I fail to see how any of this specifically translates into more votes for Clinton and fewer for Sanders. Clearly they didn’t start out equally. Clinton had wide name recognition while Sanders did not. Clinton was a loyal Democrat while Sanders has been an independent and a member of small parties during his career in politics and has even run against Democrats. TV has never taken Sanders that seriously as he is seen mainly as a maverick and had even called himself a socialist whereas Democrats never call themselves a socialist or even a democratic socialist. Sanders was never able to overcome the disadvantages and basically only won states that were at least 80% white and usually more white than that. That is not exactly a recipe for winning the Democratic nomination. Clinton won virtually every diverse state, sometimes by very lopsided margins. Sanders was never even able to win in closed primaries. Maybe he won one. When only Democrats could vote Clinton won. Even if the the primary was completely fair Sanders had an uphill battle against the odds. He was running against a popular Democrat as an outsider and while he did remarkably well with all things being considered he could not pull it off. Ironically, had Warren endorsed him that would have been a big help. He was only endorsed in the Senate by Jeff Markey from Oregon who was not well known. The fact that the other leading progressive in the Senate, Elizabeth Warren, did not endorse him probably played a much bigger role in his defeat than anything Clinton did with regard to the DNC.
Yep, the primary chickens are coming home to roost. So what to do? Obviously, get rid of them all. The two-faced Donna Brazile, who shamelessly betrayed the democratic process in feeding the Hildebeast questions in advance of the debate, is now uber shamelessly trying to capitalize on her betrayal by coming clean in a tell all tome with zero credibility. As if the opposition has a short or no memory. She must be ignored. So too with the democratic establishment and the irrepressibly horrible criminal Hildebeast, who needs simply to go away. So never mind the undesirable self serving history of Warren whose political machinations are laughable but understandable, get started aligning with the progressive agenda essential to ridding ourselves of the treasonous republicans intent on ruining our great democratic experiment. This will accomplish two essential requirements, namely, presenting a unified front for the electorate, and exposing the democratic establishment for the self serving phonies they represent. If you, like me, live in a republican congressional district, write your representative, tell him/her that by failing to speak against trump, they are aiding and abetting treason. Those GOP hacks really hate it when you so communicate with them, and will act accordingly to expose themselves, as they have no place other to run.
There are plenty of reasons Hillary beat Bernie.
It’s too bad that one of them was rigging the primary season.
Especially considering the fact that the word most associated with Hillary is ‘liar.’
Primary voting in the southern states was mostly completed very early in the primaries, well before the Sanders campaign began to be taken seriously by many. I remember reading arguments that the southern primaries were deliberately scheduled early in order for Clinton to get an early and insurmountable lead. It would have been interesting to see how people in the southern states would have voted if they were voting later in the primaries when the Sanders campaign began to be taken seriously.
Ninety percent of the problem is the use of these elite superdelegates who are completely unaccountable to the rank-and-file primary voters or caucusers. They have go to go.
This is likely a product of being blinded by your loyalty to Clinton.
This is really quite irrelevant. The problem is not whether Sanders is loyal, or a life-long Democrat. Rather, it’s that the process is designed to prevent those who are not loyal, and part of the inside game, to become a nominee.
While I think your point is irrelevant, I also think it’s actually wrong. These days, Sanders is the go-to politician to represent the left.
Your last sentence there is the most telling point, and likely a reflection of your “failure to see.” Democrats should be putting forward candidates who can win when voters who are not Democrats can vote. Otherwise, you end up with the disaster that was the Clinton campaign.
Yes, very much because of the unfairness cited by Brazile, which you, by your own admission, fail to see.
Now you’re just channeling HRC, I’m afraid. Despite the fact, to borrow from the title of her book, you think that was what happend, the rules of the game present strong incentives for the Democratic insiders to play it safe. They all failed to see, to use your parlance, that Sanders was tapping into the very forces that could have brought them the Whitehouse and probably at least one house of Congress.
So, if your boy Cuomo ran, and we found out that the Republican opponent and that candidate’s party did to Cuomo what Clinton and the DNC did to Sanders, and if the outcome was the same as well, you’d be making this argument? Give me a break.
Funny too that when you discuss the advantages Clinton had, you don’t mention the massive bribes her top donors gave her, the money advantage she had over Sanders (and Trump for that matter), or the help she got from the media. You pretend that the utter corruption within the DNC, and her corruption, her money and power, had next to nothing to do with it. It makes no sense. How do you think she got so many people of color to vote for her with her horrific record? Welfare reform, demonizing low-income women, the harsh sentencing laws she and her husband put in place, the racist comments she made, the pro corporate policies they supported (which hit communities of color far more than they did white communities), among countless other things. How did the Goldwater girl get so much support from so many black and Latino leaders when she was going up against someone with a far better record on those issues? That money and power went a long way, and the media worked hard as they could to help her with her propaganda, and we know from the leaks that many in the media coordinated messaging, and even helped her in debates versus her primary opponents. I hope you realize that sticking your head in the sand like this is disastrous for your party. Whatever, there’s people like you in every political system. Right now, there’s someone in Mexico making similar arguments on behalf of corrupt parties there too, and they also likely have a financial incentive to do so.
With Warren and Brazile now talking about it being a rigged primary I am beginning to be optimistic that the tide is turning against the establishment Democrats and that finally they will soon have to relinquish some, and perhaps considerable power to the grassroots in the party while the “survivors” jump ship.
This entire topic illustrates why and how the D-Party is in its current position.
The same arguments in defense of the status quo proffered by D-Party apologists in the lead up to Hillary’s catastrophic loss to Trump are being offered today:
Hillary’s corruption is right-wing trope, in reality she’s honest.
It’s HER Turn, the voters aren’t interested in an outsider.
Let’s hope we get to take on Trump, Hillary will crush him.
Let’s stay the course, a little tweak in messaging will lead to electoral wins.
We have to cozy up to Wall St, elections are expensive.
The party is either incapable of self-reflection, or it’s happy where they’re at.
Is this like one of those “Duh?” or “You think?” or “No shit?” or “It was pretty obvious to anybody paying a modicum of attention” situations?
Magic 8-Ball sez, “Oh, yes, most definitely!!”
It translated into fewer votes for Hillary and potentially more votes for Trump.
This reinforced the image of “crooked Hillary” in the minds of the electorate, and many (especially in swing states) who might have come out to the polls for her if her sleeze factor wasn’t off the charts decided to stay home. Even in MA, where murderers and pedophiles can be re-elected to national offices as long as they’re Democrats, I knew lots of people who said “There’s no way I’m voting for Trump, but there’s no way I can stomach voting for her” - they either stayed home, or only voted down ticket.
Hillary didn’t win because she is a criminal an people simply don’t like her.
I think Super Tuesday with a lot southern states voting came about because the southern states were complaining that Iowa and New Hampshire had too much influence. It had nothing to do with Clinton. Actually, three states had voted before the South Carolina primary and two of those states, Iowa and New Hampshire, are among the whitest states in the country and most candidates do not make it out of those two states unless they do well in at least one. The Sanders campaign was taken very seriously after Iowa and extremely seriously after New Hampshire, well before any southern states voted. And he was continued to be taking seriously after Nevada. What happened in South Carolina was a disaster for the Sanders campaign and this type of disaster occurred several times a few days later in other southern states. Losing Texas big was a particular blow to the Sanders campaign. Sanders campaigned hard in the south so he did not lose for lack of effort. Any candidate funded by big money would had a loss of financial backing at that point an would have had to drop out (barring the support of one billionaire which has happened on the Republican side). However, since Sanders was funded by small donors he was able to continue even though he had almost no chance of winning because the Democrats award pledged delegates by proportion of votes instead of winner take all. The one chance he had would have been to change the demographics of the voting but that never changed. But he ran a great race even with little hope of winning and he showed it is possible be competitive without accepting big money. I guess the question now is whether his candidacy will have any lasting effect. I think it has shifted the Democratic Party a little left but not substantially at this point.
Yes, there were huge differences in their visibility throughout the whole primary nomination process but why was that?
In the USA, the corporate media exercises almost complete control over the direction of popular discourse on all topics from fads to weather, but especially in politics. Public consent, and even popular clamor rarely rises organically, it is manufactured. Things that the economically powerful don’t want the public to know about will make sure that the for-profit corporate media (which relies on the wealthy business advertisers and shareholders for their survival) ignores the undesirable ideas and persons. This influence is so strong that even when the “bad for business” idea or person would make compelling drama and attract viewers/readers/listeners, the media and its trained circus dogs called “journalists” (Orwell) will obediently memory-hole the person or idea anyway (Orwell again).
Bernie Sanders was regarded as very undesirable person by business interests, so he memory-holed throughout the whole primary and nomination process - his name barely ever being mentioned in the mainstream news except occasional frivolous pieces.
Surely you have read Herman and Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent - The Political Economy of the Mass Media" right? If you haven’t, please do. I’ll loan you a copy…
Hillary did and does a number of repugnant things from the perspective of the left - but so do nearly all politicians. She not break any federal or state laws; so she is not a criminal - that’s right wing-tin-foil hat crap.
The total content of everything that Lurx writes at Common Dreams:
“Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, corporatist Democrats in thrall to war profiteers and the looting class are good for you, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah…”
That is an important read - I wish they’d get some young co-authors and update it for the internet age.
You do know that Hillary had been not just a Republican but a Goldwater Republican during her young college days when so many of her contemporaries were fighting for social justice? People change, that is true and should not be held against anyone but to criticize Bernie or any other independent who does not have a chance in hell in getting the political traction, exposure, inclusion in the rigged duopoly debates let alone the funding to run is beyond the pale. Bernie also caucuses with the Democrats. To me he was the “lesser evil” and I do appreciate his fighting for the masses even as I have criticized him for a number of issues.
Sanders knew it was being rigged against him (from the deadlocked precinct caucuses in Iowa that were all–six of six–decided by coin flips in Clinton’s favor) yet he did nothing to expose it. He never even expressed much outrage then (and still hasn’t), and even wound up going back on his word to take the nomination to the convention, endorsing her even before the primaries were completed and then insulting his own supporters while at the convention.
Why didn’t he choose to expose her at any point, when doing so would have won him the nomination and, because he was so much more popular than Trump, the presidency as well? That’s all it would have taken, yet he chose to remain silent.
Anyone care to venture a guess as to why he didn’t speak up?