Almalieque wrote:
She was wrong. She should be fired. She was fired.
And then immediately hired by Clinton to work for her campaign. Yeah. Cause that doesn't look bad at all.
Quote:
That doesn't mean that what she did was a big deal given what she said/done and the impact it had on him actually winning.
It looks corrupt as hell though. Double plus corruption!
Quote:
As with Ryan, that's nice spin, but when he opens his comments with (paraphrased)"I tried staying out of the election process", means that he crossed the line. He openly bucked the party and he told everyone to "vote their conscience" AFTER Trump was the only one left. So, thanks for bringing up Ryan.
You get that the whole "prominent Republicans aren't endorsing Trump yet" bit was ginned up by the media, right? The same media that was ginning up the possibility of a rules change right up until day one of the Republican Convention. You kinda can't have it both ways here. Ryan was massively pressured, both by the media and the party, to openly oppose Trump (in several different capacities). He did not. I think that speaks volumes about his impartiality.
And to be honest, while I mentioned Ryan (because he was the one who was so prominently hassled about this), the better direct comparison would be Reince Priebus. Who did a fantastic job staying out of the fray. Again, in massive contrast to how the Dems handled things. And yeah, you're probably thinking "Priebius who". Which is kinda the point.
Quote:
That's irrelevant to you, so I'm sticking with the fact it had no harm, since that perception was what motivated his voters to vote. No need to argue about it if it's irrelevant.
Wait! You actually think that Sanders voters supported him because of the perception that the system was rigged against him? That's... crazy. People flocked to Sanders because they looked at the field of Dem candidates, didn't like Clinton, and amazingly discovered that the 72 year old socialist was the most animated and interesting alternative of the bunch (seriously, did you watch the first Dem debate? ZZzzzzz.....). Sanders support always was a bit F-you to Clinton. The growing perception that the system was rigged added to that groups dislike of Clinton, but the bigger motivation was to vote for someone new and fresh and not part of the existing established power structure.
How else do you explain so many people voting for an open socialist? I mean, I get that the whole "young kids want free stuff" narrative is great and all, but that doesn't explain the numbers he got. Not by a long shot. The fact is that there's a large dissatisfaction with the way our nation is governed, and a perception that said government is increasingly corrupt, inept, and serves more to benefit those working in it instead of serving the people. That's why we saw Sanders get the run he got. That's also why Trump managed to win in the GOP.
These are protest votes. Surely you can see that. But unlike the normal protest votes, which usually barely make a ripple, we're seeing very large portions of the voters flocking to alternative candidates and away from the established ones. So no, the perception of a rigged election wasn't the motivation for voting Sanders. The perception of a rigged government was. The growing evidence that the primary process was rigged as well just adds to the anger and resentment that already existed.