Not to disagree with you, I think writing off a certain demographic is a terrible idea specially if you are running an inclusive platform like his, but what he said was clearly taken out of context.
> Yang is going to gain steam. Might give Kamala a run for her money.
While it's extremely early (though in most recent elections, the eventual primary winner was at this point in first or second place, more often second), Harris is only polling third (consistently, across polls) and is way behind Biden (first) and Sanders (second, so arguably the most likely nominee).
>Sanders (second, so arguably the most likely nominee).
I wonderfully interested that you think the DNC would allow that to happen after just two year of being shown explicitly that they will do whatever is needed to make sure that does not happen.
> I wonderfully interested that you think the DNC would allow that to happen after just two year of being shown explicitly that they will do whatever is needed to make sure that does not happen.
It's not the same DNC. While the Sanders faction didn't gain control after the 2016 election, they essentially got a power-sharing agreement and, more importantly, they've gotten a bunch of reforms, including mostly neutralizing the power of superdelegates. And Sanders is starting 2020 in a much stronger position than 2016, and doing so without an opponent with anywhere close to the establishment power of Clinton, whose partisans also were in charge of the DNC at the time.
I don't at all agree. The DNC had a system to allow rigging, and I'd willing to bet my lunch they still do. If they had a system of rigging - why do you think they would give that up what would their incentive be to do that? They didn't want Bernie then, they don't now, it's the same people in the organization.
But... Because neither of us can possibly prove it. I guess we'll just wait and see. I believe they just won't let him and they'll either do it by rigging more subtly this time, or have Warren there only to split his votes. Either way, it'll be more interesting than the "show" they put on last time with Webb and Chafey bowing before Hillary.
No, it didn't have a “system to allow rigging”, beyond partisans of one candidate being in near-total control of the DNC.
They did have and leverage a system which helped promote a public inevitability narrative for a candidate that sewed up institutional support early by way of superdelegate voting rights, which led to then being included by media in delegate counts, reinforcing an artificial image of momentum which is demonstrated to drive subsequent voting behavior. This was dismantled when superdelegates voting privileges were reformed.
What "system" did the DNC have to allow "rigging"? How did it work? Who operated it? What evidence is there that it existed, much less that it was used?
Here is enough background information [0] [1] [2] [3] quoted directly from people involved that should get you started. Unless Warren, Brazile, DWS and others are all wrong with their statements about it.
Neither Brazile, Warren, nor any of the leaked DNC emails provide even the slightest bit of evidence that any voting process was manipulated, any vote totals falsified, or anything else of that nature. They also do not show any evidence of any kind of adverse action against Clinton's opponents. There is a compelling argument that DNC staff were too partial to Clinton, who they viewed as the presumptive nominee. There is also evidence of animus against the Sanders campaign, although that animus must be viewed in the context that the Sanders campaign had previously _sued_ the DNC.
Party organizations involved in the primary process need to avoid even the appearance of favoritism. The DNC under DWS failed in this, and it also demonstrated other forms of unprofessionalism (such as passing around credit card information in unencrypted email!). Cleaning house was necessary. Furthermore, superdelegates had been a controversial issue in the last two contested nomination contest, and were clearly perceived by a substantial number of party supporters as undemocratic. Reforming them was also necessary. But none of that changes the fact that there is no evidence of any form of rigging of the nomination process.
If it's obvious there was some sort of corrupt manipulation of the process, it should be possible to point to at least one single state where there is evidence of electoral manipulation.
Insofar as those things provide any description of anything that might even loosely be described as a “system to allow rigging” it's the joint fundraising agreement between the Clinton campaign and the DNC.
Which hardly, even if viewed as such a system, can support your suggestion that such a system not only existed but should be suspected to still be in place.
Putting words in “downvoters” mouths is a rhetorical move quite below the standards of this site, no matter what kind of bleak subthread we're in. The guidelines ask us not to do it—please don't.
I'm not certain of my inferences from your comment, but you seem to be missing the context of what he's saying.
He's leading into that with the underlying (and very valid IMO) assumptions that economic trends can yield predictive power for cultural outcomes, and that China (and thus Chinese people to the more homogeneous populations of the US) will be heavily demonized due to the ongoing economic show down between China and the US.
It's an fairly divisive comment to accuse some group of people of the futurecrime of murdering your own people in churches. That's a serious accusation of something that hasn't happened yet.
I don't remember anyone blaming "Asians" for Virginia Tech, and rightfully so.
His general point is that economic inequality leads to social distress leads to violence, often targeting scapegoated groups, such as those belonging to demographics shared by rival foreign powers. Is that so objectionable?
Nice to see Andrew brought up. I'm excited to see him in the debates. He's the first candidate that has me excited about politics due to his methodical, analytical, and logical mindset rather than the others that make decisions based on nothing but beliefs.
