Support NeoGAF

[JesseEwiak]

It's a bit of a conundrum. Whatever happens they are the party that got Trump in as presumptive nominee, and they are screwed in the short term.

The only option I can think of that would (or might) not also screw them long-term would be to get the nomination out of the way and then immediately en-masse everywhere abandon the entire party leaving Trump and his tiny rump the Republican tag, ignoring the presidency and running all the downticket under a separate banner, and spend the next four-eight years trying to build a non-toxic centrist party in the hope that the Dems veer too far left.

But I don't know if that is even possible, and I sure as hell can't think of anyone persuasive and powerful enough to make it work.

The problem for the GOP is there's no one who's an elder statesmen that the base respects.

I mean, if for some crazy reason, Hillary didn't run in 2020 and Kanye somehow won the nomination with 35% of the vote, folks like Obama, Warren, Hillary, Bill, Biden, Gore, and Kerry could say, "hey, we're going over here for this election" and the vast majority of the base would go along. The Democrat's would still likely lose, but there'd still be a functional DNC to come back too after Kanye was gone.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

It's a bit of a conundrum. Whatever happens they are the party that got Trump in as presumptive nominee, and they are screwed in the short term.

The only option I can think of that would (or might) not also screw them long-term would be to get the nomination out of the way and then immediately en-masse everywhere abandon the entire party leaving Trump and his tiny rump the Republican tag, ignoring the presidency and running all the downticket under a separate banner, and spend the next four-eight years trying to build a non-toxic centrist party in the hope that the Dems veer too far left.

But I don't know if that is even possible, and I sure as hell can't think of anyone persuasive and powerful enough to make it work.

To the bolded, we often talk about the weak bench for the Dems as a weakness, but an advantage is that the talent we do have (Obama, Bill, Hillary, etc...) are super well-liked and established as voices of the party. The GOP has a huge bench, and you get too many cooks in the kitchen. To steer their ship, you need like 15 different people to all get on the same page, and a single dissenter can steer enough votes away to render the plan worthless.

Edit: Jesse beat me to a similar point!

 

[NYCmetsfan]

http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/17/1...t=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

They wrote and article about daniel and his ps3

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

http://www.theverge.com/2016/6/17/1...t=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

They wrote and article about daniel and his ps3

rofl

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Considering the recent polling on the ban and the fact that there have been landslides before (the world won't end i.e. so what)...Romney and other members of the elite in the GOP sure are interested in creating even bigger headaches for themselves now and in the future.

 

[Galactic Barret]

I haven't seen them. Do you have a link?

Sauce pl0x

Typical DNC, can't even manage to do a conspiracy right.

Link? Interest regarding this is probably pretty low now that the primary is over

again, source for this? I haven't been keeping up with the DNC documents stuff.

Very sorry, I was at a job interview. I have a few, but I'll post one; its from Guccifer 2.0's hack into the DNC email server.
http://www.inquisitr.com/3211471/election-fraud-allegations-and-evidence-the-dnc-may-have-colluded-with-hillary-clinton-to-defeat-bernie-sanders-create-muddled-future-for-democrats/
The Observer, as well, although they don't post anything from Guccifer 2.0 supposed hacks. http://observer.com/2016/06/guccifer-2-0-leak-reveals-how-dnc-rigged-primaries-for-clinton/

If you type Guccifer 2.0 into Google, you'll get a shitload of news articles reporting on it. Nothing'll probably happen to her, though.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

No ground game is probably -.5 points and no money is probably another -.5 points.

So Trump running a fake campaign will change the results from a ten point loss to an eleven point loss.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Very sorry, I was at a job interview. I have a few, but I'll post one; its from Guccifer 2.0's hack into the DNC email server.
http://www.inquisitr.com/3211471/election-fraud-allegations-and-evidence-the-dnc-may-have-colluded-with-hillary-clinton-to-defeat-bernie-sanders-create-muddled-future-for-democrats/
The Observer, as well http://observer.com/2016/06/guccifer-2-0-leak-reveals-how-dnc-rigged-primaries-for-clinton/

so a whole bunch of nothing, like the other guy said.

I'm shocked! (also The Observer is an opinion piece)

If this is the best people have at showing collusion, then it's time to pack up the bags. This was May 2015 when Bernie wasn't even on the radar of anyone, yet this is somehow evidence that the DNC was rigging it against him.

yea k

 

[FloydtheFathead]

itshappening.gif

Hold on to your butts..

I mean say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism... At least it's an ethos.

 

[dramatis]

QQ: I don't know the rules to this, but is no one talking about the hacked DNC documents about collusion with the media to paint Sen. Sanders in a negative light?

Very sorry, I was at a job interview. I have a few, but I'll post one; its from Guccifer 2.0's hack into the DNC email server.
http://www.inquisitr.com/3211471/election-fraud-allegations-and-evidence-the-dnc-may-have-colluded-with-hillary-clinton-to-defeat-bernie-sanders-create-muddled-future-for-democrats/
The Observer, as well http://observer.com/2016/06/guccifer-2-0-leak-reveals-how-dnc-rigged-primaries-for-clinton/

From the contents at the websites you linked, it appears they didn't collude to paint Sanders in a negative light at all.

The context of the content from the hack indicate that the opposition considered in the May 2015 documents (note, this was before Bernie picked up any substantial support) were the Republicans and the possible Republican candidate.

 

[Galactic Barret]

so a whole bunch of nothing, like the other guy said.

I'm shocked! (also The Observer is an opinion piece)

If this is the best people have at showing collusion, then it's time to pack up the bags. This was May 2015 when Bernie wasn't even on the radar of anyone, yet this is somehow evidence that the DNC was rigging it against him.

yea k

What does this mean?

 

[Spoiled Milk]

What does y2kev even do? I keep associating him with Gordon Gekko.

 

[dramatis]

What does this mean?

Well, where does it talk about Sanders?

 

[Zornack]

What does this mean?

It means Democrats weren't stupid and planned how to counter attacks on their likely candidate.

 

[FloydtheFathead]

What does y2kev even do? I keep associating him with Gordon Gekko.

That is exactly who I think it is and then Shinra is.. Charlie Sheen? I guess?

 

[Cheebo]

 

[Retromelon]

Yaaaaaaas tell em cheebo!!

 

[Galactic Barret]

Well, where does it talk about Sanders?

The article does. If Sanders was in the race as well, yet the primary focus was to put forth HRC (Hillary Rodham Clinton), thats nothing?

Break it down for me, please. I notice(d) a distinct lack of media coverage for Sanders in a positive light, and I'm putting the two together, as does this article and a couple others.

The New York Post. How reliable are they?

http://nypost.com/2016/06/16/leaked-document-shows-the-dnc-wanted-clinton-from-start/

 

[phisheep]

The problem for the GOP is there's no one who's an elder statesmen that the base respects.

To steer their ship, you need like 15 different people to all get on the same page, and a single dissenter can steer enough votes away to render the plan worthless.

See, this is something that always puzzles me about the US system, that a party - when it doesn't have the Presidency - seems to not be bothered about having any centralised leadership at all.

I'm so used to there being a Leader of HM Opposition, who is in the public eye and doing things all the time so that you're not exactly surprised at them having a stab at the Prime Minister job. But in the US it is like everyone dawdles around doing their own thing and only actually thinks it might be a good idea to have a leader in an election year. Bonkers.

I suppose it is all down to backroom caucuses somewhere.

 

[IggyChooChoo]

"We are creating the playbook. And while you're studying that playbook - judiciously, as you will - we'll act again, creating other new playbooks, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's playbook writers… and you, all of you, will be left to just study what books we play.''

 

[minor effort]

.

He Is So Pure . . . . Looking At This . . . I Feel At Peace

 

[JesseEwiak]

See, this is something that always puzzles me about the US system, that a party - when it doesn't have the Presidency - seems to not be bothered about having any centralised leadership at all.

I'm so used to there being a Leader of HM Opposition, who is in the public eye and doing things all the time so that you're not exactly surprised at them having a stab at the Prime Minister job. But in the US it is like everyone dawdles around doing their own thing and only actually thinks it might be a good idea to have a leader in an election year. Bonkers.

I suppose it is all down to backroom caucuses somewhere.

It's a combination of Federalism which means that in many places, a Governor is far more powerful and known than a Senator and the fact that the President really is separate from the Congress, so it's not like Obama is trading barbs with Paul Ryan every day. Throw in the fact that every Senator wakes up in the morning imagining themselves as President.

 

[Zornack]

The article does. If Sanders was in the race as well, yet the primary focus was to put forth HRC (Hillary Rodham Clinton), thats nothing?

Break it down for me, please. I notice(d) a distinct lack of media coverage for Sanders in a positive light, and I'm putting the two together, as does this article and a couple others.

Clinton was ahead by 56 points in May of 2015. Do you really think the DNC should have put plans forward on how to best address attacks on a no-name fringe candidate?

 

[VendettaRed07]

So:

1. Most hated governor in America

Sadly, he isn't.

Malloy somehow manages to have worse approval ratings than that guy, Christie and the guy who poisoned children :/

 

[BlastProcessing]

What does this mean?

The highlighting is a good start, but it still doesn't seem ominous enough. Maybe try adding some red string.

 

[tmarg]

The article does. If Sanders was in the race as well, yet the primary focus was to put forth HRC (Hillary Rodham Clinton), thats nothing?

Break it down for me, please. I notice(d) a distinct lack of media coverage for Sanders in a positive light, and I'm putting the two together, as does this article and a couple others.

Even if Sanders was running, all it shows is that the DNC expected Hillary to make it out of the nomination process. For good reason. There is absolutely nothing there to suggest that they tilted the playing field against other democratic candidates.

As to why there wasn't a ton of positive media coverage for Sanders, I imagine that's a byproduct of him not being a particularly good candidate.

 

[Galactic Barret]

Its crazy. This is as close to proof of collusion as is going to happen, yet its being completely ignored, even excused. Thats kind of ridiculous.

I just wanted to put the information out there. If it doesn't matter, that is fine. I'm not here to argue or anything, just thought others would like to be informed.

 

[dramatis]

The article does. If Sanders was in the race as well, yet the primary focus was to put forth HRC (Hillary Rodham Clinton), thats nothing?

Break it down for me, please. I notice(d) a distinct lack of media coverage for Sanders in a positive light, and I'm putting the two together, as does this article and a couple others.

The article does, but the content of the document does not. There's a reason why I quoted your original question.

QQ: I don't know the rules to this, but is no one talking about the hacked DNC documents about collusion with the media to paint Sen. Sanders in a negative light?

So tell me, where in the document does it say the DNC colluded with the media to paint Sanders in a negative light?

Moreover, where in the document does it say the DNC colluded with the media? What is outlined in the document is the strategy of the DNC regarding Republicans and Republican candidates. "These are the main points of the DNC message." Nowhere does it suggest collusion with the media.

If Microsoft says they are planning to emphasize three major points about Scorpio when speaking to the games media, are they colluding with games media?

You're adding a lot of personal extrapolation to the document which has a clear context of 'opposition to the Republicans'. The timing of the document also doesn't favor a narrative of 'collusion and bias' against Bernie Sanders. There is no mention of Sanders in the document either.

So you tell me what wrongdoing against Sanders you're seeing in the document there.

Its crazy. This is as close to proof of collusion as is going to happen, yet its being completely ignored, even excused. Thats kind of ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous. Just answer two questions:

Where does the document talk about Sanders?
How is it proof of DNC collusion with the media against Sanders?

The New York Post. How reliable are they?

http://nypost.com/2016/06/16/leaked-document-shows-the-dnc-wanted-clinton-from-start/

For your edit, the NY Post is a Rupert Murdoch rag. It's not reliable when it comes to liberals or Democrats at all.

 

[tmarg]

This is as close to proof of collusion as is going to happen

And yet still so far away.

 

[Teggy]

So the Gravis poll is up. The 51-49 C-T was correct (same as May), but that was for strictly head to head.

The actual poll was 50-45-5 C-T-other

I can't believe he posted that.

Oh, and, yeah, Trump is best for "the gays":

Trump retweets photo with anti-LGBT pastor

 

[thebloo]

Its crazy. This is as close to proof of collusion as is going to happen, yet its being completely ignored, even excused. Thats kind of ridiculous.

Do you want opinions or just confirmations?

 

[Zornack]

Its crazy. This is as close to proof of collusion as is going to happen, yet its being completely ignored, even excused. Thats kind of ridiculous.

What's crazy is that you see collusion in the DNC planning on how to counter attacks on the candidate who was 56 points ahead in primary polling.

Do you want all Democrat organizations to sit on their hands and plan nothing until July 25th? That's how you lose elections.

 

[Spoiled Milk]

That is exactly who I think it is and then Shinra is.. Charlie Sheen? I guess?

No, shinra banshee is Michael Douglas's secretary.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

It was pretty clear Hillary would be the nominee from the very beginning, and the field cleared for her very early. I see no problem with the DNC preparing for the general election early. In fact I wouldn't be stunned if somewhat similar emails were sent in 2007 when it seemed like she would be the nominee as well.

At the end of the day Sanders lost fair and square, and it wasn't even close. Move on.

 

[Geg]

Its crazy. This is as close to proof of collusion as is going to happen, yet its being completely ignored, even excused. Thats kind of ridiculous.

I just wanted to put the information out there. If it doesn't matter, that is fine. I'm not here to argue or anything, just thought others would like to be informed.

Colluding for what though? Like everyone said, it shows they were putting a strategy together to use in the general election, sure, because all signs at the time were pointing to Clinton being the nominee. That doesn't equate to them colluding with her against her Democratic primary opponents.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Since when does the DNC have to wait until July of the election year to prepare for the general election?

 

[Cheebo]

Its crazy. This is as close to proof of collusion as is going to happen, yet its being completely ignored, even excused. Thats kind of ridiculous.

I just wanted to put the information out there. If it doesn't matter, that is fine. I'm not here to argue or anything, just thought others would like to be informed.

May 2015. Bernie was at what, 1% in the polls? It was WIDELY assumed there was no real primary happening in May 2015.

 

[Y2Kev]

I'm at the Lincoln memorial. How in the world can you read his second inaugural address and think trump could ever be a fitting successor? This country is facing national embarrassment.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I'm also here. I was flown in by the Clinton campaign to organize against sanders sympathizer switch other young bankers. It's so hot today holy shit.

Let me know if you need some muscle. Wife works out.

 

[Poodlestrike]

Its crazy. This is as close to proof of collusion as is going to happen, yet its being completely ignored, even excused. Thats kind of ridiculous.

I just wanted to put the information out there. If it doesn't matter, that is fine. I'm not here to argue or anything, just thought others would like to be informed.

It's CLOSE to proof.

Which is different than actually being, you know, proof.

 

[phisheep]

It's a combination of Federalism which means that in many places, a Governor is far more powerful and known than a Senator and the fact that the President really is separate from the Congress, so it's not like Obama is trading barbs with Paul Ryan every day. Throw in the fact that every Senator wakes up in the morning imagining themselves as President.

I guess I was thinking of something like the Chairman of the Association of Republican Governors or something like that (which, upon Googling, appears to actually exist) not so much as a foil to the President but as an executive focus for the party. But I get that all the Senators would probably not tag along with that!

 

[BlastProcessing]

Its crazy. This is as close to proof of collusion as is going to happen, yet its being completely ignored, even excused. Thats kind of ridiculous.

The issue is that "as close to proof... as is going to happen" doesn't mean that it's particularly close. There's nothing in those emails that is very far afield from how I would expect a party to comport itself. Especially at the national level.

Sanders lost because he got crushed in the south. He proved completely unable to make inroads in one of the Democrat's most important constituencies. That's not something the DNC can cause with a few emails.

A few posts ago you had to ask whether or not the NY Post was a reputable source. I think you might need to study up a bit on American politics and the media before you start accusing people of collusion.

 

[Galactic Barret]

What's crazy is that you see collusion in the DNC planning on how to counter attacks on the candidate who was 56 points ahead in primary polling.

Do you want all Democrat organizations to sit on their hands and plan nothing until July 25th? That's how you lose elections.

Do you want opinions or just confirmations?

And yet still so far away.

I get it now. My bad, should have just kept it to myself.

The article does, but the content of the document does not. There's a reason why I quoted your original question.

So tell me, where in the document does it say the DNC colluded with the media to paint Sanders in a negative light?

Moreover, where in the document does it say the DNC colluded with the media? What is outlined in the document is the strategy of the DNC regarding Republicans and Republican candidates. "These are the main points of the DNC message." Nowhere does it suggest collusion with the media.

If Microsoft says they are planning to emphasize three major points about Scorpio when speaking to the games media, are they colluding with games media?

You're adding a lot of personal extrapolation to the document which has a clear context of 'opposition to the Republicans'. The timing of the document also doesn't favor a narrative of 'collusion and bias' against Bernie Sanders. There is no mention of Sanders in the document either.

So you tell me what wrongdoing against Sanders you're seeing in the document there.


It's not ridiculous. Just answer two questions:

Where does the document talk about Sanders?
How is it proof of DNC collusion with the media against Sanders?

I gave you articles, gave you the document, what more do you want? It has her initials right there, when there were 2 candidates. The DNC is supposed to be impartial, correct? Why is it naming only HRC? That is my hangup. Again, if its not believable, or I did something wrong, I'll accept my loss and move on.

This is the source of all the leaked documents, I believe. He states he uploaded the files to wikileaks, or something like that.https://guccifer2.wordpress.com/2016/06/15/dnc/

Should have had it earlier, but I will admit, you guys had me shook. I thought people would be more open-minded, because its GAF, but I never expected opposition to semi-widely reported information.

 

[Kangi]

It's CLOSE to proof.

Which is different than actually being, you know, proof.

It's almost real!

 

[kirblar]

I'm at the Lincoln memorial. How in the world can you read his second inaugural address and think trump could ever be a fitting successor? This country is facing national embarrassment.

Uber's doing free rides to gay DC locales https://newsroom.uber.com/us-dc/supporting-washington-dc-lgbt-community/ btw, if that's up your alley. (popped in facebook minutes ago)

 

[Mrs. Manky]

why don't they get condy to run for prez

Outside of the RNC not knowing how to deal with a single black woman candidate, I think that she's too loyal to the Bushes.

 

[Zornack]

I get it now. My bad, should have just kept it to myself.

I gave you articles, gave you the document, what more do you want? It has her initials right there, when there were 2 candidates. The DNC is supposed to be impartial, correct? Why is it naming only HRC? That is my hangup. Again, if its not believable, or I did something wrong, I'll accept my loss and move on.

There were five candidate in May of 2015 and Hillary was polling at 63%. Second place was 13%. No one thought any of the other candidate, who were all no-names, would amount to anything in the primary.

 

[fauxtrot]

Its crazy. This is as close to proof of collusion as is going to happen, yet its being completely ignored, even excused. Thats kind of ridiculous.

I just wanted to put the information out there. If it doesn't matter, that is fine. I'm not here to argue or anything, just thought others would like to be informed.

You do realize it says "To:" right before the highlighted DNC area. Even if this had something damning in it (it doesn't), it is most likely that this is a memo FROM Hillary's campaign TO the DNC. Hence them acting like HRC was going to be the nominee. Just like the phrasing Bernie's team (and every other candidate's team) uses. No one says "if I'm elected", they say "when I'm elected".

Nothingburger.org/collusion

 

[pigeon]

I get it now. My bad, should have just kept it to myself.

I gave you articles, gave you the document, what more do you want? It has her initials right there, when there were 2 candidates. The DNC is supposed to be impartial, correct? Why is it naming only HRC? That is my hangup. Again, if its not believable, or I did something wrong, I'll accept my loss and move on.

So first off, like, I am not sure that the DNC is supposed to be impartial. The DNC's job is to try to win the presidency, protect downticket races, and support Democratic policy goals. If Donald Trump tried to run as a Democrat, would you want the DNC to be impartial, or would you want the DNC to work hard to block him on the grounds that he is an insane unqualified racist? (Note that I'm not suggesting anything particular about Sanders here, just questioning this assumption.)

But leave that aside for the moment. Even if the DNC is impartial it doesn't mean that they don't have OPINIONS. Whether or not the DNC ran fair contests, is it really surprising that people working for the DNC, pretty much the definition of establishment politicians, BELIEVED that Hillary would win and be the nominee they would have to support? Because (and again this assumes the email is from somebody in the DNC) that's all this phrasing suggests.

I don't think that believing the conventional wisdom that Hillary would win, which turned out to be clearly accurate, is really evidence of collusion against the other candidates.

If anything, my concern about this email is that the first paragraph just says "Ultimately, we need to" and then ends in mid-sentence. If this is a conspiracy it is a very poorly organized one.

Hope you get the job, btw!

 

[phisheep]

I gave you articles, gave you the document, what more do you want? It has her initials right there, when there were 2 candidates. The DNC is supposed to be impartial, correct? Why is it naming only HRC? That is my hangup. Again, if its not believable, or I did something wrong, I'll accept my loss and move on.

There were only just two candidates (or maybe not, depending on the timing of the note), as that's the same day that Bernie launched his campaign.

That's pretty narrow evidence, if it is even evidence at all.