Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gothmog

(154,470 posts)
7. There are two problems-first Sanders had no chance of being the nominee and the DNC did not fix race
Wed Dec 21, 2016, 05:04 PM
Dec 2016

Sanders failed to appeal to key groups in the Democratic base including Jewish, African American and Latino voters and so he had no chance of being the nominee. Most of Sanders so-called victories were in caucus states where the process is very undemocratic. Sanders was in effect eliminated after Super Tuesday but kept on campaign by misleading his supporters as to his chances of being the nominee. Clinton's lead after Super Tuesday was too great for Sanders to over come.

Second, the DNC did not fix the nomination process That claim was false http://www.newsweek.com/myths-cost-democrats-presidential-election-521044

Easily the most ridiculous argument this year was that the DNC was some sort of monolith that orchestrated the nomination of Hillary Clinton against the will of “the people.” This was immensely popular with the Bernie-or-Busters, those who declared themselves unwilling to vote for Clinton under any circumstances because the Democratic primary had been rigged (and how many of these people laughed when Trump started moaning about election rigging?). The notion that the fix was in was stupid, as were the people who believed it.

Start with this: The DNC, just like the Republican National Committee, is an impotent organization with very little power. It is composed of the chair and vice chair of the Democratic parties of each state, along with over 200 members elected by Democrats. What it does is fundraise, organize the Democratic National Convention and put together the party platform. It handles some organizational activity but tries to hold down its expenditures during the primaries; it has no authority to coordinate spending with any candidate until the party’s nominee is selected. This was why then-President Richard Nixon reacted with incredulity when he heard that some of his people had ordered a break-in at the DNC offices at the Watergate; he couldn’t figure out what information anyone would want out of such a toothless organization.....

According to a Western European intelligence source, Russian hackers, using a series of go-betweens, transmitted the DNC emails to WikiLeaks with the intent of having them released on the verge of the Democratic Convention in hopes of sowing chaos. And that’s what happened—just a couple of days before Democrats gathered in Philadelphia, the emails came out, and suddenly the media was loaded with stories about trauma in the party. Crews of Russian propagandists—working through an array of Twitter accounts and websites, started spreading the story that the DNC had stolen the election from Sanders. (An analysis provided to Newsweek by independent internet and computer specialists using a series of algorithms show that this kind of propaganda, using the same words, went from Russian disinformation sources to comment sections on more than 200 sites catering to liberals, conservatives, white supremacists, nutritionists and an amazing assortment of other interest groups.) The fact that the dates of the most controversial emails—May 3, May 4, May 5, May 9, May 16, May 17, May 18, May 21—were after it was impossible for Sanders to win was almost never mentioned, and was certainly ignored by the propagandists trying to sell the “primaries were rigged” narrative. (Yes, one of them said something inappropriate about his religious beliefs. So a guy inside the DNC was a jerk; that didn’t change the outcome.) Two other emails—one from April 24 and May 1—were statements of fact. In the first, responding to Sanders saying he would push for a contested convention (even though he would not have the delegates to do so), a DNC official wrote, “So much for a traditional presumptive nominee.” Yeah, no kidding. The second stated that Sanders didn’t know what the DNC’s job actually was—which he didn’t, apparently because he had not ever been a Democrat before his run.

Bottom line: The “scandalous” DNC emails were hacked by people working with the Kremlin, then misrepresented online by Russian propagandists to gullible fools who never checked the dates of the documents. And the media, which in the flurry of breathless stories about the emails would occasionally mention that they were all dated after any rational person knew the nomination was Clinton’s, fed into the misinformation.

In the real world, here is what happened: Clinton got 16.9 million votes in the primaries, compared with 13.2 million for Sanders. The rules were never changed to stop him, even though Sanders supporters started calling for them to be changed as his losses piled up.

I was a delegate to the national convention and I saw much of this silliness first hand. This election was winnable but the sanders campaign did a great deal of damage that is the subject of valid commentary
One thing I've been amazed by... vi5 Dec 2016 #1
Excellent points! Docreed2003 Dec 2016 #4
Oh bullshit. OilemFirchen Dec 2016 #6
So it wasn't voter suppression or ID laws? vi5 Dec 2016 #8
There were a ton of factors. OilemFirchen Dec 2016 #13
In most states, just about anything will suffice for an ID, even a utility bill. Hoyt Dec 2016 #27
I don't disagree.... vi5 Dec 2016 #50
Hello, neighbor! Buckeye_Democrat Dec 2016 #26
The work I saw with the Clinton campaign was about registering to vote NOT GOTV csziggy Dec 2016 #56
Trump used this bogus claim to great effect Gothmog Dec 2016 #2
The problem is that it wasn't "bogus" - the system IS rigged. forjusticethunders Dec 2016 #5
There are two problems-first Sanders had no chance of being the nominee and the DNC did not fix race Gothmog Dec 2016 #7
You misunderstand - Sanders's entire point was that both parties were doing the "rigging". forjusticethunders Dec 2016 #34
The system was rigged against Bernie. Joe941 Dec 2016 #9
How? Sanders lost due to the fact that Jewish, African American and Latino voters rejected him Gothmog Dec 2016 #14
Super delegates cost him the primaries - totally changed how the primary progressed! Joe941 Dec 2016 #52
Super delegates had nothing to do with Sanders lost Gothmog Dec 2016 #54
You assume starting out with a 700 delegate lead has no bearing on the rest of the race. It changes Joe941 Dec 2016 #57
Sanders got less than 43% of the popular vote in the primaries Gothmog Dec 2016 #58
Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2016 #20
Trump was always going to say exactly what he said. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #15
Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2016 #21
This is how I see it... Docreed2003 Dec 2016 #3
Strange how the "system is rigged" choir has fallen silent. ucrdem Dec 2016 #10
Are you going to claim that our economic system isn't tilted towards the wealthy, "rigged", if you dionysus Dec 2016 #11
It's a revelation to you that the wealthy have more money than the rest of us? ucrdem Dec 2016 #12
It's not as simple as "the wealthy have more money than the rest of us". Never has been. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #17
Wow, you seem a trifle upset. I suppose if trump said the sky was blue, after dionysus Dec 2016 #18
Dayum I lve you. sheshe2 Dec 2016 #31
Heya sheshe!!! ucrdem Dec 2016 #33
Thank you... sheshe2 Dec 2016 #36
backatcha sheshe ucrdem Dec 2016 #42
It hasn't. Sanders supporters have been just as outspoken about the bogusness of Trump's "victory" Ken Burch Dec 2016 #16
These giys have to blame someone, something, for this loss (other than dionysus Dec 2016 #19
Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2016 #22
That's a lot of straw. By that turn, i could say liberals aren't president of the college dionysus Dec 2016 #23
Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2016 #24
She lost any right to claim she cared more than Bernie about civil rights Ken Burch Dec 2016 #28
Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2016 #35
He was upset because they disrupted the event for no good reason Ken Burch Dec 2016 #37
Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2016 #38
At the time, Hillary hadn't said anything explicitly in support of BLM Ken Burch Dec 2016 #40
What happened to our friend? Was the strain of this post more than they could bear? dionysus Dec 2016 #48
You mean he didn't usher them backstage, and wag his finger at them? dionysus Dec 2016 #46
Bernie was equal to Hillary in his civil rights commitment. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #30
Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2016 #39
Actually, he made speaking out about racism a standard part of his stump speech Ken Burch Dec 2016 #41
Message auto-removed Name removed Dec 2016 #43
There's no way you can seriously argue he wasn't to the left of HRC. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #45
Another strawman-there are very valid reasons why Sanders did not do well with AA and other votes Gothmog Dec 2016 #55
Bravo/ Brava! sheshe2 Dec 2016 #32
You are honestly saying with a straight face that MANY BernieBros Grey Lemercier Dec 2016 #47
Actually yes. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #60
You and I exist on different planets Grey Lemercier Dec 2016 #61
Many of them have been, yes. kcr Dec 2016 #51
Nothing. The Electoral College system is rigged to make the votes pnwmom Dec 2016 #25
Thank you. It's the last vestige of the slave system. Ken Burch Dec 2016 #29
Elizabeth Warren says 'the system is rigged' (2012) think Dec 2016 #44
Because it's mostly a backlash against things like a Black President and Women and others gaining JI7 Dec 2016 #49
It has nothing to do with banks rigging markets, becoming felons, and no one going to jail? think Dec 2016 #53
Apparently you never listened to an entire Clinton speech emulatorloo Dec 2016 #59
The system's having been rigged is why we're all here. It's not open to debate. Orsino Dec 2016 #62
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»What's so terrible about ...»Reply #7