- Joined
- May 25, 2018
- Messages
- 7,090
- Reaction score
- 4,771
- Location
- Lebanon Oregon
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
First my bias. I ( an Oregon Dem) did not so much vote against Hillary ( she would have been competent, level headed and experienced as Pres. ), as I voted for Sanders in 2016 ( then Jill Stein) as protests against a coordinated but still unexposed effort by the Democratic party establishment to coronate Hillary. The Clinton 'donation' to the party and subsequent conflict of interest was still undisclosed, as was the Hillary 'right of refusal' for DNC campaign party Chair, but I felt something was amiss with the process and the party that created it.
So I get the anger. I share the outrage that the DNC begged for this conflict and fermented this toxic environment and division. The process was littered with a series of 'tilts' towards well funded mainstream established candidates, namely Clinton, But NOBODY 'fixed' this primary election result against Sanders. Nobody could. Its a series of 50 state contests set up the rules of which are determined by state parties so most of what constitutes evidence of 'rigging', happened long before anyone knew who the opposition to Clinton would be, including the 'front-loading' of red state primaries.
Fact is that the Clinton campaign had a campaign presence in each of these states from 2008. They knew the players, the rules, and had a gameplan and lawyers to use their influence to set up these contests to ensure an early nominee victory and unified convention, knowing that was most likely to be them. That was also representative of the thinking of the day. Unity early means less division at the convention and less loss treasure on the primary process. Nobody wanted another convention like 1968, or an other nominee like McGovern who lacked broad appeal beyond the base [Thus the increase in unpledged or 'superdelegates' from 12% in 2008 to 15% in 2016] It was the only campaign that was already on the ground and in the committee rooms when the rules were being decided and it was an easy sell.
No doubt that there were a series of biased statements by a few staffers DNC, or by established democratic operatives some decisions that impacted, in specific states and no doubt that there was a culture in the DNC that resented Sanders using this party as his personal tool to national prominence, treated Sanders as a joke, and a lightweight internally. He wasn't a 'real Democrat' and had no loyalty to it.
1.There was the effort in Brooklyn to purge voters, but those voters were older ones who had not voted in years, not newer registrants likely to vote for Sanders and that county went for Hillary as did every other one in the city. 'No rigging'
2. If we are to use the leaked emails of the DNC and other sources as evidence for scope and intent at the DNC , we must use the same trail to show limitations in scope an intent. So those emails showed so lousy ideas to 'tilt' including an effort to target Sanders faith in Kentucky, and they were shot down by superiors. No 'rigging' there!
3. There was a spat or two between the Sander campaign and the DNC but none that could have serious impact on voter behavior.
Now some facts. Clinton won 2842 delegates ( 59% ) of which 572 were unpledged, to Sanders 1865 (39%) of which 42 were unpledged. She won 34 contests to his 23 . She got around 16,950,000 (55%)votes to his 13,206,400(43%).
So I get the anger. I share the outrage that the DNC begged for this conflict and fermented this toxic environment and division. The process was littered with a series of 'tilts' towards well funded mainstream established candidates, namely Clinton, But NOBODY 'fixed' this primary election result against Sanders. Nobody could. Its a series of 50 state contests set up the rules of which are determined by state parties so most of what constitutes evidence of 'rigging', happened long before anyone knew who the opposition to Clinton would be, including the 'front-loading' of red state primaries.
Fact is that the Clinton campaign had a campaign presence in each of these states from 2008. They knew the players, the rules, and had a gameplan and lawyers to use their influence to set up these contests to ensure an early nominee victory and unified convention, knowing that was most likely to be them. That was also representative of the thinking of the day. Unity early means less division at the convention and less loss treasure on the primary process. Nobody wanted another convention like 1968, or an other nominee like McGovern who lacked broad appeal beyond the base [Thus the increase in unpledged or 'superdelegates' from 12% in 2008 to 15% in 2016] It was the only campaign that was already on the ground and in the committee rooms when the rules were being decided and it was an easy sell.
No doubt that there were a series of biased statements by a few staffers DNC, or by established democratic operatives some decisions that impacted, in specific states and no doubt that there was a culture in the DNC that resented Sanders using this party as his personal tool to national prominence, treated Sanders as a joke, and a lightweight internally. He wasn't a 'real Democrat' and had no loyalty to it.
1.There was the effort in Brooklyn to purge voters, but those voters were older ones who had not voted in years, not newer registrants likely to vote for Sanders and that county went for Hillary as did every other one in the city. 'No rigging'
2. If we are to use the leaked emails of the DNC and other sources as evidence for scope and intent at the DNC , we must use the same trail to show limitations in scope an intent. So those emails showed so lousy ideas to 'tilt' including an effort to target Sanders faith in Kentucky, and they were shot down by superiors. No 'rigging' there!
3. There was a spat or two between the Sander campaign and the DNC but none that could have serious impact on voter behavior.
Now some facts. Clinton won 2842 delegates ( 59% ) of which 572 were unpledged, to Sanders 1865 (39%) of which 42 were unpledged. She won 34 contests to his 23 . She got around 16,950,000 (55%)votes to his 13,206,400(43%).
Last edited:
