You win today's Broxtop for Obfuscation award:



Please use before designated expiration.

Or her Wall St exec campaign staff?

That's why.

"Suck it up! Our side won!"

So it doesn't surprise me to see it coming from you.

and her fans with a response like that?

Your comment boils down to 'fuck integrity, winning the election is all that matters'. I've seen it posted here in different ways, by several different Hillary supporters, over the last few months, and the oblivious amorality of it always blows me away. Why would anyone give any credence to the words of such a person?

I answered Snark with snark.

Is there something wrong with winning? I have not made one bad comment about Bernie winning last night where he won or for that matter any of the States he won. I did the gracious thing and accepted it & moved on. That's something Sanders and his supporters seem to have a hard time doing.

I stand by my original comment.

Remember Dickie, the Clinton guru?

Winning is good, but not the only value in the world. Winning at what cost?

Even if he doesn't get the mon he has given a voice and coherent framework for the millions and millions of people who are alienated by the system that has been propped up by the Democratic Establishment.....40 percent may be technically a minority, but it is a near majority and large enough that the party is going to have to start paying attention

The republicans are far more adept at cheating than the DNC. I bet your tune changes real quick when this shit effects your candidate negatively.

on his hillaryisbestest.com site. Ethics are for other people.

It's gross enough to read such gleeful amorality in intermittent installments here on DU.

This PERFECTLY encapsulates Clinton voters.

Because I mean, fuck integrity, eh?

And you didn't even know it.

down three miles of snake shit to go that low.

This seems to be a weird theme with Hillary's supporters. They don't understand how someone's sense of right and wrong could not morph into whatever suits their own best interests from moment to moment.

I won't generalize about all Hillary supporters, but it at least seems to be the case with the OP. I don't understand why he thinks Bernie supporters would have a problem with proportional allocation. The point isn't what is better for a given candidate, the point is what is a more democratic system for the country. If we lose, we lose. I'm not looking for a system to rig things in our favor.

And he's ROFL about it besides? I don't get it. What's funny?

It is another reason this OP is full of hilarious fail.

into his own mouth was.

It's like trying to figure out why someone is kicking themselves in the ass over and over.

campaign address all this voting fraud they keep claiming is happening?

But then they would lose another anti-Hillary meme.

Oh that's right....situation principles. Winning is all that matters.

I guess she and her supporters will be silent if there is dubious vote rigging and unfair rules in the General.

of voting fraud. It isn't Clinton supporters who claim every election she loses is "rigged". Put your money where your mouth is,if you think the elections are rigged against Sanders,that it's his campaign you should make your demands to. Why don't Sanders supporters ever question why the Sanders campaign isn't making the same claims that they do?

But it wouldn't take much time or effort for Clinton to also at least be speaking out against an obviously bad system that was put in place by the GOP.

These things will bite her in the butt in November if they are ignored and glossed over.

I get that the on the ground supporters are proud of Sanders--I have a friend who is devastated at Arizona--Devine actually has a lot of issues as a campaign manager from what I can see.

I think Sanders should be asking the questions and they should start with ted.

Sorry William, but you are not even beginning to make a point here.

Win or lose, proportional representation is more democratic than winner-take-all.

But Bernie supporters have been saying the primary system is rigged.

I've seen complaints about the primaries being rigged in terms of a sub-optimal debate schedule (especially early on), loading of all the southern states up front, over-emphasis on super delegates... but I hadn't seen anyone complain about proportional representation.

but they have faulted the DNC for 1) Arizona's SoS's office having too few polling sites; 2) the State of New York having the audacity not to want Republicans to vote in their primaries; and 3) counting the inferior votes in Southern states and other parts of the country that fail to vote for the One True Candidate; 4) not registering voters for Bernie, just to name a few. Never mind that all of those fall under the purview of other authorities (like state legislatures or the dastardly 15th amendment to the Constitution).

that any election result that doesn't favor one candidate is, according to far too many, inherently illegitimate.

I don't remember anything like that. Sanders got 15 pledged delegates, Clinton got 9, were there really Sanders supporters who were saying he should have gotten all 24?

It sounds to me like you're talking about super delegates which is a whole other issue, and also one that has nothing to do with the vote on primary day. That is, to the extent that you can say Hillary has NH's super delegates at all, she had them even before primary day, she did not "win" them on that day. And again, it is unrelated to proportional allocation.

As a consultant first and a campaign strategist second, it's in Devine best interests (a special interest, pretty much) that Sanders keeps running.

If Sanders concedes, there goes Devine's gravy train.

It's not an outrageous sum of money when you consider they are responsible for 1) tv ad creation, 2) print ad creation, 3) general consulting - that stuff costs a lot of money

This isn't Devine's first presidential campaign, either. He knows how to make money this way, and has been doing it for decades.

I hope Millennials enjoy funding Devine's next vacation home.

We paid 50,000 for similar services for my dad's winning judicial campaign and that was effectively a county-wide race - granted the largest county in KY - but still I don't think these numbers are really out of whack

Mark Penn took in over 14 Million from Hillary 08, his firms and services and whatnot. So it's just not a horse fit for Clinton supporters to look in the mouth.

and the team that's gotten him this far.

They deserve compensation and by industry standards they're right in line. Not exorbitant at all.

For example, Bernie's campaign manager Jeff Weaver makes $118k/yr, while Hillary's campaign manager Robby Mook makes $120k/yr.

There's millions of us happily dedicated to keeping Bernie's message out there til the convention.

to donate another 27 bucks to Devine's growing bank account.

Im confused. Has anyone been outraged at proportional assignment of delegates?

I'd like to see a link.

I do not want it changed. It fairly represents the will of the voters.

It makes no sense. Blech.

I'm bothered by the superdelegates not winner-take-all or proportionally-allotted delegates. It doesn't seem right to me that in Vermont, for example, Bernie had a foolishly large win, but the only superdelegate I know of who isn't supporting Hillary is Rep. Peter Welch. There may be more, but when they cast their votes at the convention they'll be negating the will of the Vermont voters.