Home | About | Donate

Was Democratic Primary Rigged Against Sanders? Warren Says Definitively 'Yes'


#1

Was Democratic Primary Rigged Against Sanders? Warren Says Definitively 'Yes'

Jake Johnson, staff writer

The Massachusetts senator added that Democrats must "recognize the process was rigged" and "build a new process, a process that really works, and works for everyone."

Warren Sanders Democratic primary rigged

#2

Just asking: Didn’t Elizabeth Warren back Hillary instead of Bernie?

" We all knew that the primary was rigged."
Saikat Chakrabarti. I guess all but Elizabeth Warren!


#3

This is the same Liz Warren who refused to get off the fence until June 9, when she was sure that Hillary had the fix in…


#4

From the article:

“‘This is a real problem,’ Warren said. ‘But what we’ve got to do as Democrats now, is we’ve got to hold this party accountable.’”

Is that like “holding their feet to the fire?” That worked out real well with eight years of Obama, didn’t it?

Successful D politicians have learned that if they can fake sincerity, their futures are assured. Wake me if anything real happens over at DNC headquarters.


#5

Of course Bernie Sanders candidacy was rigged in favor of the Red Queen Bitch of the Universe - even a fool marginally paying attention could see that truth, culminating in the rigged convention and threats directed at Sanders, which were also obvious!

The thing is, the same people and forces that perpetrated that atrocity, for which we are all paying, are still in control and dominating the Dem party apparatus and agenda. the same people are still refusing to reform or allow others to reform and strip them of their BS “seniority” or whatever they want to call their manipulation and its destructive influence. TWO mid-term elections lost with zero alteration of course - clearly the establishment Clinton/Obama corporate-whore wing did not want any reform or change of course - they will/have made their millions from the secret GS speeches and “foundations”!

The same people still dominate and now are the “leaders” of the Dem Party, still selling-out, still complicit, still “compromising” with the evil fool trump regime agenda in hopes of looking "bi-partisan in some twisted world…


#6

Ho-hum. THIS is NOT news to any of us who have been paying attention. Except maybe for Hillary’s two apologists here, whom I need not name.


#7

Is it any wonder that President Obama wanted Tom Perez as chairman of the DNC? I didn’t know that Obama left the Party $24 million in debt, or that Obama cronies were kept on the payroll long after the election was over (2012 election) milking the cash cow. I thought the primaries were rigged, but I couldn’t prove it, Donna Brazil’s revelations prove it.

It’s been established, scientifically, that the DNC was leaked, not hacked, and these revelations buttress the notion that the leaker might have been a DNC insider with a conscience.


#8

I just don’t see much hope for the Democratic party at this point. Given every opportunity, the establishment Dems have purposely and maliciously done everything they possibly could to remind Bernie supporters and progressives that THEY"RE in charge - and not the actual members of the party who volunteer, donate, etc. So, I’m pretty much done with them. I hope that Bernie and Tulsi Gabbard run together as a third party because the Dems are sooo far past reformation. Jimmy Dore’s take on this was spot on:


#9

Why now? Why is this ‘official’ now?


#10

I suspect that Perez will fail the ‘test’ he is being put to by EW. He would have to abolish the Special Elector policy that has alienated so many of us. The establishment wing of the party is deeply entrenched, and has no motivation to give up any power at all. No, we will not see a ‘new and improved’ Dem party in time for the mid-terms. More likely, we will have to wait until the Old Guard die off.


#11

where was Warren when she could have made a difference in Bernie’s primary campaign in Massachusetts. a little late to the truth? give me a break. it’s why I stopped listening to her and sending her funds for anything. a true dnc woman.


#13

As a guess? There are a few comparatively sane people in the Dem party actually paying attention to the obvious decline of the party and would like to really be the ‘peoples party’ that they once were (sort of). Unfortunately, those at the helm ‘don’t believe the American people want a change of direction’. The party is doomed, IMO. HRC is still claiming it was Comey’s fault that she didn’t win. The inability of the party to be accountable for its own self-defeating policies will no doubt continue and deepen their ‘losing’ ways…


#14

Yes, Warren supported Hillary Clinton along with Barrack Obama for president in 2016.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Elizabeth+Warren+endorses+Hillary+Clinton+for+president+2016&view=detail&mid=7C2173531D19DFCE42367C2173531D19DFCE4236&FORM=VIRE


#15

But it is news - not to you or not to many progressives, but it is hitting the news cycle pretty well now. News is weird these days - almost like there is a lot more positive feedback - when a story grows to a certain amount of coverage, it get even more coverage as everybody starts linking and copying. I say let’s ride this story for all it’s worth - Warren is right that we need to build a new process that works for everyone. (I agree with many here she was wrong to not endorse Sanders before her states primary - but I’ll take whatever press we can get). The question now is can we progressives exploit this opening to force some change and keep the discussion in the open (none of this nonsense Schumer better deal stuff all developed in secret as far as I can tell).

I have my ideas that I’ve posted in the past (RCV primaries, more open debates, open process at the DNC, open primaries in all states, …) and I want to see just what details Warren and others have in mind. I started reading Norman Soloman’s autopsy (https://www.commondreams.org/news/2017/10/30/address-historic-failures-autopsy-urges-progressive-reboot-democrats) and agree with everything I’ve seen so far. Warren and others should start dealing in specifics too.


#16

Whatever Tom Perez does to reform the DNC will have to be cleared first by the real puppetmasters behind the corrupt D-Party. You know, people like Haim Saban:


#17

This also proves the point that Brazile is a brazened opportunist and I don’t want to hear any of her ideas on how to improve the situation. If she felt she had to keep her mouth shut till after the election (as did Bernie which is quite disappointing), then she could have at least come out with all this info before the DNC leadership decision - it might have swung things towards Ellison, you never know. But she didn’t - presumably to make a few more bucks on her book.


#18

They know that they will always have enough LOTE voters in their corner to assure the Party will continue to be the only other game in town “opposite” the Rethuglicans. I agree with them - never underestimate the stupidity of the average American voter. Always have voted against their own best interests - always will. LOTE voting just moves the bar further and further to the right. True, it moves it more SLOWLY to the right when you vote for establishment, corporatist-Dems than if you vote for Rethugs. But it still moves it rightwards, just at a slower pace. LOTE voters simply do not understand this, and they never will.

And the Dumbocrat Party is counting on them not understanding it.


#19

My contempt for Donna Brazile is boundless. Skip to minute 4:10 of this Jimmy Dore takedown of her:

https://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/jimmy-dore-primary-cheater-donna-brazile-appointed-to-rules/


#20

Reading between the lines: Remember a couple of months back when Shumer and Pelosi (I think) announced a “re-branding” of the party, and most people here recognized it as cleverly-worded non-commitment and concluded that it must mean they were giving voters what they thought they’d want to hear, hoping they wouldn’t jump ship?

Warren was standing next to the podium at that speech. Also, there was an interview shortly before last year’s nominating convention one of the people who devised the “superdelegate” policy. She stated in that interview that she wished the party would not have a voting primary at all, that it was much more efficient for party leaders to make a more informed choice “in smoke-filled rooms” (and she did use that phrase.)

What is the likelihood this is a set-up for primary election reform that outwardly serves to mollify voters who are upset about corruption but could easily be turned into something that makes such corruption easier to get away with, or at least easier to hide?


#21

The likelihood is mighty high, Sam.

Trusting a Democrat these days is a surefire way to be disappointed.