And it's Hillarys people who have no problem talking about their shameful back room deal.

it was OK for Hillary supporters to be outraged in 2008 but not OK for Bernie supporters to be outraged now?

No DINOs welcomed.

Anything to win though, right. Damn the people and what they want!

.

so strange. The outrage is silly.

Are you outraged that Bernie is telling college students to drive across the state in order to caucus in districts where their vote would have more impact?

the same as asking them to pretend to be another candidate's supporter in order to keep your main rival from winning.

This is win at any cost, no matter what the people want. I hope there are enough O'Malley supporters who realize he is never going to rise in the polls and would rather have Bernie than Hillary move to caucus for Sanders.

Really, you want someone who resorts to sneaky tactics? Ugh. I expect that from Republicans, not Democrats. I'll go for the one who wants win by respecting the will of the people.

.

in their hometown district, rather then simply caucusing in the town where they currently live and go to school, in order to maximize their impact.

Which is smart. As is caucusing for O'Malley if the net effect will be the best.

The culprit here is the caucus system, which incentivizes these sorts of things.

someone else's supporter?

.

They could vote in their college town, which would be the natural thing to do, but Bernie wants to game the system by spreading them over the state.

Anyway, I guess consistency isn't very big with Bernie fans. The only thing consistent is that whatever Hillary does is bad.

You are making a false equivalency that simply doesn't make any sense.

.

Same as Clinton supporters. But somehow the Clinton campaign's completely legal strategic moves are "dirty", but not Bernie's.

Like I said, consistency...

supporters in order to keep him viable and so his supporters don't have to choose someone else, like Bernie. She is afraid of them going to Bernie instead of her.

Anyway, I guess the facts aren't very big with Hillary fans. The only thing consistent is that whatever Hillary does is A-OK!

.

People can caucus for whoever they want. Both candidates have encouraged their supporters to caucus strategically. The only reason that you're outraged about Hillary and not about Bernie is because you are a Bernie supporter. But, obviously, neither of them are doing anything against the rules, or unethical, or "dirty."

just to keep his supporters from having to pick someone else. I guess Hillary doesn't have a lot of faith that she'll win.

.

Bodes well for the GE.

NOT a quality desirous in a leader that is supposed to help the people.

Bernie is allowing the people to have a voice. Exactly why he is the one to support and vote for.

.

it voluntarily.

as Hillary.

.

if you want, but like I said, all that shows is your lack of intellectual consistency.

Insulting me with false accusations doesn't change what your idol is doing, which is having people pretend to be MOM supporters in order to manipulate the voting process, thereby thwarting what the voters want.

Go ahead and support someone who is trying to manipulate the will of the people. Shows your lack of concern over the very core of our democracy.

.

people against their will. People can vote for whoever they want. I guess you don't like that system.

Nowhere did I say she has them on a leash and is pulling them to the MOM group or that she's prodding them with a stick.



.

They don't need to seek your approval first. It's a democracy.

To keep MOM viable so Bernie doesn't get more votes. I said that how many times?



.

It's strategy. The candidates didn't write the rules, they follow them.

Like I said, people can vote for whoever you want. You don't have to vote strategically if you don't want to, but you don't get to tell anyone else how to vote.

I'm not the one telling people how to vote.

Like I said...they are pretending. They are Hillary supporters pretending to support MOM at her request just to keep his supporters from having to pick someone else. I guess Hillary doesn't have a lot of faith that she'll win.

.

It's simple strategy. Bernie's obviously not averse to strategy either, he's telling people to drive across the state.

That fact that you are averse to campaign strategy is totally irrelevant. Other people have every right to vote strategically. It's their vote, not yours.

that she will win without manipulating the process.

.

apparently bothers you.

when the Hillary campaign was outraged in 2008 it was OK, but now that it's Sanders campaign about the same thing it's not OK?

I should have replied to the OP. It was in his article.

makes her own rules.

All the viable candidates leaders jockey for position by moving people around, and/or trying to get the undecideds and "unviable" candidate voters to move to them. It's all done out in the open and it's just a part of the Dem process in Iowa. The Reps have a straightforward secret vote.

It reminds me of gerrymandering. It's rigging the system to ensure you win. It's bullshit in that it is designed to not allow the people to choose who they really want.

It's what I expect from Republicans, not Democrats.

.

They will be shifting some of their extra people to OMalley = helps him be a viable candidate - which is good for his supporters, and at the same time keeps anyone from moving to Bernie. Nothing shady. It is all done in public view. It's weird, but not sinister.

If they stand with supporters of O'Malley but really support Clinton, that's pretending.

wouldn't it be expected that some of his supporters would move to Bernie but others to Hillary - or are all O'Malley voter's second choices Bernie?

they would welcome the Clinton people so they have a chance to vote for their first choice though. I would.

Why is she trying to manipulate the system? And is this the type of person we want as our leader in this fight for the people? More importantly, is this the type of person who will bother to fight for the people? I don't think so since she is manipulating an outcome, presumably in her favor or she wouldn't do it, and doesn't give a damn about letting the people make up their own minds in a straighforward fashion.

.

That's why Hill's people are panicking.

If O'Malley has less than 15% of the total Dem votes at a caucus site, he is deemed to be not viable and his voters then may go stand with their second choice candidate or they may decide not to commit to anyone else. The choice is the voters. The apportionment of delegates is based on how many stand with you. No one has told anyone to pretend to be a supporter of any other candidate. It is impossible to do because the caucus chief and the precinct captains are required to maintain and sign off on counts for as many alignments as there need be. I am one of the precinct captains in my county and your comment is an insult and an outright lie, if your intention is to support disinformation. I suggest that you read more about the caucus and viabilty and not be so quick to assume that the first rumor someone slams out there is to be believed. We are working to provide our party and our precincts with an accurate accounting of their votes across the course of the evening.

That if he is not viable and doesn't have 15% his supporters would pick someone else or not participate.

So in an effort to ensure that they don't go to Bernie, Hillary is having her supporters join O'Malley's caucus in order to keep him viable. I think maybe you missed that part?

.

You are then going to trash people who took the time to educate themselves on the system?

It's not like they are stealing data or anything.

A plan, you say? SHE HAS A PLAN?? Burn her!!!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

the results? So you must be okay with gerrymandering too then, right?

What has become of the Democratic Party? SMH

.

I don't see the big deal here. It's too bad the process is so cumbersome but that's what we're stuck with.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

a third-party candidacy, were he to so choose, on the grounds that Hillary, the DNC and the Iowa Democratic Party conspired to thwart the will of voters.

No one votes, it's a caucus.

found non-viable (relative to Sanders and Clinton). So Clinton's proxies release some of her supporters to prop up O'Malley and you're going to say no one's will is being thwarted?

Like you said they get to choose... It's their vote.

They disenfranchise voters... In general they suck.

And I have the same question and concern.

Revolutions are painful in many ways. No Pain No gain. We might have to just take the pain for longer term benefits

This is just another reason why caucuses are overrated.

when the Hillary campaign was outraged in 2008 it was OK, but now that it's Sanders campaign about the same thing it's not OK?

Thanks!

.

it was from the article you posted. Brooklynite provided the quote:

I don't think it's okay, I think it's sneaky and calculating and working against the people's wishes.

.

I caucused in Iowa when I lived there in the pre-cellphone era, and the tactic of pushing supporters to weak candidates in order to undermine your chief opponent is nothing new, and totally permissible under the rules (indeed, if you're not doing that then you either don't understand the Iowa caucuses or don't understand politics). The only thing new here is the efficiency that mobile technology apps can provide.

As foe this question:

As if Bill Gates ever did anything that didn't insure more wealth for himself.

It's not like Android (Google) and iPhone aren't in on the same game.

I can't like her or any of the conglomerates who buy her.