If Hillary is rigging the 2016 primaries, why didn't she rig the 2008 primaries?

[Yavin4]

Last edited Thu May 19, 2016, 01:30 PM - Edit history (1)

If she has that type of power, why didn't she use it in 2008?

--On Edit--
So, if it's all because of DWS. Then why let Bernie win any state at all? Or, why let Bernie win MI? If he'd lost there, no one would have said anything because the polls showed him losing.

[Fresh_Start]

1. or for that matter, why didn't she put sanders away weeks/months ago

is she an evil genius with a network of evildoers across the entire country..who is able to manipulate elections as will

or

are sanders supporters happy to fall in with any conspiracy at any time as long as it paints bernie as a victim?

[auntpurl]

37. Put me down for option 2.

[LonePirate]

2. Probably because there were not as many unfounded conspiracy theories back in 2008.

[peace13]

3. The machines have been a problem from day one.

I don't think people are blaming Hillary for that. The process is flawed and when evidence comes up it has to be shown, regardless of who the outcome favors. I don't know why the chips always fall in Hills pile. The point is, there are problems.

[One Black Sheep]

4. Well, come to think of it, maybe she should have

Kidding, its a joke good people!

[Sheepshank]

5. well hell...pointing out the obvious!!!! Well done ;)

[joshcryer]

6. She realized that if she let Obama win in 2008...

...she'd be able to push through more of her neoliberal warhawking policies in 2016.

[AgingAmerican]

7. She didn't have the head of the DNC in her back pocket

[Amishman]

21. yup, takes a lot of people's cooperation to get away with keeping a finger on the scale

Bernie's status as a real outsider makes it possible to get that support. 2008 was a clash between old guard / new guard, not insider / outsider

to answer the other question, if the outcomes are being manipulated, why isn't she winning everywhere? Because you can only 'help' things so much before the game is up and the truth comes out.

[Yavin4]

25. Really? The Clintons were at the peak of their power in 2008

Hillary had a commanding lead in the polls and Bill was more popular than ever after W's terrible presidency.

[NCTraveler]

8. Paul supporters had no interest in Obama or Clinton.

They do have an interest in Sanders. This is what republicans deal with every four years with the Paul crew. We are very close to them going back home to their friends in the republican party. They never met a conspiracy theory they didn't like.

[NurseJackie]

9. That is all part of the master plan.

[basselope]

10. And you really think she didn't?

[oldandhappy]

11. My guess is that she thought her name would carry her to the top.

Bill was much more popular in 2008.

[workinclasszero]

12. Because the losers this cycle are making shit up and pulling it out of their asses?

That would be my guess.

[Iliyah]

13. Because it is not true. But wait when HRC wins the GE, the GOPs and others will

claim the same damn thing, oh wait, the conspirators are already preparing for that now - Exhibit A - fake news poll and Rass.
Exhibit B - corporate media. Exhibit C, other than Democrats aka so called left wingers.

The propaganda machine . . . .

[thesquanderer]

14. DWS heading the DNC today, vs. Howard Dean then.

And while I do think "rigging" may be a bit strong, do you really not think that DWS has had her "hand on the scale" for HRC?

[HooptieWagon]

15. She didn't have her minion DWS in charge of DNC.

I'm sure she THOUGHT she had 2008 all set up for the coronation, but it didn't work out as planned. She doubled down in '16 and bought a lot more surrogates and superdelegates.

[frylock]

16. When did they hold the first debate in 2007?

[TheSarcastinator]

17. More Hillarian "logic"!!!

If it didn't happen before, it simply cannot be happening now!!!

I seriously wonder how some of you manage to feed yourselves every day. I mean, day-um.

[Katashi_itto]

18. +1000

[KingFlorez]

19. Ok, if Clinton is rigging the whole process, why not rig it in New Hampshire?

That is what kept Sanders in the race. If someone really wants to rig something and has massive powers to do it, they will succeed early on.

It's nutty to think the process is rigged. No one needed to cheat against Sanders, because he's a poor campaigner who didn't have a big enough coalition of voters to win.

[sadoldgirl]

23. Remember IA? Bernie never got the raw counts,

even though the DesMoines paper asked them to
do so. Yes, it started that early.
NH was just too strong for them to interfere,and
besides they were willing to give it to him, because
"neighboring state".

[cliffordu]

20. The machine wasn't up to speed.

She wasn't giving quarter million dollar pep rallies to anyone who'd pay.

DWS wasn't fixing the mix

[Alex4Martinez]

32. It's also about individual state machines. Some more corrupt than others.

Don't you love these exercises in playground logic.

Yer mom's a poopie pants. Prove she ain't.

I win, sucks to be you.

THIS is what we're dealing with.

[Exilednight]

22. she ran a MySpae AOL chatroom campaign in the age of Twitter and Facebook.

That's why.

[zipplewrath]

24. She didn't think she had to

I realize you're really attacking the semantics, but it was widely covered last time that Clinton made several early mistakes in organizing that Obama took advantage, mostly having to do with organizing in caucus states. She also presumed it would be over by March and she wouldn't need to campaign in those later states. By the time she figure out her problem it was too late. Especially since she didn't have Dean in her pocket like DWS. Truth be known, Dean probably was fairly neutral last time.

She didn't make any of those mistakes this time, and she made sure to cover every base she could find, EARLY.

[highprincipleswork]

26. For one thing, she didn't have Debbie Wasserman Schultz pulling strings for her from inside.

[virtualobserver]

27. part of the machine preferred Obama---Bernie is not part of the machine.

[LisaM]

28. Probably for the same reason she chose NOT to stop apartheid

when she was First Lady of Arkansas.

[Jarqui]

29. Hillary did do some of this in 2008

I've posted this before.

One difference is that she was against a stronger candidate in 2008.

Another difference is that the media is significantly worse in 2016 - owned by corporations and behaving like it.

Another difference was that the DNC in 2008 wasn't as corrupt as it is in 2016.

I'm sure folks can come up with more reasons. But the fact is, her campaign tried and did some of this stuff in 2008. And in 2016, her campaign is back at it.

[B2G]

30. Uh, it's not HER doing the rigging.

It's the DNC.

Does that help?

[Yavin4]

33. So why didn't the DNC rig MI?

Or N.H.? Or Colorado? Or Wash? Or Alaska?

[B2G]

36. Maybe the state officials there

have a higher ethical standard.

DWS would have been overcome with glee if they had.

[k8conant]

31. the DNC vastly underestimated the support for Bernie Sanders...

I think even Bernie Sanders underestimated his support.

When Hillary's stock kept falling it was time for shenanigans that the DNC's old guard didn't originally think were necessary.

[LanternWaste]

34. Every allegation in response will consistently and dramatically lack objective evidence.

Every allegation in response will consistently and dramatically lack objective evidence, but more than make up for it with logical fallacies (first seven responses totaled 13 fallacies alone).

[spin]

35. Perhaps she learned from her mistake. (n/t)

[madokie]

38. The deal with this election so many seem to not get

is we have a very popular candidate who is talking to us and we're listening in numbers that scares the shit out of the powers to be so they've pretty much told their lackeys to take Sanders down any way they can. The people who are paying the wages to the people who are lying to us on the tv machine are the very people who bernie is and will go after to make them pay their fair share in taxes and they're not having any part of that. Hence all the lying we are being fed.

How anyone who claims to be a democratic party member can't see this is beyond my comprehension. sad

[Yavin4]

39. But, he's not as popular as Hillary

Who has the majority of the votes cast so far.