The Democratic Primary Wasn’t Rigged = What to do about delusional supporters?
Last edited Fri Jun 17, 2016, 11:59 AM - Edit history (2)
I'm watching some friends descend into irrationality about this issue, allowing their wishful thinking to delude their reason. There are even election integrity activists going off the deep end. I'm not surprised when the same old ratfuckers chime in, it is their job to disrupt the Dems and suppress voting, but when otherwise rational people allow their emotions to dictate what they believe, I get concerned. Once you have destroyed your own credibility, what do you do then?
But now Clinton and Sanders supporters should unite on making it easier to vote.
By Ari Berman
Hillary Clinton won the Democratic presidential primary by 387 pledged delegates and 3.7 million votes.
Despite this large margin, some of Bernie Sanders’s most strident supporters have attributed Clinton’s lead to foul play, alleging that the Democratic Party’s nominating rules cost Sanders the nomination and the Clinton campaign deliberately suppressed pro-Bernie votes. These claims, which have circulated widely online, are false. My colleague Joshua Holland, who supports Sanders, has extensively debunked many of these conspiracy theories, but I want to add more detail now that the primary is over. (I’ve been neutral throughout the race and do not endorse candidates.)
First off, the party’s rules were not the deciding factor. Sanders has rejected the idea that the nomination was “rigged” but ......
...... the Clinton campaign did not intentionally try to suppress the votes of Sanders supporters. Some Sanders supporters point to Arizona, where there were five-hour lines in Phoenix’s Maricopa County during the March 22 primary, as a glaring example of malfeasance. But those lines occurred because Republican clerk Helen Purcell cut the number of polling places from 200 in 2012 to just 60 in 2016—a decision made possible by a 5-4 conservative majority on the Supreme Court gutting the Voting Rights Act and ruling that states like Arizona no longer had to approve their voting changes with the federal government.
Clinton strenuously criticized that decision and sued Arizona over the polling place closures, a lawsuit the Sanders campaign joined. .................
= new reply since forum marked as read
for those prone to political irrationality, especially if hostility toward "others" goes with it. They, more than most people, typically develop skewed basic frames of belief against which all new information is evaluated. They believe their basic frames implicitly, like the existence of gravity; thus anything that contradicts is "known" to be wrong, no need to check it out. Do you feel a need to read the articles you're referred to claiming that Hillary and the DNC colluded to steal the California primary or planned the Benghazi murders for some evil purpose? Well, they don't need to waste time reading garbage that denies what they know to be true either.
As for L.Coyote's what to do, nothing except try to protect those relationships cared about. Let them know you like and respect them (for those things you do), give a little twinkle while admitting that of course they already know you don't agree, shut your mouth firmly, and eventually subtly assist any chance segue off to something else. Hostile partisans (especially strong social conservatives and some far left radicals) will drop you as an enemy, and the rest will continue to accept you for your good points, as you do them.
At least that's what we do. Sadly for us, it just worked out that we've almost always lived in conservative communities. The "almost" is West Hollywood, and I'd move back there at the drop of a hat in preference to one of the most conservative counties in Georgia--if our kids were there.
If nothing else, we have gotten from it the understanding that even the most hostile conservatives can be truly wonderful people among and to those they consider their own. The trick is to keep the conversation on their own and away from outsiders while you're with them. What is moral can mean very different things to conservatives depending on whether it relates to "us" or "them," and the difference is anything from significant to absolutely huge so a lot depends on your ability to accept that even the "nicest" and most "highly principled" people can call for things like stealing elections (for their candidate) and genocide.
And if talking about conservative partisanship makes left-wing partisanship sound a bit less awful, well, I always felt if I had to spend eternity in a left or right-wing hell I'd definitely choose left wing.
