www.npr.org
It's good for the sake of perspective. It's never a bad thing to have a closer reflection of reality.
There's a real chance 2-3 candidates could claim "victory" based on the results due to how weird Iowa's process is.
www.politico.com
May I suggest you read the article where it's like 4 people discussing changing superdelegates so they can vote in the first round and everyone in leadership saying fuck no.DNC members discuss rules change to stop Sanders at convention
The talks reveal rising anxiety over the Vermont senator's momentum on the eve of voting.
Already happening
DNC members discuss rules change to stop Sanders at convention
The talks reveal rising anxiety over the Vermont senator's momentum on the eve of voting.
Already happening
I read the article. Idk why you think that makes it less stupid that anyone within the DNC would be trying to push for this.
Yikes indeed.
Organization with hundreds of people having a small group not in leadership talking about a rule change. Yes, very big news.
Why anyone in the party would be publicly talking and trying to get support to undermine a candidate (one that currently is boasting the most momentum in polling) is indeed news. Especially when the DNC just changed rules to allow Bloomberg into the debates no less.
DNC members discuss rules change to stop Sanders at convention
The talks reveal rising anxiety over the Vermont senator's momentum on the eve of voting.
Already happening
I imagine much of the reason why it wont find a lot of support is because it would immediately sink them and they know that.
They're not publicly talking about anything. By your metric, tabloid tier stories like this are DNC rigging:
And that's public and leadership.
I didn't call it DNC rigging tho. I specifically agreed with you that this is a small contingent within the party. I still think its ignominious that theyre suggesting this to the party and trying to find support for it, all the while talking to people who will tell the press about it. Also thats a really poor counter example. Someone chiding Biden is not the same as someone trying ti find support for systemic changes to the rules of an election to prevent a candidate from winning.
Like I said in the now-locked thread, this was bait:DNC members discuss rules change to stop Sanders at convention
The talks reveal rising anxiety over the Vermont senator's momentum on the eve of voting.
Already happening
Calling it a contingent is already blowing it out of proportion. They didn't even suggest the reason for it was to stop Bernie like the headline, but rather that the person who had the most delegates in the first round get the super delegates so that there's no second round that gets bent by the super delegates under current rules anyway.
I don't think thats bait. I think even a small contingent pushing for rule changes to stop a candidate from winning is worth discussion.
I don't see any issue with the word contingent as I or the article used it. A small group of people within a larger organization. Thats an apt description.
It's not about the size, it's about the fact that they're apparently not influential enough to count as advancing the conversation in any meaningful way. Without actually identifying these guys at all, or demonstrating an effect from their actions, this could be a few aides gossiping around a water cooler and somebody sending it to Politico for brownie points. That makes it bait.
But theyre trying to find people to become influential which is not insignificant. I imagine were not likely seeing the DNC standing around talking about preventing Warren from winning (big or small or influential). And the part youre describing as bait, is speculation on what it could be from you. Obviously the editors over at politico feel differently about the substance of the information they have received to push this to publish. Calling this bait because it likely wont have an impact or because we don't know the extent of these conversations is a bit too much for me. It just seems like dismissiveness for the sake of it based on your own interpretation of events. Note I didn't even claim this would amount to changes or that it was emblematic of the DNC rigging the election. I'm just pointing out that there are already people who will undoubtedly ramp up efforts to stop Bernie if he does well in the first few states, using this as an example of that.
I might have misspoke. The point is the uncertainty, bounded by the framing of the piece, coupled with the admission I quoted. Politico provides no serious sources and they themselves say that this conversation has no actual impact, but they present it as an issue. That's the bit that makes me think this is bait. The headline is inflammatory, to provoke exactly this reaction, and they bury the "but actually nothing has really happened about this" bit in one line of the text. The editors at politico sometimes push actual news, but a lot of the time they're just looking to play inside baseball for clicks and point-scoring inside the beltway. This feels more like the latter.
Is he anti tipping?
I just love how this is apparently not a story worth considering because "it's just a bunch of randos within the DNC" but rando Bernie supporters being mean to people on twitter is a story worth of daily rehash.
