You're viewing part of a thread.
Because the DNC put their thumbs on the scales and did everything they could to lock him out of the process while doing the opposite for Clinton.
If the chosen, status quo DNC candidates are so popular, why do they keep losing or nearly losing all their elections?
The media HEAVILY favored Hilary for that whole cycle and basically made Bernie look like a joke. He had his "we will need to raise taxes" and that's when everything shifted. DNC was never going to let him be the candidate
"HoW aRE yOU GoiNg tO PAy FoR iT!?"
remember the totally innocent time the people managing the contest had a visit with Bill Clinton on the fucking tarmac? yeah, DNC, message received, you don't even care about how bad that looks...
Did they take his name off the ballot?
Did they change the vote totals?
Did they forbid him from campaigning?
They just 'put their thumbs on the scales'? What does that even mean? They did 'everything they could to lock him out of the process' while letting him campaign and participate in the process? All your examples are vague as fuck, bro.
What does that even mean?
Sigh... Go read about superdelegates. Then read about reporting. Then read about social engineering. Then look at the mob mentality of wanting to vote for the likely winner. Then apply all of that knowledge to the events as they happened during Bernie's campaigns.
Superdeligates have never once decided a primary.
Here's a simpler explanation: Progressive voters don't turn out, even when it's Bernie. They failed him in 16, they failed him in 20, and now they've failed us all.
It's easy to mail in vote, it is easy to donate money. It's hard to actually physically show up and vote, so they stay at home.
Superdelegates are the primary tool that the DNC used to exert influence over primaries. They've only ever once voted against the voter consensus, but they pledge full support early, which is then used by the media to grossly misrepresent candidate popularity. Mob mentality causes voters to pile behind the leading candidates, and thus the outcome of the primaries can be manipulated through use of super delegates. They abused this mechanism so heavily against Bernie that sweeping changes were made to the way that super delegates operate to avoid torch and pitchforks from an enraged constituency.
There, I explained it to you in a very summarized form, even though I didn't want to.
Did they change the vote totals?:
Yes. Every running candidate next to Bernie pulled out, dedicating their votes to Clinton instead. It was blatant and out in the open. Hell, Bloomberg even "entered" the race late in caucusing and pulled out shortly after an insane ad spend dedicating his votes to Clinton as well. That's "putting their 👍 on the scale".
So do you consider what the French left change did 'changing vote totals' when they dropped out of races where they were splitting the vote and allowing far right candidates to win?
Biden offering people he was running against influence and positions in his government if they drop out and endorse him isn't cheating, it's basic politics and if Bernie had half a brain he'd have done the same thing to keep those people in the race.
Yes.
Also, anything that isn't ranked choice voting that allows people to specify an order of preference at time of vote is not good politics and is not going to, and shouldn't, sit well with progressives. Tit-for-tat is additionally an issue that many voters and progressives consider objectionable (source: exit polls). You can call it basic politics if you want, but if you're progressive you'll need to accept that it's going to continuously cause us to lose elections and bleed voter support. People are clearly tired of establishment politics. Trump has proven that twice. Running as an anti-establishment candidate both times and winning, both times.
"I'ma be disrespectful to you, but I expect you to teach me!"
This ain't a debate. lol. If you want people to share their knowledge with you, come correct. Most people would be happy to share information. When you act all dishonest it makes no one want to even talk to you unless they agree with you
The man is out here talking shit and won't show you evidence of why he's right because it's not his job to be a teacher and also you are disrespectful in your challenging of his assertions, am I following you correctly?
The reason for no evidence is because there is no evidence, the reason for my disrespect is because i know he has no evidence. Don't try to pretend like if i came at this from a different angle he'd suddenly be opening the library of Alexandria for us.
If I say, the earth isn't a perfect sphere and that actually it's a bit oval/elliptical (or whatever or supposedly is) and then someone answers all pissy and asking me to prove it, do you really think I'm likely to help them understand my position if I find them rude and annoying? Most people that genuinely want to understand others' point of view don't say things like "or was that someone else's fault?" They say things like"can you explain why you think that?" or maybe "I've been thinking xyz, why is it you think abc instead?"
Lemmy like Reddit is a circlejerk.
Bernie lost because less people voted for him.
If it wasn't for the undemocratic caucuses, he would have lost earlier.
Because the DNC put their thumbs on the scales and did everything they could to lock him out of the process while doing the opposite for Clinton.
Source? The way I remember it Bernie didn’t get enough votes.
If the chosen, status quo DNC candidates are so popular, why do they keep losing or nearly losing all their elections?
Out of the last 5 elections they won 3.
The DNC was out of money and severely in debt after Obamas 2012 campaign. They conspired with Hillary because she paid off 80% of the debt and was funding the DNC. She had control of their finances and decisions because the DNC would go under without her
Wow I’ve never heard that. Do you have a source where I can verify?
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774/
Donna Brazile is the former interim chair of the Democratic National Committee
The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary’s campaign. He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt.
“What?” I screamed. “I am an officer of the party and they’ve been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems.”
That wasn’t true, he said. Officials from Hillary’s campaign had taken a look at the DNC’s books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt—$15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign—and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama’s campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016. Hillary for America (the campaign) and the Hillary Victory Fund (its joint fundraising vehicle with the DNC) had taken care of 80 percent of the remaining debt in 2016, about $10 million, and had placed the party on an allowance.
...
“Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”
Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.
“That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie,” he explained, referring to campaign manager Robby Mook. “It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election.”
Interesting read. I was hoping for evidence though instead of anecdote. Also, I don’t see how it supports this claim:
Because the DNC put their thumbs on the scales and did everything they could to lock him out of the process while doing the opposite for Clinton.
That would be every running primary candidate shifting their votes towards Hillary instead of distributing them evenly. In addition there was the Bloomberg run "out of nowhere" when Bernie was looking to be the headline candidate.
I don’t see how the decisions of each individual candidate would be considered a decision of the DNC.
Then you don't understand US politics.
The majority of voters in America are moderate, not far right or left. For all the candidates to support the person with the best chances of winning is called strategy. For you to claim that the DNC made that decision for each candidate is a conspiracy theory.
That is simply not true. Stop spreading misinformation. In addition I did not claim they made the decision for each candidate. What they did was run a first-past-the-post cacus that allowed candidates with conflicting interests to allocate their political weight against a clearly popular candidate. If they'd done ranked choice voting from the start, it would not be an issue, instead they allowed candidates (like Bloomberg) to spend millions, gather significant support, and then cast that support to a vastly unpopular candidate. You're literally trying to argue Hillary was a good candidate with the best chance of winning but both polls, exit polls, and the caucus itself showed that not to be the case. Without the collaborative actions against Bernie by the other candidates allowed by the DNC Hillary would've never headlined the 2016 ticket.
Lies and statistics. Out of the last 7 elections they also won 3. And out of the last 3 they only won 1. Really it's a pretty even split so far this century, and counting this last election Republicans have had the edge. So sure the dnc isn't losing all of their elections, but ffs sake they should be doing a lot better than this.
I would like for them to be doing better than this also but if the person I responded to based their argument on the false claim that democrats are losing all the elections then they have already lost their credibility and are arguing in bad faith. So it is reasonable to expect for a source for their other claims.