(24,149 posts)Oh, the irony...
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)baran
(92 posts)RandySF
(58,511 posts)There aren't enough $27 donors to cover something that big.
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Rational people can see that difference.
Lars39
(26,107 posts)But I swear in past elections, there were statements made that it is illegal in other countries for the media to call it while people are still voting. Has everyone forgotten Dubya's relative calling it for him on election night? It's dishonest.
It should be illegal here. I'm for all the primaries happening on the same day, too. Non of this stacking the deck with certain states voting before there's even a debate. And to hell with super delegates. Needs to be abolished.
Every vote counts with full transparency.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)God help us all. I am so ashamed of DU right now. I don't know these people anymore.
Lars39
(26,107 posts)I mostly lurk now, but read everything.
Lost a lot of respect for a lot of people that I thought were decent human beings, who believed in pursuing truth and wanted everyone to be able to participate in democracy.
qdouble
(891 posts)ARGH!!!
Number23
(24,544 posts)felix_numinous
(5,198 posts)Do not listen to liars and cheats. If the votes didn't matter WHY would they call it early???
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)seabeyond
(110,159 posts)tonyt53
(5,737 posts)So, how democratic would it be to ignore the will of those voters and simply hand the nomination to Bernie? Oh, and us real Democrats like our process.
UglyGreed
(7,661 posts)is that many so called democrats defend this propaganda...........
stonecutter357
(12,694 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)(They really do love that network, don't they?)
George II
(67,782 posts)....the 10 million who voted for Sanders? They had no say in this?
Todays_Illusion
(1,209 posts)vote for Hillary Clinton, and for that matter all the media, the same media who has not since Jimmy Carter met a Democratic candidate they couldn't hate.
myrna minx
(22,772 posts)libodem
(19,288 posts)Votes don't matter. Why bother?