- Joined
- Dec 6, 2015
- Messages
- 10,338
- Reaction score
- 6,031
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Bernie tied in Iowa and won New Hampshire big. Then he spent $220 million dollars over a period of a few months (for comparison, Barack Obama spent $750M over a 21 month period spanning the entire primary and general election during the '08 cycle). This revisionist nonsense about how he didn't get off to a hot enough start or didn't have enough money (!) to compete is absurd.
Bernie's supporters would do well to think about why he actually lost instead of falling back on the tired, lazy, Trumpian, false narrative that he was cheated out a win.
Clinton shills would do well to understand and acknowledge that a candidate starting at 3% at the beginning of the nomination cycle is hurt substantially by a debate schedule all but explicitly designed by a DNC proven biased to throw shade on the relative unknowns that went up against her.
Obama indeed helps highlight the importance of deploying substantive resources early in the game; again something Bernie was not able to do in that he refused corporate money (not that they'd be willing to support someone vehemently opposed to corporatocracy), and relied on individual donations which didn't come into play until well into the process due in significant part to the above, while time was always Clinton's ally.
Even if you honestly don't believe Bernie was cheated out of a win (for the record, we'll never know, but it's close enough that it's a possibility), there is no way you can argue with any kind of honesty that the DNC did not actively and knowingly hinder Bernie's campaign and cost him significantly by damping his momentum via things like debate scheduling amongst other avenues, nevermind the ways the DNC may have assisted the Clinton campaign that we don't know about (like formulating and implementing lines of attack per DNC CFO Brad Marshall, DWS, Luis Miranda etc concerning Bernie's Jewishness vs atheism and Israel).
Last edited: