a primary election is not a government election

**Sirthinksalot** · 02-12-2018, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by Flash

Since there are no parties involved the WI primary appears to be a governmental election.

That was my point in post #31

**Cancel 2018.1** · 02-12-2018, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by evince

the Democratic party are under no LAWS forcing them to treat sanders as an equal to ANY other Democratic party member

More loyal Party members DESERVED to be treated better than Bernie

Its a party election

a partys choice on who better represents the Democratic party

Bernie had no right to complain that he was not treated like a life long member in good standing

he was never a democratic party member

he had to ASK if he could run AS a democratic party member

the Democratic party could have said fuck no

they gave him the HONOR

He used it

he sued Russian lies he knew were lies

fuck Bernie sanders

I hate to admit this, but I think you're right. Bernie and his supporters have no grounds to complain. On the other hand the DNC should never have allowed Bernie to run in their primary to begin with.
I still think dims are pretty stupid for nominating hrc, the worst person to run for president including Trump since anybody I can remember.

**Flash** · 02-12-2018, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by cawacko

So if the rank and file backed Hillary and not the rich did all the wealthy Democrats back Bernie?

Wealthy contributors certainly backed Hillary if you look at the campaign contribution disclosure sites.

**Flash** · 02-12-2018, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by Sirthinksalot

That was my point in post #31

Yes, that was the reason for my last reply. Originally I thought you were just pointing out an election called "nonpartisan" that included a primary--then it hit me later that it was a government election.

**cawacko** · 02-12-2018, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Flash

Wealthy contributors certainly backed Hillary if you look at the campaign contribution disclosure sites.

I'm well aware the rich backed Hillary. I have plenty of them that live around me as well. Desh is just lying to herself

**Flash** · 02-12-2018, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by cawacko

I'm well aware the rich backed Hillary. I have plenty of them that live around me as well. Desh is just lying to herself

I looked to see whether the wealthy law firms in my area were backing Hillary or Obama in 2008. I was surprised to see they were backing Edwards although it is very understandable.

**cawacko** · 02-12-2018, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Flash

I looked to see whether the wealthy law firms in my area were backing Hillary or Obama in 2008. I was surprised to see they were backing Edwards although it is very understandable.

To that point, working in real estate I think there were a number of people (on the commercial side at least) in the industry to see a guy with Trump's background as President.

**Mott the Hoople** · 02-12-2018, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by cawacko

I'm well aware the rich backed Hillary. I have plenty of them that live around me as well. Desh is just lying to herself

I think Desh is channeling Dixie by about 1/3. Elections are a part of government. How could a primary not be a government election? But there I go again...being logical.

**Flash** · 02-12-2018, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by Mott the Hoople

I think Desh is channeling Dixie by about 1/3. Elections are a part of government. How could a primary not be a government election? But there I go again...being logical.

Because most primaries are administered by political parties under party rules. Depending on the state, the state might finance part or all of the primary cost and primary rules (date, type of primary) may be closely regulated by the state or left largely to the party. So, they are essentially party functions and not government with the exceptions noted in the posts.

However, court decisions have struck down certain primary practices. Although the Constitution applies only to governmental functions and not private entities, courts have ruled primaries may not violate certain constitutional principles because they are part of the process of electing governmental officials. For example, the white primary was found unconstitutional.

**Nordberg** · 02-13-2018, 10:40 AM

In America most primaries are open, closed or caucuses. Open allows you to vote across party lines. Closed ,you have to be a registered party member to vote. Caucuses are crazy behind the scene elections that are dominated by party leaders .

**Flash** · 02-13-2018, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Nordberg

In America most primaries are open, closed or caucuses. Open allows you to vote across party lines. Closed ,you have to be a registered party member to vote. Caucuses are crazy behind the scene elections that are dominated by party leaders .

A few states also have "blanket primaries." The ballot contains the names of call candidates for all parties and all voters vote on the same ballot. In some, the top Democrat and top Republican face each other in the general election and in others it is the top two. [this applies only to direct primaries and not presidential primaries]

Caucuses are no longer controlled by party leaders as they were before the reforms following the 1968 election. Today, a candidate has to be given essentially the same percentage of delegates as the percentage of supporters attending the caucus. Some states have a caucus to select the delegates but the percentage of delegates supporting each candidate is determined in the presidential primary. Democrats do not allow winner take all and delegates must contain "one half of the opposite sex", some younger and minority delegates.

**Nordberg** · 02-15-2018, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Flash

Wealthy contributors certainly backed Hillary if you look at the campaign contribution disclosure sites.

Bernie made it a point to collect from small donors. Not an accident.

**Flash** · 02-15-2018, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Nordberg

Bernie made it a point to collect from small donors. Not an accident.

True, but Bernie had to rely on smaller donors because Hillary wrapped up most of the larger contributors, especially in the financial area.

**Nordberg** · 02-16-2018, 08:13 PM

Originally Posted by Flash

True, but Bernie had to rely on smaller donors because Hillary wrapped up most of the larger contributors, especially in the financial area.

Did you say in your opinion? If so, i missed it.. bernie make it a big point from the start. Hillary did not.

**Flash** · 02-16-2018, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by Nordberg

Did you say in your opinion? If so, i missed it.. bernie make it a big point from the start. Hillary did not.

Don't you think Bernie did it by necessity? Do you think he could have taken much of the campaign contributions from the large donors, corporations, financial firms? Those people are not going to support Sanders if for no other reason than because they knew he was unlikely to win the party's nomination and he was not friendly to corporations and the financial industry.

The story on the indictments on the Russians said they wanted to attack Hillary and the other candidates but not Trump or Sanders because they supported them.