The worst thing to come out of the emails is that they gave Clinton some debate questions beforehand and that they called him some nasty names. It did not uncover any conspiracy against him. This is the same shit I hear from trump supporters who claim they know evidence came out that it was rigged.
Still, I think Democrats made a mistake clearing the field in 2016. I even think Clinton’s campaign made a mistake clearing the field in 2016. Coronation isn’t a good look for anyone, and voters don’t like the feeling that someone is trying to make their choice for them. My guess is Clinton would’ve still won in a larger field, but the win would have felt more earned, more legitimate. And if she lost — if, unlike Sanders, Biden had decided the American people had not yet heard enough about the damn emails, and had run hard on them, and had taken Clinton down — Democrats might have been saved a debacle.
The reason it’s unwise for the party to try to decide as firmly and as early as Democrats did in 2016 is the party doesn’t have very good information that far before a general election. Candidates who look strong prove weak. Voters who seem satisfied prove restive. Competitive primaries surface unexpected information. If we’ve learned nothing else, it’s that political elites shouldn’t be so arrogant as to assume they can predict future elections.
The 2016 Democratic primary wasn’t rigged by the DNC, and it certainly wasn’t rigged against Sanders. But Democratic elites did try to make Clinton’s nomination as inevitable, as preordained, as possible. And the party is still managing the resentment that engendered in voters. “Once somebody doesn’t trust you,” sighs Buckley, the New Hampshire Democratic chair, “it’s very hard to get that trust back.”
The irony is that Sanders was a prime beneficiary of this bias, not a victim of it.
The original claim is that sanders got screwed by the DNC and Clinton conspiring against him, something the emails proved. The article here says he benefited from her and the DNC actions, the exact opposite of being screwed by her and the DNC.
If we are arguing that they’re problems with the nominating process and how the DNC runs things, what this article is actually addressing, then yes im 100% on board. We can start by getting rid of super delegates and implement something like star voting.
But to read that article and actually see it is as confirming the belief that sanders got screwed by Clinton and the DNC, is just mind boggling to me.
Literally, multiple times, the source explicitly contradicts the point…and are still you are trying to maintain that it supports your point?
The worst thing to come out of the emails is that they gave Clinton some debate questions beforehand and that they called him some nasty names. It did not uncover any conspiracy against him. This is the same shit I hear from trump supporters who claim they know evidence came out that it was rigged.
Yeah everything that’s fully backed up with evidence is just a giant conspiracy theory and if you do any research you’re a Trump supporter!
It was really obvious that the DNC had all finance and behind the scenes votes go to Hillary. And we now have the emails to boot. There’s no denying it unless you stick your head in the sand MAGA style
Amazing, from your link
Also from the link:
The original claim is that sanders got screwed by the DNC and Clinton conspiring against him, something the emails proved. The article here says he benefited from her and the DNC actions, the exact opposite of being screwed by her and the DNC.
If we are arguing that they’re problems with the nominating process and how the DNC runs things, what this article is actually addressing, then yes im 100% on board. We can start by getting rid of super delegates and implement something like star voting.
But to read that article and actually see it is as confirming the belief that sanders got screwed by Clinton and the DNC, is just mind boggling to me.
Literally, multiple times, the source explicitly contradicts the point…and are still you are trying to maintain that it supports your point?