• LethalSmack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    It’d also be nice if they couldn’t just override the primary election results because it’s not a “real election”

    Yes, I’m still a bit bitter about how the DNC treated Bernie in the 2016 election

    • SeaJ@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      They did not override that one. Sanders did not even win the non superdelegates. That’s not to say the 2016 Democratic primary was not fucked. Party officials clearly had a preference and were obviously pushing Clinton. Showing the super delegates planned counts before they actually voted made it seem like Sanders had no chance. They need to minimize the number of super delegates so that they can only decide really close primaries.

      • LethalSmack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        Eh, fair enough. Undermined, cheated, manipulated, schemed, swindled, deceived, duped, defrauded, etc might have been a better description.

    • btaf45@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      It’d also be nice if they couldn’t just override the primary election results because it’s not a “real election”

      That is some Trumpian level of bullshit. They cannot do that because it is against the Charter since the 1950’s. And yes legally the DNC could change their own charter but so can the RNC. Changing party charters to nullify primaries would spell certain doom for that party.

      Yes, I’m still a bit bitter about how the DNC treated Bernie in the 2016 election

      You and the Kremlin are bitter about how the Dem primary voters treated us Bernie supporters in the 2016 election. Got it.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Sanders was crushed by Clinton in the 2016 primary elections. It was clear pretty much from the start that she was going to win. You take away all the super delegates, she still demolishes him. Did they show some favoritism towards her? Sure. Did they call him some bad names in private emails? Yes. Did she get a few questions before a debate? Yes. Is there any evidence that the election was rigged and stolen from Sanders? No, none at all.

      This insistence that the Sanders was somehow robbed of the 2016 nomination (or 2020 nomination at that) is equivalent to Trump’s claim that he was robbed in 2020.

      • LethalSmack@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        The DNC heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged Bernie’s campaign the point that the DNC chair stepped down and the DNC then apologized “for the inexcusable remarks made over email” that did not reflect the DNC’s “steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process.” (From the wikipedia link below).

        From the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak: In the emails, DNC staffers derided the Sanders campaign. The Washington Post reported: “Many of the most damaging emails suggest the committee was actively trying to undermine Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign.”

        Bernie was absolutely robbed of a fair primary election.

        Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Democratic_National_Committee_email_leak

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          The DNC heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged Bernie’s campaign the point that the DNC chair stepped down and the DNC then apologized “for the inexcusable remarks made over email” that did not reflect the DNC’s “steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process.”

          We all know and agree that they said bad things about him, but do you really think making “inexcusable remarks” in private actually supports the claim that he was “heavily undermined and consistently sabotaged”?

          Bernie was absolutely robbed of a fair primary election.

          The only “concrete” thing you cite is that “they said nasty things about him in private.” No actual evidence of them doing anything to undermine his chances. The worst concrete thing that came out is that Clinton got some debate questions early, but do we really think that is going to lead to a 12 point swing? No way.

          • LethalSmack@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            5 months ago

            Convenient you skip over the undermine his campaign portion of my previous comment. But the fact that the Chair of the DNC resigned over it shows it was more than just saying “nasty things about him in private”.

            It should also be noted that their actions “caused significant harm to the Clinton campaign, and have been cited as a potential contributing factor to her loss in the general election”. It is not as inconsequential as you present it.

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              5 months ago

              Convenient you skip over the undermine

              Because it offered nothing concrete. It just says the emails “suggest” this, but doesn’t actually offer up anything of substance as to how it was done.

              But the fact that the Chair of the DNC resigned over it shows it was more than just saying “nasty things about him in private”.

              And yet, all you can point to is them saying nasty things in private.

              It should also be noted that their actions “caused significant harm to the Clinton campaign, and have been cited as a potential contributing factor to her loss in the general election”. It is not as inconsequential as you present it.

              I’m challenging the belief that Sanders had some chance in the 2016 primary against Clinton, and that there is good reason to believe it was stolen from him. I understand that the leaked emails were massively consequential.

              • LethalSmack@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                And that there is good reason to believe it was stolen from him

                Have you read your other replies? Thats not the understanding I got from them.

                • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Is there any evidence that the election was rigged and stolen from Sanders? No, none at all.

                  This insistence that the Sanders was somehow robbed of the 2016 nomination (or 2020 nomination at that) is equivalent to Trump’s claim that he was robbed in 2020.

                  It was literally the central theme of my initial post to you, and explicitly stated.

        • btaf45@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          From the 2016 Democratic National Committee email leak:

          From the Kremlin hacking operation that passed both true and false info to Assange who said in a memo that they wanted Treason Trump to win which was documented in the Mueller report.

          Why did Putin NOT leak RNC memos? Because he has been blackmailing the Republican Party ever since.

      • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        5 months ago

        America is not a progressive country and if you are progressive you will be eternally disappointed with it.

        Read more history if you disagree.

      • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Can we please not continue to relitigate this until the end of time? We will be in line at the republican death camps and people will still be arguing that sanders won in 2016. It serves no purpose other than supporting the idiots who would rather a republican win than a democrat who isn’t Sanders.

        When they start screaming stop the count or restart the count or whatever: Smile, nod, and ignore.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          I don’t really think I’m going to convince that poster. I know, like Trump supporters, they are probably long gone and no amount of pointing out that they have no evidence is going to convince them that the DNC not screwed him, Sanders would have won. I just watch young people shifting towards the right, and it’s probably partially because of these dopes spreading this lie about the democrats, so I’m speaking to anyone who might come after them.

          • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            I doubt being grumpy about Sanders is going to shift folk to be right-wing. A lot of them probably HAVE become tankies but… the Sanders campaign was already very heavily buoyed by tankies online. Because it would have been shooting fish in a barrel for the candidate most known for “fun nicknames” to be up against a guy who used to be a meme about how c-span was boring and actively refused to even say “While I think the socioeconomic model had a lot of benefits, I oppose the fascist communist regimes of olde”.

            But also? I know a few of the dumbest “Bernie or bust” morons you will ever see who focused that anger toward working with the Democrats to get considerably less shitty downballot candidates. And that is what the lesson should have been.

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              I doubt being grumpy about Sanders is going to shift folk to be right-wing.

              It certainly turns them off of the Democrats. So maybe not a shift to the right, but certainly conditions where it increases the chance that the right is going to win. If Bernie bros had just accepted the outcome and then coalesced around Clinton, she likely would have won and we wouldn’t be in the same mess we’re in now.

              • LethalSmack@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                So you’re saying the DNC’s actions undermining the primary election had real consequences? Or are those consequences not concrete enough?

                Or are you saying we should accept their schemes, offer no consequences or criticism and just blindly follow?

                Cause I certainly agree that we likely wouldn’t be in the current situation if the DNC had been above board and true to their role.

                • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  So you’re saying the DNC’s actions undermining the primary election had real consequences?

                  No. I made my argument was clear from the start, you even initially argued against my actual point, and I just restated here. And now you are dishonestly trying to spin the argument into something else.

                  I guess you realize that you’ve got nothing, which is why you are so desperate to make it about something else now.

                  • LethalSmack@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    Your initial statement was clear but your subsequent comments across threads have not been.

                    It went from the primary was clear and upstanding, to there’s good reason to doubt the results, to it having no real effect other than some nasty words spoken, to it costing Hilary the election.

                    Which one is your actual point?

              • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                5 months ago

                The people who are dumb enough to have a life long grudge because one candidate they liked didn’t get the nomination were never going to support the party to begin with. The moment ANY candidate was not exactly what they wanted they were going to throw a hissy and run away.

                Because… they are not leftists or even left leaning. They are just spoiled children who decided they wanted something and are now mad they didn’t get it. If they actually cared about politics or social issues, rather than what the hasans of the world say on stream, they would be angrily voting for Biden anyway.

                • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  The people who are dumb enough to have a life long grudge because one candidate they liked didn’t get the nomination were never going to support the party to begin with.

                  The poster is claiming that the DNC rigged the election against Sanders, or at least were so unfair that it’s fair to say he might have won otherwise. If people believe they are actually this corrupt, it will turn people off from the party. I’ve already stated that this is not about the dopes who have convinced themselves, with no evidence, that he actually got screwed. This is about stopping other people from falling for the lie.

                  • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    5 months ago

                    Again, if they are dumb enough to believe that the DNC actively sabotaged the party because Reasons then they would otherwise be dumb enough to consider themselves “moderate” or “apolitical” under any other context.

                    At which point… it doesn’t matter. Someone who is going to refuse to vote because 12 years ago jet fuel didn’t melt steel beams or whatever are going to refuse to vote because “my vote doesn’t matter” or “this candidate is too old” or whatever. And they are the kind of voters who are swayed by the strongman bullshit anyway.

                    Anyone who ACTUALLY cares about politics and social issues are going to vote along those lines. We won’t like it but we will. And the rest? They are just as easily won over by one snazzy commercial before a pewdiepie video. And then they still won’t bother to vote because they are angry that they were asked to pick a political party when they renewed their driver’s license ten years ago.

                    All engaging the stupidity does is legitimize it.

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              When you actually offer up something other than “they said nasty things about him!” then we can talk. So far tho, nothing.